How many pages from the Bible do you use or need to use to support your beliefs?

[guanophore]

There is no way I can respond to all this.I would be really old before I could even type it.

It is a fine testimony that encompasses a lifetime of soul searching and theological study. I recommend you save it to a text file and read it at your leisure.

 

[adrift]

Is tradition equal to scripture or is it subject to scripture or is scripture subject to tradition?

To reach an understading of each other point of view, I believe you need to define your terms. What do you mean by tradition and what does the Catholic Church mean.
Here is a link to what is meant by Tradition.

Jesus did not say go and write down everything I have told you. What He did say was go and preach.

 

[guanophore]

They had no choice but to do the will of God.

It appears that your theology has been contaminated by the heresies of John Calvin.

 

[jericho777]

But it was MEN who issued the delarations! So either 1) these men acting as a body were guided by the Holy Spirit to come to the right answer, or 2) they just chanced upon the right answer (Kindof how the JW’s view the Protestant Canon - A breakaway group of an apostate Church just happened to come up with what they hold to be the canon of scripture)

Men can either go along with the will of God willingly or unwillingly but God’s sovereign will will come to pass no matter what.

AS to jw’s you don’t want to know what they say about you all.

If it was 1, how can you categorically rule out the possibility that the Holy Spirit didn’t guide them in their other declarations regarding faith and morals (and might still be doing so)?

It is absolutely the Holy Spirit who ordained the word of God when it was written not when it was canonized.

If it was 2, how could you possibly know (apart from the Holy Spirit revealing to you directly what the Canon of Scripture was and you later verifying it against what you found on your bookshelf )?

Regards Doc

I believe scripture reveals itself to be so based on prophetic accuracy, the Word declaring itself to be so and its power to reveal God and bring them to repentence.

Have a blessed day

 

[jericho777]

They are two equal strands entwined together.

This is very interesting. I wonder what it means?

The things required for salvation have not changed.

It is not a matter of “credit”. If you know anything about modern bible interpretation, you know that there are large communities that believe they are “christian” yet can “prove” from the bible that the Trinity does not exist.

1 We will have to disagree on this point as I regard scripture as higher.

2 I‘m referring to the dogmas and doctrines added by the church. Things that didn’t exist when scripture was penned. Every time a new dogma is added it’s an additional belief requirement for salvation.

3 This is because they don’t want to accept the bible as final authority. They use councils or other proof texts to interpret scripture. They have to do this because they have to deny the bible somehow.

 

[DrDave]

It is absolutely the Holy Spirit who ordained the word of God when it was written not when it was canonized.

But what of before it was written? Were the teachings of Jesus Christ the ‘Word of God’ before they were written? What of the many things Christ did or said that are not written in scripture (pretty sure John mentions that they exist) are they or are they not also the ‘Word of God’? Did they cease to be the ‘Word of God’ because they didn’t get written up? Do they cease to be the ‘Word of God’ because some people claim that no-one remembers them?

Regards Doc

 

[jericho777]

Yes and no. Scripture was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. The reason we see the evidence of the Sacred Tradition in Scripture is because we have accepted it already. I note that many “bible Christians” are unable to verify some of the Apostolic Teachings because they interpret the scripture differently.

Catholics interpret scripture in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. Modern American Evangelicals interpret Scripture according to what the Reformers believed and taughtm, as well as new doctrines that have been formulated upon their thought. These have the effect of taking the reader quite a distance from the Apostolic faith.

Were you under the misapprehension that this is what the Catholic Church believes?

Yes, and such gifts and service are always confirmed by the Church, under whose authority they are to be used.

Well, we read it differently!

Catholics see the magesterium all through the Bible.

This is a Catholic doctrine. The Apostles taught that there was a once for all deposit of faith to the Church, and that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.

The Church founded by Christ is heirarchical and authoritative.

By whose authority do you determine this?

And if we say we are the “us” who are you to say we are not?

Those in unity with the Apostles and their teaching are called "catholic"and are ONE Church that is the same all over the world.

Indeed, Paul’s teaching was completly Catholic. This is why there is no CAtholic Teaching that violates revealed scripture. Both the Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scripture come from the same Source, that is why they cannot contradict.

1 I believe scripture is all that is needed for salvation information with God. If anyone does not go and verify what they believe with scripture they are bound to make mistakes.

2 The cc limits believers’ service through a bureaucratic system. They don’t believe God can call and use an individual apart from their religious system. IE Paul and the 70 were not called through apostolic tradition.

3 That’s what I mean in item 2

4 Again we disagree!

5 I’m confused then if all revelations of faith ended with the last apostle then where do additional beliefs needed for salvation come from? (dogmas) Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write to you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write to you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.

6 The body makes the church. The church doesn’t make the body.

7 That’s precisely my point.

8 I agree catholic means universal. But the church structure in the bible was semi autonomous groups of believers. Elders in each congregation watched over their own flock of believers. The way power flows it is from Rome to the local congregation and not from God to the local congregation directly. That’s a big difference.

9 Paul was not using “T”radition to preach the gospel. Because you use “T”radition you can justify your belief system. I don’t see ”T”radition coming from the same source as Scripture.

 

[jericho777]

This is a very interesting notion. Where do you find this in the bible?

Also, if the HS wished to act “apart from the willigness of men” then why does scxripture itself attest that Scripture came from “men, moved by the Spirit, spoke from God”. Seems to me like the HS was interested in involving people.

Why would there be an assumption that men were “unwilling”? Are you really of the opinion that there were no willing Christians for the first 400 years of the church?

Yes and no. There is no table of contents included in the Bible.

Scripture does attest to its’ authenticity, but who attests that it is scripture?

Both. Like all the decisions in the Church that are made through the magesterium, the teaching authority appointed by God works with the HS to make such decisions,

Did you think Catholics believe that God did not will the NT?

1 The Holy Spirit authors and ordains scripture. Therefore He brings it to pass. Men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote scripture. It was not their own ideas they wrote but the Word of God as they were inspired to write. God uses men to accomplish His will.

2 There doesn’t have to be. 2 Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

3 I disagree.

4 NO

 

[jericho777]

But what of before it was written? Were the teachings of Jesus Christ the ‘Word of God’ before they were written? What of the many things Christ did or said that are not written in scripture (pretty sure John mentions that they exist) are they or are they not also the ‘Word of God’? Did they cease to be the ‘Word of God’ because they didn’t get written up? Do they cease to be the ‘Word of God’ because some people claim that no-one remembers them?

Regards Doc

Jesus is the living Word of God that was made flesh.All His teachings are the Word of God. God ordained what would and what would not be written down. WE certainly have enough revealed word to instruct us in our lives. As you said about the reference in John I’m paraphrasing. “if all that He said and done were written down all the books in the world could not contain them.”

 

[DrDave]

Jesus is the living Word of God that was made flesh.All His teachings are the Word of God. God ordained what would and what would not be written down.

Ok, so up to this point we’re perfectly in sync

WE certainly have enough revealed word to instruct us in our lives.

Yet, as has been pointed out more than a few times in this thread, some passages of this ‘revealed word’ as preserved in the text of scripture exhort us to hold fast to all of this ‘revealed word’, not just to that which is preserved in scripture. What scriptural justification is there for holding that such teachings have either ceased to exist or ceased to the binding Word of God

Regards Doc

 

[jlhargus]

Jericho: 1 Do you think the apostles taught anything that cannot be verified by scripture?

JL: Well one big TRADITION, for sure, the canon of the bible is NO where found or verified by scripture. The canon was infallibly discerned by the Church thru Tradition, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

As far as all being verified by scripture, I would not use that word. the Church does not teach one way or the other, so my personal opinion and experience would be, with possible exceptions, the apostles teachings will be a lest implied. No matter how faint the implication. Examples, the Trinity is NOT explicit, but is strongly implied. Infant baptism is not explicit, yet implied somewhat less stronger than the Trinity. It is thru Tradition BOTH word and epistle that the Trinity was defined infallible by Ecumenical Councils. I can tell you Tradition can NEVER contradict scripture, they MUST agree. Actually the only way ANYONE knows the bible is the word of God, is by TRADITION.

Could you verify for me where scripture claims sola scriptura, or baptism a symbol, rapture, OSAS, or invisible church? None of which are found in scripture, but acutally contradict scripture. These are all traditions of men made doctrines of God. All faith groups have traditions handed down, by which they see and interpret scripture. That’s why a Baptist interpretes scripture differently than a Presbyterian or a Presbyterian differently than a Methodist a Methodist differently than your faith group. Yet they will ALL deny they hold traditions.

I notice you did not give me a scripture, that verifies, ALL TRADITION is now in the written Tradition of scripture, you can’t. Scripture EXPLICITLY verifies we are to HOLD TRADITIONS. Yet your tradition of men is to deny the scriptures clear verification of Tradition whether by WORD or EPISTLE.

2 THES 2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether BY word, OR our epistle.

I can literally verify SCRIPTURE teaching to HOLD TRADITION, whether by WORD or EPISTLE. Can you verify scripture, tellIing us, NOT to hold Tradition by WORD or EPISTLE? If not then you are following a tradition of men made a doctrine of God.

 

[jlhargus]

Jerihco 4 It is your opinion that the magisterium is appointed by God. There is no biblical reference to them. The revealed word of God is the past tense. They were reinforcing what was already taught not saying there would be revelations 2000 years later.

JL: The entire word of God was FIRST orally TRADITIONED, by a VISIBLE organized fellowship whom Christ CHOSE and SENT to teach the WHOLE WORLD, till the END. The Church was up and teaching the WORD at lest twenty years before the FIRST EPISTLE of the NT was written. The canon was NOT officially listed till 382AD. How can you have a sole authority before that authority is even known for sure? It is the teaching of the Church that REVELATION ended with the death of the last apostle. The Church calls this public revelation, because it is meant for all men for all time and all we need for salvation, nothing can be added to that deposit of faith.

Jericho 5 The believers in Christ are the church not a building or an organization. Jesus gave His life for His bride not an organization.

JL: How you seen anyone say a BUILDING was the Church? So you belong to a disorganized invisible church? How can that be a pillar and ground of TRUTH? Is a disorganized body a healthy body? With a disorganized body each part acts on it’s own. One leg wants to go right the other left, that’s confusion. A healthy body acts as ONE unit. The body of Christ on earth was ORGAINIZED by Christ our Savior, around the Apostles, whom HE chose and SENT to TEACH the whole world till the end. Their authority is passed on by laying on of hands, by them to others we call bishops. Holy Order or ordination in an unbroken line from bishop to bishop till the end. We call it apostolic succession.

 

[jlhargus]

Jericho 6 You are not the ‘us’ spoken of in scripture.

JL: The US, I pointed out to you is the Catholic Chruch, I also notice you did not IDENTIFY, in you view, the Chruch Paul called the pillar and ground of TRUTH.

Jericho 7 The Body of Christ is groups of believers coming together in Spirit and in Truth to worship the King of Glory and do His will. There were many named groups of believers named in scripture some good and some not so good.

JL: Yet you post NO scripture as evidence, why? What did people do the first time the gospel was preached? They heard the Word, repented, baptized, received the Holy Spirit. At that time they were ADDED and CONTINUED steadfastly in THE ONE VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP of JESUS CHRIST and the APOSTLES DOCTRINE.

Acts2:41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD were BAPTIZED: and the same day there WERE ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED steadfastly IN thee APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREAKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS. [Those that received his word were ADDED TO THE ONE **VISIBLE CHURCH by baptism and CONTINUED steadfastly in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Fellowship organized around the Apostles. That ONE VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP will continue thru successors, by laying on of hands from bishop to bishop till the END, when our LORD returns in glory for his ONE BRIDE. Christ has ONE BRIDE not a harem of thousands.]

[1Cor 1:9 God is faithful **you were called INTO THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT.] Notice we are called into THE FELLOWSHIP oF JESUS, not fellowshipS. Christ has ONE BODY.

1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR [Therefore we do not listen to men, the spirit of error, to be taken in by false teachers and every wind of doctine men can devise through sola scriptura, that tradition of men made a doctrine of God around 1520 AD.]

Jericho: 8 The direct revelation Paul had was from Jesus Himself. There was not anything that Paul taught that violated revealed scripture or the gospel message.

JL: No one said Paul taught anything differently or wrong. Never the less Paul went by REVELATION to check his teachings, Lest by any means he should run OR had run in vain. Paul checked with that VISIBLE ORGAINIZED Apostolic Fellowship, the Chruch, the pillar and ground of TRUTH, which Christ SENT and PROMISED to lead into ALL TRUTH and the gates of hell would NEVER prevail against it.

[Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.]

 

[estesbob]

The truth is those who adhere to Sola Scriptura don’t discern the Truth from scripture-they go in with a set of pre-conceived notionsa and look for scripture verses to back them up-often using individual ,disjointed and out of context verses to do so while ignoring anythng that does not affirm their belief. They didnt just stumble into Scripture and after diligent study think “Aha-there is a Trinity!” or Aha-"We’re saved by faith alone! " They had been taught these doctrines and in most cases pointed to the verses that supposedly back them up.

The Catholic approach to Scripture is quite different. Confident in the fact that Christ did not leave each generation to figure things out on their own we read Scripture already fully aware of the Truth-the Truth as entrusted to the Church Jesus founded. We read Scripture to gain a deeper understanding of the Truth. The Church is not now or ever has ben interested in enageing in the endless verse wars we see so prevalent among our seperated bretheren and from them in threads like this. In fact I there are less that a half dozen Scripture verses the Chuch has defnitavely interpreted.

Scripture+Tradition+ theTeachings of the Magestrium ,entrusted to his Church is what Christ left us to find our way. All are in harmony, all supported by each other

 

[MaryTeresa2]

1 We will have to disagree on this point as I regard scripture as higher.

2 I‘m referring to the dogmas and doctrines added by the church. Things that didn’t exist when scripture was penned. Every time a new dogma is added it’s an additional belief requirement for salvation.

3 This is because they don’t want to accept the bible as final authority. They use councils or other proof texts to interpret scripture. They have to do this because they have to deny the bible somehow.

Just a comment on Dogma I noticed here… there is a huge difference between Catholic Dogma and disciplines of the Catholic Church. Dogma DOES NOT CHANGE. It has been from the beginning and is backed by Scripture and Tradition. Disciplines of the Church are small things, things we may practice, even such as celibacy for clergy is not Dogma. Such is a dicipline… those may and do vary with society, needs, etc. NO matter of Faith, Moral Teaching and Holy Scripture OR Tradition with a capital T has ever changed in over 2000 years. Come learn our CC and you will know the Truth. You are cordially invited and much welcome!

 

[jericho777]

Ok, so up to this point we’re perfectly in sync

Yet, as has been pointed out more than a few times in this thread, some passages of this ‘revealed word’ as preserved in the text of scripture exhort us to hold fast to all of this ‘revealed word’, not just to that which is preserved in scripture. What scriptural justification is there for holding that such teachings have either ceased to exist or ceased to the binding Word of God

Regards Doc

I would contend that God has put into His word all that we need to follow. It wil leave a big door open for people to claim that their revelation is the word of God. I think that’s what mormans and christian scientists claim.

 

[estesbob]

I would contend that God has put into His word all that we need to follow. It wil leave a big door open for people to claim that their revelation is the word of God. I think that’s what mormans and christian scientists claim.

It leaves such a big door open that it leads to Mass confusion. Either God is the author of confusion or your premise is wrong from the get go.

 

[jlhargus]

The truth is those who adhere to Sola Scriptura don’t discern the Truth from scripture-they go in with a set of pre-conceived notionsa and look for scripture verses to back them up-often using individual ,disjointed and out of context verses to do so while ignoring anythng that does not affirm their belief. They didnt just stumble into Scripture and after diligent study think “Aha-there is a Trinity!” or Aha-"We’re saved by faith alone! " They had been taught these doctrines and in most cases pointed to the verses that supposedly back them up.

JL: Good post I would say, instead of, “pre-conceived notions”. “pre-conceived traditions of men made doctrines of God.”

 

[jericho777]

Jericho: 1 Do you think the apostles taught anything that cannot be verified by scripture?

JL: Well one big TRADITION, for sure, the canon of the bible is NO where found or verified by scripture. The canon was infallibly discerned by the Church thru Tradition, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

As far as all being verified by scripture, I would not use that word. the Church does not teach one way or the other, so my personal opinion and experience would be, with possible exceptions, the apostles teachings will be a lest implied. No matter how faint the implication. Examples, the Trinity is NOT explicit, but is strongly implied. Infant baptism is not explicit, yet implied somewhat less stronger than the Trinity. It is thru Tradition BOTH word and epistle that the Trinity was defined infallible by Ecumenical Councils. I can tell you Tradition can NEVER contradict scripture, they MUST agree. Actually the only way ANYONE knows the bible is the word of God, is by TRADITION.

Could you verify for me where scripture claims sola scriptura, or baptism a symbol, rapture, OSAS, or invisible church? None of which are found in scripture, but acutally contradict scripture. These are all traditions of men made doctrines of God. All faith groups have traditions handed down, by which they see and interpret scripture. That’s why a Baptist interpretes scripture differently than a Presbyterian or a Presbyterian differently than a Methodist a Methodist differently than your faith group. Yet they will ALL deny they hold traditions.

I notice you did not give me a scripture, that verifies, ALL TRADITION is now in the written Tradition of scripture, you can’t. Scripture EXPLICITLY verifies we are to HOLD TRADITIONS. Yet your tradition of men is to deny the scriptures clear verification of Tradition whether by WORD or EPISTLE.

2 THES 2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether BY word, OR our epistle.

I can literally verify SCRIPTURE teaching to HOLD TRADITION, whether by WORD or EPISTLE. Can you verify scripture, tellIing us, NOT to hold Tradition by WORD or EPISTLE? If not then you are following a tradition of men made a doctrine of God.

1 The apostles only taught what can be verified by the word of God. There is more than enough scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity. You like other religions try to fudge your way to increasing doctrine and dogma beyond the breath of scripture.

There can be differences of opinion on everything the bible says. Paul tells Timothy in 2 Tim 3:15-17 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Therefore all scripture is sufficient for the life of the believer it does not say traditions.

2 You all hold that tradition is equal to scripture. But in practice tradition drives your interpretation of scripture. Leading to all the dogmas and doctrines that cannot be attributed to scripture

 

[estesbob]

2 You all hold that tradition is equal to scripture. But in practice tradition drives your interpretation of scripture. Leading to all the dogmas and doctrines that cannot be attributed to scripture

As it does yours. I am sure that you had already been taught the Trinity and Sola Scriptura before you first picked up a Bible. The difference between our seperated bretheren and Catholics is we aknowledge we use tradition and we aknowledge we are not qualified to interpret Scripture for ouselves or anyone else.