Not Convinced.....

[Richard_Kastner]

Of course you did. You gave all those verses and believe it supports the Bible-Alone or else we would not be having this discussion.

I gave those verses to show that we are saved by Jesus Christ and those verses are in the bible alone.

First show me Richard where the Bible recorded everything God said and did and binded to **written ** Words alone? Second,where does Jesus or the Apostles teach the Bible is the FINAL aribter and authority? I beg to differ:

I have never said that everything that God said or did was written in the bible. This is a point that you continually misrepresent. What I am saying is that all of the information that we need for our salvation is contained in the bible. If you don’t agree with this then it should be an easy task to provide the information contained in your tradition that is not in the bible that is necessary for our salvation.

Second,do you evven understand [T]radition…Richard?

Tradition in its broad sense provides normative understandings of biblical teaching. These normative understandings of Scripture are themselves Tradition in yet another sense of the word. For example, the Arians of the fourth century and the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today interpret the New Testament as teaching that, as the pre-existent Word, Jesus is inferior to God the Father, not equal to him. This interpretation is incompatible with the Tradition of the Church in its broad sense, which affirms the equality of the Word and God the Father. Tradition in its broad sense, in turn, provides a normative sense of the biblical faith to properly interpret and apply the texts misused by the Arians and the Witnesses.

In other words, Tradition allows us to say that, whatever the Bible means when it talks about Jesus as the pre-existent Word, it doesn’t mean what the Arians taught and the Witnesses still teach. Authentic Tradition has ruled out this interpretation.

So you are saying that tradition is an interpretive tool. A tool to help us interpret THE BIBLE and that it contains no doctrine at all. Which means it is merely a tool to interpret sola scriptura.

:
And notice that 2 Tim 3:15 makes no mention of the Bible-Alone doctrine or belief. It also
makes no mention of the NT and specifically what OT books! And why? Because the Jews had no set canon during St.Paul’s life and ministry. What scriptures is Paul referring to Richard?

No I did not say such a thing.

Here it is " the Jews had no set canon during St.Paul’s life and ministry."
You reposted it above.

And did all the Jews simply follow the Torah? Nope! The Pharisees did not stick only to the Torah as the Saducees did. Hence,tell me exactly what fixed canon did the Jews use during the time of Paul? What books were considered canonical and others not?

If I’m not mistaken the Torah is comprised of the Pentatuch or the first 5 books of the bible. Because all the Jews did not hold to the teachings of the Torah does not mean that they didn’t have it.

Once again, 2 Tim 3:15 was not written in defense of the Bible-Alone that is pure conjecture on your part.

Didn’t say it was.

Exactly Richard! That verses says ALL,not ONLY Scripture is inspired by God. Tell me Richard where Jesus taught ONLY scripture would be inspired?

Where do you find that He taught anythig besides scripture is inspired?

Wrong! 2 Tim 3:16 cannot include all of the NT because it was not even complete. You are telling me that by the time Paul wrote Timothy the NT was complete and considered canonical?

2Tim.3:16 says all scripture is inspired by God. Now you don’t have to believe this statement Nicea, but I do. The fact that all of the books of the new testament had not been written yet is irrelavant. The fact is that they are scripture and they are inspired. Do you think that the Holy Spirit did not know which writings would be considered scripture? Are you saying that the NT writings are not inspired?

 

[Nicea325]

I gave those verses to show that we are saved by Jesus Christ and those verses are in the bible alone.

So that alone proves the Bible-Alone? A far cry from the truth Richard. Here let me ask you in another form: When during Jesus’ earthly ministry does He teach to the 12 or ANYONE everything we need to know about salvation would be binded to written words alone? If the Bible-Alone is such a crucial doctrine for our salvation and scriptures contains all we need to know,as you truly believe,then I wonder why not ONE ecumenical council ever mentions the Bible-Alone doctrine? Such a vital doctrine for our souls. Hmmmm?

I have never said that everything that God said or did was written in the bible.

Precisely! Thus it debunks your man-made doctrine of the Bible-Alone.The Bible does not contain everything as John 21:25 states.God is not a book Richard. This is really an old issue Richard. Sola Scriptura has been debunked so many times, I am amazed you cannot grasp its fallacies.

This is a point that you continually misrepresent.

Not misrepresent,only presenting arguments showing your belief in a false doctrine.

What I am saying is that all of the information that we need for our salvation is contained in the bible.

Oh I see. So God cannot tells us about anymore truths? I feel sorry for those Christians who did not understand the three distinct persons of the Trinity since it was not an official doctrine until 325 A.D.
(NKJV) John 16:13:

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

I

f you don’t agree with this then it should be an easy task to provide the information contained in your tradition that is not in the bible that is necessary for our salvation.

I asked you,do you even understand Tradition? Apparently you do not,which you seem tot believe it has no meaning or importance.

So you are saying that tradition is an interpretive tool. A tool to help us interpret THE BIBLE and that it contains no doctrine at all. Which means it is merely a tool to interpret sola scriptura.

Part of it. Richard did the Apostles write everything during Jesus’ earthly ministry? Why did the Church tells the Arians they were wrong? Because the church told the Arians,besides scripture, it has been APOSTOLIC TRADITION that Jesus IS God. The Apostles SPOKE and taught ORALLY before ever writing anything down.

Quote:
:
And notice that 2 Tim 3:15 makes no mention of the Bible-Alone doctrine or belief. It also
makes no mention of the NT and specifically what OT books! And why? Because the Jews had no set canon during St.Paul’s life and ministry. What scriptures is Paul referring to Richard?

No I did not say such a thing.

Here it is " the Jews had no set canon during St.Paul’s life and ministry."
You reposted it above.

Quote:
And did all the Jews simply follow the Torah? Nope! The Pharisees did not stick only to the Torah as the Saducees did. Hence,tell me exactly what fixed canon did the Jews use during the time of Paul? What books were considered canonical and others not?

If I’m not mistaken the Torah is comprised of the Pentatuch or the first 5 books of the bible. Because all the Jews did not hold to the teachings of the Torah does not mean that they didn’t have it.

Correct. Exactly Richard! They had it but not all only stuck to it. The Saducees did not believe in angels,the resurrection of the dead,etc. So Richard how could St.Paul even believe in Sola Scriptura or even hint of it when no FIXED Jewish canon existed? He could have held to more books than other Jews.

Quote:
Once again, 2 Tim 3:15 was not written in defense of the Bible-Alone that is pure conjecture on your part.

Didn’t say it was.

Because that is a common verse taken out-of-context by SS advocates and in no shape or form was written in its defense.

Quote:
Exactly Richard! That verses says ALL,not ONLY Scripture is inspired by God. Tell me Richard where Jesus taught ONLY scripture would be inspired?

Where do you find that He taught anythig besides scripture is inspired?

Is the Church inspired? Richard show me where the Bible-Alone gave us the 27 NT canon? You said everything we need to know for our salvation is in the Bible,so where is the 27 NT canon in the Bible? Or the complex Trinitarian doctrine? The Incarnation?

Quote:
Wrong! 2 Tim 3:16 cannot include all of the NT because it was not even complete. You are telling me that by the time Paul wrote Timothy the NT was complete and considered canonical?

2Tim.3:16 says all scripture is inspired by God. Now you don’t have to believe this statement Nicea, but I do. The fact that all of the books of the new testament had not been written yet is irrelavant. The fact is that they are scripture and they are inspired. Do you think that the Holy Spirit did not know which writings would be considered scripture? Are you saying that the NT writings are not inspired?

You can believe until your last breath on earth,still does not prove SS and never has and never will. And who did the HS tell it to Richard? The Bible or the Church?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

So that alone proves the Bible-Alone? A far cry from the truth Richard. Here let me ask you in another form: When during Jesus’ earthly ministry does He teach to the 12 or ANYONE everything we need to know about salvation would be binded to written words alone? If the Bible-Alone is such a crucial doctrine for our salvation and scriptures contains all we need to know,as you truly believe,then I wonder why not ONE ecumenical council ever mentions the Bible-Alone doctrine? Such a vital doctrine for our souls. Hmmmm?

So you are saying there is someting outside of scripture that we need to know for our salvation. What is it Nicea?

Precisely! Thus it debunks your man-made doctrine of the Bible-Alone.The Bible does not contain everything as John 21:25 states.God is not a book Richard.

Because Everything that Jesus said or did is not in the bible does not mean that everything that we need for our salvation is not in the bible. Why do you say that God is not a book? That seems rather obvious.

This is really an old issue Richard. Sola Scriptura has been debunked so many times, I am amazed you cannot grasp its fallacies.

I have asked this question several times now and you have not answered. If the bible does not contain all the information we neeed for salvation, you must be saying that your tradition has that information. What is it? If you cannot answer this question Sola scriptura remains valid.

Not misrepresent,only presenting arguments showing your belief in a false doctrine.

Here’s the full quote

I have never said that everything that God said or did was written in the bible. This is a point that you continually misrepresent. What I am saying is that all of the information that we need for our salvation is contained in the bible. If you don’t agree with this then it should be an easy task to provide the information contained in your tradition that is not in the bible that is necessary for our salvation.

You keep saying that sola scriptura has been debunked. How can that be when you have not provided the information that we do need for our salvation?

Oh I see. So God cannot tells us about anymore truths? I feel sorry for those Christians who did not understand the three distinct persons of the Trinity since it was not an official doctrine until 325 A.D.
(NKJV) John 16:13:

Well apparently you don’t see because the answer you give here has nothing to do with this statement

What I am saying is that all of the information that we need for our salvation is contained in the bible.

How do you deduce from this statement that I am saying that God cannot reveal other truths?

So you are saying that tradition is an interpretive tool. A tool to help us interpret THE BIBLE and that it contains no doctrine at all. Which means it is merely a tool to interpret sola scriptura.

Part of it. Richard did the Apostles write everything during Jesus’ earthly ministry? Why did the Church tells the Arians they were wrong? Because the church told the Arians,besides scripture, it has been APOSTOLIC TRADITION that Jesus IS God. The Apostles SPOKE and taught ORALLY before ever writing anything down.

Ya sure, of coarse they taught orally, but the things they taught were later written down and are now called the bible.

:
If I’m not mistaken the Torah is comprised of the Pentatuch or the first 5 books of the bible. Because all the Jews did not hold to the teachings of the Torah does not mean that they didn’t have it.

Correct. Exactly Richard! They had it but not all only stuck to it. The Saducees did not believe in angels,the resurrection of the dead,etc. So Richard how could St.Paul even believe in Sola Scriptura or even hint of it when no FIXED Jewish canon existed? He could have held to more books than other Jews.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here, but let me take a stab. Paul did not teach sola scriptura. He taught Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins. What I am saying is that is enough, that is sufficient, and that is what the bible teaches and that is what I mean by sola scriptura.

 

[benidict]

To my question

You said

Meaning that you believe that they could be saved without ever having heard of the Trinity. Then you say

You are saying here that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential. You need to clarify your view. Do you think that it is essential to our salvation or not?

wow Richard. way to parse my statement, and take me way out of context. i was agreeing with you, when i said yes. i was showing you another verse that i believe proves the Trinity. then i was showing you how someone may interperet this differently using sola scriptura. i.e. the Jehovahs witnesses. yes is believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation. yes i believe that baptism is essential for salvation. yes i believe that the Eucharist is essential for salvation. those who do not have the opportunity to understand and practice these essentials, but are following Christ to the best of their knowlege, i believe will be saved. the thief on the cross is a good example. he did not have knowledge of the Trinity, he had no opportunity for baptism. yet he ended up in paradise. but to have the advantage we have, especially in a country, where all these doctrines are taught freely, and to understand and come to a knowledge of the truth, only to reject it? that would put an individual in a very bad position wouldnt you agree? Peace

 

[Windfish]

imo, the Marian doctrines and dogmas are actually the most Scripturally-supported Catholic beliefs in terms of quantity of evidence, at least when you get typology into the mix. Once you see that the Blessed Virgin is the New Eve and the New Ark of the Covenant, her sinlessness is evident and her assumption into heaven follows necessarily as a result.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

wow Richard. way to parse my statement, and take me way out of context. i was agreeing with you, when i said yes. i was showing you another verse that i believe proves the Trinity. then i was showing you how someone may interperet this differently using sola scriptura. i.e. the Jehovahs witnesses. yes is believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation. yes i believe that baptism is essential for salvation. yes i believe that the Eucharist is essential for salvation. those who do not have the opportunity to understand and practice these essentials, but are following Christ to the best of their knowlege, i believe will be saved. the thief on the cross is a good example. he did not have knowledge of the Trinity, he had no opportunity for baptism. yet he ended up in paradise. but to have the advantage we have, especially in a country, where all these doctrines are taught freely, and to understand and come to a knowledge of the truth, only to reject it? that would put an individual in a very bad position wouldnt you agree? Peace

I didn’t in any way take you out of context but merely asked for clarification. But anyway we digress. Back to sola scriptura. Do you believe that all the information that we need for our salvation is found in scripture or not?

 

[Cruxis117]

I didn’t in any way take you out of context but merely asked for clarification. But anyway we digress. Back to sola scriptura. Do you believe that all the information that we need for our salvation is found in scripture or not?

I’ll just wish to interject here, I do not believe that all of the information we need for our salvation is found in scripture. Why? Take the Trinity for example.
If we were to read the scriptures, we (rightly) believe that there is the “trinity”, which is implicitly stated. However, it is not explicitly stated. And because of that, there are other denominations (LDS, Jehovah’s Witnesses) who deny the Trinity. The point of what I mean is that, in Church Tradiition (the councils) this doctrine of the Trinity was defined against the heresies of Arianism at the time. There is more to the Truth to Salvation than what is just found in the Scriptures, although the truth is in them.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

first let me welcome you to the forums my friend. what came first, the oral tradition and teaching of Moses, or the torah, complete and hand delivered by God? to understand Christianity, you must understand Judaism. Moses teachings were around long before anything was put into writing. the Jews eventually put the first 5 books into writing, but that was not until much later. they had then two authorities, the written, and the oral, or if you will tradition. Christianity not any different. long before a new testament was even thought of, all the people had, were the oral teachings of the apostles. (tradition) and the letters which came later. (written) we have the authority of scripture yes, but we also have the authority of tradition that was handed down from the apostles till present. if all you have is sola scriptura, you only have half the message given by God. the Jews have never been sola scriptura, Jesus was a Jew. the Church he set up, was primarily made up of Jewish converts. they would have understood this. its no different with us. if you cannot find it in the bible you can probably trace the teaching back to the oral tradition of the apostles. straight through the Church fathers, and directly to us. it may be good for you to read them. i am a former baptist. i also have a friend who was a baptist minister, who had to give up his ordination in the baptist Church because he took the challenge, studied the Church fathers, and would have converted to Catholicism except for his english heritage. he opted for the Episcopalians. and is now a priest in their communion. hope this helps. Peace

Ben, I went back and found this post of yours. This is post #15 and was to simeonhuff, the OP. I would like to address this part of the post.

Moses teachings were around long before anything was put into writing. the Jews eventually put the first 5 books into writing, but that was not until much later. they had then two authorities, the written, and the oral, or if you will tradition. Christianity not any different. long before a new testament was even thought of, all the people had, were the oral teachings of the apostles. (tradition) and the letters which came later. (written) we have the authority of scripture yes, but we also have the authority of tradition that was handed down from the apostles till present. if all you have is sola scriptura, you only have half the message given by God. the Jews have never been sola scriptura,

In this post you compare the OT teachings, oral tradition, and writings, scripture, with thier NT counterparts. Then you make this statement “if all you have is sola scriptura, you only have half the message given by God.” Now this would imply that you feel that oral teachings and scripture are different. Now since the #1 purpose of the bible is to show us God’s plan of salvation as manifest in Jesus Christ, You seem to be saying that there are some teachings (oral) that are essential to our salvation, but are not contained in scripture (written). My question is what are those essential teachings (oral) that are essential to our salvation and not contained in scripture, the bible?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I’ll just wish to interject here, I do not believe that all of the information we need for our salvation is found in scripture. Why? Take the Trinity for example.
If we were to read the scriptures, we (rightly) believe that there is the “trinity”, which is implicitly stated. However, it is not explicitly stated. And because of that, there are other denominations (LDS, Jehovah’s Witnesses) who deny the Trinity. The point of what I mean is that, in Church Tradiition (the councils) this doctrine of the Trinity was defined against the heresies of Arianism at the time. There is more to the Truth to Salvation than what is just found in the Scriptures, although the truth is in them.

So you believe in the principle of sola scriptura?

 

[benidict]

Ben, I went back and found this post of yours. This is post #15 and was to simeonhuff, the OP. I would like to address this part of the post.

Moses teachings were around long before anything was put into writing. the Jews eventually put the first 5 books into writing, but that was not until much later. they had then two authorities, the written, and the oral, or if you will tradition. Christianity not any different. long before a new testament was even thought of, all the people had, were the oral teachings of the apostles. (tradition) and the letters which came later. (written) we have the authority of scripture yes, but we also have the authority of tradition that was handed down from the apostles till present. if all you have is sola scriptura, you only have half the message given by God. the Jews have never been sola scriptura,

In this post you compare the OT teachings, oral tradition, and writings, scripture, with thier NT counterparts. Then you make this statement “if all you have is sola scriptura, you only have half the message given by God.” Now this would imply that you feel that oral teachings and scripture are different. Now since the #1 purpose of the bible is to show us God’s plan of salvation as manifest in Jesus Christ, You seem to be saying that there are some teachings (oral) that are essential to our salvation, but are not contained in scripture (written). My question is what are those essential teachings (oral) that are essential to our salvation and not contained in scripture, the bible?

yes Richard, i do. the Trinity as has been spelled out. we could not have a correct teaching on this without the oral tradition, as was evidenced by the arians of constatines day, and the J.W.s today. also what about our views on the unborn? they are not found in scripture. we say, based on apostolic tradition that to kill an unborn child is murder. this is not backed up by scripture at all. quite the opposite is true. look at the law of moses. if two men are fighting, and a pregnant woman gets in the way, and as a result loses the child, financial restitution must be made. also, if a man suspects his wife has commited adultry, he can take her to the priest, and they will give her a bitter solution which she shall drink. if she is pregnant with another mans child, this would induce an abortion…are we right in this? or do you believe a person can support infanticide, and still at the end be saved? this is a clear tradition not taught in the bible, but commanded by the apostles, and handed down through the earliest of Church fathers, who were themselves disciples of the apostles. the deity of Christ is another example. based on apostolic tradition, we believe this to be true. we may see it taught in the scriptures. but another, such as, again the J.W.s, will not. Peace

 

[benidict]

ooh, and lets not forget. the oral tradition came first. there was no new testament. the Trinity, the Eucharist, meeting on the first day of the week. not to mention allowing uncircumcised to come into the Church, which was truly against the regulations of the old testament. oh my word! gentiles in the congregation? without being circumcised or obeying the law of moses?! unheard of! and they would have been correct, had not the apostles, taught the opposite. not by the written word, but by word of mouth. tradition. they could have gotten none of these teachings from the scriptures then on hand. that would be the law and the prophets by the way. just so you dont confuse my term scripture with the new testament. little secret. it didnt exist… and im going to do us all a favor. i have a Cathoic friend here who is origianally from this country. he has told me of the persectution they have suffered. bibles are outlawed among the populace here im sure. no Christian book stores here. i will ask him if he owned a bible growing up, and how he was taught. incidentally, i know of no SDA congregations in iraq. i could be wrong though. will have to look into that as well. Peace

 

[Contarini]

Lately, I have been comparing and contrasting Catholic beliefs and Baptist beliefs. First off, I would like to begin with “sola scriptura”. I personally believe that if the Bible was not alone sufficient, than God would somewhere explicitly state it in scripture.

Is the phrase “personally believe” supposed to exempt your view from criticism? Because it makes no sense. In the first place, it begs the question–you are assuming sola scriptura in order to argue for it. And in the second place, no reasonable doctrine of sola scriptura posits that the Bible explicitly rules out all possible false beliefs.

The Catholic argument that “if sola scriptura were true the Bible would explicitly teach it” is not foolproof, but it’s a lot stronger than yours.

I have heard arguments asking why, if scripture is alone sufficient, that there are so many different denominations of Christianity.My answer is that, while scripture is alone sufficient, this is caused by different interpretations, because many parts the Bible can be misinterpreted.

And that raises the question of what we mean by “sufficiency.” Material sufficiency is accepted by many Catholics. If you want to argue for “formal sufficiency,” then the abundance of misinterpretations by devout and learned persons does present a serious problem for you.

On an empirical level, I think it’s reasonable to say that what has happened in the last 500 years is not what the Protestant Reformers predicted on the basis of their view of Scripture, and to a great extent it is what their Catholic opponents predicted. That is not a foolproof argument for Catholicism, but it is a point that deserves to be taken seriously.

Second, nowhere in the Bible does it say to venerate Mary, and nowhere does it say that she is sinless, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Because, even when, in the Bible, she was honored,(but not worshiped), Jesus corrected her and said that rather, those who obeyed God’s commandments were blessed.

How is this a relevant consideration? I think what you are trying to say is that on this issue you see such a strong discrepancy between Scripture and Catholic teaching that you find the Catholic view of Scripture highly improbable. I think that that’s a valid point. Catholics can’t reasonably expect people to accept a certain premise about authority and then accept whatever conclusions follow from that premise. Decisions about religious truth do not work that way except in apologist fantasy land.

At the same time, I think there’s more to be said for Catholic Marian piety than you are recognizing–if you set aside the assumption of sola scriptura. Healthy Marian piety is focused not only on Mary’s role in bearing Jesus but even more in Mary’s obedience to God’s commandments. Furthermore, I think it’s a misunderstanding of Luke 11:27 to see the woman’s intention as primarily honoring Mary, and Jesus’ rebuke as a rejection of such honor. The point of the woman’s statement was to say how great Jesus was (of course, that’s the point of *all *honor given to Mary). And Jesus’ concern seems to be that she is engaging in rhetorical praise of Jesus instead of doing God’s commandments. In other words, the passage could be interpreted in light of a statement made by a student of mine recently: “It’s not enough to like Jesus; we need to be like Jesus.” It isn’t so much about honoring Mary rather than Jesus (which I think makes no sense culturally in terms of what the idiom “blessed is the womb that bore you” would have meant in the first century) but about praising Jesus instead of obeying Him.

Edwin

 

[benidict]

this may help clarify dear Richard. CCC 638 we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this day he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus. The Ressurection of Jesus is the crowning truth of our faith in Christ, a faith believed and lived as the central truth by the first Christian community; handed on as fundamental by TRADITION; established by the documents of the NEW TESTAMENT; and preached as an ESSENTIAL PART of the paschal mystery along with the CROSS: Christ is risen from the dead!
Dying, he conquered death;
To the dead he has given life.
acts 13:32-33
looks like im going to have to fully go by the infallable teaching of Rome on the issue. just getting started.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

ooh, and lets not forget. the oral tradition came first. there was no new testament. the Trinity, the Eucharist, meeting on the first day of the week. not to mention allowing uncircumcised to come into the Church, which was truly against the regulations of the old testament. oh my word! gentiles in the congregation? without being circumcised or obeying the law of moses?! unheard of! and they would have been correct, had not the apostles, taught the opposite. not by the written word, but by word of mouth. tradition. they could have gotten none of these teachings from the scriptures then on hand. that would be the law and the prophets by the way. just so you dont confuse my term scripture with the new testament. little secret. it didnt exist… and im going to do us all a favor. i have a Cathoic friend here who is origianally from this country. he has told me of the persectution they have suffered. bibles are outlawed among the populace here im sure. no Christian book stores here. i will ask him if he owned a bible growing up, and how he was taught. incidentally, i know of no SDA congregations in iraq. i could be wrong though. will have to look into that as well. Peace

So yo’re not going to answer the question then, right? Here it is again

My question is what are those essential teachings (oral) that are essential to our salvation and not contained in scripture, the bible?

 

[benidict]

So yo’re not going to answer the question then, right? Here it is again

My question is what are those essential teachings (oral) that are essential to our salvation and not contained in scripture, the bible?

CCC 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the emryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish (didache 2)
God the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are ABOMINABLE CRIMES.
where is this authoritative teaching found in the bible Richard? next we can look at Euthanasia if you like. or is someone who practices the abortion procedure not in a state of sin, since we can find no clear evidence in the scripture against them? this is pure tradition my friend. not found in the scripture. is it not essential to our salvation that we take a position, defending the unborn?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

CCC 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the emryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish (didache 2)
God the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are ABOMINABLE CRIMES.
where is this authoritative teaching found in the bible Richard? next we can look at Euthanasia if you like. or is someone who practices the abortion procedure not in a state of sin, since we can find no clear evidence in the scripture against them? this is pure tradition my friend. not found in the scripture. is it not essential to our salvation that we take a position, defending the unborn?

So, it must be that you can’t answer the question. In fact there is no oral teaching that is essential to our salvation that is not contained in the bible is there Ben?

 

[Mark01]

So yo’re not going to answer the question then, right? Here it is again

My question is what are those essential teachings (oral) that are essential to our salvation and not contained in scripture, the bible?

Richard

To answer that question would take volumns which has been hashed out by greater minds than mine and is stored in what we Catholics refer to as the Deposit of Faith. I would refer you to the Catachism on what the Church teaches concerning Scripture and how it relates to Salvation

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”[72]

Holy Scripture may very well contain all there is to know for the sake of one’s salvation, but in order to say that and believe it one would have to confine God and His infinite wisdom and power to a very short set of inspired writings. To say Scripture Alone is sufficient is limiting God and His plan for salvation. By following Scripture Alone one now places the matter of one’s salvation in his own ability to interpret only the written Word and removes it from God’s domain. We alone now become the source of our salvation and not God.

For the Catholic as well as those who are non Catholic, we all study our faith based on tradition. For the Catholic much of our tradition is Apostolic Tradition and spans 2000 years. We hold that this Tradition safe guarded by The Holy Spirit is infallible based on Holy Scripture.

Those of non-Catholic faiths follow a tradition that is derived in other ways other than from those directly linked to Christ through Apostolic succesion and do not claim the promise of infallibility.

A study of Christian History will reveal the development of doctrine and theology over time, it was not plopped down in a book nor has there ever been a time that that doctrine was not disputed. To argue is pointless because it has been done so in the past and we have the results in a Christianity that is fractured and disunified, which directly contradicts our Lord’s direct command of a unity of faith.

Chirst founded only one Church, there has only been one Church since that time, anyone else who is not a part of that Church stands outside of the economy of salvation. If one firmly believes that they are a part of that Church, then we can only pray that through the Divine Will of God that person will be granted salvation.

The way is narrow and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[arcangel]

Mary is the Queen of Heaven, she is the mother of Christ, but her relationship to the Holy Trinity ends there. God has made specific command we are not to worship anyone but Him, and that includes worshipping Mary.

That’s not quite correct. Mary is the mother of Christ, and she is also a child of God the Father, and the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

 

[rikkk1958]

So, it must be that you can’t answer the question. In fact there is no oral teaching that is essential to our salvation that is not contained in the bible is there Ben?

In other words, Richard is asking if there is Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that there is non, however, it may be impossible for man, for God everything is possible. Therefore, only God will judge your salvation but the Catholics will obey the tradition because after all it was Jesus who commanded His Apostles to follow, for He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The argument now lies on non-Catholics if they prefer to just sit and communicate directly with God. It is in the Scriptures on How Jesus commanded His apostles to build His Church. Therefore, let me remain to be a proud Catholic because not only that I always constantly communicate with God, I also work hard to follow and obey His instructions.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard

To answer that question would take volumns which has been hashed out by greater minds than mine and is stored in what we Catholics refer to as the Deposit of Faith.

To me God’s plan of salvation can be summed up in this BIBLE verse Jn.3: 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. I am also partial to 2 Tim.3:15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Jn.3:16 tells us that we are saved by faith in Jesus. 2Tim.3:15 tells us that that plan is found in the bible. These are just two verses that to me pretty much show us Gods plan of salvation as manifest in Jesus and how that plan it shown to us in the bible. You however seem to think that this is so complicated and takes a great mind to understand. Puts salvation in a rather exclusive realm doesn’t it?

I would refer you to the Catachism on what the Church teaches concerning Scripture and how it relates to Salvation

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”[72]

Holy Scripture may very well contain all there is to know for the sake of one’s salvation, but in order to say that and believe it one would have to confine God and His infinite wisdom and power to a very short set of inspired writings. To say Scripture Alone is sufficient is limiting God and His plan for salvation.

Wow talk about a convoluted logic. First you direct me to your catechism which says “we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” but then you say that we shouldn’t believe that because it restricts God in some way. I don’t get your train of logic.

By following Scripture Alone one now places the matter of one’s salvation in his own ability to interpret only the written Word and removes it from God’s domain. We alone now become the source of our salvation and not God.

What is there about these two verses

Jn.3: 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
2 Tim.3:15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

that you need interpreted

For the Catholic as well as those who are non Catholic, we all study our faith based on tradition.

My faith is based on what I read in the bible. And I can atest to the fact that many others base thier faith on the bible so this statement is patently false.

A study of Christian History will reveal the development of doctrine and theology over time, it was not plopped down in a book nor has there ever been a time that that doctrine was not disputed.

What doctrine and theology are you talking about. My doctrine and theology was “plopped down in a book” It’s called the bible.

To argue is pointless because it has been done so in the past and we have the results in a Christianity that is fractured and disunified, which directly contradicts our Lord’s direct command of a unity of faith.

Chirst founded only one Church, there has only been one Church since that time, anyone else who is not a part of that Church stands outside of the economy of salvation. If one firmly believes that they are a part of that Church, then we can only pray that through the Divine Will of God that person will be granted salvation.

The way is narrow and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I’m assuming that you are talking about the CC here and that “anyone else who is not a part of that Church stands outside of the economy of salvation.” Well, all that I can say about this is I disagree, so there we are.

But let me reword my question just for you. Do you believe that there is something in your oral tradition that is not contained in scripture that is essential for our salvation?