Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[rcwitness]

Ok.maybe .did not say there was not infant baptism,

So do you believe there was, or wasn’t Infant Baptism approved and practiced since the Apostles?

but said do not think it was “widespread and prevalent” and relative to catechumen, which did diminish immensely and church buildings stopped architecture to accommodate almost two ‘bodies’’ (cathechumen and baptized ).

Is this then a proof of something? You made a firm statement that infant Baptism was not widespread and prevalent… now you think it wasnt.

The important thing is whether or not it was given by the Apostles to do so or not to do so. I don’t believe there is biblical proof either way, but that a case can be made for either. I believe the case for it is stronger, and the Tradition of its practice from earliest accounts confirm the belief. All ancient Churches believe this.

 

[Wannano]

Duh! I’m 71 and don’t recall the topic; PLEASE refresh my memory and I WILL be happy to respond to it. SORRY!

God Bless,

Patrick

It originated with post 250 and was affirmed by you in post 271.

I can’t comprehend what the Nicene creed contradicted…

 

[Stilldreamn]

Hi Still. I don’t think I have the time/energy to put my thoughts on this into a nice linear form … so I’ll post something different: Never the Twain?

Apologies if you’re already familiar with it.

Interesting read - I would sum that up as “somebody has to repent of error.” Our human hearts militate against that even though we long for unity.

 

[PJM]

Hi benhur,

Early church had a big problem with Judaizers insisting on keeping OT law as I am sure you already know.

Do you see anything in that quote from Amos chapter 9(talking about destruction and restoration of Israel) that addresses abstaining from meat, sexual immorality or circumcision? Or were the apostles guided by the Holy Spirit and their first hand knowledge of the Lord’s teaching, making decisions for the good of the church?

I think I know where you are going, but go ahead and tell me what difference you think there is in that council.

Thanks

GREAT reply!

Thanks,

PJM

 

[PJM]

Sola scriptura cannot “vouchsafe” the Oral Sacred Traditions, when the SolaScripture does not record them.

For one of many example’s; Paul teaches the Thessalonian Church, first Orally and practice, then later writes to the Thessalonian Church to continue in the prayers and Christian practices he gave them, yet Paul does not list the prayers, or the Christian practices to follow in his Epistle to the Thessalonians. Thus a Sola Scriptura cannot vouchsafe the Oral apostolic Tradition without the Oral Sacred Tradition that became practice unchanged in the Catholic church today.

The Catholic Church continues in Paul’s Oral Tradition he handed down to us. A Sola Scripturalist today would be lost to these ancient apostolic Traditions that Paul and the other apostles handed down to the Catholic faithful.

There is much more to reveal here, so I am trying to keep my responses short.

The problem I see here, is that a Sola Scripturalist cannot support the developed doctrine of the Trinity, because Trinity cannot be found in Sola Scriptura according to your above statement. Trinity is part of the God breathed revelation that stems from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Scripture contradicts your view, when scripture has both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as being God breathed. For instance; before anything was written or God breathed, the Gospels and teachings were given Orally in the hearing of the believers, which is God breathed. What was preached and handed down, later became written, but not all was written that was placed into Christian prayer and practices. We need the Oral Sacred Traditions and practices that the scripture give witness too, but many of the New Testament writers do not record in a letter specifically or categorically what is already believed and practiced in these new Christian communities. The written Word at many times only encourages them to continue in their Christian practices and disciplines.

Pope Leo X was not personally present in the first century, but the Pope’s office as apostolic Successor to Peter was present when Jesus gave Peter the universal keys to the kingdom of God to bind and loose on earth. While all the other apostles and apostolic successors received the same keys to be practiced locally. Thus my local bishop have the apostolic keys to bind and loose within his local diocese. Yet Peter or Pope Leo X possesses both the local keys to bind and loose in Rome, and the universal keys to bind and loose upon the whole earth in communion with his brother bishops.

A Sola Scripturalist that denies Sacred Tradition, in no way has apostolic succession nor the divine keys to define or defend the apostolic faith against evil powers and principalities, with sacred scripture.

Trinity is a developed doctrine. Jesus nature is a developed doctrine that is revealed by both Oral Tradition and sacred scripture. Those Catholics who opposed these doctrines were excommunicated, which is an apostolic practice since apostolic times. Yes, Jesus did promise, that the “gate’s” plural would come against His Church.

We have to remember the Catholic Church teaches; there is no more new divine revelations since the last apostle. When the church uses the term development of doctrine. She is not indicating a new divine revelation, the development of doctrine cannot and does not contradict sacred scripture nor sacred Tradition. The development is a process when the Church defends the apostolic teachings and Jesus Christ divine revelations with more clarity to new developed languages, new ages of understanding etc. The Gospel has not changed within the Catholic church for over 2000 years and counting.

continued;

Thank you, great post!

PJM

 

[PJM]

So there is no biblical precedent ?

So there is no biblical precedent ?

OK, you got me

Had a tough medical day yesterday. Should have just not posted at all:blush:

Yes: there were two

So let’s go with Indulgences

I’m still not 100%

The Council of Constance condemned among the errors of Wyclif the proposition: “It is foolish tobelieve in the indulgences granted by the pope and the bishops” (Sess. VIII, 4 May, 1415; seeDenzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion”, 622). In the Bull “Exsurge Domine”, 15 June, 1520, Leo Xcondemned Luther’s assertions that “Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful”; and that “Indulgences do not avail those who really gain them for the remission of the penalty due to actual sinin the sight of God’s justice” (Enchiridion, 75S, 759), The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4, Dec., 1563) declared: "Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them (Enchridion, 989). It is therefore of faith (de fide)

Blessings,

PJM

 

[commenter]

OK, you got me

Had a tough medical day yesterday. Should have just not posted at all:blush:

Yes: there were two

So let’s go with Indulgences

I’m still not 100%

Blessings,

PJM

Will pray for your medical.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Still,

Speaking for myself - should this unification take place I would see that as the work of the Holy Spirit and fulfillment of God’s will that “they be one, even as We are One.” I expect that the Spirit would be simultaneously be moving through all Christian communions and gathering up the scattered sons and daughters.

It may not happen until the last trumpet sounds, but even so…

I take it from this statement that if the EOC and the RCC were to come into full communion, then you would leave Lutheranism and join the reunited Catholic Church. Is that correct?

If that isn’t what it means to you, then what would it mean? How would you personally respond to such a reunification?

God Bless You Still, Topper

 

[PJM]

I’m inserting here an apology to Lenten_ashes on the below higlighted post #258

I was NOT disagreeing with the shared teaching at all. WHAT I had hoped to do was ADD to it. And I didn’t explain that sufficiently:blush:

Sorry! Your’s WAS a great post:thumbsup:

{QUOTE]Originally Posted by Wannano View Post {REPLY by Lenten _ashes]
Agree about not solving it today! I would though be interested in your understanding of “Baptism of desire” as I am not familiar with the term. Please elaborate on the thief on the cross too if you have the time (and patience)!
Hi Wannano,

The church teaches that while God has given us sacraments, He is not bound by those sacraments.

Quote:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments

Actually .God is {BY HIS CHOICE]… I share this for the sake of those who may not know

A right understanding of the Power of the THEE Key’s {all of them} in Mt 16:18-19}

Please take careful note of the following:

[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church"]And I will give to thee the {all of} keys of the kingdom of heaven]. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth,** it shall be bound also in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth****, it shall be loosed also in heaven**.

Not always understood here is the full and precise meaning of the terms : to BIND & or to LOOSE.

At that time; in that place these were common Rabbi TERMS, enforceable in Jewish courts of Law.

In EFFECT they granted TOTAL and Complete, unencumbered Powers of Governance. In this instance Jesus granted such, by absolute necessity, as He was soon to Die; and Mt. 28:19-20 tells us that before ascending back to the Father, He, Jesus changed the MANDATE of Mt. 10: 1-8 {verses 5 &6} to “YOU GO!” only to the house of Israel TO “YOU GO to the ENTIRE WORLD”; thus it is Jesus Himself who institutes SUCCESSION; and HAD to establish an authority LEFT here on earth to begin to fulfill that Mission.

So with the KEY’s came the essential and necessary authority & POWER to Govern the New “My Church” in the name of Jesus. READ John 17:17-20 very carefully

And this was no NEW innovation on the part of Jesus. It was common practice for walled in cites {such as Jerusalem was and remains} to have a KING, who would appoint a VISAR, a man charged with running the CITIES day-to-day affairs with absolute authority ANSWERABLE ONLY to “thee KING”. And THIS then is the authority given to Peter & successors for “MY CHURCH.”

This thief was :heaven bound both by Baptism of Desire and God’s Promise. So in THAT sense you were COMPLETELY correct in your first statement. Although it maight have been worded differently.

Great POST!

Thanks,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I post this question also, because I don’t see the doctrines in the Scriptures…
Doesn’t this leave the opportunity for doctrine to be made up as time went along? I still have problems with the Marian doctrines yet. (Please, friends, don’t jump on me about this) I just don’t see any of the 1st or 2nd century speak to them. Why does it take till the mid 1800’s and mid 1900’s to have them become official teachings in the Church.

I posted this question here because I don’t see the doctrines clearly taught in Scripture (related to the Sola Scriptura topic) Again, I am trying to be respectful of your teachings - I just want to understand totally.

God bless, all!

Rita

Hi again Rita,

If my memory serves we exchanged views on this issue once before? Maybe not?

To the best of MY knowledge there in nothing in the Bible stating precisely that "EVERYTHING HAS TO BE in the bible to be true.

In a few POST back I explained the AUTHORITY of "the Key’s}, in a brief manner giving biblical evidence of such.

John 20:30-31
" [30] Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.[31] But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name."

AND

John 21: 24-25
“[24] This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. [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.”

On the other hand, these teaching from John’s Gospel clearly teach that NOT EVERYTHING is, or WAS intended to be included with the 73 book Bible.

It is a logical and a moral & theological impossibility that EVERYTHING THAT GOD desired His New Faith [singular]; New Church singular} was to do and teach COULD be contained in a sigle volume; no matter how large that volume would have to be.

Gid Bless you Rita,

Patrick

 

[benhur]

Just so you know, I personally consider you a brother and a equal Christian in the Lord. and I apologize if I have come across as unruly in this forum. A few people have said that now and where there’s smoke there is fire, so I must be doing something wrong.

Hi La,

Thank you, but no, I was not referring to you, and you have been most cordial. I was referring more to Vat 2 documents and catechisms directly and by inference, and of course as has been mentioned by some folks at CAF. Again, I do not mind one believing their doctrines are better than those they disbelieve, or believe to be in error.That is only natural.

And I get why protestants are so cautious about Mary and the Church’s declarations about her, with “evolving doctrines”. I would say first that all protestants are trusting in the “Decree of Damasus”, 382AD for the canon that they hold so dear. A Catholic Pope, whom most see as evil and insidious.(I was protestant so I know how they talk lol) So if they got that right, and got everything right to include the Trinity at Nicea in 325 AD, why do they not continue to trust in the Church?

Yes, this is often cited to reformers, that the Church gave us the bible so why should not the church be authoritative, period.

My response is that the church "received " Holy Writ and kept it , preserved it etc… But we also are to "receive’’ Christ , as obedience to the gospel. Receiving Christ does not make us equal to Christ. It is like Mary gave us Jesus, but she is not equal to Christ. The Church received Writ from God, but that does not make the church thereafter equal to the God breathed authority of Writ. That is, the right to impose an obligation to a rule of faith must first be shown to be scriptural. Even that Scripture has more authority than a pope or council, for we know absolutely for sure, by faith, that scripture is God breathed, but a close second is councils or offices as God led. It is a close second only because of the superlative and first right of scripture.

And if the Church went off the deep end, when exactly did this happen?

Hard to say. That is how leaven works, in that only a small amount is sufficient. Certainly a beginning fruit was the battle over when to celebrate Easter, or who must be re-baptized if relapsed etc and who had right to impose the obligatory rule(s).

The trust issue really comes down to a few verses of scripture. As you know, this is the passage that separates us:

That passage literally screams infallibility and a promise of the Holy Spirit to remain with Peter and his office. Of course you interpret to mean something else, but if Catholics are right, then the Church has scriptural backing for these doctrines that evolve over time.

Understand. Again not the same kind of infallibility as scripture, but close for the apostles, like Christ, had authority from God. The prophets and the apostles are our foundation.

That understanding of said quote developed also. From my understanding, Pope Stephen in 3rd century first used Matt to justify Rome’s authority over others. It was not used at Jerusalem at the first council.

Many non-Catholics talk about Tradition and say, how in the world can you trust THAT? And I would respond with one word - PEDIGREE.

Yet it is better to say that reformers did trust tradition, in that there was a referee, in Writ.
Pedigree is ok, but again is not infallible, is not a guarantee of the “anointing”. The apostles have been tested and found to indeed be our foundation, as stated in Revelations. What is laid upon them is still in question, and as if by fire will be tested, right down to today, the current “living stones” , as per Peter’s words…

Is the Lord done speaking to His church and revealing the fullness of the Truth? Jesus told the apostles He will not leave them as orphans John 14:18. And we know after He resurrected He appeared to them., even in different forms. We also know that not everything was written down from reading John 21:25 and John 16:12. So I would contend that the Church is a live institution that helps us see through this foggy mirror a little bit clearer 1 Corinthians 13:12

Yes amen. But the truer fulfillment of that promise not to to leave us orphans was and is the gift the Holy Spirit, as God Himself, and also bearing gifts and anointings.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

So do you believe there was, or wasn’t Infant Baptism approved and practiced since the Apostles?

Is this then a proof of something? You made a firm statement that infant Baptism was not widespread and prevalent… now you think it wasnt.

The important thing is whether or not it was given by the Apostles to do so or not to do so. I don’t believe there is biblical proof either way, but that a case can be made for either. I believe the case for it is stronger, and the Tradition of its practice from earliest accounts confirm the belief. All ancient Churches believe this.

Agree with the underlined. There is proof that* believing* individuals were almost immediately baptized.

Did not go back on what I first posted, that infant baptism did become prevalent and widespread, but put it at a much later date, when the catechumen "class’ almost shrank out of existence . What we have to figure out was the catechumen composed of younger children of saved parents , and or newly converted adults.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Thank you, but no, I was not referring to you, and you have been most cordial. I was referring more to Vat 2 documents and catechisms directly and by inference, and of course as has been mentioned by some folks at CAF. Again, I do not mind one believing their doctrines are better than those they disbelieve, or believe to be in error.That is only natural.
Yes, this is often cited to reformers, that the Church gave us the bible so why should not the church be authoritative, period.

My response is that the church "received " Holy Writ and kept it , preserved it etc… But we also are to "receive’’ Christ , as obedience to the gospel. Receiving Christ does not make us equal to Christ. It is like Mary gave us Jesus, but she is not equal to Christ. The Church received Writ from God, but that does not make the church thereafter equal to the God breathed authority of Writ. That is, the right to impose an obligation to a rule of faith must first be shown to be scriptural. Even that Scripture has more authority than a pope or council, for we know absolutely for sure, by faith, that scripture is God breathed, but a close second is councils or offices as God led. It is a close second only because of the superlative and first right of scripture. Hard to say. That is how leaven works, in that only a small amount is sufficient. Certainly a beginning fruit was the battle over when to celebrate Easter, or who must be re-baptized if relapsed etc and who had right to impose the obligatory rule(s).
Understand. Again not the same kind of infallibility as scripture, but close for the apostles, like Christ, had authority from God. The prophets and the apostles are our foundation.

That understanding of said quote developed also. From my understanding, Pope Stephen in 3rd century first used Matt to justify Rome’s authority over others. It was not used at Jerusalem at the first council.
Yet it is better to say that reformers did trust tradition, in that there was a referee, in Writ.
Pedigree is ok, but again is not infallible, is not a guarantee of the “anointing”. The apostles have been tested and found to indeed be our foundation, as stated in Revelations. What is laid upon them is still in question, and as if by fire will be tested, right down to today, the current “living stones” , as per Peter’s words…

Yes amen. But the truer fulfillment of that promise not to to leave us orphans was and is the gift the Holy Spirit, as God Himself, and also bearing gifts and anointings.

Blessings

Thank you, Benhur, for acknowledging the bolded part. You know It blows my mind how anyone with any sense of reality can try to dispute it but it happens all the time.

We wont agree on the importance of the Church. But in all my years as a bible-only protestant (13 in total) There were some scriptures that really bothered me. Matthew 18:17, John 20:21-23 and 1 Tim 3:15, just to name a few. Those passages tell us how the early Church is the pillar of the truth and how it is authoritative and apostolic in nature. And that did not resemble our churches as protestants. Truth is more subjective and based upon our own interpretation of it on the protestant side. And i think that’s dangerous because that’s obviously not what was originally intended for us. And as a follower of SS, I could not find anything biblical indicating the church was going to be completely remodeled to resemble something else in later years.

You are correct that is is James that makes the final ruling in ACTS 15.

It’s the age old primacy debate between the RCC and EO’s. The Orthodox church has acknowledged that the chair of Peter is “the first among equals”.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/orthodox_recognize_pope_first_among_equals_disagreements_remain/

My reply to that would be, isn’t first still first?

We have matters that are handled at the diocese level and others that go to Rome. So I don’t see a big problem with James reaffirming what was already said there.

The Lord be with you.

 

[benhur]

Thank you, Benhur, for acknowledging the bolded part. You know It blows my mind how anyone with any sense of reality can try to dispute it but it happens all the time.

Yes, not enough can be said to honor those who were faithful to that end of handing us such tradition in scripture, and all that it required.

Those passages tell us how the early Church is the pillar of the truth and how it is authoritative and apostolic in nature. And that did not resemble our churches as protestants.

As far as having one set of doctrines a-z , no. As far as opertaing under the anointing of the Holy Spirit to save the lost and make disciples in Christ (not disciples in Catholicism, or Orthodoxy, or Protestantism), yes.

Truth is more subjective and based upon our own interpretation of it on the protestant side.

All three church groups are somewhat subjective in their own interpretation of our differences. Perhaps what makes one appear more subjective than another is how much they consider “tradition”, history, patristic writings . I would say most do (again subjectively). However, I am sure some P churches deem themselves quite “independent” of said tradition, and wrongly so I would say.

And as a follower of SS, I could not find anything biblical indicating the church was going to be completely remodeled to resemble something else in later years.

Well ,reformers vary in their remodeling. In my opinion some remodeled very little, and others quite a bit. However, classical reformers thought themselves to be in the business of "restoration’’, of bringing back to the original.

It’s the age old primacy debate between the RCC and EO’s. The Orthodox church has acknowledged that the chair of Peter is “the first among equals”.

My reply to that would be, isn’t first still first?

And equal is equal?

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Yes, not enough can be said to honor those who were faithful to that end of handing us such tradition in scripture, and all that it required.
As far as having one set of doctrines a-z , no. As far as opertaing under the anointing of the Holy Spirit to save the lost and make disciples in Christ (not disciples in Catholicism, or Orthodoxy, or Protestantism), yes. All three church groups are somewhat subjective in their own interpretation of our differences. Perhaps what makes one appear more subjective than another is how much they consider “tradition”, history, patristic writings . I would say most do. However, I am sure some P churches deem themselves quite “independent” of said tradition, and wrongly so I would say.Well ,reformers vary in their remodeling. In my opinion some remodeled very little, and others quite a bit. However, classical reformers thought themselves to be in the business of "restoration’’, of bringing back to the original.
And equal is equal?

Blessings

I think a good example is husband and wife. They are equal, but one is the head of the household. Ephesians 5:22

You have a rational approach in regards to tradition. Very refreshing.

 

[benhur]

I think a good example is husband and wife. They are equal, but one is the head of the household. Ephesians 5:22

You have a rational approach in regards to tradition. Very refreshing.

Thank you

.I was gonna joke and say to your ananlogy that all the apostles were male. But that is a good analogy .Would have to think about it. Certainly Peter was a leader , and only one person can go in , use the keys , first to open a door.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Agree with the underlined. There is proof that* believing* individuals were almost immediately baptized.

don’t think anyone wouldn’t acknowledge this.

Did not go back on what I first posted, that infant baptism did become prevalent and widespread, but put it at a much later date, when the catechumen "class’ almost shrank out of existence .

ok, I haven’t read about this. Can you remember a source?

What we have to figure out was the catechumen composed of younger children of saved parents , and or newly converted adults.

I’m sure the faith formation of children and adults has gone through different changes over the centuries.

What I’m defending here, is legitimate (Apostolic approved) Baptism of infants. I take this to heart, since I brought both my children to Baptism as infants.

So I ask, do you believe it is in the True Faith to practice Infant Baptism?

And I ask in this thread, because it is not explicitly Taught in Scripture. Though, like I said, I believe it has more to uphold and practice it from Scripture than it does to reject it and condemn it.

 

[spedteacherita]

Hi again Rita,

If my memory serves we exchanged views on this issue once before? Maybe not?

To the best of MY knowledge there in nothing in the Bible stating precisely that "EVERYTHING HAS TO BE in the bible to be true.

In a few POST back I explained the AUTHORITY of "the Key’s}, in a brief manner giving biblical evidence of such.

John 20:30-31
" [30] Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.[31] But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name."

AND

John 21: 24-25
“[24] This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. [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.”

On the other hand, these teaching from John’s Gospel clearly teach that NOT EVERYTHING is, or WAS intended to be included with the 73 book Bible.

It is a logical and a moral & theological impossibility that EVERYTHING THAT GOD desired His New Faith [singular]; New Church [singular} was to do and teach COULD be contained in a sigle volume; no matter how large that volume would have to be.

Gid Bless you Rita,

Patrick

Hi Patrick,

Yes, I’ve had this conversation with a lot of people. I realize that you stand by the Catholic view that everything doesn’t have to be in the Bible and that you have Tradition and the Magisterium. It seems though, to me, that if something can’t be explained as something that was written down that Catholics then rely on the other 2 - Tradition and Magisterium. I have not been convinced at all…it just seems like a new teaching when something is proclaimed as dogma or doctrine (sorry these 2 words confuse me right now). I mean, why wait to the mid 1800’s and mid 1900’s to proclaim the assumption and immaculate conception of Mary. I can’t have confidence in the other teachings if I can’t understand that. Why didn’t the 1st and 2nd century church fathers pray to Mary or specifically speak to those two later doctrines…

Again, my Catholic friends, I don’t mean to be disrespectful at all to the RCC teachings. It is just circling around in my brain with no place to be settled and resolved.

Are the Traditions of the Apostles written down? It seems that would be a great way to be able to look at them as they were taught and be able to see the other things that were taught.

I hope you can understand my struggle…

God bless all!

Rita
[/quote]

 

[Peter_J]

I hope you can understand my struggle…

God bless all!

Rita

Hi. I’ve been only marginally participating on this thread, but I would say this: all Christians are or should be struggling … but I wonder if your struggles have more to do with thinking about RC teaching than thinking about Lutheran teaching?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi Patrick,

Yes, I’ve had this conversation with a lot of people. I realize that you stand by the Catholic view that everything doesn’t have to be in the Bible and that you have Tradition and the Magisterium. It seems though, to me, that if something can’t be explained as something that was written down that Catholics then rely on the other 2 - Tradition and Magisterium. I have not been convinced at all…it just seems like a new teaching when something is proclaimed as dogma or doctrine (sorry these 2 words confuse me right now). I mean, why wait to the mid 1800’s and mid 1900’s to proclaim the assumption and immaculate conception of Mary. I can’t have confidence in the other teachings if I can’t understand that. Why didn’t the 1st and 2nd century church fathers pray to Mary or specifically speak to those two later doctrines…

Again, my Catholic friends, I don’t mean to be disrespectful at all to the RCC teachings. It is just circling around in my brain with no place to be settled and resolved.

Are the Traditions of the Apostles written down? It seems that would be a great way to be able to look at them as they were taught and be able to see the other things that were taught.

I hope you can understand my struggle…

God bless all!

Rita

Hi Rita.

The happy birthday song…your kids probably know it, you know it, your mom knew it, her mom probably knew it, etc, etc.

But I think it’s not likely it’s written down and stored in a safe in your house?