An Example of Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia?

[Belloc_Fan]

Not all that Jesus or apostles was recorded in Scripture. However, we don’t know what these other teachings were since they were not written down.
Secondly, how can something be binding on us if we don’t know exactly what it is?

Let’s reverse the order here. Your second claim is absolutely correct: to be binding, there has to be a mode of transmission which we can rely upon. So either moral dictates are lost (your first claim), *or *there’s Sacred Tradition, and a Church to tell us which traditions are Sacred (and binding), and which are man-made (and binding only when conforming to God’s Word).

So those are the two options. Which one does the Bible support? I’ve included a lot of verses which support the latter interpretation, and there a lot more than just those ones. The Church as “pillar and bulwark of Truth,” and all of the other “Catholic” verses about the role of the Church support the view of Jesus leaving us Apostles to disseminate His word and spread the Gospel (remember, the original Gospel - the Gospel of Christ - was spoken, not written), and the Apostles leaving successors to preserve this mode of communication (again, look at 2 Timothy 2:2)

What are these Sacred Traditions that were passed on to qualified teachers that are not recorded in the written Scriptures?

Your problem seems to be that you don’t see evidence of this practice described by the Bible, not that the Bible doesn’t describe it. So you’re risking elevating individual reason over Scripture.

Anyways, some early Church writings record things which had been previously oral tradition: calling elders “priests,” only allowing Eucharist to be offered by those approved by the Bishop, the primacy of Rome, etc. But these are all writings: many other things were passed down orally, and perhaps alluded to in writing, but largely assumed by believers. St. Ignatius of Antioch lived from about 35 to 110 A.D., and his letter to the Smyrnaeans assumes that his readers all believe in the Eucharist, and uses the fact that the Docetists don’t as evidence of their fallacy. He doesn’t try and prove that the Eucharist is Jesus, any more than a preacher today would try and constantly prove to his crowd that Jesus is the Son of God. So looking at the assumptions the early writers held tells us something of their common faith.

To my knowledge, there’s not some written list of oral traditions, but that doesn’t mean there’s no limit to what is or isn’t. It’s like the common law: there may not be a statute (civil law) recording what is and isn’t common law, or some list compiliing everything that could be considered common law, but the appropriate authorities (the judiciary) will interpret the law, civil and common, to see if it applies. The Church does the same thing - it applies the common and civil traditions of Christianity.

As you’ve identified, the alternative is to believe that Paul’s attempt to preserve these teachings of Christ failed. That there were some things that he tried to have passed on orally, but we just lost them. And if that’s true, what to make of Christ’s claim that he would send the Holy Spirit to “teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26), who will “be with you forever” (John 14:16)?

 

[justasking4]

Belloc Fan;4263447]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not all that Jesus or apostles was recorded in Scripture. However, we don’t know what these other teachings were since they were not written down.
Secondly, how can something be binding on us if we don’t know exactly what it is?

Belloc Fan
Let’s reverse the order here. Your second claim is absolutely correct: to be binding, there has to be a mode of transmission which we can rely upon. So either moral dictates are lost (your first claim), or there’s Sacred Tradition, and a Church to tell us which traditions are Sacred (and binding), and which are man-made (and binding only when conforming to God’s Word

).
Its not just the mode of transmission that is important but even more so what exactly are these things that are binding. No amount of appealing to a church is going to help unless we know know exactly these things are.

So those are the two options. Which one does the Bible support? I’ve included a lot of verses which support the latter interpretation, and there a lot more than just those ones. The Church as “pillar and bulwark of Truth,” and all of the other “Catholic” verses about the role of the Church support the view of Jesus leaving us Apostles to disseminate His word and spread the Gospel (remember, the original Gospel - the Gospel of Christ - was spoken, not written), and the Apostles leaving successors to preserve this mode of communication (again, look at 2 Timothy 2:2)

Just because the apostles appeal to some kind of “traditions” does not mean those that were carrying on their work would know specifically what these traditions were unless they were written down. This certainly would be necessary for those who lead centuries later.

 

[ralphinal]

ja4,
Were you a member of a fraternaty or sorority? Have you ever been a member of any group that had some sort of initiation or rites?

 

[justasking4]

Belloc Fan;4263447]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What are these Sacred Traditions that were passed on to qualified teachers that are not recorded in the written Scriptures?

Belloc Fan
Your problem seems to be that you don’t see evidence of this practice described by the Bible, not that the Bible doesn’t describe it. So you’re risking elevating individual reason over Scripture.

It is through our minds that we are decieved. We are commanded in Scripture to use our minds to determine truth from error. I Thess 5:21 is one such command where it is written:
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

This command is paramount for believers to determine truth from error.

Anyways, some early Church writings record things which had been previously oral tradition: calling elders “priests,” only allowing Eucharist to be offered by those approved by the Bishop, the primacy of Rome, etc. But these are all writings: many other things were passed down orally, and perhaps alluded to in writing, but largely assumed by believers. St. Ignatius of Antioch lived from about 35 to 110 A.D., and his letter to the Smyrnaeans assumes that his readers all believe in the Eucharist, and uses the fact that the Docetists don’t as evidence of their fallacy. He doesn’t try and prove that the Eucharist is Jesus, any more than a preacher today would try and constantly prove to his crowd that Jesus is the Son of God. So looking at the assumptions the early writers held tells us something of their common faith.

All this tells us is what certain people believed and not what the entire church believed. It took centuries before things were “codified” into a body of doctrines etc.

To my knowledge, there’s not some written list of oral traditions, but that doesn’t mean there’s no limit to what is or isn’t.

This is the great weakness in the arguments for Sacred Tradition. It is not quantified and is really useless since a person can make it out to be almost anything. Compare this with Sola Scriptura where all doctrines must find there support explicitedly in Scripture.

It’s like the common law: there may not be a statute (civil law) recording what is and isn’t common law, or some list compiliing everything that could be considered common law, but the appropriate authorities (the judiciary) will interpret the law, civil and common, to see if it applies. The Church does the same thing - it applies the common and civil traditions of Christianity.

It really up to whims of those in power to say what it is. A good example of this the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary. Both of these doctrines were unknown for centuries and have no support in the Scriptures. Instead they are based on nebulous “traditions”.

As you’ve identified, the alternative is to believe that Paul’s attempt to preserve these teachings of Christ failed. That there were some things that he tried to have passed on orally, but we just lost them. And if that’s true, what to make of Christ’s claim that he would send the Holy Spirit to “teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26), who will “be with you forever” (John 14:16)?

All that Christ wanted to be passed on can be found in the written Scriptures. It may not be exhaustive but it is sufficent for all believers to be saved and come to a knowledge of Christ. It is sufficent for us to grow in Him.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

All that Christ wanted to be passed on can be found in the written Scriptures. It may not be exhaustive but it is sufficent for all believers to be saved and come to a knowledge of Christ. It is sufficent for us to grow in Him.

Where are you getting this from Scripture? 2 Timothy 3:16 never says to ignore Tradition. Can you defend your last post from sola Scriptura?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

It is through our minds that we are decieved. We are commanded in Scripture to use our minds to determine truth from error. I Thess 5:21 is one such command where it is written:
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

This command is paramount for believers to determine truth from error.

1 Thess 5:21 is important, but so is Isaiah 55:8-9, which says

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So it is through private reason that we know that Christianity is true. But once we believe that Christianity is true, we still accept things (like God punishing His innocent Son for our sins) which may no comport with our private concepts of justice or morality. Likewise, I accept Catholicism through private reason, because I know it is true. But that means that sometimes the Church says things I wouldn’t have come up with by my own private reason.

To say, “here’s what I believe on every issue,” and try and make God or the Church comport to those views is putting yourself above God. There’s a lot of humility and submission required to be fully Christian, but you’re right that it doesn’t require us to just discard our brains.

All this tells us is what certain people believed and not what the entire church believed. It took centuries before things were “codified” into a body of doctrines etc.

Ok, by that standard, *sola Scriptura *has never been a Christian view, because it’s never been dogmatically defined (and is wrong).

And the Church Fathers were assuming their audience believed these things precisely because virtually the entire Church believed them, and because those who didn’t were considered heretics. You’re right that there wasn’t a Church council on this, but that’s irrelevant from both a Catholic and Protestant perspective. The Apostles held one ecumenical council (Acts 15) - that didn’t make their other declarations wrong.

This is the great weakness in the arguments for Sacred Tradition. It is not quantified and is really useless since a person can make it out to be almost anything. Compare this with Sola Scriptura where all doctrines must find there support explicitedly in Scripture.

“A person” can’t just do whatever. The Magisterium of the Church determines what is and isn’t, and has things like ecumenical councils, encyclicals, etc., explaining. Besides, many of these things are commonly held by all Christians without official dogmatization.

And using sola Scriptura, there are a near infinite number of variants of Protestant theology, plus countless denominations. And it’s precisely because if every person is to interpret Scripture in light only of their own reason, every person will come to a different conclusion.

And if you’re going to say it must be** “explicit” **in Scripture, justify sola Scriptura itself. Whatever implications you might read into cherry-picked verses, there is no explicit affirmation of the doctrine ever, nor evidence that the early Church believed this at all. Or justify your belief that tradition died out with the Apostles, even after they set up methods to carry them on after their deaths. Basically, show me where Scripture says the Apostles failed in this aspect of their mission.

It really up to whims of those in power to say what it is. A good example of this the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary. Both of these doctrines were unknown for centuries and have no support in the Scriptures. Instead they are based on nebulous “traditions”.

Both the claim that these doctrines were unknown for centuries, and that it has no support in Scripture are untrue.

All that Christ wanted to be passed on can be found in the written Scriptures. It may not be exhaustive but it is sufficent for all believers to be saved and come to a knowledge of Christ. It is sufficent for us to grow in Him.

The conclusion that tradition isn’t necessary, that it’s just some bonus that we lost but can live without, is just an assumption. There is zero Scriptural support.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, why is it you’re justifying using only Scripture without using any Scripture (other than your signature tag)? Where is the Scripture supporting:
(1) the Bible as we know it being considered exhaustive canon?
(2) Scripture being the only thing we need?
(3) that Scriptural justifications must be explicit? (especially since most of the invocations of the OT in the NT refer to things which *aren’t * explicit prophesies?)
(4) that extra-Biblical practices are anti-Biblical? (especially since Paul bound his readers to continue to practice them, and to pass them down)
(5) that the individual is the final arbiter of what Scripture says, and means?

 

[justasking4]

Belloc Fan;4263917]
Originally Posted by justasking4
All that Christ wanted to be passed on can be found in the written Scriptures. It may not be exhaustive but it is sufficent for all believers to be saved and come to a knowledge of Christ. It is sufficent for us to grow in Him.

Belloc Fan
Where are you getting this from Scripture?

2 Timothy 3:16 and various other passages such as I Peter 2:2.

2 Timothy 3:16 never says to ignore Tradition.

Nor does it say to embrace it either. In fact there is no passage in Scripture that i’m aware of that says tradition is sufficent for us.

Can you defend your last post from sola Scriptura?

I could but i think were getting off topic.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

2 Timothy 3:16 and various other passages such as I Peter 2:2.

Both verses were written before the modern canon was completed, so on face, don’t say, “ignore everything but what has been written down.” 1 Peter 2:2 isn’t even referring only to Scripture, but to all of God’s word. If God’s word has been passed on through oral transmission, as the verses I cited early say, then it would actually be wrong to ignore them.

Nor does it say to embrace it either. In fact there is no passage in Scripture that i’m aware of that says tradition is sufficent for us.

It *does *say to embrace it! I just cited (post #334) a multitude of verses which say exactly that. You’re just disregarding everything you don’t agree with, without even an explanation.

But you’re right. The straw man argument of “tradition alone” isn’t support by Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium, the Church, or anyone that either of us could point to. It is, in fact, explicitly denounced. So *sola tradition *is wrong, just like sola Scriptura.

I could but i think were getting off topic.

You’re attacking tradition, but without any evidence… how does this get us off topic?

 

[justasking4]

Belloc Fan;4264020]
Originally Posted by justasking4
It is through our minds that we are decieved. We are commanded in Scripture to use our minds to determine truth from error. I Thess 5:21 is one such command where it is written:
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

This command is paramount for believers to determine truth from error.

Belloc Fan
1 Thess 5:21 is important, but so is Isaiah 55:8-9, which says

Quote:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

What is the context for Isaiah 55?

So it is through private reason that we know that Christianity is true.

Not only. Reason is required that we think and reason these things through. The HS is Who convicts us of sin and it is the Spirit that testifies to us that we are the children of God.

But once we believe that Christianity is true, we still accept things (like God punishing His innocent Son for our sins) which may no comport with our private concepts of justice or morality.

Not necessarily so. Part of the OT is to give people a framwork to understand this by the animal sacrifices that foreshadowed the death of Christ as a ransom for our sins.

Likewise, I accept Catholicism through private reason, because I know it is true. But that means that sometimes the Church says things I wouldn’t have come up with by my own private reason.

This may be true when you are young in your faith but later you may be required to apply I Thes 5:21 to it. This process can be very uncomfortable.

To say, “here’s what I believe on every issue,” and try and make God or the Church comport to those views is putting yourself above God. There’s a lot of humility and submission required to be fully Christian, but you’re right that it doesn’t require us to just discard our brains.

We also have to be on guard with the warning from Scripture that false teachers will come into the church and decieve many. That’s why we must not accept what a given church says as being true unless we have a standard to test what they say is true. That standard is the Scriptures since they alone are inspired-inerrant.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

What is the context for Isaiah 55?

I’m not sure how to answer this question. What do you mean?

Not only. Reason is required that we think and reason these things through. The HS is Who convicts us of sin and it is the Spirit that testifies to us that we are the children of God.

I’m not saying it’s through private reason alone that we know that Christianity is true. You’re right that the Holy Spirit is really important. And the Holy Spirit does a whole lot more than just convict us of sins, and testify that we are children of God. Reason doesn’t displace the Spirit, and reason alone is always insufficient. Reason has to submit to, and grow within, the Holy Spirit.

Not necessarily so. Part of the OT is to give people a framwork to understand this by the animal sacrifices that foreshadowed the death of Christ as a ransom for our sins.

No, necessarily. We can’t say God’s thoughts are wrong b/c our thoughts disagree with it. You can’t accept the source of truth and then reject the conclusions.

This may be true when you are young in your faith but later you may be required to apply I Thes 5:21 to it. This process can be very uncomfortable.

I’m not saying never ask questions about your faith. But I’m saying, determine what the word of God is, not what you think the word of God should be.
So if, through private reason and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I’m lead to the Scriptures and the Church, I can’t then decide not to believe in them just because I don’t like the conclusions.

Your use of private reason may leave you feeling that homosexuality is ok, but once you read in Scripture it’s not, it’s case closed. You come to this conclusion through obedience, and you refine your intellect and reason to understand *why *this is true. It’s what theologians call “faith seeking understanding.” We believe the Church is Scriptural: not merely that what it believes matches up with what we understand Scripture to say, but that Scripture and the Church point to one another.

So for Catholics, it’s entirely uncompelling to hear that when *you *read certain verses you come to a different conclusion then the Church. When the eunuch in Acts 8:26-40 read Scripture, he understood it differently than did the Apostles, but rather than complaining that the Apostles must be wrong, he had the humility to admit that Scripture **alone **doesn’t make sense without its proper Apostolic context and guidance (Acts 8:30-31).

We also have to be on guard with the warning from Scripture that false teachers will come into the church and decieve many. That’s why we must not accept what a given church says as being true unless we have a standard to test what they say is true. That standard is the Scriptures since they alone are inspired-inerrant.

You keep saying this thing about Scripture alone being inspired-inerrant, but all of the unanswered verses from post #334 say that isn’t true. Scripture says Scripture isn’t the only inspired mode of transmission of God’s word. 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn’t say that Scripture is the only mode, and 1 Peter 2:2 refers to the word of God as a whole. Assuming that this refers only to Scripture is literally to assume your conclusion. You can’t say Scripture is the only inspired mode because Scripture is the only inspired mode. That’s not using reason - it’s just an unreasonable assumption. Particularly when Scripture says otherwise. Besides that, applying Scripture as the basis of the Church’s authority, we find that it’s set up in Matthew 16, referred to elsewhere, and accepted as true by the early Church.

If you were to think of the word of God as the Constitution, and God’s commands being law (common law in the case of Sacred Tradition, civil law in the case of Holy Scripture), the Church is something akin to the Supreme Court, binding and loosening, *applying *the word of God. Just like, once you acknowledge the Supreme Court is the legitimate arbiter of the Constitution (Because Article III sets it up), you can’t just say, “well, I’m not going to follow its conclusions, because it doesn’t conform with my view of the Constitution.” Who put you in place to judge the whole Church, the “pillar and bulwark of Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)?

 

[justasking4]

Belloc Fan;4264366]
Originally Posted by justasking4
We also have to be on guard with the warning from Scripture that false teachers will come into the church and decieve many. That’s why we must not accept what a given church says as being true unless we have a standard to test what they say is true. That standard is the Scriptures since they alone are inspired-inerrant.

Belloc Fan
You keep saying this thing about Scripture alone being inspired-inerrant, but all of the unanswered verses from post #334 say that isn’t true. Scripture says Scripture isn’t the only inspired mode of transmission of God’s word. 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn’t say that Scripture is the only mode, and 1 Peter 2:2 refers to the word of God as a whole. Assuming that this refers only to Scripture is literally to assume your conclusion. You can’t say Scripture is the only inspired mode because Scripture is the only inspired mode. That’s not using reason - it’s just an unreasonable assumption. Particularly when Scripture says otherwise.

The only time the word of God was oral was when the prophets, Jesus and His apostles taught. Since they have died out all we have is the written word of God. There is no “oral word of God” today that is considered Scripture i.e. inspired-inerrant.

Besides that, applying Scripture as the basis of the Church’s authority, we find that it’s set up in Matthew 16, referred to elsewhere, and accepted as true by the early Church.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

If you were to think of the word of God as the Constitution, and God’s commands being law (common law in the case of Sacred Tradition, civil law in the case of Holy Scripture), the Church is something akin to the Supreme Court, binding and loosening, applying the word of God. Just like, once you acknowledge the Supreme Court is the legitimate arbiter of the Constitution (Because Article III sets it up), you can’t just say, "well, I’m not going to follow its conclusions, because it doesn’t conform with my view of the Constitution.

It is true that men are to interpret. Christ gave the church pastor-tecahers to do this. However, that does not mean all of their teachings are true just because they belong to a given church. No man is infallible. He can and does err. This is especially true in the Catholic church where its leaders have proclaimed on their own they cannot error in matters of faith. We know this is not true when we compare some of their teachings with Scripture.

" Who put you in place to judge the whole Church, the “pillar and bulwark of Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)?

We are all commanded to be on guard against false teachers. 2 Peter 2:1 and Acts 20:28-31. These teachers can be your own leaders. In fact the Lord Jesus in Revelation 2:2 commends the church at Ephesus for “testing” its leaders i.e. so called apostles.
You have a responibilty in Christ to hold your leaders accountable to the word of God.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

The only time the word of God was oral was when the prophets, Jesus and His apostles taught. Since they have died out all we have is the written word of God. There is no “oral word of God” today that is considered Scripture i.e. inspired-inerrant.

There is no “oral word of God” today considered Scripture because Scripture, by definition, refers to the written word. But the idea that the oral word of God died out with the last Apostle is patently false. Through much (or even most) of Christian history, most people couldn’t read, especially not on the level necessary to read and understand Scripture. So oral testimony was (and continues to be) an important tool of evangelization and spiritual growth. That’s why, to this day, stained glass windows exist - they summarize the word of God into easier to understand pictures to remind people of what they’ve learned.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

I mean, it’s fair to say, “I’m sure the Bible is 100% accurate, I’m not sure about the Church.” So you then have a religious question: “is the Catholic Church established by God to be a pillar of infallible truth?” And the Bible says yes. Yes, it’s established (Matthew 16:17-19), it’s a pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), it’s guided by Jesus to the end of time (Luke 1:33, Matthew 28:20), entitled to speak on behalf of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28, Luke 10:16), etc.

Finally, Jesus suggests that there’s more that’s going to be revealed through the Holy Spirit after He leaves:

John 16:12-15 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. "

To me, the weight of this evidence all pretty clearly says that we’re left with an infallible church, guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Once I accept that, relying on Scriptural evidence alone, I now have to listen to what the Church has to say.

My point is that Scripture, by itself, says (a) there’s more than just Scripture, and (b) it’s found in the Church.

It is true that men are to interpret. Christ gave the church pastor-tecahers to do this. However, that does not mean all of their teachings are true just because they belong to a given church. No man is infallible. He can and does err. This is especially true in the Catholic church where its leaders have proclaimed on their own they cannot error in matters of faith. We know this is not true when we compare some of their teachings with Scripture.

The individuals can, and do, err. No leader in the Catholic Church teaches that the leaders can’t personally fail. Think of it this way: Peter was morally in the wrong individually numerous times (hanging out with only Jews when in mixed companies, denying Christ, etc.), but Protestants and Catholics alike think his Holy Spirit inspired writings (1 Peter and 2 Peter) as well as his Holy Spirit inspired speaking (Acts 2:15-36, for example) were infallible. The Catholic Church claims no more authority for its present pope than it claims for the first pope.

We are all commanded to be on guard against false teachers. 2 Peter 2:1 and Acts 20:28-31. These teachers can be your own leaders. In fact the Lord Jesus in Revelation 2:2 commends the church at Ephesus for “testing” its leaders i.e. so called apostles.
You have a responibilty in Christ to hold your leaders accountable to the word of God.

We agree with the need to be on guard against individual heresy. Catholics will agree with us - the phrase “Athanasius contra mundum” comes from an actual period of Church history, where it appeared that only one man was willing to stand up for authentic Church beliefs.

I’m saying that there’s a difference with saying an individual Christian is wrong or heretical, and that Christianity is wrong or heretical (in this case, Catholic and Christian are interchangeable, and it’s equally true for me). So we *should *be on guard against heresies, but that doesn’t give us the right to subject the whole religion to our “reason.”

As Athanasius said: "If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. "

 

[guanophore]

Not all that Jesus or apostles was recorded in Scripture. However, we don’t know what these other teachings were since they were not written down.

You cannot know, ja4, since they are only accessible through the Apostolic Tradition, which you reject.

Secondly, how can something be binding on us if we don’t know exactly what it is?

One is not held accountable for what one does not know. However, since you have been made aware here on CAF, it is incumbent upon you now to reject that of which you have been made aware. Therefore, you are now accountable for that to which you have been exposed. You will have to give an account for your refusal to accept that Sacred Tradition does, in fact, exist.

What are these Sacred Traditions that were passed on to qualified teachers that are not recorded in the written Scriptures?

You cannot know these unless you are willing to accept the Teaching that was handed on by the Apostles. You have been made aware that this exists, is valid, and has been embraced by those who follow the Traditions of the Apostles, as commanded in scriptures. If you continue to deny and reject them, you will be held accountable for your hardness of heart.

 

[guanophore]

It is through our minds that we are decieved.

We can be, certainly, but we are just as vulnerable through the emotions and the body.

We are commanded in Scripture to use our minds to determine truth from error. I Thess 5:21 is one such command where it is written:
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

No, ja4, that is not what this means. What we are commanded to do is “examine”. There are many ways to examine things, in addition to our own (often limited) reasoning abilities. The Church has always “examined” through the lens of Sacred Tradition. Some examination comes through divine revelation, as we see in Acts, when God poured out the HS on the house of Cornelius to show Peter that the gospel was for the Gentiles. Peter testified “God made choice among you that I…”.

It did not make logical sense to Peter that the HS should fall upon Cornelius, but he recognized the signs of the HS working, and obeyed what Christ had taught by baptizing them all.

When there was dispute, Peter brought up this experience as a testimony to where the Spirit was leading. This is how Sacred Tradition is used to “examine everything”. The reliance on our own very limited reasoning ability is just not sufficient.

This command is paramount for believers to determine truth from error.

I agree. This is also why the Church is called the “pillar and groudn of the truth”. Examination of the truth must be consistent with what has been revealed to the Church by God.

All this tells us is what certain people believed and not what the entire church believed. It took centuries before things were "codified" into a body of doctrines etc.

This is true. The working out of the Trinity and the nature of Christ, along with the canon of the NT did take centuries. We accept them nonetheless because they are part of Aposotlic Teaching.

This is the great weakness in the arguments for Sacred Tradition. It is not quantified and is really useless  since a person can make it out to be almost anything.

I am sorry, ja4,but revelation from God is not something that can be “quantified”. It is entrusted to the saints, who are commanded to pass it on to the disciples.

If you have no use for anything that cannot be “quantified” then you are really wasting your time attempting to pursue spiritual matters at all. It might be better if you confine yourself to chemistry, physics and mathematics. The Gospel is a mystery, and as such, defies “quantification”.

Compare this with Sola Scriptura where all doctrines must find there support explicitedly in Scripture.

This one cracks me up! Yet, there is no SS explicitly in scripture.

It really up to whims of those in power to say what it is.

Such a statement reflects the mind and heart of a person who has been badly abused by authority figures who have misused their power.

Jesus is Head of the Church, and He does not operate on “whims”.

A good example of this the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary. Both of these doctrines were unknown for centuries and have no support in the Scriptures. Instead they are based on nebulous “traditions”.

This is equivalent to saying that the doctrine of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the inspired Scriptures were “unknown for centuries” because they had not been dogmatically declared.

All that Christ wanted to be passed on can be found in the written Scriptures.

If you beleive this, why are you here? How is it that you cannot nestle up with you bible, and be content? What keeps you from the contentment that you claim to have in them?

Something seems to compel you to attack others that do not share you beliefs…

It may not be exhaustive but it is sufficent for all believers to be saved and come to a knowledge of Christ. It is sufficent for us to grow in Him.

If you have sufficiency, what do you need on CAF?a

 

[guanophore]

2 Timothy 3:16 and various other passages such as I Peter 2:2.

Let’s examine these:

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Scripture is profitable, and necessary, however, teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness come from many sources, in addition to the Holy Scripture. Jesus provided all these things to His Apostles personally. They, in turn, trained their successors the same way.

The reason that scripture is “useful” for these things is that scripture does not “act” on it’s own. All these actions require a person, with intellect and will, which Scripture does not have. In order for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness to occur, persons must be involved.

Now let us look at Peter:

1 Peter 2:1-3
2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation — 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

You have been trained to believe that “pure, spiritual milk” is Scripture alone. However, there is nothing in this passage that would indicate that. Where the disciples have tasted is the preached gospel that was delivered to them by the Apostles. I will agree that a portion of this did eventually find it’s way into writing, but when Peter is writing this passage, he is not referring to the NT, which did not yet exist. This passage refers to the teaching of the Apostles.

Neither does it indicate in any way that this pure spiritual milk is confined to the scriptures, of which all they used at the time were a couple of Paul’s letters and the Septuagint.

Nor does it say to embrace it either.

You are right, that these two verses do not say to embrace Tradition. However, right doctrine is not formed by cherry picking a couple favorite verses and ignoring the rest. All the evidence must be taken into account, for example:

2 Thess 2:15
" So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter."

You say that Traditions that were delivered by the Apostles by word of mouth should not be “embraced”. I will use a Protestant source for this, so that you may be more receptive:

HOLD (DOWN, FAST, FORTH, ON, TO, UP), HELD, HOLDEN, (TAKE) HOLD
krateo NT:2902, “to be strong, mighty, to prevail,” (1) is most frequently rendered “to lay or take hold on” (a) literally, e. g., Matt 12:11; 14:3; 18:28 and 21:46, RV (KJV, “laid hands on”); 22:6, RV (KJV, “took”); 26:55, KJV (RV, "took); 28:9, RV, “took hold of” (KJV, “held by”); Mark 3:21; 6:17; 12:12; 14:51; Acts 24:6, RV (KJV, “took”); Rev 20:2; (b) metaphorically, of "laying hold of "
(from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Now is this not “embracing”?

In fact there is no passage in Scripture that i’m aware of that says tradition is sufficent for us.

Indeed not! On the contrary, 2 Thess 2:15 is quite plain that the teaching is of equal value whether it is by word of mouth, or by letter. This has been the consant teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Reformers denied half of it because they needed cause to rebel against the authority appointed by Christ. They were led into error by corrupt men who were abusing the authority which had been entrusted to them.

I could but i think were getting off topic.

You have rightly noted that every discussion on this topic always gets back to the authority of the Church. If you do not trust that Jesus will keep His word to lead the Church into all truth, then you cannot, in good conscience, accept the teachings of the Church. Therefore, you should reject the NT also, since it came from the same source.

 

[guanophore]

What is the context for Isaiah 55?

Let’s pretend it does not have any, just for the sake of arguement. Do you think that it cannot stand on it’s own, no matter which book it was found in? Do you really believe you can “reason” well enough to understand God?

This may be true when you are young in your faith but later you may be required to apply I Thes 5:21 to it. This process can be very uncomfortable.

And a lot of hard work!

2 Tim 2:15
15 Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth.
AMP

We also have to be on guard with the warning from Scripture that false teachers will come into the church and decieve many.

Not to worry, ja4! We all know you are here, an we are on guard!
:knight2:

That’s why we must not accept what a given church says as being true unless we have a standard to test what they say is true.

There is really no such thing, ja4, as “a given church”. Jesus only established One Church.

Eph 4:4-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God …"

All who are members of Christ are members of His One Body,the Church.

That standard is the Scriptures since they alone are inspired-inerrant.

I find it humorous that you hold up this man made doctrine as a standard. You wrote:

Compare this with Sola Scriptura where all doctrines must find there support explicitedly in Scripture.

And yet, are unable to produce explicit doctrine for SS in scripture.

 

[guanophore]

The only time the word of God was oral was when the prophets, Jesus and His apostles taught.

Please show this from scripture. Please show where the prophetic gift has ceased.

Since they have died out all we have is the written word of God.

Please show this in the scriptures. Demonstrate, using history, that there is no Apostolic Succession.

There is no "oral word of God" today that is considered Scripture i.e. inspired-inerrant.

You are right, Scripture is part of the Divine Deposit of Truth, and the Sacred Tradition is considered “infallible”. They both come from the same source, and the written canon was closed by the authority of thatSacred Tradition.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

Jesus knew that the NT would be written. But, He did not instruct the Apostles to resolve disputes using it. He instructed them to “take it to the Church”. This is the authority that He appointed.

 It is true that men are to interpret. Christ gave the church pastor-tecahers to do this.

Not really. Pastors are to care for the flock, an teachers are to transmit the Apostolic Teaching. It is to the Bishops that interpretation has been entrusted. However, all who are in the Apostolic succession are responsible for interpreting according to the Teachings that were handed down.

However, that does not mean all of their teachings are true just because they belong to a given church. No man is infallible.

This is why we need the gift of infallibility. This is the gift that was exercised by the writers of the NT, so that they would be led into all truth when they were writing.

He can and does err. This is especially true in the Catholic church where its leaders have proclaimed on their own they cannot error in matters of faith.

People do err, ja4. However, the Catholic Church did nto “proclaim on her own” that she cannot err. She has received the words of Christ that He would lead them into all truth.

 We know this is not true when we compare some of their teachings with Scripture.

I can understand how it might seem this way, since you are separated from the other part of the Divine Deposit of Faith.

We are all commanded to be on guard against false teachers. 2 Peter 2:1 and Acts 20:28-31.

It is ok, ja4! We know you are here, an we are on guard!

:knight2:

These teachers can be your own leaders.

And have been, sadly. It is this reason that Jesus established an infallible authority that could keep the Church intact, in spite of individuals going astray. We see this protection at work during the Arian heresy.

In fact the Lord Jesus in Revelation 2:2 commends the church at Ephesus for "testing" its leaders i.e. so called apostles.

Indeed! And how did they do this testing?

Eph 1:13
“…when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation…”

They received the word of Truth and held fast to it, just as Paul teaches we are to do.

Eph 3:4-5
“…understanding of the mystery of Christ. 5 In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit…”

The mystery was made known by revelation (not human reason, as you seem to think), and is revealed through the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. The Ephesians held fast to the mystery that was delivered to them, and that is how they prevented themselves from falling into error. It was not “Sola Scriptura” that preserved them in the truth!

You have a responibilty in Christ to hold your leaders accountable to the word of God.

I agree. However, our first responsibility is to ourselves. When I get the log out of my own eye, I will let one of the priests know I am available to take the speck out of theirs.