Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

I will say....even as a Baptist.....its hard to reconcile the idea that modern Evangelical Christianity was what the early Church/Christ movement looked like in the 1st century. But then after a few hundreds years it short of went underground and the Catholic Church just suppressed it/radically changed its doctrine and practice.

[Also, data point that the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are structured in a similar way and teach very similar things to the RCC...and also claim ancient descent from the Apostles.]

While its a simplistic argument....its one that I have basically heard.

"The Catholic institutional hierarchy and Popes corrupted early Christianity and added on man made rites and ideas."

"But what about the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox who act in a similar manner?"

"All these liturgical churches all got corrupted at the same time"

I know lots of honest and very good low church Protestants who make arguments like that....and they are sincere but just not compelling to me.

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

"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."

Again, saying we should have infant baptism as a practice because scripture does not exclude it simply isn't a good argument for infant baptism. Peter is very clear in scripture (as is pretty much everyone else in scripture) that repentance precedes the forgiveness of sins and baptism. (See Acts Ch. 2). In other words, baptism always follows conversion. Again, there is not a single instance of infant baptism recorded in scripture.

"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."

Except that's not what it says. There is not a single verse that says that it is the physical act of baptism that removes sin and makes us a part of God's family. To the contrary, it is always repentance from sin and acceptance of Christ's atoning sacrifice that removes sin and saves man. There isn't a thing we can do, that much is clear.

Christ did not say to the man on the cross next to him, "Today you will be with me in paradise. But first, you need to get down from this cross and go baptize yourself to remove your sin."

"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."

Here is the huge difference you're missing between those examples and baptism. None of those are specifically mentioned in scripture. We see no examples in scripture of any of the above, whereas we have NUMEROUS examples in scripture of baptism and how it's supposed to be done. So, I think we would want to err on the side of doing it the way it was done in scripture for those things specifically mentioned.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

My form of Christianity has existed for 2000 years. It's nothing new, that all the sudden came about after Catholic oppression ceased. It's simply that practicing Christians cannot now can't get killed for it. It's interesting that you would attempt to deny that such oppression existed, while we have volumes of historical records that prove otherwise.

The idea that scripture is so unclear that we can't know its plain meaning in many instances isn't an argument I thought you'd make. Waco47 sure, but not you. Are there gray areas of scripture? Certainly. Is there room for interpretation? Absolutely. But as others have pointed out, there is scripture whose meaning is plainly obvious. Justifying straying from that plain language because scripture is subject to interpretation is a pretty squishy argument, to say the least.

Mothra said:

---

Except that's not what it says. There is not a single verse that says that it is the physical act of baptism that removes sin and makes us a part of God's family. To the contrary, it is always repentance from sin and acceptance of Christ's atoning sacrifice that removes sin and saves man. There isn't a thing we can do, that much is clear.

---

No, not a single verse ... there are at least three:

1 Pet 3:21:
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Acts 22:16:
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

Act 2:38:
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Subtlety, two others:

Romans 6:4:
We were buried[a] therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Hebrews 10:22:
let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Except that's not what it says. There is not a single verse that says that it is the physical act of baptism that removes sin and makes us a part of God's family. To the contrary, it is always repentance from sin and acceptance of Christ's atoning sacrifice that removes sin and saves man. There isn't a thing we can do, that much is clear.

---

No, not a single verse ... there are at least three:

1 Pet 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Acts 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

Act 2:38:
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Subtlety, two others:

Romans 6:4
We were buried[a] therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Hebrews 10:22
let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

---

None of those verses say the physical act of baptism saves anyone. In fact, 1 Pet. 3:21 is clear that is cannot remove sin.

Keys words: "Repent and be baptized," with repent being the predecessor.


Again, thief on the cross. Is your excuse that God made an exception for him?

Mothra said:

---

My form of Christianity has existed for 2000 years. It's nothing new, that all the sudden came about after Catholic oppression ceased. It's simply that practicing Christians cannot now can't get killed for it. It's interesting that you would attempt to deny that such oppression existed, while we have volumes of historical records that prove otherwise.

---

Please provide evidence that the Catholic Church oppressed Christians prior to say 1500. Let's not get into the whole Protestant / Catholic debate in Europe. A ton of bad blood was spilled on both sides.

I would like to read and research these claims. I am not familiar with them.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

My form of Christianity has existed for 2000 years. It's nothing new, that all the sudden came about after Catholic oppression ceased. It's simply that practicing Christians cannot now can't get killed for it. It's interesting that you would attempt to deny that such oppression existed, while we have volumes of historical records that prove otherwise.

---

Please provide evidence that the Catholic Church oppressed Christians prior to say 1500. Let's not get into the whole Protestant / Catholic debate in Europe. A ton of bad blood was spilled on both sides.

I would like to read and research these claims. I am not familiar with them.

---

I didn't make any claim regarding when the oppression started. I agree with you that most documented cases appeared starting in the 1500's, with the rise of people like Martin Luther..

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.

---

Nope. I am expressing an opinion similar to yours - it is likely that not absolutely everything that happened or was taught (which we might like to know more about today) was written down at the time for various reasons.

Tradition (and Reason for the Anglicans in the room) has often been used to fill those gaps and provide complimentary information and instruction. People disagree on the amount of value that those bring and whether or not some are heretical and I get that.

Mothra said:

---

There is not a single verse that says that it is the physical act of baptism that removes sin

---

Mothra said:

---

None of those verses say the physical act of baptism saves anyone. In fact, 1 Pet. 3:21 is clear that is cannot remove sin.

---

You literally just stated that no verse states this (removal of sin). I gave you three, plus two others that we can infer.

I'm not sure if you have ever read 1Peter 3 before; however, I'll add the immediate verse (20) to 21 now:


1Pet 3:20-21:
to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The waters in Noah's flood that washed away all the sin in the world prefigures the baptismal waters that wash away our sins today. This is what Peter is telling us. He's saying that water just doesn't remove the physical dirt. It washes away our sin.

Mothra said:

---

Keys words: "Repent and be baptized," with repent being the predecessor.

---

I've always stated the Catholic position is "repent, believe, and be baptized."

Mothra said:

---

Again, thief on the cross. Is your excuse that God made an exception for him?

---

I don't feel like that is an excuse. St. Dismas, the good thief, had NO way of getting down from the cross and Jesus wasn't going to come down to baptize him.

God does make exceptions. He knows the hearts of the just and unjust. He can and does work outside of the sacraments.

Having said that, I have heard a loose tradition that when Jesus' side was pierced, the blood and water that came forth from the heart of Jesus, sprayed Dismas, thereby baptizing him. It's a sweet, pious thought, but I don't put much credit to it.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

My form of Christianity has existed for 2000 years. It's nothing new, that all the sudden came about after Catholic oppression ceased. It's simply that practicing Christians cannot now can't get killed for it. It's interesting that you would attempt to deny that such oppression existed, while we have volumes of historical records that prove otherwise.

---

Please provide evidence that the Catholic Church oppressed Christians prior to say 1500. Let's not get into the whole Protestant / Catholic debate in Europe. A ton of bad blood was spilled on both sides.

I would like to read and research these claims. I am not familiar with them.

---

I didn't make any claim regarding when the oppression started. I agree with you that most documented cases appeared starting in the 1500's, with the rise of people like Martin Luther..

---

Maybe I misunderstood your first post here. I inferred that you implied that "your form of Christianity" was oppressed from the beginning of the Christianity. I just wanted clarification of that claim (that I thought you implied.)

Luther wasn't oppressed. He was given ample opportunity to debate and discuss his issues. Some of his issues (dealing with actions of people in the Church) were valid. Others concerning doctrine were not.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

There is not a single verse that says that it is the physical act of baptism that removes sin

---

Mothra said:

---

None of those verses say the physical act of baptism saves anyone. In fact, 1 Pet. 3:21 is clear that is cannot remove sin.

---

You literally just stated that no verse states this (removal of sin). I gave you three, plus two others that we can infer.

I'm not sure if you have ever read 1Peter 3 before; however, I'll add the immediate verse (20) to 21 now:


1Pet 3:20-21:
to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The waters in Noah's flood that washed away all the sin in the world prefigures the baptismal waters that wash away our sins today. This is what Peter is telling us. He's saying that water just doesn't remove the physical dirt. It washes away our sin.

Mothra said:

---

Keys words: "Repent and be baptized," with repent being the predecessor.

---

I've always stated the Catholic position is "repent, believe, and be baptized."

Mothra said:

---

Again, thief on the cross. Is your excuse that God made an exception for him?

---

I don't feel like that is an excuse. St. Dismas, the good thief, had NO way of getting down from the cross and Jesus wasn't going to come down to baptize him.

God does make exceptions. He knows the hearts of the just and unjust. He can and does work outside of the sacraments.

Having said that, I have heard a loose tradition that when Jesus' side was pierced, the blood and water that came forth from the heart of Jesus, sprayed Dismas, thereby baptizing him. It's a sweet, pious thought, but I don't put much credit to it.

---

Again, baptism in those verses is described as a symbolic act, and not a requirement for salvation. If he required congregants to go through with baptism despite a repentant heart and belief in Christ as savior, it would be a works-based salvation, and not grace. In John 3:16, Jesus said, that whoever believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Notice that he did not say whoever believes and is baptized. That is because it's not a requirement, but an act of obedience in response to the saving work he did within us.

The only excuse offered for the thief on the cross is your own. Your saying God made an exception, which is a weak response. If that were the case, why didn't the authors attempt to explain, well, I know we said God requires baptism for salvation, but in this case he made an exception.

Baptism simply isn't required. Baptism ALWAYS follows repentance in scripture. A baby cannot repent. And likewise, baptism is simply not required.

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.

---

Sola Scriptura is based on the historical person of Jesus Christ. Because if Jesus was resurrected, then he is from God, and therefore his word is God's word. And if his word is God's word, then his word to his apostles is God's word. And Jesus affirmed the authority of the Old Testament as being the infallible word of God. Therefore, the only thing we possess that we know is the revealed, infallible Word of God is the Law, Prophets, and Writings (OT) and the word of the apostles (NT) as affirmed by Jesus himself. There is nothing in the Church's possession that Jesus himself affirmed as being the infallible word of God, other than these. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.

If the historical witness of Church tradition is not supported by Scripture, then it must be claimed as a new revelation in of itself, apart from the only thing we can be sure is the fallible word of God. Therefore it does not have the same authority.

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

Sola Scriptura is based on the historical person of Jesus Christ. Because if Jesus was resurrected, then he is from God, and therefore his word is God's word. And if his word is God's word, then his word to his apostles is God's word. And Jesus affirmed the authority of the Old Testament as being the infallible word of God. Therefore, the only thing we possess that we know is the revealed, infallible Word of God is the Law, Prophets, and Writings (OT) and the word of the apostles (NT) as affirmed by Jesus himself. There is nothing in the Church's possession that Jesus himself affirmed as being the infallible word of God, other than these. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.

If the historical witness of Church tradition is not supported by Scripture, then it must be claimed as a new revelation in of itself, apart from the only thing we can be sure is the fallible word of God. Therefore it does not have the same authority.

---

Lots of assumptions there.

curtpenn said:

---

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.

---

---

- you can not use the "circular argument" argument here. We are all accepting that Scripture is the divinely inspired Word of God. It is not a circular argument if all parties are in agreement to this starting point. It is only a circular argument if you are arguing against a non-believer.

- it's dangerous to justify things based on the fact it "might" have been one of the things that Jesus said or did that wasn't written down. We have in the bible what we have. If you believe God is behind what we have, then that's all He wanted us to have.

- bottom line is that "invoking" saints wasn't taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, his apostles, his apostles' apostles, and the early church. You are practicing something unbiblical. Btw, which saints do you "invoke" and how do you invoke them? How do you know they're in heaven and not in hell?

- No, the number of Catholics who pray those prayers was NOT the major point. You obviously missed it or didn't understand it. The point was this: if these prayers which are obviously heretical and idolatrous can be fully condoned and fully endorsed by the leadership of the Catholic Church, that clearly shows that the leadership is very fallible, and therefore one must question everything else that comes from Church leadership.

- the false gospel coming from the RCC can be summarized as: not a faith based salvation, but faith plus works (baptism, obeying commandments, obeying the Magisterium, performing the sacraments). I'd also add 1) the belief that Jesus' sacrifice was not once and for all, but needs to be performed over and over again in the Mass, 2) purgatory, 3) that one can reach Jesus through an intercessor instead of going to him directly. 4) that Mary is co-intercessor, a co-Mediator with God along with Jesus (this isn't dogmatized, but it is widely believed)

- this is in no way adiaphora. Unbiblical, even heretical and idolatrous practices, can never be considered as such. Especially if it leads people astray, away from faith in Jesus alone, away from the true gospel.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

I will say....even as a Baptist.....its hard to reconcile the idea that modern Evangelical Christianity was what the early Church/Christ movement looked like in the 1st century. But then after a few hundreds years it short of went underground and the Catholic Church just suppressed it/radically changed its doctrine and practice.

[Also, data point that the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are structured in a similar way and teach very similar things to the RCC...and also claim ancient descent from the Apostles.]

While its a simplistic argument....its one that I have basically heard.

"The Catholic institutional hierarchy and Popes corrupted early Christianity and added on man made rites and ideas."

"But what about the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox who act in a similar manner?"

"All these liturgical churches all got corrupted at the same time"

I know lots of honest and very good low church Protestants who make arguments like that....and they are sincere but just not compelling to me.

---

Doesn't the Roman Catholic Church dogmas of Mary - that she was sinless throughout her life even before birth, that she was perpetually a virgin, and that she was bodily assumed into heaven - clearly represent added on beliefs and ideas by Catholic authorities, and thus corruption of early Christianity?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

Sola Scriptura is based on the historical person of Jesus Christ. Because if Jesus was resurrected, then he is from God, and therefore his word is God's word. And if his word is God's word, then his word to his apostles is God's word. And Jesus affirmed the authority of the Old Testament as being the infallible word of God. Therefore, the only thing we possess that we know is the revealed, infallible Word of God is the Law, Prophets, and Writings (OT) and the word of the apostles (NT) as affirmed by Jesus himself. There is nothing in the Church's possession that Jesus himself affirmed as being the infallible word of God, other than these. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.

If the historical witness of Church tradition is not supported by Scripture, then it must be claimed as a new revelation in of itself, apart from the only thing we can be sure is the fallible word of God. Therefore it does not have the same authority.

---

Lots of assumptions there.

---

Go on.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

Sola Scriptura is based on the historical person of Jesus Christ. Because if Jesus was resurrected, then he is from God, and therefore his word is God's word. And if his word is God's word, then his word to his apostles is God's word. And Jesus affirmed the authority of the Old Testament as being the infallible word of God. Therefore, the only thing we possess that we know is the revealed, infallible Word of God is the Law, Prophets, and Writings (OT) and the word of the apostles (NT) as affirmed by Jesus himself. There is nothing in the Church's possession that Jesus himself affirmed as being the infallible word of God, other than these. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.

If the historical witness of Church tradition is not supported by Scripture, then it must be claimed as a new revelation in of itself, apart from the only thing we can be sure is the fallible word of God. Therefore it does not have the same authority.

---

Lots of assumptions there.

---

Go on.

---

How do we know which words are God's words? The Bible didn't just fall from the sky complete with a table of contents. How do we know Jesus was God? He never plainly says so.

Sam Lowry said:

---

How do we know which words are God's words? The Bible didn't just fall from the sky complete with a table of contents. How do we know Jesus was God? He never plainly says so.

---

Sam, you beat me to it. BDT's completely circular argument is hinged on a bible that was put together by the Catholic church.

He assumes only one canon of the OT. Every Jewish sect had their own canon of different lengths.

Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contains all 46 books of the OT, but Protestants removed 7 of them. Yet, they claim to be able to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit.

Protestants forget that the Church predates the bible. The debate about the NT lasted more than 300 years.

In the first three hundred years of Christianity, there was no New Testament books that were universally recognized. Some of Paul's letters and the four Gospels whose authorship were attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were read publicly in certain churches. The earliest record of attempt at compiling the canon was made by Marcion, c. 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke and ten of Paul's letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely. After the council of Nicaea in year 325, Roman Emperor Constantine instructed Eusebius to put together accepted Christian Scriptures that would be displayed in churches. However, nothing is known if Eusebius was successful in completing the task. One of the oldest bibles in existence is the Codex Vaticanus which was written around year 350. The Codex is currently kept in Vatican. It has the 27 books of the New Testament which are accepted by all Christian denominations today. The 27 books were canonized in the council of Hippo in year 393. This was later affirmed in the council of Carthage in year 397 and 419. Evidence corroborates the claims of the fourth century church councils that their canonical list are the same 27 books that the church received from the earliest bishops. Irenaeus (died c. 202) quotes and cites 21 books that would end up as part of the New Testament, but does not use Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude. By the early 3rd century, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena). Likewise by 200, the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was plenty of discussion in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the "major" writings were accepted by almost all Christian authorities by the middle of the second century.

The next two hundred years followed a similar process of continual discussion throughout the entire Church, and localized refinements of acceptance. This process was not yet complete at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325, though substantial progress had been made by then. Though a list was clearly necessary to fulfill Constantine's commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople, no concrete evidence exists to indicate that it was considered to be a formal canon. In the absence of a canonical list, the resolution of questions would normally have been directed through the see of Constantinople, in consultation with Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (who was given the commission), and perhaps other bishops who were available locally.

This is just a snippet from Wiki. The link is above.

The bible is an infallible list of scripture of the infallible Word of God compiled by the infallible Church guide by the Holy Spirit.

Mothra said:

---

Again, baptism in those verses is described as a symbolic act, and not a requirement for salvation. If he required congregants to go through with baptism despite a repentant heart and belief in Christ as savior, it would be a works-based salvation, and not grace. In John 3:16, Jesus said, that whoever believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Notice that he did not say whoever believes and is baptized. That is because it's not a requirement, but an act of obedience in response to the saving work he did within us.

---

Please show me where it says that baptism is a symbolic act. 1 Pet 3:21 - "baptism now saves you." It's written in plain Greek. John 3:5 - "unless one is born of water and spirit, they cannot enter the Kingdom of God."

Mothra said:

---

The only excuse offered for the thief on the cross is your own. Your saying God made an exception, which is a weak response. If that were the case, why didn't the authors attempt to explain, well, I know we said God requires baptism for salvation, but in this case he made an exception.

---

This is your opinion. Are you infallible?

Mothra said:

---

Baptism simply isn't required. Baptism ALWAYS follows repentance in scripture. A baby cannot repent. And likewise, baptism is simply not required.

---

You are incorrect. The Church has baptized the infants for a remission of original sin. It has a documented history of this prior to the canonization of the bible.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, baptism in those verses is described as a symbolic act, and not a requirement for salvation. If he required congregants to go through with baptism despite a repentant heart and belief in Christ as savior, it would be a works-based salvation, and not grace. In John 3:16, Jesus said, that whoever believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Notice that he did not say whoever believes and is baptized. That is because it's not a requirement, but an act of obedience in response to the saving work he did within us.

---

Please show me where it says that baptism is a symbolic act. 1 Pet 3:21 - "baptism now saves you." It's written in plain Greek. John 3:5 - "unless one is born of water and spirit, they cannot enter the Kingdom of God."

Mothra said:

---

The only excuse offered for the thief on the cross is your own. Your saying God made an exception, which is a weak response. If that were the case, why didn't the authors attempt to explain, well, I know we said God requires baptism for salvation, but in this case he made an exception.

---

This is your opinion. Are you infallible?

Mothra said:

---

Baptism simply isn't required. Baptism ALWAYS follows repentance in scripture. A baby cannot repent. And likewise, baptism is simply not required.

---

You are incorrect. The Church has baptized the infants for a remission of original sin. It has a documented history of this prior to the canonization of the bible.

---

Your position completely ignores scripture and the nature of God and salvation. As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.

Now, with respect to the verses at issue, was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all. A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know that his family was saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24). The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized. Countless passages of Scripture clearly teach that salvation comes when one believes in the gospel, at which time he or she is sealed "in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise" (Ephesians 1:13).

Thankfully, though, we don't have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because as I pointed out above, he clarifies that for us with the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience." While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting wet part that saves but the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.

And again, we go back to that pesky little passage about the thief on the cross. Your only explanation for his salvation is, God made an exception. What a terrible argument for your position.

I am quite often shocked that Catholics take this position - a position that completely ignores and disregards the nature of salvation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

Sola Scriptura is based on the historical person of Jesus Christ. Because if Jesus was resurrected, then he is from God, and therefore his word is God's word. And if his word is God's word, then his word to his apostles is God's word. And Jesus affirmed the authority of the Old Testament as being the infallible word of God. Therefore, the only thing we possess that we know is the revealed, infallible Word of God is the Law, Prophets, and Writings (OT) and the word of the apostles (NT) as affirmed by Jesus himself. There is nothing in the Church's possession that Jesus himself affirmed as being the infallible word of God, other than these. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.

If the historical witness of Church tradition is not supported by Scripture, then it must be claimed as a new revelation in of itself, apart from the only thing we can be sure is the fallible word of God. Therefore it does not have the same authority.

---

Lots of assumptions there.

---

Go on.

---

How do we know which words are God's words? The Bible didn't just fall from the sky complete with a table of contents. How do we know Jesus was God? He never plainly says so.

---

So we don't know which words were God's words, so we rely on the often times contradictory beliefs of the Church Fathers and man-made traditions.

Nah. No thanks. I will stick with the Word, which is the barometer by which we should measure all beliefs.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

Sola Scriptura is based on the historical person of Jesus Christ. Because if Jesus was resurrected, then he is from God, and therefore his word is God's word. And if his word is God's word, then his word to his apostles is God's word. And Jesus affirmed the authority of the Old Testament as being the infallible word of God. Therefore, the only thing we possess that we know is the revealed, infallible Word of God is the Law, Prophets, and Writings (OT) and the word of the apostles (NT) as affirmed by Jesus himself. There is nothing in the Church's possession that Jesus himself affirmed as being the infallible word of God, other than these. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.

If the historical witness of Church tradition is not supported by Scripture, then it must be claimed as a new revelation in of itself, apart from the only thing we can be sure is the fallible word of God. Therefore it does not have the same authority.

---

Lots of assumptions there.

---

Go on.

---

How do we know which words are God's words? The Bible didn't just fall from the sky complete with a table of contents. How do we know Jesus was God? He never plainly says so.

---

I'm not understanding what you're saying here. You're answer to sola scriptura is to commit epistemological suicide and thus destroy your own faith?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

Sola Scriptura is based on the historical person of Jesus Christ. Because if Jesus was resurrected, then he is from God, and therefore his word is God's word. And if his word is God's word, then his word to his apostles is God's word. And Jesus affirmed the authority of the Old Testament as being the infallible word of God. Therefore, the only thing we possess that we know is the revealed, infallible Word of God is the Law, Prophets, and Writings (OT) and the word of the apostles (NT) as affirmed by Jesus himself. There is nothing in the Church's possession that Jesus himself affirmed as being the infallible word of God, other than these. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.

If the historical witness of Church tradition is not supported by Scripture, then it must be claimed as a new revelation in of itself, apart from the only thing we can be sure is the fallible word of God. Therefore it does not have the same authority.

---

Lots of assumptions there.

---

Go on.

---

How do we know which words are God's words? The Bible didn't just fall from the sky complete with a table of contents. How do we know Jesus was God? He never plainly says so.

---

I'm not understanding what you're saying here. You're answer to sola scriptura is to commit epistemological suicide and thus destroy your own faith?

---

It is an odd defense.

Coke Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

How do we know which words are God's words? The Bible didn't just fall from the sky complete with a table of contents. How do we know Jesus was God? He never plainly says so.

---

Sam, you beat me to it. BDT's completely circular argument is hinged on a bible that was put together by the Catholic church.

He assumes only one canon of the OT. Every Jewish sect had their own canon of different lengths.

Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contains all 46 books of the OT, but Protestants removed 7 of them. Yet, they claim to be able to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit.

Protestants forget that the Church predates the bible. The debate about the NT lasted more than 300 years.

In the first three hundred years of Christianity, there was no New Testament books that were universally recognized. Some of Paul's letters and the four Gospels whose authorship were attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were read publicly in certain churches. The earliest record of attempt at compiling the canon was made by Marcion, c. 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke and ten of Paul's letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely. After the council of Nicaea in year 325, Roman Emperor Constantine instructed Eusebius to put together accepted Christian Scriptures that would be displayed in churches. However, nothing is known if Eusebius was successful in completing the task. One of the oldest bibles in existence is the Codex Vaticanus which was written around year 350. The Codex is currently kept in Vatican. It has the 27 books of the New Testament which are accepted by all Christian denominations today. The 27 books were canonized in the council of Hippo in year 393. This was later affirmed in the council of Carthage in year 397 and 419. Evidence corroborates the claims of the fourth century church councils that their canonical list are the same 27 books that the church received from the earliest bishops. Irenaeus (died c. 202) quotes and cites 21 books that would end up as part of the New Testament, but does not use Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude. By the early 3rd century, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena). Likewise by 200, the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was plenty of discussion in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the "major" writings were accepted by almost all Christian authorities by the middle of the second century.

The next two hundred years followed a similar process of continual discussion throughout the entire Church, and localized refinements of acceptance. This process was not yet complete at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325, though substantial progress had been made by then. Though a list was clearly necessary to fulfill Constantine's commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople, no concrete evidence exists to indicate that it was considered to be a formal canon. In the absence of a canonical list, the resolution of questions would normally have been directed through the see of Constantinople, in consultation with Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (who was given the commission), and perhaps other bishops who were available locally.

This is just a snippet from Wiki. The link is above.

The bible is an infallible list of scripture of the infallible Word of God compiled by the infallible Church guide by the Holy Spirit.

---

Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, baptism in those verses is described as a symbolic act, and not a requirement for salvation. If he required congregants to go through with baptism despite a repentant heart and belief in Christ as savior, it would be a works-based salvation, and not grace. In John 3:16, Jesus said, that whoever believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Notice that he did not say whoever believes and is baptized. That is because it's not a requirement, but an act of obedience in response to the saving work he did within us.

---

Please show me where it says that baptism is a symbolic act. 1 Pet 3:21 - "baptism now saves you." It's written in plain Greek. John 3:5 - "unless one is born of water and spirit, they cannot enter the Kingdom of God."

Mothra said:

---

The only excuse offered for the thief on the cross is your own. Your saying God made an exception, which is a weak response. If that were the case, why didn't the authors attempt to explain, well, I know we said God requires baptism for salvation, but in this case he made an exception.

---

This is your opinion. Are you infallible?

Mothra said:

---

Baptism simply isn't required. Baptism ALWAYS follows repentance in scripture. A baby cannot repent. And likewise, baptism is simply not required.

---

You are incorrect. The Church has baptized the infants for a remission of original sin. It has a documented history of this prior to the canonization of the bible.

---

Your position completely ignores scripture and the nature of God and salvation. As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.

Now, with respect to the verses at issue, was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all. A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know that his family was saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24). The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized. Countless passages of Scripture clearly teach that salvation comes when one believes in the gospel, at which time he or she is sealed "in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise" (Ephesians 1:13).

Thankfully, though, we don't have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because as I pointed out above, he clarifies that for us with the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience." While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting wet part that saves but the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.

And again, we go back to that pesky little passage about the thief on the cross. Your only explanation for his salvation is, God made an exception. What a terrible argument for your position.

I am quite often shocked that Catholics take this position - a position that completely ignores and disregards the nature of salvation.

---

All this was explained to him in another thread. If he didn't accept it then, he's not going to accept it now. But regardless, good comment.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

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.

---

---

- you can not use the "circular argument" argument here. We are all accepting that Scripture is the divinely inspired Word of God. It is not a circular argument if all parties are in agreement to this starting point. It is only a circular argument if you are arguing against a non-believer. - I accept that Scripture is the divinely inspired Word of God on faith and belief. I accept that I cannot prove it. Therefore, I accept the fact that any appeal to it is ultimately circular. This is reality. You should try it.

- it's dangerous to justify things based on the fact it "might" have been one of the things that Jesus said or did that wasn't written down. We have in the bible what we have. If you believe God is behind what we have, then that's all He wanted us to have. - You rail against things that Jesus didn't mention or that weren't written down. Two sides of the same coin.

- bottom line is that "invoking" saints wasn't taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, his apostles, his apostles' apostles, and the early church. You are practicing something unbiblical. Btw, which saints do you "invoke" and how do you invoke them? How do you know they're in heaven and not in hell? - You don't know that invoking the saints wasn't taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, his apostles, his apostles' apostles, or the early church. In fact, it is known that the early church did practice these things. Your argument from Biblical silence is weak. I understand Scripture to infer these practices. Mary and my father are now my most frequently invoked along with a very short list of Godly men and women with whom I had very close relationships. St Joseph, St George, St Michael, and St Joan account for the rest. I address them by name with specific areas of concern and ask for their prayers. Simple really. I commend it to all.

- No, the number of Catholics who pray those prayers was NOT the major point. You obviously missed it or didn't understand it. The point was this: if these prayers which are obviously heretical and idolatrous can be fully condoned and fully endorsed by the leadership of the Catholic Church, that clearly shows that the leadership is very fallible, and therefore one must question everything else that comes from Church leadership. -There is clear push back on that particular prayer for those who care to take the time to read and understand. As stated, it is not RC dogma presumably for a reason. You also continually leave out the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and others who practice these things. Why is that? I agree the leadership of all churches is very fallible, which is part of the reason I cannot in good conscience swim the Tiber as it would require intellectual assent to things with which I disagree - though many in the Roman Church disagree anyway. I think if you disagree, you shouldn't be a "Cafeteria Catholic", fwiw, and ought to change denominations.

- the false gospel coming from the RCC can be summarized as: not a faith based salvation, but faith plus works (baptism, obeying commandments, obeying the Magisterium, performing the sacraments). I'd also add 1) the belief that Jesus' sacrifice was not once and for all, but needs to be performed over and over again in the Mass, 2) purgatory, 3) that one can reach Jesus through an intercessor instead of going to him directly. 4) that Mary is co-intercessor, a co-Mediator with God along with Jesus (this isn't dogmatized, but it is widely believed) - Of course it's a faith based salvation. Still waiting for a clear declaration from you as to your beliefs as to what exactly qualifies one for salvation in the First Church of Tarp Dusting. Mary is a co intercessor and therefore a co mediator to Christ and thence to God. You need to get the order sorted. Your assertion about the Mass is just wrong. There is no re sacrifice that needs to be performed over and over again. That's a typical Protestant misrepresentation. I am agnostic re purgatory, but it can be inferred from Scripture. One doesn't need an intercessor to reach Jesus, but may invoke others to intercede on our behalf. How dense are you? Just for your edification, the selections below speak to the Anglican way of celebrating Communion. I believe it speaks for itself:

From the Book of Common Prayer at the celebration of the Eucharist:

All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for
that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus
Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who
made there, by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full,
perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for
the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy
Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that
his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again...

Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the
institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Savior Jesus Christ,
we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before
thy divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now
offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to
make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious
death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension;
rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable
benefits procured unto us by the same.
And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to
hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless
and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts
and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them
according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution,
in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers
of his most blessed Body and Blood.
And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to
accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most
humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and
death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood,
we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our
sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves,
our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living
sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee that we, and all
others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may
worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son
Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction,
and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and
we in him.
And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins,
to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept
this our bounden duty and service, not weighing our merits,
but pardoning our offenses, through Jesus Christ our Lord;
By whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost,
all honor and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world
without end. AMEN.

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful
Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold
and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather
up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord
whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore,
gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ,
and to drink his blood, that we may evermore dwell in him,
and he in us. Amen.

Post Communion Prayer:

Almighty and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee

for that thou dost feed us, in these holy mysteries, with the
spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy
Son our Savior Jesus Christ; and dost assure us thereby of
thy favor and goodness towards us; and that we are very
members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, the
blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs,
through hope, of thy everlasting kingdom. And we humbly
beseech thee, O heavenly Father, so to assist us with thy
grace, that we may continue in that holy fellowship, and do
all such good works as thou hast prepared for us to walk in;
through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom with thee and the
Holy Ghost, be all honor and glory, world without end.
Amen.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

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.

---

---

- you can not use the "circular argument" argument here. We are all accepting that Scripture is the divinely inspired Word of God. It is not a circular argument if all parties are in agreement to this starting point. It is only a circular argument if you are arguing against a non-believer. - I accept that Scripture is the divinely inspired Word of God on faith and belief. I accept that I cannot prove it. Therefore, I accept the fact that any appeal to it is ultimately circular. This is reality. You should try it.

- it's dangerous to justify things based on the fact it "might" have been one of the things that Jesus said or did that wasn't written down. We have in the bible what we have. If you believe God is behind what we have, then that's all He wanted us to have. - You rail against things that Jesus didn't mention or that weren't written down. Two sides of the same coin.

- bottom line is that "invoking" saints wasn't taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, his apostles, his apostles' apostles, and the early church. You are practicing something unbiblical. Btw, which saints do you "invoke" and how do you invoke them? How do you know they're in heaven and not in hell? - You don't know that invoking the saints wasn't taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, his apostles, his apostles' apostles, or the early church. In fact, it is known that the early church did practice these things. Your argument from Biblical silence is weak. I understand Scripture to infer these practices. Mary and my father are now my most frequently invoked along with a very short list of Godly men and women with whom I had very close relationships. St Joseph, St George, St Michael, and St Joan account for the rest. I address them by name with specific areas of concern and ask for their prayers. Simple really. I commend it to all.

- No, the number of Catholics who pray those prayers was NOT the major point. You obviously missed it or didn't understand it. The point was this: if these prayers which are obviously heretical and idolatrous can be fully condoned and fully endorsed by the leadership of the Catholic Church, that clearly shows that the leadership is very fallible, and therefore one must question everything else that comes from Church leadership. -There is clear push back on that particular prayer for those who care to take the time to read and understand. As stated, it is not RC dogma presumably for a reason. You also continually leave out the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and others who practice these things. Why is that? I agree the leadership of all churches is very fallible, which is part of the reason I cannot in good conscience swim the Tiber as it would require intellectual assent to things with which I disagree - though many in the Roman Church disagree anyway. I think if you disagree, you shouldn't be a "Cafeteria Catholic", fwiw, and ought to change denominations.

- the false gospel coming from the RCC can be summarized as: not a faith based salvation, but faith plus works (baptism, obeying commandments, obeying the Magisterium, performing the sacraments). I'd also add 1) the belief that Jesus' sacrifice was not once and for all, but needs to be performed over and over again in the Mass, 2) purgatory, 3) that one can reach Jesus through an intercessor instead of going to him directly. 4) that Mary is co-intercessor, a co-Mediator with God along with Jesus (this isn't dogmatized, but it is widely believed) - Mary is a co intercessor and therefore a co mediator to Christ and thence to God. You need to get the order sorted. Your assertion about the Mass is just wrong. There is no re sacrifice that needs to be performed over and over again. That's a typical Protestant misrepresentation. I am agnostic re purgatory, but it can be inferred from Scripture. One doesn't need an intercessor to reach Jesus, but may invoke others to intercede on our behalf. How dense are you? Just for your edification, the selections below speak to the Anglican way of celebrating Communion. I believe it speaks for itself:

---

---

- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making.

- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those.

- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim?

- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned?

- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them.

- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.

- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.

- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.

- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.

- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.

- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:

Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]

[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.

- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.

- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.

- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.

- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.

- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:

Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]

[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.

---

---

If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.

The bible says to request intercession of other believers who are living, not dead. No where in the Old Testament or New did anyone pray to those who died. It was never taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, his apostles, or the early church. You can fight, spit, call names all you want, you will never get around this truth. You could not even provide the evidence for your claim.

"I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you?" - this is probably the most troubling argument I've heard on this thread. Are you seriously comparing so-called "saints", those who you believe went to heaven......to JESUS?? Do you have any idea what Christianity is all about??

If you see no problem with calling Mary a "co-mediator" or see those prayers to Mary which call her "sovereign", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "God of this world", "ruler of my house", or "in your hands Mary I place my soul and my eternal salvation" as merely adiaphoric, and not the heresy and idolatry that it obviously is and the danger to one's salvation it presents, then quite simply you have no discernment whatsoever, and you are in darkness.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

Sola Scriptura is based on the historical person of Jesus Christ. Because if Jesus was resurrected, then he is from God, and therefore his word is God's word. And if his word is God's word, then his word to his apostles is God's word. And Jesus affirmed the authority of the Old Testament as being the infallible word of God. Therefore, the only thing we possess that we know is the revealed, infallible Word of God is the Law, Prophets, and Writings (OT) and the word of the apostles (NT) as affirmed by Jesus himself. There is nothing in the Church's possession that Jesus himself affirmed as being the infallible word of God, other than these. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.

If the historical witness of Church tradition is not supported by Scripture, then it must be claimed as a new revelation in of itself, apart from the only thing we can be sure is the fallible word of God. Therefore it does not have the same authority.

---

Lots of assumptions there.

---

Go on.

---

How do we know which words are God's words? The Bible didn't just fall from the sky complete with a table of contents. How do we know Jesus was God? He never plainly says so.

---

I'm not understanding what you're saying here. You're answer to sola scriptura is to commit epistemological suicide and thus destroy your own faith?

---

No, I'm just pointing out some of the assumptions you're making.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.

- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.

- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.

- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.

- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.

- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:

Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]

[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.

---

---

If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.

---

Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

I will say....even as a Baptist.....its hard to reconcile the idea that modern Evangelical Christianity was what the early Church/Christ movement looked like in the 1st century. But then after a few hundreds years it short of went underground and the Catholic Church just suppressed it/radically changed its doctrine and practice.

[Also, data point that the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are structured in a similar way and teach very similar things to the RCC...and also claim ancient descent from the Apostles.]

While its a simplistic argument....its one that I have basically heard.

"The Catholic institutional hierarchy and Popes corrupted early Christianity and added on man made rites and ideas."

"But what about the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox who act in a similar manner?"

"All these liturgical churches all got corrupted at the same time"

I know lots of honest and very good low church Protestants who make arguments like that....and they are sincere but just not compelling to me.

---

You probably need to read my comments a little closer. Never said or suggested the "modern Evangelical Church" looks similar to the early church.

I suspect my current church looks pretty dissimilar to your idea of what a modern evangelical church looks like. Doctrinally speaking, it very closely resembled the early church in Acts - before Catholicism became the dominant Christian religion. We do things VERY differently than your average southern Baptist/Bible church.

And the idea that the catholic Fathers did in fact add requirements to Christianity that aren't found anywhere in scripture isn't some hair-brained theory hatched by low Protestants to malign Catholics, but instead something based in fact if you've reviewed any of their writings. Took a course on early church history at DTS many moons ago and it was very enlightening.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.

- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.

- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.

- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.

- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.

- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:

Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]

[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.

---

---

If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.

---

Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.

---

So you're trying to make the point that scripture may not be the inspired word of God.

This argument has taken an interesting turn. BT is exactly right in his assessment.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.

- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.

- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.

- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.

- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.

- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:

Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]

[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.

---

---

If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.

---

Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.

---

So you're trying to make the point that scripture may not be the inspired word of God.

This argument has taken an interesting turn. BT is exactly right in his assessment.

---

No, that is not the point I'm making. I know it's the inspired word of God because that's what my faith tradition teaches. I'm asking you and BTD how you know.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.

- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.

- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.

- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.

- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.

- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:

Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]

[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.

---

---

If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.

---

Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.

---

So you're trying to make the point that scripture may not be the inspired word of God.

This argument has taken an interesting turn. BT is exactly right in his assessment.

---

Wrong. The point is you cannot prove it in any objective way. You may accept or reject. This is not the same thing.