SPLIT: Catholic Doctrines vs Sola Scriptura

[justasking4]

JoeyWarren;3536143]
Originally Posted by CentralFLJames
Revelations 12:6
Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

James

JoeyWarren
Yes I know that, but JA4 rejects the idea that the woman is Mary completely and totally.

So do catholic scholars.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3536103]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I get the impression that you really don’t know either. Since it appears you have read the ECF why don’t you give me a couple of examples of things that were “handed on orally by Our Lord and the apostles”?
Church Militant

Just read it… it’s all essentially Tradition. Have you read it? Doesn’t appear so…especially regarding the Eucharistic Real Presence.
Have you read all of them since you are promoting them? Does the catholic church regard all their writings as Tradition?

Quote: justasking4
Are you mocking Sunday schools?

Church Militant
Not at all, we have them in my parish, but I suspect you’ll at least be late if you are busy reading and studying the ECF.

I suspect that if you miss it because of that study that it will be time better spent.

Do you consider the ECF’ writings at the same level as the Scriptures? Does everything they write in agreement with the Scriptures?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3536624]
Originally Posted by justasking4
For example he claims that baptism washes away sins. However if we take that statement without taking other scriptures into consideration we would get the idea that baptism alone is capable of washing away sins. The scriptures never teach this. What is required before baptism is confession of sin and belief that Christ died for those sins and rose again. After a person makes this profession of faith then he-she should be baptised. In Romans 10:9-10 and I Corinthians 15:1-4 which both speaks of being saved say nothing of being baptised.

guanophore
A profession of faith is necessary for valid baptism. And you are right, one must take into account ALL the relevant passages together in order to obtain the correct meaning. When we read “one must be born again of water and the spirit” it is clear that faith unto salvation and baptism go together.

Do you believe in infant baptism?

 

[JoeyWarren]

It seems this passage is a reference to the judgement of the wicked dead who will be judged for their deeds. These were not found in the book of life. See verse 15.
The question is: how does one get his-her name in book of life?

It can’t be about the wicked dead, because they are judged by what is written in the books(PLURAL)

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

The last books points to both the books and the book of life

 

[VociMike]

He may have but we have no record of it.

The record exists in the living memory of the Church, protected against “misremembering” by God Himself.

 

[Gamera]

The record exists in the living memory of the Church, protected against “misremembering” by God Himself.

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” John 14:26.

Sometimes people overlook Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would serve as the living memory of the Church.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
He may have but we have no record of it.

VociMike
The record exists in the living memory of the Church, protected against “misremembering” by God Himself.

Who specifically in your church remembers this?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by VociMike
The record exists in the living memory of the Church, protected against “misremembering” by God Himself.

Gamera
“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” John 14:26.

Sometimes people overlook Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would serve as the living memory of the Church.

The problem with your quote of John 14:26 is the context. Jesus was speaking specifically to His disciples who He had taught for 3 years. In fact i think its a reference to the gospels and the rest of the NT. This is not a reference to anyone in later centuries.

 

[VociMike]

Who specifically in your church remembers this?

The Magisterium - the bishops in union with the pope, or in certain cases, the pope alone.

BTW, it’s not my church, it’s the Church. That makes it your Church too.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This is a great example of that tail chasing technique. ja4 asks for something from Sacred Oral Tradtion, it is provided, then he says “no, that doesn’t qualify”. Well, this time you really made yourself look foolish, because the NT had not yet been written when Jesus used this example and taught it to His Apostles. It came completely out of Sacred Oral Tradition that existed before the time of Christ, and long before the letter of Jude was ever written.

This is a great way to change horses in the middle of the stream. If it is Catholics saying something that is not found in Scripture, it is the “speculation of men”. HOwever, if it is a fundamentalis, then “it could be true”. I find that double standard fascinating!

You are truly among the Church Militant, guanophore.

 

[bnapgh]

Three questions:

1. How do you believe the New Testament defines: ‘‘every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of God’’
2. Logically, how does ‘‘by every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of God’’ mean ‘‘and by no other way’’?
3. First please read the following scripture quotes:

Luke 22:19 …saying: This is my body…

Matthew 26:26 26 …said: Take ye and eat. This is my body…

Mark 14:22 …said: Take ye and eat. This is my body

Now, please explain what the verb ‘‘is’’ means in each.

Or do you, like Bill Clinton, say it depends on your definition of ‘‘is’’.

How is a solo scriptura Christian to feel confident in his or her own definition of ‘‘is’’?

What if they are wrong?

JustAsking4,

Still waiting patiently.

 

[Khariz]

Do you believe in infant baptism?

The profession of the faith has to happen at a time when the one professing the faith has the capability of understanding what they are professing to.

When an infant is baptised, the baptism isn’t complete, per se, until the child later makes the profession of faith, at say, the time of their confirmation.

But an infant or child being in a perpetual state of grace…unstained by any sin except for original sin, doesn’t need the baptism to have done anything but wash away just that.

Later, when the child Confirms that he believes what his parents and sponsors pledged him to believe, he makes the Profession of the Faith for himself, and closes the book on validating the baptism for 100%.

Now, obviously, if you are baptized when you are 25, you do both at the same time, but the infant has no clue what is going on, and thus has no choice but to decide whether or not to profess at a later date.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3536081]
justasking4
We can add to this confessing to a priest for forgiveness. You will not find such a thing in the NT.
Church Militant
That’s completely untrue JA4 and I’d think someone who asserts that they are a Bible Christian would no better to make such a claim. No matter. I refute this errors in two different posts on my blog.
Catholic Confession
i read your blog and it fails to support your beliefs on this. For one, Jesus breathed on them i.e. the disciples who were not priests in the catholic sense. Secondly there is not one example in the scriptures of any of these disciples hearing someone’ confession or giving some kind of absolution. Look at I John 1:9 in which you quote. Not only is there no priest mentioned in this passage but there is no mention of one in the entire letter.

“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.

Quote:justasking4
In fact the word of priest --hiereus- is not used as a term to describe an office of a priest in the NT. The apostolic fathers Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement don’t use the term “priest” to describe Christian ministers.The first use of the term is not until the 3rd century by Origen.

Church Militant
Irrelevant, the title is less important than the function which is clearly there. Though you wish it was not.

You may wish it were but its clearly not mentioned in scripture or the early fathers as far as i can tell until the 3rd century.

 

[justasking4]

The first book of the New Testament was written for at least ten years after the death of Christ. The last book of the New Testament wasn’t written for at least 45-60 years after the death of Christ. How did sola scriptura apply before the Scriptures were penned?

They had the written OT scriptures and the oral teaching of Christ and the apostles until there writings were written down i.e. the scriptures.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3536675]
Originally Posted by justasking4
These are not examples of things that were handed on orally by Our Lord and the apostles because they are in the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES themselves.
Remember we need to see something outside the Scriptures that was spoken of by Jesus. Good try. I’m still waiting…

guanophore
This is a great example of that tail chasing technique. ja4 asks for something from Sacred Oral Tradtion, it is provided, then he says “no, that doesn’t qualify”.

Where does it say in this passage that this is “Sacred Oral Tradtion”? Jude is only 25 verses long and i don’t see any such term or concept mentioned.

Well, this time you really made yourself look foolish, because the NT had not yet been written when Jesus used this example and taught it to His Apostles.

Now your really confusing me. Where did Jesus use this example in gospels?

It came completely out of Sacred Oral Tradition that existed before the time of Christ, and long before the letter of Jude was ever written.

Was the source of these quotes considered inspired-inerrant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
You misunderstand. I never said anything about “Bible Alone” and “Faith Alone” in my comments. Would you not agree that if something in not found in Scripture then it cannot be said to be scriptural? It could still be true but its not bibilcal.

guanophore
This is a great way to change horses in the middle of the stream. If it is Catholics saying something that is not found in Scripture, it is the “speculation of men”. HOwever, if it is a fundamentalis, then “it could be true”. I find that double standard fascinating!

One of the problems with your thinking is not keeping things in context. Sometimes speculations have been proven to be true and other times not. Would you not agree?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3536624]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not sure what you mean by this. Can you clarify?

guanophore;
MarcoPolo is extrahappy, as are we all, to see you admit that there is no verse in the Bible that says what you have asserted. What this proves is that you are purporting a man made tradition that is unbiblical. This is your “written age” that has been invented, probably by someone from whom you have been taught.

Thank you for reading this person’ mind for me. It is true that all we know of what the apostles taught can only be found in the written scriptures. There is no such thing as an oral tradition of the apostles that survives to this day. If you think there is can you cite it for me? Are there are catholic scholars who know of it?

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3536081]
If something is not in Scripture its unbiliblical. It would then be a teaching of men. There is no getting around this…

Church Militant;
Okay… so starting with Sola Scriptura your entire religious belief system comes crashing down because the fundamental cornerstone is unbiblical. Hate it for ya.
Before i respond to this i need to know what you mean by Sola Scriptura?

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3536081]
I can understand why so many hate me but i expect that.

Church Militant;
Oh please stop with the baby martyr bit! No one here hates you.
Nonsense. I have speaking directly to cherished catholic beliefs that i know from expierence if you challenge them will be hated for doing so. Its not about being a martyr but a fact when a person engages for Christ.

We oppose your errors and defend the truths of the Catholic faith. If you take it all to be hate then you should not be involved in apologetics.

You oppose the truth. I have continually demonstrated many errors in catholic teachings by Scripture and history. You and others have not been able to refute these facts.

Quote:justasking4
Look at the claims of your church. Compare them with Scripture and history. Its not what many catholics believe.
Church Militant;
Too late! I already have and the result is that I have rejected the errors of Protestantism in favor of the factually accurate teachings of the Catholic Church because they are Biblical and verifiably in line with the teachings of the ECF.

Then lets test what you have learned by studying the doctrines and practices of the catholic church. Lets compare them with the scriptures and see where it leads.

When you can justify why you and most all other Protestants deny the New Testament and the ECF writings of Ignatius of Antioch with regard to the fact that they teach the Eucharistic Real Presence then perhaps you can speak about the things that the ECF taught and the church has always believed. Meanwhile, you remain in your errors.

There is far more to discuss than the Eucharistic Real Presence. Are you willing to discuss these matters? Or maybe we could take some of your posts on your blog and discuss them. What do you think?

 

[guanophore]

Yes you should ignore the woman in Revelations 12 as Mary.

ja4, it is not appropriate for you to come to a Catholic forum and tell Catholics what they “should” or “should not” do about their faith. It is even more inappropriate for you, as a ‘bible christian’ to tell anyone to ignore part of scripture!

Here is why from a couple of catholic scholars by …
As you can see these are from your own catholic sources.

Catholic doctrine is not defined by modern scholars.

You ignored the meat of VociMike’s post:

You argued that, if there was no written record of something, then it did not exist.

And this is totally false. How can you make such an unverifiable statement?! The only possible statement you can make is “no written account of this earlier than X has survived”. Arguing from lack of written documents is historically infantile. You Protestants, who would trust any written document before you would trust the Church, just amaze me.

However, there was no written record of the Trinity, either, and you can accept that as always having been believed. Why did you skip over this part of the post?

what if you did abandon the sacred traditions and just became a bible christian, would that make you
less or lost?

Indeed yes! I spent a significant period of my life in a state of abandonment of them, and was quite lost. By God’s grace I found my way back.

So do catholic scholars.

Fortunately, we are not dependent upon them, or ja4 for the infallible Teachings, but only upon Jesus!

Have you read all of them since you are promoting them? Does the catholic church regard all their writings as Tradition?

Do you consider the ECF’ writings at the same level as the Scriptures? Does everything they write in agreement with the Scriptures?

This is not really relevant, since the Catholic Church is not a “bible based church”. The Teachings are from Jesus, and some are reflected in the Scripture, and some in the ECF, and some in other places. To the extent that the Fathers write about the Sacred Traditions, yes, the Teachings have the same level of authority as those in Scripture. It is not proper to separate the two or set them against one another. They are both part of one Divine Deposit of Faith.

Who specifically in your church remembers this?

These matters are part of the Revelation of God, and all of the faithful are commanded to remember them.

The problem with your quote of John 14:26 is the context. Jesus was speaking specifically to His disciples who He had taught for 3 years. In fact i think its a reference to the gospels and the rest of the NT. This is not a reference to anyone in later centuries.

I agree that this promise is not extended to those who have departed from the Apostolic Succession. Those who separated themselves, or through no fault of their own are separated do not receive the promise of infallibility. It is given to the Apostles, and to their successors.

Jesus breathed on them i.e. the disciples who were not priests in the catholic sense.

Please substantiate this assertion. What do you think Jesus intended to do when He breathed upon the Apostles?

Secondly there is not one example in the scriptures of any of these disciples hearing someone’ confession or giving some kind of absolution.

How did you think they were going to decide which sins to forgive, without hearing them?

Acts 19:17-18
18 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices."

Look at I John 1:9 in which you quote. Not only is there no priest mentioned in this passage but there is no mention of one in the entire letter.

John has no need to mention it, because he is one of the Apostles to whom confessions were being made!

You can add 1+1, right? So, add together:

1. God gives the Apostles the power to forgive sins
2. James and John say to confess our sins

Now, why would you want to confess them to someone OTHER than the person empowered to forgive them?

You may wish it were but its clearly not mentioned in scripture or the early fathers as far as i can tell until the 3rd century.

. This is not a problem for Catholics. We know that Greek was commonly used through the third century, and that the modern word “priest” is derived from the Greek “presbyter”. Latin did not become dominant for centuries.

One of the beauties of the Catholic Church is that the practices handed on to us from the Apostles transcend culture, race, and language.

They had the written OT scriptures and the oral teaching of Christ and the apostles until there writings were written down i.e. the scriptures.

Please show us in your NT where the oral teaching of Christ and the Apostles disappeared after some of it was committed to writing. Show us where you get the doctrine of the “written age”.

 

[guanophore]

Where does it say in this passage that this is “Sacred Oral Tradtion”? Jude is only 25 verses long and i don’t see any such term or concept mentioned.

Is this not what I JUST SAID would happen! I have become a prophet. Thanks ja4! No, it was not divine revelation after all, just the observation of the pattern. Oh well.

Ok, lets examine this pattern shall we?

Show something from the Oral Tradition Jesus and the Apostles taught that is not in Scripture.

1. Answer: Book of Jude
2. ja4 “nanny nanny boo boo, Jude is WRITTEN SCRIPTURE”
3. It is written in the NT, but not the Old. It is a quotation from Sacred Oral Tradition, found nowhere in the NT, and was taught before the NT was written

Where does it say in this passage that this is “Sacred Oral Tradtion”? Jude is only 25 verses long and i don’t see any such term or concept mentioned.

Oh, dear, ja4. This is truly embarrassing.

Are you saying that a direct quote from the Sacred Oral Tradition is not sufficient, but that Jude has to say “this is a quote from Sacred Tradition” or else you can’t believe it? Is it not sufficient that it is in the NT, but not the old? Oy Vey!
justasking4;3537124:

Now your really confusing me. Where did Jesus use this example in gospels?

]

You have confused YOURSELF, ja4. You asked for something that was not there, then when it was given to you, you start spinning around. Do you imagine that Jude is writing something CONTRARY to the Teachings of Jesus? Or do you think he made it up, like you make up your teachings, and God still allowed it to be included in the Bible?

Was the source of these quotes considered inspired-inerrant?

This is what we have been trying to tell you all along, ja4. the Sacred Tradition is the source of all the scriptures, OT and NT. They are ALL inspired and inerrant, otherwise, they could not be that way after they were written down. The teachings in the Gospels were infallible from the time they occurrred, not from the time they were written. Furthermore, there is nothing that says the Oral Tradition “disappeared” as you have been taught to believe.

The Divine Revelation is not “speculation”, ja4.

1 Thess 2:13

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God,

Thank you for reading this person’ mind for me. It is true that all we know of what the apostles taught can only be found in the written scriptures. There is no such thing as an oral tradition of the apostles that survives to this day. If you think there is can you cite it for me? Are there are catholic scholars who know of it?

Some of us are not too paranoid to use the messaging system. You were just given an example of Sacred Oral Tradition that turns up in the book of Jude, and you have the audacity to deny it’s source. Catholic scholars do not define doctrine. That is the duty of the Magesterium (fortunately).