Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[PRmerger]

Scripture alone does not deny a role for tradition. What it does do is make tradition subordinate Scripture.

So can you tell us how Tradition would be subordinate to Scripture in the case of the 27 book canon of the NT?

 

[PRmerger]

Everything that is necessary for belief is set out in Scripture.

Is this a necessary belief?

Secondly, what are these necessary beliefs laid out in Scripture?

And how do you know whether something expressed in Scripture is necessary or secondary?

 

[SyCarl]

As a Christian we have 2 choices: Protestant and Catholic (or EO, which is essentially Catholic for this discussion)

I find the Church that can historically be traced back to the time of Christ.

And that is documented here: ranker.com/list/complete-list-of-popes/coffee-junkie?var=3&utm_expid=16418821-119.rk_BoRtrRJWlKfF9iZbujQ.2&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

No other Protestant Church can trace its roots to Christ.

I don’t know if the Orthodox would consider themselves essentially Catholic.

However it is not correct to say that no Protestant church can trace its roots back to Christ. We do so through the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not identical to the one that existed prior to the Reformation in that it now excludes those who hold Protestant views. That ius the same for any division that has taken place. The Catholic Church after the division is not the same Catholic Church before the division since it no longer contains those excluded by the cause of the division.

The Church can be likened to a tree that has but one root bu may branches. Catholics are one branch, the Orthodox are another branch and the various Protestant Churches are other branches.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know if the Orthodox would consider themselves essentially Catholic.

For the sake of this discussion regarding Sacred Tradition, there is no difference.

However it is not correct to say that no Protestant church can trace its roots back to Christ. We do so through the Catholic Church.

Then I assert again that you are NOT Sola Scriptura and give your tacit submission to the authority of the CC, at least as far as the canon of the NT goes.

 

[SyCarl]

Is this a necessary belief?

Secondly, what are these necessary beliefs laid out in Scripture?

And how do you know whether something expressed in Scripture is necessary or secondary?

I believe that the Scripture alone is taught in Scripture but that is my interpretation and could be wrong. I would say that Scripture alone is not a necessary belief in that Catholics and Orthodox Christian Churches and they do not follow it.

I would say that the Apostle’s Creed contains the necessary beliefs but again this is my opinion. The Church fathers describe the Creed as the salient points gathered from all Scripture. Saying this does not disprove Scripture alone since the contents of the Apostle’s Creed are all clearly found in Scripture and that is what is required by Scripture alone.

As for knowing whether something is necessary or not that is really something that God knows and not us. What we must do is trust that in God’s providence His Spirit will insure that we believe what is necessary. And this is not really anything new. Israel did not have an infallible interpreter of Scripture yet they were expected to follow God’s requirements. In biblical times the Pharisees and the Sadducees had quite different beliefs in what most would say are crucial matters, such as resurrection of the dead and the Jewish canon, yet Jesus gave no indication that either of these groups was not Jewish.

 

[PRmerger]

I believe that the Scripture alone is taught in Scripture but that is my interpretation and could be wrong.

You would be adding to Scripture if you believed in Scripture Alone.

For Scripture never says that. Not even once.

I would say that Scripture alone is not a necessary belief in that Catholics and Orthodox Christian Churches and they do not follow it.

Where is this list of necessary beliefs, Sy?

And what are they?

 

[PRmerger]

As to accepting the authority of the Catholic or Orthodox churches on the canon of Scripture, that is not the case. I may agree with their definition of the canon but that is not the same as accepting it on their authority.

If you “agree”, then you must have some other source for your information as to how the CC got it right here.

What is that source?

That is clear in that I do not accept either of the Old Testament canons they hold.

And what is your source for the OT canon? How do you know that Malachi is theopneustos but that 1 Esdras is not?

You can agree with someone without accepting that they have the sole authority to declare what we agree on. A mundane example, I could agree if you say it is a nice day today but that does not mean I think it is a nice day because you say so…

Fair enough.

But what if you add the Holy Spirit to the mix?

Do you think the HS was involved in the discernment process of the bishops in declaring the 27 book canon of the NT?

 

[PRmerger]

I would say that the Apostle’s Creed contains the necessary beliefs but again this is my opinion.

Then, again, here is ANOTHER case where you are giving your tacit submission to the authority of the Church and NOT to Scripture.

For since the Scriptures do NOT give a list of essentials, but the Church does, you are submitting to her authority in discerning what’s essential and what’s not.

The Church fathers describe the Creed as the salient points gathered from all Scripture. Saying this does not disprove Scripture alone since the contents of the Apostle’s Creed are all clearly found in Scripture and that is what is required by Scripture alone.

But what it does demonstrate is that you submit to the authority of something OTHER THAN Scripture.

 

[SyCarl]

Then, again, here is ANOTHER case where you are giving your tacit submission to the authority of the Church and NOT to Scripture.

For since the Scriptures do NOT give a list of essentials, but the Church does, you are submitting to her authority in discerning what’s essential and what’s not.

But what it does demonstrate is that you submit to the authority of something OTHER THAN Scripture.

Where have I said that the Church has no authority? But that authority is subject to the contents of Scripture. That authority is not limited to the Catholic Church. It applies to all churches including Protestant ones.

I have answered a number of questions but you seem to be avoiding a question that has been raised on several occasions by various people. How do you know that what the Catholic Church says is true? On your argument you could not cite Scripture since you say we cannot know what is Scripture or what it says without having the prior authority of the Church

Are you not looking at Scripture, and then deciding what it says about the Church and deciding that the Catholic Church fits that? You are using your private interpretation of the evidence to decide that what the Catholic Church teaches about itself is true.

 

[PRmerger]

Where have I said that the Church has no authority? But that authority is subject to the contents of Scripture.

You are asserting an anachronism, Sy.

The Church cannot be “subject to the contents of Scripture” since the Church came first.

Now, if you want to assert that the Church is subject to the OT Scriptures that, at least, wouldn’t be anachronistic, but that brings up a whole bunch of other problems.

The bottom line is, Sy, if you believe in the 27 book canon of the NT, as discerned by some other entity other than Scripture, then you are NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate.

And it necessarily means, incidentally, that you assert that the Church was given the charism of infallibility. At least, as far as the canon of the NT goes.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Some of the most devoted followers of Jesus Christ are not Catholic. These are some of my closest friends.

A Bible and guidance from the Holy Spirit puts Jesus right with you.

I believe there are people who love Jesus who are not Catholic. However, I can’t agree that with your second statement. God no longer speaks to humans as he did in the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament). Jesus does not walk among us as he did 2,000 years ago. The way we meet the risen Christ today is through the sacraments he, himself instituted and handed to his Church through his apostles and their successors. Those sacraments, in the way Christ instituted them, can only be found in the Catholic Church.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I don’t know if the Orthodox would consider themselves essentially Catholic.

However it is not correct to say that no Protestant church can trace its roots back to Christ. We do so through the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not identical to the one that existed prior to the Reformation in that it now excludes those who hold Protestant views. That ius the same for any division that has taken place. The Catholic Church after the division is not the same Catholic Church before the division since it no longer contains those excluded by the cause of the division.

The Church can be likened to a tree that has but one root bu may branches. Catholics are one branch, the Orthodox are another branch and the various Protestant Churches are other branches.

Christ is the vine, the members of his Church, the Church he instituted, are the branches, and those branches form Christ’s Mystical Body, his Church. That Church is the Catholic Church. It can’t very well be any of the Protestant Churches, can it? They didn’t come into being until after Martin Luther began the Reformation, and even Luther did not want to break away from Catholicism. He just wanted it to change. The Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and handed to his apostles. It is the only church that can make that claim.

 

[benhur]

What do you mean “same as P’s”? The “rapture” isn’t the traditional Protestant view either. In fact, I’ve run into some anti-Catholic Protestants who claim that dispensationalist eschatology is a Jesuit plot to blind Protestants to the true meaning of Revelation, which is that it’s all about Catholicism!

Catholics reject millennialism, although I’ve argued that the language in the Catechism seems to be directed primarily against post-millennialism. Premillennialism (non-dispensational) was, after all, the view of Christians in the early centuries, and so it would seem odd to condemn it.

Edwin

Thank you for the correction . Would it be fair to say all believe in a “rapture” , where we will be caught up in the air to meet Him, though Catholics do not use that word ? Then the differences just being as to when ?

 

[PRmerger]

I have answered a number of questions but you seem to be avoiding a question that has been raised on several occasions by various people. How do you know that what the Catholic Church says is true?

I already answered, Sy. See post #930.

 

[dronald]

As a Christian we have 2 choices: Protestant and Catholic (or EO, which is essentially Catholic for this discussion)

I find the Church that can historically be traced back to the time of Christ.

And that is documented here: ranker.com/list/complete-list-of-popes/coffee-junkie?var=3&utm_expid=16418821-119.rk_BoRtrRJWlKfF9iZbujQ.2&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

No other Protestant Church can trace its roots to Christ.

Or you could choose neither. Why do you choose one at all? Why choose Church over non Church?

 

[icamhif]

Oh?

My apologies for my rudeness. It was a snarky comment to what I (wrongly) perceived to be the logical implications of Rueben’s post.

 

[icamhif]

Or you could choose neither. Why do you choose one at all? Why choose Church over non Church?

Good question, dronald. This might be key to understanding why PRmerger and I have different epistemologies.

 

[rcwitness]

But how do you know any of that is true? Many historians consider the Bible as malarky in terms of reliability.

So how do you know?

Faith must not be put aside in our endevour to find the Truth. I hope you don’t feel like the Catholic position is asking you to put aside faith because she claims to be an authority of Christ’s whom Confirms the faith throughout the ages.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is ultimately a conversion of heart in every believer which compells us to give God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) Lordship in our life (which includes repentance, proclaiming Christ, and doing faithful works) . We recognize the gospel of Christ as from above and are convicted in our hearts that it is the Father of creation who willed the Incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus for us to share in His life for ever.

For some, there are battles of This conversion which take many forms of witness. For other’s there is little resistance to the Spirit. History can play a varying role with us, but ultimately we know that we can find compelling evidence from the ancient historians of key events in the age of the Lord and His Church.

The Early Church Father’s also play an important role in offering witness to various beliefs in the Church.

Scripture then, itself, is a history and testimony to the life of man and his relation with his creator. For some, the fact that the Church made declarations over time to the Inerrancy and infallibility was not needed to personally accept the content in it. But the protestant reformation actually established its Doctrine on the principle that the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible. This profession of the faith cannot be proven but relies on faith. This faith is not a protestant faith Alone, but has been Catholic long before the reformation.

It goes all the way back to the earliest records of the Church, that the books which we know as the bible were declared Sacred Scripture, venerated at Mass, relied on for matters of doctrine and faith, and by 383 (or somewhere around then) was listed and “fixed”. Later after the reformation, there became an importance to officially recognize this ancient body of Scripture as no longer up to debate.

Its not necessary for the Scriptures to be Confirmed by the Church for someone to believe in the gospel. But it was inevitable for the Church to Confirm what her Lord delivered to her from her leaders. And once Confirmed by the Church, these Scriptures must be venerated.

Só one of the largest problems in Christianity has become the disputes over the prophecy of Scriptures. Sola Scriptura has not helped combat this but fueled it.

 

[rcwitness]

Or you could choose neither. Why do you choose one at all? Why choose Church over non Church?

We don’t believe so, no. If you receive a Communion outside of the Catholic Eucharist, then you are protesting the Catholic Church. (Save those who do not know anything about the Catholic Eucharist but were told the Gospel and Baptized).

 

[PRmerger]

Or you could choose neither. Why do you choose one at all? Why choose Church over non Church?

Because, ronald, when you connect the dots, you need to submit to the authority of a Church in order to know what Jesus said.

Is there some other way you would know what Jesus said? What other entity would you use to let you know what was God’s Revelation?