If we are not justified in Baptism...Then Christ died in vain

[De_Maria]

It was written by men, inspired by the God.

And God is no longer in the business of inspiration or what?

I think churches that resemble the local country club more than they resemble the body of Christ are certainly in need of a reality check.

What about Churches that resemble a nightclub or party hall. I mean those who have loud music and shouting and dancing all over the place? What about those?

I’m not judging anyone.

The previous statement you made was judgmental.

I’m simply remarking on what I have seen within my local church–that people come to our church who would for a variety of reasons not be accepted in many other churches. That is my observation.

You also made the comment that there are rules about who you will accept. They must sign some document. So, why can’t the other Churches have something similar?

We don’t have anything against him, and we do embrace Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. However, we don’t look at Luther as “a founder” or anything. He is viewed as someone that God used to recover biblical truth, other than that he doesn’t figure that prominently in Pentecostalism.

That’s strange. Because those two doctrines are not in Scripture. In fact, they contradict Scripture.

Sola Scriptura says we must do away with Tradition. Whereas Scripture says:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and** hold the traditions** which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Faith alone says we are justified or saved by faith alone and Scripture says:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

So how do those doctrines recover any Bible truth?

I think we’re talking about different things. You seem to be talking about Pentecostals “leaving” the Catholic Church. I’m talking about my family leaving one local church for another.

No. I’m contrasting result of Protestants leaving their church with Catholics leaving the Catholic Church.

Any Protestant, Pentecostal or not, leaves and changes Churches at will. No problem. Regardless of whether they signed any sheet of paper.

Whereas, a Catholic may also leave the Catholic Church at will, but in so doing, he rejects the Body of Christ which saved him.

Anyway, Pentecostals didn’t leave the Catholic Church. Most of the original Pentecostals were never Catholic to begin with.

True. But I wasn’t making any reference to that situation.

Yes, there are individual churches within the movement which is called Pentecostalism. Pentecostals don’t see themselves as being part of a single institution, like all Catholics belong to the Catholic Church. There is no Pentecostal Church that all Pentecostals belong to.

Thank you. Now you see, I hope, how YOU need to make that clarification when you begin an apologetical discussion. CARM has nothing to do with my presumptions about Protestants. I had them long before I began participating there. And they remain true.

And here is my presumption. Pentecostals come in as many flavors as Protestants. It is a movement, as you said. It is not a specific church with a specific set of beliefs which I can google on the internet and say, “Oh Itwin believes thusly.” YOU must reveal your beliefs.

I, on the other hand, belong to the Catholic Church. It is very easy for you to google the Catechism and find out what I believe.

No.

My point is that glossolalia is present in the Charismatic Movement, which has been accepted as a legitimate movement within the Catholic Church. Now that at least some Catholics practice glossolalia,. the differences between Pentecostals and Catholics on speaking in tongues has been narrowed.

Ok.

Scripture also says:

Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. . . .

Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.

(1 Corinthians 14:1-5,13-15)

Pentecostals also believe that speaking in tongues can take the form of speaking human languages, but we don’t limit the gift to simply human language. As St. Paul’s words show, there is more to speaking in unknown tongues than simply speaking an unknown human language.

Did you ever respond as to how you know whether one is speaking in angelic tongue or simply making noises?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

This is an example of one of the varieties of tongues, but there are many. It is true that some people make scary sounds and behave in ways that hardly resemble the gift of the HS but this does not nullify the valid varieties of tongues that exist.

How do you distinguish the valid variety from the invalid?

 

[De_Maria]

De Maria----

Guanophore was politely

Politely?

giving you some feedback on how you’re coming across to people. It was good advice.

I’m not really into political correctness. I’m here to discuss the doctrines of the Catholic Church and compare the objectors’ doctrines to Scripture. I’ve been doing this for about twenty years. I’m not here to please Guanophore or anyone else. I’ve made many friends along the way. I’ve also met many who don’t like my style and have never again spoken to me. I’ve got a long history here and on CCF, CARM and other places. My statement is easy to verify.

I believe Itwin is a college student. You’ve drawn him into your “debate” on one topic, then you keep adding topic after topic. He’s been very patient in answering you, and in giving his time to you. He’s been more patient than I would be.

You’re mistaken. I changed the thread to another because the topic had drifted. He preferred to stay on this thread and move from one topic to another. Not me. So, I’ve been equally patient with him.

Now, if all you want to discuss is how you dislike my debating style, our discussion will also end. I’m here to compare the doctrines of the Protestants to the Bible and to Catholic Teaching. Have you anything to contribute along those lines?

By the way, I’m not bragging, its just been my observation.

1. Guanophore is the only purported Catholic who dislikes my debates. Responses from Catholics about my debating style are more in this nature:

Anonymous said…
“there is a raging argument here on the blog on the “That’s the Queen of Heaven, Just Ignore Her” post”

I don’t think it’s a raging argument Sister. Class is in session and De Maria is taking our separated brethren to school…

asksistermarymartha.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-10-22T17:30:00-07:00

1. Those Protestants who dislike my style, are the ones who can’t handle my arguments and get upset because they want to change the topic but I won’t permit it. I keep bringing them back to their errors vis a vis the Scriptures.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

…
No, just someone passing by, trying to provide you some feedback on your apologetic style.

Lol! Then keep on going. Cause I neither need nor want your feedback. I hope that is clear enough for you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[AbideWithMe]

You are all in our prayers.

Thank you, Guanophore.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, he did. But your message tickled my gmail first. And I’m not a mindreader or a prophet. I responded to yours and then I don’t remember if I had time to get to his that evening or not.

The rest of your post is simply your personal opinion. There are more people who like my style than those who don’t. If that’s all you have to talk about, this is the last message of yours to which I will respond.

Sincerely,

De Maria

This response to feedback from others speaks volumes. Indeed, the mouth speaks that which fills the heart, as our saviour has taught us.

 

[guanophore]

And God is no longer in the business of inspiration or what?

Are you suggesting that there are current documents that should be included in the canon of scripture, because they are inspired by God?

 Sola Scriptura says we must do away with Tradition.

It depends upon your definition, which seems to evolve along with those who are espousing it. But in the beginning, when SS was first coined, there was a great value and reverence for sacred Tradition. All the early Reformers embraced it. Of course, they thought that some of it had departed from the mark, and needed to be brought back, but they had no intention of throwing it out.

Even today, most mainline protestants continue to value and embrace tradition, but consider that all tradition must be subjected to Scripture as the final authority. So, not so much “do away with” as subjugating.

Now you see, I hope, how YOU need to make that clarification when you begin an apologetical discussion.

I find this ironic, give the length of time you spent in this thread insisting that others believed according to your presumptions, and refusing to accept their attempts to correct your error.

my participation on CARM has nothing to do with my presumptions about Protestants. I had them long before I began participating there. And they remain true.

This is also interesting, because you just previously stated that you have formulated your presumptions about evangelicals from your interactions on forum, and that you assumed all evangelicals thought alike (OSAS).

However I know that your preconceived notions about Protestants are very enduring, and your statements to the effect that "where they differ from the Catholic Church, they are wrong’’ certainly has been quashing productive discussions for a very long time.

 And here is my presumption.... YOU must reveal your beliefs.

I hope and pray dear brother, that at some point you will have the courage and integrity to read through this thread, and that you will be able to see the repeated efforts of those you prejudged trying very hard to REVEAL their beliefs to you, and you continuing to insist that they believed something else. :whacky:

I, on the other hand, belong to the Catholic Church. It is very easy for you to google the Catechism and find out what I believe.

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Sadly the vast majority of so called Catholics do not, in fact, embrace the Truth that is found in the catechism. The majority of those who identify themselves as Catholics are actually “cafeteria” Catholics (Protestants who don’t realize they are) and do not espouse the faith. Why would Itwin or anyone else assume a person who called themselves Catholic actually believed it?

Did you ever respond as to how you know whether one is speaking in angelic tongue or simply making noises?

Sincerely,

De Maria

We know them by their fruits.

 

[johnnyc176]

There are more people who like my style than those who don’t.

I don’t know about style but you are helping me learn. I can understand why Protestants would be upset with you. I’m not quite sure why you have some fellow Catholics in a tizzy but I certainly am appreciative of your posts. Thank you.

ps…nice blog too.

 

[De_Maria]

This response to feedback from others speaks volumes. Indeed, the mouth speaks that which fills the heart, as our saviour has taught us.

And all which comes from your heart is nitpicking and criticism. Indeed. our Saviour’s words are on the money.

 

[De_Maria]

I don’t know about style but you are helping me learn. I can understand why Protestants would be upset with you. I’m not quite sure why you have some fellow Catholics in a tizzy

Just one, as far as I know. But I noticed on another thread that I’m not the only Catholic he nitpicks. So I’m beginning to wonder if he’s really a Catholic.

but I certainly am appreciative of your posts. Thank you.

You’re welcome.

ps…nice blog too.

Thank you. I appreciate the feed back.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[AbideWithMe]

I don’t know about style but you are helping me learn. I can understand why Protestants would be upset with you. I’m not quite sure why you have some fellow Catholics in a tizzy but I certainly am appreciative of your posts. Thank you.

ps…nice blog too.

Johnnyc—
I know I’m not upset with De Maria, and Itwin didn’t seem upset to me, either. We were, however, trying to point out to him that he was frequently misunderstanding Protestant beliefs.

As a common comparison, if a Protestant said, “Catholics worship Mary”, then it would be reasonable for you as a Catholic to clear up that misconception. Further, you would probably think that Protestant who claimed that Catholics worship Mary didn’t know what he was talking about. Likewise, as a Protestant I know that De Maria isn’t well-informed about Protestant belief.

I’m guessing in Guanophore’s case he cares that Catholics present Catholic apologetics to Protestants in a way that is humble and credible. When a Catholic is as uninformed about Protestants as De Maria is, yet make sweeping generalizations about Protestants, that, to me, lowers his credibility in other areas. It doesn’t destroy his credibility, but it certainly harms it.

I don’t have a difficulty with posters who are firmly Catholic but refrain from the temptation to assume they know more about Protestants than they actually do. I don’t have a difficulty with posters who accept fraternal correction from fellow Catholics, or from Protestants, in a spirit of humility and gratitude. I can easily name a bunch of firmly Catholic long-time posters on CAF who show these traits.

 

[De_Maria]

Are you suggesting that there are current documents that should be included in the canon of scripture, because they are inspired by God?

No.

It depends upon your definition,

What definition is that? I don’t remember providing a definition. A rejection of Tradition is the result of following Sola Scriptura, not its definition. So, if you claim I provided a definition in this thread, please provide a link. Because I don’t remember doing so.

which seems to evolve along with those who are espousing it.

Really? Now, since you claim that mydefinition of Sola Scriptura is evolving, I want you to prove that by providing the original and the evolved forms which you claim I made. Either that or admit you are making up straw men.

But in the beginning, when SS was first coined, there was a great value and reverence for sacred Tradition.

Really? I notice that you’ve captilized Tradition. Which, if you are Catholic, is equating Tradition and the Word of God.

All the early Reformers embraced it. Of course, they thought that some of it had departed from the mark, and needed to be brought back, but they had no intention of throwing it out.

Really? They thought that the Word of God (i.e. Tradition) had departed from the mark? So they didn’t consider Tradition infallible then? Yet they embraced it? Very peculiar.

Here’s what I think, if they embraced Tradition as you claim, they would not have left the Catholic Church.

Even today, most mainline protestants continue to value and embrace tradition,

Hm? Do you even realize that you have now written tradtion with a small t? If you say that the mainline Protestants embrace Tradition, then name one that considers Tradtion the Word of God.

but consider that all tradition must be subjected to Scripture as the final authority. So, not so much “do away with” as subjugating.

Then name the Protestant mainline traditions which still hold to the Seven Sacraments.

I find this ironic, give the length of time you spent in this thread insisting that others believed according to your presumptions, and refusing to accept their attempts to correct your error.

Unless you have been elected the Protestant spokesman, I think they can speak for themselves.

This is also interesting, because you just previously stated that you have formulated your presumptions about evangelicals from your interactions on forum, and that you assumed all evangelicals thought alike (OSAS).

Well, perhaps you are the infallible Catholic apologist. If you are Catholic at all. But I didn’t get the memo. So…

However I know that your preconceived notions about Protestants are very enduring, and your statements to the effect that "where they differ from the Catholic Church, they are wrong’’ certainly has been quashing productive discussions for a very long time.

I think my discussions with the Evangelicals on this forum and on this thread have been very productive. But if you can do better, have a go. Whose stopping you?

I hope and pray dear brother, that at some point you will have the courage and integrity to read through this thread, and that you will be able to see the repeated efforts of those you prejudged trying very hard to REVEAL their beliefs to you, and you continuing to insist that they believed something else. :whacky:

So, I don’t have courage or integrity? Who made you my judge?

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Sadly the vast majority of so called Catholics do not, in fact, embrace the Truth that is found in the catechism. The majority of those who identify themselves as Catholics are actually “cafeteria” Catholics (Protestants who don’t realize they are) and do not espouse the faith. Why would Itwin or anyone else assume a person who called themselves Catholic actually believed it?

This is interesting on many levels.

1. Apparently you identify yourself with the Protestants very strongly.
2. I have told Itwin and anyone else that I believe the Teachings of the Catholic Church. If they choose not to believe me, I have no power to force them to do so.
3. The Teachings of the Catholic Church are contained in the Catechism, whether any Catholics choose to believe them or not, is besides the point.

We know them by their fruits.

So you are Protestant. Glad you finally admitted it.

Now, what are the fruits of which you speak? Show me how you know whether one is speaking in angelic tongues. Knowing by their fruits is how we identify those who have faith in God. How do you distinguish between a fake tongue speaker and a true one? Show me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Slaney]

If we are not justified in Baptism…
If Baptism is only a sign…Then Christ died in vain.

Baptism isn’t a sign, it’s a mark…

 

[guanophore]

And all which comes from your heart is nitpicking and criticism. Indeed. our Saviour’s words are on the money.

Feedback is not intended to be nitpicky or necessarily critical. The compliments you have gotten are not related to your style, but your content. The information is good. It is the method that is the wet blanket.

When a person is trying to engage you in a productive discussion, and you shoot back “put up or shut up”, it has a dampening effect.

Just one, as far as I know.  But I noticed on another thread that I'm not the only Catholic he nitpicks.  So I'm beginning to wonder if he's really a Catholic.

Just a Catholic who thinks this level of blustery defensiveness is not always necessary.

Thank you. I appreciate the feed back.

Sincerely,

De Maria

LOL.

So I guess feedback is welcome so long as it compliments your ego?

 

[guanophore]

Johnnyc—
I know I’m not upset with De Maria, and Itwin didn’t seem upset to me, either. We were, however, trying to point out to him that he was frequently misunderstanding Protestant beliefs.

As a common comparison, if a Protestant said, “Catholics worship Mary”, then it would be reasonable for you as a Catholic to clear up that misconception. Further, you would probably think that Protestant who claimed that Catholics worship Mary didn’t know what he was talking about. Likewise, as a Protestant I know that De Maria isn’t well-informed about Protestant belief.

I’m guessing in Guanophore’s case he cares that Catholics present Catholic apologetics to Protestants in a way that is humble and credible. When a Catholic is as uninformed about Protestants as De Maria is, yet make sweeping generalizations about Protestants, that, to me, lowers his credibility in other areas. It doesn’t destroy his credibility, but it certainly harms it.

I don’t have a difficulty with posters who are firmly Catholic but refrain from the temptation to assume they know more about Protestants than they actually do. I don’t have a difficulty with posters who accept fraternal correction from fellow Catholics, or from Protestants, in a spirit of humility and gratitude. I can easily name a bunch of firmly Catholic long-time posters on CAF who show these traits.

Yes, you hit that nail on the head.

 

[guanophore]

No.

Oh good. I was worried there for a sec. For the record I also believe that God continues to inspire people.

 What definition is that?  I don't remember providing a definition.

Exactly my point. I said it depends on the definition you are using. You have asserted that Sola Scriptura = rejection of tradition, which is not necessarily so . It depends on what definition you are using for SS. Not all Protestants who espouse SS reject Tradition.

A rejection of Tradition is the result of following Sola Scriptura, not its definition.

Certainly I would stipulate that SS does encourage people to reject Tradition. However one of the causal factors of the invention of SS was the corruption in the Catholic leadership at athe time of the Reformation. People were so disgusted with the sins of the flesh amidst the clerical heirarchy they wanted to replace the source of Church authority to something more pure. Holy Scripture was the purest thing that could be found at the time. So it would also be accurate to say that the rejection of Tradition resulted in SS.

So, if you claim I provided a definition in this thread, please provide a link. Because I don’t remember doing so.

I claim no such thing. I am disputing your assertion that SS = rejection of Tradition. I do think you have a problem remembering who wrote what. I would encourage you to use the littlel blue link next to the name of the poster so you can jump back to the post to which people are responding.

Really?  Now, since you claim that mydefinition of Sola Scriptura is evolving, I want you to prove that by providing the original and the evolved forms which you claim I made.  Either that or admit you are making up straw men.

This response seems adversarial and defensive. I am the one saying you did not define SS, and that the assertion you are making about it is not accurate.

Perhaps I did not express myself well. The definition of SS continues to evolve.

Really?  I notice that you've captilized Tradition.  Which, if you are Catholic, is equating Tradition and the Word of God.

Indeed.

Really? They thought that the Word of God (i.e. Tradition) had departed from the mark? So they didn’t consider Tradition infallible then? Yet they embraced it? Very peculiar.

Yes, it is very peculiar. The Reformers were brought up believing that Sacred Tradition is the infallible Word of God. But what they witnessed in the lives of those who claimed to espouse it was corrupted and indulgent of the flesh. That gave rise to the thinking that perhaps what they were teaching was tainted as much as their behavior. In spite of rejecting the authoriies appointed by Christ, and separating from the Apostolic succession, the Reformers did retain large parts of the Sacred Tradition.

Here’s what I think, if they embraced Tradition as you claim, they would not have left the Catholic Church.

That is because you think of Sacred Tradition as one, whole, seamless garment that should not be unravelled. You believe that the Holy Catholic Faith is One. What they did was rend the garment, retaining parts of it, and rejecting others.

Luther never intended to leave the Church, and he retained the bulk of the Sacred Tradition, at least in the beginning.

Hm?  Do you even realize that you have now written tradtion with a small t?

Sorry my pinky is weak on the shift key at times.

 

[guanophore]

Unless you have been elected the Protestant spokesman, I think they can speak for themselves.

One common defense used by persons when they don’t like what they are hearing is to devalue or discount the person talking. In this case, you are saying that what I have to say about Protestant theology does not have merit because I have not “been elected the Protestant spokesman”.

Yes, the Protestants on this thread have spoken and done it quite well. And your refusal to accept what any of us is saying does not discount the value of what has been said to anyone but yourself.

Well, perhaps you are the infallible Catholic apologist. If you are Catholic at all. But I didn’t get the memo. So…

This comment, in addition to being sarcastic, is also an apparent effort to discount my contribution by attacking my personhood. This is an example of an ad hominem, when one targets the person, rather than the topic.

Sometimes people disintegrate into ad hominem attacks when they sense their position becoming weak.

I have pointed out a discrepancy in what you have said. Rather than address the discrepancy, you have avoided the point.

Here is what I said:
"guanophore:

uou just previously stated that you have formulated your presumptions about evangelicals from your interactions on forum, and that you assumed all evangelicals thought alike (OSAS).

Several of us have tried to communicate to you that not all evangelicals believe in OSAS. At the present, I am trying to communicate to you that not all adherants of SS reject Tradition.

I think my discussions with the Evangelicals on this forum and on this thread have been very productive. But if you can do better, have a go. Whose stopping you?

I believe that dialogue can be productive in spite of the behavior of the participants at times. I believe your discussions would be more productive if you were able to admit when you were wrong about something.

So, I don't have courage or integrity?  Who made you my judge?

Here is another example of becoming defensive and adversarial when it is unnecessary. I stated that I hoped you will have the courage and integrity to go back over this thread, and read what others have been trying to say to you,a nd how you are responding. A person of courage and integrity can accept feedback, criticism, and admit when they are wrong. Whether you are or not remains to be seen. Rejecting criticism does not communicate a great deal of courage.

This is interesting on many levels.

1. Apparently you identify yourself with the Protestants very strongly.

How do you see that?

ARe you unable to separate a position from the person espousing it? Do you think one cannot accurately represent an opposing point of view without embracing that position?

 2.  I have told Itwin and anyone else that I believe the Teachings of the Catholic Church.  If they choose not to believe me, I have no power to force them to do so.

Of course not, but given the vast number of people that self identify as Catholic, one cannot assume that persons calling themselves Catholic actuallyl embrace what is in the Catechism.

1. The Teachings of the Catholic Church are contained in the Catechism, whether any Catholics choose to believe them or not, is besides the point.

On the contrary, that is exactly my point. All cafeteria Catholics reject at least some part.

So you are Protestant. Glad you finally admitted it.

You may not realize this, De Maria, but the standard of discerning by looking at the fruit is not Protestant.

Now, what are the fruits of which you speak? Show me how you know whether one is speaking in angelic tongues. Knowing by their fruits is how we identify those who have faith in God. How do you distinguish between a fake tongue speaker and a true one? Show me.

The gifts of the HS are intended for the service of the Body of Christ, and to build up the believer in their Christlike character. Any use of gifts, or behaviors that express so called gifts will bring about the fruit of the Spirit in the lives of persons using them. I am sure we will agree that there are many examples of activities attributed to the HS that do not glorify God in any way.

But since the topic of spiritual gifts is way off topic here, I will let it rest here.

 

[De_Maria]

Johnnyc—
I know I’m not upset with De Maria,

I didn’t think so either.

and Itwin didn’t seem upset to me, either.

Nor did I think he was upset. Some people, however, don’t have experience in apologetics discussions and don’t understand that disagreement is unavoidable.

We were, however, trying to point out to him that he was frequently misunderstanding Protestant beliefs.

You’ve changed it now. You were pointing out to me that you don’t believe in OSAS. That’s the only misunderstanding we even discussed. Soooo, where’s the*** frequently*** coming from?

As a common comparison, if a Protestant said, “Catholics worship Mary”, then it would be reasonable for you as a Catholic to clear up that misconception.

Absolutely! Which is precisely what I told you and Itwin. If I misunderstand anything about what you believe, then clear it up.

Further, you would probably think that Protestant who claimed that Catholics worship Mary didn’t know what he was talking about. Likewise, as a Protestant I know that De Maria isn’t well-informed about Protestant belief.

You would be wrong. We only discussed one Protestant doctrine. If you would like to discuss some more, I’m game when you are.

There are however, several erroneous assumptions in your statement here.

1st. As mentioned, we were only discussing one doctrine in which you and Itwin differ from other Protestants.
2nd. In a consequent discussion with Itwin, I proved that Pentecostals have differing opinions about what Pentecostalism means. Therefore it is necessary for you and Itwin to point out the differences in your personal take on what it is to be a Pentecostal.
3rd. We only discussed one Protestant doctrine. But there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations with different understanding of many doctrines which they claim to share. It is virtually impossible for one person, Catholic or Protestant, to be an expert on every ramification of Protestant doctrine which might exist.
4th. You and Itwin jumped on this made a great big issue about this one subject in order to hide the fact that you have no Biblical defense for your stance on the subject of this thread, the efficacy of Baptism.

I’m guessing in Guanophore’s case he cares that Catholics present Catholic apologetics to Protestants in a way that is humble and credible.

What his motives are, I don’t know. But I noticed that he is nitpicking other Catholics as well. So, I no longer feel as though he is singling me out.

When a Catholic is as uninformed about Protestants as De Maria is, yet make sweeping generalizations about Protestants, that, to me, lowers his credibility in other areas. It doesn’t destroy his credibility, but it certainly harms it.

That is your opinion. You’re welcome to it. But I notice that you have not responded to any Biblical arguments against your stance on the efficacy of Baptism.

I don’t have a difficulty with posters who are firmly Catholic but refrain from the temptation to assume they know more about Protestants than they actually do. I don’t have a difficulty with posters who accept fraternal correction from fellow Catholics, or from Protestants, in a spirit of humility and gratitude. I can easily name a bunch of firmly Catholic long-time posters on CAF who show these traits.

Wonderful. But you’ll find that I can take all your doctrines in opposition to Catholic doctrine and show them to be in error according to the Word of God in Scripture.

And Johnny, don’t let his polite tone fool you. He’s not here to validate Catholic doctrine. But to invalidate Catholic doctrine. And to validate Protestant doctrine at the same time.

The argument style he is using right now is called, “poisoning the well”. It is a subtle attack on the opponent, trying to make him look bad so that his arguments will likewise be tainted. Note however, that he has not addressed tried even once to support his stance on Baptism.

He and Itwin, long ago abandoned the original subject of this thread because they couldn’t support it logically or by Scripture.

Anyway, Abidewithme, whenever you want to discuss your doctrines and compare them to Catholic doctrine, vis a vis the Scriptures, I’m ready, willing and able to show you your errors.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Yes, you hit that nail on the head.

Neh.

 

[De_Maria]

Oh good. I was worried there for a sec.

Why? I gave no indication that I believed any of what you tried to put into my mouth. Why’d you even bring any of that up?

Oh, I know. Because you’re desperate to validate yourself as some sort of guru. But you’re not.

For the record I also believe that God continues to inspire people.

So? What am I supposed to do now?

Exactly my point. I said it depends on the definition you are using. You have asserted that Sola Scriptura = rejection of tradition, which is not necessarily so . It depends on what definition you are using for SS. Not all Protestants who espouse SS reject Tradition.

Certainly I would stipulate that SS does encourage people to reject Tradition. However one of the causal factors of the invention of SS was the corruption in the Catholic leadership at athe time of the Reformation. People were so disgusted with the sins of the flesh amidst the clerical heirarchy they wanted to replace the source of Church authority to something more pure. Holy Scripture was the purest thing that could be found at the time. So it would also be accurate to say that the rejection of Tradition resulted in SS.

You’re trying to change the subject. You claimed that I defined SS. And then changed my definition. Do I need to quote what you said? Produce the definition I purportedly provided or admit that you lied.

I claim no such thing. I am disputing your assertion that SS = rejection of Tradition. I do think you have a problem remembering who wrote what. I would encourage you to use the littlel blue link next to the name of the poster so you can jump back to the post to which people are responding.

Here’s what you said:

It depends upon your definition, which seems to evolve along with those who are espousing it.

You claimed I provided a definition and that my definition evolved. Provide the definition or admit that you are a liar.

This response seems adversarial and defensive.

Your messages addressed to me seem adversarial.

I am the one saying you did not define SS, and that the assertion you are making about it is not accurate.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Be more specific. I don’t remember talking to you about SS in the past.

Perhaps I did not express myself well. The definition of SS continues to evolve.

Is that an apology?

Indeed.

Ok.

Yes, it is very peculiar. The Reformers were brought up believing that Sacred Tradition is the infallible Word of God. But what they witnessed in the lives of those who claimed to espouse it was corrupted and indulgent of the flesh. That gave rise to the thinking that perhaps what they were teaching was tainted as much as their behavior. In spite of rejecting the authoriies appointed by Christ, and separating from the Apostolic succession, the Reformers did retain large parts of the Sacred Tradition.

I just realized something. You have succeeded in derailing this thread. In this thread, we were discussing Baptism and then OSAS. You have derailed it to a discussion about the validity of Protestant doctrine and YOU DON’T EVEN CLAIM TO BE PROTESTANT.

That is because you think of Sacred Tradition as one, whole, seamless garment that should not be unravelled.

And you don’t?

You believe that the Holy Catholic Faith is One.

And you don’t?

What they did was rend the garment, retaining parts of it, and rejecting others.

And you agree?

Luther never intended to leave the Church, and he retained the bulk of the Sacred Tradition, at least in the beginning.

Were you there? Were you his personal friend?
Are you now trying to validate Luther for leaving the Catholic Church?

Sorry my pinky is weak on the shift key at times.

I don’t know what that means, but it doesn’t seem to be a problem.

Sincerely,

De Maria