Fundamentalism

[someotherguy]

Usually what happens is that fundamentalists agree to disagree. I am not Catholic, but even I can see that sola scriptura doesn’t work. The vast number of Protestant denoms, each with their own peculiar doctrines separating themselves from the others, is evidence that the scriptures can be read in any number of ways. Those differing interpretations by default are traditions. Yet when those traditions are in conflict (such as Calvinist predestination and the opposing Wesleyan-Arminian free will), fundamentalists insist that as long as there is some agreement on the “essentials” that everything will be okay. What exactly these essentials are, no one can say.

OK. Go ahead and tell me what doctrines that the Bible defines as essential, Christians disagree over.

 

[someotherguy]

The Bible says it is the ord of God.

I agree. It does not, however, say that your traditions are the word of God.

Your statements come from what you were taught by these people and it does not jibe at all with what the early Christians taught or believed.

No, it comes from what the Bible says.

 

[sterryfamily]

I agree. It does not, however, say that your traditions are the word of God.

Of course it does. Sacred Tradition is that which was handed down to us by the apostles. Saint Paul commanded this when he said “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

And no, your ideas of born again believers, sola scriptura, the church as an invisible communion of believers, are ideas not found in the Bible - they are new inventions made up by men who wanted to start their own religions.

 

[ibkc]

I agree. It does not, however, say that your traditions are the word of God.

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15)

“‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 12).

The oral teachings of the Apostles were the word of God, because they received them directly from Christ himself.

 

[jmcrae]

This refers to the Gospel, not man made traditions, such as those found in Roman Catholicism.

The only “man made” traditions in the Catholic Church are those that were given to us by the man Jesus Christ.

 

[sterryfamily]

No, it comes from what the Bible says.

It comes from INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible which were taught to you. New inventions of men that contradict all of Christian history.

 

[someotherguy]

Of course it does. Sacred Tradition is that which was handed down to us by the apostles. Saint Paul commanded this when he said “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

Yeah, that’s the same verse you cited earlier. It’s still referring to the Gospel, not to Roman Catholicism’s traditions.

And no, your ideas of born again believers

Born again: John 3:3; John 3:7; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23 (odd that you would claim that Peter is the first pope and…allegedly…infallible, but then turn around and say that his teaching about being born again isn’t true.) 1 John 5:4, etc.

sola scriptura

Sola Scriptura: 2 Tim 3:15-17

the church as an invisible communion of believers, are ideas not found in the Bible

See Acts 2. See also, the writings of Saint Augustine of Hippo.

 

[someotherguy]

It comes from INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible which were taught to you. New inventions of men that contradict all of Christian history.

No, it comes directly from what the Bible says.

 

[someotherguy]

The only “man made” traditions in the Catholic Church are those that were given to us by the man Jesus Christ.

Not true. Jesus would not have contradicted the word of God by teaching Purgatory, imfused righteousness, prayer to the dead, membership in the Roman Catholic church as a means of salvation and apostolic succession.

 

[someotherguy]

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

The Gospel.

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

The Gospel.

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15)

Still the Gospel.

“‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 12).

Neither.

 

[jmcrae]

Not true. Jesus would not have contradicted the word of God by teaching Purgatory, imfused righteousness, prayer to the dead, membership in the Roman Catholic church as a means of salvation and apostolic succession.

Jesus is the Word of God; it is therefore not even possible for Him to “contradict the Word of God” - but yes, He taught about Purgatory, and gave us the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, and set up Peter as the first Pope.

 

[sterryfamily]

Yeah, that’s the same verse you cited earlier. It’s still referring to the Gospel, not to Roman Catholicism’s traditions.

Born again: John 3:3; John 3:7; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23 (odd that you would claim that Peter is the first pope and…allegedly…infallible, but then turn around and say that his teaching about being born again isn’t true.) 1 John 5:4, etc.

Sola Scriptura: 2 Tim 3:15-17

See Acts 2. See also, the writings of Saint Augustine of Hippo.

Dude, slinging scripture passages around does nothing to support your claims. The problem is that your INTERPRETATIONS of these passages differs from the INTERPRETATIONS given us by the Church Jesus left behind. Your interpretations come from new inventions of men.

St Peter and St John are referring to Baptism. 2 Timothy is referring to the Old Testament, not the Gospels which hadn’t been written yet.

And…ONE MORE TIME…the Catholic Church defines Sacred Tradition (with a capital T) as those teachings handed down to us by the apostles. So, obviously, yes they are the traditions referred to in the Bible.

 

[someotherguy]

Jesus is the Word of God; it is therefore not even possible for Him to “contradict the Word of God” - but yes, He taught about Purgatory, and gave us the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, and set up Peter as the first Pope.

First, yes, Jesus is the word of God in one context.

However, both Jesus and the Bible also refer to the scriptures as the word of God.

Second, Jesus did not teach Purgatory. In fact, He taught that it was His atonement alone that can cleanse us from sin.

Likewise, there is no record of Jesus naming Peter as the first pope. And, if He did, then Paul was wrong for rebuking Peter and Peter, evidently, did not know that he was the pope because he called himself a “fellow bishop”.

 

[someotherguy]

Dude, slinging scripture passages around does nothing to support your claims.

Actually, showing scripture is the only reasonable response to the claim that such scriptures do not exist.

The problem is that your INTERPRETATIONS of these passages differs from the INTERPRETATIONS given us by the Church Jesus left behind. Your interpretations come from new inventions of men.

And therein lies the difference. You’re talking about interpretations. I didn’t offer any interpretations. I just named the verses.

And…ONE MORE TIME…the Catholic Church defines Sacred Tradition (with a capital T) as those teachings handed down to us by the apostles. So, obviously, yes they are the traditions referred to in the Bible.

This is what is known in rhetoric as “circular reasoning”.

 

[sterryfamily]

First, yes, Jesus is the word of God in one context.

However, both Jesus and the Bible also refer to the scriptures as the word of God.

Second, Jesus did not teach Purgatory. In fact, He taught that it was His atonement alone that can cleanse us from sin.

Likewise, there is no record of Jesus naming Peter as the first pope. And, if He did, then Paul was wrong for rebuking Peter and Peter, evidently, did not know that he was the pope because he called himself a “fellow bishop”.

OK. Then tell us this. Why do the writings of all the Early Fathers of the Church directly contradict what you are saying?

 

[ibkc]

The Gospel.

The Gospel.

Still the Gospel.

So you’re saying that when the Apostles taught, all they did was recite the Gospels. They answered no questions in their own words, and they did not relate any of their considerable personal experience with Christ the living man. They just rattled off the Gospels and then went on their way. Is that what you’re saying?

 

[jmcrae]

First, yes, Jesus is the word of God in one context.

However, both Jesus and the Bible also refer to the scriptures as the word of God.

Second, Jesus did not teach Purgatory. In fact, He taught that it was His atonement alone that can cleanse us from sin.

There is no contradiction here; Purgatory isn’t something different than Christ’s cleansing; it’s just a description of the process - of how this cleansing actually works.

Likewise, there is no record of Jesus naming Peter as the first pope.

Matthew 16:18-19 and John 201:15-19 spring immediately to mind, here - I’m sure there are other Scripture passages showing the primacy of Peter, as well.

And, if He did, then Paul was wrong for rebuking Peter

Tell it to St. Catherine of Sienna - she rebuked a Pope once, and became a Saint as a result.

and Peter, evidently, did not know that he was the pope because he called himself a “fellow bishop”.

Your President calls himself a “fellow American” - does that mean that he has no authority beyond what other Americans have? (Good news for Iraq, if so. )

 

[ralphinal]

Likewise, there is no record of Jesus naming Peter as the first pope. And, if He did, then Paul was wrong for rebuking Peter and Peter, evidently, did not know that he was the pope because he called himself a “fellow bishop”.

Why was Paul wrong? It was a matter of behavior, not doctrine.

Is not the Pope the Bishop of Rome, and in fact, a Bishop with a special primacy in the Church?

 

[someotherguy]

There is no contradiction here; Purgatory isn’t something different than Christ’s cleansing; it’s just a description of the process - of how this cleansing actually works.

Actually, the Unbiblical doctrine of Purgatory says that men must go to this place in order to suffer for their sins in addition to Christ’s atonement.

Matthew 16:18-19 and John 201:15-19 spring immediately to mind, here - I’m sure there are other Scripture passages showing the primacy of Peter, as well.

Neither say anything about Peter being the pope.

Tell it to St. Catherine of Sienna - she rebuked a Pope once, and became a Saint as a result.

Don’t care. That Paul rebuked Peter shows that Peter was not infallible. Thus, not a pope.

Your President calls himself a “fellow American” - does that mean that he has no authority beyond what other Americans have? (Good news for Iraq, if so. )

If Peter had called himself a “fellow countryman”, that would have been different, but he didn’t. He leveled the playing field between himself and the others.

 

[someotherguy]

So you’re saying that when the Apostles taught, all they did was recite the Gospels.

No. I’m saying that these three verses refer to the Gospel.