Bible alone

[Marine0311]

Here is the question you are running from.
Mary never wanted glory for herself. Have you ever wondered why anti-Mary Christians like yourself cover up the reformers teachings about Mary???
You have no idea how rude and insulting your baseless charge of idolatry is. You do it automatically without thinking, refuse to be reasoned with, and my guess is you have no clue what the reformers taught about Mary.
Martin Luther invented sola scriptura, and he had a strong devotion to Mary.
I accept truths handed down to me, you accept whatever you choose.

Martin Luther Was Extraordinarily Devoted to Mary

Catholics who know anything are quite aware that:

1. Mary is not God (as there is one God: monotheism).

2. Mary does not save herself (contra Pelagianism).

3. Mary is nothing that God did not grant to her, in grace (Catholics believe in sola gratia every bit as much as Protestants do, even — especially — where Mary is concerned).

4. Mary does not compete with God, but declares His glory, as the “masterpiece” of His creation, just as praise of a masterpiece of art is praise of the painter or sculptor or composer (Catholics don’t view veneration of saints and worship of God as identical, and don’t espouse an “either/or” or zero sum game notion: viz., that veneration of saints somehow detracts from or contradicts the worship of God, and His unique glory and majesty).
Anti-Catholic Caricatures of Catholic Mariology (vs. James Swan)

I suggest you do some reading and find out what your own reformers taught about Mary, and stop trolling with stupid flaming zingers.

 

[Marine0311]

Yet all you have are opinions of men without ONE verse from scripture to support any Marian doctrine or dogma, and that speaks volumes.

 

[Marine0311]

 

[Marine0311]

Everyone born of God sees right through that lie.

 

[Illuminator]

No it doesn't. Lord Jesus is Who WARNED His followers about the leaven traditions of men. He explained it well too, through an analogy about literal leaven and fragments (Mark 8:14-21).

Thus there is a difference between God's idea of traditions, vs. traditions of men. The baskets of fragments that the disciples gathered up after feeding the multitudes represented The Pure Whole Loaf (Word of God untainted) being divided into pieces with men's traditions added to it (fragments). That is why there was way more... baskets of fragments left over.

And that is exactly what men's traditions do. They take only pieces... of God's Word out of Scripture, and try to apply in ways outside... the actual context of where it was written, changing and adding to God's Word. That is a working by the devil. And the devil even did that very thing by adding a single short phrase to the Psalms 91 Scripture when he quoted it to Lord Jesus in Luke 4.

In today's time, the seminaries and various religious schools have been practicing the adding and teaching of men's traditions to God's Word for so long, that when those under their teachings do hear someone proclaim accurately The Word of God as written, they wrongly think the one proclaiming is speaking their own word! Things are that twisted today. Nevertheless, God showed in His prophets this would happen for the END of this world, that there would be famine for hearing The Word of God.

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.

continued...

​

 

[atpollard]

then stop using the word “alone”

and there are no new doctrines in the Christian faith!

the sacred deposit of faith was from Christ to his church in the persons of the apostles eph 4:5 Jude 1:3
The church can only make this faith known to all men and to condemn all errors that are offices to it!

Please quote the ECF that refers to Mary as “Queen of Heaven”.

• The belief in Mary as Queen of Heaven obtained the papal sanction of Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam (English: 'Queenship of Mary in Heaven') of October 11, 1954.
• Your claim seems factually false; the RCC adds new doctrines all the time.

​

 

[Illuminator]

Ron: Previous Councils did not give a specific definition of Tradition; them mention it, but the topic has not received enough attention from the Magisterium.

J. Salza: The Catechism of the Catholic Church merely restates what the popes, councils, doctors and Fathers have taught always and everywhere about tradition – that it is the Word of God transmitted to us both orally and in writing, preserved, protected and propounded by the Church’s Magisterium. This is precisely my position. You, on the other hand, are arguing that there is no oral tradition. If you believe there is no oral tradition, then that makes you an adherent of sola Scriptura (written tradition alone).

Ron: On the point about tradition, it’s not so much an error in the Catechism as it is a confusion between tradition itself and the transmission of tradition. The prior Councils and prior magisterial documents do not give an infallible definition of Tradition. We do not have an infallible definition of Tradition from the Magisterium yet, so it is an open question as to what tradition is, what its limits are, etc.

J. Salza: So the Church, in 1992, got confused about what Tradition really is? That seems to be what you are suggesting. You are trying to create a distinction between “tradition” and the “transmission of tradition,” but I have told you that this is a distinction without a difference. The “tradition” is what is “transmitted,” which is the meaning of the word Tradition. Think of it this way. First, there are eternal truths of God. Second, God communicates these truths to us by way of Tradition. The “Tradition” is the truths of God (the first part), but “Tradition” is also the communication of those truths (the second part). That is why Scripture is called “tradition.” They are the written communication of God’s eternal truths. This is the same with oral Tradition. Christ told the apostles certain truths orally, and they communicated those truths orally to their successors.

Ron: The Church has never clearly defined Tradition. It is one of the areas of doctrine in need of development and further clarification.

J. Salza: The Church has indeed provided us the general definition of tradition in her magisterial documents and catechisms throughout the centuries. The only thing the Church has not done is given us a list of all the oral traditions. But the same would apply to the Scriptures. Almost 80 percent of the New Testament has corruptions (textual variants). The Church has almost never told us what the true Scriptures are where there are discrepancies. However, the Church could do this if she had to, just like she could give us a list of the oral traditions if she had to. The fact that there is not a list of oral traditions (or a list of the true Scriptures among textual variants) does not mean that such a list does not exist.

Ron: There is no list of God’s deeds, however, certainly the preeminent deed is the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross for our salvation. So Tradition, since it includes that deed, also includes the very source of our salvation. If Tradition is otherwise defined, then Salvation would not be found within Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium; it would be external to those three things.

J. Salza: You are basing your argumentation on a false premise – that tradition includes only the deeds of God. Vatican II never defines tradition that way, and neither did any other pope or council. But let’s assume your definition is correct. If tradition includes only the “deeds of God,” the “deeds” would include God’s transmission of His truths to us human beings through both the oral word (Jesus’ teachings; the Holy Ghost’s promptings) or the written word (divine inspiration of the Scriptures). If not, then the transmission of God’s truths from God would not be a deed of God which of course is false.

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.

Ron: Yes, the writing of Scripture is one of the deeds of God in salvation history, so the actual act of writing Scripture is a deed of Tradition. Scripture proceeds from Tradition, just as the Son proceeds from the Father.

J. Salza: Scripture doesn’t proceed from Tradition; Scripture IS Tradition, the written tradition that proceeds from God. It is the communicated Word of God in written form. Same thing with oral tradition. Oral Tradition proceeds from Christ; it is the communicated Word of God in oral form. Tradition is the eternal truth of God that has been communicated to us through these two modes.

Ron: ‘they’ refers to the truths taught to us by the deeds of God in salvation history. Such deeds are salvific, but not merely salvific, they also teach us truth. For example, Christ’s death on the Cross teaches us how to live. The deeds of God are Tradition itself. The deeds teach truths. The truths are handed down orally and in writing, and more so by the way that we live our lives.

J. Salza: Yes, and these deeds include His transmission of His truth to us in both the oral and written form.

Ron: St. Paul is referring to the process of transmitting the truths of Tradition, which of course includes the spoken word as well as the written word as well as the example of our lives.

J. Salza: St. Paul is telling us to obey tradition, which is what has been communicated to the faithful by either the oral or written word. God’s communicated Word is the tradition we must obey, whether it comes to us by way of the written or oral form.

Ron: I see from you words that you have insight into the Faith. Do not assume that you have completely understood Tradition and that you have nothing more to learn about it.

J. Salza: Amen. I always strive to learn more every day as I hold fast to the traditions that have been handed down to me.

Ron: Also, I notice that you have twice ignored my challenge to quote from an infallible oral Tradition.

J. Salza: I could similarly ask you to quote for me all of the true Scriptures. You would be unable to do so, because 78% of the New Testament has textual variants, and you have no way of resolving these discrepancies. Yet, based on your inability to do so, I would not declare that there is not one written tradition. Your challenge reminds me of how the Protestant apologists approach oral tradition.

Oral tradition refers to the truths that Christ taught the apostles. So when you say “quote from,” there is no document from which to quote. That, however, doesn’t mean that there are no oral traditions, just like textual variants don’t mean we don’t have true Scriptures. Oral traditions include the canon of Scripture, Mary’s perpetual virginity, Christ’s divinity, Christ’s two natures and two wills. These are truths that have been handed down to us from Christ and the apostles.

Ron: thanks for your interesting replies.

A Debate on the Meaning of "Oral Tradition" - Scripture Catholic

​

 

[Marine0311]

No – you’ve RUN like a coward from every challenge I’ve posed to you,

- YOU claimed that Catholics practiced “idolatry” and “Mary worship”.
I challenged you too show me this teaching from the Catechism - and you FAILED.

- YOU made the ridiculously stupid claim that “No Roman Catholic has everever produces one verse in context that supports any Marian doctrine.” When I posted contextual proof that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant – you FAILED to respond.

- I have repeatedly explained to you that “Roman” Catholic Church is erroneous - -and you FAILED to understand.

- YOU claimed that Apostolic Succession was a false teaching. When I gave you explicit Scriptural support for it - you FAILED to respond.

- YOU claimed that the Catholic Church had “replaced” Jesus with Mary, the Father with a Pope and the Holy Spirit with a human priest.
When I asked you to show me proof of this – you FAILED to respond.

Your posts have been nothing but one pathetic failure after another – and yet you claim to know the truth.
You’re a false representative of Christ - and I’ve repeatedly exposed your incredible ignorance .

 

[atpollard]

Only one, because a parish is not a denomination, a diocese is not a denomination, a rite is not a denomination. All share ONE set of doctrines, so what you SAY is a straw man fallacy. Ok.
According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America [Protestant] (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990): “As of 1980 David B. Barrett identified 20,800 Christian denominations worldwide . . .” (that was 42 years ago)

(“Denominationalism,” p. 351). I have this book, so I have seen this with my own eyes. Barrett “classified them into seven major blocs and 156 ecclesiastical traditions.” This is from Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia, 1982, of which he is the editor.

Also, according to United Nations there were over 23,000 competing and often contradictory denominations world-wide (World Census of Religious Activities [U.N. Information Center, NY, 1989]). This was cited in Frank Schaeffer’s book Dancing Alone (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1994), p. 4. Schaeffer is Orthodox.

The 1999 Encyclopedia of Christianity has this to say: “In 1985 David Barrett could count 22,150 distinct denominations worldwide.” {edited by E. Fahlbusch, et al., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999, vol. 1, p. 800, s.v. “Denomination.” David B. Barrett is the statistical editor}
read more here

So many words to admit that you can’t name the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations that do not actually exist …

 

[atpollard]

WRONG.

The very idea that you ALL profess that Scripture is our “SOLE” Authority – yet ALL of you have different doctrines which your founders gleaned from THEIR personal understanding of Scripture - nullifies the entire false doctrine.

If you DON’T all have the same understanding of Scripture and formulate competing doctrines – then you cannot claim that Scripture is your “SOLE” Authority.

Why?

 

[Marine0311]

youre 325 is the lie

Christ founded one church Jn 10:16 on Peter Matt 16:18-19

 

[Marine0311]

You’re living a lie Jesus founded the church on Himself as scripture teaches.

 

[Marine0311]

Here is the question you are running from.
Mary never wanted glory for herself. Have you ever wondered why anti-Mary Christians like yourself cover up the reformers teachings about Mary???
You have no idea how rude and insulting your baseless charge of idolatry is. You do it automatically without thinking, refuse to be reasoned with, and my guess is you have no clue what the reformers taught about Mary.
Martin Luther invented sola scriptura, and he had a strong devotion to Mary.
I accept truths handed down to me, you accept whatever you choose.

Martin Luther Was Extraordinarily Devoted to Mary

Catholics who know anything are quite aware that:

1. Mary is not God (as there is one God: monotheism).

2. Mary does not save herself (contra Pelagianism).

3. Mary is nothing that God did not grant to her, in grace (Catholics believe in sola gratia every bit as much as Protestants do, even — especially — where Mary is concerned).

4. Mary does not compete with God, but declares His glory, as the “masterpiece” of His creation, just as praise of a masterpiece of art is praise of the painter or sculptor or composer (Catholics don’t view veneration of saints and worship of God as identical, and don’t espouse an “either/or” or zero sum game notion: viz., that veneration of saints somehow detracts from or contradicts the worship of God, and His unique glory and majesty).
Anti-Catholic Caricatures of Catholic Mariology (vs. James Swan)

I suggest you do some reading and find out what your own reformers taught about Mary, and stop trolling with stupid flaming zingers.

 

[atpollard]

“Hail Mary” the new song of salvation!

Romans 10:8-13 [NASB95]

8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same [Lord] is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."​

You have the wrong savior.

 

[Marine0311]

Have you ever wondered why Roman Catholic apologist keep rewriting history ? You did know it was against Roman church law for a common man to have a bible for hundreds of years, and if anyone was caught with a bible they were tortured while many were murdered by your church for simply having a bible ?

 

[Marine0311]

Romans 10:8-13 [NASB95]

8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same [Lord] is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."​

You have the wrong savior.

 

[Marine0311]

Amen.

 

[atpollard]

You miss the point.

You missed the point that only their WRITTEN words survive for us to read today. We have no 8mm movies of Jesus and the Apostles from the First Century. Having played the game “Telephone”, we all know the danger of trusting a 2000 year old word of mouth report (a 100th hand account).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why?

Because most Protestants profess Sola Scriptura - the idea that Scripture ALONE is our SOLE Authority.

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.

Earlier, I listed several of these competing doctrines - and many were essential doctrines:
Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

The Bible is the infallible written Word of God.
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"?

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

 

[Marine0311]

Because most Protestants profess Sola Scriptura - the idea that Scripture ALONE is our SOLE Authority.

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.

Earlier, I listed several of these competing doctrines - and many were essential doctrines:
Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

The Bible is the infallible written Word of God.
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"?

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