The "born again" argument

[rev_kevin]

Absolutely. My Church has authoritative Sacred Tradition which legitimizes all of those practices. Your church also has those practices, those traditions—and your list proves that you got them from the Catholic Church!—and you can bend yourself into a pretzel trying to deny that all day but it won’t get you anywhere.

My list don’t prove I got them from the CC. They came from you. Now can you answer the questions I asked without a generic answer, “My church has authoritative Sacred Traadition which legitimizes all of those practices”? I asked specific questions that require specific answers.
I’m not bending myself into anything.

 

[Cat_Herder]

My list don’t prove I got them from the CC. They came from you. Now can you answer the questions I asked without a generic answer, “My church has authoritative Sacred Traadition which legitimizes all of those practices”? I asked specific questions that require specific answers.
I’m not bending myself into anything.

I already gave you a specific answer: Sacred Tradition.

Now you need to own up to the fact that you are practicing traditions while claiming that you practice sola scriptura. If you keep trying to dodge the question I’m going to start talking about logs and splinters and casting stones.

 

[kmuestwin]

This thread is not about the authority of the Catholic Church or the beliefs of other Christian denominations. It is about an adult trying to proselytize a minor. It is unacceptable for an adult to try and teach a child a faith that is contrary to their parent’s beliefs. I don’t understand how there can be an argument of, “They do it, so we can do it too.” It’s disgusting and it can only cause turmoil in their family.

 

[freerf]

Would you please explain why it is that your church has a building and why you worship there on Sunday, when the Bible says that the Sabbath is Saturday and that Christians should worship at home and sell all their possessions, like that church building, to benefit the poor?

This whole “we follow the Bible alone and you have traditions of men!” dance is getting old.

This is exactly why i didn’t want to respond. It’s like yelling Fire! in a theater. I never said I follow the bible alone, nor did i say the traditions of man is bad. I did state i was reluctant to respond because inevitably many catholics would be offended, raise the alarm for all the defenders of mary to come out, swords drawn, and start hacking away.

why a catholic would worry if a Protestant states that many Marian dogmas are not sola scriptura is beyond me. it’s like saying, tomorrow the sun will come out. the logical response is, “yes, but so what?”

 

[Cat_Herder]

This thread is not about the authority of the Catholic Church or the beliefs of other Christian denominations. It is about an adult trying to proselytize a minor. It is unacceptable for an adult to try and teach a child a faith that is contrary to their parent’s beliefs. I don’t understand how there can be an argument of, “They do it, so we can do it too.” It’s disgusting and it can only cause turmoil in their family.

Actually, Sacred Tradition and whether authoritative tradition also exists in non-Catholic churches is absolutely relevant to the issue of proselytization at non-denominational/inter-denominational camps. The raizon d’ etre of these camps is that they stick to the Bible and so all Christians should be able to fit right in. But the reality is that all Protestant denominations have traditions, including the non-/inter-denom groups, which have no basis in Scripture.* Case in point: the altar call/accepting Jesus into your heart tradition which gave rise to the OP’s concern.

Hence, to be truly ecumenical, these groups need to do more than just say “we just go by the Bible.”

• notice that I did not say anything about whether Catholic Sacred Tradition has a biblical basis. I’m keeping that up my sleeve for another thread…

 

[freerf]

The raizon d’ etre of these camps is that they stick to the Bible and so all Christians should be able to fit right in.
Hence, to be truly ecumenical, these groups need to do more than just say “we just go by the Bible.”

The reason for these camps is to deliver the good news, spread the word of Jesus, and to love the children. not “so all christians should be able to fit right in”.

 

[freerf]

[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 12:1-5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 12:14[/BIBLEDRB]

And I consider the denial of the dogma for Mary’s assumption to be wildly outside of biblical sources, or unbiblical, if you will.

Your quote proves my point. I believe i said “loosely based on the bible”. If you would have quoted me fully, this would have been more obvious. I quote myself below:

I consider the basis of the dogma for Mary’s assumption wildly outside of biblical sources, or “wildly unbiblical”, if you will. (Not meaning contrary to the bible – rather not based, or only loosely supported by the bible. Don’t get too caught up in the term unbiblical)

((Edit for Cat Herder: I probably did add the above clarification in parenthesis after you made your original response - sorry Cat you probably did qoute me fully. . .hope this helps Arn’t edits annoying?))

I think i just got suckered into another mary-debate with cat. i’ll post no further on this topic here. but please, have the last word:

 

[Cat_Herder]

The reason for these camps is to deliver the good news, spread the word of Jesus, and to love the children. not “so all christians should be able to fit right in”.

So they are proselytizing a particular denominational view of what the Good News is.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Your quote proves my point. I believe i said “loosely based on the bible”. If you would have quoted me fully, this would have been more obvious. I quote myself below:

I consider the basis of the dogma for Mary’s assumption wildly outside of biblical sources, or “wildly unbiblical”, if you will. (Not meaning contrary to the bible – rather not based, or only loosely supported by the bible. Don’t get too caught up in the term unbiblical)

I think i just got suckered into another mary-debate with cat. i’ll post no further on this topic here. but please, have the last word:

I agree with this, actually-the assumption of Mary is something that we have gotten firmly from Sacred Tradition. There is some biblical support, but it seems to me like we only use it to prove that, “Hey, it’s not contradicted, and if you look at these verses like this, it even makes sense!”

Now, as a believer in Sacred Tradition, this doesn’t bother me, so I don’t really bother trying to prove the Assumption of Mary biblically.

 

[freerf]

So they are proselytizing a particular denominational view of what the Good News is.

don’t we all.

although they’d call it a non-denominational denomination.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Your quote proves my point. I believe i said “loosely based on the bible”.

You edited to add that after I posted, IIRC. Or maybe you added only the second paragraph. I don’t remember.

I think i just got suckered into another mary-debate with cat. i’ll post no further on this topic here. but please, have the last word:

Here you go. See also this on veneration of saints. If you want to discuss further, feel free to start a “Why the hostility towards the Catholic view of Mary?” thread.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I agree with this, actually-the assumption of Mary is something that we have gotten firmly from Sacred Tradition. There is some biblical support, but it seems to me like we only use it to prove that, “Hey, it’s not contradicted, and if you look at these verses like this, it even makes sense!”

Now, as a believer in Sacred Tradition, this doesn’t bother me, so I don’t really bother trying to prove the Assumption of Mary biblically.

This is not a problem if there is honesty on the Protestant side and an admission that they hold to their own traditions that have, at best, a loose biblical basis. But as far as I can tell, most non-mainline Protestant missionaries/evangelizers are hardwired to claim sola scriptura while they do not practice same.

And that is why capitulating to the Assumption, or any other Marian dogma, as having only “some biblical support” is dangerous. It closes the door on ecumenical dialogue; as Mariology then becomes something that is just a “Catholic” thing. This is why you have the ecumenists who say the Church should downplay the Rosary, etc. (God forbid.)

We must stand firm and assert the identity of the Woman just as the OP stood firm on the OP’s daughter having, in fact, received Jesus into her heart through the Eucharist.

 

[Cat_Herder]

((Edit for Cat Herder: I probably did add the above clarification in parenthesis after you made your original response - sorry Cat you probably did qoute me fully. . .hope this helps Arn’t edits annoying?))

Yeah, they are… but then when you find a broken link 21 minutes later, that’s even more annoying as you can’t edit it… the grass is greener on the other side.

 

[freerf]

This is not a problem if there is honesty on the Protestant side and an admission that they hold to their own traditions that have, at best, a loose biblical basis. But as far as I can tell, most non-mainline Protestant missionaries/evangelizers are hardwired to claim sola scriptura while they do not practice same.

And that is why capitulating to the Assumption, or any other Marian dogma, as having only “some biblical support” is dangerous. It closes the door on ecumenical dialogue; as Mariology then becomes something that is just a “Catholic” thing. This is why you have the ecumenists who say the Church should downplay the Rosary, etc. (God forbid.)

We must stand firm and assert the identity of the Woman just as the OP stood firm on the OP’s daughter having, in fact, received Jesus into her heart through the Eucharist.

I think you have to be careful, Cat. If you cannot concede that some Marian dogma has only loose biblical basis you come also come accross as disingenuous/ dishonest (as you accuse your Protestant bretheren). . .and then you risk not being taken seriously.

Standing by or Affirming Catholic Marian dogma is different than trying to say it can be established on the basis of sola scriptura. because much of it simply cannot. Tradition is a necessary foundation for some dogma. Nothing wrong with that from a Catholic perspective i should think.

I am much more likely to engage in a serious discussion about mary with a Catholic who is not antagonistic, nor afraid to concede what dogma and teachings are based primarily on Tradition and what are based primarily on the bible. from these catholics, i learn a great deal.

By the way, I happen to be a Protestant that loves Mary.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I think you have to be careful, Cat. If you cannot concede that some Marian dogma has only loose biblical basis you come also come accross as disingenuous/ dishonest (as you accuse your Protestant bretheren). . .and then you risk not being taken seriously.

If the Woman of Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12 is Mary then there absolutely is strong biblical basis for all of the Marian dogmata. So that is the real question: is She or isn’t she Mary?

That, my friend, is a question of biblical interpretation. Not one of Scripture v. Tradition. It is a question of interpretation of Scripture.

And back to the topic: Since both Catholics and Protestants have tradition, why can’t the Protestants just stop playing this “you Catholics and your tradition” game?

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 7:3[/BIBLEDRB]

The altar call at the camp is a tradition. Why can’t the promoters of this tradition just swallow their pride and call it that instead of telling Catholics that it is biblical, when it clearly isn’t—unlike, say, the Woman?

 

[freerf]

If the Woman of Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12 is Mary then there absolutely is strong biblical basis for all of the Marian dogmata. So that is the real question: is She or isn’t she Mary?

That, my friend, is a question of biblical interpretation. Not one of Scripture v. Tradition. It is a question of interpretation of Scripture.

And back to the topic: Since both Catholics and Protestants have tradition, why can’t the Protestants just stop playing this “you Catholics and your tradition” game?

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 7:3[/BIBLEDRB]

The altar call at the camp is a tradition. Why can’t the promoters of this tradition just swallow their pride and call it that instead of telling Catholics that it is biblical, when it clearly isn’t—unlike, say, the Woman?

IF she is Mary. . .? The IF implies something less than strong biblical basis.

“And back to the topic: Since both Catholics and Protestants have tradition, why can’t the Protestants just stop playing this “you Catholics and your tradition” game?”

Because Cat, Catholics have a lot of Tradition that is primarily based on non-biblical sources. simple as that. You can argue the point 'till the cows come home, but you’ll be arguing against many intelligent Catholics. . .

 

[Cat_Herder]

“And back to the topic: Since both Catholics and Protestants have tradition, why can’t the Protestants just stop playing this “you Catholics and your tradition” game?”

Because Cat, Catholics have a lot of Tradition that is primarily based on non-biblical sources. simple as that. You can argue the point 'till the cows come home, but you’ll be arguing against many intelligent Catholics. . .

That’s not the point I’m trying to argue. That is a straw man. Send him off to join Dorothy in the Emerald City.

The point I’m trying to argue is that PROTESTANTS also have a lot of tradition that is primarily based on non-biblical sources—and some that directly contradicts Sacred Scripture.

Are you shaking your head? Well, let’s see here… altar calls, the Sinner’s Prayer, Sunday worship without Communion, believers’ baptism, female clergy, denominationalism, abolition of Confirmation (contra Acts 19:5-6), abolition of anointing the sick (James 5:14-15), Calvinism (contra 1 Tim 6:12, 2 Pet 1:10-11), bare crosses instead of a crucifix (contra John 3:14), denial of the value of suffering (contra Col 1:24), abolition of religious life (contra 1 Tim 5:5), nonliturgical worship (contra Acts 4:24), abolition of fasting (contra 1 Cor 7:5), DIVORCE (that’s a biggie), ABORTION (that’s another biggie)… I could go on and on.

But instead I’ll let the Lord’s Word finish this off.

[BIBLEDRB]John 8:7-12[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[freerf]

That’s not the point I’m trying to argue. That is a straw man. Send him off to join Dorothy in the Emerald City.

The point I’m trying to argue is that PROTESTANTS also have a lot of tradition that is primarily based on non-biblical sources—and some that directly contradicts Sacred Scripture.

Are you shaking your head? Well, let’s see here… altar calls, the Sinner’s Prayer, Sunday worship without Communion, believers’ baptism, female clergy, denominationalism, abolition of Confirmation (contra Acts 19:5-6), abolition of anointing the sick (James 5:14-15), Calvinism (contra 1 Tim 6:12, 2 Pet 1:10-11), bare crosses instead of a crucifix (contra John 3:14), denial of the value of suffering (contra Col 1:24), abolition of religious life (contra 1 Tim 5:5), nonliturgical worship (contra Acts 4:24), abolition of fasting (contra 1 Cor 7:5), DIVORCE (that’s a biggie), ABORTION (that’s another biggie)… I could go on and on.

But instead I’ll let the Lord’s Word finish this off.

[BIBLEDRB]John 8:7-12[/BIBLEDRB]

I guess I’ll stop tit for tating with you and agree the the Lord’s word is good. When we reach heavens gates we will find out. and i doubt what we will hear is, “wow! you really had it all figured out! good for you!”

God Bless.

 

[benidict]

Just not interested in traveling down that tangent on this thread. . . I’m sure some of the Catholic’s here will be offended, which is why i prefer not to discuss it in too much depth here.

The simple fact is a lot of Marian dogma is based on extra-biblical sources, i.e. sources outside the principle of sola scriptura. . .for example the assumption, immaculate conception, etc.

This shouldn’t be offensive, and yet it is to many Catholics. Although i think more seasoned Catholics aren’t offended. . . because it’s simply true. You can say scripture supports it, doesn’t contradict it, etc, but not that it’s based on scripture alone.

I consider the basis of the dogma for Mary’s assumption wildly outside of biblical sources, or “wildly unbiblical”, if you will. (Not meaning contrary to the bible – rather not based, or only loosely supported by the bible. Don’t get too caught up in the term unbiblical)

Anywho, hope that clears it up.

you are correct. eye witness accounts and the like. which give us our traditions. even in scripture tho, you have some interesting passages in revelation, not to mention the ark of the covenant in the old testament, which testifies about Mary. i believe the scripture does support these dogmas. remember the traditions are much older than the new testament which came along much later. the assumption of Mary is easy enough to defend, and the immaculate conception may be a little more complex, but it can be done. im not a scholar or a theologian, but id love to take a crack at it. post your objections. lets see what ya got. i love defending the Blessed Mother, the bible, and the traditions handed down to us. i may not be able to always answer immediatly, because im deployed, and am very busy, but id be happy to respond if you would like to put something solid on the table, not just the accusation that something is unbiblical. if thats the case, you cannot believe in the trinity. its not found in scripture. you have to rely on Church councils, and tradition:bigyikes:. come to think of it, the protestant bible you now use, is a direct descendant of Church councils, and traditions. too bad your ancestors took the other books out. your missing quite a bit of the word of God that also is very good. Peace

 

[brumano]

I think you have to be careful, Cat. If you cannot concede that some Marian dogma has only loose biblical basis you come also come accross as disingenuous/ dishonest (as you accuse your Protestant bretheren). . .and then you risk not being taken seriously.

Standing by or Affirming Catholic Marian dogma is different than trying to say it can be established on the basis of sola scriptura. because much of it simply cannot. Tradition is a necessary foundation for some dogma. Nothing wrong with that from a Catholic perspective i should think.

I am much more likely to engage in a serious discussion about mary with a Catholic who is not antagonistic, nor afraid to concede what dogma and teachings are based primarily on Tradition and what are based primarily on the bible. from these catholics, i learn a great deal.

By the way, I happen to be a Protestant that loves Mary.

She should concede to what she does not by the convictions of her Catholic beliefs and true devotion to Mary what she does not agree with, so as not to risk appearing disingenuous to those of Faith backgrounds who do not acknowledge the full glories of Mary, The Virgin Mother of God?
All Marian Doctrines are based on solid, not loose, Scriptural grounds; some of the understanding of which is blocked by the hardness of our hearts, how could we remain blind to the relation of the Assumption of Mary to the Ascension of The Lord Jesus? How could we error in believing in The Immaculate Conception of The Lord Jesus but deny the same of His own Mother? Especially, when the messenger Angel Gabriel who stood before the throne of The Most High God calls her “Full of Grace”, how do we depreciate what God has spoken? As He has spoken so it has been written, in the Scriptures, in the hearts of all mankind, that we are to call her: Blessed! Mother! please pray for us! As our Mother she herself tells us to do this in the Scriptures…what scripture do you read that tells you that if Mary pleads for you as her son which you are, that the Triune all loving and all Merciful God will shun her? Where have you people gotten these ideas? Most of them were unheard of until, who came along? Was it a new prophet foretold of in Scripture? Luther? William of Orange? You or I as long as we claim sola scriptura?