Do those who leave the Church go to Hell?

[jericho777]

Perhaps you misunderstood. “What the bible says” is the same thing as “Sacred Tradition”–it’s just that which has been written down. So it cannot be one or the other in Catholic theology.

I have been told here sacred tradition is held higher than scripture. So when was sacred tradition written down if ever? Is it still only oral?

It’s like saying Protestants hold “what the Bible says” above what God says. They are one and the same, no?

Yes they are one in the same so there is no need for something extra is there. Unless you beleive the bible is lacking in someway doctrinally.

Tradition is what brought you the Scriptures, jericho. You cannot deny that. Without the Sacred Tradition of the CC you would not know what is God’s word and what is merely ancient Christian writings.

The Holy Spirit produced the word of God.
Not the will of men.

Thus, each and every time you quote from the Scriptures you are giving tacit approval to Sacred Tradition.

Then why isn’t sacred tradition included in the biblical record if it is equal to it?

 

[PRmerger]

I have been told here sacred tradition is held higher than scripture.

Perhaps if you could find the post(s) which state this it would be easier to continue this dialogue.

You seem to be creating a dichotomy regarding ST and SS that does not exist in the CC.

As Cardinal John Henry Newman said: * -Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione*–all is in Scripture; all is in Tradition.

So when was sacred tradition written down if ever? Is it still only oral?

It is not (nor has it ever been) “only oral”. Tradition’s purpose is to determine for us today what instructions are from God.

Tradition, while being the Word of God, is not referred to as being “inspired”–only Sacred Scripture is given that nomenclature. We speak ST being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit.

Yes they are one in the same so there is no need for something extra is there.

Right. Catholics do not add to the Word of God. We simply understand that not all of the Word of God was committed to writing. (And, unless you can find a verse that says “all of the Word of God was committed to writing” you will be proclaiming a non-Scriptural tradition of you profess as such.)

Unless you beleive the bible is lacking in someway doctrinally.

Well, it’s lacking the table of contents–that was put there by the Catholic Church. You would not know that Revelation is inspired and the Gospel of Thomas is not, unless the Catholic Church made that decision for you.

The Holy Spirit produced the word of God.
Not the will of men.

This is very Catholic of you to say. But it’s a little like saying, “God made my little baby, not my husband and me.” This is true, but how did God make the baby? He used people. Married people.

Then why isn’t sacred tradition included in the biblical record if it is equal to it?

This is begging the question, jericho.

You are assuming that something must be included in the “biblical record” for it to be given equal authority. Where does the Scripture say this? Chapter and verse, please.

 

[jericho777]

Sounds like solid Love, I hear you.

I fine, I’m not sure I could be any better. Thanks for the concern though. I don’t want you to lose sleep.

I’m just very direct, I believe we spoke once before, don’t you follow Calvin? I have no issue with that. I believe I remember speaking to you before. Maybe I’m wrong?

Yes, I kinda get that. Its fine, your misreading me being direct. I believe I get where your coming from with the scripture now though. However, Listen, if scripture makes music in its context, personally I look at it.

Often times people post scripture verse, which then looks just like a bowl of notes, that creates no-music. Follow-me? That which I can’t see context/comprehension though makes it more difficult. I see many who have solid textual understanding. However I believe I have a better understanding of where your at now.

Thanks Gary, yes we have spoken before. It’s been quite a while. I don’t follow Calvin per se but believe TULIP accurately reflects biblical teaching. I won’t give you all the bible references though.

We can all learn something here no matter how small it may be. I follow you there is limited time and space here, I agree it can be hard to get the just of 20 verses.

 

[jericho777]

What do you mean by it’s “verifiable”?

We can demonstrate the words have not changed over time.

 

[jericho777]

Now sure what “people” you mean. Are you talking about CAFs members who allegedly hold sacred tradition above the written word?

Or are you talking about the “people” in the Catholic Church who discerned for you that the Shepherd of Hermas is not inspired but that Titus is?

Yes thats what I’ve been told here. I guess in the future I will refer them back to you, so you can set them straight!

No, this tradition was it ever written down? If it is held so highly by the CC why not include it in scripture for all to read? Is it equal to scripture?

 

[jericho777]

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus told us that even the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. In other words, no matter what may happen, or who would ever try to destroy it, His Church would always remain faithful and true to Him, and no one would ever be able to destroy it. It was built on the “Rock” (Peter) and will remain intact until Jesus comes, again. Even if only a ‘few’ remain truly faithful, the Church itself will still be His Church, forever. It’s quite obvious that He spoke those words directly to Peter. Those who follow Peter and his successors would seem to be the obvious ones that Jesus was referring to as “His Church”. Maybe I’m just naive, but that’s the way that I see it, as plain as day.

And the Jews are His chosen people.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thanks Gary, yes we have spoken before. It’s been quite a while. I don’t follow Calvin per se but believe TULIP accurately reflects biblical teaching. I won’t give you all the bible references though.

We can all learn something here no matter how small it may be. I follow you there is limited time and space here, I agree it can be hard to get the just of 20 verses.

Yes, and the Mass. finally clicked in. It has been awhile. Peace be with you.

 

[PRmerger]

We can demonstrate the words have not changed over time.

Ah. Very good, then. It is the unchangeable and verifiable Word of God.

Now, here’s the question: what’s the Bible? How do you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired and not the Gospel of Thomas?

Who decided this for you?

The answer…

wait for it…

wait for it…



It was the Catholic Church!

 

[PRmerger]

No, this tradition was it ever written down?

Yes, jericho. Part of it was written down: it’s called the Bible.

The Bible is a product of Sacred Tradition.

For before there was the Bible there was Tradition. For 400 years the oral teaching of the Apostles was preserved by the Catholic Church, until this Tradition was codified and produced into a book called the Bible.

If it is held so highly by the CC why not include it in scripture for all to read?

Again, you are assuming that which you want to prove. Why does it have to be written down?

What verse in Scripture says that all of God’s word must be written? Chapter and verse, please!

Is it equal to scripture?

It is. Except that we don’t use the words that ST is theopneustos, or “inspired”, as we do with SS.

 

[jericho777]

Perhaps if you could find the post(s) which state this it would be easier to continue this dialogue.

You seem to be creating a dichotomy regarding ST and SS that does not exist in the CC.

As Cardinal John Henry Newman said: * -Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione*–all is in Scripture; all is in Tradition.

It is not (nor has it ever been) “only oral”. Tradition’s purpose is to determine for us today what instructions are from God.

Tradition, while being the Word of God, is not referred to as being “inspired”–only Sacred Scripture is given that nomenclature. We speak ST being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit.

Right. Catholics do not add to the Word of God. We simply understand that not all of the Word of God was committed to writing. (And, unless you can find a verse that says “all of the Word of God was committed to writing” you will be proclaiming a non-Scriptural tradition of you profess as such.)

Well, it’s lacking the table of contents–that was put there by the Catholic Church. You would not know that Revelation is inspired and the Gospel of Thomas is not, unless the Catholic Church made that decision for you.

This is very Catholic of you to say. But it’s a little like saying, “God made my little baby, not my husband and me.” This is true, but how did God make the baby? He used people. Married people.

This is begging the question, jericho.

You are assuming that something must be included in the “biblical record” for it to be given equal authority. Where does the Scripture say this? Chapter and verse, please.

Then what is lacking in scripture that we nssd tradition? I’m not going to go back and reread all my posts to find examples. He He

Either ST is equal to scripture or it’s not. Your choice.

Very funny table of contents. It does nothing to the validity of scripture though.

I disagree you have relegated the word of God to the whims and wills of men.

The bible is called the word of God so that would be my first clue as to its authority. It is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. Your word have I hidden in my heart that I might not sin against You. When David wrote these he was speaking of scripture. I don’t see ST called that.

 

[jericho777]

Ah. Very good, then. It is the unchangeable and verifiable Word of God.

Now, here’s the question: what’s the Bible? How do you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired and not the Gospel of Thomas?

Who decided this for you?

The answer…

wait for it…

wait for it…



It was the Catholic Church!

We have the Isaiah scroll from Qumran that is the same as we have today.

 

[PRmerger]

We have the Isaiah scroll from Qumran that is the same as we have today.

Ok. This is a non-sequitur, but ok.

 

[jericho777]

Yes, jericho. Part of it was written down: it’s called the Bible.

The Bible is a product of Sacred Tradition.

For before there was the Bible there was Tradition. For 400 years the oral teaching of the Apostles was preserved by the Catholic Church, until this Tradition was codified and produced into a book called the Bible.

Again, you are assuming that which you want to prove. Why does it have to be written down?

What verse in Scripture says that all of God’s word must be written? Chapter and verse, please!

It is. Except that we don’t use the words that ST is theopneustos, or “inspired”, as we do with SS.

No the bible is not “tradition”. It is from God not men. If your tradition is so important why was it not included in the canon of scripture?

The bible was scripture from the moment the Holy Spirit inspired men to write the words. Not 400 years later.

Try to deflect when you have no answer. Nice try! It is important because when there is hard copy there is a record. That’s why and you don’t need to have a verse in scripture to tell you a simple truth. Jesus said “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” He’s refering to something written and verifiable.

 

[PRmerger]

Then what is lacking in scripture that we nssd tradition?

What is lacking is each book claiming to be Scripture. And even if it did, that would not make it inspired, right?

How do you know that these verses are inspired Scripture or not?

• My breath is offensive to my wife.
• Saul went into a cave to relieve himself.
• Thou causest to err thereby whomever Thou pleasest and guidest whomever Thou pleasest.
• IMoreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, reproving, and punishing of all other fault.

Some of the verses above are inspired. Some are not. How do you know?

The only way you know is…

because the CC discerned for you that it was or wasn’t inspired.

 

[jericho777]

Ok. This is a non-sequitur, but ok.

Why is it that. It is a verifiable proof of the accuracy of Isaiah demonstrating Gods sovereignty over His word.

 

[PRmerger]

Either ST is equal to scripture or it’s not. Your choice.

I told you: it is equal to SS. It’s part of God’s Word and woe to any man who dismisses the Word of God.

You only believe that the Word of God is limited to Scripture because you believed some man who told you this.

But you never read that in any pages of the Bible. Not a single page says this, jericho.

Think about that.

You believe that the Word of God is only found in Scripture only because some man told you so.

 

[PRmerger]

Why is it that. It is a verifiable proof of the accuracy of Isaiah demonstrating Gods sovereignty over His word.

Okay. So we can trace the accuracy of Isaiah.

But how do you know it’s inspired? Because the Jews declared it to be?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes thats what I’ve been told here. I guess in the future I will refer them back to you, so you can set them straight!

I think perhaps what you may have been told here is that ST came before SS. And that the Church came before SS. And that the Church produced and codified the Scriptures.

But I don’t think any knowledgeable Catholic would ever claim that ST has primacy over SS.

 

[jericho777]

What is lacking is each book claiming to be Scripture. And even if it did, that would not make it inspired, right?

How do you know that these verses are inspired Scripture or not?

• My breath is offensive to my wife.
• Saul went into a cave to relieve himself.
• Thou causest to err thereby whomever Thou pleasest and guidest whomever Thou pleasest.
• IMoreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, reproving, and punishing of all other fault.

Some of the verses above are inspired. Some are not. How do you know?

The only way you know is…

because the CC discerned for you that it was or wasn’t inspired.

Show me a verse in scripture that says each book has to declare it’s own inspiration to be so. This is what you always say to me.

BTW the Jews did just fine without your help determining scripture for themselves or do they owe you all for that.

 

[PRmerger]

Very funny table of contents. It does nothing to the validity of scripture though.

Validity of Scripture? What does that mean? How do you even know what is Scripture?

Here’s how you know: because the CC told you that it is.

I disagree you have relegated the word of God to the whims and wills of men.

Well, if I have done this, then you have, too.

Because unless you want to say that you have the authority to discern what’s inspired and what’s not–and you want to claim that the CC made a mistake in rejecting the Gospel of Philip and accepting the Gospel of John–then you have relegated the Word of God to the whims and wills of men (Catholic men, to be specific. Actually, Catholic bishops in the 4th century), too.

The bible is called the word of God so that would be my first clue as to its authority. It is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. Your word have I hidden in my heart that I might not sin against You. When David wrote these he was speaking of scripture. I don’t see ST called that.

Amen! The Bible is the Word of God.

You just don’t know what belongs in the Bible, except through another authority–the Catholic Church.

(Incidentally, when David wrote that there was no NT, so he was only talking about the Torah, right? Are you arguing, then, that only the Torah is a lamp unto our feet?)