YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT CATHOLICISM

[Major1]

Be mindful that the idea of shunning any sort of tradition is a new and novel one, and in doing so, you are not only denigrating churches that have retained these traditions, but the Early Church Fathers and even the Apostles who's practice was steeped in the traditions handed down for many, many generations.

The Bible says nothing about porcelain toilets; does that mean that if our Church has them that we are "apostate". Does your Church have them? That is not supported by the Bible.

I am used to certain reformed protestants throwing the baby out with the bath water.

BTW, did you know that there are instances in "your" Bible where the Apocrypha is quoted? Better get the scissors out since you are shunning traditions.

It seems that the writers of Scripture are apostate as well for using "extra biblical" references in your Bible. Mine is OK btw because it contains some of those "extra" books. LOL.

Thanks for your responce Mark.

I do not accept the idea you said that .........
"shunning any sort of tradition is a new and novel one, "

Actually the Scriptures tell 2000 years ago in Mark 7:7-8.......
"They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions."

Then to confrim that we see in Mark 7:13........
"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

I agree with your comment of the 1st Church being steeped in traditions of men.

It was steeped in PAGAN traditions which needed to be weeded out.

History tells us that Festivals, feasts, and celebrations, centered round the winter and summer solstices, appeared in all pagan civilizations centuries before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, and continued for centuries after.

They all had one thing in common......They all followed the sun. Even the birth of Jesus falls into the areana of Traditions as most any scholar will confirem thet Jesus was NOT born on Dec. 25 , but celebrating Jesus birth’ during the time of the existing pagan celebration of the solstice was convenient and the Church usurped the holiday and absorbed that selected....Tradition.

Easter is the very same thing my brother.

As for porcelain toilets, I find that a little silly to bring up. Tradition of men when compared to Bible truth is something concerning SPIRITUAL events and not pysical things such as toilets or air conditioning and TV's in the sanctuary.

As for the Apocrypha, First of all, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them is from these books.

Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the Apocrypha in his reference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation," (Luke 11:51).

"The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order - placing it after Ezra - Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr of which we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers."1

This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Protestant Bible today. This was the arrangement to which Jesus was referring when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed - as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in his reference.
The Apocrypha: Is it scripture? | CARM.org

 

[concretecamper]

"Immaculate Conception--conceived without Original Sin. Assumption--body taken to heaven."

Quite correct. And as Major1 has pointed out, both are doctrines based on Tradition alone.

mega Sola Scripturist Martin Luther believed in both

 

[chevyontheriver]

"Immaculate Conception--conceived without Original Sin. Assumption--body taken to heaven."
mega Sola Scripturist Martin Luther believed in both

Yeah, but he was wrong ... because ... Sola Scriptura.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

"Immaculate Conception--conceived without Original Sin. Assumption--body taken to heaven."
mega Sola Scripturist Martin Luther believed in both

Yes, but today Lutherans reject the former, but are free to hold the later.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yeah, but he was wrong ... because ... Sola Scriptura.

Why muse everyone paint with such a wide brush, and only in black and white. Lutheran Sola Scriptura is at odds with the Fundamentalist Sola Scriptura that is promoted by Major 1, which is why some of our Churches still look like this:

 

[concretecamper]

Yes, but today Lutherans reject the former, but are free to hold the later.

yes, there is a lot of wiggle room when is comes to SS

 

[Major1]

"Immaculate Conception--conceived without Original Sin. Assumption--body taken to heaven."
mega Sola Scripturist Martin Luther believed in both

Please post the Bible Scriptures that explain the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary.

Then if you would please post the Scriptures that explain the "Assumption of Mary".

It is really funny how you Catholics degrade and reject Martin Luther UNTIL you think you need him or something you believe he said.

 

[Major1]

yes, there is a lot of wiggle room when is comes to SS

1. Sola scriptura: “Scripture alone”
2. Sola fide: “faith alone”
3. Sola gratia: “grace alone”
4. Solo Christo: “Christ alone”
5. Soli Deo gloria: “to the glory of God alone”

Each of these solas can be seen both as a corrective to the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church at the start of the Reformation and as a positive biblical declaration.

 

[concretecamper]

Please post the Bible Scriptures that explain the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary.

Then if you would please post the Scriptures that explain the "Assumption of Mary".

Read Luther yourself and find out why

It is really funny how you Catholics degrade and reject Martin Luther UNTIL you think you need him or something you believe he said.

I believe Martin Luther was one of the greatest heretics of all time. I am free to use him as an example to show that SS is based solely on personal interpretation of scripture.

 

[concretecamper]

1. Sola scriptura: “Scripture alone”
2. Sola fide: “faith alone”
3. Sola gratia: “grace alone”
4. Solo Christo: “Christ alone”
5. Soli Deo gloria: “to the glory of God alone”

Each of these solas can be seen both as a corrective to the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church at the start of the Reformation and as a positive biblical declaration.

Faith Alone - non scriptural
Grace alone - we are all saved through His Grace.
Christ alone - Christ is our One mediator to the Father. Through Him we are saved.
To the glory of God alone - to the glory of God what?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Why muse everyone paint with such a wide brush, and only in black and white. Lutheran Sola Scriptura is at odds with the Fundamentalist Sola Scriptura that is promoted by Major 1, which is why some of our Churches still look like this:

View attachment 281565

Hey, in another thread I pointed out that there wasn't a whole lot of agreement on what Sola Scriptura means. I got shot down by folks who said there is one meaning for their dogma, even if everybody else doesn't understand it correctly.

 

[chevyontheriver]

To the glory of God alone - to the glory of God what?

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam
At least according to Ignatius of Loyola.

 

[Major1]

Read Luther yourself and find out why

I believe Martin Luther was one of the greatest heretics of all time. I am free to use him as an example to show that SS is based solely on personal interpretation of scripture.

OK. So there it is. The Roman Catholic Church according to YOUR inability to quote Bible doctrines, actually teaches the flock doctrines that are not found in the Bible.

Now I hope that you know that the teaching of Non-Doctrinal Biblical Scriptures is impossible.

Now you see "Camper", it is very true that Bible doctrine sometimes divides, but that is what the Lord intended. In Luke 12:51-53 our Lord expressly taught that He came not to bring “peace on earth” but rather to bring “division,” even among family members.

We cannot hereby justify schismatic behavior in the church, which Scripture condemns repeatedly, but we cannot accept the notion that division is inherently evil.

The real question is not whether Christians will have doctrine but which doctrine or whose doctrine...........God's....or Man's??????

 

[Major1]

Faith Alone - non scriptural
Grace alone - we are all saved through His Grace.
Christ alone - Christ is our One mediator to the Father. Through Him we are saved.

Faith alone???

YES.....Faith and only faith ALONE.
1.
Ephesians 2:8-9.........
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9not by works, so that no one can boast."

2. Correct

3. Correct. Mary has NO part whatsoever of our redemption.

4. "To the glory of God, what?

I have no idea what you mean by the comment.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Faith alone???

YES.....Faith and only faith ALONE.
1.
Ephesians 2:8-9.........
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9not by works, so that no one can boast."

2. Correct

3. Correct. Mary has NO part whatsoever of our redemption.

4. "To the glory of God, what?

I have no idea what you mean by the comment.

Interesting that often the other 4 solas are over looked. I guess for the Fundamentalist, this would leave too much room for the application of Tradition:

 

[Major1]

Interesting that often the other 4 solas are over looked. I guess for the Fundamentalist, this would leave too much room for the application of Tradition:

Correct Mark.

Mark 7:7-9
"They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions." 9And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"

We find 8 references are from Jesus himself, all of which are derogatory of traditions. Not once does he insinuate they are useful or scriptural.

There are other instances of tradition in the Bible but they are all scriptural or do not contend with the scripture teaching itself. An example of this is in Jn.10:22 with the feast of dedication (Chanukah). Jesus did not refute this because it was a actual historical event. Yet if the leaders had made it mandatory it would have received a different reaction from Jesus.

We do have the freedom to hold for our personal enjoyment practices of individual choice. However this is not what the Roman Catholic Church is claiming. They are teaching that these were handed down from the Apostles (some of which are found from Scripture) and are commands and even necessary for ones spiritual life.

Something to consider I think!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Correct Mark.

Mark 7:7-9
"They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions." 9And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"

We find 8 references are from Jesus himself, all of which are derogatory of traditions. Not once does he insinuate they are useful or scriptural.

There are other instances of tradition in the Bible but they are all scriptural or do not contend with the scripture teaching itself. An example of this is in Jn.10:22 with the feast of dedication (Chanukah). Jesus did not refute this because it was a actual historical event. Yet if the leaders had made it mandatory it would have received a different reaction from Jesus.

We do have the freedom to hold for our personal enjoyment practices of individual choice. However this is not what the Roman Catholic Church is claiming. They are teaching that these were handed down from the Apostles (some of which are found from Scripture) and are commands and even necessary for ones spiritual life.

Something to consider I think!

As you stated so well in your 3rd paragraph, it is not always the traditions themselves, but the legalism that can be associated with such traditions. In these situations, it becomes more about keeping a law, than about faith in Christ. The good Samaritan is a prime example, the Pharisees were on their way to temple, and touching the poor guy who was beaten by thieves would have made them unclean; yet Christ holds the Samaritan who cared more for the injured man than for himself, and even paid to have him lodged during his recovery, in much higher esteem than he did the pious Jew who strives to keep the law.

Ultimately, the problem may not lie so much in the tradition itself, but rather the forensic treatment of holding and keeping those traditions. The real issue falls on the miss-placed exercise of authority.

 

[concretecamper]

OK. So there it is. The Roman Catholic Church according to YOUR inability to quote Bible doctrines, actually teaches the flock doctrines that are not found in the Bible.

Now I hope that you know that the teaching of Non-Doctrinal Biblical Scriptures is impossible

So please quote me where in scripture that scripture says the bible is the sum total of Divine Revelation. I know you cant becasue the bible doesn't claim to be that. So please stpp making this silly argument.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9not by works, so that no one can boast."

thank you for posting a bible reference that says we are saved by Grace. How about posting one that says we are saved by faith alone.

 

[Major1]

So please quote me where in scripture that scripture says the bible is the sum total of Divine Revelation. I know you cant becasue the bible doesn't claim to be that. So please stpp making this silly argument.

thank you for posting a bible reference that says we are saved by Grace. How about posting one that says we are saved by faith alone.

WHY should I do such a thing??? Don't YOU have a bible??? Don't YOU have a computer???

And when I do, will you not reject them????

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:21
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

John 10:35
If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken!

 

[Major1]

So please quote me where in scripture that scripture says the bible is the sum total of Divine Revelation. I know you cant becasue the bible doesn't claim to be that. So please stpp making this silly argument.

thank you for posting a bible reference that says we are saved by Grace. How about posting one that says we are saved by faith alone.

you said........
"thank you for posting a bible reference that says we are saved by Grace. How about posting one that says we are saved by faith alone."

Grace is God's love in action.

FAITH is mans response to God's love. Therefore when we read Ephesians 2:8-9.....
"For you are save by GRACE THROUGH FAITH and not of yourselves".

That means FAITH in God's love all by itself is what saves us.

If there is another way to be saved, now would be the time to post it. Try to look beyound religion and to the Word of God. Religion does not save anyone and in fact it actyllay keeps men from being saved.