tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post9113812351974091161..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: John the Baptist and other schismaticsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25270698513802183162009-09-13T11:13:17.405-04:002009-09-13T11:13:17.405-04:00RICHARD FROGGATT SAID:
"I think your reason ...RICHARD FROGGATT SAID:<br /><br />"I think your reason for John the Baptist leaving the main stream is flawed. He didn't leave for any doctrinal or moral issues, but to prepare the way for the Lord. The only correlation drawn should be based on the coming of the Lord."<br /><br />So, even though Jesus used to preach in the Temple courtyard, as well as the apostles, John the Baptist couldn't preach the coming Messiah in the Temple courtyard. He had to go off into the wilderness to do that. You think that's a serious argument, do you?<br /><br />And, according to you, John couldn't both preach the coming Messiah and discharge his priestly duties. He couldn't be a priest and prophet at the same time. Is that your argument?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32397613531848087742009-09-12T13:11:28.662-04:002009-09-12T13:11:28.662-04:00Steve,
I think your reason for John the Baptist l...Steve,<br /><br />I think your reason for John the Baptist leaving the main stream is flawed. He didn't leave for any doctrinal or moral issues, but to prepare the way for the Lord. The only correlation drawn should be based on the coming of the Lord.<br /><br />In fact Jesus says just the opposite of what you say here <br /><br />Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,<br /><br /> 2saying: "(B)The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;<br /><br /> 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. <br /><br />Copyright New American Standard BibleRichard Froggatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931363750222373223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46089070536947570432009-09-12T09:36:44.706-04:002009-09-12T09:36:44.706-04:00RICHARD FROGGATT SAID:
“It's actually not rea...RICHARD FROGGATT SAID:<br /><br />“It's actually not really that good. On the surface maybe but given the fact that we're talking about a prophet wouldn't you have to show that the Reformers were prophets?”<br /><br />The fact that he was a prophet is what legitimates the general principle (i.e. schism is sometimes permissible). Once you legitimate a general principle, you can apply it more widely. A valid principle needn’t be revalidated every time you apply it. Being general, it automatically applies to specific instances of the same principle.<br /><br />“The Church is built upon a rock with better promises.”<br /><br />Catholic apologists often mount arguments from analogy based on their interpretation of OT counterparts. <br /><br />“Even if your argument regarding corruption were a good one, the Reformers may have had a case but you don't; unless you want to bring up the sins of priests, in that case there would be nowhere to go.”<br /><br />Just as John the Baptist had somewhere to go, so do we. <br /><br />“And on that score, there was a point that even for the Reformers, it stopped being about corruption and became more about doctrine, so that even they're not excused.”<br /><br />“Corruption” includes corrupt doctrine as well as corrupt morals. And prophets like John the Baptist attribute error to the religious establishment.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90579852267799313802009-09-12T09:11:29.934-04:002009-09-12T09:11:29.934-04:00It's actually not really that good. On the sur...It's actually not really that good. On the surface maybe but given the fact that we're talking about a prophet wouldn't you have to show that the Reformers were prophets? <br /><br />The Church is built upon a rock with better promises.<br /><br />Blam!<br /><br />Even if your argument regarding corruption were a good one, the Reformers may have had a case but you don't; unless you want to bring up the sins of priests, in that case there would be nowhere to go.<br /><br />And on that score, there was a point that even for the Reformers, it stopped being about corruption and became more about doctrine, so that even they're not excused.Richard Froggatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931363750222373223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74985264178204537322009-09-12T08:38:27.030-04:002009-09-12T08:38:27.030-04:00Wow, Steve, this is tremendous.
TUAD -- thanks ag...Wow, Steve, this is tremendous.<br /><br />TUAD -- thanks again for your support over on the Jason Stellman blog. Steve has also helped me a great deal in that. I see that I personally have now become the issue.<br /><br />If you ever want to reach me, you can do so at johnbugay [at] gmail [dot] com.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3485617833877416972009-09-11T15:08:45.043-04:002009-09-11T15:08:45.043-04:00"John the Baptist and other schismatics"...<i>"John the Baptist and other schismatics".</i><br /><br />Blam!<br /><br /><i>"The point, rather, is to consider the function of that institution. It’s a means to an end, not an end in itself."</i><br /><br />Blam!<br /><br /><i>"I’d also add that the Catholic claim is predicated on apostolic succession. But since that’s not a prerequisite for church office in the NT, you don’t leave the institutional church by opting out of apostolic succession–for that is not how God instituted his church in the first place. Ministry is portable."</i><br /><br />Blam!<br /><br />Blam! Blam! Blam!<br /><br />Time to blow the smoke away from your six-shooter, Steve.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com