But as a Catholic, aren't these your assumptions as well?Sam Lowry said:No, I'm just pointing out some of the assumptions you're making.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Go on.Sam Lowry said:Lots of assumptions there.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Sam Lowry said:If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.....you're asking for a circular argument?Coke Bear said:Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.
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.
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.
Bishop of Tyler Texas
44,067 Views |
421 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Redbrickbear
It begs the question only if the two parties in the debate don't already agree to the truth of the historical Jesus. That is the shared starting point of the debate. Are you are admitting you don't believe Scripture to be the word of God? Is that a Catholic position?Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
No and no. It begs the question, regardless. The logic of your position doesn't depend on whom you're talking to.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It begs the question only if the two parties in the debate don't already agree that Scripture is the word of God. That is the shared starting point of the debate. Are you are admitting you don't believe Scripture to be the word of God? Is that a Catholic position?Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
Even if it begs the question regardless, still, since we both share the same starting assumption (ostensibly), we can't invoke a begging the question fallacy argument against each other. It would destroy both arguments and makes the whole debate moot. The logic of my position, being based on the same assumptions you hold, would still be logical - given the assumptions that we agree on.Sam Lowry said:No and no. It begs the question, regardless. The logic of your position doesn't depend on whom you're talking to.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It begs the question only if the two parties in the debate don't already agree that Scripture is the word of God. That is the shared starting point of the debate. Are you are admitting you don't believe Scripture to be the word of God? Is that a Catholic position?Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
Okay. Let's say for the sake of argument that I don't already believe in the Bible. Explain why I should.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Even if it begs the question regardless, still, since we both share the same starting assumption (ostensibly), we can't invoke a begging the question fallacy argument against each other. It would destroy both arguments and makes the whole debate moot. The logic of my position, being based on the same assumptions you hold, would still be logical - given the assumptions that we agree on.Sam Lowry said:No and no. It begs the question, regardless. The logic of your position doesn't depend on whom you're talking to.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It begs the question only if the two parties in the debate don't already agree that Scripture is the word of God. That is the shared starting point of the debate. Are you are admitting you don't believe Scripture to be the word of God? Is that a Catholic position?Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
Sam Lowry said: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:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
Oh that's easy. Because that is what Christianity has taught since scripture was written.
Now, is the purpose of your comments to try and make a corollary between the "faith traditions" you adhere to that contradict scripture?
curtpenn said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
I've never said otherwise. If we could objectively prove God's existence, then evangelism would be a lot easier.
But that was not his point, or if it was, he did a very poor job of making it.
How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said: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:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
Oh that's easy. Because that is what Christianity has taught since scripture was written.
Now, is the purpose of your comments to try and make a corollary between the "faith traditions" you adhere to that contradict scripture?
My purpose is to find out whether the sola scriptura argument is circular (i.e. based on Scripture), self-contradictory (i.e. based on tradition), or in some other category. Right now it's not clear what the third option would be.
We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles, whose testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament. And because Jesus was resurrected, he was from God, and therefore his word has the authority of God. And Jesus himself gave the stamp of authority to the Old Testament ("every jot and tittle") and to the word from his apostles (John 14:26).Sam Lowry said: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:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
What is the basis for your faith tradition's teaching that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Is it on the same revelation of God through the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If so, that's our shared starting point. And sola scriptura is the logical outflow from that starting point, as explained above.
No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "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." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
Wait, back up. I think it might be more pertinent to know why you believe what your faith traditions taught you, that Scripture is the word of God, is true.Sam Lowry said:Okay. Let's say for the sake of argument that I don't already believe in the Bible. Explain why I should.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Even if it begs the question regardless, still, since we both share the same starting assumption (ostensibly), we can't invoke a begging the question fallacy argument against each other. It would destroy both arguments and makes the whole debate moot. The logic of my position, being based on the same assumptions you hold, would still be logical - given the assumptions that we agree on.Sam Lowry said:No and no. It begs the question, regardless. The logic of your position doesn't depend on whom you're talking to.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It begs the question only if the two parties in the debate don't already agree that Scripture is the word of God. That is the shared starting point of the debate. Are you are admitting you don't believe Scripture to be the word of God? Is that a Catholic position?Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
"We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles..."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles, whose testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament. And because Jesus was resurrected, he was from God, and therefore his word has the authority of God. And Jesus himself gave the stamp of authority to the Old Testament ("every jot and tittle") and to the word from his apostles (John 14:26).
What is the basis for your faith tradition's teaching that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Is it on the same revelation of God through the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If so, that's our shared starting point. And sola scriptura is the logical outflow from that starting point, as explained above.
Here's the heart of your fallacy right here; if we "knew" then it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge. We believe, accept, give intellectual assent to propositional truth, but ultimately we cannot know this side of the grave. I have faith and hope, but no objective proof.
How do you know the Apostles' testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles, whose testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament. And because Jesus was resurrected, he was from God, and therefore his word has the authority of God. And Jesus himself gave the stamp of authority to the Old Testament ("every jot and tittle") and to the word from his apostles (John 14:26).Sam Lowry said: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:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
What is the basis for your faith tradition's teaching that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Is it on the same revelation of God through the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If so, that's our shared starting point. And sola scriptura is the logical outflow from that starting point, as explained above.
If your beliefs flow from history and tradition, how does sola scriptura follow? Where is the logic in accepting the outflow but rejecting the source?
Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "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." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
That's a really insulting question and representative of the divisiveness you continually propound. Satan is still smiling.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It begs the question only if the two parties in the debate don't already agree to the truth of the historical Jesus. That is the shared starting point of the debate. Are you are admitting you don't believe Scripture to be the word of God? Is that a Catholic position?Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
Are they "corruptions"? Were the Nicene, Apostles', and Athanasian Creeds that were the products of centuries of thought and councils "corruptions" of early Christianity?BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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?Sam Lowry said:Sure there is. It's in the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as Scripture.Mothra said:Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Sam Lowry said:If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.....you're asking for a circular argument?Coke Bear said:Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.
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.
Again, herein lies the problem with not using scripture as the compass to judge the teachings of fallible man.
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.
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.
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.
Your argument appears to incorrectly assume that for those who hold to sola scriptura, tradition has no meaning or value whatsoever. That is not the case, and that does not appear to be what BT is saying. We can know from faith traditions that the Word of God is the ultimate authority for the Christian faith because that is what has been passed down from generation to generation.Sam Lowry said:How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said: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:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
Oh that's easy. Because that is what Christianity has taught since scripture was written.
Now, is the purpose of your comments to try and make a corollary between the "faith traditions" you adhere to that contradict scripture?
My purpose is to find out whether the sola scriptura argument is circular (i.e. based on Scripture), self-contradictory (i.e. based on tradition), or in some other category. Right now it's not clear what the third option would be.
Sola scriptura does not hold that traditions have no value. Instead, it holds that traditions are valid only when they conform with Scripture. It holds that traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. It was the protestant response to the Roman Catholic Church making traditions superior to the authority of Scripture - many of which were in fact contradictory to scripture (see prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace).
In other words, sola scriptura avoids subjectivity and keeps personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing one's spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. That appears to me to have been BT's point, which you seem to have either missed or perhaps are purposely attempting to twist.
Good question.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Wait, back up. I think it might be more pertinent to know why you believe what your faith traditions taught you, that Scripture is the word of God, is true.Sam Lowry said:Okay. Let's say for the sake of argument that I don't already believe in the Bible. Explain why I should.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Even if it begs the question regardless, still, since we both share the same starting assumption (ostensibly), we can't invoke a begging the question fallacy argument against each other. It would destroy both arguments and makes the whole debate moot. The logic of my position, being based on the same assumptions you hold, would still be logical - given the assumptions that we agree on.Sam Lowry said:No and no. It begs the question, regardless. The logic of your position doesn't depend on whom you're talking to.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It begs the question only if the two parties in the debate don't already agree that Scripture is the word of God. That is the shared starting point of the debate. Are you are admitting you don't believe Scripture to be the word of God? Is that a Catholic position?Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
Where are bishops and priests mentioned anywhere in Acts or in any of the letters?curtpenn said:Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "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." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
See my post above. I of course know what you're attempting, but you're out on a limb with this shoddy reasoning and twisting of BT's comments.Sam Lowry said:How do you know the Apostles' testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles, whose testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament. And because Jesus was resurrected, he was from God, and therefore his word has the authority of God. And Jesus himself gave the stamp of authority to the Old Testament ("every jot and tittle") and to the word from his apostles (John 14:26).Sam Lowry said: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:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
What is the basis for your faith tradition's teaching that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Is it on the same revelation of God through the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If so, that's our shared starting point. And sola scriptura is the logical outflow from that starting point, as explained above.
If your beliefs flow from history and tradition, how does sola scriptura follow? Where is the logic in accepting the outflow but rejecting the source?
Try to fight the urge.
The irony of this entire debate is that Catholics hold scripture to be the divine and inspired Word of God. Thus, to try and argue that traditions that contradict their own bible are valid despite this fact is the height of irony.
I don't see how you can know from tradition that the Bible is authoritative, unless the tradition is equally authoritative. The lesser authority doesn't define the greater.Mothra said:Your argument appears to incorrectly assume that for those who hold to sola scriptura, tradition has no meaning or value whatsoever. That is not the case, and that does not appear to be what BT is saying. We can know from faith traditions that the Word of God is the ultimate authority for the Christian faith because that is what has been passed down from generation to generation.Sam Lowry said:How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said: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:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
Oh that's easy. Because that is what Christianity has taught since scripture was written.
Now, is the purpose of your comments to try and make a corollary between the "faith traditions" you adhere to that contradict scripture?
My purpose is to find out whether the sola scriptura argument is circular (i.e. based on Scripture), self-contradictory (i.e. based on tradition), or in some other category. Right now it's not clear what the third option would be.
Sola scriptura does not hold that traditions have no value. Instead, it holds that traditions are valid only when they conform with Scripture. It holds that traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. It was the protestant response to the Roman Catholic Church making traditions superior to the authority of Scripture - many of which were in fact contradictory to scripture (see prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace).
In other words, sola scriptura avoids subjectivity and keeps personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing one's spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. That appears to me to have been BT's point, which you seem to have either missed or perhaps are purposely attempting to twist.
Scripture alludes to many Catholic beliefs without stating them expressly, yet you reject these beliefs. So in your view it seems that beliefs must do more than just conform with Scripture. They must be expressly derived from it. This is what brought up the whole sola scriptura issue. But of course the "plain meaning" of Scripture often depends on your subjective interpretation or the interpretation of your particular faith community. This is the problem you've never really addressed.
I'm avoiding any commentary on other posters' intentions or intelligence and would suggest we all do the same. Hopefully we can keep things pleasant and productive.
See Acts 1 for the origins. Episkopoi, presbuteroi, and diakonoi were clearly in place by the 2nd century at the latest.Mothra said:Where are bishops and priests mentioned anywhere in Acts or in any of the letters?curtpenn said:Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "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." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
Your position suggests that all tradition is equally authoritative, or its not. Yet, we know of faith traditions and off-shoots of Christianity that were around for centuries (and some still today) that are antithetical to scripture and Catholic tradition. Gnosticism comes immediately to mind - an off-shoot of heretical teachings that lasted around 3-4 centuries. And of course, the biggest off-shoot would be Islam, which of course is the fastest growing faith today, and has millions of adherents. Are these faith traditions authoritative because they've been around for centuries?Sam Lowry said:I don't see how you can know from tradition that the Bible is authoritative, unless the tradition is equally authoritative. The lesser authority doesn't define the greater.Mothra said:Your argument appears to incorrectly assume that for those who hold to sola scriptura, tradition has no meaning or value whatsoever. That is not the case, and that does not appear to be what BT is saying. We can know from faith traditions that the Word of God is the ultimate authority for the Christian faith because that is what has been passed down from generation to generation.Sam Lowry said:How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said: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:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
Oh that's easy. Because that is what Christianity has taught since scripture was written.
Now, is the purpose of your comments to try and make a corollary between the "faith traditions" you adhere to that contradict scripture?
My purpose is to find out whether the sola scriptura argument is circular (i.e. based on Scripture), self-contradictory (i.e. based on tradition), or in some other category. Right now it's not clear what the third option would be.
Sola scriptura does not hold that traditions have no value. Instead, it holds that traditions are valid only when they conform with Scripture. It holds that traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. It was the protestant response to the Roman Catholic Church making traditions superior to the authority of Scripture - many of which were in fact contradictory to scripture (see prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace).
In other words, sola scriptura avoids subjectivity and keeps personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing one's spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. That appears to me to have been BT's point, which you seem to have either missed or perhaps are purposely attempting to twist.
Scripture alludes to many Catholic beliefs without stating them expressly, yet you reject these beliefs. So in your view it seems that beliefs must do more than just conform with Scripture. They must be expressly derived from it. This is what brought up the whole sola scriptura issue. But of course the "plain meaning" of Scripture often depends on your subjective interpretation or the interpretation of your particular faith community. This is the problem you've never really addressed.
I'm avoiding any commentary on other posters' intentions or intelligence and would suggest we all do the same. Hopefully we can keep things pleasant and productive.
I reject your all-or-nothing premise, and also leave room for faith and the working of the Holy Spirit, which help us discern what is right and truthful.
I am not sure what Catholic beliefs you allege Scripture alludes to. I only take issue with those that are antithetical to your very own Holy Scriptures, or have little to no scriptural support. As I said early on in this debate, the idea that all scripture is so opaque that it cannot be plainly understood is a theory any reasonable person would reject. Paul said it best: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." I believe him.
I've read it again, and am not seeing the verses you are referencing. It is your position that Acts 1 talks about priests and bishops? Can you cite the specific verses?curtpenn said:See Acts 1 for the origins. Episkopoi, presbuteroi, and diakonoi were clearly in place by the 2nd century at the latest.Mothra said:Where are bishops and priests mentioned anywhere in Acts or in any of the letters?curtpenn said:Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "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." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
This is not true. St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 107 AD:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
My point is that the Catholic Church canonized (correctly) all 46 books of the Septuagint buse it was what Jesus and His disciples used (and other reasons as well.)BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "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." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
Luther move the deudeuterocanonical books to the back because he couldn't find Hebrew copies and they did some of them did not find his invented beliefs. (Later we would find a few of these books in Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls preserved most likely by the Essenes.)
Acts 1:20 -Mothra said:
I've read it again, and am not seeing the verses you are referencing. It is your position that Acts 1 talks about priests and bishops? Can you cite the specific verses?
"'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and "'Let another take his office."
By Catholic, Ignatius was referring generally to the "universal" Christian Church, not what we now know to be modern day Catholicism.Coke Bear said:This is not true. St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 107 AD:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8My point is that the Catholic Church canonized (correctly) all 46 books of the Septuagint buse it was what Jesus and His disciples used (and other reasons as well.)BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "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." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
Luther move the deudeuterocanonical books to the back because he couldn't find Hebrew copies and they did some of them did not find his invented beliefs. (Later we would find a few of these books in Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls preserved most likely by the Essenes.)
And you believe this refers to priests and bishops?Coke Bear said:Acts 1:20 -Mothra said:
I've read it again, and am not seeing the verses you are referencing. It is your position that Acts 1 talks about priests and bishops? Can you cite the specific verses?
"'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and "'Let another take his office."
Interesting...
See vv 25 and following. For further development see Acts 20. This is also helpful:Mothra said:I've read it again, and am not seeing the verses you are referencing. It is your position that Acts 1 talks about priests and bishops? Can you cite the specific verses?curtpenn said:See Acts 1 for the origins. Episkopoi, presbuteroi, and diakonoi were clearly in place by the 2nd century at the latest.Mothra said:Where are bishops and priests mentioned anywhere in Acts or in any of the letters?curtpenn said:Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "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." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/1985.html
Please allow me to submit the entire quote from Ignatius -Mothra said:
By Catholic, Ignatius was referring generally to the "universal" Christian Church, not what we now know to be modern day Catholicism.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
Now what church still celebrates the Eucharist? The Catholic Church. Not some off-shoot that you cannot prove. The Catholic Church has celebrated the Eucharist since its beginnings.
Thanks. This verse talks about who should replace Judas as one of Christ's apostles. Acts 20 talks about Church elders. I just don't see support in these verses for the establishment of some overall hierarchy consisting of priests, bishops and the pope.curtpenn said:See vv 25 and following. For further development see Acts 20. This is also helpful:Mothra said:I've read it again, and am not seeing the verses you are referencing. It is your position that Acts 1 talks about priests and bishops? Can you cite the specific verses?curtpenn said:See Acts 1 for the origins. Episkopoi, presbuteroi, and diakonoi were clearly in place by the 2nd century at the latest.Mothra said:Where are bishops and priests mentioned anywhere in Acts or in any of the letters?curtpenn said:Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "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." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/1985.html
Most denominations celebrate the Eucharist, we simply call it by different names.Coke Bear said:Please allow me to submit the entire quote from Ignatius -Mothra said:
By Catholic, Ignatius was referring generally to the "universal" Christian Church, not what we now know to be modern day Catholicism.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
Now what church still celebrates the Eucharist? The Catholic Church. Not some off-shoot that you cannot prove. The Catholic Church has celebrated the Eucharist since its beginnings.
Again, we know from history that the modern day Catholic Church, with its hierarchy and beliefs, did not come about until several centuries after Christ's death. That is why we see no mention of these things in scripture.
Yea, I think guys like Ed Young and the "your best life now" movement would have been a foreign concept to the early church.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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?Sam Lowry said:Sure there is. It's in the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as Scripture.Mothra said:Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Sam Lowry said:If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.....you're asking for a circular argument?Coke Bear said:Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.
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.
Again, herein lies the problem with not using scripture as the compass to judge the teachings of fallible man.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
The early church was about fellowship, conversion of the heart in Christ and sacrifice for others.
That said I know there are good fellowships and many authentic christians. But, there's a lot of entertainment/self fullfillment/wealth based christianity out there as well.