Bible alone

[Marine0311]

And yet you still haven't been able to name a single one . . .

It’s called history which anyone that has studied history knows the RCC’s past is a torturous bloody one. Everyone that disobeyed their edicts were tortured or murdered.

 

[Marine0311]

Paul’s ENTIRE point in these passages is that there MUST be factions – or cliques – sio that heretical teachings are exposed. He NEVER advocated that those factions teach different doctrines.
He emphasized over and over that they MUST be of ONE mind, ONE spirit, ONE Baptism.

On this forum alone – I have debated Protestants and quasi-Christians about their NUMEROUS and bizarre teachings on Baptism. I’ve lost count of the number of false teachings I’ve had to debate against here – on just this ONE issue.
The number of weird, UN-Biblical and UN-historically Christian doctrines floating around out there

Do YOU think that that Paul – or the Holy Spirit would approve of this?
Not a CHANCE . . .

 

[Marine0311]

Surely you joke the word baptism means to immerse not sprinkle. Have you ever seen anyone walk up to a corpse and throw a couple handfuls on dirt on the body then declare they are buried ?

Col 2:12 - Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

 

[Davy]

A Debate on the Meaning of “Oral Tradition”
Ron: John, I saw your article on oral tradition. You are perpetuating a common misconception. Sacred Infallible Tradition is not an oral tradition. If it were, then you could quote for me from an infallible oral tradition. You cannot (other than quotes from Scripture), therefore such an infallible oral Tradition does not exist.

Tradition is ‘the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation.’ Dei Verbum, n. 2. The transmission of Tradition involves words, written and spoken, as well as deeds, but Tradition itself is the deeds of God in salvation history.

See my article on Tradition.

Ron Conte

J. Salza: Ron, the Church does not subscribe to your definition of tradition. You cannot divorce the “transmission” of tradition from tradition itself, since tradition, by its very definition (in Greek, paradosis) means “to hand on.” See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 81:

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”
​

Further, St. Paul commands us to obey the oral traditions in 2 Thess 2:14 (Douay-Rheims). Since the Scriptures are the living Word of God, this must mean that there are oral traditions for us 21st century Westerners to follow. Otherwise, Paul’s command would be meaningless. Therefore, it is erroneous to claim, as you do, that “an infallible oral tradition does not exist.” If that were true, then God through Paul would not have ordered us to follow oral tradition, for God does not command us to do the impossible.

Ron: John, You are ignoring the definition of Tradition given by Vatican II “the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation” Dei Verbum, n. 2. Quote to me from this infallible oral tradition.

You cannot because Tradition is the Deeds of God, not the words. {2:14} Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

He does not say that the traditions are oral, but rather that they are transmitted by the spoken and written word. Tradition is distinct from the transmission of Tradition. But confusing Tradition with its transmission is a common error (which even the Catechism makes).

What you are teaching online, with the claim that it is Church teaching, is a common misunderstanding about Sacred Tradition. You are leading the faithful into an error about an important teaching within the Faith.

Again, e-mail me a quote from an infallible oral tradition. You cannot because if such an infallible oral tradition existed, it could be written down, and they we would have two Bibles (which is not possible).

J. Salza: Ron, you are basing your entire argument on a nebulous statement of Vatican II about tradition, but Vatican II was not issuing a dogmatic definition of tradition. Previous councils and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church have already provided us the definition of Tradition.

However, you have arrogated to yourself the authority to declare that the Catechism of the Catholic Church has made an error. Why don’t you write an article about the Catechism’s erroneous definition of tradition? And include all the councils before Vatican II in your condemnation as well.

You argue that tradition is limited to the “deeds of God.” Yet nowhere does the Church ever say that tradition “is limited to the deeds of God.” Nevertheless, let’s stick with your definition. If tradition is only the “deeds of God,” then what are those “deeds”? Where does the Church give us a list of those “deeds”?

The fact is, if you want to argue that tradition is the “deeds of God,” then one of these “deeds” is God’s transmission of His living Word into written form (Sacred Scripture). If that is true (which it is), then God’s transmission of His Word into unwritten form (Sacred Tradition) is also one of the “deeds of God.” It’s all or nothing. Either God’s word as communicated to us in written and unwritten form is tradition (Greek, paradosis), or it is not.

St. Paul gives us the answer in 2 Thess 2:14. He commands us to hold to the oral and written traditions (that is, whether by word or by epistle). Now, in response to Paul’s clear teaching, you write: “He does not say that the traditions are oral, but rather that they are transmitted by the spoken and written word.” This is a distinction without a difference. Tell me, if there is no “oral tradition,” then what is the “they” in your sentence that is being “transmitted by the spoken word”?

Ron: You are dismissing the insights offered by Vatican II because they disagree with your own understanding.

J. Salza: Quite the contrary, I am actually advancing Vatican II’s definition of tradition which, as Dei Verbum propounds, is the Word of God that has been entrusted by Christ and the Holy Spirit to the apostles and handed down to us. The same document identifies tradition with the transmission of those truths.

​

Men's tradition over God's written Word, I rest my case.

 

[Marine0311]

And yet you still haven't been able to name a single one . . .

Your ignoring history does not change a single thing. Your cult has a bloody history of torturing and killing people.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It’s called history which anyone that has studied history knows the RCC’s past is a torturous bloody one. Everyone that disobeyed their edicts were tortured or murdered.

Then it should be EASY for you to produce a few examples - right??

I'll wait right here for your answer . . .

 

[Illuminator]

Men's tradition over God's written Word, I rest my case.

Since you are afraid to quote where in my posts that is so much as implied, you have no case. "Men's tradition over God's written Word" in the light of post#305 and 307 reveals that you either have not enough education to understand the content of the posts, or you are just another angry anti-Catholic only capable of stupid flaming zingers. God's written word IS Tradition, but you don't get it. Equating men's tradition with Sacred Tradition does violence to everything Paul wrote on the matter.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Surely you joke the word baptism means to immerse not sprinkle. Have you ever seen anyone walk up to a corpse and throw a couple handfuls on dirt on the body then declare they are buried ?

Col 2:12 - Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Being “Buried” with Christ in Baptism has NOTHING to do with the amount of water used.
It means that we are buried to our old self – declaring the flesh as DEAD to us because we share in His SPIRITUAL promises.

Good grief, what a moronic understanding of the verses about of BAPTISM.
And only ONE of MANY bizarre views I’ve had to correct around here . . .

PS – I’ve NEVER seen a Baptism by“sprinkling”.

I’ve seen MANY done by POURING, as prescribed in the 1st century document,l the Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) written while the Apostles were STILL alive:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

NOWHERE in Scripture do we ever witness an actual Baptism taking place – by immersion OR by pouring. The details are NEVER given.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your ignoring history does not change a single thing. Your cult has a bloody history of torturing and killing people.

As do your Protestant sets.

 

[Illuminator]

Then it should be EASY for you to produce a few examples - right??
I'll wait right here for your answer . . .

No doubt Marine would give a long list of examples, but notice Marine never gives any kind of documentation for his insane claims, not even a source. If it were an enforced rule, all the Catholic bashing threads would not be so long.

 

[Illuminator]

Being “Buried” with Christ in Baptism has NOTHING to do with the amount of water used.
It means that we are buried to our old self – declaring the flesh as DEAD to us because we share in His SPIRITUAL promises.

Good grief, what a moronic understanding of the verses about of BAPTISM.
And only ONE of MANY bizarre views I’ve had to correct around here . . .

PS – I’ve NEVER seen a Baptism by“sprinkling”.

I’ve seen MANY done by POURING, as prescribed in the 1st century document,l the Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) written while the Apostles were STILL alive:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

NOWHERE in Scripture do we ever witness an actual Baptism taking place – by immersion OR by pouring. The details are NEVER given.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No doubt Marine would give a long list of examples, but notice Marine never gives any kind of documentation for his insane claims, not even a source. If it were an enforced rule, all the Catholic bashing threads would not be so long.

AMEN.
A lot of hot wind with zero substance . . .

 

[Illuminator]

The details are NEVER given. The sola scripturist is forced to construct the actual method of baptism, whereas we just receive what has been handed down since the days of the Apostles. Some get it right, but sola scripturists can't agree among themselves on whether or not baptism is a fundamental, essential doctrine, let alone the exact method. This proves sola scriptura doesn't work.

 

[Marine0311]

AMEN.
A lot of hot wind with zero substance . . .

"History of Romanism," pp. 541, 542. New York: 1871.
Commenting on this quote, a fundamental Baptist web site says the following:
For example, it has been estimated by careful and reputed historians of the Catholic Inquisition that 50 million people were slaughtered for the crime of "heresy" by Roman persecutors between the A.D. 606 and the middle of the 19th century. Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages and later

 

[Marine0311]

Being “Buried” with Christ in Baptism has NOTHING to do with the amount of water used.
It means that we are buried to our old self – declaring the flesh as DEAD to us because we share in His SPIRITUAL promises.

Good grief, what a moronic understanding of the verses about of BAPTISM.
And only ONE of MANY bizarre views I’ve had to correct around here . . .

PS – I’ve NEVER seen a Baptism by“sprinkling”.

I’ve seen MANY done by POURING, as prescribed in the 1st century document,l the Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) written while the Apostles were STILL alive:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

NOWHERE in Scripture do we ever witness an actual Baptism taking place – by immersion OR by pouring. The details are NEVER given.

 

[Marine0311]

Mar 1:10 - And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw theheavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: We do have Jesus coming up out of the water after His baptism.

 

[atpollard]

If this is true - then wouldn't your doctrines be thee same? You van't have competing doctrines if they were AL gleaned SOLELY from Scripture. Somebode HAS to be wrong.

No, you are mistaken. All of our doctrines would need to be the same if PEOPLE were infallible (which they are not). The Holy Scriptures can be perfect and various imperfect people understand imperfectly. The RCC one sold indulgences, but no longer does so. Does the historic disagreement prove that the Catholic Church stopped being the Church at some point, or does it merely prove that some RCC members understood (scripture, tradition and the teachings) incorrectly at some point.

The Bible is the infallible written Word of God.

On this we agree.
Unfortunately, we do not have infallible traditions or infallible teachers in any church … read about Corinth in the infallible word of God. Therefore we must rely on the Written Word of God (Scripture) as our only objective source of infallible truth. That is what Sola Scriptura is all about.

How can ALL of these Protestant denominations formulated FALSE doctrines from God's infallible Word - yet STILL defend all fellow Protestant as being part of the "True Church"?

The “true church” is the Body of Christ. The ‘shibboleth’ of being “in Christ” is not a comprehensive examination on Christian Doctrines. Even the “Creeds” of the ecumenical councils of the early church, which claim to outline which doctrines one must believe to be a part of the “catholic” (universal) church are not the doctrines that Protestants generally disagree on. Credobaptism vs Paedobaptism is not an “essential” in any ecumenical creed.

I think that besides the fact that Scripture itself doesn't support Sola Scriptura - the above argument is yet another nail in the coffin.

Scripture is silent on the subject of Sola Scriptura, as it is silent on many subjects (like driving a car or getting vaccinated). To argue something from what is NOT FOUND is called an “argument from silence” and is a Logical Fallacy. Scripture can neither prove nor disprove Sola Scriptura. However it does not need to. Scripture does prove that Scripture is infallible. If anything else wishes to claim infallible authority alongside scripture, then the burden of proof falls to that thing claiming infallibility to PROVE that it belongs alongside scripture as the infallible authority of God.

Tradition does not prove itself infallible and actually proves itself quite fallible.
Teachers do not prove themselves infallible and actually prove themselves quite fallible.

 

[atpollard]

And yet there is NO expiration date on verses like 2 Thess. 2:15 . . .

I agree.
If you were in Thessolonica and the Apostle Paul personally told you something, then you should continue to believe it.

So what did Paul tell you?

 

[atpollard]

This statement proves you have no clue what tradition means, and it proves you have no intelligent response to post #305 and 307 that explains in detail what tradition means. So you deflect with stupid and absurd nonsense.

Then please, explain what Tradition means.

Let’s apply it to the specific claim that Mary is Queen of Heaven.
How does Tradition make that true?

 

[atpollard]

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Do Catholic babies fast 24-48 hours before baptism?
Why are you so selective in obeying Sacred Tradition?