Is the bible all we need 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter eakswim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
thessalonian:
Don’t ya just love straw men. Where did anyone say that Oral Tradition was completely separate from scripture.
Well, I do believe that there is a claim to oral Tradition that is not found in the bible. I dont think you are espousing that Tradition is only the ability to correctly interpret the bible, is it?
The idea about Catholic (T) Tradition is that it puts the proper interprutation to scripture unlike the thousands of Protestant contradictions. Tell me, does a mormon who thinks there is a verse in Corinthians that teaches baptizing the dead have the Word of God? He has the scriptures but does he have the WOG. No it is obvious to all but you that if you do not have the proper understanding you do not have the WOG. Therefore the WOG = Scripture + (T)Tradition. Once again we do not claim scripture is unrelated and separate from scripture. They go hand in hand. Do you need me to quote the catechism or will you graciously retract the nonsense you have posted above.
Thanks for flagging the double neg. :o

No, I am sure thats what the catechism says, but in effect the magisterium and church is placed above the scripture, same thing the mormons do. How could it not be? If Rome can infallibly define the extent of Scripture and the meaning of Scripture, and also the infallible ability to define both the extent of ‘tradition’ as well as the meaning of ‘tradition’. What other conclusion is there?
 
Jesus clearly left SOMETHING behind to interpret and teach Scripture, now didn’t He?

2 Peter 3:16 - “He speaks about these things in all his letters, in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.”

If the untaught twist them, then who is to teach? Christ must have left something behind to teach, did He not?

It can’t be the Holy Spirit, because It/He/She only guides, not teaches. Further, if it were the Holy Spirit, how then did the Spirit guide us to tens of thousands of interpretations?
 
Questions for kaycee:
  1. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
  2. Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
  3. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?
  4. Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)
  5. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?
  6. Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?
  7. Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?
  8. Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?
  9. If the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” and not “we believe in Holy Scripture”?
  10. If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?
(They’re not my questions, they come from Catholic-converts.com)
 
40.png
kaycee:
Well, I do believe that there is a claim to oral Tradition that is not found in the bible. I dont think you are espousing that Tradition is only the ability to correctly interpret the bible, is it? Thanks for flagging the double neg. :o

No, I am sure thats what the catechism says, but in effect the magisterium and church is placed above the scripture, same thing the mormons do. How could it not be? If Rome can infallibly define the extent of Scripture and the meaning of Scripture, and also the infallible ability to define both the extent of ‘tradition’ as well as the meaning of ‘tradition’. What other conclusion is there?
These are conclusions you draw because you are not open to the harmony of the Catholic faith with scripture. The Magesterium are servents of Christ and submissive to the scriptures. The fact is that Christ left an authoritative Church on this earth. He said “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will give you KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING”. Jer 3:15. It must be possilbe to know who these shepherds are today. He tells us “those who worship me MUST worship in spirit and in truth.” and “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”. So the truth must be knowable with certainty. It is not in the hundreds upon thousand denomination Protestant tradition in which every man is the arbitar of truth with his own Bible.
 
Again I feel it necessary to go into a thread and point out that kaycee and I are two different people. Please do not confuse us.

You can always tell my posts by the Chesterton quote at the end.

Thank you!
 
40.png
kaycee:
Well, I do believe that there is a claim to oral Tradition that is not found in the bible. I dont think you are espousing that Tradition is only the ability to correctly interpret the bible, is it? … :o
The idea of an oral Tradition is supported in the Bible, but it is not dependent upon it. (see 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:6; Jn 21:25.)
40.png
kaycee:
No, I am sure thats what the catechism says, but in effect the magisterium and church is placed above the scripture, same thing the mormons do. How could it not be? If Rome can infallibly define the extent of Scripture and the meaning of Scripture, and also the infallible ability to define both the extent of ‘tradition’ as well as the meaning of ‘tradition’. What other conclusion is there?
The Magesterium or teaching authority of the Church is not above Scripture. It harmonizes Scripture and Tradition. The Church cannot contradict Scripture so it is not “above” scripture. It is harmonious with Scripture.
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
Questions for kaycee:
  1. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
Joh 17:17 - Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
  1. Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
Did the Lord tell them to separate the Truth into Oral and Written God Breathed messages? There is the Apostolic Tradition, The one body of the Faith, delivered once and for all. While alive and recieving revelation the Apostles were the final authority. The complete body of Faith lives on in their teaching, The infallible Scriptures. We know the body of Faith was only given to the Apostles.
  1. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?
Has Church infallibly pronounced the authors? Does not knowing the author of many of the Psalms mean they are not scripture?
  1. Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)
Where in the Bible do we find the Lord granting infalliblity to the Church in any or all matters? Where in Tradition do we find an infallible canon of Big T tradition?
 
kaycee - to answer a question with a question is the universal synonym for “I have no answer.”

1 and 2: The Catholic Church has all the teachings of the Apostles. It’s teachings are those of the Apostles. The only words we have from the Apostles are a few letters sent to answer questions. These letters don’t even come close to a systematic instruction on the Faith. The Apostles went around preaching and writing for years and years. Without a doubt they spoke of things not recorded. These teachings are no less valid. In fact, we KNOW they had writings which are missing, because St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 5:9 that he has written a previous letter to the Corinthians. We don’t have it. The things he wrote down there are just as important as the things in his other letters. If the sole deposit of faith were given to the Apostles and ONLY Scripture could carry it forward, why did they not gather all their writings into a book, or better yet write them all down in a systematic way so their teachings would all be availible in one place to be passed down?

3 - No question can answer a question. The fact is that knowing the identities of these authors absolutely lies at the core of defending Christianity to atheists. Without these identities, Christians in many ways literally have almost no leg to stand on. Here’s what’s more important for you though: the names of the books aren’t on the manuscripts. The titles of the book in your Bible are NOT inspired.

4 - We have an infallible canon of big T. It is called the Magesterium. More importantly, you haven’t answered the question:

If ALL we can believe MUST come from the Bible, how can we believe the canon since it’s NOT listed in the Bible? According to Sola Scriptura, We’re not ALLOWED to believe the Canon because it’s not a part of Scripture. How do we get past this?
 
40.png
kaycee:
Joh 17:17 - Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
Where does John 17:7 say that God’s word is restricted to what is written? In fact, where does it say anywhere in the Bible that God’s word is restricted to what is written?
While alive and recieving revelation the Apostles were the final authority. The complete body of Faith lives on in their teaching, The infallible Scriptures. We know the body of Faith was only given to the Apostles.
Where does scripture say that the *complete *body of faith lives on in the scriptures?
Where in the Bible do we find the Lord granting infalliblity to the Church in any or all matters?
Matthew 16:18-19.
Where in Tradition do we find an infallible canon of Big T tradition?
In other words, where, orally, do we find a written list of what has been said orally? Your question makes no sense.

Here’s a question for you. According to you, the complete body of faith was given to the Apostles and it lives on in their teaching, and this teaching is scripture. If that is true, scripture must contain the complete body of faith. How then was it decided, without appealing to Tradition, which books belong in the New Testament?

BTW, how did you also happen to come up with the name kaycee? I chose it because K and C are my initials.
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
kaycee - to answer a question with a question is the universal synonym for “I have no answer.”

1 and 2: The Catholic Church has all the teachings of the Apostles. It’s teachings are those of the Apostles. The only words we have from the Apostles are a few letters sent to answer questions. These letters don’t even come close to a systematic instruction on the Faith. The Apostles went around preaching and writing for years and years. Without a doubt they spoke of things not recorded. These teachings are no less valid. In fact, we KNOW they had writings which are missing, because St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 5:9 that he has written a previous letter to the Corinthians. We don’t have it. The things he wrote down there are just as important as the things in his other letters.
Does the Church infallibly know the content of this letter to the Corinthians?

How can you assume anything about this letter without knowing its contents?

You infer that the contents is something not previously found elsewhere in scripture, but how could you know?
4 - We have an infallible canon of big T. It is called the Magesterium.
Can I see the Infallible Canon of Tradition?
If ALL we can believe MUST come from the Bible, how can we believe the canon since it’s NOT listed in the Bible? According to Sola Scriptura, We’re not ALLOWED to believe the Canon because it’s not a part of Scripture. How do we get past this?
You dont understand Sola Scriptura. Sola scriptura, says that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. The Church upholds the deposit of Faith found in the scripture, but it is not infallible. The church recognized and accepted the scripture. John 10:27 - “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;” It does not say my sheep are infallible
 
40.png
kaycee:
Can I see the Infallible Canon of Tradition?
For starters, you could look at The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You dont understand Sola Scriptura. Sola scriptura, says that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. The Church upholds the deposit of Faith found in the scripture, but it is not infallible. The church recognized and accepted the scripture. John 10:27 - “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;” It does not say my sheep are infallible
Could you please clarify what you mean by the bolded sentence? I think you might not have written what you meant to say.

The Catholic Church holds that Scripture is the inerrant word of God. R. C. Sproul (Protestant theologian and teacher) admits that “For Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books but for Protestants, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.”
 
You still answer my questions only with questions. I will continue to answer each of your questions, however, proving that the Catholic truth is able to do so.
Does the Church infallibly know the content of this letter to the Corinthians?
No, it does not, and I never claimed it did. I claim that the Church knows what the Apostles taught orally because it was passed down. My point is that if all that the Apostles taught is truth, then the Bible may be missing truth, because we know the Apostles wrote letters which aren’t in it. There is without a doubt at least one Apostolic letter we don’t have, so there very well may be information that we don’t have.
How can you assume anything about this letter without knowing its contents?
You infer that the contents is something not previously found elsewhere in scripture, but how could you know?
We know it is from Paul, so we know it is “All… profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness.” That is all we need to know. We know it contained information that is truthful and inspired, so by missing out on it we are missing out on a part of the Word of God. We know it is all profitable. This means that what Paul wrote in this other letter was surely of good use. If it were something found elsewhere, it would not be profitable as Paul tells us.
Can I see the Infallible Canon of Tradition?
Read the Magesterium.
You dont understand Sola Scriptura. Sola scriptura, says that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. The Church upholds the deposit of Faith found in the scripture, but it is not infallible. The church recognized and accepted the scripture. John 10:27 - “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;” It does not say my sheep are infallible
Without an infallible Church to tell us which writings are Scriptures, we have no way of knowing which of these Scriptures are even inspired and infallible themselves. Sure, we can say all Scriptures are infallible, but which writings are really Scriptures? The gospel of Thomas was around back then, how do we know it’s not Scripture? It says it’s written by the Apostle Thomas, so we should listen to it! We don’t though, because The Church told us it was not a true gospel.

Look at Hebrews. We have no idea who wrote it. It couldn’t have been Paul, since he left no signature in it, and he always wrote signatures in his letters (2 Thessolonians 3:17). It doesn’t even claim to be inspired. Kaycee, I know it is inspired because the Church told me, but how do you know?

Look at Revelation, and 1 2 and 3 John. They claim to be written by John, but have a completely different writing style from the Gospel of John. This should prove that it is a fraud, not written by John. We know though that these Gospels were written by a man named John the Elder on behalf of John the Apostle. Only because the Church has told us so do we know this. Without the Church to declare these valid epistles, how do you know they are Scripture?

You are saying that fallible men put together a list of infallible Scriptures. If men are fallible, they have no way of even knowing if a writing is inspired by God and truly Scripture!
 
I put forth this question, too:

2 John 1:12 - “Though I have many things to write to you, I don’t want to do so with paper and ink. Instead, I hope to be with you and talk face to face so that our joy may be complete.”

3 John 1:13-14 - "I have many things to write you, but I don’t want to write to you with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face. Peace be with you. The friends send you greetings. Greet the friends by name. "

These books are very short and contain virtually nothing. 2 John contains 13 verses, and 3 John 14 verses. John didn’t write these “many things” that he needed to write to the people.

These “many things” are Apostolic teachings that are not recorded in the Bible. All Apostolic teaching is important. If we only have the Bible, we are missing this teaching! If we have the Catholic Church, we do have it. We may not know which teachings John specifically gave to these people, but we know it is a part of the Apostolic Tradition passed down from John through Polycarp and his followers to the Magesterium of the Church.

In fact, ask yourself why Paul wrote such long letters whereas John, Peter, and James wrote much shorter ones in comparison. The reason is because Paul was in prison, and could not personally go and orally teach people. John, James and Peter could. This is why John wrote these letters very short as he did. All of the teaching of John, James, and Peter (not to mention the other Apostles) was passed down orally ONLY. We mustn’t ignore these teachings!
 
40.png
mercygate:
For starters, you could look at The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Could you please clarify what you mean by the bolded sentence? I think you might not have written what you meant to say.

The Catholic Church holds that Scripture is the inerrant word of God. R. C. Sproul (Protestant theologian and teacher) admits that “For Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books but for Protestants, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.”
Correct, I agree with R.C. Sproul. Apparently has a better grasp on grammar as well. 🙂
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
I put forth this question, too:

2 John 1:12 - “Though I have many things to write to you, I don’t want to do so with paper and ink. Instead, I hope to be with you and talk face to face so that our joy may be complete.”

3 John 1:13-14 - "I have many things to write you, but I don’t want to write to you with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face. Peace be with you. The friends send you greetings. Greet the friends by name. "

These books are very short and contain virtually nothing. 2 John contains 13 verses, and 3 John 14 verses. John didn’t write these “many things” that he needed to write to the people.

These “many things” are Apostolic teachings that are not recorded in the Bible.
:eek: What indication is there that this is information for the universal church, never mind Big T tradition???

Has the Church ever infalliby defined this unwritten message from John?

I like you can guess at the message. I think John’s Oral message here was to watch out for the tradition of men as the LORD said!

Mark 7:7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8"For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men*–the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." 9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. …13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
 
40.png
kaycee:
Correct, I agree with R.C. Sproul. Apparently has a better grasp on grammar as well. 🙂
Perhaps, then, you can explain what Sproul means. If the collection itself is fallible, how can we know for certain all the books that should be included are included, and how can we know for certain that books that are already included should be included instead of excluded?

BTW, you did not answer the questions I asked in post #29 above. Perhaps you didn’t see them.
 
kaycee said:
:eek: What indication is there that this is information for the universal church, never mind Big T tradition???

Has the Church ever infalliby defined this unwritten message from John?

I like you can guess at the message. I think John’s Oral message here was to watch out for the tradition of men as the LORD said!

Mark 7:7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8"For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men*–the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." 9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. …13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

It doesn’t matter which specific teachings John gave to the people. The Church has the entirety of the Apostolic teachings, so whatever John taught to those specific people is included. We don’t need to define, fallibly or infallibly, what he taught specifically. It is sufficient to know that he taught something, and we have the teaching in the Apostolic deposit of faith.

The Markan quote is out of context. Begin reading at 7:2, and you will see that Jesus is referring to a specific tradition which the Jews had instituted (the ritual washing of hands). Mark tells us that this is the tradition started by the elders. Jesus firstly is using this instance as an example to teach a lesson, not to condemn this tradition. He doesn’t really care if they wash hands ritually before eating. His point to the Phrisees is that they are criticising people for following man made traditions, but won’t follow God’s commands. The point is that the Pharisees demand strict coherence to a man-made tradition but don’t care about God’s commandments. Jesus provides a further example of tradition, but this one, that of the Corban, actually specifically counteracts a commandment of God (to honor thy father and mother).
This is why he says they make the Word of God of no effect: they create tradtitions which are contrary to it. Jesus isn’t condemning all manmade tradition, he is rather saying that we must enforce God’s word even more strongly than how we enforce men’s rules, and that we must not create traditions or rules which are contrary to God’s Word. For example, if we read this passage as literally (and without context) as you suggest, we would then be forced to condemn saying nightly prayers, as God never instructed us to do so, and it is a manmade tradition. We would have to stop brushing our teeth in the morning, as this too is a manmade tradition. Wine at weddings (like Jesus had)? Forget about it! Manmade tradition. The fact is Jesus doesn’t care about any of this. He is only concerned that we put God’s commands above our own, and that we not contradict them in our rules and traditions. Any traditions which we hold as more important than God’s Word Jesus DOES condemn, as does He condemn any tradition which contradicts God’s Word. The Catholic Church has neither.

In fact, if Jesus meant to condemn all tradition, we have a major problem! Paul command the Thessolonians to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thessolonians 2:15) Note that Paul says that the traditions must be followed if they are sent by an epistle, but also] if they are delivered by word.

The Catholic Church does have some traditions of the type Jesus was not condemning, those which don’t contradict the Word of God. These traditions are the ones that don’t matter and that can easily be changed at any time. They also have Traditions which were taught by the Apostles. These are the Traditions which pertain to God, and which were taught by Paul, Peter, James, John, Thomas, Phillip, and so on. The Church doesn’t just make them up.
 
40.png
kaycee:
Correct, I agree with R.C. Sproul. Apparently has a better grasp on grammar as well. 🙂
You agree with Sproul that for Protestants the books of the Bible are infallible, but that the table of contents is fallible?
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
I claim that the Church knows what the Apostles taught orally because it was passed down.
Ohh, Ok, can I see the list please?
My point is that if all that the Apostles taught is truth, then the Bible may be missing truth, because we know the Apostles wrote letters which aren’t in it. There is without a doubt at least one Apostolic letter we don’t have, so there very well may be information that we don’t have.
You dont really mean to be so unsure do you? :rolleyes: “May be missing? May be information we dont have?”
We know it is from Paul, so we know it is “All… profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness.” That is all we need to know.
An implication you wish to avoid in your quote of 2Ti 3:16? :rolleyes: - 2 Tim 3:16 **All Scripture ** is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
We know it contained information that is truthful and inspired, so by missing out on it we are missing out on a part of the Word of God. We know it is all profitable. This means that what Paul wrote in this other letter was surely of good use. If it were something found elsewhere, it would not be profitable as Paul tells us.
No one knows what the contents of the letters. Yours assertion of its contents is a WILD GUESS!
Without an infallible Church to tell us which writings are Scriptures, we have no way of knowing which of these Scriptures are even inspired and infallible themselves. Sure, we can say all Scriptures are infallible, but which writings are really Scriptures?
The canon is not an object of revelation, it is a byproduct of revelation. The early Christians recieved scripture through the historical process of recognizing the finished act of God. Since God has a purpose for inspiring the Scriptures, and He is sovereign over all things, He has preserved that Word: both as to its text (transmission) and its content (canon).

Are you implying that GOD NEEDS an Infallible Church to safeguard the scriptures? :eek:

I am sure you are aware of that the early church had some fairly large problems with bad doctrine, even claiming Apostolic tradition that conflicted with each other!
Kaycee, I know it is inspired because the Church told me, but how do you know? You are saying that fallible men put together a list of infallible Scriptures. If men are fallible, they have no way of even knowing if a writing is inspired by God and truly Scripture!
Since Trent “infallibly” defined the Canon in 1546. Are you saying that thru 3/4 of church history there was no reliable scripture??? :eek:
 
Kay Cee:
Perhaps, then, you can explain what Sproul means. If the collection itself is fallible, how can we know for certain all the books that should be included are included, and how can we know for certain that books that are already included should be included instead of excluded?

BTW, you did not answer the questions I asked in post #29 above. Perhaps you didn’t see them.
The canon is not an object of revelation, it is a byproduct of revelation. The early Christians recieved scripture through the historical process of recognizing the finished act of God. Since God has a purpose for inspiring the Scriptures, and He is sovereign over all things, He has preserved that Word: both as to its text (transmission) and its content (canon).

Are you implying that GOD NEEDS an Infallible Church to safeguard the scriptures? Does GOD NEED ANYTHING?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top