Sacred Traditions That Supposedly Contradict The Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
newbie1234 said:
Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. OT saints were not saved by circumcision. They were saved by their faith.Rom4:3
Click to expand...
Yet that faith was commanded to be expressed how? Same is true in the NT…

I think you better go back and look at the command from God about circumcision in the OT…you’re interpreting that to fit your own theology not drawing your theology from the Word on it.
 
newbie1234 said:
So the church teaches that they went to hell for lying to the Holy Spirit?
Even though the text does not say where they ended up.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t offically teach where they went, as far as I know.

Take a guess, where do you think they went?
I know that Jesus told us not to judge, but take a guess anyways.
 
newbie1234 said:
So the church teaches that they went to hell for lying to the Holy Spirit?
Even though the text does not say where they ended up.
Click to expand...
Never said that, but you can’t refute it from your own theology. Did they willfully commit a grave sin? Did they confess their sin?

Not having obeyed the NT as to dealing with their sins where does that most probably leave them? 😦
 
newbie1234 said:
Purgatory is not an option in my theology
Click to expand...
I knew that, I was joking… that is why I put the smily face there.
newbie1234 said:
Purgatory is not an option in my theology
Click to expand...
OK, I understand that it isn’t.

Would Jesus celebrate a yearly feast, if it was manmade tradition, and not taught in scripture? I mean would he travel all the way Jerusalem for this feast?
 
Outta here for the night. See ya tomorrow Newbie and R&S. Blessed rest to you both! 🙂
 
Church_Militant said:
Yet that faith was commanded to be expressed how? Same is true in the NT…

I think you better go back and look at the command from God about circumcision in the OT…you’re interpreting that to fit your own theology not drawing your theology from the Word on it.
Click to expand...
Gen 15:6
Gen22:16-17 Abrahams faith

Read rom 4 for the whole explanation
 
runandsew said:
I know I won’t convice you of infant baptism, but the Bible shows us that whole households were baptized at once, and though it doesn’t say that there were infants in these households, it also doesn’t say that there were no infants.

We see that with the writings of Origen, Augustine, and the Council of Carthage that it was the practice of the early church to baptize infants. So it would be at least from 244 AD, but probably older since they are writing that it is already the tradition to do this practice.

Acts 16:15-16
One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God, listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. After she and her household had been baptized, she offered us an invitation, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my home,” and she prevailed on us.

Acts 16:33
He (The Jailer) took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then **he and all his family were baptized **at once.

1 Cor. 1:16
(**I baptized the household of Stephanas **also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

Origen, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]).

The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth.
Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in** baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned** . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
Click to expand...
There is that pesky sacred tradition that I don’t follow
 
runandsew said:
I knew that, I was joking… that is why I put the smily face there.

OK, I understand that it isn’t.

Would Jesus celebrate a yearly feast, if it was manmade tradition, and not taught in scripture? I mean would he travel all the way Jerusalem for this feast?
Click to expand...
What feast are you refering to?
 
runandsew said:
I knew that, I was joking… that is why I put the smily face there.

OK, I understand that it isn’t.

Would Jesus celebrate a yearly feast, if it was manmade tradition, and not taught in scripture? I mean would he travel all the way Jerusalem for this feast?
Click to expand...
I am getting tired myself. Good Night!
 
newbie1234 said:
There is that pesky sacred tradition that I don’t follow
Click to expand...
😛

Even if you don’t follow the pesky sacred traditions, these writings still show that it was very early in the church when the practice of infant baptism began.
I realize that you would only follow those early church traditions, if they could be clearly taught is scripture, and this is not taught clearly. But if you believe that baptism replaced circumcision to bring us into the family of God, then you could see that this is found in scripture, or at least doesn’t go against scripture. In the council of Cathage, the reason they were arguing about having to wait until the 8th day, is because that is when it was commanded by God for the infants to be circumcised. They were arguing that you didn’t have to wait until the 8th day, you could do it before. This shows that in the year 253, there was a belief that Baptism replaced circumcision.
 
newbie1234 said:
What feast are you refering to?
Click to expand...
In John 10:22, Jesus is at The feast of the Dedication, which is now called Hanukkah.
It’s origins are not found in the Protestant Old Testament, but is in found in the Catholic Old Testament.
It is established in 1 Maccabees as well as in 2 Maccabees 10:1-5,
this is the same book which teaches about purgatory, and the practice of praying for the dead, in 2 Maccabees 12:40-46

So Jesus is celebrating a feast which is commanded to be celebrated in the same book, and by the same people who also prayed for the dead, the bases for Purgatory.
 
newbie1234 said:
Ephesians 4:12 says people in the body of Christ are saints when they are alive and in ministry.
I don’t recall any passages that say that to become a saint a person has to be dead and the church has to approve that they performed three miracles when they were alive. Another chirch tradition with no biblical foundation.
Click to expand...
You’ve made two distortions of Catholic Teaching here, Newbie. It’s a good thing you’ve come to us to get the real Catholic teaching.

No one says to become a saint you have to be dead. We, the Body of Christ are both here on earth and in heaven (I’ll leave out the Church Suffering in Purgatory just so we can stay on the same playing field). We do NOT leave the Body of Christ simply because our mortal bodies have perished.

The Church knows that there are saints in heaven far beyond what they have recognized, no one ever made that claim. Someone is recognized as a saint simply because they’ve led such a good life, that they serve as an inspiration to all the rest of the Church Militant (us struggling Christians still running the race here on earth).
 
newbie1234 said:
Purgatory is not an option in my theology
Click to expand...
Newbie, now that I’ve finally caught up on this thread (man you guys can knock 'em out quickly!), I think you’ve touched on the crux of the matter. No, not Purgatory, but…

“_______” is not an option in my theology. It sounds like you’ve made up your own theology and you are denigrating Catholics for our Theology.

Good day.
 
newbie1234 said:
Mk 16:16 One who believes and is batptzed will be saved.
you must believe, first then get baptized
as an infant I could not believe so the baptism doesn’t really count.
Click to expand...
But did not Jesus also say 'The wind [pneuma] blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit [pneuma]’ in John 3: 8?

The work of the Holy Spirit is greater than our own awareness, so the one who is baptized in spite of his being an infant does not have to be aware with the work of the Spirit in his life.
 
newbie1234 said:
Gen 15:6
Gen22:16-17 Abrahams faith

Read rom 4 for the whole explanation
Click to expand...
I guess James and Paul are contradicting each other (highly unlikely if you also consider them to be both inspired by the same Spirit) when James wrote:
14: What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
15: If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
16: and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
17: So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18: But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
19: You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe – and shudder.
20: Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?
21: **Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22: You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
23: and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.
24: You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. **
25: And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26: For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
Click to expand...
I guess it’s a common misunderstanding among Protestants that Catholics believe in ‘Works Alone’. Which is not the case.

Just because Protestants believe in Faith Alone does not mean that we Catholics believe the other half (Works Alone). We believe in both. One is useless without the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top