Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Considering the huge amount scripture I've seen you and other Catholics use in most debates y'all are at least 95% scriptura.Yes, so much for Sola Scriptura.
Is Infant baptism an apostolic tradition?Its not hidden. It's in the beliefs and practices of the church. Infant baptism isn't so easily supportable by the bible. Neither is doing away with observing the Sabbath on the 7th day. But that's what the church did, not arbitrarily, or out of arrogance, but based on what she'd received. And yet 7th Day Adventism exists in part because we cannot go back and point to a definitive place in the bible where it says that we can now change sabbath observance to Sunday. Arianism nearly took over the Christian world in large part because there are many verses that support the non-deity of Christ. It took the efforts of the church to ensure that we're not Arian today.
Scripture was/is the foundation for all those heresies and objections to church practices that you mention. Both sides used the bible. That's why the church, with her historic legacy of beliefs from the beginning and the guidance of the HS, is necessary.Is Infant baptism an apostolic tradition?
Lots of scripture is used when debating SDAs. The Saturday sabbath being changed to Sunday is a misnomer. Scripture says the church gathered on the 1st day of the week because it's the day of the resurrection, and therefore is the Lord's day. Was Arianism and Nestorianism and Gnosticism etc defated by way of tradition that's not found in scripture? Or was scripture actually the foundation?
That's what ended up occurring, however, even as some valid churches continue to observe Saturday rest along with the observance of the Lord's day. In any case, it is no longer necessary for a Christian to observe one of the ten commandments as revealed-because of the beliefs and practices of the early church. And this change is in no way clearly recorded in the bible.The Saturday sabbath being changed to Sunday is a misnomer.
The problem I have with that argument is that I've been in several sabbatarianism debates and I've seen a whole lot of scripture being used against it. While there's not a direct statement per se, there is still a preponderance of scriptural evidence that supports Christians not being expected to keep the 4th commandment.That's what ended up occurring, however, even as some valid churches continue to observe Saturday rest along with the observance of the Lord's day. In any case, it is no longer necessary for a Christian to observe one of the ten commandments as revealed-because of the beliefs and practices of the early church. And this change is in no way clearly recorded in the bible.
No argument there.Scripture was/is the foundation for all those heresies and objections to church practices that you mention. Both sides used the bible. That's why the church, with her historic legacy of beliefs from the beginning and the guidance of the HS, is necessary.
Not at all-even if you seem to want to cling to that notion for some reason. In apologetics with Protestants we have little choice as they won't listen to any other source. But what you fail to understand is that the particular Catholic interpretation of Scripture by the church is already informed by Tradition, by experience, from the get-go, which is why, again, RC teachings and practices just happen to align in most every way with those of the eastern churches, even after centuries of isolation, as well as the early fathers,Considering the huge amount scripture I've seen you and other Catholics use in most debates y'all are at least 95% scriptura.
If we're honest with ourselves there's really very little Scriptural support; as with the doctrines of Mary Scriptural evidence is sketchy, certainly nothing direct as in an instruction. And that makes apologetics on it somewhat frustrating. Going by the bible I would not mess with one of the Ten Commandments. But knowing that this practice was an early change made within and by the church makes me understand they knew more than we do, going by the bible alone. It's only since the doctrine of Sola Scriptura arrived on the scene that some of these doctrines have been questioned, in fact.The problem I have with that argument is that I've been in several sabbatarianism debates and I've seen a whole lot of scripture being used against it. While there's not a direct statement per se, there is still a preponderance of scriptural evidence that supports Christians not being expected to keep the 4th commandment.
The point is that Scripture was used by those holding to heresy just as it was used by those defending the true faith. And summing up their decisions the latter also used words such as, "This is what the universal church of God has always and everywhere believed."Or was scripture actually the foundation?
Protestantism aligns for the most part as well.Not at all-even if you seem to want to cling to that notion for some reason. In apologetics with Protestants we have little choice as they won't listen to any other source. But what you fail to understand is that the particular Catholic interpretation of Scripture by the church is already informed by Tradition, by experience, from the get-go, which is why, again, RC teachings and practices just happen to align in most every way with those of the eastern churches, even after centuries of isolation, as well as the early fathers,
I'm all for including 1st and 2nd century church fathers into it.If we're honest with ourselves there's really very little Scriptural support; as with the doctrines of Mary Scriptural evidence is sketchy, certainly nothing direct as in an instruction. And that makes apologetics on it somewhat frustrating. Going by the bible I would not mess with one of the Ten Commandments. But knowing that this practice was an early change made within and by the church makes me understand they knew more than we do, going by the bible alone. It's only since the doctrine of Sola Scriptura arrived on the scene that some of these doctrines have been questioned, in fact.
The keyword being "always". I don't think there's much debate over what's always been held. When the earliest source of a tradition is St. Bob from the 5th century, then it becomes more prone to debate.The point is that Scripture was used by those holding to heresy just as it was used by those defending the true faith. And summing up their decisions the latter also used words such as, "This is what the universal church of God has always and everywhere believed."
"Always" is still just an opinion. That's why Arianism, for example, could be such a long-standing powerful force in the Christian world.The keyword being "always". I don't think there's much debate over what's always been held. When the earliest source of a tradition is St. Bob from the 5th century, then it becomes more prone to debate.
Think I'd look closer at particular doctrines on that one. And the term "Protestant" covers quite a variety of theological ground anyway.Protestantism aligns for the most part as well.
Primary doctrines or a secondary doctrine?Think I'd look closer at particular doctrines on that one. And the term "Protestant" covers quite a variety of theological ground anyway.
I'm probably more EO and Catholic than you might think.Good. Now keep doing that and you might find yourself more EO or Catholic than you know.
I thought always meant always as in from the beginning."Always" is still just an opinion. That's why Arianism, for example, could be such a long-standing powerful force in the Christian world.
"Saint Bob of the 5th century" is still 16 centuries closer to Christ's crucifixion than we are, his times still had books and people who knew the culture of Christ's day better than we do. And if he is a bishop then he is in the line of succession of the apostles and received teaching and knowledge that you and I have not.When the earliest source of a tradition is St. Bob from the 5th century, then it becomes more prone to debate.
I believe God had his new covenant church settled within the time of the apostles and the apostolic fathers. Just as God had his old covenant church settled within the time of Moses and Joshua. From that point forward it was man who made additions and changes."Saint Bob of the 5th century" is still 16 centuries closer to Christ's crucifixion than we are, his times still had books and people who knew the culture of Christ's day better than we do. And if he is a bishop then he is in the line of succession of the apostles and received teaching and knowledge that you and I have not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?