Yet another scripture vs. tradition aspect

[tabcom]

. . . keep in mind that much of the apologetics work being done in this forum is focused on non-Catholic Christians who will accept little that is not from the Bible.

Did someone call me?

 

[frnate]

“scripture vs. tradition” is a non sequiter

Peace,
+N

 

[PC_Master]

Oh I see-since Scripture doesnt say “Roman” Church it cant be true!?

No – I’m saying that since it doesn’t say Roman, and there are other churches which claim to be catholic, we can’t assume it’s true.

Nealry every Christian from the Pentecost on acknowledged the Catholic Church as the Chuch Christ founded.

By Catholic Church, I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church, in which case my response is that “nearly every Christian” must have excluded all the churches that broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, which constitute quite a few people.

Only 1500 years later do we see new improved interperations of Scripture-these interperations even said everyone gets to have their own pesonal opinion of what scripture says and all are equally valid(except for those that support the primacy of the Church that is)

No. Truth is truth. The problem is that everyone believes their interpretation of scripture to be that truth. In Protestant churches, the general idea is that it’s possible for the clergy (and others) to be wrong, so we leave it to God, hoping that people will seek his will (and not their own), and find the truth.

The Roman Catholic Church not only asserts “this is the truth”, but also “you may not disagree”. So, people disagree on what the truth is, and they leave the Roman Catholic Church, either forming other denominations, or moving to other existing ones. It’s really no different in Protestant circles, except that most Protestants are willing to accept that they might be wrong.

No matter how you parse it you are left with the fatal flaw of a 1500 year gap before there was any widespread disagreement with the primacy and the teachings of the Church So one one hand you worship a perfect God and the other hand your God couldnt even get his Chuch straight for 1500 years

And God couldn’t even keep his church from schisming? (By the way, the reformation was not the first schism, despite what most of you guys seem to think.)

Jesus couldn’t even be clear so that those who would deny his one true church would have no basis for doing so?

Jesus couldn’t do insert something here?

You’re presupposing that you know the mind of God and that he surely wouldn’t have let certain things happen. That is a fatal flaw.

You are confused about scriptural witness and this is why you have a misunderstanding that leads you to the idea that the proof is circular. Please keep in mind that scripture is the written witness. It is not the actual authority granted to the Church by Jesus. This is the crucial element to remember. History is, as another poster has pointed out, another form of written witness to the position and identity of the Church.

And the only thing we have to substantiate this claim is the say-so of those involved in the Roman Catholic Church. Can you see why Protestants might find that a bit hard to agree with?

The original Church is the Catholic Church. The term “Catholic” was first used by Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius was ordained by the apostle John, and as a young boy he probably knew the apostle Paul. Ignatius was martyred sometime between 98 and 117 AD. Please note that Catholic history continues unabated to this day.

First, what do you mean by “Catholic history continues unabated”? Second – the term catholic, as I’ve already clearly explained, originally meant universal, and was a common word. It wasn’t until much later in church history that it became part of the name of a denomination.

The correct understandings/interpretations of scripture are those intended and handed down by the the apostles. These understandings/interpretations are preserved by the Church in her teachings and doctrines. Modern deviations from these have no support by way of the historical evidence or by way of proper exegesis of scripture. None of this is circular.

And how exactly do we know that these correct understandings actually were handed down from the apostles? There’s no historical proof that it happened outside Roman Catholic history. Even the early church fathers (prior to the fourth century or so) do not claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the only keeper of the truth.

 

[estesbob]

No – I’m saying that since it doesn’t say Roman, and there are other churches which claim to be catholic, we can’t assume it’s true.

A Church can claim any name it wants. There was NO other Church until the Scism in 1054 and even then they shared Catholic Doctine.

By Catholic Church, I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church, in which case my response is that “nearly every Christian” must have excluded all the churches that broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, which constitute quite a few people.

Of course it does-no one is denying that people were led astary by the Reformation. The point, which you refuse to address, is there was no other Church for at least first 1,000 years after the Death of Chirst and then only two for the next 500 year.

No. Truth is truth. The problem is that everyone believes their interpretation of scripture to be that truth. In Protestant churches, the general idea is that it’s possible for the clergy (and others) to be wrong, so we leave it to God, hoping that people will seek his will (and not their own), and find the truth.

The Truth is the Truth until you allow people to individually come up with the own version of the Truth. And for the first 1,500 years after the Death of Christ there was only one Truth-not the 30,000 different versions Protestants now espouse.

The Roman Catholic Church not only asserts “this is the truth”, but also “you may not disagree”. So, people disagree on what the truth is, and they leave the Roman Catholic Church, either forming other denominations, or moving to other existing ones. It’s really no different in Protestant circles, except that most Protestants are willing to accept that they might be wrong.

Adam and Eve were the first to reject the Truth and man has being doing it regualrly ever since, The fact people reject the Truth and leave the One True Church des not change what the Truth is.

And God couldn’t even keep his church from schisming? (By the way, the reformation was not the first schism, despite what most of you guys seem to think.)

Can you tell us about the other Schisms? God gave us a free will and he gave us the guidance of his Church to help us live our lives the way we should. The fact you chose to reject what he wanted is not his fault -its yors.

Jesus couldn’t even be clear so that those who would deny his one true church would have no basis for doing so?

Jesus couldn’t do insert something here?

You’re presupposing that you know the mind of God and that he surely wouldn’t have let certain things happen. That is a fatal flaw.

You fatal flaw is a bleif that you are the sole arbitor of what the mind of God is-that is what the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura clams BTW-since Jesus and his Church are one in the same the Church does know the mind of God.

And the only thing we have to substantiate this claim is the say-so of those involved in the Roman Catholic Church. Can you see why Protestants might find that a bit hard to agree with?

Can you show any evidecne that anyone believed the core doctirnes of Protestanism for the first 1,500 years after the death of Jesus? Docrtines not supported by Scripture nor tradition.

First, what do you mean by “Catholic history continues unabated”? Second – the term catholic, as I’ve already clearly explained, originally meant universal, and was a common word. It wasn’t until much later in church history that it became part of the name of a denomination.

It hac continued unbated since the Death of Christ. And you are correct that catholic means universal which is exactly what the Catholic Church is.

And how exactly do we know that these correct understandings actually were handed down from the apostles? There’s no historical proof that it happened outside Roman Catholic history. Even the early church fathers (prior to the fourth century or so) do not claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the only keeper of the truth.

We look at what those who made up the early Church beleived-those closest to the Apostles. We can find no writings of the early church fathers that contradict the teachings of the One True Church.

 

[PC_Master]

estesbob> Why do you feel the need to rebut my claims with rhetoric, rather than evidence (or at least some logic, as I’ve used)? The rhetoric of “the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church whether or not you accept it”, along with all the other standard RCC (Roman Catholic Church) rhetoric isn’t useful to those searching for the truth (such as myself). Give some real evidence, rather than jumping in with dogma. Dogma is not proof – it’s merely a claim of what the RCC teaches and believes. It’s not factual just because you have faith in that church.

A Church can claim any name it wants. There was NO other Church until the Scism in 1054 and even then they shared Catholic Doctine.

Yes, a church can claim any name it wants, just as the Roman Catholic Church has done. As for the schisms…just read your history. The “Catholic” page from Wikipedia lists several churches in it that what was to be Roman Catholocism diverged from in earlier centuries.

Of course it does-no one is denying that people were led astary by the Reformation. The point, which you refuse to address, is there was no other Church for at least first 1,000 years after the Death of Chirst and then only two for the next 500 year.

That’s because that “point” isn’t factual. Just check your history – a few of the more major splits are covered in this Wikipedia image.

The Truth is the Truth until you allow people to individually come up with the own version of the Truth. And for the first 1,500 years after the Death of Christ there was only one Truth-not the 30,000 different versions Protestants now espouse.

There is only one truth. The fact that one group claims their interpretation of available information to be that one truth does not make it so. The claim the RCC makes that it is the same form of catholocism the early church fathers had likewise doesn’t make that inherantly true.

As for 30,000 different versions of Protestantism – I am honestly tired of hearing people dogmatically spout that as though it’s fact. So, would you please share what the names and beliefs of those 30,000 Protestant denominations are (also, how many adherants do each of those 30,000 have)?

Some general statistics – there are an estimated 2.1 billion "Christians in the world. 1.1 billion of those are supposedly belonging to the Roman Catholic Church in its various rites. That leaves only 1 billion people. The Eastern Orthodox Church (and all its various subgroups) constitute another half billion (some statistics say more, but we’ll go with the half billion). The top half dozen Baptist organizations (not that it’s really fair to call them different denominations any more than it’s fair to call different Roman Catholic rites different denominations) account for another 85 million or so adherants. That’s 415 million left.

Anglicanism claims 77 million members. The Chrisitan and Missionary Alliance gets about 14 million. 70 million for Lutheranism. That’s 254 million people left.

A little simple math shows us that on average, each of those supposed 30,000 denominations would have less than 9,000 members. Now, how many Catholic offshoots have there been of far larger proportions?

 

[PC_Master]

Continued…

Adam and Eve were the first to reject the Truth and man has being doing it regualrly ever since, The fact people reject the Truth and leave the One True Church des not change what the Truth is.

You’re asserting your belief in the RCC as if it were fact. I agree – the truth is immutable. However, since you can’t definitively prove to me what the truth is (nor can even the RCC – you have to believe in their authority and regular divine intervention), what’s to say that your interpretation is any more valid than mine?

You fatal flaw is a bleif that you are the sole arbitor of what the mind of God is-that is what the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura clams

No. I believe that noone can definitively say they know the mind of God.

BTW-since Jesus and his Church are one in the same the Church does know the mind of God.

I see – so the church is impeccable (as Christ himself is)? The inquisitions and holy wars didn’t happen?

Can you show any evidecne that anyone believed the core doctirnes of Protestanism for the first 1,500 years after the death of Jesus?

Yes, but I don’t need to. I’m not defending protestantism here. I’ll defend biblical truth as I believe God reveals it to me – not someone else’s belief of what it is.

Docrtines not supported by Scripture nor tradition.

And which doctrines are these? Aside from a refusal to follow Rome (and the Roman Catholic heirarchy), and the rejection of many of the sacraments (on biblical grounds)…show me one thing protestants currently do that is not supported by scripture?

(Notice how I’m ignoring the traditions of the RCC. I don’t hold the RCC to have authority in the first place, so therefore their traditions have no binding authority.)

It hac continued unbated

I want you to define what you mean by unabated.

We look at what those who made up the early Church beleived-those closest to the Apostles. We can find no writings of the early church fathers that contradict the teachings of the One True Church.

And we likewise can’t find any that overtly confirm many things the RCC now holds. Arguing from silence, that the church fathers must have believed what the RCC now does, because none of them wrote against it, is a bad idea.

 

[estesbob]

estesbob> Why do you feel the need to rebut my claims with rhetoric, rather than evidence (or at least some logic, as I’ve used)? The rhetoric of “the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church whether or not you accept it”, along with all the other standard RCC (Roman Catholic Church) rhetoric isn’t useful to those searching for the truth (such as myself). Give some real evidence, rather than jumping in with dogma. Dogma is not proof – it’s merely a claim of what the RCC teaches and believes. It’s not factual just because you have faith in that church.

You have yet to provide one iota of evidence that there were Chrisitan Churhcsother than the Catholic Church until the Reformation. You claimed in your OP that your research showed many yet you have yet to list one. The rhetoric that the Roman Catholic Church is not my rhetoric-it is the “rhetoric” of Jesus, the apostles and every Chruch leader for 1,500 years after Jesus founded the Church.

Yes, a church can claim any name it wants, just as the Roman Catholic Church has done. As for the schisms…just read your history. The “Catholic” page from Wikipedia lists several churches in it that what was to be Roman Catholocism diverged from in earlier centuries.

That’s because that “point” isn’t factual. Just check your history – a few of the more major splits are covered in this Wikipedia image.

So we are to do your research for you? And we are to depend on a source where anyone can post anything they want? You made the claim that there were many eary church’s. Please back it up. As I mentioned before I suspect you are trying to equate Gnositcism and Arianism (and server other isms) with a schism. All of these heresies were soundly rejected but the 4th Century-none had led to a new Church. None of them. BTW, beleived anyhthig close to the put forth by Luther et al .

There is only one truth. The fact that one group claims their interpretation of available information to be that one truth does not make it so. The claim the RCC makes that it is the same form of catholocism the early church fathers had likewise doesn’t make that inherantly true.

As for 30,000 different versions of Protestantism – I am honestly tired of hearing people dogmatically spout that as though it’s fact. So, would you please share what the names and beliefs of those 30,000 Protestant denominations are (also, how many adherants do each of those 30,000 have)?

You say there is only one version of the Truth yet i can point to you to a half dozen versions of the Truth posted to this forum in the last couple of days. For instance on the the Thread “Call no one father” Protestant myfavoritemartin claims that to call anyone but God Father is Blasphemy. Protestant marty says this is not true and it is OK to call others Father. They use the same Bible, both assure us that the Spirit leads them to the truth yet in one short thread we have two differrent version of the Truth? how do we reconcile this PCmaster?

The Catholic Church has been consistent in Teaching the same versin of the Truth for the last 2,000 years.

BTW-the estimate odf 30,000 Protestant denominations come from

**A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). **

Note that unlike you I have provded sources.

Some general statistics – there are an estimated 2.1 billion "Christians in the world. 1.1 billion of those are supposedly belonging to the Roman Catholic Church in its various rites. That leaves only 1 billion people. The Eastern Orthodox Church (and all its various subgroups) constitute another half billion (some statistics say more, but we’ll go with the half billion). The top half dozen Baptist organizations (not that it’s really fair to call them different denominations any more than it’s fair to call different Roman Catholic rites different denominations) account for another 85 million or so adherants. That’s 415 million left.

Anglicanism claims 77 million members. The Chrisitan and Missionary Alliance gets about 14 million. 70 million for Lutheranism. That’s 254 million people left.

A little simple math shows us that on average, each of those supposed 30,000 denominations would have less than 9,000 members. Now, how many Catholic offshoots have there been of far larger proportions?

How about the JWs? Quakers? Churhc of Christ? Assemblies of God? Mormons? Seventh day Advnetists? There are 11 differnt denominations in the town of 7,000 I live in.

How is it that all these denominations have different versions of the truth?

 

[estesbob]

Continued…

You’re asserting your belief in the RCC as if it were fact. I agree – the truth is immutable. However, since you can’t definitively prove to me what the truth is (nor can even the RCC – you have to believe in their authority and regular divine intervention), what’s to say that your interpretation is any more valid than mine?

It is a fact. Truth is immutable and Jessu founded the catholic Church to be the receptacle of that truth. I dont say my interpertaion is more valid that yours as i am not foolish enough to think I am qualified to make an interperation. I leave that up to the Church Jesus founded.

No. I believe that noone can definitively say they know the mind of God.

Then I pity you. Going though life not sure of what the truth is, depending on your personal “feelings” to try and discern what it is,

I

see – so the church is impeccable (as Christ himself is)? The inquisitions and holy wars didn’t happen

The Church and Christ are one in the same.

Before i get int a discussion with you about the Crusadea and the inquisition i would like to see if you actually know anything about them or are just throwing them out as some sort of proof that the Church is wrong becuase members of it sinned.

How many died in the course of the Inquistion? Of these how many were exectued by the Church?

What was the proxiamate cause of the Crusades? Who was the agreessor? What was the twofold purpose of the Crusades?

Yes, but I don’t need to. I’m not defending protestantism here. I’ll defend biblical truth as I believe God reveals it to me – not someone else’s belief of what it is.

Biblical truth? Who’s Biblical truth Yours? Who made you the sole arbitor of what Gods word means?

And which doctrines are these? Aside from a refusal to follow Rome (and the Roman Catholic heirarchy), and the rejection of many of the sacraments (on biblical grounds)…show me one thing protestants currently do that is not supported by scripture?

(Notice how I’m ignoring the traditions of the RCC. I don’t hold the RCC to have authority in the first place, so therefore their traditions have no binding authority.)

Primarily Sola Scriptura(which you espoused above) and Sola Fidelis-which you like wise embrace. Neither of which are supported by scriptue and neither of which were around unitl Luther “discovered” them 1,500 years after the Church was founded. If this Doctrines are true why would God allow his Church to live in error for 1,500 years. or perhaps he was spening that time inventng new versions of the truth?

And of course you ignore the Church. Protestanism can only exist if one ignores the first 1,500 years of Church history.

I want you to define what you mean by unabated.

And we likewise can’t find any that overtly confirm many things the RCC now holds. Arguing from silence, that the church fathers must have believed what the RCC now does, because none of them wrote against it, is a bad idea.

Actually the Fathers wrote affirimg the doctrnes of the Church. The silence they had was any beleifs that we were saved by faith alone or that we all got to decide what the truth was by reading scripture.

 

[mercygate]

I wouldn’t be so sure. The problem I’ve seen with most Catholic arguments is that they are circular. If you believe in the authority of the church, you believe they can establish doctrine and interpret scripture…and you know the church is “the one true church of Jesus” because the interpretation you choose says so…and so on. Just come up with clear arguments that are straightforward, rather than circular.

The full Catholicl position rests on history, Tradition, Scripture, and the continuity and contigiuity of all three. The reasoning is More like a spiral than a circle: The artifact we have that all Christians accept is the Bible. Textual evidence provides assurance that the documents themselves are authentic and consistent. The first 300 years of Christianity demonstrate that the church of which the New Testament speaks, and which it addresses, is the same Church for which the early martyrs died. When we trace the known history of the early Church forward in time, we see continuity with the Church of today: historical and doctrinal continuity with the Roman Church.

Why do Catholics always act like there was absolutely no other Christian church until the reformation? A reformation usually bases its ideals on “going back to the truth” when they believe their organization has drifted from that. To go back to the truth, there has to have been a truth to go back to.

You make a drastic assumption in presuming that the “reformation” was correctly so named.

 

[mercygate]

No – I’m saying that since it doesn’t say Roman, and there are other churches which claim to be catholic, we can’t assume it’s true.

The other “catholic” Churches – those dating from Apostolic times – are “catholic” insofar as they have historical succession from the Apostles. They hold a catholic theology and are near cousins. Insofar as they are not united jurisdictionally with the Bishop of Rome they are not Roman Catholic, but they are definitely part of the catholic tradition.

By Catholic Church, I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church, in which case my response is that “nearly every Christian” must have excluded all the churches that broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, which constitute quite a few people.

The core of history running back to Mt. 16:18-19 runs to Peter.

No. Truth is truth. The problem is that everyone believes their interpretation of scripture to be that truth. In Protestant churches, the general idea is that it’s possible for the clergy (and others) to be wrong, so we leave it to God, hoping that people will seek his will (and not their own), and find the truth.

What else can you do?

The Roman Catholic Church not only asserts “this is the truth”, but also “you may not disagree”. So, people disagree on what the truth is, and they leave the Roman Catholic Church, either forming other denominations, or moving to other existing ones. It’s really no different in Protestant circles, except that most Protestants are willing to accept that they might be wrong.

But Jesus promised the Apostles to guide them into all the truth.

And God couldn’t even keep his church from schisming? (By the way, the reformation was not the first schism, despite what most of you guys seem to think.)

We would not lay the blame for schism on God.

Jesus couldn’t even be clear so that those who would deny his one true church would have no basis for doing so?

Jesus couldn’t do insert something here?

He was perfectly clear. He did “do something”.

You’re presupposing that you know the mind of God and that he surely wouldn’t have let certain things happen. That is a fatal flaw.

We only presume to know what the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition affirm, which we understand to be the ‘mind of God.’ We *all *do that when it comes to faith and salvation.

And the only thing we have to substantiate this claim is the say-so of those involved in the Roman Catholic Church. Can you see why Protestants might find that a bit hard to agree with?

As a former Protestant, I do understand. But ultimately, the rejection of the Church is more about a personal rejection of authority – common in America – than about the truth as witnessed by history, tradition, Scripture, and reason.

First, what do you mean by “Catholic history continues unabated”? Second – the term catholic, as I’ve already clearly explained, originally meant universal, and was a common word. It wasn’t until much later in church history that it became part of the name of a denomination.

The universal church is the one that encompasses the world, can trace its history to the Upper Room on Easter night, and is in mutual communion throughout that world. There is only one candidate.

And how exactly do we know that these correct understandings actually were handed down from the apostles? There’s no historical proof that it happened outside Roman Catholic history. Even the early church fathers (prior to the fourth century or so) do not claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the only keeper of the truth.

You gotta be kidding. Read Irenaeus’ *Adversus haeresis. *What other Church Fathers were there? The First Congregational Church of Sola Scriptura Church fathers? “Christian” and “Catholic” were synonymous. You know THAT!

 

[mercygate]

I want you to define what you mean by unabated.