The difference is we may consault the Chruch Fathers, but only in accordance with what is actually said in the scripture. What we will not accept however is that the words of any man can be respected equally to or above the bible...
A very good presentation. The simple fact is that traditions are inevitable. We need to have some way of doing things. We will try to ground our ways in what we wish to see as truth. We will teach others to act as we do. Most especially we will teach our ways to our children. Thus a tradition is born. Does it not follow that God, seeing our human need to have a tradition to follow, would provide for us this need. Read your Bible, He did provide. Our Father doesn't give us scorpians & stones.
I think you're getting confused with original Protestants and later third-wave Evangelicals. Lutherans believe in Sola Scriptura, but they also accept that there is a tradition. However they state that the way to find out what is proper tradition is through scripture. Tradition that contradicts or is not at all found in scripture is rejected. The Bible therefore becomes a 'screen' for tradition.
Evangelicals is what you're describing. They believe that 'Scripture Interprets Scripture'.
They can't. It's impossible. The moment the leaders of their church render any decision that affects the life of their members they are stepping outside of sola scriptura and assuming an authority to themselves. It is the men who are deciding what is the proper tradition. That is what the catholics do. The singular diff is that they do not want to follow the roman pope.
I'd say there is some truth to this. All churches follow a certain tradition, whether admittedly or not. If the Assemblies of God makes a declaration on alcohol or smoking, it is considered authoritative, pretty much. Though it isn't declared infallible. However I'd also assume that retraction would be difficult.
Ultimately it comes down to who has the proper tradition.
@Reazzurro90 I think"sola scriptura"is empty rhetoric esp since there was a christian church BEFORE there was a christian bible. Hence the"bible"was based on the church. Christianity was never based on"the bible".
@Reazzurro90 Re chrisitianity u hav to believe jesus+apostles founded a church. In Cath teaching theWord of God is th Bible with the Church, &that theCathCh is that historical church they founded&has the authority in this matter. TheEasternOrthodoxCh believes this too but that the office of theRoman papacy over-reached it's authority. They are ALSO"Catholic"&claim to be the historical church. Then there isProtestantism which broke withRome in the west. Bizarrely u never ---->
--->Bizarrely u never see aProtestant V EasternOrthodox confrontation on this issue. Prots are always restating their beefs with the RomanCh. Wouldn't that be a refreshing perspective to get? I would really like to see that becaus EOC gets roundly ignored in this debate. One hears lots of lipservice about theRC reunifying with theEOC &being"in communion"with some patriarchates of theEOC. Then what remains is whetherGod chose"Christianity"to replace Israel/Judaism as the authority for tradition.
@LovingScrubbies As you see now none of can practice all the ways the 1st century church received Gods word because we cannot received in person teaching from the apostles.
However we all can yet receive their written words just like the 1st century church did.
You do not live in a time before the Bible was written when apostles taught in person the sooner you realize that the better.
@Reazzurro90 "Ultimately it comes down to who has the proper tradition"..and how is a way to find this out?..Perhaps study of the early church writters, to see what those that where taught face to face by the apostles have to say? "Wherever Jesus is there is the Catholic church" ~ St Ignatius 30-107 A.D.....I tell you in just the writtings 3 apostolic fathers(those who where taught by the apostles face to face) I can basically rule out all churches beside the Catholic and the Orthodox church.
@LovingScrubbies "The moment the leaders of their church render any decision that affects the life of their members they are stepping outside of sola scriptura and assuming an authority to themselves."
Not true! Just because a decision affects the lives of the members of a church does not make that decision a tradition.
Also you error in not understanding what commandments and/or traditions Jesus and the apostle taught us to avoid.
@LovingScrubbies For instance if a church decides to send the teens to Cedar Point once a year that is not the type of tradition that either Jesus or the apostles warned of.
However if a church said that only churches called "The Son's of God" are true churches (since the term is used in scripture), they are teaching something that neither Jesus nor the apostles taught.
They might of course say that the name is implied in scripture but they would be in error because names are stated >>>>>>>>
@LovingScrubbies <<<<< in scripture not implied. Rome is Rome, Israel is Israel, Greece is Greece, etc.
So contrary to what you claimed a church can make a decision that effects the lives of its members without assuming an authority equal to scripture or establishing a commandment and/or traditions of man of the type that both Jesus and the apostles clearly taught against.
@JesusisComingKJV1611 Constantine did not found either the Orthodox (original) Church or the Roman Catholic Church. The Church was ONE up until 1054 - the Great Schism. Your assertions are historically and factually baseless. Christ founded His Church in AD 33 @ Pentecost, Baptists are a post-Calvinist phenomenon (as a Denomination). This idea that Baptists aren't Protestant is silly and has been debunked solidly, they certainly hold to Luther's "Solas" (S Scriptura, S Fide, S Gratia).
@gtepp031387 Notice that this is "Catholic", from Greek "kata" + "holos" Katholikos - "according to the whole/complete/full". This is not exactly the same as the later meaning of the Latin word "cattolica" (I studied Latin for 4 years, was a Gold Medalist in the National Latin Exam, and an ex-Roman Catholic). To place "Roman" before the word "Catholic" is to say something like "partial whole", "specifically general" or something like that. The Church was not founded in Rome, but in Jerusalem.
@StopMoColorado Well Jeruslem is one of the 5 sees, the first place the followers where called Christrian and Catholic was in Antioch, however Rome has allways held primacy since Peter and Paul appointed Linus as one with the authority to guide and tend the intire sheepfold.
@gtepp031387 To say that Rome *always* held primacy, but then to trace its foundation to Peter and Paul (I agree that Peter &Paul, sent from Antioch, founded the Roman church) is a contradiction. The Church was founded in Jerusalem @ Pentecost in 33, Rome after 60 AD, and nowhere, in Scripture or in Pre-Schismatic Holy Tradition, is Linus entrusted as the shepherd over the other shepherds, each see was autocephalous. Ever read Pope Gregory the Great? He totally denounced RC's take on authority!
@gtepp031387 Exactly - Christ is the Head of the Church. There is no need for a Vicar for Christ, since Christ is not absent, He is co-indentical (though not, in our world, co-terminal) with the Church, His incarnate body on Earth. This Church has many shepherds - each Apostle was given the keys and the power to forgive or retain (though Peter does have a position of pre-eminance & respect, though not of Lording or authority ; Christian authority is found in Service, not Lordship, Christ said).
@StopMoColorado Intresting, that is, that you word for word contridict the decree of ecumentical council...
"Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children." -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
@StopMoColorado For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451
@StopMoColorado "Blessed Peter, preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. ...And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see. To him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see, but also primate of all bishops...cont...
@StopMoColorado We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. -- Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25
@StopMoColorado "When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ...Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference...but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts...cont...
@StopMoColorado ..cont...Further to issue an authoritative instruction...so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound."-- Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449...shall I go on to show you how every see Reconized the authority of the bishop of Rome or will this sufice?
@StopMoColorado "and nowhere, in Scripture or in Pre-Schismatic Holy Tradition, is Linus entrusted as the shepherd over the other shepherds"..This is a complete lie..there are numerous refferences to Linus being the authority and espeacially Clement after Linus...but first answere if the see of Rome was or was not the head of the church.
The very canon of Scripture is an Apostolic Tradition. Nowhere in Scripture is it written which books shall be accepted as Scripture and which books shall be left out. We (Catholic and Protestant) accept that canon of Scripture because it is the teaching that has been handed down to us.
@backwoodsninja Exactly. I Tim 3:15 states the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth (the measure, therefore, of Canon, and that which Christ founded before the formation of the New Testament). Let this sink in - The Church, NOT the Bible, is the measure of truth, and sets the Canons (like Scripture, Icons, the Didache, the Liturgy, etc.). Find this Church, & you find the proper "Paradosis" (teaching/tradition). This is far different than the "traditions of men", it's Orthodox, Apostolic.
@StopMoColorado "by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority" - St Irenaeus
so, when the bible say God created the world in six literal days, we must look outside of the bible to see if it meant six thousand or million years. plz make your beliefs clearer for me my friend, Jesus says I am the light, the truth and the way, no one comes to the Father but by me. i know the bible appears to contradict itself at times but if ppl learn to do theme studies of the bible they would find out it doesnt. God established one church on earth and if the so-called protestants
no, it doesnt. the bible never says that scripture alone is the only rule of faith and practice. Nor does it say that the word of God is limited only to what is written
@OneTrueChurch Re:the bible never says that scripture alone is the only rule of faith and practice. Nor does it say that the word of God is limited only to what is written
nor does it say that the word of God includes Catholic traditions. Nor does it say that the church is called the Catholic church. So if it is significant that it does not teach sola scriptura it is significant that it does no teach scriptura plus Catholicism
Abraham the father of faith seems to believe that scripture alone was enough And by the way all God given traditions have always became part of scripture (even when they began as oral tradition). OT...Circumcision, Sabbath day, Tithes etc. NT Lord's Supper, Baptism etc. Name one God given tradition that he gave to Israel which began orally and was not eventually written in scripture.
ok genious so the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist churches are the only ones that teach correctly? if they do teach correctly why do they follow different doctrines. Looks to me like you are dead wrong buddy. beware of the churches you think teach correctly because they dont even teach the same things. i know you think you are doing the work of God but you are not. theres only one truth son, so why do your 3 churches teach different things? you need to get your facts straight youngster.
While at bible school I was shocked to discover that Protestants don't stick to Sola Scriptura. Christmas Easter and heaven are all pagan concepts and Emperor Constantine changed the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday as well because he thought the Jews were 'odious people'. That's not the wild olive branch grafted into the true tree.(Rom 7-11) This is a completely different religion based on paganism where only the bible is true to the original.
Constantine did not change the date yarrw. He decreed it for the Roman Empire but, based on what was already practiced long before throughout Christianity. For instance Justin Martyr in the 2nd century describes worship services "on the day of the SUN" Sunday. ...:)
Maybe he was referring to sun god (Sol invictus, Mithra) worship. How much is lost when we have Easter in place of passover where Jesus rose from the dead on the 8th day (the new creation) not the 3rd day(pagan sun god symbolism). Remember that the sun and stars are a 4th day creation Gen 1:14 (for signs and times) so Jesus was crucified at the end of the 4th day of passover.
Coins have been found with Constantine and Sol invictus written on them.
Maybe it fits under 'Replacement theology". Pagan Easter replaces passover, the Church replaces Israel, Heaven replaces the 'new Jerusalem' and Christmas, well who knows where that belongs.
All good points... And Catholics should be firm in defending tradition from some of the radical Protestants out there.
But lets keep in mind all of the Catholics and Protestants on both sides who know that we are part of one Universal Christian body, regardless of denomination. Go Jesus!
"It's basically a fact, alright, whether you wanna admit it or not; it's a fact that we interpret the Bible through the lenses of our traditions, of our churches, there's really no way to get around that, alright."
While I must compliment you on the grammatical construction of your opening remarks, I must disagree with the premise of your argument. How can assert your remarks as fact, when honest Bible study seeks to find the meaning of the text in the context of the audience?
Spot on! While I'm from a protestant denomination, I agree with you saying "we" interpret the bible through tradition. I don't believe in one true denomination. I'm not in agreement with everything my church teaches, but it doesn't affect my salvation. In my opinion, the church is all of those washed by the blood of Jesus and do the will of the father. No matter what denomination.
stmcgarrett - About the verse that says man leaves his parents and becomes one flesh with his wife.
Catholics actually follow that verse more than you Protestants. That's why Catholics have lower divorce rates. You Protestants on the other hand don't follow that verse and that's why you have higher divorce rate and cheating and pre-marital sex among you.
stmcgarrett - Bible actually talks about three kinds of priests. Jesus is the high priest. Every Christian is a priest.
You deny it over and over again that it is ok to remain un-married when you want to serve God.
Catholics who can not control their passion get married. In eastern rite Catholic churches, priests can be married. Majority of the Catholic priests are doing good living a celibate life.
stmcgarrett - Exactly. For some small percent of humans, homo sexuality is natural. According to your stupid logic, Gay men must be married to women.
Your logic will do more harm than good.
Instead of thinking that you are the infallible interpreter of the Scripture, you should join the Catholic church and get the interpretation of the scriptures from the Catholic church. Otherwise you are doomed with the mis-interpretation of the scripture by your low iq dumb pastors.
stmcgarrett - YOU are the one who doesnt hold to scripture. That's why you do not see that it is perfectly biblical to not to marry when you want to serve God.
All you do is think with your penis and say that EVERYONE must be married?
It is perfectly biblical if people want to re-main unmarried for serving God, like what the Catholic priests do.
stmcgarrett - You are the one who denies scripture.
'But a man who is married is busy with things of the world, trying to please his wife.34 He must think about two things—pleasing his wife and pleasing the Lord.'
Priests think thy can re-main un-married. That's why they become priests. It works for 99% of the priests. It does not work only for 1% of priests. Many priests, who think it does not work for them quit and get married.
After you get married if you still burn in passion for another women, marry those women also.
Rev.10 & 11 should be read chronologically. John is given a 'little book' in ch.10, and is told to 'eat it up'. This symbolizes the Christian who reads the Bible and understands what it says. Rev.11, then goes on to tell us what this 'little book' is and what it will do. The parallel to Rev.11 is found in Zech.4--same symbolism is employed by the prophet. "..word of the LORD...by my Spirit..." This is speaking of Scripture.
The Scriptures are the 'measuring rod' that are used to determine what is true doctrine, and what is false doctrine. No doubt there are many Protestants who fail to recognize the Scriptural support or negation of certain doctrines. But that doesn't mean the Scriptures are not sufficient. John calls them 'the two witnesses' in Rev.11, and they are the 'measuring rod' used to decide who is, and who is not the 'temple' of God (believers).
wow you are taking Rev 11 WAY out of context. when God tlaks about a "measuring rod" what he is telling John is to measure the number of people around the alter signifying that in the last days the number or true christians properly worshipping God will be realatively small it has NOTHING to do with the bible let alone sola scriptura! The "two witnesses" are two actual people wh will testify of Jesus its not referring to the old and new testament. this is a gross distortion of scripture
Many Protestants of old recognized the day/year principle in reckoning prophetic time. De Launay applies the Two Witnesses to the Old and New Testaments, their message trodden down...in the schools and universities of the 'Antichristian Church of Rome'...he goes on, "It also goes without discussion that the 1260 days, according to prophetic style, mean 1260 YEARS, each day corresponding to a year." [Pierre De Launay (1573-1661), Paraphrase of the Apocalypse, p.299,307]
I dont care what "many protestants" held to. It doesn't make sense in the context. besides, there was no New Testament at the time the book of Revelation was written the canon of the new testament would not exist as it does today for almost 400 years. On a side note, i have never erver heard a protestant make this argument before obviously because its so rediculous
Most 'protestants' are futurists, such as yourself. During the counter-reformation, there was a Roman sect that was designed specifically for the purpose of getting people away from the Protestant movement and their interpretation that the day-year principle applied to all time prophecies. The Jesuits re-introduced two old fallacies: 1)Preterism, and 2)Futurism. The Jesuits would be delighted today to see so many 'protestants' falling for their futurism.
none of this has any bearing on Revelation 11 and your rediculous assertion that it is teaching sola scriptura. You lack the basic knowledge of exegesis
Indeed, Rev.11 is telling us that the Old and New Testaments are the 'measuring rod' for the 'temple' (naos) of God (ie, all believers). This is what happens when Roman Catholics try to read the Bible. They can't. You may be able to read the words, but you will never understand it until it's too late. The time prophecy is 1260 YEARS, not literal days. I'm an Historicist; not a futurist or preterist. Neither system allows for proper prophetic interpretation.
the measuring rod is a literal measuring rod. He's telling John to measure the number of worshipers because in the last days there will be apostasy from the faith and the number of true believers will be few. And again, you never answered by objection that there was no new testament at this time
Most believe that the book of Revelation was written c.95-96 A.D. The work was finished at the close of the first century. Once again, you are following the teachings of the Jesuit counter-reformation, which saw the 'antichrist' way off into the future. Rome had to interpret Scripture this way because all Protestants at the time saw the Roman system as the 'little horn', 'sea beast', and 'scarlet harlot', and saw the system lasting for 1260 YEARS, before receiving its 'deadly wound'.
@OneTrueChurch Please give me an example of one tradition that God gave to Israel which was
1. given to them orally
2. passed all the way down to Jesus's day orally
3. was never written in scripture
Also give an example of Jesus quoting one of these oral only traditions. He should be seen to say "it is said" rather than 'it is written". I await your example(s)
sure. in Matthew 2 it says that it was spoken through the prophets that the messaih would be called a nazorean. This was never written down in the old testament scriptures
@OneTrueChurch When I say tradition I meant in the context of Matthew 15 or Mark 7. Something that Israel was held accountable to do like circumcision, or tithes. The example you gave is a prophesy not a tradition. Prophesies are "fulfilled" traditions are "kept". This is why as you know the Pharisees asked Jesus "Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?" Traditions are expected to be followed, kepted or adhered to. cont'd
A tradition is anything that is passed down. It can be either a precept or a prophesy. I was able to meet your challenge so now you are trying to "shift the goal post" and demand further evidence.
@OneTrueChurch However time and time again when quoting a prophesy it is most often followed by "that it might be fulfilled" or "then was fulfilled that which was spoken by". Of course you already know this bing that you seem to be pretty well versed in the scripture. However in case you reject the clear evidence in scripture I will rephrase my request. Show me a tradition from God such as circumcison or tithes that was passed down orally and never written in scripture until Jesus lifetime.
ok, How about the tradition of moses's seat which Jesus talks about. He says that "the pharese's sit on Moses's seat so do as they say, not as they do" in Matthew 23:2. They old testament never talks about Moses's seat, this was an oral tradition that was passed down. John 10:22 talks about the feast of the dedication which is a reference to the Books of the Maccabbees which protestants do not consider to be part of the new testament
@OneTrueChurch Please come on. That does not fit the examples I gave. I was quite clear and specific. That is not something which God gave to Israel and held them accountable for like circumcision ot tithes or like the Eucharist and baptism. Jesus was stating a fact not a tradition that the Pharisees sat in the position of religious leadership like Moses PERIOD. Seat or kathedra {kath-ed'-rah} refers to a position as teacher or judge (strong's 2515).
I met you're challenge. You are trying to back peddle now and make extra criteria. You are trying to set parameters for what is admissible as evidence for tradition after the fact
@OneTrueChurch So in other words no you can't give any examples of traditions which God gave Israel like circumcision or tithes. Something that they were required to do, or participate in. I have not back peddled at all that is a lie. I simply did not make myself clear enough to you. Nothing you presented was anything that God requires his people to practice. Instead of falsely accsuing me you could have the integrity to simply admit that everything that God expected of israel was written.
First, I'm not a furst century jew, so I wouldn't know what exactly their traditions were and whether or not all of them were found in the bible. But I did quote for you the feast of the dedication in John 10:22 which is found in the book of Maccabees which protestants do not consider to be scripture. Also you need to remember that the books of the bible are also a tradition. nowhere in scripture does it say which books make up the canon. This is based on oral tradition
@OneTrueChurch Thank you very much. So in other words you cannot find any traditions that God gave Israel that he reqired them to do, practice, or participate in which was passed down orally and never mentioned in scripture but was quoted by Jesus. It is obvious that you see the problem this presents which this presents. Every tradition which God required to practice was written; every single one. This you know and it is obvious by your responses that you can't simply admit the truth.
@OneTrueChurch Thank you. This exchange as well as others I have had with Catholics this week has led me to do a video series regarding some significant inconsistencies which became apparent. By the way I am not protestant. God bless you.
@OneTrueChurch Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” He also made it clear that their traditions were not to be followed. “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Only where they taught the law was Israel to do as they say but not as they do. This is not a tradition.
@OneTrueChurch God never gave Israel a tradition that told them to follow false teachers he instead warned them against this. Jesus was stating an obvious fact not a tradition.
@ttsqas Jesus made it clear that the Pharisees were not placed in their position by God “Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Cont’d
@OneTrueChurch Something like the Eucharist or baptism that God expected the people to practice, do, perform, or participate in. The reason for my request is that while I see that Jesus recognized those traditions which were passed down in scripture I see no evidence of him accepting those that were passed down orally only. The clear evidence is that anything that God expected Israel to "DO" was written though it may have began as oral tradition.
stmcgarrett - yes monogamous marriage is biologically un-natural. Just talk to any biologist.
However, God wants us to marry one person until death separates us. You Protestants dont like it, that's why you and your pastors get divorced and sleep around and cheat on your spouses.
You are the one who is denying scripture by not admitting that it is biblical to remain celibate if one chooses to do so for serving God. Sex saturated society has corrupted your brain.
stmcgarrett - you are thinking with your penis. That's why you don't see that it is completely biblical to remain celibate if you want to serve God. I hope you sleep around, catch STDs get divorced and sleep around more.
stmcgarrett - 32But I want you to be free from concern. One who is (A)unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 1 Corinthians 7:32-33
stmcgarrett - yes, if somebody wants to be married and serve God that is ok too. That's why deacons in Catholic Church can be married. That's why in Eastern rite Catholic churches, priests can marry.
Whether priests can marry or not is not a matter of doctrine, rather it is a matter of discipline. If church wants, it can change the rule in the future. Then you will see that the Pope and priests are getting married and making you happy.
stmcgarrett - You don't know scripture. If you knew you would see that it is perfectly fine to choose celibacy to serve God, like the way Jesus disciples and Paul were celibate. That's why Paul said it is better to NOT marry when you serve God.
Wanting more women is due to biology. That is what your pastors do. They get divorced and marry more women, sleep around with lots of women before and after getting married. You learn this from them and you do the same thing.
stmcgarrett - Exactly pride comes before fall. U learned pride and arrogance from Luther and thats why ur churches fell. That's why u have anarchy and chaos in ur protestant churches. That's why ur churches are tiny and God's true church the Catholic Church is huge.
Yes I have better understanding of scripture than u because my understanding of scripture comes the scripture and from the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Ur understanding of scripture is ur fallible interpretation of KJ bible.
stmcgarrett - I think way more pastors get drunk and fight with other pastors. Is that part of Protestant theology? Perhaps yes, as Protestantism means the anarchy and chaos. This is what happens when each of you become your own little Popes.
Jesus original church had corruption (money hungry Judas). Likewise all churches in the world have corruption, although it is not good.
That is an easy one. Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath day by laying at rest before his ressurection the following day, thus leading the modern day Christians to celebrate the day of His resurrection as the Lord's Day. Do not confuse the Sabbath with the Lord's day. They are two seperate days. Even your Catholic leaders and Catholic Answers Live hosts adhere to that truth.
My main issue with the Catholic Church is not the sola scriptura vs tradition debate, my issue is on justification. It is clear that justification is by faith alone in Jesus Christ and through nothing else. Not by the works of the sacraments. before you try throwing James 2:14 at me, if you read the whole context, you will see james is stating that works are a fruit of salvation, not the other way around.
I was running out of character space on last post. I know Catholics like to go on and argue verses 24 and 25 in the same chapter as well. verse 24, james is once again pointing out the fact that true faith is never alone, it is always accompanied by the works as fruit of the faith. 25, Rahab was an example because her work of hiding the Hebrew spies came from the faith she had in God's saving grace for the Hebrews.
The matter is how we define saving faith. If by faith we mean "the mere knoweledge that God exists and will save us", then this faith is not enough to save us.
The saving faith is the faith informed by charity. God respects our will so he needs our cooperation to save us, he doesn't force anyone to be saved (vs irresistible Grace in Calvinism)
We are saved by faith becasue with no faith, we don't have the light to repent from our sins and walk towards him. See Mark10,17-19 and John 20, 21-23
Let's see, if someone says blacks are stupid and nig**S we are ok calling them biggots. If someone shows hatred of Cahtolcis and Catholicism , calling them liars all the time and saying they defend sodomites we should just sit back and listen to it. Sigh.
Was Jesus a bigot when he called the Pharisees a brood of vipers, whitewashed tombs filled with dead man's bones, hypocrites? What about when he turned over the money changer's tables. Did Jesus hate the evil of their false religion?
Is every preist a pedophile? That is the picture you are painting. You also seem to have a disconnect between truth and sin. Was the Jewish the wrong religion because they sacrified chldren along the way. Was David not God's chosen one because he had Bethsheba's husband killed to get his wife?
I defend the doctrines, not the molesters as you have accused me of. The doctrines are a separate issue. That there are molesters in the Church is no proof against doctrine or we would have to reject all Christian denominatiosn because they all have child molesters and adulters in them. That's a fact.
The issue is you deny the Scriptures which say an elder, bishop, etc. are to be married and have children. This being a qualification included in the list with all the other qualities; are those also optional like giving to filthy lucre, wine or a brawler?
No it does not say the are to be married nad have children. It says they are to be the husband of one wife. The clear implication is that IF they are married they are not to have been divorced or polygamous, just as the early church said. It in no way says they MUST be married. Again Catholicism has married preists.
Provide the quotes please, and I'll provide you from Catholics who disagree with stated doctrine."
I did. Now show me someone in authority that disagrees with Catholic teaching on sodomy and pornography as you claimed you could. I'll not answer any more of your biggotry until you do.
I shared with you the FACTS of the lives of the sodomite priests that EVERYONE knows about. They preached by their lives - hypocrites preach words that disagree with their lives. Get real.
I don't know your facts. I know that you are a biggot and biggots lie. I know that there are hypocrit protestant pastors who do not practice what they preach. You may well be sitting in the pew every sunday with one. You don't know. I let God worry about dealing with them. Of course I am against their hypocrysy. I wasn't born yesterday as you seem to think. I'm not stupid as you seem to think.
It is written that ad hominem attacks are the lowest form of debate and I'm sorry you are personally attacking me. You are 100% correct in that there are countless hypocrite "protestant" pastors and many I preach and teach against (eg Word faith Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, etc).
So here we agree and if these men were in my church, they would be kicked out via Scriptural church discipline. We are NOT to let God worry about them, we are to get the leaven out of the church.
I attacked you? You accused me of defending sodomites. I've wasted enough time with your obvious biggotry today. You are so full of hate that you can't see your way out of it. It is plain for all to see. You just keep rolling out a shotgun blast of arguements. When I refute them you roll on to another.
You have not refuted anything but in your own mind. I accused YOUR religion, not YOU. I just shared with you about how elders are to be married, and you deny it. Your reply was a refutation? Not so.
2. You called me a bigot - why? Because I hate the lies of Rome which I was raised in and how she denies Jesus? Yes, I hate the Roman Religion - guilty as charged.
"See -YOU have to defend your false religion because if it falls, you have no faith. Your religion and sodomite priest have destroyed countless lives yet YOU defend it, stand behind it , and EXCUSE IT."
Now who is the liar. I do not excuse sodomites and child molesters. Liar.
I see you give me a challenge and then just slide off from it. Paul said "the good that I would do I do not, while the evil that I would not do I do.". Read websites like reformation com to read about sodomite protestant pastors. There are lots of them. Read the SBC's own admission that 11-13% of it's pastors, who probably speak against adultery have cheated on their wives. You love to point fingers but there four pointing back at your denominations. check out stop baptist pedophiles.
See - you have to defend your false religion because if it falls, you have no faith. Your religion and sodomite priest have destroyed countless lives yet you defend it, stand behind it , and excuse it. Grand. What I say to the SBC is what Paul said to the man living in adultery with his father's wife, turn him over to satan for the destroying of the flesh for the saving of his soul if in fact he is saved.
What a stupid post. I am defending sodomites? Really? I'm not defending the sodomites you abolute biggot! Really what kind of a biggot are you. I condemn sodomy. So does the Catholic Church in FaThe fact is that 70% of baptist pastors say they know of this behavior and don't turn them in.
Then they are hirelings, just like the Catholics who deny a man to get married in absolutely denial of the qualifications of an elder found in Titus and Timothy.
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the HUSBAND of one WIFE, having faithful CHILDREN not accused of riot or unruly." (I TIm 1:5-6)
Now isn't that odd. It says "the husband of one wife". Why wouldn't it say "must be married". I'll tell you why. The passage applies to either or both the man must not be divorced and/or he must not be involved in polygamy, which was not uncommon at the time. It makes no sense if Paul was saying he must be married because Paul wasn't himself.
SO what if Peter was married. There are lots of married Catholic preists. EVen some in the western rite. There is a Lutheran pastor who became Catholci and remained married in our diocease. Eastern rite priests can be married and are in communion with rome. Celibacy is a practice, not a doctrine and it is not universal. Jesus himself said "to some it has been given". Paul endorses it in 1 Cor 7. But protestants in general don't have it. Funny.
For ALL believers, not a requirement for the "priesthood." Read it in context. It is a doctrine that is formed on priests and thus, when they burn, the sadly turn to what they are surrounded with, men, boys and children. All because your religion denies the teaching that elders must be leaders of the home for if they cannot rule their house, how can they rule the family of God.
stmcgarret - commonly held belief was that Peter was married, but his wife died before he started following Christ.
in Western Catholic churches priests can not marry. This is a matter of decipline. if the church wants, it can change this in the future.
In General ,an unmarried priest can devote his life to the church better than a married priest with children. Trust me! This is perhaps a reason why Jesus' deciples were unmarried.
Here is one more you can wrest unto your destruction.
"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND of one WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own HOUSE, having his CHILDREN in subjection with all gravity." (I Tim 3:1-4)
Mysteriumaenigma - You are correct. A few key points. 1st, those verses were addressed to all believers, male and female, and not some elite priestly class. 2nd Paul specifically notes that if a man or woman burned and could not contain (that is be celibate), they should marry. For it would be better to marry than to burn in lust. By Rome and the Latin church cutting out this verse, so many priests have burned and as a result committed the most horrible crimes against little boys and girls.
stmcgarret - Western rite churches did not cut out the verses that say it is better to marry rather than burning in passion.
Priests stay in the seminary for a long time before becoming a priest. Thy have all those years to think whether celibacy is for them or not. If not, they can quit the seminary and get married or become a married decon.
Even after becoming a priest, if he sees that he has too much passion, then he can quit the priesthood and become married.
What you write is meaningless in light of the Scriptures. What of all these priests who have molested children? They were burning with passion. Likewise, read I Timothy and Titus where it clearly articulates that an elder and bishop are to BE married for if one cannot rule his own household Paul asks, then how can he rule the household of God. You are denying Scripture by holding to Catholic tradition. No different than what the Pharisees did.
stmcgarret - Lots of married protestant pastor molest children, produce incest babies and cheat on their wives. You don't hear those because the media is anti-catholic and the protestant churches are de-centralized. However, like I said, all churches are run by ordinary men who can make mistakes, even though it is not good.
That is a moot point and not relevant to the discussion. The issue is that in the Latin branch of Catholicism it is a mandatory requirement for a priest to be celibate. No such doctrine is taught in Scripture; rather voluntary on a one to one basis again as I said before NOT for "clergy" but for ALL believers. Paul even by inspiration deals with the forbidding to marry which the Spirit calls a doctrine of devils.
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." (I Tim 4:1-3)
Priests choose a way of celibate life. Nobody is forcing them to become a priest. After becoming a priest if they don;t like celibate life they can quit and become married. Or they can go to Eastern right churches and be married there.
Jesus disciples were unmarried and it was helpful for them to devote themselves to the church. Nobody forced them to not to Mary. They chose that life like the priests choose their lives.
stmcgarret - But Paul also said that not marrying is even better when you are serving God.
Priests stay in the Seminary in the long time to decide whether celibacy is right for them or not.
Let's say 1% of all priests are child molesters. If so, for the majority of them celibacy is ok. That's what they decided when they stayed in the seminary for many many years. If they dont like it, they can quit priesthood and become married. Some priests did it.
stmcgarret - Of all the catholic priests who molest children, only 20% molested children under the age 11. 80% molested children between aged 11 and 18.
When you molest a child who is post pubescent, then you are not pedophile, rather you are a gay.
In this society we can not vilify gays. So, protestant media label all bad catholic priests as gays so that it is easy to vilify them.
What is the point of your post? The crime is a horrendous crime; made even worse when it comes from one who professed to be a man of God.
Nevertheless this is the result of not following the Scriptures and also unregenerate hearts locked in dead religion. And even if there were no cases of abuse by priests, this still would not negate the clear teachings of Scripture as I have already written.
I hope you come to see this as I was once where you are today.
stmcgarret - Point of the post is Protestant pastors molest more children than the Catholic priests. The Protestants and the media ignore those but blame only the Catholics. This is a hypocrisy. Go to stopbaptistpredators dpt com
"Why do you see the speck that is in your brothers eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
30K divisions in protestant church and the abuse of pastors and immorality in protestant societies is the result of not following scripture.
stmcgarret - Priests are normal human beings. So, they can make mistakes, even though it is not good to make mistakes.
Some people are gays. It is unfortunate. If you force gays to marry women, it is not going to do any good
It is sad that u focus on 1% bad priests& ignore 99% good priests.
Lots of the child molester priests you see today were molested by protestant school teachers when they were young. Also, the protestant sex saturated media contributed to their making mistakes
mysterium - I don't know where you get your numbers but it is not 1% but much higher. As I have already stated, the issue of child molestation, fornication,etc. in the priest hood is a 2ndary issue. The issue is that the Scriptures are being broken by the RC religion where men, in the Latin branch, are forbidden to marry. This is a doctrine of devils(I Tim 4:1-3) and goes against the express teachings where 1 of the main requirements of an elder is to be married and have a family.
stmcgarret - Jesus deciples' did not marry. Was that the violation of scripture?
Paul said that when you are serving God it is better not to marry. A married man is busy in serving his wife. Un-married man can devote himself to God only.
Only 0.43% Catholic priests were accused of molesting children sexually. That means 99% of them are doing good being celibate priests. If that does not work for them they can quit and become married.
The difference is we may consault the Chruch Fathers, but only in accordance with what is actually said in the scripture. What we will not accept however is that the words of any man can be respected equally to or above the bible...
nicodemous52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you think you are a good person?
oNallieGirl 8 months ago
A very good presentation. The simple fact is that traditions are inevitable. We need to have some way of doing things. We will try to ground our ways in what we wish to see as truth. We will teach others to act as we do. Most especially we will teach our ways to our children. Thus a tradition is born. Does it not follow that God, seeing our human need to have a tradition to follow, would provide for us this need. Read your Bible, He did provide. Our Father doesn't give us scorpians & stones.
VictorLepanto 8 months ago
I am not a catholic nor have i ever been and you are exactly correct.
LovingScrubbies 8 months ago
I think you're getting confused with original Protestants and later third-wave Evangelicals. Lutherans believe in Sola Scriptura, but they also accept that there is a tradition. However they state that the way to find out what is proper tradition is through scripture. Tradition that contradicts or is not at all found in scripture is rejected. The Bible therefore becomes a 'screen' for tradition.
Evangelicals is what you're describing. They believe that 'Scripture Interprets Scripture'.
Reazzurro90 9 months ago
@Reazzurro90
They can't. It's impossible. The moment the leaders of their church render any decision that affects the life of their members they are stepping outside of sola scriptura and assuming an authority to themselves. It is the men who are deciding what is the proper tradition. That is what the catholics do. The singular diff is that they do not want to follow the roman pope.
LovingScrubbies 8 months ago
@LovingScrubbies
I'd say there is some truth to this. All churches follow a certain tradition, whether admittedly or not. If the Assemblies of God makes a declaration on alcohol or smoking, it is considered authoritative, pretty much. Though it isn't declared infallible. However I'd also assume that retraction would be difficult.
Ultimately it comes down to who has the proper tradition.
Reazzurro90 8 months ago
@Reazzurro90 I think"sola scriptura"is empty rhetoric esp since there was a christian church BEFORE there was a christian bible. Hence the"bible"was based on the church. Christianity was never based on"the bible".
LovingScrubbies 8 months ago
@LovingScrubbies
Fair enough. But how do you differentiate between what tradition is good and Christian and that which is not?
Reazzurro90 8 months ago
@Reazzurro90 Re chrisitianity u hav to believe jesus+apostles founded a church. In Cath teaching theWord of God is th Bible with the Church, &that theCathCh is that historical church they founded&has the authority in this matter. TheEasternOrthodoxCh believes this too but that the office of theRoman papacy over-reached it's authority. They are ALSO"Catholic"&claim to be the historical church. Then there isProtestantism which broke withRome in the west. Bizarrely u never ---->
LovingScrubbies 8 months ago
--->Bizarrely u never see aProtestant V EasternOrthodox confrontation on this issue. Prots are always restating their beefs with the RomanCh. Wouldn't that be a refreshing perspective to get? I would really like to see that becaus EOC gets roundly ignored in this debate. One hears lots of lipservice about theRC reunifying with theEOC &being"in communion"with some patriarchates of theEOC. Then what remains is whetherGod chose"Christianity"to replace Israel/Judaism as the authority for tradition.
LovingScrubbies 8 months ago
@LovingScrubbies "I think"sola scriptura"is empty rhetoric esp since there was a christian church BEFORE there was a christian bible."
Which is specifically mentioned by the apostles as authoritative1) their spoken and written words or 2) their written words and Catholic traditions?
Before the Bible was written what traditions did Jesus or the apostles teach us to keep that are not now recorded in the Bible?
Also when was the last time you received in person words from Jesus or the apostles?
troysz 6 months ago
@troysz That is exactly my thrust. It is a dilemma.
LovingScrubbies 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LovingScrubbies "I think"sola scriptura"is empty rhetoric esp since there was a christian church BEFORE there was a christian bible."
Which is specifically mentioned by the apostles as authoritative1) their spoken and written words or 2) their written words and Catholic traditions?
Before the Bible was written what traditions did Jesus or the apostles teach us to keep that are not now recorded in the Bible?
Also when was the last time you received in person words from Jesus or the apostles?
troysz 6 months ago
@LovingScrubbies "BEFORE there was a christian bible."
1. Are you able to hear the authoritative in person words of the apostles as the 1st century church was?
If yes tell me when and where?
If no, then you must admit that you cannot receive Jesus words in at least one of the ways that those living in his days on the earth did.
Nor can you receive the words of the apostles in at least one of ways that the 1st century church did.
troysz 6 months ago
@LovingScrubbies As you see now none of can practice all the ways the 1st century church received Gods word because we cannot received in person teaching from the apostles.
However we all can yet receive their written words just like the 1st century church did.
You do not live in a time before the Bible was written when apostles taught in person the sooner you realize that the better.
troysz 6 months ago
@Reazzurro90 "Ultimately it comes down to who has the proper tradition"..and how is a way to find this out?..Perhaps study of the early church writters, to see what those that where taught face to face by the apostles have to say? "Wherever Jesus is there is the Catholic church" ~ St Ignatius 30-107 A.D.....I tell you in just the writtings 3 apostolic fathers(those who where taught by the apostles face to face) I can basically rule out all churches beside the Catholic and the Orthodox church.
gtepp031387 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LovingScrubbies "The moment the leaders of their church render any decision that affects the life of their members they are stepping outside of sola scriptura and assuming an authority to themselves."
Not true! Just because a decision affects the lives of the members of a church does not make that decision a tradition.
Also you error in not understanding what commandments and/or traditions Jesus and the apostle taught us to avoid.
troysz 6 months ago
@LovingScrubbies For instance if a church decides to send the teens to Cedar Point once a year that is not the type of tradition that either Jesus or the apostles warned of.
However if a church said that only churches called "The Son's of God" are true churches (since the term is used in scripture), they are teaching something that neither Jesus nor the apostles taught.
They might of course say that the name is implied in scripture but they would be in error because names are stated >>>>>>>>
troysz 6 months ago
Comment removed
troysz 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LovingScrubbies <<<<< in scripture not implied. Rome is Rome, Israel is Israel, Greece is Greece, etc.
So contrary to what you claimed a church can make a decision that effects the lives of its members without assuming an authority equal to scripture or establishing a commandment and/or traditions of man of the type that both Jesus and the apostles clearly taught against.
troysz 6 months ago
@JesusisComingKJV1611 lol The fact that a church is named Baptist does not mean that John the Baptist was one of you.
backwoodsninja 9 months ago
@JesusisComingKJV1611 Constantine did not found either the Orthodox (original) Church or the Roman Catholic Church. The Church was ONE up until 1054 - the Great Schism. Your assertions are historically and factually baseless. Christ founded His Church in AD 33 @ Pentecost, Baptists are a post-Calvinist phenomenon (as a Denomination). This idea that Baptists aren't Protestant is silly and has been debunked solidly, they certainly hold to Luther's "Solas" (S Scriptura, S Fide, S Gratia).
StopMoColorado 9 months ago
@JesusisComingKJV1611 "Wherever Jesus is there is the Catholic Church" St Ignatious 107 A.D. over 200 years b4 Constantine took his fist breath.
gtepp031387 1 year ago 3
@gtepp031387 Notice that this is "Catholic", from Greek "kata" + "holos" Katholikos - "according to the whole/complete/full". This is not exactly the same as the later meaning of the Latin word "cattolica" (I studied Latin for 4 years, was a Gold Medalist in the National Latin Exam, and an ex-Roman Catholic). To place "Roman" before the word "Catholic" is to say something like "partial whole", "specifically general" or something like that. The Church was not founded in Rome, but in Jerusalem.
StopMoColorado 9 months ago
@StopMoColorado Well Jeruslem is one of the 5 sees, the first place the followers where called Christrian and Catholic was in Antioch, however Rome has allways held primacy since Peter and Paul appointed Linus as one with the authority to guide and tend the intire sheepfold.
gtepp031387 9 months ago
@gtepp031387 To say that Rome *always* held primacy, but then to trace its foundation to Peter and Paul (I agree that Peter &Paul, sent from Antioch, founded the Roman church) is a contradiction. The Church was founded in Jerusalem @ Pentecost in 33, Rome after 60 AD, and nowhere, in Scripture or in Pre-Schismatic Holy Tradition, is Linus entrusted as the shepherd over the other shepherds, each see was autocephalous. Ever read Pope Gregory the Great? He totally denounced RC's take on authority!
StopMoColorado 9 months ago
@StopMoColorado So your saying that the Pope of Rome was not the head of the church?
gtepp031387 9 months ago
@gtepp031387 Exactly - Christ is the Head of the Church. There is no need for a Vicar for Christ, since Christ is not absent, He is co-indentical (though not, in our world, co-terminal) with the Church, His incarnate body on Earth. This Church has many shepherds - each Apostle was given the keys and the power to forgive or retain (though Peter does have a position of pre-eminance & respect, though not of Lording or authority ; Christian authority is found in Service, not Lordship, Christ said).
StopMoColorado 9 months ago
@StopMoColorado Intresting, that is, that you word for word contridict the decree of ecumentical council...
"Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children." -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
gtepp031387 9 months ago
@StopMoColorado For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451
gtepp031387 9 months ago
@StopMoColorado "Blessed Peter, preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. ...And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see. To him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see, but also primate of all bishops...cont...
gtepp031387 9 months ago
@StopMoColorado ...Cont.. When, therefore, believe that he is speaking whose representative we are." -- Pope Leo, Sermon 3:3-4
gtepp031387 9 months ago
@StopMoColorado We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. -- Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25
gtepp031387 9 months ago
@StopMoColorado "When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ...Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference...but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts...cont...
gtepp031387 9 months ago
@StopMoColorado ..cont...Further to issue an authoritative instruction...so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound."-- Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449...shall I go on to show you how every see Reconized the authority of the bishop of Rome or will this sufice?
gtepp031387 9 months ago
@StopMoColorado "and nowhere, in Scripture or in Pre-Schismatic Holy Tradition, is Linus entrusted as the shepherd over the other shepherds"..This is a complete lie..there are numerous refferences to Linus being the authority and espeacially Clement after Linus...but first answere if the see of Rome was or was not the head of the church.
gtepp031387 9 months ago
Can you give any bible quotations to support your assertions?
malfini1 1 year ago
The very canon of Scripture is an Apostolic Tradition. Nowhere in Scripture is it written which books shall be accepted as Scripture and which books shall be left out. We (Catholic and Protestant) accept that canon of Scripture because it is the teaching that has been handed down to us.
backwoodsninja 1 year ago
@backwoodsninja Exactly. I Tim 3:15 states the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth (the measure, therefore, of Canon, and that which Christ founded before the formation of the New Testament). Let this sink in - The Church, NOT the Bible, is the measure of truth, and sets the Canons (like Scripture, Icons, the Didache, the Liturgy, etc.). Find this Church, & you find the proper "Paradosis" (teaching/tradition). This is far different than the "traditions of men", it's Orthodox, Apostolic.
StopMoColorado 9 months ago
@StopMoColorado "by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority" - St Irenaeus
gtepp031387 9 months ago
so, when the bible say God created the world in six literal days, we must look outside of the bible to see if it meant six thousand or million years. plz make your beliefs clearer for me my friend, Jesus says I am the light, the truth and the way, no one comes to the Father but by me. i know the bible appears to contradict itself at times but if ppl learn to do theme studies of the bible they would find out it doesnt. God established one church on earth and if the so-called protestants
sondreboi 1 year ago
wait! are you saying the bible does't teach sola scriptura?
sondreboi 1 year ago
@sondreboi
no, it doesnt. the bible never says that scripture alone is the only rule of faith and practice. Nor does it say that the word of God is limited only to what is written
OneTrueChurch 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@OneTrueChurch Re:the bible never says that scripture alone is the only rule of faith and practice. Nor does it say that the word of God is limited only to what is written
nor does it say that the word of God includes Catholic traditions. Nor does it say that the church is called the Catholic church. So if it is significant that it does not teach sola scriptura it is significant that it does no teach scriptura plus Catholicism
ttsqas 1 year ago
Abraham the father of faith seems to believe that scripture alone was enough And by the way all God given traditions have always became part of scripture (even when they began as oral tradition). OT...Circumcision, Sabbath day, Tithes etc. NT Lord's Supper, Baptism etc. Name one God given tradition that he gave to Israel which began orally and was not eventually written in scripture.
ttsqas 1 year ago
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:29-31
Wow! Amazing isin’t it how that Abraham says that if they don’t accept what Moses and the OT prophets said then they just won’t believe.
ttsqas 1 year ago
You need to work on your public speaking. Join Toastmasters. You are saying uh way too much.
Robtseward 1 year ago
ok genious so the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist churches are the only ones that teach correctly? if they do teach correctly why do they follow different doctrines. Looks to me like you are dead wrong buddy. beware of the churches you think teach correctly because they dont even teach the same things. i know you think you are doing the work of God but you are not. theres only one truth son, so why do your 3 churches teach different things? you need to get your facts straight youngster.
hhmarquez11 2 years ago
Jesus Christ has returned. I AM.
IAMJESUSmovie 2 years ago
While at bible school I was shocked to discover that Protestants don't stick to Sola Scriptura. Christmas Easter and heaven are all pagan concepts and Emperor Constantine changed the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday as well because he thought the Jews were 'odious people'. That's not the wild olive branch grafted into the true tree.(Rom 7-11) This is a completely different religion based on paganism where only the bible is true to the original.
yarrw 2 years ago
@yarrw
Constantine did not change the date yarrw. He decreed it for the Roman Empire but, based on what was already practiced long before throughout Christianity. For instance Justin Martyr in the 2nd century describes worship services "on the day of the SUN" Sunday. ...:)
imromancatholic 2 years ago
Maybe he was referring to sun god (Sol invictus, Mithra) worship. How much is lost when we have Easter in place of passover where Jesus rose from the dead on the 8th day (the new creation) not the 3rd day(pagan sun god symbolism). Remember that the sun and stars are a 4th day creation Gen 1:14 (for signs and times) so Jesus was crucified at the end of the 4th day of passover.
Coins have been found with Constantine and Sol invictus written on them.
yarrw 2 years ago
thats a really good question - one truth... i would say we would ... but i would add does the RCC follow the word of God...
i would say that the RCC has infact has added to the word of God with their man made tradtions...
they are so numerious i couldnt fit them on here ....
isnt easter and christmas catholic - borrowed from pagan teaching
loudmouthspeaker 2 years ago
Maybe it fits under 'Replacement theology". Pagan Easter replaces passover, the Church replaces Israel, Heaven replaces the 'new Jerusalem' and Christmas, well who knows where that belongs.
yarrw 2 years ago
Man made precepts - Replacement Theology.
All Christianity does it. Passover becomes Easter, the Sabbath becomes Sunday, Israel becomes the Church, new Jerusalem becomes heaven etc
yarrw 2 years ago
All good points... And Catholics should be firm in defending tradition from some of the radical Protestants out there.
But lets keep in mind all of the Catholics and Protestants on both sides who know that we are part of one Universal Christian body, regardless of denomination. Go Jesus!
phantom1539 2 years ago
Its not usually bad but is tradition and doctrine worth anything? In Matt 7:21 we are allowed into the kingdom of heaven based on one thing only.
Does Jesus KNOW us.
So Jesus (not Peter) stands at the pearly gates and says 'I don't KNOW you. Get away from me you evildoer."
yarrw 2 years ago
"It's basically a fact, alright, whether you wanna admit it or not; it's a fact that we interpret the Bible through the lenses of our traditions, of our churches, there's really no way to get around that, alright."
While I must compliment you on the grammatical construction of your opening remarks, I must disagree with the premise of your argument. How can assert your remarks as fact, when honest Bible study seeks to find the meaning of the text in the context of the audience?
dan8486 2 years ago
Comment removed
hopgoblin1 2 years ago
Spot on! While I'm from a protestant denomination, I agree with you saying "we" interpret the bible through tradition. I don't believe in one true denomination. I'm not in agreement with everything my church teaches, but it doesn't affect my salvation. In my opinion, the church is all of those washed by the blood of Jesus and do the will of the father. No matter what denomination.
seahawkers101 2 years ago
seahawkers101 - Your Opinion is WRONG.
Bible says church is the pillar of truth, not yoru personal opinion or personal interpretation.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
oh, I'm sorry. The church IS all those washed by the blood of Christ and do the will of the Father. No matter what denomination.
seahawkers101 2 years ago
seahawkers101 - Your protestant churches are not churches at all. Only Catholic and Orthodox churches are the true churches.
Not everyone who says lord lord will enter heaven. Lots of protestant pastors very loudly say lord lord during their performance oriented services.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
Go your way and I'll go mine. We'll find out at the end of the road.
seahawkers101 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - About the verse that says man leaves his parents and becomes one flesh with his wife.
Catholics actually follow that verse more than you Protestants. That's why Catholics have lower divorce rates. You Protestants on the other hand don't follow that verse and that's why you have higher divorce rate and cheating and pre-marital sex among you.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - Bible actually talks about three kinds of priests. Jesus is the high priest. Every Christian is a priest.
You deny it over and over again that it is ok to remain un-married when you want to serve God.
Catholics who can not control their passion get married. In eastern rite Catholic churches, priests can be married. Majority of the Catholic priests are doing good living a celibate life.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - Exactly. For some small percent of humans, homo sexuality is natural. According to your stupid logic, Gay men must be married to women.
Your logic will do more harm than good.
Instead of thinking that you are the infallible interpreter of the Scripture, you should join the Catholic church and get the interpretation of the scriptures from the Catholic church. Otherwise you are doomed with the mis-interpretation of the scripture by your low iq dumb pastors.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - This is talking about marriage. Where does it say that every man must be married?
Bible says that if people want to serve God it is better not to marry.
However if you are married and want to serve God, that is possible too. That's why Eastern rite Catholics has married priests.
You are unable to read bible as a whole. All you do is cherry pick verses from here and there and come up with WRONG CONCLUSIONS.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - YOU are the one who doesnt hold to scripture. That's why you do not see that it is perfectly biblical to not to marry when you want to serve God.
All you do is think with your penis and say that EVERYONE must be married?
It is perfectly biblical if people want to re-main unmarried for serving God, like what the Catholic priests do.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
I Cor 7:8-9 says it is good to re-main unmarried.
If some unmarried and widows think they can not re-main un-married, then they can marry.
However those who think they can re-main unmarried, they can remain unmarried.
You are trying to force everyone to marry. Why?
Scripture is clear that it is ok to be either unmarried or married. Both options are biblical.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - You are the one who denies scripture.
'But a man who is married is busy with things of the world, trying to please his wife.34 He must think about two things—pleasing his wife and pleasing the Lord.'
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - It is the beginning of discussion.
Priests think thy can re-main un-married. That's why they become priests. It works for 99% of the priests. It does not work only for 1% of priests. Many priests, who think it does not work for them quit and get married.
After you get married if you still burn in passion for another women, marry those women also.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
Rev.10 & 11 should be read chronologically. John is given a 'little book' in ch.10, and is told to 'eat it up'. This symbolizes the Christian who reads the Bible and understands what it says. Rev.11, then goes on to tell us what this 'little book' is and what it will do. The parallel to Rev.11 is found in Zech.4--same symbolism is employed by the prophet. "..word of the LORD...by my Spirit..." This is speaking of Scripture.
rkg62976 2 years ago
The Scriptures are the 'measuring rod' that are used to determine what is true doctrine, and what is false doctrine. No doubt there are many Protestants who fail to recognize the Scriptural support or negation of certain doctrines. But that doesn't mean the Scriptures are not sufficient. John calls them 'the two witnesses' in Rev.11, and they are the 'measuring rod' used to decide who is, and who is not the 'temple' of God (believers).
rkg62976 2 years ago
wow you are taking Rev 11 WAY out of context. when God tlaks about a "measuring rod" what he is telling John is to measure the number of people around the alter signifying that in the last days the number or true christians properly worshipping God will be realatively small it has NOTHING to do with the bible let alone sola scriptura! The "two witnesses" are two actual people wh will testify of Jesus its not referring to the old and new testament. this is a gross distortion of scripture
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Many Protestants of old recognized the day/year principle in reckoning prophetic time. De Launay applies the Two Witnesses to the Old and New Testaments, their message trodden down...in the schools and universities of the 'Antichristian Church of Rome'...he goes on, "It also goes without discussion that the 1260 days, according to prophetic style, mean 1260 YEARS, each day corresponding to a year." [Pierre De Launay (1573-1661), Paraphrase of the Apocalypse, p.299,307]
Day=Year in prophecy
rkg62976 2 years ago
I dont care what "many protestants" held to. It doesn't make sense in the context. besides, there was no New Testament at the time the book of Revelation was written the canon of the new testament would not exist as it does today for almost 400 years. On a side note, i have never erver heard a protestant make this argument before obviously because its so rediculous
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Most 'protestants' are futurists, such as yourself. During the counter-reformation, there was a Roman sect that was designed specifically for the purpose of getting people away from the Protestant movement and their interpretation that the day-year principle applied to all time prophecies. The Jesuits re-introduced two old fallacies: 1)Preterism, and 2)Futurism. The Jesuits would be delighted today to see so many 'protestants' falling for their futurism.
rkg62976 2 years ago
none of this has any bearing on Revelation 11 and your rediculous assertion that it is teaching sola scriptura. You lack the basic knowledge of exegesis
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Indeed, Rev.11 is telling us that the Old and New Testaments are the 'measuring rod' for the 'temple' (naos) of God (ie, all believers). This is what happens when Roman Catholics try to read the Bible. They can't. You may be able to read the words, but you will never understand it until it's too late. The time prophecy is 1260 YEARS, not literal days. I'm an Historicist; not a futurist or preterist. Neither system allows for proper prophetic interpretation.
rkg62976 2 years ago
the measuring rod is a literal measuring rod. He's telling John to measure the number of worshipers because in the last days there will be apostasy from the faith and the number of true believers will be few. And again, you never answered by objection that there was no new testament at this time
OneTrueChurch 2 years ago
Most believe that the book of Revelation was written c.95-96 A.D. The work was finished at the close of the first century. Once again, you are following the teachings of the Jesuit counter-reformation, which saw the 'antichrist' way off into the future. Rome had to interpret Scripture this way because all Protestants at the time saw the Roman system as the 'little horn', 'sea beast', and 'scarlet harlot', and saw the system lasting for 1260 YEARS, before receiving its 'deadly wound'.
rkg62976 2 years ago
@OneTrueChurch Please give me an example of one tradition that God gave to Israel which was
1. given to them orally
2. passed all the way down to Jesus's day orally
3. was never written in scripture
Also give an example of Jesus quoting one of these oral only traditions. He should be seen to say "it is said" rather than 'it is written". I await your example(s)
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas
sure. in Matthew 2 it says that it was spoken through the prophets that the messaih would be called a nazorean. This was never written down in the old testament scriptures
OneTrueChurch 1 year ago
@OneTrueChurch When I say tradition I meant in the context of Matthew 15 or Mark 7. Something that Israel was held accountable to do like circumcision, or tithes. The example you gave is a prophesy not a tradition. Prophesies are "fulfilled" traditions are "kept". This is why as you know the Pharisees asked Jesus "Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?" Traditions are expected to be followed, kepted or adhered to. cont'd
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas
A tradition is anything that is passed down. It can be either a precept or a prophesy. I was able to meet your challenge so now you are trying to "shift the goal post" and demand further evidence.
OneTrueChurch 1 year ago
@OneTrueChurch However time and time again when quoting a prophesy it is most often followed by "that it might be fulfilled" or "then was fulfilled that which was spoken by". Of course you already know this bing that you seem to be pretty well versed in the scripture. However in case you reject the clear evidence in scripture I will rephrase my request. Show me a tradition from God such as circumcison or tithes that was passed down orally and never written in scripture until Jesus lifetime.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas
ok, How about the tradition of moses's seat which Jesus talks about. He says that "the pharese's sit on Moses's seat so do as they say, not as they do" in Matthew 23:2. They old testament never talks about Moses's seat, this was an oral tradition that was passed down. John 10:22 talks about the feast of the dedication which is a reference to the Books of the Maccabbees which protestants do not consider to be part of the new testament
OneTrueChurch 1 year ago
@OneTrueChurch Please come on. That does not fit the examples I gave. I was quite clear and specific. That is not something which God gave to Israel and held them accountable for like circumcision ot tithes or like the Eucharist and baptism. Jesus was stating a fact not a tradition that the Pharisees sat in the position of religious leadership like Moses PERIOD. Seat or kathedra {kath-ed'-rah} refers to a position as teacher or judge (strong's 2515).
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas
I met you're challenge. You are trying to back peddle now and make extra criteria. You are trying to set parameters for what is admissible as evidence for tradition after the fact
OneTrueChurch 1 year ago
@OneTrueChurch So in other words no you can't give any examples of traditions which God gave Israel like circumcision or tithes. Something that they were required to do, or participate in. I have not back peddled at all that is a lie. I simply did not make myself clear enough to you. Nothing you presented was anything that God requires his people to practice. Instead of falsely accsuing me you could have the integrity to simply admit that everything that God expected of israel was written.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas
First, I'm not a furst century jew, so I wouldn't know what exactly their traditions were and whether or not all of them were found in the bible. But I did quote for you the feast of the dedication in John 10:22 which is found in the book of Maccabees which protestants do not consider to be scripture. Also you need to remember that the books of the bible are also a tradition. nowhere in scripture does it say which books make up the canon. This is based on oral tradition
OneTrueChurch 1 year ago
@OneTrueChurch Thank you very much. So in other words you cannot find any traditions that God gave Israel that he reqired them to do, practice, or participate in which was passed down orally and never mentioned in scripture but was quoted by Jesus. It is obvious that you see the problem this presents which this presents. Every tradition which God required to practice was written; every single one. This you know and it is obvious by your responses that you can't simply admit the truth.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OneTrueChurch Thank you. This exchange as well as others I have had with Catholics this week has led me to do a video series regarding some significant inconsistencies which became apparent. By the way I am not protestant. God bless you.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OneTrueChurch Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” He also made it clear that their traditions were not to be followed. “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Only where they taught the law was Israel to do as they say but not as they do. This is not a tradition.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OneTrueChurch God never gave Israel a tradition that told them to follow false teachers he instead warned them against this. Jesus was stating an obvious fact not a tradition.
ttsqas 1 year ago
@ttsqas Jesus made it clear that the Pharisees were not placed in their position by God “Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Cont’d
ttsqas 1 year ago
Comment removed
ttsqas 1 year ago
@OneTrueChurch Something like the Eucharist or baptism that God expected the people to practice, do, perform, or participate in. The reason for my request is that while I see that Jesus recognized those traditions which were passed down in scripture I see no evidence of him accepting those that were passed down orally only. The clear evidence is that anything that God expected Israel to "DO" was written though it may have began as oral tradition.
ttsqas 1 year ago
stmcgarrett - yes monogamous marriage is biologically un-natural. Just talk to any biologist.
However, God wants us to marry one person until death separates us. You Protestants dont like it, that's why you and your pastors get divorced and sleep around and cheat on your spouses.
You are the one who is denying scripture by not admitting that it is biblical to remain celibate if one chooses to do so for serving God. Sex saturated society has corrupted your brain.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - you are thinking with your penis. That's why you don't see that it is completely biblical to remain celibate if you want to serve God. I hope you sleep around, catch STDs get divorced and sleep around more.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - 32But I want you to be free from concern. One who is (A)unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 1 Corinthians 7:32-33
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - yes, if somebody wants to be married and serve God that is ok too. That's why deacons in Catholic Church can be married. That's why in Eastern rite Catholic churches, priests can marry.
Whether priests can marry or not is not a matter of doctrine, rather it is a matter of discipline. If church wants, it can change the rule in the future. Then you will see that the Pope and priests are getting married and making you happy.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - You don't know scripture. If you knew you would see that it is perfectly fine to choose celibacy to serve God, like the way Jesus disciples and Paul were celibate. That's why Paul said it is better to NOT marry when you serve God.
Wanting more women is due to biology. That is what your pastors do. They get divorced and marry more women, sleep around with lots of women before and after getting married. You learn this from them and you do the same thing.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - Exactly pride comes before fall. U learned pride and arrogance from Luther and thats why ur churches fell. That's why u have anarchy and chaos in ur protestant churches. That's why ur churches are tiny and God's true church the Catholic Church is huge.
Yes I have better understanding of scripture than u because my understanding of scripture comes the scripture and from the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Ur understanding of scripture is ur fallible interpretation of KJ bible.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarrett - I think way more pastors get drunk and fight with other pastors. Is that part of Protestant theology? Perhaps yes, as Protestantism means the anarchy and chaos. This is what happens when each of you become your own little Popes.
Jesus original church had corruption (money hungry Judas). Likewise all churches in the world have corruption, although it is not good.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
That is an easy one. Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath day by laying at rest before his ressurection the following day, thus leading the modern day Christians to celebrate the day of His resurrection as the Lord's Day. Do not confuse the Sabbath with the Lord's day. They are two seperate days. Even your Catholic leaders and Catholic Answers Live hosts adhere to that truth.
txrich1974 2 years ago
My main issue with the Catholic Church is not the sola scriptura vs tradition debate, my issue is on justification. It is clear that justification is by faith alone in Jesus Christ and through nothing else. Not by the works of the sacraments. before you try throwing James 2:14 at me, if you read the whole context, you will see james is stating that works are a fruit of salvation, not the other way around.
txrich1974 2 years ago
I was running out of character space on last post. I know Catholics like to go on and argue verses 24 and 25 in the same chapter as well. verse 24, james is once again pointing out the fact that true faith is never alone, it is always accompanied by the works as fruit of the faith. 25, Rahab was an example because her work of hiding the Hebrew spies came from the faith she had in God's saving grace for the Hebrews.
txrich1974 2 years ago
The matter is how we define saving faith. If by faith we mean "the mere knoweledge that God exists and will save us", then this faith is not enough to save us.
The saving faith is the faith informed by charity. God respects our will so he needs our cooperation to save us, he doesn't force anyone to be saved (vs irresistible Grace in Calvinism)
We are saved by faith becasue with no faith, we don't have the light to repent from our sins and walk towards him. See Mark10,17-19 and John 20, 21-23
michelexyz 2 years ago
Comment removed
DavidVelezPerez 2 years ago
Let's see, if someone says blacks are stupid and nig**S we are ok calling them biggots. If someone shows hatred of Cahtolcis and Catholicism , calling them liars all the time and saying they defend sodomites we should just sit back and listen to it. Sigh.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
Eh, sorry but it is a Scriptural command: "Hate the evil, and love the good" (Amos 5:14)
So where did I call you stupid or anything similar? No where
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Was Jesus a bigot when he called the Pharisees a brood of vipers, whitewashed tombs filled with dead man's bones, hypocrites? What about when he turned over the money changer's tables. Did Jesus hate the evil of their false religion?
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Is every preist a pedophile? That is the picture you are painting. You also seem to have a disconnect between truth and sin. Was the Jewish the wrong religion because they sacrified chldren along the way. Was David not God's chosen one because he had Bethsheba's husband killed to get his wife?
imromancatholic 2 years ago
I defend the doctrines, not the molesters as you have accused me of. The doctrines are a separate issue. That there are molesters in the Church is no proof against doctrine or we would have to reject all Christian denominatiosn because they all have child molesters and adulters in them. That's a fact.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
The issue is you deny the Scriptures which say an elder, bishop, etc. are to be married and have children. This being a qualification included in the list with all the other qualities; are those also optional like giving to filthy lucre, wine or a brawler?
stmcgarret 2 years ago
No it does not say the are to be married nad have children. It says they are to be the husband of one wife. The clear implication is that IF they are married they are not to have been divorced or polygamous, just as the early church said. It in no way says they MUST be married. Again Catholicism has married preists.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
Let's hold your feet to the fire. You said "
Provide the quotes please, and I'll provide you from Catholics who disagree with stated doctrine."
I did. Now show me someone in authority that disagrees with Catholic teaching on sodomy and pornography as you claimed you could. I'll not answer any more of your biggotry until you do.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
I shared with you the FACTS of the lives of the sodomite priests that EVERYONE knows about. They preached by their lives - hypocrites preach words that disagree with their lives. Get real.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
I don't know your facts. I know that you are a biggot and biggots lie. I know that there are hypocrit protestant pastors who do not practice what they preach. You may well be sitting in the pew every sunday with one. You don't know. I let God worry about dealing with them. Of course I am against their hypocrysy. I wasn't born yesterday as you seem to think. I'm not stupid as you seem to think.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
It is written that ad hominem attacks are the lowest form of debate and I'm sorry you are personally attacking me. You are 100% correct in that there are countless hypocrite "protestant" pastors and many I preach and teach against (eg Word faith Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, etc).
So here we agree and if these men were in my church, they would be kicked out via Scriptural church discipline. We are NOT to let God worry about them, we are to get the leaven out of the church.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
I attacked you? You accused me of defending sodomites. I've wasted enough time with your obvious biggotry today. You are so full of hate that you can't see your way out of it. It is plain for all to see. You just keep rolling out a shotgun blast of arguements. When I refute them you roll on to another.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
You have not refuted anything but in your own mind. I accused YOUR religion, not YOU. I just shared with you about how elders are to be married, and you deny it. Your reply was a refutation? Not so.
2. You called me a bigot - why? Because I hate the lies of Rome which I was raised in and how she denies Jesus? Yes, I hate the Roman Religion - guilty as charged.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
"I accused your religion, not you..."
"See -YOU have to defend your false religion because if it falls, you have no faith. Your religion and sodomite priest have destroyed countless lives yet YOU defend it, stand behind it , and EXCUSE IT."
Now who is the liar. I do not excuse sodomites and child molesters. Liar.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
So should Paul have been turned over to satan, saying "the good that I would do I do not, while the EVIL that I would not do I do"?
imromancatholic 2 years ago
Is this your understanding of that verse?
stmcgarret 2 years ago
I see you give me a challenge and then just slide off from it. Paul said "the good that I would do I do not, while the evil that I would not do I do.". Read websites like reformation com to read about sodomite protestant pastors. There are lots of them. Read the SBC's own admission that 11-13% of it's pastors, who probably speak against adultery have cheated on their wives. You love to point fingers but there four pointing back at your denominations. check out stop baptist pedophiles.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
See - you have to defend your false religion because if it falls, you have no faith. Your religion and sodomite priest have destroyed countless lives yet you defend it, stand behind it , and excuse it. Grand. What I say to the SBC is what Paul said to the man living in adultery with his father's wife, turn him over to satan for the destroying of the flesh for the saving of his soul if in fact he is saved.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
What a stupid post. I am defending sodomites? Really? I'm not defending the sodomites you abolute biggot! Really what kind of a biggot are you. I condemn sodomy. So does the Catholic Church in FaThe fact is that 70% of baptist pastors say they know of this behavior and don't turn them in.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
Then they are hirelings, just like the Catholics who deny a man to get married in absolutely denial of the qualifications of an elder found in Titus and Timothy.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
No there is your own false interpreation of timothy and twisting of Catholicism.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
Twist - oh you take the cake. What lies.
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the HUSBAND of one WIFE, having faithful CHILDREN not accused of riot or unruly." (I TIm 1:5-6)
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Now isn't that odd. It says "the husband of one wife". Why wouldn't it say "must be married". I'll tell you why. The passage applies to either or both the man must not be divorced and/or he must not be involved in polygamy, which was not uncommon at the time. It makes no sense if Paul was saying he must be married because Paul wasn't himself.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
Peter was married. Paul was an apostle, a traveling evangelist, not a bishop (i.e. elder) established in a local church.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (I Cor 9:5)
"And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. " (Mat 814)
stmcgarret 2 years ago
SO what if Peter was married. There are lots of married Catholic preists. EVen some in the western rite. There is a Lutheran pastor who became Catholci and remained married in our diocease. Eastern rite priests can be married and are in communion with rome. Celibacy is a practice, not a doctrine and it is not universal. Jesus himself said "to some it has been given". Paul endorses it in 1 Cor 7. But protestants in general don't have it. Funny.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
For ALL believers, not a requirement for the "priesthood." Read it in context. It is a doctrine that is formed on priests and thus, when they burn, the sadly turn to what they are surrounded with, men, boys and children. All because your religion denies the teaching that elders must be leaders of the home for if they cannot rule their house, how can they rule the family of God.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Doesn't say they MUST have children. Doesn't say the MUST have a wife. That is your twist. It says that if they do they must have an orderly home.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
One more for you"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."
stmcgarret 2 years ago
Catholic deacons are usually married so all you are showing is ignorance.
imromancatholic 2 years ago
Here you go again w/ slander and a lie; actually I know it well but was simply sharing the verse. I was in Rome for nearly 25 years.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
stmcgarret - commonly held belief was that Peter was married, but his wife died before he started following Christ.
in Western Catholic churches priests can not marry. This is a matter of decipline. if the church wants, it can change this in the future.
In General ,an unmarried priest can devote his life to the church better than a married priest with children. Trust me! This is perhaps a reason why Jesus' deciples were unmarried.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
Here is one more you can wrest unto your destruction.
"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND of one WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own HOUSE, having his CHILDREN in subjection with all gravity." (I Tim 3:1-4)
stmcgarret 2 years ago
stmcgarret - Paul gave several verses saying that it is even better to not Marry when a person serves God.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
Mysteriumaenigma - You are correct. A few key points. 1st, those verses were addressed to all believers, male and female, and not some elite priestly class. 2nd Paul specifically notes that if a man or woman burned and could not contain (that is be celibate), they should marry. For it would be better to marry than to burn in lust. By Rome and the Latin church cutting out this verse, so many priests have burned and as a result committed the most horrible crimes against little boys and girls.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
stmcgarret - Western rite churches did not cut out the verses that say it is better to marry rather than burning in passion.
Priests stay in the seminary for a long time before becoming a priest. Thy have all those years to think whether celibacy is for them or not. If not, they can quit the seminary and get married or become a married decon.
Even after becoming a priest, if he sees that he has too much passion, then he can quit the priesthood and become married.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
What you write is meaningless in light of the Scriptures. What of all these priests who have molested children? They were burning with passion. Likewise, read I Timothy and Titus where it clearly articulates that an elder and bishop are to BE married for if one cannot rule his own household Paul asks, then how can he rule the household of God. You are denying Scripture by holding to Catholic tradition. No different than what the Pharisees did.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
stmcgarret - Priests who molested children, if they think they are burning in passion, can quit and marry.
If you lust after another woman who is not your girlfriend or wife, perhaps then you should marry that another woman.
Each time you feel passion to some woman you should marry her and have millions of wives.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarret - Lots of married protestant pastor molest children, produce incest babies and cheat on their wives. You don't hear those because the media is anti-catholic and the protestant churches are de-centralized. However, like I said, all churches are run by ordinary men who can make mistakes, even though it is not good.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
That is a moot point and not relevant to the discussion. The issue is that in the Latin branch of Catholicism it is a mandatory requirement for a priest to be celibate. No such doctrine is taught in Scripture; rather voluntary on a one to one basis again as I said before NOT for "clergy" but for ALL believers. Paul even by inspiration deals with the forbidding to marry which the Spirit calls a doctrine of devils.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." (I Tim 4:1-3)
stmcgarret 2 years ago
stmcgarret - "forbidding to marry" I Tim 4:1-3
Priests choose a way of celibate life. Nobody is forcing them to become a priest. After becoming a priest if they don;t like celibate life they can quit and become married. Or they can go to Eastern right churches and be married there.
Jesus disciples were unmarried and it was helpful for them to devote themselves to the church. Nobody forced them to not to Mary. They chose that life like the priests choose their lives.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarret - But Paul also said that not marrying is even better when you are serving God.
Priests stay in the Seminary in the long time to decide whether celibacy is right for them or not.
Let's say 1% of all priests are child molesters. If so, for the majority of them celibacy is ok. That's what they decided when they stayed in the seminary for many many years. If they dont like it, they can quit priesthood and become married. Some priests did it.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarret - Of all the catholic priests who molest children, only 20% molested children under the age 11. 80% molested children between aged 11 and 18.
When you molest a child who is post pubescent, then you are not pedophile, rather you are a gay.
In this society we can not vilify gays. So, protestant media label all bad catholic priests as gays so that it is easy to vilify them.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
What is the point of your post? The crime is a horrendous crime; made even worse when it comes from one who professed to be a man of God.
Nevertheless this is the result of not following the Scriptures and also unregenerate hearts locked in dead religion. And even if there were no cases of abuse by priests, this still would not negate the clear teachings of Scripture as I have already written.
I hope you come to see this as I was once where you are today.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
stmcgarret - Point of the post is Protestant pastors molest more children than the Catholic priests. The Protestants and the media ignore those but blame only the Catholics. This is a hypocrisy. Go to stopbaptistpredators dpt com
"Why do you see the speck that is in your brothers eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
30K divisions in protestant church and the abuse of pastors and immorality in protestant societies is the result of not following scripture.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
stmcgarret - Priests are normal human beings. So, they can make mistakes, even though it is not good to make mistakes.
Some people are gays. It is unfortunate. If you force gays to marry women, it is not going to do any good
It is sad that u focus on 1% bad priests& ignore 99% good priests.
Lots of the child molester priests you see today were molested by protestant school teachers when they were young. Also, the protestant sex saturated media contributed to their making mistakes
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
mysterium - I don't know where you get your numbers but it is not 1% but much higher. As I have already stated, the issue of child molestation, fornication,etc. in the priest hood is a 2ndary issue. The issue is that the Scriptures are being broken by the RC religion where men, in the Latin branch, are forbidden to marry. This is a doctrine of devils(I Tim 4:1-3) and goes against the express teachings where 1 of the main requirements of an elder is to be married and have a family.
stmcgarret 2 years ago
stmcgarret - Jesus deciples' did not marry. Was that the violation of scripture?
Paul said that when you are serving God it is better not to marry. A married man is busy in serving his wife. Un-married man can devote himself to God only.
Only 0.43% Catholic priests were accused of molesting children sexually. That means 99% of them are doing good being celibate priests. If that does not work for them they can quit and become married.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago