Converting to Catholicism

[Why]

The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.

You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation.  One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.

Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind. 

I am not King James Only.

I am not trying to defend a canon.

[RFayette]

The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.

You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation.  One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.

Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind. 

I am not King James Only.

I am not trying to defend a canon.

Believing that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God necessarily involves defending a canon.  Unless you wouldn't mind also considering the Apocrypha inerrant, but I have a feeling you wouldn't go there.

[Why]

The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.

You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation.  One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.

Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind. 

I am not King James Only.

I am not trying to defend a canon.

Believing that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God necessarily involves defending a canon.  Unless you wouldn't mind also considering the Apocrypha inerrant, but I have a feeling you wouldn't go there.

Whether the Apocrypha is or is not part of the Bible is irrelevant to the point I was making.

[RFayette]

The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.

You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation.  One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.

Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind.  

I am not King James Only.

I am not trying to defend a canon.

Believing that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God necessarily involves defending a canon.  Unless you wouldn't mind also considering the Apocrypha inerrant, but I have a feeling you wouldn't go there.

Whether the Apocrypha is or is not part of the Bible is irrelevant to the point I was making.

You said that the Bible stands on its own, which I can agree with in terms of its themes.  But we still have to come for a justification as to which books are in the Bible and that the process by which it was compiled is legitimate - otherwise, it's hard to argue that the Bible is complete and  fully inerrant (in terms of every book in it) if we can't place some faith in either the ecumenical councils or the early church's general agreement on the canon.  That was the point I was trying to make.

[Why]

The problem with Unbiased's reasoning is that it treads awfully close to the line of thinking advocated by King James Only-ism, in which case you get stuff like this.

You can't completely divorce the Bible form the history surrounding it, including its compilation.  One can still be a fundamentalist, Bible-believing, literal Christian and believe that scripture is 100% inerrant, and still study the historical context of the books of the Bible when establishing why they're valid and what they mean.

Arguing that the Bible is internally consistent is certainly good if we're talking about defending the Christian faith generally, but it's not really valid to defending an exact canon, at least in my mind.  

I am not King James Only.

I am not trying to defend a canon.

Believing that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God necessarily involves defending a canon.  Unless you wouldn't mind also considering the Apocrypha inerrant, but I have a feeling you wouldn't go there.

Whether the Apocrypha is or is not part of the Bible is irrelevant to the point I was making.

You said that the Bible stands on its own, which I can agree with in terms of its themes.  But we still have to come for a justification as to which books are in the Bible and that the process by which it was compiled is legitimate - otherwise, it's hard to argue that the Bible is complete and  fully inerrant (in terms of every book in it) if we can't place some faith in either the ecumenical councils or the early church's general agreement on the canon.  That was the point I was trying to make.

I place faith in God and that he put the Bible together how he wanted. Knowledge of how He did it is interesting but not vital to faith.

The Catholics argument is, in my experience, that 'we made the Bible, so we must be right, so you must be a Catholic'. I feel this argument is flawed and the finer details do not matter.

Yes Catholics and Protestants agree on a lot of doctrines, but I would not describe myself as either or subscribe to the false doctrines of either.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes Catholics and Protestants agree on a lot of doctrines, but I would not describe myself as either or subscribe to the false doctrines of either.

Then what are you?


...aside from a pretentious buffoon, I mean.

[RFayette]

From a functional perspective, if you're not Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic (not sure if separate from Orthodox), then I think you're de facto Protestant for all intents and purposes, as you would consider scripture your main source of authority (along with perhaps some additional holy text/external source if one is Mormon, JW, etc.).  Virtually all nondenominational Christians are effectively Protestant.

The thing is that if one claims the Catholic Church is un-Biblical, we've got to make a clear delineation of what the Bible is & is composed of.  We can't just use it as an amorphous term - we've got to be precise here.

[Why]

Yes Catholics and Protestants agree on a lot of doctrines, but I would not describe myself as either or subscribe to the false doctrines of either.

Then what are you?


...aside from a pretentious buffoon, I mean.

A Bible believer.

[Why]

From a functional perspective, if you're not Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic (not sure if separate from Orthodox), then I think you're de facto Protestant for all intents and purposes, as you would consider scripture your main source of authority (along with perhaps some additional holy text/external source if one is Mormon, JW, etc.).  Virtually all nondenominational Christians are effectively Protestant.

The thing is that if one claims the Catholic Church is un-Biblical, we've got to make a clear delineation of what the Bible is & is composed of.  We can't just use it as an amorphous term - we've got to be precise here.

If you want to use Protestant in its absolute broadest sense then yes I guess I am but that in my experience is not how it is used. It is usually linked to a more concrete set of beliefs.

[RFayette]

As a sidenote, a far more effective angle of attack against the Catholic Church, in my mind, is to challenge the idea of papal infallibility.  Considering that Paul himself rebuked Peter in Galatians 2 in scripture (which the Catholic Church itself deems infallible), then it's clear that the Bishop of Rome isn't always infallible.  Of course, one could argue that since Peter wasn't speaking ex cathedra at the time, it's irrelevant; however, the fact that without Paul's help, Peter would have continued his Judaizing tradition - it certainly calls into question the validity of every tradition of the bishops of Rome, the authority upon which the Catholic Church rests.

[RFayette]

From a functional perspective, if you're not Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic (not sure if separate from Orthodox), then I think you're de facto Protestant for all intents and purposes, as you would consider scripture your main source of authority (along with perhaps some additional holy text/external source if one is Mormon, JW, etc.).  Virtually all nondenominational Christians are effectively Protestant.

The thing is that if one claims the Catholic Church is un-Biblical, we've got to make a clear delineation of what the Bible is & is composed of.  We can't just use it as an amorphous term - we've got to be precise here.

If you want to use Protestant in its absolute broadest sense then yes I guess I am but that in my experience is not how it is used. It is usually linked to a more concrete set of beliefs.

Fair enough.  There's probably also regional differences in use for these terms; my point was just that your attack against the Catholic Church probably isn't the strongest, though there certainly are angles of critique against them.  

But the question remains - how can you say you're a defender of the "Bible" if you're not trying to defend a canon?  You have to have a canon to have a Bible.  I might not be understanding your argument though, so my apologies if that is the case.

[Why]

From a functional perspective, if you're not Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic (not sure if separate from Orthodox), then I think you're de facto Protestant for all intents and purposes, as you would consider scripture your main source of authority (along with perhaps some additional holy text/external source if one is Mormon, JW, etc.).  Virtually all nondenominational Christians are effectively Protestant.

The thing is that if one claims the Catholic Church is un-Biblical, we've got to make a clear delineation of what the Bible is & is composed of.  We can't just use it as an amorphous term - we've got to be precise here.

If you want to use Protestant in its absolute broadest sense then yes I guess I am but that in my experience is not how it is used. It is usually linked to a more concrete set of beliefs.

Fair enough.  There's probably also regional differences in use for these terms; my point was just that your attack against the Catholic Church probably isn't the strongest, though there certainly are angles of critique against them. 

But the question remains - how can you say you're a defender of the "Bible" if you're not trying to defend a canon?  You have to have a canon to have a Bible.  I might not be understanding your argument though, so my apologies if that is the case.

I did not start this line of discussion in the posts, it was started by LIVE THE DREAM. PURGE THOSE BOZOS, I was just replying to him.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As a sidenote, a far more effective angle of attack against the Catholic Church, in my mind, is to challenge the idea of papal infallibility.  Considering that Paul himself rebuked Peter in Galatians 2 in scripture (which the Catholic Church itself deems infallible), then it's clear that the Bishop of Rome isn't always infallible.  Of course, one could argue that since Peter wasn't speaking ex cathedra at the time, it's irrelevant; however, the fact that without Paul's help, Peter would have continued his Judaizing tradition - it certainly calls into question the validity of every tradition of the bishops of Rome, the authority upon which the Catholic Church rests.

I think this plays into the collegial-ultramontanist dispute within Catholicism more than anything else, honestly; the fact that the collegial position exists within Catholicism kind of blunts it as an attack against the Church (although, granted, one as a Catholic has to explain the collegial position's existence to defend against this attack, and 'if you're explaining, you're losing', as they say).

I did not start this line of discussion in the posts, it was started by LIVE THE DREAM. PURGE THOSE BOZOS, I was just replying to him.

The custom on this forum is to use the little name under the display name if the display name seems overtly bizarre or non-name-like. So, in this case, call me Nathan.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes Catholics and Protestants agree on a lot of doctrines, but I would not describe myself as either or subscribe to the false doctrines of either.

Then what are you?


...aside from a pretentious buffoon, I mean.

A Bible believer.

Do you adhere to a Church or any kind, or share the beliefs of any defined group of people? Or are you just reading the Bible on your own and think you get it right when everyone else gets it wrong?

[Why]

I attend a congregation of believers.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I attend a congregation of believers.

Describe it.

[RFayette]

As a sidenote, a far more effective angle of attack against the Catholic Church, in my mind, is to challenge the idea of papal infallibility.  Considering that Paul himself rebuked Peter in Galatians 2 in scripture (which the Catholic Church itself deems infallible), then it's clear that the Bishop of Rome isn't always infallible.  Of course, one could argue that since Peter wasn't speaking ex cathedra at the time, it's irrelevant; however, the fact that without Paul's help, Peter would have continued his Judaizing tradition - it certainly calls into question the validity of every tradition of the bishops of Rome, the authority upon which the Catholic Church rests.

I think this plays into the collegial-ultramontanist dispute within Catholicism more than anything else, honestly; the fact that the collegial position exists within Catholicism kind of blunts it as an attack against the Church (although, granted, one as a Catholic has to explain the collegial position's existence to defend against this attack, and 'if you're explaining, you're losing', as they say).

This is fair, but on the other hand, doesn't it strongly blunt the "Catholicism is one true church because 36,000 Protestant denominations" claim used against Protestants, given the broad variety of differences within the Catholic Church on positions like the one described above?  I just think the claim of papal infallibility (even though only when speaking ex-cathedra) is a hard one to swallow when one considers all of the flaws of the first "pope," Pete, even with a collegial interpretation.

[Why]

I attend a congregation of believers.

Describe it.

It is about 120 people plus un-baptized children and teenagers.

[RFayette]

I attend a congregation of believers.

Describe it.

It is about 120 people plus un-baptized children and teenagers.

I assume it's nondenominational, but are there any doctrinal distinctives y'all have?  Calvinist or Arminian?  Once-saved-always-saved or not? 

[Why]

The custom on this forum is to use the little name under the display name if the display name seems overtly bizarre or non-name-like. So, in this case, call me Nathan.

Sorry.

[Why]

I attend a congregation of believers.

Describe it.

It is about 120 people plus un-baptized children and teenagers.

I assume it's nondenominational, but are there any doctrinal distinctives y'all have?  Calvinist or Arminian?  Once-saved-always-saved or not? 

Don't assume anything.

[RFayette]

I attend a congregation of believers.

Describe it.

It is about 120 people plus un-baptized children and teenagers.

I assume it's nondenominational, but are there any doctrinal distinctives y'all have?  Calvinist or Arminian?  Once-saved-always-saved or not? 

Don't assume anything.

OK, but still, is there anything fleshed out like a doctrinal statement that y'all have?  Something about your position on say (among other issues) Calvinism v. Arninianism, once-saved-always-saved, communion, evolution, etc.?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As a sidenote, a far more effective angle of attack against the Catholic Church, in my mind, is to challenge the idea of papal infallibility.  Considering that Paul himself rebuked Peter in Galatians 2 in scripture (which the Catholic Church itself deems infallible), then it's clear that the Bishop of Rome isn't always infallible.  Of course, one could argue that since Peter wasn't speaking ex cathedra at the time, it's irrelevant; however, the fact that without Paul's help, Peter would have continued his Judaizing tradition - it certainly calls into question the validity of every tradition of the bishops of Rome, the authority upon which the Catholic Church rests.

I think this plays into the collegial-ultramontanist dispute within Catholicism more than anything else, honestly; the fact that the collegial position exists within Catholicism kind of blunts it as an attack against the Church (although, granted, one as a Catholic has to explain the collegial position's existence to defend against this attack, and 'if you're explaining, you're losing', as they say).

This is fair, but on the other hand, doesn't it strongly blunt the "Catholicism is one true church because 36,000 Protestant denominations" claim used against Protestants, given the broad variety of differences within the Catholic Church on positions like the one described above?  I just think the claim of papal infallibility (even though only when speaking ex-cathedra) is a hard one to swallow when one considers all of the flaws of the first "pope," Pete, even with a collegial interpretation.

Well, yeah, it does blunt that claim, but I don't think that claim is a very strong one anyway. I think the stronger claim is, if anything, that Catholicism is capable of holding these sorts of disputes in creative tension without undergoing constant schism--which is a similar claim, but not the same sort of crass 'LOL 1,000,000,000/1 OF US 1,000,000,000/36,000 OF YOU' thing you often see certain types of Catholics using.

I attend a congregation of believers.

Describe it.

It is about 120 people plus un-baptized children and teenagers.

I mean describe its theology, worship style, liturgy, et cetera.

[RFayette]

As a sidenote, a far more effective angle of attack against the Catholic Church, in my mind, is to challenge the idea of papal infallibility.  Considering that Paul himself rebuked Peter in Galatians 2 in scripture (which the Catholic Church itself deems infallible), then it's clear that the Bishop of Rome isn't always infallible.  Of course, one could argue that since Peter wasn't speaking ex cathedra at the time, it's irrelevant; however, the fact that without Paul's help, Peter would have continued his Judaizing tradition - it certainly calls into question the validity of every tradition of the bishops of Rome, the authority upon which the Catholic Church rests.

I think this plays into the collegial-ultramontanist dispute within Catholicism more than anything else, honestly; the fact that the collegial position exists within Catholicism kind of blunts it as an attack against the Church (although, granted, one as a Catholic has to explain the collegial position's existence to defend against this attack, and 'if you're explaining, you're losing', as they say).

This is fair, but on the other hand, doesn't it strongly blunt the "Catholicism is one true church because 36,000 Protestant denominations" claim used against Protestants, given the broad variety of differences within the Catholic Church on positions like the one described above?  I just think the claim of papal infallibility (even though only when speaking ex-cathedra) is a hard one to swallow when one considers all of the flaws of the first "pope," Pete, even with a collegial interpretation.

Well, yeah, it does blunt that claim, but I don't think that claim is a very strong one anyway. I think the stronger claim is, if anything, that Catholicism is capable of holding these sorts of disputes in creative tension without undergoing constant schism--which is a similar claim, but not the same sort of crass 'LOL 1,000,000,000/1 OF US 1,000,000,000/36,000 OF YOU' thing you often see certain types of Catholics using.

That's a good way of phrasing it, and it is a good argument against a lot of fundamentalist Protestants.  The classic example I look to is Independent Fundamental Baptists.  Steven Anderson, Sam Gipp, and Jack Schaap, three well-known figures in the movement, all have had a lot of problems with each other.  Anderson in particular calls churches/people unsaved (and often homosexual, just as an added insult) unless they basically agree with his entire theology/worldview (including KJV Onlyism, once-saved-always-saved, no repentance/turning from sin to be saved, etc.).   It seems very hard to argue that when you have splits over everything that it helps the case for Christianity.

However, for mainline Protestants, most seem to get along just fine anyways.  United Methodists, ECLA, United Church of Christ, PCUSA, etc. all seem to work together a fair amount and have very little animosity between them, so couldn't one argue being separate but congenial is just as good?

[Why]

I will state what I believe which would be consistent with the doctrinal statement.

I believe there is one God the Father
I believe that He created the heavens and the earth at a time close to 6000 years ago.
I believe that that the Lord Jesus is his Son.
I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
I believe in conditional immortality
I believe in bodily ressurection
I believe that the Lord Jesus will return to earth to become king over God kingdom on earth
I believe that baptism is a requirement of God as an act of obedience and is a symbol of the death a resurrection of the Lord Jesus the Messiah.
I believe that the wicked will be punished by death in grave.

I do not believe in the trinity, substitutionary atonement, immortal souls, heaven going, a supernatural devil, hell as a place of torture, evolution, once saved always saved or Calvinism.