An Open Invitation to Civil Discussion

[jsanford108]

Before we initiate this discussion, allow us to outline some standards and principles productive to progressive discussion.

We must be open and honest. "Open," meaning that we are not close-minded to new evidence, or views that we have not considered/heard of before. A closed mind will never grow in knowledge. We must also be honest. If we deny anything that is contrary to our personal doctrines, solely because it is aggravating to our views, then we are being intellectually dishonest.

We must also be logical. Logic is always true. God, as the author of logic, makes it truth. One would not say that God is illogical, as that would be antagonistic to God. Likewise, we should always accept logic as highlighting truth.

We must accept truth, as anything else is a falsehood. Denying, ignoring, or dismissing facts and evidence is preferring ignorance. As stated before, this keeps one from growing in the knowledge of truth. Something that is contradictory to evidence is thus illogical.

By maintaining these principles, we can keep each other in check, as any deviation can be quickly and easily proven, by an individual's own words and claims.

Let us begin:

God's Truth, you posted a few points in the thread, "The Most Dangerous Teaching." While I would say that several of your points were accurate, I find several are false. Here, I will only be addressing those that apply to Catholicism (spoiler alert: I am Catholic). Below are your quotes; I would also ask that any further points that you would like to address be mentioned early on, so that we can reference them quite quickly, with precision and accuracy.

Here is a scripture that exposes the Catholic Religion.

Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Catholics have a Pope. Pope means 'father'. The Catholics even call their Pope 'Holy Father'. 'Holy Father' is a name reserved for God. Not only do the Catholic parishioners call the Pope and priests ‘father,’ the Pope and priests call each other 'father'. Jesus said not to call any one on earth 'father' and that they are all brothers in Christ. There are many other false doctrines in the Catholic religion, but starting from the top of their religion--- the Pope, that should be enough to stop there with that religion.

Here is one scripture to show that infant baptism is not biblical.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

An infant cannot repent. Many denominations perform infant baptisms. The way to salvation changes by infant baptism. Infant baptism is not biblical. Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, a sect of Methodists, and Reformed denominations perform infant baptisms; they preach this falseness, which is a damaging blow to those needing the truth.

Here is one scripture to show that baptism is by immersion.

Romans 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Baptism represents how a believer equates his life with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Our old person is to die and be buried with Jesus through baptism into death. We are buried with the water, and raised out of the water, raised to live a new life through Jesus.
Picture how baptism looks…the believer comes to make the pledge to God, to die to the sins of the world; so now standing in the water the believer falls back, as if dead; then, the believer goes under the water, buried; then, the believer rises up out of the water, raises up to live a new life.

As I am sure you have more, please provide them. I would like to go ahead and make the point that we agree that the Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God. (I posted this the other day in ECT, but somehow it disappeared; conspiracies abound). I will make my rebuttal once you give the go ahead that all your points you wish to discuss are posted.

The floor is yours God's Truth. Thanks you.

 

[patrick jane]

I don't think it says God is the author of logic. :idunno:

1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV - [FONT=&quot]For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


Are you saying that people are too confused here?[/FONT]

 

[jsanford108]

I don't think it says God is the author of logic. :idunno:

1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV - [FONT="]For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

I never claimed that it was in the Scriptures. Just as the words "omnipotence" or "trinity" are not present, we can derive such attributes from knowledge of what God is.

Are you saying that people are too confused here?[/FONT]

No, just a majority.

Examples abound; one need only look in the politics forum.

I was trying to tag God's Truth in the OP, so that she would know I was specifically directing this to her.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I was trying to tag God's Truth in the OP, so that she would know I was specifically directing this to her.

To tag someone, prepend the @ symbol to their username, as in [MENTION=19469]jsanford108[/MENTION]

The person tagged will get a notice at their profile page: "{username} mentioned you {the person tagged} in a post" or words to that effect.

AMR

 

[Squeaky]

I never claimed that it was in the Scriptures. Just as the words "omnipotence" or "trinity" are not present, we can derive such attributes from knowledge of what God is.


No, just a majority.

Examples abound; one need only look in the politics forum.

I was trying to tag God's Truth in the OP, so that she would know I was specifically directing this to her.

I said
I like a nice calm discussion. If your a catholic could I ask you something?
Do Catholic's follow the rules of believing set down in scripture??


Not to think beyond what is written. And not to add one word to the verses or take one word away from the verses.

[1Co 4:6
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

[Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Before we initiate this discussion, allow us to outline some standards and principles productive to progressive discussion.

1. Will it edify? Or significantly inform a useful conversation? (Mark 12:29–31; 1 Cor. 14:26)
Think of what will edify others. All we do is in obedience to the command to love God and others. How will it increase their knowledge, faith, or love? Am I accurately representing positions you disagree with? Am I sure of my facts? Trivialities hopefully fill up our lives less than they do so much of the Internet.
As John Piper has said, “One of the great uses of Twitter and Facebook will be to prove on the Last Day that our prayerlessness was not from lack of time.” He’s right.

2. Will it be easily misunderstood? (John 13:7; 16:12)
The privacy of a personal conversation limits misunderstanding. Some public posts will sound one way to those who know us and another to those who don’t. Negative assessments are often best shared privately, or not at all. How many of us have learned at our workplace that e-mail is a terrible way to share negative comments? When it comes to public postings, ask yourself: Are there reasons I may not be a good person to speak on certain matters?

3. Will it reach the right audience? (Mark 4:9)
If you’re correcting someone, should the audience be wide—or more narrow? Is that audience correctable? When you use social media, consider who’s listening. What if everyone in your church eavesdropped on your conversations today? Yet we do this all the time online.

4. Will it help my evangelism? (Col. 1:28–29)
Is what you’re about to say going to help or hinder those you’re evangelizing? Is it likely to diminish the significance (to them) of your commitment to the gospel, or enhance it?

5. Will it bring about unnecessary and unhelpful controversy? (Titus 3:9)
Think carefully about controversy. The line between the vigorous exchange of ideas and a kind of social war is sometimes thinner than we think. What’s this particular controversy to which I’d be contributing good for? Might it be unhelpful? How much time will it take up? Is this an unavoidable primary issue, or a matter about which disagreement is fairly unimportant? Will this controversy play into any other division that threatens the unity of my local church?

6. Will it embarrass or offend? (1 Cor. 12:21–26)
Will anyone be embarrassed or offended by what you’re saying? I understand that the mere fact something is offensive doesn’t mean saying it is wrong, but we must be sure it’s worth it.

7. Will it convey care? (1 Cor. 12:21–26)
Will those mainly concerned appreciate your motives? Privacy in communication conveys care, an honoring of the person receiving the information. You like the fact that your doctor’s report is private, but you don’t mind that the store’s sale is advertised. If someone would rather be addressed in person, why not do that?

8. Will it make people better appreciate someone else? (1 Cor. 12:21–26)
Point out God’s grace in the lives, ministries, and arguments of others. Highlighting something that will build esteem for someone else glorifies God and encourages others to see his work in them.

9. Is it boasting? (Prov. 27:2)
Does what you communicate online draw attention to yourself more than your topic? How could that be spiritually harmful? Will it leave people with a more accurate understanding of yourself? Are you simply being tempted to draw attention to what you know? When was the last time you encouraged others by sharing something embarrassing or even sinful about yourself?

10. Is the tone appropriate? (2 John 1, 12; Col. 4:6; Eph. 4:29; 2 Tim. 2:24–25)
Will people understand and be encouraged in the truth you communicate? How important is the tone to your message being rightly received? Is it evidently kind, patient, and gentle? The literal tone of your voice and the look on your face fill out so much of what you mean. In a personal conversation, you can more quickly understand that something needs clarifying. The Internet doesn’t sanctify anger or frustration.

11. Is it wrong to say nothing? (Rom. 1:14)
Do you have an opportunity or even a responsibility to communicate something? Some of you do this for your job. Have you established a “relationship” with readers, friends, and followers online that would expect you to comment on a particular issue or situation? Our freedom of speech is a wonderful stewardship. Use it well and responsibly.

12. What do others advise? (Prov. 11:14; 15:22; 24:6)
When you’re about to communicate something provocative, do you have good sounding-boards to help you estimate the response? Do you take the time to consider before you publish? Speed of response is both an ability of the Internet and a temptation to speak too quickly (contra James 1:19; Prov. 10:19; 14:29; 16:32; 17:27). Remember, you will give an account for every word you type (Matt. 12:36). Does saying things at a “safe distance” from people tempt us to say things we wouldn’t say in person? Perhaps you could write down these questions and ask a friend to look over your post. Or, even ask someone you know disagrees with you on an issue you’ve posted about and see what they say.

ht: Mark Dever

My number one rule:
Persons constructing straw men of my views by claiming I operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about my beliefs what they believe about my beliefs leaves no hope for honest discussion.

AMR

 

[john w]

An Open Invitation to Civil Discussion

Before we initiate this discussion, allow us to outline some standards and principles productive to progressive discussion.

We must be open and honest.....................

 

[God's Truth]

Before we initiate this discussion, allow us to outline some standards and principles productive to progressive discussion.

We must be open and honest. "Open," meaning that we are not close-minded to new evidence, or views that we have not considered/heard of before. A closed mind will never grow in knowledge. We must also be honest. If we deny anything that is contrary to our personal doctrines, solely because it is aggravating to our views, then we are being intellectually dishonest.

We must also be logical. Logic is always true. God, as the author of logic, makes it truth. One would not say that God is illogical, as that would be antagonistic to God. Likewise, we should always accept logic as highlighting truth.

We must accept truth, as anything else is a falsehood. Denying, ignoring, or dismissing facts and evidence is preferring ignorance. As stated before, this keeps one from growing in the knowledge of truth. Something that is contradictory to evidence is thus illogical.

By maintaining these principles, we can keep each other in check, as any deviation can be quickly and easily proven, by an individual's own words and claims.

Let us begin:

God's Truth, you posted a few points in the thread, "The Most Dangerous Teaching." While I would say that several of your points were accurate, I find several are false. Here, I will only be addressing those that apply to Catholicism (spoiler alert: I am Catholic). Below are your quotes; I would also ask that any further points that you would like to address be mentioned early on, so that we can reference them quite quickly, with precision and accuracy.



As I am sure you have more, please provide them. I would like to go ahead and make the point that we agree that the Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God. (I posted this the other day in ECT, but somehow it disappeared; conspiracies abound). I will make my rebuttal once you give the go ahead that all your points you wish to discuss are posted.

The floor is yours God's Truth. Thanks you.

I am so glad that you made this post and directed it to me. I cannot tell you how much joy it gives me to discuss with you, a person who wants to discuss the scriptures deeply and without name calling or telling another that they are not saved.

I see that you have posted some things that I have said about the Catholic church, and if I understand correctly you want me to list everything that I have against the Catholic church?

I think we should start with one thing at a time.

How about we start with the calling of the head of the Catholic church the 'pope'?

 

[God's Truth]

Here is a scripture that exposes the Catholic Religion.

Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Catholics have a Pope. Pope means 'father'. The Catholics even call their Pope 'Holy Father'. 'Holy Father' is a name reserved for God. Not only do the Catholic parishioners call the Pope and priests ‘father,’ the Pope and priests call each other 'father'. Jesus said not to call any one on earth 'father' and that they are all brothers in Christ. There are many other false doctrines in the Catholic religion, but starting from the top of their religion--- the Pope, that should be enough to stop there with that religion.

 

[God's Truth]

Catholics teach that their Popes are that of “Apostolic Succession.” Apostolic Succession is the unbroken line of succession beginning with the apostles to that of the Pope. There is no such command in the Bible as “Apostolic Succession.” There is no such command, none. That is a manufactured belief. Catholics claim Apostolic Succession from apostle Peter. However, the word of God tells us of no such thing; God’s word forbids us to have favoritism over the apostles.

1 Corinthians 1:11-12 My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?

5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

1 Corinthians 3:18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness“; 20and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

 

[jsanford108]

Here is a scripture that exposes the Catholic Religion.

Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Catholics have a Pope. Pope means 'father'. The Catholics even call their Pope 'Holy Father'. 'Holy Father' is a name reserved for God. Not only do the Catholic parishioners call the Pope and priests ‘father,’ the Pope and priests call each other 'father'. Jesus said not to call any one on earth 'father' and that they are all brothers in Christ. There are many other false doctrines in the Catholic religion, but starting from the top of their religion--- the Pope, that should be enough to stop there with that religion.

The term "Holy," used when applied to the Pope, is to denote his "Holy Vocation," as leader of the Church. "Father," of course being the title given to a priest. Combined, you get "Holy Father," a distinguishing difference from other "Fathers."

Next, let us consider your Scripture quote from Matthew. The preceding verse says to call no man "teacher," for we have one teacher. Does this mean that "Sunday School Teachers" are absolute proof for rejecting Protestant denominations? Or how about rejecting educational systems, due to calling those providing education to children "teachers?"

If one accepts such titles as "teacher" as being okay, but rejecting the use of "father," (which is a reference to protecting and educating "spiritual famileis") then one is a hypocrite and paradoxical in their application of Scripture.

Catholics teach that their Popes are that of “Apostolic Succession.” Apostolic Succession is the unbroken line of succession beginning with the apostles to that of the Pope. There is no such command in the Bible as “Apostolic Succession.” There is no such command, none. That is a manufactured belief. Catholics claim Apostolic Succession from apostle Peter. However, the word of God tells us of no such thing; God’s word forbids us to have favoritism over the apostles.

You are correct: there is no Biblical command of Apostolic Succession. But, there is also no Biblical command to elect Presidents. Does this render the election as a manufactured belief?

Or, does it make more sense for Tradition to stand in as an explanation? I would argue this is true. Let us examine who we view as "Apostles." The term is applied only to individuals who had direct appointment to ministry by Jesus, Himself. This is why Paul is called "Apostle," and not "disciple." Any one who follows thereafter, being instructed by the Apostles are called disciples. Hence, Apostolic Succession does not make more apostles, only disciples.

Apostolic Succession also follows the Tradition that each priest is ordained by a line of succession which leads back to the Apostles. This would make sense, as the Apostles would be the best persons to ordain the earliest priests in the New Covenant Church. Would you not agree? The Apostles discerning who best serves as spiritual fathers, presiding over their respective churches, makes sense to me.

1 Corinthians 1:11-12 My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?

5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

1 Corinthians 3:18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness“; 20and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

These various verses have nothing to do with Apostolic Succession, as it shows petty squabbling between various groups. It can easily be inferred that each group has a particular "hero," or preferred Apostle and subsequent teaching style.

It would appear easy to discern that Paul is telling these bickerers that they should not identify as the flock of a particular Apostle, but of Christ. When we recognize that Paul is trying to unite the people of Corinth into a single unified church, absent of petty differences, we see a call to a single, organic, living church of Christ. This to me seems quite obvious that rather than denominations, we should have a single, Apostolic Church; absent of preference of style or teaching, but unified in Christ and that which is declared by the Apostles and their successors. (I know that seemed heavy handed, but rather than be vague, I figured why not just say it initially)

So, we can see the clear hypocrisy of eliminating the Catholic Church due to use of "Father" as title applied to priests, as the title "teacher" is used in every facet of education, be it secular or religious.

We also can easily see how the term is applied in reference to priest being "spiritual fathers" to congregations, and guiding them in instruction, as natural fathers are called to do. We can also see how Apostolic Succession, while not explicitly stated and called for in Scripture, is not contrary to Scripture. And even that evidence of such Succession is present in the Acts and subsequent New Testament books, as the Apostles ordained various men to preside over various churches, due to the growth of the Church.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't think it says God is the author of logic. :idunno:

The Bible does associate God with logic.

John 1:1 1 In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God.​

logic (n.)
mid-14c., logike, "branch of philosophy that treats of forms of thinking, science of distinction of true from false reasoning," from Old French logique (13c.), from Latin (ars) logica "logic," from Greek (he) logike (techne) "(the) reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning" (also "of or pertaining to speech"), from logos "reason, idea, word" (see Logos).​

 

[meshak]

You are correct: there is no Biblical command of Apostolic Succession. But, there is also no Biblical command to elect Presidents. Does this render the election as a manufactured belief?

You are comparing apples and oranges.

I don't think it is unbiblical to call the leader a father.

But too many of Catholic teachings are not following NT principle.

Jesus clearly taught about who are His brethren and followers. He did not even teach us to take your parents over Jesus yet you guys put Mary on a pedestal.

I know you guys deny this simple fact but it is so obvious to me.

just my two cents.

 

[God's Truth]

The term "Holy," used when applied to the Pope, is to denote his "Holy Vocation," as leader of the Church. "Father," of course being the title given to a priest. Combined, you get "Holy Father," a distinguishing difference from other "Fathers."

Firstly, we are not to call a brother in Christ ‘father’; secondly, when you put the word ‘holy’ in front of ‘father’, it is what Jesus called His Father.
We should get that established now.
Tell me how you can call a mere man the same thing as God the Father is called?.

 

[God's Truth]

Next, let us consider your Scripture quote from Matthew. The preceding verse says to call no man "teacher," for we have one teacher.

Let’s talk about the scriptures, and remember it is a scripture that you are having issue with. Jesus says not to do something, but you are talking about we are to go ahead and do what Jesus says not to.

Matthew 23: 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

A brother should not be called 'father' or 'master' or anything which exalts himself over the other brothers.

Does this mean that "Sunday School Teachers" are absolute proof for rejecting Protestant denominations? Or how about rejecting educational systems, due to calling those providing education to children "teachers?"

It is about not making a brother above the other brothers.
Your choice denomination does what we are not to do.

 

[God's Truth]

If one accepts such titles as "teacher" as being okay, but rejecting the use of "father," (which is a reference to protecting and educating "spiritual famileis") then one is a hypocrite and paradoxical in their application of Scripture.

I hope you can see that I have proven that to be nonsense.

Again, BROTHERS in Christ are brothers and not to be exalted. No calling a brother a ‘father’, or ‘Rabbi’, or the ‘Teacher’, or ‘Master’, it is forbidden.

Think for yourself; would you like to call any of your siblings 'father', or 'Master'?

 

[God's Truth]

I will finish answering your post when I come back.

 

[meshak]

whatever happened to discussion? Is it over already?

 

[jsanford108]

I will finish answering your post when I come back.

Take your time; there is no rush. I wouldn't be able to post an adequate response until tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

whatever happened to discussion? Is it over already?

I am in a discussion with God's Truth.

Did you want a discussion, as well?

I assumed you did not, since your post about Mary bring placed on a pedestal said that you knew Catholics deny that, yet you know it is true. This indicates that you are already closed minded on the subject, since you already "know," and are preemptively dismissing any aggravating evidence to your "knowledge."

Now, if I am wrong, then sure, let us have a discussion. That is, if you were seeking one personally.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL