C
CWBetts
Guest
By “honest and valiant” I thnk you mean “dishonest and violent”
- Status
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Verses 29 and 30 of…?Verses 29 and 30.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
To defend a form of Christianity, one needs to think theologically - & many people are not capable of following a theological argument. This is not a fault - it’s a limitation; just as many people (moi 
included) can’t follow a mathematical argument. Augustine could, Aquinas could, Luther could, Calvin could - that’s one of the reasons they are all theologians, unlike many of their critics, who are often proof-texters; not having a theological turn of mind, these latter are often satisfied that they have overthrown a theological argument if they have found a text that they can quote against a theological position.
One of the marks of Fundamentalism is that it has doctrines, but not a theology: it does not treat doctrines as parts of integrated wholes. Which may explain how it is possible to have Arminians & Calvinists within Protestant Fundamentalism, & how there can be such a thing as Catholic Fundamentalism.Your post raises the question of what counts as Tradition, & why. It’s possible to see
- both Catholicism & Protestantism as authentic & faithful witnesses to it;
- or either but not the other;
- or neither of them;
- or as needing one another;
- or as overlapping & complementary
- or in some other way or ways
Tradition is not self-interpreting & self-authenticating, nor are those who claim or exercise authority in the interpretation & authentication of it - whether the Pope is a man of flesh & blood, or a book of paper & ink, makes no difference to the certainty of the rightness of a religious position; Catholics & Protestants are equally liable to error, & equally protected from it.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
There are several including, off the top of my head, eastern orthodox, coptics, gnostics, ebionites, etc.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The passage you were alluding to was I Corinthians 11:27-34, was it not?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
That would be tossing out the baby with the bathwater. You sound more like you are asserting a copyright than presenting an argument. It makes as much sense as tossing out the OT because the Jews rejected Jesus.
That description could as easily fit a Protestant service.
Trouble is, there is no CCC in there.
J
jmcrae
Guest
What on earth do these groups have in common with each other, apart from disdain for Papal authority?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Uh, hello?! Peter was there.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
What they have in common is that they were all very early followers of Jesus. That they have little else in common is the point.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
You can always find someone who will believe anything but I don’t think it is an accurate generalization to say that Protestants don’t believe anything they hear from God/Jesus unless it is first written down for them. That’s not what sola scriptura means to them.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Oh I see where this is going, You think the Protestant “Sola Scriptura” theory is in the first century Church? When they had no New Testament yet? The copyright belongs to God of his Holy Word. The keys Jesus gave to Peter and the Catholic church to put the bible books together infallibly to which protestants adhere too, but refuse the Authority Jesus instituted upon Peter present day Pope.
Tell me without using New testament scripture only the Septuagint or the old testament, how will you determine how the first century church worshipped God, and practiced their Christianity, without Apostolic Tradition?
I will wait and see if you can? Remember Protestantism does not begin until the poison of “freewill” came about in the 15th century.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The EO didn’t even come into existence for another thousand years. Please try again.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Here, then, is the full context.
17But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church,(S) I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,[d] 19for(T) there must be factions among you in order(U) that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry,(V) another gets drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise(W) the church of God and(X) humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23For(Y) I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that(Z) the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for[e] you. Do this in remembrance of me.”[f] 25In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death(AA) until he comes.
27(AB) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord(AC) in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning(AD) the body and blood of the Lord. 28(AE) Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some(AF) have died.[g] 31(AG) But if we judged[h] ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged by the Lord,(AH) we are disciplined* so that we may not be(AI) condemned along with the world.
33So then, my brothers,[j] when you come together to eat, wait for[k] one another— 34(AJ) if anyone is hungry,(AK) let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things(AL) I will give directions(AM) when I come.
This is about how people are supposed to be have, not a claim of Real Presence.*
J
jmcrae
Guest
He wasn’t reading to them from a written text, though. He was giving them the Apostolic Tradition - same as how the Pope and the Bishops do it, today.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
First of all, I provided a list, not just the EO. Second, the EO were not Roman Catholics who suddenly decided to do things differently. EO didn’t come into existence at the point of schism.
J
jmcrae
Guest
What body, if it’s only a symbol?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Well, since Protestants don’t seem to be up to defending their faith here, let me give it a try.
I am still waiting to see these words come to pass from a Protestant, can you return us to the first century church without “Sola Scriptura” which the first Century church did not have, or are you going to show us Protestantism using the Old testament practiced by Christians in the first century church? What I see you doing is giving cheap shots at biblical reference to apostolic teaching and traditions. Not revealing your claim of your original post of Protestantism in the first century church?
I am still waiting to see these words come to pass from a Protestant, can you return us to the first century church without “Sola Scriptura” which the first Century church did not have, or are you going to show us Protestantism using the Old testament practiced by Christians in the first century church? What I see you doing is giving cheap shots at biblical reference to apostolic teaching and traditions. Not revealing your claim of your original post of Protestantism in the first century church?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
True, that is the similarly. Here is the difference: Peter was a witness to Jesus. Pope Benedict was not.He wasn’t reading to them from a written text, though. He was giving them the Apostolic Tradition - same as how the Pope and the Bishops do it, today.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The EO and the Gnostics did not exist at the same time. The Gnostics existed from the time of James (since he writes against them) until the end of the Arian heresy. The Eastern Orthodox went into schism in the 1000s AD.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
- Status