Spoken words or Traditions used to make or confirm Scripture vs. RCC traditions (after the Bible).

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Im not on Jasons thread to answer your questions. You should bring those to your pope.

I was agreeing with him on what he wrote

You had asked something according to your oral tradition and I in turn asked according to your words how you could mean it in light of what was written to Theophilus in #94 and I didnt see an answer, not that I expect one.

I dont come here to converse with Romans


Gibberish. You don't want to answer the question because of where it leads.

You know as well as I do that most of what Jesus did and said is not recorded in scripture.

In fact, Jesus didn't write a single word of it. He built a Church. He gave his Church his authority to teach and to forgive sins. He told the rest of us to listen to the Church.
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,263
4,084
The South
✟114,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This

Gibberish.

And this

You don't want to answer the question because of where it leads.

Both of which could be quoted to you since I put the verse you pulled out into its context of Luke having written to Theophilus these things, and you began being insultive

Which we can expect here.

In fact, Jesus didn't write a single word of it.

I am an Ex Roman, and Jesus never holding a pencil doesn't mean anything to me.

Given the Jews held the writing instruments long before anyone else, and it really mattered nothing at all on their part.

He built a Church.

Never said otherwise

He gave his Church his authority to teach and to forgive sins.

Never said otherwise.

He told the rest of us to listen to the Church

I often listen to the body of Christ when they speak, but some are full of crap too.

Would love to continue in this contentious back and forth (but not really) I prefer not to engage with Romans any longer (which is why I adressed Jason from the start) and confirmed rather than take up being contentious.

This is my last response to your strife
 
Upvote 0

Wolf_Says

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2016
644
323
USA
✟23,012.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Would love to continue in this contentious back and forth (but not really) I prefer not to engage with Romans any longer (which is why I adressed Jason from the start) and confirmed rather than take up being contentious.


As if we are some sort of disease......

Listen Fire, if you are an "ex roman" as you claim, then 1) I am sorry, and 2) don't cram yourself into an echo chamber. Which is what it sounds like you are doing. If you don't wish to engage with people who have opposing viewpoints, and just engage with people who share your opinions, then you are only hurting yourself by placing yourself in an echo chamber.

However, its up to you whether or not you choose to engage.

As for Jason, he stopped responding after what...? page 4? So this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere as of right now.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,263
4,084
The South
✟114,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you don't wish to engage with people who have opposing viewpoints, and just engage with people who share your opinions, then you are only hurting yourself by placing yourself in an echo chamber.

You seem new, but maybe not, what a fitting screen name.

I will adress you just once according to your assumptions. Leaving off all contentions with Romans is not living in an echo chamber. Having differences of opinions don't begin and end with the Roman sect. I converse with many others with whom I differ, not to mention (even as I have shared before) both sides of my family are of the Roman sect so there is no imaginary echo chamber.

Besides, this topic has already been through many of the same "back and forths" (and many times even) over a period of many years alongside of various sects, the Roman sect included. So not desiring to go back and forth wrangling with such beating the dead horses and wanting to exchange insults doesnt default one into an echo chamber.

And you probably wouldnt be unaware of this (unless you did a search) of the history's of engaging with your sect (even on the topic of traditions, which is partially the topic of this thread). You might (or might not) be aware of the endless strifes with your sect which one might want to step back from (see the futility of even "going there"). You might also be unaware that after so long a time someone could have came to this decision, had given it some thought already. Perhaps even after some private discussion with the boards Administration concerning the best route to take while comingling on a board with this particular sect which (at the time) was becoming a constant dripping (which hasnt seemed to change).

However, its up to you whether or not you choose to engage.

I do agee here, so from hereon out I would prefer to affirm things I am looking at in the scriptures without engaging with certain here (just pass them by). Because after 11 years of posting here one can pretty much get a feeling of how engaging with the same sect will go (nowhere). Its all Wrangling about their own relevance (their own trueness) wash rinse and repeat.

Since you seem new here (unless you have changed your screen name) I wanted to be fair and adress you once. This will be my first and last response to you. I also wanted to because this is how it goes (one leaves off another comes in, and it can drone on and on) and so I needed something to be able to link back to if I was intruded upon again about it.

My apologies to Jason
 
Upvote 0

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
43
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
You seem new, but maybe not, what a fitting screen name.

I will adress you just once according to your assumptions. Leaving off all contentions with Romans is not living in an echo chamber. Having differences of opinions don't begin and end with the Roman sect. I converse with many others with whom I differ, not to mention (even as I have shared before) both sides of my family are of the Roman sect so there is no imaginary echo chamber.

Besides, this topic has already been through many of the same "back and forths" (and many times even) over a period of many years alongside of various sects, the Roman sect included. So not desiring to go back and forth wrangling with such beating the dead horses and wanting to exchange insults doesnt default one into an echo chamber.

And you probably wouldnt be unaware of this (unless you did a search) of the history's of engaging with your sect (even on the topic of traditions, which is partially the topic of this thread). You might (or might not) be aware of the endless strifes with your sect which one might want to step back from (see the futility of even "going there"). You might also be unaware that after so long a time someone could have came to this decision, had given it some thought already. Perhaps even after some private discussion with the boards Administration concerning the best route to take while comingling on a board with this particular sect which (at the time) was becoming a constant dripping (which hasnt seemed to change).



I do agee here, so from hereon out I would prefer to affirm things I am looking at in the scriptures without engaging with certain here (just pass them by). Because after 11 years of posting here one can pretty much get a feeling of how engaging with the same sect will go (nowhere). Its all Wrangling about their own relevance (their own trueness) wash rinse and repeat.

Since you seem new here (unless you have changed your screen name) I wanted to be fair and adress you once. This will be my first and last response to you. I also wanted to because this is how it goes (one leaves off another comes in, and it can drone on and on) and so I needed something to be able to link back to if I was intruded upon again about it.

My apologies to Jason

Two thoughts:

1. The use of "the Roman sect" might come across as slightly insensitive to Arabic-speaking Greek Orthodox Christians from Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and so on, who ethnically identify as Rum, meaning Roman, from the Greek Romiiioi, but who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church or any Eastern Catholic church.

2. You may enjoy the use of some of the Congregational forums which align with your theological POV. GT facilitates dialogue with Christians of alternative perspectives.
 
Upvote 0

Wolf_Says

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2016
644
323
USA
✟23,012.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You seem new, but maybe not, what a fitting screen name.

I will adress you just once according to your assumptions. Leaving off all contentions with Romans is not living in an echo chamber. Having differences of opinions don't begin and end with the Roman sect. I converse with many others with whom I differ, not to mention (even as I have shared before) both sides of my family are of the Roman sect so there is no imaginary echo chamber.

Besides, this topic has already been through many of the same "back and forths" (and many times even) over a period of many years alongside of various sects, the Roman sect included. So not desiring to go back and forth wrangling with such beating the dead horses and wanting to exchange insults doesnt default one into an echo chamber.

And you probably wouldnt be unaware of this (unless you did a search) of the history's of engaging with your sect (even on the topic of traditions, which is partially the topic of this thread). You might (or might not) be aware of the endless strifes with your sect which one might want to step back from (see the futility of even "going there"). You might also be unaware that after so long a time someone could have came to this decision, had given it some thought already. Perhaps even after some private discussion with the boards Administration concerning the best route to take while comingling on a board with this particular sect which (at the time) was becoming a constant dripping (which hasnt seemed to change).



I do agee here, so from hereon out I would prefer to affirm things I am looking at in the scriptures without engaging with certain here (just pass them by). Because after 11 years of posting here one can pretty much get a feeling of how engaging with the same sect will go (nowhere). Its all Wrangling about their own relevance (their own trueness) wash rinse and repeat.

Since you seem new here (unless you have changed your screen name) I wanted to be fair and adress you once. This will be my first and last response to you. I also wanted to because this is how it goes (one leaves off another comes in, and it can drone on and on) and so I needed something to be able to link back to if I was intruded upon again about it.

My apologies to Jason

Um sorry, new to the forum or new to the thread? Also why does everybody say that about my name? I thought it sounded cool! :/

Anyway, no I am not new, been here since August. Maybe that is still new to some people, but its all subjective.

Also, please stop sounding as though Catholics are a disease or "cult" (which is what is infered by sect). Clearly you dont fully understand the Bible, or are/were confused as to what the Catholic faith teaches. Which is fine, there are people here who can help you out!

Clearly you seem hateful though, which is something I have never understood from people who leave Catholicism, why are you so angry...? People who leave their faith and join Catholicism hardly ever seem angry about their past faith, rather they seem to be thankful to it.

Idk, just something I have noticed.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
2 Thessalonians 2:15 is the banner flag verse for the Roman Catholic (RCC) and Orthodox churches to support their view on holding to church tradition. Of the occurences of the word "traditions" only 3 are used in reference to God's people. The 10 other occurences of the word "traditions" is used in a negative sense. Also, Jesus followers and Paul were making sacred Scripture that would end with John's vision that he had written down. For if we are to add to the words of the prophecy of John's book (Which is the end of the Bible), then we would be at risk of adding plagues to ourselves that would be contained within the Bible itself (Revelation 22:18-19).
John is speaking not of the Bible itself, but of this particular book. He also says, it his Gospel that all the books in the world could not contain what Jesus did while on this earth. Secondly, we don't add words to anything. Our Traditions, though, are found in writings such as the Didache. Thirdly, answer this question: When was the canon of Scripture determined, and by whom? *Hint-the table of contents of the Bible is part of Sacred Tradition.
Remember, Paul says if any man speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness, he is proud and knows nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4).
Yes, name a doctrine that is contrary to the words of Jesus, when taken in proper context...
Paul also says that what he had written should be regarded as the Commandments from the LORD (1 Corinthians 14:37). The books written by Paul clearly show that they are just as divine as the rest of the book in the Bible. They breath in perfect harmony with the whole Bible.
What Bible was there when Paul wrote his letters? (This is not to suggest that his writings aren't in harmony, but I know lots of people who think Paul's writings shouldn't be considered Scripture.
Also, the spoken word was always confirmed by the written Word.
And so it is. No Tradition is contradictory to anything in the Written Word of God.
For the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not (Acts 17:11). So it always comes back to the written Word of God. No other holy book besides the Bible stands the test like the Bible. A person may make the claim that their additional holy writings are divine, but they cannot be verified as being true in the same way as the Bible. Evidences of all kind supports the Bible. But this is not the case for any other holy book or writings. In fact, the Mormons have their extra book. Jehovah's Witnesses have their extra writings. The Muslims have their extra written words. Does that mean everyone is correct?
No, only those inspired and protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit.
Anyways, may God bless you all.
And may His love shine upon you.
For I do not wish ill will upon anyone but I am wishing nothing but good things to you all in Christ Jesus.

Peace be unto you.

Note: This thread was started as a reply to a certain post from another CF writer in another thread.





Yes, this actually proves my case and not yours. You believe you need the church or men in order to understand God's Word. You believe you need those extra writings. God's Word is sufficient all on it's own. But again, the Bible shows us that we do not ultimately need man for God to teach us. How so? The Bible says,
We agree that God's word is sufficient on it's own. What we disagree on is what constitutes God's Word.
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him" (1 John 2:27).


...
John was writing as a bishop to his congregation. The purpose of the letter is to combat certain false ideas, especially about Jesus, and to deepen the spiritual and social awareness of the Christian community (1 Jn 3:17). Some former members (1 Jn 2:19) of the community refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ (1 Jn 2:22) and denied that he was a true man (1 Jn 4:2). The specific heresy described in this letter cannot be identified exactly, but it is a form of docetism or gnosticism; the former doctrine denied the humanity of Christ to insure that his divinity was untainted, and the latter viewed the appearance of Christ as a mere stepping-stone to higher knowledge of God. These theological errors are rejected by an appeal to the reality and continuity of the apostolic witness to Jesus. The author affirms that authentic Christian love, ethics, and faith take place only within the historical revelation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The fullness of Christian life as fellowship with the Father must be based on true belief and result in charitable living; knowledge of God and love for one another are inseparable, and error in one area inevitably affects the other. Although the author recognizes that Christian doctrine presents intangible mysteries of faith about Christ, he insists that the concrete Christian life brings to light the deeper realities of the gospel.
In 1 John 2: 27, John is speaking to his followers whom he has catechized, and he knows what he's taught them, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
My brief bio in every post says I am Non-Denominational. So I am not Protestant. I do not believe in OSAS or Once Saved Always Saved; For Luther was promoting what we would call OSAS today when he protested against the Catholic church. Most of the Protestant churches today still believe in OSAS. But it is a teaching not found within the Scriptures, though.

As for Catholic traditions: You will not see the following practices clearly described to us in the New Testament.

(a) Salvation in Mary
We don't believe that Mary saves by her self.
(b) Praying to dead saints
We don't pray to the dead.
(c) Eucharist salvation
When you mutter slogans, you miss the point. Jesus alone saves by His own actions and sayings.
(d) Bowing down and the kissing of statues
Where does the Bible prohibit this? Or is it your own interpretation of those actions that you're condemning?
(e) Confessional
In Matthew, does not Jesus tell us that if a sinner doesn't repent on his own, that we must tell it to the Church? Also what do you make of "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained"?
(f) Calling men your father
This is not something Jesus is against. Again, context.
(g) Holy garments and rituals with candles, etc.
How does this contradict the Bible?
(h) Lifting up of one man as if he is more holy than other people
Who does this?
(I) Large expensive church building and the hoarding of earthly treasures.
The Temple in Jerusalem was one of the most expensive buildings in history. Who hoards earthly treasures?
(j) A pope like leader (whereby crowds of people adore him).
Um, Peter? While it is true that Peter wasn't a ruler, that the role of the Pope evolved, especially when Constantine left Rome to be ruled by the Church, how does it contradict the Bible?
Also, the word "traditions" mentioned in the Bible is primarily negative with it's use (i.e. 10 times the word is negative). Only 3 times is the word "traditons" used favorably but it was not something in reference to a whole new teaching outside of God's Word. Acts 17:11 says that the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things "spoken" were true or not.

Are you a Berean?
Have you searched the Scriptures to see if the above list of things is clearly found within the Scriptures?

Anyways, if you don't get it, that's okay.
I am moving on.
But I will be praying for everyone to see what God has shown to me on this matter.


...
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Again, Luther is the founder of the Protestant Church we have today. Without Luther, the Protestant church would not exist. Seeing I do not believe Luther's teaching on salvation, I am not a Protestant. Yes, Non-denominational churches may share similar other doctrines with Protestants, but that does not mean they are the same church. But go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe.



Vatican 2 says: "Mary, the Mother of God…is united with indissoluble bonds to the saving work of her Son."
Notice that her son's doing the saving?
The RCC weekly family newspaper, In a September 12, 1993 article on Mary says: "Sprinkled throughout the Catholic liturgical year are feasts celebrating the Blessed Virgin Mary's role in human salvation and how she continues to intercede for people at God's right hand."
Her role in salvation history is that she bore Jesus in her womb and raised him.
Yet, there is nothing about Mary playing any role or part in salvation according to the Bible.
There is nothing infallible about a weekly family newspaper, though.
No. Nowhere does that verse or any other verse support the idea that we can contact or pray to the dead. In fact, Necromancy or contacting the dead was strictly forbidden in the Old Testament and it was associated with sorcery (See Revelation 21:8 on sorcery).
We don't pray to the dead, nor is that Church teaching.
No. A few verses are taken out of context to make a method of salvation out of the Lord's supper mentioned in the Bible. The passages on the Lord's supper reads more naturaly with the bread and the wine being metaphorical. Besides, if it was literal and for salvation, would you not think that such a thing would be clearly spelled out for us in God's Word (with no mistake about it)? Why would a process of salvation be so mysterious? It doesn't make any sense.
Actually not. The entire Bible, including where Jesus was born, points to the Eucharist.
These were things that had only a temporary purpose or use. The bronze snake and the Ark are not still used by God's people today. They were short term in their use and sanctioned directly by God Himself. Also, the snake on a pole that Moses had was later wrongfully worshiped as an idol (2 Kings 18:4).
All things on earth are temporary, so what. God commanded that they be fashioned and used for a purpose. While it is true that people sometimes wrongfully worship earthly things, that doesn't make the item an idol. We talk about people worshiping the almighty dollar, and in that case, it becomes an idol, but those of us who do not worship the dollar do not hold idols in our wallet. It's the act of worship that makes something an idol.
I mean, why would God say, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:4) ?

Where in God's Word are statues of saints and Mary allowed?
Where does God's Word say we can bow down to these statues?
Where does God's word specifically prohibit the making of statues of saints and Mary, and where does it say we must not bow to them. Bowing down in worship is different in intent than merely bowing to a statue which represents someone we believe is in heaven...
Philippians 2:22, says, " But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel."

Here we see that Paul is calling his relationship with Timothy as being like a father and son type relationship. Paul said about Timothy.... "AS a son with the father." In other words, Paul is making a comparison or parallel and he is not telling Timothy or the the Philippians that he should be called "father." He is merely describing their relationship in what it is like.
Saying that he is Timothy's father...
What about 1 Corinthians 4:15?

Well, 1 Corinthians 4:15 says,
"For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"

Here we see Paul implying he is like a father to the Corinthians because he has begotten them thru the gospel. Paul is merely making a comparison again and he is not saying that they should call him their (spiritual) "father." Paul does not say, "from now on, call me your spiritual father because I have begotten you thru the gospel."
Still makes himself their father. The point of Jesus admonition to the Pharisees was to not look to place themselves above everyone else, widening their phylacteries and lengthening their tassles.
Paul doesn't say anything like that.
Paul is merely pointing out that the Corinthians now have someone like a father figure to look after them because he has begotten thru the gospel.

So Jesus's command in not calling any man father (in the spiritual sense) still applies. Paul was merely making a parallel to the brethren of how he was like a father figure to the Corinthians and to Timothy. Paul was not declaring that he should be called "father."

That is something that you have to add to the Bible that is not there.

Jesus's words still apply. Jesus still means what He said. Jesus says, not to call anyone father (as a religious title). Paul is not commanding anyone to call him "father." He is merely making parallels or comparisons of his relationships. There is a difference.

For example: I can say I am like a king because of my association with Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:6), but that does not mean I desire that people call me "King Jason."



But we are under the New Testament and not the Old Testament.



No. Cathedrals are designed as a seat for the bishop and as a part of gathering. The extensive expense on them goes against the words of Jesus that says we are to put our treasures in heaven and not here upon this Earth.

Also, where do we see Cathedrals being commanded by God for us to build within the New Testament?


...
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
While I appreciate your effort in trying to show me, God has talked to my heart to be silent for now here on this issue.

I will stick my passion of fighting against OSAS for now.

May God bless you all.
And may you all please be well.


...
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
While I appreciate your effort in trying to show me, God has talked to my heart to be silent for now here on this issue.

I will stick my passion of fighting against OSAS for now.

May God bless you all.
And may you all please be well.


...
I appreciate that fight against OSAS.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
For the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not (Acts 17:11).
The Bereans were noble because they were NOT LIKE THE THESSALONIANS. Although Scripture doesn't record it, all Jews compare new teachings with Torah, and that would have to include the Thessalonians. The difference between the Thessalonians and the Bereans is that the Thessalonians drove Paul out of town and the Bereans were open to his teaching and treated him hospitably.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Jesus himself taught his followers to follow tradition in Matthew 23:2-3, tellling them the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses (that they are the currect judges) and therefore do and observe ALL that they teach (just don't do what they do since they are hypocrites). ALL includes the Oral Torah (tradition).

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus exhorts the Pharisees to obey both the rudiments of the Torah (justice, mercy) AND the particulars of the Oral Torah (the spice tax).
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Jesus himself taught his followers to follow tradition in Matthew 23:2-3, tellling them the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses (that they are the currect judges) and therefore do and observe ALL that they teach (just don't do what they do since they are hypocrites). ALL includes the Oral Torah (tradition).

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus exhorts the Pharisees to obey both the rudiments of the Torah (justice, mercy) AND the particulars of the Oral Torah (the spice tax).

Sorry, I just do not see the extra traditions from the RCC fit the Bible.

#1. The Word of God is my sole authority on spiritual matters.
I am solidly convinced by 8 points in God's Word on Sola Scriptura (of which you can find here and here).

#2. I do not believe any of the extra practices or traditions by the RCC are biblical.

#3. Even if these extra traditions were biblical, I do not see any of them mentioned in God's Word (Not even a little bit).

#4. There are other points I could bring up, but I am not allowed to speak the whole truth about my opinion on a particular church or religion here.​

In other words, my hands are tied. So it is best we agree to disagree and move on. I am content to pick and choose my battles; And I have picked to fight against OSAS along time ago.

Anyways, I hope you understand that I do not want to debate this with you
(Because the debate is not fair in my opinion).

May God bless you.
And please be well.


...
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
I wanted to reply, though I know that you will probably not respond to this. You MAY debate any Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church in CF -- I don't know where you got the idea otherwise. You just can't attack the Catholic Church. Just as I can debate Sola Scriptura so long as I don't attack Protestant churches.

#1. The Word of God is my sole authority on spiritual matters.
I am solidly convinced by 8 points in God's Word on Sola Scriptura (of which you can find here and here).​
I'm sorry, but I don't reply to links. If you want me to reply to a point, you'll have to make it in your post. Thanks!


#2. I do not believe any of the extra practices or traditions by the RCC are biblical.
All that is needed is for scripture not to contradict a Sacred Tradition. And such is the case. I realize you may disagree with that, but this is because you INTERPRET the Bible differently than Catholics, not because Catholics don't hold to the Bible. Can you give me your best example of a Sacred Tradition that is contradicted by Scripture? (I'm assuming it's not something that is Nicene.)

#3. Even if these extra traditions were biblical, I do not see any of them mentioned in God's Word (Not even a little bit).
Most Sacred Tradition IS alluded to in Scripture, but simply doesn't have the fullness of revelation that the Church gives it. For example, in Luke 1:28, it says, "Hail Mary, full of grace" (or some translations read "highly favored daughter). The Greek word there for full of grace/ highly favored is Kecharitomene. I have bolded the root word, which is Charis -- it means GRACE. In Catholic reasoning, Mary could not have been "full of Grace" if she were full of sin.

#4. There are other points I could bring up, but I am not allowed to speak the whole truth about my opinion on a particular church or religion here.
You can debate any Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church so long as you don't attack the Catholic Church itself, and as long as you are not challenging Nicene Christianity.

You of course have the option not to answer this post. I will fully understand.​
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I wanted to reply, though I know that you will probably not respond to this. You MAY debate any Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church in CF -- I don't know where you got the idea otherwise. You just can't attack the Catholic Church. Just as I can debate Sola Scriptura so long as I don't attack Protestant churches.


I'm sorry, but I don't reply to links. If you want me to reply to a point, you'll have to make it in your post. Thanks!


All that is needed is for scripture not to contradict a Sacred Tradition. And such is the case. I realize you may disagree with that, but this is because you INTERPRET the Bible differently than Catholics, not because Catholics don't hold to the Bible. Can you give me your best example of a Sacred Tradition that is contradicted by Scripture? (I'm assuming it's not something that is Nicene.)

Most Sacred Tradition IS alluded to in Scripture, but simply doesn't have the fullness of revelation that the Church gives it. For example, in Luke 1:28, it says, "Hail Mary, full of grace" (or some translations read "highly favored daughter). The Greek word there for full of grace/ highly favored is Kecharitomene. I have bolded the root word, which is Charis -- it means GRACE. In Catholic reasoning, Mary could not have been "full of Grace" if she were full of sin.

You can debate any Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church so long as you don't attack the Catholic Church itself, and as long as you are not challenging Nicene Christianity.

You of course have the option not to answer this post. I will fully understand.​

Let's just agree to disagree. I think that is best. For it is hard for me at this point not to separate the two things you are talking about. For me, I think there are certain things I see and I have to speak the truth on it entirely (And I cannot hold back). Why? Because I am passionate for the truth of God's Word.


...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Let's just agree to disagree. I think that is best. For it is hard for me at this point not to separate the two things you are talking about. For me, I think there are certain things I see and I have to speak the truth on it entirely (And I cannot hold back). Why? Because I am passionate for the truth of God's Word.


...
No problem Jason. Go with God.
 
Upvote 0