'Tradition'

[utilyan]

3 John 1
13I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink;

John wrote more HOLY SCRIPTURE. Fact.
Not with pen and ink.

So what did he write this other holy scripture with?


2 Corinthians 3
1Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? 2You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
4Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

Christianity is written NOT WITH INK. So the ministry of the spirit isn't more glorious if its just ink or stone tablets.

The ministry of DEATH and Condemnation with all its great glory came in writing.

Now the ministry of the SPIRIT is a glory that surpasses comes. They make it clear it doesn't come in writing. So how does it come?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

continued:


One doesn’t simply declare where the burden of proof lies.

I think you'll find that I just did

Such a thing is determined objectively according to various factors which must be considered by all parties. Generally, in the absence of particular qualifying factors, the burden of proof lies with the person who is making a positive claim. That’s you.

Not at all. You have come onto a Baptist Board; I have not come onto a Roman Catholic Board. The onus lies with you to prove your case.

You’re claiming that the “tradition” referred to in 2nd Timothy [sic] is exactly what St. Paul “delivered previously.” Having presented an assertion which St. Paul nowhere makes in the text, the burden of proof rests with you.

You mean 2 Thessalonians. I am comparing Scripture with Scripture. In the light of the Lord Jesus' blanket condemnation of Tradition and Paul's confession that he was at one time in bondage to tradition (Galatians 1:14 etc.), it is not possible that he should then commend unbiblical traditions to Timothy. The Scripture cannot contradict itself. Moreover, as I have pointed out, Paul warns against traditions coming from any other source but him 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

• Once again you’re facing the problem of induction which “cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent, and only necessary truths can be proved deductively.

You don't say what part of my posts this is a reply to, so I can't really answer it. It is a vague charge, and an easy one to make, which does not seem to me to have any merit. Looking through my O.P.s , I am quite happy with them. However, the conversations are getting us nowhere. I will just deal with one more claim that you have made:

Where exactly do any of the above quotes suggest that the “heretics” are “claiming a verbal tradition”? I must have missed it.

Yes you did miss it, though I'm not sure how; it's obvious enough!

When the heretics are refuted from the Scriptures they turn to accusing the Scriptures themselves, as if there were something amiss with them. They impugn the authority of Scripture on the ground of ‘inconsistency’ and because, they say, only those who have the tradition can discover the truth; and this tradition has been handed down by word of mouth, not by the written word.

Is that not clear enough for you? Perhaps you think it's 'inductive'?

Finally, you attempts to deny the force of Irenaeus quote that I posted is nothing but special pleading. Here is the quote again. It is perfectly clear. Irenaeus is claiming that our Lord was in His 6th decade when He was crucified. Any attempt to make him say something different from that which he is so plainly saying is certainly inductive. I have given the quote in full this time, to make it even clearer:

Now, that first stage of early life embraces 30 years, and that this extends onwards to the 40th year, everyone will admit; but from the 40th and 50th year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained with them up to the time of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity] of the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? [Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses II:XXII:V]

Here is a tradition that grew up within a century of our Lord's death and resurrection, and it is plainly wrong. The Scripture is our only infallible source.

I have been spending far too much time on tis forum, and it is plain that you and others are not open to persuasion, so I intend to take an extended break and will therefore not be participating further on this thread. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[DHK]

My statements don't represent "assumptions." They represent the fact that I have adopted the Faith of the Apostles (which is known, in part, through the Motives of Credibility) to whom we attribute the origins of the Apostles' Creed, which speaks of a belief in "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."

That "belief" in and of itself is based on an assumption which is wrong. There is no "one holy catholic and apostolic Church." If you believe there is how would you go about demonstrating it? It is an assumption because you accept it by blind faith from the RCC without proof or evidence, not even Biblical support.

It is your "ecclesiology," then, along with your adherence to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (which is nowhere taught in Scripture), which is inconsistent with the Faith of the Christians since the earliest days. For it was St. Ignatius who told his readers to "follow your bishop as you'd follow Christ." He didn't say "Follow the Bible alone!" It is that once, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the Creed,

We are not commanded to follow the EFC, and it is a sin if we do, and substitute them for the Word.
Here is what the Bible says, as to what you have written:

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Paul did say "Be followers of me." And then clarified it--even as I am of Christ. And that is the Biblical way. But the Bible does not say, "Be followers of Ignatius."
It does say that we are search the scriptures with all readiness of mind to see if these things (the things which your spiritual leader preaches) are really so. Watch out! He may be the devil in disguise!

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They were to be so fluent in the scriptures that with the scriptures they could answer any man:
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
--Therein is the essence of sola scriptura. Out of the Bible they were to be ready to give an answer, not from Shakespeare, Charles Schultz, Stephen King, or any other person. Jesus is the answer; His Word is what He has given us.

established by Christ, with its bishops as Successors to the Apostles, which is guided by the Holy Spirit according to Christ's promise, to which all Christians should submit according to their faith in the Lord who established it.

Again, assumptions and blind faith given to you by the propaganda of the RCC which have no roots in the Bible.
Christ appointed no bishops.
The apostles had no successors.
Since the above statement is false so are the following--no guidance of the Holy Spirit. No promise of Christ as to apostolic succession. The RCC does not have apostolic succession. They elect their popes.
No true Christian would ever submit to a pope. His (the Christian's authority) is Christ. The pope has no authority in his life. Neither did the Lord establish such an office. There is nothing of any of this in the Bible which is our authority.

I am not talking about "living" in a community as in hanging out and shopping together with people or leaning upon them in social terms. I am talking about receiving the Faith in community. God doesn't often (if ever) reveal the whole of the Christian Faith to individual people.

Our local church is a spiritual community. We meet as a local assembly on a regular basis and are united in faith. We both fellowship in a common faith, and contend for that same faith.

Christians who've gone before you (even the Catholics whom you deny are Christians) represent a "community" from whom you've come to receive the Scriptures, for example. The Bible did not just drop out of the sky and land in your hotel drawer. In this way, though they're gone from this life, we are all beneficiaries of the faith of those who went before us. In that sense we all receive the faith in community (and not as individuals).

You are partly correct and partly wrong.
First, it is God that gave the Bible to the church/churches, not the other way around.
But since revelation is progressive (not the revelation contained in the pages of the Word of God), our understanding of the Bible increases as time goes by. Technology has helped greatly. The Bible was made more easily available to man once the printing press was invented. When travel was made more efficient, it became easier for missionaries to go to different nations. Now that we have the internet, our world has become much smaller and it is easier to talk to individuals across the world.

[*]]

The Scriptures nowhere state anything like "The RCC is not the community of which Herbert is speaking." Therefore, you don't know such a thing according to Scriptural revelation. Instead, you (wrongly) interpret the Scriptures to suggest such a thing. Again, you're mistaking your interpretation of the Scriptures for the Scriptures themselves.

I answered according to what I read in your post, which for the most part is assumption, the assumption that "Church" when found in the Bible is the RCC. However the Bible nowhere speaks of "Church" but rather churches, the word being "ekklesia" or congregation, assembly.

Further, the Catholic Church "subsists" outside of the formal physical bounds of the Church. Membership in Christ is known only to God. So Catholics don't presume to know who's "in" or who's "out." This is why, according to the Catholic Faith, I can (and do) genuinely admire you for your faith in Christ and your dedication to Him throughout your life. But our possession of Scripture does not enable us to determine one's status in God's eyes. So it's inaccurate to say that the "community" of which I speak is defined as "the RCC" without certain qualifications. The Church doesn't claim to have infallible knowledge concerning the salvation of all persons on the planet.

However, as I carefully read and study the Catechism, along with Vatican II it appears that those that truly saved according to the RCC are only those that are members of the RCC, those that have been baptized into the RCC, That being the case those outside the RCC are lost. At this point the RCC seems to be contradictory

I agree that a person may come to know Christ in some sort of isolated circumstance, maybe according to the Gospel preached by a travelling minister or something, or maybe by reading the Bible in the silence of his own room. I am not suggesting otherwise. But coming to know Christ and coming to know and rightly understand a host of authentic Christian doctrines are two very different things.

After salvation comes sanctification or growth in Christ. If he is truly saved he can grow in Christ at the rate that God gives him understanding in His revelation. For this reason his understanding of the Bible will be very familiar to that of a Baptist including sola scriptura, and not that of a Catholic where man-made doctrines are taught such as Purgatory and indulgences. He would never find an infant being baptized in the NT.

The Bible states the following: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24) So your interpretation, since it flatly denies what the Bible actually says, proves one fundamental thing which undercuts the position you've been claiming to hold to since I showed up on this site. It's the weak link that fails and causes your whole chain to fail: You're not following the Bible. You're following your interpretation of the Bible. In this case, you're very obviously preferring your interpretation of the Bible to what the Bible actually says.

My interpretation says exactly what the Bible teaches. You pit one verse against what the Bible teaches and are unable to explain the rest of the Bible. For example:
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--by faith alone.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
--by faith alone.
Thus you ignore, not only these verses, but dozens and dozens of others that teach contrary to this one verse, a verse which you wrongly interpret for the sake of a doctrine you wrongly believe.

 

[DHK]

The fact that you disagree with the Church proves nothing. It doesn't give you an "upper hand" in the slightest. It doesn't make you the "Biblical" one and the Church the "apostate" one. It just means you disagree with the Catholic Church.

Yes, I disagree with the RCC, and I can show you where and why.

Again, see James 2:24. And as far as the Christ alone statement goes, I can certainly get on board with that. But I do so according to a Biblical theology which recognizes Christ's union with His Bride. Describing this relationship, St. Paul had this to say: "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."

You are showing how you contradict the rest of the Bible and that is all. Jesus doesn't contradict himself, but you have him contradicting himself. How is that?

I practiced Sola Scriptura into adulthood. Doing so in a consistent manner, however, I came to recognize the objective fact of the doctrine's absence from Scripture. It is indeed nowhere taught in Scripture. Unfortunately, the discussion I began concerning the topic was for some reason brought to an end by an administrator here. But, in my case, an honest and consistent attempt at Sola Scriptura is what led me to the Catholic Church.

If sola scriptura is absent then so is the trinity. Both are "inferred," from solid principles which have been given to you many times.

To wrest is to forcefully take something. Yes, they're doing that deliberately. The ignorance, though, is something that they don't realize they have (that's why it's referred to as ignorance). So it is that out of ignorance, they twist the Scriptures. Look again:

"There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."

The passage indicates that that which is "hard to understand" may present the occasion by which a person to, through ignorance, might "wrest" or twist the Scriptures to his own destruction. It doesn't say that evil intentions are to blame in every case. It attributes the "wresting" specifically to one's ignorance.

You speak also of a willful ignorance on the part of the Church. There's a problem here, as well:

The standard definition of "ignorance" suggests a lack of knowledge or information. In the case of the Catholic Church, though, you suggest there is a sort of "willful ignorance" at play. However, willful ignorance is defined (in this case, by RationalWiki) as "the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality." It's like covering one's eyes before something bad happens so as to block the unpleasant reality from one's visual sensory input. In the case of the Catholic Church's teaching, then, "willful ignorance" isn't an appropriate label. For the Church doesn't block out or exclude from its self-understanding any portion of Scripture. Instead, the Church understands Scripture in a manner inconsistent with the way that you understand Scripture. That doesn't amount to "willful ignorance" on the part of either party. It just means you and the Church disagree. If the Church just ignored or sidelined psassages it didn't like, or pretended they weren't there, the Church might be guilty of "willful ignorance." But such is not the case.

Also, does this paragraph from the Catechism represent your disagreement with the Church?

The paragraph from the Catechism is in direct contradiction to the Bible and in a prideful biased agreement with their emphasis on baptismal regeneration which is a heretical doctrine. No amount of water can save. No infant is saved by water. How can infant put faith in Christ? The whole scenario and the RCC interpretation is absurd. It is the same as the picture of John the Baptist wading half way into the Jordan River and than insisting that he is sprinkling water on individuals. How ridiculous!
They remain willfully ignorant, rejecting the facts no matter how obvious they are, adhering to their own error no matter how false it is, simply for pride sake. It will lead to their own destruction and the destruction of many others.

Paragraph 505 of the Catechism states the following: "By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. "How can this be?" Participation in the divine life arises "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God". The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit's gift to man..."

Blessings to you, DHK.

Herbert

But that is not all that it says, is it?
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5

 

[DHK]

DHK,

You said:



Rodney Stark, a non-Catholic historian employed at a Baptist University has recently come out with a book entitled Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History. From what I've read, and from interviews given in anticipation of the book, it is next on my reading list. And from what I've read from you and a number of people here, it might be worthwhile to give it a read. Indeed, it appears as though you are bearing false witness with comments such as the one above. Also, it may be worthwhile for you to look up the definition of the term "genocide."


Blessings to you, DHK!

Herbert

I know what genocide is. I know when Innocent III wiped out the Albigeneses for no good reason other than they were peace-loving people, that it was genocide. I don't put a lot of confidence in Stark. I believe he is trying to revise history. There are many people who deny the holocaust ever happened as well.

 

[utilyan]

"How can infant put faith in Christ?"

Its funny DHK, Cause I'm pretty sure you would swear that a person has no CHOICE or any ACTION they themselves could do to be saved.

YET when a infant is baptized with no choice or act on his own that is unacceptable.

 

[DHK]

"How can infant put faith in Christ?"

Its funny DHK, Cause I'm pretty sure you would swear that a person has no CHOICE or any ACTION they themselves could do to be saved.

YET when a infant is baptized with no choice or act on his own that is unacceptable.

That is where you are wrong. You are mistaking me for a hardline Calvinist who doesn't believe in free will. I am not a Calvinist at all. When Paul said to the Philippian jailer:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ thou shalt be saved."
IOW, Have faith in Christ. A person always has a choice whether to believe or to reject. God doesn't force anyone. And he doesn't force an infant either, does he?
If God doesn't force an infant, why should man through infant baptism??
Ridiculous theology.

 

[herbert]

I don't know where 'above' is.

Having written a number of comments on a few separate threads, I think I may have referred to an "above" which was not above but which was found on the discussion focusing upon Sola Scriptura which was abruptly shut down. So above should have probably read "elsewhere."

Only if you ignore the very words of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just read Mark 7 again. Nowhere does He make an exception for 'good' tradition. 'All too well you reject the commandment of God that you may keep your traditions.' Stop trying to avoid the force of this sentence; read it and obey it!
[QUOTE}

I have read it. And I do obey it. What I don't obey is your interpretation of it. Further, the particular formulation of this phrase places a stress on the thing which is preferred over the thing which is neglected. What if I said the following to one of my kids "All too well you reject your homework that you may keep playing your video games." Such a statement would not suggest that the video games are themselves evil. Rather, what's bad is the way they've become the focus to the exclusion of something which is more important: homework. According to this formulation, the "bad" thing is bad, in part, according to its having been preferred over the other thing which is good and, in contrast, preferable to it. This really is a form of idolatry, at least according to GK Chesterton's definition of the word. Chesterton said that idolatry is "the preference for the incidental good over the eternal good which it signifies." The incidental good, when preferred over the very eternal good which it signifies becomes something particularly pernicious. One is not, by this reading, justified in his condemnation of *all* tradition. Look again at what Christ actually says here. First, He says that the Pharisees reject the commandment of God for "their" traditions, not "all" traditions (His wording is actually "that you may keep your traditions"). So it's not "all" tradition to which Christ refers, but "your" (that is, the Pharisees') traditions. And He even describes what some of them are. In the case of Mark 7, those He mentions are as follows:

1. The ritual washing of hands, cups, pots, copper vessels, and dining couches
2. The dedication to God of one's resources

After this portion of Scripture, Christ even goes so far as to identify the problem's origin not as some outward thing (such as a tradition) by saying: For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.
This is the problem of the Pharisees, they, as the Prophet foretold, "honor him with their lips" while their "hearts are far from him." In other words, His remarks are aimed at the particular scheme they'd developed which was particularly pernicious. They had created a system by which they would satisfy themselves through outward activity while their hearts were selfish, covetous, and wicked. Nowhere does He state explicitly the thing you're drawing from the text, Martin.

I don't care what these people wrote. If they deny what the Lord Jesus wrote they are blind guides and you are blind if you follow them.

Instead of telling me that I'm blind (which is an ad hominem) take the time to explain why my understanding of the text is inconsistent with what the text says. Also, I follow Jesus. I can, however, learn from them. Further, these writers don't "deny what the Lord Jesus wrote" because we don't have any record of Him writing anything (apart from what He wrote in the dirt in John 8:6). Neither do they deny anything we have record of Him saying or doing. What they deny is your mistaken interpretation of the Scriptures. That problem arises primarily from the fact, however, that you have assigned the Scriptures to a position they nowhere claim for themselves.

And if you don't care what they wrote, why do you refer to them as Early "Fathers"? Why do you refer to them at all? And to say they're blind guides is to attack them, not their positions. By speaking to the flaws in their thinking and their teaching, and not their persons, you may begin to present an actual argument for your strongly-held position.

Yes He is. He says so specifically. The O.T. ceremonial laws were still binding on the Jews and our Lord does not criticize those. He criticizes when folk depart from the word of God.

You suggest that Christ is opposed to the mere existence of tradition. Nothing in the text demonstrates this to be the case, however. You have not appealed to a single text which dismisses the validity of tradition, rightly practiced. Instead, you've clung to a non sequitur which suggests that because Christ condemned some traditions, we must disregard all traditions. Further, it is possible for various traditions to be practiced which do not contradict the Word of God. Despite your insistence, there is nothing in the Scriptures which suggests otherwise.

 

[herbert]

continued

And just who are you to decide that there's nothing wrong with this or that? 'To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

1. Please consider Isaiah 8:19, which reads: “When someone tells you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?” This verse reveals the fact that the immediate matter in question here is concerned with the consultation of mediums and spiritists. The way to keep from being led astray by the appeal to such “mediums and spiritists” is, according to the Prophet, to remain true to the “law and to the testimony.”
2. If you see this as a “proof text” that I should understand by now, what exactly is, in your mind, the “law and… the testimony”? There is nothing in this text which indicates that the “law and… the testimony” amounts to “Scripture alone.” As a matter of fact, the term “testimony” refers not to God’s law directly, but to man’s attestation of it (in this case, at least in part, the testimony of the Prophet himself). In other words, if someone practices necromancy, he is guilty of violating the Prophet’s warning, God’s Law, and man’s witness of God’s law. Nothing here even begins to suggest anything like Sola Scriptura. Barnes’ Notes on the Bible has this to say: “The meaning is, probably, this: 'The law of God is the standard by which all professed communications from the invisible world are to be tested. If the necromancers deliver a doctrine which is not sustained by that, and not in accordance with the prophetic communications, it shows that they are in utter ignorance. There is not even the glimmering of the morning twilight; all is total night, and error, and obscurity with them, and they are not to be followed.” In other words, the Prophet’s witness or testimony is one authority against which the claims and practices of necromancers should be measured. So between a Prophet’s testimony and God’s Law, the practices of a necromancer are revealed as manifestly out of accord with God’s will.
3. What does it mean to speak according to “this word”? Strong’s exhaustive concordance defines this particular “word” not as “Scripture” but as the particular utterance which the Prophet is offering within the context of that particular pronouncement. In other words, “word” here doesn’t mean Scripture per se, but simply the particular matter in question here within the context of the Prophet’s remarks, which happens to be related to the practice of necromancy. In other words, the Prophet condemns necromancy, and by virtue of his personal status as one who speaks on behalf of God, he’s saying that if anyone does something other than what it is he’s saying, such a person has “no light” in him. Again, there is nothing present in this text which even begins to teach “Sola Scriptura.” If you think there, is, please explain what it is I am missing.
4. And if you're going to appeal to this passage, you may be proving too much. For by holding Sola Scriptura up to the standard presented here, it will itself fall short of the mark. In other words, Sola Scriptura is nowhere presented as "God's Law." Nor is it attested to by a Prophet. And since the "word" in the passage isn't a reference to the 66-book Canon which you accept, if you're holding to Sola Scriptura, you're not measuring up to either the Law of God or the Testimony of a Prophet. For Sola Scriptura was revealed by neither.

Indeed, we all have practices that are handed down to us. The question is, can they be justified from the word of God? If they can't, away with them!

As I see it, there are a couple problems here:

1. When the Scriptures use the term "Word of God" such a phrase isn't always self-referential. The phrase "Word of God" is not synonymous, then, with the 66-book Canon which you accept. The Word of God is first the Man, Christ. So the various practices which are handed down to us should promote and encourage thankfulness and reverence toward Him. They should turn our hearts toward God. Such practices may be pious and worthwhile even if they're not explicitly found in Scripture. To suggest otherwise is to look to the Bible as an encyclopedia of the Faith. But the Bible nowhere indicates that it should be looked to as an encyclopedia, a recipe book, or a reference book of any kind.
2. When your "measuring stick" is Sola Scriptura, which is itself not taught by the Word of God, you're not justified in using it to determine whether or not something aligns with the Word of God since it is itself not found in the Word of God. As I've said, your test for Biblical validity fails its own test. This is the dilemma you're in... which you've not yet even acknowledged. Further, though adherence to Sola Scriptura presents an illusion of obedience, the truth is that "when I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me." So it is that you believe that you're judging tradition by the light of Scripture. But you're actually wrongly appealing to "Sola" Scriptura while the thing that's doing the actual work is your mind in its efforts to interpret and apply your understanding of Scripture to the challenges of Christian living.

Christians should constantly be examining their service to god to see if God has commanded it. Ecclesia Reformata semper Reformanda. 'The Reformed church is always in need of reformation.' Unbiblical traditions come into churches all to easily. 'But we've always done it this way!' Any practice or form of worship not found in the Bible is mere 'will worship.'

Again, I see a few problems here:

1. When Reformation reforms, you're right. When Reformation divides, divorces, condemns, and ridicules, it is no longer Reformation, but is instead Revolution. When a wife patiently works things out with her abusive husband, she can be seen as righteously showing love to him with the hope of reconciling herself to him as he heals. But if the wife deserts him, she is not acting in such a way as to "reform" the damaged relationship. And though Christ will never leave His Church on account of the sins of her members, individual people are free to do so.
2. "The Reformed Church" unless you're referring to the Catholic Church, which is always being reformed, isn't a Church (singular) at all on account of the fact that it has neither the Sacraments, the Government, or the doctrines instituted by Christ who established one Church and promised the Holy Spirit as its Guarantor. Apart from the Catholic Church whose center holds on account of her divine institution, there exist all over the world faith communities, congregations of believers and followers of Christ, and various churches which do have valid sacraments and an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession. But these disparate and separated groups do not constitute a "Church" because they have not unifying quality or characteristic by which they're bound to one another. Especially problematic in this regard, as far as logic goes, is a Baptist's claim to hold to classical Reformed theology which itself has no place for a conventionally Baptist ecclesiology.
3. Ultimately, this is a problematic position because of the fact that any discernment which comes about through Sola Scriptura invalidates itself by this very test due to the fact that Sola Scriptura isn't taught in the Scriptures and cannot, therefore, be proffered as a viable means by which other Christian doctrines may be judged. Like a condemned criminal attempting to condemn other criminals, Sola Scriptura falls short of its own standard for Biblical veracity.

 

[herbert]

continued

Absolutely not! I showed above that Paul commends only those things which he himself has passed on and he tells us that those were what he received from the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:23) and we can find that in the Bible in the synoptic Gospels. All other traditions he condemns (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2).

1. Nowhere in 1st Corinthians does St. Paul say that he commends "only" those things which he himself passed on. In that passage, he simply says "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread..." There is no "only" there.
2. The context of 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-2 is explicitly associated with the question of peoples' claims that the day of the Lord has already come. St. Paul did not want people to become "easily unsettled or alarmed" by false teaching. And in this case, he mentions three modes by which such false claims may be made: prophecy, word of mouth, or letter. He says not to listen to any of them if they're claiming the day of the Lord has already come (not just tradition!). If you're going to appeal to this text to demonstrate the illegitimacy of tradition, you're going to have to cast out Scripture and Prophecy with it, as well. For St. Paul grouped the three together there.
3. You say that "all other traditions he condemns." In other words, you're suggesting that he affirms some traditions (which are elsewhere inscripturated) while condemning "all others." This is problematic for your position because in a rather ad hoc way you've dismissed St. Paul's affirmation of the validity of tradition (which he explicitly presents) by suggesting that what he referred to as tradition was actually Scripture so it's okay. But if this is the case, you still have to face a problem you've created for yourself: You say Christ offered a "blanket condemnation" of tradition. If this is the case, even if St. Paul's tradition became inscripturated, you have an Apostle promoting something which received a blanket condemnation from the very lips of Christ. Further, you did not offer a Bible verse within which St. Paul "condemns all other(s)" traditions. You claim that he did so. But you didn't provide a verse in which he does anything of the sort.

I think you'll find that I just did

The fact that you "just did" dictate by mere assertion where the "onus" or the burden of proof lies doesn't indicate that you're justified in doing so according to "logic." As a matter of fact, your having done so demonstrates your disregard for logical, systematic consideration of a topic.

Not at all. You have come onto a Baptist Board; I have not come onto a Roman Catholic Board. The onus lies with you to prove your case.

The particular forum within which a conversation takes place does not represent a basis for the suspension of the laws of reason and argumentation and it has no bearing on the logic which determines which party bears the burden of proof. In other words, the logic of a thing isn't concerned with the particular whereabouts of the conversation on the Internet.

You mean 2 Thessalonians. I am comparing Scripture with Scripture. In the light of the Lord Jesus' blanket condemnation of Tradition and Paul's confession that he was at one time in bondage to tradition (Galatians 1:14 etc.), it is not possible that he should then commend unbiblical traditions to Timothy. The Scripture cannot contradict itself. Moreover, as I have pointed out, Paul warns against traditions coming from any other source but him 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3).

First off, notice that "I" there. It is indeed you "comparing" Scripture with Scripture and seeking to make sense of things. All of this happens in your mind according to your reason and experience. This all results in a particular "interpretation" which mustn't be confused with the Scripture itself. For example, according to your study you've concluded that Christ presented a "blanket" condemnation of tradition. Such is not the case, however. He even went so far as to instruct the people to do what the Scribes and Pharisees told them to do (Matthew 23:3), even though the Scribes and the Pharisees were hypocrites. I imagine that what Christ instructed the people to do here certainly included at least one single thing which might be understood as a "tradition"? And if this is the case, then here we have a situation in which Christ is found to uphold the legitimacy of the traditions of the Pharisees when practiced by the people *according to their having the right hearts* and not according to hypocritical tendencies of the Pharisees. Again, this is all because it was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees that was the problem. It was not the intrinsic evil of the traditions, but the way the traditions were exploited for the sake of what was inside of the hearts of these men whom Christ criticized so pointedly: "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.'" Notice, He says that the people must be careful to do "everything they tell you." That "everything," it seems would likely include the traditions of these men charged with teaching and instructing and to whom even Christ called for the peoples' obedience...

 

[herbert]

continued
Finally, Christ's condemnation, as the text in question indicates, is not at all a "blanket" condemnation. The Pharisees' traditions are *specifically* denounced according to the way in which they're leveraged in such a way as to avoid the Law of God, and not according to their intrinsic evil. As I said, the straining of gnats, the ceremonial washing of hands, the decorating of graves, and the giving of alms are all, far from being bad things, good things which are only found to be particularly pernicious in light of the way in which the Pharisees had exploited them so as to avoid following the Law of God. You've said nothing to argue against my point here. And the Scripture stands as my witness. For nowhere does the Lord present a "blanket condemnation" of traditions as you suggest. He specifically condemns "your" (the Pharisees') traditions and not "all" tradition. Further, you even acknowledged the fact that we all have traditions by saying "...we all have practices that are handed down to us." In other words, if *all* traditions are condemnable. And "traditions" are the "things handed down to us," you're guilty of violating the very practice you're attempting to argue against by making Christ out to say something He simply doesn't say in this text. If Christ said "all" tradition, you'd have a point. But we must consider His audience and his use of the pronoun "your."

You don't say what part of my posts this is a reply to, so I can't really answer it. It is a vague charge, and an easy one to make, which does not seem to me to have any merit. Looking through my O.P.s , I am quite happy with them. However, the conversations are getting us nowhere. I will just deal with one more claim that you have made:

I said "Once again you’re facing the problem of induction which 'cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent, and only necessary truths can be proved deductively.'" To suggest that someone is presenting an argument by induction is not a vague charge. It is a very specific charge. Deductive arguments and inductive arguments are two very different things which yield very different conclusions. The conclusions reached by through deduction are as sound as their various premises. In contrast, the conclusions reached through induction, though their premises may be sound, only conclude with probabilities. Nearly everything you've said thus far has been affirmed by way of induction. Until you address this fundamental problem, your conclusions cannot produce anything but probabilities grounded in opinion.

Yes you did miss it, though I'm not sure how; it's obvious enough!

What is obvious to a person is determined in large part according to the paradigm according to which he operates. So it is that what's obvious to you may not be obvious to me. In such a case as this I'd hope that you'd help me, through explanation, to see what it is you consider to be obvious.

Finally, you attempts to deny the force of Irenaeus quote that I posted is nothing but special pleading. Here is the quote again. It is perfectly clear. Irenaeus is claiming that our Lord was in His 6th decade when He was crucified. Any attempt to make him say something different from that which he is so plainly saying is certainly inductive. I have given the quote in full this time, to make it even clearer:

Now, that first stage of early life embraces 30 years, and that this extends onwards to the 40th year, everyone will admit; but from the 40th and 50th year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained with them up to the time of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity] of the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? [Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses II:XXII:V]

Here is a tradition that grew up within a century of our Lord's death and resurrection, and it is plainly wrong. The Scripture is our only infallible source.

The fallacy of special pleading is employed when someone presents an argument in which "he deliberately ignores aspects of an argument that are unfavorable to his point of view." To avoid such a charge I presented an argument from a practicing non-Catholic minister and adherent to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Still, however, you accuse me of arguing according to my Catholic presuppositions. This appears to be another case of "I'm darned if I do, I'm darned if I don't." If you research this quote more thoroughly you will find that there are a number of non-Catholic historians who do not believe that Irenaeus was teaching what you suggest. If you'd like to discuss those perspectives, having read some of them already, I'd love to. If you're, on the other hand, going to substitute a declaration in the place of a rational argument, well, that's unfortunate. At the end of the day, however, as I've said, even if he was mistaken concerning Christ's age, such would not represent a fatal flaw in Catholic teaching. For the Church Fathers aren't independently infallible. They do indeed err on occasion. Their witness is of great value in its collective presentation of the early Christian Faith. And that is a Faith which I found to be utterly foreign to me as I looked back upon it as a Baptist adherent to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I have been spending far too much time on tis forum, and it is plain that you and others are not open to persuasion, so I intend to take an extended break and will therefore not be participating further on this thread. Thank you for the discussion.

Notice, again, how you've resorted to another ad hominem by saying that it is "plain" that I (and others) are not open to persuasion. You're talking, once again, about our wills and our dispositions and not about the logic of our position(s). Also, I am not sure what I've done or said which would indicate that I am not open to persuasion. In the case of my mistaken perspective concerning the tragic murder of William Tyndale I was forthright concerning my ignorance and my misrepresentation of the situation and apologized for having mischaracterized the situation surrounding his lamentable death.

Finally, I am disappointed that you offered to discuss tradition and sola Scriptura only to have our conversations cut so short just when they were getting a bit more in depth.

Either way, thanks for the conversation!

May God continue to bless you richly!

Herbert

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As I see it, there are a couple problems here:

Herbert,
This is positively my last post on this forum for a while.

When the American comedian W.C. Fields was dying, some of his old drinking pals came round to see him and to their surprise they found him sitting in bed reading the Bible. Fields had apparently led a particularly wicked life and had never shown any interest in God's word before, so he felt that some explanation was called for. "Just lookin' for loopholes, boys!" He quipped; "Just lookin' for loopholes!"

As I read through your posts, not just these last ones, but almost all your posts on Sola Scriptura and Tradition, you seem to me to be looking for loopholes. You seem to be desperately trying to avoid the clear implications of the verses you've been challenged with in Isaiah 8, Mark 7, 2 Timothy 3 and elsewhere. With all kindness and friendliness let me say to you, you need to stop looking for loopholes. You need to read these texts again and accept them for what they so clearly say. "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it" (Luke 18:17). There are times when we need to set aside our supposed wisdom and intelligence, hear what God is saying to us in His word and accept it with a child-like faith.

May God bless you, Herbert, and open your heart to receive His truth.

 

[Darrell C]

Hello Herbert, I had planned to take my leave of the forum for a while but an issue has arisen which makes it hard for me to take leave at this time. The following is simply a short comment on the points you make here. Also, glad to see you have hung in there, lol. And I think we may have a common trait in the way we respond. I
m long-winded too...

The particular forum within which a conversation takes place does not represent a basis for the suspension of the laws of reason and argumentation and it has no bearing on the logic which determines which party bears the burden of proof. In other words, the logic of a thing isn't concerned with the particular whereabouts of the conversation on the Internet.

Can't agree with that. I think Martin's point is valid (and he can correct me when he returns if I have missed it): the point is...you're not on a Catholic Forum.

The significance can be viewed from a couple of perspectives, such as you are here to correct error, or support your faith, or perhaps to seek justification for being Catholic.

This is actually something we all share, and "the particular whereabouts" is an important element of our Forum wanderings. Not many give this any thought.

First off, notice that "I" there. It is indeed you "comparing" Scripture with Scripture and seeking to make sense of things. All of this happens in your mind according to your reason and experience. This all results in a particular "interpretation" which mustn't be confused with the Scripture itself. For example, according to your study you've concluded that Christ presented a "blanket" condemnation of tradition. Such is not the case, however. He even went so far as to instruct the people to do what the Scribes and Pharisees told them to do (Matthew 23:3), even though the Scribes and the Pharisees were hypocrites. I imagine that what Christ instructed the people to do here certainly included at least one single thing which might be understood as a "tradition"?

You effectively deny interpretation and its importance in Scripture. You are saying the interpretation is mutually exclusive to the Scripture. That is not the case. And it is not the case when the Lord instructs men to obey those who sit in Moses Seat.

There is ablanket condemnation for tradition that effects that which is...hypocritical. This is not something that arises from sitting in "Moses Seat" as Moses did, which was to instruct people from the Word of God.

You are interpreting Christ to be saying two things here, both to do what they tell them (which comes from an Office that deals with the Law), and what they are themselves doing, which is apparently contradictory to the Law.

Matthew 23

King James Version (KJV)

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.


Now what does it mean to bid someone to observe (something)? It's kind of like this discussion, I am bidding you to observe what Christ states. The Scribes and Pharisees would have bid men to observe that which was in the Law, and this is distinguished from what they themselves did, which is clear in Christ's condemnation are two entirely different things.

A modern parallel might be seen in prominent televangelists that preach the Gospel and then are found to be living lives contradictory to that which they were bidding others to observe.

And if this is the case, then here we have a situation in which Christ is found to uphold the legitimacy of the traditions of the Pharisees when practiced by the people *according to their having the right hearts* and not according to hypocritical tendencies of the Pharisees.

Look at your premise, "And if this is the case."

It's not the case.

The Lord does not imply that the Scribes and Pharisees are observing that which they bid other men to observe. It is contradictory, hypocritical, and that is the Tradition of Men that must be at all costs avoided. It has a public and private application.

Again, this is all because it was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees that was the problem. It was not the intrinsic evil of the traditions, but the way the traditions were exploited for the sake of what was inside of the hearts of these men whom Christ criticized so pointedly: "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.'"

You are saying the opposite of what Christ is teaching. He is saying their deeds are evil. that is just not open to debate.

It is not a matter of exploitation, it is a matter of their works not replicating that which is taught in the Law. John the Baptist demands of these men that they bring forth fruit meet for repentance, because their lives demand repentance.

You sum it up well, "They do not practice what they preach." Now how can you divorce their works from Christ's condemnation? In view is what the Law teaches, and what they were actually doing.

And that takes us to the primary objection most have with a Catholic view of Tradition, and the attempt to deny that adherence to the Word of God is a primary teaching of Scripture.

Notice, He says that the people must be careful to do "everything they tell you." That "everything," it seems would likely include the traditions of these men charged with teaching and instructing and to whom even Christ called for the peoples' obedience...

No, Herbert, it wouldn't. Because this would imply that the tradition of those that instructed them was according to the Law. Traditions are not what are passed down, the Word of God is what is passed down. The traditions you suggest were acceptable are the very deeds Christ Condemns.

Christ called them to obedience to the Law, and the authority Moses had, which was, if you think about it...the Word of God. When Moses held authority, he was not reading from the Torah, but in written form he had some very basic instructions. Many of these instructions were violated by the Scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees, and we see a distinction given between the tradition (Ye have heard it said) and what was written ("It is written," "But I say unto you").

The Word of God was the basis for Christ's Authority when He rebuked men for failing to observe what was written, and exchanging what was written for what was spoken by those who sat in authority.

The Pharisees bid men to observe, for example, "Thou shalt not kill." Did they observe this themselves? No.

So Christ is saying observe "Thou shalt not kill," but do not the deeds of those bidding you to observe this, for they are murderers in their practice.

Hope that makes sense.

Again, glad to see you fitting in, and making friends.



But don't let antagonism discourage you, it could be much worse: you could be a Baptist and long-winded.




God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

We Baptists CAN claim authority to hold to and believe in our doctrines and prac tices, for they are outlined in the scriptures, but where did the church of Rome get the authority to add to/take away/alter the word of the Lord?

Apostle John forbids that being done, and since the inspiration/revelation from God unto us apart from the scriptures themselves ceased when John died, you do know that rome has NO histiorical/biblical support fir their assumed aurthority to do those things, much less be the "infallible" intrpretor of the Bible, correct?

 

[herbert]

Martin,

When the American comedian W.C. Fields was dying, some of his old drinking pals came round to see him and to their surprise they found him sitting in bed reading the Bible. Fields had apparently led a particularly wicked life and had never shown any interest in God's word before, so he felt that some explanation was called for. "Just lookin' for loopholes, boys!" He quipped; "Just lookin' for loopholes!"

As I read through your posts, not just these last ones, but almost all your posts on Sola Scriptura and Tradition, you seem to me to be looking for loopholes. You seem to be desperately trying to avoid the clear implications of the verses you've been challenged with in Isaiah 8, Mark 7, 2 Timothy 3 and elsewhere.

Notice the fact that this is an ad hominem. Here you are discussing me, my person, my will, what I "seem to be" looking for, what I seem to be (desperately) trying to avoid, etc.

Rather than talk about me, why don't you address the problem of induction?

With all kindness and friendliness let me say to you, you need to stop looking for loopholes. You need to read these texts again and accept them for what they so clearly say. "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it" (Luke 18:17). There are times when we need to set aside our supposed wisdom and intelligence, hear what God is saying to us in His word and accept it with a child-like faith.

Again, you're talking about me and what I "need to stop looking for." For my part, I'd say that I am not looking for loopholes. Therefore, by telling me to stop doing something I am not doing, you're begging the question by presuming the legitimacy of your assessment of my actions.

Also, my responses to you represent a demonstration of the fact that I am not looking for loopholes. If I were, why would I be here attempting to hear you and others out and continue to shine the light of Scripture on my position? If I were looking for loopholes why would I even be a Christian? I'd likely be a secularist or an atheist. Instead of those things, though, I am striving to know God's will for me by sharing and learning from other believers, even those who don't consider me to be a Christian. Here I am attempting to read the Scriptures according to what the Scriptures actually say, not what my inherited tradition insists they mean. I am addressing the Scriptures verse by verse according to what they actually say. Anyone here may go back and re-read what I've said about the verses you presented and I'd welcome their correction if it's needed. For I addressed Isaiah 8, Mark 7, and 2nd Timothy 3 in quite some detail. You didn't even begin to respond to my reading of those texts. You needn't feel obligated to do so. But you did invite me to chime in here and discuss these topics. Then, having taken you up on the offer, you're leaving. Also, you've claimed I'm too wordy and have questioned my intentions in response to me without attending directly to the points I make.

Further, you just keep re-presenting those verses as though I've never responded to your reading of them with an explanation as to why I don't see things the same way that you do. If I've said something that doesn't comport with the Scriptures, I need to know specifically what it is so that I can correct my position. Also, I am not claiming some "supposed wisdom and intelligence." As I've said, I am not formally trained in theology in the slightest. I am just a typical person in the pew. But this doesn't mean that I cannot test everything and hold to what is good. I am attempting to do this by engaging with people

May God bless you, Herbert, and open your heart to receive His truth.

Though I appreciate your charity (I really do. Honestly, thank you...) this wish presumes the idea that I am not currently receiving His truth. That, however, is the very thing in question. So it, you guessed it, begs the question...

In Him,

Herbert

 

[utilyan]

That is where you are wrong. You are mistaking me for a hardline Calvinist who doesn't believe in free will. I am not a Calvinist at all. When Paul said to the Philippian jailer:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ thou shalt be saved."
IOW, Have faith in Christ. A person always has a choice whether to believe or to reject. God doesn't force anyone. And he doesn't force an infant either, does he?
If God doesn't force an infant, why should man through infant baptism??
Ridiculous theology.

Baptist ARE Calvinists. So your a Calvinist And I can claim that with greater validity then you can all your misrepresentations of the Catholic Church. So I'm just going to return the favor this one time and just insist Baptist are Calvinist. jk.



Colossians 2
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.



We are shown the circumcision of Christ is Baptism. Baptism is the new circumcision.

Jesus Christ was circumcised when he was 8 days old, Infants are circumcised and enter the family of God

We can argue the same absurdity that well God now forces infants to get circumcisions and forces them into family.

"Ridiculous theology"

How is this? we move from a good circumcision that was open to all men signifying the covenant to a even more restrictive covenant.


Maybe you circumcise your children as a "safety net" to somewhat have them in God's family and then leave it on them if they want to be baptized into the family again.

Most men in north America are circumcised did they choose so or did God force it upon them?

God force baby infants to stay with parents who forced infants to eat.

We already understood the holy spirit isn't limited to only working within baptism. You can have never been baptized and still have the holy spirit poured out on you.

This also speaks volumes of your faith in God.
Every child you have God shrugs at you whether he is in the family.

A person forces on Satan to their children by accusing them with even the possibility of satanic allegiance.
Part of your Calvinist total depravity.jk

In seriousness, The inconsistency I'm pointing out is Baptism is the new "Circumcision in Christ" and circumcisions were applied to infants.

 

[utilyan]

We Baptists CAN claim authority to hold to and believe in our doctrines and prac tices, for they are outlined in the scriptures, but where did the church of Rome get the authority to add to/take away/alter the word of the Lord?

Apostle John forbids that being done, and since the inspiration/revelation from God unto us apart from the scriptures themselves ceased when John died, you do know that rome has NO histiorical/biblical support fir their assumed aurthority to do those things, much less be the "infallible" intrpretor of the Bible, correct?

Prior to John, if we look at the oldest writings, Paul letter states not to exceed what is written. Thing is this is written before even the gospels.

It was the Church who later added the gospels and the book of revelation.

Your going with liberal gut feelings rather then research how things got done.


If we go through what early church fathers teach its nothing like Baptist who only started 400 years ago by a ANGLICAN PRIEST.


And then following scripture means actually believing what it says rather then making up fake new meanings.

James 2
24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Baptist meaning? Just run what scripture says BACKWARDS.

Heres a bold claim. I can pull 150 verses where Baptist just understand the backwards. The DIRECT backward meaning.

If a catholic did that with one verse we would never hear the end of it.

We take scripture face value.

Debating Baptist...... Is EASY. Scripture is like a unlimited source of ammo.


Doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved:

Genesis
4The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die!

The Devil's first doctrine. From the beginning teaches that being declared holy is greater then being holy.

 

[DHK]

Baptist ARE Calvinists. So your a Calvinist And I can claim that with greater validity then you can all your misrepresentations of the Catholic Church. So I'm just going to return the favor this one time and just insist Baptist are Calvinist. jk.

Thus far only the history of the General Baptist churches of England has been considered. This body constituted by far the larger portion of the Baptists of that country, and their history runs on in an uninterrupted stream from generation to generation. ..
Particular Baptists, since they held to Calvinistic views. The Particular Baptists had a wholly different origin from the General Baptists.
Crosby says:

It may be proper to observe here, that there have been two parties of the English Baptists ever since the beginning of the reformation; those that have followed the Calvinistical scheme or doctrines, and from the principal points therein, personal election, and have been termed Particular Baptists: And those that have professed the Arminian or remonstrant tenets; and have also from the chief of those doctrines, universal redemption, been called General Baptists (Crosby, I. p. 173).

You are entitled to your opinion. But without evidence it remains opinion, and obviously very much wront.
http://www.pbministries.org/History/John T. Christian/vol1/history_17.htm

Colossians 2
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

We are shown the circumcision of Christ is Baptism. Baptism is the new circumcision.

Jesus Christ was circumcised when he was 8 days old, Infants are circumcised and enter the family of God

1. First you equate circumcision to salvation.
2. You say that Jesus needed to be circumcised.
3. Are you therefore saying that Christ was a sinner that needed to be saved?
Yes, ridiculous theology.

We can argue the same absurdity that well God now forces infants to get circumcisions and forces them into family.

"Ridiculous theology"

Salvation is by faith. Infants cannot believe. Thus the RCC has a ridiculous theology. Right.
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

How is this? we move from a good circumcision that was open to all men signifying the covenant to a even more restrictive covenant.

Maybe you circumcise your children as a "safety net" to somewhat have them in God's family and then leave it on them if they want to be baptized into the family again.

Most men in north America are circumcised did they choose so or did God force it upon them?

By your theology a woman cannot be saved. Women in our society at least, are not circumcised, and therefore are not saved.
Circumcision has nothing to do with salvation, and it has nothing to do with baptism. You are wrong.
Neither does it matter if I, or my children, or anyone in my church circumcise their children. Circumcision is of the law. The law cannot save; it condemns.

God force baby infants to stay with parents who forced infants to eat.

Does it matter? Your question is irrelevant. Salvation is a choice that must be made after one hears and understands the gospel
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

We already understood the holy spirit isn't limited to only working within baptism. You can have never been baptized and still have the holy spirit poured out on you.

Nonsense. Getting wet has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. Look what Jeremiah said:
Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
--Go ahead baptize yourself. Use as much water as you can, and plenty of soap as well--the strongest kind you can possibly buy. Do you think that is going to wash away your sins, or make you one whit more holy? Not a chance! Neither will it give you or fill you with the Holy Spirit. Two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of oxygen make a molecule of water. How are those two chemicals joined together going to do anything for you except get you wet??

I wasn't baptized until two years after I was saved. That didn't stop the Lord from using me.

This also speaks volumes of your faith in God.
Every child you have God shrugs at you whether he is in the family.

A person forces on Satan to their children by accusing them with even the possibility of satanic allegiance.
Part of your Calvinist total depravity.jk

I believe in depravity but not total depravity. I am not a Calvinist. Do your own research.
Baptism doesn't put anyone into the family. One must be born again of the Spirit of God, not of baptism. Baptism simply gets you wet.

In seriousness, The inconsistency I'm pointing out is Baptism is the new "Circumcision in Christ" and circumcisions were applied to infants.

They have nothing in common. Can you point out even one example of any infant in the NT that was baptized? What was his or her name? I would like to know.[/QUOTE]

 

[utilyan]

You are entitled to your opinion. But without evidence it remains opinion, and obviously very much wront.
http://www.pbministries.org/History/John T. Christian/vol1/history_17.htm


1. First you equate circumcision to salvation.
2. You say that Jesus needed to be circumcised.
3. Are you therefore saying that Christ was a sinner that needed to be saved?
Yes, ridiculous theology.


Salvation is by faith. Infants cannot believe. Thus the RCC has a ridiculous theology. Right.
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

By your theology a woman cannot be saved. Women in our society at least, are not circumcised, and therefore are not saved.
Circumcision has nothing to do with salvation, and it has nothing to do with baptism. You are wrong.
Neither does it matter if I, or my children, or anyone in my church circumcise their children. Circumcision is of the law. The law cannot save; it condemns.


Does it matter? Your question is irrelevant. Salvation is a choice that must be made after one hears and understands the gospel
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.


Nonsense. Getting wet has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. Look what Jeremiah said:
Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
--Go ahead baptize yourself. Use as much water as you can, and plenty of soap as well--the strongest kind you can possibly buy. Do you think that is going to wash away your sins, or make you one whit more holy? Not a chance! Neither will it give you or fill you with the Holy Spirit. Two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of oxygen make a molecule of water. How are those two chemicals joined together going to do anything for you except get you wet??

I wasn't baptized until two years after I was saved. That didn't stop the Lord from using me.


I believe in depravity but not total depravity. I am not a Calvinist. Do your own research.
Baptism doesn't put anyone into the family. One must be born again of the Spirit of God, not of baptism. Baptism simply gets you wet.


They have nothing in common. Can you point out even one example of any infant in the NT that was baptized? What was his or her name? I would like to know.

[/QUOTE]


You say circumcision has nothing to do with baptism.

The holy bible says:
Colossians 2
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;


The covenants only get better God can't pull out on his contract which say the heirs are Abraham and his children.

Galatians 3
. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.



A infant has BETTER rights to be baptized then YOU.

Luke 18
15And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. 16But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

How does Christ decree the kingdom of God belongs to INFANTS and they are better qualified to receive the kingdom of GOD?


Satan hates infants too DHK. You need to get off the spiritual bully stance. Baptism belongs to infants more then it does anyone else.


Every infant believes in Christ.

Matthew 18

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4“Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5“And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.



Why would Jesus say you are better off drowning yourself then to offend a child? oppose to a loyal grownup?

Children are innocent. That might be a shocking concept for you.

Folks always looking to preach BAD NEWS and hate children. Got nothing better to do then accuse children of not being worthy of baptism while Christ already claims they are worthy of even greater.


Now I put down scripture, connecting circumcision with baptism AND justifying children's rights to the kingdom of heaven. You have provided ZERO.