Question for Bible-Only Christians

[Pwrlftr]

All the Truth can be summarized in one word…Jesus.

He is the source of all we can and should know… it is called Tradition. He wrote nothing, He gave no instructions to write…well you know the drill by now.

Everything that was revealed… which formed this Tradition… was given to the Apostles.

Over time, much of what is Tradition was written down… some correctly, some with error.

Through the Holy Spirit, the teaching authority of the Church (Catholic, and there was no other) determined which was divinely inspired. The remainding were simply rejected.

The Catholic Church members were truly the first “Bible” Christians. But the Bible is the book of the Catholic Church. All others can only claim to be “churches” of the book…to their own demise.

Thus, to answer your question, God’s revelation is all in Tradition. And, as promised to only His One, True Church, the Holy Spirit will guide us into all that Truth.

Part, but not all, of that guidance resulted in the 73 books of the Canon.
Part, but not all, of that guidance resulted in the teaching Magisterium who alone, over time, can permit a correct or deny a false understanding of our Bible.
Part, but not all, of that guidance resulted in the birth of the church at Pentacost, and the 2000 years of life and growth in that Church… often in spite of ourselves.

One Truth… 3 witnesses… Tradition, Scripture, Church

.

Thanks for your post. I think, from the part I boldened, you do not think all of Tradition can be found in the scriptures. Is this accurate?

 

[jmcrae]

It may be better expressed in the way you did it above but I am still not sure what you believe concerning either the material sufficiency of scripture. Mr. S seemingly believes that all Tradition is not found in scripture, I guess he holds to the partim-partim theory.

I am curious to know our thoughts on this.

Scripture by itself is not materially sufficient; neither is Holy Tradition alone. Truth had three ingredients, and when any of them is lacking, we do not have Truth; we have heresy - the three ingredients are Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

When any one or two of those go missing, we are in trouble - kind of like trying to make jelly with only the pectin, but without the sugar or the fruit.

 

[MrS]

Thanks for your post. I think, from the part I boldened, you do not think all of Tradition can be found in the scriptures. Is this accurate?

I think that. I believe that. And the Truth in the Fullness of the Faith bears that out. And the Bible confirms it…

 

[Pwrlftr]

I think that. I believe that. And the Truth in the Fullness of the Faith bears that out. And the Bible confirms it…

There are other Catholics that would hold to the material sufficiency of scripture and claim that all of tradition can be found in the scriptures. That view never made sense to me. Yours would seem to me to be the more historic view.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Scripture by itself is not materially sufficient; neither is Holy Tradition alone. Truth had three ingredients, and when any of them is lacking, we do not have Truth; we have heresy - the three ingredients are Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

When any one or two of those go missing, we are in trouble - kind of like trying to make jelly with only the pectin, but without the sugar or the fruit.

I understand the trhee legged stool analogy as well as the jelly without the pectin.

So I guess you don’t believe that all of your churchs traditions can be found in scripture and would agree that part is found in tradition and part in scripture. I apologize for staying on this but I still don’t have a clear view of your beliefs.

I think right now it is acceptable for a Catholic to hold either the material sufficency of scripture or the partim-partim view of tradition and scripture.

 

[jmcrae]

I understand the three legged stool analogy as well as the jelly without the pectin.

So I guess you don’t believe that all of your churchs traditions can be found in scripture and would agree that part is found in tradition and part in scripture.

Actually the whole of it is found in the set [Tradition and Scripture] - not part in one place and part in another, as if one could separate Scripture from Tradition without both of them losing their essential meaning.

The reason I prefer the jelly analogy is because each leg of a stool can still be the leg of a stool, but Tradition, Scripture, and the Magesterium are nothing without each other.

If you take Scripture out of the mix, it’s like taking the pectin out of the jelly - it ceases to be jelly; it’s just sugared fruit.

If you take out the Magisterium, it’s like taking out the sugar; you can get by with it in the short term, but it’s not very pleasant; you wouldn’t serve it to company.

And if you take out the Holy Tradition, you are taking out the fruit, which leaves you with an inert pile of white powder.

I apologize for staying on this but I still don’t have a clear view of your beliefs.

I believe that the three elements - Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the Magisterium, are interdependant, and that the three of them together are necessary, in order for us to be able to know the Truth.

I think right now it is acceptable for a Catholic to hold either the material sufficency of scripture or the partim-partim view of tradition and scripture.

Neither of those views make sense to me; I don’t think it’s possible to divide Scripture from Tradition, or vice versa - or to divorce them from the Magisterium.

 

[Namesake]

This is a statement on your part. The questions posed to you are reasonable. You really need to be able to prove your position by way of scripture. Your position is rooted in sola scriptura so your position should be expressly supported and taught in scripture. Scripture must tell us the answers to the questions posed to you.

You have a simplistic understanding of Sola Scriptura. Church teachings and guidance is still valuable in Protestant denominations. It’s just that Protestants believe that the Roman Church failed and that a new direction was needed. I believe that too.

 

[Pax]

You have a simplistic understanding of Sola Scriptura. Church teachings and guidance is still valuable in Protestant denominations. It’s just that Protestants believe that the Roman Church failed and that a new direction was needed. I believe that too.

Actually, I do not take a simplistic position at all. I have heard and read just about every conceivable non-Catholic description of sola scriptura. Please notice that I made no effort to define the doctrine. I leave that to those that argue for it. If you define it one way then I accept your understanding and we can go from there. If you define it differently then I will meet you where you are in that definition.

In any event the questions are still reasonable and anyone arguing for sola needs to be able to answer the questions. If they define the doctrine in a way that the questions need a slight modification, then they can make that point in the discussion. Since we are in an online forum, we have to pose and answer questions presenting point and counterpoint.

Any concession that non-Catholics make to tradition is in my view a clear support of the Catholic position. The only problem left is the issue you posed. Obviously, we need to determine which doctrines and traditions are the correct ones. This cannot be done by scripture alone.

 

[whatisthetruth]

I’m curious. When I was a Bible-only Christian I never thought about this, so I’m wondering how you see it.

In Genesis 17 God makes it pretty clear to Abraham that all males must be circumcized or be guilty of breaking the covenant. Even the slaves.

Then in Acts 15 Peter says that it isn’t necessary.

If the Scriptures are the only authority given us, how could the Church have done away with the requirement of circumcision?

Hi Fred,

I am glad you asked, it is a good question.

The answer to your question can be quite simply be answered as the difference between the Old and New testiments.

Jesus came.

With the coming of Jesus, everything changed.

For the bible says,

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2 Corinthians 5:17

It does not get any simpler than that

God bless

truth

 

[Pax]

Whatisthetruth,

I would agree with your reasoning, but I don’t think it is “just that simple.” There was quite a bit of discussion and argument within the early Church concerning circumcision.

During the course of the first Council of Jerusalem, “Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly kept silence;”[See Act 15:7-12]

Even subsequent to this Counciliar decision, there was still some argument and debate among Jewish converts that still believed in the necessity of circumcision. This of course quickly dissipated.

My only point is that the abolition of circumcision was not all that simple nor automatic. Otherwise, I completely agree with you.

 

[whatisthetruth]

Whatisthetruth,

I would agree with your reasoning, but I don’t think it is “just that simple.” There was quite a bit of discussion and argument within the early Church concerning circumcision.

During the course of the first Council of Jerusalem, “Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly kept silence;”[See Act 15:7-12]

Even subsequent to this Counciliar decision, there was still some argument and debate among Jewish converts that still believed in the necessity of circumcision. This of course quickly dissipated.

My only point is that the abolition of circumcision was not all that simple nor automatic. Otherwise, I completely agree with you.

Thank you Pax, I believe Jesus IS above all our that our human understanding can possibly accumulate.

Did you ever hear the song Above All?

Youtube.com has some excellent music videos.
Just enter Above All in the youtube search field and be blessed.

truth

 

[Pax]

You are absolutely right. Jesus is the head of His mystical body which is the Church. The Church and its members are all servants of the Lord. That is why we call Him Lord. Thanksgiving, praise, and worship is all we have to offer of ourselves. As the head of the body Jesus guides His Church through the Spirit.

I certainly think that we are arm and arm in this.

 

[whatisthetruth]

You are absolutely right. Jesus is the head of His mystical body which is the Church. The Church and its members are all servants of the Lord. That is why we call Him Lord. Thanksgiving, praise, and worship is all we have to offer of ourselves. As the head of the body Jesus guides His Church through the Spirit.

I certainly think that we are arm and arm in this.

Pax,

It is certainly nice to be in agreement.

Unfortuneately somewhere down our spiritual christian road the agreement stops

If I may ask, are you in agreement with the following about the subject of salvation and the important part Jesus has.

I posted the following on another thread and let me ask you if you agree or not,

if you do not mind.

I believe that salvation can only be found through Jesus Christ.

No church, prayer, person or book can save a soul.
Even just believing Jesus **does not save **you.

I believe, believing in Jesus is evidence of the faithful and there is a big difference between believing and believing in Jesus Christ.

I believe, the resouces,

church
prayer
person (witness, preacher, priest, any human)
any book (icluding bible and chatecism) can save a soul.
just believing Jesus

**does not save **you.

each of the above may assist in directing the “path” to salvation, but I believe the only way to be saved is first by faith in Jesus Christ and then act according to God’s word as evidence of that faith.
What do you believe Pax

Thank you,

truth

 

[Pax]

Your presentation isn’t completely clear to me, but I would say that there is certainly a lot we can agree upon. The Catholic Church would define how we are saved essentially in the following fashion:

We are saved by God’s grace alone through the merits of Jesus Christ won by his passion, death, and resurrection, through faith and works, but not by faith alone.

Faith for the Catholic is the root of salvation. Faith means that we not only accept the truth that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, but also that we believe everything that He taught us through the gospel. We believe that Jesus is the son of God. We believe that Jesus is one in being with the Father and the Holy Spirit. We believe that we become Temples of the Holy Spirit. We trust in the Lord for his grace and salvation. We love God above all things with our full strength, with our whole mind, heart and soul. In turn we love our neighbor as ourselves.

All of these things come to us, are accomplished in us, and are sustained in us by God’s grace. We are born again and justified. At that same point in time "…we are his[God’s] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.[Eph 2:10]

Our belief, trust, and love for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as well as our Christian love for one another, are the work of the Father’s hands within us. Everything is by God’s grace and all of the glory goes to God.

Do you agree?

 

[juliamajor]

1. And God told Moses to write it in a book and from then on it was inscripurated.
2. However they did go around consulting the books of the Old Testament. This was still a time of revelation and incripuration. Scripture alone does not apply in such time.
3. I think that Jude pretty effectively tells us that revelation has ceased. He tells us that the faith was revealed once for all.

Before Scripture was oral tradition the Jewish people believe that when Moses was given Torah- he was also Given Tradition"mishneh" to guide then. Tradition and Law were NEVER separated- they were always considered the “deposit of Faith” (my term) for the jewish people.Oral transmission was prime transmission for a very long time. Rabbis considered Oral teaching more reliable then hand written transmission. when a Young Jewish boy learned scripture he would also learn Oral Torah- they cannot be separated without scripture losing it’s true meaning.

 

[RWMorris]

…Do you agree?

I’ve enjoyed reading your posts. I was Protestant for the first 42 years of my Christian life and am now Catholic. I have two questions for you. Protestants argue that good works will not save, and I would agree that good works “alone” will not save you. But I would argue that “faith alone” cannot sustain our salvation, that faith must be followed by “good works” for our salvation to be valid. Of course, the person who converts on his death bed would be unable to sustain his salvation through good works, but his salvation would still be valid. Does that sound reasonable from both a Catholic and Protestant view point? Is it something that both Catholics and Protestants can agree on?

 

[Pax]

The Catholic answer to your questions would seem to be as follows:

1. Yes, except that it is God’s grace that “sustains” our salvation in faith and works.
2. Yes, if our non-Catholic brothers and sisters can agree.

P.S. Thanks for the kind words.

 

[whatisthetruth]

bump

Hi all, I have some bad news.
Then again it might be good news for some.

Just to let you know CalmDownWisWins stated on another thread after quoting one of my statements,

I would not accept anything this person has to say as meaningful.

And here is how I responded. thank you all for your time we had.

Why CalmDownWisWins, is attacking easier than trying to understand.

Lets attack and start a false rumor about another one of those “Protestants” than try to understand him.

Oops I am sorry CalmDownWisWins, please forgive me. I just called you, a Christian, a liar and falsely accused you.

CalmDownWisWins it is totally against my nature to judge anyone as a liar and I did just that.

Please forgive me.

So let me comment on what you said because you always tell the truth especially about “protestants”

Hi all, since CalmDownWisWins has suggested from his heart

"not to

accept anything I have to say as meaningful" I have regretably made a decision that I wish I did not have to make.

Since, I can not be sure CalmDownWisWins has you second guessing anything I post from this point forward, I have decided to post anything more on any thread at CAF.

I will not waste my time expressing my heart, if you are not going to believe what I write anyway.

**So, why should I post? **

Congratulations, CalmDownWisWins, you have you wish.

**I AM DONE.

PERIOD!!!**

Are you happy CalmDownWisWins?
How are you feeling right now?

** ?

?

?

?

:clapping: ?

:banghead: ? **

If I sound a little hurt, you dang right I am.
I am so sorry it came down to this.

BTW CalmDownWisWins, no need to apologize to me, I forgive you for hurting me.

But I got bad news, I can not clear the pain you caused against God by hurting me. I pray that He accepts your sincere confession.

I really **do not care **at this point if you believe I mean it.

I am so wrong in venting but maybe this is what it will take to get my message across.

Then again,

I am just a “protestant”
Why should you care?.

Maybe by seeing the hurt first hand, might be cause for some to start caring about this nonsense between the Catholics and the “protestants”.

As some are welcoming me home to Christ’s one true church,
others are like CalmDownWisWins.

Why should I come back if what I say has no meaning to you?
Is that thaught about me going to change overnight should I walk through your door tomorrow?

Who believes in thier heart of hearts I feel God’s love right now?

Oh God, please forgive me. Of all I said above,
I am so sorry God, but you know my hurt.
I ask forgiveness of you all at CAF for lashing out.
I am sorry. For any pain I just caused by anything I said here or anywhere else.
In no way do I set out to hurt anyone.

I feel guilty in asking this but,

If by chance you are one who valued our conversation and you have any question of me or thaught you like to share I invite you to PM.

I will gladly communicate with you in PM if you are sincere.

If you do nothing else, may I ask you to read the following.
“My Signature Letter”

Even though CalmDownWisWins does not believe it, it would mean a lot to me if just one of you believes anything I wrote and let me know, please…thank you.

I ask of you as a Christian brother/sister just that one small favor.

To most of you, thank you again for sharing your thaughts, beliefs and most important love with me while I was here on the threads.

For the most part It has been a wonderful visit.
I may come back to the threads, but for now,
thanks to CalmDownWisWins, (BTW may God bless you too),
it is not a good idea to post again for a while.

One day I might understand, why you were compelled to do that CalmDownWisWins, God only knows.

God bless you all

truth

 

[Pax]

Try putting this person on your ignore list.