E
elvisman
Guest
Are you now joining the ranks of the hit-and-run posters on this board - or do you care to elaborate on why you’re LOL-ing?
- Status
T
Tomster
Guest
Is that the best you can do?
T
Tomster
Guest
In all honestly, e-man, you have to give her some credit. She usually hangs around longer than most. When boxed into a corner, though, she will usually say that either she doesn’t want to discuss it anymore or she just fades away for a couple months only to resurface at a later date.Are you now joining the ranks of the hit-and-run posters on this board - or do you care to elaborate on why you’re LOL-ing?
T
Tomster
Guest
I guess it is.Is that the best you can do?
G
Ginger2
Guest
I’ve4 already responded to that specific comment. I get tired of repeating myself. So, instead of my reposting my answer, why don’t you go through and read what I’ve already responded to that comment… while you’re at it, you might also want to look at what jmcrae (Ithink that’s who it was) has said.Are you now joining the ranks of the hit-and-run posters on this board - or do you care to elaborate on why you’re LOL-ing?
E
elvisman
Guest
**Oh – you wanna go there, do you? You wanna get into what the Church Fathers have to say about Sola Scriptura instead of taking a couple of quotes out of context?? **Then LET’S:
Tertullian
**For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions, of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription of Heretics 19 A.D. 200]).
Origen
**Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 circa A.D. 225]).
Eusebius
While [Ignatius of Antioch] was making the journey through Asia under the strictest military guard, he strengthened the diocese in each city where he stayed by spoken sermons and exhortations, and he especially exhorted them above all to be on their guard against the heresies which then for the first time were prevalent and he urged them to hold fast to the tradition of the Apostles to which he thought it necessary, for securities sake, to give form by written testimony (Ecclesiastical History, 3:36 A.D. 325]).
Athanasius
**Without prefixing Consulate, month, and day, [the Fathers] wrote concerning Easter, “It seemed good as follows,” for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, “It seemed good” but, “Thus believes the Catholic Church”; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles (Letter on the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia A.D. 359]).
Basil
**Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in mystery” by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will contradict; - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in these matters… (On the Holy Spirit 27 A.D. 375]).
Ummm . . . shall I go on?
E
elvisman
Guest
**Most ****of what the Epistle writers were referring to was the Old Testament. They were telling the early Church that they could learn from Jesus in the OT because THERE WAS NO NT YET. **
**Peter DOES refer to some of Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). But NOWERE does he refer to the Gospels as being Scripture (John’s wasn‘t even written yet). So your point about the sufficiency of the Scriptures at ****THAT ****time is ****dead **in the water.
And much of what was written in them is probably also in the Oral Traditions, hmmmm?
If you’re going to make the assertion that they contain the same stuff that’s already in the Bible, then you must also contend that there is EVERY possibility that they also agree with Oral Tradition.
E
elvisman
Guest
Please point me to your post where you addressed this.I’ve4 already responded to that specific comment. I get tired of repeating myself. So, instead of my reposting my answer, why don’t you go through and read what I’ve already responded to that comment… while you’re at it, you might also want to look at what jmcrae (Ithink that’s who it was) has said.
T
Tomster
Guest
The man is on fire.
G
Ginger2
Guest
I lose interest after a while. 
Besides, after I’ve said all I have to say on a topic, I don’t see any point in staying around just to repeat myself as so many others love to do.If you are going to lump all non-catholic religions together as Protestant, if that is your definition, then you shouldn’t point to Luther as the source of the problem. Afterall, I don’t see how Luther is the cause and source of hinduism.
**Now **I’m just going to fade away for awhile…
T
Tomster
Guest
See what I mean, e-man? She’s getting tired. It has been my experience in the past that Ginger2 sometimes has to consult her pastor or another person to get her facts straight, you know, she has to get the oral tradition “of the day” from her current pastor’s menu.
Be patient with her, she’ll trip over her own heresy sooner or later. You can count on it.
T
Todd520
Guest
inkaneer,
When one keeps infant baptist in perspective with the purpose of replacing Jewish circumcision, it makes sense - it’s much more than NT scripture.
The combination of Catholic Baptism and Confirmation is best compared with LDS baptism or for Protestant groups with baptism in the early teens
When one keeps infant baptist in perspective with the purpose of replacing Jewish circumcision, it makes sense - it’s much more than NT scripture.
The combination of Catholic Baptism and Confirmation is best compared with LDS baptism or for Protestant groups with baptism in the early teens
T
Tomster
Guest
So, now we have it. After you have said everything you want to say you just fade off into the sunset. Well, it seems that you really are a hit and run artist. Thanks for the admission.
If you are going to lump all non-catholic religions together as Protestant, if that is your definition, then you shouldn’t point to Luther as the source of the problem. Afterall, I don’t see how Luther is the cause and source of hinduism.
**Now **I’m just going to fade away for awhile…
Your second paragraph is a real winner. It’s so like you, convoluted!
T
Tomster
Guest
Well, Ging, are you going to point it out for the man or what? :compcoff:
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
… And of course he ends this portion of his letter with the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire, that being 2 Thess 2:15:
“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.” [2 Thess 2:15]
As for the early fathers let’s not cherry pick their writings. They were not sola scripturists by any means. For instance Basil the Great would write:
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
And Epiphanius of Salamis would pen this:
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
Originally Posted by inkaneer
… And of course he ends this portion of his letter with the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire, that being 2 Thess 2:15:
“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.” [2 Thess 2:15]
How can you honestly say that knowing full well the controversies present in protestantism today that give rise to the 40,000 denominations figure. That figure, by the way, came from a highly reputable source among protestants, namely, the Gordon Conwall Theological Seminary. It is not a “Catholic number” as it is not one derived from a Catholic source. What’s more, look at the controversies present in the early church that had to be resolved by church councils. And here I am specifically referring to the Trinity doctrine. That doctrine is understood by every trinitarian christian in Greek philosophical terms that are completely foreign to the scriptures. Obviously in protestantism this idea that the scriptures are sufficient is given only lip service but in practice the authority of the early church to define doctrine is not only recognized but heeded. The same can be said of the practice of Sunday worship. No where does scripture state one must go to church on Sunday. In fact the scriptures command that only the Saturday Sabbath is to be kept holy. Yet the majority of christendom worships on the first day not the seventh day Sabbath.
As for the early fathers let’s not cherry pick their writings. They were not sola scripturists by any means. For instance Basil the Great would write:
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
And Epiphanius of Salamis would pen this:
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
Again your post makes no sense. You are aware that none of the original manuscripts of the scriptures are preserved. In fact the oldest New Testament writings we have date from several centuries after the Apostolic Age. If God really wanted to preserve His word in writing He failed miserably. In fact man did a better job of preserving his writings than did God. We have the uninspired writings of first century men like Clement or the writings of the sub Apostolic Age, the disciples of the Apostles, like Polycarp or Ignatius. But of the original inspired texts we have absolutely none. It was man who preserved writings on copper scrolls instead of the highly degradeable writing mediums that the scriptures were written on. Your position is tantamount to calling God so stupid that mortal man can out do Him. Now, unless you are going to argue that the original manuscripts were "of no consequence " since God did “let them be lost” despite the fact they “were essential to the Church” which I do not think you could do seeing how you place extreme importance on the sufficiency of scripture. Then the only conclusion based on the evidence is that God did not preserve his word in writing but rather in the church which scripture calls the pillar and foundation of the truth and which Jesus said to the Apostles, “He who hears you, hears me.” There is no other alternative. Either God was so dumb that if He wanted to preserve His word in writing He used an easily degradeable writing medium or God wanted His word preserved in the Church. The evidence from scripture is that God choose the Church as His preserving medium.
E
elvisman
Guest
**It’s easy for Ginger - or any other anti-Catholic for that matter - to take a couple of quotes from the ECF’s out of context. **The man is on fire.
BUT, when you bombard her with many more quotes - IN CONTEXT - she simply “fades away”.
E
elvisman
Guest
I think she already HAS . . .**See what I mean, e-man? She’s getting tired. It has been my experience in the past that Ginger2 sometimes has to consult her pastor or another person to get her facts straight, you know, she has to get the oral tradition “of the day” from her current pastor’s menu.
Be patient with her, she’ll trip over her own heresy sooner or later. You can count on it.
P
Portrait
Guest
What Protestants do teach and believe is the sufficiency of Scriptures.
Dear Ginger2,
Cordial greetings.
The alleged suffuciency of the bible is really an extention of *sola scriptura * and similarly cannot be sustained. For one thing the bible itself points to the Church as being the final arbiter of truth in all issues affecting faith and morals, not Scripture (cf. 1 Tim. 3: 15; St. Matt. 16: 18-19; 18: 18; St. Lk. 10: 16). This makes very good sense, especially on a practical level, for only an entity with the capacity to observe and correctly elucidate information can act as an authority. Whilst it is true that Sacred Scripture contains God-breathed revelation, it cannot act as a final “authority” since it is dependent upon thinking personalities to observe what it says and, more importantly, interpret what it means. Moreover, the bible warns us that it contains difficult and confusing material which is capable (if not actually prone) to being twisted into all sorts of fanciful and false interpretations (2 Peter 3: 16) - the whole history of Protestant sectarianism abundantly testifies to this.
Ginger, one of the key problems of Protestantism, and one that impacted me greatly before my conversion to Catholicism, was the untold damage that the theory of *sola scriptura *had done to Christendom. The most obvious evidence of this damage was, of course, Protestantism itself: a huge mass of conflicting, bickering denominations, causing, by its very nature of “protest” and “defiance”, an interminable proliferation of chaos and controversy. That is why I initially got involved with this thread. The multiplicity of Protestant denominations is a scandal and cannot be justified or mitigated and must be denouced in the strongest terms.
It is freely acknowledged that all is not well within the Catholic Church. Alas, in every age, the Church has had to endure the blight of worldly, sinful and heretical members. At the present time, the Church is engaged in a cultural war and is fighting the destructive forces of liberalism, which have, regrettably, influenced a portion of the Church, especially in the West. However, one must realize that aberrationns among its members does not, and indeed cannot, negate the Catholic Church’s authenticity and uniquiness as Christ’s true Church. It is vital that one distinguishes sharply between what is done in the name of Catholicism from what is officially taught by the Magisterium. The presence of Rebellious members and hand in hand with the world type of members, should hardly surprise us. Sacred Scripture warns that many in the Church will sin and become corrupt, although maintaining the appearance of being commited. As our Lord said Himself, the wheat and the tares must grow together until He returns to judge the world.
Jesus established a Church through which He has intended to reveal Himself to the world (St. Matt. 5: 14-15; 28: 18-20; Eph. 3: 10). Through the authoritative Scripture, oral preaching, and infallible decisions that came from Christ through His Church (St. Lk. 10: 16; Acts 15, which we have been discussing), our Lord began the slow but steady process of working through the instrumentality of his Body the Church (cf. Rom. 12: 1-5; I Cor. 12: 12-27; Eph. 3: 4-6; 5: 21-23; Col. 1: 18) to bring all things captive in obedience to Himself (2 Cor. 10: 5).
In order to accomplish this mission of mercy, the Church must be able to teach the truth at all time. If the church is not protected from teaching error in faith and morals, the faithful would have absolutely no trustworthy foundation upon which to bulid their most holy faith. Protestants like yourself disagree, claiming that their doctrinal certitude is based firmly on the bible alone. However, Sacred Scripture nowhere claims to be sufficient for this task and it actually warns that it can be misinterpreted and twisted.
Finally, sufficiency of the bible is historically problematic since the written word and indeed mass literacy have only been widespread since the invention of the movable-type printing press, c. 1440. Thus, it could not have been the primary conveyor of the Gospel for at least fourteen centuries. Prior to the Reformation Christians learned their faith mostly from homilies, sacraments, the Liturgy and its year-long calendar, Christian holidays, devotional disciplines, family instruction, church architecture and other sacred art that reflected biblical themes. For all of these Christian brethren, *sola scriptura *would have appeared as some absurd abstraction in addition to being a practical impossibility.
May I just say that I greatly respect your commitment and reverence for God’s Word; the Catholic Church needs very much people of your stamp, for you would be a great asset to the Church. Please, reflect and give your whole attention to what I and my fellow Catholics have said with respect to the Church and its teachings.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Dear Ginger2,
Cordial greetings.
The alleged suffuciency of the bible is really an extention of *sola scriptura * and similarly cannot be sustained. For one thing the bible itself points to the Church as being the final arbiter of truth in all issues affecting faith and morals, not Scripture (cf. 1 Tim. 3: 15; St. Matt. 16: 18-19; 18: 18; St. Lk. 10: 16). This makes very good sense, especially on a practical level, for only an entity with the capacity to observe and correctly elucidate information can act as an authority. Whilst it is true that Sacred Scripture contains God-breathed revelation, it cannot act as a final “authority” since it is dependent upon thinking personalities to observe what it says and, more importantly, interpret what it means. Moreover, the bible warns us that it contains difficult and confusing material which is capable (if not actually prone) to being twisted into all sorts of fanciful and false interpretations (2 Peter 3: 16) - the whole history of Protestant sectarianism abundantly testifies to this.
Ginger, one of the key problems of Protestantism, and one that impacted me greatly before my conversion to Catholicism, was the untold damage that the theory of *sola scriptura *had done to Christendom. The most obvious evidence of this damage was, of course, Protestantism itself: a huge mass of conflicting, bickering denominations, causing, by its very nature of “protest” and “defiance”, an interminable proliferation of chaos and controversy. That is why I initially got involved with this thread. The multiplicity of Protestant denominations is a scandal and cannot be justified or mitigated and must be denouced in the strongest terms.
It is freely acknowledged that all is not well within the Catholic Church. Alas, in every age, the Church has had to endure the blight of worldly, sinful and heretical members. At the present time, the Church is engaged in a cultural war and is fighting the destructive forces of liberalism, which have, regrettably, influenced a portion of the Church, especially in the West. However, one must realize that aberrationns among its members does not, and indeed cannot, negate the Catholic Church’s authenticity and uniquiness as Christ’s true Church. It is vital that one distinguishes sharply between what is done in the name of Catholicism from what is officially taught by the Magisterium. The presence of Rebellious members and hand in hand with the world type of members, should hardly surprise us. Sacred Scripture warns that many in the Church will sin and become corrupt, although maintaining the appearance of being commited. As our Lord said Himself, the wheat and the tares must grow together until He returns to judge the world.
Jesus established a Church through which He has intended to reveal Himself to the world (St. Matt. 5: 14-15; 28: 18-20; Eph. 3: 10). Through the authoritative Scripture, oral preaching, and infallible decisions that came from Christ through His Church (St. Lk. 10: 16; Acts 15, which we have been discussing), our Lord began the slow but steady process of working through the instrumentality of his Body the Church (cf. Rom. 12: 1-5; I Cor. 12: 12-27; Eph. 3: 4-6; 5: 21-23; Col. 1: 18) to bring all things captive in obedience to Himself (2 Cor. 10: 5).
In order to accomplish this mission of mercy, the Church must be able to teach the truth at all time. If the church is not protected from teaching error in faith and morals, the faithful would have absolutely no trustworthy foundation upon which to bulid their most holy faith. Protestants like yourself disagree, claiming that their doctrinal certitude is based firmly on the bible alone. However, Sacred Scripture nowhere claims to be sufficient for this task and it actually warns that it can be misinterpreted and twisted.
Finally, sufficiency of the bible is historically problematic since the written word and indeed mass literacy have only been widespread since the invention of the movable-type printing press, c. 1440. Thus, it could not have been the primary conveyor of the Gospel for at least fourteen centuries. Prior to the Reformation Christians learned their faith mostly from homilies, sacraments, the Liturgy and its year-long calendar, Christian holidays, devotional disciplines, family instruction, church architecture and other sacred art that reflected biblical themes. For all of these Christian brethren, *sola scriptura *would have appeared as some absurd abstraction in addition to being a practical impossibility.
May I just say that I greatly respect your commitment and reverence for God’s Word; the Catholic Church needs very much people of your stamp, for you would be a great asset to the Church. Please, reflect and give your whole attention to what I and my fellow Catholics have said with respect to the Church and its teachings.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
J
jmcrae
Guest
No. The Didache was written for adult converts.
Baptism is how we first come to Christ. The other Sacraments are how we remain in Christ.
Obviously, a newborn baby cannot come to Christ in his heart, or in his intellect - so he comes to Christ by means of the Sacrament of Baptism. Ultimately, everyone who has come to Christ in his heart and/or in his intellect, also has to come to Christ and remain in Christ by means of the Sacraments, as well, because we are not able to fully complete these things under our own power.
When the baby grows older, he will also come to Christ in his heart and in his intellect, by being taught all these things by his parents and by his teachers in the Church.
The Sacraments operate under God’s power; not ours - that’s why they are effective means of grace.
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
How funny, as a Lutheran I see the precedent a little different. Just recently, a group of us didn’t really agree with the pastor, actually he really wasn’t doing a very good job. Rather than picking up and leaving, we got together, talked about it, and then fired him. Actually the story is a little longer than that, but this is the readers digest version
So please don’t lump all Protestants into your Baptist box, and don’t lump Lutherans or Episcopalians into that group. We have polity that allows us a great deal of freedom, but at the same time gives us a set of rules we need to play with in.
- Status