Hi to all my Forum Friends,
In the discussion titled "One True Sola" begun by Kraven -- Kraven's post begins with a quote from some unspecified source which states, "Protestants teach Sola Scriptura, Catholics teach Sola Verbum Dei. Who is right? The approach to authority is very different in the ancient Church than in the modernist Protestant church. The Catholic Church follows the “Word of God alone” while the Protestant ecclesiastical groups follow Sola Scriptura which states that only God’s written word is authoritative. . .
To the Protestant the Word is only revealed in written form called Sola Scriptura. To the Catholic Christian the word has a much broader meaning and is revealed to man in more than a written form where men were inspired to reveal God’s Word. "
Basically, what this unknown writer is saying is that the Roman Catholic church believes the Word of God to be the Bible PLUS the writings of the Roman Catholic church.
Yet, the Bible tells us, In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (nkjv), "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
And, in Roman 15:4 (nkjv), we are taught, "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."
So, if God has given us His Written Word, the Bible, to be our teaching in doctrine, for reproof, correction, and teaching in righteousness -- that through Scripture we might have hope and salvation -- is He only going to give us part of what He wants us to know? Is there anywhere in the Bible where God tells us, "This is My first installment of what you will need to know about salvation. Later, I will have the Roman Catholic church fill you in on the rest of My plan for your salvation?" Somehow, I have never found that in my Bible.
What bothered me most was that Kraven posted a long writing from some anonymous writer; yet, there was not a single word written by Kraven herself. I told Kraven, "Sorry, my Friend, but what you copy/paste is NOT your thinking -- it is from the mind of another. What interests me is what is in YOUR head and in YOUR heart -- not what you copy/paste rote from the Vatican (or some other source)."
And, Kraven responds, "You need to realize, Bill, a billion and a half people believe what I just said because it was put together two thousand years ago, and refined."
According to Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups -- lumping Roman Catholics and Protestant Christians together -- it tells us that there are currently between 2 to 2.2 billion people in the "Christian" churches. So, realistically, we can attribute at least half those folks to Protestant Christian churches, that would leave around 1 billion or less in the Roman Catholic church.
That same report shows that Islam represents between 1.57 to 1.65 billion followers. And, lumping the other world religions into a grouping -- they would probably represent about 3 billion people.
So, using your logic that TRUTH is based upon numbers -- then the Qur'an and the holy books of all the other world religions holds more truth than the Bible. Somehow, I cannot believe that. Yet, based upon you logic of numbers -- it is true.
Next, you tell me, "We believe what the Bible says, because of what it says, not to change the wording to make it work for hundreds of different denominations."
Actually, the Roman Catholic church believes what the Bible says -- UNTIL it disagrees with Roman Catholic traditions, doctrines, and catechisms. It is my experience that when this happens -- the Roman Catholic teachings take precedence OVER the Bible.
Kraven, in your mind, and what you understand to be Roman Catholic teachings -- is the Bible the Highest Authority on the teachings of God? Or are the Roman Catholic traditions and teachings the final word?
Which takes precedence -- the Bible or Roman Catholic Traditions?
You tell me, "You try to cut me down, but walk lock step with Chuck Smith and every other heretic slamming all they can with statements they can't back up."
Kraven, I do not fault you for quoting the works of others. I fault you for two things. First, for posting a long post -- which has NONE of your own personal words and thoughts. If we wanted to read what Cardinal So and So writes; we would just google him. What we want to read are YOUR thoughts on the issue. There is no problem with you quoting another to support what YOU have written. But, when your entire post is the writing of another -- does this mean that you have no thoughts of your own? Or does it mean that your church hierarchy will NOT ALLOW you to express your own thoughts?
Second, when you quote the writings of another without giving credit to the original writer -- you are committing plagiarism. That is stealing! And, when you quote another without giving your readers the source information of your quote -- this makes me wonder if you quoted that person accurately -- or did you modify what was written to make it fit your point of view? That doubt can be eliminated by simply stating the source of your quotes.
Do I quote Pastor Chuck Smith and many other conservative Christian teachers, scholars, and theologians? Yes. Do I take what they write to be the absolute truth? Not really. When I hear, or read the writing of a Christian teacher -- I test this against what is taught in Scripture. There are very few pastors, teachers, scholars, theologians with whom I agree 100%. Acts 17:11 tells us to test what our teachers tell us against Scripture. This is what I do. And, when I agree with them -- I often will quote them in my writings.
Then, you tell me, "Not all protestants hate as much as you. One noted Presbyterian Dr. of theology said this about Mary, he declared her to be "Theotokos, Mother of God." He said it was necessary for our salvation for Jesus to be fully human as well as fully divine."
Years ago, my wife had a habit of saying, "They said. . . " And, I would always ask her, "Who are 'they'?" As I told her -- and I tell you; if you want to be taken seriously when you speak or write -- DO NOT speak or write in generalities. "They said. . ." or "He said. . ." -- has no meaning whatsoever unless you have already identified this person or source in your writing. Who are they? Who is he? If you want to be taken seriously when you write or speak -- tell us specifically WHO said it. You have quoted an anonymous Presbyterian theologian. This could be Dr. Seuss for all we know.
Is Jesus Christ fully Man and fully God? Yes. Absolutely. We are told in Hebrews 2:17 (nasb), "Therefore, He (Jesus Christ) had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."
Yes, Jesus Christ was born fully human and fully divine deity. But, that divine nature in no way translated to Mary. Mary was a blessed, totally normal, mortal woman. And, Mary is a saint in heaven today. For now, the bodies of Mary and all those billions of other saints who have died in Christ, rest in their graves while their spirits are in the presence of God in heaven. At the Rapture, they, and we who are still alive, will be given our glorified, immortal bodies.
Do I hate? Yes, I hate it when anyone comes on a Religion Forum, or in any Christian community -- and teaches false doctrines and false teachings, claiming them to be Biblical -- when it is very obvious that these doctrines and teachings are NOT Biblical. Yes, I hate that -- and I will refute such teachings as long as God gives me the time, means, and ability.
Next, you declare, "Two natures in the person of God the son. Therefore, since Mary was the source of his human nature, she was mother of Jesus; and since Jesus is God, she is the mother of God. There is no need to be offended by this truth, the doctor pointed out, because it safeguarded our salvation."
Mary was NOT "the source of His human nature." God was the source of His human nature. Mary was the human vessel, the human womb, through which God, the true source, brought the Incarnate Son of God into human flesh.
You write using your computer. Is your computer YOUR MIND? No. The computer is a tool which you use to bring forth what is in your mind. By the same token, God used Mary as His tool by which He brought forth the Incarnate Son of God.
Therefore, Mary is not the Mother of God. God is preexisting, God was not created -- so, how can a mortal woman be His mother? Mary was a woman, a normal mortal woman, who was blessed to be used by God to accomplish His purpose. Nothing more, nothing less.
Finally, you tell me, "So you see, Not everybody is as screwed up as you. I'll tell you once more, Whatever you read from me I believe. I've been all over this stuff all my life. Its what I think, it's what I believe, do you understand?"
Sounds like a perfect case of brainwashing to me, i.e., this is what I have been told all my life -- so, therefore, this is what I WILL BELIEVE!
Personally, I like what Pastor Greg Laurie, of Harvest Crusades, tells us. Speaking of people who come forward through emotion or some other pressure, and the same could be applied to those who have a lifetime of being brainwashed -- Pastor Greg told us, "I would rather see a person who is a non-believer come into our church, sit in the back, and listen critically for six months -- rather than rushing up that first day to the altar. Let him/her listen, absorb, analyze, chew on, criticize, and sincerely think about what is being taught. Then, maybe in a few weeks, in a few months, when he/she has seriously considered the truth of atonement and salvation and sees it to be true -- then, let that person come forward and commit his/her life to Jesus Christ."
In 1987, when I became serious about God, Jesus Christ, and salvation -- I began to attend a church where I felt His love and His presence strongly, the Filipino-American Church of Irvine (California). I attended worship services, Sunday School classes, and weekly Bible studies -- for six months. Then, I felt I was ready to commit my life to Jesus Christ. And, I have never regretted that decision.
This is the same relationship I want to tell others about; that, they, too, can have this relationship with Him. You will notice that I refer to a relationship with Jesus Christ -- not with a church or any organization -- but, only with Jesus Christ. This is salvation; this is eternal security; this is eternal life in Christ -- this is a personal, saving relationship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
You see, Kraven, no one is born into a church; no one is born a Christian; no one is born a believer. This is a decision, a choice, we all must make when we are old enough to truly understand about God, Jesus Christ, and what it means to be saved and have eternal life in Christ. This is why we in the Protestant church do not baptize until a person is at or beyond the age of accountability -- the age when a person can truly understand what it means to be a Christ Follower.
Am I "screwed up" as you accuse? Very possibly. I have been called worse.
Am I a "hater" as you accuse? Only when I hear or read false doctrines and false teachings being sown among vulnerable folks.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Original Post