the last of the gospels were written in 90ad…so it is not likethis happened over night…we can’t tivialize the tradition, it was the largest factor in early christianity…Well, I’d say first came eyewitnesses, then came Oral, then came written. If I were an early Christian, I think I’d prefer to have Peter or Paul giving a sermon, rather than reading their letters. So, yes the Oral most definitely came before the written, but the Oral was coming from the eyewitnesses. Once the eyewitnesses left the scene, if they didn’t write it down, or have someone very intimate with their teachings write it down (ie. Luke traveled with Paul, Mark with Peter), then how accurate would it be.
Look what happened, even in the early church. Paul tells them about the Christ, goes away for a few years, and hears that they are now changing the message that Paul gave them. So, he writes his letters to CORRECT their understandings.
All Sacred Traditions are backed up with the Written Word. Isn’t it a matter of “interpretation” as to what is “Sacred Tradition” (or what you call Catholic Holy Tradition) and what are traditions that go beyond the Written Word? If so, how do you know who’s “interpretation” to trust?The Protestant viewpoint is that if it was important enough for us to remember, and especially if it has a bearing on our salvation, then it is contained in the Written Word. That is why when the Catholic Holy Tradition goes beyond the Written Word, you leave Protestants behind.
That’s where we would differ.All Sacred Traditions are backed up with the Written Word.
Not really. I doubt that you have truly exhausted the mine on the supposedly extra-biblical doctrines. Or, you my choose a standard other than that used by the Church, such as requiring an explicit statement rather than accepting something which rises from the text only through study and contemplation.That’s where we would differ.
Thank you for your posts. You have a logical approach to your posts and answers and it is clear you are knowledgeable. It allows me to see important beliefs we have in common and there are many. That is great.My question is how do you determine a teaching is a tradition of men or a tradition of God, if not using the unchanging inerrant written Word of God as the standard?
I agree this is where we differ. I pray that all Christians can be thankful for everything we agree on. These are the things which make us all Christians. Scriptural documentation for Sacred Traditions is a subject for another thread which could be interesting. God bless.That’s where we would differ.
I don’t doubt that the Catholic Church cites Scripture in support of its various doctrinal pronouncements. However, from a Protestant viewpoint, some of the time the Catholic Church is spot-on with the Scriptural support, other times its a closer call, and sometimes its a real stretch. Catholics, of course, believe that they are spot-on across the board. We don’t and, for the most part, we all know those areas where we differ.Not really. I doubt that you have truly exhausted the mine on the supposedly extra-biblical doctrines. Or, you my choose a standard other than that used by the Church, such as requiring an explicit statement rather than accepting something which rises from the text only through study and contemplation.
There is Scriptural support for all of the dogmatic proclamations of the Catholic Church. It may not be written in neon but it’s in there.
It might interest you to know that there is a large body of catholic believers, whom the RCC excludes, who believe much as you do.Hi,
Can I list the reasons without any backlash?
The two main reasons is I don believe the CC is the One and only True Church and I feel the CC misintrepreted the Scripture referring to Peter as Pope hence all the Apostolic Succession.
Minor reasons:
Marion doctrines
praying to dead saints
purgatory
salvation message(actually that would be a big one)
confesssion
Nicene CreedWithout the Bible, how do you, personally, determine if your chuch leader is teaching truth or not?
Quoting JesusScripture provides some sort of restraint against false teachings, but it is a poor one. For instance the Watchtower society, aka Jehovah’s Witnesses, is a biblically-based movement. So are the Southern Baptists. So are Presbyterians, now United Reform.
These groups don’t have much in common with each other, though they all approximate to some extent to the teachings of Jesus.
Old books are hard to read. Unless you are extremely well-educated, you cannot be a comptent Biblical critic, and you can’t enter into controversies about the meaning of texts. That is not to say that you cannot read the Bible in translation and get a very good idea of what it says.
So do you know the Greek? Do you know the Greek well enough to pick up these nuances? If not, what use is possession of the Bible to you in resolving this issue?
Anyone willing to do the will of God will have discernment. This is stating that anyone that seeks after God’s will, not trying to prove or disprove a religion, but just seeking God’s will, God will give that person discernment. I do not believe this means that a person will just pick up the Bible and in a day understand all there is to know. But with constant work and seeking, God will reveal, teach, and train all Christians to be used by Him to further his Glory. He may use other people that are further along, or he may give insight to specific truths based on His tasks he want to do through us, or he may discipline us to teach and train us for future work. But Jesus states He will give discernment to truth to he who is willing to be used by God.Joh 7:17 "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.
If this is the RC teaching on divorce, I would have to disagree. Below are the verses where Jesus taught this.For instance, the Catholic church says that when Jesus banned divorce, “except for fornication” He meant “casual relationships are not binding”. Otherwise the system would be an open invitation to every prostitute to get a man drunk and hook a rich husband. However that doesn’t follow obviously from most English translations.
Mat 5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery
Mat 19:9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
In all the verses, these are actually husbands and wives. The Greek word used for adultry in all cases is “porneia”. The definition of the “porneia” isMar 10:11 And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
Mar 10:12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.
Can you please give me reference or explain how Jesus is only talking about casual relationships not being binding? This is a new one to me. Again, these passages are talking about husband and wives, not boyfriends and girlfriends.harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
A lot of us Catholics are going to be standing in line right next to you for the answer to THAT one! Sometimes in Catholic exegesis, one also hears that “porneia” includes things like improper marriages, such as incest. Makes a heck of a lot more sense than “casual relationships are not binding.” :whacky:Can you please give me reference or explain how Jesus is only talking about casual relationships not being binding? This is a new one to me. Again, these passages are talking about husband and wives, not boyfriends and girlfriends.
You also. And I appriciate this dialog very much. I am learning and growing as we speak.Thank you for your posts. You have a logical approach to your posts and answers and it is clear you are knowledgeable. It allows me to see important beliefs we have in common and there are many. That is great.
I would trust in what Jesus said.Yes we have the inerrant written Word of God but who does one trust to interpret and translate it? Do we trust ourselves guided by the Holy Spirit or do we trust the Church guided by the Holy Spirit? Certainly if one believes individuals can be guided by the Holy Spirit, then the Church can also.
Here Jesus indicates that if one is willing to do God’s will, God will give discernment to the teachings. First of all, I would define “one who is willing to do his will”, is not the casual believer that feels like obeying when it is convienient. This would be the true Christian with living, saving, faith I have described in past responses. Whether God will reveal the truth all at once with the wisdom of Solomon, though possible, I do not think so. My thought is that as we truely seek the wisdom as descibed by Solomon in Proverbs, God will reveal the discernment to us. He may give us insight at particular times in our lives that we would need to do his will at certain times. He may put us through trials and discipline to teach and train us. But nonetheless, I do believe Jesus when he says we will be able to discern the truth from false if within His will.John 7:17 "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.
I would just say that Jesus is not only with his church as a collective, but he is also always with each individual Christian along with the Holy Spirit. Putting each of us in constant communion with God. The passages about testing is not just for church leadership, but also for each Christian.How to I determine which teachings are traditions of men or traditions of God? I listen to the Catholic Church. The Bible teaches that the Church has Christ always with it and the Holy Spirit always to guide it-not only during the first century but during all future ages. Matt. 28:20
“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you ALWAYS, EVEN UNTO THE END of the world. Amen.”
For this, I would just like to refer back to John 7:17. And say continue to seek and trust not in “Human Beings”, but in God for discernment. Remeber the Jews that Jesus constantly criticized. The Jewish leaders were about as studious of the Law as any denomination today. They were unparralled in their studies. They were teachers of God’s chosen people. But they taught far from the truth. And they led their people far from the truth.1 Tim 3: 14 These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. 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. 15 “The pillar and ground of the truth”… Therefore the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry. Certainly Catholic leaders have sinned but the doctrine of the Church has not changed.
Everyone trusts “Human Beings” to help them with the Bible. I believe this is a fact. Therefore, deciding which Human Beings to trust is one of the most important decisions individuals make. God bless.
I’m a recent entrant into the Catholic Church, so I don’t claim to be an expert on these issues, but here is what I understand from much study over the past two years:Without the Bible, God’s unchanging and inerrrant Word, how would you guard against false teaching within the Christian Church?
I am going to be silly here, just trying to illustrate my question. Let’s suppose hypothetically, you church leader says we should pray to the President of the United States. America being founded under Christian principles and guided under the grace and mercy of God, and the president being appointed by God to rule this country, all Christian should pray to him. Paul states that all govern authorities are appointed by God (Romans 13:1).Nicene Creed
Peace,
+Nathan
This is all fine and dandy, but the premise of the OP was “without the Bible”. You say you would validate against scripture, but how would you validate it if there was no Bible, as we know of it today, in the first 300+ years of the Church?I will answer this question to show I am not trying to make anyone out to be silly. I would validate against scripture, that states who I should be praying to. Seeing this is against Scripture, I would determine this teaching false. Being that this is the church leadership making this statement, I would leave that church.
The main difference I have with your statement is the definition of Christ’s Church, whether it belongs to any one denomination or to the collective group of Christians, and whether any religious denomination leadership is immuned from straying from the narrow path leading to eternal life. I do not want to debate these issues, because that would be pointless.I’m a recent entrant into the Catholic Church, so I don’t claim to be an expert on these issues, but here is what I understand from much study over the past two years:
Yes, obviously the Bible is the inerrant eternal Word of God, and therefore is essential to preserve Christian truth, but so is Sacred Tradition, which includes the doctrinal pronouncements of the Church outside of Sacred Scripture as well as the oral teachings passed down from the Apostles and others through the past 1,973 years (or so).
How is truth preserved in Sacred Tradition? When the Church speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, she is inherently incapable of error, in accordance with the promise Jesus made to the apostles that the Holy Spirit would “guide you to all truth.” *Jn 16:13; *also see 1 Tim 3:15, where Paul describes the church (there was no “big C Church” yet) as the “pillar and foundation of truth.” There are other Scriptural supports as well, but these are the two I’ve seen cited most often.
This does *not *mean that any one person, including the Pope, is incapable of error or sin, but that the Church, as the mystical Body of Christ, is incapable of speaking inconsistently with the teaching of its Head, who of course is Jesus Himself. Again, keep in mind this guarantee of inerrancy applies to the Pope only when he speaks ex cathedra, after due reflection and discussion with the Bishops–such as in the conciliar documents of Vatican II or the other Councils. Many people, including many if not most Catholics, misunderstand this. The Pope himself is not infallible. The Church is infallible, and at times the Pope is called upon to speak for the Church in matters of faith and morals. But “matters of faith and morals” is not all-inclusive; for example, whether priests can be married is not a matter of faith or morals, nor is the Order of the Mass. On the other hand, the stance of the Church on abortion and contraception IS a matter of morals, and cannot change, because it is the doctrinal, dogmatic teaching of the Church established by Jesus, and guided by the Holy Spirit.
Im sure there are others who can say this better than I can, and please forgive any error I may have made in my attempt to restate these matters.
May the Lord bless all who read this.
Certainly God inspired the codexing of the Bible he did this by guiding the Church and giving sacred tradition to be used as a standard.I have said this before, but what part did God play is determining Scripture? I would counter this by saying that God determined the Holy Scriptures inspiring Christian men.
Actually the Hebrew text as we know it today was set down in 90 AD. A council of rabbis decided to finally determine what books were in fact the word of God. There were previous collections yes but the final version was created actually in responce to Christianity. The Greek Septuagint was in wide us and its embrace by the Church had caused it to spread even further. As such many Rabbis began to see this as a highjacking of their language.The Hebrew Bible was recognized as complete in 450BC by councels of rabbis.
I can understand why you would say this and from your experience this is likely correct. I know this will sound mean spirited (please believe me that is not the intent) however, that is a problem spawned by protestantism. Since the teachings of the Catholic Church were passed on too us by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers the very people who wrote and collected the New Testament scriptures we don’t really have to worry about that. The oral traditions that were passed down too us (by Christ)were the very ones that inspired the New Testament to begin with. We live and worship within the living tradition of the Faith or Christ and the Bible. The Bible is an God inspired extension of our traditions.I just think this reasoning is backwards. Following traditions without the lens of Scripture will cause a us to faulter. And I would also point to the denominations as proof of this. Using traditions to drive the teaching of scripture is exactly what Jesus was ripping the Jewish leaders for.
And I would agree with this. However, what that verse says does not include “suffiecient” and “alone”. Again I have to remind you that the Catholic traditions were in place as those words were being penned. It is the traditions giving by Christ that gave birth to the Bible. Even as the world was created by spoken word and then a visible representation was formed. Christ spoke the Word which would latter take on visible form in the Bible.What I am saying is that all traditions must be held up to Scripture. Scripture is the standard of all teachings. If the tradition fails to be supported by Scripture, it is a false teaching. Jesus’s teachings are constantly being referred by to Scripture. Many times in the Gospels and the New Testament the scriptures are referred to in order to support the traditions being taught. Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16, under the inspiration of God, that All Scripture, not traditions, are profitable for reproof, correction, teaching and training.
Though I do not know all doctrines of all Christian Churches, I would believe that most would be considered false. My reason for believing this is because Jesus says so in Matthew 7:13-23.
Jesus says to beware of false prophets in sheep’s clothing. This would mean their will be leaders will be teaching false traditions.
I would agree with this. So which do you believe to be the false prophets? The men and women who knew Christ and/or his apostles or the ones proposing new doctrines and churches within the last few centuries? Again that isn’t meant to be mean I’m just trying to make a point.Then Jesus states many, not a few, will say to him on Judgement day, that they followed all his teachings as taught by their church, but He will cast them out, because the teachings they followed were not the one’s taught by Him, but they fell to the teachings of the false prophets.
This leads to my question, I cannot seem to get answered. So I will ask you also. Jesus states to beware of false prophets. Paul writes to Test ourselves to see if we are in the faith (2 Cor 13:5). John warns to not believe every spirit, and test them (1 John 4:1). Revelations 2:2 offers kudos for the church of Ephesus for testing even those claiming to be apostles.
That’s a good question. The answer is that these things really get tested by default. Any new doctrine will have stand against 2000 years of teaching AND the Bible. The doctrine of the Church has been in place with very little adjustment for 2000 years. It has stood the test of time. It has stood the test of Scripture and it has withstood the test of sinnful men. By that last one I mean that at times very flawed men have lead our Church and yet they managed to not harm doctrine. This alone is a testament to God’s leadership in the Church.How do you follow these warnings and test the teachings you are receiving from your church leadership, whether it be Popes, Elders, or other leadership, if you do not test their teachings against Scripture?
I disagree. Jesus and the apostles, especially Paul, used Scripture constantly as foundation of their teaching. Granted the New Testament was not compiled by God yet, but Scriptures did indeed exist.This is all fine and dandy, but the premise of the OP was “without the Bible”. You say you would validate against scripture, but how would you validate it if there was no Bible, as we know of it today, in the first 300+ years of the Church?