Sacred Scripture vs. Tradition (and Sola Scriptura)

  • Thread starter Thread starter psteichen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jmcrae said:
The person of Jesus Christ is the Word of God.
The Scriptures are a record of His sayings and actions here in the world, and of our continuing relationship with Him. The reality of our collective relationship with Christ is the only reason that the Scriptures are important.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
jmcrae said:
“Inerrant” is an adjective that refers to something that contains no important errors. The bible is inerrant because it contains no important errors, but it cannot be infallible, because it isn’t a person.
“Infallible” is an adjective that refers to a person who will not make a mistake in the future, or is not making a mistake right now. Under certain circumstances (not all) the Pope is infallible. The Magesterium of the Church (the entire teaching body of the Church) is infallible when they all agree - this of course includes the Pope.
Click to expand...
Was Jesus infallible?

Was He inerrant in what He knew and taught?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
justasking4:
See we believe in the authority. The authority was granted by Jesus. and it came on pentecost to the church. sicne that we believe in the authority of the church its infallible and perfect because it has the holy ghost, but the church also is made by human beign and they are sinners.
I think Jesus gave his churhc to Peter in order to make us realize that we are all sinners its our nature, but we must try to be better people.
So the authority comes from above n not from men. the councils of the church have been made all by men but with the guidance of the holy ghost thanks to them we have the scriptures, baptism,the sacraments we belive on the trinity , the divinity of christ and all what we belive as crhistians. So to denied that the holy ghost is in the church that made those cousils is to say that the scriptures n those dogmas were made by happenchance n I dont think that.

Also if you want to read somehting in the scripture about it u can go to the acts when Saul persecuted the first christians Jesus told him " Saul why you persecute me" he didnt said why you persecute my followers nor why you persecute my church.

That shows that Jesus is within the ones that give up everything for him, there is a close union with them. besides they glorify God they dont glorify themselves.

catholicismandbibletheology.blog.com/
 
the main goal of praying to the saints is to bring us closer to God all the glory is for God, the saints were just people like us that sacrificed their entire lifes for God and they are very clsoe to him.
we ask their intercetion to help us in order that they by their exampel could bring us clsoer to God. So its not idolatry like in the OT, all the entire glory is to God.

also we catholics dont workship statues, they just remember us of God. Its somethign like when you keep a picture of someone that you love and care.
I think people must realize that the idolatry and the workship of the statues in the OT was something bad because Israel was tempted to become pagan again.
However nowhere in the bible you will find something negative about the querubines that were on the arc of the covenant of Moses. God allowed it.

I think there are misunderstandings between protestans and catholics because the bible have to be read by covenants and not like a novel.
for example the Sabath was the day of the lord but it changed to Sunday, at first sight that looks like a contradiction.
Why would Jesus would go against the law of Moses?
but Jesus came not to change the laws but to make a new covenant, every covenant is made for different times.
The main reason that the Israelites couldnt have statues on the time of the covenant of Moses is because they were primitive people that were “SURROUNDED” by pagans and if they had statues that will lead them to paganism.

catholicismandbibletheology.blog.com/
 
You should read this as well

St Augustine
Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus

you can find it here:
newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm

Chapter 4.—Proofs of the Catholic Faith
  1. For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)—not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.
Chapter 5.—Against the Title of the Epistle of Manichæus

Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent?
Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel.

catholicismandbibletheology.blog.com/
 
justasking4 said:
Not so. The inspired Scriptures are not dependent on their inspiration on the authority of any church but on God Himself. As i’ve said above, the church was an instrument that God used. The instrument itself (the church) is fallible and fallen while the Scriptures are not.
Click to expand...
Nobody is claimng that the Church inspired Scripture.

I just want to know that if God is the authority, where and when did he say that the 39 OT books and 27 New Testament books are scripture, no more and no less?

How do you know? And how do you know that you’re right and not the Catholics?

Again, how do you know that only those 39 Old Testament and only those 27 NEw Testament books are inspired? Did God tell you?
 
justasking4 said:
we have 39 in the OT and 27 in the new

How do you know these books are inspired?
Click to expand...
No so. I accept their fallible decision based on how they went about determing the canon. It is the books themselves that testify they are the word of God. That is what convinces me the most. When you look at the process of how it was done, we can see that God used men to discover the canon. The authority rests with God and not the church.
Click to expand...
So if the Church was fallible, how can you then be even certain that they got the list right? This is the “fallible list of infallible books” reasoning.

Moreover,
It is the books themselves that testify they are the word of God.
Click to expand...
First, only Revelation claims that it is from God. Other books identify some, but not all Old Testament books as Scripture, but then the New Testament books do not claim the same status for themselves.

Nevertheless even if they did, the Book of Mormon claims to be inspired. The Koran says the same thing. Do you accept them as inspired? If you don’t then clearly, a book claiming to be inspired doesn’t make it so or prove it to be.

What if I were to say that I don’t accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God, how would you prove it to me then?

The list of inspired books is a critical religious truth, and it cannot afford to be fallible. Catholics say they accept 7 more books for example. What makes you right and them wrong?
 
The Bible without the Church is like sex without marriage or like faith without works.

It makes no sense to separate these complementary pairs, but people always try.

If you live your life saying “I want the Bible (but not the Church),” or “only faith is necessary (but not works)” or “I need to be fulfilled sexually (but I’m not interested in marriage)” then you will miss out on the abundant life God has planned for you.
 
justasking4 said:
Is the OT the Word of God?
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

The Old Testament is the history of His relationship with the people of Israel under the Old Covenant in its various unfolding forms - Adam’s covenant, Noah’s covenant, Abraham’s covenant, and finally Moses’ covenant. The God of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ.
 
SyCarl said:
The church is not without authority. Protestants believe that the institutional church does have authority but that it is subject to the Bible. So we have theological schools, ministers, elders and such but we must constantly be searching the Scriptures as the Bereans did to see if these things are so. Church authorities are not infallible. God has always had someone in authority? Who was it at the time of Jesus? The scribes and the Pharisees? We know how Jesus spoke of them. They did not appear to have lead the people correctly.
Click to expand...
No, but Jesus validated their teaching authority. Then He transferred that teaching authority (seat of Moses) to Peter.

Matt 23:2-3
2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”
 
re the folks who reject Tradition.

Think about it this way—just because you find the rules for playing baseball in a single printed booklet, reading them alone (i.e., sola scriptura) won’t make you a baseball player. Someone, some coach or fellow player somewhere, still has to show you things like how to stand, hold the bat, swing, etc. showing them how to play and btw teaching some of the same things (traditions) they’ve been doing since the game started.

Here’s my point. It’s the same with Christianity. It’s the traditions that make the scripture come alive. The two go hand in hand.
 
justasking4 said:
Even though the church did use various means to determine who wrote them that knowledge in and of itself does not make the NT inspired nor does it count against sola scriptura.
Just because a “tradition” about something may have been used to help to determine who wrote a particular book does not mean all traditions of the catholic church are right and sola scriptura is false.

The case for the inspiration-imerrancy of the Scriptures is well established. Both catholics and protestants accept this for the most part. What catholics need to show is that their “traditions” are on the same level as the Scriptures. That has yet to be shown. In fact i personally have yet to see a list of all the traditons of the catholic church. I wonder if such a list exists.
Click to expand...
A PARTIAL List of Catholic Traditions

Baptismal Regeneration
Apostolic Succession
The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
The Canon of the OT and NT
Sunday as the day of worship
Purgatory
The Immaculate Conception
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
Private revelation is not binding upon the faithful.
Communion of the saints
The permanent character of baptism
Sacrament of Confirmation as indelible upon the soul
Sacrament of Holy Orders as indelible upon the soul
Infused Grace
The Hypostatic Union
Knights of Columbus Spaghetti Dinners
Bingo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top