Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
Disagree or hate?
I’m curious, since I like MacArthur’s stuff - how has he lied about the Catholic Church?
I haven’t read much of Sproul or Spurgeon.
““Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” -2 Thessalonians 2:14”
I have no heartburn with holding to the traditions learned by word from the Apostles. Have any that differ from what they wrote in scripture, with evidence it is theirs?
“Welcome to FR, Gus! How on earth did you get this far in this thread?????”
Given way over 4000 posts, Gus is either a speed-reader, or he’s been lurking since 2009...
“”how has he lied about the Catholic Church?””
Too many to even mention,we speak of this guy in the same breath as hunt and chick
Pastor John F. MacArthur’s Ignorant Misrepresentation of Catholic Teaching
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a137.htm
Well, if Gus has been lurking, “interesting” is the nicest thing he could have said about the comments on this thread.
“There are in reality only two types of religious thought. There is the religion of faith, and there is the religion of works...while that which has been known as Arminianism has been diluted to a dangerous degree by the religion of works and that it is therefore an inconsistent and unstable form of Christianity.”
False dilemma. For I have never said or suggested we are saved by works, UNLESS you call believing work. If believing is considered work, then Jesus explicitly taught that God requires ‘work’. Calvin & I both chalk John 6 up to sarcasm on the part of Jesus - the Jews asked him what work God required, and he replied, in effect, “Work You want WORK! OK, here is the ‘work’ required - believe in the one God has sent!”
““The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God.”
Nope. The basic principle of Calvinism is the deceitfulness of God. It teaches that God, throughout scripture, over hundreds of passages, tells men to repent - while specifically preventing them from doing so. It calls Jesus a liar, for Jesus said “God so loved the world”, not “God so loved the elect”.
““All of this brings out the basic principle of the Reformed Faith - the sovereignty of God. God created this world in which we find ourselves, He owns it, and He is running it according to His own sovereign good pleasure.”
Nope. PD teaches that man - specifically the PDers - get to tell God what His purpose is, and He dare not do otherwise. The entire sovereignty crock assumes first that you get to define the will of God, and you get to do so apart from scripture, which explicitly says, “3This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” - 1 Tim 2
You presume to tell God that when He says “world”, He MUST mean “elect”, and was just mistaken. PD takes God far more lightly than Armenian did.
It is simply nonsense to suggest that PDers alone know the will of God, and that Jesus did not. Basic scripture interpretation - use the hundred obvious to enlighten the 3 obscure. But Calvin used the 3 obscure to cast into darkness the 100 obvious. Although, to give credit where due, Calvin was more accepting of scripture than his followers...
I have no heartburn with holding to the traditions learned by word from the Apostles.
You should enjoy the following than,dear brother
from scripturecatholic
Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition
Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God’s word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God’s law of honoring one’s father and mother.)
Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).
Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul also writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary.
Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, “paradosis”) means “to hand on” teaching.
Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord’s day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.
John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.
Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!”
Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.
Col. 1:5-6 – of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you. This delivery of the faith refers to the oral tradition the Colossians had previously received from the ordained leaders of the Church. This oral tradition is called the gospel of truth.
1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.
1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.
2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.
2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.
2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.
2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.
1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been “entrusted” to you. The word “entrusted” is “paratheke” which means a “deposit.” Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.
2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is “tradition,” or the handing on of apostolic teaching.
2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).
1 John 2:7 – John refers to the oral word his disciples have heard which is the old commandment that we love one another.
Dr E “Earlier Paul tells us God’s judgment on this willful disobedience...”
Good to see you’re moving in the right direction. Paul DOES tell us of God’s judgment on this willful disobedience - not on a predetermined list of names.
Dr E “And who “...hold(s) the truth in unrighteousness”? / All men, unless and until they are given the righteousness of Christ mercifully and freely imputed to them, according to the purpose ordained by God from before the foundation of the world.”
“1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, 2a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, “Cornelius.” 4And he stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5And now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter...” - Acts 10
Just to repeat, “ “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.”
“17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 19You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” 21And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. 23And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” - Mark 10
Notice - the rich young ruler did not convert, and yet Jesus “ looking at him, loved him”. And also notice: “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” But how can that be, if God has picked the name in advance, and irresistibly draws him? How can wealth affect election?
“8For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 9When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” 10And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the servant well.” - Luke 7
Was the Centurion born again before Jesus “marveled at him”, and commended him?
Dr E “God names His family not because to their own good work of faith; but for His good pleasure alone He covers them by the good work of Christ, giving us faith in He who “will do it.”
Scripture please, not assertions. Only PDs call faith a work...but as Jesus noted, if that is work, then God requires it!
Paul wrote, “ 12To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” - 1 Cor 7
Does this teach salvation by family relation, or does it show that the godly example of a wife or parent affects the husband or child?
Lots of good verses. Pity they do not show what you think they show.
Yes, we would need to obey the verbal teachings of the Apostles. So...what verbal traditions were passed down bishop to bishop, from 30 AD (or 80 AD) until now? What tradition did the Apostles verbal pass on outside of scripture?
The only one you claim is the canon. But church councils CONFIRMED the canon; they did not create it. The NT scripture was used as such for hundreds of years before the church councils...and is based on being God-breathed, not on a list handed down bishop to bishop from the first century.
Let's just stop here. That sola scriptura is false and counterbiblical would not necessitate that there is any secret teaching contradicting the scripture. Of course, everything that the Church teaches or ever has taught agrees with the Scripture. Sola scriptura is unbiblical because it is not in the Bible. Many passages praise the scripture and proclaim it inspired word of God, but there is no passage that says that the Church cannot teach in addition to what is in the Scripture.
For example, the Church is often criticized for allowing and even promoting veneration of saints. Obviously, to canonize, say, Sts. Felicitas and Perpetua (martyred in 203) saints the Church cannot raly on the scripture because the scripture does not cover any event past the first century. So here is a perfect example of a teaching that the Church developed outside of the scripture. Another such example would be development of the sacramental life of the Church: the Church had to decide if baptizing children was OK, if confessions had to be done privately, etc. So these are teachings of the Church that by definition are outside the scripture. It is not in the Bible.
So here is the pivotal question for you. If Sola Scriptura is true, would that allow or prohibit teaching such as veneration of saints or precise definition of the sacraments?
From what we have seen so far, it would prohibit it. Otherwise I would not be getting those demands to show where veneration of saints is in the scripture, when quite obviously there is no scripture that says "venerate martyrs such as Felicitas and Perpetua, make statues and pray to these saints in front of statues".
But then, why is it not a logical question to ask: Where is the sola scriptura thus understood in the Bible?
If sola scriptura teaches against veneration of saints and baptism of babies, then the principle that things such as veneration of saints and baptism of babies, and also sola scriptura itself should be not merely compatible with the Bible, they should be spelled out with the Bible.
And if sola scriptura does not teach against things that are not spelled in the Bible, then when can we expect you guys to stop attacking our practice of venerating saints and baptizing babies?
The first few I read are not lies. They are judgments about the sum total of Catholic teaching, and I’ve encountered ample folks here on FR claiming the same. If we are born again by being baptized, that is works based...and utterly contrary to scriptural teaching on baptism.
If we need to wait until judgment day to see if our works are good enough - as I’ve been told before by Catholic posters - then it is works based.
Purgatory is works based - as is the Storehouse of Merit, or something like that. If the Pope can transfer the merit of someone’s good deeds to relieve the ‘temporal punishment’ of another, and spring the latter out of Purgatory, that is works based.
Are there other ways to interpret the catechism? I suppose so, since other Catholics have given me different views.
But yes, I see doctrine like Purgatory and indulgences and penance as works based, and totally wrong. Scripture says “Repent”, not “Do penance”.
Welcome to FR, thank you for your post and above all thank you for your vocation. Please keep us company when you can, we need holy men.
Yes,It was used by the Church fathers who were Catholic
and is based on being God-breathed, not on a list handed down bishop to bishop from the first century.
...and since the Scriptures don't come with signed autographs we entrust those early Catholic Church Fathers to give witness that they are authentic.
No matter how you look at this you are putting your faith that the Catholic Church was involved the NT Canon and protected the Scriptures
Good night ,dear brother. I wish you a peaceful blessed evening!
Saying stuff like “utterly contrary to scriptural teaching” or “totally wrong” does not make it so.
The Scripture makes it plain that we are judged by our works. It also makes it plain that baptism must follow conversion. It is your fantasy that things cannot possibly be “works based” that is “totally wrong”.
Matthew 25:31ff, Acts 2:38, John 3:3ff. You should read the Bible every once in a while.
“If sola scriptura teaches against veneration of saints and baptism of babies, then the principle that things such as veneration of saints and baptism of babies, and also sola scriptura itself should be not merely compatible with the Bible, they should be spelled out with the Bible.”
Sola scriptura does not, in itself, say that NOTHING can be outside scripture, just that nothing essential to salvation and holy living - for scripture can make you wise to salvation thru faith in Jesus, and when used to teach, rebuke, etc it fully prepares one for every good work.
Veneration of the saints may or may not be in scripture - define veneration. WORSHIP is not, but I agree with the Catholics on this board who reject the idea they worship saints. As I pointed out a while back, I sort of felt like bowing at a John Wayne costume - and have saluted fallen comrades, my Dad’s grave, and felt very reverential in the Air & Space Museum in DC. I guess a lifetime in military aviation can have that effect.
Hebrews lists the many who have gone before us as examples and encouragement to us - and I find great encouragement from contemplating the life of William Tyndale. So I’m on your side on that argument.
Infant baptism - never explicitly taught, and no known examples in scripture. Meanwhile, baptism is taught as following belief, not preceding it. Sola scriptura might not totally reject infant baptism, but it certainly makes it highly debatable. Those churches that practice it regardless need to ask themselves why they do something without scriptural authority. Baptists do not practice it.
Confession - done in private? Well, how about just confessing to God? We see no priests in the NT, nor any instruction or example of church officers taking confession. Confession to each other IS allowed, and in at least one case encouraged. Arguing from silence, confession should be to God. If one wants to confess to another, that is your business. But there are no priests, and no penance. So adding those goes beyond the faith delivered to us once for all.
“It also makes it plain that baptism must follow conversion.”
I agree, more so than you do I suspect. I would cheerfully see someone baptized the day they convert. But it FOLLOWS conversion, which is the new birth.
“44While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” - Acts 10
Welcome to Free Republic and the Religion Forum.
For instance, if I said "Are you a bigot?" that would not be making it personal. If I said "You are a bigot" that would be making it personal.
It is however "making it personal" to change the direction of a thread to individual Freepers instead of the issues.
"Why are you such a loathsome bigot?" is a question that supposes--and therefore delivers--a personal attack ("loathsome bigot")."You are repeating lies" does not accuse the speaker of lying, but rather accuses them of (knowingly or unknowingly) repeating what was to the original (quoted/repeated) speaker a lie.
“See of Rome.”
I believe in the See of Jesus Christ. There were churches following Christ up into the Caucuses Mountains and Eastern Europe, and all the way to Northwest Europe in the first three centuries which had never heard of the “See of Rome.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.