The Goddess Man Has Made

[epostle1]

You still don't seem to understand sola scriptura. As I mentioned before in other threads, sola scriptura does not reject all tradition. Sola scriptura rejects any tradition that contradicts and/or supersedes scripture. Here is a quote from a Reformed confession that is representative of the Reformed position on this point.

"The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." — Westminster Confession Of Faith, The Holy Scripture, Para. 10

That's fine and dandy but there is a problem. Everybody becomes their own pope, except the Pope. :blink:

In the final analysis the Protestant individual (no matter how educated, nuanced, sophisticated) is left on his own to determine doctrinal, ecclesiological, liturgical, even moral orthodoxy. He is the final arbiter - by definition. He may be familiar with Church history and proper hermeneutics, and may have read the complete sermons and commentaries of Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, and James White, but he still is not ultimately subject to any authority higher than himself. He will (no doubt) say, "the Bible is my authority!" But it must immediately be understood that this, in turn, reduces to his interpretation of the Bible. He can disagree with any expositor if he so chooses. He is truly the master of his own destiny. This is Renasissance nominalism and atomistic humanism come to fruition, and Western Civilization has been increasingly reaping the tragic consequences ever since.
source

Tradition is permissible so long as it is weighed by Scripture and is not found to contradict it. Scripture is the only infallible authority and final court of appeal in all matters of faith and practice. None of your quotes violate sola scriptura. However, much of your Catholic teaching does. The traditions that grew into doctrines such as Mary as co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix are good examples. These blatantly contradict the clear teaching Scripture.

Interesting...tell us why Calvinists cherry pick John Calvin's teaching on infant baptism. (a Catholic Tradition that pre-dates the canon of the bible) And if they don't, how does "the Holy Spirit speaking through the scriptures" apply to 4/5 of sola scripturists who disagree with the Westminster Confession?

oh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...

Not only is Mary not mentioned in these texts, they plainly say that with regard to salvation there is one way, one name and one mediator. Period. This is the kind of tradition that sola scriptura rejects. Plain and simple.

Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man because He is both God and man. That is a Catholic doctrine you borrowed from us. These verses do not apply to Mary because she is human; there is no Catholic doctrine that makes Mary the SOLE mediator. There is no Catholic doctrine that makes Mary both God and woman. It's a straw man argument not to mention totally insane. :wacko: Any Christian is a mediator when they pray for someone. It's not rocket science and its not systematic theology.

I'm beginning to think you take pleasure is being constantly refuted. You are seeking God's approval and you are going about it the wrong way.

Six converts to the Catholic Faith who are former Evangelical Protestants discuss about verses in the bible that they overlooked or "didn't see" and how they understand them now from a Catholic point of view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDR8RLtWnBQ

 

[Nomad]

That's fine and dandy but there is a problem. Everybody becomes their own pope, except the Pope. :blink:

Roman Catholics are subject their own charge in this regard. Show me where Rome has infallibly defined the meaning of the entire Bible. I'll help you out. Such an infallible interpretation does not exist. Rome leaves you floundering on much. Also, according to one of your own renowned theologians, you have to contend with "theological opinions" and "theological grades of certainty." According to these there are "free views," "free opinions," "pious opinions" and beliefs "tolerated by the church." This is comforting, no?

§ 7. Theological Opinions
Theological opinions are free views on aspects of doctrines concerning Faith and morals, which are neither clearly attested in Revelation nor decided by the Teaching Authority of the Church. Their value depends upon the reasons adduced in their favour (association with the doctrine of Revelation, the attitude of the Church, etc.).
A point of doctrine ceases to be an object of free judgment when the Teaching Authority of the Church takes an attitude which is clearly in favour of one opinion. Pope Pius XII explains in the Encyclical "Humani generis" (1950): "When the Popes in their Acts intentionally pronounce a judgment on a long disputed point then it is clear to all that this, according to the intention and will of these Popes, can no longer be open to the free discussion of theologians" (D 3013).

§ 8. The Theological Grades of Certainty
1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."
2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opimo tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.
With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum." that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Introduction

esus is the sole mediator between God and man because He is both God and man. That is a Catholic doctrine you borrowed from us.

Wrong. That truth comes directly from scripture.

 

[epostle1]

Roman Catholics are subject their own charge in this regard. Show me where Rome has infallibly defined the meaning of the entire Bible. I'll help you out. Such an infallible interpretation does not exist. Rome leaves you floundering on much. Also, according to one of your own renowned theologians, you have to contend with "theological opinions" and "theological grades of certainty." According to these there are "free views," "free opinions," "pious opinions" and beliefs "tolerated by the church." This is comforting, no?

§ 7. Theological Opinions
Theological opinions are free views on aspects of doctrines concerning Faith and morals, which are neither clearly attested in Revelation nor decided by the Teaching Authority of the Church. Their value depends upon the reasons adduced in their favour (association with the doctrine of Revelation, the attitude of the Church, etc.).
A point of doctrine ceases to be an object of free judgment when the Teaching Authority of the Church takes an attitude which is clearly in favour of one opinion. Pope Pius XII explains in the Encyclical "Humani generis" (1950): "When the Popes in their Acts intentionally pronounce a judgment on a long disputed point then it is clear to all that this, according to the intention and will of these Popes, can no longer be open to the free discussion of theologians" (D 3013).

§ 8. The Theological Grades of Certainty
1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."
2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opimo tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.
With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum." that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Introduction




Wrong. That truth comes directly from scripture.

This is the fundamental difference between us, Nomad. My Bible is the fruit of the Church, your church is the fruit of the bible. You cannot discuss or debate reasonably. As I said in the Bereans thread, good bye.

Pentacostal / Evangelical Pastor Converts to Catholicism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ti2os3AaXc

 

[Nomad]

Pentacostal / Evangelical Pastor Converts to Catholicism

Do you really think that trotting out Tiber swimming converts somehow validates Rome? There are plenty swimming the other way. I've know many former Catholics over my lifetime. It proves nothing.

 

[epostle1]

Oops. My last post was off topic. Shame on me. What is needed here is a multi-denominational perspective, in keeping with with the spirit of the non-denominal denomination where respectful dialogue is tantamount. Six Protestant pastors all from different denominations discuss their developmental perspective on Luke 1:48.

 

[Axehead]

I don't know where all these "Doctors" of the Church came from but there is no mention of them in the Scriptures. I think when people don't agree with Scripture they turn to a Doctor to support their theology. These so-called "Doctors" of the Church are trotted out by people as on the same level as the writers of the New Testament and yet many things they say conflict with the NT (but support their theology)

As far as I am concerned the "Doctors" of the Church are the 12 Apostles and any other writer (Luke for instance) of the NT that were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But they would have turned down the title of "Doctor".

Jude_1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

There are NO new scriptures in addition to the NT.

2Ti_3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The Scriptures are enough to make one wise unto Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Axehead

 

[neophyte]

Axehead, you wrote: "The Scriptures are enough to make one wise unto Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ "

I believe, as did the first Christians, that Scripture along with His One Teaching' Apostolic' Church are necessary for the rule of salvation,this method for gaining salvation was implemented by Jesus Himself Luke 10:16 to His apostles [ Apostolic, Universal/ Catholic Church ] [ John 20:21 ] [ Matt. 28: 18-20 ]

" And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them " [ Ezechiel 34: 23 ] " Jesus said to Simon Peter, Feed my sheep ... feed my lambs .... feed my sheep . " [ John 21: 15-17 ]
The Church that Jesus founded was and still is and always will be ' apostolic ' because ,Jesus, Himself appointed the apostles to be the ' first leaders' of His Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the 1st century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians Scripture and oral Tradition [ 2 Tim. 2:2 .]
As according to the Holy Bible only Peter was given the 'keys of the kingdom ' [ Matt. 16: 19 ] and promised that Peter's, and future successors ,decisions on matters of Faith, would be binding in heaven
.Similar power was later given to the other apostles but it was only Peter who was given the 'keys' , symbols of his authority to rule the Church on earth in Jesus' absence.
In case I missed it while reading the Bible , would you please show me from the Holy Bible where Jesus gave His Authority to invent other future churches different from that of Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, [ showing that His Church is "One,"meaning Apostolic ]
The Churc h is Holy [ Eph. 25-27 ] [ Rev. 19; 7-8 ]
The Church is Catholic [ Matt. 28:19-20 ] [ Rev. 5: 9-10 ]
The Church is Apostolic [ Eph. 2: 19-20 ]
If, as you Protestants say,' that if it is not in the Bible then I do not believe it '[ sola Scriptura/ Bible Alone ] why then do you believe in your individual man-made church [ out of the thousands of conflicting churches ]

When Jesus said: " For where two or three are gathered together ..... in the mdst of them " must be read in the proper context of Matt.18: 15-20

 

[Foreigner]

Once again for Neophyte:

There are millions of born again, Spirit-filled, Jesus loving heaven-bound Christians the world over today who worship God and God alone, and are doing miracles and healings in His name that are not Catholic and have never taken the Catholic version of Communion.

You need to come to grips with that and realize that the "Catholic Church Way" is not the only way.

 

[Rex]

Axehead, you wrote: "The Scriptures are enough to make one wise unto Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ "

I believe, as did the first Christians, that Scripture along with His One Teaching' Apostolic' Church are necessary for the rule of salvation,this method for gaining salvation was implemented by Jesus Himself Luke 10:16 to His apostles [ Apostolic, Universal/ Catholic Church ] [ John 20:21 ] [ Matt. 28: 18-20 ]

I for one don't believe the Roman catholic church first establish was a church founded by Christ. Since when did God need to establish a church under the arm of a Roman Empire and enforce it with Roman law? Making the RCC the only legal form of religion? Doesn't sound like God work to me sounds like mans work from top to bottom.

The Roman church enjoyed this relationship for many centuries and I would venture to guess that Rome today would like nothing better than to reestablish its former role as the only legal church in the world "under penalty of course" You will never convince me the RCC was established under the direction of the HS or Jesus. My two cents

 

[neophyte]

I for one don't believe the Roman catholic church first establish was a church founded by Christ. Since when did God need to establish a church under the arm of a Roman Empire and enforce it with Roman law? Making the RCC the only legal form of religion? Doesn't sound like God work to me sounds like mans work from top to bottom.

The Roman church enjoyed this relationship for many centuries and I would venture to guess that Rome today would like nothing better than to reestablish its former role as the only legal church in the world "under penalty of course" You will never convince me the RCC was established under the direction of the HS or Jesus. My two cents

Rex, thank you for your answer. You wrote this : "I would venture to guess that Rome today would like nothing better than to reestablish its former role as the only legal church in the world "under penalty of course" You will never convince me the RCC was established under the direction of the HS or Jesus. My two cents"

Rome! not Rome but Jesus Himself would appreciate if we' 'all " would be as members of His One Universal/ Catholic and Apostolic Church { Eph. 2: 19-20 ] Tell me Rex, how does your religious affiliation compare to traceing back to Jesus and His apostles? How about showing me from Scripture where your Protestant minister was biblical ordained ? Also explain what did Jesus do to continue His sanctifying work on earth once He returned to sit in heaven on the right side of the Father ? Hint- To make sure that this work of His continued until He returns He established the Priesthood , through the Sacrament of Holy Orders -read- { 2 Cor. 5: 20 ] [ Heb.5:1 ] Heb. 2:17 ] Did Jesus give His apostles to ordain future priests? He sure did , for example, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus and Matthias and they inturn oalso ordain other future priests [ see Acts 13:3, 14: 22, Acts 1: 24-26 ] and Titus 1:5 . other verses to verify the Sacrament of Holy Orders which include a few men who must be ordained the Bible way include these verses [ Acts 13: 3 ] [ Luke 10: 16 ] [ Titus 1: 5 ] [ 1 Tim. 5:22 ] [ 1 Cor. 7: 32-34 ] 1 Cor. 4: 14-15 ] [ Matt. 16: 15-19 ] [ Eph. 4:3-6 ] [ Ezechiel 34:23 ] [ John 10: 16 ] [ Matt. 28: 20 ] [ John 20: 21 ] [ John 17; 20-21 ] [ John 21: 15-17 ] those preceding verses that I;ve compiled all explain His One True Apostolic / Universal, Catholic Church along with pope, priests , Now from the Bible explain your 16th to 21st century myriad of Protestant conflicting man-made churches? Take your time while researching your Bible but "search the Scriptures' and see where your modern, latter days church or one of it's cults agree with Holy Scripture.

 

[Nomad]

Axehead, you wrote: "The Scriptures are enough to make one wise unto Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ "

I believe, as did the first Christians, that Scripture along with His One Teaching' Apostolic' Church are necessary for the rule of salvation,this method for gaining salvation was implemented by Jesus Himself Luke 10:16 to His apostles [ Apostolic, Universal/ Catholic Church ] [ John 20:21 ] [ Matt. 28: 18-20 ]

First, your assertion assumes apostolic succession, which Protestants reject. The apostles were a special breed just like Moses and the prophets for example. No where in the pages of the NT are we told that the apostles passed on their power and authority to anyone. They were commissioned to establish the infant church. We have absolutely no examples of anyone wielding the same power and authority after they were gone.

Second, the idea that Jesus prescribed Scripture + Teaching Magisterium is completely anachronistic. Such an idea is also refuted by 2 Tim. 3:15:

2Ti 3:15 ...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[neophyte]

First, your assertion assumes apostolic succession, which Protestants reject. The apostles were a special breed just like Moses and the prophets for example. No where in the pages of the NT are we told that the apostles passed on their power and authority to anyone. They were commissioned to establish the infant church. We have absolutely no examples of anyone wielding the same power and authority after they were gone.

Second, the idea that Jesus prescribed Scripture + Teaching Magisterium is completely anachronistic. Such an idea is also refuted by 2 Tim. 3:15:

2Ti 3:15 ...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Nomad, the following refutes your Protestant understanding of 2 Tim..3:15--

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

Also the apostles certainly did pass on their teachings from Jesus with authority and the power that goes with it-in these verses we can see where the apostles carried out the command from Jesus to ordain other qualified men. The following easily refutes your writings of where the apostles never passed on the power and authority , first Jesus commanded His apostles this message of Luke 10:16 and John 20:21 along with Matt. 28:18-20. Do you believe that Jesus only came for the first century Christians alone and not for all future Christians?

 

[Rex]

Rex, thank you for your answer. You wrote this : "I would venture to guess that Rome today would like nothing better than to reestablish its former role as the only legal church in the world "under penalty of course" You will never convince me the RCC was established under the direction of the HS or Jesus. My two cents"

Rome! not Rome but Jesus Himself would appreciate if we' 'all " would be as members of His One Universal/ Catholic and Apostolic Church { Eph. 2: 19-20 ] Tell me Rex, how does your religious affiliation compare to traceing back to Jesus and His apostles? How about showing me from Scripture where your Protestant minister was biblical ordained ? Also explain what did Jesus do to continue His sanctifying work on earth once He returned to sit in heaven on the right side of the Father ? Hint- To make sure that this work of His continued until He returns He established the Priesthood , through the Sacrament of Holy Orders -read- { 2 Cor. 5: 20 ] [ Heb.5:1 ] Heb. 2:17 ] Did Jesus give His apostles to ordain future priests? He sure did , for example, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus and Matthias and they inturn oalso ordain other future priests [ see Acts 13:3, 14: 22, Acts 1: 24-26 ] and Titus 1:5 . other verses to verify the Sacrament of Holy Orders which include a few men who must be ordained the Bible way include these verses [ Acts 13: 3 ] [ Luke 10: 16 ] [ Titus 1: 5 ] [ 1 Tim. 5:22 ] [ 1 Cor. 7: 32-34 ] 1 Cor. 4: 14-15 ] [ Matt. 16: 15-19 ] [ Eph. 4:3-6 ] [ Ezechiel 34:23 ] [ John 10: 16 ] [ Matt. 28: 20 ] [ John 20: 21 ] [ John 17; 20-21 ] [ John 21: 15-17 ] those preceding verses that I;ve compiled all explain His One True Apostolic / Universal, Catholic Church along with pope, priests , Now from the Bible explain your 16th to 21st century myriad of Protestant conflicting man-made churches? Take your time while researching your Bible but "search the Scriptures' and see where your modern, latter days church or one of it's cults agree with Holy Scripture.

I already replied in my first paragraph I don't believe the RCC was ever founded under the power of Christ / Holy Spirit
I understand it gets your robes in a bunch and conversing with catholics on docrin is as Nomand says, an exercise in chasing the forever moving goal post, or simply flat out denial. I've expressed my opinion and you have your succession of god men, end of conversation.

 

[Nomad]

Nomad, the following refutes your Protestant understanding of 2 Tim..3:15--

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

Way to miss the point. Do you even recall which of your assertions I was refuting? I'll remind you. You claimed that Jesus prescribed Scripture + Teaching Magisterium as the means of salvation. I pointed out that Paul says unambiguously that the Scriptures are adequate to lead one to salvation. Read very very carefully. Do you see anything here that even suggests the additional need of a "teaching magisterium?"

2Ti 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Does Paul mention oral teaching in verse 14? He sure does. Protestants do not reject oral teaching. No one grows in the Christian faith without it. But that is irrelevant to the specific point that I was addressing. Oh, and yes... Paul is referring to the OT Scriptures. That just solidifies Paul's assertion that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, (Rom. 3:2).

 

[neophyte]

Not by Scripture Alone
they were primarily Jews converting to Christianity through Paul’s use of Sacred Tradition. Here’s the verse ... and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those ... they examine? Before the New Testament The Bereans, we’re told, were mainly Jews (and some

Way to miss the point. Do you even recall which of your assertions I was refuting? I'll remind you. You claimed that Jesus prescribed Scripture + Teaching Magisterium as the means of salvation. I pointed out that Paul says unambiguously that the Scriptures are adequate to lead one to salvation. Read very very carefully. Do you see anything here that even suggests the additional need of a "teaching magisterium?"

2Ti 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Does Paul mention oral teaching in verse 14? He sure does. Protestants do not reject oral teaching. No one grows in the Christian faith without it. But that is irrelevant to the specific point that I was addressing. Oh, and yes... Paul is referring to the OT Scriptures. That just solidifies Paul's assertion that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, (Rom. 3:2).

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament

 

[Axehead]

When a religious institution gives up the Bible as its only rule of faith and practice, it is only a short step away from doctrinal evolution on a broad front. That religion soon becomes its own teacher, its own source of theology and grants itself forensic immunity from error. It begins to teach "truths" that it holds to be "true" simply because it says "it is true"! Of such the Apostle Paul said:

"...but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise." (II Cor 10:12).

Jesus and His apostles foretold of a coming departure from God's word, resulting in an apostasy from Biblical faith. The New Testament scripture not only reveals the coming of that event, but gives some of the identifying characteristics of it. "Wolves in sheep's clothing" may seem gentle and harmless; but Jesus' one word of warning is "BEWARE"! (Matt_7:15).

Basically the apostasy would begin with deviations introduced by the leaders of the church who "speaking perverse things" (Acts_20:29-31). "False teachers" would privately "bring in destructive heresies" (II Peter 2:1). The "falling away" (the "apostasis" in Greek) from Apostolic revelations, that give rise to "the man of sin" who will lead the departure from Divine standards of truth (II Thess 2:1-12). "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" (I Tim 4:1).

It is my firm conviction that Catholicism is its varied forms (Roman, Orthodox, Episcopal, etc.) is historically the end product of the above mentioned apostasy. It is then no surprise that the very first topic in discussing Christianity with Catholics is their rejection of the New Testament as the only source of "revealed truth". They have gathered the most prominent aspects of their total theological package from another source of information: tradition. The reason is quite obvious, because the New Testament knows NOTHING of the papacy, of infant baptism, of auricular confession, of a special priestly caste, of eucharistic sacrifices, of transubstantiation, of limbo, of purgatory, of indulgences, of the communion of the saints or of the Marian castle erected around the mother of Jesus.

In the field of New Testament doctrine, it is clear that every introduction of a new dogma represents the perversion of old Biblical truths. For example: their infant baptism perverts the New Testament practice of immersion of adults upon confession of faith in Christ. Their special priestly caste suppresses the universal priesthood of believers. Their doctrine of transubstantiation destroys the memorial nature of the Lord's Supper. And their elevation of Mary to positions above the angels, results in strong denigration of Christ and His unique role in the church.

Devotion to truth demands strong opposition to any and all perversion of it. Denunciation of errors can be done without being judgmental and negative. Genuine concern must be held for millions of souls that are blinded to truths that are hidden from them. Catholics have been taught to mistrust their own reading of the Scriptures. For they tacitly hold that God's revelation is a franchise of the priests. Catholics are very sincere in their beliefs, and like myself, they are the product of their education they did not choose as infants nor understand as adults. It is evident that very few Catholics outside the clergy have a workable knowledge of what they believe.

New Testament truth is not designed for interpretation but for proclamation and implementation. Interpretations of Bible texts generally result in the denial of the truths contained in the text. It is said" "Mathematics is not an opinion." Therefore 2 +2 = 4, and that is not an interpretation.

God's message must be accepted with the meaning intended by the inspired writer. Otherwise the end product will be an interpretation of the interpretation.

Catholic dogma demonstrates the conflict between Scripture and human tradition. For the person that is willing to be guided by New Testament truth it will be clear that God's "divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:" (II Pet 1:3)

Axehead

 

[Foreigner]

"they were primarily Jews converting to Christianity through Paul’s use of Sacred Tradition." - Neophyte

-- lol Neophyte, what was - specifically - the "Sacred Tradition" Paul used to convert Jews to Christianity?


This thread grows tiresome.

I have pointed out where people such as yourself have REPEATEDLY said that the ancient traditions Paul eluded to but never explained somehow support the beliefs held by Catholics that aren't supported by Scripture.

Yet, when pressed, they cannot provide ONE SINGLE SOLITARY EXAMPLE of the traditions Paul was speaking of, let alone how it dovetails in with their Catholic beliefs.


They continue to make claims such as Mary being a 'chief mediator' between God and man even though Paul himself said that was not the case:
"For there is one God, and there is ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," - 1 Tim. 2:5

In order for Mary to be fulfilling or 'co-fulfilling' the role that they say she fills, Scripture would have to be wrong. What Paul said would have to no longer be true.

I don't think that is that is the case for a God who says, "I am the same yesterday, today, and forever."




.

 

[epostle1]

Axhead tries to defend sola scriptura by ripping the Bible out of the Church, and by attacking the Teaching Church that Jesus established. Jesus did not establish a teaching book. The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice is not in the Bible.

 

[Axehead]

Axhead tries to defend sola scriptura by ripping the Bible out of the Church, and by attacking the Teaching Church that Jesus established. Jesus did not establish a teaching book. The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice is not in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't need defending, just needs to be proclaimed. It says what it means and means what it says. We know why you minimize the Scriptures. It is evident to everyone that the bulk of your dogma comes from human tradition.

If the Scriptures mean nothing to you, I would counsel you to seek the Lord for the Interpreter (Holy Spirit).

Jesus demonstrated great deference to what was written. What do you have to say about Him always using the written word of God?

Mat_4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Jer_25:13 And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations.

Jer_36:6 Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou hast written from my mouth, the words of the LORD in the ears of the people in the LORD'S house upon the fasting day: and also thou shalt read them in the ears of all Judah that come out of their cities.

Luk_4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Luk_4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

Luk_20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Heb_10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.



The Lord is real serious about adding or taking away from the New Testament...
Rev_22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev_22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

And the Old Testment...
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

In fact, the Holy Spirit reminds us in several places...
Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Job 13:7 Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him?

Oh, yes. Jesus did say one thing about tradition.
Mat_15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

 

[Raeneske]

The Catholic Catechism records that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin for her entire life.

510 Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38).

The position one takes on whether Mary remained a virgin or not her entire life depends on what one believes...either the traditions of men or the Word of God.

The Bible records that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children:
Let's look at the context in Matt 13. Notice that they are talking about Jesus.

Mat 13:53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
Mat 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?

Mat 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
(Mark 6:1 identifies that Jesus Christ is being talked about).

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

The previous verses unequivocally contradict Catholic doctrine and because they do contradict, here is the explanation from the Catholic Catechism.

500 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".

Another Mary? Do you not see how they twist scripture. The scriptures clearly refer to "Mary, the mother of Jesus".

This is how they put forth Mary as this pure and holy divine-like being who is somehow above having normal marital relations with a mere man. I'm sure one reason could be that it would make Mary appear more like priests and nuns. And it is important for the RCC that common people revere the office of priests and nuns.

So, the choice is always the same, accept the traditions of man and reject the Word of God, or believe God's Word as it is written.

Unfortunately, the Goddess that has been made by the RCC resembles pagan deities in the OT and it should trouble all Catholics that the Mary of the New Testament has more in common with a pagan deity than Jesus' earthly mother.

Here is the Vatican website where these Catechism entries were taken from.
http://www.vatican.v...sm/p122a3p2.htm

Axehead

I love this, just sayin.

Anywho, whoever is calling Mary our "heavenly mother" is going a bit far there. She's not heavenly. She's human. You have a Heavenly Father, and an Elder Brother. You are related to every single person in the human race. Mary is not you "heavenly mother", she is just related to you, in some way i'm sure many would be joyous to find out. Like finding out how we're related to Joseph, or Paul, or Daniel, or Nebuchadnezzer.

If Mary is a "heavenly mother" (she is not), then the carpenter must be your "heavenly step-father". See how that works? Or what about your "heavenly aunts and uncles".