Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?

[SyCarl]

Protestant ideas like? When you get back to you home computer, show evidence of the ECF’s teaching sola scriptura or any other non-Catholic/Eastern Orthodox truths

Faith Alone

They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed -John Chrysostom (Homilies on Galatians, Homily 3, Verse 8)
newadvent.org/fathers/23103.htm

But after saying that “it was excluded,” he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.-John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Romans, Homily 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.-Clement of Rome (Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 32)
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

We are justified by godliness or holy works.

Mary as Mother of God

He it is Who is without mother according to His Godhead, for He was begotten of God the Father, of one substance with the Father; without a father according to His Incarnation, for He was born of a Virgin; having neither beginning nor end, for He is the beginning and end of all things, the first and the last.-Ambrose (On The Mysteries, 8:46)
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

He was in an extraordinary manner begotten of the Father without a mother, born of a mother without a father; without a mother He was God, without a father He was man; without a mother before all time, without a father in the end of times…9. Why, then, said the Son to the mother, “Woman, what have I to do with you? mine hour is not yet come?” Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. **According as He was God, He had not a mother; **according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him.-Augustine (Tractates on John, Number 8, Paragraphs 8-9)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701008.htm

Jesus, as God had no mother. (I would call Mary God-bearer, not Mother of God.)

Sinnlessness of Mary

And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him.-John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew, Homily 44, 12:46-49)
newadvent.org/fathers/200144.htm

Mary was guilty of vanity.

This is a sample. There is more available.

 

[SyCarl]

You’re in a paradox here. He can’t have compared his writing to writing until something was written.

There is no paradox. He wrote what he taught, or are you saying he taught one thing and wrote something different.

For one, we’re not the same church as them

Based on the Bible alone, why’s there 100,000’s of different Protestant groups? Some few handling snakes. Some believe in baptism only for adults, some for children. Others (High Church Anglicans) who have the ‘Eucharist’ but even in their own church others (Low Church Anglicans) have simply a communal meal. There’s far more division within Anglicanism than within Orthodoxy with issues such as women priests, gay priests etc.

By passing the test of what is taught everywhere. That’s how they judged which books were inspired. Did the Gospel of Mark teach what is known to be true amongst all the churches? Yes. The book didn’t authorise itself. It would be circular logic to think that it did. This is in fact the same illogical argument Moslems put about the Koran.

The point is that both Catholics and Orthodox claim that they have tradition that comes from the same Apostles. Yet they are different. How do we know which church has it right? If two churches have different tradition from the same source, how reliable is the transmission?

And there you have it!

Based on what scripture? No scripture says “This is the only thing you need to have”. Sure, it says “All that is written is true” but that’s not the same thing.

It’s like I have a jug of water and a glass. I fill the glass up to the brim. I then say “This glass is full of water”. It doesn’t contain all the water that I have, but it of itself is full. The Bible says it contains the truth, not ALL the truth.

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
(John 20:30-31 NASB)

Yes John says that Jesus did more thqn he wrote about. No body says the Bible contains everything. But without considering how much of what is not in John is in the other Gospels, John does tell us he wrote so we could believe and have life. If we accept what he wrote we have enough.

As for the canon of Scripture, how do we know that the church has the authority to give us the canon. You can’t rely on the Bible since we can’t have it until we first know the church has authority. The only basis can be because the church says it has the authority through Tradition which can only be known from it. The church has authority because it saya it does.

I accept the canon because the Old Testament was entrusted to the Jews and the New Testament has been agreed upon by all Christians. All professing Christians contain within themselves the true invisible Church which is cannot be fallible. It is not the same as the Visible Churches. Apostolic succesion and Tradition have not resulted in Catholics and Orthodox having the same Old Testaments.

 

[Ginger2]

Montelban,

I had to go back and two pages of posts to figure out what you were talking about.

You said "… it still doesn’t account for the fact that Paul is preaching of something not previously written.

I can’t believe you think that statement actually makes sense.
Paul was face to face with Jesus. Paul said Jesus revealed this Gospel to him. The Apostles affirm Paul’s claim.

But if you really think getting the info straight from Jesus isn’t enough…

 

[Bishopite]

The point is that both Catholics and Orthodox claim that they have tradition that comes from the same Apostles. Yet they are different. How do we know which church has it right? If two churches have different tradition from the same source, how reliable is the transmission?

Trying to divide Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who both deny sola scriptura is a clever way of ignoring all of the evidence for Tradition e.g., the early church fathers. We don’t deny our differences but they are actually few as Tradition within Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are actually very simular in many ways. In fact, neither of us accept scripture alone as our own authority neither did the early church because it was never a Tradition handed down. Both of us accept Apostolic succession, Eucharist as the literal body soul and divinity of Jesus, Baptismal regeneration, padeo baptism, Mary as theotokos (Mother of God), confession to a priest. Do you accept any of those?

As for the canon of Scripture, how do we know that the church has the authority to give us the canon. You can’t rely on the Bible since we can’t have it until we first know the church has authority. The only basis can be because the church says it has the authority through Tradition which can only be known from it. The church has authority because it saya it does.

No not exactly. We can as I said prior, look to outside sources, like history which gives evidence of Jesus and Christianity and a church He established. Being you accept Jesus not just as an historical figure, but as God incarnate you accept what He did and said and we know from historical sources that He established a church. And what did this early church teach and practice? And did it have authority given to it by Jesus? The answer is a resounding yes! Therein lies your answer to the canon question…if Jesus gave the early church authority recognize and decide what was infallible scripture, then it obviously has authority that precedes scripture, being the church was established before scripture was written. However, its authority does NOT supercede scripture; both scripture and Tradition are of equal validity in authority.

I accept the canon because the Old Testament was entrusted to the Jews and the New Testament has been agreed upon by all Christians. All professing Christians contain within themselves the true invisible Church which is cannot be fallible. It is not the same as the Visible Churches. Apostolic succesion and Tradition have not resulted in Catholics and Orthodox having the same Old Testaments.

First of all, I’ll remind you that the Jews didn’t have a complete canon at the time Jesus on Earth, so how could they have known what the canon of the OT was?
The Jews didn’t know if all revelation had ceased or not. And, after they rejected Jesus as the Messiah, the Jews lost their ability to recognize what was divine revelation being Jesus gave the authority to “bind and loose” (Mt 16:15-19, John 20:21-23) to the Apostles and their successors so that after the Apostles took authority of what Jesus established, they were the new authority who spoke for God.
So how can any Christian rely on the Jews to recognize what they didn’t any longer have authority to recognize nor decide upon anyway?

And to say that “the New Testament has been agreed upon by all Christians” is simply what I call hindsite is 20/20; that you accept 27 New Testament books is because of what the Catholic church Traditioned down to you first starting in 382 AD at the council of Rome…
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm
That you believe in the 27 New Testament books of canon is because of what the Catholic Magisterium affirmed, preserved and passed down Traditioned down to you. Otherwise, how do you know with any certitude that there shouldn’t be 26 or 28 New Testament books?
That Martin Luther, Calvin, Zwingli et al those leaders of the reformation accepted the 27 books of the New Testament was simply old news to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who had been using the 27 books for centuries.

 

[murphdog261]

Perhaps the Catechism can help us out with this whole scripture and tradition

What are Sacred Scripture and Tradition?

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Can the Church Interpret Sacred Scripture?

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

This is why I like the CCC so much!

Peace in Christ,

Murph

 

[Bishopite]

Very clever of you trying to compare forensic declaritive justification (sola fide) taught by the reformers with St. John Chrysostom.

Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, St. Chrysostom writes, when he is speaking of what Paul is saying, in 2 Cor. 1:6, 7, Homily 2 says: :
For what he saith is this, “Your salvation is not our work alone, but your own as well;for both we in preaching to you the word endure affliction, and ye in receiving it endure the very same; we to impart to you that which we received, ye to receive what is imparted and not to let it go." Now what humility can compare with this, seeing that those who fell so far short of him he raiseth to the same dignity of endurance? for he saith, “Which worked in the enduring of the same sufferings;” for not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us. NPNF1: Vol. XII, p. 277”

So, tell me…if Chrysostom’s faith alone is the same as your Protestant version, why would he say what is in the bold blue?

“Let us not then vainly flatter our own souls with speeches like these; no, let us take heed,** let us have a regard for our own salvation, let us make virtue our care, let us rouse ourselves to the practice of good works, that we may be counted worthy to attain to this exceeding glory, **in Jesus Christ our Lord with whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit be glory, might, honor, now and ever, and for ages of ages. Amen. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, p. 68”

Again, if Chrysostom affirmed the Protestant version of sola fide, a purely legal forensic declaritive imputation, why would he say that “the practice of good works, that they may be counted worthy to attain this exceeding glory?”

“For why, pray, dost thou not deem it right thou shouldest be punished for sinning? Hath He not told thee all beforehand? Hath He not threatened thee? not come to thy aid? 19 not done things even without number for thy salvation’s sake?** Gave He thee not the laver of Regeneration, and forgave He not all thy former sins? Hath He not after this forgiveness, and the laver, also given thee the succor of repentance if thou sin? Hath He not made the way to forgiveness of sins, even after all this, easy to thee? Hear then what He hath enjoined: “If thou forgive thy neighbor, I also will forgive thee” (ib. vi. 14), He says. What hardship is there in this? “If ye judge the cause of the fatherless, and see that the widow have right, come and let us converse together,” He saith, “and if your sins be as purple, I will make them white as snow.” (Is. i. 17, 18.) What labor is there here? “Tell thy sins, that thou mayest be justified.” **(Is. xliii. 26 LXX.) What hardship is there in this? “**Redeem thy sins with alms.” **(Dan. iv. 24.) What toilsomeness is there in this? The Publican said, “Be merciful to me a sinner,” and “went down home justified.” (Luke xviii. 13, 14.) What labor is it to imitate the Publican? And wilt thou not be persuaded even after this that there is punishment and vengeance? At that rate thou wilt deny that even the devil is punished For, “Depart,” He says, “into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matt. xxv. 41.) Now if there be no hell, then neither is he punished. But if he is punished, it is plain that we shall also. NPNP1, Vol. 11, p. 527”

Redeem thy sins with alms? This is appauling to the Protestant version of justification by faith alone.

“…but he who has received from God an authority as much greater as heaven is more precious than earth, and souls more precious than bodies, seems to some to have received so small an honor that they are actually able to imagine that one of those who have been entrusted with these things will despise the gift. Away with such madness!** For transparent madness it is to despise so great a dignity, without which it is not possible to obtain either our own salvation, **or the good things which have been promised to us. **For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? **NPNF1: Vol. IX, p. 48.”

Regenerate through water and Spirit? Chrysostom says if we don’t eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood is excluded from heaven?
Then he says all of the regenerative act of water [baptism] and the Eucharist is accomplished by “the hands of the priest?”
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

 

[Bishopite]

Jesus, as God had no mother. (I would call Mary God-bearer, not Mother of God.)

Theotokos literally mean “God-bearer” so how can you say you believe Mary is “God-bearer” yet not the Mother of God [Jesus the second person of the Trinity]?
Here is St. Irenaeus on Mary as the mother of God–

“Thus, too, they ( the blessed prophets) preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, His advent by the spotless and God-bearing Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of His life and conversation with men, and His manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men…”
newadvent.org/fathers/0504.htm

"Hippolytus

“[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]” (*Discourse on the End of the World *1 [A.D. 217]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David” (*Four Homilies *1 [A.D. 262]).

“It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’” (ibid., 2).

Peter of Alexandria

“They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs” (*The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria *[A.D. 305]).

“We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God” (*Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops *12 [A.D. 324]).

Methodius

“While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled” (*Oration on Simeon and Anna *7 [A.D. 305]).

“Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” (ibid., 14).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness” (*Catechetical Lectures *10:19 [A.D. 350]).

Ephraim the Syrian

“Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God” (*Songs of Praise *1:20 [A.D. 351]).

Athanasius

“The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God” (*The Incarnation of the Word of God *8 [A.D. 365]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Ambrose of Milan

“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?” (*The Virgins *2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).

Gregory of Nazianz

“If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead” (*Letter to Cledonius the Priest *101 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

“As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing” (*Against Rufinus *2:10 [A.D. 401]).

“Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God” (*Commentaries on Isaiah *3:7:15 [A.D. 409])"."
catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

 

[Bishopite]

We are justified by godliness or holy works.

Are you saying you believe we are justified by godliness or holy works?

If so, then how do you reconcile the Protestant postion of sola fide which says we are justified by faith alone apart from works?

 

[Montalban]

There is no paradox. He wrote what he taught, or are you saying he taught one thing and wrote something different.

Then you would assume that all that he taught is contained in his writings.

The point is that both Catholics and Orthodox claim that they have tradition that comes from the same Apostles.[/qutoe]
Yes
SyCarl;2597443:

Yet they are different.

Yes

How do we know which church has it right?

By looking at who follows tradition, and who has developed it. That is, for another debate. I’ve demonstrated that the same type of question can be put to Protestants

If two churches have different tradition from the same source, how reliable is the transmission?

See above re; all the Protestant churches - I note you’ve avoided this

Yes John says that Jesus did more thqn he wrote about. No body says the Bible contains everything. But without considering how much of what is not in John is in the other Gospels, John does tell us he wrote so we could believe and have life.

No one says that here that the Bible is not what we can believe and have life. It’s whether it contains ALL to allow you to do this.

If we accept what he wrote we have enough.

Where does it say it’s enough?

As for the canon of Scripture, how do we know that the church has the authority to give us the canon.

Because it did give us the canon. You accept that canon!

You can’t rely on the Bible since we can’t have it until we first know the church has authority.

Exactly:thumbsup: The Bible didn’t authorise itself. The various books didn’t leap from the page screaming “I’m inspired by the Holy Spirit”

The only basis can be because the church says it has the authority through Tradition which can only be known from it. The church has authority because it saya it does.

No. The church has the authority because Jesus says it does.

I accept the canon because the Old Testament was entrusted to the Jews and the New Testament has been agreed upon by all Christians. All professing Christians contain within themselves the true invisible Church which is cannot be fallible. It is not the same as the Visible Churches.

So you’re saying that the New Testament’s canon came about by a poll of all Christians and they all agreed to it? Ever heard of Gnostics?

Apostolic succesion and Tradition have not resulted in Catholics and Orthodox having the same Old Testaments.

So what?

 

[Montalban]

Montelban,

I had to go back and two pages of posts to figure out what you were talking about.

You said "… it still doesn’t account for the fact that Paul is preaching of something not previously written.

I can’t believe you think that statement actually makes sense.
Paul was face to face with Jesus. Paul said Jesus revealed this Gospel to him. The Apostles affirm Paul’s claim.

But if you really think getting the info straight from Jesus isn’t enough…

Where does it say that all that Paul taught was in his Epistles?

It still begs the question of whether it was inspired before he wrote it? Of course it was.

So given that there’s lessons he taught before he wrote it, we can assume that oral lessons were inspired. There’s NOTHING to say that the Epistles taught all that he ever taught, and in fact the point of him quoting things not mentioned (written) elsewhere are clues that this is the case. Given that he taught inspired teaching orally, and very probably didn’t write it all down, then oral teaching is inspired. We hase our traditions on some oral teachings.

 

[Montalban]

Are you saying you believe we are justified by godliness or holy works?

If so, then how do you reconcile the Protestant postion of sola fide which says we are justified by faith alone apart from works?

It seems to me Protestants can’t make up their mind.

They demand an adherence to the written word, but some acknowledge that it was inspired before it was written.

 

[SyCarl]

Are you saying you believe we are justified by godliness or holy works?

If so, then how do you reconcile the Protestant postion of sola fide which says we are justified by faith alone apart from works?

It was a typo. It should have said not justified by godliness or good works. It should be noted that I have said that he fathers contradicted themselves at time. If they do this, what is their true beliefe?

 

[Montalban]

SyCarl, et al… where do the gospels authorise themselves?

 

[Ginger2]

Quote Montalbal: "There’s NOTHING to say that the Epistles taught all that he ever taught, and in fact the point of him quoting things not mentioned (written) elsewhere are clues that this is the case. Given that he taught inspired teaching orally, and very probably didn’t write it all down, then oral teaching is inspired. We base our traditions on some oral teachings.

The point is this:

1. God saw to it that everything we needed to know was written down and preserved for future generations. For instance, Jesus did many more miracles than what is recorded. If the Catholic Pope one day said God revealed to him a several miracles that are not written in the Gospels. what difference will it make? (Luke 16:19-31)
2. Paul and the other Apostles received their teachings directly from God. That affirms the claim of divine inspiration? There were many witnesses to this fact.
3. Who has spoken directly with God since then? Where’s your proof that these oral teachings are from God?

 

[murphdog261]

The way I always saw it, (at least the way I was taught) was that God reveals Himself to us through His Word. This Revelation of God comes in two ways:

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

It is silly to think that all early Christians just read the Bible, or even heard direct passages from the Bible.
Now I remember SYCARL saying something about how some tradition is necessary, if you are speaking of things that are in the Sacred Scripture, but just said in a different way. Well lets just see, again, how close Scripture and and Tradition are to each other.

. . . 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

So Scripture and Tradition come from the same source of God’s Revelation through His Word. Jesus came down and taught the Apostles, and the Apostles in turn preached and taught the same traditions. The Apostels also wrote down God’s Word (logos) through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Seeing how both come from God’s Revelation and His Word, I don’t see why so many distinctions are being brought up between the two.

Maybe I don’t fully understand the debate here…

Pax Christo

Murph

 

[Ginger2]

“It is silly to think that all early Christians just read the Bible,…”

The earliest Christians had Jesus. They did not need the NT writings.

After that Christians had eye witnesses (the Aposltes) for Jesus. Their testimony supported one another. And they themselves wrote down their testimonies under the divine inspiration of God.

 

[Bishopite]

It was a typo. It should have said not justified by godliness or good works. It should be noted that I have said that he fathers contradicted themselves at time. If they do this, what is their true beliefe?

Gotchya on the typo.

Well, you haven’t as of yet explained how you know that you are supposed to have 27 New Testament books as opposed to 26 or 28?

As a few of the fathers have contradicted themselves, sure a few have; that their overall general consent in their writings gives explicit evidence of Catholic beliefs. I’m not so sure you at first you try to show the fathers as giving evidence for Protestant beliefs, then after I post their Catholic/Eastern Orthodox beliefs, you again tell me that they contradicted each other. And I’m not so sure why so many Protestants avoid the fathers, yet I’ve read many Protestant theologians who embrace them because they realize Christianity didn’t cease to exist after the first century.

 

[Bishopite]

“It is silly to think that all early Christians just read the Bible,…”

The earliest Christians had Jesus. They did not need the NT writings.

After that Christians had eye witnesses (the Aposltes) for Jesus. Their testimony supported one another. And they themselves wrote down their testimonies under the divine inspiration of God.

So again by what criteria determined which of the divine inspirationed writings of God were inspired?

And did the early Christians have any leaders?

 

[sandusky]

Bishopite:

How do you want the oral Traditions “substantiated?” Through what means?

That’s what I asked you.

I don’t understand how you find the canon to be an oral tradition from the apostles; most Catholics maintain that the apostles had no idea they were writing scripture; of course, they are wrong, but what the apostles handed down was written tradition.

The OT canon was enumerated by the Jews (Rom 3:2); and the earliest enumeration of the NT’s 27 books was by the African Bishop Athanasius in 367 (and here as well). That’s the Eastern, and not the Western Church, isn’t it?

You cite 1 Cor 11:1 as a support of oral tradition; how is that verse a support of oral tradition?

You’ve cited 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6 as proof of oral tradition delivered by Paul; please list the oral tradition(s) Paul gave to the Thessalonians.

 

[Ginger2]

God decided which books should be in the canon.

There is specific criteria for a book to be considered inspired Scripture. The criteria set forth is according to Scripture itself:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

The Catholic Church did not decide. The Catholic Church included them in her canon because they were already regarded as divinely inspired.

1. Prophetic Authorship
2. Must not contradict Scripture
3. Must be historically accurate
4. Must proclaim Christ Jesus
   (I worte this list off the top of my head so it is probably missing items and poorly worded. Let’s not nit pick about it)

The reason councils met to create a canon was because many suedo Christian writings were sufacing and the intent was to keep false prophecy from becoming part of the Bible.

BTW: the extra books included in the Catholic Bible do not meet all the criteria.