Catholicism

[Evangel]

any die hard supporters mind explaining to me why they are inclined to still follow the catholic doctrines and accept the addition to the bible. i was poking around www.chick.com and i was curious if anyone had any rebuttals to his arguments.

[Bartholomew]

I'm not a Catholic, but Chick is ridiculous.

If you really want to engage Catholicism, try arguing against it yourself.

:poke:

~Matt

[spl_cadet]

Oh...my.....God...someone who believes Chick. Now I've seen everything. Actually I've seen it a time or two on CARM before. :smile:

As you can tell from my avatar line, I happen to be a diehard Catholic. Check out my site to see some refutations of his tracts. (www.geocities.com/spl_cadet/)

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 12:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83814#post83814)
spl_cadet:

Oh...my.....God...someone who believes Chick.

People also believe the erroneous Catholic arguments/data claiming 36,000 (is that the number now?) Protestant denominations, (and that's not to mention that the whole argument is a fallacy of equivocation, comparing a rule to the adherents of the rule), the strawmen against Solo Scriptura (these types of arguments just reveal the utter ignorance among most Catholics as to what proper Protestant doctrine is), the humorous idea that the Protestants removed the Apocryphal books during the Reformation...

I'm not surprised that people believe Chick; people believe CAI publications.

~Matt

[Evangel]

now where did i say i believe chick :teeth:
anyway i just want to learn and his website came up in google.

you wanna give me some good reasons why you believe in praying through mary and the saints. and whatever else you can think of. :cheers:

edit: i knew chick was crazy when i saw his cartoons though. :lol:

[Vorkosigan]

Evangel: any die hard supporters mind explaining to me why they are inclined to still follow the catholic doctrines and accept the addition to the bible. i was poking around www.chick.com and i was curious if anyone had any rebuttals to his arguments.

Evangel: hehe these people are starting to sound like the Jesus Seminar people. choosing to believe only what they want to believe because it fits into their agenda.

<admiringly> You are truly a master of irony, Evangel.

Vorkosigan

[nomad]

if you are really interesting in reading a defense of catholic positions, a friend just gave me a book 'born fundamentalist, born again catholic' by david currie. iirc, he attended fuller theological seminary and went as far as his Th.D. (so he was pretty far advanced in protestant theology), and then later converted to catholicism.

you may not agree with it (i didn't agree with everything for sure), but at least it gives a reasonable defense of some of the more contested catholic doctrines, and might be easier to read for those of us from protestant backgrounds than your typical catholic publication...

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 11:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84192#post84192)
nomad:

if you are really interesting in reading a defense of catholic positions, a friend just gave me a book 'born fundamentalist, born again catholic' by david currie. iirc, he attended fuller theological seminary and went as far as his Th.D. (so he was pretty far advanced in protestant theology), and then later converted to catholicism.

you may not agree with it (i didn't agree with everything for sure), but at least it gives a reasonable defense of some of the more contested catholic doctrines, and might be easier to read for those of us from protestant backgrounds than your typical catholic publication...

Currie's book is only applicable for Fundamentalist Protestants (i.e. no dancing, singing, etc. groups that adhere to Solo Scriptura) and as such, I don't recommend it. His defense of Catholic dogma is fairly week too, although if you're looking for a basic overview of what Catholics believe, it might serve that purpose.

In my investigation of Catholicism, I found that book to be of little help. IMHO, Currie's preaching to the choir.

~Matt

[Jin-Roh]

I found some arguments at John Ankerberg's webiste (www.johnankerberg.com) when it came to the RCC, but I also read one of there books and wasn't all that great IMHO.

[Evangel]

thank you nomad, jin-roh and inquistor kind.

and lol Vorksogian i think you have some splainin to do. Jesus Seminar are some freaky deaky people, i hope your not defending them. i dont think catholics are ANYWHERE NEAR that bad. i would go as far to say that Jesus Seminar is basically not Christian.

[Jin-Roh]

i would go as far to say that Jesus Seminar is basically not Christian.

Well yeah when you attack the Gospels you pretty much have earned the title of "anti-Christian."

What's worse are the so-called Christians who declare the Ressurection a legend. I don't understand why who would even bother to call youself a Christian if you think that way.

[AugustineH354]

Let's be honest, it is not additions to the Bible that Catholics and Prots argue over; but rather, the interpretations of the Bible. Martin Luther unleashed the hounds of "private interpretation" in the 16th century; the results of which are manifested in the 20,000 plus sects/denominations which exist today.

Aug

[Woman]

What is a Jesus Seminar Church?

[TWells]

Its not a church, its a group of "scholarly" fellows who gather to determine the authenticity of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the NT. The most famous members are John Dominic Crossan and Robert Funk. (I think thats his name)

[Solly]

Today @ 09:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86228#post86228)
AugustineH354:

Let's be honest, it is not additions to the Bible that Catholics and Prots argue over; but rather, the interpretations of the Bible. Martin Luther unleashed the hounds of &quot;private interpretation&quot; in the 16th century; the results of which are manifested in the 20,000 plus sects/denominations which exist today.

Aug

Aug, let's agree, we won't say you believe Mary is a co-saviour, and you drop the 20,000 denoms bit huh. How many socieities and orders do the Caths have, SJ, Carmelites, Doms, Francs, Augusts, Sacred heart etc. You keep all yours in house by rigorous control that's all. Remember the Jansenists?

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 04:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86228#post86228)
AugustineH354:

Let's be honest, it is not additions to the Bible that Catholics and Prots argue over; but rather, the interpretations of the Bible. Martin Luther unleashed the hounds of &quot;private interpretation&quot; in the 16th century; the results of which are manifested in the 20,000 plus sects/denominations which exist today.

Aug

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

First, where did you get this 20,000 number? I thought it was up to 36,000 by now! Could you reference it for me? And, no, the telephone book won't work because those aren't denominations of doctrine, but of jurisitiction.

Actually, I can reference the text for you if you like, but you'd be surprised to know that Barrets New World Dictionary cites, under the same area, over 1,000 Catholic "denominations." Uh oh, that doesn't look so good, does it? Of course, you'll have to check how he's using denominations...

From Barretts source, there are 14 true Roman Catholic denominations--divisions along lines of essential doctrine. Not surprisingly, Barrett found zero denominations--divisions along lines of essential doctrine--among Evangelicals. This source is devestating to the RCC.

A continued use of the 20,000 denomination argument reveals not only an uncritical mind, but a lack of honest as well.

Respectfully,
~Matt

........

[Socrates]

Yes, the Jesus seminar do not comprise Christians, and their scholarship is also appalling. From time to time they present their "conclusions" to the public, but in fact these are actually their premises. For example, one premise is that Jesus spoke very little of what was attributed to him, miracles are impossible, and others are about the superiority of the woman-hating 2nd century Gospel of Thomas over the four canonical Gospels. Yet their news announcements present these as if they are the result of their research, when they had already made up their minds about them before they started. For more detail, see www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t016.html

Chick publications just give Catholic apologists target practice, are counter-productive.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey solly--

How many socieities and orders do the Caths have, SJ, Carmelites, Doms, Francs, Augusts, Sacred heart etc. You keep all yours in house by rigorous control that's all.

**8** i'm not trying to start an argument here, but i wanted to throw in me two cents.
this is a misunderstanding. the "societies" you refer to above aren't distinguished by differing beliefs, but rather by distinctive manners of expressing and appropriating the beliefs common to all Catholics. Dominicans specialize in preaching and study, Franciscans in community work, and Benedictines (which i almost became this spring) in contemplative prayer. they're all in the same house, however. they all recognize the authority of Rome.
another thing that needs to be kept in mind is this--Protestants (it seems to me) consider a "Church" to be defined essentially as "a group of people who give intellectual assent to the same abstract set of truth-claims" (and therefore, the Church is fully abstractable from empirical reality; thus the primacy of the "invisible" over the "visible" Church). for Catholics and Orthodox, though unity of faith is important, this faith is rendered concrete by participation in the Eucharist. in other words, unless it is shown that this "group" excludes that "group" from celebrating the Eucharist with them, or that both are excluded from Eucharistic communion by Rome, it has not been shown that there are two distinct Catholic "bodies".
in closing, i wish to say that while i don't think it likely that the "twenty thousand disagreeing bodies" is likely to be accurate (it seems more likely to be an exaggeration arrived at via a faulty modus operandi), i think that the thrust of Augustine's point is basically correct insofar as Protestantism is incapable of achieving the same intensity of union as either Catholicism, or Orthodoxy for that matter. one of the big reasons why is the adherence of both the RC and the EO to "tradition" and the "seven ecumenical councils"--this considerably narrows down the range of possible claimaints to "correct interpretation" on certain key issues. another big reason is the Incarnational/sacramental nature of the RC and the EO, which seems to me to be absent from Protestantism (this isn't to say that the Incarnation isn't believed by Protestants; rather, that it isn't a theological factor to the same degree).
peace.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 01:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86455#post86455)
phantaz sunlyk:

in closing, i wish to say that while i don't think it likely that the &quot;twenty thousand disagreeing bodies&quot; is likely to be accurate (it seems more likely to be an exaggeration arrived at via a faulty modus operandi), i think that the thrust of Augustine's point is basically correct insofar as Protestantism is incapable of achieving the same intensity of union as either Catholicism, or Orthodoxy for that matter. one of the big reasons why is the adherence of both the RC and the EO to &quot;tradition&quot; and the &quot;seven ecumenical councils&quot;--this considerably narrows down the range of possible claimaints to &quot;correct interpretation&quot; on certain key issues. another big reason is the Incarnational/sacramental nature of the RC and the EO, which seems to me to be absent from Protestantism (this isn't to say that the Incarnation isn't believed by Protestants; rather, that it isn't a theological factor to the same degree).
peace.

The thrust of Augustine's point is rather moot, considering that it's a faulty comparision. If you wanted to compare unity, you would do it between denominations. For example, for the Orthodox Church to compare itself (it being one denomination) against the "30,000" denominations of Protestantism (a group of denominations) proves absolutely nothing. It would be the same as the Reformed Church comparing itself to all the vast number of Scripture and Tradition rules of faith (including at least Catholicism, Orthodoxy, JW, and Mormons).

If anyone wishes to be fair, they should compare either the rules of faith (Sola Scripture--Scripture is the rule--and Sola Ecclesia--the church is the rule) or single denominations, such as comparing the unity between Evangelicalism and Orthodoxy.

Augustine's "point" is just the same illogical rhetoric that is spouted by the majority of Catholic epologists on the internet today.

No offense to Augustine, of course.

~Matt

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey matt; nice name :teeth:

The thrust of Augustine's point is rather moot, considering that it's a faulty comparision. If you wanted to compare unity, you would do it between denominations. For example, for the Orthodox Church to compare itself (it being one denomination) against the "30,000" denominations of Protestantism (a group of denominations) proves absolutely nothing.

**7** i don't think it at all to be a "moot" point. all the Protestant denominations seem to have in common the principles of Sola Scriptura, Private Interpretation (are you, in any real sense, bound to the Council of Ephesus, or II Nicea?), and a denouncement of any binding authority whether present and empirical (such as "the magisterium of the Church") or historical (such as "we follow Scripture as understood by clement and ignatius and irenaeus and ... and any interpretation which essentially parts company with the spirit of the above, we renounce as false and contrary to Scripture...").
when we speak of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, on the other hand, we speak of communions conscious of an empirical and historical lineage, and who claim both to be faithful heirs to all that went before today (and not just "what the NT says/said"), and consider themselves bound to all that preceded them.
thus there atleast appears to be a clear line divinding the two, such that Catholics and Orthodox are on one side, and all Protestants are on the other; and the dividing line itself are the ground-principles assumed by each. it is because of the ground-principles of Protestantism that we can speak both of Protestantism as over-against Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and of the varying understandings of the "different rules of faith" (and i too believe that there is a vast common ground amongst Protestants, and therefore think that exaggerating the "different doctrines" is atleast close to being empty rhetoric).
therefore Augustine's point--though i wouldn't have expressed it in precisely the same words, and particularly wouldn't have cited the same point (30k denoms, etc.) as proof--seems to me to be valid in the sense that it expresses a truth.
to see this point examined with less "illogical rhetoric", as you call it, i recommend you Richard Swinburne's _Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy_.
peace in Christ.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 05:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86607#post86607)
phantaz sunlyk:

**8** say hey matt; nice name :teeth:



Hey, and you've got a ::insert neutral adjective here:: name yourself.


**7** i don't think it at all to be a &quot;moot&quot; point. all the Protestant denominations seem to have in common the principles of Sola Scriptura, Private Interpretation (are you, in any real sense, bound to the Council of Ephesus, or II Nicea?), and a denouncement of any binding authority whether present and empirical (such as &quot;the magisterium of the Church&quot;) or historical (such as &quot;we follow Scripture as understood by clement and ignatius and irenaeus and ... and any interpretation which essentially parts company with the spirit of the above, we renounce as false and contrary to Scripture...&quot;).

Okay.


when we speak of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, on the other hand, we speak of communions conscious of an empirical and historical lineage, and who claim both to be faithful heirs to all that went before today (and not just &quot;what the NT says/said&quot;), and consider themselves bound to all that preceded them.

No offense, but so what? Augustine's assertion is that there can't possibly be truth with 30,000 (or was it 20,000? I forget now) denominations within Protestantism. A redefining of the Catholic and Orthodox rules of faith only side step the issue of disunity double standard. If the Orthodox and Catholics are united in the methods they use to arrive at the truth, but are still divided on doctrine, how can disunity be used to identify the truth of a Christian group? Augustine's point is moot because it can be turned around on Catholicism and Orthodoxy with the same "devastating" results as those in the RCC would like to see inflicted on Protestantism.


thus there atleast appears to be a clear line divinding the two, such that Catholics and Orthodox are on one side, and all Protestants are on the other; and the dividing line itself are the ground-principles assumed by each. it is because of the ground-principles of Protestantism that we can speak both of Protestantism as over-against Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and of the varying understandings of the &quot;different rules of faith&quot; (and i too believe that there is a vast common ground amongst Protestants, and therefore think that exaggerating the &quot;different doctrines&quot; is atleast close to being empty rhetoric).

There is a "vast common ground amongst Protestants" and I couldn't agree more. The same may be said about the Catholics and Orthodox Churches. However, this has nothing to do with the point in discussion. Yes there is a dividing line between the "two" groups in question, but indicating such has no bearing on the truth of either group, which is the reason the vast number of Protestant denominations are listed.


therefore Augustine's point--though i wouldn't have expressed it in precisely the same words, and particularly wouldn't have cited the same point (30k denoms, etc.) as proof--seems to me to be valid in the sense that it expresses a truth.

And what truth is it expressing? I hardly find Augustine's point expressing anything but the truth of RCC double standards. The whole reason behind citing tens of thousands of denominations against the unity of Rome is to prove the lack of truth within "Protestantism." Your defense (if it may be called that) of Augustine's point does not clear up the obvious false comparision. I find little, if any truth, beyond self-defeating conclusions, found in user Augustine's remarks.


to see this point examined with less &quot;illogical rhetoric&quot;, as you call it, i recommend you Richard Swinburne's _Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy_.
peace in Christ.

I might read it after I get through the nine other religious texts I have lined up for the summer.

~Matt

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** yo--

name yourself.

**8** my real name is matt. i won't give out the last name online though.

Augustine's point is moot because it can be turned around on Catholicism and Orthodoxy with the same "devastating" results as those in the RCC would like to see inflicted on Protestantism.

**8** no it can't, and this because the "unity" in question, and the source (or, better, the "term") thereof in the case of Catholicism, is emprical.

And what truth is it expressing?

**7** that the ground-principles assumed by Protestants' are counterproductive to ensuring or achieving a unity intense enough to have an empirical reality. for example, if you should suddenly be struck by this or that passage in Scripture, and see in it a meaning that is either ignored by the Church you belong to, or is such that it contradicts the meaning understood by the Church you belong to--and if the matter came to a head, and the end result of it was your leaving that Church in order to seek out (or establish) one that was "truer to the Word"--in such a case, how would you be going against the ground principles of Protestantism?
on the other hand, if i suddenly decide that, based on select passages from Hebrews or John, that people who sin after baptism are no longer Christians--and if i take this belief to my priest, and after being corrected by him still insist that i'm right--and if the end result is my leaving the Catholic Church, then what i have done is at odds with the ground-principles of Catholicism, rather than being coincident with them.
now, all of that said, i'm not sure whether i can be seen as backing up what Augustine was going for. as a matter of fact, i think he'll actually be siding against me and with a Mormon in the near future over the doctrine of theosis in the patristic era. i simply hopped into this thread at the "most recent" post, hence i'm not sure if my statements cohere with the context of what went before.

I might read it after I get through the nine other religious texts I have lined up for the summer.

**7** ooh! ooh! whatcha got lined up? are you an N.T. Wright or Larry Hurtado fan by chance? both of 'em have 800 pagers comin' out this summer!
peace in Christ.

[Bartholomew]

-edited because I left out the word "Catholic" twice


Today @ 07:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86670#post86670)
phantaz sunlyk:

**7** yo--

Hi.


**8** my real name is matt. i won't give out the last name online though.

Scary. I don't mind giving out my last name; there are many other Matt Schultzs, and I happen to know one.

I said this:


Augustine's point is moot because it can be turned around on Catholicism and Orthodoxy with the same &quot;devastating&quot; results as those in the RCC would like to see inflicted on Protestantism.

The other Matt felt fit to claim this:


**8** no it can't, and this because the &quot;unity&quot; in question, and the source (or, better, the &quot;term&quot;) thereof in the case of Catholicism, is emprical.

The source in question is that which Augustine referenced his (her?) 20,000 number, which I already indicated to be Barrett's New World Dictionary. The problem with using this source to state that there are 20,000 Protestant denominations (which is not honest to the text, as it lists approximately 8,000) is that under the same definition of "denominations," Barrett cites upwards of 1,000 Catholic denominations.

If you want to talk about Catholicism directly, we can do that. Otherwise, yes, indeed, the argument can still be turned around on Catholicism with equal force.

Matt me said:


And what truth is it expressing?

Matt the other responded:


**7** that the ground-principles assumed by Protestants' are counterproductive to ensuring or achieving a unity intense enough to have an empirical reality.

Quick observation: take any religious system in the world and you will find two or more groups claiming different interpretations/conclusions based on that same system. One such example--Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

You have stated nothing profound here.


for example, if you should suddenly be struck by this or that passage in Scripture, and see in it a meaning that is either ignored by the Church you belong to, or is such that it contradicts the meaning understood by the Church you belong to--and if the matter came to a head, and the end result of it was your leaving that Church in order to seek out (or establish) one that was &quot;truer to the Word&quot;--in such a case, how would you be going against the ground principles of Protestantism?

I guess your definition of Protestantism is alien to mine. Protestantism is by no means a religious system that promotes endless divisions and creation of denominations. Whether or not this actually happens is a different story.


on the other hand, if i suddenly decide that, based on select passages from Hebrews or John, that people who sin after baptism are no longer Christians--and if i take this belief to my priest, and after being corrected by him still insist that i'm right--and if the end result is my leaving the Catholic Church, then what i have done is at odds with the ground-principles of Catholicism, rather than being coincident with them.

Given your strange definition of Protestantism, I do not find your conclusion satisfactory. Besides, I would recommend, in the future, that you yourself avoid the double standard comparision and stick to comparing Evangelicals (or Baptists, Reformed, etc.) to Catholics, rather than all of Protestantism (because that word, as evidenced by your very previous post, can be interpreted at leisure, even to include JWs and Mormons) vs. Catholicism.


now, all of that said, i'm not sure whether i can be seen as backing up what Augustine was going for. as a matter of fact, i think he'll actually be siding against me and with a Mormon in the near future over the doctrine of theosis in the patristic era. i simply hopped into this thread at the &quot;most recent&quot; post, hence i'm not sure if my statements cohere with the context of what went before.

In that case, what and why are we discussing?


**7** ooh! ooh! whatcha got lined up? are you an N.T. Wright or Larry Hurtado fan by chance? both of 'em have 800 pagers comin' out this summer!
peace in Christ.

Never heard of them.

~Matt

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** yo, matt--

If you want to talk about Catholicism directly,

**7** sure. any questions?

we can do that. Otherwise, yes, indeed, the argument can still be turned around on Catholicism with equal force.

**8** mebbe insofar as presented by Augustine, but not what i've stated.

Quick observation: take any religious system in the world and you will find two or more groups claiming different interpretations/conclusions based on that same system.

**7** that's exactly the problem, and as such it is evidence of being from this world rather than divinely sanctioned...

One such example--Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

**8** which is a big reason why i'm Catholic, despite my profound love of Orthodoxy. Catholicism seems to me to be more coherent on this point, in that it cannot be divided.
the reason why the two are so close is because both adhere to Tradition as an authority--Catholicism closes the epistemic gap in that it recognizes a perpetual authority intrinsic to Scripture and Tradition.
therefore, your own words apply to you as well: you have stated nothing profound here.

I guess your definition of Protestantism is alien to mine.

**8** which is.....?
and by the way, i never offered a definition of it. i merely listed a few of its ground-principles, which you haven't as of yet denied.

Protestantism is by no means a religious system that promotes endless divisions and creation of denominations.

**7** i never said that it was, and that isn't what my analogy intended to show. rather, the point is that based on the ground principles which it recognizes, there is little to stop it from doing so. in other words, a Protestant who Protests against his Church's doctrine isn't being inconsistent.

Given your strange definition of Protestantism,

**8** my strange definition? would you do me the favor of keeping your eyes on the screen, reading what i have written; rather than forcing them into what you take to be my mind, reading into it what i haven't written?

that you yourself avoid the double standard comparision and stick to comparing Evangelicals (or Baptists, Reformed, etc.) to Catholics, rather than all of Protestantism (because that word, as evidenced by your very previous post, can be interpreted at leisure, even to include JWs and Mormons)

**7** i have been clear on why i place all Protestants on one side, and Catholics and the EO on another (though your point is valid that Catholics and the EO are themselves not united, and at that point, let me make clear that i'm Catholic).
you have shown nothing to prove either my incorrectness on that point, nor that the conclusions i draw therefrom are inaccurate.
and yes, JW's can (and do) fit within my definition of Protestantism--so do the Christadelphians (i wouldn't include Mormons, as they don't go by "the Bible only").
the distinction, however, is that whereas i recognize Protestants such as yourself as being basically orthodox in belief, i recognize JW's and Christadelphians as being heretical in belief. but you are both, according to the principles laid out earlier, equally worthy of being called "Protestants".
unless you can show specific doctrines as being entailed by those principles listed above, then i don't see you as having any right to force a rigorous objection.

Never heard of them.

**7** they're world renowned NT scholars.
anywho, what are the books ya got lined up for the summer?
peace.

[Bartholomew]

-edtied because grammar, although quite useful, generally sucks


Today @ 09:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86809#post86809)
phantaz sunlyk:

**8** yo, matt--

If you want to talk about Catholicism directly,

**7** sure. any questions?

we can do that. Otherwise, yes, indeed, the argument can still be turned around on Catholicism with equal force.

**8** mebbe insofar as presented by Augustine, but not what i've stated.

Okay, if we're done with Augustine, I ask again:

What and why are we discussing? If you have something new to post, bring it to a new thread.

I said:


Quick observation: take any religious system in the world and you will find two or more groups claiming different interpretations/conclusions based on that same system.

You replied:


**7** that's exactly the problem, and as such it is evidence of being from this world rather than divinely sanctioned...

That would mean that every single religious system is not divinely sanctioned. I do not hope you hold to this position, as Catholicism fails the unity test just as much as any other religious system. I sugggest that you state something *else* as the problem.


One such example--Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

**8** which is a big reason why i'm Catholic, despite my profound love of Orthodoxy. Catholicism seems to me to be more coherent on this point, in that it cannot be divided.
the reason why the two are so close is because both adhere to Tradition as an authority--Catholicism closes the epistemic gap in that it recognizes a perpetual authority intrinsic to Scripture and Tradition.
therefore, your own words apply to you as well: you have stated nothing profound here.

I wasn't trying to state anything profound. I was pointing out that your "argument," or whatever it is you're trying to discuss was either irrelevant or illogical.

I stated:


I guess your definition of Protestantism is alien to mine.

To which you replied:


**8** which is.....?
and by the way, i never offered a definition of it. i merely listed a few of its ground-principles, which you haven't as of yet denied.

Your observations about Protestantism definitely shed some light on how you were (or are) defining Protestantism. What else am I supposed to do when interacting with you in this discussion? Perhaps I shall ask for clarification on every point you discuss to make sure that I'm not reading into it what I otherwise thought was obvious?

And, no I haven't denied the "ground-principles," simply because that's not what is being discussed here. If you remember, we are debating whether or not Augustine's point is moot, and since you can't seem to defend its validity, and have even said that your remarks are no longer to be applied to them, I suggest we either take this new topic to a new thread, or you once again gear your responses to discuss Augustine's remark and whether or not it is "moot."

I said:


Protestantism is by no means a religious system that promotes endless divisions and creation of denominations.

You replied:


**7** i never said that it was, and that isn't what my analogy intended to show. rather, the point is that based on the ground principles which it recognizes, there is little to stop it from doing so. in other words, a Protestant who Protests against his Church's doctrine isn't being inconsistent.

I never said you said it was and never intended to.


Given your strange definition of Protestantism,

**8** my strange definition? would you do me the favor of keeping your eyes on the screen, reading what i have written; rather than forcing them into what you take to be my mind, reading into it what i haven't written?

You're the one that postulated what Protestantism was by claiming certian characteristics of it. If you don't like people trying to guess what you're saying, define your terms before getting involved in a discussion, especially if you weren't defending the post it *seemed* you were defending in the first place.

I continued:


that you yourself avoid the double standard comparision and stick to comparing Evangelicals (or Baptists, Reformed, etc.) to Catholics, rather than all of Protestantism (because that word, as evidenced by your very previous post, can be interpreted at leisure, even to include JWs and Mormons)

To clarify, I realize you're taking about a rule of faith now.

You responded:


**7** i have been clear on why i place all Protestants on one side, and Catholics and the EO on another (though your point is valid that Catholics and the EO are themselves not united, and at that point, let me make clear that i'm Catholic).
you have shown nothing to prove either my incorrectness on that point, nor that the conclusions i draw therefrom are inaccurate.

It's your turn to keep your eyes on the screen. If you noticed, my responses were mainly to discuss Augustine's point, not your introduction to, as I see it, a relatively new topic.

Bottom line, Augustine's point is still moot.

If you'd like to discuss your point, I suggest you start a new thread explaining your position/idea/whatever and I'd be more than happy to discuss it there.

You also said this:


and yes, JW's can (and do) fit within my definition of Protestantism--so do the Christadelphians (i wouldn't include Mormons, as they don't go by &quot;the Bible only&quot;).
the distinction, however, is that whereas i recognize Protestants such as yourself as being basically orthodox in belief, i recognize JW's and Christadelphians as being heretical in belief. but you are both, according to the principles laid out earlier, equally worthy of being called &quot;Protestants&quot;.
unless you can show specific doctrines as being entailed by those principles listed above, then i don't see you as having any right to force a rigorous objection.

Why would I want to "force a rigorous objection" to your comments here? All I was responding to were the blatant doublestandards of Augustine's line of thinking, and other logical fallacies.

I also said this:


Never heard of them.

You replied.


**7** they're world renowned NT scholars.
anywho, what are the books ya got lined up for the summer?
peace.

That's great. Renowned by who?

I don't have the whole list availble, but here are some (for the sake of time, I will not be underlining them):

1. Evangelical Answers

2. Crossing the Tiber

3. Apologia Pro Vita Sua

4. The Salvation Controversy

5. The Autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux

6. Vatican II documents

7. The Dark Night of the Soul

8. Fox's Book of Martyers

9. Many ECFs, etc.

Why did you want to know which books I'm reading?

~Matt

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** yo,

I do not hope you hold to this position, as Catholicism fails the unity test just as much as any other religious system.

**7** prove it.

I was pointing out that your "argument," or whatever it is you're trying to discuss was either irrelevant or illogical.

**8** i may be guilty of being irrelevant to the initial point of departure for your debate with Augustine as perceived by you (viz., "you claim that if there are 20k denominations, there therefore is no 'truth' in Protestantism..."), but that the points i have brought up are irrelevant is a bogus claim. if anything, it seems to me that you are uncomfortable with dealing with any argument that isn't a strawman.
"illogical"? i'm getting that same feeling i get when neo-arians vaguely claim that the Trinity is "contrary to all reason".

Your observations about Protestantism definitely shed some light on how you were (or are) defining Protestantism.

**7** "definition" has a fairly precise meaning in my thinking.
anywho, do you have a definition for Protestantism? what exactly is a Protestant, as distinct from Catholics and the EO? yes or no?

Perhaps I shall ask for clarification on every point you discuss to make sure that I'm not reading into it what I otherwise thought was obvious?

**8** the former'd no doubt be better than the latter.

If you remember, we are debating whether or not Augustine's point is moot,

**7** if you'd refrain from projecting your thoughtlife onto the world at large, you'd notice that the thread we're on is not "Augustine's Point", but rather "Catholicism". hence my point is relevant.

I suggest we either take this new topic to a new thread, or you once again gear your responses to discuss Augustine's remark and whether or not it is "moot."

**8** or, perhaps you could realize that what i'm talking about is relevant to precisely this thread and stop beating about the bush and craving a straw-man, and engage me.

You're the one that postulated what Protestantism was by claiming certian characteristics of it.

**7** if you can't tell that those characteristics are relevant implicitly to Aug's point, then i feel for you; if i'm not right regarding those characteristics, prove me wrong; if i am right then prove that the implications postulated by me do not follow. if you admit that they do follow, then this conversation is over.

Bottom line, Augustine's point is still moot.

**8** only if he would agree that my advancement of it in this direction cannot be implied within it.

If you'd like to discuss your point, I suggest you start a new thread explaining your position/idea/whatever and I'd be more than happy to discuss it there.

**7** re above. this thread is not entitled "Augustine's Point".

All I was responding to were the blatant doublestandards of Augustine's line of thinking, and other logical fallacies.

**8** no, you were responding to me, therefore you should "force a rigorous objection" against my comments if you think they were false.

That's great. Renowned by who?

**7** people who study the New Testament for a living and are recognized by other such as being experts in their field.
are you a fan of Tekton?
i've read 3, 6, and 7 in your list. 7 is a goldmine--i'd be interested in knowing what you thought of it when/if you finish it. which ECF's do you plan on reading?
peace.

[Bartholomew]

-edited to fix a quote


Today @ 11:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86880#post86880)
phantaz sunlyk:

**8** yo,

I do not hope you hold to this position, as Catholicism fails the unity test just as much as any other religious system.

**7** prove it.

Sure. Let's go to another thread.

I was pointing out that your &quot;argument,&quot; or whatever it is you're trying to discuss was either irrelevant or illogical.


**8** i may be guilty of being irrelevant to the initial point of departure for your debate with Augustine as perceived by you (viz., &quot;you claim that if there are 20k denominations, there therefore is no 'truth' in Protestantism...&quot;), but that the points i have brought up are irrelevant is a bogus claim. if anything, it seems to me that you are uncomfortable with dealing with any argument that isn't a strawman.
&quot;illogical&quot;? i'm getting that same feeling i get when neo-arians vaguely claim that the Trinity is &quot;contrary to all reason&quot;.

What in the world? Care to back up your claims?


**7** &quot;definition&quot; has a fairly precise meaning in my thinking.
anywho, do you have a definition for Protestantism? what exactly is a Protestant, as distinct from Catholics and the EO? yes or no?

Irrelevant to the discussion, IMHO. If I am one to only deal with strawmen, you are one to pose only red herrings.


**8** the former'd no doubt be better than the latter.

That's wonderful...


**7** if you'd refrain from projecting your thoughtlife onto the world at large, you'd notice that the thread we're on is not &quot;Augustine's Point&quot;, but rather &quot;Catholicism&quot;. hence my point is relevant.

Perhaps you should drop your unwarrented remarks about my"thoughtlife" in exchange for something relevant? Your strange comments about my thoughtlife reveal more about your ability to reason than mine.

Besides, your point, which was in response to my comments about Augustine's point, are irrelevant to our discussion. You were the one who said it was relevant to that one. Now you're just changing your mind and trying to claim that the whole thread is about Catholicism (when in fact is it about Jack Chick) in order to cover up your inadaquate support for Augustine's comments.


**8** or, perhaps you could realize that what i'm talking about is relevant to precisely this thread and stop beating about the bush and craving a straw-man, and engage me.

I have offered you a new thread to discuss this. Where have I suggested that I don't want to discuss this? I believe you're just worried that your position doesn't stand and simply want to believe that I don't want to discuss it, even though I have clearly indicated otherwise.

Since your comments are completely related to Jack Chick, perhaps you'd like to show me the relevance? Inquiring minds would like to know.


**7** if you can't tell that those characteristics are relevant implicitly to Aug's point, then i feel for you; if i'm not right regarding those characteristics, prove me wrong; if i am right then prove that the implications postulated by me do not follow. if you admit that they do follow, then this conversation is over.

I told you already; your comments don't have to do with Augustine's point simply because he's saying that Protestantism can't be true on the basis of disunity. You, however, are positing something different.

Regardless, I would appreciate that this conversation be ended. That way you can start a new thread on your thoughts and we can discuss them there. I look forward to it.


**8** only if he would agree that my advancement of it in this direction cannot be implied within it.

I don't follow you.


**7** re above. this thread is not entitled &quot;Augustine's Point&quot;.

Duh. This thread is about Jack Chick.


**8** no, you were responding to me, therefore you should &quot;force a rigorous objection&quot; against my comments if you think they were false.

I have already objected; I stated why they didn't support Augustine's position. What more do you want? If you really wanted me to engage your other thoughts, you would've already started a new thread on it.


**7** people who study the New Testament for a living and are recognized by other such as being experts in their field.
are you a fan of Tekton?

Ambigious at best. I'll be blunt: what kind of bias do these "experts" you are mentioning have?


i've read 3, 6, and 7 in your list. 7 is a goldmine--i'd be interested in knowing what you thought of it when/if you finish it. which ECF's do you plan on reading?
peace.

Ante-Nicea ones.

~Matt

[Socrates]

I have conservative Catholic friends who agree with me, a conservative Protestant, that we have a lot more in common with each other than either of us do with the liberals or modernists in our own traditions. E.g. the conservatives agree with the inerrancy of Scripture, the Trinity, the Resurrection, the sanctity of life from conception to natural death.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** yo,

Sure. Let's go to another thread.

**7** entitled what? "other Catholic things"? or, "All things Catholic, aside from Augustine's point"??
there's no need for another thread--the thread was never "Augustine's Point" to begin with.

What in the world? Care to back up your claims?

**8** i don't think it'd be worth it.

Irrelevant to the discussion,

**7** ...being "Augustine's Point"? o i c.

If I am one to only deal with strawmen, you are one to pose only red herrings.

**8** schweet; name one. or is that also "irrelevant", unlike Augustine's Point?
Matt: Augustine was wrong regarding both 20k denoms, and regarding the fact that diversity entails wrongness.
Phantaz: i agree with point one. it is worth considering, however, that Protestantism is such that it makes unity harder to maintain.
Matt: Augustine was wrong regarding 20k Protestants. even if he was right, i've got a quote from a book that says there are a thousand Catholic ones!
ad infinitum

you should drop your unwarrented remarks about my"thoughtlife" in exchange for something relevant

**8** indeed, the relevance of your thought seems wanting.

Your strange comments about my thoughtlife reveal more about your ability to reason than mine.

**7** oh boy, more loose talk about "reason" and "logic".
in what way are you qualified regarding the practice of logic?

in order to cover up your inadaquate support for Augustine's comments.

**8** Augustine made a post, and then left. his point was (1)that Sola Scriptura is an unfortunate epistemic framework for Christians. in support of that fact, he claimed that (2) 20 (30?) thousand (2a) Protestant denominations have sprung up.
from the beginning, i have made it clear that i'm with him on 1, and i think 2 to be an exaggeration, though at the same time 1 does seem to be closely related to 2a.
that you instantly jump only to point 2, and latch onto it like a vulture, and act as though bewildered that the conversation could rightfully go beyond the narrow borders your mind has imposed upon it, seems to me to imply that i'm dealing with a philisophical toper.
cheers :thumb:

I have offered you a new thread to discuss this. Where have I suggested that I don't want to discuss this? I believe you're just worried that your position doesn't stand and simply want to believe that I don't want to discuss it, even though I have clearly indicated otherwise.

**8** go white boy go white boy go!

Since your comments are completely related to Jack Chick, perhaps you'd like to show me the relevance? Inquiring minds would like to know.

**7** dude, when did i even bring him up? i don't even know who he is.

Regardless, I would appreciate that this conversation be ended. That way you can start a new thread on your thoughts and we can discuss them there. I look forward to it.

**8** go white boy go white boy go!

I don't follow you.

**7** if you didn't follow that, and yet you nonetheless talk of "illogic", ...

Duh. This thread is about Jack Chick.

**8** oh, and not Augustine's Point anymore?
go matty, shake ya go-thang, its ya birthday, git bizzy... :rockon:

If you really wanted me to engage your other thoughts, you would've already started a new thread on it.

**7** what, will you explode if you engage my questions on this thread? does your screen freeze if you type a sentence without including the words "Augustine's point was moot" or "Jack Chick"?
boom boom shimmy shimmy shake shake.

Ambigious at best.

**8** rather, i'm talking to someone who feeds on Josh McDowell caliber apologetics while building for himself an intellectual brickhouse with white walls on the inside so that he can color them as he pleases.

I'll be blunt

**7** hi blunt!
ar har har...

what kind of bias do these "experts" you are mentioning have?

**8** oh, so we can talk about this on the Jack-Chick-or-Augustine's-moot-point-only thread??? rockoncoolman! :thumb:
anywho, i'm not sure what kind of "biases" people like Ben Witherington or James Dunn or Martin Hengel have. Witherington to me seems to have an anti-sacramental bias, and so too does Dunn. the latter, Dunn, is in my opinion far too narrow and wooden in his interpretations, and the same follows for Hengel. of all of them it can be said that they lack the theological aesthetic of the fathers. that said, they do the Christian community a great service in digging into the historio-critical sense of the text for all it is worth, and showing that the end result confounds modernists and liberals--this not due to their bias, but due rather simply to the evidence as it stands.
what i do know is that the above mentioned, and N. T. Wright, and Larry Hurtado, are not of the J.D. Crossan breed (and it seems to me as though your mind jumps from "NT scholar" to "so-called NT scholar" to "so-called NT scholar with a hidden agenda who tries to do away with the truth preached in the gospel" rather quickly, as though a biconditional logical relation obtained between them).
these men (every mentioned above except Crossan) are orthodox in faith and experts in their field.
you should check out some of their books--it would do you good. try N. T. Wright's _The New Testament and the People of God_ for starters; get ahold of that one in place of #'s 1, 2, and 4 in your above book-list.

Ante-Nicea ones.

**7** all of them?
yo, this conversation is going nowhere, and if i keep it up you'll be on the receiving end of a bewildering shower of sarcasm. i tried to be nice and polite from the start--trying to be agreeable and find points of contact--and you returned to me with shortness and rudeness.
i'm out.

[Evangel]

ok catholics...
why do you or what convinces you to support praying to mary?

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 03:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87052#post87052)
phantaz sunlyk:

**8** yo,

Sure. Let's go to another thread.

**7** entitled what? &quot;other Catholic things&quot;? or, &quot;All things Catholic, aside from Augustine's point&quot;??
there's no need for another thread--the thread was never &quot;Augustine's Point&quot; to begin with.

When will you learn? It's about Jack Chick.


**8** i don't think it'd be worth it.

Then I deny you assertion gratitiously.


**7** ...being &quot;Augustine's Point&quot;? o i c.

Either.


**8** schweet; name one. or is that also &quot;irrelevant&quot;, unlike Augustine's Point?
Matt: Augustine was wrong regarding both 20k denoms, and regarding the fact that diversity entails wrongness.
Phantaz: i agree with point one. it is worth considering, however, that Protestantism is such that it makes unity harder to maintain.
Matt: Augustine was wrong regarding 20k Protestants. even if he was right, i've got a quote from a book that says there are a thousand Catholic ones!
ad infinitum

You missed the point, Matt. I was saying that the source he was referencing also lists thousands of Catholic denominations, which defeats his argument.

in order to cover up your inadaquate support for Augustine's comments.


**8** Augustine made a post, and then left. his point was (1)that Sola Scriptura is an unfortunate epistemic framework for Christians. in support of that fact, he claimed that (2) 20 (30?) thousand (2a) Protestant denominations have sprung up.
from the beginning, i have made it clear that i'm with him on 1, and i think 2 to be an exaggeration, though at the same time 1 does seem to be closely related to 2a.
that you instantly jump only to point 2, and latch onto it like a vulture, and act as though bewildered that the conversation could rightfully go beyond the narrow borders your mind has imposed upon it, seems to me to imply that i'm dealing with a philisophical toper.
cheers :thumb:

I don't think so. I've offered to take up the discussion else where. It seems you're just not interested.


**8** go white boy go white boy go!

Evidence that you really have no interest in discussing.

Besides, I'm not white.


**7** dude, when did i even bring him up? i don't even know who he is.

Sir, go read the first post...the introductory one to this thread.


**8** go white boy go white boy go!

Maturity does must not be a word in your vocabulary.

**7** if you didn't follow that, and yet you nonetheless talk of &quot;illogic&quot;, ...

Duh. This thread is about Jack Chick.


**8** oh, and not Augustine's Point anymore?
go matty, shake ya go-thang, its ya birthday, git bizzy... :rockon:

This must be how you interact with people you don't like. I do not applaud your style; it is lacking.

If you really wanted me to engage your other thoughts, you would've already started a new thread on it.


**7** what, will you explode if you engage my questions on this thread? does your screen freeze if you type a sentence without including the words &quot;Augustine's point was moot&quot; or &quot;Jack Chick&quot;?
boom boom shimmy shimmy shake shake.

Sir, I've suggested that we discuss elsewhere. If you are not interested, so be it.


**8** rather, i'm talking to someone who feeds on Josh McDowell caliber apologetics while building for himself an intellectual brickhouse with white walls on the inside so that he can color them as he pleases.

I suppose I should be floored by this comment?


**7** all of them?
yo, this conversation is going nowhere, and if i keep it up you'll be on the receiving end of a bewildering shower of sarcasm. i tried to be nice and polite from the start--trying to be agreeable and find points of contact--and you returned to me with shortness and rudeness.
i'm out.

I'm sorry you cannot handle a straight forward discussion. I asked if you wanted to discuss elsewhere. All I got in response was to keep going, "white boy."

I think it's clear who's the rude one.

~Matt

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey evangel, i hope all is well with you--

ok catholics...
why do you or what convinces you to support praying to mary?

**8** two things. first, we don't "pray" to Mary in the sense which you understand the word. rather, we ask saints to pray to God for us, sorta like the way you'd ask a fellow Christian to pray for you when times are tough, or something along those lines.
second, the whole of "Marian devotion" needs to be understood as the desire to imitate her response to God--"Here I am, the handmaiden of the Lord. Be it done to me according to your Word."
hope that helped some, peace.

[Evangel]

Today @ 01:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87306#post87306)
phantaz sunlyk:

**7** say hey evangel, i hope all is well with you--

i hope all is well with you as well, i :pray: for your well being. :smile:




**8** two things. first, we don't &quot;pray&quot; to Mary in the sense which you understand the word. rather, we ask saints to pray to God for us, sorta like the way you'd ask a fellow Christian to pray for you when times are tough, or something along those lines.
second, the whole of &quot;Marian devotion&quot; needs to be understood as the desire to imitate her response to God--&quot;Here I am, the handmaiden of the Lord. Be it done to me according to your Word.&quot;
hope that helped some, peace.

from what i understand you ask the saints to pray for you through prayer. or how does one talk to the dead (or those in heaven besides the trinity)? :teeth: The Hail Mary is a prayer to Mary.

Did Mary ever say she'd pray for you to the Father? Mary is only human and she only birthed the Son. The Saints only did many good deeds and we all know the fate of the good samaritan (i do realize, however, the difference between doing good deeds in the name of Christ and just doing good deeds). All are equal in the eyes of the Lord, why convince yourself into believing the Saints are praying for you when you can just ask your brothers and sisters on Earth to pray for you?


selection below compliments of catholic.com


Another Mediator?
The most problematic line for non-Catholics is usually the last: "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." Many non-Catholics think such a request denies the teaching of 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." But in the preceding four verses (1 Tim. 2:1-4), Paul instructs Christians to pray for each other, meaning it cannot interfere with Christ’s mediatorship: "I urge that prayers, supplications, petitions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone. . . . This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior."

We know this exhortation to pray for others applies to the saints in heaven who, as Revelation 5:8 reveals, intercede for us by offering our prayers to God: "The twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.


from what i understand from this argument is that you are to ask others to pray for you not to pray to others to pray for you. if you pray to someone you are putting them on the same level as the Lord because you are implying that that person is capable of doing something only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are capable of.

I have no problem in asking my friends to pray for me and those that i know need prayer but they are incapable of saving me or washing away my sins and for this i do not pray to them for salvation.

Mary is not the mother of God she is only the human through which the Son was birthed. She raised him, she surely loved him but he is not a part of her in the way that i am a part of my mother. his was a divine birth not one influenced by humans.

just a note i hope im not sounding arrogant or indignant but the nature of these questions makes it seem so.
good bye for now :hi:

[nomad]

my thought is: who cares? :)

i don't think asking the saints, or mary, is anti-biblical. i don't see any good reason for it, but i don't see a problem with it. well, i can see one reason for it... if i was alone or in a place with no other christians, i still have someone i can ask to pray for me. but i've never done it, and probably never will.

one BIG thing differently between catholic and protestant churches (as i understand it, i am not catholic or orthodox) i see is the unity of the living church with the 'heavenly' church. it seems that Catholics receive their unity through the eucharist. they believe that the dead are already at the 'wedding supper of the lamb', and are seeing us and waiting for us. they see that the 'one church' consists of both the living AND those who have passed on, and believe that when they take the eucharist, not only do they join into christ's body and unity with the living church, but also with the heavenly saints.

that's probably not a good way to describe it. but when a friend (who is episcopal) had a miscarriage, they do a 'last rites' type thing which is sort of like a funeral. and one thing they did was communion, and they believe that the unborn child goes to heaven, and that the child is also taking the communion with them. a powerful image.

[Evangel]

Today @ 10:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88021#post88021)
nomad:

my thought is: who cares? :)

me :smile: its not really a matter of whether it matters or not its just a matter of whether or not their doctrines are based on the bible or dogma.


i don't think asking the saints, or mary, is anti-biblical. i don't see any good reason for it, but i don't see a problem with it. well, i can see one reason for it... if i was alone or in a place with no other christians, i still have someone i can ask to pray for me. but i've never done it, and probably never will.

flat earth may not be anti-biblical but theres no reason to believe it unless you can prove it exists. if its not a necessary belief or doctrine than why have it? to confuse nonchristians? even worse to confuse christians? putting confusion into faith is never good and id like to know if there is fact behind their doctrines, or least reason.



one BIG thing differently between catholic and protestant churches (as i understand it, i am not catholic or orthodox) i see is the unity of the living church with the 'heavenly' church. it seems that Catholics receive their unity through the eucharist. they believe that the dead are already at the 'wedding supper of the lamb', and are seeing us and waiting for us. they see that the 'one church' consists of both the living AND those who have passed on, and believe that when they take the eucharist, not only do they join into christ's body and unity with the living church, but also with the heavenly saints.

ill take your word for it for now. but im still doubtful of the relevance of saints. seems like they are respected by man and seen as equals by God.



that's probably not a good way to describe it. but when a friend (who is episcopal) had a miscarriage, they do a 'last rites' type thing which is sort of like a funeral. and one thing they did was communion, and they believe that the unborn child goes to heaven, and that the child is also taking the communion with them. a powerful image.
powerful indeed, but there is a difference between praying for the soul of a unborn baby and praying to a Saint.

respectfully,
Evangel

[nomad]

flat earth may not be anti-biblical but theres no reason to believe it unless you can prove it exists. if its not a necessary belief or doctrine than why have it? to confuse nonchristians? even worse to confuse christians? putting confusion into faith is never good and id like to know if there is fact behind their doctrines, or least reason.


there are lots of these though. christians often have endless debates on things that don't really matter. usually these are HOW or WHY debates, things like free will or predestination, OSAS or NOSAS, etc. but in the end none of this really matters... i'm sure a proponent of one of these positions will respond about how important their certain position is to christianity, but we all agree that if a person accepts and worships Christ, they will be saved, whether they believe in OSAS or not, whether they believe it was their free will or their predestined path. how things happen and why things happen do not overshadow THAT things happen.

you say this isn't like that? well, there are still other things like this. how about spiritual gifts? some say yea, some say nay, yet normally we wouldn't doubt their christianity either way (i don't). either way, we can't deny the fact that many who spoke in tongues did great works for Christ, and many who didn't speak in tongues did great works for Christ.



ill take your word for it for now. but im still doubtful of the relevance of saints. seems like they are respected by man and seen as equals by God.


ah, i see the confusion. i was not using 'saints' in the formal sense, like st.francis or something. i was using 'saints' in the general sense, of all the body of believers, every person. perhaps i should be more careful, when catholicism is the subject of discussion :)

i don't see any special reason for saints, but i don't see any problem with it either. it's no different than us placing special emphasis on john calvin, or martin luther, or even something like elijah, just because they 'did' more for god/christ than the average person. at least, imho.



powerful indeed, but there is a difference between praying for the soul of a unborn baby and praying to a Saint.


they weren't praying for his soul. they believe the unborn baby was there with them, taking communion with them.

you're right, there is a difference between praying for someone and praying to them though.

[phantaz sunlyk]

say hey, something came up and i won't be able to post here for i'm not sure how long.
hope all goes well
peace in Christ

[Evangel]

05-05-2003 @ 02:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88209#post88209)
nomad:
there are lots of these though. christians often have endless debates on things that don't really matter. usually these are HOW or WHY debates, things like free will or predestination, OSAS or NOSAS, etc. but in the end none of this really matters... i'm sure a proponent of one of these positions will respond about how important their certain position is to christianity, but we all agree that if a person accepts and worships Christ, they will be saved, whether they believe in OSAS or not, whether they believe it was their free will or their predestined path. how things happen and why things happen do not overshadow THAT things happen.

The more you learn the stronger your faith :smile:


you say this isn't like that? well, there are still other things like this. how about spiritual gifts? some say yea, some say nay, yet normally we wouldn't doubt their christianity either way (i don't). either way, we can't deny the fact that many who spoke in tongues did great works for Christ, and many who didn't speak in tongues did great works for Christ.

well when things are taken to extremes they can be harmful to faith. I tend to think that anything that isnt specifically required by the bible is just more things to create doubt.


ah, i see the confusion. i was not using 'saints' in the formal sense, like st.francis or something. i was using 'saints' in the general sense, of all the body of believers, every person. perhaps i should be more careful, when catholicism is the subject of discussion :)

yes I suppose so :smile:


i don't see any special reason for saints, but i don't see any problem with it either. it's no different than us placing special emphasis on john calvin, or martin luther, or even something like elijah, just because they 'did' more for god/christ than the average person. at least, imho.

my contention with praying to saints still stands. Your still putting them on the same level as Christ and that should never be done.


they weren't praying for his soul. they believe the unborn baby was there with them, taking communion with them.

yes I should have said they were gathered on behalf of his soul


you're right, there is a difference between praying for someone and praying to them though.
yes which why I want to learn to more about Catholicism and know their reasons and if their faith is affected.

[D.R.R.]

Re Mary: Catholics do not worship Mary (that would be idolatry, which the Catholic Church firmly condemns) and they are not obligated to pray to her.

Catholics merely honor Mary just as Christ honored her by allowing Himself to be conceived in her womb and by His filial obedience to her unto His death. When we honor Mary, we are merely imitating Christ and upholding Scripture, which calls her blessed:

Luke 1:41-42
"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"

"And coming to her, [Gabriel] said, 'Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you . . . Do not be afraid Mary, for you have found favor with God" (Luke 1: 28, 30).

We honor Mary because of our greater honor for Christ. She is Christ's Mother and through her holiness she reflects Christ's holiness.

We don't have to pray to Mary, but we should. It is extremely wise to do so. Because she was the mother of God, God allowed her to be conceived without original sin and to avoid actual sin completely throughout her life. In other words, she was entirely sinless; she is therefore the perfect imitation of Christ and the perfect model of holiness. Through devotion to her, we may become holier and may imitate her profound love of Christ. As the Mother of Christ, she intercedes between us and God and can gain for us innumerable blessings. Note that all blessings which we receive through Mary's intercession come from God.

Re "Sola Scriptura": If Sola Scriptura is true, where does it say "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible?

God bless you. I will pray that all of you convert to the Catholic Church.

Yours in Christ,
D.R.R.

[D.R.R.]

05-01-2003 @ 04:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83792#post83792)
Evangel:

any die hard supporters mind explaining to me why they are inclined to still follow the catholic doctrines and accept the addition to the bible. i was poking around www.chick.com and i was curious if anyone had any rebuttals to his arguments.

[D.R.R.]

Sorry, just typing a message in order to get an e-mail notification.

[D.R.R.]

Vatican Information Service:

MARY SHOWS THE HUMILITY, SILENCE, STUPOR AND JOY OF CHRISTMAS

VATICAN CITY, DEC 21, 2003 (VIS) - Thousands of pilgrims gathered in St.
Peter's Square today to pray the noon Angelus with Pope John Paul as he
appeared at the window of study overlooking the square. He noted that "
Christmas is now very close. As we put the final touches on the nativity
scene and Christmas tree here in St. Peter's Square, we must also prepare
our soul to live intensely this great mystery of faith."

"In these final days of Advent," the Pope said, "the liturgy places
special emphasis on the figure of Mary. The Incarnation of the Redeemer
began in her heart with her 'here I am' full of faith, in answer to the
divine call. If we wish to understand the true meaning of Christmas, it is
thus to her that we must look, her that we must invoke."

He explained in conclusion that "Mary, mother par excellence, helps us to
understand the key words of the mystery of the birth of her divine Son:
humility, silence, stupor, joy. She exhorts us above all to humility, so
that God can find room in our hearts, not darkened by pride or arrogance.
She points us to the value of silence, of knowing how to listen to the song
of the angels and the crying of the Child, not suffocating them in noise and
confusion. Together with her, we pause in front of the nativity scene with
stupor, tasting the joy, simple and pure, that that Child brought to all of
mankind."
ANG/CHRISTMAS/. VIS 031222 (260)



Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

[D.R.R.]

Does anyone have any comments on my previous posts?

Happy New Year!

[elysian]

12-21-2003 @ 11:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=350866#post350866)
D.R.R.:

We don't have to pray to Mary, but we should. It is extremely wise to do so. Because she was the mother of God, God allowed her to be conceived without original sin and to avoid actual sin completely throughout her life. In other words, she was entirely sinless; she is therefore the perfect imitation of Christ and the perfect model of holiness. Through devotion to her, we may become holier and may imitate her profound love of Christ. As the Mother of Christ, she intercedes between us and God and can gain for us innumerable blessings. Note that all blessings which we receive through Mary's intercession come from God.

Re &quot;Sola Scriptura&quot;: If Sola Scriptura is true, where does it say &quot;Sola Scriptura&quot; in the Bible?

God bless you. I will pray that all of you convert to the Catholic Church.

Yours in Christ,
D.R.R.

Protestants do not believe that Mary was sinless: if she were sinless why was she required to observe the OT purification law after Jesus' birth and make the sacrifice of the pair of doves? (Luke 2:22-23) Also Jesus had brothers and sisters who were conceived in the usual way after His birth, so Mary was not a perpetual virgin. ("Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"- Matthew 13:55, NIV)
She was a good and obedient person and was blessed by God, but she was in just as much need of a Savior as you or I.

Jesus Himself warns against focusing upon His mother: "As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." Luke 11:27-28 (NIV)

As far as "sola scriptura:" this means that the Bible alone (not the Bible and "tradition") is to be regarded as the final word on the standards and norms of Christian living.

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

I was raised Roman Catholic. I believe that Roman Catholics can be and are redeemed by God's grace, but that many observances and teachings of the Roman Catholic church are dubious at best and I must in conscience disagree with any doctrines that contradict what is taught in Scripture. I was taught that if you disagree with the Roman Catholic church on primary points of the faith (such as Mary being sinless and a perpetual virgin) then you are not Roman Catholic. I am a Christian but definitely not Roman Catholic.

[D.R.R.]

From which denominational tradition are you getting your interpretation of Scripture?

D.R.R.

[elysian]

I am Lutheran, and I realize that Martin Luther as well as John Calvin and many of the other early Reformers, while condemning the doctrine of prayer TO Mary and of Mary-as-mediatrix -still contended that she was both sinless and a perpetual virgin.

The contemporary Protestant view on Mary is more consistent with Scripture- we know that Jesus had brothers and sisters conceived in the usual way, and therefore it would be impossible for Mary to be a perpetual virgin. Mary was especially blessed by God, but she too was a sinner in need of a Savior. That doesn't mean Mary and her role as Jesus' earthly Mother should be ignored.

This article may prove somewhat enlightening for those looking at a Protestant perspective on Mary:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/012/1.34.html

[D.R.R.]

But from which denominational tradition are you getting your interpretation of Scripture? Contemporary Lutheranism?

D.R.R.

[elysian]

This is what my church teaches in regard to Mary- We do believe in the immaculate conception and virgin birth of Jesus. But we also believe that the Bible clearly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that the Bible does not clearly state or even imply that Mary was either sinless or taken up to heaven without dying like Elijah was. Mary was a sinner just as we are all sinners. The only sinless person to have ever lived was Jesus Himself.

Individual churches are permitted some leeway in interpretation of non-essential doctrines- so probably not every Lutheran church agrees completely on this. The more conservative/confessional Lutheran synods (Missouri and Wisconsin) support a Scriptural view of Mary as well- that she too was a sinner, and that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I would say that this is a common view among today's Lutherans as well as most other Protestants.

I agree that Martin Luther himself as well as John Calvin took a different view and concurred with the Catholic teaching that Mary was both a perpetual virgin and sinless. However Scripture proves otherwise. She had other children. She was not sinless nor did she claim to be. She was blessed and a perfect example of God's unmerited grace.

[D.R.R.]

Today @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358341#post358341)
elysian:

This is what my church teaches........

How do you KNOW your tradition is true, while others which contradict it are false?

[elysian]

If the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters then there is no reason to believe that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life. (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3) Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that Mary was sinless, either. She is portrayed as having found favor with God (Luke 1:30) and blessed, but not sinless. (Luke 1:48)

It is a matter of faith as well as looking to Scripture for the final word.

[D.R.R.]

Today @ 01:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358515#post358515)
elysian:



It is a matter of faith as well as looking to Scripture for the final word.

Faith in what...in the denomination that is interpreting this for you? How do you know the way that YOUR denomination interprets scripture is true?

[elysian]

I can read it for myself. It's pretty clear. Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was favored by God, and considered blessed, but there is nothing in Scripture that indicates she was sinless. She needed a Savior just as much as the rest of us because Jesus is the only person who ever lived free of sin. It's not a matter of "who is interpreting it," it's reading in the Scriptures what has clearly been written.

And my particular church and denomination are not the only ones who believe Mary is as she was portrayed in Scripture- a favored and blessed woman, chosen especially by God to be Jesus' earthly mother. We believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and that Mary gave birth to Him as a virgin. (see the Apostles', Athanasian and Nicene Creeds- Lutherans agree with the statements in the Creeds as well as Catholics do) We do not however believe that she was either a perpetual virgin as Jesus had brothers and sisters, nor do we believe she was without sin. Jesus is the only person who ever walked the earth without sin: most other Protestants (not just Lutherans) hold this view as well.

We also do not believe in any other Mediator than Jesus Christ. This is also Scriptural: 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 9:15.

Therefore we may pray WITH and FOR the saints (intercessory prayer) but we may not pray TO anyone other than the Three Persons of the Triune God.

[D.R.R.]

Today @ 01:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358922#post358922)
elysian:

I can read it for myself.


Ahhhh, therefore it must be true!

How do you know that the way in which YOU'RE reading or interpreting the Bible is true and that other ways of reading or interpreting it are false? For instance, how do you know that "brothers" and "sisters" should be interpreted in the context of today, that is the language of today?

Please read below, a question and answer from ewtn.com., as well as reference from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.




Brothers and Sisters of Jesus
Question from Richard F. Garrett on 08-02-2002:

In Matthew 13: 54-58 there are references to Jesus's Brothers and Sisters. How do we as Catholics reconcile this to our belief that Jesus's Mother remained a Virgin?

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 08-03-2002:

The perpetual virginity of Mary is something that we know with certitude from Tradition. Specifically, the Church teaches that Mary conceived our Lord virginally, remained a virgin in giving birth, and is perpetually ever after a virgin. While the Scriptures make absolutely clear that Mary conceived without having relations with a man and therefore Mary was a virgin up to the point that Jesus was born, one would be hard pressed to prove from Scripture alone the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is why it is so important to recognize that Divine Revelation comes to us through Scripture and Tradition.

Now, as to why so many doubt what we hold by Tradition, apart from the rejection of Tradition itself, many would argue-incorrectly-that Scripture teaches us that Mary did have relations. In fact, this is a limited and incorrect understanding of the Scriptural passages at issue. Typically, these are offered by as “proofs”:

1. The mention of the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus. No, the Greek (and presumed Aramaic) behind these words are not so specific that they always mean siblings. There are several OT uses of these words which we render simply as “brother” and “sister” to mean cousins, kinfolk, people who are close, and even spouses. The original Hebrew and Aramaic commonly used the expression brother or sister for any sort of relative. So such references in the NT, of themselves, prove nothing.

2. Matthew writes that “he (Joseph) did not have relations with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.” (1:25). Some people incorrectly assume that the word “until” implies that after the birth, they had relations. Not so! The word , whether in the original Greek or English equivalent, in this context clearly means, “up to the point until.” Matthew is only concerned with demonstrating that this was truly a virginal conception and birth, as they did not have relations up to and including the moment of birth. He says or implies nothing subsequent to the birth.

3. Luke refers to Jesus as “firstborn.” This designation was significant in Judaism, for the first born male was to be offered to the Lord. The firstborn male was so designated, whether there were other children subsequent or not. We tend to think of it only in terms of a succession including several – not necessarily.

Yes, without Tradition to help us interpret and even limit the range of possible interpretations of Scripture, one can be misled. And think how foolish the early Church would have been to have maintained a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, if these Scriptures so conclusively contradicted such a belief. But then, they do not contradict.

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” has an excellent treatment of the virginity of Mary, including what is said by Scripture, early commentators, and Tradition. It is found in paragraphs 496-507 –a “must read” for all Catholics and others who seek the truth!

Thanks, Richard

Father Echert


This Q & A can be accessed with this address:http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=300781&Forums=0&Experts=29&Days=3000&Author=Richard+F%2E+Garrett&Keyword=Brothers+and+Sisters+of+Jesus&pgnu=1&groupnum=0




Mary's virginity (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church)
496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed".146 The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:


You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.147
497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:148 "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit", said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee.149 The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."150


498 People are sometimes troubled by the silence of St. Mark's Gospel and the New Testament Epistles about Jesus' virginal conception. Some might wonder if we were merely dealing with legends or theological constructs not claiming to be history. To this we must respond: Faith in the virginal conception of Jesus met with the lively opposition, mockery or incomprehension of non-believers, Jews and pagans alike;151 so it could hardly have been motivated by pagan mythology or by some adaptation to the ideas of the age. The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the "connection of these mysteries with one another"152 in the totality of Christ's mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: "Mary's virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord's death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God's silence."153
Mary -- "ever-virgin"

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156


500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159
501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."160

Mary's virginal motherhood in God's plan

502 The eyes of faith can discover in the context of the whole of Revelation the mysterious reasons why God in his saving plan wanted his Son to be born of a virgin. These reasons touch both on the person of Christ and his redemptive mission, and on the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men.


503 Mary's virginity manifests God's absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures."161
504 Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary's womb because he is the New Adam, who inaugurates the new creation: "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven."162 From his conception, Christ's humanity is filled with the Holy Spirit, for God "gives him the Spirit without measure."163 From "his fullness" as the head of redeemed humanity "we have all received, grace upon grace."164

505 By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. "How can this be?"165 Participation in the divine life arises "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God".166 The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit's gift to man. The spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God167 is fulfilled perfectly in Mary's virginal motherhood.

506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith "unadulterated by any doubt", and of her undivided gift of herself to God's will.168 It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."169

507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse."170





So the question remains: how do you know that your interpretation of Scripture is true while others which contradict it are false?

[elysian]

The difference is whether or not you choose to accept Scripture alone, or Scripture + tradition. I need only look to the purpose of the Reformation- to correct corruption within the church- to know that Scripture is a more reliable guide that traditions set forth that change like the wind, by fallible men.

from:http://www.theology.edu/faq05.htm

Frequently Asked Questions "Why Don't Protestants Revere Mary?"

Q:My question is, did the Protestant view of Mary come out of the Reformation as one of the breaks from Romanism or is it a reclaiming of an earlier view?

The Council of Chalcedon, in 451 made the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity binding upon Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic believers, and many Anglican, some Lutheran (-a very few) and a few other Protestant theologians have accepted it. Certainly the concept of Mary's perpetual virginity is very early, and the church fathers argued for it on the basis of such OT passages as Ezek. 44:2 and Song of Solomon 4:12. I would argue that those OT passages have nothing to do with Mary and are used out of context. They would seem usable only if one has already decided to accept the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Much of Protestantism's rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity is ultimately the result of one of the three pillars of the Reformation, specifically the first one:


a. Only Scripture
b. Priesthood of all believers
c. Salvation by grace through faith

That is, much of Protestantism's rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity is the consequence of scriptural interpretation. Since the Bible (Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19) speaks of Jesus' brothers and sisters (Catholic interpretors will insist these are cousins, kinsmen, or from a supposed earlier marriage of Joseph), and since we're also informed that Joseph did not have sex with Mary "until after" she had given birth, (Matthew 1:25; see also Matthew 1:18, and Luke 2:7) that would also seem to suggest that her virginity was less than permanent.

Much of Protestantism rejected the authority of tradition, the church fathers, the church councils, and the Pope; thus, if a doctrine was not in the Bible, or seemed specifically contradicted by the Bible, much of Protestantism would reject it. -


Because I take the authority of the Bible over man-made traditions and Papal decrees, I do not accept the doctrine of Mary as perpetual virgin, or as sinless, or as being assumed into Heaven.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 12:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=359148#post359148)
elysian:


Because I take the authority of the Bible over man-made traditions and Papal decrees, I do not accept the doctrine of Mary as perpetual virgin, or as sinless, or as being assumed into Heaven.

:thumb: Well said Elysian. Pearls for you!!

[D.R.R.]

To disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary, you yourself are interpreting the Bible (that is, private judgement). Now the Protestant denominations are man-made traditions, and as you say, the Bible has greater authority than man-made traditions. If this is so, the Bible has greater authority than the man-made Scriptural interpretations of those traditions. So if the Bible is more authoritative than your interpretation of it, how do you know your interpretation is right?

[elysian]

Today @ 12:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=359160#post359160)
D.R.R.:

To disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary, you yourself are interpreting the Bible (that is, private judgement). Now the Protestant denominations are man-made traditions, and as you say, the Bible has greater authority than man-made traditions. If this is so, the Bible has greater authority than the man-made Scriptural interpretations of those traditions. So if the Bible is more authoritative than your interpretation of it, how do you know your interpretation is right?


According to Scripture my view is correct.



"...we know that “the wisdom of this ‘perverted’ world is only foolishness in God’s sight” [cf. 1 Cor. 3:19] and that only on the basis of God’s Word can judgments on articles of faith be made. For, first of all, even though human reason or natural intellect may still have a dim spark of knowledge that a god exists (as Romans 1[:19-21,24,32] states) or of the teaching of the law, nevertheless it is ignorant, blind, and perverted so that even when the most skillful and learned people on earth read or hear the gospel of God’s Son and the promise of eternal salvation, they still cannot comprehend, grasp, understand, or believe it on the basis of their own powers; they cannot regard it as the truth. Instead, the more assiduously and diligently they exert themselves and want to comprehend these spiritual matters with their reason, the less they understand or believe. They regard all these matters as simply foolishness and fables, until the Holy Spirit enlightens and teaches them. 1 Corinthians 2[:14]: “Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 1[:21]: “Since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe.” -
The Book of Concord

The Holy Spirit grants us the gift of discernment so that we may understand what we read in God's Word.

Yes, I do believe that my views on Mary (as well as many other Sola Scriptura adherents) are correct, based on the clear truth in God's word as well as the discernment granted me by the Holy Spirit to rightly interpret and understand what I am reading.

[D.R.R.]

Yesterday @ 11:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=359509#post359509)
elysian:

The Holy Spirit grants us the gift of discernment so that we may understand what we read in God's Word.

I gather, then, that it is because of the gift of discernment granted you by the Holy Spirit that you know your interpretation of Scripture is true while others which contradict are false. So are you the infallible interpreter of Scripture?

[Dave G]

I'm just learning the logical fallacies. Is this one of them strawmen I been hearing so much about?

:si:

[spl_cadet]

Nope.

[Jaltus]

Correct, it is actually the Red Herring logical fallacy. Instead of dealing with the topic at hand, D.R.R. continually raises side issues instead of dealing well with the biblical text. (ASIDE: Where in the Bible is the word "brother" used for a cousin? The only metaphorical usage I recall off the top of my head is for fellow believers. Also, appealing to the "Aramaic behind the NT" is simply an absurd tactic, as the NT is written in Greek and must be interpreted that way, it is a joke to look "behind" scripture in order to interpret it. If the author meant the Hebrew term or Aramaic term, he would have used it.)

[D.R.R.]

I am not engaging in fallacy. Elysian gave me Scripture quotes, and I asked her to tell me how she knows her inerpretation of these Scripture quotes is true while other interpretations that contradict it are false. It seems that she has at last answered my question by saying that she has the gift of discernment granted her by the Holy Spirit. Now I am asking her if this means she is the infallible interpreter of Scripture?

[elysian]

I am not saying that I am infallible- far from it. I am saying that to those who believe and trust God at His Word, He does grant understanding that is spiritually discerned.

Jesus tells us "seek, knock and ask" (Matthew 7:7-8) because it is in trusting Him that He grants us understanding. Not by our reason, not by fallible Popes and councils, but by His grace.

[spl_cadet]

Where in the Bible is the word "brother" used for a cousin?

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-V

[elysian]

Today @ 02:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=359995#post359995)
D.R.R.:

I am not engaging in fallacy. Elysian gave me Scripture quotes, and I asked her to tell me how she knows her inerpretation of these Scripture quotes is true while other interpretations that contradict it are false. It seems that she has at last answered my question by saying that she has the gift of discernment granted her by the Holy Spirit. Now I am asking her if this means she is the infallible interpreter of Scripture?

I thought I would share this link with you as well as it gives some guidelines to be used in interpreting the Bible- very informative- even if you might not agree with Prof. Kovaciny's observations.

http://www.grace-els.org/confirmation/interpretation/

[D.R.R.]

01-01-2004 @ 09:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360047#post360047)
elysian:



I thought I would share this link with you as well as it gives some guidelines to be used in interpreting the Bible- very informative- even if you might not agree with Prof. Kovaciny's observations.

http://www.grace-els.org/confirmation/interpretation/


That doesn't answer my question. Previously you said:


01-01-2004 @ 09:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360047#post360047)
elysian:

The Holy Spirit grants us the gift of discernment so that we may understand what we read in God's Word.

Does this mean that you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

[Joe Gofish]

any die hard supporters mind explaining to me why they are inclined to still follow the catholic doctrines and accept the addition to the bible. i was poking around www.chick.com and i was curious if anyone had any rebuttals to his arguments.
What the Catholics add to the bible is called the NT and I think it was 27 books ,the prostestant ommitted 7 .

[Krusader]

What the Catholics add to the bible is called the NT and I think it was 27 books ,the prostestant ommitted 7 .

Interestingly, the Anglicans put the apoc. books in the center of the Bible, since they can never make up their minds about anything.

[serapha]

Currie's book is only applicable for Fundamentalist Protestants (i.e. no dancing, singing, etc. groups that adhere to Solo Scriptura) and as such, I don't recommend it. His defense of Catholic dogma is fairly week too, although if you're looking for a basic overview of what Catholics believe, it might serve that purpose.

In my investigation of Catholicism, I found that book to be of little help. IMHO, Currie's preaching to the choir.

~Matt

Hi there!

I agree... and if you are going to discuss catholicism then stick to the materials that are imprimi imprint. "Born Fundamentalist" is social reading not church doctrine.


~serapha~

[LindaK]

any die hard supporters mind explaining to me why they are inclined to still follow the catholic doctrines and accept the addition to the bible. i was poking around www.chick.com and i was curious if anyone had any rebuttals to his arguments.
This response is directly related to the question about Catholics and the Bible. I have not read all of the responses and apologize if I am repeating anyone else’s post. If I am, perhaps that can be looked upon as reinforcement of a view.

First of all, please understand, that until very recently Catholics were taught NOT to read the Bible. It was not an encouraged activity. The teaching was that a priest was needed to interpret the meanings and nuances and to give understanding to the text, for he was learned in such subjects as the layman was not.

Now; however, there are bible classes sponsored by Catholic ministries and Catholics can read and interpret how they see fit (within papal guidelines, of course).

In the “Liturgy of the Word” portion of the Catholic Mass, I think it is still only a priest who is allowed to read from a gospel, but that may have changed also.

The canonization of the Bibles and there are many (not only a Catholic bible and a Protestant bible) (the process was dubious in my opinion), but the existence of other sacred (to someone) texts; including the Tanakh, the Qur'an, the I Ching, the Sutras, etc. PLUS all the translations and all of the inferences and interpretations show clearly that there is not one single understanding of one single text from which one light is to be gleaned but rather each to his/her own capacity will we be able to learn the skills and use the tools on our various paths to reach the light we are each meant to find.

Scientifically speaking, white light is the combination of all possible colors. Removing any color brings one closer to darkness…