we are both free to believe as we will.I disagree with your churches interpretation of 2 Peter3 because I believe what it is expicitly saying. In other words the sentence that is there. While you believe that this is talking about oral tradition or something that is not there and cannot be shown to be there by you your church or anyone else.
So, what is it? Either it’s in there or not. By the way, the dogma of the Trinity is not needed for our salvation. :
Why?we are both free to believe as we will.
I do think that the doctrine of the Trinity is the most foundational Christian belief and that it is necessary for salvation
You can believe all you want. The FACT is that Peter when He says 2Peter3:15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;I don’t believe that the Bible teaches that 2 Pt 3:16 is not referring to those “untaught” in oral tradition
Sure it does, but it doesn’t say that the oral things were any different than the written things. In fact 1Cor.2:2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. and Gal.1:8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.2 Thes 2:15 and similar clearly says that we should hold fast to what was handed on by the Apostles, whether orally or by letter.
the idea that “the doctrine of the Trinity is not needed for salvation” is not in Scripture. it is a false oral tradition.I So, what is it? Either it’s in there or not. By the way, the dogma of the Trinity is not needed for our salvation. This is, Romans 10
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
The canon is given by God. 2Tim3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
So, you must be saying that there is something else that we need for salvation. Care to elaborate?Yeah, I know many people open congregation based in just one verse of teh Bible. Just like you just did. if these only two verses is all you need for salvation, then good luck to you. I prefer the whole revelation of God through His Church. because when do this, all you doing is disregarding everything else that God ever said. good luck to you with that idea.
Romans 10These two passage is not even enough to prove that Jesus even existed, does it? what about the Church Jesus built? you don’t have to accept her either?
The idea that it is is also not in scripture.the idea that “the doctrine of the Trinity is not needed for salvation” is not in Scripture. it is a false oral tradition.
Then why bother with them? Why not just go with the WORD OF GOD.I think that all of the Catholic oral traditions are implicit in Scripture.
2Pet1as to the Canon, yes it is given by God historically exclusively through the Catholic Church
I’m also concerned that the S.S. proponents from the beginning have disagreed very much on what Scripture means, even as to whether or not we have free will
What does all this have to do with the fact that all the information we need for our salvation is in the bible SS? You yourself have said that you agree with SS.I’m also concerned at how S.S. proponents repeatedly insist on various negative oral traditions like “the Lord’s Supper is not Sacrifice”, and thus disagree with the early Church
I think that all of the Catholic oral traditions are implicit in Scripture.
Patricius79:because one cannot disagree with the Catholic Church’s interpretation without insisting on sentences not in Scripture
I think that is a true oral tradition, although not all that is needed for salvation is explicit in Scripture. e.g. the dogma of the Trinity and the N.T. Canon which have no historical sources besides the Catholic Church
as to the Canon, yes it is given by God historically exclusively through the Catholic Churchthe idea that “the doctrine of the Trinity is not needed for salvation” is not in Scripture. it is a false oral tradition.
I think that all of the Catholic oral traditions are implicit in Scripture.
as to the Canon, yes it is given by God historically exclusively through the Catholic Church
I’m also concerned that the S.S. proponents from the beginning have disagreed very much on what Scripture means, even as to whether or not we have free will
I’m also concerned at how S.S. proponents repeatedly insist on various negative oral traditions like “the Lord’s Supper is not Sacrifice”, and thus disagree with the early Church
the issue is whether one can separate the oral traditions of the Apsostles (2 Thes 2:15) and the written ones.The idea that it is is also not in scripture.
Then why bother with them? Why not just go with the WORD OF GOD.
2Pet1
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
What does all this have to do with the fact that all the information we need for our salvation is in the bible SS? You yourself have said that you agree with SS.
and clearly that refers to oral Tradition. the N.T. Canon is not in Scripture but derives historically only from Catholic Tradition2Pet1
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
.[richard:]What does all this have to do with the fact that all the information we need for our salvation is in the bible SS?
Yeah, The Church had all this together, preserved, and many died for this Faith. Do you know who they were? The Church has many witnesses who died for Church? which Church do you think it is?So, you must be saying that there is something else that we need for salvation. Care to elaborate?
Romans 10
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
This does not talk about proof, but about faith. Here’s more
Matt.19
25When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
27Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Matt.24
4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
This time is right now. The gospel will soon be to all the world.
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Jn.3
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Jn5
30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
31If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
33Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
35He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
36But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41I receive not honour from men.
42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Jn10
John 10:9
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Acts4
10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Acts 15:11
But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Acts 16:30
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Romans 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Romans 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Would you like more?
You contradict yourself here. First you say that the oral traditions and scripture are the same then you say that SS, or the the principle that all the information we need for our salvation is in the bible is not taught in the bible. Did you read thesethe issue is whether one can separate the oral traditions of the Apsostles (2 Thes 2:15) and the written ones.
I don’t think one can. the Bible doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura or that the Protestant oral traditions are true.
Are you mixing me up with someone else or again are you saying that there is something in your oral tradition that is not in the bible that is essential for our salvation. And why would I believe that the CC’s oral traditions are the word of God?so I find the Protestant position self-contradictory. e.g. your idea that the Catholic oral traditons are not teh Word of God
… the Bible doesn’t say that. quite the opposite
Where does it say that?all the Catholic teachings are true
Matt.22and clearly that refers to oral Tradition.
The NT canon is scripture.the N.T. Canon is not in Scripture but derives historically only from Catholic Tradition
Well according to you the NT canon is not in scripture either.that’s why I reject the oral traditions of the “Sola Scriptura” movement. they are not in Scripture.
Why would I want to say that?Yeah, The Church had all this together, preserved, and many died for this Faith. Do you know who they were? The Church has many witnesses who died for Church? which Church do you think it is?
Now if the Bible says “The Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Bullwark of the Truth.”
do you think it is ok for you to ignore this affirmation from the HS?
All Scriptures work together, we as Catholics do not reject any Passage of the Bible because they all together apply to the Church. As for you I would like to hear you say that you and Bible alone is the Pillar and Bullwark… Can you say that in truth?
Richard Kastner;8110099 . I asked Didn’t Jesus command them
Matt28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
You must remember there were no bibles as such in those days. There was no New Testament scripture even though there were Old Testament scriptures. So, the apostles could only preach the things Jesus taught them orally. Later most of these things became written down in what we call the gospels and the New Testament. I can’t say all things, because there was selection as to what to write down when the gospels were written, as testified in John 21:25. The idea of “bible” as we think of it now didn’t exist then.Wouldn’t they have taught the things contained in the bible?
In general, yes. But remember, the New Testament writings were written in the context of the prior oral teaching of the apostles, and are to be understood with that background in mind. Christianity was founded upon Christian oral teaching, not upon Christian writings.JESUS says 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Jesus doesn’t tell them to preach the things written in the OT or anything written, but only the things that He commanded. See, Mack the things that Jesus commanded are what comprise the New Testament.
This is in reference to the idea that there is an interpretive authority, a collective authority for all Christians, to interprete the scriptures. Richard calls this blaspheme. I think he means blasphemy, or blasphemous, because blaspheme is a verb. Why he thinks this way he doesn’t say.Again this is called blaspheme.
Precisely so. All Christians don’t interpret the bible the same way. And that is the problem. Or I think it is a problem, maybe others don’t think it is.All Christians don’t interpret the bible the same way though.
An interesting statement. And I don’t know how it can be supported. Because in the original way, individuals didn’t have scripture to interpret individually, by themselves. They gathered together to hear scripture read to them, collecftively, as a group. Since scripture and revelation applies to everyone collectively, how can there be individual interpretaton? Unless you believe in relativism? That is, what is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me. If you believe in relative truth and not absolute truth.Scripture is interpreted individually. There is no such thing as collective interpretation.
Wow, I really don’t think that you are reading what you are posting. First, you say that Peter is warning about the second comming, then you say
Because the end times will come, and we don’t know when they will come, but like a thief in the night, Peter is saying we had better get our act together and our understanding of all teachings right. Yes, we need to understand the end times correctly, but we need to understand not only Paul’s writings, but all the other scriptures as well. And those untaught in how to understand those scriptures, in addition to Paul’s, may very possibly misunderstand them, to their destruction. All scriptures are included, and you need to be taught in how to understand them.Is this the official CC teaching Mack, that Peter is talking about the end times here, but not about the end times?
This pretty much of a non sequitor response, probably because Richard didn’t understand. He was saying that everything we need for our salvation is contained in scripture. I said this corresponds to what is called “material sufficiency” of scripture, and I gave my definition of material sufficiency: Material sufficiency is that pious belief that the writings of the Christians eventually contained all the things revealed to the apostles, even if in seed or incipient form. I further said that Catholics do not disagree with this.So you are saying it is now written down but it is not quite the same as scripture.
Richard, you do not need a copy of this tradition, because you already know it. After all, it is tradition, and tradition is something one doesn’t even realize is tradition. Christianity is based upon tradition, is suffused by it, to such an extent we don’t even think about it.Richard Kastner;8110099
Great! Where can I get a copy of this tradition that is now written down? I’m assuming that you can look up any verse in the bible and it will give me the official exegesis of the verse? Like your interpretation of 2Peter3? Right?
the Bible doesn’t say that. nor that belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation.The idea that it is is also not in scripture.
The bible that Jesus had was called the law and the prophets. So, you agree with Sola Scriptura.You must remember there were no bibles as such in those days. There was no New Testament scripture even though there were Old Testament scriptures. So, the apostles could only preach the things Jesus taught them orally. Later most of these things became written down in what we call the gospels and the New Testament. I can’t say all things, because there was selection as to what to write down when the gospels were written, as testified in John 21:25. The idea of “bible” as we think of it now didn’t exist then.
The new testament writings were written in the context of Jesus’ teachings. Even Paul who wrote over 1/3 of the new testament was taught directly by Jesus.In general, yes. But remember, the New Testament writings were written in the context of the prior oral teaching of the apostles, and are to be understood with that background in mind
So what’s the difference except for the fact that they were or were not written down.Christianity was founded upon Christian oral teaching, not upon Christian writings.
Here’s what you saidThis is in reference to the idea that there is an interpretive authority, a collective authority for all Christians, to interprete the scriptures. Richard calls this blaspheme. I think he means blasphemy, or blasphemous, because blaspheme is a verb. Why he thinks this way he doesn’t say.
I don’t think that the fact that you believe there is an earthly interpretive authority is blasphemy, but that you think that that authority takes the place of Jesus.Protestants do not think there is an earthly interpretive authority, and Catholics think there is. Yes, Catholics think that the Church takes Jesus place on earth, because Jesus is the head of the Church and guides it from heaven.
Are we going to have to keep doing this Mack? This is what you said.Precisely so. All Christians don’t interpret the bible the same way. And that is the problem. Or I think it is a problem, maybe others don’t think it is.
You say that when the church defined as “all Christians” interprets scripture, " then all the Christians collectively are interpreting scripture." Now you say above " All Christians don’t interpret the bible the same way. And that is the problem." So, you think that the church interpreting scripture is a problem?No contradiction. If we use the definition of Church as all Christians collectively, then when the Church interprets scripture, then all the Christians collectively are interpreting scripture.
My statement was “Scripture is interpreted individually. There is no such thing as collective interpretation.” Scripture means the written word. But even beyond this, all preaching and scripture must initially be interpreted individually. The scripture is read the preaching heard and the individual interprets. This cannot be done collectively. Now I am not saying that all of these interpretations are correct, but this is the process whether you like it or not.An interesting statement. And I don’t know how it can be supported. Because in the original way, individuals didn’t have scripture to interpret individually, by themselves. They gathered together to hear scripture read to them, collecftively, as a group. Since scripture and revelation applies to everyone collectively, how can there be individual interpretaton?
We were talking about the interpretive process, now we are talking about relativism???Unless you believe in relativism? That is, what is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me. If you believe in relative truth and not absolute truth.
I’m not sure there is a disagreement.Anyway, this statement is the very crux of disagreement.
2Peter3Because the end times will come, and we don’t know when they will come, but like a thief in the night, Peter is saying we had better get our act together and our understanding of all teachings right. Yes, we need to understand the end times correctly, but we need to understand not only Paul’s writings, but all the other scriptures as well. And those untaught in how to understand those scriptures, in addition to Paul’s, may very possibly misunderstand them, to their destruction. All scriptures are included, and you need to be taught in how to understand them.
Ya, Mack we were progressing nicely, having a good conversation each vigorously defending their point of view. I see no reason to start with sarcastic little digs. If you want to start that you will quickly find yourself talking to yourself, ok?Of course this is my fallible interpretation of these verses; Richard’s, on the other hand, is infallible.
The CC, what you say is the final interpretive authority, does not have an interpretation of these vs. I find that rather astounding. Apparantly they are not the final interpretive authority on these vs.As far as the CC goes, I do not think the CC has an official interpretation of these verses. I suppose various Catholic theologians may have their own opinions, but what I have presented is mine, not theirs.
So you agree with SS.This pretty much of a non sequitor response, probably because Richard didn’t understand. He was saying that everything we need for our salvation is contained in scripture. I said this corresponds to what is called “material sufficiency” of scripture, and I gave my definition of material sufficiency: Material sufficiency is that pious belief that the writings of the Christians eventually contained all the things revealed to the apostles, even if in seed or incipient form. I further said that Catholics do not disagree with this.
So they are essentially both the same except material sufficiency is harder to understand?Material sufficiency is not the same as formal sufficiency; formal sufficiency is is the claim that scripture is in a form that can be understood by all. The “perspicuity” of scripture. This claim is much more problematic, and empirical evidence is against it. I think also that scripture itself is against it, as in 2 Peter 3:16, and which is why Richard argues so vociferously about it. My premise is that one needs to be taught how to use scripture, which Richard disagrees with.
I have not read even most of this thread… But I had my first ever experience with this earlier this year… When my FIL informed me that the Bible means WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO…Protestants: If Scripture alone is sufficient, then what do you do with different interpretations of individual verses and passages? If Person A and Person B differ in their interpretation, how is it decided who is right? Do you resort to an outside authority, such as a pastor or a Bible scholar? If so, doesn’t that run contrary to sola scriptura? Resorting to an outside authority is exactly what we Catholics do–and we agree on who that authority is.
I’m not trying to change your beliefs, I’m just trying to wrap my mind around them. As a Catholic, I find them strange. I hope someone can explain so I don’t misunderstand the Protestant view.
Are you saying you won’t tell me how to get a copy or that a copy does not exist? In which case it wouldn’t be written down would it?Richard, you do not need a copy of this tradition, because you already know it. After all, it is tradition, and tradition is something one doesn’t even realize is tradition. Christianity is based upon tradition, is suffused by it, to such an extent we don’t even think about it.
Are you saying that because most Christians do it this way that the truth of the word of God is changed? Isn’t this the relativeism that you talked about earlier?But let’s do think about it. For example, a tradition most Christians practice, one that is non-scriptural, is Sunday worship. I don’t know where scripture tells us to worship on Sunday, but we do, because of tradition.
All scripture comes from the memory of the witnesses. Crucifixion is a well known and documented type of Roman execution.Another tradition not found in srcripture is the belief Jesus died on a cross shaped instrument. The Greek word, stauros, does not necessarily mean “cross.” Therefore the fact Jesus died on a cross is from the memory of those who witnessed the event, not from scripture.
Gen.2How about frequency of worship? Weekly? That is tradition. How often should the Lord’s Supper be memorialized? Weekly? Monthly? Annually? Scripture doesn’t say. But tradition has it at least weekly.
John 20:27Another belief, surprisingly enough, one that is based upon tradition, is that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. The other tradtions I have mentioned may not be essential, but that Jesus rose bodily, isn’t that essential for salvation? People saw the physical, resurrected Jesus, and they passed their memory of this to subsequent Christians. This memory gives us the context to interpret subsequent Christian writings properly. Because, believe it or not, there are those today who deny the bodily resurrection, based upon their exegesis of scripture alone. “Put to death in the flesh, made alive in the spirit,” hence Jesus rose as a spirit creature. Modern liberals also regard the resurrection as a spiritual “faith happening.”
Just one of the many.Baptism? The Eucharist? What are they? Is understanding of them essential? Those who go by bible alone have various understandings. But tradition has one understanding.
OkTradition is the memory of the early apostolic teachings upon which Christianity is founded. This memory is the context in which Christian writings came to be, and the context in which they are to be understood.
I don’t understand why you ask this question. they probably wrote scripture so that they would not forget. But we still have the Holy Spirit.Why one would want to forget this memory I do not know. Unless such a one desires to guide his own steps.
Doesn’t say what?the Bible doesn’t say that.
Could you show me the text that states that belief in the Trinity is necessay for our salvation?nor that belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation.
How am I not using the bible?this is a familar pattern. “Sola Scriptura” proponents don’t actually use the Bible as their sole rule of faith but set up their own oral traditions and private Magisterium.
They disagree because some have not submitted to the movement of the Holy Spirit in thier lives.that is why they have disagreed so much from the beginning.
That would be the definition that Mack gavebut I do believe in Sola Scriptura in the Catholic sense of material sufficiency
Ya me too.Material sufficiency is that pious belief that the writings of the Christians eventually contained all the things revealed to the apostles, even if in seed or incipient form. I further said that Catholics do not disagree with this.
I’m having trouble following your thinking.You contradict yourself here. First you say that the oral traditions and scripture are the same then you say that SS, or the the principle that all the information we need for our salvation is in the bible is not taught in the bible. Did you read these
Romans 10
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
This does not talk about proof, but about faith. Here’s more
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
.