P
PRmerger
Guest
Exactly, gerard. So he proposed something, not by Scripture, but by oral teaching.
- Status
If its politics, then its politics that’s lasted for a thousand years. And if its plitics, then it shouldn’t be church dividing. I, too, recognize him as the patriarch of the west, and I agree with the east’s definition of his primacy of honor.
I think the Formula of Concord, which I quoted, addresses this. Where writings reflect scripture - it doesn’t have to be stated word for word - as is the case with the Creeds and the first 7 councils, then they should be accepted as the consistent and universal teaching of the Church. That doesn’t contradict sola scriptura, that IS sola scriptura!
Well, I appreciate your honest opinion. Some folks like to flower over the divisions stemming from the Great Schism.
Jon
G
gerard1984
Guest
You are correct, they did not have the new testament to preach from so they taught them instructed them by oral teaching. The big difference is that this oral teaching became
Scripture. The word tradition has different meanings and one of those meanings is to instruct
1 Corinthians 11:2.
2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
The Greek word for tradition as used in 1 cor 11:2
- tradition
delivery, that is the act of delivering over from one to another. Reference(s) - ordinance -s
delivery, the act of delivering over from one to another, precept, ordinance, instruction. Reference(s)
Mathew 15:2
2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
Tradition or instruction will not contradict the Word of God.
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
The point of Protestantism was to put down the corruption that had sprung up in the catholic church, and to get to the roots of what Jesus taught instead of what had been lost and replaced by what men wanted. Not to “rebel” against Jesus…
I reply: Not one verse supports scriptures alone. The Bereans rejected Scriptures ALONE, they were MORE noble! The Thessalonians were LESS noble… they believed in only their scriptures!
john 5:39-41
mark 7:7-13
1 Cor 4:6
luke 1:3-4
2 Tim 3:14-17
Luke 10:25-37
Acts 17:11
Mat 15:9
or really my posts 726-31
where? but i agree if you dont listen to Christs believers you indeed are in error. Its why we are all “the church”
Pagan: a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
A PERSON outside OF THE BODY OF God
Your words are just that: Your Words. No scriptures!
Im yet to see you post one
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is** useful **for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
Jesus’ Church TEACHES; Not any protestant churches, they reject a TEACHING CHURCH!
Jesus’ Church TEACHES; Not any protestant churches, there was** NO **protestant churches when Jesus gave his; Great Commission!
NO you reject a teaching church, you reject that any person with the holy spirit in them (who has accepted Christ as Lord) can teach and is authoritative.
Well la tee da… So you are rejecting “Scriptures ALONE”!!
You are admitting “CHURCH TEACHES!!!”
what does the church use!? the bible!!!
This is in error, God is the judge and while everything can be properly decided through debate you dont exactly know who “Gods with”…sure you can guess but you dont know these peoples souls…
no…thats a rash assumption made on your behalf only
You are forced to believe God ERRS!!!
maybe you, to falsely think the catholic church was the first one.
If the Holy Spirit was to err then he would not be perfect he would not be God!!
yep
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely** I am with** you**** always, to the very end of the age.”
He is and I love it!
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
yep, continuous.
What is your strongest scriptural evidence the protestants are in error? Sounds more like a case of denial rather than a logical examination…
there was NO catholic church either!!!
none of these scriptures are yet to prove anything against sola scriptura
if they obey his commandments and teach properly sure. but im sure you will find some catholic and protestant churches trying to improperly fill daddys shoes…
who do you take us for!?
I would argue the same for you and your doctrines honestly.
This is why I only teach what Jesus taught, so that he will be with me always
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
I truly hope that there is no need for proving the trinity exists in the bible…
I can see everyone making these ridiculous complex arguments but it really comes down to this.
The bible is Gods word, his instruction.
The apostles are not recorded as having taught anything otherwise to the biblical teachings. The so called “traditions” outside of the bible are exactly that. I celebrate the tradition of Christmas but if i dont do it Im not in danger of hellfire.
Now if God himself instructs you on something why isnt that enough? and if the argument is going to go in the direction of “well you need people to properly decipher the scriptures” then even if that IS THE CASE THE ONE DECIPHERING IS STILL USING SOLA SCRIPTURA. At the end of the day the scriptures are consulted even by the heads of the churches. Why the cc clings to these “mandatory traditions” is beyond me. Theres a reason Jesus did not speak kindly of traditions and I think its because given enough time people will be behooved into actually thinking they have to follow them
I can see everyone making these ridiculous complex arguments but it really comes down to this.
The bible is Gods word, his instruction.
The apostles are not recorded as having taught anything otherwise to the biblical teachings. The so called “traditions” outside of the bible are exactly that. I celebrate the tradition of Christmas but if i dont do it Im not in danger of hellfire.
Now if God himself instructs you on something why isnt that enough? and if the argument is going to go in the direction of “well you need people to properly decipher the scriptures” then even if that IS THE CASE THE ONE DECIPHERING IS STILL USING SOLA SCRIPTURA. At the end of the day the scriptures are consulted even by the heads of the churches. Why the cc clings to these “mandatory traditions” is beyond me. Theres a reason Jesus did not speak kindly of traditions and I think its because given enough time people will be behooved into actually thinking they have to follow them
P
PRmerger
Guest
Scripture verse for this, please.
Note: the verse(s) should include something that says that *all *oral teaching was converted to Scripture. For is this not your point–that there is nothing that the CC has preserved as Oral Tradition that was not put down in Sacred Scripture?
P
paul_c
Guest
Miguel, unlike in Protestantism, in Catholicism there is papal authority to define what is and isn’t official church doctrine. There is an OFFICIAL position where one needs to be taken. Not everything can have an official position. Lets review your issues below:
It matters not whether everyone agrees. What matters is what the Pope actually taught on the matter. He says in chapter 3 paragraph 11
. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
In chapter 15, talking about the old testament, he continues:
Now the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy. (1) These same books, then, give expression to a lively sense of God, contain a store of sublime teachings about God, sound wisdom about human life, and a wonderful treasury of prayers, and in them the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way. Christians should receive them with reverence.
and in chapter 19, the Pope says:19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).
Again, the Pope had a very concrete position on this. Its not about opinions. here it is:
In reference to the passage cited from Lumen Gentium 8, Vatican II changed the earlier formula of Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi: “The Catholic Church is (est) the one Mystical Body of Christ.” Cardinal Ratzinger comments on the distinction between subsistit and est:
The term subsistit derives from the classical philosophy, as it was further developed in Scholasticism. The Greek word corresponding to it is hypostatis, which plays a central role in Christology, for describing the unity between divine nature and human in the Person of Christ. Subsistere is a special variant of esse. It is “being” in the form of an independent agent. That is exactly what the Council is trying to tell us here. The Council is trying to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ may be encountered in this world as a concrete agent in the Catholic Church. p. 147
verbatimetapothegm.blogspot.com/2009/03/themes-in-lumen-gentium-part-ii.html
P
paul_c
Guest
Miguel, you are mistating the debate between the Molinist and the Thomist on the interplay between grace and free will. Its not a doctrinal debate, its a question of mechanism. Both parties agree that man has free will and that God’s plan allows for this while preserving his ultimate plan. The debate is about how God accomplishes this. We simply don’t know as the church honestly admits, so both sides of the debate are free to speculate. This is not punting. This is acknowledging that we can’t understand how God does everything
Again, a mistatement of the situtation. The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the deposit of faith includes both Tradition and scripture.
In short, these issues you bring up are focused in two categories.
- what you are categorizing as differences of opinion are actually dissent from the authorized position of the Church.
- The church doesn’t take positions on questions that it can not truthfully answer
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is quite consonant with Catholic teaching, gerard. Truth cannot contradict Truth.
Or were you thinking there is some part of Sacred Tradition which contradicts Sacred Scripture?
Note: the Word of God is Jesus. The Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God, and, because they are inspired, are the Words of God.
J
Jason_L_Barnes
Guest
There isn’t, an authoritative Church council took care of that for you.
Agreed, it is ridiculous. Unfortunately, there are people such as yourself who are in error and attempting to spread that error.
Agreed.
Agreed. It’s not recorded that the apostles taught “anything otherwise to the biblical teachings” because they never did. Who wrote the NT? Why would the apostles teach anything contrary to what they wrote? You misunderstand Sacred Tradition.
Jesus Christ instructed the Apostles Himself with the spoken Word, they in turn communicated the spoken Word to the Church, we trust the Word handed down to us by the Apostles and use their scripture to support it.
No, ibe, it is not the case. Sola Scriptura is why people outside of the Church can’t “properly decipher the scriptures” The spoken Word as handed down from the Apostles, the authors of the NT, are used to determine the authors intent. This known intent clarifies for us the true meaning of the scriptures. So if you want to accuse the authors of the NT of using Sola Scriptura to divine their own intent then be my guest - it will get you nowhere in a hurry.
“Why the cc clings to these “mandatory traditions” is beyond me.” This one kinda answers itself. It’s beyond you because you choose to remain separated from the source that provides objective truth.
As to your claim that, “Jesus did not speak kindly of traditions” I suspect it is taken out of context in the typical protestant sense. Book and verse please.
God bless!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Which “believers” should we listen to, ibe?
The ones who say baptism is an ordinance? Or the ones who say it’s a sacrament?
The ones who say that the day of worship is Sunday? Or the ones who say it must be done on Saturday?
The ones who say that women can be pastors? Or the ones who say that they can’t speak in church?
The ones who say that divorce and re-marriage is ok? Or the ones who say it is, as Christ said, adultery?
The ones who say that gay marriage is a right? Or the ones who say that marriage is between a man and a woman?
The ones who say that music is forbidden to be played in church? Or the ones who have organs and guitars and bongo drums?
The ones who say that speaking in tongues must be part of the worship service? Or the ones who say it can’t be?
D
Des
Guest
However, one can still arrive at the conclusion that one member or one of the Persons of the Godhead may be greater in some sense than the others as I haven’t read anything you’ve shown to disprove this. So someone could say that it’s true that nothing outside of the Holy Trinity’s own existence could ever be greater, but this doesn’t have to imply that there can’t be some type of structure of authority or ranking within the internal relationship of the Trinity itself. Scripture such as these can quickly slow down any possible progress an already predisposed sS Trinitarian believer such as yourself, may wish to convey to his students.
*1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”. *
***“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32) ***
“You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me, you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.” (John 13:16)
He saith to them: My chalice indeed you shall drink; but to sit on my right or left hand, is not mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by my Father.(Mathew 20:23)
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are confusing customs and traditions with Sacred Tradition. ST is not a custom.
But I can see how it might be cause for confusion. Sometimes using “sacred” before it provides a means for distinguishing between custom and the teachings of the apostles preserved through the Magisterium of the CC
To Catholics, it clearly *is *enough.
We just don’t limit the “instructions” to those written in the Scriptures.
G
gerard1984
Guest
Why would it have to say that. They were not preaching any false doctrine they were preaching the Gospel. That is why they challenged those in Acts 15 because they were still trying to say you had to be circumcised to be saved.
An example of the CC tradition would be Mary was without sin, the assumption of Mary, the succession of popes etc. None of these can be supported by scripture.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
JBarnes said:
But I don’t accuse you Catholics of “dancing” around the issue when you bring up these counterpoints because I see it as part and parcel of the entire debate—for Catholics also are reacting to what they see as problematic with sola scriptura.
I disagree with the way you’re characterizing the debate so far. Again, it is very difficult to speak of sola scriptura without making reference to its counterpoints—namely Tradition and the Magisterium—all the more so when my opponents keeping making statements such as, “that’s why we need an infallible interpreter” or “you have no objective way to decided which interpretation is true” and words to that effect.
But I don’t accuse you Catholics of “dancing” around the issue when you bring up these counterpoints because I see it as part and parcel of the entire debate—for Catholics also are reacting to what they see as problematic with sola scriptura.
So when we Protestants come to the same conclusion as your Catholics we do so on the basis of Sacred Tradition and not because of, but rather in spite of what the Bible says? And you think you can demonstrate this? Okay, let’s see where this is going:
But what is the relevance of this point, which I do not deny, by the way? In other words, so what?
Yes.
I’m not sure I’m following you here.
If you’re asking whether or not we can get into the author’s head, I don’t think we can.
True. But then has anyone claimed that exegesis can get us into the author’s head?
And how do you know that “PARADOSIS” can do this? And how do you know what the precise content of the PARADOSIS is? If you can’t answer those two questions, then you can’t rely on PARADOSIS to give you the certainty that you claim for it.
That might be true, if we were able to first know what that paradosis is. But apart from scripture, where are you going to find any access to that paradosis?
But you haven’t yet shown that my interpretation only “happens” to agree with the Catholic Church because I’m unwittingly relying on PRADOSIS or Sacred Tradition.
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
Actually, all of these can be supported by Scripture. Luke 1:28, Rev 12:1, and Acts 1:20.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Because, if you don’t have any verse that supports it, then it is a man-made tradition.
So, do you have any verse that says that their oral teaching was converted to Scripture?
Chapter and verse, please.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is begging the question, gerard.
“They were not preaching anything that was not the gospel, they were preaching the Gospel.”
Circular.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Please give us the verses where it says that
- Mary sinned
- Mary was NOT assumed
- there is no succession of popes.
Also, please provide the Scripture verses that say that all beliefs must be supported by Scripture.
- Status