Where to begin?

[Lampo]

I will gladly admit that there is some form of tradition in the church I attend, but the key difference is that the tradition is never placed on the same level as God’s Holy Word,

How do you know it’s God’s Holy word?

God’s Word stands alone and everything else is subordinate to that Word.

God’s word, yes. Spoken *and *written. Not the Bible alone.

 

[Tomster]

Protestantism demonstrates that having a book is not enough to ensure unity of belief. Baptists formally teach one thing; Methodists another. Only the Catholic Church has the infallible Magisterium to untangle the contradictory interpretations that people come up with in their personal reading of the Word.

Does the Salvation Army believe in baptism?

You forgot pouring.

Right. For some, it is an “essential”; for others, it is not. Consequently, Protestants cannot even agree on the essentials.

Not if someone dies before receiving the sacrament.

Jesus left a church led by the Spirit. He did not leave a book that we have to figure out. His Church has authority to speak on His behalf. “He who hears you, hears me.”

Thanks for your personal opinion about what the “essentials” are. Others disagree. So much for Christian unity and for Protestant claims to part of the ONE flock under the ONE shepherd.

You all follow whatever shepherd preaches what you personally like to hear.

Thank you very much!

 

[Tomster]

And in admitting “I think it proves just the opposite” you unwittingly demonstrate more than mere opinion regarding why we cannot rely on Scripture alone.
Two well-intentioned, intelligent people are easily capable of reaching OPPOSITE opinions, that is fact. And if that is a fact and there is not some means for determining who is correct, then including those verses in Scripture is useless.

In general??? Even if you remove the “in general” you cannot substantiate such a claim from Scripture, though you recognize the need for it to be true. This conflict - that it must be true for your theological system to make any sense and the fact that it is not actually stated in Scripture - leaves your objectivity compromised in assessing the reasonableness of what Scripture actually says.

Absolutely false conclusion. Paul clearly demonstrated his ability to acknowledge when he had “received” something from the Lord in Chapter 11 of his letter to the Corinthians dealing with the Lords Supper:"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you…"1Cor 11)
The truth of the matter is that Paul’s writings are confusing in what he knew. Sometimes he points out that he received something from the Lord and sometimes he doesnt and, as I said before, your claim that the above section “shows how he felt” stems more from your “need” to believe that he felt that way than it does from objective evidence. The evidence you claim to see is clearly unclear.

You have no idea, though, and that fact is vastly more important than your speculations. Perhaps Paul was so confident that it was all God that he believed whether it was written or spoken God would control events in a way to secure His message being properly passed on. We have no idea! The fact of the matter is that Paul never articulated the position that you have suggested. Nor did the successive generations that eventually determined the canon. There is a HUGE silence regarding the alleged transition from a living oral (and written) tradition to a purely written tradition (aka sola scriptura). No one ever bothers to say, “The age of oral tradition has ended, we are now a faith of the Bible alone”. It never happens, and the deafening silence of every generation of Christianity for 1500 years is an overwhelming veto of your thoughts regarding what Paul did and didnt know and why he did or didnt write things down.

Thank you very much!

 

[Tomster]

Church split?

Disfellowshipping?

My dad, God bless his Methodist heart, told his pastor after church one Sunday, “It’s your job to tell me what you think the Bible says, and it’s my job to decide if I believe you.”

That, my friends, is not what God intended for His Church.

A classic example! Thank you very much!

And, may God bless your father’s Methodist heart.

 

[Tomster]

I usually start by 1 of 2 ways.

1. Asking, “What is the pillar and bullwark of truth”?
2. Asking, “Why do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God”?

Exactly! And thank you very much!

 

[Tomster]

Yes, I admit it. My pastor’s interpretation may be incorrect. But at a high level there are two possibilities:

1. The incorrect interpretation involves a matter that is not essential, in which case he may teach the wrong thing and I may even believe the wrong thing but it does not affect our salvation.
2. The incorrect interpretation involves a matter that is essential, in which case it will be clearly conveyed in the Bible and the pastor should be confronted. Yes, it could lead to the pastor leaving the church, me leaving the church for another church (provided it is a sufficiently grave mistake he is making that subverts the Gospel - I do not believe church shopping or drifting is pleasing to God), or in the worst case a church split. Since, using an objective reading of the Bible, there is no necessity that the Church be visible, I accept this last outcome as unfortunate but necessary.

Could you, then, give us a complete list of all the “essentials” that EVERY Protestant would agree on? And, this is critical, where would that list be contained in the Bible? Chapter and verse if you please.

 

[Tomster]

Which part(s) of Tradition precisely? That is what I have been challenging Randy to provide for me. Perhaps you can help us with this question.

Tradition: from the Greek - transmission, precept, oral doctrine.

In the theological sense, it is the word of God concerning faith and morals, not written but transmitted orally from Christ to the Apostles and from them to their successors down to us.

Tradition is said to be “not written”; not in the sense that it cannot be contained in any writing, but in that it was not written under divine inspiration. For example, that infants are validly baptised is Tradition, namely: word of God, non-written revelation, because it is not contained in any inspired written work, although it is recorded in the works of nearly all ancient ecclesiastical writers.

Tradition is called “divine” if it was taught directly by Jesus Christ; it is called “divine-apostolic” if the Apostles did not learn it from the lips of the Lord, but received it through inspiration of the Holy Spirit according to the promise of Christ: “The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit . . . will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you” (John 14:26)

Having established, as their fundamental principle, that the Holy Scripture contains all divine revelation, Protestants logically denied the existence of Tradition and restricted themselves to the Bible as the sole rule of faith.

The economy established by Jesus Christ for the propagation of the Gospel shows efficaciously the existence of Tradition. Indeed, after having preached and not written His doctrine, Jesus entrusted to His Apostles the mission not of writing, but of propagating orally (Matthew 28:18; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8) all that they had heard from His lips or would learn from the inspirations of the Holy Spirit (John 14:36).

All Christian antiquity considers the apostolic Tradition conserved in the Catholic Church as the transmitted channel of the revealed word, equal to Scripture.

Two classic writings are “Adversus Haereses”, l. 3, c.4, No. 1, by St. Irenaeus and the entire work of Tertullian “De Praescriptione Haereticorum”. You really should read them!

The principle instruments by means of which divine Tradition has been conserved are the professions of faith, the sacred liturgy, the writings of the Fathers, the practice of the Church, the acts of the martyrs, and archaeological monuments. Its organ is the living magisterium of the Church (the Roman Pontiff and the bishops united with and subordinate to him).

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Tomster]

Yes, I admit I need an interpreter, but I do not (or should not) rely on any traditions of men. God be praised forevermore, Paul says I have one in the Holy Spirit: “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:13-16) So to the extent that I rely on the Holy Spirit and to which the Holy Spirit enlightens me, I can be made to understand God’s Word.

I can say from previous experience that incorrect understandings I once had about Scripture were changed by the Holy Spirit. There are many things I still do not understand and I am certain there are many things about which I am still wrong and therefore must walk humbly before my God. Nevertheless, as I look to God he prods me with His Holy Spirit and leads me into maturity in my understanding. I will never understand everything this side of Heaven, but I trust the Holy Spirit is enabling me with those things I do need to know when I need to know them.

Luther, to his credit, acknowledged that by making the Scriptures available to the masses it would open the floodgates and heretics would abound. Still he deemed it worth the while if it meant the common believer would have access to God’s Word. Yes, there are a plethora of Protestant denominations, and that is unfortunate. Given what we know about the Adversary it should not surprise us if there are many counterfeits. There are many who distort the Word God because they are arrogant and do not rely on the Holy Spirit. I, as a Protestant, should look to God and His leading lest I fall into the same errors. I am not infallible, but God and His Spirit are. If I have faith in God and I am among His children, I can be “sure of this, that he who began a good work in [me] will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phillipians 1:6). Not having a visible and audible interpreter may seem a bit frightening to a Catholic, but I would exhort: “Taste and see that the Lord is good!” Place your faith directly in God!

There appears to be a misunderstanding of the term “evangelical.” No, liberal Protestant denominations are NOT evangelical, but rather the antithesis.

The misunderstanding is on your part. I never said that liberal Protestants are “evangelical”. If you read my post I said that all evangelicals “hail from” Protestantism’. And if you took the time to think it through, you would have come to an understanding of what all of the Catholics on this thread have been trying to say to you. Quite simply, if a Protestant (evangelical) doesn’t agree with what he is being taught (liberalism) by a Protestant preacher (that preacher’s own oral tradition), he starts another church. Their oral traditions differ and there is no binding, authoritative voice to straighten out their differences Obviously, the two parties in question, then, would be in disagreement on the “essentials” wouldn’t you say?

 

[Tomster]

Would they agree with you that they are violating God’s word? Do they also claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit when interpreting scripture just like you? Where do you take your differences? Is this the way God left us to interpret Scripture? With no real authority?

According to you. Which one of you is right?

Solus,

Please answer the questions.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Actually your evidence doesn’t fit the charge. This does not nullify the word of God.

Exodus 34:14 “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:”

This would be the most direct injunction by God which is bypassed or nullified by the RCC’s promotion of the Cult of Mary. Other examples:

Liguori says:

“This the blessed Virgin herself revealed to St. Bridget: ‘I am,’ she said to her, ‘the queen of heaven and the mother of mercy; I am the joy of the just, and the gate of entrance for sinners to God;’”

God says:

Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Liguori recounts:

“‘When I saw death drawing near, finding myself laden with sins, and abandoned by all, I turned to the mother of God and said to her, Lady, thou art the refuge of the abandoned, behold me at this hour deserted by all; thou art my only hope…The holy Virgin obtained for me the grace of making an act of contrition; I died and am saved,’”

God says:

1 Timothy 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,”

Galatians 1:6-7 “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ”

Liguori says:

“And thus should every sinner say who has recourse to this kind mother: Oh my Lady and mother, I deserve for my faults that thou shouldst banish me from thy presence, and shouldst punish me for my sins; but even if thou shouldst cast me off and slay me, I shall never lose confidence in thee and in thy power to save me. In thee I entirely confide, and if it be my fate to die before some image of thine, recommending myself to thy compassion, I should have a certain hope of my salvation, and of going to praise thee in heaven, united to all they servants who called upon thee for aid in death, and are saved.”

God says:

Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Other examples abound, but I think you should have a general idea of what I am getting at. Liguori attributes those things which are the sole domain of Christ to Mary, and for this, far from being censured, he is elevated as a Doctor of the Church and a Catholic publisher is named after him.

on second thought is the reference to the bolded section. your evidence?

The Latin words are RCC concocted terms to differentiate between forms of worship. “Hyperdulia” is a special term reserved exclusively for what the RCC terms the “Cult of Mary.”

Please tell me how such things as the mircles of Lourde’s and the Fatima come to be?

Paul told the Galatian church: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8) By proclaiming Mary a refuge for sinners, these spirits are declaring good news (gospel) to sinners. This is NOT the gospel handed down by the apostles.

Scripture tells us to whom Mary points to, “do as He tells you” St.John’s account 2:5.

Yes, I have heard of this extrapolation. John the Baptist pointed to Christ even more explicitly, however, yet the RCC is not advocating hyperdulia be given to him.

 

[Tomster]

Exodus 34:14 “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:”

This would be the most direct injunction by God which is bypassed or nullified by the RCC’s promotion of the Cult of Mary. Other examples:

Liguori says:

“This the blessed Virgin herself revealed to St. Bridget: ‘I am,’ she said to her, ‘the queen of heaven and the mother of mercy; I am the joy of the just, and the gate of entrance for sinners to God;’”

God says:

Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Liguori recounts:

“‘When I saw death drawing near, finding myself laden with sins, and abandoned by all, I turned to the mother of God and said to her, Lady, thou art the refuge of the abandoned, behold me at this hour deserted by all; thou art my only hope…The holy Virgin obtained for me the grace of making an act of contrition; I died and am saved,’”

God says:

1 Timothy 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,”

Galatians 1:6-7 “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ”

Liguori says:

“And thus should every sinner say who has recourse to this kind mother: Oh my Lady and mother, I deserve for my faults that thou shouldst banish me from thy presence, and shouldst punish me for my sins; but even if thou shouldst cast me off and slay me, I shall never lose confidence in thee and in thy power to save me. In thee I entirely confide, and if it be my fate to die before some image of thine, recommending myself to thy compassion, I should have a certain hope of my salvation, and of going to praise thee in heaven, united to all they servants who called upon thee for aid in death, and are saved.”

God says:

Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Other examples abound, but I think you should have a general idea of what I am getting at. Liguori attributes those things which are the sole domain of Christ to Mary, and for this, far from being censured, he is elevated as a Doctor of the Church and a Catholic publisher is named after him.

The Latin words are RCC concocted terms to differentiate between forms of worship. “Hyperdulia” is a special term reserved exclusively for what the RCC terms the “Cult of Mary.”

Paul told the Galatian church: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8) By proclaiming Mary a refuge for sinners, these spirits are declaring good news (gospel) to sinners. This is NOT the gospel handed down by the apostles.

Yes, I have heard of this extrapolation. John the Baptist pointed to Christ even more explicitly, however, yet the RCC is not advocating hyperdulia be given to him.

And what if my interpretation differs from yours? What then?

 

[Solus_Christus]

All of these terms—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—used to be lumped under the one English word “worship.” Sometimes when one reads old books discussing the subject of how particular persons are to be honored, they will qualify the word “worship” by referring to “the worship of latria” or “the worship of dulia.” To contemporaries and to those not familiar with the history of these terms, however, this is too confusing.

Exodus 34:14 “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:”

The Hebrew word rendered as worship in English is shaw-khaw’, which means to prostrate in homage. God makes no such distinctions as the RCC. I understand that a Catholic, who views the RCC as indefectible, will accept this distinction without question. In view of the many misteps in RCC teaching in the past, however, I think it is far safer to steer clear of anything that even remotely smacks of idolatry. “But among you **there must not be even a hint **of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.” (Ephesians 5:3)

In the case of the Cult of Mary, why shouldn’t God be jealous? He redeemed mankind at great personal expense, and now those actions are being attributed to someone else.

 

[Tomster]

Solus,

Please answer the questions.

 

[Tomster]

Could you, then, give us a complete list of all the “essentials” that EVERY Protestant would agree on? And, this is critical, where would that list be contained in the Bible? Chapter and verse if you please.

Solus,

Give us your list of the “essentials” EVERY Protestant would agree on please. Chapter and verse is critical.

Thank you very much.

 

[Tomster]

The misunderstanding is on your part. I never said that liberal Protestants are “evangelical”. If you read my post I said that all evangelicals “hail from” Protestantism’. And if you took the time to think it through, you would have come to an understanding of what all of the Catholics on this thread have been trying to say to you. Quite simply, if a Protestant (evangelical) doesn’t agree with what he is being taught (liberalism) by a Protestant preacher (that preacher’s own oral tradition), he starts another church. Their oral traditions differ and there is no binding, authoritative voice to straighten out their differences Obviously, the two parties in question, then, would be in disagreement on the “essentials” wouldn’t you say?

Solus,

Wouldn’t you agree? Yes or no for starters.

 

[Tomster]

Solus,

“The earnest Protestant who goes directly to the Bible for his beliefs is brought into immediate contact with the Holy Spirit, and can take the ideas that his reading conveys to him personally as the direct teaching of the Holy Spirit to himself, and the individual inquirer can . . . be SURE [emph. mine] of extracting from the Scripture text the intended meaning of its divine author.” - Martin Luther

There you have it. Straight from Dr. Luther’s mouth (his own oral tradition) which was passed on in written form.

Can you see the flawed reasoning he exhibited when he promulgated this doctrine? Can you see how it lead to a multiplicity of fallible opinions and creeds in Protestantism, all of them based on the Bible?

Be that as it may.

Give us your list of essentials from the Bible please.

 

[Solus_Christus]

I am trying to work my way from older post to newer posts since I am so far behind, but Tomster is clamoring for a response, so I will oblige:

Would they agree with you that they are violating God’s word?

No, I am sure they would employ sophistry to exhonerate their position. The Bible, however, is unambiguous concerning this:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:12)

Do they also claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit when interpreting scripture just like you?

Yes, I am sure they would.

Where do you take your differences?

I am not sure what you mean by “take your differences,” but in the end there is a transcendent truth. Throughout history there are those who will try to make that truth pliable, even while claiming divine assistance. A Christian’s proper response ought to be to “examine the Scriptures” (Acts 17:11) and “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1) In the end, we will all give an account of ourselves to God. If, in rejecting the claims of those ordaining women I am proven wrong, then I entrust myself to God’s judgement. Though this may be a freightening prospect to some, it seems far better than blindly accepting whatever is dogmatically proclaimed by men. Furthermore, this prospect is much less disconcerting to the one who believe that there is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1) and who are “persuaded that he is able to keep that which [they] have committed unto him against that day.” (2 Timothy 1:12)

Is this the way God left us to interpret Scripture?

I provided above how God left us to interpret Scripture. That there will always (this side of Heaven) be those who distort Scripture does not detract in the least bit from God’s truth. Those who distort God’s Word out of ignorance, well, that is between them and God. If they truly are yielded to His Spirit, then He will reveal to them their folly if it is His good pleasure.

With no real authority?

The Holy Spirit is the real and final authority.

According to you. Which one of you is right?

Yes, and also according to them, so we are both right about what they believe. They deny the historicity of the Bible (some deny just some of it while others deny most of it, all the way up to and including the incarnation).

 

[TrueLight]

Exodus 34:14 “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:”

This would be the most direct injunction by God which is bypassed or nullified by the RCC’s promotion of the Cult of Mary. Other examples:

Liguori says:

“This the blessed Virgin herself revealed to St. Bridget: ‘I am,’ she said to her, ‘the queen of heaven and the mother of mercy; I am the joy of the just, and the gate of entrance for sinners to God;’”

God says:

Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Liguori recounts:

“‘When I saw death drawing near, finding myself laden with sins, and abandoned by all, I turned to the mother of God and said to her, Lady, thou art the refuge of the abandoned, behold me at this hour deserted by all; thou art my only hope…The holy Virgin obtained for me the grace of making an act of contrition; I died and am saved,’”

God says:

1 Timothy 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,”

Galatians 1:6-7 “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ”

Liguori says:

“And thus should every sinner say who has recourse to this kind mother: Oh my Lady and mother, I deserve for my faults that thou shouldst banish me from thy presence, and shouldst punish me for my sins; but even if thou shouldst cast me off and slay me, I shall never lose confidence in thee and in thy power to save me. In thee I entirely confide, and if it be my fate to die before some image of thine, recommending myself to thy compassion, I should have a certain hope of my salvation, and of going to praise thee in heaven, united to all they servants who called upon thee for aid in death, and are saved.”

God says:

Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Other examples abound, but I think you should have a general idea of what I am getting at. Liguori attributes those things which are the sole domain of Christ to Mary, and for this, far from being censured, he is elevated as a Doctor of the Church and a Catholic publisher is named after him.

The Latin words are RCC concocted terms to differentiate between forms of worship. “Hyperdulia” is a special term reserved exclusively for what the RCC terms the “Cult of Mary.”

Paul told the Galatian church: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8) By proclaiming Mary a refuge for sinners, these spirits are declaring good news (gospel) to sinners. This is NOT the gospel handed down by the apostles.

Yes, I have heard of this extrapolation. John the Baptist pointed to Christ even more explicitly, however, yet the RCC is not advocating hyperdulia be given to him.

Is this Liguori apparition approved by the Church?

These quotes are alarming!

 

[Solus_Christus]

Technically, yes, it’s hearsay - but what reason did either St. Paul or St. Justin have to lie about it?

You misunderstand what I am attempting to say. I do not mean Paul was teaching hearsay. Rather, it is hearsay that many (most? all?) of the teachings of the RCC were handed down from the apostles. If it is not recorded in the Bible and is simply “oral tradition,” then we have no way of confirming the claim. I would have to look at the portion of St. Justin’s Apologia that addresses the mass. I could readily accept that much of the mass is very similar to how it is performed today. I question, however, whether it was actually considered a “true sacrifice” by the apostles. This and other dogmas, such as the sacrament of confession which has been here discussed lately, are not set forth in the Bible as the RCC teaches. So my question is how we can trust that these dogmas are doctrines taught by the apostles and not innovations of the RCC.

Not only because it says so today, but because it has always said so, right from the very beginning,

Once again, sans the time machine we have no assurance whether all of these things were taught from the beginning.

when Jesus said, “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” and “Whatsoever ye bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye loose on earth, is loosed in Heaven.”

These words of Christ have been one of the primary topics in this thread. It seems the lines have been drawn, but we are at an impasse currently.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Is this Liguori apparition approved by the Church?

These quotes are alarming!

Do a web search for “The Glories of Mary.” The entire book is available for free online.