For those who say the Bible is "sufficient" for salvation

[Krocker]

Why does everything go back to Luther? Luther wasn’t infallible, nor have I ever claimed he was infallible. He was just a guy who disagreed with what the Catholic church was teaching … 500 years ago. Get over it. Defend your beliefs instead of attacking a centuries old dead guy.

Now, back to my question, which you failed to answer. You claim that “EVERYONE” simply believed the Immaculate Conception since the time of Jesus. I have two problems with that.

One, even if that were the case, it was not written in the Bible – the most historically verifiable book in the history of the world. It may have been written elsewhere – but it’s not as historically verifiable. It may have existed orally – but an oral tradition is less verifiable than a written tradition. So, again, given the foregoing, why do you choose to give it EQUAL status?

Second, your rendition of the “facts” is, at best, clearly disputed and, at worst, just plain wrong. You should read what Origen, St. Basil, St. Chrystostom, among MANY others, wrote about the Immaculate Conception and then we’ll talk. I understand that some believed it, but not “EVERYONE” believed it. Also, there is no question as to the controversy surrounding the infallibility declaration in 1854 – some even calling it the “test case” for infallibility because of the correspondeing controversy. But, I don’t want to stray too far from my point. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Immaculate Conception was “always” believed, it is not in the Bible and cannot be verified with the same historical accuracy as the Bible.

So, I’ll again pose the question: why do you give extra-Biblical doctrine the same weight as the Bible when it cannot be equally historically verified?

 

[Krocker]

If you’re familiar with Origen does that mean you’re also familiar with the rest of the Early Church Fathers? The earliest reference to Mary being Immaculate in the writings of the ECF dates from the year 348.

I hadn’t read your latest post before I responded, but it only clarifies my point. You choose to give a doctrine first written about in 348 the same weight as scriptural writings as early as the 40s. I can assure you those writings are not as verifiable as the Bible either. No historian or logician would give them equal weight.

 

[flyersfan1088]

I hadn’t read your latest post before I responded, but it only clarifies my point. You choose to give a doctrine first written about in 348 the same weight as scriptural writings as early as the 40s. I can assure you those writings are not as verifiable as the Bible either. No historian or logician would give them equal weight.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I’m not the one arguing for equal weight. Go back and read the thread. I simply showed you the error of your statements that it was invented 2000 years after Christ, and that no evidence could be found outside of scripture either. Wrong on both parts. You conveniently missed that part.

 

[Krocker]

You must be confusing me with someone else. I’m not the one arguing for equal weight. Go back and read the thread. I simply showed you the error of your statements that it was invented 2000 years after Christ, and that no evidence could be found outside of scripture either. Wrong on both parts. You conveniently missed that part.

My apologies. I assumed you were Catholic, which necessarily means you ascribe to the belief that the Bible and tradition have equal authority.

My apologies also for being a (Philadelphia?) Flyers fan. Actually, you’re having a pretty good season so far. As a Detroiter, we’re used to having good regular seasons and collapsing in the playoffs.

 

[flyersfan1088]

Why does everything go back to Luther? Luther wasn’t infallible, nor have I ever claimed he was infallible. He was just a guy who disagreed with what the Catholic church was teaching … 500 years ago. Get over it. Defend your beliefs instead of attacking a centuries old dead guy.

I wasn’t attacking him. Read what I wrote again. I am defending my beliefs by showing that even the reformers believed in the IC.

Now, back to my question, which you failed to answer. You claim that “EVERYONE” simply believed the Immaculate Conception since the time of Jesus.

You hadn’t asked me anything at this point. I hadn’t even joined the discussion yet. I can’t fail to answer something you hadn’t asked yet.

One, even if that were the case, it was not written in the Bible – the most historically verifiable book in the history of the world. It may have been written elsewhere – but it’s not as historically verifiable. It may have existed orally – but an oral tradition is less verifiable than a written tradition. So, again, given the foregoing, why do you choose to give it EQUAL status?

**Again, I’m not the one arguing it’s equal. The Bible doesn’t mention Nero’s persecution. Does that mean it didn’t happen? Can I use outside sources from the time to verify it? **

Second, your rendition of the “facts” is, at best, clearly disputed and, at worst, just plain wrong. You should read what Origen, St. Basil, St. Chrystostom, among MANY others, wrote about the Immaculate Conception and then we’ll talk. I understand that some believed it, but not “EVERYONE” believed it.

I would love to read what Origen, St. Basil, and St. John Chysostum wrote about the Immaculate Conception. Unfortunately there’s a little problem. None of the three mentioned wrote anything about it. Nice try.

 

[flyersfan1088]

My apologies. I assumed you were Catholic, which necessarily means you ascribe to the belief that the Bible and tradition have equal authority.

My apologies also for being a (Philadelphia?) Flyers fan. Actually, you’re having a pretty good season so far. As a Detroiter, we’re used to having good regular seasons and collapsing in the playoffs.

I am Catholic, I am just approaching one topic at a time. You don’t need ten people saying the same thing. I addressed what I felt hadn’t been yet.

And yes, Philly is having a LOT better season than last year.

 

[Krocker]

flyersfan,

You wrote: “Again, I’m not the one arguing it’s equal. The Bible doesn’t mention Nero’s persecution. Does that mean it didn’t happen? Can I use outside sources from the time to verify it?”

Response: But it’s my understanding that a basic tenet of Catholocism is the equality of scripture and tradition. In fact, I would argue that this is the BIGGEST difference between Catholocism and Protestantism. Correct me if I’m wrong.

With respect to your example, I absolutely agree. The Bible doesn’t include “everything.” Outside sources can be used to help interpret and verify the Bible. Yet the Bible should be both our starting point and our ultimate backstop.

If, for example, an outside source says Jesus was stoned to death and was not crucified, it should be rejected as contrary to the Bible. If, for example, an outside source says Peter had a second cousin named Ralph, you take it for what it’s worth. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t. The Bible doesn’t mention it. But in no event would that document be more verifiable than the Bible (as no writing on earth has been verified as the Bible has). The “Ralph” writing must be compared against the Bible to determined whether it is contrary or complimentary. That’s it, that’s all I’m saying. The “Ralph” writing is not the Bible, nor can it ever be equal to the Bible.

Then the question becomes, why wasn’t “Ralph” mentioned in the Bible? Was it because he was inconsequential (and, if so, there would be no reason for him to be mentioned)? Was it because “EVERYBODY” knew Ralph (and, if so, how can you prove this was the reason)?

 

[flyersfan1088]

Krocker, here’s a link to a complete explanation of the Immaculate Conception. And yes, I know it’s lengthy.

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

To clarify what I said about the three ECF’s, they wrote about Mary possibly sinning later in her life, but never about the IC.

I do have one final question, though. Since the doctrine of the IC passes your test(nothing in Scripture contradicts it) why are you so intent on proving Catholics wrong?

 

[st_lucy]

flyersfan,

You wrote: “Again, I’m not the one arguing it’s equal. The Bible doesn’t mention Nero’s persecution. Does that mean it didn’t happen? Can I use outside sources from the time to verify it?”

Response: But it’s my understanding that a basic tenet of Catholocism is the equality of scripture and tradition. In fact, I would argue that this is the BIGGEST difference between Catholocism and Protestantism. Correct me if I’m wrong.

With respect to your example, I absolutely agree. The Bible doesn’t include “everything.” Outside sources can be used to help interpret and verify the Bible. Yet the Bible should be both our starting point and our ultimate backstop.

If, for example, an outside source says Jesus was stoned to death and was not crucified, it should be rejected as contrary to the Bible. If, for example, an outside source says Peter had a second cousin named Ralph, you take it for what it’s worth. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t. The Bible doesn’t mention it. But in no event would that document be more verifiable than the Bible (as no writing on earth has been verified as the Bible has). The “Ralph” writing must be compared against the Bible to determined whether it is contrary or complimentary. That’s it, that’s all I’m saying. The “Ralph” writing is not the Bible, nor can it ever be equal to the Bible.

Then the question becomes, why wasn’t “Ralph” mentioned in the Bible? Was it because he was inconsequential (and, if so, there would be no reason for him to be mentioned)? Was it because “EVERYBODY” knew Ralph (and, if so, how can you prove this was the reason)?

You keep saying that the bible should be the only thing we need but I wonder how do you reconcile John 21:25

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

or 2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter

or 2 Tim. 2:2

W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also

 

[Krocker]

Krocker, here’s a link to a complete explanation of the Immaculate Conception. And yes, I know it’s lengthy.

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

To clarify what I said about the three ECF’s, they wrote about Mary possibly sinning later in her life, but never about the IC.

I do have one final question, though. Since the doctrine of the IC passes your test(nothing in Scripture contradicts it) why are you so intent on proving Catholics wrong?

I’m not trying to prove anyone wrong. Frankly, I could care less whether you believe in the Immaculate Conception because I think it’s irrelevant for being a Christian. I am a firm believer that we all agree on the “essentials” (Jesus is god, lived a perfect life, died for our sins, is the only way to salvation) and this is what we should be focusing on. I get very tired of the divisiveness between Protestants and Catholics on these “fringe”-type of issues. I question Protestants as well, it just doesn’t show up on this site for obvious reasons (anybody know Protestants who think drinking, dancing, etc. are sins?). (My background – Catholic father, converting to Protestantism; Two generations of Baptist preachers; Protestant family “bashing” Catholics; Catholic family “bashing” Protestants.)

My problem is the exclusion of any CHRISTIAN because they don’t believe one of these “fringe” items. In my opinion, the Immaculate Conception has NOTHING to do with Jesus, his message, his death, or our salvation. In this particular instance, I have concerns that the Catholic Church raises this “tradition”-based doctrine to the level of scripture, excluding others who don’t believe it, when it cannot be historically verified to the same extent as the Bible. I constantly hear Catholics telling Protestants their “wrong” because they choose to begin any Biblical analysis with the most verifiable book in the entire world (one which you also believe is the inspired word of God by the way). That makes no sense to me.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I’m not trying to prove anyone wrong. Frankly, I could care less whether you believe in the Immaculate Conception because I think it’s irrelevant for being a Christian. I am a firm believer that we all agree on the “essentials” (Jesus is god, lived a perfect life, died for our sins, is the only way to salvation) and this is what we should be focusing on. I get very tired of the divisiveness between Protestants and Catholics on these “fringe”-type of issues. I question Protestants as well, it just doesn’t show up on this site for obvious reasons (anybody know Protestants who think drinking, dancing, etc. are sins?). (My background – Catholic father, converting to Protestantism; Two generations of Baptist preachers; Protestant family “bashing” Catholics; Catholic family “bashing” Protestants.)

My problem is the exclusion of any CHRISTIAN because they don’t believe one of these “fringe” items. In my opinion, the Immaculate Conception has NOTHING to do with Jesus, his message, his death, or our salvation. In this particular instance, I have concerns that the Catholic Church raises this “tradition”-based doctrine to the level of scripture, excluding others who don’t believe it, when it cannot be historically verified to the same extent as the Bible. I constantly hear Catholics telling Protestants their “wrong” because they choose to begin any Biblical analysis with the most verifiable book in the entire world (one which you also believe is the inspired word of God by the way). That makes no sense to me.

Ok Krocker, I’ll be needing a complete copy of that list of “essentials” which which we all must agree to be Christians.

Thanks enormously in advance for clarifying this issue because it goes to the very heart of this discussion.

That YOUR opinion that the Immaculate Conception is a “fringe” issue points directly to our problem here. Thanks again for the list. I’m looking forward to seeing “your opinion” as to what it includes, and by what authority it was compiled.

 

[Krocker]

You keep saying that the bible should be the only thing we need but I wonder how do you reconcile John 21:25 or 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or 2 Tim. 2:2

Not even close to being a problem. A general reference to “tradition” does not mean any and all things a human may call “tradition” at any time in the future. If you can prove to me what “traditions” were being referred to in those passages, you might have a point. We both know this cannot be done.

What if the Catholic Church said tomorrow that it was a “tradition” to walk on your hands on Thursday (absurd I know, but intentionally so to make a point)? Would you simply agree? Or, would you ask for some proof? And what if the “proof” was that someone had a divine revelation telling me so? Would that be enough? The answer is – given your interpretation of the verses you mentioned above – you’d be walking on your hands. I wouldn’t be.

 

[Krocker]

Ok Krocker, I’ll be needing a complete copy of that list of “essentials” which which we all must agree to be Christians.

Thanks enormously in advance for clarifying this issue because it goes to the very heart of this discussion.

That YOUR opinion that the Immaculate Conception is a “fringe” issue points directly to our problem here. Thanks again for the list. I’m looking forward to seeing “your opinion” as to what it includes, and by what authority it was compiled.

Your sarcasm is not very becoming. If you want to have a discussion, this is a good place. If you want to spew venom, then I’m out of here. The Apostles Creed is a good place to start. What I can tell you is that whether Mary had original sin is absolutely meaningless to Jesus and how we obtain salvation. Please tell me how Mary’s sin or lack thereof affects your Christian life? I’ll be waiting.

 

[st_lucy]

Not even close to being a problem. A general reference to “tradition” does not mean any and all things a human may call “tradition” at any time in the future. If you can prove to me what “traditions” were being referred to in those passages, you might have a point. We both know this cannot be done.

What if the Catholic Church said tomorrow that it was a “tradition” to walk on your hands on Thursday (absurd I know, but intentionally so to make a point)? Would you simply agree? Or, would you ask for some proof? And what if the “proof” was that someone had a divine revelation telling me so? Would that be enough? The answer is – given your interpretation of the verses you mentioned above – you’d be walking on your hands. I wouldn’t be.

Well this is really just silly, any true Catholic can tell you that the Church cannot do this. You see the Church is run by the Holy Spirit which is what our Lord promised us, so you see the Holy Spirit would never contradict itself. Also as has been pointed out to you before it takes many many years for a doctrine to become Dogmatic. All Dogmatic Doctrine coincides with the bible and visa versa, because like stated before the Holy Spirit does not contradict itself.

Also you never answered the fact that not all that Jesus taught is written in the bible. Do you just choose to not see that or do you believe that you are free to learn more?

 

[st_lucy]

Not even close to being a problem. A general reference to “tradition” does not mean any and all things a human may call “tradition” at any time in the future. If you can prove to me what “traditions” were being referred to in those passages, you might have a point. We both know this cannot be done.

What if the Catholic Church said tomorrow that it was a “tradition” to walk on your hands on Thursday (absurd I know, but intentionally so to make a point)? Would you simply agree? Or, would you ask for some proof? And what if the “proof” was that someone had a divine revelation telling me so? Would that be enough? The answer is – given your interpretation of the verses you mentioned above – you’d be walking on your hands. I wouldn’t be.

Just on a side note: Why is it that Protestants like to throw these silly scenarios out. In 2000 years this has never happened but who knows I guess they (protestants) tend to think (or hope) that it will happen even if the record shows other wise.

 

[CesarAugusto]

Your sarcasm is not very becoming. If you want to have a discussion, this is a good place. If you want to spew venom, then I’m out of here. The Apostles Creed is a good place to start. What I can tell you is that whether Mary had original sin is absolutely meaningless to Jesus and how we obtain salvation. Please tell me how Mary’s sin or lack thereof affects your Christian life? I’ll be waiting.

Hi Krocker,

It affects your life because it is true. “Truth” is one of the titles Jesus gave to Himself. Jesus affects our life.

If you are going to only pay attention to what you think affects your Christian life, then you need to first define what it is you think is important (salvation perhaps?).

But then the problem becomes: if a doctrine, being true and therefore springing from Christ, does not directly talks about, say, salvation, is it important? How do you decide that?

Instead, accepting all Truth as revealed by God is the safest route; it is accepting God on His terms, not ours. If He felt the need to reveal it, it must be important, and therefore we should accept it.

Seek the fullness of Truth, always.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Your sarcasm is not very becoming. If you want to have a discussion, this is a good place. If you want to spew venom, then I’m out of here. The Apostles Creed is a good place to start. What I can tell you is that whether Mary had original sin is absolutely meaningless to Jesus and how we obtain salvation. Please tell me how Mary’s sin or lack thereof affects your Christian life? I’ll be waiting.

All of my faith is an interlocking whole. To take away ANY part of it is to destroy it AS truth. You are free to dismiss any portion of Catholic dogma, as you’re not a Catholic. I am not for the very reason that that would make me a non-Catholic.

You made the claim that there is some “list” of known “essentials”, from some authority you apparently believe which you’ve not shared with us, with which it can be determined whether one is a Christian or not.

I’m simply asking you to produce that list.

To directly answer your last question: If Mary was not sinless (in the Immaculate Conception standpoint), then our Lord received His bodily form from one contaminated by original sin which means that His human form (His physical body) is tainted by original sin, which is not possible.

Now, please substantiate your claims of knowing what is universally known to be a Christian “essential beliefs”.

Thank you very much, respectfully.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Well, now you are being evasive. Here is the distinction, you are referring to “tradition” as an all-encompassing, neverending notion – e.g., if we relied on tradition once, we must rely on tradition for all times. My point is that “tradition” created in 1854 is not as historically verifiable as “tradition” in the form of writings within 20 years of Christ’s death.

Moreover, the “tradition” of the 27 books of the NT is verifiable outside of the church’s “official” declaration (for example, Origen described these books, and only these books, as scriptural in the 200s; Peter referred to Paul’s letters as scripture; etc). There is no similar support for the Immaculate Conception.

So, back to my original point, the Bible is verified like no other book in the history of the world – therefore, logically, it’s historical accuracy must trump similarly-dated and subsequently-dated tradition, both oral and written. Given that, why shouldn’t we start with the Bible?

I wouldn’t argue the Bible is the most accurate book. Who does? Go ahead and “start” with it if you want…it ought to lead you into the Catholic Church if you read the whole thing. But I don’t see anyone discouraging you from starting with the Bible…I see people taking issue with your apparent denial that Tradition is also Revelation.

But it is incorrect to think a Tradition was “created” in 1854. That is not how it works. Dates of definition far succeed dates of origin. All Sacred Tradition is apostolic in origin.

And Origen is a fine example of God’s revelation passing through Tradition, and here you are citing that to me as if I disagree. So we both accept Tradition when it comes to the Canon of Scripture, and that is comforting. Plus he cites the Deuterocanon as Scripture numerous times.

So applying your trust in Origen, you can see many, many Christian references to Mary and her Immaculate Conception prior to 1854 in various references. Centuries and centuries prior. And of course there are the allusions in Scripture that you deny. But nevertheless, you know this, do you not? The idea was not “created” in 1854.

And please stop with the “you are being evasive” ad hominems every single time. I feel like I’m talking with James White.

 

[sandusky]

CalmDownWisWins:

To directly answer your last question: If Mary was not sinless (in the Immaculate Conception standpoint), then our Lord received His bodily form from one contaminated by original sin which means that His human form (His physical body) is tainted by original sin, which is not possible.

That’s not true; if it were, then all of Mary’s direct paternal, and maternal ancestors would have to have been born sinless as well.

I believe your church teaches that the immaculate conception, is not necessary, but fitting; IOW, God could make Mary sinless; therefore, He should make Mary sinless; therefore, the church, by its self-proclaimed authority, has dogmatically declared that God did make Mary sinless, and the Catholic who does not believe that makes “shipwreck” of his faith.

Scripture clearly states that only one was without sin.

Furthermore, the prophecy states that Messiah would be born of a virgin; it nowhere states that the virgin would be sinless, neither does it state that her virginity would be perpetual.

 

[flyersfan1088]

Krocker,
I understand where you’re coming from when you say some things don’t seem essential. I really do. However it’s important to remember what sprang from what. Did the Bible come before the Church, or the Church before the Bible. The answer is the Church. Jesus instituted a Church, He did not write the Bible, or even say which books should comprise the NT. To Him the Church would be the guardian of His truth. If you can agree to that, the next thing is to figure out which Church that is(obviously we Catholics believe it’s ours) Then you have to put your trust in Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would guide that Church. I have to believe that even when my own weak mind can’t grasp why the Church teaches something. I have to trust that the Holy Spirit is making a truth be known for a reason. He doesn’t waste our time.

Please take a few minutes to look through the link I provided in post#188