Southern Baptist truth founded on sand or biblical truth?

vanshan said:

As far as honoring Mary in images, there is no scriptural foundation for condemning it. You can say it's not explicitly taught, but you cannot claim it's wrong.

Click to expand...

Read the following:

Defending Doctrines on the Basis That They Don't Contradict Scripture

Though many Roman Catholic doctrines contradict the scriptures, some don't. The Assumption of Mary, for example, isn't contradicted by any passage of scripture. The scriptures leave open the possibility that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven. Of course, they also leave open the possibility that Joseph, John, and other people were bodily assumed. Obviously, the question is whether these people actually were assumed into Heaven. We shouldn't accept a doctrine just because it doesn't contradict scripture. Catholic apologists often think they've sufficiently defended a Catholic doctrine if they just present an argument that the doctrine isn't in conflict with scripture. Obviously, though, arguing that a doctrine doesn't contradict scripture is only the first step in establishing that the doctrine should be accepted. Catholics can't prove doctrines like the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary merely by arguing that those doctrines don't contradict the Bible. As the church father Tertullian explained:
​

But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things, suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it (Against Praxeas, 10)
​

Source: What to Expect From Roman Catholic Apologists and How to Respond to It by Jason Engwer.

Click to expand...

If you use the Bible alone, you'll miss much of what Christ established--they didn't write a play by play of everthing that happened.

Click to expand...

Yet with "Tradition" there can be no way to verify if the Apostles or Jesus Christ actually taught doctrine X if we cannot find it in their own writings.

Diane

vanshan said:

I didn't do a comparison with an Orthodox text, but that's a link to a Roman Catholic website. It seems fairly similar though. Do you have specific objections? We do highly honor Mary as the greatest of all saints. God honored her by using her to birth the Messiah. She was treated with the greatest respect by all the Apostles and the Church ever since.

Basil

Click to expand...

FYI, Basil, that is the personal site of Jimmy Akin, one of Roman Catholicism most enlightened apologists and the Director of Apologetics at http://www.catholic.com/media/akin.asp.

Egghead said:

absolutely not !

There is one ''truth''
Our job is to find it.


I can think of one tradition right off that isnt in scripture and would seem to defy it.

Jesus spoke nothing of bowing to an image of His earthly mother.

We are warned in scripture that false prophets and wolves would be there from the beginning as well, and striking the flock from within seemingly.
So "existed from the beginning" means little to nothing.

Click to expand...

vanshan said:

Are you suggesting that by honoring those people whom God has honored and filled with His Holy Spirit, making them a beacon of Christ, is making them a god? That doesn't make sense to me, but I respect your right to believe it.

Would you also scold God's people in the Old Testament who made graven images for the temple God commanded them to build? You are twisting these scriptures to make them fit your beliefs. They are referring to making statues of Baal or any other false god, not godly images of the Church. The point is not that we cannot make any images, just that we can't make images of false gods to worship. I promise we don't do that. [I pray that I'd be strengthened to wear the crown of martyrdom rather than do that.] We also don't see the saints as gods, they are just godly people who we honor.

Basil

Click to expand...

I continue to find it amazing that one can lay down the exact Scripture against something next to a Catholic practicing it and they can't see the contradition. It says not to make an image or bow to it. Over here we see the Pope bowing before crowned images of Mary. What's so hard about it? What part of "thou shalt not" don't you understand?

P.S. A graven image is a graven image whether it be Baal, false gods, Mary, or saints. The Scripture doesn't give exceptions for those, that's just your assumption. It says don't bow, yet Catholics and Popes bow, do you understand yet?

Lynn73 said:

I continue to find it amazing that one can lay down the exact Scripture against something next to a Catholic practicing it and they can't see the contradition. It says not to make an image or bow to it. Over here we see the Pope bowing before crowned images of Mary. What's so hard about it? What part of "thou shalt not" don't you understand?

P.S. A graven image is a graven image whether it be Baal, false gods, Mary, or saints. The Scripture doesn't give exceptions for those, that's just your assumption. It says don't bow, yet Catholics and Popes bow, do you understand yet?

Click to expand...

The commandment is not to put anything else before God. YOu have no clue what veneration of saints means. It has nothing to do with putting Mary or anyone else on a higher plane than God. Stop incriminating yourself with your ignorance of Catholic or Orthodox doctrine. You are identifying yourself as an ignorant bigot.

vanshan said:

Of course, by Holy Tradition I mean those preserved in the Orthodox Church; I think major corruption has occurred in the "Holy Traditions" of the Roman Catholic Church, much of which was passed down into Protestantism. Both were far removed from the teachings of the Christian east at the time of reformation.

As far as honoring Mary in images, there is no scriptural foundation for condemning it.

Click to expand...

One can not argue from silence.

That is a dangerous precedent

You can say it's not explicitly taught, but you cannot claim it's wrong.

Click to expand...

Sure I can

, Exodus 20: 4-5 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the likeness of anything in heavens above or on the earth beneath or in the waters underneath the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.”

Like the form of worship established by Christ and the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, honoring the saints is not contained in the canonized books, but is it counter-Christ? No way. We honor those who were great servants of Christ, glowing with the presence of God's Spirit in them. This is why they are honored.

Click to expand...

Can you prove that with the word of God?
Prove the apostles had images they prayed before with the writings of Paul and Peter in the scriptures .

One does not honor the servant one honors the master.

The servant has nothing that was not given by the master. Worshp the giver not the gift

If you use the Bible alone, you'll miss much of what Christ established--they didn't write a play by play of everthing that happened. There were many teachings and practices being taught that can be found in other very early writing and that have been preserved since the beginning by the Body of Christ. The Bible is a witness of the gospel, but not an encyclopedia of every event of apostolic times.

Basil

Click to expand...

There was also much error and apostacy in the early church , even as early as the letters to the churches we read in scripture.
You may choose to believe that men can add to the revelation of God, but some of us check every utterance of men ( especially those that they claim Spirit inspired ) by the word of God.
That is sure, the rest is faith in men .

Lynn73 said:

I continue to find it amazing that one can lay down the exact Scripture against something next to a Catholic practicing it and they can't see the contradition. It says not to make an image or bow to it. Over here we see the Pope bowing before crowned images of Mary. What's so hard about it? What part of "thou shalt not" don't you understand?

P.S. A graven image is a graven image whether it be Baal, false gods, Mary, or saints. The Scripture doesn't give exceptions for those, that's just your assumption. It says don't bow, yet Catholics and Popes bow, do you understand yet?

Click to expand...

Scott_LaFrance said:

If any church is built on a foundation of something plyable, (like say, personal interpretation of scripture) then it is NOT founded on rock, and will wash away when the rains come.

Click to expand...

And that Rock is Christ

1Cr 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

1Sa 2:2 [There is] none holy as the LORD: for [there is] none beside thee: neither [is there] any rock like our God.

2Sa 22:2 And he said, The LORD [is] my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;

2Sa 22:3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: [he is] my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
2Sa 22:32 For who [is] God, save the LORD? and who [is] a rock, save our God?

2Sa 22:47 The LORD liveth; and blessed [be] my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation.

Psa 18:31 For who [is] God save the LORD? or who [is] a rock save our God?

Psa 18:46 The LORD liveth; and blessed [be] my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.


Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. [/u]

Peter NEVER claimed any role for himself.

Hear his words




1Pe 2:2
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:


1Pe 2:3
If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.


1Pe 2:4
To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,


1Pe 2:5
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.


1Pe 2:6
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.


1Pe 2:7
Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,


1Pe 2:8
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.


1Pe 2:9
But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Peter had it right, Jesus was the foundation stone, He is the rock of offense. He is our salvation
The saved are a royal priesthood, they do no longer need a priest to offer sacrifices for them , they have a great High Priest offering daily sacrifices and advocating for them with the Father .

Peter would refuse what men have made him

vanshan said:

According to an article I just read, written by former Southern Baptist Clark Carlton, who is now Orthodox, a key problem with Protestant, and particularly Southern Baptist, interpretation of the Bible is that they refuse to defend historic truth, preferring to leave interpretation up to each individual or congregation, which has led to their beliefs changing over time:
“The ultimate concern of Protestantism is neither God nor the Scriptures nor anything that could reasonably be labeled Truth, but rather the absolute sovereignty of the individual.

Click to expand...

Not according to Southern Baptist doctrine. The sovereign is God--not the individual, not some church leader, but God.

The freedom of the individual was to be defended from any attempt to impose a standard of orthodoxy, even if that standard happened to be the Truth. One Baptist wrote, The very act of credal imposition itself, whether the doctrine is correct or not [emphasis mine], violates long standing religious convictions of Baptists ... In the final analysis, Truth is what each individual says it is, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is a violation of individual freedom.”

Click to expand...

Mr. Carlton may be referring to Baptists' historical support for religious liberty for all persons. As Dr. Herschel H. Hobbs wrote in his book The Baptist Faith and Message: "[Baptists] insist upon the lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Scriptures. But they also insist that every man shall be free to decide for himself in matters of religion. Baptists have ever been the champions of soul freedom, not for themselves alone but for all men. Thus it is that Baptists believe that a person has the right to be a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Jew, infidel, atheist, or whatever he chooses to be. Baptists believe that they are under divine compulsion to preach to all men the gospel as they understand it. But they endeavor to win men by persuasion through the power of the Holy Spirit, not through coercion of any kind.

"So in reality Baptists are the most broad-minded of all people in religion. They grant to every man the right that he shall be free to believe as he wants. But they insist upon the same right for themselves. The moment that a Baptist seeks to coerce another person--even another Baptist--in matters of religion, he violates the basic belief of Baptists."

This should help explain the other quotations and statements set out in your OP. It might also be noted that Baptists and Protestants are not alone in changing stances or interpretations over the centuries. Perhaps the primary differance is not that changes occur, but rather in the manner the denominations make those changes. Most Christian denominations' policies or creeds tend to be set out by that church's leader or leaders--whether such leader be called a president, priest, prophet, pope or other term (which does not necessarily have to begin with the letter P, by the way). Baptists tend to empower from the bottom up instead of from the top down--but that does not mean that any of those denominations is not under the overall direction of God through the Holy Spirit.

“The fact that the Nicene Creed and other conciliar definitions of the Church exist threatens the free church Protestant. Why? Because they bear witness to a Faith that is not a matter of individual opinion and is not subject to revision. The content of those symbols is a threat because it is the negation of the very foundation of Protestantism itself: the individual.”

Click to expand...

Again, Mr. Carlton seems to be missing the mark. The objections that many Baptists (and some other Protestants) have to pledging allegiance to a man-made creed or to placing that creed in a higher position than the scriptures themselves is not necessarily that they disagree with any of the contents of that creed. Rather, the objection is with the way creeds and other definitions have historically been used by various churchs and church leaders to coerce others to march in lock step with what that church leader wants them to do and believe. Again, Baptists have historically believed in religious freedom for all people--not in forced dogma.

“To the extent that Baptists believe in the divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection on the third day, and other doctrines of the Church, I rejoice. But this facade of orthodoxy is just that, a superficial framework built upon the shaky foundation of individualism and subjectivism. Many of the mainline Protestant denominations have already collapsed in on themselves and are hardly recognizable as being Christian. It is inevitable that the same thing will happen to evangelicalism, regardless of how conservative it may seem today.

“Protestants all claim to interpret the Scripture by the light of the Holy Spirit, and yet they manage to come up with a multitude of different interpretations of the same passage. Now either the Spirit is playing games with these people or there is something wrong with their theological method. ”

Click to expand...

And now we finally get to what is apparently really sticking in Mr. Carlton's craw: If individuals have the right to study the scriptures for themselves, to seek the Holy Spirit's guidance, and to think for themselves instead of being required to follow whatever interpretation their church leader dictates, they might come to a different interpretation than Mr. Carlton or some other church leader wants them to believe. I suspect that the Taliban would agree with Mr. Carlton on this point.....

Sinai said:

And now we finally get to what is apparently really sticking in Mr. Carlton's craw: If individuals have the right to study the scriptures for themselves, to seek the Holy Spirit's guidance, and to think for themselves instead of being required to follow whatever interpretation their church leader dictates, they might come to a different interpretation than Mr. Carlton or some other church leader wants them to believe. I suspect that the Taliban would agree with Mr. Carlton on this point.....

Click to expand...

Wow, you managed to read a lot into that quote. I suspect you were just looking for way to jump on your soap box with your own accusations.

And is referencing the Taliban the new substitute for Nazi?

I could not at this point defend Southern Baptists or any other group, but I do think Carlton exaggerates a bit for effect. I think many Protestants have turned to the RCC or Orthodox due to weariness. It is tempting to "fall into the arms" of "the mother church" after all the fighting and bickering that one experiences in some congregations or groups of congregations. The Southern Baptists endured a long battle (it was anything but a holy war) during the late 70s and 80s. The 90s were interesting in that the victors were left to fight among themselves. There is actually a group that is now trying to lead the SBC back to their historical theological roots.

Now, in all fairness, one can find the same sort of theological battles in the RCC and Orthodox traditions. If you are as well read in your tradition as you appear to be you know this to be true. The difference is this: in the Orthodox tradition the battles were fought over what the fathers taught, and whether or not a disputed current teaching fit or could be made to fit a "consensus" of what the fathers taught (the very fact that it had to often be a consensus reveals the difficulty of depending on the fathers). Instead of fighting over Scripture, the fight was over "the fathers." I do not see this as an improvement to any great extent. The benefit now, I suppose, is that it limits the number of people involved in the fight since most do not now read Greek well enough to join in the battle, leaving the splintering groups to go their own way. Plus, if you are the majority view you can call the other side heretics with a clear conscience (ignoring the fact that they too quoted the fathers in support of their view).

Lynn73 said:

I continue to find it amazing that one can lay down the exact Scripture against something next to a Catholic practicing it and they can't see the contradition. It says not to make an image or bow to it. Over here we see the Pope bowing before crowned images of Mary. What's so hard about it? What part of "thou shalt not" don't you understand?

P.S. A graven image is a graven image whether it be Baal, false gods, Mary, or saints. The Scripture doesn't give exceptions for those, that's just your assumption. It says don't bow, yet Catholics and Popes bow, do you understand yet?

Click to expand...

I might add that you have only just touched the tip of the ice-berg.

Scott_LaFrance said:

The commandment is not to put anything else before God. YOu have no clue what veneration of saints means. It has nothing to do with putting Mary or anyone else on a higher plane than God. Stop incriminating yourself with your ignorance of Catholic or Orthodox doctrine. You are identifying yourself as an ignorant bigot.

Click to expand...

I know what the Word says on the subject and I know what I see. The commandment IS to make no graven images or bow to them. I don't have to know every last jot and tittle of Catholic doctrine (and I know more than enough to reject it) to be able to discern right and wrong. And that's what it's called: discernment, not ignorance. The fact remains that it clearly says not to make images and not to bow before them. Popes and many Catholics do exactly that, plus crown the images. Sorry, but your arguments of "ignorant bigot" are misplaced, and possibley against the rules of CF. I'm a Christian comparing actions and doctrines to the Scriptures, like the men of Berea. I'm going to choose what the Scriptures say.

vanshan said:

Your innocently espousing the vile heresy of Nestorianism. The Church which is our common heritage strongly condemned this teaching. Jesus was fully God and fully man from the day He was conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit. Be careful.

Basil

Click to expand...

i don't care what your church believes..the Word was made flesh Christ came on the earth as man not as God....he stepped from his throne and embodied a physical being...God doesn't die. doesn't eat doesn't sleep... but Jesus did all those things because he was a man...

Psa 121:4 Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.

He didn't lose His deity by being clothed in flesh. See Colossians 2:9