E
Elf01
Guest
Why do you trust them?
What if they are not really the word of God?
What if they are not really the word of God?
Last edited:
- Status
T
tgGodsway
Guest
What if they are? … Why go doubtful when you can believe their testimony? Ultimately, you must trust, or doubt.
E
Elf01
Guest
Back to the first question I asked, how do you know you can trust the New Testament accounts?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
And it’s a dandy. You should consider it.
About that…
Have you considered that just about every Christian you theologically disagree with - including Catholics - make precisely the same statement? Seriously, walk up to them and ask “Do you think the authority to teach and minister comes, ultimately, from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself?”
I’d bet nearly 100% of your replies would be in the affirmative.
Because of that, it’s not a unique argument for a unique truth claim. Again, literally everyone is saying that. So you need other arguments. Said with as much charity as possible.
It’s a forum and opinions abound, but you’re fairly easy to define. Thanks to the literally thousands of permutations of the reformation, I’m POSITIVE there’s a label out there that describes you.
No, you just want me to grant you control over the semantics. But this is what the discussion is ultimately about in most times - semantics. So the “givens” that you think you should be given in order to consider your further points, I can’t honestly give you in most cases.
Sorry man.
Interesting aside… Why was he the only one outside the ministry of Jesus to be given this title?
Probably because Peter recognized it.
Given the acclaim they would have been given in a few communities, there were almost certainly fakes.
But Paul had Peter’s support as the ultimate bona fides.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
It is like a tree with roots which go deep into the O.T. all of it jells without contradiction. Secondly is it’s prophetic fulfillment, such as what we read in Psalms 22, a description of Christ on the cross. Then there is what we find in Micah 5:2 giving us the exact location of Christ birth. Then there is Isaiah 53, showing all the effects of the cross. All of it is summed up in the N.T.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
You may have a point, but you can’t reinvent the wheel. I do not have as much conflict with what you believe, than you do with what I believe. I found this site and saw the many pronouncements against us. Truly the CC has not gotten over the reformation. We have sooooo moved on in my circle that most, today, do not know what happened at the reformation. Pastors do not preach what I hear you say on this site regularly, anti-catholic rhetoric. Secondly is time. Don’t have it. Right now I’m typing from my phone at my kids boy scouts meeting.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I got news for you, you never demonstrated control over the semantics nor am I in agreement that this is what this line of thought was about. But I will say that each post evolves ever so slightly without resolving anything. Sad.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Protestantism is never mentioned in my parish and the anti-Catholic spew in the Baptist church of my youth was very real.
Obviously it’s an issue where ymmv.
Obviously it’s an issue where ymmv.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sounds like classic disagreement at the axiomatic level!
G
guanophore
Guest
" Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude 3
Are you asking if the Church delivered the Gospel of Salvation to herself? I hope this is a rhetorical question.
I think you are trying to say that the Church is not the fullness of Christ? Or that maybe just the CC is not?
How do you supposed that God preserved His Word within His people from the time of Adam to the time of Abraham? Or for that matter, from the time of Abraham to the time of Moses, who was the first to write the Sacred Tradition?
You make it sound like you don’t believe anything that exists in the Spiritual realm without physical proof. Have you ever seen the proof of an angel? This is why I say that equating “spiritual” with “non-literal” (non-tangible) is a mistake. Just because something is invisible does not make it “metaphorical”. There are many things that exist only in spiritual reality.
It sounds like you really don’t accept what is written in Isa. 55:11.
On the contrary, Jesus wanted a visible and authorative Church in the world. This is why He built the foundation with Apostles and prophets. How can one “take it to the Church” if the church is only invisible?
How can one bind and loose (legislate) if they are “behind the scenes”. Do you think the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts was “behind the scenes”? If it was supposed to be some secret shadowy function, why did God allow it to be included in a book that was going to be circulated around the world?
Well, the Scripture states otherwise, as evidenced by the passage from Jude above. The NT itself says that it is only a small portion of the Gospel message. It is all you have, since you have rejected the Sacred Tradition. By the way, I am earnestly seeking the MP3’s of the lectures in the hall of Tyrannus, if you know where I can find them. ;-}
G
guanophore
Guest
It is amazing that you seem so steeped in Scripture and yet cannot seem to “see” what is clearly written there.
2 Corinthians 4:2 …" nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God."
No one has ever claimed, or does claim, to be infallible. The Holy Spirit protected the Apostles from error in preaching, teaching, and writing the Word of God. If you think the Apostles did not know the difference between the Word of God and their own teachings, you are mistaken.
Colossians 1:25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness—
Are you suggesting that Paul was mistaken, and that he did not really present the fullness of the Word of God?
1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.
Are you suggesting that Paul does not know the difference between the inspired Word of God, and his own?
1 Corinthians 7:10 New International Version (NIV)
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband…
12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
Are you claiming the Apostles did not have the clarity or revelation to know their own thoughts from the Word of God? If so, then how does Paul know the difference?
“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.” 1 Thess 2;13
I think you are confused about the gift of infallibility. You have correctly defined it here. It seems you are confusing it with impeccability?
So, what was this “word of God” which the Apostles say that they delivered? You are not making any sense, tgG. You can’t possibly believe that the Kerygma was not inspired!
G
guanophore
Guest
No, tgG. You have just refused to accept that there is Sacred Tradition in addition to human tradition, despite many examples including what I have given in this post.
God’s word is not confined to the Scriptures.
You think there are no doctrinal distinctives that separate us?
Perhaps you can give refutations of my post, that include references to the Word of God before it was committed to Scripture?
I think you are confused, tgG. Sacred Tradition is not a “government”. it is part of the Revelation by God of Himself that was once for all deposited into the Church. Words don’t govern, tgG, that is why Jesus appointed PEOPLE to govern.
On the contrary, there is nothing at all elusive about the Word of God. It is the foundation of the Church, as it was implanted in the Apostles and Prophets. God has preserved His Word, as He promised in Isa. 55;11
I think @tgGodsway imagines that the Apostles would command the faithful to hold fast to human traditions. It doesn’t make any sense to me, but he his desperate to invalidate that the Word of God was actually delivered to the Church.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
No no no. I have said on this site before, I do not have a problem with oral tradition. Any oral tradition will be a carbon copy of inspired scripture. No problem. It is when the tradition contradicts scripture there is a problem.
M
MT1926
Guest
I’m just curious how an oral tradition can be written?
It seems you are ignoring basic definitions.
Oral tradition means by word of mouth, a tradition spoken RATHER than written.
Contradiction means a statement OPPOSITE of one already made.
From these basic definitions if St. Paul spoke of oral traditions and then later wrote them down he would actually be creating a contradiction in the Scriptures he wrote.
Why would the Holy Spirit allow St. Paul to make such a huge contradiction?
The only possible way to get around this contradiction would be if St. Paul would have written “this oral tradition I now hand on to you in writing”. Without these words I see no reason for St. Paul to mention something he foreknew he would later write down.
God Bless
G
guanophore
Guest
And where in the Scripture does it say this must be so? Are there any historical Christian writings that support this idea? It seems like, along with Sola Scriptura, this is an extrabiblical concept that is a modern innovation.
I quite agree. But what is a contradiction here, tgG, is your PERCEPTION of what scripture says. Sacred tradition cannot contradict the Sacred Scriptures because they both come from the same Source, and God does not contradict Himself.
I think the entire New Testament reflects the Sacred Tradition, which is the teaching of the Apostles. Otherwise, how was it preserved? The earliest books are dated 20 years after the death of Christ.
There are several of these oral traditions found in the Scriptures such as:
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.” I Cor 15
These Sacred (Oral) traditions later formed the creeds we still use today.
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. " I Cor. 11
This handing down (paradosis) is how the Sacred Tradition has always been preserved, from Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to the Prophets, and the Prophets to Christ. Yes, there are written records as well, but the NT specifically states that it contains only a fraction of what Jesus said and did.
“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” I Cor 11 :25
This snippet of sacred tradition is part of the early Eucharistic Celebration liturgy that has been used to this day. But it is folly to think that the whole of the liturgy, prayers, and faith practices handed down through the Apostles is written in the NT>
G
guanophore
Guest
While I do not condone “pronouncements against” our siblings in Christ, I think it is proper that the CC is focused on healing the wounds to the Body. Many of those wounds were created by arrogance, greed, and lust for power by Catholic officials, and it is appropriate that reparations be made. Did you not know that famous proverb:
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” ~Lord Acton
Was made about a Catholic Bishop?
I don’t believe you are one of those tgG, since you have so many hateful things to say about the Papacy and Catholic doctrine that loudly echo the Reformation. I can still hear the reformers railing when reading some of your posts.
But even for those who have “forgotten” and moved on, it is a great disservice that they do not know what happened at the Reformation. It means they have not studied their family history, and are ignorant of what prevents unity in the Body of Christ. Ignorance of the wounds to unity does nothing to help heal them, and every believer has a responsibility to that healing.
Having sojourned among my separated brethren for 20 some years before coming home to Rome I can vouch for this. I had some excellent preaching and spiritual formation/bible study during those years and rarely heard anything anti-Catholic (though I did try to avoid such things).
What I am saying is that Reformation doctrine has a steady diet of anti-Catholic elements.
…A
Yes, I agree. We find the same to be true with the Deuterocanonical books.
G
guanophore
Guest
While I do not condone “pronouncements against” our siblings in Christ, I think it is proper that the CC is focused on healing the wounds to the Body. Many of those wounds were created by arrogance, greed, and lust for power by Catholic officials, and it is appropriate that reparations be made. Did you not know that famous proverb:
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” ~Lord Acton
Was made about a Catholic Bishop?
I don’t believe you are one of those tgG, since you have so many hateful things to say about the Papacy and Catholic doctrine that loudly echo the Reformation. I can still hear the reformers railing when reading some of your posts.
But even for those who have “forgotten” and moved on, it is a great disservice that they do not know what happened at the Reformation. It means they have not studied their family history, and are ignorant of what prevents unity in the Body of Christ. Ignorance of the wounds to unity does nothing to help heal them, and every believer has a responsibility to that healing.
Having sojourned among my separated brethren for 20 some years before coming home to Rome I can vouch for this. I had some excellent preaching and spiritual formation/bible study during those years and rarely heard anything anti-Catholic (though I did try to avoid such things).
What I am saying is that Reformation doctrine has a steady diet of anti-Catholic elements.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
The problem isn’t with st. Paul. The problem is traditions that may go from st. Paul’s mouth to the ears of others who then, speak them into the ears of others, who then speak them into the ears of others, who then decide to write them down, and Lo and behold, something has changed. A lot has changed. But no problem, we can always go back to inspired scripture to get all that Paul wanted us to know.
But how about the tradition that scripture doesn’t talk about at all? Such as Mary’s sinless state, (I’ve brought this up many times) … now we must rely upon people outside of inspired scripture to indoctrinate us with things that the N.T. preach against. Why would anyone want to give it the time of day?
G
guanophore
Guest
You sound like you are describing a game of Telephone! I think you have underestimated the Power of God to watch over His word. Again you are denying the validity of Isaiah 55:11. The Sacred Traditions, consisting of the Word of God transmitted by the Apostles to the Church is preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit. How can you suggest that the Holy Spirit would allow human failings to contaminate the Word of God?
It is true that a lot has changed. Culture, technology, science, politics. And yes, we can go back to inspired Scripture, but it does not contain all that God wanted us to know. If it did, why did Jesus bother to establish a Church? Was He just entertaining Himself because tiddlywinks had not yet been created? Did He expect the Church to fall to the ground after the Scriptures were penned? This is what you seem to want us to believe.
Although we see references to Mary’s sinless state in Scripture, since people who received their faith whole and entire from the Apostles do not extract doctrines from the text, we are not concerned that all there is to be known may not be recorded specifically in Scripture. The same is true of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, celebration of the Lord’s Day on Sunday (rather than observing the Sabbath), and the table of contents for the Scriptures. All these things, which you seem to accept without question, have come to you through that same sacred tradition. If you cannot trust that Sacred Tradition, on what basis to you not observe the Sabbath?
My dear sir, you have given an excellent example of why the Reformation is still very much before our eyes. Except that the Reformers did still hold to infant baptism, and veneration of Mary, which subsequent children of the Reformation have jettisoned.
This begs the question, tgG. Why are you here at CAF? You say that you are so busy you cannot read all the posts, yet you continue to come here to strive with Catholics. How do you know that the Holy Spirit is not calling you home?
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
Wasn’t Barnabas also referred to as an apostle?
- Status