M
MariaG
Guest
For 2 Tim 3:16-17; the catholic view generally is: that the apostle Paul is telling Timothy “To obey tradition, and then teaches Timothy that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without reading the new testament (since Paul is referring to the Old Testament only)” he uses 2 Tim 3:14,15 for this, which state: (ASV) 14 “But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.”
Can one come to faith in Christ without reading the New testament. Of course, because the main way people become Christians is through HEARING the word of God.
But once again, where does Catholic doctrine contradict Scripture, that one can’t become a christian through hearing the word? Where does Catholic doctrine say not to read the bible?
He learned them from Paul – One of those who was writing Scripture and came to belief directly from Christ, this is not ‘Tradition’ it is the oral transmission of the new testament while it was being written, backed up by another Epistle – 2 Timothy! 15 (ASV) “And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Which only says, basically – that he (Timothy) knows that the things which are being taught to him agree with the scriptures. He is being urged to remember those scriptures, and compare them with what he has been taught. Which is only right – we must back up any oral transmission with scripture no matter who it comes from: Gal 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.” Paul can hardly contradict himself, now can he?
You have yet to show where Catholic doctrine, Oral Tradition contradicts scripture. If it is not about salvation, you’ll want to start another thread on this.
They further contend that since Paul was giving the “Oral Tradition”, that proves that their “Sacred Tradition” today is just as valid. First of all, the major flaw in this line of reasoning is the necessity of writing the scriptures to begin with. If we actually read the scriptures for what they say – rather than what we want them to say – we find that most scriptures are written (by the Holy Spirit) to correct oral tradition gone bad, the other obvious clue to those with eyes to see and willing to look is that the Holy Spirit obviously was NOT protecting these ‘Holy Traditions’ in any other way than the Written Word. Otherwise, scripture would be filled with praise for the church keeping it’s oral tradition, and filled with new information rather than what they are filled with overwhelmingly – corrections for failing to keep the oral tradition which necessitated the writing of scripture and which also provided them (and everyone else) with a written word to refer to. What is lacking in one book of Scripture is made up for in another – in this way, all things are covered, and the Apostles in question are not just sitting in one place forever writing out the entire New testament for each Church [A process that most assuredly would have taken up a lifetime], but out performing the rest of their work – spreading the Gospel to those who had not yet received it I.E: Preaching, which act was never - so far as I am aware at least - in question by anyone. What IS in question is the unquestioned obedience to (at least when it suits the Church itself, apparently) and elevation to the status of Divine Revelation, of ‘Sacred Tradition’.
Peace
Just one. Show me one Sacred Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church that contradicts the Bible. Since this thread is about salvation, it needs to be pertinent to that discussion. If not, start a new thread.
So far you are the only one to contradict Scripture by saying we are not justified by our works, James 3:24.