Bible and Tradition: How do you respond?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnnoDomini1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AnnoDomini1

Guest
So, a lot of reasonable protestants agree that Sacred Tradition is important, but they will claim the the Sacred Tradition is not as well preserved, there is no 1 compilation of sacred tradition and thus it cannot come close to the Bible. How would you respond?
 
Well, it was present before the Bible was complete and the canon was finalized. It’s a little snarky, but the Apostles were commanded to go forth ant teach, not write.
 
I see, but what is the best response? What if they deny the existence of a coherent “Sacred Tradition”?
 
Yes. The smart protestants will agree with this, but they will say that they prefer Sola Scriptura because it is compiled and can be checked, while Sacred Tradition is not as consistent
 
AnnoDomini1 said:
I see, but what is the best response? What if they deny the existence of a coherent “Sacred Tradition”?
Click to expand...
Then they’d have to deny the Bible as coherent Sacred Tradition. There were hundreds of books that existed by the time the Church was deciding the canon of Scripture. How did they figure out what was truly Scripture and what wasn’t if the Bible is the only and final word? Where in the Bible does it establish its own table of contents?
 
Last edited:
Sacred Tradition if far better preserved than even the scriptures. 1. It is protected and guided by the Holy Spirit. 2. It is a living and breathing handing on of the faith: 0033 > 2019. 3. If that is not enough, Jesus told the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into ALL truth and remind them of what He taught. Still not enough?

The scriptures, for all their inspiration and intrinsic value are worthless when taken out of context. The devil quoted scripture out of context. The true context is when the scriptures are contained safely within the same living and breathing magisterium (Apostolic teaching authority) of the Church.

Remember: There are no originals of any scripture. All long vanished. There was not a single “original” in Saint Jerome’s day, the 380s. Indeed, virtually all of the manuscripts (“hand written”) have variations and copyist errors in them. The scriptures we have today are modern man’s interpretation of that which was written and copied and copied and copied and re-copied hundreds of times. Their integrity has been maintained; their meaning and intent is guaranteed only by the Church which Christ founded. There is no other authority on earth.
 
Last edited:
@AnnoDomini1

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

74 God ;desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth;:29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 ;Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.;32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
  • orally by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit 33
  • in writing ;by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing;.34
. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 ;In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.;35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.;37 ;The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: ;God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.;39

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .
 
Last edited:
Continuation

2 Thessalonians 2 14 For this purpose he called you through our proclamation of the good news so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 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.
 
po18guy said:
virtually all of the manuscripts (“hand written”) have variations and copyist errors in them.
Click to expand...
One of my brothers majored in Latin and Greek in college and has commented to me about the incredibly complex motions which must be gone through in translating one language to another. This is to say nothing of the customs and intents of the original speakers. As you said, the integrity has been preserved, but a word for word translation, which some of my fellow protestants think the KJV is, is simply not possible.
 
At the same time, quite right and quite in error. No one has ever shown where Christ founded His Church on any writing, commanded any writing or even spoke a single syllable about writing - let alone that He revealed the “Sacred Table of Contents” either here on earth or in heaven.

Only His Church had the power and authority to do that. Binding and loosing. A wonderful thing.
 
po18guy said:
At the same time, quite right and quite in error. No one has ever shown where Christ founded His Church on any writing, commanded any writing or even spoke a single syllable about writing - let alone that He revealed the “Sacred Table of Contents” either here on earth or in heaven.

Only His Church had the power and authority to do that. Binding and loosing. A wonderful thing.
Click to expand...
We would disagree one whether binding and loosing is the power to declare doctrine apart from what God revealed in Christ, or whether binding and loosing refers to the power of the Church as individuals and corporately to forgive sins based upon our confession of Christ as Lord.
 
I would ask them: ok, so where are the Christian witnesses between the 1st and 15th century who interpreted the Bible the way Protestants do? who had the same doctrines? who rejected Mary and the saints?
 
God in Christ did not reveal the morality of fetal stem cell research. Ya gotta have a living, breathing authority to decide that.

You REALLY need to read Where We Got The Bible by Rev. Henry Graham.
 
po18guy said:
God in Christ did not reveal the morality of fetal stem cell research. Ya gotta have a living, breathing authority to decide that.
Click to expand...
No, God in Christ did reveal Thou Shall Not Murder, and we can as rational human beings apply that to medical ethics. This isn’t a new command, it is the same one we always had applied.
 
Dan_Defender said:
I would ask them: ok, so where are the Christian witnesses between the 1st and 15th century who interpreted the Bible the way Protestants do? who had the same doctrines? who rejected Mary and the saints?
Click to expand...
We don’t reject Mary or the saints, we uphold them as examples of the faith. We reject certain practices that we believe go well beyond the proper veneration of those who have come before us in the faith.
 
AnnoDomini1 said:
So, a lot of reasonable protestants agree that Sacred Tradition is important, but they will claim the the Sacred Tradition is not as well preserved, there is no 1 compilation of sacred tradition and thus it cannot come close to the Bible. How would you respond?
Click to expand...
There were 73 books in this “Bible” and the Protestants believed they were superior to the Bible and removed 7 books. So, the Protestants do not subject themselves to the Authority of Scripture, let alone the Authority of the Magisterium which has the sacred duty to give us only the Truth of Sacred Tradition and the Full Scriptures that are fully profitable by the Authoritative Teachers for Teaching, for Reproof, for Correction, and for Training in Righteousness by the Magisterium as they shepherd us toward eternal life.
Protestants defy Scripture and pick and choose what supports some external theories about God developed in the last 200 to 500 years, tearing Scripture apart to keep only what appeals to them.
 
The Bible does not say that the Bible is the source of Sacred Tradition because the Bible is a compilation.

When you inherit a piece of furniture, does a document give you the furniture or does a person who was rightly appointed by the deceased give you the piece of furniture?

The answer is that the furniture is physically given to you by the rightly appointed and the documents are authenticated by the rightly appointed. So, the physical transfer occurs by the rightly appointed and the records are authenticated by the same person.

If an uprightly appointed person gives you furniture which belongs to another isn’t the unrightly guilty?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top