Split: Another Tradition Debate

[hoosierdaddy]

How is the Trinity found in Scripture? In that term it’s not, and if you believe in the “Trinity” you are violating your scripture alone rule of faith. I believe but am not bound by your rule which was developed without the help of scripture after 1500 AD.

**I disagree with you though Mike. My point was you guys believe in the Trinity even though it’s not in Scripture but you want us to back up our beliefs with explicit Scripture. You can’t have it both ways. I’m also not violating any rule. Something doesn’t have to be explicitly spelled out in Scripture to satisfy the “Scripture alone” position. The implicit concept can be there.

Also 2Tim.3:16 is one of many verses in the Bible that point to Scripture being “enough” on its own without a “magisterium”. Couple that with the verse (sorry I’d have to find the reference) that says we will be taught by the Holy Spirit and will have no need for a (human) teacher and it’s pretty much a done deal for the Scripture alone crowd. Top it off with the Scriptural example “let God be true and every man a liar”, well, I’d say Scripture alone is pretty biblical.**

Since this is a Scripture Alone thread, I won’t go into individual doctrines here.

Sometimes you have to, in order to support your position. For example, all the catholics wanting us to find scripture verses to support our position.

I am not “expert” on Catholic doctrine. I know some things. What, I can’t know anything? How are you so expert on Protestant doctrine?

Since you asked, I am a cradle Catholic who’s been married to a hardcore Southern Baptist daughter of a So. Baptist Preacher from south Georgia for almost 40 years. Heck, my mother-in-law once told me Jesus Himself personally wrote every one of those red letter words in the Bible. Over those years I have had to learn a lot about both worlds, Catholic and protestant. I spent a lot of time in Sunday Schools, and even once was almost elected president of the class, but had to bow out to avoid getting kicked out of both churches. The things I know about both faith traditions are things I heard about, then checked to see if what I heard was true, because we all must seek The Way, The Truth and the Life, which is Jesus who is all of our savior. We’re all trying to get to the same place just using different terminology which is confusing.

**Thanks for sharing that. My story isn’t 40 years long but I have my own. I just want to point out though, that I have checked to see that the things I learned were true. And I am doing it now. On another thread someone basically called me a non-Christian because I’m not a Catholic. And I knew that this is truly what Catholics believe, even though they try hard to deny it. **

The things I know about Catholic doctrine are the things I’ve read and the things I’ve been told. I’ll end here. You cannot learn about Catholic Doctrine by reading protestant writers, nor can we learn about protestants from Catholics who have never been one.

Agreed.

 

[Reformed1]

Of course you would. But you’d be wrong.

As the moderator suggested, start a thread on each and every doctrine you have in mind…we’ll be there…with answers.

If you eliminate your tradition from the equation, many things which you guys believe:
treasury of merit
indulgences
purgatory
assumption of Mary
…etc just can’t be found.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Of course you would. But you’d be wrong.

As the moderator suggested, start a thread on each and every doctrine you have in mind…we’ll be there…with answers.

Actually there’d be no need to start another thread. This one is on Scripture alone…so show me your doctrines in Scripture. I want to see a sinless perpetual virgin Mary. I want to see where it tells you to chase down and kill those who believe in salvation by faith alone (which the gospel is). I want to see where the Church had the grounds to chase Martin Luther out while at the same time tolerating the sale of indulgences. Where are all those in Scripture? Hint…they ain’t. And they’re not even implied in Scripture. So…answers?

 

[MariaG]

Actually there’d be no need to start another thread. This one is on Scripture alone…so show me your doctrines in Scripture. I want to see a sinless perpetual virgin Mary. I want to see where it tells you to chase down and kill those who believe in salvation by faith alone (which the gospel is). I want to see where the Church had the grounds to chase Martin Luther out while at the same time tolerating the sale of indulgences. Where are all those in Scripture? Hint…they ain’t. And they’re not even implied in Scripture. So…answers?

This thread is to discuss the concept of the teaching scripture alone, not to show from scripture alone doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Again, start a thread on ONE of these topics, or several threads for each topic if you wish to discuss all of them.

God bless,
Maria

 

[Michael_Francis]

Actually there’d be no need to start another thread.

This one is on Scripture alone…so show me your doctrines in Scripture. I want to see a sinless perpetual virgin Mary. I want to see where it tells you to chase down and kill those who believe in salvation by faith alone (which the gospel is). I want to see where the Church had the grounds to chase Martin Luther out while at the same time tolerating the sale of indulgences. Where are all those in Scripture? Hint…they ain’t. And they’re not even implied in Scripture. So…answers?**Actually, there is, **hence this thread.

A defense of the belief that the Blessed Virgin was Immaculately Conceived (and possibly avoided sin during her lifetime) is vastly different (and off topic with regard to) a debate on Sola Scriptura.

The case for Sola Scriptura is made from the Bible itself whereas the case for the Immaculate Conception is made from the Bible and Sacred Tradition.

Because of this they are two entirely different debate topics.
MF

 

[runandsew]

If you eliminate your tradition from the equation, many things which you guys believe:
treasury of merit
indulgences
purgatory
assumption of Mary
…etc just can’t be found.

Well St. Jerome was able to find the perpetual virginity of Mary in scripture. Here is his argument for it which he wrote clear back in 383 AD

So are you telling us that if we eliminate our tradition from the equation, then the trinity and knowing which books in the new testament are inspired can be thrown out.
Or do you want to pick and choose which traditions you want to keep.
The ones that you agree with are inspired, and the ones you disagree with are not inspired?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Maria and Michael, this is semantics. Catholics want us to find our doctrines from just the Scriptures so if you want us to do that, then you have to as well. Hence the reason I asked for examples from Scripture of your doctrines; seeing as this was a thread about Scripture Alone.

If I started another thread I’d be told to start another thread…

 

[hoosierdaddy]

"The ones that you agree with are inspired, and the ones you disagree with are not inspired?"

No.

The ones that are inspired, I agree with.

The ones that are not inspired, I don’t agree with.

 

[mercygate]

Maria and Michael, this is semantics.** Catholics want us to find our doctrines from just the Scriptures**

Since your position is that Scripture alone is both formally and materially sufficient for the delineation of Christian doctrine, it is reasonable for Catholics to expect you to produce your case from Scripture alone.

Back at the Council of Nicea, the definition of the Holy Trinity through the use of the non-biblical word “homoousion” placed Sacred Tradition firmly within the pale of orthodox interpretation.

so if you want us to do that [use only Scripture in determinint doctrine], then you have to as well.

Not at all.

Hence the reason I asked for examples from Scripture of your doctrines; seeing as this was a thread about Scripture Alone.

Many Catholic Apologists bend to your challenge and are able to construct theological defenses of Catholic doctrine without referring to Tradition – bearing in mind, of course, that they distinguish between the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture.

 

[mikeledes]

Actually there’d be no need to start another thread. This one is on Scripture alone…so show me your doctrines in Scripture. I want to see a sinless perpetual virgin Mary. I want to see where it tells you to chase down and kill those who believe in salvation by faith alone (which the gospel is). I want to see where the Church had the grounds to chase Martin Luther out while at the same time tolerating the sale of indulgences. Where are all those in Scripture? Hint…they ain’t. And they’re not even implied in Scripture. So…answers?

By what authority did Martin Luther urge violence against the peasants that rebelled against their lords, peasants inspired by his own teachings? By what authority did he urge violence against the Jews? By what authority did John Calvin burn Michael Servetus as a heretic? By what authority did the follwers of Zwingli in Zurich put to death the Anabaptists? By what authority did the Puritans execute alleged witches in Salem and persecuted the Quakers? Protestantism has its bloody past and none of the three main Protestant reformers were free from blood in their hands.

Concerning Sola Scriptura, if we have the Holy Spirit as our teacher and the Bible is sufficient to understand Chritian truth, then why is it that all Protestants are not Lutherans? Why is it that within the first three decades of the Protestant Reformation, Protestantims was already splitting into several different sects (Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calvinists, Anabaptists) all of which claimed the Bible as their sole authority and that they were guided by the Holy Spirit? Why is it that Protestantism is divided inot so many churches and sects. The Holy Spirit is not the author of this confusion.

God Bless,
michael

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Since your position is that Scripture alone is both formally and materially sufficient for the delineation of Christian doctrine, it is reasonable for Catholics to expect you to produce your case from Scripture alone.

Actually it’s not. You want explicit examples from Scripture but we say the concepts are there. The concept of Scripture alone is right in Scripture. Likewise, we believe that you have to prove your doctrines from Scripture, implicit or explicit. The problem is, that for some of your doctrines, Scripture contains niether explicit nor implicit references.

Back at the Council of Nicea, the definition of the Holy Trinity through the use of the non-biblical word “homoousion” placed Sacred Tradition firmly within the pale of orthodox interpretation.

**Sacred Tradition was another word for “Old Testament” was it not? **

Not at all.

Many Catholic Apologists bend to your challenge and are able to construct theological defenses of Catholic doctrine without referring to Tradition – bearing in mind, of course, that they distinguish between the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture.

I have yet to see this.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

By what authority did Martin Luther urge violence against the peasants that rebelled against their lords, peasants inspired by his own teachings? By what authority did he urge violence against the Jews? By what authority did John Calvin burn Michael Servetus as a heretic? By what authority did the follwers of Zwingli in Zurich put to death the Anabaptists? By what authority did the Puritans execute alleged witches in Salem and persecuted the Quakers? Protestantism has its bloody past and none of the three main Protestant reformers were free from blood in their hands.

I believe Martin Luther did not want the peasants to use violence. And if he did, he thought it was justified as I believe he held to the just war theory. People may have acted violently due to misunderstanding his teachings. You ask a good question, what authority did those guys have to put others to death. I wondered the same thing because I think it was wrong. However, it was the state that put them to death. I could ask the same of you though. What authority did the Catholic church have to put anyone to death? Especially for something as 'heinous" as believing the gospel?

Concerning Sola Scriptura, if we have the Holy Spirit as our teacher and the Bible is sufficient to understand Chritian truth, then why is it that all Protestants are not Lutherans? Why is it that within the first three decades of the Protestant Reformation, Protestantims was already splitting into several different sects (Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calvinists, Anabaptists) all of which claimed the Bible as their sole authority and that they were guided by the Holy Spirit? Why is it that Protestantism is divided inot so many churches and sects. The Holy Spirit is not the author of this confusion.

Because the Bible itself declares that “now we see through a glass darkly”. People see things differently and that’s how different denominations come about. The problem is they divide and fight instead of working together to help everyone to see each side. The common ground between them all though is their belief in Jesus Christ, which is after all, the basis of our unity. Therefore, any Protestant denomination that believes in Jesus Christ is unified with any other Protestant denomination that believes in Jesus Christ. I hope this helped. God bless.

God Bless,
michael

 

[mikeledes]

So you can easily conclude from the Bible that God is three distinct persons instead of three masks, roles, or maifestations (Oneness Pentecostalism, modalism) ? That Jesus has two natures (hypotstatic union), instead of one nature (Monophytism, Eutychariasm) or two persons in one body (Nestorianism)? That Jesus has two wills instead of one (monolethitisn)?

Can you please point out where in the Bible does it say cloning is wrong? Where does it say abortion is the equivalent of murder? Where does it say masturbation is wrong? When is a marriage valid before the eyes of God? Is it after consent? It is after sexual intercourse?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Church_Militant]

Maria and Michael, this is semantics. Catholics want us to find our doctrines from just the Scriptures so if you want us to do that, then you have to as well. Hence the reason I asked for examples from Scripture of your doctrines; seeing as this was a thread about Scripture Alone.

This is not true. Look, You are the one who believes that everything has to be spelled out in the Bible, even when every early church father that lived and died for the faith disagrees with Sola Scriptura and plainly teaches the Eucharistic Real Presence.

Case in point: St. Ignatius of Antioch.
Friend and disciple of St. John and bishop of the church at Antioch “where we were first called Christians” (Acts 11:26) and martyred for the faith by being thrown to wild animals. Look here at what he wrote to the church at Smyrna.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection. They are the offspring of that spirit who is the author of all evil, who led Adam,(8) by means of his wife, to transgress the commandment, who slew Abel by the hands of Cain, who fought against Job, who was the accuser of Joshua(9) the son of Josedech, who sought to ''sift the faith"(10)of the apostles, who stirred up the multitude of the Jews against the Lord, who also now "worketh in the children of disobedience;(12)from whom the Lord Jesus Christ will deliver us, who prayed that the faith of the apostles might not fail,(14) not because He was not able of Himself to preserve it, but because He rejoiced in the pre-eminence of the Father. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and neither in private nor in public to talk with(15) them; but to give heed to the law, and the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the word of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.

CHAP. VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(2) even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord’s might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast.(1) But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid.

If I started another thread I’d be told to start another thread…

Not true either, but that seems to be your natural state bro. (J/K)
Pax tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

Since your position is that Scripture alone is both formally and materially sufficient for the delineation of Christian doctrine, it is reasonable for Catholics to expect you to produce your case from Scripture alone.

Many Catholic Apologists bend to your challenge and are able to construct theological defenses of Catholic doctrine without referring to Tradition – bearing in mind, of course, that they distinguish between the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture

.Exactly!:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[hoosierdaddy]

So you can easily conclude from the Bible that God is three distinct persons instead of three masks, roles, or maifestations (Oneness Pentecostalism, modalism) ? That Jesus has two natures (hypotstatic union), instead of one nature (Monophytism, Eutychariasm) or two persons in one body (Nestorianism)? That Jesus has two wills instead of one (monolethitisn)?

I’m sure I or someone more knowledgable than I could do so. In fact, we’d have to be able to. Otherwise, how did your church come up with their beliefs on the Trinity, etc? It has to come from Scripture.

Can you please point out where in the Bible does it say cloning is wrong? Where does it say abortion is the equivalent of murder? Where does it say masturbation is wrong? When is a marriage valid before the eyes of God? Is it after consent? It is after sexual intercourse?

Who said cloning was wrong? I think it’s unnatural but is it wrong? Abortion is the equivalent of murder…and you know where Scripture would teach that. Hint, check the Psalms at least. It doesn’t say masturbation is wrong. In fact, it may not be wrong. When is a marriage valid before the eyes of God? When two people commit to each other for life and do it according to the laws of the land. That was easy. God bless.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

hoosierdaddy:
So confusion is natural and okay? Having churches claim that speaking in tongues is a sign you’re saved verses those that say it’s a sign you’re not is okay with you? You’re right. The Protesants believe in Jesus. So do Catholics. So I guess that’s enough to unite us to Protestantism.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[hoosierdaddy]

“This is not true. Look, You are the one who believes that everything has to be spelled out in the Bible, even when every early church father that lived and died for the faith disagrees with Sola Scriptura and plainly teaches the Eucharistic Real Presence.”

I am? I believe that something has to be supported by Scripture. If something doesn’t stand up to the test of Scripture it’s not acceptable. Take the Trinity for example. I believe it is explicitly spelled out in Scripture but even if it weren’t, that doesn’t mean I would reject it.

Never have I said something has to be explicitly spelled out in the Bible but it defnitely has to be 'biblical". It has to stand up to the test. With all due respect, please confer with me before you post what “I believe” when you aren’t sure. Thanks.

 

[mikeledes]

Who said cloning was wrong? I think it’s unnatural but is it wrong? Abortion is the equivalent of murder…and you know where Scripture would teach that. Hint, check the Psalms at least. It doesn’t say masturbation is wrong. In fact, it may not be wrong. When is a marriage valid before the eyes of God? When two people commit to each other for life and do it according to the laws of the land. That was easy. God bless.

Really? Where is that definition of marriage in Scripture? Masturbation may not be wrong? That goes against over a thousand years of Chritsian teaching and you would definitely be in trouble with many Protestants for saying that.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[hoosierdaddy]

So confusion is natural and okay? Having churches claim that speaking in tongues is a sign you’re saved verses those that say it’s a sign you’re not is okay with you? You’re right. The Protesants believe in Jesus. So do Catholics. So I guess that’s enough to unite us to Protestantism.

God Bless,
Michael

A church that claims speaking in tongues is a sign that you are saved is not the problem. They are just wrong. However, a church that would say you have to speak in tongues in order to be saved would not be Christian. No confusion there, it’s as simple as that.

You said it; it’s enough to unite you to us Protestants. But you won’t…because you don’t consider us Christians.