BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

---

I understand that you're sincere in your belief, but your belief is based on multiple erroneous assumptions.

(1) That the Bible describes the maximal extent of religious involvement for the believer, often with reference to something like 2 Tim 3:16-17. Such a view of the Bible inevitably leads one to believe that anything that isn't specifically expressly condoned by the Bible is forbidden. However, you're reading into that verse. The text says that all scripture, not only scripture. Such a view is also easily refuted by verses like 1st Corinthians 10:23, John 21:25 and 2nd Thessalonians 2:15.

(2) That the Christians of previous generations are dead and less aware than we are. This is refuted by verses like Hebrews 12:1 and John 11:26.

It sounds as if you are dismissing the practice of asking the saints for intercessory prayer as necromancy. It most certainly isn't. When the Bible mentions necromancy, it condemns the practice of conjuring up the dead, as Saul did through the witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28. When Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration, this was not necromancy. We've already seen in point 2 above that those we are asking for prayer are no less alive than Bubba sitting at the end of the pew. When David asked the angels of heaven to bless the Lord, this also was not offensive to God (Ps.103:2021). Likewise, when a Christian asks a Christian from a previous generation to pray for him, he is not conjuring up a spirit from Hades in order to acquire secret knowledge. After all, those in heaven are "like the angels," and are more alive than we are, since the Lord is "not God of the dead, but of the living" (Luke 20:3638). So, if it does not offend God when a Christian says "St. Mary, pray for me," we should all rejoice that God has given us the gift of Christians praying for us free from the boundaries of space and time.

Lets bring that theory a bit closer. Say you knew your grandmother and knew that she was a devout Christian. You asked her to pray for you while she was with you. If you stop asking her to pray for you when she has reposed, what does that say about your faith or lack thereof?

Now there are certain issues in the Roman Catholic interpretation of Saint Mary (Co-redemptrix and her "immaculate conception" being the chief among them). But honoring her is doing no less than God the Father did, and asking her to pray for us is no different than asking a family member to do so...because after all, she is a family member.

While the Bible is very important for the Christian faith, it is in large part a work of history, doctrine, and prophecy - not practice. For example, the Bible tells you that you should fast, but it doesn't say anything about when, how long, or what to abstain from. Did a God who accepted the sacrifice of Abel and rejected the sacrifice of Cain leave us completely without guidance? Should the fact that the first Christians fasted on Wednesday (the day of the week Judas betrayed Christ) and Friday (the day of the week that Christ was crucified) guide our practice today or are we free agents of the second millenium free to invent whatever we want?

Many of those details are found in a much older work, the "Didache", which was the primary guide for Christian living in the first several hundred years of Christianity when what constituted the Bible had not yet been formalized. You can make a circumstantial case against abortion from the Bible certainly, but it is the Didache that comes out and forbids it.

Certainly for the first millenium and a half of Christianity prior to the Gutenberg press, the Bible was not easily obtainable to the lay person. Prior to 1900ish Bibles didn't have 66 books. This was revised downward to 66 around the dawning of the 16th-20th. This history alone makes a pretty poor backdrop for sola scriptura as the scriptura you're referencing only has between a 100-400 year history depending on what you use as the cutoff point.

When we practice Christianity, it is important that we practice the faith once delivered to the saints which exists to this day...not some modernist reinterpretation of a 2000 year old work (and this applies equally to Evangelicals, Protestants, and Roman Catholics).

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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?

---

How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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?

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'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.

---

I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?

---

Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.

---

And yet Catholic doctrine includes the following contradictions: prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace.

---

Catholics don't believe in works instead of grace. Other than that, contradiction is a strong word with a specific meaning. Some of these beliefs are taught in the Bible, some are referred to, some may not be mentioned, but none are contradicted.

---

Have you (and Catholicism) changed your position that one must go through the physical act of baptism to be saved? Does Catholicism no longer teach that men must respond to Christ's salvific death by cooperating with the process of justification through good works? If so, I have not heard this.

We can quibble about the meaning of the word contradiction, but I must disagree with you that any of what I mentioned are specific beliefs taught in the bible, which is why you are unable to quote any scripture supporting your position.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

---

I understand that you're sincere in your belief, but your belief is based on multiple erroneous assumptions.

(1) That the Bible describes the maximal extent of religious involvement for the believer, often with reference to something like 2 Tim 3:16-17. Such a view of the Bible inevitably leads one to believe that anything that isn't specifically expressly condoned by the Bible is forbidden. However, you're reading into that verse. The text says that all scripture, not only scripture. Such a view is also easily refuted by verses like 1st Corinthians 10:23, John 21:25 and 2nd Thessalonians 2:15.

(2) That the Christians of previous generations are dead and less aware than we are. This is refuted by verses like Hebrews 12:1 and John 11:26.

It sounds as if you are dismissing the practice of asking the saints for intercessory prayer as necromancy. It most certainly isn't. When the Bible mentions necromancy, it condemns the practice of conjuring up the dead, as Saul did through the witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28. When Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration, this was not necromancy. We've already seen in point 2 above that those we are asking for prayer are no less alive than Bubba sitting at the end of the pew. When David asked the angels of heaven to bless the Lord, this also was not offensive to God (Ps.103:2021). Likewise, when a Christian asks a Christian from a previous generation to pray for him, he is not conjuring up a spirit from Hades in order to acquire secret knowledge. After all, those in heaven are "like the angels," and are more alive than we are, since the Lord is "not God of the dead, but of the living" (Luke 20:3638). So, if it does not offend God when a Christian says "St. Mary, pray for me," we should all rejoice that God has given us the gift of Christians praying for us free from the boundaries of space and time.

Lets bring that theory a bit closer. Say you knew your grandmother and knew that she was a devout Christian. You asked her to pray for you while she was with you. If you stop asking her to pray for you when she has reposed, what does that say about your faith or lack thereof?

Now there are certain issues in the Roman Catholic interpretation of Saint Mary (Co-redemptrix and her "immaculate conception" being the chief among them). But honoring her is doing no less than God the Father did, and asking her to pray for us is no different than asking a family member to do so...because after all, she is a family member.

While the Bible is very important for the Christian faith, it is in large part a work of history, doctrine, and prophecy - not practice. For example, the Bible tells you that you should fast, but it doesn't say anything about when, how long, or what to abstain from. Did a God who accepted the sacrifice of Abel and rejected the sacrifice of Cain leave us completely without guidance? Should the fact that the first Christians fasted on Wednesday (the day of the week Judas betrayed Christ) and Friday (the day of the week that Christ was crucified) guide our practice today or are we free agents of the second millenium free to invent whatever we want?

Many of those details are found in a much older work, the "Didache", which was the primary guide for Christian living in the first several hundred years of Christianity when what constituted the Bible had not yet been formalized. You can make a circumstantial case against abortion from the Bible certainly, but it is the Didache that comes out and forbids it.

Certainly for the first millenium and a half of Christianity prior to the Gutenberg press, the Bible was not easily obtainable to the lay person. Prior to 1900ish Bibles didn't have 66 books. This was revised downward to 66 around the dawning of the 16th-20th. This history alone makes a pretty poor backdrop for sola scriptura as the scriptura you're referencing only has between a 100-400 year history depending on what you use as the cutoff point.

When we practice Christianity, it is important that we practice the faith once delivered to the saints which exists to this day...not some modernist reinterpretation of a 2000 year old work (and this applies equally to Evangelicals, Protestants, and Roman Catholics).

---

Respectfully, the idea that the faith practiced by Catholics today is the same faith once delivered to the saints which exists to this day is simply erroneous, as many of the Catholic traditions practiced today came about hundreds (and in some cases, more than a thousand) of years after the death of Christ, and are not described in Acts.

I know that is what the Catholics profess, but reality is a bit different.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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?

---

How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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?

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'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.

---

I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?

---

Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.

---

And yet Catholic doctrine includes the following contradictions: prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace.

---

Catholics don't believe in works instead of grace. Other than that, contradiction is a strong word with a specific meaning. Some of these beliefs are taught in the Bible, some are referred to, some may not be mentioned, but none are contradicted.

---

Have you (and Catholicism) changed your position that one must go through the physical act of baptism to be saved? Does Catholicism no longer teach that men must respond to Christ's salvific death by cooperating with the process of justification through good works? If so, I have not heard this.

We can quibble about the meaning of the word contradiction, but I must disagree with you that any of what I mentioned are specific beliefs taught in the bible, which is why you are unable to quote any scripture supporting your position.

---

Baptism is considered by Catholics (and many other denominations) to be a sacrament. A sacrament is "a sacred and visible sign that is instituted by Jesus to give us grace, an undeserved gift from God."

Again, not debating the necessity of baptism, but it's a stretch to include baptism solely under the "works" category in a works vs grace debate.

Mothra said:

---

Respectfully, the idea that the faith practiced by Catholics today is the same faith once delivered to the saints which exists to this day is simply erroneous, as many of the Catholic traditions practiced today came about hundreds (and in some cases, more than a thousand) of years after the death of Christ, and are not described in Acts.

I know that is what the Catholics profess, but reality is a bit different.

---

True. Much of what is identified as Roman Catholic doctrine today was instituted in the past 300 years, all of it within the past 900. Certainly the liturgy of Vatican II or even the Latin mass of the first half of the 20th century is a long way from the liturgy of the early church.

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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?

---

How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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?

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'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.

---

I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?

---

Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.

---

And yet Catholic doctrine includes the following contradictions: prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace.

---

Catholics don't believe in works instead of grace. Other than that, contradiction is a strong word with a specific meaning. Some of these beliefs are taught in the Bible, some are referred to, some may not be mentioned, but none are contradicted.

---

Have you (and Catholicism) changed your position that one must go through the physical act of baptism to be saved? Does Catholicism no longer teach that men must respond to Christ's salvific death by cooperating with the process of justification through good works? If so, I have not heard this.

We can quibble about the meaning of the word contradiction, but I must disagree with you that any of what I mentioned are specific beliefs taught in the bible, which is why you are unable to quote any scripture supporting your position.

---

Baptism is considered by Catholics (and many other denominations) to be a sacrament. A sacrament is "a sacred and visible sign that is instituted by Jesus to give us grace, an undeserved gift from God."

Again, not debating the necessity of baptism, but it's a stretch to include baptism under the "works" category in a works vs grace debate.

---

Couldn't disagree more. Any sacrament is still a work. It requires physical action on the part of the believer instead of mere acceptance of Christ's forgiveness and grace.

When salvation requires a physical act, that is a work, no matter how you try and slice it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are not to determine someone's heart when they pray, sure....but what if they're praying not to God, but to someone else? Can you not discern the idolatry in that?

---

At this point, I and others have stated many times that praying does NOT equal worshiping. To pray means to ask. Please substitute "pray" for "ask for intercession." After this many times of being told the same thing, this is disrespectful and rude. Quite frankly, there may be no need to continue the conversation if you are not willing to meet us on this point, I'm done with this discussion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

When a Catholic prays the rosary, they are praying to Mary, not God. For every one praise of God in the rosary, there are TEN praises to Mary. Even the beads they use have pagan roots. They are used to keep track of the number of prayer repetitions. Jesus himself told us to not use vain repetitions when we pray, as the pagans do (Matthew 6:7). They are directly disobeying Jesus. They are also calling Mary "our life" and "our hope", and refer to her as "holy queen". There is a "Queen of Heaven" in the bible, and it's a pagan goddess. If someone does these things, how can their "heart" be anything else but idolatrous? If it's not at least your tenth thought, then there is truly something wrong with your discernment, if you are a believer.

---

Quite frankly, I expected better from you on this. You possess a great deal of knowledge and to resort to this sophomoric claims that I would expect from a small town Baptist preacher that doesn't know any better. These statements of "beads of pagan roots" and "repetition of prayers" are almost embarrassing for you.

I'll address Matthew 6:7 to help others better understand. Jesus, in Matthew 26:44:

So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again.

Whoa, Jesus is repeating prayers. He must not have read what he said in Matt 6:7

In Thessalonians 5:17 - St. Paul urges us to "Pray without ceasing."

Same thing, maybe Paul was still blind and couldn't read Matt 6:7.

In Rev 4:8, Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,'

The angels here have no excuses. They have eyes all around, they should have most certainly read Matthew 6;7.

Maybe there's a logical explanation. In Matthew 6:7, Jesus is addressing the pagans that believed that they could wear down there gods like in 1 Kings 18 when the worshipers of Baal tried to call down fire when their babbling of prayers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is so much about praying the rosary that is at the very least unscriptural, if not outright pagan idolatry. You aren't "judging" them by discerning this. If you are a believer in Jesus, then you should tell these people the truth, not out of "judgement" but to warn them.

---

Do you even know what the rosary is? Seriously. Once again, I would have expected you to at least understand what the rosary is comprised of if you were going to comment about it so authoritatively.

The rosary stated around the 12th century. The monks and other religious would memorize and pray all 150 of the Psalms. Of course, most lay people could not read, some pious people would repeat the Our Father "Pater Nostra" 150 times like the monks prayed the Psalms.

Traditions states that sometime around the 14th century, our Blessed Mother appeared to St. Dominic and gave him the structure of the rosary. The beginning of each rosary starts with the Apostle's Creed, an Our Father, 3 Hail Mary's (for an increase for the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love), and a Glory Be prayer. Next 5 decades of Hail Mary's are prayed.

Now each rosary covers a specific mystery. The three original mysteries are the Glorious, Joyful, and the Sorrowful mysteries. Today is Friday. Most Catholic pray the Sorrowful mysteries on Fridays. (It's my favorite mystery.)

The Sorrowful first decade is the Agony in the Garden. We say an Our Father followed by 10 Hail Mary's. While saying these prayers, we contemplate on Jesus' suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane.
The Sorrowful second decade is the Scourging at the pillar, preceded by the Our Father followed by another decade. We dwell upon his brutal scouring which according to the the Shroud of Turin, 120 lashes with a Roman flagellum.
Third Sorrowful mystery is the Crowning of Thorns: Our Father, decade, and the contemplation of the spitting, punching, mocking, and pressing or beating the CAP of thorns onto Christ's head.
4th Sorrowful mystery is the Carrying of the Cross on the Via De La Rosa. Another Our Father, decade with the imagining of what it was like to carry a nearly 100 lb beam of wood for nearly a mile up hill to Golgatha. He fell three times. It's possible the third fall dislocated his shoulder, nearly paralyzing necessitating Simon of Cyrene carrying his cross.
5th Sorrowful mystery - Our Father, final decade while praying about the excruciating pain of having a nail driven thru the median nerve of the wrist and feet. The cruciform position of the body making exhaling extremely painful to the point where the lungs fill up with fluid and the heart gives out.

Finally we finish the rosary with a Glory Be.

When the monks and others replaced the 150 Psalms with 153 Hail Mary's (50 from each mystery (Sorrowful, Joyful, and Glorious). This allowed them to contemplate on the life of Jesus rather than just the Psalms.

The rosary is "scripture (Jesus's life) on a rope".

Anyone can pray the rosary. Not just Catholics. It's a universal prayer dwelling on the life of Jesus.

Our Easter Rite Catholics implore the Jesus prayer. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." They repeat this with their breathing. {inhale]"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God," {exhale} "have mercy on me, a sinner." I do this every day for a bit. It's very peaceful. I try to remember to do this when I approach the altar for the Eucharist every Sunday and Friday.

---

You don't read and apply scripture with sound reasoning and in good faith. Do you honestly not see the difference between Jesus imploring God from his heart multiple times in separate prayers to deliver him from the unbelievable amount of suffering he was to face, and Catholics ritualistically repeating pre-written and memorized phrases over and over in succession and a set number of times in the same prayer? If you're really in anguish, or in dire need, naturally it's going to lead you to ask God multiple times throughout the day for help, which is going to mean using the same words and phrases. This is NOT the same thing as ritualistically repeating a the same words and phrases in a set prayer one has memorized, and doing it over and over again a set number of times in the same sitting. This isn't a special, unique prayer that comes from the individual heart. This is corporate religiosity. Which do you think God really wants?

And Jesus didn't repeat the same words over and over in the same sitting. He made multiple separate prayers, but he said them in different ways: "And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."....... Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."......So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again."

When it says Jesus "said the same words again", it doesn't mean that he repeated the same phrase he had been saying, it just means he made the same request of God again, as he had done the previous two times.

And how does "pray without ceasing" mean ritualistically repeating the same words and phrases over and over again? This is yet again an example of interpreting scripture in bad faith in order to defend one's belief and practice.

---

That you accuse Coke Bear of acting in bad faith really makes my blood boil and makes me wish I could reach through this screen and jerk a knot in your tail. You are fortunate to be able to function anonymously behind a keyboard. Sorry (sort of) if this isn't very Christ-like, but there it is. I will ask for forgiveness. You should do likewise.

---

I really don't think your blood is boiling against me. It's really against the truth that I'm saying. You hate it, and you can't argue against it. I don't doubt you'd want to hurt me if we were having this discussion face to face. You are being led by the spirit of the god of this world, which is hostile to the truth of Jesus and his true gospel.

---

You are a liar in league with the father of lies. Your "truth" is nothing but slander and falsehoods built on your own titanic hubris. The stench of your fundamentalist self righteousness permeates every post. Does it upset me that you dare accuse good people here who are serious about their faith in Christ? Damn right it does. That you can't see that your specious accusations of "bad faith" are completely false tells us all we need to know about you,
your critical thinking skills, and your version of Christianity. Jesus wept…

---

What makes me a "liar in league with the father of lies"? You haven't made an argument against the truth I've said. Rather, you just found it more convenient to call me a liar without critical thinking skills than actually demonstrate it.

Those who are in league with the "father of lies" are those who promote unbiblical beliefs and practices, especially the ones that involve a false gospel, and stealing the glory, honor, and praise from God/Jesus and giving them to someone else. The "father of lies" is the one who led you to believe that it is being a "Pharisee" to believe that we should only put our hope of eternal salvation on Jesus, and not on anyone else, which is what Christianity is. He is the one that led you to follow beliefs and practices that are deeply rooted in Roman paganism. He is the one that led you to think that believing that saints can hear our prayers is on level with the belief that Jesus can hear our prayers. And he is the one who led you to childishly threaten someone on the internet simply because he was telling the truth.

---

Here's a direct quote from one of your previous posts:

"But you are making the positive assertion that prayer to Mary and the saints was taught, believed, and practiced by Jesus, his apostles, or the first Christians".

This is a lie that you have never manned up and owned. In the same way you lie every time you accused me and others of acting, to use your repeated phrase, "in bad faith". That is a total lie.

You lie when you accuse me and others here of doing anything other than putting "our hope of eternal salvation on Jesus".

You lie when you claim the father of lies "led you to follow beliefs and practices that are deeply rooted in Roman paganism". Still waiting for your answer about your personal household Christmas and Easter practices, btw. Hypocrite.

You lie when you claim the father of lies "is the one that led you to think that believing that saints can hear our prayers is on level with the belief that Jesus can hear our prayers".

You lie when you equate invoking the saints with "praying to" Jesus or God. These things are not the same.

You lie when spew your nonsense that you are not being divisive contra the will of Jesus that his followers be one.

You are a liar straight from the Father of Lies. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Mothra said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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?

---

How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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?

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'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.

---

I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?

---

Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.

---

And yet Catholic doctrine includes the following contradictions: prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace.

---

Catholics don't believe in works instead of grace. Other than that, contradiction is a strong word with a specific meaning. Some of these beliefs are taught in the Bible, some are referred to, some may not be mentioned, but none are contradicted.

---

Have you (and Catholicism) changed your position that one must go through the physical act of baptism to be saved? Does Catholicism no longer teach that men must respond to Christ's salvific death by cooperating with the process of justification through good works? If so, I have not heard this.

We can quibble about the meaning of the word contradiction, but I must disagree with you that any of what I mentioned are specific beliefs taught in the bible, which is why you are unable to quote any scripture supporting your position.

---

Baptism is considered by Catholics (and many other denominations) to be a sacrament. A sacrament is "a sacred and visible sign that is instituted by Jesus to give us grace, an undeserved gift from God."

Again, not debating the necessity of baptism, but it's a stretch to include baptism under the "works" category in a works vs grace debate.

---

Couldn't disagree more. Any sacrament is still a work. It requires physical action on the part of the believer instead of mere acceptance of Christ's forgiveness and grace.

When salvation requires a physical act, that is a work, no matter how you try and slice it.

---

Disagree. A sacrament is "an outward sign of an inward spiritual change" (as I was taught) and many of the church's sacraments aren't necessarily tied to salvation.

"The seven sacraments are Baptism (cleansing the soul), Eucharist (or Communion), Confirmation (an outpouring of the Holy Spirit), Reconciliation (or confession of sins), Anointing of the Sick, Marriage, and Holy Orders."

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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?

---

How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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?

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'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.

---

I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?

---

Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.

---

And yet Catholic doctrine includes the following contradictions: prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace.

---

Catholics don't believe in works instead of grace. Other than that, contradiction is a strong word with a specific meaning. Some of these beliefs are taught in the Bible, some are referred to, some may not be mentioned, but none are contradicted.

---

Have you (and Catholicism) changed your position that one must go through the physical act of baptism to be saved? Does Catholicism no longer teach that men must respond to Christ's salvific death by cooperating with the process of justification through good works? If so, I have not heard this.

We can quibble about the meaning of the word contradiction, but I must disagree with you that any of what I mentioned are specific beliefs taught in the bible, which is why you are unable to quote any scripture supporting your position.

---

Baptism is considered by Catholics (and many other denominations) to be a sacrament. A sacrament is "a sacred and visible sign that is instituted by Jesus to give us grace, an undeserved gift from God."

Again, not debating the necessity of baptism, but it's a stretch to include baptism under the "works" category in a works vs grace debate.

---

Couldn't disagree more. Any sacrament is still a work. It requires physical action on the part of the believer instead of mere acceptance of Christ's forgiveness and grace.

When salvation requires a physical act, that is a work, no matter how you try and slice it.

---

Disagree. A sacrament is "an outward sign of an inward spiritual change" (as I was taught) and many of the church's sacraments aren't necessarily tied to salvation.

"The seven sacraments are Baptism (cleansing the soul), Eucharist (or Communion), Confirmation (an outpouring of the Holy Spirit), Reconciliation (or confession of sins), Anointing of the Sick, Marriage, and Holy Orders."

---

We can agree to disagree. A physical act is a work. All of what you described are physical acts.

Spent many years in conflict between Arminianism and Calvinism. Seems to me "mere acceptance of Christ's forgiveness and grace" is actually an act, that is, something one must do to attain salvation. The notion of double predestination had some appeal for me, but always seemed harsh. Gave up that cognitive dissonance when I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church (and exchanged for a different set, lol). I am content that however salvation "works", it is up to Christ Jesus in whom I place my hope and trust.

Mothra said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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?

---

How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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?

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'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.

---

I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?

---

Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.

---

And yet Catholic doctrine includes the following contradictions: prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace.

---

Catholics don't believe in works instead of grace. Other than that, contradiction is a strong word with a specific meaning. Some of these beliefs are taught in the Bible, some are referred to, some may not be mentioned, but none are contradicted.

---

Have you (and Catholicism) changed your position that one must go through the physical act of baptism to be saved? Does Catholicism no longer teach that men must respond to Christ's salvific death by cooperating with the process of justification through good works? If so, I have not heard this.

We can quibble about the meaning of the word contradiction, but I must disagree with you that any of what I mentioned are specific beliefs taught in the bible, which is why you are unable to quote any scripture supporting your position.

---

Baptism is considered by Catholics (and many other denominations) to be a sacrament. A sacrament is "a sacred and visible sign that is instituted by Jesus to give us grace, an undeserved gift from God."

Again, not debating the necessity of baptism, but it's a stretch to include baptism under the "works" category in a works vs grace debate.

---

Couldn't disagree more. Any sacrament is still a work. It requires physical action on the part of the believer instead of mere acceptance of Christ's forgiveness and grace.

When salvation requires a physical act, that is a work, no matter how you try and slice it.

---

Disagree. A sacrament is "an outward sign of an inward spiritual change" (as I was taught) and many of the church's sacraments aren't necessarily tied to salvation.

"The seven sacraments are Baptism (cleansing the soul), Eucharist (or Communion), Confirmation (an outpouring of the Holy Spirit), Reconciliation (or confession of sins), Anointing of the Sick, Marriage, and Holy Orders."

---

We can agree to disagree. A physical act is a work. All of what you described are physical acts.

---

Fine with disagreeing but I am curious to know if you feel your marriage is solely a physical act or if there is a spiritual element involved.

Edit: I would add that if every single physical act is only a "work", then mere existence is a work. And given we have to exist to receive salvation, wouldn't that mean "work" is required for salvation? (Just a fun logic question rambling)

I think under your definition, nothing would be a work.

As for marriage, it is both a physical and spiritual act, for those who are saved. You are making a covenant before God, and a contract before man. I don't see that as an apt comparison to salvation, however.

curtpenn said:

---

Spent many years in conflict between Arminianism and Calvinism. Seems to me "mere acceptance of Christ's forgiveness and grace" is actually an act, that is, something one must do to attain salvation. The notion of double predestination had some appeal for me, but always seemed harsh. Gave up that cognitive dissonance when I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church (and exchanged for a different set, lol). I am content that however salvation "works", it is up to Christ Jesus in whom I place my hope and trust.

---

I hear you. I struggled with that as well, though I tend to be more of a 4-point Calvinist nowdays (can't get to 5).

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course I agree with Bishop Strickland here, and am thankful for Catholics standing up for Christian principles.

But it isn't very "Christian" for Catholics to rely not on Jesus Christ, but rather....Mary:

Thank you brothers. Our power is…”Hail Mary full of grace…” https://t.co/ycfPjFi6Z2

— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) June 27, 2023

---

Huh?

---

Do you not see the problem in what he said there? If you don't, and you are Catholic, then that is precisely the problem I'm addressing.

---

Your issue is he said the Hail Mary?

---

Are you being disingenuous or can you not read?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course I agree with Bishop Strickland here, and am thankful for Catholics standing up for Christian principles.

But it isn't very "Christian" for Catholics to rely not on Jesus Christ, but rather....Mary:

Thank you brothers. Our power is…”Hail Mary full of grace…” https://t.co/ycfPjFi6Z2

— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) June 27, 2023

---

Huh?

---

Do you not see the problem in what he said there? If you don't, and you are Catholic, then that is precisely the problem I'm addressing.

---

Your issue is he said the Hail Mary?

---

Are you being disingenuous or can you not read?

---

Showing your ass again, liar.

Mothra said:

---

I think under your definition, nothing would be a work.

As for marriage, it is both a physical and spiritual act, for those who are saved. You are making a covenant before God, and a contract before man. I don't see that as an apt comparison to salvation, however.

---

Really like your description of marriage. And that is pretty much how I have seen sacraments defined, both a physical and spiritual act.

Ok, so is baptism a sacrament or is baptism a direct ticket to salvation? To my knowledge (which is limited as I wasn't raised Catholic), no Roman Catholic teaching says if you are baptized you automatically have your ticket punched to get into heaven. I understand you take issue with the idea of baptism being a box that has to be checked and I get that. However I think you will probably find many Catholics disagree on that being a requirement just as any other large group of people disagree.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation.html
"God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments" (Catechism, No.1257). Besides the normal ritual baptism of water and invocation of the Holy Trinity, the Church has also accepted two other forms of baptism a baptism of blood and a baptism of desire. While these two forms are not the Sacrament of Baptism per se, they do render the same graces and effects (Catechism, No.1258).

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think under your definition, nothing would be a work.

As for marriage, it is both a physical and spiritual act, for those who are saved. You are making a covenant before God, and a contract before man. I don't see that as an apt comparison to salvation, however.

---

Really like your description of marriage. And that is pretty much how I have seen sacraments defined, both a physical and spiritual act.

Ok, so is baptism a sacrament or is baptism a direct ticket to salvation? To my knowledge (which is limited as I wasn't raised Catholic), no Roman Catholic teaching says if you are baptized you automatically have your ticket punched to get into heaven. I understand you take issue with the idea of baptism being a box that has to be checked and I get that. However I think you will probably find many Catholics disagree on that being a requirement just as any other large group of people disagree.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation.html
"God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments" (Catechism, No.1257). Besides the normal ritual baptism of water and invocation of the Holy Trinity, the Church has also accepted two other forms of baptism a baptism of blood and a baptism of desire. While these two forms are not the Sacrament of Baptism per se, they do render the same graces and effects (Catechism, No.1258).

---

Thanks. I am no expert on Catholicism. I am merely going by what those who have practiced the Catholic faith (Coke, Sam) are saying regarding Catholicism maintaining that the physical act of baptism is a requirement for salvation. If you review their posts above, this is indeed their position, erroneous as it may be.

I agree with your view that Baptism would be more in line with a sacrament, or an act of obedience, as I call it, and not a requirement for salvation.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

John Calvin had extensive knowledge of Church history. In his work A Treastise on Relics, he argued that prayers to the saints, prayers for the dead, the veneration of relics, the lighting of candles (in homage to the saints), and the veneration of icons are all rooted in Roman paganism. He writes:

Quote:

---

Hero-worship is innate to human nature, and it is founded on some of our noblest feelings, gratitude, love, and admiration, but which, like all other feelings, when uncontrolled by principle and reason, may easily degenerate into the wildest exaggerations, and lead to most dangerous consequences. It was by such an exaggeration of these noble feelings that [Roman] Paganism filled the Olympus with gods and demigods, elevating to this rank men who have often deserved the gratitude of their fellow-creatures, by some signal services rendered to the community, or their admiration, by having performed some deeds which required a more than usual degree of mental and physical powers.

The same cause obtained for the Christian martyrs the gratitude and admiration of their fellow-Christians, and finally converted them into a kind of demigods. This was more particularly the case when the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with Paganism [during the fourth and fifth-centuries], which having been baptized without being converted, rapidly introduced into the Christian church, not only many of its rites and ceremonies, but even its polytheism, with this difference, that the divinities of Greece and Rome were replaced by Christian saints, many of whom received the offices of their Pagan predecessors.

The church in the beginning tolerated these abuses, as a temporary evil, but was afterwards unable to remove them; and they became so strong, particularly during the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages, that the church ended up legalizing, through her decrees, that at which she did nothing but wink at first........

......Thus St. Anthony of Padua restores, like Mercury, stolen property; St. Hubert, like Diana, is the patron of sportsmen; St. Cosmas, like Esculapius, that of physicians, etc. In fact, almost every profession and trade, as well as every place, have their especial patron saint, who, like the tutelary divinity of the Pagans, receives particular hours from his or her protgs.

---

---

Jean Calvin wasn't above advocating burning at the stake as punishment for perceived heresies, btw. So why quote from Calvin - Sola Scriptura and all that?

---

What do you think about the history of Catholic saints having roots in pagan idols?

---

Just struck me as ironic/funny you would appeal to authority and choose Calvin as said authority. He believed a number of things that are questionable and wasn't above literally condemning those with whom he disagreed (sound familiar?).

One supposes you don't have a Christmas tree, exchange gifts, hang greens, kiss under the mistletoe, dye Easter eggs, and on an on. Right?

---

Don't forget about wedding bands and nativity sets.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You don't read and apply scripture with sound reasoning and in good faith. Do you honestly not see the difference between Jesus imploring God from his heart multiple times in separate prayers to deliver him from the unbelievable amount of suffering he was to face, and Catholics ritualistically repeating pre-written and memorized phrases over and over in succession and a set number of times in the same prayer? If you're really in anguish, or in dire need, naturally it's going to lead you to ask God multiple times throughout the day for help, which is going to mean using the same words and phrases. This is NOT the same thing as ritualistically repeating a the same words and phrases in a set prayer one has memorized, and doing it over and over again a set number of times in the same sitting. This isn't a special, unique prayer that comes from the individual heart. This is corporate religiosity. Which do you think God really wants?

---

I'm not sure that you properly understand what is happening when one prays the rosary. We are citing prayers, based on scripture (OF and HM) while meditating on the life of Christ. The decade of HM's gives us time to reflect on those divine mysteries. While saying the HM's, I imagine myself viewing the events from different viewpoints. This is true contemplation. The repeating of the (scripturally-based) prayers is merely marking time.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

When it says Jesus "said the same words again", it doesn't mean that he repeated the same phrase he had been saying, it just means he made the same request of God again, as he had done the previous two times.

---

This is just your opinion. It clearly states that he is saying the same words again. I have no problem with repeating wording in the prayer. Psalms is replete with this. Psalm 136 repeats the phrase, O give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever," 26 times.

The "vain repetitions" in Matthew 6:7 comes from the Greek, "battalogesete " which means empty phrases. He was addressing the Gentile prayers that were offered not with expression of love for or trust in God.

To further illustrate my point, one could accuse Protestants of vain repetition when they sing songs like:

I Will Praise Him/Jesus Paid It All
Amazing Grace
How Great Thou Art
Near To The Heart Of God

Coke Bear said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

John Calvin had extensive knowledge of Church history. In his work A Treastise on Relics, he argued that prayers to the saints, prayers for the dead, the veneration of relics, the lighting of candles (in homage to the saints), and the veneration of icons are all rooted in Roman paganism. He writes:

Quote:

---

Hero-worship is innate to human nature, and it is founded on some of our noblest feelings, gratitude, love, and admiration, but which, like all other feelings, when uncontrolled by principle and reason, may easily degenerate into the wildest exaggerations, and lead to most dangerous consequences. It was by such an exaggeration of these noble feelings that [Roman] Paganism filled the Olympus with gods and demigods, elevating to this rank men who have often deserved the gratitude of their fellow-creatures, by some signal services rendered to the community, or their admiration, by having performed some deeds which required a more than usual degree of mental and physical powers.

The same cause obtained for the Christian martyrs the gratitude and admiration of their fellow-Christians, and finally converted them into a kind of demigods. This was more particularly the case when the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with Paganism [during the fourth and fifth-centuries], which having been baptized without being converted, rapidly introduced into the Christian church, not only many of its rites and ceremonies, but even its polytheism, with this difference, that the divinities of Greece and Rome were replaced by Christian saints, many of whom received the offices of their Pagan predecessors.

The church in the beginning tolerated these abuses, as a temporary evil, but was afterwards unable to remove them; and they became so strong, particularly during the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages, that the church ended up legalizing, through her decrees, that at which she did nothing but wink at first........

......Thus St. Anthony of Padua restores, like Mercury, stolen property; St. Hubert, like Diana, is the patron of sportsmen; St. Cosmas, like Esculapius, that of physicians, etc. In fact, almost every profession and trade, as well as every place, have their especial patron saint, who, like the tutelary divinity of the Pagans, receives particular hours from his or her protgs.

---

---

Jean Calvin wasn't above advocating burning at the stake as punishment for perceived heresies, btw. So why quote from Calvin - Sola Scriptura and all that?

---

What do you think about the history of Catholic saints having roots in pagan idols?

---

Just struck me as ironic/funny you would appeal to authority and choose Calvin as said authority. He believed a number of things that are questionable and wasn't above literally condemning those with whom he disagreed (sound familiar?).

One supposes you don't have a Christmas tree, exchange gifts, hang greens, kiss under the mistletoe, dye Easter eggs, and on an on. Right?

---

Don't forget about wedding bands and nativity sets.

---

Or halloween, I mean "trunk or treat"

Mothra said:

---

Respectfully, the idea that the faith practiced by Catholics today is the same faith once delivered to the saints which exists to this day is simply erroneous, as many of the Catholic traditions practiced today came about hundreds (and in some cases, more than a thousand) of years after the death of Christ, and are not described in Acts.

I know that is what the Catholics profess, but reality is a bit different.

---

Please let me know which "traditions practiced today are not described in Acts."

Please also show me where Altar calls, Sinner's Prayer, Pews, Wednesday evening services, instruments & bands, etc. are found in Acts.

Jesus didn't come to write a book. He came to establish a Church. Just like an acorn planted 50 years ago is a massive Oak tree today, the Church looks different than it did on Pentecost Sunday, the birthday of the Church.

Finally, I'm sure that I've mentioned this before; however, Justin Martyr wrote about the elements of the Mass in 155 AD.

1)On the day named after the sun, people who live in the cities and in the country gather for a celebration. 2)Then the writings that the apostles have left or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time allows. After the reader finishes his task,3) the presider gives an address in which he urgently admonishes the people to follow these excellent teachings in their lives. 4)Then we all stand up together and offer prayers. After the end of the prayers . . . 5)bread, wine, and water are brought and the president offers up prayers and thanksgivingas much as he is able. The people assent by speaking "Amen." 6)Then the things over which thanks has been said are distributed to all who are present, 7)and the deacons take some to those who are absent. In addition, those who are well-to-do give whatever they wish. Whatever is collected is kept by the president, who uses it to help widows and orphans.

This is the same order of the events in the Mass celebrated EVERY Sunday (and every day of the week.)

1)We gather on Sunday.
2)A reading is read from the OT, Psalms are sung, a reading is read from the NT, the priest or deacon reads from the Gospel.
3)The priest or deacon preaches the homily which covers the Gospel he just read.
4)We profess our faith by repeating the Nicaean Creed and we present our prayers to the faithful.
5)Bread and wine are brought to the altar, the priest prays over them and consecrates them into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity
6)The Eucharist is distributed to parish
7)The Eucharist is taken to the sick and infirmed who cannot make it to mass.

It has been like this in the Catholic Church since 155 AD.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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?

---

How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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?

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'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.

---

I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?

---

Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.

---

And yet Catholic doctrine includes the following contradictions: prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace.

---

Catholics don't believe in works instead of grace. Other than that, contradiction is a strong word with a specific meaning. Some of these beliefs are taught in the Bible, some are referred to, some may not be mentioned, but none are contradicted.

---

Have you (and Catholicism) changed your position that one must go through the physical act of baptism to be saved? Does Catholicism no longer teach that men must respond to Christ's salvific death by cooperating with the process of justification through good works? If so, I have not heard this.

We can quibble about the meaning of the word contradiction, but I must disagree with you that any of what I mentioned are specific beliefs taught in the bible, which is why you are unable to quote any scripture supporting your position.

---

I can quote the Scripture, but we disagree on the interpretation. That's what it always comes back to. "Scripture alone" ultimately just means "my interpretation of Scripture alone."

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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?

---

How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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?

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'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.

---

I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?

---

Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.

---

And yet Catholic doctrine includes the following contradictions: prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace.

---

Catholics don't believe in works instead of grace. Other than that, contradiction is a strong word with a specific meaning. Some of these beliefs are taught in the Bible, some are referred to, some may not be mentioned, but none are contradicted.

---

Have you (and Catholicism) changed your position that one must go through the physical act of baptism to be saved? Does Catholicism no longer teach that men must respond to Christ's salvific death by cooperating with the process of justification through good works? If so, I have not heard this.

We can quibble about the meaning of the word contradiction, but I must disagree with you that any of what I mentioned are specific beliefs taught in the bible, which is why you are unable to quote any scripture supporting your position.

---

I can quote the Scripture, but we disagree on the interpretation. That's what it always comes back to. "Scripture alone" ultimately just means "my interpretation of Scripture alone."

---

Unfortunately you're still spouting the absurd position of liberal theologians that all scripture is so opaque that it requires interpretation - a view that has been roundly debunked, but is of course their excuse for distorting scripture.

Let's not go that direction. I suspect you can do better Sam. Give it the old college try.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Respectfully, the idea that the faith practiced by Catholics today is the same faith once delivered to the saints which exists to this day is simply erroneous, as many of the Catholic traditions practiced today came about hundreds (and in some cases, more than a thousand) of years after the death of Christ, and are not described in Acts.

I know that is what the Catholics profess, but reality is a bit different.

---

Please let me know which "traditions practiced today are not described in Acts."

Please also show me where Altar calls, Sinner's Prayer, Pews, Wednesday evening services, instruments & bands, etc. are found in Acts.

Jesus didn't come to write a book. He came to establish a Church. Just like an acorn planted 50 years ago is a massive Oak tree today, the Church looks different than it did on Pentecost Sunday, the birthday of the Church.

Finally, I'm sure that I've mentioned this before; however, Justin Martyr wrote about the elements of the Mass in 155 AD.

1)On the day named after the sun, people who live in the cities and in the country gather for a celebration. 2)Then the writings that the apostles have left or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time allows. After the reader finishes his task,3) the presider gives an address in which he urgently admonishes the people to follow these excellent teachings in their lives. 4)Then we all stand up together and offer prayers. After the end of the prayers . . . 5)bread, wine, and water are brought and the president offers up prayers and thanksgivingas much as he is able. The people assent by speaking "Amen." 6)Then the things over which thanks has been said are distributed to all who are present, 7)and the deacons take some to those who are absent. In addition, those who are well-to-do give whatever they wish. Whatever is collected is kept by the president, who uses it to help widows and orphans.

This is the same order of the events in the Mass celebrated EVERY Sunday (and every day of the week.)

1)We gather on Sunday.
2)A reading is read from the OT, Psalms are sung, a reading is read from the NT, the priest or deacon reads from the Gospel.
3)The priest or deacon preaches the homily which covers the Gospel he just read.
4)We profess our faith by repeating the Nicaean Creed and we present our prayers to the faithful.
5)Bread and wine are brought to the altar, the priest prays over them and consecrates them into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity
6)The Eucharist is distributed to parish
7)The Eucharist is taken to the sick and infirmed who cannot make it to mass.

It has been like this in the Catholic Church since 155 AD.

---

We've already been over this ad nauseam. Must I pointed out again?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course I agree with Bishop Strickland here, and am thankful for Catholics standing up for Christian principles.

But it isn't very "Christian" for Catholics to rely not on Jesus Christ, but rather....Mary:

Thank you brothers. Our power is…”Hail Mary full of grace…” https://t.co/ycfPjFi6Z2

— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) June 27, 2023

---

Huh?

---

Do you not see the problem in what he said there? If you don't, and you are Catholic, then that is precisely the problem I'm addressing.

---

Your issue is he said the Hail Mary?

---

Are you being disingenuous or can you not read?

---

I posed the question in response to you. Do with it what you will. Matters not to me

I'll ask Mary to pray for you

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Respectfully, the idea that the faith practiced by Catholics today is the same faith once delivered to the saints which exists to this day is simply erroneous, as many of the Catholic traditions practiced today came about hundreds (and in some cases, more than a thousand) of years after the death of Christ, and are not described in Acts.

I know that is what the Catholics profess, but reality is a bit different.

---

Please let me know which "traditions practiced today are not described in Acts."

Please also show me where Altar calls, Sinner's Prayer, Pews, Wednesday evening services, instruments & bands, etc. are found in Acts.

Jesus didn't come to write a book. He came to establish a Church. Just like an acorn planted 50 years ago is a massive Oak tree today, the Church looks different than it did on Pentecost Sunday, the birthday of the Church.

Finally, I'm sure that I've mentioned this before; however, Justin Martyr wrote about the elements of the Mass in 155 AD.

1)On the day named after the sun, people who live in the cities and in the country gather for a celebration. 2)Then the writings that the apostles have left or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time allows. After the reader finishes his task,3) the presider gives an address in which he urgently admonishes the people to follow these excellent teachings in their lives. 4)Then we all stand up together and offer prayers. After the end of the prayers . . . 5)bread, wine, and water are brought and the president offers up prayers and thanksgivingas much as he is able. The people assent by speaking "Amen." 6)Then the things over which thanks has been said are distributed to all who are present, 7)and the deacons take some to those who are absent. In addition, those who are well-to-do give whatever they wish. Whatever is collected is kept by the president, who uses it to help widows and orphans.

This is the same order of the events in the Mass celebrated EVERY Sunday (and every day of the week.)

1)We gather on Sunday.
2)A reading is read from the OT, Psalms are sung, a reading is read from the NT, the priest or deacon reads from the Gospel.
3)The priest or deacon preaches the homily which covers the Gospel he just read.
4)We profess our faith by repeating the Nicaean Creed and we present our prayers to the faithful.
5)Bread and wine are brought to the altar, the priest prays over them and consecrates them into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity
6)The Eucharist is distributed to parish
7)The Eucharist is taken to the sick and infirmed who cannot make it to mass.

It has been like this in the Catholic Church since 155 AD.

---

We've already been over this ad nauseam. Must I pointed out again?

---

I'd suggest reading The Early Church was the Catholic Church

It will probably help clear up a lot of confusion

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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?

---

How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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?

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'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.

---

I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?

---

Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.

---

And yet Catholic doctrine includes the following contradictions: prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace.

---

Catholics don't believe in works instead of grace. Other than that, contradiction is a strong word with a specific meaning. Some of these beliefs are taught in the Bible, some are referred to, some may not be mentioned, but none are contradicted.

---

Have you (and Catholicism) changed your position that one must go through the physical act of baptism to be saved? Does Catholicism no longer teach that men must respond to Christ's salvific death by cooperating with the process of justification through good works? If so, I have not heard this.

We can quibble about the meaning of the word contradiction, but I must disagree with you that any of what I mentioned are specific beliefs taught in the bible, which is why you are unable to quote any scripture supporting your position.

---

I can quote the Scripture, but we disagree on the interpretation. That's what it always comes back to. "Scripture alone" ultimately just means "my interpretation of Scripture alone."

---

Unfortunately you're still spouting the absurd position of liberal theologians that all scripture is so opaque that it requires interpretation - a view that has been roundly debunked, but is of course their excuse for distorting scripture.

Let's not go that direction. I suspect you can do better Sam. Give it the old college try.

---

I never said Scripture was opaque. Just that if you don't think people are capable of misreading plain language, you have a lot more faith in human wisdom than I do.

Back to the man of the thread…

Amen Amen Amen…wake up America! https://t.co/TtfKO3HtpO

— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) September 26, 2023

Fre3dombear said:

---

I'd suggest reading The Early Church was the Catholic Church

It will probably help clear up a lot of confusion

---

I'll send him a free copy if he'd promise to read it.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Respectfully, the idea that the faith practiced by Catholics today is the same faith once delivered to the saints which exists to this day is simply erroneous, as many of the Catholic traditions practiced today came about hundreds (and in some cases, more than a thousand) of years after the death of Christ, and are not described in Acts.

I know that is what the Catholics profess, but reality is a bit different.

---

Please let me know which "traditions practiced today are not described in Acts."

Please also show me where Altar calls, Sinner's Prayer, Pews, Wednesday evening services, instruments & bands, etc. are found in Acts.

Jesus didn't come to write a book. He came to establish a Church. Just like an acorn planted 50 years ago is a massive Oak tree today, the Church looks different than it did on Pentecost Sunday, the birthday of the Church.

Finally, I'm sure that I've mentioned this before; however, Justin Martyr wrote about the elements of the Mass in 155 AD.

1)On the day named after the sun, people who live in the cities and in the country gather for a celebration. 2)Then the writings that the apostles have left or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time allows. After the reader finishes his task,3) the presider gives an address in which he urgently admonishes the people to follow these excellent teachings in their lives. 4)Then we all stand up together and offer prayers. After the end of the prayers . . . 5)bread, wine, and water are brought and the president offers up prayers and thanksgivingas much as he is able. The people assent by speaking "Amen." 6)Then the things over which thanks has been said are distributed to all who are present, 7)and the deacons take some to those who are absent. In addition, those who are well-to-do give whatever they wish. Whatever is collected is kept by the president, who uses it to help widows and orphans.

This is the same order of the events in the Mass celebrated EVERY Sunday (and every day of the week.)

1)We gather on Sunday.
2)A reading is read from the OT, Psalms are sung, a reading is read from the NT, the priest or deacon reads from the Gospel.
3)The priest or deacon preaches the homily which covers the Gospel he just read.
4)We profess our faith by repeating the Nicaean Creed and we present our prayers to the faithful.
5)Bread and wine are brought to the altar, the priest prays over them and consecrates them into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity
6)The Eucharist is distributed to parish
7)The Eucharist is taken to the sick and infirmed who cannot make it to mass.

It has been like this in the Catholic Church since 155 AD.

---

We've already been over this ad nauseam. Must I pointed out again?

---

I'd suggest reading The Early Church was the Catholic Church

It will probably help clear up a lot of confusion

---

Yes I'm well aware of that Catholic propaganda.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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?

---

How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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?

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'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.

---

I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?

---

Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.

---

And yet Catholic doctrine includes the following contradictions: prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace.

---

Catholics don't believe in works instead of grace. Other than that, contradiction is a strong word with a specific meaning. Some of these beliefs are taught in the Bible, some are referred to, some may not be mentioned, but none are contradicted.

---

Have you (and Catholicism) changed your position that one must go through the physical act of baptism to be saved? Does Catholicism no longer teach that men must respond to Christ's salvific death by cooperating with the process of justification through good works? If so, I have not heard this.

We can quibble about the meaning of the word contradiction, but I must disagree with you that any of what I mentioned are specific beliefs taught in the bible, which is why you are unable to quote any scripture supporting your position.

---

I can quote the Scripture, but we disagree on the interpretation. That's what it always comes back to. "Scripture alone" ultimately just means "my interpretation of Scripture alone."

---

Unfortunately you're still spouting the absurd position of liberal theologians that all scripture is so opaque that it requires interpretation - a view that has been roundly debunked, but is of course their excuse for distorting scripture.

Let's not go that direction. I suspect you can do better Sam. Give it the old college try.

---

I never said Scripture was opaque. Just that if you don't think people are capable of misreading plain language, you have a lot more faith in human wisdom than I do.

---

Let's test your theory. Which plain verses do you believe have been misinterpreted by us Protestants?

Coke Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I'd suggest reading The Early Church was the Catholic Church

It will probably help clear up a lot of confusion

---

I'll send him a free copy if he'd promise to read it.

---

Happy to read your propaganda. Send it my way. I'll give you my address.

It could be convincingly argued that Western Civilization was basically the creation of the Church.

— Sir Kenneth Clark pic.twitter.com/kRX3gxD84s

— Edward Badgette (@acrimonyand) June 10, 2023

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course I agree with Bishop Strickland here, and am thankful for Catholics standing up for Christian principles.

But it isn't very "Christian" for Catholics to rely not on Jesus Christ, but rather....Mary:

Thank you brothers. Our power is…”Hail Mary full of grace…” https://t.co/ycfPjFi6Z2

— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) June 27, 2023

---

Huh?

---

Do you not see the problem in what he said there? If you don't, and you are Catholic, then that is precisely the problem I'm addressing.

---

Your issue is he said the Hail Mary?

---

Are you being disingenuous or can you not read?

---

9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. 10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned Titus 3:9-11

Sola Scriptura.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

"The canonization of the bible by the Catholic Church was just a recognition of what had already been deemed scripture by the first Christians."

If that's the case, why were protestant Bibles shortened to 66 books in the late 19th/early 20th century?

---

Protestants didn't shorten the bible, if the bible should only contain books that were inspired scripture. They removed books in the Catholic Bible because that contained 7 deuterocanonical books that the Israelites did not believe were inspired scripture. Catholics themselves didn't even believe they were inspired canon. Jerome, the translator of the Septuagint into the Latin Vulgate (the Catholic Bible), didn't think they belonged in the bible, but he was pressured to translate it anyway, so he put in his prologue that these books were "apocryphal" and were not held by the Israelites to be inspired canon. Even the first (real) pope, Gregory I, didn't think they belonged. Catholics in the beginning didn't think those books were part of canon, until they formally included them in the bible in the mid 1400's, and that's only because they were responding to the Protestant Reformation, and needed some books that supported their theology. So, really, Protestants didn't shorten the bible, but rather it was Catholics who added to the bible.

---

There's a great deal of incorrect arguments in here. There was no one Hebrew canon. As mentioned before, the Sadducees,Pharisees, Essenes, and others had different cannons.

---

The belief that Pharisees and Sadducees had different canons in that the Sadducees only held to the Torah and not the rest of the Tanakh as the Pharisees did, is probably based on several flaws: 1) the possibly flawed readings of statements made by the historian Josephus, 2) incorrect assumptions from biblical passages indicating where the Sadducees held different views from that of the Pharisees, such as in the resurrection of the dead, and 3) statements made by church fathers after the time of Jesus, which may have reflected the view of the Sadducess in their current day, rather than the views of the Saducees during Jesus' day. There is evidence that the Sadducees did not actually have a different canon. Regardless, even if were to assume that they did, I think we can all put that to bed given that Jesus himself verified the Law and the Prophets, so if the Sadducees did indeed omit the Prophets from canon (again, which is debatable), Jesus is telling us directly that their canon was wrong.

Regarding the Essenes - if you're concluding that because some of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals were included among the Dead Sea Scrolls, it means the Essenes considered them canon, then this would be a flawed assumption. Because the Dead Sea Scrolls contained a random assortment of books like calendars, sayings, and commentaries. You can't deduce canonicity by what was contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The idea that there were two lineages of Hebrew canon existing at the time of Jesus - the Palestinian canon, which contained the traditional books of the Old Testament, and the Alexandrian canon which contained in addition the deuterocanonicals - is argued against by Roger Beckwith (sp?) in his book Old Testament Canon, New Testament Church. There is no documented evidence that the Alexandrians had an expanded canon than that of the Palestinians which included the deuterocanonicals. It is speculation. If there were to be documentation of this, we would certainly expect to find it in the the writings of Philo, who lived in Alexandria, and who wrote extensively. The OT books he mentioned as being divinely inspired were all the same books in the Palestinian canon. He makes no mention of the deuterocanonicals being divinely inspired, even though he was aware of them. Other evidence against the expanded canon of the Alexandrians comes from one of the books of the deuterocanonicals themselves, the Book of Sirach, which was written in Egypt (where Alexandria is) - in it, there was a distinction made between the Law and Prophets which were considered Holy Scripture and all other writings which were not, which included the deuterocanonicals. The evidence just isn't there that the Alexandrians and Palestinians had different canons of scripture from each other.

It is also important to mention the great Jewish historian Josephus (37-100 AD), who provides clear testimony of what was considered Hebrew canon during first century Palestine, the time of Jesus. He clearly and explicitly names only 22 books, which correspond exactly to the 39 books of the Old Testament we have today, the apocryphal books excluded. Further, he mentions the fact that after the last book of the OT (Malachi), other books were written, but they did not have divine authority. He is saying that divine authority behind the Scriptures ended with Malachi, which would of course exclude the deuterocanonicals.

But to get back the original point, the basic summary of all this is that there doesn't appear to be any evidence of any competing canons among the Jews during the time of Jesus, especially with regard to the deuterocanonical books. The Jews of that time, though they believed the deuterocanonicals to be edifying and important, they did not consider them to be part of their canon of Scripture. Thus, the claim that Protestants "removed" books from the bible by not including the apocryphal books is faulty and misleading.