Posted on 08/23/2007 9:43:25 AM PDT by NYer
Just in case you ever wondered about some of the core differences between Baptist theology and Catholic doctrine: I was getting a dose of Baptist theology and came across these statements, made by Professor Denny Burk, in an article in The Baptist Press about literacy and the Christian Faith:
Christianity is a book-religion. That is, all of its revelation about God's redemptive work in Christ is mediated to us in letters on a page. We don't have photographs, telephone lines through time, or a living oral tradition. We have the Scriptures. Apart from them, we have no saving knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. ... Because Christianity is a religion of the book, where it spreads so too does a concern for literacy.
Now, compare that perspective to this statement from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which contains a quote from Saint Bernard:
The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living." [St. Bernard] If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures." (pars 107-108).
Emphasis added to both quotes. It's an interesting notion to think that you have a living written tradition, but that a living oral tradition does not or cannot exist. One wonders how well the Baptist tradition would have fared prior to the invention of the printing press and wide spread literacy. Anyhow, a fine, pithy book about this and related topics is Louis Bouyer's The Word, Church and Sacraments: In Protestantism and Catholicism. Yes, I do mention it on a fairly regular basis. But that's only because you may not have purchased it yet. Just one more way to humbly demonstrate how much I care.
And that’s all he wrote.
Wonder what he makes of 2nd Thessalonians 2:15?
Or what he thinks all those Early Christians did before the Bible was codified?
Maybe I’m just dense, but just where was it stated Baptists are not Bible based Christians? I read just the opposite.
The description used is as unflattering as you can get and precisely WHY this Catholic posted it. Nyer has a history of posting hostile threads due to person issues, perhaps of insecurity in what she believes as a Catholic. She’s divisive and gets off on trying to create problems and picking fights over “religion”.
Nyer knows EXACTLY what she is doing. You couldn’t ask for a more unchristian example of how not to be ... just look at what she enjoys posting ... .
Any time you compare and contrast approaches to theology, I guess you can take offense if somebody disagrees with your particular approach.
I probably wouldn't have phrased it exactly as the original author did ('a dose of Baptist theology'? that's a bit snippy) . . . but the article nevertheless raises an important issue vis-a-vis one of the differences between Baptists and Catholics. NYer didn't write it, and that tone (which is the author's, not hers) is somewhat atypical of her usual posts, which tend to be commemorations of saints, inspirational stories of folks being helped, or features from EWTN.
But I think you're off base to say that the article accuses Baptists of not being Bible based Christians. If anything, the article's critical of the 'sola scriptura' approach to theology.
You know, near-identical things have been said about me under near-identical circumstances. Speaking in her defense, I'm sure you're wrong about NYer. Take some constructive advice from a fellow Protestant, and stop second-guessing others' motives. Discuss the content of the thread, and not the poster of the thread.
[pinging Ottofire, because we were just talking about this very thing the other night...]
The POSTER of the thread is the issue.
NYer has a LONG history of posting anti-Protestant threads.
Apparently you are not aware of that. If the POSTER was someone else, I might buy your defense of her. I’ve been on FR since 1999 - I do KNOW agendas and NYer is beyond transparent - it’s predictable. Her moniker should be “divisive”.
As for NYer, I didn't know or had forgotten that she is a female of the extreme opposite sex.
As A Catholic, you are NOT Bible based.
Well, not "sola scriptura based", and the Church was there before the Bible was. But the words from the Bible make up the majority of our worship and I guess it's largely owing to my reflections arising out of Scripture study and my feeble attempt to offer my life to Jesus that I became a Catholic.
I just don't get what is so awful about this post.
Religion Forum posters are welcome to post "for" or "against" a confession - but the anti-[pick a confession] threads must always be "open" for rebuttal.
Thank you ... I would like to think that it would be possible for us to discuss the different ways we look at the Bible, without getting nasty.
Obviously you don't my own thread-posting history very well. If you had, you'd know that such earned me the moniker of "Mother Of All Catholic Bashers" around here, according to what some Catholics second-guess re my motivations and choices of thread material. So I'm speaking from personal experience and sympathy for NYer's position when I say knock off the personal attacks.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
Posted earlier this week
Don’t bother me with your Catholic rhetoric. It’s not Christian.
815 posted on 08/20/2007 5:56:53 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I will not be harassed privately or publicly into an ideology that I do not believe.
There is no “log” or “beam” in my eye ... . I see rather clearly.
The lines that seem to be the most exciting are the ones quoted. We've been round the houses on "oral tradition" but maybe we can achieve something irenic on how and in what sense the Word of God is "living and active" not to mention sharper than any filleting knife (or words to that effect).
The wonderful pious Baptists whom I have the pleasure of knowing have a vital relationship with our Lord. (accent on "vital") and I on the flip side a religious experience in the RC scheme of things has got to conform to doctrine. etc. to be considered valid. So we have vitality, and we have "governors" or "filters" or something.
Help me out here, somebody ...
Sooooo cute. It would have been a nicer thread.
I'm not here to bash Baptists though -- I'm sure that every denomination has some tradition that is extra-biblical. And in most cases, they're pretty much harmless. Certain Church of Christ denominations don't believe in playing musical instruments in church (though that is changing). There's no Biblical basis for such a belief but I doubt that it's ever done anyone any harm.
I am skeptical of the claims of several Christian denominations who claim to have oral tradition passed down from the apostles. If these oral traditions are so darn important, then why not publish them and stick them in the Bible? And why did so many oral traditions lie dormant until centuries after the apostles died? It would seem to me that if there were an oral tradition that we were to believe such-and-such, it should have been part of the belief system of the early Christian church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.