A Jehovah's Witness is at my Door!

[Thinkingstuff]

I have to interject here. I do believe that the RCC has to take some responsibility for the Baptists and evangelicals having so much suspicion about the validity of the beliefs of the ECF.

I understand your objection. And in a certain sense you are right. Catholics do have to take responsibility for distrust. However, I disagree with your reason as to why. I disagree about the premise of your assertion. We hold to scriptural teaching however not everything is plainly written in Scripture. For instance the Trinity. Nowhere in the bible will you find the word Trinity it became defined much later one. Does that mean scripture doesn't teach the Trinity? No it doesn't mean that but there is no instance in which it was necissary to dogmatically define Trinity when the scriptures were written but certainly we see scriptural allusions to the doctrine. The same can be said of the Catholic Doctrines not specified in scriptures as those particular doctrines. I believe the Doctrine of Purgatory is alluded to in scriptures that I will referrence here

Psalm 66:12 Thou didst let men ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water; yet thou hast brought us forth to a spacious place
Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.
Isaiah 4:4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning. (see also Isaiah 1:25-26)
Isaiah 6:5-7 And I said: "Woe is me! for I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven."
Micah 7:8-9 Rejoice not over me, O mine enemy; when I fall, I shall rise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord will be a light to me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him, until he pleads my cause and executes judgment for me. He will bring me forth to the light; I shall behold his deliverance. (see also Leviticus 26:41,43, Job 40:4-5, Lamentations 3:39)
Malachi 3:2-4 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the Lord. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years.
days, "You fool!" shall be liable to the hell of fire.
Matthew 12:32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

And other verses as well. Those were just a few that I believe allude to the teaching.

As far as Mary note that everything believed about Mary stems from what we believe about Jesus. You have no problem with the assumption of Enoch or Elijah. Many evangelist have no problem with a Rapture which includes the assumption of multitudes of Christians in the future. So certainly there is scriptural precedent for the assumption of Mary. We believe that the Ark of the covenant prefigured Jesus Mother as ark holding the very incarnation. We believe when the Angel proclaimed to Mary "Chaire, Kecharitomene" Where

Kecharitomene is (snip) a perfect passive participle, echaritosen is an indicative active aorist. Kecharitomene means "having been" or "have already been" graced...it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present...The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)...kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament). - by pfairban

We see attestation to this belief (trail of belief going back to the earliest time of the Church). Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-270 AD), Akathist hymn (5th or 6th century AD), Theodotus of Ancyra (early 5th century AD)

And the oldest document of in existance of Marian dogma is found in the Sub Tuum praesidium which parchment dates it back to 250 AD.


Where the fault with the Catholics does lie is what Luther protested against initially. The lax moral attitude of its practitioners and clergy by profaining their own faith by their lust, greed, covetiousness, etc... And the use of the faith to make personal gains. but not with its faith.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Wrong!

How can I be wrong in stating what you believe Catholics believe about tradition. Certainly you believe what I've stated you believe about Catholic Tradition. You believe we create Tradition by referrence to the ecf. I'm just saying your view is wrong. We do not do that.

You have no evidence that TRADITION is true any more when it was first given until now!

I can no more "prove" to you that Tradition is true any more than you can "prove" to an atheist that scriptural assertions of whom Jesus is; is true. That isn't my intent in this discussion. What my intent is to to show you how I can trace Catholic Traditional Doctrine through history back to the time of the apostles.

Concerning Billy Sunday, if you have his original writing (or exact photocopies) you have an authorized basis to confirm what some are saying then or now any more than hearsay. Oral tradition of Billy Graham is worthless as final "authority."

It is clear you misunderstood my example. I'm not asserting that Billy Graham or Billy Sunday or correct but I was showing you the methodology of determining whether some one said something by the writing of witnesses of the event. If I didn't have a verified voice recording of Billy Sunday or his own written document I can still verify whether my Pastor acurately quoted Billy Sunday thus verifying what Billy Sunday actually said by witnesses of the event and what they had to say about it.

The Rosetta Stone is an ORIGINAL source not some HEARSAY oral tradition passed down mouth to mouth.

Ah you missed the point all together again. The Rosetta Stone is an original document but that wasn't the point the point is the Egyptian written on it could not be understood as it is a dead language but because the Tradition of learning Greek was maintained faithfully through the years we can now accurately interpret the Egyptian. Greek in the example is tradition. Jewish society under King Herod is long dead. Values and norms have long since changed. The context in which the words were applied in its day is no longer our context but thankfully Tradition has kept in tact the meanings that were passed on.

Tradition offers nothing "authentic" or reliable then or now.

Tradition has always been how things have been passed on from one generation to the next.

Never said you did! However, it is your analogy of Homer that is flawed BECAUSE Homer is not inspired any more than Plato

Then your argument that Homer isn't inspired is a non sequitur.

Will finish this when I get back from town.:wavey:

Have a safe trip.

 

[Wittenberger]

Wrong! You have no evidence that TRADITION is true any more when it was first given until now! Concerning Billy Sunday, if you have his original writing (or exact photocopies) you have an authorized basis to confirm what some are saying then or now any more than hearsay. Oral tradition of Billy Graham is worthless as final "authority."


Like with the Rosetta Stone the ancient Greek Translates what the Hyrogliphics mean on the stone.

The Rosetta Stone is an ORIGINAL source not some HEARSAY oral tradition passed down mouth to mouth. It is written in unchangable rock. It comes directly from the period the languages found written on it. Tradition has no resemblance to this. The original autographs are analogous to the Rosetta stone but not tradition.

Tradition offers nothing "authentic" or reliable then or now.





Never said you did! However, it is your analogy of Homer that is flawed BECAUSE Homer is not inspired any more than Plato.

Will finish this when I get back from town.:wavey:[/QUOTE]


I think the problem here is that we are using two different definitions for the word "authority". The Bible is the final authority. The ECF are written statements of early Christians, found in historical records, which therefore, are potentially fallible.

Our use of the word "authority" does not mean that the ECF are infallible. They were men. They absolutely were fallible.

You seem to use the word "authority" as referring only to written documents which are infallible. I think that Thinkingstuff and I would both agree that we are not using that term to express that meaning. All documents are fallible except Holy Scripture.

So would it help if we stopped using the word authority and just used "early Christian historical records"? (ECHR)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Rosetta Stone is an ORIGINAL source not some HEARSAY oral tradition passed down mouth to mouth. It is written in unchangable rock. It comes directly from the period the languages found written on it. Tradition has no resemblance to this. The original autographs are analogous to the Rosetta stone but not tradition.

Tradition offers nothing "authentic" or reliable then or now.

However, if you read how I use the Rosetta Stone its not the stone itself to which I refer resembles tradition but the maintenance of Greek which is written on the stone along with Egyptian. Lets say Egyptian is the culture in which Jesus lived along with the Apostles. That culture is long dead speaking of Judea at the time of Jesus as well as the Ancient Egyptian Culture. Both left their mark. Jesus by starting the Christian faith and Egypt by writing on the Rosetta Stone. Now if we want to know what the Egyptians were specifically talking about on the stone we have an interpreter Greek which the Study of that Language has been faithfully maintained and handed down one Generation to the next until this very day. In the same manner the original intent of Apostolic Tradition has been handed down faithfully to this very day so that when Jesus says "this is my Body" we understand by Tradition he didn't mean just symbolically in no real sense. That is how my example of the Rosetta stone was used. And its in this way the Greek which is writen on the stone as well as Egyptian and the faithful transmition of greek learning was passed down that we can understand not only the greek on that rock but the egyptian as well for without the greek we couldn't begin to understand what the egyptian meant.

 

[Wittenberger]

However, if you read how I use the Rosetta Stone its not the stone itself to which I refer resembles tradition but the maintenance of Greek which is written on the stone along with Egyptian. Lets say Egyptian is the culture in which Jesus lived along with the Apostles. That culture is long dead speaking of Judea at the time of Jesus as well as the Ancient Egyptian Culture. Both left their mark. Jesus by starting the Christian faith and Egypt by writing on the Rosetta Stone. Now if we want to know what the Egyptians were specifically talking about on the stone we have an interpreter Greek which the Study of that Language has been faithfully maintained and handed down one Generation to the next until this very day. In the same manner the original intent of Apostolic Tradition has been handed down faithfully to this very day so that when Jesus says "this is my Body" we understand by Tradition he didn't mean just symbolically in no real sense. That is how my example of the Rosetta stone was used. And its in this way the Greek which is writen on the stone as well as Egyptian and the faithful transmition of greek learning was passed down that we can understand not only the greek on that rock but the egyptian as well for without the greek we couldn't begin to understand what the egyptian meant.

Excellent points. Just to be clear the comment you are responding to was made by Biblicist, not me. Somehow when I responded to Biblicist's comment it appeared on screen as if I had said part of his remarks.

 

[DHK]

The Church in Corinth did not need to call a world wide Church Council to decide what to do about a man having a sexual relationship with his father's wife. That is a local matter.

Almost all matters are local. I know of local churches in the area that have had to discipline people out of their churches after finding out that they believed in heresy like baptismal regeneration.

Forcing all Gentile converts to be circumcised is a world wide (known world) Church issue that can only be settled by a world wide Church Council. That is why the Apostles covened a world wide Council. It wasn't just the church in Jerusalem in attendance.

First, the world was not that big.
Second, Christianity was still in its infancy.
Third, the NT canon was not yet complete.
Fourth, it was a time of transition. This is what the book of Acts shows. There are many things that happened in the Book of Acts that will never happen again--Pentecost and the signs that accompanied Pentecost, the miraculous sign gifts (the speaking of so-called tongues today is bogus), Peter's miraculous gift of healing to heal all who came to him from all the cities around about Jerusalem (Acts 5:16), the Council at Jerusalem, etc. These are historical events. They will not be duplicated, replicated, imitated, etc. Any attempt to do so will result in a sham, as has been show in history.

The apostles never attended another Church Council but neither did they forbid future generations from having them. You are making an assumption.

The purpose of the Council was to affirm a doctrine not yet established in Scripture. That doctrine is well established in books like Romans and Galatians. We don't need such councils any longer. We have the Word of God. By the end of the first century the canon was complete. Contrary to RCC thinking the early believers knew which books were inspired and which were not. The apostles had taught them. There is ample proof in other versions of the Bible such as the Itala and Peshitta.

There were false prophets during the months right after Christ's death. The Book of Acts states this. Apostasy has always been with the Church. There is no where in Scripture that says that the individual churches are the final authority for Church doctrine and condemnation of heresies.

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

They had house-churches. If they did not believe in the doctrine of Christ, were heretics, brought false doctrine of any sort, they were not even to be invited into the house. In fact they were not even to say "Good-Bye" meaning "God-be-with-you." Don't say it to a J.W. or Mormon is the meaning there. The onus was on individual churches not councils.

I believe you when you say that God called you. But you are doing something that we all know God has commanded. You have I'm sure prayed about your career decision, evaluated your family situation, financial situation, and your health and come to a decision to be a missionary. I commend you and honor your service and sacrifice to our Savior.

I gave my testimony because it involved the very things that you so adamantly speak against: the leading of the Lord in one's life, the calling of the Holy Spirit, etc. You speak against these things as if you have never experienced them and therefore deny they exist.

What I have a problem with is when someone says "we prayed about it and God has told us we should get married' and other comments like that.

I would have never married my wife without a great deal of prayer preceding that decision.

God doesn't tell you who to marry, but he does tell you to read the Bible about the qualities you should look for in a spouse, then he expects you to use your God given talents and make a wise choice.

God told me that the wife I have was the right one for me. He gave me peace about it. He didn't write an extra verse in the Bible giving me her name and address.

The idea "let go and let God" is not scriptural. God expects Christians to read his Word and pray and then make educated, responsible decisions just as the servants in the parable of the servants and the talents.

Yes, wisdom is needed in all of our decisions.

In Luther's day, the RCC told Christians that those in the ministry (priests, monks, nuns, etc.) earned extra grace by their service to Christ.

There is no such thing as "earning grace."

They earned so much extra grace that eventually monks would sell this extra grace in the form of indulgences. Luther condemned this practice. He taught that every career was of equal value to God, as long as the believer was listening to God's Word and following his will. A farmer, a shoemaker, a pastor and a bishop were all equal in God's eyes. If we were all bishops or pastors who would grow our food or make our shoes??

A farmer and shoemaker has just as much responsibility in studying the Word of God as a pastor does. It was a cobbler that became the first modern missionary, went to India and translated the Bible or parts thereof into 44 different languages.

God bless you brother for your service, but just because I am not a missionary to Saudi Arabia doesn't mean God sees me as inferior or not doing my part to spread the Gospel.[/quote[
I am no different than anyone else. The Great Commission is given to all. We all must do out part. A missionary from China, after delivering a powerful message on missions, asked his audience "What reason can you give for not being a missionary to China?"

I share the Gospel by passing out Gospel tracts at the grocery store and shopping mall, by inviting people to church, and by trying to be a good neighbor to those around me.

That is a good start.

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand your objection. And in a certain sense you are right. Catholics do have to take responsibility for distrust. However, I disagree with your reason as to why. I disagree about the premise of your assertion. We hold to scriptural teaching however not everything is plainly written in Scripture. For instance the Trinity. Nowhere in the bible will you find the word Trinity it became defined much later one. Does that mean scripture doesn't teach the Trinity? No it doesn't mean that but there is no instance in which it was necissary to dogmatically define Trinity when the scriptures were written but certainly we see scriptural allusions to the doctrine. The same can be said of the Catholic Doctrines not specified in scriptures as those particular doctrines. I believe the Doctrine of Purgatory is alluded to in scriptures that I will referrence here

And other verses as well. Those were just a few that I believe allude to the teaching.

As far as Mary note that everything believed about Mary stems from what we believe about Jesus. You have no problem with the assumption of Enoch or Elijah. Many evangelist have no problem with a Rapture which includes the assumption of multitudes of Christians in the future. So certainly there is scriptural precedent for the assumption of Mary. We believe that the Ark of the covenant prefigured Jesus Mother as ark holding the very incarnation. We believe when the Angel proclaimed to Mary "Chaire, Kecharitomene" Where
We see attestation to this belief (trail of belief going back to the earliest time of the Church). Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-270 AD), Akathist hymn (5th or 6th century AD), Theodotus of Ancyra (early 5th century AD)

And the oldest document of in existance of Marian dogma is found in the Sub Tuum praesidium which parchment dates it back to 250 AD.


Where the fault with the Catholics does lie is what Luther protested against initially. The lax moral attitude of its practitioners and clergy by profaining their own faith by their lust, greed, covetiousness, etc... And the use of the faith to make personal gains. but not with its faith.

You keep mentioning the trinity, bu t the RCC ONLY recognised what the church knew and expressly believed in and taught since Apostolic times!

that doctrine was in the Bible, far different than Rome coming up with a deniel of pauline Justification and a new Gospel!

 

[Alive in Christ]

Wittenberger posted...

But how does anyone know that his interpretation of the Bible is correct?
One Baptist may believe that man has a free will to come to Christ of his own choosing (Arminian), another Baptist will deny that man has a free will, God predestines who will be saved (Calvinist).

Individual interpretation doesn't work.

Thats odd you would say that.

"Sola scriptura" has been working wonderfully for centuries...

Not perfectally, mind you, but it works very very well. Clearly better than any other system.

 

[The Biblicist]

However, if you read how I use the Rosetta Stone its not the stone itself to which I refer resembles tradition but the maintenance of Greek which is written on the stone along with Egyptian.

Here is the problem. The stone is what preserves the groups of language and what is written in stone does not change. The stone comes directly from that culture.

The EFC's are neither analoguous to the stone or to the language on the stone or the preservation of the stone, or the preservation of the languages on the stone. There is NO analogy between an unchangable object and the EFC's period! There is NO analogy between what is preserved in stone and the EFC's period! Furthermore, the stone only provides light to secular use of languages at that precise period and nothing more. From that precise period forward it is guesswork.

Uninspired opinions verified by other uninspired witnesses and opinions equals nothing but uninspired opinions no matter how well they are preserved or testified to by uninspired witnesses and there is no analogy that can make uninspired opinion regardless of the volume and regardless of the years of witnesses to make uninspired opinions any more authoritative than uninspired opinons today.

Traditions can NEVER be an "authority" for truth of Scripture. They can be an UNINSPIRED reference but nothing more or less.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You keep mentioning the trinity, bu t the RCC ONLY recognised what the church knew and expressly believed in and taught since Apostolic times!

The Trinity wasn't defined as doctrine until Nicea. Which is the point. Scriptures didn't set out to dogmatize the Trinity but it certainly alludes to the Trinity. And that is the point. No where in scripture will it set out to say Ok now lets discusse the trinitarian nature of God. Because that wasn't an issue in the early Church. Not until much later with heretics such as Arius who wanted to protect the oneness of God leading him into the Heresy of having Jesus become a created being.

that doctrine was in the Bible, far different than Rome coming up with a deniel of pauline Justification and a new Gospel

First of all its really clear from this statement you have no idea what you are talking about. Justification has alway been held to be the Catholic view until the reformation. And your particular brand of Justification started with Calvin. You can see throughout Christian history and in scripture how justification is used. Even you trying to allude to Paul you have inadvertantly pit Paul against James. Like Marcion you pick and Choose selectively Paul because you believe he best fits you perspective when James clearly says

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

And if you took Paul in his Context in both Romans and Galatians you will clearly see you've mistook his intent. Justification was never Forensic.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is the problem. The stone is what preserves the groups of language and what is written in stone does not change. The stone comes directly from that culture.

That is not a problem as the Deposit of Faith (Tradition) doesn't change.

 

[Wittenberger]

Almost all matters are local. I know of local churches in the area that have had to discipline people out of their churches after finding out that they believed in heresy like baptismal regeneration.

First, the world was not that big.
Second, Christianity was still in its infancy.
Third, the NT canon was not yet complete.
Fourth, it was a time of transition. This is what the book of Acts shows. There are many things that happened in the Book of Acts that will never happen again--Pentecost and the signs that accompanied Pentecost, the miraculous sign gifts (the speaking of so-called tongues today is bogus), Peter's miraculous gift of healing to heal all who came to him from all the cities around about Jerusalem (Acts 5:16), the Council at Jerusalem, etc. These are historical events. They will not be duplicated, replicated, imitated, etc. Any attempt to do so will result in a sham, as has been show in history.

The purpose of the Council was to affirm a doctrine not yet established in Scripture. That doctrine is well established in books like Romans and Galatians. We don't need such councils any longer. We have the Word of God. By the end of the first century the canon was complete. Contrary to RCC thinking the early believers knew which books were inspired and which were not. The apostles had taught them. There is ample proof in other versions of the Bible such as the Itala and Peshitta.

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

They had house-churches. If they did not believe in the doctrine of Christ, were heretics, brought false doctrine of any sort, they were not even to be invited into the house. In fact they were not even to say "Good-Bye" meaning "God-be-with-you." Don't say it to a J.W. or Mormon is the meaning there. The onus was on individual churches not councils.

I gave my testimony because it involved the very things that you so adamantly speak against: the leading of the Lord in one's life, the calling of the Holy Spirit, etc. You speak against these things as if you have never experienced them and therefore deny they exist.

I would have never married my wife without a great deal of prayer preceding that decision.

God told me that the wife I have was the right one for me. He gave me peace about it. He didn't write an extra verse in the Bible giving me her name and address.

Yes, wisdom is needed in all of our decisions.

There is no such thing as "earning grace."

A farmer and shoemaker has just as much responsibility in studying the Word of God as a pastor does. It was a cobbler that became the first modern missionary, went to India and translated the Bible or parts thereof into 44 different languages.

God bless you brother for your service, but just because I am not a missionary to Saudi Arabia doesn't mean God sees me as inferior or not doing my part to spread the Gospel.
I am no different than anyone else. The Great Commission is given to all. We all must do out part. A missionary from China, after delivering a powerful message on missions, asked his audience "What reason can you give for not being a missionary to China?"

That is a good start.

BTW: Lutherans do not believe man can earn grace, it is a free gift from God. I was stating the RCC position on grace during Luthers's time. I hope and pray that the RCC will eventually come around to the fact that our good works are simply proof of our genuine faith but have nothing to do with saving us. The RCC has moved closer to this belief, they signed a document with Lutherans that agreed with Luther's position, but sadly they still teach that we must do good works to help complete our salvation.

Someone needs to contact the webmaster: something's haywire with the formatting of responses. My comments begin with BTW.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is not a problem as the Deposit of Faith (Tradition) doesn't change.

That depends upon YOUR interpretation of Scriptures not on uninspired historical data.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That depends upon YOUR interpretation of Scriptures not on the facts of history.

It doesn't depend on any such thing. I can show a line of belief going from this day throughout history back to the scriptures.

 

[The Biblicist]

It doesn't depend on any such thing. I can show a line of belief going from this day throughout history back to the scriptures.

No you cannot! All you can show is a line of historical UNINSPIRED and divisive opinions going back to the first century. You can show how one post-fifth century denomination picked an chose from among a history of uninspired divisive opininons to form another system of uninspired opinions.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No you cannot! All you can show is a line of historical UNINSPIRED

There you go again. Such Nonsense! Do I have to show you divinely inspired documentation to prove to you 1+1=2? Or how about divinely inspired picture to prove that elephants exist? Or how about divinely inspired skeleton that DoDo Birds once existed? Of course not. I don't need to give you divinely inspired anything to show you that there has been a line of people going back from this day to the past who held to certain beliefs by their own documentation. It doesn't have to be inspired just factual.

 

[Wittenberger]

I understand your objection. And in a certain sense you are right. Catholics do have to take responsibility for distrust. However, I disagree with your reason as to why. I disagree about the premise of your assertion. We hold to scriptural teaching however not everything is plainly written in Scripture. For instance the Trinity. Nowhere in the bible will you find the word Trinity it became defined much later one. Does that mean scripture doesn't teach the Trinity? No it doesn't mean that but there is no instance in which it was necissary to dogmatically define Trinity when the scriptures were written but certainly we see scriptural allusions to the doctrine. The same can be said of the Catholic Doctrines not specified in scriptures as those particular doctrines. I believe the Doctrine of Purgatory is alluded to in scriptures that I will referrence here

And other verses as well. Those were just a few that I believe allude to the teaching.

As far as Mary note that everything believed about Mary stems from what we believe about Jesus. You have no problem with the assumption of Enoch or Elijah. Many evangelist have no problem with a Rapture which includes the assumption of multitudes of Christians in the future. So certainly there is scriptural precedent for the assumption of Mary. We believe that the Ark of the covenant prefigured Jesus Mother as ark holding the very incarnation. We believe when the Angel proclaimed to Mary "Chaire, Kecharitomene" Where
We see attestation to this belief (trail of belief going back to the earliest time of the Church). Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-270 AD), Akathist hymn (5th or 6th century AD), Theodotus of Ancyra (early 5th century AD)

And the oldest document of in existance of Marian dogma is found in the Sub Tuum praesidium which parchment dates it back to 250 AD.


Where the fault with the Catholics does lie is what Luther protested against initially. The lax moral attitude of its practitioners and clergy by profaining their own faith by their lust, greed, covetiousness, etc... And the use of the faith to make personal gains. but not with its faith.

Wittenberger's response:

Unfortunately my brother, it is here where Lutherans and Roman Catholics part company.

Lutherans believe that looking to the writings of the ECF helps guide us to the proper interpretation of Scripture. But we only accept those Church Fathers who are consistent with Scripture and whose views can be shown to be the overwhelming majority opinion in the early Church of the first three to four centuries AD.

Just because one or two "Church Fathers" express an opinion that seems to support the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary does NOT mean that it is scriptural, God inspired doctrine. We must look at what the other Church Fathers were saying during the same period of time, AND look to see if their beliefs are consistent with earlier Church Fathers who represented the overwhelming majority of the Christians in the first few centuries after Christ.

Any teaching that is "new", not found in earlier writings, not accepted by the majority of the Church during that time period or before, and most importantly, NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE, is suspect and most likely false doctrine.

This is why Lutherans do not believe in Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption and other RCC doctrines which cannot be found in Scripture or in the writings of the earliest Fathers.

Baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper can be consistently found in all writings of the ECF at all stages of history. The teachings above cannot. This is why Luther condemned them.

My brother, the Scriptures you quote to support your belief in Purgatory are so vague, that if this criteria is used for establishing doctrine, the Christian faith is in a lot of trouble.

Stick to the clearly expressed doctrines of the one, holy, catholic (universal, not Roman), apostolic church as found in the Bible and the writings of the earliest Church Fathers. Once the Bishop of Rome started dictating doctrine, all bets are off when it comes to decisions made by Popes and subsequent Church Councils.

 

[The Biblicist]

Or how about divinely inspired picture to prove that elephants exist? Or how about divinely inspired skeleton that DoDo Birds once existed?

Another false analogy! Animals REPRODUCE AFTER THEIR OWN KIND. Rocks preserve original things. However, we are talking about the history of UNINSPIRED opinions or oral traditions.

You have NOTHING but hearsay and divisive hearsay at that. That is why Jesus never quoted "the traditions" as authority for anything but ALWAYS quoted scripture while continually pointing out the FLAWS of traditions. However you never read him pointing out any flaw in scripture! Orange verus apples.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

BTW: Lutherans do not believe man can earn grace, it is a free gift from God. I was stating the RCC position on grace during Luthers's time.

FYI Catholics don't believe (even in Luther's time) that you can earn salvation by your own merits. What we believe is that once we are in the "Ark of Salvation" by God's Grace we can please God and remain in his grace. Because even our ability to do good works is due to God's grace. I just so happened in Luther's time a lot of misinformation was being passed around by people who were unscrupulous trying to get money from indulgences and all the other nonsense. Reform was necissary for a great many Catholics and there were reformers who never left the Catholic Church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Another false analogy! Animals REPRODUCE AFTER THEIR OWN KIND. Rocks preserve original things. However, we are talking about the history of UNINSPIRED opinions or oral traditions.

You aren't even talking about that! You don't need an inspired document to show that so and so who lived in such and such and age believed such and such a thing when they wrote down what they believed. I don't need an inspired text to show you what Augustine, or Ambrose, or what anyone else who wrote what they believed, believed! They speak for themselves.

And if I can show you a line of belief about the meaning of a text going back to the writings of the Scripture themselves then you can say that is a consistent teaching.

But if you come up and say something no one else said about a 2,,000 year old text then you are making a new teaching and not relying on the consistent 2,000 year old teaching.