Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?

[PRmerger]

Sorry PR… I missed this one earlier! It’s very difficult to keep track of all the qu/responses.

No problem. Some threads just move very quickly. Some linger languorously and end up in Thread Purgatory.

Ok FIRSTLY… IIf i turn that around and aks you “how do you know that Tradition is divinely inspired”

The same way that we both know that the Scriptures are inspired: because of the authority of the Catholic Church.

SECONDLY, Mark was an Apostle of God (as can be read in the Bible) and thus divinely elected to teach and have the authority of God (do you disagree) therefore, what he teaches and therefore writes, has the full weighting of divine authority behind it!

Could you tell me what verse tells you that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, the Apostle? Chapter and verse, please, actually.

 

[october_baby]

Speaking as a former protestant with baptist family members, I also post on protestant
message boards, there will be no unity as long as evangelicals unite with militant athiests
to attack catholicism. As a rule, most evangelicals at worst, hostile toward catholicism,
at best, neutral but with misconceptions. Catholics are not so close-minded toward
Protestantism witness the many former catholics who become protestant and then become
rabid anti-catholics. As long as evengelicals are blinded by hate, they will continue to try to marginalize catholism making attempts on unity futile. :banghead:

 

[PRmerger]

Many of the traditions of the Church were NOT 1st century traditions. Many came much much much later (generations) time enough for untruths to be injected in.

Would you include the Trinity in that list of traditions that “were not 1st century traditions” and thus prone to error?

For you do know that the Trinity was not proclaimed dogma until the 4th century, right?

And would you also include the canon of the NT as also being prone to error, as that was not formally defined until the Council of Trent (by Catholic bishops, BTW). If so, where is the error? Do you believe the Church erred in excluding the Gospel of Barnabas and including the book of Revelation, perhaps?

And why do you not believe that the Gospel of Barnabas is theopneustos? Is it not written by a disciple?

Tradition has a very valid place but not when it conflicts with what the Bible says.

There is no Sacred Tradition that conflicts with what the Bible says. In fact, the Bible is a product of Sacred Tradition.

 

[cheezey]

Do you believe the Church erred in excluding the Gospel of Barnabas and including the book of Revelation, perhaps?

And why do you not believe that the Gospel of Barnabas is theopneustos? Is it not written by a disciple?

There is no Sacred Tradition that conflicts with what the Bible says. In fact, the Bible is a product of Sacred Tradition.

Just for my own education, why was the Gospel of Barnabas excluded?

 

[Nikicosier]

I think you are missing PR’s point, Niki. PR is saying that you affirm Sacred Tradition whenever you use teh Gospel of Mark. Mark’s authority came from Peter, through the Apostolic Succession.

Really? Then where do you think the authority comes from? Scripture itself says that all authority comes from God. Where did He give the table of contents for the Bible?

It seems that the Bible says differently, since the two are considered equal.

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God at work in the Church. God is able to preserve His Word where it is placed.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men** but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. **

The Word of God is authorative, whether it is written, or by word of mouth.

This is interesting, because it opposes the Scriptures.

Where does it say this in your bible?

I think you are clinging to an extrabiblical tradition of men here. It was necessary for the Reformers to create this myth, so as to set aside the authority of the Catholic Church.

It is much easier to disobey Sacred Tradition when you can claim it does not exist!

Clearly you read your bible differently than we do. It seems clear to us that the Apostles commended the Christians for holding fast to the traditions as they were communicated by the Apostles.

I don’t see how you can claim to respect them, since they espouse Sacred Tradition.

I can see your point. The entire NT is a product of Catholic Sacred Tradition, so it does seem circular to quote the contents of the NT to “prove” ST.

Gosh… you are very agressive… the point is not to put people down in this fourm but to encourage each other to find the truth in love.

ANYWAY…
Firstly… are you trying to tell me that the Catholic Church made the Bible? I’m pretty sure God did that. He may have used the authority of the Church at that time… the Church many have discovered the Bible (and then added a few extra books here and there to suit their changing theology (purgatory etc…)) but sorry… the Bible was all God.

NO… Mark’s authority came from GOD. Man isn’t authorised to give the authority of God… only God has that authority.
In point of fact, Paul admonished the Pharasees over tradition AND Jesus was also admonished by the Pharasees for flouting tradition (Jesus then put them in their place…)

1Thes says nothing about that beingcarried on through apostolic succession…

Not sure about your next arguement… Do you mean to try and tell me that the written wrod came before the apostles started sharing the good news? That doesn’t make sense… certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches… How does it oppose the scriptures???

As for your next point… ahhh like… through the whole of the epistles especially clear from Pauls letters…

you are right AS THEY WERE COMMUNICATED BY THE APOSTLES… not as they were communicated through apostolic succession through a pope and a teaching magisterium… There are kind of two arguements there… firstly about the authority of the bible and then about the authority of the apostolic successor (disputable).

LASTLY… since NO… the Bible is not a product of the Catholic Sacred Tradition… it’s shouldn’t be used to support Sacred Tradition… expecially since the Biblical text doesn’t support it (actually you can make the text say anything you want… but when taken in the context of the whole Bible and Jesus/apostles teachings then it doesn’t say ‘whatever’ you want)

 

[Nikicosier]

Speaking as a former protestant with baptist family members, I also post on protestant
message boards, there will be no unity as long as evangelicals unite with militant athiests
to attack catholicism. As a rule, most evangelicals at worst, hostile toward catholicism,
at best, neutral but with misconceptions. Catholics are not so close-minded toward
Protestantism witness the many former catholics who become protestant and then become
rabid anti-catholics. As long as evengelicals are blinded by hate, they will continue to try to marginalize catholism making attempts on unity futile. :banghead:

I don’t consider myself to be a rabid ‘anti-catholic’…

 

[Cider]

Protestants and Catholics together; do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants? We can discuss whatever you want on this issue since we agree on the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Jesus is Lord; therefore, at the end of the day, we are simply just siblings in Christ. Honest discussion is the first step for Christian unity. What would you like to discuss on this issue?

Nothing is stopping protestants from becoming Catholic and that is the only thing that is going remove the division between them and the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Just for my own education, why was the Gospel of Barnabas excluded?

Because it either contained things which were not part of the Oral Tradition (or, the kerygma, which was the oral proclamation of the faith given, once for all, to the Apostles), or excluded things which were part of Tradition.

At any rate, the fact that a Christian does not believe that it is inspired is because the Catholic Church has told him so!

 

[PRmerger]

Firstly… are you trying to tell me that the Catholic Church made the Bible? I’m pretty sure God did that. He may have used the authority of the Church at that time… the Church many have discovered the Bible** (and then added a few extra books here and there to suit their changing theology** (purgatory etc…)) but sorry… the Bible was all God.

This is very Catholic of you to say (minus the bolded section )

The Catholic Church (bishops, to be specific) discerned for you what was inspired and what was not.

So you give tacit approval to the Catholic Church each and every time you quote from the NT.

It is important that you acknowledge that you have submitted to the authority of the CC here.

 

[Nikicosier]

Would you include the Trinity in that list of traditions that “were not 1st century traditions” and thus prone to error?

For you do know that the Trinity was not proclaimed dogma until the 4th century, right?

And would you also include the canon of the NT as also being prone to error, as that was not formally defined until the Council of Trent (by Catholic bishops, BTW). If so, where is the error? Do you believe the Church erred in excluding the Gospel of Barnabas and including the book of Revelation, perhaps?

And why do you not believe that the Gospel of Barnabas is theopneustos? Is it not written by a disciple?

There is no Sacred Tradition that conflicts with what the Bible says. In fact, the Bible is a product of Sacred Tradition.

But doesn’t carry the authority of God… as far as i’maware… doesn’t claim to… many of the OTHER gospels contradict each other and history…

A good explanation (better than I could ever explain) is in Ron Rhodes book Reasoning from the Scriptures. He provides an excellent argument on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Traditions from a fairly well researched view point… He also explains very very well how we know how to discern Sacred Scripture from Epic Lie as far as the Bible goes (and any extra gospels) and uses Scripture to show this. The Apostle Paul was very clear about how to discern the word of God from the word of the prince of lies!

 

[PRmerger]

But doesn’t carry the authority of God… as far as i’maware… doesn’t claim to…

If something claims to have the authority of God, does that make it inspired, Niki?

many of the OTHER gospels contradict each other and history…

Ah, so what you are saying here is that there was first the Oral Tradition, and then the gospels that were consonant with this Sacred Tradition were considered theopneustos, and the gospels that departed from this Sacred Tradition were rejected.

Right?

 

[Nikicosier]

This is very Catholic of you to say (minus the bolded section )

The Catholic Church (bishops, to be specific) discerned for you what was inspired and what was not.

So you give tacit approval to the Catholic Church each and every time you quote from the NT.

It is important that you acknowledge that you have submitted to the authority of the CC here.

I’m not sure you really understand how the Bible came to be… a fresh reading from Pauls letters should be on your list of things to do…
As for the submission to the church… I think if you understood the earlier arguements, you wouldn’t be even suggesting it… we can agree to disagree! Afterall… we are to encourage one another in the faith and I firmly believe that although we have different views on many points of authority (as well as many other things too!) that although we are not brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Tradition, we ARE brothers and sisters in Christ and thus are commanded to love one another and respect one another and encourage one another. I encourage you (if you have the courage) to read Ron Rhodes (- Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics) book and also another book by an Australian man Ray Galea (can be Googled).
It’s not meant to be offensive or purposefully discouraging… just food for thought and a little enlightening into the arguement from another perspective!
Merry Christmas - May the Light of Christ be with you and your families this Christmas!
Thanks for the excellent discussions!!!

 

[Nikicosier]

If something claims to have the authority of God, does that make it inspired, Niki?

Ah, so what you are saying here is that there was first the Oral Tradition, and then the gospels that were consonant with this Sacred Tradition were considered theopneustos, and the gospels that departed from this Sacred Tradition were rejected.

Right?

No… just because it makes that claim doesn’t make it true… otherwise I wouldn’t have a prob submitting to the authority of the pope now would I!!!

There are a series of tests that Paul lays out in that regard in his letters. Paul made the claim of his teachigns being the wrod of God… but he outlines other tests we should use to make sure that we are in the truth and that we aren’t being blown here and there by false teachings like a feather in the wind.

No… That’s not what i’m saying at all. Sorry i’m not more elloquent… or a better speller =) I’ve mentioned a few books in my other posts that outline this argument WAY better than I EVER could!

Merry Christmas!!!

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure you really understand how the Bible came to be…

You cannot deny history, Niki.

It was ONLY through the authority of a group of bishops, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that you have a Bible.

[SIGN]There is no other way for you to know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired.[/SIGN]

(I am still waiting for the chapter and verse that tells you that the Gospel of Mark was written by an Apostle, BTW).

You have acknowledged that it was men in the Church who discerned this for you. I think this is HUGE.

It excludes you now from being a Sola Scriptura advocate.

 

[PRmerger]

IAfterall… we are to encourage one another in the faith

Amen!

Merry Christmas - May the Light of Christ be with you and your families this Christmas!

Right back at 'cha!

Thanks for the excellent discussions!!!

It is our pleasure, to be sure! :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

… I missed this one earlier! It’s very difficult to keep track of all the qu/responses.

The system will keep track for you, and you can use the “view first unread” button at the top to jump to where you left off. This is the best way to prevent missing posts. You can also use the little blue icon n ext to the posters name to take you back to the post from whence the quote came.

Ok FIRSTLY... IIf i turn that around and aks you "how do you know that Tradition is divinely inspired"

The same way we know that Scripture is divinely inspired - God revealed this.

SECONDLY, Mark was an Apostle of God (as can be read in the Bible) and thus divinely elected to teach and have the authority of God (do you disagree) therefore, what he teaches and therefore writes, has the full weighting of divine authority behind it!

Where do I read this in the Bible? If you believe the Apostles have the full weight of divine authority behind their words, why do you refuse to preserve the traditions as they were taught?

Please don’t missunderstand, as i’ve said in other posts (difficult to catch them all…) i do not reject tradition wholy but I do reject tradition as having the same authority as the Bible or that it has divine authority.

I guess that means when the Bible says that the Word of God came to the believers, you don’t agree? Or you think that God is too weak or disinterested to protect His Word?

Many of the traditions of the Church were NOT 1st century traditions. Many came much much much later (generations) time enough for untruths to be injected in. Tradition has a very valid place but not when it conflicts with what the Bible says.

You seem to have a great deal to learn about the history of your faith. Do you know where your bible came from? Do you know when the canon of scripture was closed?

It seems that you really don’t believe the promise Jesus made to the Church, to lead her into all Truth. You must think He was lying, or "just kidding’?

 

[PRmerger]

No… just because it makes that claim doesn’t make it true… otherwise I wouldn’t have a prob submitting to the authority of the pope now would I!!!

(But, you *have *submitted, Niki. Each and every time you quote the Gospel of Mark you do so under the authority of the pope and his successors.)

So we are agreed, then, that something claiming to be inspired does not necessarily make it so.

Why, then, do you use that as a reason to exclude the Gospel of Barnabas?

What other reason, then, do you use to not quote from that gospel as part of the inspired words of God?

It can’t be the circular: I know it’s not inspired because it’s not in the Bible, and it’s not in the Bible because it’s not inspired.

You have to use some other reasoning to discern that it’s not inspired. And that reasoning is…

submission to the authority of the Pope/Magisterium/Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

There are a series of tests that Paul lays out in that regard in his letters. Paul made the claim of his teachigns being the wrod of God… but he outlines other tests we should use to make sure that we are in the truth and that we aren’t being blown here and there by false teachings like a feather in the wind.

If I gave you a series of quotes would you be able to apply these “series of tests” to discern whether they are theopneustos or not (without, of course, googling)?

For example, what test does “My breath is offensive to my wife” pass to tell you that it’s inspired?

 

[asd72]

Gosh… you are very agressive… the point is not to put people down in this fourm but to encourage each other to find the truth in love.

ANYWAY…
Firstly… are you trying to tell me that the Catholic Church made the Bible? I’m pretty sure God did that. He may have used the authority of the Church at that time… the Church many have discovered the Bible (and then added a few extra books here and there to suit their changing theology (purgatory etc…)) but sorry… the Bible was all God…

Here is a summary of how the Bible was cannonized.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=7tJBch5QtJk

You have said the Catholic Church “added a few extra books here and there to suit their changing theology.” I would appreciate further details on this. Which extra books were added, and when were they added?

 

[Nikicosier]

(But, you *have *submitted, Niki. Each and every time you quote the Gospel of Mark you do so under the authority of the pope and his successors.)

So we are agreed, then, that something claiming to be inspired does not necessarily make it so.

Why, then, do you use that as a reason to exclude the Gospel of Barnabas?

What other reason, then, do you use to not quote from that gospel as part of the inspired words of God?

It can’t be the circular: I know it’s not inspired because it’s not in the Bible, and it’s not in the Bible because it’s not inspired.

You have to use some other reasoning to discern that it’s not inspired. And that reasoning is…

submission to the authority of the Pope/Magisterium/Catholic Church.

Read what Paul says about it!