Posted on 01/24/2015 8:33:46 AM PST by RnMomof7
Of course they can’t back up what they say with documentation.
It doesn’t exist.
Which is why they tell us to go look it up for ourselves or to disprove it.
If they can’t be bothered to provide the evidence to support it, it clearly isn’t important enough to them that anyone else should be bothered wasting their time refuting a negative, which can’t be done anyway.
“I don’t have to prove anything.”
Actually it would be you.
“It’s Catholics who have to prove that they did teach the assumption.”
Actually, no they don’t.
“I have to simply go by what I know they did teach and consider anyone who teaches something they didn’t to be accursed.”
Okay, let’s test that. Do you believe Matthew’s Gospel is inspired? What Apostle taught that Matthew’s Gospel was an inspired book? Please list the exact verse which answers that question. If you fail to do so we will then know that you hold to something that the Apostles didn’t teach and so - according to your own words - you must believe something accursed.
“The only sure reference we have to what the apostles taught is what was written by them.”
Let’s test that: Show me the inspired table of contents?
“The assumption of Mary wasn’t even spoken of until at least the fourth century by the Catholic Church’s own admission.”
Show me where the Catholic Church “admits” that? Thus, it must be an official Vatican statement of such or a council decree of such. Got one? If you fail to do so, then the falsity of your own statement is obvious.
“See here..”
Please show me the Vatican statement or council decree whereby the Catholic Church says that the 1909 American made Catholic Encyclopedia is in fact “the Catholic Church” and therefore anything in it would constitute “the Catholic Church’s own admission” about anything. If you fail to do so, then the falsity of your own statement is obvious.
“The teaching is part of another gospel and as such is considered accursed by God.”
You have not even proved anyone is claiming it is in itself believed by anyone to be part of a gospel teaching to begin with.
“Are Catholics saying they can’t back up what they say with documentation?”
Are you claiming you don’t know the gospel of Jesus?
According to you. According to you.
I find all of them in Scripture. By what authority do you tell me that I can't do that? Your own theology denies that authority to the Pope, so it can't very well give it to you.
It doesn't matter what Augustine says. If it's not in Scripture as a sin, then he had no business making something sin that isn't.
That's legalism in all its glory.
Exactly. It amazes me that Catholics don't understand that they are no different from Mormons or any other religion the relies on writings other then scripture.
Where? You say they're there but show no proof of it.
By what authority do you tell me that I can't do that?
Without strawmen, y'all would have nothing to knock down.
Where ever did I tell you you can't (aren't allowed to) do that? Show me the post numbers.
And you can't (as in not possible to) do it because it isn't in there.
Your own theology denies that authority to the Pope, so it can't very well give it to you.
Why'd you veer the conversation off into authority?
I never claimed I had authority over you or anyone else. Why are you implying that I did?
I have been a Protestant since 1970, and this is the first time I have EVER heard this, so I doubt it is widespread among Protestants. I doubt it will cause many to swim the Tiber.
I view them as the Catholic Church "church fathers". As such I use them to show that what those "church fathers" believed often contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches today. We are shown in scripture that "churches" had strayed and taken in pagan beliefs already in Revelation. There is no way that just because they were writing in the second century that they can be considered correct in all they believed.
It’s never been taught in any Protestant church I’ve ever attended.
On the contrary, Protestants know about the Cathars and Wadensians and others who the RCC tortured and murdered for exposing it for the false gospel it teaches.
That's just desperation.
They're grasping at straws of any kind somehow give their teachings some credibility.
Have you figured out how to use google yet?
“If it’s not in Scripture as a sin, then he had no business making something sin that isn’t.”
Show me the verse that condemns abortion by name.
It was said the entire bible was the gospel..
That made me wonder if Jesus reached the entire OT ..I wanted to know if you knew what the gospel Jesus preached was ?
OriginI also find the inclusion of the final quote from Bede most interesting since it is a good summation of the Catholic position:Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in Him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the Epistle bearing the name of James. (Commentaries on John, 19, 6)
St. John Chrysostom
“He that believes in the Son has everlasting life.” … “Is it enough, then to believe in the Son,” some will say, “in order to have everlasting life?” By no means! Listen to Christ declare this Himself when He says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven”; and the blasphemy against the Spirit alone is sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation. (On John, 31, 1)
Although the apostle Paul preached that we are justified by faith without works, those who understand by this that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith, have made a great mistake. James here expounds how Paul’s words ought to be understood. This is why he uses the example of Abraham, whom Paul also used as an example of faith, to show that the patriarch also performed good works in the light of his faith. It is therefore wrong to interpret Paul in such a way as to suggest that it did not matter whether Abraham put his faith into practice or not. What Paul meant was that no one obtains the gift of justification on the basis of merits derived from works performed beforehand, because the gift of justification comes only from faith.Needless to say, all those quoted also believed in a visible hierarchical church possessing the authority of the Apostle, the Catholic Mass which they celebrated, the sacraments, etc. These men were clearly Catholic and would not have recognized the Protestant faith.
Of course they do. Paul said if they didn't teach it that it was to be considered accursed. If Catholics teach it they must show that the apostles taught it.
>>Show me where the Catholic Church “admits” that?<<
I just did.
>>Please show me the Vatican statement or council decree whereby the Catholic Church says that the 1909 American made Catholic Encyclopedia is in fact “the Catholic Church” and therefore anything in it would constitute “the Catholic Church’s own admission” about anything.<<
Prove that what is in that Encyclopedia is refuted by the Catholic Church. Show where they renounce statements or beliefs claimed there in.
>>You have not even proved anyone is claiming it is in itself believed by anyone to be part of a gospel teaching to begin with.<<
Then Catholics are no different then Muslims or Mormons in that they go by writing other than scripture. We can simply put them all in the same class.
“I have been a Protestant since 1970, and this is the first time I have EVER heard this”
Really?
I used google for about 20 seconds and found these:
“The Reformation was, at its heart, a recovery of the true gospel of Jesus Christ, and this restoration had an unparalleled influence on churches, nations, and the flow of Western civilization.” http://www.ligonier.org/blog/reformation-and-men-behind-it/
“One person has defined Church History as the story of the loss and recovery of the Gospel. …It was apparent that the Gospel was nearly lost during the times of the Middle Ages.” http://www.solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0034.html
“Tragically, this Patristic understanding was lost during the Medieval times and only recovered by Martin Luther and others at the time of the Reformation… As the study of Church History is the study of the loss and recovery of the Gospel…” http://www.solagroup.org/articles/understandingthebible/utb_0007.html
“Tracing the Loss and Recovery of Pauline Truth.” http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RrZpbemGzGAJ:www.gracelifebiblechurch.com/SundaySchool/ChurchHistory/Course%2520Outline.pdf+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
“The Reformation’s Recovery of the Gospel” http://www.credomag.com/2011/11/04/the-reformations-recovery-of-the-gospel/
Mormons:
http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/restoration
“The myth of a Protestant “recovery” of the Gospel was strong in our church. “http://chnetwork.org/2012/02/a-protestant-historian-discovers-the-catholic-church-conversion-story-of-a-david-anders-ph-d/
These took no time to find. Certainly less than 45 years.
Then show where the assumption of Mary is found in scripture. And don't try to use Revelation 12. That is a "sign" not a person.
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.