Stll waiting for an answer.

Again, there was no 'Catholic' church at the time of Constantine.

It's a shame that ahistorical fantasies are created to prop up uninformed religious bigotries. </font>[/QUOTE]There are many here that disagree with you from both sides. Even the Catholics here disagree with you, but for different reasons. Constantine united Christianity with the political realm and thus formed a state-church which became the Catholic Church. The flag he fought under can in no way be called Christian since he himself was not Christian. What makes you think that he was? Because the flag had a cross on it doesn't make it Christian. What makes you think that a Christian flag even existed at that time? Constantine was told in a vision to fight under the sign of a cross. Who told him that? He was in charge of the Byzantine Empire of the western provinces. His major rival was Maxentius. Did Christ tell him to go and exterminat this man and his forces? Is this the Christian way? Is this Christianity. If this is your view of Christianity I feel sorry for you.
His vision was not from God, but from the pit of Hell.
Christ does not give command to go forth and conquer and vanquish and enslave people in this day of grace. It is not taught in the New Testament is it? Please give Biblical New Testament evidence for this brand of Christianity.
DHK

 

Harley,

You're aware that Ignatius employed this term circa 107 A.D., right?

 

Well looky there. An extra-Biblical tradition and authority that is infallible. Whodathunkit. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't call the canonization of Scripture "tradition." I, in no way, make such an important doctrine of the inspiration of the books of the Bible, a trivial matter of traditions of men which Jesus himself scorned.
DHK

 

When many Christians speak of the Apostles - and the Apostolic age of the church - they are speaking of the first century.

The RCC has tried earnestly to incorporate the errors of the Catholic church into the first century church (retroactively). One step in that direction is to quote 3rd century sources "as if" they represent "The Apostles" of the Church.

Carson has employed that tactic well in his quote above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

Didache on Baptism by Immersion:

FE The Faith Explained (RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican ii).

In Christ,

Bob

 

What did Origen really say:

from J.T. Christian's "A History of the Baptists"
DHK

 

Originally posted by Stephen III:
Better yet, how about Protestant extra-biblical traditions generally accepted by Protestants that ARE NOT traceable to the Apostolic age!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK responds with:
You guys are really obsessed with your tradition, so much so, that you have forgotten the definition thereof, or cannot distinguish between what is doctrine and what is tradition. Your post is lamentable.

What is truly lamentable is that you've missed the point of my response. The original post was an obvious attempt at deriding the Catholic belief that Sacred Tradition is on par with the Bible as a legitimate deposit of the one faith attributable and traceable to Christ and/or the Apostles and guaranteed and protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Something Protestants in general condemn. My response was to show how hypocritical some Protestants are in that they condemn on one hand what the Catholic Church does yet in effect turn around and do accept (even as "doctrine")extra-biblical concepts and pass them from generation to generation. You want to seperate a "doctrine" as being different from tradition, yet if a "doctrine" in your sense of the word is extra-biblical and is passed along from generation to generation could it not also be referred to as a tradition?

DHK continues
Such As:
1. total depravity of man
This is a doctrine--highly disputed among Baptists and others. Just take a look in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate forum.

I'll let you guys point the fingers, Please note I did not not say every Prot. believes these things as it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have any consensus among those that feel it is a God-given right to interpret as they see fit. And with a straight face say they are being true to the Gospel. I also did not volunteer my opinion on any of the references.

2. "asking Jesus into your heart"
This is a doctrine--Study John 1:12--"as many as received him."

And would this doctrine of "asking Jesus into your heart" be a condition of "being saved" Why don't you give us the full doctrine and use some ever Popular Protestant proof texts of this "doctrine " and its ramifications. That should be fun.

3. Reciting the "sinners prayer"
This is not a tradition. There is a sinner's prayer in Luke 18, and we don't recite it. I don't know of any one "sinner's prayer." Do you have a particular prayer in mind. Maybe you can reference the particular prayer that you have in mind, just as we can reference the Hail Marys' of the rosary that you pray.

Point out what you are referring as a prayer please, in the parables noted in Luke 18 and as for an example of a "sinners prayer how 'bout the one from this very web site included here: Dear Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner, and I deserve to pay my own sin debt, but I do believe that You died for me to pay the debt that I owe. Today, the best I know how, I trust You as my Saviour. I will depend on You from this moment on for my salvation. Amen.
While somewhat commendable, (although I would add that Jesus chose to die for us out of love for us and not because it was some form of "just" punishment due Jesus) its the implied belief attached to saying this prayer that one is saved and even saved irregardless of any future condition of their soul. You won't see any Catholic claim that praying the "Hail Mary" is akin to our being saved etc.

4. belief in the "age of accountablity" for certain justifications
This is a doctrine--not agreed upon by all.

Still extra-biblical and still passed on as a concept or "doctrine" from generation to generation.

5. The Rapture
This is a doctrine--the details of which are not agreed upon by all.
See above

6. the invisible church
This is a doctrine--one in which you actually believe.

My point again wasn't to show things we do or don't also adhere to, but to point out the fact that there are extra-biblical concepts passed down from generation to generation that Protestants except, and that this exceptance of these "doctrines" , concepts, or "traditions" is on par with the Catholic believing in Sacred Tradition - which Prots. condemn. It is pointing out the hypocritical.

7. emphasis on a "personal relationship with Jesus"
This is a doctrine--a very important one that is taught in the Bible. If you don't have a personal relationship with Christ, you are not a Christian.
Fine. I agree whole-heartedly, But as a SOLA- SCRIPTURIST Just kindly point out the directly applicable biblical reference. And as you guys are wont to do, make sure it uses that exact phraseology.
8. "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour"
"ditto" Study again John 1:12. It leads me to believe that you know nothing of salvation or Christianity to be even asking these questions.
Sigh.... The asking of the question is rhetorical, and was done so again to point out the hypocritical position of accepting these items (as they are extra-biblical)while condemning the Catholics' belief in a Sacred Tradition, which is the point of the initial post of this thread.. Perhaps it was over your head.
9. "enthroning the bible in your heart"
Somebody's adage. So what. Do you have a problem with it. It has nothing to do with either doctrine or traditions. It has to do with words, sentences, description, composition, etc. You don't like the way some people speak, learn a different language.

No. I particularly like it with a Southern twang.

10. limited atonement
A doctrine of Calvinism.

Passed along no doubt since Calvin. And to help me undewrstand your distinctions allow me to ask a question: Do you think that no tradition has a basis in true doctrine? Or, that no true doctrine has a basis in tradition? (eirher or both)

11. the altar call
Finally you have hit on what some Baptist churches (but not all) might have as a tradition. It is an extra-biblical tradtion, not anti-biblical tradition, and therein is the difference.

Difference between what? Would an early Christian just before being thrown to the lions for his belief been better off just rationalizing that he was saved no matter what? Even if he did deny his faith to save his skin, and by and by, no big deal since the church is invisible!? Why stand for something you just belong to in an intangible way? And the yet to be defined Bible was enthroned in his heart and who's to say if his age of accountability was the same as yours? Or, "If only the Rapture could be right now"....And these kind of thoughts while consistent with the prevalent Protestant positions noted herein don't seem anti-biblical to ya?! What happened to picking up one's cross to follow or come after Jesus.


12. rededication
If some churches do it, I don't know. It isn't a "tradition" in Baptist churches that I know of.

13, eternal security
This is a well-documented Biblical doctrine. If you don't understand it, you don't have a good grasp of the doctrine of salvation. At any rate it has nothing to do with tradition.

Show us this teaching explicitly and then show one church member from the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 10th, or before the 16th century who believed in it. It's one thing to make the claim quite another to show this type of heretical concept has been passed along from the ancient church.It's funny how everybody talks about going back to the way the early church worshipped, they then go to the Bible exclusively to find their reference, all the while rejecting the tons of information of how the church worshipped etc. outside of the Bible. The whole of the Roman Empire was virtually converted before the Bible was gathered under one cover, yet the only sourse of guidance is to be the Bible. ...You should be thanking God for Sacred Tradition rather than mocking God with your denials of His means.

14. folding hands and dropping head to pray
It would be hard to say that is tradition. My position in prayer is no different now then when it was when I was a Catholic. Your point therefore is hypocritical if it is draw a difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. If it is to draw a difference between Christianity and Judaism that is another matter. But then we are not talking of Judaism.

See above , my point was not to originally make a statement or judgement on any of the items, and yes I do realize I have done so in this subsequent posting.

15. Faith alone
This is doctrine; nothing to do with tradition.

See above, extra-biblical, despite Luther's attempts. But for fun show us the ONE time those two words are coupled together in all of scripture.

16. Sola Scriptura
Again, this is doctrine. Do you need a dictionary?

Perhaps, we all do occasionally. So let's see:
the applicable definitions from Webster say:
Doctrine: "something taught as the principles or creed of a religion,..tenet or tenets, belief, dogma.

Tradition: The handing down orally of stories, beliefs, customs etc. from generation to generation.

So are you saying that none of these beliefs you've noted as "doctrine" have been handed down from generation to generation. And in fact are just novel concepts originating within our generation? Granted they are novel compared to Sacred Tradition but come on we at least give you guys credit for maintaing your heresies for longer than that.

17. The Eucharist as a symbol
This is doctrine. The "eucharist" itself is a word a Baptist would never use.

And with a wave of his mighty hand....So much for worshipping like the early Christians.

18. Sunday school
The history of the Sunday School is quite interesting. I suppose one could say that with some churches it is a tradition, just as morning mass at some Catholic churches are a tradition. But then one can look in the Bible and simply read how the early believers continued in the Apostle's doctrine--which is what the Sunday School is for.

Oh how quaint, a reference to how the early church worshipped, Hey!, you got the day right at least!

19. Christian Flag
We don't have a Christian flag, and until recently never knew there was such a thing. Not much of a tradition is it?
Depends on who you talk to I guess, why have one at all? (again show exact scripture passage)

and 20. The New Testament as a book! (which is traceable to the councils of the Catholic Church in the late 4th century)
The Scriptures were recognized by Scripture by the Apostles themselves who transmitted that knowledge on to the early believers. They were not canonized by the Catholics, but by the early believers themselves. The early believers did not have to wait until the fourth century. They had the Bible in its entirety by the end of the first century. It is just the Catholics here that are slow in realizing that, for they didn't come on the scene until the 4th century.
DHK

Laughable and pitiable all at once. Where and exactly when were these exact books canonized and show me from where in the bible you gained this ahistorical "doctrine". Did each book make the claim of being scripture and that's how we knew?

Happy hunting.

 

What a pitiable post Stephen. The whole post, or point that you seem to be making could be answered in one question that so many have asked before.

Do you believe in the trinity? Show me the word "trinity" in the Bible.
Hmmm, must be one of your traditions, eh?
Just like the "rapture"?
Or "soul liberty"?

I sense a little (or whole lot) of hypocrisy on your part.
DHK

 

I'll admit you got a little confused. What exactly is it your looking for? A Doctrine that the RCC holds that isn't found or supported by scripture? Do you know of any? What would this prove?

 

There are probably some who doubt your Christianity. Fortunately for you, their opinion on the subject does not matter. Likewise, it is fortunate for Constantine that your testimony on this subject is irrelevant.

DHK, if you want to discourse on Constantine's banner, you should at least learn what it looked like; it's obvious from your statement that you don't. It probably only took you thirty seconds of web research to come up with 'Maxentius.' Next time you want to sound like you actually know what you're talking about spent an extra thirty seconds and find out what design decorated his banner.

Most of us are grown up enough not to believe this. If you believe he had a vision, I suppose that's ok but if this is your view of Christianity I feel sorry for you.

Yes. But as I wrote, I meant the use of the term by the emperor as a name for distinguishing Nicene Christians from others (most especially Arians). I don't think Constantine would have called himself a Catholic Christian

 

Are you unable to understand your own definitions??

Tradition: The handing down orally of stories, beliefs, customs etc. from generation to generation.

The DOCTRINES of the Word of God are not the stories and customs (such as Jesus condemned) that the Catholic Church has handed down from century to century.
Jesus Christ is the same: yesterday, today, and forever.
His Word never changes. He is a God that never, and cannot lie. What He says is in His Word, the Bible, inspired and infallible, written down for the benefit of mankind. This sets it far apart from any tradition. It is doctrine--the teaching of God to mankind. Your traditions, the man-made doctrines such as purgatory, are simply that--man-made. However, strictly speaking, traditions are more like the musical instruments that are used in the church, (not doctrine), genuflection (not doctrine), blessing oneself with water (not doctrine), etc.
DHK

 

Most of us are grown up enough not to believe this. If you believe he had a vision, I suppose that's ok but if this is your view of Christianity I feel sorry for you.
</font>[/QUOTE]No need to feel sorry for me. I didn't look at a web-site. I took my information straight from the World Book Encyclopedia which I have in my library here. What story book of fables do you use?
DHK

 

If you actually believe Constantine had a vision then somebody needs to feel sorry for you. You clearly don't have capacity to separate fact from fantasy; literal truth from a story Constantine concocted in his old age, if in fact he ever said it at all. Given your credulity on this issue, there's little cause to wonder at the clear headedness you usually demonstrate.

 

I have at least a dozen historical references in my library (not including software) and what I can find on the web--Encyclopedias, secular world history books, church history books, Baptist history books, and others. How much evidence would satisfy you? It seems that you have your head stuck in the sand and won't come up for a breath of fresh air. Or, is it that you deny the holocaust as well?
DHK

 

Infant baptism?!!! Is that it?

No, that is not "it" in a definitive sense. It is an example, per your request.

You have your answer.

 

A rather poor example too. Lets try the scriptural approach.. you know... "All Scripture is God­breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 2 Timothy 3:16

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Mathew 3:6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Is an infant capable of believing, confessing, or repenting??

Carson, place your trust in scripture / the Word instead of Catholic.com

Jesus Christ is the Word of God. If you don't trust in the Word of God, you arn't trusting in Christ. "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God"

 

Oh yeah, wow. So you and PS actually believe Constantine had a vision. Puh-leez grow up and stopping believing fantasies megalomaniacs concoct on their death beds. You accuse him of being a liar but believe this outlandish tale! You probably believe in UFOs and Yetis too.