Foundation

[awfulthings9]

He writes, “I reject that premise. Judaism by relying on the oral tradition was not in any kind of shape to brag about 2000 years ago.” This is faulty cause and effect. The fact that Judaism was not in any shape to brag about could have more to do with the fact that “tradition” had been abandoned for vain pursuits, and there seems to be plenty of Scriptural evidence for this.

He writes, “What we have asked for was proof of a tradition that is extrabiblical that one should follow.” Again, this is not what Catholics believe, so we cannot be asked for proof for something we do not hold to.

From here he leads into an entire litany of verses to condemn Tradition and support following what is “written”. Of course, as Catholics, we agree with each verse. We understand that the “traditions of men” spoken of in these verses are referring to those empty (with the arrival of Christ) Old Covenant traditions. Meanwhile, we affirm that we are to consult “what is written” since Scripture is our materially sufficient authority. However, the basis of Frederick’s argument, as has been seen throughout this whole post, is that Tradition contains “extra-biblical” beliefs. I maintain it is an interpretive authority. I posted, in my original challenge, that one should attempt to reconstruct a sin offering from the materially sufficient Scripture without the aid of the interpretive authority of Tradition. The result would be ridiculous. This, in itself, is proof of the need for an interpretive authority. Yet, this abandonment of such an authority is what Protestants attempt to do with New Testament doctrine and why they have failed to achieve unity outside of Tradition.

Not once, in all of his posts, has Fredericks refuted Tradition as an interpretive authority or to point to an indication that we are to recognize Scripture as formally sufficient. Furthermore, what he has done is to argue against definitions of Tradition that we do not actually hold.

In short, through these answers, he has convinced me that with Protestant theology and scholarship,

-One can determine the accuracy of Scripture, but not the inspiration;
-One can affirm the Traditions of the Catholic Church through the reliability of early Christian testimonies;
-Division will continue to plague Christianity;
-and One can affirm the material sufficiency, but not the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

Okay, I have to apologize for the run of posts, but this was the form that Frederick’s response took and I required so much space to answer all of it. Also, I’m tired as I write, so I apologize, as well, for any doctrinal errors or logical slips I might have made.

God bless

ps. I don’t mean to be cute here, but I have to ask why the constant use of the third person perspective? “We have stated our reasons for …” If I were trying to be cute I would have asked if there was a mouse in your pocket. It just seems to be an interesting stylistic choice.

 

[Fredricks]

As we await Awful’s next questions, a few short points to make.
Awful has, on a number of occasions, declared victory in areas he has not asked us about. While Catholicism holds that their "T"raditions are from the same deposit of faith as Scripture, this is not accurate. Many of the doctrinal errors of Catholicism contradict scripture and are later developing historical developments. Because Awful quotes early Christians who believe in the validity of tradition, which we do not reject outright, Awful would have us think that those traditions are the same one practiced today. That somehow, because they believed in tradition and tracing their teachings to the apostles, that they
accurately did that AND that later developing traditions did not become this “deposit of faith”. I traced the books of the Bible to the Apostles, but we cannot trace the teachings of the Catholic Church to them, try as Catholicism might.
Awful attempts to differintiate between spiritual and doctrinal unity, they are the same thing. What they ARE NOT, is a forced human organizational unity, that combines those who hold different doctrinal views, as Catholics do, that then claims a doctrinal unity.

Contray to what Awful says about proving scripture is superior to tradition, we have, and continue to do that. Instead of addressing our verses and points in question 8, he outright dismisses them as, “you have not proved” and completely ignnores all the verses and instead holds to his already preconceived ideas about what the Bible teaches

Anyway,
It is helpful for our readers to go seek an accurate definition of Sacred Tradition, Awful has repeatedly said what is not.

It is time that Awful demands that I answer why we reject the authorative authority of his church. At the core of his responses, we agree on a great deal about inspiration, what we reject is their defintion of what the church is and who that authority is. It is most certainly not the Pope. Because Awful holds certain views about the church, interpretation, and authority, he will always reject our answers because they contradict his understanding of what they mean.

We can only hope but we will continue to answer what he asks.
It seems a little like beating around the bush though but we are patient(not really, get to it Awful!) Smile.

Fredricks(and his friends Micky and Minnie).

One point, official Catholicism does not try to prove Inspiration that we are aware of. They accept it on faith because of their beliefs about God and their view of the “Church” he established.

Hope your speech went well!!!

 

[Mickey]

Fredricks:

While Catholicism holds that their "T"raditions are from the same deposit of faith as Scripture, this is not accurate.

We are aware of your opinions.

Fredricks:

Awful would have us think that those traditions are the same one practiced today.

It’s called, trusting in the protection of the Holy Spirit and knowing Church history.

Fredricks:

completely ignnores all the verses and instead holds to his already preconceived ideas about what the Bible teaches

Funny, I was going to direct a similar statement to you.

Fredricks:

It is helpful for our readers to go seek an accurate definition of Sacred Tradition

RCIA is but a phone call away!

Fredricks:

what we reject is their defintion of what the church is

That’s about it in a nutshell.

Fredricks:

Awful holds certain views about the church, interpretation, and authority, he will always reject our answers because they contradict his understanding of what they mean.

Not always—only when your “opinion” is in line with revisionist theology.

Fredricks:

They accept it on faith.

Yes. By grace, through faith.

Fredricks(and his friends Micky and Minnie)

Hey! I resemble that remark!

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredericks (and company),

Thanks for your quick response.

Fredricks:

Awful has, on a number of occasions, declared victory in areas he has not asked us about. While Catholicism holds that their "T"raditions are from the same deposit of faith as Scripture, this is not accurate. Many of the doctrinal errors of Catholicism contradict scripture and are later developing historical developments.

I disagree that many of the doctrinal errors of Catholicism contradict Scripture - the burden of proof is on you, here. However, I will point out that you are putting yourself at something of an unfair advantage. I would love to point out that some of the doctrinal positions of your church contradict Scripture (and I believe that I could do so), but as you will not give us a clear indication of your denomination (short of me playing 20 questions), this isn’t possible. I think some of the wavering Protestants observing this thread would see another side of Protestantism if you would open your own faith up to Scrutiny.

Fredricks:

Because Awful quotes early Christians who believe in the validity of tradition, which we do not reject outright, Awful would have us think that those traditions are the same one practiced today. That somehow, because they believed in tradition and tracing their teachings to the apostles, that they
accurately did that AND that later developing traditions did not become this “deposit of faith”. I traced the books of the Bible to the Apostles, but we cannot trace the teachings of the Catholic Church to them

Yes, you traced the books back, verifying the validity of Scripture. I did the same for “Tradition”, verifying its validity. What you are asking for here is the tracing of “extra-biblical” teachings back to the apostles. This is something that you, yourself, are unable to do with the doctrines of your own church. For instance, I am going to assume that your church believes that the Eucharist is merely a symbol (correct me if I’m wrong). Can you trace this belief back to the apostles? Perhaps in Scripture you can find some place where the apostles or Christ tell us that the bread and wine are only symbolically his body and blood? You are asking for a burden of proof that you, yourself, could not provide for your beliefs. As our claim is that the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16) will guide the church to all truth and that the gates of hell would never prevail against the church (Matthew 16), we take God at his word that the “Tradition” delivered by the apostles is that which has guided the Church to a correct definition of her doctrines through these centuries. So, if you need more specific questions, can you give me three doctrines that you belief that contradict what Catholicism believes and trace these back to the apostles themselves through the “tradition” that you claim you do accept? You have constantly claimed that you claim “tradition”, but not “Sacred Tradition”, as Catholics teach. Can you support the same burden of proof that you are asking for?

 

[awfulthings9]

To make clear that I am not avoiding your question myself - our trust that these teachings comes from the apostles comes from the fact that this is declared by a Church protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

What confidence can you claim for your own teachings? It is hard for me to comment beyond that, not knowing what your teachings are.

Fredricks:

Awful attempts to differintiate between spiritual and doctrinal unity, they are the same thing. What they ARE NOT, is a forced human organizational unity, that combines those who hold different doctrinal views, as Catholics do, that then claims a doctrinal unity.

I agree, they are the same thing, which is why Protestants do not have spiritual unity. I just watched a great debate between a Baptist and a Church of Christ preacher that verified that very thing for me. And how many years ago was it (three?) that the Southern Baptists dropped out of the World Baptist Alliance (or whatever it is called) because of sharp disagreement on fundamental issues.

You are correct, though, and I concede, that it is not a “forced” human organizational unity. God doesn’t force anyone. He does ask nicely, and he does give us the clear warning that who listens to the human leaders of his church listens to him and who rejects those same human leaders rejects him. We always have free will, though.

Fredricks:

Contray to what Awful says about proving scripture is superior to tradition, we have, and continue to do that.
Instead of addressing our verses and points in question 8, he outright dismisses them as, “you have not proved”

No, all you have done is reinforce what our Church teaches. When the Church defines a dogma, for instance, her leaders always consult what is written, just as the myriad verses you listed ask. When I maintain that Tradition is our interpretive factor, I maintain that that Scripture must always be consulted, but not through personal interpretation. Do you believe that personal interpretation is okay here? If not, then you would agree with me that we must enlist the aid of the Holy Spirit. As the Holy Spirit “actively” works through Tradition, it is through that lens that Scripture must be consulted.

You have cited that we should reject traditions of men. I agree. We should not, though, reject Christ-centered Traditions, which is what the “tradition” verses you cited imply.

Fredricks:

It is helpful for our readers to go seek an accurate definition of Sacred Tradition, Awful has repeatedly said what is not.

But I have also defined what it is (please read previous posts) and you have yet to demonstrate that I am wrong or point to flaws in my analogy.

Fredricks:

It is time that Awful demands that I answer why we reject the authorative authority of his church.

While I’m not sure if authorative authority is different from regular authority, I’m curious why you reject, not specifically the authority of our Church, but why you reject the spiritual and doctrinal authority of any Church. In private messages to me, you have stated that, even with your own denomination, you disagree with some of the doctrine. Please accept my apologies if this shouldn’t have been introduced into a public thread - I would never presume to divulge any personal information, but this seems like something you would have shared publically if I had asked. So … you accept no authority but your own interpretation of Scripture. So, if you need another direct question, can you explain how this is not the “private” interpretation that Peter warns against?

Fredricks:

Because Awful holds certain views about the church, interpretation, and authority, he will always reject our answers because they contradict his understanding of what they mean.

Yes, I will always reject false definitions of our doctrines.

Fredricks:

One point, official Catholicism does not try to prove Inspiration that we are aware of. They accept it on faith because of their beliefs about God and their view of the “Church” he established.

Yes, we do accept it on faith. Faith means taking Christ at his word because he is God. Christ said he would establish an authoritative teaching Church, so I believe him. Thus, if that teaching Church defines inspiration, I believe that because she is acting with the authority and guidance of God.

You can’t even claim that Christ verifies the inspiration of Scripture because he never makes that claim in reference to “new” Scripture. Faith does not mean blind acceptance of something, which, unfortunately, is where Fredericks has left the Protestants.

Fredricks:

Hope your speech went well!!!

It did. One more to go.

God bless.

 

[Fredricks]

I am going to be working on a thread for the Papacy. Awful has not objected to my request to do this and I feel strongly that it is where I should go next. It is one of the bedrocks of your beliefs and I have never addressed it on this forum. I applaud Awful for articulating his beliefs in such a consistent and scholarly manner.
It will take some time. It may be different than what you are used to. We shall see.
The Lord be with you.
I am out until I have compiled said post. A week or so I would think.

To answer some loose ends
Jane I am not Church of Christ
Eden I believe what I say
Malachi-I have added you to our prayer list. Your zeal will serve the Lord no matter where you are.

 

[Mickey]

malachi_a_serva:

Thanks Eden. I have been looking at the Orthodox points of view lately as well. They do not believe in “transubstantiation”

Here are two quotes from a great Orthodox saint by the name of St John of Kronstadt:

In the perpetual miracle of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Christ united with His Divinity and soul, I see the miracle of the perpetual quickening of man by the divine breathing, and of his creation into a living soul. It is written: “And man became a living soul,” but upon the Holy Alter the bread and wine, after their** transubstantiation** become not only a living soul, but a quickening spirit.
(St John** of Kronstadt)**

Thou dost not test our faith more than it can bear, for Thou dost not transubstantiate a lump of earth into Thy most-pure Body, but white bread, soft, clean, pleasant to the taste; and Thou dost not create Thy Blood from water, but from wine, called in Holy Scripture the blood of the grape, corresponding in colour to that of blood, agreeable to the taste, and rejoicing the heart of man.
(St John** of Kronstadt)**

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

I applaud Awful for articulating his beliefs in such a consistent and scholarly manner.
QUOTE]

Thank you. I appreciate that, while you and I still disagree sharply, you have likewise defended your belief with integrity. In addition, you’ve demonstrated more energy debating all of us Catholics than I could ever muster in a Protestant forums.

My spring break ends after this week and I’ll be back at school next week, so I’ll have to be less active in the new thread (though still present) since I’ll be on “company time” then. However, I look forward to seeing how this new discussion unfolds.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

I am going to be working on a thread for the Papacy.

I think that is a good idea - to move on to a new thread.

CONCLUSION: Fredericks uses the Catholic Canon minus the 6 books thrown out by Luther.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

To answer some loose ends
Jane I am not Church of Christ

Okay. . .I’ll keep my Blue’s Clues notebook handy for the next two clues!