Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Y'all are not seeing the issue here. I already know what you think Scripture means. The question is what makes you more authoritative than the Church, Waco1947, or anyone else. How do I know you're right and they're wrong?

---

Can we not agree on the plain things of Scripture? Can we agree, for example, that Waco47's theology that Jesus was not bodily raised and that homosexual relationships are not a sin to be blatantly anti-scriptural? If so, then my next question is this: can you not see that those prayers to Mary I listed elevate Mary to the level of Jesus, which makes it heretical and idolatrous? If you can, then the question becomes this: can you agree then, that the Church's authority therefore is fallible, and should not be always trusted, but rather, their proclamations must all be weighed against our good faith understanding of Scripture?

---

We probably agree on most things. The question is, when we don't agree, whose word is authoritative? Scripture doesn't interpret itself. I can even agree that some of the passages you quoted sound perplexing to modern ears. But I interpret them in light of what I know of Catholic theology, which emphatically does not equate Mary or any of the saints with God.

---

Whose word is authoritative is the wrong question. The question is who is right.

Saying you don't equate Mary with Jesus is one thing. Actually doing it in prayer and in one's heart is another, and that's what God will judge you by.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

The argument against the practice is not denominational, it is scriptural. Scripture is the infallible word of God, tradition is the fallible way of man. Believing something to be true simply because a church Council declared it so is dangerous for that reason. Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Look at the fruits of these councils: the Catholic Church dogmatized that Mary was completely sinless and was assumed bodily into heaven where she is prayed to for intercession. Does that sound like anyone you know?

Believing that those in heaven are interceding for us on their own accord is one thing. Believing that they are to be prayed to for that intercession, is entirely another. Whether or not the majority of Christians believe and practice something has nothing to do with its truth. It must always be weighed against scripture, because scripture is the only thing that we have that Jesus himself fully verified as being the word of God.

---

Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Those who venerate Mary and the saints comprise the majority of all Christians alive today and who have ever lived. That is a bounteous harvest indeed.

---

Jesus also said that the way to life was through a narrow road, where few will travel, and that the way to destruction was wide, where many will travel.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that.

---

We know that they are in heaven when two miracles attributed to their intercession.

How do you explain the two miracles attributed to Mother Teresa that I posted in the last link?

---

Miraculous works are NOT an indicator of someone who is going to heaven or is in heaven (Matthew 7:22-23)

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Cokebear, this, like many of your beliefs, are directly contradicted by Scripture. I really hope you're taking this to heart. I really hope you and others here don't hear those terrible, terrible words from Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Y'all are not seeing the issue here. I already know what you think Scripture means. The question is what makes you more authoritative than the Church, Waco1947, or anyone else. How do I know you're right and they're wrong?

---

Can we not agree on the plain things of Scripture? Can we agree, for example, that Waco47's theology that Jesus was not bodily raised and that homosexual relationships are not a sin to be blatantly anti-scriptural? If so, then my next question is this: can you not see that those prayers to Mary I listed elevate Mary to the level of Jesus, which makes it heretical and idolatrous? If you can, then the question becomes this: can you agree then, that the Church's authority therefore is fallible, and should not be always trusted, but rather, their proclamations must all be weighed against our good faith understanding of Scripture?

---

We probably agree on most things. The question is, when we don't agree, whose word is authoritative? Scripture doesn't interpret itself. I can even agree that some of the passages you quoted sound perplexing to modern ears. But I interpret them in light of what I know of Catholic theology, which emphatically does not equate Mary or any of the saints with God.

---

Whose word is authoritative is the wrong question. The question is who is right.

Saying you don't equate Mary with Jesus is one thing. Actually doing it in prayer and in one's heart is another, and that's what God will judge you by.

---

They are different but closely related questions. Catholics take an originalist point of view. The historical belief and practice of the church is most likely to be right. Waco1947 takes more of a liberal activist point of view. What's right is what comports with his feelings and the spirit of the times. You seem to take a sort of strict constructionalist point of view, or what Scalia called a degraded form of textualism. If the Constitution says we have a right to bear arms, then everyone can own a nuclear weapon. After all it's the "plain meaning" of the text.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Y'all are not seeing the issue here. I already know what you think Scripture means. The question is what makes you more authoritative than the Church, Waco1947, or anyone else. How do I know you're right and they're wrong?

---

Can we not agree on the plain things of Scripture? Can we agree, for example, that Waco47's theology that Jesus was not bodily raised and that homosexual relationships are not a sin to be blatantly anti-scriptural? If so, then my next question is this: can you not see that those prayers to Mary I listed elevate Mary to the level of Jesus, which makes it heretical and idolatrous? If you can, then the question becomes this: can you agree then, that the Church's authority therefore is fallible, and should not be always trusted, but rather, their proclamations must all be weighed against our good faith understanding of Scripture?

---

We probably agree on most things. The question is, when we don't agree, whose word is authoritative? Scripture doesn't interpret itself. I can even agree that some of the passages you quoted sound perplexing to modern ears. But I interpret them in light of what I know of Catholic theology, which emphatically does not equate Mary or any of the saints with God.

---

Whose word is authoritative is the wrong question. The question is who is right.

Saying you don't equate Mary with Jesus is one thing. Actually doing it in prayer and in one's heart is another, and that's what God will judge you by.

---

They are different but closely related questions. Catholics take an originalist point of view. The historical belief and practice of the church is most likely to be right. Waco1947 takes more of a liberal activist point of view. What's right is what comports with his feelings and the spirit of the times. You seem to take a sort of strict constructionalist point of view, or what Scalia called a degraded form of textualism. If the Constitution says we have a right to bear arms, then everyone can own a nuclear weapon. After all it's the "plain meaning" of the text.

---

Catholics can NOT be taking the originalist point of view, if their beliefs and practices do NOT trace back to Jesus, his apostles, and the early church. That's been my major point.

And I am not saying everyone can own a nuclear weapon. A better analogy would be me saying that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause does not allow for gay marriage. That's merely people reading into it what they want (eisegesis in bad faith).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

The argument against the practice is not denominational, it is scriptural. Scripture is the infallible word of God, tradition is the fallible way of man. Believing something to be true simply because a church Council declared it so is dangerous for that reason. Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Look at the fruits of these councils: the Catholic Church dogmatized that Mary was completely sinless and was assumed bodily into heaven where she is prayed to for intercession. Does that sound like anyone you know?

Believing that those in heaven are interceding for us on their own accord is one thing. Believing that they are to be prayed to for that intercession, is entirely another. Whether or not the majority of Christians believe and practice something has nothing to do with its truth. It must always be weighed against scripture, because scripture is the only thing that we have that Jesus himself fully verified as being the word of God.

---

Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Those who venerate Mary and the saints comprise the majority of all Christians alive today and who have ever lived. That is a bounteous harvest indeed.

---

Jesus also said that the way to life was through a narrow road, where few will travel, and that the way to destruction was wide, where many will travel.

---

So, do you think most have been chosen to travel the road to destruction? Or perhaps they were predestined for destruction/damnation? If so, has there ever been anything they could do about it? Does the veneration of Mary and the saints cause one to be incapable of attaining salvation? If one first believes in Christ, as I did as a boy, and "accepts Him as one's personal Lord and Savior" does my veneration of the saints now cause me to lose my salvation? Are all the Christians now or ever who venerate the saints actually not saved but damned? Give us your definitive Scripture based answers, if you can.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

The argument against the practice is not denominational, it is scriptural. Scripture is the infallible word of God, tradition is the fallible way of man. Believing something to be true simply because a church Council declared it so is dangerous for that reason. Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Look at the fruits of these councils: the Catholic Church dogmatized that Mary was completely sinless and was assumed bodily into heaven where she is prayed to for intercession. Does that sound like anyone you know?

Believing that those in heaven are interceding for us on their own accord is one thing. Believing that they are to be prayed to for that intercession, is entirely another. Whether or not the majority of Christians believe and practice something has nothing to do with its truth. It must always be weighed against scripture, because scripture is the only thing that we have that Jesus himself fully verified as being the word of God.

---

Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Those who venerate Mary and the saints comprise the majority of all Christians alive today and who have ever lived. That is a bounteous harvest indeed.

---

Jesus also said that the way to life was through a narrow road, where few will travel, and that the way to destruction was wide, where many will travel.

---

So, do you think most have been chosen to travel the road to destruction? Or perhaps they were predestined for destruction/damnation? If so, has there ever been anything they could do about it? Does the veneration of Mary and the saints cause one to be incapable of attaining salvation? If one first believes in Christ, as I did as a boy, and "accepts Him as one's personal Lord and Savior" does my veneration of the saints now cause me to lose my salvation? Are all the Christians now or ever who venerate the saints actually not saved but damned? Give us your definitive Scripture based answers, if you can.

---

- people choose their own path. Of course they can do something about it - hear Jesus, heed his warnings, and change your path.

- veneration, i.e. worship of the saints and Mary, by praying and having statues, relics, etc is idolatry, and yes, that can cause someone to not be saved, if in their heart they're actually putting their faith in Mary and those saints instead of Jesus.

- if you truly put your faith in Christ, and your faith in him remains, then invoking Mary and the saints in prayer just makes you in egregious error. It's a sin, and like any sin it is something that a believer should be convicted of and repent from if they truly have the Holy Spirit. I believe you won't necessarily lose your salvation unless, again, you're really putting your faith in them and not Jesus.

- I believe a very strong indicator that one does NOT have the Holy Spirit, and thus true discernment, is if one reads those prayers to Mary I listed and does not see the problem with them. I will go far as to say that if you are a person with at least normal intelligence and without significant mental impairment, and you don't see the problem with them, then you are definitely not a Christian, and you are not saved.

BusyTarpDuster2017Miraculous works are NOT an indicator of someone who is going to heaven or is in heaven (Matthew 7:22-23)

"[i said:

---

Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Cokebear, this, like many of your beliefs, are directly contradicted by Scripture. I really hope you're taking this to heart. I really hope you and others here don't hear those terrible, terrible words from Jesus.

---

Amazing. Quoting scripture out of context.

We know that Satan cannot produce miraculous healings. How did these miracles happen when these people asked Mother Teresa to pray for them?

What about the 70 verified miracle healings (and 1000's unverified) in Lourdes, France?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.

---

Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.

Mothra said:

---

Praying to Mary, infant baptism and a works-based faith are.

---

Let's look at Infant baptism.

Does the bible forbid it? No. One can't claim that it is specified against God.

Paul discusses entire households being baptized in Act 10, Lydia's family members were baptized. In 1 Cor 1:12 Paul baptizes Stephanas and his whole household. Neither mention an exclusion of infants.

In Colossians 2:11-12 - Paul ties circumcision in the old covenant to the baptism in the new covenant:

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

What did circumcision do in the old covenant? On the 8th day after birth, males were circumcised to be part of God's people. As Paul mentions, baptism is the new circumcision, but it includes everyone.

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 A.D. 253).

The debate wasn't whether to baptize infants or not. The debate was should they wait until the 8th day given infant mortality rates.

Scripture, history, and tradition are not against infant baptism. Scripture, history, and tradition actually refute the Calvinist/Baptist claims against infant baptism.

Why is the Calvinist/Baptist so against infant baptism? Because they need refute the claim of baptismal regeneration and the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of baptism that was universally accepted 1500 years prior to the birth of Calvin.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017Miraculous works are NOT an indicator of someone who is going to heaven or is in heaven (Matthew 7:22-23)

"[i said:

---

Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Cokebear, this, like many of your beliefs, are directly contradicted by Scripture. I really hope you're taking this to heart. I really hope you and others here don't hear those terrible, terrible words from Jesus.

---

Quote:

---

CokeBear said:

Amazing. Quoting scripture out of context.

We know that Satan cannot produce miraculous healings. How did these miracles happen when these people asked Mother Teresa to pray for them?

What about the 70 verified miracle healings (and 1000's unverified) in Lourdes, France?

---

---

How is that out of context?? It's plainly saying that there can be people who perform miracles, but who are rejected by Jesus!

The question is not whether Satan can produce miraculous healings or not. The question is, rather, is the person through whom they come by their intercession necessarily saved and in heaven? The answer clearly is NO, according to Jesus himself by direct quote. I don't know how it can be any more clear than that.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.

---

Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.

---

So.....you're asking for a circular argument?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.

---

Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.

---

So.....you're asking for a circular argument?

---

If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Praying to Mary, infant baptism and a works-based faith are.

---

Let's look at Infant baptism.

Does the bible forbid it? No. One can't claim that it is specified against God.

Paul discusses entire households being baptized in Act 10, Lydia's family members were baptized. In 1 Cor 1:12 Paul baptizes Stephanas and his whole household. Neither mention an exclusion of infants.

In Colossians 2:11-12 - Paul ties circumcision in the old covenant to the baptism in the new covenant:

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

What did circumcision do in the old covenant? On the 8th day after birth, males were circumcised to be part of God's people. As Paul mentions, baptism is the new circumcision, but it includes everyone.

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 A.D. 253).

The debate wasn't whether to baptize infants or not. The debate was should they wait until the 8th day given infant mortality rates.

Scripture, history, and tradition are not against infant baptism. Scripture, history, and tradition actually refute the Calvinist/Baptist claims against infant baptism.

Why is the Calvinist/Baptist so against infant baptism? Because they need refute the claim of baptismal regeneration and the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of baptism that was universally accepted 1500 years prior to the birth of Calvin.

---

When your argument for a practice begins with, "God didn't forbid it," you are on very shaky theological ground.

There is not a single example of infant baptism anywhere in scripture. Not one.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Praying to Mary, infant baptism and a works-based faith are.

---

Let's look at Infant baptism.

Does the bible forbid it? No. One can't claim that it is specified against God.

Paul discusses entire households being baptized in Act 10, Lydia's family members were baptized. In 1 Cor 1:12 Paul baptizes Stephanas and his whole household. Neither mention an exclusion of infants.

In Colossians 2:11-12 - Paul ties circumcision in the old covenant to the baptism in the new covenant:

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

What did circumcision do in the old covenant? On the 8th day after birth, males were circumcised to be part of God's people. As Paul mentions, baptism is the new circumcision, but it includes everyone.

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 A.D. 253).

The debate wasn't whether to baptize infants or not. The debate was should they wait until the 8th day given infant mortality rates.

Scripture, history, and tradition are not against infant baptism. Scripture, history, and tradition actually refute the Calvinist/Baptist claims against infant baptism.

Why is the Calvinist/Baptist so against infant baptism? Because they need refute the claim of baptismal regeneration and the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of baptism that was universally accepted 1500 years prior to the birth of Calvin.

---

When your argument for a practice begins with, "God didn't forbid it," you are on very shaky theological ground.

There is not a single example of infant baptism anywhere in scripture. Not one.

---

The Bible also doesn't mention the disciples being baptized.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

The argument against the practice is not denominational, it is scriptural. Scripture is the infallible word of God, tradition is the fallible way of man. Believing something to be true simply because a church Council declared it so is dangerous for that reason. Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Look at the fruits of these councils: the Catholic Church dogmatized that Mary was completely sinless and was assumed bodily into heaven where she is prayed to for intercession. Does that sound like anyone you know?

Believing that those in heaven are interceding for us on their own accord is one thing. Believing that they are to be prayed to for that intercession, is entirely another. Whether or not the majority of Christians believe and practice something has nothing to do with its truth. It must always be weighed against scripture, because scripture is the only thing that we have that Jesus himself fully verified as being the word of God.

---

Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Those who venerate Mary and the saints comprise the majority of all Christians alive today and who have ever lived. That is a bounteous harvest indeed.

---

Jesus also said that the way to life was through a narrow road, where few will travel, and that the way to destruction was wide, where many will travel.

---

So, do you think most have been chosen to travel the road to destruction? Or perhaps they were predestined for destruction/damnation? If so, has there ever been anything they could do about it? Does the veneration of Mary and the saints cause one to be incapable of attaining salvation? If one first believes in Christ, as I did as a boy, and "accepts Him as one's personal Lord and Savior" does my veneration of the saints now cause me to lose my salvation? Are all the Christians now or ever who venerate the saints actually not saved but damned? Give us your definitive Scripture based answers, if you can.

---

- people choose their own path. Of course they can do something about it - hear Jesus, heed his warnings, and change your path.

- veneration, i.e. worship of the saints and Mary, by praying and having statues, relics, etc is idolatry, and yes, that can cause someone to not be saved, if in their heart they're actually putting their faith in Mary and those saints instead of Jesus.

- if you truly put your faith in Christ, and your faith in him remains, then invoking Mary and the saints in prayer just makes you in egregious error. It's a sin, and like any sin it is something that a believer should be convicted of and repent from if they truly have the Holy Spirit. I believe you won't necessarily lose your salvation unless, again, you're really putting your faith in them and not Jesus.

- I believe a very strong indicator that one does NOT have the Holy Spirit, and thus true discernment, is if one reads those prayers to Mary I listed and does not see the problem with them. I will go far as to say that if you are a person with at least normal intelligence and without significant mental impairment, and you don't see the problem with them, then you are definitely not a Christian, and you are not saved.

---

I did hear Jesus in '98 and changed my path to the Canterbury trail. You have no standing with which to gainsay my choice. That change included a more fully realized faith which includes the veneration and invocation of the communion of saints. This in no way diminishes my orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. How many people who have ever venerated and invoked said saints ever failed to be saved (or somehow lost their salvation - if such is possible) because they put their "faith in them and not Jesus"? Care to give us a range expressed as a percentage? How would you even know? Do you even understand that this is a both/and situation rather than an either/or?

You have nothing from Scripture in your Sola Scriptura world with which to contradict the beliefs of the majority of Christians. You have only your own flawed reasoning. You may assert that I am "in egregious error" and that "it's a sin", but you have nothing other than your never ending circularity/infinite regress.

You may bash away all you like at the 18th century prayer of an Italian bishop, but that is just a colossal strawman when one considers how few Christians who have ever lived or are alive now have any familiarity with that prayer. The body of Christ would be better served and you would be slightly less of a self righteous Pharisee if you confined your arguments to the specifics of that prayer rather than extrapolating to the largest denomination of Christians now and ever. I don't agree with much of it, but I don't spout endless diatribes directed at Roman Catholics. Stop doing the work of Satan.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.

---

Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.

---

So.....you're asking for a circular argument?

---

If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?

---

Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.

Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

The argument against the practice is not denominational, it is scriptural. Scripture is the infallible word of God, tradition is the fallible way of man. Believing something to be true simply because a church Council declared it so is dangerous for that reason. Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Look at the fruits of these councils: the Catholic Church dogmatized that Mary was completely sinless and was assumed bodily into heaven where she is prayed to for intercession. Does that sound like anyone you know?

Believing that those in heaven are interceding for us on their own accord is one thing. Believing that they are to be prayed to for that intercession, is entirely another. Whether or not the majority of Christians believe and practice something has nothing to do with its truth. It must always be weighed against scripture, because scripture is the only thing that we have that Jesus himself fully verified as being the word of God.

---

Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Those who venerate Mary and the saints comprise the majority of all Christians alive today and who have ever lived. That is a bounteous harvest indeed.

---

Jesus also said that the way to life was through a narrow road, where few will travel, and that the way to destruction was wide, where many will travel.

---

So, do you think most have been chosen to travel the road to destruction? Or perhaps they were predestined for destruction/damnation? If so, has there ever been anything they could do about it? Does the veneration of Mary and the saints cause one to be incapable of attaining salvation? If one first believes in Christ, as I did as a boy, and "accepts Him as one's personal Lord and Savior" does my veneration of the saints now cause me to lose my salvation? Are all the Christians now or ever who venerate the saints actually not saved but damned? Give us your definitive Scripture based answers, if you can.

---

- people choose their own path. Of course they can do something about it - hear Jesus, heed his warnings, and change your path.

- veneration, i.e. worship of the saints and Mary, by praying and having statues, relics, etc is idolatry, and yes, that can cause someone to not be saved, if in their heart they're actually putting their faith in Mary and those saints instead of Jesus.

- if you truly put your faith in Christ, and your faith in him remains, then invoking Mary and the saints in prayer just makes you in egregious error. It's a sin, and like any sin it is something that a believer should be convicted of and repent from if they truly have the Holy Spirit. I believe you won't necessarily lose your salvation unless, again, you're really putting your faith in them and not Jesus.

- I believe a very strong indicator that one does NOT have the Holy Spirit, and thus true discernment, is if one reads those prayers to Mary I listed and does not see the problem with them. I will go far as to say that if you are a person with at least normal intelligence and without significant mental impairment, and you don't see the problem with them, then you are definitely not a Christian, and you are not saved.

---

I did hear Jesus in '98 and changed my path to the Canterbury trail. You have no standing with which to gainsay my choice. That change included a more fully realized faith which includes the veneration and invocation of the communion of saints. This in no way diminishes my orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. How many people who have ever venerated and invoked said saints ever failed to be saved (or somehow lost their salvation - if such is possible) because they put their "faith in them and not Jesus"? Care to give us a range expressed as a percentage? How would you even know? Do you even understand that this is a both/and situation rather than an either/or?

You have nothing from Scripture in your Sola Scriptura world with which to contradict the beliefs of the majority of Christians. You have only your own flawed reasoning. You may assert that I am "in egregious error" and that "it's a sin", but you have nothing other than your never ending circularity/infinite regress.

You may bash away all you like at the 18th century prayer of an Italian bishop, but that is just a colossal strawman when one considers how few Christians who have ever lived or are alive now have any familiarity with that prayer. The body of Christ would be better served and you would be slightly less of a self righteous Pharisee if you confined your arguments to the specifics of that prayer rather than extrapolating to the largest denomination of Christians now and ever. I don't agree with much of it, but I don't spout endless diatribes directed at Roman Catholics. Stop doing the work of Satan.

---

Many have "heard Jesus" and taken a certain path, but not always have they behaved correctly while on that path. I, as well as anyone else, can "gainsay" anyone's choice not by one's own standard, but by God's standard as revealed in His Word and by what it teaches. You can't tell me that people who "heard Jesus" but then started believing that abortion or gay marriage are not sins, that these people can't be "gainsayed" according to God's word.

It is not "flawed" reasoning to argue that since neither in the Old Testament or the New, did people ever pray to those who died, and since neither Jesus, his apostles, his apostles' apostles, and the early church ever teach, believe, or practice it, then the practice is completely unbiblical and should not be done. Neither is it flawed reasoning to argue that the bible teaches that ONLY God can know our thoughts (I Kings 8:39) therefore attributing that ability to Mary or the saints is elevating them to the divine, which is idolatry. Neither is it a flawed argument that one can not even be sure that the "saint" you're praying to is actually in heaven, given that one can perform many miracles in their life, but according to Jesus himself, that doesn't guarantee they'll go to heaven (Matthew 7:22-23).

It wasn't some obscure Italian bishop that compiled those prayers to Mary. He was a "doctor of the Catholic Church" a prestigious, exclusive title conferred by the Pope himself, a title only given to 37 people in the history of the Catholic Church. These prayers have been quoted by priests, bishops, and even popes. It has gone through over 800 editions. It is fully endorsed and condoned by the Catholic Church. Regardless, the number of Catholics who know about these prayers isn't the point - if the Catholic Church does not recognize the blatant heresy and idolatry in those prayers enough to stop it, then it should put the legitimacy of their authority in question, shouldn't it?

The irony is that all you've accused me of doing (dividing Christ's body, being a Pharisee, doing the work of Satan) is indeed being done, but not by me. If you adhere to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church's false gospel, then you are dividing yourself from the body of Christ. I'm the one trying to build the body of Christ by trying to get Catholics to see their error and repent. I'm the "Pharisee"? Jesus criticized the Pharisees because they allowed their traditions to circumvent, even supercede what's in God's Word (Matthew 15:1-9) - that's exactly what the RCC is doing. "Doing the work of Satan"? Wouldn't binding millions and millions of Catholics to the false gospel of the RCC be more indicative of the work of Satan, rather than someone trying to get them to open their eyes?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.

---

Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.

---

So.....you're asking for a circular argument?

---

If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?

---

Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.

Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.

---

Basing your beliefs on the historical person of Jesus Christ isn't a circular argument. It's also not sola scriptura. It's what Catholics are doing when we rely on the historical witness of Church tradition.

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Praying to Mary, infant baptism and a works-based faith are.

---

Let's look at Infant baptism.

Does the bible forbid it? No. One can't claim that it is specified against God.

Paul discusses entire households being baptized in Act 10, Lydia's family members were baptized. In 1 Cor 1:12 Paul baptizes Stephanas and his whole household. Neither mention an exclusion of infants.

In Colossians 2:11-12 - Paul ties circumcision in the old covenant to the baptism in the new covenant:

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

What did circumcision do in the old covenant? On the 8th day after birth, males were circumcised to be part of God's people. As Paul mentions, baptism is the new circumcision, but it includes everyone.

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 A.D. 253).

The debate wasn't whether to baptize infants or not. The debate was should they wait until the 8th day given infant mortality rates.

Scripture, history, and tradition are not against infant baptism. Scripture, history, and tradition actually refute the Calvinist/Baptist claims against infant baptism.

Why is the Calvinist/Baptist so against infant baptism? Because they need refute the claim of baptismal regeneration and the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of baptism that was universally accepted 1500 years prior to the birth of Calvin.

---

When your argument for a practice begins with, "God didn't forbid it," you are on very shaky theological ground.

There is not a single example of infant baptism anywhere in scripture. Not one.

---

The Bible also doesn't mention the disciples being baptized.

---

True. Which of course suggests baptism is not necessary for salvation - another erroneous Catholic belief.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.

---

Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.

---

So.....you're asking for a circular argument?

---

If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?

---

Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.

Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.

---

Basing your beliefs on the historical person of Jesus Christ isn't a circular argument. It's also not sola scriptura. It's what Catholics are doing when we rely on the historical witness of Church tradition.

---

Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.

---

Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.

---

So.....you're asking for a circular argument?

---

If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?

---

Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.

Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.

---

Basing your beliefs on the historical person of Jesus Christ isn't a circular argument. It's also not sola scriptura. It's what Catholics are doing when we rely on the historical witness of Church tradition.

---

Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.

---

Sure there is. It's in the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as Scripture.

Mothra said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Praying to Mary, infant baptism and a works-based faith are.

---

Let's look at Infant baptism.

Does the bible forbid it? No. One can't claim that it is specified against God.

Paul discusses entire households being baptized in Act 10, Lydia's family members were baptized. In 1 Cor 1:12 Paul baptizes Stephanas and his whole household. Neither mention an exclusion of infants.

In Colossians 2:11-12 - Paul ties circumcision in the old covenant to the baptism in the new covenant:

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

What did circumcision do in the old covenant? On the 8th day after birth, males were circumcised to be part of God's people. As Paul mentions, baptism is the new circumcision, but it includes everyone.

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 A.D. 253).

The debate wasn't whether to baptize infants or not. The debate was should they wait until the 8th day given infant mortality rates.

Scripture, history, and tradition are not against infant baptism. Scripture, history, and tradition actually refute the Calvinist/Baptist claims against infant baptism.

Why is the Calvinist/Baptist so against infant baptism? Because they need refute the claim of baptismal regeneration and the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of baptism that was universally accepted 1500 years prior to the birth of Calvin.

---

When your argument for a practice begins with, "God didn't forbid it," you are on very shaky theological ground.

There is not a single example of infant baptism anywhere in scripture. Not one.

---

The Bible also doesn't mention the disciples being baptized.

---

True. Which of course suggests baptism is not necessary for salvation - another erroneous Catholic belief.

---

Or were they baptized and it just wasn't explicitly stated?

I'm not arguing one way or the other on the requirement of baptism to get into heaven.

However I do find it ironic that one of the original intents of Sola Scriptura was to argue against the Catholic Church at the time stating that things had to be done a certain way and people had to go through the Catholic Church in order to be saved. It did not argue that tradition (or reason) had no value.

The line of discussion on Sola Scriptura here sounds a lot like what the early reformers were criticizing - an "authority" stating that their views on Christianity are the only way into heaven and everyone who disagrees isn't getting in.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.

---

Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.

---

So.....you're asking for a circular argument?

---

If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?

---

Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.

Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.

---

Basing your beliefs on the historical person of Jesus Christ isn't a circular argument. It's also not sola scriptura. It's what Catholics are doing when we rely on the historical witness of Church tradition.

---

Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.

---

Sure there is. It's in the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as Scripture.

---

The Church Fathers, as you call them, didn't even know Christ, nor is it likely they even knew his apostles, as the oldest lived at least 100-200 years after Christ. There is a reason their teachings did not become New Testament canon. Moreover, which Church Fathers are you referencing? Are you referring only those the Catholics venerate? Or are you referring to the other fathers as well - those the Greek Orthodox venerate? And what evidence do you have that these early theologians - many of whom held contradictory theologies to each other - are authoritative on the historical record of Christ?

Again, herein lies the problem with not using scripture as the compass to judge the teachings of fallible man.

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Praying to Mary, infant baptism and a works-based faith are.

---

Let's look at Infant baptism.

Does the bible forbid it? No. One can't claim that it is specified against God.

Paul discusses entire households being baptized in Act 10, Lydia's family members were baptized. In 1 Cor 1:12 Paul baptizes Stephanas and his whole household. Neither mention an exclusion of infants.

In Colossians 2:11-12 - Paul ties circumcision in the old covenant to the baptism in the new covenant:

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

What did circumcision do in the old covenant? On the 8th day after birth, males were circumcised to be part of God's people. As Paul mentions, baptism is the new circumcision, but it includes everyone.

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 A.D. 253).

The debate wasn't whether to baptize infants or not. The debate was should they wait until the 8th day given infant mortality rates.

Scripture, history, and tradition are not against infant baptism. Scripture, history, and tradition actually refute the Calvinist/Baptist claims against infant baptism.

Why is the Calvinist/Baptist so against infant baptism? Because they need refute the claim of baptismal regeneration and the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of baptism that was universally accepted 1500 years prior to the birth of Calvin.

---

When your argument for a practice begins with, "God didn't forbid it," you are on very shaky theological ground.

There is not a single example of infant baptism anywhere in scripture. Not one.

---

The Bible also doesn't mention the disciples being baptized.

---

True. Which of course suggests baptism is not necessary for salvation - another erroneous Catholic belief.

---

Or were they baptized and it just wasn't explicitly stated?

I'm not arguing one way or the other on the requirement of baptism to get into heaven.

However I do find it ironic that one of the original intents of Sola Scriptura was to argue against the Catholic Church at the time stating that things had to be done a certain way and people had to go through the Catholic Church in order to be saved. It did not argue that tradition (or reason) had no value.

The line of discussion on Sola Scriptura here sounds a lot like what the early reformers were criticizing - an "authority" stating that their views on Christianity are the only way into heaven and everyone who disagrees isn't getting in.

---

It is possible. But then again, it apparently didn't matter enough to be mentioned, which of course strongly suggests that it is a faulty premise to begin with. There are of course other sound arguments and verses that argue against it as well, which we need not get into on this discussion.

I am not sure anyone is suggesting tradition has no value. I think what is being suggested is that tradition should be weighed against scripture, which I think would be a difficult position for any Christian to argue against.

Christ himself said the gate is narrow. I take him at his word.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.

---

Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.

---

So.....you're asking for a circular argument?

---

If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?

---

Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.

Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.

---

Basing your beliefs on the historical person of Jesus Christ isn't a circular argument. It's also not sola scriptura. It's what Catholics are doing when we rely on the historical witness of Church tradition.

---

Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.

---

Sure there is. It's in the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as Scripture.

---

The Church Fathers, as you call them, didn't even know Christ, nor is it likely they even knew his apostles, as the oldest lived at least 100-200 years after Christ. There is a reason their teachings did not become New Testament canon. Moreover, which Church Fathers are you referencing? Are you referring only those the Catholics venerate? Or are you referring to the other fathers as well - those the Greek Orthodox venerate? And what evidence do you have that these early theologians - many of whom held contradictory theologies to each other - are authoritative on the historical record of Christ?

Again, herein lies the problem with not using scripture as the compass to judge the teachings of fallible man.

---

Very, very little of history was written by people who knew their subjects personally. The early Church Fathers are not authoritative in the same way as Scripture. They are authoritative in the same way as any other historical sources who were knowledgeable and close in time to their subjects.

What belief in the magisterium reflects is not faith in fallible human beings. It is very much the opposite. Only with accountability from the worldwide community of believers past and present, with good scholarly methods, with a rational system of canon law, and even then only with the help of the Holy Spirit, can we be confident in the truth.

The alternative is to believe that basically everyone from the 1st century forward, including both the Catholic Church and the Protestant reformers, got the message significantly wrong until the fundamentalists came along in the 19th century and cleared it up. This is not only speculation bordering on conspiracy theory, but also a breathtaking example of man's faith in his own wisdom.

90sBear said:

---

The Bible also doesn't mention the disciples being baptized.

---

John 3:22

After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.


Are you really to believe that Jesus didn't have the disciples baptized because it does not specifically state that when they went baptizing themselves? That's taking Sola Scriptura to extremes.

Please be sure to use the same stringent requirement when you start discussing altar calls and Sinner's Prayer.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Many have "heard Jesus" and taken a certain path, but not always have they behaved correctly while on that path. I, as well as anyone else, can "gainsay" anyone's choice not by one's own standard, but by God's standard as revealed in His Word and by what it teaches. You can't tell me that people who "heard Jesus" but then started believing that abortion or gay marriage are not sins, that these people can't be "gainsayed" according to God's word. - You still have no standing since all you are relying on is your own interpretation of a circular argument. End of story. Sticking to it until you die won't change the nature of your ultimately unprovable assumptions.

It is not "flawed" reasoning to argue that since neither in the Old Testament or the New, did people ever pray to those who died, and since neither Jesus, his apostles, his apostles' apostles, and the early church ever teach, believe, or practice it, then the practice is completely unbiblical and should not be done. Neither is it flawed reasoning to argue that the bible teaches that ONLY God can know our thoughts (I Kings 8:39) therefore attributing that ability to Mary or the saints is elevating them to the divine, which is idolatry. Neither is it a flawed argument that one can not even be sure that the "saint" you're praying to is actually in heaven, given that one can perform many miracles in their life, but according to Jesus himself, that doesn't guarantee they'll go to heaven (Matthew 7:22-23). - Using your own argument of Sola Scriptura we "know" from St John 21:25 "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Cleary there is much that cannot be demonstrated solely from what has been designated as "the Bible" by the very church Fathers you rail against. FWIW, I use the term "saints" to refer to the "company of all faithful people", i.e., all believers who have passed into eternity and are even now alive in the presence of Christ and are able to offer intercessory prayer. I don't believe they "hear our thoughts" in the sense that they are omniscient. They must be invoked.

It wasn't some obscure Italian bishop that compiled those prayers to Mary. He was a "doctor of the Catholic Church" a prestigious, exclusive title conferred by the Pope himself, a title only given to 37 people in the history of the Catholic Church. These prayers have been quoted by priests, bishops, and even popes. It has gone through over 800 editions. It is fully endorsed and condoned by the Catholic Church. Regardless, the number of Catholics who know about these prayers isn't the point - if the Catholic Church does not recognize the blatant heresy and idolatry in those prayers enough to stop it, then it should put the legitimacy of their authority in question, shouldn't it? -The number of Catholics who know about these prayers is a major part of the point regardless of whether you deny it. In addition, it is not RC dogma which is telling in itself.

The irony is that all you've accused me of doing (dividing Christ's body, being a Pharisee, doing the work of Satan) is indeed being done, but not by me. If you adhere to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church's false gospel, then you are dividing yourself from the body of Christ. I'm the one trying to build the body of Christ by trying to get Catholics to see their error and repent. I'm the "Pharisee"? Jesus criticized the Pharisees because they allowed their traditions to circumvent, even supercede what's in God's Word (Matthew 15:1-9) - that's exactly what the RCC is doing. "Doing the work of Satan"? Wouldn't binding millions and millions of Catholics to the false gospel of the RCC be more indicative of the work of Satan, rather than someone trying to get them to open their eyes? - Which false gospel would that be? How do you define "gospel"? Again, how many believers in Christ are not "saved" because they invoke and/or venerate Mary and the saints? This is clearly adiaphora, so you are merely arguing over doctrine that is not salvific. This is divisive.

---

Mothra said:

---

When your argument for a practice begins with, "God didn't forbid it," you are on very shaky theological ground.

---

No, it's looking logically, rationally, and morally at the concept within the scripture. It is not forbade. It may logical sense, and it is not immoral.

Mothra said:

---

There is not a single example of infant baptism anywhere in scripture. Not one.

---

At least three times ENTIRE households are baptized. They never exclude the infants or children.

Even Jesus said, "Let the little ones come to me."

Infant baptism doesn't jive with your Calvinistic / Baptist belief structure EVEN though history and tradition are against that belief structure.

You can't prove that it is bible is against it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.

---

Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.

---

So.....you're asking for a circular argument?

---

If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?

---

Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.

Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.

---

Basing your beliefs on the historical person of Jesus Christ isn't a circular argument. It's also not sola scriptura. It's what Catholics are doing when we rely on the historical witness of Church tradition.

---

Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.

---

Sure there is. It's in the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as Scripture.

---

The Church Fathers, as you call them, didn't even know Christ, nor is it likely they even knew his apostles, as the oldest lived at least 100-200 years after Christ. There is a reason their teachings did not become New Testament canon. Moreover, which Church Fathers are you referencing? Are you referring only those the Catholics venerate? Or are you referring to the other fathers as well - those the Greek Orthodox venerate? And what evidence do you have that these early theologians - many of whom held contradictory theologies to each other - are authoritative on the historical record of Christ?

Again, herein lies the problem with not using scripture as the compass to judge the teachings of fallible man.

---

Very, very little of history was written by people who knew their subjects personally. The early Church Fathers are not authoritative in the same way as Scripture. They are authoritative in the same way as any other historical sources who were knowledgeable and close in time to their subjects.

What belief in the magisterium reflects is not faith in fallible human beings. It is very much the opposite. Only with accountability from the worldwide community of believers past and present, with good scholarly methods, with a rational system of canon law, and even then only with the help of the Holy Spirit, can we be confident in the truth.

The alternative is to believe that basically everyone from the 1st century forward, including both the Catholic Church and the Protestant reformers, got the message significantly wrong until the fundamentalists came along in the 19th century and cleared it up. This is not only speculation bordering on conspiracy theory, but also a breathtaking example of man's faith in his own wisdom.

---

Indeed, your first paragraph is quite true, which is why all church teachings from the early patriarchs must be weighed against the written Word. Where their writings, teachings, and practices diverge from the teachings of the apostles and disciples, we must view them as suspect and seriously question the basis for them.

I understand your position in the second paragraph. I think what you are unwilling to admit is the scripture provides all of the authority we need to judge whether church tradition (there are many divergent traditions, just FYI) and Catholic Doctrine is in-line with Chris's teachings. So while you claim that this is not faith in fallible human beings, unfortunately, when doctrine comes from man instead of the written Word, even if based on certain tradition, it is exactly what I described. Sure, it may have some basis in Truth, but it is not the Truth. And once again, therein lies the problem with basing belief on traditions that do not conform to the written Word.

As for your third paragraph, the idea that Christians were some homogenous group with the same beliefs from the 1st to 19th century, that all believed in Catholic doctrine, simply isn't accurate in the least. Indeed, from the first century on, there were many divergent groups, long before the Catholics became Catholics. While I realize the Catholic tradition considers itself a continuation of the early Christian community established by the Disciples, the truth is Catholicism didn't really become a thing until the 600's, and while it became the dominant Christian religion, it was not the only Christian religion or tradition. So the Catholic's idea that they are merely a continuation of what Peter started is simply inaccurate, and not historical.

History is replete with examples of Christian theologians getting it wrong, and in some cases, it took centuries for bad ideas to be seen as exactly that. Early critics of Catholicism (of which there were many, FYI) were simply burned at the stake and silenced by the Church. It wasn't until Martin Luther's beliefs in the 16th Century questioning Catholicism's teachings (and his avoiding being killed by Catholics) that the true protestant movement took root. So it was long before the 19th Century. It just took hundreds of years for ideas that the Catholics were intent on stamping out (through murder) to become mainstream. So, there was not simply some epiphany that occurred in the 19th Century. Protestantism was centuries in the making.

Coke Bear said:

---

90sBear said:

---

The Bible also doesn't mention the disciples being baptized.

---

John 3:22

After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.


Are you really to believe that Jesus didn't have the disciples baptized because it does not specifically state that when they went baptizing themselves? That's taking Sola Scriptura to extremes.

Please be sure to use the same stringent requirement when you start discussing altar calls and Sinner's Prayer.

---

I suspect you are right - that his disciples were indeed baptized as an act of obedience. But that speculation does not support the idea that Christians must be baptized to be saved.

See the thief on the cross.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

When your argument for a practice begins with, "God didn't forbid it," you are on very shaky theological ground.

---

No, it's looking logically, rationally, and morally at the concept within the scripture. It is not forbade. It may logical sense, and it is not immoral.

Mothra said:

---

There is not a single example of infant baptism anywhere in scripture. Not one.

---

At least three times ENTIRE households are baptized. They never exclude the infants or children.

Even Jesus said, "Let the little ones come to me."

Infant baptism doesn't jive with your Calvinistic / Baptist belief structure EVEN though history and tradition are against that belief structure.

You can't prove that it is bible is against it.

---

Again, you are making assumptions to justify a practice of which there is not a single example in scripture. You assume entire households means infants, or that the households included infants, without any certainty of same.

The truth is, when we look at the examples of Baptism in scripture, they always followed conversion, and always involved adults or children whose ages were unknown.

Again, saying scripture does not forbid it simply isn't scriptural justification for a practice, and a poor argument makes.

Mothra said:

---

Again, you are making assumptions to justify a practice of which there is not a single example in scripture. You assume entire households means infants, or that the households included infants, without any certainty of same.

---

You are assuming that it doesn't. He does exclude infants or children. He clearly states the entire household was baptized. This would have included infants, children, slaves, and servants.

Mothra said:

---

The truth is, when we look at the examples of Baptism in scripture, they always followed conversion, and always involved adults or children whose ages were unknown.

---

You are ignoring what the Gospels say about what baptism does - it removes sin and makes us part of God's family.

Once again, when one looks at how Paul likens baptism to the new circumcision, we understand that ALL (males and females) are entered into God's family thru baptism.

We are all born pagans. Thru our baptisms and faith we become Christians (adopted sons and daughters of God). With the faith of the parents these infants are baptized and become Christians.

Mothra said:

---

Again, saying scripture does not forbid it simply isn't scriptural justification for a practice, and a poor argument makes.

---

Should we forbid altar calls because they are not listed in scripture? Should we forbid a blessing of rings at a wedding ceremony? That's not mentioned. Should we forbid wedding rings altogether? Not only are the not mentioned in the bible, but they also have a pagan origin.

Mothra said:

---

See the thief on the cross.

---

God (Jesus) can work outside the sacraments.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.

---

Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.

---

So.....you're asking for a circular argument?

---

If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?

---

Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.

Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.

---

Basing your beliefs on the historical person of Jesus Christ isn't a circular argument. It's also not sola scriptura. It's what Catholics are doing when we rely on the historical witness of Church tradition.

---

Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.

---

Sure there is. It's in the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as Scripture.

---

The Church Fathers, as you call them, didn't even know Christ, nor is it likely they even knew his apostles, as the oldest lived at least 100-200 years after Christ. There is a reason their teachings did not become New Testament canon. Moreover, which Church Fathers are you referencing? Are you referring only those the Catholics venerate? Or are you referring to the other fathers as well - those the Greek Orthodox venerate? And what evidence do you have that these early theologians - many of whom held contradictory theologies to each other - are authoritative on the historical record of Christ?

Again, herein lies the problem with not using scripture as the compass to judge the teachings of fallible man.

---

Very, very little of history was written by people who knew their subjects personally. The early Church Fathers are not authoritative in the same way as Scripture. They are authoritative in the same way as any other historical sources who were knowledgeable and close in time to their subjects.

What belief in the magisterium reflects is not faith in fallible human beings. It is very much the opposite. Only with accountability from the worldwide community of believers past and present, with good scholarly methods, with a rational system of canon law, and even then only with the help of the Holy Spirit, can we be confident in the truth.

The alternative is to believe that basically everyone from the 1st century forward, including both the Catholic Church and the Protestant reformers, got the message significantly wrong until the fundamentalists came along in the 19th century and cleared it up. This is not only speculation bordering on conspiracy theory, but also a breathtaking example of man's faith in his own wisdom.

---

Indeed, your first paragraph is quite true, which is why all church teachings from the early patriarchs must be weighed against the written Word. Where their writings, teachings, and practices diverge from the teachings of the apostles and disciples, we must view them as suspect and seriously question the basis for them.

I understand your position in the second paragraph. I think what you are unwilling to admit is the scripture provides all of the authority we need to judge whether church tradition (there are many divergent traditions, just FYI) and Catholic Doctrine is in-line with Chris's teachings. So while you claim that this is not faith in fallible human beings, unfortunately, when doctrine comes from man instead of the written Word, even if based on certain tradition, it is exactly what I described. Sure, it may have some basis in Truth, but it is not the Truth. And once again, therein lies the problem with basing belief on traditions that do not conform to the written Word.

As for your third paragraph, the idea that Christians were some homogenous group with the same beliefs from the 1st to 19th century, that all believed in Catholic doctrine, simply isn't accurate in the least. Indeed, from the first century on, there were many divergent groups, long before the Catholics became Catholics. While I realize the Catholic tradition considers itself a continuation of the early Christian community established by the Disciples, the truth is Catholicism didn't really become a thing until the 600's, and while it became the dominant Christian religion, it was not the only Christian religion or tradition. So the Catholic's idea that they are merely a continuation of what Peter started is simply inaccurate, and not historical.

History is replete with examples of Christian theologians getting it wrong, and in some cases, it took centuries for bad ideas to be seen as exactly that. Early critics of Catholicism (of which there were many, FYI) were simply burned at the stake and silenced by the Church. It wasn't until Martin Luther's beliefs in the 16th Century questioning Catholicism's teachings (and his avoiding being killed by Catholics) that the true protestant movement took root. So it was long before the 19th Century. It just took hundreds of years for ideas that the Catholics were intent on stamping out (through murder) to become mainstream. So, there was not simply some epiphany that occurred in the 19th Century. Protestantism was centuries in the making.

---

The problem, with regard to whatever purer version of Christianity you believe was allowed to surface after centuries of Catholic oppression, is that it's largely unsupported by history and tradition. You try to get around this by advocating sola scriptura, but that doesn't address the issue because your beliefs do not, in fact, flow from Scripture as obviously and effortlessly as you think. You too must rely on human reason and interpretation. It's just a lot more difficult because you're forced to ignore most of the evidence.