Certain authors of the NT cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, in addition to old Testament Scripture...

[JohnnyReb]

I know that is what SS teaches; perhaps you could show me where I can find that teaching in scripture alone? 2 Timothy 3 does not say: only scripture is inspired…

I prefer to keep this on topic and not get caught up in an SS debate (again).

The CC also verifies everything taught by the church and in the church, with scripture + tradition. The NT is a product of tradition. Tradition put the table of contents in the bible; tradition attached the names Matthew Mark Luke and John to those books. Every church regardless of denomination, has its own magisterial leadership.

I don’t disagree too much. Tradition did all those things and you will not get an arguement from me about that. That is what makes tradition important. As for denominational leadership, each denomination does have that, but most do not claim to be infallible nor do they consider themselves the final authority.

Where is the following text, to which Matthew is referring, found, in the OT? Did Matthew find it in the scriptures?

He came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: He shall be called a Nazarene. Matthew 2:23

I never said that passage was written in scripture.

 

[joe370]

JohnnyReb;7491956]I prefer to keep this on topic and not get caught up in an SS debate (again).

You brought it up. You said: All SS and its other forms teaches is that everything we need, basically the entire gospel, is found within the pages of scripture, right now.

If you don’t want to answer this off topic question, that’s cool.

I don’t disagree too much. Tradition did all those things and you will not get an arguement from me about that. That is what makes tradition important. As for denominational leadership, each denomination does have that, but most do not claim to be infallible nor do they consider themselves the final authority.

Infallibility comes from the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit. No one in the CC is infallible.Do you think that those denominations, when teaching from the pulpit, believe that their teachings are fallible? I am pretty sure they believe that what they are teaching is doctrinally correct.

I agree with you about authority in the non-Catholic churches. The bible is every Christians final authority via individual interpretation. Essentially, each and every SS advocate interprets the holy bible and teaches, based on his or her interpretation, authoritatively. Agreed??? If not then please correct me?

 

[joe370]

Hey JohnnyReb…

As you know, the authors of the NT drew on Jewish oral tradition, as being authoritative. That does not sound like the practice of scripture alone. They explicitly cite oral tradition to support Christian doctrine, which seems to undermine the practice of sola scriptura. If SS is to be embraced, one would hope that the practice of SS could trace its origin all the way back to the apostles? If, for the apostles, oral Tradition was trustworthy when formulating and developing elements of the Christian faith, then it stands to reason that apostolic (and post apostolic) - oral tradition can be trusted as well, if the holy spirit was/is still guiding Jesus’ church to all truth.

SS advocates (some, not all) - assert that all doctrines must be confined to written scripture, even though the apostles trusted oral tradition, along with written tradition; this troubled me as a former SS advocate. The Apostles simply did not hold to the practice of sola scriptura via private interpretation, so why should any Christian hold to such a practice? One of the things that drew me to the CC was the fact that the CC teaches that Christian doctrine is sola Verbum Dei (from the Word of God alone) - and this is what the holy bible actually says about itself. Christians belonging to the CC really do live by Jesus’ divine word, treasuring it, submitting to it completely, embracing the ways with which God has spoken, and Jesus’ Word has to us both through the writings of the prophets, apostles and through the oral traditions that the apostles handed on to their successors, and these are preserved by the CC through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If I didn’t believe that Jesus was still infallibly present in His church, forever guiding and protecting His church from within and without, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat, I would not trust the CC or any church for that matter, for the simple fact that all people are fallible.

Your thoughts friend?

 

[Dokimas]

Evidence? Show us the evidence where the Bible teaches about explicitly or else it is false?

I’ve discussed this over and over and over again. If you start a thread on infant baptism, then I’ll comment when I have time.

My friend, the Bible is a book of faith,not a history book per se or science book where evidence must be absolute or conclusive. We both know Paul says he baptized households and more than likely infants were included.

IMO, this is easily refuted. This is not the place. Please start a new thread.

Now the question remains:

When did the Jews not consider infants as part of the household?

Do all households have infants at any given time? My does not right now.

 

[Nicea325]

I’ve discussed this over and over and over again. If you start a thread on infant baptism, then I’ll comment when I have time.

IMO, this is easily refuted. This is not the place. Please start a new thread.

Do all households have infants at any given time? My does not right now.

Blessings my friend.

Infant baptism is refuted? Not even close,because as I have stated,not ONE non-Catholic has shown a single shred of evidence where the Jews excluded infants from the household at ANY point in time. If infant baptism was considered as a heresy by the early church and church fathers,then I would like to read the sources.

Do all households have infants at any given time? And that alone refutes it? Silly question.Sorry,but the question is not whether each household in ancient Palestine had infants. The question is whether Paul baptized infants at any household at ANY given time. I am sure some did have infants and others did not.

BTW: If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

 

[Dokimas]

Blessings my friend.

Infant baptism is refuted? Not even close,because as I have stated,not ONE non-Catholic has shown a single shred of evidence where the Jews excluded infants from the household at ANY point in time. If infant baptism was considered as a heresy by the early church and church fathers,then I would like to read the sources.

Do all households have infants at any given time? And that alone refutes it? Silly question.Sorry,but the question is not whether each household in ancient Palestine had infants. The question is whether Paul baptized infants at any household at ANY given time. I am sure some did have infants and others did not.

BTW: If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

We’ve gone through this on several threads over the many months I’ve been here. I’m sure neither of us can add anything to the discussion that would change each other’s mind.

Let’s leave it as friends.

 

[Nicea325]

We’ve gone through this on several threads over the many months I’ve been here. I’m sure neither of us can add anything to the discussion that would change each other’s mind.

Let’s leave it as friends.

Blessings my friend!

 

[Dokimas]

Blessings my friend!

And you and your family.

BTW, did you get a chance to read the exerp from David Miller posted on the thread I started this evening?

 

[guanophore]

Oral tradition is Scriptural as you point out. The question is which oral traditios are inspired by God and which are man’s traditions.

The one’s that can’t be supported by the Bible should be delate with carefully.

The problem with this is that everyone reads the Bible according to their own perceptions and education (or lack of it). So, one person can think the Bible supports their tradition and another will not.

This is preciselyl why Jesus appointed a Teaching Authority to resolve such disputes.

 

[guanophore]

As a starting point, do you believe that there are dogmas in your church which are not found in scripture?

Yes, of course! The canon of scripture being the most common. The Trinity another.

It is not whether they are “found in scripture” or not, but that there are two strands of Divine Revelation, Scripture, and the Oral tradition (teaching of the Apostles). Most of that Teaching relates to how we understand the Scriptures. We interpret them in the light of the faith which produced them. That faith has been infallibly preserved in the Church by the HS. We call this Sacred Tradition.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

What have I posted that is a straw man?

The Catholic church never claimed that the Sacred Traditions cannot be found in Scripture. the claim is that the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church is equal to Scripture in inerrancy and authority.

The NT is a product of Sacred Tradition. The Word of God that was alive and well in the church before the NT was written did not suddenly disappear because some of it was written down.

 

[Bluegoat]

I started this thread and I certainly don’t mind if you answer this off topic question. Your answer might be helpful regarding the OP.

I don’t think SS is clearly present in Scripture. Really, no model of how to read it is in there very clearly.

I would say the doctrine of SS has to be understood from an historical perspective, just like the Catholic way of reading it does.

The Catholic position essentially says “This is the way we have always understood the deposit of faith, this is how those who wrote and compiled scripture understood it, and this is even how the Jews did it. If we don’t take these things into account, it will lead to error.” So essentially it is a decision by the community of the Church that this is how it is done.

In the case of the Reformers, they also have an historical argument. They see a church community that seems to be teaching wild errors, and condoning wildly unchrstian practises. (And I think it is easy for us to underestimate this today. Many many good faithful Catholics, if the CC did the things that were common practise then, for generations, would not be Catholic. That should give us pause.) And these things were justified by Tradition, and oral teaching, and the infalliable knowledge of the Church.

To the Reformers, this was a sign that there was a serious flaw in the way the teaching was being determined. They could not remain Christian and accept what they were being told’ and the Church had resisted all attempts at reform within, excommunicating the reformers.

So they found themselves in a community of their own, with a history of teaching, and the Scriptures. But what sure guide did they have? They knew the community itself did not have ny access to hidden information. They knew tradition had been unreliable (though they continued to use it as a guide). They recognized that decisions on doctrine were made by the ecclesiastical community as a whole, not individuals. But they needed a solid foundation to set the limits, and provide the basic information.

The only readily available way to do that was scripture, and it seemed well suited to the task. So that is the rule the community accepted - that Scripture (also defined by the community) would be their primary source of information as a Christian community. The writings and traditions of individuals and the church could comment on scripture, but what they said must be in accordance with Scripture and not contradict it.

It is actually in it’s original form very close to the Catholic position, and it is an historical argument on both sides of the debate. If you think the Catholic position is tenable, then there is no reason to reject their understanding. But if you think Catholicism teaches doctrines that are blatantly incorrect (and you don’t know about the Orthodox churches) then you need to have a new model for running your Christian community.

 

[joe370]

Hey Bluegoat…

I don’t think SS is clearly present in Scripture. Really, no model of how to read it is in there very clearly.

My sentiments exactly as a former non-Catholic.

I would say the doctrine of SS has to be understood from an historical perspective, just like the Catholic way of reading it does.

It seems rather simple: the bible is the Christians only source of authority, as opposed to tradition (not in all cases though) - or human authority, which is tantamount to saying: no one has the authority to interpret the bible.

The Catholic position essentially says “This is the way we have always understood the deposit of faith, this is how those who wrote and compiled scripture understood it, and this is even how the Jews did it. If we don’t take these things into account, it will lead to error.” So essentially it is a decision by the community of the Church that this is how it is done.

Seems rather biblical, and believable, only if the holy spirit is still present in the CC, guiding Jesus’ church in good times and bad times, and protecting the deposit of faith from within and without, regardless of the chaff mixed with the wheat, which we see in every century.

In the case of the Reformers, they also have an historical argument. They see a church community that seems to be teaching wild errors, and condoning wildly unchrstian practises. (And I think it is easy for us to underestimate this today. Many many good faithful Catholics, if the CC did the things that were common practise then, for generations, would not be Catholic. That should give us pause.) And these things were justified by Tradition, and oral teaching, and the infalliable knowledge of the Church.

Un-Christian practices, such as the abuse of indulgences, corruption in the priesthood, in certain location - yes. Un-Christian doctrines such as gnosticism, Arianism etc. etc. - quashed by the same church - no. If in fact the CC was guilty of doctrinal errors then it seems that the holy spirit failed to guide and protect Jesus’ church from error, and if that’s the case, why should I trust that the holy spirit is now guiding one of the reformed churches? Genuine question; no sarcasm intended!!! If the CC did the things that were common practice then, I would do as Francis of Assisi did, and trust in the providence of God, but yes, it would give pause.

By the way, what erroneous doctrines were justified by Tradition, and oral teaching, and the infallible knowledge of the Church???

To the Reformers, this was a sign that there was a serious flaw in the way the teaching was being determined. They could not remain Christian and accept what they were being told’ and the Church had resisted all attempts at reform within, excommunicating the reformers.

Of course, there were some bad practices going on in the CC, and there was a successful catholic reformation. However, if the CC is the church founded by Jesus, then why leave His church and start another church in the face of corruption, which has plagued His church in one form or another in every century, almost? Why not stay and trust that God will correct things? Why not trust what Jesus said in His holy Writ?

Did the reformers successfully establish a united front, doctrinally speaking, restoring Jesus’ church to its original design, or did they divide and separate, due to their differences, leading to disgruntled successors, of each reformed denomination, and their eventual departure, due to doctrinal differences, which paved the way to the present model of starting new churches when doctrinal differences occur? The reformation led to major division with no hope in sight, as far as I can tell, for universal reconciliation, but you seem to be OK with that model? Perhaps you believe that it is the only workable model in a fallen, fallible world, which is what I believed for so long, as a former protestant…

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Bluegoat…

So they found themselves in a community of their own, with a history of teaching, and the Scriptures. But what sure guide did they have? They knew the community itself did not have ny access to hidden information. They knew tradition had been unreliable (though they continued to use it as a guide). They recognized that decisions on doctrine were made by the ecclesiastical community as a whole, not individuals. But they needed a solid foundation to set the limits, and provide the basic information.

And that foundation was, and continues to be the bible via the authority and interpretation of each and every reformed ecclesiastical community, and if someone belonging to said community has a difference of opinion, well, they can simply up and leave and start their own ecclesiastical community. That really confused and bothered me as a former protestant.

The only readily available way to do that was scripture, and it seemed well suited to the task. So that is the rule the community accepted - that Scripture (also defined by the community) would be their primary source of information as a Christian community. The writings and traditions of individuals and the church could comment on scripture, but what they said must be in accordance with Scripture and not contradict it.

If recognizing the authority of the ecclesiastical community, (not individuals) - is the only readily available way to doctrinal truth, then which ecclesiastical community?

Every sola scriptura advocate agrees with you regarding the fact that what is said by each and every sola scriptura advocate must be in accordance with Scripture and must not contradict it, and yet division ensues in the SS world. How can we know which SS advocate is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture and not contradicting it, and is not, considering the fact that the holy bible is their one and only authoritative rule of faith? Could you please be specific?

It is actually in it’s original form very close to the Catholic position and it is an historical argument on both sides of the debate.

I respectfully disagree. Just look at the early CC councils, embraced by most reformed churches today. The CC magisters deferred to sacred tradition + sacred scripture to resolve doctrinal differences, and it was binding. With the sola scriptura model, nothing is binding, and if one disagrees with the decisions of a particular church magisterium, one can simply leave and start his or her own church magisterium, teaching their unique brand of Christianity, based on their unique interpretation of their bible. Really bothered me as a former SS advocate!!!

If you think the Catholic position is tenable, then there is no reason to reject their understanding. But if you think Catholicism teaches doctrines that are blatantly incorrect (and you don’t know about the Orthodox churches) then you need to have a new model for running your Christian community.

Seems reasonable, but I think I will stick with the original model, and I will continue to trust the original model because I believe that Jesus is the creator of the original model, but I do respect your right to reject the original model in favor of a man made model, just as most of my family has done. You do make some good points; there have been some grievous flaws in the original model, almost in every century, but, Like Francis, I am not a fair weather fan; I take the good with the bad; isn’t that how life really is anyway…

 

[Bluegoat]

Joe, I am really not up for going through this whole argument. Clearly, as a Catholic, you don’t think the CC had fallen into terrible error. The Reformers did - so much so that they came to believe that the HS was not protecting the Church in the way they had thought.

That is the crux. If you want to understand the Protestant position, you have to imagine that you have come to that conclusion, and to work out the consequences of it from there. Arguing whether it was in error is a different discussion - to understand SS you must see that they were convinced that was the case. (What bad practices were justified on the basis of Tradition and authority? All of them!)

Keep in mind that their ideas may not be as far out as you think. The EO has a number of similar problems with Catholic arguments. If they are correct, then the experiences of the Reformers make sense - they were correct to see errors, even if they did not see the correct solution. (They may not historically have been able to do so.) I’m not trying to argue this, just suggest a way of thinking about Protestantism that might let you see the shape of it in a different way.

 

[joe370]

Bluegoat…

Joe, I am really not up for going through this whole argument.

Okay…This will be my last response to this off topic subject. You say quite a bit, rather eloquently, but I can never really pin point your exact beliefs regarding many things, but perhaps they are none of my business.

Clearly, as a Catholic, you don’t think the CC had fallen into terrible error. The Reformers did - so much so that they came to believe that the HS was not protecting the Church in the way they had thought.

That’s cool. All I wanted to do, if in fact you support the position of the reformers, was to understand your position, as to where you think the reformed church can be found in the world today…the reformed church that successfully did what the CC could not do, which was to steer clear of doctrinal errors??? I don’t think that is asking too much.

That is the crux. If you want to understand the Protestant position, you have to imagine that you have come to that conclusion, and to work out the consequences of it from there.

Which I did as a former protestant; the consequences were almost catastrophic to my faith…

Arguing whether it was in error is a different discussion - to understand SS you must see that they were convinced that was the case. (What bad practices were justified on the basis of Tradition and authority? All of them!)

I understand what you are saying; what I don’t understand, to this day, even after asking all of the SS experts, as well as the average SS Joe, is the practice of sola scriptura. I simply cannot support something if I do not understand it. I am told by SS advocates that the bible is the Christians only authority, which means, everyone and anyone, who interprets the bible and forms a belief, is right! Let’s assume that the experiences of the Reformers made sense, and they were correct regarding the doctrinal errors they saw, even if they did not surmise the correct solution. With this new 16th century system in place, how can a SS advocate know which SS advocate is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture as opposed to contradicting it, and which SS advocate is not, considering the fact that the holy bible, which has replaced the authority of the church, in the SS world, is their one and only authoritative rule of faith, again, **as opposed to any one church or person? **

I’m not trying to argue this, just suggest a way of thinking about Protestantism that might let you see the shape of it in a different way.

I never argue, just discuss. You must know by now that I was a protestant and I desperately attempted to see things from my protestant perspective, but in the end, it simply led to a man made church at the end of a doctrinal cul-de-sac, and almost agnosticism…

 

[Rightlydivide]

If a person has been born again and had their lives changed, I do not see how being an agnostic is a choice.

 

[joe370]

Hey Rightly…

If a person has been born again and had their lives changed, I do not see how being an agnostic is a choice.

I felt lost regarding the aforementioned reasons, but I digress; your thoughts regarding the OP?

 

[Dokimas]

The problem with this is that everyone reads the Bible according to their own perceptions and education (or lack of it). So, one person can think the Bible supports their tradition and another will not.

This is preciselyl why Jesus appointed a Teaching Authority to resolve such disputes.

There’s a problem with your solution as well. Teaching autorities can misunderstand from where they got their authority.

 

[Little_Mary]

There’s a problem with your solution as well. Teaching autorities can misunderstand from where they got their authority.

Certainly not if they got it directly from Christ Himself. “The horse’s mouth”…if you will…