Except, Radical, if you’re proposing that we do what the noble Bereans did, and the noble Bereans searched the Old Testament, then that’s the logical conclusion.
no, not even close… Acts 15 is scripture…not tradition. The evidence, description of belief and the judgement were all directly from the mouths of apostles…no SS advocate would take issue with following something from the mouth of an apostle…that in fact is the whole point…nothing outside of scripture can be traced to the mouth (pen) of an apostle.
'zactly.
There are way too many ex-Catholics who seem to think that Sacred Tradition is what Tevye sang about while a fiddler strutted on a rooftop. “It’s just the way we’ve always done things!”
If that’s the ex-Catholic’s understanding, no wonder he doesn’t believe that it’s “on a par” with Sacred Scripture!
Indeed.
And we know from the Scriptures that it simply couldn’t be all contained to the written word.
For do we not read in Acts that Paul stayed in the synagogue and preached for 3 months?
And entering into the synagogue, **he spoke boldly for the space of three months, **disputing and exhorting concerning the kingdom of God.—Acts 19:8
Paul’s preaching simply could not be contained in the Scriptures—too much to write if he spoke for 3 months!
If only we could have been privy to EVERYTHING that Paul proclaimed. Would we not sit, baited breath, at his feet wanting to hear every single iota of the gospel as he proclaimed it? What he wrote surely was not all he knew.
Oh, wait! We are indeed privy to that which Paul proclaimed but was not put to writ.
That is, if we are cognizant of the Sacred Tradition of the faith, given once for all, to the saints.
Except that’s not what the Sacred Scriptures say. There’s nothing in there about referencing “whatever Scripture we possess.”
Um, ok.
How about the Canon of Scripture?
Except that’s not what the Sacred Scriptures say. There’s nothing in there about referencing “whatever Scripture we possess.”
Um, ok.
How about the Canon of Scripture?
And here’s a good one: we have an apostle speaking about a saying of Jesus, but no where in the Gospels do we ever have a written text of Jesus’ words. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all forgot to record these sacred words as emanating from Jesus.
Read Acts 20:35. See if you can find any recording of Jesus saying that in the Gospels.
The only way we know is because Sacred Tradition entrusted it to the inspired writer.
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?
Same goes for the 4 gospels. Heck, to be fair the table of contents was put there by the Catholic church. I had thought long ago, why believe the Catholic church about some things and question them about other things? Doesn’t that cast doubt on anything taught by the Catholic church…Was Hebrews written by an apostle?
We can either believe that God preserved, and continues to preserve, doctrinal truth within His church, as promised, or join the ranks of protestants who claim that truth is unknowable, making something impossible for God.and it says nothing about limiting the principle and the practice to that scripture which existed in Berea at the time
what about it? I trust that we are agreed that the canon of scripture is not a teaching that can be traced to the apostles… Remember the question was: What do we have outside of scripture that can be shown to be an actual teaching of the apostles?
it doesn’t matter if those words were ever Sacred tradition b/c they have now been reduced to scripture and that is how we have our knowledge of them.
hmmm indeed, Hebrews is part of scripture.Was Hebrews written by an apostle?
of course not…but remember the question was: What do we have outside of scripture that can be shown to be an actual teaching of the apostles?
yet again, those two books are scripture.
scripture doesn’t need to teach it…the SOLA exists b/c all other sources are demonstrably error-ridden…if you could produce another source of equal quality, then I would regard that source as being equal with scripture…but you simply can’t produce such an equal source and as such, we have the SOLA.
The Apostles were preachers, not teachers, so the answer technically is the same both within and outside of Scripture - nothing.
Well…we know one thing they did not teach…to protest…and continue to split and cause division…to be protestant.
why believe the early Church’s decisions “on an all or none” basis?..name a person or another institution (that puts forward a considerable body of unscientific, untestable and unverifiable teaching) that we approach on that basis. It seems that your approach is: “I want to believe these things (with certainty), so I won’t question anything”…that sure isn’t the type of approach that is used to find the truth in a courtroom
and? Paul didn’t mind being tested…he welcomed that approach by the Bereans
…or you could choose not to misrepresent the logical results of the Protestant position…you might also choose to actually question whether your understanding of that promise and of the “church” is correct, but be warned, that might result in some uncertainty for you.
so Catholics understand preaching to not include any actual teaching? how very odd
Paul’s epistles contain quite a few protestations regarding bad teaching and bad conduct…and of course, Christ protested against the same sort of things. I am bound to follow their example.Well…we know one thing they did not teach…to protest…and continue to split and cause division…to be protestant.
… and some Protestants can’t read plainly without making interpretation beyond the actual text, which is apparent from your response. How very predictable.
and I’ll refrain from posting dictionary definitions of each