Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[guanophore]

Please show me different from scripture and then you will have a point and I will listen. But you can’t.

You are right, I do not think there is anything I can show you from Scripture that will convince you. I think you must block your mind against this because it would require you to change your entire world view.

Yes, please show me the apostles teaching that says that tradition is sacred. You keep throwing this word around as if the concept is found in scripture.

Actually no, tgG, the Catholic faith is not extracted from Scripture, as are the traditions of the children of the Reformation. Our faith is “received” as the Scripture states.

Thess 2:15 "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, …"

If you cannot accept that the Word of God delivered by the Apostles to the Church is sacred, I think there is nothing I can do to help you. It would seem to me that the Word of God would be recognized as infallible, but perhaps you just cannot?

The sacred tradition is passed by the paradosis. It is received from the Church, and delivered through the Church. It is contained in the prayers, practices and liturgies of the Church.

Again Jesus teaching was suspicious of tradition as he pointed out the distinctions between it and scripture.

Yes, human traditions are not the Word of God, and therefore, should always be treated with caution.

It took the church centuries to decide that tradition was equal to inspired scripture. This was a blind man’s mistake.

I am not sure how you determine this, but the Didache was written about the same time as the Book of Revelation, and the other dogmas I have mentioned that were proclaimed at the early councils, including the canon of Scripture, did not just “appear” at the time they were pronounced. They were believed from the beginnng. The Traditions were sacred at the time Paul delivered them, and wrote about them., just as the Scripture was inspired at the time it was written.

 

[guanophore]

Any tradition Paul claimed through his word or letter was only expounded in letter.

This is a position that must be adopted by those who reject the Sacred Tradition. It is fundamental to Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura. It is an essential element of rejecting the authority of the CC, and the validity of the Apostolic Succession. It is a “new doctrine” that was developed at the Reformation to justify separation.

To say that the CC continues his Oral word through today is more than unconvincing,

This is a necessary position to reject the liturgy, sacraments, and prayers of the Church, where we find the Sacred Traditions contained and practiced. It is a human tradition, and one of those about which Christ gave us warning.

It is not found in Scripture, just as the table of contents is not found in Scripture. It is not a problem for those who have accepted the Apostolic faith that something is not specifically described in Scripture, but for those who extract their faith from the text, it is problematic when extrabiblical principles are added.

 

[steve-b]

Well, first off, not all of the Church wrote scripture.

So? Everyone who wrote scripture was in the Church

tgGodsway:

Some were privileged to do so.

At least you admit the Church you left, wrote scriptures.

tgGodsway:

Secondly, whether Matthew, for instance, knew his gospel was the word of God or not, made no difference. It was.

Says who? YOU tgGodsway?

Do you even know how many books there were that “claimed” to be authentic, or written by an apostle? Out of hundreds of works written, only 27 books were canonized. How did that happen?

tgGodsway:

All of the N.T. books written was the word of God even before collected into one volume.

Your founder and Father of Protestantism, the heretic Martin. Luther, disagreed. He was going to remove 4 NT books himself, and actually removed 7 books from the OT.

1 & 2 Maccabees
3. Tobit
4. Sirach
5. Wisdom
6. Baruch
7. Judith

Luther had to admit, when push came to sholve, in his own words, he got the scriptures from the Catholic Church

We concede–as we must–that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s wordand the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures,Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304)._

tgGodsway:

There is no such thing as sacred tradition. It was an invention that came many years later.

Buckle up buckaroo. Scripture is also tradition. It happens to be the written variety of tradition

read this 2 Thes 2:15 2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSVCE - So then, brethren, stand firm and hold - Bible Gateway

From the Greek study bible
ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε (stand firm, persevere) http://bibleapps.com/greek/4739.htm , καὶ κρατεῖτε (hold fast). http://bibleapps.com/greek/2902.htm τὰς παραδόσεις (traditions) http://bibleapps.com/greek/3862.htm ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε (taught). http://bibleapps.com/greek/1321.htm. εἴτε διὰ (whether by) λόγου (statement )εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς (letter / epistle) ἡμῶν. (from us)

open up the links

It is NOT by letter alone. and Not by word of mouth alone. Both oral AND letter are to be held firm to.

Protestantism is the invention

tgGodsway:

Any tradition Paul spoke of, was with the understanding that it never contradicted holy scripture.

Again, buckle up.

2 Corinthians 3:3
and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

 

[MT1926]

Any tradition Paul spoke of, was with the understanding that it never contradicted holy scripture. And his tradition was never called sacred, implying holy and consecrated. Jesus warned us about the weaknesses of tradition and compared it to holy scripture.

I just want to point out that you keep bringing up traditions contradicting scripture, but never point to a single tradition that is explicitly contradicted in scripture. Sure the tradition might contradict YOUR interpretation of scripture, but to claim a contradiction would mean scripture would have to explicitly say the opposite. That after all is the definition of a contradiction.

God Bless

PS Where does the Bible state everything we believe must be explicitly stated in scripture?

 

[guanophore]

I agree. theology and politics are the two war-zone topics. But that is to be expected.

I am glad you have the boldness to enter into the lion’s den!

 

[guanophore]

I miss the old forum format!

And your evidence to support such a bold claim would be what?

People are people. They dont stop being human because they are Catholic!

While it can be difficult and unavoidable at times, we should strive for what it says in 1 Pet 3:15 “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence, 16 and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”

Indeed!

I miss the old forum format!

As I do also myself!

since Satan is the father of lies, he will devote a LOT of his efforts to spreading lies about the one, true Church.

This is well said. The enemy desires to strike the shepherds, that the sheep be scattered.

 

[guanophore]

But The word Catholic, meaning universal, did not originate from the apostolic circle.

Well we read it differently, don’t we? The first use of this term was by Luke, in Acts 9:31.

Are you suggesting that Luke was not part of the “apostolic circle”? If not, what validity does his gospel and the book of Acts have?

And by the first century, “Kath Holos” was in common usage to describe the Church founded by Christ. Ignatius wrote about 107 AD.

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

Apologetics with St. Ignatius of Antioch | Catholic Answers

St. Ignatius of Antioch was a student of the apostle John. His writings are a valuable tool for demonstrating how the aerly Church was Catholic. Click here.

www.catholic.com

History supports the Apostolic succession tgG, and the “apostolic circle” believed that the Bishops were the successors of the Apostles. appointed by Christ, and they believe that valid sacraments were those in unity with those Bishops.

The best way to understand what the “apostolic circle” believed and practiced is to look at the writings of the Early Fathers such as Ignatius.

Yeah this was debated for two months on this site just 5 months ago. If I address it here it will re-launch it.

I was on leave of absence at the time. I would be happy to relaunch!

But Acts 9:31 or any other passage doesn’t make the Church local, from Rome, and yet universal.

On the contrary, this is EXACTLY what it means! The local churches are all one in doctrine and practice, locally, and universally.

No passage talks about one city Church ruling all the Churches of the world.

No. The NT shows the church as a small seed which will grow into a large tree. Rome did not need to hold the primacy until the death of the last Apostle. Rome held the presidency because of the doctrinal purity that existed in her as the result of the ministry of both St. Peter and St. Paul.

There is no concept or idea of this nature anywhere in inspired scripture. Therefore it wasn’t God’s idea.

I can see why you need to deny that this is present in scripture. If you were to admit/accept that it is there, you would have to change your entire world view.

 

[MT1926]

All of it is at the level of heresy in Luther’s view and mine.

I’m not sure why you keep pointing to Luther as the man in your corner?

I’m not sure if you realize it or not but if Luther were still alive and on this forum he would be the one here who would be calling you a heretic?

One of these “oral decrees” which you claim to be un-Bibilical is infant Baptism.

Let’s ask Luther what he said when the Anabaptists’ rejected infant Baptism in the 16th century. Which I’m sure he would be saying to you on this forum when you and I were discussing Baptism…

Luther agreed that this was the church custom and it was not expressly commanded in the Holy Scriptures, but he asserted that it was also not expressly contrary to scripture. He therefore asserted that the consensus of the entire church in a doctrine or a custom is binding in so far as it is not contrary to scripture.

Let’s see what Luther would have to say, to you, in regards to your debate, with @guanophore, on the Lord’s Supper being merely symbolic.

“The witness of the entire holy Christian church (even if we had nothing else) should be enough for us to maintain this doctrine and neither to listen to nor tolerate any sectarian objections. For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything contrary to the common witness, faith, and doctrine which the entire holy Christian church has maintained from the beginning until now— for more than 1500 years throughout all the world.” (Blessed Martin Luther, WA 30-III, 552)

So as you can see Martin Luther did believe in Sacred Tradition. The problem was that he also believed

[O]ur churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons. (CA Article XXI; Appendix 1)

he had the right to choose a cut off date and the authority to interpret scripture to claim which ones were really Sacred Tradition and which ones weren’t.

Calvin saw what Luther was doing and felt this gave him the right to pick and choose as well. As did Zwingli and every other reformer through the years until we get to you who, even though he follows the teachings of Luther, believes he was also given the authority to move the cut off date to porve there never was Sacred Tradition.

If this discussion were occurring 500 years ago it is the reformers who would be calling you out, not us.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

you who, even though he follows the teachings of Luther,

Great sources MT, but I don’t think tgG has ever read his Luther, and he does not follow the teachings of Luther, either. Luther believed in Apostolic succession and ordination as well.

 

[tgGodsway]

MT… we have the Apostle Paul, and that’s about it, who made a claim that he taught the Corinthians and the Thessalonians by word and tradition. But any oral word taught to these two groups was only that, oral. It is reasonably assumed that this oral word was at the level of inspired scripture. But to you point, we do not have today traditions traced down from Paul. This is a deception in my view. Secondly, Paul, out of the 12 Apostles was the only one who used these words in this way. Apparently the word tradition was not a strong was to communicate because once that Apostle dies off, the variations of what he said will begin to corrupt his words. This is why inspired scripture is the oral tradition on paper.

PS Where does the Bible state everything we believe must be explicitly stated in scripture?

I’m sure you know that the CC argues this point from silence. The bible clearly takes the front seat to be the one to impart truth. "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for correction,… " But Paul went further when he rebuked the Galatian Church and said, “If we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than what you have received, let him be curses.”… This is why we compare all other revelation with what we found in scripture. Adding any tradition is a source of truth is to add it from the bible’s silence on it. The bible does not condemn tradition outright but does warn of it’s weaknesses.

Any other so-called transcending revelation is subjective and under suspicion.

 

[MT1926]

But to you point, we do not have today traditions traced down from Paul.

Martin Luther disagrees with you.

This is a deception in my view.

A deception that your hero Martin Luther also believed in.

This is why inspired scripture is the oral tradition on paper.

Your un-Biblical opinion. If this were true the Bible would come right out and say so. As I stated earlier this is the definition of a contradiction. Last I check God didn’t change this definition to mean whatever tgG doesn’t accept.

I’m sure you know that the CC argues this point from silence.

Actually, the CC argues this point from history. As does your hero Martin Luther. You are unable to hear anything because you ignore history.

" But Paul went further when he rebuked the Galatian Church and said, “If we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than what you have received, let him be curses.”… This is why we compare all other revelation with what we found in scripture.

Once again you prove your ignorance of History. Galatians was the 3rd or 4th book of the Bible to be written. Somewhere around 55 AD St. Paul penned his first letter to the Church at Galatia. It would be another 8 years before the first book of the Gospel was even penned. St. Paul is talking about oral tradition here.

Are you honestly trying to say when St. Paul wrote these words. He knew that the gospels were going to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Over the course of the next 30 years? Seriously?

Do you honestly expect us to believe w10 years later when he told Timothy all scripture is inspired by God… Timothy knew which 26 books of the NT, that weren’t written yet, he was referencing? Seriously?

This is why we compare all other revelation with what we found in scripture

That’s not how the Galatians did it?

 

[tgGodsway]

Who is reading into this one, you or I?

Agreed, disobedient believers will suff

Well, you did it again, De_Maria,. You read Matthew’s narrative into Paul’s, as if they are talking about the same thing. They are not. But no worries De_Maria, it is a common mistake for a first year Seminary Student. If you let Matthew define Matthew’s terms, and let Paul define his, you will learn they are not talking about the same thing. You have a typical knee jerk on this subject. But God’s Mercy is greater than what you believe. I don’t blame you, you are a product of your own theological environment.

 

[tgGodsway]

Once again you prove your ignorance of History.

I don’t use history to interpret scripture, I use scripture to interpret history. Scripture is the transcending and sacred measure, not history and not so-called oral tradition.

 

[AnnetteJoan]

I’m sure it happens. But in my experience with former Catholics, many joined a protestant sect because that sect allowed them to remarry after a divorce.

 

[MT1926]

I don’t use history to interpret scripture, I use scripture to interpret history.

Are you serious here? How can you admit this and expect anyone to take you seriously? How can you interpret scripture without knowing the history and customs of the people scripture was written by and for?

In this very day and age people from the north have difficulty understand some things people from the south say because they are not knowledgeable in the history or customs of that region.

How on earth can you claim to understand a 2000 year old book, that was written in a different language?

Why would we believe you when you say…

The reformation was a return to 1st. Century basics.

How do you know you just said you ignore all historical evidence?

How about this claim…

You quote people in history but most of them are too far removed to bring any historical or spiritual accuracy to the table. The further out you go, the less people will know or understand what the Apostolic circle was all about. But of course, they are the experts.

How does someone who admits to not know historical facts even know who we are quoting, what they said and how far removed they are?

 

[guanophore]

But to you point, we do not have today traditions traced down from Paul.

You don’t have them because you have become separated from the Apostolic succession, but those Christians that have maintained the paradosis have them.

This is a deception in my view.

Of course you would have to consider the Sacred tradition a deception, otherwise you would have to sustain a radical change, like becoming Orthodox, or something!

Paul, out of the 12 Apostles was the only one who used these words in this way.

Most of the 12 did not write, so how can you know how they used the words? In fact, the Sacred Traditions have been preserved everywhere in the world they were received from the Apostles and their successors.

once that Apostle dies off, the variations of what he said will begin to corrupt his words.

What you are saying is that God has not watched over His word to protect it - he has failed in His promise to guide the Church into "all Truth’.

This is why inspired scripture is the oral tradition on paper.

Indeed all of Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition, but Scripture itself states that it does not contain all that Jesus taught. There is also nothing written that says the Sacred Tradition would “become corrupt” after some of it was written.

“If we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than what you have received, let him be curses.”…

Yes, this is the paradosis - the Gospel message that was handed down from the Apostles. The Bible makes no claim that it would become “corrupt” after some of it was written.

Adding any tradition is a source of truth is to add it from the bible’s silence on it.

This could certainly be the case with any human traditions, but since the Sacred Tradition preceeded the Bible, ,all of the New Testament has been added from it. The CC teaches that there is no new revelation after the death of the last Apostle.

I don’t use history to interpret scripture, I use scripture to interpret history. Scripture is the transcending and sacred measure, not history and not so-called oral tradition.

I hope you can learn to do both, since understanding history is a very important part of interpreting Scripture correctly. And history, tgG, begins when it was written, not at the Reformation.

 

[steve-b]

tgGodsway:

But The word Catholic, meaning universal, did not originate from the apostolic circle.

Well we read it differently, don’t we? The first use of this term was by Luke, in Acts 9:31.

Are you suggesting that Luke was not part of the “apostolic circle”? If not, what validity does his gospel and the book of Acts have?

And by the first century, “Kath Holos” was in common usage to describe the Church founded by Christ. Ignatius wrote about 107 AD.

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
Apologetics with St. Ignatius of Antioch | Catholic Answers | Catholic Answers

History supports the Apostolic succession tgG, and the “apostolic circle” believed that the Bishops were the successors of the Apostles. appointed by Christ, and they believe that valid sacraments were those in unity with those Bishops.

The best way to understand what the “apostolic circle” believed and practiced is to look at the writings of the Early Fathers such as Ignatius.

Yeah this was debated for two months on this site just 5 months ago. If I address it here it will re-launch it.

I was on leave of absence at the time. I would be happy to relaunch!

But Acts 9:31 or any other passage doesn’t make the Church local, from Rome, and yet universal.

On the contrary, this is EXACTLY what it means! The local churches are all one in doctrine and practice, locally, and universally.

No passage talks about one city Church ruling all the Churches of the world.

No. The NT shows the church as a small seed which will grow into a large tree. Rome did not need to hold the primacy until the death of the last Apostle. Rome held the presidency because of the doctrinal purity that existed in her as the result of the ministry of both St. Peter and St. Paul.

There is no concept or idea of this nature anywhere in inspired scripture. Therefore it wasn’t God’s idea.

I can see why you need to deny that this is present in scripture. If you were to admit/accept that it is there, you would have to change your entire world view.

Guanaphore

For clarification,
All those responses named “steve-b”, those were tgGodsway’s responses, his views, not mine…

 

[tgGodsway]

Martin Luther disagrees with you.

Then let Martin Luther produce just one specific oral decree coming from the Apostle Paul. Let any 1st. or 2nd. or 3rd. Century Christian produce just one oral decree coming directly from the Apostle Paul.

 

[steve-b]

MT1926:

Martin Luther disagrees with you.

Then let Martin Luther produce just one specific oral decree coming from the Apostle Paul. Let any 1st. or 2nd. or 3rd. Century Christian produce just one oral decree coming directly from the Apostle Paul.

tg,

You’re not even sure with no doubt whatsoever, it was Paul who wrote those letters attributed to Paul. And the only Church that is there is the Catholic Church. It was there before one word of NT scripture was written. Who do you think has the authority to say those 27 writings we called the NT are true?

 

[tgGodsway]

You’re not even sure

Yeah, that’s an old argument and I’ve never bought in. I believe that what we have today concerning not just Paul but all of the N.T. writers is accurate It was Paul who wrote it and I believe it.
Please do not project your doubts onto me. You can always come on over to the believing side. (smiley face.)