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

[JohnnyReb]

Indeed. But this brings up 2 questions:

-how do you know what these other Scriptures are, without an outside authority discerning such for you?

-is it not extra-biblical, then, to believe in these “other scriptures” if John’s Gospel does, as you state, present “enough for us to believe that Jesus is the Messiah”?

To answer the first question, I fear I would have to go off topic a bit. So I won’t go into details, but suffice it to say that I believe tradition is useful in obtaining an authentic interpretation of scripture in some cases, as is reason and experience. However none of these things can establish doctrine on their own. This is the case with the determination of the canon.

What the OP is doing is making an argument that the scriptures support the partim-partim, scripture-tradition view of the CC. I do not hold to that view, but I don’t reject the use of tradition entirely either. Most Christians use it in some form whether they admit it or not.

 

[Dokimas]

'Tis the Scriptures that say so.

NIce try.

I don’t t think you’ve proven your point on at least two levels which will remain unmentioned because it would do no good to mention them.

 

[PRmerger]

To answer the first question, I fear I would have to go off topic a bit. So I won’t go into details, but suffice it to say that I believe tradition is useful in obtaining an authentic interpretation of scripture in some cases, as is reason and experience.

However none of these things can establish doctrine on their own. This is the case with the
determination of the canon.

Indeed. This is why one needs the Magisterium.

What the OP is doing is making an argument that the scriptures support the partim-partim, scripture-tradition view of the CC. I do not hold to that view, but I don’t reject the use of tradition entirely either.

The CC does not hold to the partim-partim view of Scripture. It neither rejects nor upholds it.

While the question (partim-partim vs material sufficiency) is an interesting exercise in theology, it is really a moot question…

for Catholics do not have to choose between ONLY Scripture or ONLY Tradition. We have the charism of both, thanks be to God, so any discussion about this is only theoretical, and has no basis in practicality.

Most Christians use it in some form whether they admit it or not.

YES!!

 

[Rightlydivide]

Can you be mistaken and think you’re found but really not?

:

Me or a rhetorical “you”?

 

[PRmerger]

Me or a rhetorical “you”?

You.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You.

Ever known a life completely changed?
Because that is what God does. And you know.
Glory to God.

 

[PRmerger]

Ever known a life completely changed?
Because that is what God does. And you know.
Glory to God.

But can you, Rightlydivide, be mistaken about being found, when you’re really not?

 

[Rightlydivide]

But can you, Rightlydivide, be mistaken about being found, when you’re really not?

No. I am born again. Changed. Transformed and found.
No one cares about my story on these forums anyway and besides, I cannot really tell it without giving people the same opportunitity to have their lives transformed. And that PR…is called proselytizing. And so I wish you a good day.

 

[PRmerger]

No. I am born again. Changed. Transformed and found.
No one cares about my story on these forums anyway

No need to tell your story, RightlyDivide.

You just haven’t answered my question.

Clearly, there are those who think they’re saved but are not, in your paradigm.

You think you’re saved.

But how do you know you’re not one of those woebegone souls who thinks he’s saved but actually isn’t?

The answer is: you don’t.

That is, there is no such thing as Eternal Security.

It’s a myth and a lie created by the author of lies.

 

[Rightlydivide]

No need to tell your story, RightlyDivide.

You just haven’t answered my question.

Clearly, there are those who think they’re saved but are not, in your paradigm.

You think you’re saved.

But how do you know you’re not one of those woebegone souls who thinks he’s saved but actually isn’t?

The answer is: you don’t.

That is, there is no such thing as Eternal Security.

It’s a myth and a lie created by the author of lies.

But when you are found, you do know. And it changes everything you once were so completely.
Glory to God.

 

[PRmerger]

But when you are found, you do know.

Hmm…

This brings up so many questions!

-do you have a Bible verse that says “when you are found you do know”?

-I am certain that you do not believe in infallibility of normal folks–even saved ones–, so how is it that someone who thinks he’s saved can’t be wrong about it?

-haven’t you ever encountered someone who thought he was saved, but in the end wasn’t? How does one know with any assurance that he’s not one of these poor fellows?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hmm…

This brings up so many questions!

-do you have a Bible verse that says “when you are found you do know”?

-I am certain that you do not believe in infallibility of normal folks–even saved ones–, so how is it that someone who thinks he’s saved can’t be wrong about it?

-haven’t you ever encountered someone who thought he was saved, but in the end wasn’t? How does one know with any assurance that he’s not one of these poor fellows?

You switched backed to the “rhetorical you”.
But sure, we can know

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that **ye may know **that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

But enough of this, I will let you have the last word because your motivation confounds me. I am found, I was blind but now I see by the grace of God.
Glory to God!

 

[PRmerger]

You switched backed to the “rhetorical you”.
But sure, we can know

This is curious indeed. For it seems that anyone, even someone who thinks he’s saved but is really not, could use this Bible verse from John to think he’s saved.

But enough of this, I will let you have the last word because your motivation confounds me.

My motivation is to show the error in the doctrine of Eternal Security.

Surely there are those you believe are falsely secure.

Just don’t understand how everyone who believes in Eternal Security is assured that they are saved but that *others * aren’t. It just seems so curious to me, and rather obvious that if there are those who are falsely secure, then it could be you who thinks he’s saved and really isn’t.

 

[joe370]

Hey JohnnyReb…

.

…because we no longer have the Apostles here with us anymore. During the Apostolic era, the church has the Apostles with them. All New Testament writings have Apostolic authority. They were written either by Apostles or their close associates. So for me, I am fine with the fact that the Apostles trusted oral tradition. They were guided by the Holy Spirit in their work of founding the church.

Oral tradition, like the New Testament writings, was also taught by the Apostles and their close associates, and then passed on, just as the New Testament writings were passed on, and both can be trusted for the simple fact that the Holy Spirit was/is guiding Jesus’ church and protecting both, from within and without. If you do not believe this to be true then there really is nothing more to be said.

The decision as to which writings would be canonized and which writings would not be canonized, was based on the authority of Jesus’ church, and Jesus’ church leadership deferred to apostolic tradition to surmise such a discernment.

So after the Apostolic era, it’s your belief that truth was no longer preserved in Jesus’ church, with the exception of the written word, comprised of the OT and the NT?

If so, that seems tantamount to saying: oral tradition could be trusted, but only until the last apostle passed away, at which point it could no longer be trusted?

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?
What do you mean by private interpretation?

What I mean by private interpretation is: Every individual Christian, regardless of denomination, who is subordinate to, and corrected by, the written word of God, which is the sola scriptura advocates final authority, can rightfully interpret the bible and form beliefs as they are moved by the Holy spirit.

Again, 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 today?

 

[joe370]

JohnnyReb, The Early Church Fathers recognized Oral Tradition (as taught by the Catholic Church) - as being equally authoritative as written Tradition (Scripture) because they both came from the same God through the same Church. Were these catholic leaders wrong?

Papias

Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say.** For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit **(The Sayings of the Lord [between A.D. 115 and 140] as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]).

Irenaeus

For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

For wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures, and the true expositions,** of all the true Christian traditions (The Prescription of Heretics 19 [A.D. 200]).**

Origen

Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles,** and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 [circa A.D. 225]).**

Eusebius

While [Ignatius of Antioch] was making the journey through Asia under the strictest military guard, he strengthened the diocese in each city where he stayed by spoken sermons and exhortations, and he especially exhorted them above all** to be on their guard against the heresies which then for the first time were prevalent and he urged them to hold fast to the tradition of the Apostles to which he thought it necessary,** for securities sake, to give form by written testimony (Ecclesiastical History, 3:36 [A.D. 325]).

Basil

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching;** others we have received delivered to us “in mystery” by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force.** And these no one will contradict; - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. (On the Holy Spirit 27 [A.D. 375]).

Jerome

Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]).

John Chrysostom

“So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). **Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther (**Homilies on Second Thessalonians [circa A.D. 400]).

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, **we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief n two ways: first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church **(Commonitory 2 [A.D. 434])

 

[guanophore]

Its as simple as the fact that we no longer have the Apostles with us.

Are you honestly suggesting that they meant for us to follow their instruction only as long as they were alive, and when they died, we should stop?

This begs the question, but what means and on what authority does the church teach and what must it submit itself to.

Yes. This is the crux of the whole foundation for throwing out Sacred Tradition.

 

[guanophore]

I believe per the New Testament that the Holy Spirit has guided the church to all truth. He gave us all we need to know for our faith and salvation in the pages of the scriptures.

If this were true, why would the Scriptures not say this about themselves? why do they testify to the opposite?

Why did Jesus go to the trouble of founding a basically useless Church?

Why did the Apostles erroneously teach that that Church is necessary to lead us to salvation?

Only because we no longer have the Apostles here with us anymore.

Do you have any evidence, in the NT or out of it, that the Apostles only intended for us to follow their instruction during their lifetime, and stop at their deaths?

Do you have any evidence that Jesus meant this?

Why did all the disciples of the Apostles think that they should continue to follow the Sacred Traditions that were handed down to them?

I am fine with the fact that the Apostles trusted oral tradition. They were guided by the Holy Spirit in their work of founding the church.

But the HS was unable to guide the Church through these Sacred Traditions after the Apostles died?

How did the HS lose the power to uphold the Word that was given to the Church?

How did the Word itself become weak and ineffective, so that it could no longer accomplish what God intended?

What do you mean by private interpretation?

When I use it, I mean making interpretations for oneself in separation from the faith that produced the NT.

We both agree that the scriptures are infallible

No, I dont’ agree. Infallibility relates to being protected from acting in error. In order to be fallible, one must be able to make decisions (acts of the will), discern, and take responsibility for one’s actions. The Scriptures dont’ have these characteristics, which belong only to persons.

The scriptures are inerrant, and inspired. The Church is infallible.

represent Apostolic teaching, and are the Word of God, don’t we? Yet if a church teaches contrary to God’s Word, we cannot turn a blind eye to that.

I agree about accountability, but this applies to individual teachers, and not to the doctrines which were delivered to the Church by Christ. His Word deposited in the Church does not “submit” to anyone.

In addition, one must take into account that the action of holding “accountable”
operates through ones perceptions and education (or lack of it). The individual is therefore limited in his ability to assess whether the “Church” has departed from God’s Word.

 

[Dokimas]

The scriptures are inerrant, and inspired. The Church is infallible.

Hi Guanophore. You seem to be like me; you’re not spending as much time on these threads. Well, good to see you. God bless you.

BTW, could you give us the history of the belief that the Apostle John was boiled in oil and lived?

 

[PRmerger]

BTW, could you give us the history of the belief that the Apostle John was boiled in oil and lived?

Huh?

Are you trying to say that the belief that St. John was boiled in oil and lived is part of the Sacred Tradition of the CC?

 

[Dokimas]

Huh?

Are you trying to say that the belief that St. John was boiled in oil and lived is part of the Sacred Tradition of the CC?

From your point of view, what’s the history of the belief that John was boiled (unsuccessfully)?

Was it, is it, held as true by the CC according to tradition? Was it, is it a teaching of the CC?