RULE#1 For anything to be Officially Christian it must be found in the scriptures.

[Yeshua1]

Purgatory is no problem for me as I believe the Catholic teaching on this issue. If my soul needs to be cleansed by fire as the scriptures tell us, then the purgation process will be my lot and salvation is mine.

1 Cor 3:12-15 says: "Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble - each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire".

That scripture encapsulate it all. The foundation of Jesus, the works we will be judged on, the "Day" of Judgement, the reward we shall receive from God, the bad things we have done burned up, and personal salvation. Yep, it's pretty much all there.

except ALL who are at that point have made Heaven, no Purgatory in Bible!

 

[Yeshua1]

Grace comes from all the good things we participate in. It is a free gift from God and is inherent in all those good things we are a part of. If I were to nurse you through a sickness that would be a beautiful thing, another grace that would flow upon me from God. Why is something like that so hard for you to understand?

None of that though contributes to my salvation, as either Jesus paid it all for me, or He did not!

 

[Walpole]

There is no sacrament grace in the Communion, as its a memorial of what Jesus already did when he accomplished our full justification for us while on his cross!

First, Jesus Christ is the SOURCE of all grace...

1 Cor 10:16 ---> "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"


Second, what exactly are you memorializing in your mock eucharistic service? When Jesus Christ instituted the New Covenant (the Eucharist) on Holy Thursday, He had not yet gone to the cross! By your own admission nothing was actually offered so as to be commemorated until the next day. Ergo, you are commemorating that which you do not even believe occurred!


The True Eucharist ---> The passion of Christ, whereby He offers Himself, began at the Last Supper!

 

[Yeshua1]

First, Jesus Christ is the SOURCE of all grace...

1 Cor 10:16 ---> "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"


Second, what exactly are you memorializing in your mock eucharistic service? When Jesus Christ instituted the New Covenant (the Eucharist) on Holy Thursday, He had not yet gone to the cross! By your own admission nothing was actually offered so as to be commemorated until the next day. Ergo, you are commemorating that which yo don to even believe occurred!


The True Eucharist ---> The passion of Christ, whereby He offers Himself, began at the Last Supper!

The New Coveant in his blood was NOT into effect until He died, as THEN the Father ripped apart that curtain in holiest of holies!

 

[Walpole]

The New Coveant in his blood was NOT into effect until He died, as THEN the Father ripped apart that curtain in holiest of holies!

Please read the Scriptures! Jesus is explicit the New Covenant was instituted in the Upper Room on Holy Thursday...


Matthew 26:26-28 ---> "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"


Mark 14:22-24 ---> "And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.'"


Luke 22:19-22 ---> "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'"


Here is Paul quoting Jesus in 1 Cor 11;23-25 ---> "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'”


Christianity 101!

 

[MarysSon]

Church of Rome same boat as Sda, mormons,JW are in, as they elevate traditions and extra non biblical revelations to be equal to the Bible!

The BIBLE itself puts Sacred Tradition on par with Scripture . . .

2 Thess 215
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us."

Why do YOU teach something different that what the Bible teaches??

 

[MarysSon]

Jesus and the Apostles held to that rule!

Ummmm, NOT according to the BIBLE . . .

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament.
This demonstrates that the Apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses.
It is not recorded in the Old Testament.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres.
Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two.
This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body.
This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.


Care to change your story now??

 

[Walpole]

The BIBLE itself puts Sacred Tradition on par with Scripture . . .

2 Thess 215
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us."

Why do YOU teach something different that what the Bible teaches??

Bingo!

According to Scripture, God's word is not limited to Scripture alone...


1 Thessalonians 2:23 ---> And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.


2 Thessalonians 2:15 ---> So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.


Luke 10:16 ---> Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.


Hebrews 13:7 ---> Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you...

 

[Walpole]

Jesus and the Apostles held to that rule!

If Jesus and the Apostles held to that rule, then the Gospels would be just be a record of Jesus and the Apostles sitting around narrating the Old Testament Scriptures!

The moment Jesus said "...But I say unto thee..." (which He did over 130 times), He violated the rule!

 

[MarysSon]

The problem here is you are demanding the Bible fit your requirement and if not, that means your traditions are validated. However, that is a fallacious thought.

What we read is this:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Scripture functions in this capacity. What we don't read is that "tradition" functions in this capacity.

However, the Roman Catholic Church often places the Bible as being secondary to the traditions it has created. It then tries to link a prooftext to a tradition, outside of context, to justify it's biblically faulty tradition.

The ultimate question to answer in this thread is:
What has ultimate authority over the Child of God? Is it the Bible or is it Tradition?

Based upon 2Timothy 3:16-17, I say that the Bible always has authority over tradition, 100% of the time.

Now...show us where the Bible calls Mary a perpetual virgin. [emoji849]

As I showed your fellow Protestant @Yeshua1 - your claim that the Bible does NOT consider Sacred Tradition to be equal with Scripture is patently FALSE.

2 Thess 215
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us."

Here, Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit puts Sacred Tradition on par with Scripture . . .

Incidentally - the Scriptures allude to Mary's Perpetual Virginity in her response to the Angel in Luke 1:34:
Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?”
She said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had NO intention of having marital relations. This, coupled with the complete silence of ANY mention of her having "other" children, is clear evidence of her perpetual virginity.

It's interesting to note that virtually ALL of your Protestant Fathers believed in her Perpetual virginity.
WHEN did this change among you Protestants??

Finally - as to your question: "What has ultimate authority over the Child of God? Is it the Bible or is it Tradition?"
The answer is, Christ's CHURCH.

He gave His CHURCH Supreme earthly Authority - that WHATEVER it binds or looses on earth will also be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23). He guaranteed that His Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15) - and that whoever listens to or rejects His CHURCH also listens to and rejects HIM and the ONE who sent Him (Luke 10:16).

YOUR turn . . .

 

[AustinC]

The BIBLE itself puts Sacred Tradition on par with Scripture . . .

2 Thess 215
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us."

Why do YOU teach something different that what the Bible teaches??

You have butchered the meaning of what Paul is saying.
However, your interpretation explains why Rome and the Jewish Sanhedrin are nearly identical, works based, legalistic, religions that are void of God's grace.
Jesus constantly showed how incredibly wrong the Jewish traditions of the Jewish leaders actually were. He called them out for straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.
Rome and the legalistic Pharisees are one and the same, which is why the book of Galatians should be a big red warning flag to you.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have butchered the meaning of what Paul is saying.
However, your interpretation explains why Rome and the Jewish Sanhedrin are nearly identical, works based, legalistic, religions that are void of God's grace.
Jesus constantly showed how incredibly wrong the Jewish traditions of the Jewish leaders actually were. He called them out for straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.
Rome and the legalistic Pharisees are one and the same, which is why the book of Galatians should be a big red warning flag to you.

And Romans like a police siren going off to them!

 

[MarysSon]

You have butchered the meaning of what Paul is saying.
However, your interpretation explains why Rome and the Jewish Sanhedrin are nearly identical, works based, legalistic, religions that are void of God's grace.
Jesus constantly showed how incredibly wrong the Jewish traditions of the Jewish leaders actually were. He called them out for straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.
Rome and the legalistic Pharisees are one and the same, which is why the book of Galatians should be a big red warning flag to you.

I haven't "butchered" anything.
I take Paul's words at face value.

HOWEVER - your comparison to the Sanhedrin and the Church is nonsense because you are forgetting the most important difference:
Christ guaranteed that HIS Church would NOT succumb to the gates of Hell (Matt. 16:18).
That promise was NOT made to Israel.

Remember also that Jesus condemned the traditions of the Pharisees that USURPED the word of God - not ALL of their traditions.
The Catholic church doesn't have ANY (T)traditions that usurp the Word of God.

 

[Particular]

Is it a "particular" Baptist theolog




And you get it all terribly wrong.



No, that is the long time teaching of orthodox Christianity - a teaching that has existed far longer than your "church" has been in existence. I believe that teaching over you and your sect's word on this.



Just following what the scriptures say on this.



It destroys nothing, it fulfils the scriptures and the reason for Jesus's coming in every way. It is you who rejects this long standing teaching of the Christianity.



You have made that charge so often it is like the boy who called wolf. It means nothing at this point because it is false one.

You are following Rome and its teachings, not the Bible and its teaching. Jesus never cut off his flesh or drained some of his blood for his disciples to fill up on. You are connected by the umbilical cord to Rome.

 

[Particular]

Good post. I have always found it odd that those who profess to believe that God was present in a box making its way across the wilderness, took the form of a cloud, took the form of a dove, and even became an actual man and entering into His creation as a baby, cannot bring themselves to believe that this same God would be present amongst His people in the Eucharist.

At its core, the Protestant objection to the Eucharist is the same objection Muslims and Jews have toward the Incarnation: God could not, would not and should not become man.

Interesting, my objection to Romes teaching on Communion and infant baptism is that they are both legalistic twists that make Rome no different than Muslims or any works based religions that have no grace.

 

[AustinC]

I haven't "butchered" anything.
I take Paul's words at face value.

HOWEVER - your comparison to the Sanhedrin and the Church is nonsense because you are forgetting the most important difference:
Christ guaranteed that HIS Church would NOT succumb to the gates of Hell (Matt. 16:18).
That promise was NOT made to Israel.

Remember also that Jesus condemned the traditions of the Pharisees that USURPED the word of God - not ALL of their traditions.
The Catholic church doesn't have ANY (T)traditions that usurp the Word of God.

Read the letters to the Churches in Revelation. Read Jesus warnings about wolves. Read Paul and Peter's warnings about false teachers and false prophets. They all are pointing at Rome as a false teaching whore of a church.

The church at Rome oozes with traditions that have nothing to do with scripture. Exhibit one: indulgences.

 

[Alofa Atu]

...The Catholic church doesn't have ANY (T)traditions that usurp the Word of God.

It surely does, by it's own admission:

Sunday.

You can see it here between the word of God as written on the Left, and the "Traditional" on the right:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Ten Commandments

What is the Lord's day according to scripture alone?

 

[Walpole]

Interesting, my objection to Romes teaching on Communion and infant baptism is that they are both legalistic twists that make Rome no different than Muslims or any works based religions that have no grace.

Jesus Christ is the source of all grace. Your objections (what in theology we call "positive unbelief") are because you cannot bring yourself to accept that God can be present with His people in the Eucharist and that God's kingdom includes children and does not have an age limit.

Jesus Christ the source of all grace ---> John 1:17
Jesus Christ is present amongst His people in the Eucharist ---> 1 Cor 10:16
The Kingdom of God includes children ---> Matthew 19:14, Acts 2:38-39

 

[MarysSon]

It surely does, by it's own admission:

Sunday.

You can see it here between the word of God as written on the Left, and the "Traditional" on the right:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Ten Commandments

What is the Lord's day according to scripture alone?

Scripture amply answers your Sabbatarian objections to Sunday worship and your adherence to the Law.
YOUR problem is that you adhere to the LAW instead of the FULFILLMENT of the Law, which is Christ.

Col. 2:13-17
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a SABBATH.
These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

The NT Church recognized the Lord’s Day – the FIRST day of the week as the day to gather and to take up a collection (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10).

 

[Alofa Atu]

Scripture amply answers your Sabbatarian objections to Sunday worship and your adherence to the Law.
YOUR problem is that you adhere to the LAW instead of the FULFILLMENT of the Law, which is Christ.

Col. 2:13-17
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a SABBATH.
These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

The NT Church recognized the Lord’s Day – the FIRST day of the week as the day to gather and to take up a collection (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10).

Colossians 2, you wrongly use, see this thread:

Colossians 2, a study

As for Rome's own position at the highest levels (rather than your level, and make no mistake, there are 'levels' as per Ignatius):

"Now in the matter of Sabbath observance the Protestant rule of Faith is utterly unable to explain the substitution of the Christian Sunday for the Jewish Saturday. It has been changed. The Bible still teaches that the Sabbath or Saturday should be kept holy. There is no authority in the New Testament for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday. Surely it is an important matter. It stands there in the Bible as one of the Ten Commandments of God. There is no authority in the Bible for abrogating this Commandment, or for transferring its observance to another day of the week. For Catholics it is not the slightest difficulty. "All power is given Me in heaven and on earth; as the Father sent Me so I also send you," said our Divine Lord in giving His tremendous commission to His Apostles. "He that heareth you heareth Me." We have in the authoritative voice of the Church the voice of Christ Himself. The Church is above the Bible; and this transference of Sabbath observance to Sunday is proof positive of that fact. Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God." - Source: The Catholic Record, London, Ontario Canada, September 1, 1923.- see source from Liberty Magazine Volumes 16-20, all this, the Roman and Seventh Day Adventist, in a response to speech given by Baptist minister [Emmanuel Baptist Church, Toronto Canada] Rev. J. Marion Smith on the Sabbath/Sunday question [google books pagination 14-15] - Liberty

“...Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify. ...” [The Faith Of Our Fathers “Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ” By James Cardinal Gibbons; Archbishop of Baltimore, Ninety-third Carefully Revised and Enlarged Edition; John Murphy Company; Publishers; Baltimore, MD. New York; R. & T. Washbourne, Ltd.; 10 Paternoster Row, London, and at Manchester.; Birmingham and Glascow; 1917; Chapter VIII [8]. The Church And The Bible; Online Pg 97, also side notation pagination as [089]] - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27435/27435-pdf.pdf

Additional statements from Cardinal Gibbons in further material, such as found in "Faith of our Fathers" google books pagination 108, "The Church and the Bible"; "...is not every Christian obliged to to sanctify Sunday, and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify." - Faith of Our Fathers 1877 and as such at the beginning in the Introduction it is clearly said, "...in which the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are expounded by one of her own sons."