Protestants, why?

[SteveVH]

But the point is that it demonstrates that not everything Jesus proclaimed was written in the Gospels.

You are willing to concede this point, yes?

And then that prompts the question: how did the inspired writer know about these words of Jesus, and why did he assume that his readers knew about these words of Jesus?

The answer is…

wait for it…

drum roll, please!

Sacred Tradition!

Yes, and one answer is the canon of Scripture.

Another is the Divine Liturgy.

First you’ll have to say how you know that what St. Mark wrote was actually a teaching of Christ.

The answer is…

wait for it…

Because you have given tacit approval and faith in the authority of the Catholic Church to declare for you that the Gospel of Mark is theopneustos.

You would not know the teachings of Christ–that he really, truly said, for example, “I am the Bread of Life”–except for the authority of the Catholic Church.

Great post!

 

[Radical]

That’s what happens when we apply *your *Sola Scriptura tradition to that verse.
It ends up not working for you.
Or it ends up supporting a Sola Old Testament tradition, which, of course, you will not find to be very useful.

so you want to suggest that the principle established by the Bereans (to test even apostolic teachings against scripture) only works with respect to the scripture in existence on that day? ….and now we are to abandon that approach altogether? From over here it only seems that more scripture would enable better testing. In contrast to Paul, anyone/anything that doesn’t welcome the testing of his/its teachings against scripture is suspect…very, very suspect.

You ought to know by now, Radical, that Catholicism proclaims that the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever put to writ.

and at the same time it proclaims at lot of developments to that supposedly whole and entire faith….it can’t be both….you are talking out of both sides of your mouth

And thus anything that we proclaim today, (including the canon of Scripture to which you give tacit though unacknowledged submission to the authority of the CC), came from the Apostles.

That seems more than a little off…it seems to be entirely: Let’s pretend this so that we feel better about ourselves. The canon simply wasn’t provided by the apostles

But the point is that it demonstrates that not everything Jesus proclaimed was written in the Gospels.

it is a point that doesn’t need to be made b/c it is so obvious…the further obvious point is that simply b/c there is much that wasn’t written down, it doesn’t follow that whatever you put forward will form part of what Christ actually said. And so the question today is….wait for it…drum roll, please!…. What do we have outside of scripture that can be shown to be an actual teaching of Jesus?

And then that prompts the question: how did the inspired writer know about these words of Jesus, and why did he assume that his readers knew about these words of Jesus?

The answer is…

wait for it…

drum roll, please!

Sacred Tradition!

…and so the question today is….wait for it…drum roll, please!…. What do we have outside of scripture that can be shown to be an actual teaching of the apostles? Just claiming it to be an apostolic teaching like you did here:

Yes, and one answer is the canon of Scripture.
Another is the Divine Liturgy.

Is wishful thinking…please provide some substance to your claim! Try again! Demonstrate that it is an inspired apostolic teaching….

First you’ll have to say how you know that what St. Mark wrote was actually a teaching of Christ.

The answer is…

wait for it…

Because you have given tacit approval and faith in the authority of the Catholic Church to declare for you that the Gospel of Mark is theopneustos.

no, it is b/c I believe that the Church of the mid second century did a proper job of it by recognizing that gospel as scripture….your “Catholic Church” differs from that church by the additional teachings of yours and therefore it really isn’t the same church. Further, if an older and better manuscript of that gospel was found, I would entertain revising the contents of scripture.

You would not know the teachings of Christ–that he really, truly said, for example, “I am the Bread of Life”–except for the authority of the Catholic Church.

if God wanted to preserve that teaching, then it would have been preserved…that he used flawed men for the preservation is no grand thing (for those flawed men….it is about what God did)…IIRC he used Pharisees and the teachers of the law to preserve and recognize what Moses said…does that mean that your Church recognizes and submits to the authority of the Pharisees?

And you know this, how? ….The ONLY way you know is because…
the Catholic Church discerned this for you.

and the only way Peter could identify Jesus as being from God the Father is b/c the Father granted Peter that insight….it surely didn’t follow that everything Peter did before and after that inspired insight was also inspired….but then again, if you are inclined to submit to the authority of the Pharisees, then maybe this point will be lost on you.

 

[joe370]

Radical

so you want to suggest that the principle established by the Bereans (to test even apostolic teachings against scripture) only works with respect to the scripture in existence on that day? ….and now we are to abandon that approach altogether? From over here it only seems that more scripture would enable better testing. In contrast to Paul, anyone/anything that doesn’t welcome the testing of his/its teachings against scripture is suspect…very, very suspect.

Acts 17:11 (NIV) ~ Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Does it seem plausible that they were examining the OT scriptures to verify and confirm what Paul was saying about the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?

 

[PRmerger]

and at the same time it proclaims at lot of developments to that supposedly whole and entire faith….it can’t be both…

It has been suggested by some Catholic apologists that all of the heresies in the history of Christendom have stemmed from this “it can’t be both” mentality.

That is, the Arians claimed that “it can’t be both” Jesus True God and Jesus True Man.

The Pelagians claimed “it can’t be both” works and faith.

The atheists claim “it can’t be both” faith and reason.

The Protestant reformers claim “it can’t be both” Scripture and Tradition.

Catholicism is the best of ALL because it proclaims the magnificent both/and.

Sometimes it is the “it can’t be both” mentality that causes blinders to develop.

(NB: Please do not extrapolate this to mean that there are no “it can’t be boths” in Catholicism. One that comes to mind is the very Catholic dogma that it is through Christ ONLY that we are saved. Of course, my Catholic brethren here will be able to help proffer some other examples of some “it can’t be boths” in Catholicism. But the point remains: creating “it can’t be boths” where none are required is a stumbling block that need not exist.)

 

[joe370]

Radical

it is a point that doesn’t need to be made b/c it is so obvious…the further obvious point is that simply b/c there is much that wasn’t written down, it doesn’t follow that whatever you put forward will form part of what Christ actually said. And so the question today is….wait for it…drum roll, please!…**. What do we have outside of scripture that can be shown to be an actual teaching of Jesus? **

In other words, what do we have that can be shown to be an actual teaching of Jesus found in sacred tradition, in light of the fact that you have taken scripture off the table?

If anyone can prove that sola scriptura was taught by Jesus, then I would start with that teaching. I was once a former protestant who believed that sola scriptura was taught by Jesus, until I did my homework.

 

[joe370]

Radical …and the only way Peter could identify Jesus as being from God the Father is b/c the Father granted Peter that insight….it surely didn’t follow that everything Peter did before and after that inspired insight was also inspired….but then again, if you are inclined to submit to the authority of the Pharisees, then maybe this point will be lost on you.

Catholics agree with you about Peter.

Jesus Christ said about the Pharisees: “So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

You wouldn’t obey and do as Jesus said by obeying the Pharisees and doing everything they told you, while not doing what they did, if you had been there?

 

[PRmerger]

and at the same time it proclaims at lot of developments to that supposedly whole and entire faith….it can’t be both….you are talking out of both sides of your mouth

Perhaps this analogy will be helpful to you to see how the faith can be “whole and entire”, given once for all to the saints, yet also develop.

Take this analogy:

It has been the constant teaching in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to put all their school supplies away.

Sometimes questions arise that did not need defining earlier, but because of the development of our family further refinement is necessary.

Example: for the first 4 years of my children’s schooling they did not use a backpack.

Thus, when they started in the upper grades coming home and throwing their backpacks on the floor we had to have a “council” to announce: ALL BACKPACKS NEED TO BE HUNG ON THEIR RESPECTIVE HOOKS.

Now, this is not a new command. The ever-present command was: ALL SCHOOL SUPPLIES NEED TO BE PUT AWAY WHEN YOU COME HOME.

However, as there were no backpacks for the first 4 years, there was no need to say, “And that includes backpacks, of course!”

While the fullness of our message existed from the very beginning, it sometimes became necessary to call a family council to explain, defend and define our message.

That’s the purpose of Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

The canon simply wasn’t provided by the apostles

Look at it this way, Radical.

The Catholic Faith, given once for all to the saints, was proclaimed for 400 years without a Bible. It was the message passed from the Apostles to their successors, the bishops, who passed it on to the successors…

When disputes arose as to what constituted an inspired text, the canon that was used was this: those texts that proclaimed the teachings of the Apostles were considered theopneustos. Those texts that taught new, weird, contrary, bizarre, false ideas that were not taught by the Apostles were deemed aopcryphal.

Thus, the canon of Scripture was indeed proclaimed by the Apostles. Once and for all.

 

[joe370]

Look at it this way, Radical.

The Catholic Faith, given once for all to the saints, was proclaimed for 400 years without a Bible. It was the message passed from the Apostles to their successors, the bishops, who passed it on to the successors…

When disputes arose as to what constituted an inspired text, the canon that was used was this: those texts that proclaimed the teachings of the Apostles were considered theopneustos. Those texts that taught new, weird, contrary, bizarre, false ideas that were not taught by the Apostles were deemed aopcryphal.

Thus, the canon of Scripture was indeed proclaimed by the Apostles. Once and for all.

In my non-catholic days so long ago, I was really surprised to find out that the bound, codified bible did not exist for the first 400 years of Christianity. Sola scriptura would have been impossible for those Christians, if it had been promulgated by Jesus and His apostles.

 

[PRmerger]

In my non-catholic days so long ago, I was really surprised to find out that the bound, codified bible did not exist for the first 400 years of Christianity. Sola scriptura would have been impossible for those Christians, if it had been promulgated by Jesus and His apostles.

And think about this: 400 years is a loooonnnng time.

It’s like from the time the Pilgrims arrived on Plymouth Rock to modern day. Imagine all that time without a US Constitution.

How in the world did Christianity flourish without a written “constitution”?

Through Sacred Tradition; the Holy Spirit guiding and teaching His Children without the written word!

 

[Porknpie]

In my non-catholic days so long ago, I was really surprised to find out that the bound, codified bible did not exist for the first 400 years of Christianity. Sola scriptura would have been impossible for those Christians, if it had been promulgated by Jesus and His apostles.

In some areas of the 3rd world today, the bible still does not exist in homes as people can not afford it and / or they can not read. Sacred tradition is alive and well, not dependent on the written word. Now it would be better if the whole world could read and did have a bible, no doubt. That is having a bible with all the books in it…

 

[PRmerger]

and the only way Peter could identify Jesus as being from God the Father is b/c the Father granted Peter that insight….it surely didn’t follow that everything Peter did before and after that inspired insight was also inspired…

This is very Catholic of you to say!

but then again,** if you are inclined to submit to the authority of the Pharisees**, then maybe this point will be lost on you.

I find this comment astonishing coming from a Christian. It sounds, truly, as if you are rejecting the very words of Christ. “IF” I am inclined to submit to the authority of the Pharisees (our Church authorities)?? Why would you be questioning Jesus’ command to do this? Of course I will submit to their authority–Jesus told me to do this.

I’m sure you didn’t mean that, Radical.

I think that perhaps in your zeal to proclaim your objections to us here you have inadvertently proclaimed an objection to Christ himself.

 

[XianThinker]

The typical response is that eventually, everything taught by the apostles was committed to the Holy Writ, to which I ask: if one embraces sola scriptura, then where in sacred scripture is that idea taught?
PRmerger;9682808:

That idea seems ludicrous to me.

Imagine listening to NPR for 3 months and trying to document everything

that was said on that show.

The volume of words would be insurmountable to record in a text.

I can’t speak for all Protestants but that idea seems ludicrous to me and probably every Protestant I’ve talked to about this topic.

The Protestants I’ve talked to are fully aware that everything wasn’t written down. I’ve listened to Catholic vs. Protestant debates on sola scriptura. Every Protestant accepts the canon based on tradition. Protestants also determine the day to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection (often called Easter) based on tradition. Yet these Protestants believe in sola scriptura or Bible alone.

The issue is whether the Bible contains everything that is necessary for salvation. In other words, if someone asks, “What must I do to get to Heaven?”, is he able to learn what is necessary by reading the Bible alone?

Here’s the important question
Suppose a person is given a Bible and reads the New Testament. After reading, he puts his faith in Jesus, repents of his sins, gets baptized, and continues to believe and love God and expresses his love for God by obeying God’s commandments.

1. Can this person get to Heaven?
2. Will this person go to Hell because he missed a step not taught in the Bible but found only in Sacred Tradition?
3. If you answer yes to #2, what does Sacred Tradition teach that is necessary for salvation that can’t be found in the Bible?

 

[PRmerger]

What do we have outside of scripture that can be shown to be an actual teaching of Jesus?

This.

Now, of course, Scripture is referenced frequently and voluminously, but all the other parts? What HE said. :yup:

no, it is b/c I believe that the Church of the mid second century did a proper job of it by recognizing that gospel as scripture…

Yep, Radical. That’s a very good example of Sacred Tradition in action.

You see that “the Church of the mid second century” did not use Scripture to glean God’s revelation.

They used something else.

It was…

Sacred Tradition.

Further, if an older and better manuscript of that gospel was found, I would entertain revising the contents of scripture

Based on what? And on whose authority would you then be able to proclaim, “This text is theopneustos and this text is not.”

if God wanted to preserve that teaching, then it would have been preserved…that he used flawed men for the preservation is no grand thing (for those flawed men…it is about what God did)…

Indeed.

Were you under the misapprehension that Catholicism proclaims otherwise?

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t speak for all Protestants but that idea seems ludicrous to me and probably every Protestant I’ve talked to about this topic.

Indeed. :yup:

The Protestants I’ve talked to are fully aware that everything wasn’t written down.

So consider this, XT. If you could have sat at the feet of Paul and heard him preach, would you not hang on his every word?

Would not ALL of his teachings be important to you?

Or would you say, “I really don’t care what he said. I just want to read what the apostle of Christ wrote!”

Fortunately, Catholics have access to ALL of what he, and all the other Apostles, taught–either by word or by text.

I’ve listened to Catholic vs. Protestant debates on sola scriptura. Every Protestant accepts the canon based on tradition.

:bounce:

Protestants also determine the day to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection (often called Easter) based on tradition.

:extrahappy:

Yet these Protestants believe in sola scriptura or Bible alone.

Inexplicably.

The issue is whether the Bible contains everything that is necessary for salvation. In other words, if someone asks, “What must I do to get to Heaven?”, is he able to learn what is necessary by reading the Bible alone?

Well, yes and no. The Scriptures are materially sufficient but not formally sufficient.

Here’s the important question
Suppose a person is given a Bible and reads the New Testament. After reading, he puts his faith in Jesus, repents of his sins, gets baptized, and continues to believe and love God and expresses his love for God by obeying God’s commandments.

1. Can this person get to Heaven?

1. Will this person go to Hell because he missed a step not taught in the Bible but found only in Sacred Tradition?

1. If you answer yes to #2, what does Sacred Tradition teach that is necessary for salvation that can’t be found in the Bible?

We answer with the words of Christ: strive to enter.

 

[PRmerger]

1. If you answer yes to #2, what does Sacred Tradition teach that is** necessary for salvation **that can’t be found in the Bible?

I find these types of questions about what is “necessary for salvation” to be the exact WRONG questions for any Lover of Christ to ask.

Imagine being with your Beloved and he/she asks you, “Just tell me what’s necessary to be with you!” “I want the bare minimum requirement!”

Wouldn’t you find that rather cheeky? Wouldn’t you conclude that this person doesn’t really have a clue about what discipleship means?

 

[XianThinker]

Indeed. :yup:

So consider this, XT. If you could have sat at the feet of Paul and heard him preach, would you not hang on his every word?

Would not ALL of his teachings be important to you?

Or would you say, “I really don’t care what he said. I just want to read what the apostle of Christ wrote!”

Fortunately, Catholics have access to ALL of what he, and all the other Apostles, taught–either by word or by text.

Of course I’d want to know everything Paul preached but I don’t think a person has to know every little detail to be a good Christian. I think loving God and our neighbors is more important than whether we believe Mary had other children or whether we believe she was bodily assumed into heaven like Enoch and Elijah. I think God is more concerned with how we live our lives than he is about whether we believe the correct things on hundreds of lesser doctrines.

We answer with the words of Christ: strive to enter.

What does that mean?

 

[XianThinker]

I find these types of questions about what is “necessary for salvation” to be the exact WRONG questions for any Lover of Christ to ask.

Imagine being with your Beloved and he/she asks you, “Just tell me what’s necessary to be with you!” “I want the bare minimum requirement!”

Wouldn’t you find that rather cheeky? Wouldn’t you conclude that this person doesn’t really have a clue about what discipleship means?

It seems like most of what is included in Sacred Tradition is also found in the Bible. It’s not about wanting to do the bare minimum. It’s about focusing on what is most important. I find it’s easier for me to follow two commandments (love God and love your neighbor) than trying to remember and follow 100 other commands that almost always involve loving God or your neighbor.

Those who believe the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation don’t think everything else is unimportant. That would be like saying, “The Bible is the only science textbook I need.” I think most if not all Protestants rely on tradition because I don’t know any Protestants that only believe what is taught in the Bible. They just believe that, when it comes to salvation, one doesn’t have to look elsewhere to learn what is required or how God want us to live our lives.

What beliefs related to salvation do you think are important that are not taught in the Bible?

 

[CopticChristian]

It seems like most of what is included in Sacred Tradition is also found in the Bible. It’s not about wanting to do the bare minimum. It’s about focusing on what is most important. I find it’s easier for me to follow two commandments (love God and love your neighbor) than trying to remember and follow 100 other commands that almost always involve loving God or your neighbor.

Those who believe the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation don’t think everything else is unimportant. That would be like saying, “The Bible is the only science textbook I need.” I think most if not all Protestants rely on tradition because I don’t know any Protestants that only believe what is taught in the Bible. They just believe that, when it comes to salvation, one doesn’t have to look elsewhere to learn what is required or how God want us to live our lives.

What beliefs related to salvation do you think are important that are not taught in the Bible?

Xian,

The belief that salvation is found in a book.

 

[stewstew03]

Xian,

The belief that salvation is found in a book.

Or the belief that a book is the bulwark of truth…

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

:bible1: