non-Catholic Christians - "Did You Know"?

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy B. -

I believe that some non-Catholic and “Protestant” denominations are more “catholic” in their beliefs than others, and that, for example, the Lutheran religion is more “catholic” than some other “protestant” denominations. However, this is not, as the result of denominations being “started” by former Catholic priests, although, many were former Catholics. I believe this occurred because the original breaks were from the Roman Catholic Church, where now, there exist many sub-divisions of “Protestantism”, or breaks from other “Protestant” denominations.

Although, the Lutheran Church was not “started” or founded by Martin Luther himself, who was a Catholic priest, King Henry VIII, in England, started the first Protestant Church (the Church of England). King Henry VIII was attracted to and heavily influenced by Luther’s (false) anti-Catholic rhetoric. King Henry VIII, who was also very anti-Catholic himself, adopted anti-Catholic beliefs and he started an anti-Catholic Church. King Henry VIII also started an anti-Catholic war, where he persecuted and murdered many Catholics. King Henry the Eight was the first “Protestant Pope” and King James was the third “Pope”.

Luther lived during King Henry VIII’s time and his ideas influence the English King but Luther’s “movement” was started, in Germany. Even though, King Henry VIII used Martin Luther’s ideas, I am not aware of many Catholic priests who “started” or actually founded a “Protestant” denomination.

Martin Luther started an anti-Catholic “movement” against the Roman Catholic Church, during the beginning of an anti-religion, anti-God, “intellectual” era, mostly in universities, while Gemany was also experiencing a “nationalist movement”. Luther did not “start” or found any particular religion.

Some “Protestants”, obviously share more “catholic” beliefs than others, take for example this thread and others on Mary; some “Protestant” Christians don’t have a “problem” with Mary and others do. Some "Protestant” denominations believe in transubstantiation where others do not and so on.

All non-Catholic Christian denominations share “catholic” beliefs because Catholicism was the first Christian religion and they all follow or occurred after Catholicism.

One cannot connect the “Christian dots” and leave out the “Catholic dots” or the “King Henry VIII dots”.

Your Thoughts?

 

[ChristianRoots]

Part 1

Anyone who claims that the Scriptures alone are not adequate for us is to mock God.

 

[onwillowbay]

I just visited your home page and it is so enlightening. Many useful links and information. May God bless you always

 

[justasking4]

ChristianRoots;3455930]
Quote:
justasking4
Anyone who claims that the Scriptures alone are not adequate for us is to mock God.

ChristianRoots
Scripture alone wasn’t practiced by the Apostles or early Christians.

Did the apostles ever teach that Tradition itself was inspired-inerrant?

Were they mocking God?

Would you consider a tradition that circumvents the Scriptures to be mocking God?

Quote:justasking4
It is mocking when you and others try to make the scriptures teach things that it does not.

ChristianRoots
Gee, I could say the same exact thing about your man-made invention known as Scripture alone.

What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?

 

[ChristianRoots]

Did the apostles ever teach that Tradition itself was inspired-inerrant?

The Bible as the sole authority on all religious matters.

I would definitely call this a “tradition” that circumvents the Scriptures. I know you care deeply about the Scriptures, as I do, but sola scriptura is unbiblical.

If it is biblical, please provide the chapter and verse number.

 

[guanophore]

Did the apostles ever teach that Tradition itself was inspired-inerrant?

Of course! How could it have been committed to writing to form the NT, if it was in error?

" And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith." Acts 6:7

Would you consider a tradition that circumvents the Scriptures to be mocking God?

Since there are no Sacred Traditions that do this, it is hard to say. I would say that a person who rejects the Sacred Tradition rejects the One Who sent it.

 

[justasking4]

The Bible as the sole authority on all religious matters.

I would definitely call this a “tradition” that circumvents the Scriptures. I know you care deeply about the Scriptures, as I do, but sola scriptura is unbiblical.

If it is biblical, please provide the chapter and verse number.

There is no specific verse that i’m aware of although 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be an excellent starting point for a study of what the scriptures says about itself . I’m making my case from the nature of the scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant. Only the Scriptures alone are God-breathed. This is my primary foundation.
Secondly, did Jesus ever use tradition as a basis for authority?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3458459]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Did the apostles ever teach that Tradition itself was inspired-inerrant?

Of course! How could it have been committed to writing to form the NT, if it was in error?

This is not an unwrtten tradition then since its in writing. Are there oral tadittions that have the same authority as the scriptures?

guanophore
" And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith." Acts 6:7

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Would you consider a tradition that circumvents the Scriptures to be mocking God?

guanophore
Since there are no Sacred Traditions that do this, it is hard to say. I would say that a person who rejects the Sacred Tradition rejects the One Who sent it.

A tradition-discipline that says you must be a single and celibate to be a bishop which circumvents the clear teaching of Scripture on this does in fact nullify the Scriptures.

 

[guanophore]

There is no specific verse that i’m aware of although 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be an excellent starting point for a study of what the scriptures says about itself . I’m making my case from the nature of the scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant. Only the Scriptures alone are God-breathed. This is my primary foundation.

It is interesting you do this. It is not in the Bible, but you believe it because of the “nature” of the Scripture. But when Catholics say that Jesus took His Mother to heaven because it is in His nature to do so, you reject it.??

Secondly, did Jesus ever use tradition as a basis for authority?

Jesus is the Source and Origin of all authority. He gave His authority to the Apostles. Why do you think Jesus needed a ‘basis’ for authority? I thought you believed Jesus was God?

This is not an unwrtten tradition then since its in writing. Are there oral tadittions that have the same authority as the scriptures?

Most all the Sacred Traditions are referred to in writing somewhere, either in the NT or in liturgical books, etc. The value of the Sacred Tradition is that it helps the faithful to understand what is written in the light of those who wrote it.

A tradition-discipline that says you must be a single and celibate to be a bishop which circumvents the clear teaching of Scripture on this does in fact nullify the Scriptures.

The Sacred Tradition (Word of God) is on a different level than rules and disciplines. The Word of God does not change, but rules and disciplines may. For example, do the women of your community wear veils in church? If not, are they not setting aside the Word of God for the sake of your traditions?

 

[CentralFLJames]

There is no specific verse that i’m aware of although 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be an excellent starting point for a study of what the scriptures says about itself . I’m making my case from the nature of the scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant. Only the Scriptures alone are God-breathed. This is my primary foundation.
Secondly, did Jesus ever use tradition as a basis for authority?

If there is no specific verse then somone had to develop a “theory” for sola scriptura. Now just who would do that? It would be somone who wanted to teach something different than what The Church had taught for 1500 years non-stop. You don’t see an ulterior motive here and an opportunity for demonic influence and false teaching? Who taught you this theory given that not one single apostle or person in the apostolic succession ever taught it? Why do you trust the man Luther who cam 1500 years distant from Jesus and the apostles to give you his theory? Why? Why? It makes absolutely NO sense that anyone could believe a man who was an alcoholic, a manic depressant and mentally unstable.

OK, now just suppose for a moment that you never heard anything about Luther or any Protestant or Catholic and just picked up the bible on your own (don’t care which one for now). Do you mean to say that you would find the concept of “scripture alone” that will just pop up out of the bible as you read it? It took 1500 years for that concept to be born and it came out of a period of general rebellion and unrest in Europe between the Monarchy and The Church. Doesnt common sense tell you that you are not being objective with yourself here? There is NO way any person living in a vacuum with no external teaching could read the bible and discover “sola scriptura” or anything remotely akin to that as a first, second, third or fourth re-read. What the average person will see is a message of salvation - not study theories and sectarian differentiators.

Be honest - somone got to you at an early age and thoroughly colored your world with hate and mistrust for the Catholic Church. You are being 100% disingenuous if you say you glommed onto sola scripture on your own while reading the bible. Admit it - somone taught you this false teaching. Scripture does not teach it. The Holy Spirit does not teach that you need sola scriptura (why would we need the HS at all if the bible teaches all?)

Who told you the scriptures are inspired inerrant? How do you know somone gave you the right books out of the hundreds of others that did not make the table of contents. The Catholic Church assembled the Bible (except for the 7 books Luther tore out 1500 years later). Why do you trust the Church to give you inspired inerrant scripture but not trust that same church to teach it to you? That my friend is a sign of irrationality. I’ll say it again. Inconsistent trust is a sign of brainwashing, fear and mistrust.

Did Jesus ever use tradition - Yes?

Do you not recall he honored the traditions of the Jews by honoring His Father and Mother?

Do you not recall he honored the tradition of being presented in the temple?

Do you not recall he honored the passover tradition and even died in the context of the pasover tradition as the pascal lamb.

Jesus’ live was full of honoring tradition - since Jewish tradition was all intertwined and inseperable from scripture.

Don’t forget that there was NO new testament scripture till after Jesus rose from the dead.

Someone got to you - and you are letting that “someone” who you have long forgotten control your eternal life. It seems you trust everyone but the one authority that has the truth.

Wake up and wisen up.

James

 

[ChristianRoots]

There is no specific verse that i’m aware of although 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be an excellent starting point for a study of what the scriptures says about itself . I’m making my case from the nature of the scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant. QUOTE]

Happy Easter!

2 Timothy 3:16 is not an excellent starting point. The verse talks about how all inspired writing is “profitable.” No argument here. However, for Protestants to assume it to mean that only inspired writing needs to be followed would be to twist the passage out of context. Do you agree? If not, please tell me how you think that passage supports the premise that only Scripture needs to be followed.

I too agree that the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant. But to say that the Scriptures are the** only** thing that needs to be followed is contrary to what the Bible says and is also contary, not surprisingly, to historical Christianity.

Only the Scriptures alone are God-breathed. This is my primary foundation.

 

[justasking4]

ChristianRoots;3460189
Originally Posted by justasking4
There is no specific verse that i’m aware of although 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be an excellent starting point for a study of what the scriptures says about itself . I’m making my case from the nature of the scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant.

ChristianRoots
Happy Easter!

And a blessed Resurrection life to you…

2 Timothy 3:16 is not an excellent starting point. The verse talks about how all inspired writing is “profitable.” No argument here. However, for Protestants to assume it to mean that only inspired writing needs to be followed would be to twist the passage out of context. Do you agree?

Yes i would agree. However it would depend on what the issue is. For example it one thing for the leaders of the church to say what time worship will be or what will be preached on Sundays etc and it is another thing to teach as the catholic church does that to eat meat on Fridays during lent is sin.

If not, please tell me how you think that passage supports the premise that only Scripture needs to be followed.

This is what i think of when i’m speaking of Sola Scriptura:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.”

I too agree that the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant. But to say that the Scriptures are the only thing that needs to be followed is contrary to what the Bible says and is also contary, not surprisingly, to historical Christianity.

Do you put Tradition at the same level as the inspired-inerrant Scriptures? In other words do you claim church Traditions are God breathed?

Quote:justasking4
Only the Scriptures alone are God-breathed. This is my primary foundation.

ChristianRoots
Where do you get the notion that only the Scriptures are God-breathed?

From the Scriptures themselves. The Jews of the OT beleived that their prophets were being used by God to speak to them His words that He wanted them to hear. Jesus Himself concurred and believed this also when in many cases He uses these OT scriptures to ground His teachings in.

Who taught this concept to you

?
Scripture and studying the issue by what scholars etc have said.

Or is it in the Bible?

The mere fact that a writing is connected either to a prophet or and apostle along with other factors would be derived from the scriptures themselves.

Can you trace this concept all the way back to Apostolic times?

Yes.

Quote:justasking4
Secondly, did Jesus ever use tradition as a basis for authority?

ChristianRoots
??? I don’t know exactly what you mean here.

Jesus in many cases appeals to the OT scriptures as a foundation and authority for His teachings. We see this in John 5:45-47 where Jesus says:
45 “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.
46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

There are many references like this in the teachings of Christ that He uses to support His teachings.
Where do we find Him appealing to some kind of tradition as appeal of authority to believe what He was teaching?

Jesus does reference Scripture, thus validating it. However, he also validates the oral transmission of God’s Word. See Mt. 5:21-26:

Is not this a reference to what was already written in the OT?

Jesus says, “You have heard it was said (in response to Scripture)…But I say to you…”

Jesus orally adds additional meaning to the Bible. See also Mt. 5:27-30, 31-48, etc.

Jesus has the power and authority to reveal the mind of God through His teachings. We He speaks, He speaks in the place of God. This means that His teachings would be at the same level as the OT written Scriptures.

There is also Acts 20:35. Paul remembers Jesus’ words about how it is more blessed to give than to receive. Where in the Gospels did Jesus say"It is more blessed to give than to receive"?

There is no such place. What this demomstrates is that there was more to what Jesus said in the gospels and that the disciples who were close to Him knew some of it. However, we are not in such a priviledged position to know what else He said and did.

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3459234]
Originally Posted by justasking4
There is no specific verse that i’m aware of although 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be an excellent starting point for a study of what the scriptures says about itself . I’m making my case from the nature of the scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant. Only the Scriptures alone are God-breathed. This is my primary foundation.
Secondly, did Jesus ever use tradition as a basis for authority?

CentralFLJames
If there is no specific verse then somone had to develop a “theory” for sola scriptura. Now just who would do that? It would be somone who wanted to teach something different than what The Church had taught for 1500 years non-stop. You don’t see an ulterior motive here and an opportunity for demonic influence and false teaching? Who taught you this theory given that not one single apostle or person in the apostolic succession ever taught it? Why do you trust the man Luther who cam 1500 years distant from Jesus and the apostles to give you his theory? Why? Why? It makes absolutely NO sense that anyone could believe a man who was an alcoholic, a manic depressant and mentally unstable.

Are you aware of the church fathers teachings on the nature of the Scriptures? Many of them believed that the Scriptures alone were inspired-inerrant and that doctrines should be grounded in them.
Can you show me in the second-third century where a church father said that traditions carry as much authority as the Scriptures?

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3459234]
OK, now just suppose for a moment that you never heard anything about Luther or any Protestant or Catholic and just picked up the bible on your own (don’t care which one for now). Do you mean to say that you would find the concept of “scripture alone” that will just pop up out of the bible as you read it?

If the person who did this understood the nature of the Scriptures i.e. inspired-inerrant then it would be reasonable to assume that it follows that this would be a greater authority than what when men teach things not in the scriptures.

It took 1500 years for that concept to be born and it came out of a period of general rebellion and unrest in Europe between the Monarchy and The Church.

Not necessarily so. The church has believed the scriptures to be inspired-inerrant. There were those during the protestant reformation who took this principle and applied it to the teachings of the catholic church and found that what the catholic church was teaching did not line up with the scriptures. Take indulgences and the power of the pope. Both doctrines were rejected by the reformers because such doctrines could not be found in the inspired-inerrant Word of God. It was these doctrines of the catholic church that led men into bondage.

Doesnt common sense tell you that you are not being objective with yourself here? There is NO way any person living in a vacuum with no external teaching could read the bible and discover “sola scriptura” or anything remotely akin to that as a first, second, third or fourth re-read. What the average person will see is a message of salvation - not study theories and sectarian differentiators.

This is why Christ gave the church teachers who by studying the scriptures and applying them to the nature of the Scriptures themselves would see that they are indeed inspired-inerrant. What greater authority could there be than the words of God Himself i.e. the written Scriptures?

 

[CentralFLJames]

This is what i think of when i’m speaking of Sola Scriptura:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.”

Thanks for sharing what JA4 thinks. But what does Scripture think in truth? Please provide a reference in scripture where it says “sola scriptura”. Where does the doctrine that we Catholics can not find anywhere in scripture tell us what you teach? Where does it say literally: “It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture?” Where does it teach ‘This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures?’ Where does scripture say ‘The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church?’ Where does scripture tell us ’ It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority?’. I can not find any such words or teaching in scripture. Do you have a new scripture that has an attached teaching appendix? If not who taught you this?

Do you put Tradition at the same level as the inspired-inerrant Scriptures? In other words do you claim church Traditions are God breathed?

The Church teaches us that Sacred Tradition is to be considered with equal validity to scripture since it is from Sacred Tradition where The Church gets scripture.

The mere fact that a writing is connected either to a prophet or and apostle along with other factors would be derived from the scriptures themselves.

Does other factors include tradition of the apostles?

Where do we find Him appealing to some kind of tradition as appeal of authority to believe what He was teaching?

When He asks the Pharisees what did Moses teach?
Where He advises His followers to obey authority to do as the Pharisees say but not as they do?
Where in scripture did Jesus tell us to stop obeying authority?

There is no such place. What this demonstrates is that there was more to what Jesus said in the gospels and that the disciples who were close to Him knew some of it. However, we are not in such a privileged position to know what else He said and did.

So you admit that the apostles knew some things that have not been written down and if we learn about these other things through their oral teachings and traditions that we should ignore them since they are not “God breathed”?

By what authority to you teach scripture? Did God breath on you but not the pope?

James

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3463548]Thanks for sharing what JA4 thinks. But what does Scripture think in truth? Please provide a reference in scripture where it says “sola scriptura”.

There is none nor does there need to be. The doctrine is based on the nature of the Scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant. To be inspired-inerrant has its source in God in whom there is no greater authority.

Where does the doctrine that we Catholics can not find anywhere in scripture tell us what you teach?

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

Where does it say literally: “It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture?”

It does not. See my 1st repsonse that would answer this.

Where does it teach ‘This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures?’

Again it goes back to the nature of the scriptures and what conclusions are drawn from it. For example; adultery is wrong and sinful not because some church says it is but because the scriptures say it is.
Or take eating meat on Fridays as being sinful. It is a man made tradition since the scriptures never teach such a thing as being sinful.

Where does scripture say ‘The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church?’

For something to be equal to the inspired-inerrant Scriptures would also have to be inspired-inerrant. Where is it claimed that the catholic church or even its catechism is inspired-inerrant?

Where does scripture tell us ’ It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority?’.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 would be one such passage. John 12:48-49 would be another.

I can not find any such words or teaching in scripture.

How well do you know the Scriptures?

Do you have a new scripture that has an attached teaching appendix? If not who taught you this?

There are some “systematic” theological concepts in the back of a couple of Bibles i own. It shows the doctrines of God, Christ and man for example with scriptural references. I suspect you would probably agree with most of it.

The Church teaches us that Sacred Tradition is to be considered with equal validity to scripture since it is from Sacred Tradition where The Church gets scripture.

Where do the apostles teach this?
Can you give me a couple of examples of Sacred Tradition?

Does other factors include tradition of the apostles?

What are the traditions of the apostles?

When He asks the Pharisees what did Moses teach?

Would not that be found in the 1st 5 books of the OT?

Where He advises His followers to obey authority to do as the Pharisees say but not as they do?

What were the Pharisees saying that they should obey?

Where in scripture did Jesus tell us to stop obeying authority

?
Matthew 23:13-39 where Jesus condemns the Pharisees as being blind guides who lead people to destruction. Matthew 15:1-9 and Luke 6:39 all deal directly with your question.

So you admit that the apostles knew some things that have not been written down and if we learn about these other things through their oral teachings and traditions that we should ignore them since they are not “God breathed”?

It is probably true the apostles knew some things we don’t. However, we have no way of knowing what they taught orally since it is lost to us. If you claim to know what it was, then give me an example of it?

By what authority to you teach scripture?

All Christians have a responisility to know the Scriptures, to pass on the faith to our young and in some cases Christ “gifts” some men to teach in the church and various other places. In all cases people must know the scriptures and know them well to teach.

Did God breath on you but not the pope?

James

What does God breathing on someone to teach have to do with teaching?

 

[CentralFLJames]

If the person who did this understood the nature of the Scriptures i.e. inspired-inerrant then it would be reasonable to assume that it follows that this would be a greater authority than what when men teach things not in the scriptures.

So you are admitting that there is valid teaching authority outside of scripture? I think I can agree with you here!

So now it becomes how do we know which persons understand what scripture says and who has authority. Who first taught us that scripture is inspired-inerrant given that the New Testament scripture did not come into existence for about 400 years following Christ’s resurrection? I assert as fact that this was NEVER taught at all for 1500 years by anyone within Jesus’ Church.

Do you think God would let His People be taught in error for 1500 years starting from the moment immediately after Jesus just died to save souls for God? Surely you don’t think it is “reasonble” that God would waste His Son’s death and leave it to incompetent men to not get the proper teaching out for over 1500 years do you?

History tells us that Sola Scriptura did not come into any following at all until Luther, a mere man, taught it 1500 years after Christ for us. This was 1500 hundred years AFTER the apostles and the popes and the holy Christian Bishops and Priests all taught scripture AND tradition up to that time and still teach. The True teaching of The Church was consistently taught and matured for 1500 years up to the time Luther taught a new Lutheran truth.

Why do you follow Luther’s example and not the example of all the prior Apostles and Church teachers?

Not necessarily so. The church has believed the scriptures to be inspired-inerrant. There were those during the protestant reformation who took this principle and applied it to the teachings of the catholic church and found that what the catholic church was teaching did not line up with the scriptures. Take indulgences and the power of the pope. Both doctrines were rejected by the reformers because such doctrines could not be found in the inspired-inerrant Word of God. It was these doctrines of the catholic church that led men into bondage.

I can agree that The Church believes the scriptures to be inspired-inerrant since it was The Church who picked the proper writings to compile under one book we now call the Bible. If The Church did not believe in scripture inspiration it would not have taken the vast time and energy to assemble the bible over 400 years of study, prayer and revelation.

Where we disagree though is that differences of opinion between what the Church always taught and what the reformers wanted to change about what the Church taught. The reformers were inconsistent to reject for example the authority of the pope. It was ONLY through the power of the pope (Pope Damascus) that we have a bible at all. Why would ther reformers accept the bible assembled through the authority of pope to only reject that same authority 1100 years later? This does not seem “reasonable” or even rational. Why did the reformers believe they had the authority to challenge and go against the teachings of the same Church that delivered the Bible when the same bible clearly tells us to obey The Church?

This is why Christ gave the church teachers who by studying the scriptures and applying them to the nature of the Scriptures themselves would see that they are indeed inspired-inerrant. What greater authority could there be than the words of God Himself i.e. the written Scriptures?

God can not take back His words since He is forever unchanging. There can be no greater word than God. But God commanded us to obey Jesus and Jesus told us to obey His Apostles and they in turn commanded us to obey their teachings and the authority handed down to their successors. Teaching and Traditions are not things that were always initially written down just like scripture was not all written down for many years after Jesus’ resurrection. Therefor the authority exists equally in the instructions originally conveyed verbally some of which were later written down. The authority is in The Church and in the apostolic office of The Church - it is not in “the Bible”; yet there is nothing in the bible that is in conflict with The Church or Her Teachings. **Tradition and Teaching therefor are of identical weight and are part of the same authority. **

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

So now it becomes how do we know which persons understand what scripture says and who has authority. Who first taught us that scripture is inspired-inerrant given that the New Testament scripture did not come into existence for about 400 years following Christ’s resurrection? I assert as fact that this was NEVER taught at all for 1500 years by anyone within Jesus’ Church.

I misspoke here and want to correct the error. What I meant to say was the church has always taught that scripture was inerrant but has NEVER taught that it teaches itself and have never taught that only scripture is inspired. If the latter were true then we have a chicken and egg standoff since we could never have written scripture from tradition! But what is absolutely necessary here is that we have a teaching authority. How many times have people misread your own words and then tried to tell you what you said and meant? It’s the same thing with scripture. It is gravely wrong to tell The Teacher (The Church) what it meant by its own writings through the Holy Spirit. We rely on tradition and the accounts of the early Church fathers as well as the traditions of the early Christians in how they behaved and believed to ascertain our understanding.

We know who are valid teachers by the succession of followers who were embraced by the original teachers. All we have to do is follow the relational chain. Only The Catholic Church (including Orthodox Catholics) can point to a linage of apostolic succession still in existence today. This is how we know where true teaching are and where authority are.

James

 

[ChristianRoots]

And a blessed Resurrection life to you…

This is what i think of when i’m speaking of Sola Scriptura:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.

Are you in a privileged position when it comes to Scripture? Sorry to bring this up again, but we do not have the original Bible manuscripts either. So, how do you know the original inspired books of Scripture were faithfully transcribed by all those fallible hands?

 

[justasking4]

ChristianRoots;3465744]Are you in a privileged position when it comes to Scripture?

Depends what you mean by “priviledged”? I study them and are familar with them.

Sorry to bring this up again, but we do not have the original Bible manuscripts either. So, how do you know the original inspired books of Scripture were faithfully transcribed by all those fallible hands?

We know we have the close to what the originals by the science of the textual criticism. In this discipline scholars take the various manuscripts and compare them and are able to piece together what the originals looked like. We have 99% of what the originals looked like.