Debate Between Budge And Raphael

[jeffpugh]

Better get on that thread

[Budge]

This Immaculate Conception stuff, actually defines the main difference between Catholics and Christians.

Christians look to God's Word to define truth, test spirits, test and define doctrine as the ultimate authority.

The ultimiate authority for Catholics is their own church, which terrible to say is rather circular, they cant be held to any standard because they PRODUCE all the standards for themselves. This means adding traditions and legends and conjectures and turning them into DOCTRINE.

There is nothing scriptural about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

To a Catholic thats not a problem, they trust in their other sources of authority...

but its a big time problem for a Christian.

[jeffpugh]

That's opinion. Now back it up. Then, Raph will give his counter argument. sound fair?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Budge' post='1379106' date='Sep 5 2007, 07:34 PM']This Immaculate Conception stuff, actually defines the main difference between Catholics and Christians.[/quote]
Catholics are Christians.

Belief in the immaculate conception is one of the many differences that exist between Catholics and other Christian groups.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1379106' date='Sep 5 2007, 09:34 PM']This Immaculate Conception stuff, actually defines the main difference between Catholics and Christians.

Christians look to God's Word to define truth, test spirits, test and define doctrine as the ultimate authority.[/quote]

Well, there is one problem with that. We used the Scriptures extensively, of course...more, in fact, than non-Catholic Christians, but we actually believe that when Jesus gave His Church the authority in Matthew 28, which Jesus Himself called "all authority in heaven and earth," we believe that. This is just one example, actually, of Catholics using the Scriptures more extensively and more faithfully than non-Catholic Christians. Nowhere does the Bible claim to be the sole authority, and so taking the Bible as the sole authority is a tradition of men. The Bible does, however, claim that the Church has all authority, and so not to accept that is the same as not believing in the Bible. So, who's really closer to being a Bible Christian?

[quote]The ultimiate authority for Catholics is their own church, which terrible to say is rather circular, they cant be held to any standard because they PRODUCE all the standards for themselves. This means adding traditions and legends and conjectures and turning them into DOCTRINE.[/quote]

Ah, so you expect me to accept from you the exact same argument (which can be found '[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=72449&view=findpost&p=1378039"]here[/url], paragraphs 1-3) I used against you the other day, reworded? You didn't respond to it when I used it. Are you trying to pass it off as your own logic? Well, perhaps I'll respond to it and extend to you the same courtesy you did not extend to me.

My answer is this: the ultimate authority for Catholics is not our own Church, but Christ, who founded our Church and promised to be with it and guide it, promised that hell would not prevail against it, and gave to it three distinct gifts: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. In those early years, since nothing was immediately written, everything was handed on by word of mouth, and so the Magisterium came first, because it was the body of bishops who were given the authority to teach. Of course, as they spread the Gospel by word of mouth, Tradition came forth, which was later put into writing, i.e. the Scriptures. Of course, the Scriptures and the Tradition are intimately bound together: the Tradition is the foundation of the Scriptures and the Scriptures often help us to understand Tradition.

You see, it's a pretty little picture you have...people all following the Bible and taking it for exactly what words are written, until you have a heresy to combat. Then you have to take those things written in the Bible and apply logic to gain from them certain principles. When you come up with these theological principles, you get Tradition, but you don't like to call it Tradition because you're afraid of that word. Of course, you also have to realize that there are things the Apostles didn't bother to write down in the Scriptures because they didn't see the Scriptures as "everything you need to know for salvation," but rather as an aid in spreading the Gospel. The work of spreading the Gospel would have gone on nonetheless with or without the New Testament: it had been going on at least for a little while that way. St. Peter converted 3,000 without using the New Testament at all. Tradition is a great thing. The Apostles, however, wanted to write things down in order to preserve that Tradition, and so they wrote the Scriptures. It is worth recalling that Jesus told the Apostles in Matthew 28 to teach the nations all that He had commanded them. Never once did we see Jesus writing something out for His Apostles, except some unknown comment in the sand on day in front of an adulteress. He did not give them Scriptures; He game them Himself, the Word of God Incarnate, whom they would preach to the ends of the world, by word of mouth and by written forms, the Tradition and the Scriptures.

The problem with sola scriptura is that you believe the Word of God, Jesus Christ, is reducible to the written word. We do not. We believe we come to know Him through Scripture and Tradition, but not perfectly, not enough, even, for salvation. We actually need to have a relationship with Him...something that is achieved through the sacraments, first Baptism and most importantly the Eucharist, where we do receive Him, all of Him, the Word Incarnate we can only get to know through the Scriptures and Tradition.

As for setting up our own standard, no, we do not. Anything the Church teaches comes from Jesus Christ. You claim a book, a sacred book, indeed, but a book...as your standard and the protection of your faith. We claim God. The only way to verify who is right is to look at what God did in giving His authority. Whoever has the authority is the one who sets the standard. Only the Catholic Church can trace itself to Christ's original gift of His authority.

[quote]There is nothing scriptural about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

To a Catholic thats not a problem, they trust in their other sources of authority...

but its a big time problem for a Christian.[/quote]

There is plenty Scriptural about the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. You, however, have not proven anything against it, while I have shown many times in this thread that it is true. Simply claiming that it us unscriptural will not get you off the hook. Let's not try deceptions and shifty arguments.

Now, Budge, if you will, please respond to the last post I gave you on the matter of the Immaculate Conception. I took the last turn, I provided an argument: now it's your turn to argue back.

God bless,

Micah

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Hey Budge, I'm going to be in Dallas at a ministry conference for a few days, but I eagerly await your response.

God bless,

Micah

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Budge, you seem to have neglected this thread since I left on Friday.

[jeffpugh]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Hey Budge, since you decided to return to Phatmass, I thought maybe you'd like to respond to this thread. I've long awaited your response.

God bless,

Micah

[Justin86]

I like this topic.

[Winchester]

my bump my bump my lovely lady.... no, wait a minute.....

[Winchester]

Are we surprised that this did not get a response?

[ardillacid]

Budge is busy saving the IRL world! Don't bother her.

[Selah]

[Galloglasses]

Oh, so this was that debate thread I was hearing about.