Sacred Oral and Written Tradition

[Reformed]

Too true. The foundation of Protestant belief is you must be saved through faith alone in Jesus alone. To reject Jesus - his gospel is rejection of God himself and subjectst the person to hell.

Read the entire chapter of the gospel of John 3 and Romans 10 and get back to us.

http://www.pompoenerie.nl/images/funnyface.gif

Don’t forget what happened on October 31.

 

[sambos671]

Read the entire chapter of the gospel of John 3 and Romans 10 and get back to us.

Your point? (BTW I have and the entire bible as well)

 

[Reformed]

Your point? (BTW I have and the entire bible as well)

Well open it up, pray and read…

 

[cfrancis]

Please try reading the entire chapter of John 3 and you tell me.

I have read it, many times. I am asking for your interpretation of John 3, as you are the authority for your interpretation.

 

[sambos671]

Well open it up, pray and read…

I’ve read it. I was using Luther with the Faith alone. Which is protestant. What are you trying to say. I have both books right here.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Doesn’t Scripture have Christ say that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that NONE come to the Father except through Him?

And doesn’t St. Paul say that there is no other name (than Christ’s) by which we may be saved?

And may I recommend that YOU, Reformed, read Ezekiel? Pay particular attention to the Scripture which says that if one sees a person comitting sin and does not tell/help them, the person will die for his sin and the one who does not tell/help will ALSO be held accountable.

 

[BlestOne]

Thank you for the sources. I am familar with spurgeon.org but not the other site. And yes…Church History is very important to study and understand. I’m surprised you can handle Charles Spurgeon in regards to Roman Catholicism. Have you read what he wrote about Roman Catholicism that can probably be found on that site?

Here is a link to the creeds and confessions on that same site.

spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds.htm

Quite honestly, I use that site for the actual dates of the ECF writings. I am aware from the sections of his site i.e. Reformation, Puritans, and Great awakenings that he isn’t Catholic but timelines tend to help me get the picture of when things happen… I just look at the rest as his opinion and self interpretation of scripture as being flawed.

 

[JRKH]

Do you understand how unbiblical this position is. If I understand the Roman Catholic position, you are changing the great good news of God (gospel of God’s grace) into terrible bad condemning news.

Not all my friend. To those who hear the Good News of Christ and repent, ar Baptized and Believe there need be no fear, but to those who hear the Good News and Reject it it is indeed a Gospel of condemnation. I call your attention to Matthew 11:20-24

20 Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 "Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 24 “Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”

Does this sound like “Good news” for the communities who not only heard but saw the miracles of Christ and did not repent?

Are you saying that a sinner becomes accountable and condemned once they are preached the good news and reject it?

And when you preach the Good news to others and they tell you to take your Bible and shove it, will God not hold them accountable?

Do you see what happens when you leave Sola Scriptura, because the gospel changes from great news to accountable condemning news.

And when one holds to sola-selecta scriptura the Gospel morphs into thousands of differing beliefs and outright denials of the Truths of the Gospels.

Please correct my understanding if I am wrong. My Scriptural proof is Roman chapter 1, chapter 2, and John 3. I’ll let you guys study the issues before I share what Scripture reveals on this important issue. Your last paragraph is my hope for the remnant within the Roman Catholic Church.

I will allow others to deal with the more specific issues in the texts you’ve provided for I am a simple man, however I do find your last sentence somewhat insulting and disappointing. I had believed you were of a more serious and open minded bent in your quest to undertand the True Church. This make it appear that I was in error.

Peace
James

Don’t forget October 31.

I won’t forget. It’s called All Hallow’s Eve (The Eve of All Saints Day)

 

[RobHom]

Do you understand how incorrect you answer is to post the
Catechism of the Catholic Church? The Cathechism was probably written in the late 1980’s, correct?

Wrong. While I do not have at my fingertips the date of the first Catechism, I can tell you that as a child…52 years ago at the age of 6 I was learning from a “Catechism”, and it was a “standardized” Catechism. So, no, this is not a novel and new invention. Sorry. The answers provide vis a vis the Catechism are entirely proper and pertinent.

Are you saying there was no additonal Sacred Oral and Written Tradition before this particular Catechism of the Catholic Church? Heck, I even know that the Council of Trent is considered Sacred Tradition, right?

Unfortunately my friend…you are wandering once again far afield in the realm of “speculation”…be wary of the minefields.

Here is the dilemma. If I read through the early Church fathers, which Church Fathers are considered Sacred Tradition, and which church fathers are just tradition. And once we determine the correct church fathers, do I accept all of what they write as Sacred Traditon, or only the portion that agrees with Roman Catholic theology? Does the Catholic Church teach that the writings of the church fathers are inspired like Holy Scriptures?

This question I will hopefully address later at greater length.

 

[Reformed]

Not all my friend. To those who hear the Good News of Christ and repent, ar Baptized and Believe there need be no fear, but to those who hear the Good News and Reject it it is indeed a Gospel of condemnation. I call your attention to Matthew 11:20-24

Does this sound like “Good news” for the communities who not only heard but saw the miracles of Christ and did not repent?

And when you preach the Good news to others and they tell you to take your Bible and shove it, will God not hold them accountable?

And when one holds to sola-selecta scriptura the Gospel morphs into thousands of differing beliefs and outright denials of the Truths of the Gospels.

I will allow others to deal with the more specific issues in the texts you’ve provided for I am a simple man, however I do find your last sentence somewhat insulting and disappointing. I had believed you were of a more serious and open minded bent in your quest to undertand the True Church. This make it appear that I was in error.

Peace
James

I won’t forget. It’s called All Hallow’s Eve (The Eve of All Saints Day)

When is a sinner condemned according to Scripture, before or after they hear the gospel? Try John chapter 3.

I think you are remembering the wrong event on October 31. Is the orginal celebration of All Saints Day created by the Roman Catholic Church?

http://www.nedramadeit.com/images/halloween04/halloween_dogs.jpg

Trick or treat?

 

[cfrancis]

Reformed, still no answer to the question:
According to your interpretation of Scripture, what happens to a sinner when that sinner hears the gospel and rejects it?

 

[mercygate]

Wrong. While I do not have at my fingertips the date of the first Catechism, I can tell you that as a child…52 years ago at the age of 6 I was learning from a “Catechism”, and it was a “standardized” Catechism. So, no, this is not a novel and new invention. Sorry. The answers provide vis a vis the Catechism are entirely proper and pertinent.

The current Catechism was published in 1994, revised (expanded) in 1996. It had been more than 400 years since the previous *Catechism *was *The Roman Catechism, *or *The Catechism of the Council of Trent, *published under Pius V.

If you are American, you probably used The Baltimore Catechism. That one was produced in the late 19th century for use in Catholic schools.

 

[po18guy]

I think you have no idea where to find all of Sacred Oral and Written Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Brother, stop accusing now…
Catholics don’t need a complete, written listing of everything. That is a characteristic of bible Christians, who rely on written proof. We believe and therefore we obey Church authority. It is submission to God through His appointed successor to the Apostles.

The celebration of the Holy Mass is Sacred Tradition - that is also documented in scripture. The teachings on faith and morals are Sacred Tradition and cannot change. Many are in scripture, but many are not.

Regarding your paraphrase from Jude, without the on-going leading of the Holy Spirit, how would man know whether cloning is good or evil? Whether embryonic stem cell research is good or evil? Neither was spoken of in the incomplete bible, as neither yet existed.

Since God always leads His Church, how are moral decisions made when these subjects come up? Many answers are not in the bible, because it was never intended to be a complete, everything in every age document. Since it is a “dead” document (once written it was forever locked into that ancient state of scientific knowledge), it cannot directly answer modern scientific innovations. Only the Holy Spirit can answer those.

Thus, the Church needs a successor to the Apostles to lead by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

 

[Reformed]

Reformed, still no answer to the question:
According to your interpretation of Scripture, what happens to a sinner when that sinner hears the gospel and rejects it?

Did you try to read John chapter 3 to find out when a person is condemned? Are sinners condemned before they hear the gospel or after?

 

[Reformed]

Brother, stop accusing now…
Catholics don’t need a complete, written listing of everything. That is a characteristic of bible Christians, who rely on written proof. We believe and therefore we obey Church authority. It is submission to God through His appointed successor to the Apostles.

The celebration of the Holy Mass is Sacred Tradition - that is also documented in scripture. The teachings on faith and morals are Sacred Tradition and cannot change. Many are in scripture, but many are not.

Regarding your paraphrase from Jude, without the on-going leading of the Holy Spirit, how would man know whether cloning is good or evil? Whether embryonic stem cell research is good or evil? Neither was spoken of in the incomplete bible, as neither yet existed.

Since God always leads His Church, how are moral decisions made when these subjects come up? Many answers are not in the bible, because it was never intended to be a complete, everything in every age document. Since it is a “dead” document (once written it was forever locked into that ancient state of scientific knowledge), it cannot directly answer modern scientific innovations. Only the Holy Spirit can answer those.

Thus, the Church needs a successor to the Apostles to lead by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

http://www.nedramadeit.com/images/halloween04/halloween_dogs.jpg

Trick or treat, don’t foget what happened on a special October 31

 

[cfrancis]

Did you try to read John chapter 3 to find out when a person is condemned? Are sinners condemned before they hear the gospel or after?

Shall I direct you to the post where I stated I’ve read John 3 many times?
Really, it should be an easy question to answer, as you are your authority for your interpretation of Scripture:

What happens to a sinner when that sinner hears the gospel and rejects it?

 

[mercygate]

Brother, stop accusing now…
Catholics don’t need a complete, written listing of everything. That is a characteristic of bible Christians, who rely on written proof. We believe and therefore we obey Church authority. It is submission to God through His appointed successor to the Apostles.

The celebration of the Holy Mass is Sacred Tradition - that is also documented in scripture. The teachings on faith and morals are Sacred Tradition and cannot change. Many are in scripture, but many are not.

Regarding your paraphrase from Jude, without the on-going leading of the Holy Spirit, how would man know whether cloning is good or evil? Whether embryonic stem cell research is good or evil? Neither was spoken of in the incomplete bible, as neither yet existed.

Since God always leads His Church, how are moral decisions made when these subjects come up? Many answers are not in the bible, because it was never intended to be a complete, everything in every age document. Since it is a “dead” document (once written it was forever locked into that ancient state of scientific knowledge), it cannot directly answer modern scientific innovations. Only the Holy Spirit can answer those.

Thus, the Church needs a successor to the Apostles to lead by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

Exactly. We don’t have all the answers (the list) because we have not yet received all the questions. Christ promises that we WILL BE guided “into all the truth” – He doesn’t say that “all the truth” is explicit in the Scriptures. It may be “in there” but we need the Holy Spirit to illuminate it according to the question being asked.

But I wouldn’t call it a “dead” document. I know what you mean: paper and ink cannot speak. The “book” is ‘dead’ but the WORD is definitely not dead. I am sure you agree.

 

[po18guy]

This is not the end, but the begining. I already knew that Sacred Tradition is not new revelation. I just want to study as much of what is considered Sacred Tradition. The difficulties seem to be for Roman Cathoics is to determine what is actual Sacred Tradition verses just tradition. Do you think you can supply the deposit of faith that was once for all delievered to the saints to me?

It is infinite, just as God is infinite. Neither you nor I will live long enough to digest all of it! It is every teaching and every response to every question of faith and morals that has ever been posed since Adam and Eve, and will continue unto the last day. Man’s life is finite. The deposit of faith is infinite.

 

[Reformed]

It is infinite, just as God is infinite. Neither you nor I will live long enough to digest all of it! It is every teaching and every response to every question of faith and morals that has ever been posed since Adam and Eve, and will continue unto the last day. Man’s life is finite. The deposit of faith is infinite.

Are you calling Jude a liar? God is infinite, but the deposit of faith is not.

Jude 1:3

Judgment on False Teachers
3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

1 Timothy 6:20

20 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”

Hey, how come Paul didn’t tell Peter to guard the deposit of faith? Maybe Timothy was the first Pope?

 

[cfrancis]

Are you calling Jude a liar? God is infinite, but the deposit of faith is not.

Jude 1:3

Judgment on False Teachers
3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

1 Timothy 6:20

20 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”

Hey, how come Paul didn’t tell Peter to guard the deposit of faith?

No, were questioning your peculiar use od Jude and 1 Tim!

According to your logic, by these verses, the epistles of Jude and 1 Tim themselves are not part of the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” as the letters, as of their writing, hadn’t been delivered to the saints, and probably didn’t circulate through all the church for years afterward.
Further, the consensus of NT dating has the Gospel of John, John’s Epistles, and Revelation being written after Jude.
Further, neither Jude nor 1 Tim mention the mode of delivery, but we know it wasn’t all written, or all oral.
Bottom line, yes, a faith was once for all delivered, but the belief of a closed canon is not supported by Scripture, but by Tradition.