Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Look, I'm not railing against tradition. I'm railing against traditions that wither are not rooted in an exegetical systsmatic reading of the text. So yes the epistle writers spoke of "tradition" that they passed along, which is great. We have several pastoral epistles talking about those teachings and traditions. My problem is with traditions that are here today that are never mentioned in the Bible.




posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Dear NOTurTypical,

I will not be surprised if you get to the point where you lose patience with me completely, but i am grateful for the time you're giving me and other readers of this thread. Again, I have confusion I'd like you to straighten out. Your comments seem to fall in two halves:

Look, I'm not railing against tradition. . . . So yes the epistle writers spoke of "tradition" that they passed along, which is great. We have several pastoral epistles talking about those teachings and traditions.
This sounds "Pro-Tradition" to me. And this:

I'm railing against traditions that wither are not rooted in an exegetical systsmatic reading of the text. . . .
My problem is with traditions that are here today that are never mentioned in the Bible.
And this sounds "Anti-Tradition."

Are you saying that the only acceptable "traditions" are those that are written in the Bible? If so, it seems to me that you are saying there are no traditions, since "Tradition" is, by definition, things not written in the Bible.

Perhaps it's a definition problem. When you say tradition, do you mean anything that has been going on for a long time, like a family tradition? And are you looking at only the things spelled out in the Bible as the basis for legitimate traditions?

For me, and the Catholic Church, "Tradition" means the Word of God passed by mouth or the Holy Spirit through the Apostles. Here's something, rather flowery, from the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum (The Word of God) issued in 1965:

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end.

For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.

Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.
I don't understand the idea that only the things written in the Bible are our guides. Where does the Bible make that claim? (And in three verses.)

But again, thank you for clearing up the confusions I might have.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Snsoc
 





I'm still pretty new at the whole history of "absorption," but I have to ask, if Mary was elevated to draw in the Goddess worshipers, why didn't the Church devalue her when Goddess worship virtually disappeared? There's been a huge cultural shift to "male" gods in every culture in the world, and yet Mary has just as much status as she ever did. She ought to be quietly retired, since she's not needed anymore, and yet she remains.


Just a guess, but by that point the beliefs and traditions were ingrained enough that they had made her their own so to speak and it was no longer about drawing converts in but just about doing their own thing like it is today, wherever the origins.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Why do you have the impression I don't enjoy or am tiring of discussing these matters with you? I'm not, if I led you to believe that I apologize.

To your question. Yes, I am pro-tradition as they are spelled out in scripture, I am anti-tradition of the ones in both Catholic as well as Protestant churches that are not. The basis would go back my earlier assertion that scripture is the authority. (If you haven't guessed I'm a fundamentalist)

An example of this approach is me being in favor of the believer's baptism and rejection of baptizing unbelievers. The biblical "tradition", is first a professed belief in the Lord Jesus Christ in every instance of a person being baptized into Christ. Parents can most certainly dedicate their children to the Lord, but that isn't baptism.
edit on 9-4-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Dear NOTurTypical,

I should have paid more attention to your name. The "Typical" ATS poster might very well have been tired of this by now.

You've presented your belief quite well, and I think I understand it. Where I'm still having trouble is finding the authority for it. I'm having a hard time finding the verses for that position, but I've seen several that seem to support the idea of an unwritten word of God passed down to us.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You must then realize I'm having trouble finding biblical support for baptizing unbelievers. In every recorded instance in the Bible the person first recognizes their sin, their need for redemption, and the identification with Jesus as their onl means of actualizing that redemption with God.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville
 


Thank you for providing this, in the format you chose to do so.

Very interesting reading, and enlightening, indeed.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

You must then realize I'm having trouble finding biblical support for baptizing unbelievers.



Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


NuT, I think the link I've provided in my last post regarding infant baptism should answer your question.

And it did: Here's the post that gives you the answer, NuT. www.abovetopsecret.com...

It says that entire households were baptized in the very beginning, including children most likely. In the generation of Jesus, there weren't "cradle believers" yet. And Jesus wanted them included in the teachings. "Suffer the little children to come to me."
edit on 9-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


At the Centurion Cornelius's household they all became believers because of Peter's preaching the gospel to them. That still fits with the biblical model of a believer's baptism.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

I guess you didn't read the link.
Here's a section of it:

Were Only Adults Baptized?

Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Now here's the most important part:


Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.


Get it now?



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

And here's another bit:

Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?

Here's the answer from the Catholic point of view.. If you read it, you'll see that It's also the view of the majority of non-Fundamentalist Protestant Christians.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I think one important aspect of how fundamentalists interpret scripture includes adhering to the order of how the passage is laid out as well as it's content. For example, Mark 16:16 says that he that believes (first) and is baptized (second) shall be saved. Also, Acts 2:38- repent (first) and be baptized (second). I think this is where we get our belief of not baptizing infants.

Another example of the order not having to do with baptism is when Jesus spoke to the adulteress. He said- neither do I condemn you (first), go and sin no more(second). This is where we get that we are no longer under condemnation from the law but under grace and the knowledge of this empowers us to try to sin no more.

Again, this is a doctrinal difference that has mountains of interpreted support on each side. The OP set out to discuss the fact that Catholics are indeed Christians- a fact that I think has been established.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Very welcome wildtimes! I'm glad I was able to present something that was informative.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Dear NOTurTypical,

Sometimes I write in such an indirect way that it is confusing and wastes the reader's time. I'll try to avoid that here.

Please identify at least three verses which support the doctrine that only what is written in the Bible is true, valid, and God's word. In other words, please support sola scriptura with at least three Bible verses.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles,

There are no scripture verses that directly say that we can only use scripture. Just as there are no verses that specifically say infants were baptized or that they absolutely did not baptize infants, or that it is permissible to pray to Mary or that the scripture reference concerning Mary is, in fact even a prayer.

If it were that black and white on either side of the issues, there would be limited debate. That being said, I can provide three verses that hint to using scripture as the primary basis of doctrine. Disclosure: I have no problem with traditions that clearly line up with scripture. I personally believe that if the tradition is too murky, it is better to avoid it than to participate in it. That's just me.

So, three verses: (paraphrased)

2 Peter 1:20- no prophecy of the scripture is of private interpretation

2Timothy 3:16- all scripture is given by inspiration by God and is good for doctrine...etc.

1 Corinthians 4:6- do not think of men above that which is written...

Let me know what you think.
edit on 9-4-2013 by micmerci because: spelling



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 

Dear micmerci,

Many thanks to you and wildtimes and the others who have made this thread so important and enjoyable. I know that I'm really learning and I can't say enough for the kindness of my teachers here.


There are no scripture verses that directly say that we can only use scripture. Just as there are no verses that specifically say infants were baptized or that they absolutely did not baptize infants, or that it is permissible to pray to Mary or that the scripture reference concerning Mary is, in fact even a prayer.
This is very important, to my way of thinking. Some Protestants (Thanks, NOTurTypical, for telling me it's not "all.") believe that something must be shown in the Bible to be true. If you are right, and I suspect you are, that there are no verses supporting that idea, then the people who believe in it are getting their authority from some place other than the Bible. (Does that make sense?)

The idea of the other Protestants and Catholics seems to be established; there is some authority outside the Bible that has the same authority as the Bible. That authority might be called "Tradition," or individual revelation, or thoughtful study, or I don't know what else, but it must be there. (Unless my thinking is fouled up.)

Thanks for the verses. A few thoughts?

I agree completely on the issue of private interpretation, at least as it affects anyone else. I'm taking the extreme case of someone who says "That Valley of the Shadow of Death verse has always meant something special to me since I found my favorite cow in the valley over by the Baker place." That kind of private interpretation doesn't bother me. But I agree. A verse can't be interpreted with authority by a private individual. Doesn't that mean that it's proper interpretation has to come from outside an individual? Probably a group?

The verse "All Scripture is given by God . . . ?" I agree completely again. It seems that there is an odd group of people who believe it is just made-up, some kind of fiction, but I'm not among them. If it's in the Bible, it was given by God. My thought is that there may very well have been another way God gave his Word. He can't contradict Himself so this "other way" would have to complement, add on to, or help explain, the written Word. The "other way" may have been (and I believe it to have been) "Tradition."

The third verse is especially interesting, the "Do not think of men . . ." one. It didn't ring any bells (shame on me) so I looked it up: (Chapter 4, Verses 1-7)

This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.

6 Now, brothers and sisters, 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 be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. 7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not? (Emphasis added)

Subject to correction, I believe that they could not possibly have been talking about the Bible here, there wasn't any. Everything the early Christians had, they had from word of mouth, or "Tradition."


I personally believe that if the tradition is too murky, it is better to avoid it than to participate in it. That's just me.
I agree, again. If there is no clear evidence or teaching on the subject it becomes optional, and possibly dangerous.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I can live with all that you have responded with in your post. I think we are on the same page in our priorities;
scripture first, tradition next, and any non-scriptural tradition- abstain from. Am I correct in my assumptions?

Also, I believe the writings that were available during Paul's letter to the Corinthians would have been Old Testament manuscripts.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 

Dear micmerci,

That's one of the things I most enjoy here, having conversations and finding areas of understanding instead of having brawls and shouting matches, leaving everyone with anger and hatred. Thank you so much for sticking with this.


Also, I believe the writings that were available during Paul's letter to the Corinthians would have been Old Testament manuscripts.
Absolutely agree, although they wouldn't have been of much use to the Gentiles.


I can live with all that you have responded with in your post. I think we are on the same page in our priorities; scripture first, tradition next, and any non-scriptural tradition- abstain from. Am I correct in my assumptions?
Sometimes I wish for telepathy so everyone can understand completely, but we're stuck with words. If we're talking about priorities in the sense of "Where do we go first?" I agree that Scripture is the first place to look, then check in with Tradition. Finally, if it's in neither place, it should be a matter of private practice as long as it's helpful to that individual's spiritual life, but not something demanded by the Church. An example? Giving up chocolate as a way to humble and control the body's passions.

If we're talking about which has more authority, though, I see it differently, again subject to correction. I think both Scripture and "Tradition" are the Word of God. They don't contradict each other and share the same value and honor. At the risk of sounding heretical, maybe, in a way, they could be considered two different "New Testaments." My thinking isn't very clear on that point, so be gentle with me.

(If you want to start another fight (Ooops, I mean "discussion,") we can bring in the "Magisterium." But I know that NOTurTypical isn't there yet.)

If you don't mind my repetition, you, wildtimes, and NOTurTypical, as well as the OP, have been immensely helpful to me and I'm grateful.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I never said baptism needs to be restricted to "adults". I said the Biblical model of baptism is restricted to "BELIEVERS". whether they be children, teens, adults, or the elderly is inconsequential. So the part you excerpted doesn't even address my point. I'm NOT arguing that only adults be baptized, I'm arguing that only BELIEVERS should be baptized. Infants cannot believe the gospel.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Dear NOTurTypical,

Sometimes I write in such an indirect way that it is confusing and wastes the reader's time. I'll try to avoid that here.

Please identify at least three verses which support the doctrine that only what is written in the Bible is true, valid, and God's word. In other words, please support sola scriptura with at least three Bible verses.

With respect,
Charles1952


Well, the question itself that you ask is a tad amiss. "Sola Scriptura" is not a doctrine of theology, it's a Latin phrase simply meaning "scripture alone", or based upon scripture. And better than just offering three verses I have a link to a site that does a good job laying out the systematic foundation for the belief itself.

bible.ca.



top topics
 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join