If Protestantism is true, why they are not united? (2)

[MoreCoffee]

If negatively charged particles are true, why are they not united?

If positively charged particles are true, why are they not united?

If Batman and Superman fight for truth and justice, why are they not united?

Arrrrrrrrrrrr me arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrties, 'e be writen words aint got no sense in 'em

 

[sculleywr]

If negatively charged particles are true, why are they not united? If positively charged particles are true, why are they not united? If Batman and Superman fight for truth and justice, why are they not united?

I give you the nucleus, where positively charged particles are held together thanks to gluons.

Quantum physics, messing with people's heads since the 1940's

 

[Albion]

Well, that's the challenge. How do we know the difference?

We know the difference because they are different concepts, although theologians have borrowed the name of one and affixed it to the other...in order to suggest that their religious innovations actually do have a track record. If they had called the collection of opinions that we know as "Tradition" something else--"prophesy," for example--would that make it actually divine revelation? I'd hope we would know the difference, despite the name similarity.

l know For my part, since we do not know oral tradition from Paul's time and we don't view his comment as a bishopric blank check, what are we left with?

Yes, but you are working on two things at once here.

First, there is the question of whether or not the collection of opinions, legends, and folklore that is called "Holy Tradition," "Sacred Tradition," or just "Tradition" actually has the "paper trail" that is claimed for it and which is necessary for it to be genuine. For most doctrines that are based upon "Tradition" that continuity that is so essential and is alleged by Catholics is actually lacking. What exists are snippets from here and there, from one "Early Church Father" or another, and often from men who are separated by many years. There is no continuity, and so the claims are false.

Second, However, even if doctrine X could be shown to have been taught by the whole church, continuously since the Apostles, the next question arises. DOES that make it somehow a second stream of Divine Revelation (alongside Scripture)?

NO! Of course not. What it makes such ideas is custom at best. And it's usually not even that.

Scripture of course, but how about scripture first, then tradition?

The prioritizing makes sense, but my point is that there is no reason to include "Tradition" in any case.

It doesn't follow its own rules (continuity, whole church, Apostolic) and even if it did, we have no warrant whatsoever to follow it. The idea that there is some hand of God in the legends and customs of Christians through the years, that this thing defines doctrine and is infallible, is completely illogical as well as unscriptural. It's carefully-manufactured nonsense that has no more credibility than saying that the Angel Moroni wrote Scripture on plates of gold and hid them in New York.

Sculleywr will say scripture came from tradition.

He's wrong. Worse, he's playing a trick on you with wording--or doesn't understand the concept that is Tradition himself. "Tradition" that defines doctrine is NOT the same as "traditions." What's more, he has no evidence whatsoever for the claims of the Apostles having taught the ideas that are claimed. You've made that point yourself, but it's only a part of the deception.

So what? Again, that is not to open the door to some bishop blank check.

Personally, I think you damage your own argument by constantly harping on your own ideas about the history of the episcopate.

Right or wrong, it diverts attention from the real problems, which are that 1) Tradition is a myth, and 2) there's no reason to think "it" is Divine Revelation anyway.

 

[Standing Up]

We know the difference because they are different concepts, although theologians have borrowed the name of one and affixed it to the other...in order to suggest that their religious innovations actually do have a track record. If they had called the collection of opinions that we know as "Tradition" something else--"prophesy," for example--would that make it actually divine revelation? I'd hope we would know the difference, despite the name similarity.



Yes, but you are working on two things at once here.

First, there is the question of whether or not the collection of opinions, legends, and folklore that is called "Holy Tradition," "Sacred Tradition," or just "Tradition" actually has the "paper trail" that is claimed for it and which is necessary for it to be genuine. For most doctrines that are based upon "Tradition" that continuity that is so essential and is alleged by Catholics is actually lacking. What exists are snippets from here and there, from one "Early Church Father" or another, and often from men who are separated by many years. There is no continuity, and so the claims are false.

It's been established that Tradition does not have a paper trail back to apostles.

The retort was that neither does Scripture.

Second, However, even if doctrine X could be shown to have been taught by the whole church, continuously since the Apostles, the next question arises. DOES that make it somehow a second stream of Divine Revelation (alongside Scripture)?

NO! Of course not. What it makes such ideas is custom at best. And it's usually not even that.

The honest argument usually turns from "correct we can't prove it" to "we have a lineage of honest bishops" (which we can't really prove anyway, but we'll go with this anyway).

The prioritizing makes sense, but my point is that there is no reason to include "Tradition" in any case.

Right. I use the word "T(t)radition" differently. But I still like the idea of finding doctrine in scripture and then finding actual early Christians who also believed as I do (for example, no ever-virgin; or eucharist as remembrance only).

It doesn't follow its own rules (continuity, whole church, Apostolic) and even if it did, we have no warrant whatsoever to follow it. The idea that there is some hand of God in the legends and customs of Christians through the years, that this thing defines doctrine and is infallible, is completely illogical as well as unscriptural. It's carefully-manufactured nonsense that has no more credibility than saying that the Angel Moroni wrote Scripture on plates of gold and hid them in New York.


He's wrong. Worse, he's playing a trick on you with wording--or doesn't understand the concept that is Tradition himself. "Tradition" that defines doctrine is NOT the same as "traditions." What's more, he has no evidence whatsoever for the claims of the Apostles having taught the ideas that are claimed. You've made that point yourself, but it's only a part of the deception.


Personally, I think you damage your own argument by constantly harping on your own ideas about the history of the episcopate.

Right or wrong, it diverts attention from the real problems, which are that 1) Tradition is a myth, and 2) there's no reason to think "it" is Divine Revelation anyway.

Well, hopefully with my comment above, you'll understand the reason for "harping" on it. As I've mentioned, we know the definition of Apostolic Succession changed from the Pauline "teach the same" to the "lineage of bishops".

 

[Albion]

It's been established that Tradition does not have a paper trail back to apostles.

Agreed.

The retort was that neither does Scripture.

You can say that, but it's no argument in favor of "Tradition."

The honest argument usually turns from "correct we can't prove it" to "we have a lineage of honest bishops" (which we can't really prove anyway, but we'll go with this anyway).

and there's no connection between the two, so this is another off-the-subject issue.

Right. I use the word "T(t)radition" differently. But I still like the idea of finding doctrine in scripture and then finding actual early Christians who also believed as I do (for example, no ever-virgin; or eucharist as remembrance only).

Well, a case can be made AGAINST "Holy Tradition" in that way, if the continuity or antiquity of doctrine X is lacking. But we cannot make a case FOR most of these doctrines that are attributed to Tradition...and that's the bigger point IMO.

Well, hopefully with my comment above, you'll understand the reason for "harping" on it.

No, it's a detour. Whether or not your thinking on that matter (the bishops) is correct, it doesn't affect the validity of "Tradition" or any doctrine allegedly based on "Tradition" except very incidentally (Did the bishops go for it?). The rightness or wrongness of using scattered opinions and legends AND THEN attributing that to God is invalid whether or not it was facilitated by bishops and whether or not they subscribed to the idea of Apostolic Succession.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Doctrinal disunity within Protestantism implies error in all but one set of doctrines and probably in all.

 

[sculleywr]

We know the difference because they are different concepts, although theologians have borrowed the name of one and affixed it to the other...in order to suggest that their religious innovations actually do have a track record. If they had called the collection of opinions that we know as "Tradition" something else--"prophesy," for example--would that make it actually divine revelation? I'd hope we would know the difference, despite the name similarity. Yes, but you are working on two things at once here. First, there is the question of whether or not the collection of opinions, legends, and folklore that is called "Holy Tradition," "Sacred Tradition," or just "Tradition" actually has the "paper trail" that is claimed for it and which is necessary for it to be genuine. For most doctrines that are based upon "Tradition" that continuity that is so essential and is alleged by Catholics is actually lacking. What exists are snippets from here and there, from one "Early Church Father" or another, and often from men who are separated by many years. There is no continuity, and so the claims are false. Second, However, even if doctrine X could be shown to have been taught by the whole church, continuously since the Apostles, the next question arises. DOES that make it somehow a second stream of Divine Revelation (alongside Scripture)? NO! Of course not. What it makes such ideas is custom at best. And it's usually not even that. The prioritizing makes sense, but my point is that there is no reason to include "Tradition" in any case. It doesn't follow its own rules (continuity, whole church, Apostolic) and even if it did, we have no warrant whatsoever to follow it. The idea that there is some hand of God in the legends and customs of Christians through the years, that this thing defines doctrine and is infallible, is completely illogical as well as unscriptural. It's carefully-manufactured nonsense that has no more credibility than saying that the Angel Moroni wrote Scripture on plates of gold and hid them in New York. He's wrong. Worse, he's playing a trick on you with wording--or doesn't understand the concept that is Tradition himself. "Tradition" that defines doctrine is NOT the same as "traditions." What's more, he has no evidence whatsoever for the claims of the Apostles having taught the ideas that are claimed. You've made that point yourself, but it's only a part of the deception. Personally, I think you damage your own argument by constantly harping on your own ideas about the history of the episcopate. Right or wrong, it diverts attention from the real problems, which are that 1) Tradition is a myth, and 2) there's no reason to think "it" is Divine Revelation anyway.

Albion, the accusation that I am playing a trick is ridiculous. Beside that, it is not a trick, it is something taught long before The Solas.

 

[Standing Up]

Doctrinal disunity within Protestantism implies error in all but one set of doctrines and probably in all.

We all know EO OO and P all disagree with RC about their pope's role, implying error on one side. But could you be so kind as to lay out a few Protestant doctrines that are opposed to each other? Like this:

RC and papal role. Everyone else disagree.

Lutheran and XYZ. Baptist disagree.

etc.

 

[Standing Up]

Agreed.


You can say that, but it's no argument in favor of "Tradition."


and there's no connection between the two, so this is another off-the-subject issue.


Well, a case can be made AGAINST "Holy Tradition" in that way, if the continuity or antiquity of doctrine X is lacking. But we cannot make a case FOR most of these doctrines that are attributed to Tradition...and that's the bigger point IMO.


No, it's a detour. Whether or not your thinking on that matter (the bishops) is correct, it doesn't affect the validity of "Tradition" or any doctrine allegedly based on "Tradition" except very incidentally (Did the bishops go for it?). The rightness or wrongness of using scattered opinions and legends AND THEN attributing that to God is invalid whether or not it was facilitated by bishops and whether or not they subscribed to the idea of Apostolic Succession.

That (bishop councils), however, is the justification for Tradition. Recall how some trot out the verses.

"if you hear them, you hear Me"

"where the bishop is found, there you find Christ"

"abide tradition whether spoken or written"

Spoken by whom? Not apostles, but their successors.

Bishops of oral Traditions who thought they established doctrine on par with doctrine derived from God's word, must have thought they were enabled.

I just don't see the early church ever supporting oral tradition that came after apostles or didn't derive from apostles. Yet we find bishops doing it throughout history and passing off their right to do so.

 

[sculleywr]

That (bishop councils), however, is the justification for Tradition. Recall how some trot out the verses. "if you hear them, you hear Me" "where the bishop is found, there you find Christ" "abide tradition whether spoken or written" Spoken by whom? Not apostles, but their successors. Bishops of oral Traditions who thought they established doctrine on par with doctrine derived from God's word, must have thought they were enabled. I just don't see the early church ever supporting oral tradition that came after apostles or didn't derive from apostles. Yet we find bishops doing it throughout history and passing off their right to do so.

you trust them for your canon but not your doctrine.

 

[Harbingr]

Doctrinal disunity within Protestantism implies error in all but one set of doctrines and probably in all.

My heart goes out to Lutherans, they are so close and yet so far away.

 

[Albion]

My heart goes out to Lutherans, they are so close and yet so far away.

A lot of them feel the same way about you--at least from what I have experienced.

 

[Albion]

That (bishop councils), however, is the justification for Tradition. Recall how some trot out the verses.

"if you hear them, you hear Me"

"where the bishop is found, there you find Christ"

"abide tradition whether spoken or written"

Spoken by whom? Not apostles, but their successors.

But it's not as though bishops ran around making up doctrine and saying that they had the right to do so, thanks to Apostolic Succession.

A.S., is not about decreeing doctrines; it's about proper administration in the church and the validity of the sacraments. Notice that none of the above quotations which refer to bishops refer to them in connection with making new doctrines. You've got to deal with the claims made for "Tradition" if you want to deal with unscriptural doctrine. Even when Papal Infallibility was decreed by a non-canonical council, it was said that this was correct since "Tradition" had already decided it. That wasn't true, of course, but you have to see that a mythical "Tradition" is what all this hangs on. It's a blank check for inventing almost any new doctrine.

Bishops of oral Traditions who thought they established doctrine on par with doctrine derived from God's word, must have thought they were enabled.

Wrong. You are on the wrong path there. "Tradition" (not tradition) stands on its own in the minds of the Catholic apologists. To attack the leadership of the church instead of the theory that produces new doctrine would be like them attacking Luther or Calvin when evaluating reformed doctrine while not attributing any Protestant doctrine to (an interpretation of) the Bible.

I just don't see the early church ever supporting oral tradition that came after apostles or didn't derive from apostles.

I agree. That's correct.

Yet we find bishops doing it throughout history and passing off their right to do so.

'
No, we do not. It's "Tradition" that supposedly operated on its own at God's direction that is theoretically the reason these doctrines exist.

As for the councils, yes, they were populated by bishops, but the decrees of the councils were mainly correct and Biblical or else they dealt with non-doctrinal matters. The majority of non-Biblical doctrines--the Marian ones we've been talking about, for instance--are not related to the councils but have been adopted because Tradition has already decreed that they were the faith of the church (according to the theory, that is).

 

[MoreCoffee]

Any luck in choosing the doctrines that are essential for salvation?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Any luck in choosing the doctrines that are essential for salvation?

Why not discuss that on this other thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7558583/
What are the 'essentials'?

Is unity of the body of Christ defined by sharing the 'essentials', and if so, what are these 'essentials'?

.

1. Define "unity."

2. IF you mean DOCTRINAL agreement, then I remind you of the obvious and undeniable, NEVER have ALL Christians agreed with ALL Christians on ALL matters. I've never met two Catholics that did - ever; I doubt such exists (or ever has). The RCC itself allows a wide range of views and practices on MANY things - fully embracing diversity and a LACK of agreement.

3. What DOCTRINES are and are not essential to our future in heaven has ALWAYS been a difficult issue - often not fully addressed ANYWHERE. A denomination may insist that full agreement with a specific statement (and the language thereof) is necessary for MEMBERSHIP in the denomination, rarely does that denomination specificly state that a different expression of such ERGO sends one to hell. It is POSSIBLE that the Apostles and Nicene Creeds were both early attempts to express what is NEEDED in this sense, but was that for salvation or just for embrace to Baptism (the Apostles) or the Eucharist (Nicene)? No one seems to know....

4. I - for one - would not wish to equate cognative embrace of certain verbage with the salvation of souls. That is NOT an embrace of relativism or minimalism or that doctrine doesn't matter; it IS an embrace that we are justified by God's grace through the work of Christ alone embraced by faith - NOT by intellectual, cognative "agreement" with certain verbage.

That's my perspective....

Pax

.

 

[Harbingr]

A lot of them feel the same way about you--at least from what I have experienced.

If they accept the dogmas of Mary, I'm sure the Church would consider full communion regardless of the fact they are against faith and works.

 

[Albion]

If they accept the dogmas of Mary, I'm sure the Church would consider full communion regardless of the fact they are against faith and works.

I doubt it, but that proviso is certainly a non-starter. Lutherans are very big on using Scripture to determine doctrine, you know.

 

[Harbingr]

I doubt it, but that proviso is certainly a non-starter. Lutherans are very big on using Scripture to determine doctrine, you know.

I tend not to think so to the extent that even if it's not written, it may still be true. Sola Scriptura simply means that one uses scripture as a basis to determine what and what isn't true.

The Church is in perfect harmony with scripture- many just refuse it, taking a solo scriptura stance.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I tend not to think so to the extent that even if it's not written, it may still be true. Sola Scriptura simply means that one uses scripture as a basis to determine what and what isn't true.

The Church is in perfect harmony with scripture- many just refuse it, taking a solo scriptura stance.

Which Church would that be? I think that every organization in Christendom that claims to be the Church makes that statement. However, you see to have one particular denomination in mind here.

 

[Harbingr]

Which Church would that be? I think that every organization in Christendom that claims to be the Church makes that statement. However, you see to have one particular denomination in mind here.

Sola Scriptura was just Luther's way of advocating his dissent from Catholicism's perception of scripture.
He basically tried to ensure that the layman's version would reign over the Church's, who has stood tall through history and knows what they are talking about.