Split: Another Tradition Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter hoosierdaddy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Shall I go find some Catholic quotes? I’m sure there were some “nice guy” Catholics.

I would have to see the context of those quotes. Was Luther saying that after the Catholic church had a price on his head? Why was it wrong to suggest they die but ok for Catholics to kill Protestants?

Maybe Luther had a bad day? I do know that he was against the violence of the Reformation.

Remember, Luther never lead anyone out of the Catholic church. The Catholic church kicked him out and those who believed they weren’t peons went with him. Good guys eh? 👍
 
We have done that and continue to do that. We have scripture. We have interpretation of that scripture. Your interpretation disagrees with ours. So what are we to do?
originally posted by hoosierdaddy post #79
Consider the possibility that you could be wrong?
I frequently do. And the Holy Spirit always leads me straight back to the Catholic Church.

And do you consider the possibility that you could be wrong?

Two sincere people who both claim to be born again Christians, both claim the leading of the Holy Spirit, yet one is wrong. What does scripture tell us to do then? Take it to the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth. Which Church would that be?
originally posted by Maria
Test the spirit. Pray for the leading of the Holy Spirit. Study the Scriptures. Study the writings of the Early Church and see who they agree with. They do not agree with you, so we reject your interpretation of scritpure. If you wish for us to reconsider, you need to bring more to the table than your own testimony but you also need to bring testimony from a source other than your own claims.
originally posted by hoosierdaddy
How do you know the early writings weren’t lies? Because in all honesty, the things some of you have come up with are so far from Christianity, they can’t be trustworthy. See my thread on purgatory and we’ll debate that:D I reject your interpretations because they disagree with Scripture. I do bring testimony from another source. The Bible. Please check out Psalm 119. I’m not so much trying to convert you to Protestantism. It is you that has to convince me. I am only defending my beliefs. You can disagree with them all you want, but you have to convince me that your beliefs are correct.
So far from Christianity? So far from whose interpretation of Christianity? Yours. Not so far from the interpretation of the Catholic Church or that of the early Church. (Note, I pray you will listen to things with an open heart, seeking the truth from the Holy Spirit, for frequently what one THINKS is a teaching of the Catholic Church, something that truly would mean Catholics are not Christian, is not actually a teaching of the CAtholic Church but a gross distortion and lie from Satan. If many of the things my friends told me the Catholic Church practiced were true, I would be going to hell. But they are not true. They sincerely thought they were true, but they were sincerely wrong.)

Scripture tells us that we will be led to all truth and that we will not hid our lights under a bush. If the early Christian writings that we refer to are false, where are the writings of the real Christians?

As to psalm 119, again, you say you keep to His word, but respectfully, you keep to your interpretation of that word. I testify to you that I too, keep to His word. Again the difference is that there are writings of early Christians who teach the same as the Catholic church teaches today, but do not teach your interpretation of scripture.

As to convincing you, I and others here will surely try to show you the truth of Christ as handed down by the apostles residing in the living breathing Church, the Catholic Church:D

We can see writings of those who say they were disciples of Christ who learned from the apostles. If those writings are false, where is the light of Christ of the True Christians?

As for your other source, I too bring testimony from scripture, but we disagree as to what that scripture means.
originally posted by Maria
Many of us are reverts or converts. We came to the Catholic Church only after diligently studying scripture. It was through scripture, the Holy Spirit, and God’s grace that we were able to penetrate the lies of Satan about the teachings of the Catholic Church. To see reflected in scripture AND in the early writings of the Church the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Originally posted by hoosierdaddy
I have a hard time accepting this when some of your beliefs are against Scripture. You’re not saying the reformers were spreading the lies of Satan are you?
Well, post a link (or private message me and tell me the name since I do not always even go to the open boards just check my subscriptions:p )here in this thread to any belief of the Catholic Church and we can discuss that more in depth for I tell you right now, there is not one dogma of the Catholic Church that contradicts scripture. Not one. And I am very comfortable discussing things solely by scripture:)

As to the lies of Satan, I was not specifically refering to the reformers but rather more modern people, like Jack Chick and Lorraine Bottner who claim to present the “truth” about the teachings of the Catholic church yet present nothing but lies and half truths so grossly distorted to be a lie. Many have fallen for these men’s lies, lies that I believe are directly inspired by Satan.

continued. Sorry, but it was too unclear not to post your my post also.
 
originally posted by Maria
It is interesting that most “ex-Catholics” freely admit they never “heard” the gospel while in the Catholic Church, never read the bible, never went to a bible study. Never had a relationship with Christ.
originally posted by hoosierdaddy
Is this something to be proud of?
No, but interesting that those who never found Christ in the Catholic Church now try explain that which they never even knew since Christ is central to Catholic teachings. If a person never knew Christ while going to Catholic schools, or churches, they never truly understood the teachings of the Catholic Church since Christ is absolutely Central to those teachings.
Yet those who used to be Protestant all claim to have had a vibrant and alive relationship with Christ, studied scripture and went to bible studies yet still became Catholic.
originally posted by hoosierdaddy
They couldn’t handle the mocking and bullying perhaps?
Because the mocking and bullying is better when one is Catholic?

People who are not Christians revile Catholics right along with the Protestants. Non-Christians actually consider Catholics Christians.

Or maybe you mean because when they tell all their born again Evangelical and Baptist friends that they are becoming Catholic they get such a warm reception with that one:rolleyes: I certainly remember the reaction I got and still get from my friends. Not warm and fuzzy that is for sure. If one could not take bullying, one certainly would not choose to become Catholic from a Protestant denomination.
Originally posted by Maria
Many have claimed those here cradle, convert and revert are not your average Catholic. Maybe they are right. But what you will not find here are many Catholic Christians who do not read their bible, study diligently, and search the Scriptures.

Respectfully,
Maria
originally posted by hoosierdaddy
**And you will not find a Protestant who does not read their bible, study diligently, and search the Scriptures. **
There ARE some who do not do so, but I would agree that at least in the baptist and evangelical denoms that more people study the scriptures diligently than not. (But whose interpretation of scripture are they studying? Wesley, Calvin, Luther?)

But my point is that ex-catholics are almost exclusively people who never studied the bible until they left the Church but the Protestants who become Catholic studied all the time. One never knew Christ but is an expert at Catholic teachings, yet the other knows Christ intimately and realizes that that intimacy is only enhanced by becoming a Catholic Christian.

Who is more likely to fall for the lies of satan? A person who knows Christ, or one who doesn’t? Who is more likely wrong, the ex-catholic who never knew Christ or the born again Protestant who becomes Catholic?

God Bless,
Maria
 
Hey Maria, I read your posts. I am confused as to how to properly quote you so when I know what I’m doing hopefully this thread will still be around. 😦

I do want you to know that I have been wrong many times. I most definitely consider the fact that I could have something wrong. But then I trust the Holy Spirit will lead me to the truth, through Scripture. You have a great night ok?
 
Shall I go find some Catholic quotes? I’m sure there were some “nice guy” Catholics.

I would have to see the context of those quotes. Was Luther saying that after the Catholic church had a price on his head? Why was it wrong to suggest they die but ok for Catholics to kill Protestants?

Maybe Luther had a bad day? I do know that he was against the violence of the Reformation.

Remember, Luther never lead anyone out of the Catholic church. The Catholic church kicked him out and those who believed they weren’t peons went with him. Good guys eh? 👍
Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
 
Hoosier sez:
“And you will not find a Protestant who does not read their bible, study diligently, and search the Scriptures.”
I’ve read most of what you have written over the past week, and it strikes me that you rarely quote the scriptures in defense of your postions. When we ask you for the verses that back up your claims, you tell us to go read the Bible ourselves.

Ironically, we quote the Bible AND the Early Church Fathers (who in turn quote the scriptures), but you want nothing to do with our evidence.

Do you know who Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement and Irenaeus are? And why they are important?

We can wait while you do a Google search…
 
Hoosier sez:

I’ve read most of what you have written over the past week, and it strikes me that you rarely quote the scriptures in defense of your postions. When we ask you for the verses that back up your claims, you tell us to go read the Bible ourselves.

I could do it. But why would I when you don’t accept the Bible? I can do it but remember…you asked for it. P.S. I have given Scriptures. It’s not my fault you reject it.

Ironically, we quote the Bible AND the Early Church Fathers (who in turn quote the scriptures), but you want nothing to do with our evidence.

You quote the Bible once in a while, and you quote it out of context at that. You haven’t given one quote from the Bible to prove the things I’ve asked of you. Your evidence is shoddy at best.

Do you know who Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement and Irenaeus are? And why they are important?

I can’t say that I know them all. Is this supposed to make you somehow better than me? Didn’t you get past that when you graduated high school?

We can wait while you do a Google search…

I know this was meant as an insult. I know that you can’t do any better. And I know that I’m not going to do a Google search. What I like to do though, is search the Scriptures and “see if these things are so”. So far, none of the things you have said have “been so”. They’ve just been wrong.
 
Do you know who Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement and Irenaeus are? And why they are important?

**I can’t say that I know them all. Is this supposed to make you somehow better than me? **
Ignatius, martyred at Rome, 115 a.d. Bishop of Antioch, direct disciple of John the Evangelist.

Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, martyred 155 a.d., knew Ignatius.

Clement of Rome, 4th Pope (ordained to priesthood by Peter), died ca 100 A.D. (martyred?); left an important letter to the Church in Corinth, important because as Bishop of Rome, he was adjudicating the affairs of another diocese during the lifetime of John the apostle and evangelist.

Irenaeus of Lyons, d. ca 200 A.D. (may have heard Polycarp preach). Bishop and Doctor of othe Church, author of *Adversus Haereses *(Against Heresies), to this day one of the most important doctrinal treatises in Christian thought.

Does knowing these men make us “better than you”? Maybe not, but it certainly makes us more knowledgeable about the Church and her teaching in the apostolic and immediate subapostolic age.

How do we know they weren’t lying? The witness of these men is consistent with Scripture and with sacred tradition; they do not contradict one another; their work has the advantage of having been known throughout history. The authenticity and provenance of their work is as strong as that of any ancient writer.
 
Ignatius, martyred at Rome, 115 a.d. Bishop of Antioch, direct disciple of John the Evangelist.

Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, martyred 155 a.d., knew Ignatius.

Clement of Rome, 4th Pope (ordained to priesthood by Peter), died ca 100 A.D. (martyred?); left an important letter to the Church in Corinth, important because as Bishop of Rome, he was adjudicating the affairs of another diocese during the lifetime of John the apostle and evangelist.

Irenaeus of Lyons, d. ca 200 A.D. (may have heard Polycarp preach). Bishop and Doctor of othe Church, author of *Adversus Haereses *(Against Heresies), to this day one of the most important doctrinal treatises in Christian thought.

Does knowing these men make us “better than you”? Maybe not, but it certainly makes us more knowledgeable about the Church and her teaching in the apostolic and immediate subapostolic age.

How do we know they weren’t lying? The witness of these men is consistent with Scripture and with sacred tradition; they do not contradict one another; their work has the advantage of having been known throughout history. The authenticity and provenance of their work is as strong as that of any ancient writer.
Thanks for sharing that. No, it doesn’t make him better than me. I just asked him that because he gave that impression. I believe I am gifted at discerning people’s intentions and words. I do make mistakes though.

I’m pretty knowldgable about the Church too though. From a Protestant perspective. You may disagree with it, but I know it. I love God and I love His Word.
 
I’m pretty knowldgable about the Church too though. From a Protestant perspective. You may disagree with it, but I know it. I love God and I love His Word.
No one questions your love of God or His Word. But “from a Protestant perspective” can often mean that history begins in 1517. Catholics find that kind of problematic.

Not to know the foundational writings of the subapostolic age rather puts one at a disadvantage when discussing the relationship between Scripture and Tradition.
 
Yeah, I guess so. It wouldn’t hurt to study Catholic history.
 
Are you always so rude? Or only on Wednesdays?
Whenever I’m on this forum, I adjust my tone to match that of the person I am responding to.

I don’t think I’m better than you…just a little further along the learning curve about Church history and so forth. Mercygate said it well.

As for quoting scriptures for you, I gave you a bunch in the thread on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. I’m hoping you’ll see that the “brothers of Jesus” were not actually brothers. The scriptural evidence is there.

Peace.
 
Ignatius, martyred at Rome, 115 a.d. Bishop of Antioch, direct disciple of John the Evangelist.
First extant use of the term “Catholic”.
Clement of Rome, 4th Pope (ordained to priesthood by Peter), died ca 100 A.D. (martyred?); left an important letter to the Church in Corinth, important because as Bishop of Rome, he was adjudicating the affairs of another diocese during the lifetime of John the apostle and evangelist.
And thus demonstrating the universal church’s acceptance of the primacy of the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Good stuff! 🙂
 
Yeah, I guess so. It wouldn’t hurt to study Catholic history.
The writings of the ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers are not “Catholic” history in the sense that they apply only to Roman Catholics. These are the boys who slogged out the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith (y’know, the big stuff like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist). T

The Early Church Fathers belong to all of Christianity. But they challenge much Protestant thought because the picture they paint of sub-Apostolic Christianity is pretty “catholic.” Irenaeus, for example, states of the Roman Church: “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority . . .” (Adv. Haer. III.3)
 
I understand. If I can find my library card I am going to see if I can find any Church history books. Hopefully I find something interesting.
 
Originally Posted by hoosierdaddy forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif*Only when demanding that we back up everything with an explicit example from Scripture. They seem to forget that that is not the way SS is used. *Something can be implicit in Scripture too. I’ve explained more about SS earlier. It is not just “you must find an explicit thing in Scripture”. Never was, never will be.
This is your view of sola scriptura? Wow, that has to be the most expansive definition I have ever encountered.

And you claim to have a problem with what the Apostolic Fathers and the Catholic Church throughout history have found “implicit in Scripture”?

I guess I need to find your original posts, before the split, cause this is news to me…
This is how most Protestants view Sola Scriptura. His view is nothing new.
 
This is how most Protestants view Sola Scriptura. His view is nothing new.

👍
 
Hoosierdaddy, God bless you in your reading. I know that I sincerely hope and pray that you will be led to God’s Truth (which I believe is the Catholic Church). You have such a love for Him that I know were you truly to accept that this is His will for all, that you would be a mighty warrior and advocate (spiritual warrior–and heaven knows we need them to light the fire under the lukewarm Christians!)

If you only knew how much we Catholics worship, honor and adore Christ, how diligently we seek to understand His Word, how rich and deep is the faith we hold and how we cherish all of you who are (whether you realize it or not) members of His one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, then all peoples would in truth be Catholic, and we would truly live the gospel we proclaim.
 
Thank you tantum. Much appreciated. Have a good day.

I think I saw a post from you on another thread that I still have to answer. I’ll get it to it sometime today. It was informative. I’m sure it was you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top