tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post5361042251966559000..comments2023-10-20T06:41:31.943-07:00Comments on Visits to Candyland: The Church is like the early churchElena LaVictoirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-52279418158195305652008-10-10T13:16:00.000-07:002008-10-10T13:16:00.000-07:00Jennie, You mentioned that there are Roman Catholi...Jennie, <BR/>You mentioned that there are Roman Catholic doctrines that are contrary to scripture. Would you mind telling us your personal "top five" list of RC doctrines that are contrary to scripture (rather than just unmentioned by scripture such as the Immaculate Conception)? If you have the time, would you provide supporting Bible verses as well? <BR/>Thank you,<BR/>Diana (already looked at the Berean website)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05034352153283129459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-7897209470819172642008-10-10T09:14:00.000-07:002008-10-10T09:14:00.000-07:00That is why this idea of a secret group of Christi...<I>That is why this idea of a secret group of Christians who held to the faith but left no evidence behind was invented. Because your choices are either that Jesus founded a church which immediately lost the faith and left everyone without salvation until the 1600's (why not just die for us in the 1600's then?) or that the early church was the Catholic Church, which was founded by Jesus</I><BR/><BR/>This is one of the main issues that keeps me firmly in the Catholic camp. The idea of this secret group of Christians to me is simply ridiculous, uncompelling and not supported by serious historians. Even before I hd fully embraced Catholicism, this just sounded more like mythology than authentic history.Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-47051000989440675562008-10-10T09:12:00.000-07:002008-10-10T09:12:00.000-07:00OK Jennie won't accept Catholic sources. She won'...OK Jennie won't accept Catholic sources. She won't accept secular sources. She apparently won't even accept sources from other Protestants unless she pick them... So we're kind of damned if do and damned if we don't... the main gist being that we are just apparently damned anyway!Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-59127496139449185442008-10-10T08:35:00.000-07:002008-10-10T08:35:00.000-07:00I counter that if you all want to rely only on Cat...<I>I counter that if you all want to rely only on Catholic sources, that is up to you.</I><BR/><BR/>Jennie, my whole point is that I am not relying ONLY on Catholic sources, but on secular sources as well. One of the quotes I provided was from a Baptist history professor.Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-34149659449975372902008-10-10T08:32:00.000-07:002008-10-10T08:32:00.000-07:00I found a quote from the Catechism which clarifies...I found a quote from the Catechism which clarifies the nature of Tradition versus Scripture:<BR/><BR/>80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".<BR/><BR/><BR/>In the late 1800's, several of those books which you link to were written in regards to this idea that there was a group of Christians or Baptists that could trace their history to the early church. Why was this an important idea?<BR/><BR/>You had the idea that Jesus formed the early church. After the Apostles died, everyone relied on Scripture, and everything was fine until the Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church ruined everything. In this timeline, Catholicism is the exception. <BR/><BR/>However, this did not stand up to the test of history. The book and letters of the New Testament were written in the 100 years after Jesus. Then we have the writings of the Early Church Fathers which have a clear picture of the Catholic practices I mentioned in an above comment. These are the very same men spoken of so highly in the Preface to the KJV by the translators. <BR/><BR/>But we still had the Bible to rely on during this time, right? After all, all the books were written. Just because they were written does not mean that every church suddenly had a full compilation.<BR/><BR/>At the time that Irenaeus wrote (120 AD), you could hear all four Gospels and two letters from Paul read in church. Plus the Martyrdom of Polycarp and Letters of Clement, while the letters of Peter and John were not considered canonical, nor was Hebrews or Revelation.<BR/><BR/>When Tertullian (180 AD) wrote (he was actually one of the first to use the phrase "New Testament"), you could hear the Gospels, Acts, most of the letters of Paul, one letter from Peter, one from John, Revelation and Jude, PLUS letters from Barnabas and Clement, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter (since John's was so popular?), and the Acts of Paul. <BR/><BR/>What about that inspiration from the Holy Spirit that everyone automatically recognized? They thought these books were inspired, and read them in church.<BR/><BR/>Hebrews and James were not even quoted in the Western church until after 350, while the letters of Pope Clement continued to be included in the Bible through the fifth century! Sure, we could probably live without Philemon, but how would ever get by without James or Hebrews?<BR/><BR/>Would a Christian in one of those churches have everything they need to attain salvation in one of those churches, hearing the Gospel of Mark, the Shepherd of Hermas, and not Hebrews?" That is what Christianity really looked like in that early time. It was nothing like born again Christianity.<BR/><BR/>That is why this idea of a secret group of Christians who held to the faith but left no evidence behind was invented. Because your choices are either that Jesus founded a church which immediately lost the faith and left everyone without salvation until the 1600's (why not just die for us in the 1600's then?) or that the early church was the Catholic Church, which was founded by Jesus. Both of these ideas were found lacking, so this mythical history was invented and is still circulated among a small group of Christians.<BR/><BR/>And I just got my call that it's time to leave, so I'll end there.Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-27884901387330755572008-10-10T08:10:00.000-07:002008-10-10T08:10:00.000-07:00Ladies,I have indeed read most of those articles I...Ladies,<BR/>I have indeed read most of those articles I posted and plan to read more, and have also read several more which support the Catholic view, but I assume you already have that info. so I didn't post those. <BR/>I am not obligated to believe the Catholic sources just because they say the Vaudois did not exist before Waldo (whose name may not have been Waldo originally) just as you are not obligated to believe my sources. <BR/>I don't know after only a little research that NO secular sources support your view, but even if this is so (and I don't think it is) I believe many things that secular sources don't believe, such as a literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis that point to a 6 day creation.<BR/><BR/>I counter that if you all want to rely only on Catholic sources, that is up to you. I don't accept them as infallible any more than you accept mine.<BR/><BR/>I don't think I have anything else to add about whether or not the Catholic church now is like the early church described in Acts or in Justin Martyr's letter.<BR/><BR/>JennieJenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-77485587053208819352008-10-10T06:53:00.000-07:002008-10-10T06:53:00.000-07:00You also should look over our commenting guideline...You also should look over our commenting guidelines. He who asserts must prove. It's not up to us to read articles that you haven't even read yet! Make your point, cite your source, and give the link.Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-42894457867523102582008-10-10T06:51:00.000-07:002008-10-10T06:51:00.000-07:00I don't mind discussing with you Jennie but it is ...I don't mind discussing with you Jennie but it is rather tiresome to be following you all around the anti-Catholic spectrum. Your original premise was that the early church was not like the Catholic church. With one post I illustrated how they are. Now I counter your assertions with other things and you come up with more stuff. Much of it stuff we have already countered. There is a limit to my time this weekend. If you have anything else to show that the early church was not the same as the Catholic church today it would be good to mention it today. I might throw up a free for all post that anyone can comment on any aspect of Catholicism over the weekend. <BR/><BR/>What made Constantine so significant is that he basically legalized Christianity which in at that time was only Catholicism. So Christians could practice their faith openly without persecution. It is a very COMMON anti-Catholic claim that that was the split of Catholics from "true Christians" but no one has ever illustrated for me where those "true Christians" were for the next 1000 or so years until the Reformation.Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-27320829109283032282008-10-10T06:20:00.000-07:002008-10-10T06:20:00.000-07:00*shrug* If you want to rely on Baptist sources, th...*shrug* If you want to rely on Baptist sources, then that is your decision. However, I think you hold me to a double standard if you tell me to look beyond "Catholic history" and then rely on sources such as Landmark Baptist Church.<BR/><BR/>In this episode in history, secular history agrees with the "Catholic version" that there is no evidence the Waldensians existed prior to Peter Waldo. No mainstream historians find the Trail of Tears or other Landmark publications to be accurate sources of history. <BR/><BR/>If the Vaudois really pre-dated Waldo, then wouldn't they have a name besides "followers of Waldo"? Vaudois sounds different, but it is simply the French version of Waldensian, from "Valdo."Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-37598564449176535082008-10-09T21:48:00.000-07:002008-10-09T21:48:00.000-07:00Hi Kelly,yes I read the article you linked about t...Hi Kelly,<BR/>yes I read the article you linked about the Vaudois, but I don't agree that there is no evidence they existed before Peter Waldo.<BR/>I read several articles and found several I still need to read:<BR/><BR/>http://books.google.com/books?id=vtoRAAAAIAAJ&source=gbs_ViewAPI<BR/><BR/>http://users.aol.com/libcfl2/walden.htm<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Waldensian_Church_in_the_valleys_of_Piedmont/Chapter_I<BR/><BR/>http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/yourti16626.html<BR/><BR/>http://www.wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Site/Journals/3-2%20Aug-1996/Collins%20-%20Waldensians.pdf<BR/><BR/>JennieJenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-25120195312760914212008-10-09T21:00:00.000-07:002008-10-09T21:00:00.000-07:00Hi again,Just wanted to add that I was in error wh...Hi again,<BR/>Just wanted to add that I was in error when I said earlier that it was around Contantines's time that the Catholic church became separate from what I would consider the true church. As I said, it happened very gradually, though Constantine was the one who changed things greatly by instituting the 'Christian Church' as a state church in a way, which gave the church much political power and influence and began the corruption which always follows power.<BR/>The many other practices and beliefs which deviate from the simple truth of the gospel came gradually over time before and after the time of Constantine.<BR/><BR/>From the beginning, the church had the Apostles and then many bishops or 'overseers' who guided the believers. When the church gained more power and prestige and the bishop of Rome (Rome being a center of power and influence) began to assert power and assume headship over the others is when much of the corruption began.<BR/><BR/>JennieJenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-6524520552911072342008-10-09T19:13:00.000-07:002008-10-09T19:13:00.000-07:00Jennie, we're really jumping around in topics here...Jennie, we're really jumping around in topics here, and I'm going to be gone this weekend, but I'll write one last response.<BR/><BR/>First, did you read the article I wrote on the Valdois/Waldensians? I put the link the post I made for you. You mention needing to look at more than one source for history, but I used several non-Catholic sources in the article. Whenever I write a history post, I use non-Catholics sources as often as possible to try and combat the idea that we're giving a Catholic version of history.<BR/><BR/>You, like many, are caught on the idea of Tradition as being opposed to Scripture. Tradition does not oppose or contradict Scripture. Scripture are the bricks, and Tradition in the mortar that holds it together. Scripture does not come with a table of contents, it is Tradition which tells us which books were inspired and which were not. <BR/><BR/>In the early years, there were many heresies where, like today, both sides pointed to Scripture to validate their argument. The reason we believe in the Trinity today is because Tradition tells us that the Trinity is what the apostles meant in certain verses. If you worship on Sunday or celebrate Christmas (which not all do) you are relying on Tradition.<BR/><BR/>You said that the Catholic Church hardly resembles the church of the Bible, but I have been supplying you with verses for our Catholic beliefs in nearly all of my replies. Tradition helps us to interpret Scripture. It does not contradict it.<BR/><BR/>I can see that you really like the Berean Beacon website. I have not found their arguments at all compelling because they always misrepresent Catholic doctrine. I gave you the links to several articles I have written on the blog pointing out errors in their publications, have you had time to read them yet?<BR/><BR/>For example, the BB typically presents the Catholic Catechism as a sort of second Bible for Catholics, as the Book of Mormon is for the LDS church. The Catechism is our statement of faith. That is why I refer you to it to see that the Catholic Church does actually condemn idolatry. It is also full of Scripture references. <BR/><BR/>I do need to go now, but I look forward to more conversations with you next week.Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-91490074345352550822008-10-09T17:36:00.000-07:002008-10-09T17:36:00.000-07:00These are the three main branches of Christianity....These are the three main branches of Christianity. <BR/><BR/><BR/> * Eastern Christians <BR/> * Catholic Christians <BR/> * Protestant Christians <BR/><BR/>With subdivisions within each group. <BR/><BR/><I>You are lumping all non-Catholic christians together, and then positioning the Catholic church opposite them as the only truth.</I><BR/>Not at all. In fact I always give the Orthodox their due. I also do not say think that only the Catholic church has the truth and the Catholic church does not teach that. I believe that it has the fullness of the faith but the Catholic church teaches that our separated brethren also have parts of the true faith. <BR/><BR/><I>I do see the Catholic church as having added so much to the gospel that it barely resembles it,</I><BR/><BR/>And I would counter that you do not know enough about Catholicism to make that assessment. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The Holy Spirit inspired the men of the Bible to write what He wanted them to write, and His people knew which writings were His</I> <BR/><BR/><BR/>Well they knew which writings were his because His Catholic church compiled the books and canonized them under their authority. And that stood for centuries until the Protestant Reformation. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>So that when we no longer had the Apostles or their direct spiritual descendants, we now had the Bible, just in time.</I><BR/><BR/>Nonsense. It took 300 years for the new testament to be compiled and that was well after the death of St. John, St. Polycarp or any of his disciples. What we had during all of that time, to guide the people was THE CHURCH. <BR/><BR/><I>You question how people can know or interpret the Bible correctly without the 'Church' to do it.<BR/>Jesus said He would send His Holy Spirit to teach us. </I><BR/><BR/>And he does. The Holy Spirit has guided and protected the Catholic church for over 2000 years guiding her in correct interpretations. Without that guidance you have the splintering and divisions in Protestantism with many different interpretationsElena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-45854530907317142722008-10-09T15:03:00.000-07:002008-10-09T15:03:00.000-07:00Elena,When I said this-"Also you can't lump all 'p...Elena,<BR/>When I said this-<BR/>"Also you can't lump all 'protestants' together and then say look how disunified they are. I don't consider myself a protestant, and I don't group myself with them against Catholics.<BR/>I consider the Catholic church as just another of many denominations at best. <BR/>There is error in all the denominations and we all need to go back to the pure teaching of scripture, if indeed we are in Christ." <BR/> -I wasn't saying that 'Protestants are against Catholics,' I was saying I don't think of Catholics as one group and all protestants as another big group. I think of them as different denominations, and all are in error in some ways, some more that others. You are lumping all non-Catholic christians together, and then positioning the Catholic church opposite them as the only truth. I do see the Catholic church as having added so much to the gospel that it barely resembles it, but all the denominations have added things and need to go back to the Bible.<BR/><BR/> It is possible for a church to go so far away from truth that they cease to be the church.<BR/><BR/>You said this-<BR/>"BINGO! So don't you think that if it was Jesus Christ's intention that his written word be supreme that he would have said more"write this down," and he would have left us with the actual completed bible? He didn't. IN fact he left it to the church to gather and approve the books that were eventually compiled into what became the bible."<BR/> -I counter that He didn't have to say 'write this down.' The Holy Spirit inspired the men of the Bible to write what He wanted them to write, and His people knew which writings were His. At the right time in history, when it was needed that the books be combined, it was done, by His providence. So that when we no longer had the Apostles or their direct spiritual descendants, we now had the Bible, just in time.<BR/><BR/>You question how people can know or interpret the Bible correctly without the 'Church' to do it.<BR/>Jesus said He would send His Holy Spirit to teach us. <BR/>Also: However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.<BR/>John 16:12-14 <BR/>But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.<BR/>John 14:25-27<BR/>These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.<BR/>1 Corinthians 2:12-14<BR/><BR/>So far as we are all human and don't always listen to the Holy Spirit and His word, we will have differences.<BR/><BR/>JennieJenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-60323272890324580752008-10-09T12:16:00.000-07:002008-10-09T12:16:00.000-07:00Also you can't lump all 'protestants' together and...<I>Also you can't lump all 'protestants' together and then say look how disunified they are. I don't consider myself a protestant, and I don't group myself with them against Catholics.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know that all Baptists are against Catholics. I have met some that are not. I don't know that they all consider themselves not Protestant. The one thing that is a common thread throughout Protestantism is unique individuality!<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I consider the Catholic church as just another of many denominations at best. There is error in all the denominations and we all need to go back to the pure teaching of scripture, if indeed we are in Christ. </I><BR/><BR/>Well, good luck with that. As long as everyone is doing their own interpretations, consensus and unification are going to be hard to come by.<BR/><BR/><I>The church is called the pillar and ground of the truth, just believers are called the light of the world. We aren't the truth, but we hold it up to the world.</I><BR/><BR/>OK. But if you want to hold it up then you have to hold up the pillar of truth, which is the chruch, not the individual 1001 interpretations of the scripture.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>We are the church only as long as we uphold the truth of God's word.</I><BR/><BR/>And who exactly has the authority to do that Jennie? IF Christian A believes one thing and Christian B the total opposite and they both think they are upholding the truth of God's written word in the bible? This is why Jesus established HIS church with a human leader and has passed that church down via apostolic succession. To uphold the truth, of Jesus Christ, you have to uphold His church.<BR/><BR/><I> If we depart from the truth, we cease to be the Church.<BR/>Revelation 2 and 3.</I><BR/><BR/>On that we agree.Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-3881223770743663232008-10-09T12:11:00.000-07:002008-10-09T12:11:00.000-07:00Sola Scriptura is only a phrase. I don't have to s...<I>Sola Scriptura is only a phrase. I don't have to support it or refute it.</I><BR/><BR/>I've read other Protestant writings that have referred to it as a Doctrine! Apparently there is not even complete agreement on that!<BR/><BR/><I>And in my comment I showed logically that scripture must be the final authority.<BR/>I could show you verses on the primacy of scriptures.</I><BR/><BR/>And I can pull up verses to refute that. Let's not. Logically scripture can't be the final authority because people can't agree on what the words from scripture always mean. There are thousands of interpretations. Protestants disagree on many of them. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I><BR/>The verses in the epistles that Kelly mentioned as teaching the validity of oral tradition, I don't see as supporting the Roman Catholic idea of it. At that time they had little or nothing written down yet, so they had to encourage everyone to remember what they had taught them orally.</I><BR/><BR/>BINGO! So don't you think that if it was Jesus Christ's intention that his written word be supreme that he would have said more"write this down," and he would have left us with the actual completed bible? He didn't. IN fact he left it to the church to gather and approve the books that were eventually compiled into what became the bible. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I> The people then were blessed to hear directly from the mouths of the Apostles. We have to go by what they wrote down, since we obviously cannot go back in time and hear them.</I><BR/><BR/>Did you ever watch the movie Roots? At the very end of the movie, Alex Haley comes upon his African village and listens to the village elder repeat his family's history through the generations including mention of Kuta Kinte - the African that was kidnapped and taken to America. Oral tradition. Catholics understand that oral tradition is also as sacred as the written and it is her duty to safeguard both.<BR/><BR/><I>Still all claims must be compared to the written scripures, no matter how old the writings are, or who wrote them.</I><BR/><BR/>We compare them to both.<BR/><BR/><I>You must concede that scripture has to be the final authority, because anything that contradicts it is false.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't have to concede that at all. Just looking at the Protestant branch of the Christian tree shows me why!Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-73772846435346348872008-10-09T11:56:00.000-07:002008-10-09T11:56:00.000-07:00Elena, Also you can't lump all 'protestants' toget...Elena, <BR/>Also you can't lump all 'protestants' together and then say look how disunified they are. I don't consider myself a protestant, and I don't group myself with them against Catholics.<BR/>I consider the Catholic church as just another of many denominations at best. <BR/>There is error in all the denominations and we all need to go back to the pure teaching of scripture, if indeed we are in Christ.<BR/><BR/>The church is called the pillar and ground of the truth, just believers are called the light of the world. We aren't the truth, but we hold it up to the world.<BR/>We are the church only as long as we uphold the truth of God's word. If we depart from the truth, we cease to be the Church.<BR/>Revelation 2 and 3.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-4154023065326271302008-10-09T11:36:00.000-07:002008-10-09T11:36:00.000-07:00Sola Scriptura is only a phrase. I don't have to s...Sola Scriptura is only a phrase. I don't have to support it or refute it. It's only a historical word used by the reformers to give a name to their cause against false traditions. And in my comment I showed logically that scripture must be the final authority.<BR/>I could show you verses on the primacy of scriptures.<BR/><BR/>The verses in the epistles that Kelly mentioned as teaching the validity of oral tradition, I don't see as supporting the Roman Catholic idea of it. At that time they had little or nothing written down yet, so they had to encourage everyone to remember what they had taught them orally. The people then were blessed to hear directly from the mouths of the Apostles. We have to go by what they wrote down, since we obviously cannot go back in time and hear them.<BR/><BR/>Still all claims must be compared to the written scripures, no matter how old the writings are, or who wrote them.<BR/><BR/>You must concede that scripture has to be the final authority, because anything that contradicts it is false.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-64503231897904876242008-10-09T11:19:00.000-07:002008-10-09T11:19:00.000-07:00Some things come to mind as I read your comment Je...Some things come to mind as I read your comment Jennie. You support Sola Scriptura and you concede that it is a man made tradition. In fact it is a man made tradition that cannot be supported by scripture!<BR/><BR/>Then, as many have done before you, you say that scripture alone should be our sole guide without any "writings of man." Yet Protestants have been doing that for generations and they continue to schism and splinter off from each other. No one is quite sure exactly how many protestant denominations there are! If it's that easy to read and interpret then I should expect more unity in the sola scriptura branch of Christianity instead of so much separation. <BR/><BR/>Catholics believe that the "pillar of truth" is the church (which is exactly what it says in the bible! The Pope and the Magesterium safeguard the oral tradition and the teachings from scripture to each generation. You can see our links on the Papacy <A HREF="http://mdcalexatestblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/papal-answers.html" REL="nofollow">here.</A>Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-87238608135086105472008-10-09T11:01:00.000-07:002008-10-09T11:01:00.000-07:00Hi,I haven't been able to get back to comment; bee...Hi,<BR/><BR/>I haven't been able to get back to comment; been busy with home things.<BR/><BR/>I've been reading about the Vaudois or Waldensians some more.<BR/>I admire them immensely and they can't be explained away. You need to read both sides or you are going to get a scewed picture of reality. One or both sides may contain error or deception, but if you read both you will get a good idea of the truth. Just do a google search if you are interested. It's not good to forget such admirable people or be in ignorance of them.<BR/><BR/><BR/>About Sola Scriptura, I had two points to make.<BR/><BR/>First point: That the PHRASE sola scriptura is not claimed to be in the Bible. The cry of Sola Scriptura made by the Reformers was IN RESPONSE to the errors they saw in the Roman Catholic teachings that added to scripture. They were saying that the RCC was placing erroneous man-made doctrines on a par with scripture. These doctrines were not taught in the Bible and were contrary to it, not in harmony with it. Just look up Luthers 95 theses to know what these things were.<BR/><BR/>Point 2:<BR/><BR/>That even if we concede that so called oral traditions can be accepted, Scripture has to be the final authority; everything must be compared back to written Scripture, so Sola Scriptura is the only logical conclusion. (And we have to assume that the <BR/>Old and New testaments are Scripture, whether you accept anything else is irrelevant)<BR/><BR/>For example, to show that this is true, if we read the writings of the men in the next generation after the Apostles and say their teachings come from oral teachings of the Apostles, yet these teachings contradict the written scriptures, are we to accept these?<BR/>If these teachings do not contradict the scriptures and also are in agreement with them, then they can be accepted, and may also just be repeats of what the N.T. says, so are not essential for everyone to read.<BR/><BR/>So, while there may be things that were passed down orally (and written down by other men eventually, or we would not know about them) they are either not essential or they are, if contradictory, false teaching.<BR/>If you read the gospels and the epistles, you find many warnings against false teachings creeping into the church, so it is a constant danger that must always be guarded against.<BR/>Even some of the early teachers in the first generations of the church began to insert some ideas that are questionable, while most of what they taught seems to agree with the N. T. writers. So those errors needed to be caught and rectified quickly. See this example I found of the importance of the Primacy of Scripture involving St. Basil: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/08/checking-basil-quote.html <BR/><BR/>Our resposibility is to read the Bible as being the aword of God, and then compare EVERYTHING to it, including the teachings of the church, and determine if they agree or contradict. <BR/>You cannot logically say that 'oral tradition' is on a par with scripture if it contradicts it or adds things that appear nowhere in scripture and are not in harmony with it.<BR/>For examples of contradictions, look at bereanbeacon.org and click on the button at the bottom of the page 'what every Catholic should know.' There are charts there that compare the teachings. Click on the subjects on the sidebar to see the different charts.<BR/><BR/>Finally: 'I will worship toward Your holy temple,And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.'<BR/>Psalm 138:1-3 <BR/><BR/><BR/>JennieJenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-91090165062026200342008-10-08T08:16:00.000-07:002008-10-08T08:16:00.000-07:00Also, I believe that statues of Mary and others ar...<I>Also, I believe that statues of Mary and others are idols, and take away the place that belongs only to God, who said to 'make no graven image...' You may say I am inconsistent, because I don't believe art is a 'graven image' but it doesn't serve the same purpose as the statues in the churches and homes of Catholics.</I><BR/><BR/>This reminds me of the time I was at the home of a Baptist acquaintance near Christmas. I noticed a nativity scene, and I asked why she could have graven images, but we were guilty of idolatry by having them in our church. She replied "But <B>I'm</B> not worshiping these statues!"<BR/><BR/>I think the misunderstanding comes in what you feel is the purpose of the statues. Catholics do not believe that Mary or a saint is indwelling in the statue. You could take a hammer and smash it, and it would be disrespectful (like ripping up your wedding picture would send a message to your husband), but it is still just a statue. <BR/><BR/>We are not worshiping it, but using it as an aid to prayer. In the same way that illustrations in Bibles help us to form an image for focus as we pray, the statues help us to call to mind those who came before us.<BR/><BR/>We might kneel in prayer before the statue, but we are praying to God before the statue, not praying to the statue. I sometimes see people kneeling in prayer before gravestones in cemeteries, but they are not praying to the dead or the stone.<BR/><BR/>We do not pray to Mary and the saints in the same way that we pray to God. We are asking them to pray for us, the same way that we ask our family and friends here on earth to pray for us. <BR/><BR/>We believe that God is the God of the living and not the dead, because the dead are alive to Him (Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38) and that they are aware of us on earth, surrounding us as a great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1). The saints present their prayers to God before His throne in heaven (Rev. 5:8).Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-53451925815141027022008-10-08T06:35:00.000-07:002008-10-08T06:35:00.000-07:00It holds the blessed bread that you believe is tru...<I>It holds the blessed bread that you believe is truly the body of Christ. People bow to it and adore it as if it really were God. To me, that is idolotry. Baptists believe that Christ was speaking symbolically when He said 'This is My Body.'</I><BR/><BR/>We go over WHY this is NOT symbolic in this article on <A HREF="http://mdcalexatestblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/john-651-55-there-is-good-news-here.html" REL="nofollow"> here.</A><BR/><BR/><I>About the Catholic church 'breaking off' at some point in history: I don't think they exactly broke off;</I><BR/><BR/>Break off from what? Christianity at that point was Catholic or Orthodox. The protestant reformation started in 1517. So clearly the "break off" of Protestant Christianity was then. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Jennie, we don't expect you to answer every point. We don't expect you to "defend" the Baptist faith. We aren't attacking it! Our primary purpose here is to defend Catholicism. <BR/><BR/>It's a lot to digest. Take your time and read. Feel free to ask questions.Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-54700002035904637422008-10-08T06:21:00.000-07:002008-10-08T06:21:00.000-07:00Sue, the early church father's did not subscribe t...Sue, the early church father's did not subscribe to sola scriptura in the way that modern Protestants do. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Augustine<BR/><BR/>"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).<BR/><BR/>"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]). <BR/><BR/>Aquinas<BR/>The formal object of faith is Primary Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church which proceeds from the Primary Truth. Hence, he who does not embrace the teaching of the Church as a divine and infallible law does not possess the habit of faith.<BR/><BR/>Dionysius of Corinth<BR/><BR/>"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).<BR/><BR/>"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11). <BR/><BR/><BR/>Irenaeus<BR/><BR/><BR/>"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).<BR/><BR/>Cyprian of Carthage<BR/><BR/><BR/>"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). <BR/><BR/><BR/>Peter Chrysologus<BR/><BR/><BR/>"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]). <BR/><BR/><BR/>Jerome<BR/><BR/><BR/>"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).<BR/><BR/>"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-64222035734517906752008-10-08T05:34:00.000-07:002008-10-08T05:34:00.000-07:00You've been arguing about adiaphora. From referenc...You've been arguing about adiaphora. From reference.com: <I>Adiaphora in Christianity refers to matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church. What is specifically considered adiaphora depends on the specific theology in view.</I> <BR/><BR/>Robes, candles, altars, goblets, etc etc are clearly adiaphora. Even actions such as kneeling or making the sign of the cross are adiaphora. However, Word and sacrament are <B>not</B> adiaphora - they are essential to faith.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Sola Scriptura, the idea dates back to the early church fathers:<BR/><BR/>"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)<BR/><BR/>"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).<BR/><BR/>"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)<BR/><BR/>“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).<BR/><BR/>“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)<BR/><BR/>"It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments." St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 2<BR/><BR/>"Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Part 1, Question 1, Article 8Sue Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13342939305850558827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-58198790834071925012008-10-07T20:32:00.000-07:002008-10-07T20:32:00.000-07:00Help, I'm surrounded! :)I don't think I can answer...Help, I'm surrounded! :)<BR/><BR/>I don't think I can answer everyone, but I'll pick a few items and try.<BR/><BR/>Clare, I guess it's not so much the gold and robes and beautiful things themselves that I see as wrong, but what they are used for or what they stand for. I can't name everything, but take the monstrance: It holds the blessed bread that you believe is truly the body of Christ. People bow to it and adore it as if it really were God. To me, that is idolotry. Baptists believe that Christ was speaking symbolically when He said 'This is My Body.'<BR/>I guess we disagree about which things are literal and which are symbolic.<BR/><BR/>Also, I believe that statues of Mary and others are idols, and take away the place that belongs only to God, who said to 'make no graven image...' You may say I am inconsistent, because I don't believe art is a 'graven image' but it doesn't serve the same purpose as the statues in the churches and homes of Catholics.<BR/><BR/>Barbara, <BR/>yes, I have been in a Catholic mass many times, first as a child with my mother; her family were Italian Catholics; we left the Catholic church after my father, who was agnostic and never attended church with us, accepted Christ as savior and we began going to an Episcopal and then a Baptist church. My mother and the four of us children all accepted Christ as savior about that time.<BR/>I also have attended with other relatives while visiting them.<BR/>I also had my first communion as a child, though I don't remember a thing about it now.<BR/>I have said in another comment on another post here that I consider my spiritual heritage to be Baptist. Also, on my father's side we descend from one of the Mayflower pilgrims, and their heritage is very important to me as well. So, though I come from Catholics on one side and can understand some of what you are saying, I can't go back to it.<BR/><BR/>About the Catholic church 'breaking off' at some point in history: I don't think they exactly broke off; I get the impression from what I've read that the hierarchy gradually grew and became more 'Catholic' and then as some people realized that things were not scriptural they departed from the 'church.' The church became too much of a government, and this always leads to corruption. This of course is a very simplified view, but my mind works by trying to simplify and distill ideas down to one thought, and I'm not good with details. I will have to look things up and find the details.<BR/><BR/>About the website, bereanbeacon.org, that I referenced: That article under church history about the Waldenses and Vaudois was written by one man in the 19th century, but at the end he has many references to his sources. They certainly existed and were certainly persecuted by the Roman church. (I did not say they were 'hidden,' Kelly. If anyone has hidden them maybe it is the Catholic churches historical records. I say this because the Catholic records obviously contradict the Protestant records in many cases, and both can't be right, though both of course can be wrong :)) <BR/><BR/>Well, it's my bed time so I'll try to come back tomorrow and discuss Sola Scriptura and Apostolic succession, etc.<BR/>JennieJenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.com