Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[hope]

What is sad is the ad hominem . The point I was making was that neither you nor I are Philip. Philip had authority to interpret scripture. The Eunuch understood that he needed someone to tell him what scripture means. He needed the Church just as we do today. Naming others who believe as you do is called appealing to the masses and is a is a fallacious argument

 

[Vonsalza]

You are no Philip, I guarantee it. Your argument is sad.

No it isn’t. It’s true.

Have you considered that since there was no NT scripture at all for the first generation of the Church, this means that Christ’s Church obviously didn’t need scripture?

I don’t have time tonight to cover your points, but my interpretation is not private. We share it with millions around the world. You and others keep saying it is some kind of private interpretation.

Well, no Specific protestant sect numbers over a few score million people. There’s over a billion Catholics. And God’s Church, which predates scripture, holds the role of authoritatively interpreting it.

Not up to you. Or me. Or Luther. Or Augustine.

Nonsense. I do not stand alone in my views. I stand with many contemporary theologians and a few from the past such as: St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards.

Wow.

Anyone that thinks these men would have been happy bed-fellows could do so only if they knew very, very little about them.

And on certain things people like: John Wesley Charles Finney, even Philip Melanchthon and Arminius. How about Francis Schaeffer, Philip Hughes, C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, Billy Graham.

Again, same sentiment. Disagreements raged, even over “the things generally agreed”; like how, exactly, one is “saved”, and what it means.

Some of them are post-reformist, but we share a few things with them too.

And a lot of things aren’t shared.

You need an authority to which you can appeal.

The Catholic Church is this authority. Not your own dynamic, shifting interpretations. Or mine.

 

[guanophore]

Not hardly. Isaiah 55 was a prophetic word 700 years before Christ. God’s usual way of speaking to his people was through his prophets. Not sure what that has to do with tradition.

Do you think that God has changed during that time? Is he no longer interested in watching over His word to perform it? God spoke through the prophets, yes, but it was the Sacred Oral tradition that preserved the Teachings. God spent millennia preparing a people for Himself, who learned how to preserve the Word of God orally. You never answered the question tgG. How did the Word of God get from Adam to Abraham? From Abraham to Moses, when it was first written? From Moses through the millennia to the time of Jesus?

Well maybe we are only disagreeing in mere semantics. But the Apostles and all writers of the N.T. we’re inspired to write God’s word down. They did.

Perhaps. We consider this an infallible act - they were preserved from error while they wrote the Scriptures.

Tradition may have played a part until the Gospel story was written and passed among them.

It is good you can see this. You will also notice that the Scriptures do not say anywhere that the Sacred Tradition should stop being followed and passed because some of the content was committed to writing.

I thank God that he inspired the writers to get the story down on parchment because of the weakness of men who twist the story. Aren’t you?

Yes, but the writing really makes little difference in that regard. People twist the writing just as much as the Sacred Tradition was twisted. As you have noted, the Pharisees twisted the Word of God and prevented people from entering the Kingdom.

But the real problem here is the tradition that came into sight centuries later that directly contradict the inspired scripture.

I am sure it seems that way to you, since you have been separated from the Sacred Tradition. There is nothing in Sacred Tradition that contradicts the Scriptures, since they came from the same Source.

This is the elephant in the room.

On the contrary, tgG, these concepts have been discussed and debated for centuries. There is nothing in Sacred Tradition that has not been brought out into the open and made visible for all to see and discuss.

You mean that what God said isn’t enough! He was found in lack?

Not at all. I mean that all that God said is not contained in Scripture. The Word of God was placed within the Church, and infallibly protected there by the Holy Spirit. The divine deposit of faith was whole and entire before a single word of it was ever written.

 

[guanophore]

Sure this is probably a huge problem in our day and age, but people back then lived with transferring traditions and teachings from the mouth of one to ears of another. They prided themselves on the ability to get every single detail correct.

1These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, 2so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the Lord your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life. Duet. 6

6These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

God trained the Jews in how to remember and pass His Word through paradosis. He infallibly protected His word against error. This is why Paul could say…

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the servant of Goda may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3

I think we will both agree @tgGodsway, that the Scriptures to which Paul was referring are not the NT. Catholics have received the Apostolic teaching that the Scriptures used by Paul were those contained in the Septuagint. Paul indicates that these scriptures contained the Gospel, sufficient to bring one to a faith in Christ. Jesus also attested to this, telling the Pharisees that the Scriptures pointed to Himself.

“What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” 2 Tim. Paul gave Timothy the Sacred Traditions. They were in the pattern of sound teaching, his actions, prayers, and very way of life.

 

[guanophore]

Whether Jesus establish the church or not his word is enough.

This is not consistent with what the Scriptures teach, tgGodsway. Are you suggesting that Jesus created something that is non-essential? We both agree that His Word is sufficient. What you are denying is that Jesus breathed upon the Apostles in the upper room, inspiring his fledgling Church. He promised to protect the Church from error. Your paradigm infers that He did not keep His promise.

God may use his church to proclaim his truth, unless we filter out that truth and replace it with things God never said.

God has said that the Church is the fullness of Christ. The failings of men are not stronger than the Spirit of Christ. The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against His Holy Word, preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

Some vessels are for Honor while others are for dishonor.

It seems like you are saying that the CC is a vessel fit for defacation, since there has been a replacement of the things of God with “things God never said”.

I’ve given several even recently. But it does not matter to you.

I would not go so far as to say “it does not matter”. What you have given is your opinion, to which of course you have a right, but it is only your perception of what the Scriptures say. We read it differently. Your “examples” are doctrines shared by East and West from the time of the Apostles until now. You have not explained by Jesus did not keep His promise for 1500 years.

Paul taught that everyone is a sinner except Christ. You teach that Mary too was sinless, and thus you plunge the CC into contradiction.

Mary herself said she needed a saviour. She was saved from sin before committing it.

@MT1926 has not 'plunged the CC into contradiction". On the contrary, it is the children of the reformers that have plunged themselves into contradiction by rejecting the teaching of the Apostles.

I have a list of things

Of course! Reformed Christians must maintain and pass this down through their own paradosis, to justify abandoning the Apostolic faith.

 

[guanophore]

I’ve listed them before but it all falls on deaf ears.

Don’t be so sure, tgGodsway. Just because we don’t agree with your conclusion does not mean we don’t listen. We have been hearing these objections since the Reformers rejected the Church founded by Christ. Responses to these objections have been made for centuries. Your refusal to accept them does not equate to our ears being “deaf”.

Well if you can produce a baby who sins then you’ve won me.

Adam and Eve were ejected from the Garden. Separation from communion with our Creator is a consequence of original sin. All those who do not believe are condemned already.

So I refuse to conclude where the scriptures do not conclude.

This is admirable. It is a principle to which Catholics also adhere, though with regard to the Church, who is custodian of both the Sacred Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition.

Well if babies were included in his thought then Paul would need to produce a sinning baby. I will study Jewish custom on this.

Sorry, tgG, Paul need not do this. Paul was clear that everyone was separated from God without grace. This is why he baptized infants!

So you admit that “all” does not mean “all”?

We agree on this point. Mary was not included, nor was John the Baptist, who was regenerated while still in the womb.

Paul may have been dealing with a specific issue in the Church at Rome, but his statements were universal when he said, "… For we have preciously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are ALL UNDER SIN. 3:9. Then he quotes from Psalms 14 when he said, “… there is NONE who does good, NO NOT ONE.” Ro. 3:12 These are all general in nature and apply to anyone and everyone.

You might want to consider the context of Psalm 14. Immediately following this passage the Psalmist refers to “the righteous”, who have a very different outcome. So clearly, the Psalmist did not consider that “all” meant “all” either.

Look,… Adam and Eve were NOT born sinners. But when they sinned, they became sinners and plunged the race into the potential to sin, so that man became unable to NOT sin.

We finally are in agreement! Where we may not agree is that this slavery to the man of the flesh separates us from the Kingdom of God. Even children are born with this consequence.

 

[guanophore]

We, today are not born sinners, but once we come to the understanding of right from wrong, and then choose to do wrong, we (then) become a sinner.

There are two types of “sin” involved here. One is the state of not being in a state of grace (ejected from the Garden). This is not a personal sin, but a condition of being separated from fellowship with God as a consequence of the sin of Adam and Eve.

Yes, we agree that our tendency to sin, the “old man” or what Catholics call concupiscence, leads us eventually to commit personal sin.

Mary, and the new Eve, was created as Eve was, without sin. John the Baptist, sanctified from the womb, was also born without original sin.

The pathway to becoming a sinner is by our tree of knowledge of what is right and wrong. Paul said that the natural man is “without excuse…” Ro. 1:20.

This is a very interesting Reformed spin. It is unknown to Christianity prior to Calvin. This is not how the Jews understood the Tree of Knowledge, and Jesus said that salvation is from the Jews.

Babies, on the other hand, and the mentally impaired who do not have this KNOWLEDGE or the capacity to have knowledge of good and evil, remain in a state of sinless-ness. Their ignorance or simple inability to understand right from wrong, keeps them from becoming GUILTY.

Yes, we agree that children and impaired persons (or any other persons) do not bear the 'guilt" of the sins of Adam and Eve. Just the consequences. Unfortunately, that consequence is that all will die in sin. We are all under the condemnation they earned, separated from the Garden.

Jesus said it this way: “I came into this world for judgment, in order that those who do not see will see, and those who do see, will become blind.” v40 Some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and asked Him, ‘We aren’t blind too, are we?’, v41 If you were blind, Jesus told them, 'you wouldn’t have sin. But now that you say, ‘we see’ your sin remains." John 9:39-41

The entrance of sin comes from the knowledge of sin, no

Personal sin, yes; But go back a few verses:

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” John 3:18

Faith is all that can save us, because we all stand “condemned already”. We fell under condemnation through Adam and Eve.

“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” I Cor 15:22

We don’t all die in Adam as a result of personal sin, but because we are born into the consequence of Adam’s sin, which is separation from God.

Personal sin does not cause “death through Adam”. Personal sin carries it’s own consequence of death.

 

[guanophore]

Babies do not have this capacity to understand the concepts of the salvation message found in the scriptures.

No, but this is not a requirement, any more than it was a requirement for them to be circumcised. The Apostles baptized infants to free them from “death in Adam”, not because of personal sin. The NT did not exist tat that time, so of course no one could be expected to be baptized on the basis of the NT.

my interpretation is not private. We share it with millions around the world. You and others keep saying it is some kind of private interpretation.

As you are fond of saying, the number of people who embrace an error does not make it any less an error. It is “private” because it is based on one person’s point of view, separated from the Church.

Nonsense. I do not stand alone in my views. I stand with many contemporary theologians

Indeed yes. There have been generations of Christians clinging to the private interpretation of John Calvin.

 

[MT1926]

What you are saying is so ridiculous that I almost do not want to respond.

Thank you for your kind words.

These are all general in nature and apply to anyone and everyone.

Anyone defined Any person or people
Everyone defined every person.

And how are babies not people?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying babies are included in this verse, I totally agree they are an exception. I’m just trying to get you to understand either All means All or St. Paul was just using the word All in general terms. He gives no specific exceptions in this verse. So if we both agree that babies are an exception then All obviously can’t mean everyone.

We, today are not born sinners, but once we come to the understanding of right from wrong, and then choose to do wrong, we (then) become a sinner.

It seems to me you are trying to say it is impossible for a person not to do wrong. It seems you are saying that a 7 year old with terminal cancer who spends his last year in the hospital. He is surrounded by loving parents who read the Bible to him everyday and tell him stories of how much Jesus loves him and will take care of him. Through that year he grows to love Jesus and matures to an age of reason. His mind being opened and enlightened to finally understand that Jesus is real he lets of this life and dies. It seems you are saying at some point in time there between the time of reaching the age of reason and death 2 hours later St. Paul is tell us that this child, who loves Jesus, had to have sinned.

Secondly, new birth, for an infant is impossible. Why? Because new birth comes by hearing and understanding and accepting the word of God.

So you are saying being born again is man centered based on our belief and understanding?

If your god will sentence a baby to the fires of hell, simply because he/she didn’t make it to the altar of baptism … a baby that knows nothing about right and wrong, a baby who does not even have the capacity to know right from wrong, … then you can keep that god. That god is not the god of the bible anyway.

You know tgG you have called me out on several occasions for spinning your words or stating something you did not say. Every time I linked the post where you either said it or what you said made it sound like that’s what you were saying.

So please point to the verse where I said babies go to the fires of hell.

You won’t find it because I freely admitted, as you do quite often, that the Bible is silent on this and therefor I do not know. All I do know is Jesus says we must be born again. Just because your church isn’t able to be born again before YOU do something, don’t go saying I claim all babies go to hell.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

God Bless

Great job MT1926!

 

[sainteriksrose]

Catholicism does not abide by Protestantism’s rules.

 

[tgGodsway]

The Apostles baptized infants to free them from “death in Adam”,

No they didn’t.

 

[tgGodsway]

Mary herself said she needed a saviour. She was saved from sin before committing it.

And this is based on what scripture?

 

[tgGodsway]

Indeed yes. There have been generations of Christians clinging to the private interpretation of John Calvin

It sound like you don’t like John Calvin.

 

[tgGodsway]

Faith is all that can save us, because we all stand “condemned already”.

do you mean faith alone?.. I’m shocked.

 

[tgGodsway]

he Eunuch understood that he needed someone to tell him what scripture means. He needed the Church just as we do today

Yes, and everything I have learned and taught, I did so from the Church. The Church taught me what I know today and I am still a student of the Church. And… I too am a living stone in the building of God universal.

 

[guanophore]

No they didn’t.

Why is it so important for you to deny this Apostolic tradition?

Why do you thing “households” that were mentioned in Scripture as baptized do not include infants"

Why do you think that baptism did not replace circumcision as the entrance rite into the Kingdom?

And this is based on what scripture?

My soul rejoices in my God.
My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;

my spirit rejoices in God my Savior**,
for he has looked upon his lowly servant.
From this day all generations will call me blessed. Lk. 1:46

It sound like you don’t like John Calvin.

I don’t know him to like him, or not. from what I have read of his works, he spawned a lot of heresy.

It really is not personal. He is a man of his times, and believed he needed to replace the Catholic Church with some authority that was more pure.

do you mean faith alone?.. I’m shocked.

No, faith is never alone. Faith is always accompanied by Hope and Love . But you failed to respond to the point, which is that Jesus stated all who did not come to Him in faith were “condemned already”. People enter into this world condemned by the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve. We have been ejected from the Garden and fellowship with Him. In order to be brought back into right relationship with God, we need to be moved from death into life. Infants also need this transformation.

 

[hope]

You are aware, I know, that we have different view of what Church is. The Church in my view is everyone who has been baptized belongs to Christ Church which authority Jesus gave to His priesthood led by the Pope. Jesus established that there would be someone who would act in His place, binding and loosing. Yes you are an imperfect part of His Church. Jesus knew there would have to be a final authority on what is taught otherwise you would have chaos of what to believe everyone than would be their own pope.

 

[tgGodsway]

I don’t know him to like him, or not. from what I have read of his works, he spawned a lot of heresy.

It really is not personal. He is a man of his times, and believed he needed to replace the Catholic Church with some authority that was more pure.

I don’t think Calvin replaced the Catholic Church with a higher authority. I think he simply included non-Catholic traditions to the mix. All spiritual authority comes from Christ and his word and is distributed to all parts of His body not just one part.

 

[tgGodsway]

hateful things to say about the Papacy and Catholic doctrine

Well I can agree with your statement here. But there is nothing wrong with hating error. We are to love people but hate the error of their ways.