It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[rinnie]

Nothing in the Catholic Church contradicts the Word of God.

Exactly Jesus delegates all power to the Apostles to do his work.

Also read St Augustine of Hippo) (392AD) The CC is the crown of teaching authority.

 

[Philthy]

I don’t believe that is what he said. Read it again. You’re putting a twist on his statements that he did not.

I think you missed Joe’s point:

Who has the authority to make the decision which is binding upon the faithful using the quadrilateral? Or is there no one who has such authority?
If no one has such authority, why do we look to the past (ie tradition?)
From the material presented, Wesley was advocating a PERSONAL approach to the determination of doctrine. We all now know, with the benefit of several centuries of hindsight, how poorly this has worked out. Much disagreement remains among those advocating such an approach with no ultimate arbiter.

 

[joe370]

I’m very busy: so the choice is a quick answer or no answer:
Quick for now:

The Bible tells us ( from memory)
We are to treasure the word of God more than gold and silver
We are to be in fellowship with other believers
We are to test all things in scripture
Iron sharpens iron
We have some freedom on some doctrines ( see Romans 14)
We are to grow in wisdom and truth
Children should be taught scripture.

So God called has called each one us to study scripture:
And we search for Truth, with prayer, study, fellowship , worship, etc

so yes; God has empowered us to interpret scripture. with prayer, study, fellowship , worship, tradition, reason, experience, etc

Thanks be to God!

it seems the other Qs are off topic

---

Perhaps a bit off topic, but I was heading in that direction. I always like to establish the point that Jesus’ church is in charge, as per Jesus, and not sola scriptura. However, if you don’t want to answer because it’s a bit off topic, that’s cool.

---

I will just ask you 3 off topic questions, and if you don’t want to answer them, I will stick to the topic:

1. If God has empowered all of us to interpret scripture, who is right and who is wrong, and who has the right to make that authoritative decision?
2. If God has empowered all of us to interpret scripture, would the Methodist church welcome me, even if I brought some of my Catholic interpretations that conflict with theirs, and share them with the fellowship of believers?
3. If God has empowered all of us to interpret scripture, why the need for the Council of Bishops and the General Conference which is the legislative branch Methodist church, that make the decisions regarding doctrine and polity.

Peace friend…

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The Bible denies it is the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (Jn 21:25), and Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition that is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim 2:2). He instructs us to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Th 2:15). we are told that the first Christians “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2:42), which was the oral teaching given long before the New Testament was written - and centuries before the canon of the New Testament was settled.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

**I ask with the deepest respect for the Methodist Church: was the Methodist Church established by Jesus Christ on Pentecost or John and Charles Wesley in the 18th century as a movement within the Church of England?
**I recognize Pentecost as the birthday of the Church.
Methodism as a branch within the larger Church traces its heritage back to a movement that grew within the Church of England in the 18th century.
The United Methodist Church, the particular sub-branch community in which I have my membership placed for the purposes of accountability, was organized as an institution in 1968.

So, for the purpose of defining establishment (the word you used), I would have to say that it was by the Holy Spirit (not Jesus) at Pentecost.

Just as the CC does. However, you forgot just one thing: the authority of your church leaders: the Council of Bishops and the General Conference which makes all decisions as to doctrine and polity.

Therefore, while the Bible is the sole source of truth, Tradition forms a “lens” through which we view and interpret the Bible.

**As a former Lutheran I always rejected any kind of tradition, until it occured to me that the holy Spirit is guiding Jesus’ church until the end of time. The holy spirit is guarding/protecting the deposit of faith, be it transmitted through the centuries orally or in written form. If the holy spirit is the divine rudder guiding Jesus’ church through the endless onslaught of the anti-Christ, then surely we can trust His church. To trust sacred scripture and sacred tradition is to trust the holy spirit, sent to guide Jesus’ established church until His return. This certainly seems reasonable.
**

No one is saying to reject tradition. And we UMC could hardly say that the church doesn’t make any corporate statements. Not only does it, but it is right for it to do so. But we must be careful not to think that they are any more correct than the work of a group of fallible men. Individuals can, and oft are, in error with regards to their individualistic interpretations of the scripture. Groups of men working together are, I suspect, less likely to make as many errors, as I believe there is wisdom in the group that is absent when people work in isolation. But I do not believe that the possibility of error has been eliminated simply because something is the work of the Church and not an individual. As long as there is a human element involved, I believe that we have the potential for error. And yes, citinig the inclusion of the doxology in Matthew 6:13 in some manuscripts as a probable example, I would even go so far as to say that we have to understand that this may be true of the copies of scripture which we have available to us today.

Nothing that allows for the human element can be said to be infallible. So, we turn to the scriptures, rather than subsequent inherited tradition, as the primary source (note, I did NOT say sole source) in order to stay as close to divine revelation as possible. This does not mean we dismiss all else, only that we utilize these other things (tradition, reason, experience) recognizes that they are fallible products of humans and scripture was, at least in its original form, the result of a divine human interaction.

But to once again answer those who keep asking the question, where is this in scripture? We don’t assert that it is. We allow the use of tradition, reason, and experience to help in the interpretation of scripture. And these tools themselves tell us that we cannot depend on them without first deferring to scripture.

To use an analogy (and I’m just forming this so give me a break where it is imperfect). When creating a picture of faith, we use many different tools: canvas, brush, paint. But the picture is in the mind of God and is expressed in the words of scripture so that what we see on the canvas may have been produced by tradition, informed by reason, and interpreted through experience. But the purpose of the picture is to convey something of what is in the mind of God. So, if we focus on all the other elements and don’t give priority to the picture itself, we will have missed God’s message for us.

[/QUOTE]

 

[RedBert]

The Bible denies it is the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (Jn 21:25), and Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition that is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim 2:2). He instructs us to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Th 2:15). we are told that the first Christians “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2:42), which was the oral teaching given long before the New Testament was written - and centuries before the canon of the New Testament was settled.

It’s not everything THERE IS to know : it’s everything you NEED to know.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The Bible denies it is the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (Jn 21:25).

But what was written was written so that we might come to believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing we might have life in his name (John 20:31). The inference being that John has editted his work of that which he did not believe we needed. We might like to have them. We might find them interesting, even important at some level. But they are not needed for faith and salvation. What John provided is sufficient.

Again, if this thread can be allowed for a moment to expand beyond “proving” SS, to discuss its value relative to that of accepting Church tradition as equal in authority. What would the Catholic Church do should a new document be found in the desert sands or a clay jar that could be demonstrated to be in the hand of Jesus himself? Aside from its content, would the Catholic Church be willing to accept it, simply because it was produced by Jesus, as on par with the traditions of the Church, the ex cathedra statements of the popes, the canon of Holy Scripture? Or would the nature of its content have any bearing on how it was received?

 

[jlhargus]

But what was written was written so that we might come to believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing we might have life in his name (John 20:31). The inference being that John has editted his work of that which he did not believe we needed. We might like to have them. We might find them interesting, even important at some level. But they are not needed for faith and salvation. What John provided is sufficient.

JL: If what John provided is sufficient, then we wouldn’t need the other books.

Again, if this thread can be allowed for a moment to expand beyond “proving” SS, to discuss its value relative to that of accepting Church tradition as equal in authority. What would the Catholic Church do should a new document be found in the desert sands or a clay jar that could be demonstrated to be in the hand of Jesus himself? Aside from its content, would the Catholic Church be willing to accept it, simply because it was produced by Jesus, as on par with the traditions of the Church, the ex cathedra statements of the popes, the canon of Holy Scripture? Or would the nature of its content have any bearing on how it was received?

JL: Let’s make the senario a possiblity. There is evidence one of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians was lost. Suppose that letter was found and the content is in agreement with Tradition and scripture, which it would have to be in order to be authentic. It could not be considered scripture because the canon of scripture has been set. It could be considered Oral Apostolic Tradition. It might bring about a better understanding of a scripture or Tradition, but would not change or contradict either. This is my opinion only.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Again, if this thread can be allowed for a moment to expand beyond “proving” SS, to discuss its value relative to that of accepting Church tradition as equal in authority. What would the Catholic Church do should a new document be found in the desert sands or a clay jar that could be demonstrated to be in the hand of Jesus himself? Aside from its content, would the Catholic Church be willing to accept it, simply because it was produced by Jesus, as on par with the traditions of the Church, the ex cathedra statements of the popes, the canon of Holy Scripture? Or would the nature of its content have any bearing on how it was received?

The Bible is part of the Tradition of the Church.
The fact is that the Bible nowhere claims to be sufficient as a rule of faith. Paul writes it is “profitable”, not sufficient (2 Tim 3:16)

John MacArthur, Jr., pastor, author, radio personality (and anti-Catholic?) said, “I appreciate very much the direct, clear, biblical treatment of Catholicism.”

St Justin Martyr (c. 155 A.D.) says, “since I am completely convinced that no text of Scripture contradicts another, if a text of Scripture is brought forward and there be a pretext for saying it contradicts another text, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded.”

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

JL: Let’s make the senario a possiblity. There is evidence one of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians was lost. Suppose that letter was found and the content is in agreement with Tradition and scripture, which it would have to be in order to be authentic. It could not be considered scripture because the canon of scripture has been set. It could be considered Oral Apostolic Tradition. It might bring about a better understanding of a scripture or Tradition, but would not change or contradict either. This is my opinion only.

Tradition is alive! The Church is not dead, buried, and awaiting autopsy to discover what happened.

Over time revisions have occured to Sacred Text. There are many versions of the Bible, for example ‘The King James Bible’ then ‘The New King James Version’, ‘The Jerusalem Bible’ then ‘The New Jerusalem Bible’.
Textual criticism is an ongoing process.

 

[Lampo]

They don’t determine what is and is not true with regard to matters of faith.

The pillar and bullwark of truth does.

Individuals can, and oft are, in error with regards to their individualistic interpretations of the scripture.

You can say that again!

But I do not believe that the possibility of error has been eliminated simply because something is the work of the Church and not an individual.

How about the work of the Church when she determined the Canon of Scripture?

As long as there is a human element involved, I believe that we have the potential for error.

How about when human men determined what should and should not be included in Scripture? Do you think the Gospel of Matthew might not really be inspired because the human element was involved when a group of men determined that it was indeed the inspired, inerrant word of God?

Nothing that allows for the human element can be said to be infallible.

How about the decision of men that the Gospel of Luke is the inspired Word of God?

So, we turn to the scriptures, rather than subsequent inherited tradition, as the primary source (note, I did NOT say sole source) in order to stay as close to divine revelation as possible.

How did Saint Justin Martyr, who was an actual student of Saint John the Apostle, turn to the Scriptures when he continued to spread the Gospel and make disciples of all nations?

This does not mean we dismiss all else, only that we utilize these other things (tradition, reason, experience) recognizes that they are fallible products of humans and scripture was, at least in its original form, the result of a divine human interaction.

That “original form” of Scripture is called the Catholic Bible.

We allow the use of tradition, reason, and experience to help in the interpretation of scripture. And these tools themselves tell us that we cannot depend on them without first deferring to scripture.

How did the men “first defer to Scripture” when determining what books should be included in Scripture?

 

[joe370]

Grace Seeker, you said:

I recognize Pentecost as the birthday of the Church.

**So, you are saying that the Methodist church and the CC respectively, were built on the Apostles and prophets circa 33 AD, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, By Jesus Christ?

I thought there was only one church built by Jesus, and that she remained one for the first 1000 years of Christianity, at which point Jesus’ church split into 2 churches until the 16th century Protestant reformation, at which point Jesus’ split church utterly fractured, and eventually gave way to all the muitifarious churches in the world today, which includes the Methodist church stemming from the church of England which broke away from the church built by God, on pentecost?

**

So, for the purpose of defining establishment (the word you used), I would have to say that it was by the Holy Spirit (not Jesus) at Pentecost.

**Agreed! However, I think it’s safe to use the word Trinity…

**
What was forgotten about them? They oversee the administration of the body politic, sometimes express our understanding of the faith and interpretively guide expected behavior. They don’t determine what is and is not true with regard to matters of faith.

**Are you saying that the Methodist church does not interpret sacred scripture or make any decisions regarding doctrine? They weild no authority when it comes to the bible?

**

No one is saying to reject tradition.

**Curious…Does the Methodist church embrace the same traditions the CC embraces? I will definitly take some time out to learn more about the M.C.

**

…And we UMC could hardly say that the church doesn’t make any corporate statements. Not only does it, but it is right for it to do so.

Agreed!

** But we must be careful not to think that they are any more correct than the work of a group of fallible men.

Has the spirit been guiding both the Methodist church and the Catholic Church since Pentecost, even though the former did not exist until the 18th century? What about all the other churches stemming from the Protestant reformation; should we recognize Pentecost as their birthday as well?

The CC embraces both sacred tradition and sacred scripture and views Jesus’ one church as the final authority, as per sacred scripture; the MC embraces both fallible tradition and sacred scripture and views the infallible word of God “through the lens of fallible tradition” as the final authority. Which way is more biblical? I thought Jesus’ established church was/is the pillar and foundation of truth?

Jesus Christ gave full authority to His church when He said: “as the Father has sent me so I send you.” “He who hears you, hears Me; and he who rejects you, rejects Me; and he who rejects Me, rejects Him who sent Me.” We hear His words through His Church, and rejecting His church is tantamount to rejecting Jesus, and the holy spirit is guiding Jesus’ church until the end of time, which is why we can trust the authority of ****His established church in matters of faith and morals. Paul acknowledged the authority given to the Apostles in 2Cor 10:8, “For even if I boast somewhat more about our authority, which the Lord has given for your upbuilding, and not for your destruction, I shall not be put to shame,” and the bible clearly states that Paul passed His authority on to Timothy and Titus who were to do the same, by appointing elders/presbyters in every town. Why didn’t Paul simply hand them the infallible word of God, and instruct them to do the same?

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

*…whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.

---

 

[joe370]

Individuals can, and oft are, in error with regards to their individualistic interpretations of the scripture.

**Agreed! That was the very reason why the holy spirit was sent to Jesus church (in perpetuity) - to which he is the head and savior.
**

Groups of men working together are, I suspect, less likely to make as many errors, as I believe there is wisdom in the group that is absent when people work in isolation.

**Agreed, especially when that church is the church built by God and guided by the holy spirit until the end of time.
**

But I do not believe that the possibility of error has been eliminated simply because something is the work of the Church and not an individual. As long as there is a human element involved, I believe that we have the potential for error.

Agreed! However, when it comes to the church built by Jesus, the deposit of faith has been safeguarded by the holy spirit until the end of time, regardless of individual shortcomings, as per sacred scripture. That is why Jesus’ church is called the pillar and foundation of truth. The “spirit of truth” is guiding her, as the bride of Christ.

And yes, citinig the inclusion of the doxology in Matthew 6:13 in some manuscripts as a probable example, I would even go so far as to say that we have to understand that this may be true of the copies of scripture which we have available to us today.

**Which ones, and who has the authority to say so?
**

Nothing that allows for the human element can be said to be infallible.

**With the exception of the church guided by the infallible holy spirit. The holy spirit is guiding Jesus’ church into all truth regardless of the sinful, fallible men that comprise Jesus’ one church, (he did build just one -right?) - starting with the sinful, fallible Apostles and their successors. **

So, we turn to the scriptures, rather than subsequent inherited tradition, as the primary source (note, I did NOT say sole source) in order to stay as close to divine revelation as possible.

Do you believe that this method has been successful for the last 500 years?

 

[joe370]

**Inherited fallible tradition + infallible scripture = which church out of the hundreds of churches built on the foundation of the reformers, keeps Christians closest to divine revelation?
**

This does not mean we dismiss all else, only that we utilize these other things (tradition, reason, experience) recognizes that they are fallible products of humans and scripture was, at least in its original form, the result of a divine human interaction.

**I would call the holy spirit (God) - guiding Jesus’ church until the end of time, divine human interaction; wouldn’t you? If not for the holy spirit sent to Jesus’ one church almost 2000 years ago, to guide her, I would not be a Christian today.

**
But to once again answer those who keep asking the question, where is this in scripture? We don’t assert that it is. We allow the use of tradition, reason, and experience to help in the interpretation of scripture.

**As does the CC. We are back to the interpretation of scripture, and which church in the world today was/is charged with the mission to teach the world all that Jesus taught until the end of time? Logically this would include the interpretation of Jesus’ teachings, be it tradition or scripture. I know it’s not me unless what I teach agrees with what Jesus’ church teaches.
**

And these tools themselves tell us that we cannot depend on them without first deferring to scripture.

**Why doesn’t the bible agree with you? The bible tells us to “take it to the church” to resolve issues between brothers. You are my brother in Christ, and we can’t seem to agree; what are we suppose to do, as per sacred scripture? I remember when I belonged to one of the Lutheran churches, this method was unworkable. For example, some of us interpreted scripture one way and others interpreted scripture another way, e.g. John 6. In the end, we were split and walked our separate ways. Sola scriptura, or sola scriptura backed by fallible tradition does not work. **

To use an analogy (and I’m just forming this so give me a break where it is imperfect). When creating a picture of faith, we use many different tools: canvas, brush, paint.

**Agreed! **

But the picture is in the mind of God and is expressed in the words of scripture so that what we see on the canvas may have been produced by tradition, informed by reason, and interpreted through experience.

**To me, the picture is in the mind of God and is expressed by the power of the holy spirit, Who, again, is working through Jesus’ one church, by protecting her from herself and the evil one. **

But the purpose of the picture is to convey something of what is in the mind of God.

**Yes, and that is exactly what the holy spirit does; He conveys what is in the mind of God, via sacred tradition and sacred scripture.
**

So, if we focus on all the other elements and don’t give priority to the picture itself, we will have missed God’s message for us.

**Agreed, however, the bible tells us that the big picture is the church built by Jesus, which was/is charged with the mission to do as Jesus did, when He walked the earth, and he endowed his church with divine guidance, until his glorious return. Take the church built by God out of the picture and you see exactly what we see today: everyone claiming to have the correct interpretation of their bibles, as long as it agrees with the church to which they belong.

Certainly seems a bit hypocritical. **

**I use to be right where you are, with the exception of fallible tradition, and I always felt like something was missing, and something was: the church built by God. For 2000 years the CC has remained one because Jesus’ body the church, obeys their leaders and submits to their authority, ironically just as every other church does, all the while claiming that the bible is their sole authority, and in your case, fallible tradition as well.

*“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Hebrews
*

**

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

According to Scripture, dogmatic faith is the indispensable prerequisite for salvation

(Mk 16:16 'Preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved. But he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Jn 20:31 'These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have have life in His name."

Heb 11: 6: ‘Without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that He is: and is a rewarder to them that seek him.’)

There is justification for the necessity of dogmatic faith.

St Augustine: ‘The beginning of the good life, to which the eternal life also belongs, is true faith.’
The Council of Trent: faith is ‘the beginning of human salvation, the basis and the root of all justice.’

 

[RedBert]

How about the work of the Church when she determined the Canon of Scripture?

That “original form” of Scripture is called the Catholic Bible.

Just an FYI: using these “facts” don’t help your case, as they aren’t as clear cut as you may think.

Not trying to go off topic, just letting you know.

 

[Church_Militant]

It’s not

everything THERE IS to know : it’s everything you NEED to know.Then show me specifically where that is found in the Word of God?

Should be simple if its there…

 

[MariaG]

Then show me specifically where that is found in the Word of God?

Should be simple if its there…

Such a simple thread, yet how many posts later and we still don’t have biblical evidence that scriture is above, sole or whatever you want to define scripture alone. We all can see the value of scripture, but value does not equal sole authority (above etc).

 

[loyalservant]

Always?

Please show me where the scriptures state that it was okay for the early Church to determine that Gentile converts did not have to be circumcised.

Here you go Randy…here are a few quotes from the Bible.
1 Corinthians 7:19
Galatians 5:6
Galatians 6:15*

 

[joe370]

**10 questions I could not answer as a non-Catholic; perhaps a non-Catholic at this thread can help me out. Just trying to stay on topic:

1. The Bible was not put under one cover until 397 AD at the Council of Carthage.** It took a monk 10 months to hand copy the Bible. Prior to the Bible being put under one cover, to whom did the early Christians turn for biblical edification? Remember, the Bible did not exist as we know it today.
2. How did the early Christians each own a Bible if the printing press wasn’t developed until the 1500’s? Even after the printing press was developed how many Christian could afford to own a Bible?
3. Why does JESUS state the final authority is His church in Matthew 18:15-17?
4. Where in the Bible does it state that the “Bible” is the only authority for Christians?
5. For the first 1000 years of Christianity, ( this is the case for some people in some parts of the world today) - how did the majority of the Christians who were uneducated/illiterate, adhere to the 16th century man-made doctrine, sola scriptura? Remember you guys (grace seeker and redbert) - stated that tradition was not infallible like the word of God.
6. What is the pillar and foundation of truth?
7. How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is correct?
8. Finally, many non-Catholics, such as my sister tell me, when I ask them where the bible came from - from the holy spirit, as opposed to the CC, guided by the holy spirit.

*What’s wrong with that STATEMENT? *

1. How would this be possible without Jesus’ established church? Did the holy spirit do what God did with Moses and the tablets? If so, where in the bible does it say something like this?
2. Did the holy spirit place the table of contents in everyone’s bible, or was that put there by the Catholic Church in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage?