Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

[JustaServant]

No need for you to be told. But I will say I experienced this from some protestants too.

You brought it up dude.
Why am I “blind”?

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Then how can any human being interpret Scripture then. since that requires human reasoning?

The same way we interpret anything that we must read. You and other Roman Catholics do the very same thing we reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church . The danger of human reasoning is when it is misused to for example deny the Trinity like the arians did in the early church. They used human reasoning for rejecting the Trinity while we would say Scripture supports the Trinity. In their case, the arians were in error in their human reasoning because it went againist what Scripture says about God and each person in the Trinity. This was why I cited Col. 2:8.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Just from my study of Scripture. Even before I was a believer I came to that conclusion. Since you already I assume you would agree since Roman Catholics says it is at least part of the rule of faith and that Scripture is God’s Word.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

You brought it up dude.
Why am I “blind”?

It is called selective seeing. It means not seeing things beyond your own personal view of things.

 

[JustaServant]

Just from my study of Scripture. Even before I was a believer I came to that conclusion. Since you already I assume you would agree since Roman Catholics says it is at least part of the rule of faith and that Scripture is God’s Word.

Agreed, Scripture is God’s Word.
And your words

Just from my study of Scripture. Even before I was a believer I came to that conclusion

is human reasoning.
So obviously God does NOT reject human reasoning, but guides human reasoning.
I learned that at a Protestant university.

 

[JustaServant]

It is called selective seeing. It means not seeing things beyond your own personal view of things.

Which is extremely insulting.
You have no way of knowing I or anyone else is “selectivly seeing”.
You need to post charitably as per the forum rules.

 

[JonNC]

Where in Scripture do you see it said that it, Scripture, is supreme over reason and tradition?

Just,
How do you interpret this from the Dei Verbum?

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. **This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. **

Is there any possibility that tradition would contradict scripture? If there is not, is it safe to say that scripture is supreme, that the Church serves scripture?

I ask these questions simply to underscore that, when properly understood, sola scriptura only requires that Tradition not contradict scripture. That Tradition is not excluded, nor is the teaching role of the Church, nor are the wise teachings of the ECF’s in regards what scripture teaches. In fact, when properly understood and practiced, sola scriptura is not individual interpretation, as the practice is that of the Church.
Certainly, Lutheranism and Catholicism practices hermeunetics differently in regards to whether or not Tradtion is equal to scripture. Further, there would be no need for the practice of sola scriptura if there were agreement (primarily between the CC and EO) as to what exactly Tradition teaches.

Jon

 

[JustaServant]

Just,
How do you interpret this from the Dei Verbum?

Is there any possibility that tradition would contradict scripture? If there is not, is it safe to say that scripture is supreme, that the Church serves scripture?

I ask these questions simply to underscore that, when properly understood, sola scriptura only requires that Tradition not contradict scripture. That Tradition is not excluded, nor is the teaching role of the Church, nor are the wise teachings of the ECF’s in regards what scripture teaches. In fact, when properly understood and practiced, sola scriptura is not individual interpretation, as the practice is that of the Church.
Certainly, Lutheranism and Catholicism practices hermeunetics differently in regards to whether or not Tradtion is equal to scripture. Further, there would be no need for the practice of sola scriptura if there were agreement (primarily between the CC and EO) as to what exactly Tradition teaches.

Jon

Hi Jon.
I was trying to pin down Chafer on the place of reason in regard to Scripture. He contridicted himself and logged out.
As for Sacrad Tradition, I believe the Catholic view is they are both equally important. I’ll let others argue with the Lutheran position.
Many of these questions I had when I was still a Baptist years ago. Where is the place of human reason in regard to interpreting Scripture. If we reject all human reason, then where does the authority rest? How can any church state “we have the right view” when they they state human reason is in direct opposition to God’s Word.
As a Baptist we were told to basically leave our brains and reasoning skills at the door.
Okay, if that’s true preacher (I would often think) why should I trust YOUR reasoning skills in (name removed by moderator)reting Scripture? We can say the Holy Spirit…but that really is a copout.
It ties you up into mental knots. It all comes down to authority.
Do you know how many times in Sunday Schools I would hear the teacher ask: “whats this verse mean to you?” I would scream inside “it might not mean a stinking thing to me!” Each person uses thier own reasoning skills to interpret a passage of Scripture.
And then deny human reasoning is involved.
The truth is God guides human reasoning in regard to interpreting Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Without that trust…we all might as well stay home on Sunday morning.
It all comes down to authority. And whose authority we trust.
I trust the authority of the Church 2000 years old.
I would not state the Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura is the kind I encountered across the Tiber. It is very different from the fundamentalist view.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Jon.
I was trying to pin down Chafer on the place of reason in regard to Scripture. He contridicted himself and logged out.
As for Sacrad Tradition, I believe the Catholic view is they are both equally important. I’ll let others argue with the Lutheran position.
Many of these questions I had when I was still a Baptist years ago. Where is the place of human reason in regard to interpreting Scripture. If we reject all human reason, then where does the authority rest? How can any church state “we have the right view” when they they state human reason is in direct opposition to God’s Word.
As a Baptist we were told to basically leave our brains and reasoning skills at the door.
Okay, if that’s true preacher (I would often think) why should I trust YOUR reasoning skills in (name removed by moderator)reting Scripture? We can say the Holy Spirit…but that really is a copout.
It ties you up into mental knots. It all comes down to authority.
Do you know how many times in Sunday Schools I would hear the teacher ask: “whats this verse mean to you?” I would scream inside “it might not mean a stinking thing to me!” Each person uses thier own reasoning skills to interpret a passage of Scripture.
And then deny human reasoning is involved.
The truth is God guides human reasoning in regard to interpreting Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Without that trust…we all might as well stay home on Sunday morning.
It all comes down to authority. And whose authority we trust.
I trust the authority of the Church 2000 years old.
I would not state the Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura is the kind I encountered across the Tiber. It is very different from the fundamentalist view.

Just,

You have hit on a fundamental fact. A bible study is not a bible study.

We are individuals
We have values
We engage in society

We as individuals have ways of seeing things. It was my experience in many Bible studies that no matter what I said the leader kept teaching the points of the theology from whence they came.

I spoke to a Jehovah Witness and studied this some and the JW Bible study causes conformity to the message of the JW and Bible studies are led by tracts with specific answers that lead to the JW paradigm.

Whatever Protestan group you are in a Bible study as you engage and conform to that society, you then exit with the paradigm of that particlar groups theology. The society/church groups reinforces it and expects you to know the party line.

AA/12 steps is no different. It has Protestant roots and study of the Big Book is meant to be studied and known so that you learn to accept and regurgitate the party line of Disease, Denial, etc based on the paradigm, the book and the social interaction.

The Catholic Church Bible study will do the same.

So it is not truly Sola Scriptura or the Bible alone otherwise if that were true than everyone studying the Bible alone would come up with the same paradigm.

Chemistry, Biochemistry, Physics all basically have the same stuff so studying this with what ever teacher leads everyone to the same paradigm, gravity, heat, pressure, H2O and the like.

It is never the Bible alone and then the reality is that there is some Authority that delivers the message and paradigm so it is always the Bible and Some Theology, using the Bible to promote the paradigm and belief reinforced by the Society/Church…until you reject it and find another paradigm that makes more sense or none at all as often happens with Fundamentalists that are taught everyone else is wrong. When the discovery that Fundamentalism is of recent origin the result is an Athiest, many I have met that used to be Fundamentalist.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Jon.
I was trying to pin down Chafer on the place of reason in regard to Scripture. He contridicted himself and logged out.
As for Sacrad Tradition, I believe the Catholic view is they are both equally important. I’ll let others argue with the Lutheran position.
Many of these questions I had when I was still a Baptist years ago. Where is the place of human reason in regard to interpreting Scripture. If we reject all human reason, then where does the authority rest? How can any church state “we have the right view” when they they state human reason is in direct opposition to God’s Word.
As a Baptist we were told to basically leave our brains and reasoning skills at the door.
Okay, if that’s true preacher (I would often think) why should I trust YOUR reasoning skills in (name removed by moderator)reting Scripture? We can say the Holy Spirit…but that really is a copout.
It ties you up into mental knots. It all comes down to authority.
Do you know how many times in Sunday Schools I would hear the teacher ask: “whats this verse mean to you?” I would scream inside “it might not mean a stinking thing to me!” Each person uses thier own reasoning skills to interpret a passage of Scripture.
And then deny human reasoning is involved.
The truth is God guides human reasoning in regard to interpreting Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Without that trust…we all might as well stay home on Sunday morning.
It all comes down to authority. And whose authority we trust.
I trust the authority of the Church 2000 years old.
I would not state the Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura is the kind I encountered across the Tiber. It is very different from the fundamentalist view.

Just,

Here is another point to think about.

It is not the Bible alone…it is in reality The Theology alone based on a view that uses the Bible but never alone and then the question is where did that Theology alone come from?

The OHCAC clearly states beliefs based on Scripture/Tradtion, a deposit of Faith from the Apostles. The OHCAC admits that it has a theology, a paradigm, and that is what you learn by way of study.

The theology that uses the Bible to implement it’s beliefs then has to be looked at as “where did this theology originate?”…because it is clearly not the Bible alone, as there is no one paradigm.

This question then leads to the origin of thought of this paradigm and an understanding of the source of thought or authority that promulgates the theology alone using the Bible alone or not.

 

[pablope]

This comes from not following the Bible rather than follow Sola Scriptura. Guess you may not know what Protestants actually believe generally speaking.

 

[pablope]

The danger of human reasoning is when it is misused to for example deny the Trinity like the arians did in the early church.

So…how this any different with you using your reasoning to believe what you believe and reason that the CC teaching (whatever it is) is in error?

Are you not then wading into the realm of the danger of your human reasoning? Are you not then making a judgement of error, making yourself the authority to judge?

 

[CopticChristian]

Well…with several thousand protestant denoms…and the continuous and never ending splitting…I doubt you even know what your neighboring protestant denom believes.

 

[Erich]

Could someone give me a list of the traditions that are not in the bible but are passed down from Peter or the apostles from the first century.
It would be fullfiilling to have the complete truth than half of the story!

Here are some examples of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Reliance on Oral Tradition:Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“itisbettertogivethantoreceive”) of Jesus. Itis not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles togive the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. Itis not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

 

[Erich]

The danger of human reasoning is when it is misused to for example deny the Trinity like the arians did in the early church. They used human reasoning for rejecting the Trinity while we would say Scripture supports the Trinity.

Actually, the Arians used scripture to reject the Trinity. From The Lens in My Eye:

What could be more central to Evangelical belief than the deity of Christ? This was the very issue that had spurred me to battle with modernism. It is the great thundering truth proclaimed by every good preacher of the gospel. If that is not essential Christianity, then there is no such thing as Christianity. Yet as I began to read Scripture and look at church history, I began to realize there are more ways in heaven and earth of attacking the deity of Christ than modernism has dreamt of in its philosophy. There are ways that need never pursue any such crudities as declaring our Lord the product of a rape or asserting that he was eaten by wild dogs. Indeed, there are ways of denying the deity of Christ which can easily slip in under the Evangelical radar screen, ways which reverence him as a supernatural being and call loudly for trust in Scripture as the one and only source of revelation, yet which firmly consign Christ to the status of mere creature just as surely as the most ardent skeptic.

Most famous among these ways is a third century movement known as Arianism.

Arians were principally concerned to preserve the Oneness of God from pagan polytheism. They argued cogently from Scripture. They were well-trained, Greek-speaking theologians who could read Scripture in the original tongues. The only problem was that they had the brighter, simpler idea that Jesus was not truly God but only a sort of godlet or superior created being.

In defense of this idea, the Arians rejected tradition and pointed to texts like “my Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28) and “Why do you call me good? No one is good – except God alone” (Mk 10:18). They also pointed to the form of the Trinity as found in Paul: “God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit.” They could come up with plausible explanations for terms and expressions which we Evangelicals thought could only point to Christ’s divinity. For example, Arians said the statement, “I and my Father are one” (Jn 10:30) refers to oneness of purpose, not oneness of being. They pointed out that Scripture refers to supernatural created beings as “sons of God” (Job 38:7) without intending they are one in being with the Father. They observed that even mere humans were called “gods” (Ps 82:6; Jn 10:34-36), without the implication that they are God. Therefore they inferred that the Son, supernatural though he may be (as angels, principalities and powers are supernatural), is neither co-eternal with the Father nor one in being with him.

Now many Christians today regard all this wrangling over technical philosophical phrases like “co-eternal” and “of one being” as just so much theological technobabble. We lament that the early Church got so hung up on “cold Christs and tangled Trinities.” We shake our heads and say we need to forget all that head-knowledge and just magnify the Lord Jesus and worship him. We say well-intended things like, “Let’s just get back to basics and return to the simple biblical message that Christ died for us to take away our sins and give us a share in the life of God by the Holy Spirit.”

But this simple biblical message is precisely what Arianism denies – and it uses the Bible to do it! To deny that Christ is one in being with the Father is to deny that he can ever be magnified and worshipped because it is to deny that he is God. To deny that he is God is to deny that his death meant any more for a sinful humanity than the death of any other creature. Likewise it is to deny that he can ever give us a share in the life of God. Even the Son, however glorious, cannot give what he does not have.

How would we Evangelicals argue against Arianism using Scripture alone? We’d say that John speaks of the Son as “only begotten” and says of him that he “was God” and was “with God in the beginning” (Jn 1:1-2, 18; 3:16). We would reply that, although the term “Trinity” is not in Scripture, nonetheless the concept of Trinity is there.

But a good Arian would be quick to point out that God plainly says “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” (Heb 1:5) which implies that there was a time before the Son was begotten. Thus, though the Son was with God in the beginning of his creative work, says the Arian, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t created himself.

In other words, the Arian can argue that there was a time when the Son was not. But there was never a time when the Father was not. He is without beginning. Therefore, according to the Arian, the Son is not God in the same sense as the Father and does not share his eternal, beginningless essence. This amounts to a denial of the deity of Christ since a God with a beginning is not the God of Israel. Great and glorious and supernatural as he may be compared to the rest of creation (and Paul implies he is a creature when he calls him the firstborn over all creation (Col 1:15) doesn’t he?), nonetheless he is only a creature, says the Arian.

But that would not be the end of it. For the Arian would likewise preserve the oneness of God by insisting that the Holy Spirit is not a person, much less the Third Person of the Trinity. Can an Evangelical appealing to Scripture alone definitively disprove this claim?

Maybe. But then… maybe not.

To be sure, the Spirit is spoken of as a Paraclete (Jn 14:16) (a defense lawyer) and is referred to as engaging in personal acts such as convicting of sin (Jn 16:8), bearing witness (Jn 15:26), giving joy (Lk 10:21), enabling saints to perform miracles and prophecy (1 Cor 12) and so on. Similarly, we Evangelicals would argue that he can be blasphemed, grieved, insulted and lied to (Mk 3:29; Eph 4:30; Acts 5:3).

But on the other hand, says the Arian, the New Testament word for “Spirit” is neuter and the Greek refers to the Spirit as “it.” Likewise, it speaks of the Spirit in non-personal images as well. The Spirit is a fire (Acts 2:3), a dove (Mt 3:16), a rushing wind (Acts 2:2), a fountain of water (Jn 7:37-39). The Spirit “fills” people like an impersonal wine poured into a bottle (Acts 2:4). Come to think of it, says the Arian, Scripture often speaks of abstract things in personal terms. Thus it portrays sin “crouching at the door” like a bandit (Gn 4:7), earth crying out at the blood of Abel (Gn 4:10), wisdom as a woman working at God’s side (Prov 8), and the law of sin waging war against the law of Paul’s mind like a soldier (Rm 7:23). So, says the Arian, the Scriptures which appear to portray the Spirit as a person are in fact personalized images of the power of God, not a revelation of a Third Person in the Godhead.

Evangelicals may well counter that Paul specifically declares that the Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor 3:18). But the Arian has a ready answer. Granted, he says, the Spirit is spoken of as “the Lord” now and then. But there are also many passages in which creatures speak and are addressed as though they are God himself (Gn 18). So Paul’s language need not necessarily mean that the Spirit is literally God Almighty.

Very well then, is my point “Be Arian”? No. My point is that an Evangelical, relying on Scripture alone and “never binding the conscience of the believer on those questions in which Scripture permits different interpretations,” is in a poor position to say definitively, “Don’t be Arian.” Arianism has just the sort of scriptural ammo which today leads, not so much to a triumph of Arianism as to a stalemate between Arianism and orthodoxy in the Evangelical arena.

 

[Erich]

It would be fullfiilling to have the complete truth than half of the story!

The questions I asked in post #101 (and answered in post #129) are pointed to one very obvious truth to Catholics, but a truth which Protestants tend to ignore because to acknowledge it would put them in a very difficult position. And that truth is this: There is one body of doctrinal and moral teachings out there which has to be true in its fullness because it is the body of doctrinal and moral teachings taught by Jesus and His Apostles, defended by them, and then handed on from the Apostles to the next generation of Church leaders and then handed on by them to still others (2 Tim 2:2). At the beginning of Christianity, there was one, and only one, set of true doctrinal and moral teachings. Denominations - divisions based on differences in beliefs - were condemned. They were not tolerated. Yet, they are now, somehow, okay. Why?

If there is one body of doctrines that is completely true, and only one body of doctrines that can be completely true, then all of this garbage about essential vs. non-essential doctrines is shown to be exactly what it is - a justification for not facing the fact that there can be, at most, one Protestant denomination that has the fullness of truth, and that denomination is probably not yours (and we know it is none of them). In essence, this essential vs. non-essential theological construct, is actually an admission that your church and most, if not all, the other Protestant churches around yours, are not the original Church that was founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[happy_88]

First and foremost we have to realize that our petty differences make no difference to the persecuted church worldwide. They are persecuted due to our common faith in Jesus Christ, despite our differences.
Secondly, If Catholics few tradition only if it aligns with scripture…that is in itself sola scriptura.
I will point out that I asked what traditions were passed down from the Apostles from the first century and was answered with “there is not such a list”.
If you guys recall in a previous post of mine that I find the Catholic and Orthodox church in a trap that is the same as Judaism. They believe that many traditions that were spoken thru Moses was passed down from generation to generation…the oral torah, or Mishneh torah. The Catholics and orthodox believe that traditions were passed down from the Apostles.All three groups have no proof or idea where they originated.
If we can learn from the past, the oral torah perverted Judaism, blinded them to the messiah. I discovered Jesus thru the Bible…not the oral tradition.
The problem is that one generation adds more tradition than the previous generation…and when the tradition contradicts scripture…then scripture gets twisted to fit the paradigm.
You may seem it profitable to attack the bible to prop up your church. I do not have to attack your majestic Christian church to prop up the Bible…it stands alone! One poster who stated that the Scottish church does not follow it is right on all the points but one…we dont have to stone adulterers…we are not in a theocracy and are not under the Mosaic law or covenant. That person does nor understand the bible, if he is to use that argument.
If we are to criticise then we should also apply that same criticism to ourselves…I have read continuously that protestants are in disarray due to the different denominations and beliefs…now lets look at Catholicism…there are different sects under the umbrella of Rome, the Latin one may be the largest, so we think they are all the same, but in reality the Eastern sects do things differently. How many sects have broken away from Rome but still call themselves Catholic…there are many!
The problem with tradition as explained previously is that the bible usually takes the twist over tradition…
This was from a previous poster

“sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the** Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much**. For this common teaching, life and worship is a** living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32.”**

1. The first bolded statement is a contradiction…if something appears to change…that is the definition of change!
   2 The second bolded statement is taken completly out of context, Jesus was refering to the growth of the church out of a few to the multitudes This was not a parable of tradition growing from small to large within a certain church.
   The promise of the old testament was that all the nations would believe, Israel would be a light to all the nations…etc, This is assured by Jesus’s parables and is again assured to the seven churches of revelation that were suffering for their faith by Johns masterful illustration of Gods assurance to the first century church that when he looked and seen the first fruits from a small group of christians in Israel, he looks next and sees a great multitude!
   Jesus predicted the Christian church…again He was bang on!!

 

[SteveVH]

First and foremost we have to realize that our petty differences make no difference to the persecuted church worldwide. They are persecuted due to our common faith in Jesus Christ, despite our differences.
Secondly, If Catholics few tradition only if it aligns with scripture…that is in itself sola scriptura.
I will point out that I asked what traditions were passed down from the Apostles from the first century and was answered with “there is not such a list”.
If you guys recall in a previous post of mine that I find the Catholic and Orthodox church in a trap that is the same as Judaism. They believe that many traditions that were spoken thru Moses was passed down from generation to generation…the oral torah, or Mishneh torah. The Catholics and orthodox believe that traditions were passed down from the Apostles.All three groups have no proof or idea where they originated.
If we can learn from the past, the oral torah perverted Judaism, blinded them to the messiah. I discovered Jesus thru the Bible…not the oral tradition.
The problem is that one generation adds more tradition than the previous generation…and when the tradition contradicts scripture…then scripture gets twisted to fit the paradigm.
You may seem it profitable to attack the bible to prop up your church. I do not have to attack your majestic Christian church to prop up the Bible…it stands alone! One poster who stated that the Scottish church does not follow it is right on all the points but one…we dont have to stone adulterers…we are not in a theocracy and are not under the Mosaic law or covenant. That person does nor understand the bible, if he is to use that argument.
If we are to criticise then we should also apply that same criticism to ourselves…I have read continuously that protestants are in disarray due to the different denominations and beliefs…now lets look at Catholicism…there are different sects under the umbrella of Rome, the Latin one may be the largest, so we think they are all the same, but in reality the Eastern sects do things differently. How many sects have broken away from Rome but still call themselves Catholic…there are many!
The problem with tradition as explained previously is that the bible usually takes the twist over tradition…
This was from a previous poster

“sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the** Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much**. For this common teaching, life and worship is a** living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32.”**

1. The first bolded statement is a contradiction…if something appears to change…that is the definition of change!
   2 The second bolded statement is taken completly out of context, Jesus was refering to the growth of the church out of a few to the multitudes This was not a parable of tradition growing from small to large within a certain church.
   The promise of the old testament was that all the nations would believe, Israel would be a light to all the nations…etc, This is assured by Jesus’s parables and is again assured to the seven churches of revelation that were suffering for their faith by Johns masterful illustration of Gods assurance to the first century church that when he looked and seen the first fruits from a small group of christians in Israel, he looks next and sees a great multitude!
   Jesus predicted the Christian church…again He was bang on!!

Well aren’t you a joy! I would suggest learning the Catholic meaning of Sacred Tradition before making any more remarks. And if you are wondering if it is biblical and where Christian “Tradition” originates, its right there in your Bible:

2 Thess. 3:6, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.”

2 Thess. 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

1 Cor. 11:2, “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”

Sacred Scripture is that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. There is more to the Christian faith than what is written there. The rest is in the life of the Church; its doctrines, its liturgies, really in every facet of Catholic life. This is the Tradition.handed down to us from the Apostles themselves. We’re not talking about having Turkey for Thanksgiving or going back to the lake each year for the forth of July.

 

[earthlings]

Man organized religion for convenience sake.

We are gradually approaching the era of unifying all our beliefs that have sound scriptural backing. The confusion that arise is what exactly did the bible say? how much did it say? what are the inference? I believe that most of what is taught in the church today has been taken out of context to suit our interpretation.

Like someone rightly observed above even if the pope made a pronouncement he is still subject to the bible. The question should be " what does the bible mean"? We may read what it says but what does it mean?

By understanding the meaning can we now know if we are observing its commandment, else we all fall to the temptation of arguing for and against our doctrine.

 

[pablope]

First and foremost we have to realize that our petty differences make no difference to the persecuted church worldwide. They are persecuted due to our common faith in Jesus Christ, despite our differences.

Secondly, If Catholics few tradition only if it aligns with scripture…that is in itself sola scriptura.

Why do you think they are not in disarray? Do you think the sprouting of several thousand denominations is God’s will?

Isn’t this the result of disobedience? Look at what the Bible has to say about disobedience…1 Samuel 15:22-23

22 But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king

now lets look at Catholicism…there are different sects under the umbrella of Rome, the Latin one may be the largest, so we think they are all the same, but in reality the Eastern sects do things differently.

I would suggest you do a lot of study and reading or ask questions before you post statements like this. They are called 'Rites"…meaning the different rites kept their manner of worship in accordance with their apostolic roots. But the teachings and their theology are the same…and all are under the umbrella of the Pope.

Let me ask you…who do the protestants recognize as their leader? Themselves, right?

And look at the result.

This was from a previous poster

"sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the** Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much**

. For this common teaching, life and worship is a** living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32."**

1. The first bolded statement is a contradiction…if something appears to change…that is the definition of change!

It is your misunderstanding and your interpretation. As the article says, it may seem to change, but in reality, it does not.

2 The second bolded statement is taken completly out of context, Jesus was refering to the growth of the church out of a few to the multitudes This was not a parable of tradition growing from small to large within a certain church.

Out of context according to whom? According to your interpetation?

Is the church supposed to stay stagnant or to grow?

Jesus predicted the Christian church…again He was bang on!!

Yes…and that is the Catholic Church.

Not a Church borne of disobedience of Luther…1 Samuel 15:22-23

22 But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king

[/QUOTE]

 

[CopticChristian]

]First and foremost we have to realize that our petty differences make no difference to the persecuted church worldwide. They are persecuted due to our common faith in Jesus Christ, despite our differences.
Secondly, If Catholics few tradition only if it aligns with scripture…that is in itself sola scriptura.
I will point out that I asked what traditions were passed down from the Apostles from the first century and was answered with “there is not such a list”.
If you guys recall in a previous post of mine that I find the Catholic and Orthodox church in a trap that is the same as Judaism. They believe that many traditions that were spoken thru Moses was passed down from generation to generation…the oral torah, or Mishneh torah. The Catholics and orthodox believe that traditions were passed down from the Apostles.All three groups have no proof or idea where they originated.
If we can learn from the past, the oral torah perverted Judaism, blinded them to the messiah. I discovered Jesus thru the Bible…not the oral tradition.
The problem is that one generation adds more tradition than the previous generation…and when the tradition contradicts scripture…then scripture gets twisted to fit the paradigm.
You may seem it profitable to attack the bible to prop up your church. I do not have to attack your majestic Christian church to prop up the Bible…it stands alone! One poster who stated that the Scottish church does not follow it is right on all the points but one…we dont have to stone adulterers…we are not in a theocracy and are not under the Mosaic law or covenant. That person does nor understand the bible, if he is to use that argument.
If we are to criticise then we should also apply that same criticism to ourselves…I have read continuously that protestants are in disarray due to the different denominations and beliefs…now lets look at Catholicism…there are different sects under the umbrella of Rome, the Latin one may be the largest, so we think they are all the same, but in reality the Eastern sects do things differently. How many sects have broken away from Rome but still call themselves Catholic…there are many!
The problem with tradition as explained previously is that the bible usually takes the twist over tradition…
This was from a previous poster

“sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the** Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much**. For this common teaching, life and worship is a** living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32.”**

1. The first bolded statement is a contradiction…if something appears to change…that is the definition of change!
   2 The second bolded statement is taken completly out of context, Jesus was refering to the growth of the church out of a few to the multitudes This was not a parable of tradition growing from small to large within a certain church.
   The promise of the old testament was that all the nations would believe, Israel would be a light to all the nations…etc, This is assured by Jesus’s parables and is again assured to the seven churches of revelation that were suffering for their faith by Johns masterful illustration of Gods assurance to the first century church that when he looked and seen the first fruits from a small group of christians in Israel, he looks next and sees a great multitude!
   **Jesus predicted the Christian church…again He was bang on!!/**QUOTE]

Happy,

You attack Tradition becuase you do not understand or see what Tradition is. It is Tradition that the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman East/West Catholic have 7 sacraments, believe that those Sacraments have effects, were instituted by Christ and that Babies should be Baptized into the Family of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church at Trent declared that the Bible has the minimum of Scripture and it is Tradition that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have more Scripture. Protestants without authority removed books. This is all agreed on.

Show me where Jesus predicted the Christian Church please. When you do then let us say we disagree. If you believe that there is a disagreement…

No one is attacking the Bible. If you knew where the Bible came from you would then understand that no Catholic attacks the Bible. This would be the equivalent of a citizen of the USA attacking the Constitution. I think or perhaps Prince Charles attacking all the documents written by and for the Monarchy of England.

The Bible tells us that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth…and if I don’t listen to you or you don’t listen to me as we disagree then “we take it to the Church”…tell me about where you would take me to resolve some disagreement that I do not choose to listen to you about. Where is that Church? Help me find it.