Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[thecolorsblend]

It is, indeed. However, Hinduism does not have vicar(s) of their god(s) speaking infallibly for them. Hinduism is very loosely organized and has a lovely theology in which there are no significant consequences for those who are not Hindus. In Hinduism, if I, as a naughty Hindu, die, I will simply be reicarnated, possibly as a rich American. If I am a really devout Hindu, when I die I will simply cease to exist.

Thus, Hindus have no need to engage in the byzantine scrambling of reasoning to determine any means of making Hindus out of those who are otherwise not Hindus. You, on the other hand, are engaged in a system which has gone to extreme lengths to make third-class Christians out of those who are otherwise not in the least qualified to meet the standards of your religion to attain to sainthood.

I'm still struggling with what you believe would be an appropriate response. If you believe that Hindu believers are superior to Christians and that Hinduism is a religious system superior to Christianity, such is your right. I'm not really sure what you're looking for here in terms of a reply on this.

 

[Standing Up]

And btw, Sacred Tradition isn't exclusively oral.

True enough. Sacred Tradition is the box of chocolates assembled from a variety of places.

 

[Standing Up]

I should have written "clearly specifies one baptism."

So, any baptism will do, since no one has to ascent or believe anything. That was Pope Stephen's position against Firmilian and Cyprian. Demon baptism works as well as a Hindu's or Christian's. If not, why not?

 

[Wgw]

So, any baptism will do, since no one has to ascent or believe anything. That was Pope Stephen's position against Firmilian and Cyprian. Demon baptism works as well as a Hindu's or Christian's. If not, why not?

The Orthodox only accept non-Orthodox baptisms through oikonomia and even then limit acceptance to those mainstream denominations closest to us. Non-Orthodox confirmation is almost invariably repeated (I think the chrismation of the Assyrians is sometimes accepted). The requirement for a proper Trinitarian baptism can be found in Matthew 28:19.

 

[Standing Up]

The Orthodox only accept non-Orthodox baptisms through oikonomia and even then limit acceptance to those mainstream denominations closest to us. Non-Orthodox confirmation is almost invariably repeated (I think the chrismation of the Assyrians is sometimes accepted). The requirement for a proper Trinitarian baptism can be found in Matthew 28:19.

So it requires knowledge of a "proper Trinitarian baptism" of both the baptizer and baptizee.

 

[Wgw]

So it requires knowledge of a "proper Trinitarian baptism" of both the baptizer and baptizee.

The baptism has to occur ideally in the proper liturgical context. however, this requires no actual knowledge on the part of the baptized; an infant cannot have such knowledge. If someone were in dount as to whether or not they had been baptized properly to could be repeated; water baptism is not required in the case of Christian martyrs, who are baptized by their blood. We venerate the Holy Innocents, infants murdered by Herod as saints on this basis; they were infants, unbaptized, killed for Christ with no actual knowledge or ability to acquire knowledge as to the reason for their deaths.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm still struggling with what you believe would be an appropriate response. If you believe that Hindu believers are superior to Christians and that Hinduism is a religious system superior to Christianity, such is your right. I'm not really sure what you're looking for here in terms of a reply on this.

If I was looking for a reply I would have asked you a question. I am not particularly interested in a reply. The purpose of my post was merely to show the fallacy of your argument. What you asserted can be applied to virtually any religion on earth.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The baptism has to occur ideally in the proper liturgical context. however, this requires no actual knowledge on the part of the baptized; an infant cannot have such knowledge. If someone were in dount as to whether or not they had been baptized properly to could be repeated; water baptism is not required in the case of Christian martyrs, who are baptized by their blood. We venerate the Holy Innocents, infants murdered by Herod as saints on this basis; they were infants, unbaptized, killed for Christ with no actual knowledge or ability to acquire knowledge as to the reason for their deaths.

Out of curiosity what do you make of the Roman Catholic forms for baptism (baptism using dust if there is no water and the baptism of desire, in particular)?

 

[Standing Up]

The baptism has to occur ideally in the proper liturgical context. however, this requires no actual knowledge on the part of the baptized;

The point is one of them has knowledge. Someone preached, they believed, and are saved (Romans). There's a formula now. So your idea that saving knowledge is gnostic doesn't make sense.

 

[thecolorsblend]

If I was looking for a reply I would have asked you a question. I am not particularly interested in a reply. The purpose of my post was merely to show the fallacy of your argument. What you asserted can be applied to virtually any religion on earth.

Fair enough. However it looks like the root cause for the alleged superiority of Hinduism over Christianity at least in your view comes down to the lack of missionary zeal inherent to the Hindu religion. Fair enough. However, while I would never claim to be an expert on Hinduistic theology, my understanding is that they don't believe in an afterlife in the same way that Christians do. If I've got this right, if you screw up in this life, you'll be reincarnated and so on until you finally "get it right". Whatever lesson or what have you your soul is supposed to learn, you'll keep coming back until you learn it. Assuming you accomplish whatever destiny or karma has been established for you, you will die and be obliterated.

Christians believe in the concept of an afterlife. It is appointed to each man to die once and thereafter judgment. Ultimately souls will be saved and go to heaven. Alternatively they will be damned and condemned to hell. Both of those outcomes are eternal; no tradebacks. As such it's incumbent upon Christians to not only remain in a state of grace but to also tell others what awaits in the afterlife. Such is the logical conclusion of Christian theology and eschatology.

I usually try to avoid Pascal's Wager but if the Christian God is truly is the God of all creation, evangelism is an act of supreme mercy and charity. I'm sorry if that upsets anybody on this forum... but on the other hand it is worth mentioning that they're on a forum dedicated to Christianity so it's probably unavoidable.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Out of curiosity what do you make of the Roman Catholic forms for baptism (baptism using dust if there is no water and the baptism of desire, in particular)?

Dust??

 

[Wgw]

The point is one of them has knowledge. Someone preached, they believed, and are saved (Romans). There's a formula now. So your idea that saving knowledge is gnostic doesn't make sense.

The Holy Innocents died for Christ without knowledge as to why, without being baptized.

 

[Standing Up]

The Holy Innocents died for Christ without knowledge as to why, without being baptized.

I agree with the sentiment. As mentioned, this is universalism at its best and who will deny.

 

[Wgw]

I agree with the sentiment. As mentioned, this is universalism at its best and who will deny.

It's not universalism, since the Holy Innocents are venerated by each of the ancient churches, none of which are universalist.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's not universalism, since the Holy Innocents are venerated by each of the ancient churches, none of which are universalist.

I don't think you understand so let me break it down for you. Our Lord promised He would be with us always and then apparently broke His word and abandoned the Church to her own devices the instant He ascended.

But luckily Martin Luther came along 1,500 years later and rescued the Church from what would most assuredly have been oblivion.

So basically anything prior to that time for sure (if not even later) isn't Christianity. Not sure if you knew that but luckily these wonderful Protestants are here to get us all straightened out.

 

[Standing Up]

It's not universalism, since the Holy Innocents are venerated by each of the ancient churches, none of which are universalist.

Doesn't matter if they're venerated or not. This might help your understanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

 

[Wgw]

Doesn't matter if they're venerated or not. This might help your understanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

It does actually. Universalism is just another form of discredited monergism. The energetic cooperation of theosis in the case of the Holu Innocents came in the form of martyrdom or perhaps what one might call "noetic assent."

 

[Standing Up]

It does actually. Universalism is just another form of discredited monergism. The energetic cooperation of theosis in the case of the Holu Innocents came in the form of martyrdom or perhaps what one might call "noetic assent."

Great. Something everyone can cling to. No need for the Great Commission after all.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It is, indeed. However, Hinduism does not have vicar(s) of their god(s) speaking infallibly for them. Hinduism is very loosely organized and has a lovely theology in which there are no significant consequences for those who are not Hindus. In Hinduism, if I, as a naughty Hindu, die, I will simply be reicarnated, possibly as a rich American. If I am a really devout Hindu, when I die I will simply cease to exist.

Thus, Hindus have no need to engage in the byzantine scrambling of reasoning to determine any means of making Hindus out of those who are otherwise not Hindus. You, on the other hand, are engaged in a system which has gone to extreme lengths to make third-class Christians out of those who are otherwise not in the least qualified to meet the standards of your religion to attain to sainthood.

Hindus didn't have God come down in human flesh, teach for three years, die a horrible death, and leave a group of men to be sanctified by the Holy Spirit, who became his vicars, one of whom he appointed as head among equals, and apparently told them to choose successors to the vicars. Hindus don't have the power of the Holy Spirit to guide them and lead them into all truth, though, I must say, even they have some truth in their faith.
Christians, on the other hand, do have God, who came down in human flesh, taught for three years, died a horrible death, and leave a group of men to spread the gospel, protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, a charism which is passed down by ordination, by laying on of hands by one who has had the same process conveyed to him. Christians, also, have a call to holiness, meaning they must do God's work and live the faith Christ taught, and be admitted to heaven, where they are, at that time, 'saints', whether the Church declares it or not. (You do know that, while there's 8000 to 10000 declared Saints, we know that there are many more than 8-10 thousand saints) Christians do not make third-class citizens of anyone. We entrust people who don't or can't hear God's Word and learn His faith to His mercy (something I'm not sure you do, bbbbbb).

 

[Root of Jesse]

Out of curiosity what do you make of the Roman Catholic forms for baptism (baptism using dust if there is no water and the baptism of desire, in particular)?

No such thing. Show me, in the Catechism, where this is allowed.
Regarding the second, it only applies if someone is awaiting baptism, and dies while waiting, really. You can't just say, out of the blue, I desire baptism, and believe it's going to be given. It's for adults who are seeking to be Catholic, and in that process, become too ill to continue, and die.