Refuting Catholics...Scripture or Chick tracts?

Good point, Matt. (Though one could argue that Arians were "proto-JWs"; still the Arians were the novel proclaimers of heresy.)

Mike, everyone allegedly using the "same truth standard" (sola scriptura) hasn't prevented protestantism from fracturing into thousands of sects, each claiming that the Holy Spirit is guiding them to their mutually contradictory interpretations on dozens of important issues. The Holy Spirit doesn't contradict Himself. This whole "beautiful" system of "checks and balances" simply doesn't exist in Protestantism; otherwise these conflicts would be resolved and unity would be attained. The reality is that schisms are endlessly multiplying because there is no commonly agreed upon interpretitive framework (Apostolic Tradition) and there is a denial of the God-ordained authority of the Apostolic Church (ie,if people disagree, they just break off and form a new schismatic sect).

 

Oh my.

Matt...surely you dont believe, you cant possibly believe, that the (((Catholic Church))) was...there...at...the...beginning?????

</font>[/QUOTE]To a certain extent, yes, not exactly in the form in which it exists today but, yes, the Church has always been there and it has been called the Catholic Church from the earliest times eg: Ignatius of Antioch, appointed Bishop of that See by the writer of the 4th Gospel, refers to the 'Catholic Church' in 107AD

What a ridiculous assertion, which demeans the blood of the Church's martyrs who were murdered by the Roman State. How on earth could you say that the Catholic Church did that to its own martyrs from early times?

 

Yep, He has. That's how we got Apostolic Tradition. Do try to keep up. It extremely obviously doesn't work with individuals - that much is crystal clear.

 

It is pretty obvious that the Holy Spirit indwells individual believers (Rom.8:15-16)

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:15-16)

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would be IN those who belong to Him:

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14:16-17)

 

Yep, He has. That's how we got Apostolic Tradition. Do try to keep up. It extremely obviously doesn't work with individuals - that much is crystal clear. </font>[/QUOTE]Your profile says baptist, but you use the "we" in reference to apostolic tradition.
I don't ever recall baptist doctrine being under the authority of apostolic tradition. Are you using the "baptist" moniker to hide your true affiliation to the RCC?

 

Just as God told us in advance that it would be..

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind"..."who are you to judge anothers servant?...to His own master he will stand or fall, and God will make him stand." </font>[/QUOTE]Umm...tolerating varying convictions about eating certain foods is a lot different than whether or not we should tolerate heresies (ie false concepts about God, Christ, and/or salvation).

Of course He doesnt. Can you quote where I have said He does?</font>[/QUOTE]You didn't explicitly say that, but your ecclessiology implies as much.

That's simply not true. How have Calvinists kept numbers of non-Calvinists from espousing Open Theism (and of course Open Theists too subscribe to sola Scriptura and therefore claim their view is "the truth")? How have Arminians kept folks from becoming hyper-Calvinists (and hyper-calvinists are also sola Scripturists)? The fact is that Arminianism and Calvinism aren't merely "different 'viewpoints'" but are mutually contradictory concepts of God and salvation and interpreting the Scriptures.

It most certainly does. Praise God \o/ that it does!</font>[/QUOTE]It may exist inside the historic Church, but it certainly doesn't exist among the ever expanding plethora of schismatic denominations. Otherwise folks wouldn't be continuously splitting over doctrine.

True checks and balances have existed in the historic Apostolic Church when councils have met to answer doctrinal novelty and the threat of heresy. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church to define the limits of orthodoxy (and the limits of the canon of Scripture for that matter). Those such as the Arians (who by the way claimed to only be "going by the Book") were determined by the whole Church to be teaching heresy contrary to what the Church had always believed about Christ and were thus outside the Church--not merely a denomination allegedly within the Church. The Church could do this by the authority given to her by Christ (to bind and loose), and under the Holy Spirit's guidance as she maintained the Apostolic Tradition expressed in the Sacred Scriptures as well as in her liturgical worship, prayers, and baptismal confessions and as summarized in (and interpreted by) the "rule of faith" (and later the Creeds).

Contrast this with the Pollyanna view that the plethora of coexisting denominations, all subscribing to sola Scriptura (but each with their own man-made interpretive traditions), yet with their mutually contradictory teachings and which are endlessly fragmenting, somehow constitutes the one Body of Truth which is somehow keeping the One Faith despite having the faith distorted at times beyond recognition the more it is mutated from Apostolic Christianity by folks with their "private interpretations".

Like the Jehovahs Wittnesses?

David Koresh?

The Mormons?

Jim Jones?

Mary Baker Eddys group?

</font>[/QUOTE]These are merely examples of heretics whose private interpretations have led them and their followers even further away from historical orthodox Christianity.

Paul admonishes the Thessolonians to hold to the tradition whether it's oral or written (2 Thess 2:15). He doesn't differentiate between the authority of the two (both come from the same source and testify to the same truth--Christ), nor does he say there is a time limit to how long the former are to be observed. Nor does he imply that all the oral would be ultimately written down later in Scripture.

Yes, He will guide them--THE CHURCH--into all truth. He's not guiding the ever expanding schismatic fellowships into their ever multiplying mutually contradictory "truths" (as they see it). True, in His providence God has kept some denominations from completely abandoning historic orthodox biblical Christianity...but that's inspite of sola Scriptura not because of it.

True, and it's that visible body which has visible succession from the Apostles which has maintained the Apostolic Tradition. It's not some nebulous group of sects/denominations which have come up with their disparate versions of the truth based on their own man-made interpretations of Scripture, yet all under the banner of sola Scriptura have split from the original visible body. As the splits continue to multiply the further one gets away from the Truth.

Which begs the question how is one "born of the Spirit". Different groups give conflicting answers.

The bible says that the Church is the pillar and the ground of truth. It's not an amorphous hodge-podge of schismatic denominations and doctrinal relativism.

 

Yes - the HS indwells you and I and Doubting Thomas and I'm guessing everyone else on this thread. But He doesn't as individuals lead us into all truth - that much is plain - otherwise we wouldn't even be having this debate.

 

Yep, He has. That's how we got Apostolic Tradition. Do try to keep up. It extremely obviously doesn't work with individuals - that much is crystal clear. </font>[/QUOTE]Your profile says baptist, but you use the "we" in reference to apostolic tradition.
I don't ever recall baptist doctrine being under the authority of apostolic tradition. Are you using the "baptist" moniker to hide your true affiliation to the RCC? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't blame you for being confused!

About a year ago I was temporarily suspended from membership because the Mods thought the same. I gave a clarification of my position at the beginning of April last year and was readmitted. I'll see if I can find it for you.

 

What makes you think I'm talking about the Roman Catholic Church?

....which brings me back to my answer to Webdog. Unfortunately I've been unable to find the thread where I clarified my position so here's a summary:-

1. I go to a Baptist church. I disagree with a lot of what is taught there but we (Mrs B in particular) have lots of friends there and get a lot out of it nevertheless and we (Mrs B in particular) are loathe to leave. So my profile says 'Baptist'. However, you will note that in all conscience I don't post in the 'Baptist Only' fora here because I don't agree with much Baptist theology.

2. There seems to be a rampant assumption that if one believes in the epistemological value of Church Tradition, then one is automatically a Roman Catholic. That's not correct - neither generally nor with regard to me (although I was raised Catholic); Lutherans, Orthodox and Anglicans also highly value Apostolic Tradition and in particular the Early Church Fathers. My theological sympathies lie, as it happens, more with Anglicanism and Lutheranism.

 

In historical context, these "hot button" topics were during a transition period between when the Church being exclusively made up of Jews to a body where there was neither Jew nor Greek. Paul's point is that keeping these Jewish festivals and dietary laws had no bearing on salvation. Jews were neither commended nor condemned for merely continuing to observe these practices (unless they were claiming these practices were necessary for salvation). Clearly, this is a different issue entirely from false teachers that distort the true nature of God, Christ, and/or salvation.

You're still making quite a leap. Paul makes no allowances no "differences of views" on what is sound doctrine regarding the true nature of God, Christ, and/or true salvation teaching.

God invested the Apostles and the visible church they founded with the authority to bind and loose and the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide them (collectively) into all truth. If you want to disparage the exercise of this authority as a "truth gestapo", I suppose you will have to answer to God for that some day. The Apostles and early Christians would find your charge absurd given that the Church is the ground and pillar of truth (not "truthS"), and they were to contend earnestly for the faith (not "faithS").

"By vigorously argueing their view of the scriptures. Sometimes they havent kept them from that, but sometimes they have."</font>[/QUOTE]That's really a non-answer. Besides it doesn't address the fundamental issue of Calvism and Arminianism ascribing mutually contradictory attributes to God as we'll see below...

By vigorously argueing their view of the scriptures. Just as God admonishes us to do. </font>[/QUOTE]Again a meaningless non-answer. These arguments have not led to a consensus. Each side is firmly entrenched in their respective positions with their mutually contradictory views of God.

Nonsense. Of course thats all it is.</font>[/QUOTE]Nonsense. They differ on the most fundamental issue of all--the character of GOD. One side's "god" is the god who monergistically determines whom he will bestow eternal life upon irrespective of any will, desires, or response of his creatures--his creatures basically have no choice in the matter. The other side's "god" is the one who truly offers salvation to everyone but allows creatures to receive or reject His offer based on the free will He created in them. So the two ascribe mutually contradictory characteristics to "god" (and to man as well). If position A is true about God, then position B is necessarily false (and vice versa). Therefore the alleged commonality of "faith" breaks down at the very point of the object of that faith as there are two rival concepts of "God" being expoused. No amount of kum-bah-ya relativism can reconcile these mutually contradictory "gods".

Of course the Catholic Church must command their people to believe that nonsense. </font>[/QUOTE]Not nonsense; it's fact, irrespective of the Roman Catholic bogeyman you keep bringing up.

Yet your dubious ecclessiology prevents you from seeing the mutually contradictory concepts of God (described above) within your own sola scripturist ranks. Sad.

Correct. All born again people. There is no promise that God will guard the traditions, teachings, and doctrinal purity of any organised body on earth.</font>[/QUOTE]He promised He'd guide the Church founded by the apostles--which was (and still is) a visible, organized community, mind you--into all truth. Inspired Scripture commands us to keep the Tradition whether delievered orally or written (2 Thess 2:15). The visible historic Church has kept this authentic Tradition since the days of the Apostles who enjoined them to keep it.

True, Scriptures must be approached with humility and a teachable heart. But part of that humility and teachableness is recognizing the God ordained authority of the Apostolic Church and the Apostolic tradition. It's pride that deludes people in thinking that they can arrive at the correct interpretation outside the life of the Holy Spirit in the Apostolic Church which has kept the "rule of faith" delivered by the Apostles and indeed from Christ Himself.

You better believe He is. </font>[/QUOTE]No, for the mere fact that God doesn't lead into contradiction regarding the truth.

The principle that we call "sola scriptura" simply can not be over emphasised. It is so very very very VERY important.</font>[/QUOTE]This principle, "sola scriptura", is in truth very very very unbiblical, unhistorical, and unworkable.

You keep throwing out that canard. These are groups which are even more extreme in rejecting the Apostolic Tradition and replacing it with their own man-madetraditions.

You...

And there are those who believe in the easter bunny and the tooth fairy as well.
</font>[/QUOTE]Herein lies the crux of the matter. You and other modern day sola Scripturists seemingly have a high view of Scripture (while manipulating it to arrive at their desired conclusions), yet you have a low view of the historic church founded by Christ and the Apostles (those who are in the tradition of the "magesterial Reformation" may be the exception). Those of us who recognize the historic apostolic Church have a high view of both Scripture and the Church, which wrote the New Testament Scriptures (and proclaimed the Christological interpretation of the Old), defined the limits of the canon, and which has guarded the correct interpretation of it as found in the Apostolic tradition.

 

Bible cautions us that we should be aware of false prophets. False prophets usually disguised themselves with a good name of a reputable denomination.

Matt,

1) Do you deny that Mary is Omni-present?

2) But do you notice that RC is praying everywhere in the world to the Holy Mother Mary?

3)Doesn't it mean that RC believes the Omni-Presence of Mary in reality?

4) Then doesn't it mean that RC is Heretic ?
Would you not condemn RC as much as you argued with me and others, for the defense of RC theories?

 

Looking forward to it.
(At any rate, the earliest I'll be able to respond to your response will be tomorrow at lunch. If I'm really busy at work, however, I my not be able to respond until Monday. Later...)

 

Thomas, wow! Great post!

Eliyahu, following your numbered paragraphs:-

1. Yes

2. No they're not - or if they are they are doing so in disobedience to or in ignorance of Catholic dogma.

3. No

4. No. Mistaken in part, as all ecclesial bodies who possess only part of the Apostolic Tradition are, but heretical, no.