"If anyone teaches/preaches something that is not in scripture"

[Cat_Herder]

Who cares?

Well, you should.
…

This is one of the many elephants in the room for the Roman Catholic Communion. The fact that there is no official position on ‘Tradition’.

In the United States of America, the federal government and 49 of the states have something called “common law.” There is no official position on what the common law is. Judges decide what the common law is when individual cases are brought before them. Catholic Tradition is the same. Someone posits that X verse means this, someone else says it means that, and a council is convoked to decide the issue. Or a bishop issues a decree to close the issue.

For some reason you think there is something wrong with that, or that it can’t possibly work in practice. Nevertheless, it still does. If you want to keep sending money to Alpha & Omega Ministries instead of to the Catholic Church, know that 100% of your money will go to promoting unintelligent arguments like this one, and that said arguments will be directed against the Catholic Church, where that money would have been used to feed the hungry, tend to the sick, help immigrants and refugees, run orphanages and schools, and generally fulfill the Beatitudes.

Now ANSWER THE QUESTION please.

Who cares?

Whether or not all Catholic dogma is at least implied in the Bible or not (it is) is a different question than whether the Bible is self-interpreting (formal sufficiency).

If it were really possible to obtain the true religion from the Bible alone then:

(1) Protestantism would be united. It isn’t. And no amount of quote-warring is going to do that.

(2) There would have been no Reformation anyway, because the whole premise of the Reformation was that the “biblical” religion had been lost. If I had a dollar for each time I’ve given the 1 Tim 2:3-4 explanation over and against this then I would be very rich.

 

[Algo1]

In the United States of America, the federal government and 49 of the states have something called “common law.” There is no official position on what the common law is. Judges decide what the common law is when individual cases are brought before them. Catholic Tradition is the same. Someone posits that X verse means this, someone else says it means that, and a council is convoked to decide the issue. Or a bishop issues a decree to close the issue.

For some reason you think there is something wrong with that, or that it can’t possibly work in practice. Nevertheless, it still does. If you want to keep sending money to Alpha & Omega Ministries instead of to the Catholic Church, know that 100% of your money will go to promoting unintelligent arguments like this one, and that said arguments will be directed against the Catholic Church, where that money would have been used to feed the hungry, tend to the sick, help immigrants and refugees, run orphanages and schools, and generally fulfill the Beatitudes.

Now ANSWER THE QUESTION please.

"Now ANSWER THE QUESTION please.

No Sir,
I think I am finished with you.

 

[Cat_Herder]

"Now ANSWER THE QUESTION please.

No Sir,
I think I am finished with you.

So then there is no answer in Protestantism to why Jesus Christ would walk out on the Catholic Church and leave Her without the Truth, which is what all Protestants claimed to have occurred.

It makes sense, doesn’t it? Jesus is God. God is Love. The will of God is:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

If He had allowed the Church to go apostate and start teaching error, since there are only the Catholic and Orthodox and no other churches until the Reformation, there would have been no Truth and no salvation in the world until the Reformation. That’s over a thousand years where Protestantism claims that everyone went to hell just because they were “unfortunate” to be born in the “dark ages.” If you REALLY have a personal relationship with Jesus, then it’s so obvious that He would never allow such a thing.

That of course means that the Tradition of the Church IS the Truth and is willed by God to be preached.

 

[pismopal]

Quite frankly, I don’t think Catholics are able to, or have a desire to know the truth. After hearing the truth I became a Christian. Not a protestant or a Catholic but a Christian. My mom was a forever Catholic. When I became a Christian I told my mom that at the very least she could do was to check out what she believed. She did all the research possible on the history of the CC and then was really ticked off because she felt duped. She renounced it and became a born again believer, as it says to do in scripture.
Humans have a built in propensity to justify what they believe they turn on the R word, rationalization. Did U know humans can rationalize and justify any position. I watched a series on netflix called Tudors. The story of King Henry in the early 1500’s. There were some priceless Catholics in that history book.
I’m done in this blog as it is anti scriptural as all these rationalizations Catholics make are called endless genealogies.

I don’t know the story of your mother and frankly I would not accept any story of yours on it’s face. I did a lot of research myself for 2 years and then entered the Church as a 58 year old adult. I was a little ticked off at myself for having adhered to the half baked ideas of several denoms that I had trusted with having the truth. To quote you…“humans can rationalize and justify any position…” Do you count yourself among the humans who rationalize and justify? My entry into the true Church was preceeded by a study of the Catechism and the Bible citations in support…not Netflix. If you are leaving this blog it is because you are unable to counter the well thought out…well researched and Bible supported apologetics presented here. In other words…you are running away.

 

[porthos11]

Obviously U do not believe in using the Bible to settle any doctrinal issues. So it’s all a mute point. Tell me what book or pamphlet or publication we can use to check the validity of a Christian doctrine. I dare U.

Why should I? I only asked you to prove your points in a reasonable and logical manner. You made the assertion that the Bible should believed; I did not. Therefore I am under no obligation to tell you any book or pamphlet, but you do.

Daring me won’t do anything; it’s baiting and it’s unprofessional. If I really didn’t accept the Bible’s authority, your answer simply just succeeded in hardening me, and you have failed miserably in gaining my soul.

I only challenge you because you have not given any thought to your claim: that you found the truth. If you did find the truth, then you should have no problems proving it.

By the way, with only two letters more, you can properly spell “you”. “U” is simply juvenile.

 

[kepha1]

"sola Scriptura: Scripture alone; the watchword of the Reformation in its establishment of the basis for a renewed and reformed statement of Christian doctrine. We find the concept of sola Scriptura, Scripture alone as the primary and absolute norm of doctrine, at the foundation of the early Protestant attempts at theological system in the form of exegetical loci communes (q.v.), or common places. In the orthodox or scholastic codification of Lutheran and Reformed doctrine, the sola Scriptura of the Reformers was elaborated as a separate doctrinal locus placed at the beginning of theological system and determinative of its contents. Scripture was identified as the principium cognoscendi, the principle of knowing or cognitive foundation of theology, and described doctrinally in terms of its authority, clarity, and sufficiency in all matters of faith and morals. Finally, it ought to be noted that sola Scriptura was never meant as a denial of the usefulness of the Christian tradition as a subordinate norm in theology. The views of the Reformers developed out of a debate in the late medieval theology over the relation of Scripture and tradition, one party viewing the two as coequal norms, the other party viewing Scripture as the absolute and therefore prior norm, but allowing tradition a derivative but important secondary role in doctrinal statement. The Reformers and the Protestant orthodox held the latter view, on the assumption that tradition was a useful guide, that the trinitarian and christological statements of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon were expressions of biblical truth, and that the great teachers of the church provided valuable instruction in theology that always needed to be evaluated in the light of Scripture. We encounter, particularly in the scholastic era of Protestantism, a profound interest in the patristic period and a critical, but often substantive, use of ideas and patterns enunciated

Richard Muller. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (p. 284). Kindle Edition.

There is nothing in scripture that allows tradition to be reduced to a derivative or secondary role. Muller (or the Protestantism he is writing about) is inventing a doctrine.

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith **(TRADITION) ** included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others. The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

The Trinitarian and Christological statements from the early councils are selectively accepted by Protestantism. The rest is ignored, or worse, misquoted. (it is a Protestant tradition to reject certain statements from Nicea for example) There is a reason why so many enlightened Protestant scholars have become Catholic. I would be happy to compile a list.

 

[pablope]

**"sola Scriptura: Scripture alone; the watchword of the Reformation in its establishment of the basis for a renewed and reformed statement of Christian doctrine.

The views of the Reformers developed out of a debate in the late medieval theology over the relation of Scripture and tradition, one party viewing the two as coequal norms, the other party viewing Scripture as the absolute and therefore prior norm, but allowing tradition a derivative but important secondary role in doctrinal statement. The Reformers and the Protestant orthodox held the latter view, on the assumption that tradition was a useful guide,…

.**

A useful guide for what…confusion and 33000 plus denoms with their own popes and magisteriums?

So then, kindly explain…where did the disbelief in the Real presence come from? In throwing out the sacraments? and all the other things the reformers threw away from their catholic roots?

Where did they get the authority to reduce the OT to 39 books? or the authority to determine what is to keep and throw out?

 

[poochi]

your doctrine of Sola Scriptura is neither implicitly nor explicitly found in the Word of God and so violates its own doctrinal requirements, proving itself to be an unscriptural new wind of doctrine of modern men.
Care to reconsider, since it is now apparent that what you have believed is actually not the truth?

I strongly disagree,… Certainly in my opinion implied very strongly, -------- It teaches it is a sufficient source by the mere fact of what it is and what it is capable of doing.

pure—perfect—sure—truth—eternal—forever settled in heaven—it sanctifies—it causes spiritual growth—it is God-breathed—it is authoritative—it gives wisdom unto salvation—it makes the simple wise—it is living and active—it is a guide—it is a fire—a hammer—a seed—the sword of the Spirit—it gives the knowledge of God—it is a lamp to our feet—a light to our path—that which produces reverence for God—it heals—makes free—illuminates—produces faith— regenerates—converts the soul—brings conviction of sin—restrains from sin—is spiritual food—is infallible— inerrant—irrevocable—it searches the heart and mind—produces life—defeats Satan—proves truth—refutes error—is holy—equips for every good work—is the Word of the living God (Psa. 119:9-11, 38, 105, 130, 133, 160; Psa. 19:7-11; Psa. 111:7-8; Isa. 40:8; Eph. 5:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Jer. 5:14, 23:29; Matt. 13:18-23; Eph. 6:17; Psa. 107:20; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 1:23, 2:2; Acts 20:32; John 8:32, 10:35, 17:17). (William Webster)

Tell me, what else is capable of doing these things? When you can show me evidence that TRADITION is spoken of by God in the same manner then I will rethink my position.

 

[Church_Militant]

I strongly disagree,… Certainly in my opinion implied very strongly, -------- It teaches it is a sufficient source by the mere fact of what it is and what it is capable of doing.

pure—perfect—sure—truth—eternal—forever settled in heaven—it sanctifies—it causes spiritual growth—it is God-breathed—it is authoritative—it gives wisdom unto salvation—it makes the simple wise—it is living and active—it is a guide—it is a fire—a hammer—a seed—the sword of the Spirit—it gives the knowledge of God—it is a lamp to our feet—a light to our path—that which produces reverence for God—it heals—makes free—illuminates—produces faith— regenerates—converts the soul—brings conviction of sin—restrains from sin—is spiritual food—is infallible— inerrant—irrevocable—it searches the heart and mind—produces life—defeats Satan—proves truth—refutes error—is holy—equips for every good work—is the Word of the living God (Psa. 119:9-11, 38, 105, 130, 133, 160; Psa. 19:7-11; Psa. 111:7-8; Isa. 40:8; Eph. 5:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Jer. 5:14, 23:29; Matt. 13:18-23; Eph. 6:17; Psa. 107:20; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 1:23, 2:2; Acts 20:32; John 8:32, 10:35, 17:17). (William Webster)

No faithful Catholic argues against what all those verses say. In fact we cry Alleluia Alleluia Alleluia with what each one says, but you draw a fallacious conclusion from all that, which is another example of the errant new winds of doctrines of modern men, because not one of those even infers that the Bible lays claim to be the sole and ultimate authority for all that Christians believe and practice.

I and my Catholic brethren have no problem at all with all those passages and what they actually say. It’s what they plainly do not say that is the problem and the source of the error.

Tell me, what else is capable of doing these things? When you can show me evidence that TRADITION is spoken of by God in the same manner then I will rethink my position.

That’s pretty simple really because all the scriptures were tradition before they were ever canonized as the inspired Word of God. It was at least 25 years before the first New Testament writings were penned and due to circumstances of the times it was a good 50 more years before the last of the New Testament was written, and it took another almost 300 years for them all to be gathered and collated and separated from other pious writings (like the DIDACHE and The Shepherd of Hermas and the Gnostic heretical and errant material) before the Catholic Church canonized them. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us what belongs in there and nowhere does it lay claim to any final and ultimate authority. That is a totally modern error which not only violates its own premise, but grossly fails in practice because even those who profess to believe it cannot supply the passage that would ascribe such authority to it.

The evidence is also in the fruit of that errant doctrine, in that were it really from God, there wouldn’t be such diverse disagreement as to what the Bible says. Yet there are myriad communities that call themselves Christian and yet they cannot even agree as to what constitutes “core beliefs” among themselves. So even in practice it has never worked and will never work. What does the New Testament say about the source of such confusion?

In fact, again and again we find the New Testament telling us to “take it to the church” to settle all disputes about doctrines and morality (faith and morals) and then St. Paul writes to Timothy in 2 different letters and tells him the following.

1st Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

What does this verse specifically tell us is the pillar and ground of the truth? The scriptures? No indeed! What does it say? Go ahead…say it out loud so it sinks into your heart and soul as the truth from God that it is.

That’s right…the Church.

2nd Timothy 2:15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Notice that Paul never says to study scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) in this verse and in reading Paul’s writings, you see that he was a student of Sacred Tradition just as St. Jude and the rest of the apostles and evangelists prove to be from their New Testament writings which are inspired.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, you are putting your faith in tradition. The moment you apply your own interpretation, you are CREATING a tradition. The moment you are interpreting Scripture in accordance to Calvin or Luther, you are FOLLOWING a tradition. So that being said I see that both Protestantism and Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) rely on traditions to either make sense of Scripture or to formulate doctrines. The difference are first, we Catholic and Orthodox admit it and fully embrace the idea, Protestants don’t. Second we Catholic and Orthodox receives our traditions from the disciples and apostles, and Protestants receive theirs from religious scholars of the 16th century

 

[JonNC]

=UnityofTrinity;8651086]If you believe in Sola Scriptura, you are putting your faith in tradition. The moment you apply your own interpretation, you are CREATING a tradition.

Of course, individual interpretation is not sola scriptura, however.

The moment you are interpreting Scripture in accordance to Calvin or Luther, you are FOLLOWING a tradition. So that being said I see that both Protestantism and Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) rely on traditions to either make sense of Scripture or to formulate doctrines. The difference are first, we Catholic and Orthodox admit it and fully embrace the idea, Protestants don’t.

I certainly embrace Tradition. The difference between, specifically, Catholic and Lutheran hermeunetics is not that we reject Tradition, but that we hold scripture to be the final norm, that Tradition is accountable to scripture. And to the extent that Lutherans and Catholics both accept the 3 ancient creeds, and the 7 early councils, we share much Tradition.

Second we Catholic and Orthodox receives our traditions from the disciples and apostles, and Protestants receive theirs from religious scholars of the 16th century

This is curious because the way Catholics and Orthodox receive these Traditions and apostles is quite different enough that they have been in schism, one from another, for 1,000 years. And in fact, it is perhaps this inability of Tradition to hold the Church unified that that spawned the Church practice of sola scriptura. And while we readily admit that the Lutheran Confessions (save the 3 Creeds) is from the 16th century, we believe they are based in large measure on the early Church teachings, including those 7 early councils. Of course, Catholics here will disagree with that assertion, and that’s fine.

My point, in short, is to rectify the false notion that sola scriptura excludes, voids, ignores Tradition. It does not, it readily embraces it, and holds it accountable.

Jon

 

[pismopal]

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, you are putting your faith in tradition. The moment you apply your own interpretation, you are CREATING a tradition. The moment you are interpreting Scripture in accordance to Calvin or Luther, you are FOLLOWING a tradition. So that being said I see that both Protestantism and Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) rely on traditions to either make sense of Scripture or to formulate doctrines. The difference are first, we Catholic and Orthodox admit it and fully embrace the idea, Protestants don’t. Second we Catholic and Orthodox receives our traditions from the disciples and apostles, and Protestants receive theirs from religious scholars of the 16th century

In one paragraph you have summed up a, if not the, most important difference. I might have added ;…" Protestants receive theirs from religious scholars of the 16th century…" ( most of whom were in doctrinal disharmony). Thank you

 

[raisedacatholic]

Why should I? I only asked you to prove your points in a reasonable and logical manner. You made the assertion that the Bible should believed; I did not. Therefore I am under no obligation to tell you any book or pamphlet, but you do.

Daring me won’t do anything; it’s baiting and it’s unprofessional. If I really didn’t accept the Bible’s authority, your answer simply just succeeded in hardening me, and you have failed miserably in gaining my soul.

I only challenge you because you have not given any thought to your claim: that you found the truth. If you did find the truth, then you should have no problems proving it.

By the way, with only two letters more, you can properly spell “you”. “U” is simply juvenile.

OK. So ask me any question that can be answered in the Bible.

 

[Farsight001]

OK. So ask me any question that can be answered in the Bible.

You have already been asked several questions in this topic that have yet to be answered by you. Lets start with those.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

OK. So ask me any question that can be answered in the Bible.

where in the Bible that say Scripture alone can answer everything?

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Of course, individual interpretation is not sola scriptura, however
Then I wonder what is sola scriptura because ever since the doctrine is formulated we have had hundreds of denominations spawned, all claiming to be directed solely on the word of the Bible. .

I certainly embrace Tradition. The difference between, specifically, Catholic and Lutheran hermeunetics is not that we reject Tradition, but that we hold scripture to be the final norm, that Tradition is accountable to scripture. And to the extent that Lutherans and Catholics both accept the 3 ancient creeds, and the 7 early councils, we share much Tradition.
Catholics and Orthodox accept the same belief as well

This is curious because the way Catholics and Orthodox receive these Traditions and apostles is quite different enough that they have been in schism, one from another, for 1,000 years. And in fact, it is perhaps this inability of Tradition to hold the Church unified that that spawned the Church practice of sola scriptura. And while we readily admit that the Lutheran Confessions (save the 3 Creeds) is from the 16th century, we believe they are based in large measure on the early Church teachings, including those 7 early councils. Of course, Catholics here will disagree with that assertion, and that’s fine.
The Church had never spawns Sola Scriptura, it is the product of the Reformation, and accepted by churches. Note also that the Great Schism was resulted largely NOT because of theological differences but mostly due to distance and political differences. It was also a difference between authority, one the Bishop of Rome, the other the emperor of Byzantine. Please also note that many of the Eastern Church did not separate from the Catholic Church. Note once more that though separated, Orthodox and Catholics accept most of each other teachings and beliefs, only different in articulation.

My point, in short, is to rectify the false notion that sola scriptura excludes, voids, ignores Tradition. It does not, it readily embraces it, and holds it accountable.
How can sola scriptura holds other traditions accountable if it by itself is also a tradition?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=UnityofTrinity;8651877] Then I wonder what is sola scriptura because ever since the doctrine is formulated we have had hundreds of denominations spawned, all claiming to be directed solely on the word of the Bible. .

Here is what it is:

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

From the Formula of Concord.

Catholics and Orthodox accept the same belief as well

The Church had never spawns Sola Scriptura, it is the product of the Reformation, and accepted by churches. Note also that the Great Schism was resulted largely NOT because of theological differences but mostly due to distance and political differences. It was also a difference between authority, one the Bishop of Rome, the other the emperor of Byzantine. Please also note that many of the Eastern Church did not separate from the Catholic Church.].

You know, I hear this all the time from Catholics (rarely Orthodox), and wonder, if this were the case, why has the Schism continued for 1,000 years? One would think the politics long since gone, and distance issues solved. The fact is there are differences in doctrine.

Note once more that though separated, Orthodox and Catholics accept most of each other teachings and beliefs, only different in articulation
I accept most of what Catholics teach, too.

How can sola scriptura holds other traditions accountable if it by itself is also a tradition?

It is a practice, by which the Church holds teachers and teachings accountable to scripture as the final norm. IOW, hermeunetics.

Jon

 

[porthos11]

OK. So ask me any question that can be answered in the Bible.

No.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I think that I may have confused you with my post. My point was the contrast historically (in the Roman communion) between:

partim-partim
and
material sufficiency

not
material sufficiency
and
formal sufficiency

Algo, thank you for your interesting posts, so sorry to see you go.

TQ

 

[UnityofTrinity]

You know, I hear this all the time from Catholics (rarely Orthodox), and wonder, if this were the case, why has the Schism continued for 1,000 years? One would think the politics long since gone, and distance issues solved. The fact is there are differences in doctrine.

I guess if North and South Korea only divided for about 60 years and still couldnt reconcile, then you think it’s easy for the two church separated by culture and distance to fully unite? There have been efforts made however and many Orthodox churches have return to the fold, thus the Eastern Catholic churches are stronger than ever