Skip to comments.+ the BEGGAR KING: Answer to an Anti-Catholic + Part I
Posted on 04/16/2012 4:33:07 AM PDT by GonzoII
click here to read article
1)Catholicism is a liberal religion in which "truth" is ever changing, ever evolving, and symbolic rather than factual; or
2)"Fundamentalists" are an ethnic group of inbred swamp-dwelling "rednecks" whom the Catholic Church wouldn't have as members even if they begged to join.
Either way, the exclusion of "Fundamentalism" by Catholicism is a very bad thing.
The 'Gospel' is the good news that Christ has come, that there is forgiveness from sin through repentance, and that Christ made this possible via his substitutionary sacrifice - paying the penalty for my sin. The preaching of the time was that the Kingdom of God was here and all of the scriptures of that time were being fulfilled right in front of them.
Birth control? The evil of Homosexual acts? That marriage is between a man and a woman? Abortion is murder? No woman priests? The Catholic Church was established by Christ? Which religions have caved on these issues? Not the Catholic Church.
God sent a part of Himself to Earth to save us from eternal damnation.
I believe that the Catholic use of ‘Fundamentalists’ attempts to broad-brush paint anyone (like me) who sticks to scriptures at the expense of dissing their oral traditions. I don’t believe it hits the Fundamentalist faiths specifically... but it would certainly include them by implication.
You must be kidding if you think the Apostles only preached out of the Old Testament. You make the teachings of Christ void by your argument because they were not yet put to writing.
So they can just forget the words of Christ himself:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
So now the Gospel is the Old Testament?
However, I believe that it is an important doctrine to get straight due to several Scriptural references.
But especially see the post-resurrection Jesus talking with the men on the road to Emmaus: Luke 24:13ff
"27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. ... 44 Then he said to them, These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures..."
The Scriptures are given by God to men who wrote down the words given them by the Holy Spirit throughout our history. It all hangs together. It's all pointing to Christ. It's all about Him. And clearly (seeing Jesus' own actions above), it was necessary to be written, for why would Jesus ever reference it otherwise? He could have simply done a couple of miracles and been done with it.
So yes, the Gospel is the Old Testament, the New testament.... it is the scriptures, it is the Word of God. All. Together.
How could the Apostles preach the words of Christ if they had to be written first before they can be God's Word. Like I said you make Christ's teaching void because they were not first written.
Isn’t the correct translation “born from above”?
And not be “born again”?
Where in the Bible does it say "scripture only?" It doesn't, and I have not said that. However, I have cited 2 Tim. 3:16-17 on the authority of scripture coming from God. You can't cite such a thing for extra-Biblical traditions.
Trinity. Yes, I do: that's a man-conceived phrase for a plain teaching in scripture - that there are 3 persons in the God-head. I don't think I have to cite the basis of that for you. But is this an 'extra-Biblical' tradition (pre-empting the next question)? I say no, because I can literally cite chapter and verse the basis of this doctrine.
Christian Unity. We Protestants indeed fail here ... every denomination created after the Reformation has been created on the basis of either error, style, emphasis or some combination of all three.
Most Many of us have certain 'essentials' that we agree upon. Of course, if this is our only problem (unfortunately not), then that's pretty good. Clearly, God wants us all to get it right... which leads into...
Truth. Well, there's the rub, right? Yeah.... we need to find the truth. I'm hardly perfect, so no, I don't claim to know it all. I'd like to think I recognize obvious error when I see it, and my complaint with the RCC is that a sizable chunk of your doctrine is not backed up by scripture. Maybe you don't understand it from an outsider's point of view, but saying "well, we do it this way because we always have believe it to be right" doesn't have the same strength as "we do it this way because it's commanded by scripture that I can show you right here." That's the essence of my complaint.
The trunk. You are correct - the RCC is the trunk of the church. I recognize that's a hard thing to question or to give up...Especially when you see a myriad of competing options out there. My goal here is not to get anyone to join my church. It's to recognize (maybe) that scripture has much more weight in matters of doctrine than anything else.
Apparently, these essentials of NT doctrines failed to include any discussion of purgatory, Marianism, and the like. That's my complaint. If these were important doctrinally, then where are they? Yet y'all essentially dismiss all debate about these topics under the blanket 'tradition' argument. And this dismissal happens precisely because... it's an undefendable position.
And with that, I realize that we’re probably at an impasse (no real surprise) since I seem to be repeating myself.
"1)Catholicism is a liberal religion in which "truth" is ever changing, ever evolving, and symbolic rather than factual; "
Birth control? The evil of Homosexual acts? That marriage is between a man and a woman? Abortion is murder? No woman priests? The Catholic Church was established by Christ? Which religions have caved on these issues? Not the Catholic Church.
I think you missed my point. No, scratch that . . . I know you missed my poiint.
Which was that this is what Fundamentalism is . . . the unalterable truth of fundamental doctrines. That's why it's called "Fundamentalism." And a religion with these characteristics is fundamentalist and should not be condemning "Fundamentalism." To condemn "fundamentalism" implies that the opposite is true.
Do you understand now, or do I have to repeat it in even simpler language?
Our argument is that they are in the oral Tradition of the Church which Scripture clearly states exist. The Scripture is clear that an oral handing on of truth also existed along side Scripture:
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
The term "fundamentalist" has both a denotation and a connotation. The denotation is unchanging factual truth. The connotation is "inbred swamp-dwelling redneck moron" (which is why Blacks aren't considered "fundamentalists" . . . well, that and the fact that they've sold out).
The original "fundamentalists" of the late nineteenth century were very intelligent, intellectual people from the large cities who opposed liberal theology and higher criticism (at one time their headquarters was actually Princeton University). It didn't mean someone who hangs "people who are different" from lampposts. It didn't mean rural Southerner. It didn't mean someone who uses the words "you-uns" and "fixin' to" in everyday speech. These are all connotations created to discredit traditional orthodox theology.
When Catholics insist that their religion is not "fundamentalist" it must mean one of these two things: either that it is liberal and opposed to traditional orthodox theology, or that Catholics refuse to sully themselves by mixing with rural white Southerners.
Unfortunately for you, "sola scriptura" is nonsense (since the G-d-dictated Torah consists of nothing but a string of consonants with no vowels or punctuation) and the rules for writing a Torah Scroll correctly (so that it matches exactly the Torah dictated to Moses) were handed down orally and are not actually recorded in the Torah. Also unfortunately for you, you have been "vaccinated" from ever considering the Oral Torah and rabbinic authority because you have heard nothing but the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox case against sola scriptura (which is pathetic) all your life. Well . . . that and the fact that you believe scripture simply must be absolutely clear so anyone anywhere can read it in his own language (which is no longer the text dictated by G-d) and be "saved." All this is nonsense completely at odds with the Torah as understood from Mt. Sinai, but you will never listen because any argument for an authentic authoritative oral interpretive tradition sounds like a defense of rosary beads. More is the pity.
If it believes ITS fundamentals are correct and the other's are not then they can surely take it to task and more surely defend itself from attacks which are clearly erroneous. You use the word "condemn" too loosely I think. We defend the truth and mark error.
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the Father by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds; Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;” (Hebrews 1:1-3)
Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.
That would be the Catholic version of the scriptures...The real scriptures were being written and passed around as they happened...
1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.
1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Well not really, eh??? John meant in 400 years after your religion figured it out, people would know they have eternal life because of what was, what??? WRITTEN???
And you guys still don't even know if you have eternal life even tho John the apostle explains it to us...
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.
The verse itself voids your religion's perversion of it...
Hold to the traditions...The oral ones...OR...The written ones...That's what the verse says...
According to your religion, you don't need a bit of scripture if you chose to follow only the oral traditions...Trouble is, you have no record of oral traditions from the Apostles...
The only way you can follow the oral traditions OR the written traditions is if they are identical...And they were...M
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.
Oh please...The revelation to the Apostles ENDED with the Apostles...The false teaching of the assumption of Mary is oral Scripture??? God does not continue to reveal 'new' tradition to anyone...If you guys would study the scriptures, you'd know better than to post junk like this...
Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.
I'd normally say, 'you can't just make this stuff up',,, but then you guy go ahead and prove me wrong...
If what you say is true, why was it commanded to have the written scriptures read in the churches??? Read much bible???
I'd like to see you guys preach the Gospel to the world with only your man-made tradition spewing from your lips...
And not be born again?"
Its a shame that we are all not fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek and even the Vulgate Latin. It would make these discussions so much more productive than attempting them in modern English. English is such a poor language for these things.
Idiomatically, the reference is to being renewed. In this respect we Catholics are no different than our separated brothers and sisters. We simply refer to that renewal as "conversion". Where we differ is that we believe that conversion is a life long process that is never really completed and not a single Road to Damascus Epiphany.
God calls us to seek him, to know him, to love him with all our strength, all or our heart and all of our soul. The Catechism teaches that faith is our response to God's call. Responding in faith requires we trust in the authority of God as the cause of our belief. As the Blessed John Henry Newman said; Faith is not a conclusion from premises, but an act of the will following on the conviction that to believe is a duty. Intellect, education, and reason can assist, but they cannot substitute for faith. We must choose to believe and at that moment when we first choose to believe and to cooperate with Grace, in a very real sense we are born of the Spirit, both again and from above.
"T'was Grace that taught...
my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear...
the hour I first believed."
Isn't it obvious that the apostles taught from the OT? How many times do they quote the OT in the New? The Septuigent and the Hebrew scriptures were both available.
They taught what they had learned from Christ
Which was the OT! Luke 24:27 - "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."
The Bible as we know it today wasn't formalized until 400 AD. What did they use?
The canon was established well before 400 AD. What did the apostles quote from? The entire NT was written before 100 AD. How could they quote from the OT if it didn't exist until 400? What did Jesus quote from? What did He read in the temple? The Jerusalem Times?
The OT Scriptures were referenced a lot but not so much for their message or the law, but for their 450+ references to and prophesies of Jesus and His ministry and primarily in the context of evangelizing Jewish communities. They were rarely referenced with respect to the New Law and had little traction with the Gentile communities.
As for their being available and recognized by the late first century is really two different issues. There were many competing writings and forgeries so the challenge was to identify the authentic writings from among the many others. This is not unlike you having to pick the correct six lottery numbers from the numbers from a simple list of numbers 0 through 50.
This has to be the top, number 1, beyond all doubt, most abused passage that the RCC uses to justify its claims to the so-called "oral tradition." It is utterly disguisting the ignorance propagated by the RCC.
My friend, if you will look at the context, you will see the complete lack of exegetical ability of the RCC. Since you and all other Catholics up here on FR constantly hammer this verse ... I am going to take the time to post the entire chapter in context ... and I pray that God will open your eyes to see the truth ... that it has NOTHING to do with what you claim.
1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,
2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?
6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,
10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,
12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
So now the analysis ...
Vs 1-2: Paul instructs the Thessalonians "not to be shaken" or "disturbed" believing that the Day of the Lord has already come. He says don't let a spirit or a letter or anything deceive you concerning this. It is conceivable that those who are spreading this false doctrine have forged a letter and claimed it was from Paul.
Vs. 3-4: He begins to remind them of the correct precursors to the Day of the Lord, those being the apostasy, man of lawlessness, etc. etc.
Vs. 5: Paul reminds them that he already taught them these things when he was there in Thessalonica!
Vs. 6-12: Paul continues to list out the events surrounding the Day of the Lord and the particular persons who will be involved in those events; namely, the man of lawlessness, the Lord Jesus Christ, and unbelievers.
Vs. 13-14 He reminds them that they have been chosen for salvation, they were called by the gospel, and that they are going to glory.
This ... THIS is the context of the passage that the RCC butchers time and time again.
In this context, what does verse 15 say?
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
Vs. 15: So then, because of this, because I have already taught you this, and I have just reminded you of what I taught you before ... because of this ... "stand firm" (not be shaken!) ... and hold to the traditions ... WHAT traditions? ... The traditions concerning the Day of the Lord, the teachings he just regurgitated to them concerning the Day of the Lord ... those things "which you were taught" ... when did he teach those things ... WHEN HE WAS THERE ! "Whether by word of mouth" (when he was there!) ... or by letter (1st and 2nd Thessalonians!) ... hold fast to those teachings.
THIS is the passage in context. It has absolutely nothing to do with any so-called "apostolic traditions."
There is nothing left to say than to call you to repentance for maintaining and spreading false doctrine.
My vote is for 2 Timothy 3:16.
On and on ... all Gentile communities. Paul quotes from the OT when writing to them, he quotes OFTEN. His epistle to the Romans discusses MOSTLY the law ...
Not sure what you're reading that youre getting this ...
The bigger question is where you are getting that the Old Testament had any relevance with anyone other than Jews. To the non-Jewish communities the Old Testament was as foreign as Chinese arithmetic. Recall that St. Paul often had to rebuke Judaizers for attempting to adhere to the Old Law.
In evangelizing the Gentiles St. Paul relied on three proofs for the deity of Jesus. The first that Jesus Christ alone among the pantheon of pagan gods was predicted, and relied upon the Old Testament's 450+ predictions. The weight of those predictions surpassed any argument of coincidence. The second was that He worked miracles, the foremost among them was the resurrection. The last was that nothing in the Gospel conflicts with human reason.
In this respect, the Old Testament was presented, but not so as to first make Jews of the Gentiles.
The crime of the Reformers was in pointing out the errors of the church. Each one of them did so knowing that they risked their lives to espouse their opinions against an unwilling-to-listen church, which ruled almost by compulsion (not unlike Islam of today). These men didn't act on a whim or out of revenge or for any other reason than simply wanting to fix an inherent problem. They were highly educated (by the church!), they wrote multiple volumes on the problems they saw, they tried to fix the church from within. Finally, an intransigent church forced them to break away. These were men of supreme courage and devotion. We would all do well to know the scriptures as they did, and to use that knowledge in the education of others.
What the Reformers did was twofold:
1. Provided necessary correction where error existed (and still does);
2. Brought God's Word to the masses, and thus brought choice... and, in truth, accountability as well.
I ignored this topic earlier. You can call what they did as a break in Christian Unity, but I don't -- it resulted in spreading the gospel to the world.
Yes, the RCC stands on its own.... but it stands apart from the foundational Biblical truths of God's Word which are hidden behind so-called traditions. Heck, I even have to take issue with the use of that very word. We 'traditionally' celebrate Christmas on December 25th. Scripture doesn't indicate this, but doctrinally, it is meaningless. But having important doctrines that flat-out contradict scripture or make up things not present isn't 'tradition'. There's another word for it. Heresy.
**I want to know how these core doctrines (called out earlier**
Is it a doctrine or a dogma?
Big difference. LOL!
|1||Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews.|
|2||This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him."|
|3||Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."|
Are you contending that they were infallible and that they agreed 100% with each other on every point of doctrine and dogma?
"Brought God's Word to the masses, and thus brought choice... and, in truth, accountability as well."
How did they bring God's Word to the masses differently that the Church had done or did they simply ride the crest of the printing press and relative middle class literacy. Across Europe literacy among men in the year 1500 was less than 10% and was nearly zero for women. By 1750 that number had risen to 30% among men and less than 5% among women. Very few instances are recorded where literacy in a vernacular was not preceded by a literacy in Latin.
How do you conclude that "choice" is a desirable thing when there is no innate ability to determine a right choice from a wrong choice? Or, for that matter, if that innate ability exists, that it only exists in Protestants and not in similarly educated and pious Catholics?
"Yes, the RCC stands on its own.... but it stands apart from the foundational Biblical truths of God's Word which are hidden behind so-called traditions. Heck, I even have to take issue with the use of that very word."
You would then be taking issue with Scripture, not with Catholics or the Catholic Church. The word that gives you trouble is Paradosis. In the New Testament context, translated into English simply as "tradition" is a passing on of oral teachings. It is used both positively (3 times) and negatively (5 times).
What we can take from this is that "Tradition" itself is not categorically condemned or endorsed, but rather what the content and origin of that Tradition is what determines its acceptance or rejection. This is always hotly contested in these threads because the categorical condemnation of Tradition is essential to Sola Scriptura Protestantism.
It is best, in this case to familiarize yourself with another Greek word; "kerygma" which is the proclamation of a religious truth. This is the type of paradosis taught by the Catholic Church.
Peace be to you.
Not really. The word used there is Anothen which means anew or over again. What Jesus said was unless one is born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God. To get a hint of what was understood by the words Jesus used look at the response from Nicodemus in verse 4 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Nicodemus clearly thought about being born again or anew.