Simple and babe like truth : Scriptural sufficiency

[Milliardo]

St. Augustine:“I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, ch. 5)

As Bob said in his website, “The Catholic Treasure Chest”, if I were a Protestant, I would make sure never to quote Augustine again, based on the quote I made above. Any other proof texting made by Protestants on Augustine would be nullified by his many other quotes affirming his Catholic belief regarding where the authority of the Church lies.

 

[Milliardo]

I would continue the debate that was begun on another thread, since it would be more on topic here:

Let’s begin again.

Jesus did not break the commandments of God.

He did not follow the added traditions of man.

That would again be debatable, since we go back to what He said to His listeners, that they follow everything that the Pharisees say to them (cf. Matthew 23:2-4). Jesus would then be a hypocrite if He said that, yet would not follow His own advice. As Matthew presented Him, Jesus is a Jew’s Jew, following the Law perfectly.

In the passages I mentioned Jesus and His diciples sat down and ate without cleansing their hands. That was an added man law, not a commandment from God.

Jesus’ point here is the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, not tradition itself. Jesus wanted to show them that they clean themselves on the outside, yet are not clean inside.

In the passages about the Sabath, Jesus again points out that He and His diciples did not break the commandment of God, they just didn’t follow the added explanations and by laws added to the commandment by men. As Father John points out, they had over 600 added by laws to the commandments of God.

Again, not the point of Jesus–His point is simple: obedience of the Sabbath should not mean that one has to also take a break, as it is, from helping one’s fellowman, since the Sabbath was a day of rest.

The point Jesus was and still is making is that we need to focus on God’s/His commandments, not the added rules and “explanations” man makes up.

Yet the added explanations serve to help man understand what God is talking about. Jesus didn’t tell His Disciples to go and write down a book, and then that’s it. He told them to preach, which would mean additional explanations on what He said. Paul’s writings, for instance, were additional commentaries and explanations on what Jesus already said. We should not go far–your pastor’s sermons are additional explanations about what Jesus said. Are you saying now that you do not need them?

 

[ryanoneil]

Scripture Must be Interpreted in Light of Church Tradition and is not Subject to Private Interpretation.

“For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and with trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith with which we are imbued…” Augustine, On the Gospel of John, Homily XVIII:1 (A.D. 416).

“A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines: also there is need of a wakeful soul, since there are many that make spoil through philosophy and vain deceit. The Greeks on the one hand draw men away by their smooth tongue, for honey droppeth from a harlot’s lips: whereas they of the Circumcision deceive those who come to them by means of the Divine Scriptures, which they miserably misinterpret though studying them from childhood to all age, and growing old in ignorance. But the children of heretics, by their good words and smooth tongue, deceive the hearts of the innocent, disguising with the name of Christ as it were with honey the poisoned arrows of their impious doctrines: concerning all of whom together the Lord saith, Take heed lest any man mislead you. This is the reason for the teaching of the Creed and for expositions upon it.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:2 (A.D. 350).

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199).

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

Peace,

Ryan

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Did anyone in Scripture ever come to know the truth of God’s plan of salvation by Scripture alone? Did anyone in Scripture advocate Scripture alone? I believe if you prayerfully study scripture, you will find that the answer is NO. Was tradition authoritative in Scripture? The answer is YES.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There is a lot of confusion among Roman Catholics by what we mean of Scriptural sufficiency. We do not suggest that everything Christ ever said or did is recorded in Scripture. It is not an encyclopedia of all information, or even all spiritual information. Rather, it is sufficient for its purpose. This is best illustrated at the end of John:And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30,31).
See how simple this is?

Is everything written down? Nope. Of course not.

But what we do have written down is written for what? That we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing have life in His name!

I’ve also heard complaints that this verse only point to the Gospel of John. However, if you just think for a moment, you will see that if this statement only points to John, it proves too much! For if what we have written in the Gospel of John alone is able to do what John says (v.31), imagine what the ENTIRE DESPOSIT of Scripture would be able to do! If this single book is sufficient to do what John says it can do (the lesser), surely the whole record of Scripture can do even more (the greater).

So if you deny the Scripture is able to do what John says it can do (whether his Gospel alone or by extension the whole Scripture deposit), you are contending with God, not us.

But: that quoted passage was not written to bring about a belief that did not already exist; it was written to confirm the faith of a community of people who were already Christians.​

So while the Holy Bible is sufficient for some purposes, that passage - like all the NT - is meant to be read in public in worship; not to bring about faith in those who do not have it. Unbelievers need,not the Bible, but the preaching of the Word. Once they are within the Church, the Bible is for them.

 

[justasking4]

Why not just obey Scripture which says:

Matthew 18
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

1 Timothy 3
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Hebrews 13
17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Please, show me the verse upon which you stand to prove that the Scriptures ALONE are sufficient?

Sincerely,

De Maria

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is a good place to start–
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. To be “profitable” means–to be useful, profitable, advantageous. Helpful, profitable, useful.
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G5624).

 

[sterryfamily]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is a good place to start–
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. To be “profitable” means–to be useful, profitable, advantageous. Helpful, profitable, useful.
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G5624).

You didn’t answer her question. She said where does scripture say that scripture ALONE is sufficient. This verse just says that the scriptures are profitable. And, BTW, when St Paul wrote this he was referring strictly to the Old Testament - there was no New Testament at the time.

Why did Jesus tell his followers that they must obey the pharisees because of the fact that they occupy Moses’ seat? Just as he ratified the rulings of the covenant leaders in the Old Testament, so too he told his appointed leaders of the New Covenant and their successors that anything they bind on earth will be bound in heaven for all. Why? Because “I will send my Spirit to guide you into ALL TRUTH”.

 

[De_Maria]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is a good place to start–
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. To be “profitable” means–to be useful, profitable, advantageous. Helpful, profitable, useful.
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G5624).

As the Sterry Family said, this does not say Scripture alone.

However, there is more. You have taken this one verse OUT OF SCRIPTURE and read a great deal into it because you can’t abide for it to remain in its place. The context would kill your supposition.

Lets review. What is the entire book of 2 Timothy about?

Chapter 1: 6 For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands. 7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear: but of power, and of love, and of sobriety. 8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but labour with the gospel, according to the power of God,

Chapter 2: 1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus: 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. 3 Labour as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

Chapter 4: 1 I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:

Well in every other Chapter St. Paul is teaching St. Timothy to preach that is to pass on the Traditions by Word.

And suddenly, you claim that in Chapter 3, he decides to say that only Scripture can pass on doctrine. Yet that isn’t what that verse says at all.

16 All Scripture is inspired by God

Why that is Catholic teaching:
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 135
“The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24)

But the Catholic Church understands something which you apparently don’t, something eminently Scriptural:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 136
6 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors;
2 Peter 1 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Now read this carefully. Scripture is PROFITABLE. Not necessary, not alone, not required.

and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
.
And it is PROFITABLE for what. For Teaching.

In other words, this verse emphasizes the Magisterium. The Teaching ministry of the Church.

So, the only way to make this verse support Sola Scriptura is to take it out of context.

Try again.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[justasking4]

De Maria;3130436]As the Sterry Family said, this does not say Scripture alone.

Are the Scriptures alone the only inspired-inerrant Word of God or is there something else that is inspired-inerrant? If so, what exactly is it and can you give me a couple of specific examples of it?

However, there is more. You have taken this one verse OUT OF SCRIPTURE and read a great deal into it because you can’t abide for it to remain in its place. The context would kill your supposition.

Lets review. What is the entire book of 2 Timothy about?

Chapter 1: 6 For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands. 7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear: but of power, and of love, and of sobriety. 8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but labour with the gospel, according to the power of God,

Chapter 2: 1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus: 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. 3 Labour as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

Chapter 4: 1 I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:

Well in every other Chapter St. Paul is teaching St. Timothy to preach that is to pass on the Traditions by Word.

And suddenly, you claim that in Chapter 3, he decides to say that only Scripture can pass on doctrine. Yet that isn’t what that verse says at all.

16 All Scripture is inspired by God

Why that is Catholic teaching:
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 135
“The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24)

But the Catholic Church understands something which you apparently don’t, something eminently Scriptural:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 136
6 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors;
2 Peter 1 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Now read this carefully. Scripture is PROFITABLE. Not necessary, not alone, not required.

How can you say Scripture is not “necessary” when we are exhorted by Paul to have the “words of Christ” richly dwell in us? How can we fulfill this command if the Scriptures are not necessary?

and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
.

And it is PROFITABLE for what. For Teaching.

In other words, this verse emphasizes the Magisterium. The Teaching ministry of the Church

Nice try but there is no mention of any Magisterium type of thing in this entire letter.

So, the only way to make this verse support Sola Scriptura is to take it out of context.

Try again.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[justasking4]

sterryfamily;3129978]You didn’t answer her question. She said where does scripture say that scripture ALONE is sufficient.

Are the Scriptures alone sufficent as foundation for doctrine and practice?

This verse just says that the scriptures are profitable. And, BTW, when St Paul wrote this he was referring strictly to the Old Testament - there was no New Testament at the time.

That doesn’t matter since the inspiration-inerrancy does not depend on the awarness of the human authors. Its still Scripture whether we know who are the Scriptures are or not.

sterryfamily
Why did Jesus tell his followers that they must obey the pharisees because of the fact that they occupy Moses’ seat?

Look at the context. Is Jesus putting any authority in the chair of Moses?

Just as he ratified the rulings of the covenant leaders in the Old Testament, so too he told his appointed leaders of the New Covenant and their successors that anything they bind on earth will be bound in heaven for all. Why? Because “I will send my Spirit to guide you into ALL TRUTH”.

That is true He gave this to His disciples in whom He would send His Spirit to reveal all the TRUTH who in turn wrote the inspired-inerrant Word of God which is binding on all Christians. It is the New Testament that is being referred to since the promise was made to them and no other.

 

[guanophore]

Are the Scriptures alone the only inspired-inerrant Word of God or is there something else that is inspired-inerrant? If so, what exactly is it and can you give me a couple of specific examples of it?

Have you considered revisiting the threads on Sacred Tradition? Seems like this question has been asked and answered for you many times, ja4. I think you are only asking it so that you can wind yourself around to your persistent point that you believe it does not exist.

How can you say Scripture is not “necessary” when we are exhorted by Paul to have the “words of Christ” richly dwell in us? How can we fulfill this command if the Scriptures are not necessary?

I would not go so far as to say unnecessary. God would not have given them if we did not need. But the scripture that Paul wrote about was the Septuagint (including those books the reformers took out) that he used. The gospels had not yet been written when he commanded that. He was referring to the preached word.
Paul considered the oral and written Word equivalent.

Nice try but there is no mention of any Magisterium type of thing in this entire letter.

I think you just can’t see it because you have your anti-catholic blinders on, ja4. This whole letter is a representation of the magesterium. In fact, Paul, an Apostle, appointed Timothy as bishop, and made him responsible for faithfully handing on the word as it was taught to him. This is what the magesterium is. This is what the magesterium does.

Are the Scriptures alone sufficent as foundation for doctrine and practice?

Why do you ask this, ja4? You have already stated that you believe they are. You have already been told that Catholics believe they are not. What is your goal here?

That doesn’t matter since the inspiration-inerrancy does not depend on the awarness of the human authors. Its still Scripture whether we know who are the Scriptures are or not.

This is kinda confusing. I think I agree with you, the Holy Writings are still Holy Writings, even if some people don’t recognize it. Is that what you are saying?

Look at the context. Is Jesus putting any authority in the chair of Moses?

Absolutely! He created it, of course He supports it!

That is true He gave this to His disciples in whom He would send His Spirit to reveal all the TRUTH who in turn wrote the inspired-inerrant Word of God which is binding on all Christians. It is the New Testament that is being referred to since the promise was made to them and no other.

That doesn’t matter since the inspiration-inerrancy does not depend on the awarness of the human authors. Its still Scripture whether we know who are the Scriptures are or not.

Look at the context. Is Jesus putting any authority in the chair of Moses?

That is true He gave this to His disciples in whom He would send His Spirit to reveal all the TRUTH who in turn wrote the inspired-inerrant Word of God which is binding on all Christians. It is the New Testament that is being referred to since the promise was made to them and no other.

Jesus never said His Truth would be limited to the writings.

 

[De_Maria]

Are the Scriptures alone the only inspired-inerrant Word of God

Not according to Scripture.

or is there something else that is inspired-inerrant?

Yes.

If so, what exactly is it and can you give me a couple of specific examples of it?

Certainly. The Church is inerrant. The Holy men of God which compose the Church are inspired and inerrant when teaching God’s Word.

2 Peter 1 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by theHoly Ghost.

1 Timothy 3 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God,** the pillar and ground of the truth.

**Its funny though. We provide the verses you ask for, but you never provide the verses we ask for. Please provide the verse that says the Scriptures ALONE are sufficient for doctrine.

How can you say Scripture is not “necessary” when we are exhorted by Paul to have the “words of Christ” richly dwell in us?

I believe that Scripture is necessary. But the verse you provided does not say that. It says Scripture is profitable. So try again.

How can we fulfill this command if the Scriptures are not necessary?

By keeping Tradition.

Nice try but there is no mention of any Magisterium type of thing in this entire letter.

Obviously St. Paul was teaching St. Timothy to teach. Magisterium means “teaching authority”. That is the authority which Jesus gave the disciples when He said:

Matthew 28 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 **Teaching them **to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Therefore St. Paul was exercising the teaching authority of the Church by teaching St. Timothy to do the same.

Now its your turn. Provide the Scripture which says that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for doctrine.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[anthony022071]

There is a lot of confusion among Roman Catholics by what we mean of Scriptural sufficiency. We do not suggest that everything Christ ever said or did is recorded in Scripture. It is not an encyclopedia of all information, or even all spiritual information. Rather, it is sufficient for its purpose. This is best illustrated at the end of John:
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30,31).
See how simple this is?

Is everything written down? Nope. Of course not.

But what we do have written down is written for what? That we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing have life in His name!

I’ve also heard complaints that this verse only point to the Gospel of John. However, if you just think for a moment, you will see that if this statement only points to John, it proves too much! For if what we have written in the Gospel of John alone is able to do what John says (v.31), imagine what the ENTIRE DESPOSIT of Scripture would be able to do! If this single book is sufficient to do what John says it can do (the lesser), surely the whole record of Scripture can do even more (the greater).

So if you deny the Scripture is able to do what John says it can do (whether his Gospel alone or by extension the whole Scripture deposit), you are contending with God, not us.

That verse says nothing more than that John’s gospel was written as an aid to believing that Jesus was God. Belief through scripture by itself does not make for true religion.
Belief through scripture by itself doesn’t ensure right doctrines or right practices. The infallible scriptures require an infallible interpreter. The Bible is composed of dead words on the page. It is not the living Word of God. The dead words on the page require a living tradition inspired by the Holy Spirit to ensure that the words are interpreted and understood rightly.

 

[justasking4]

De Maria;3131975]

Quote:justasking4
How can we fulfill this command if the Scriptures are not necessary?
De Maria
By keeping Tradition.

What Traditions?

 

[De_Maria]

What Traditions?

You still haven’t answered my question.

To answer yours:

Our entire Faith is a Tradition.-
The Mass
The Eucharist
Keeping the Doctrines of the Church.
Caring for our own and our neighbors.

Just one more thing. Your question belies the fact that you make a false dichotomy between the Scriptures and Tradition. One which does not exist in Scripture, which teaches that we should keep both because both are the Word of God. The Catholic Church teaches this doctrine.

And that is why it is unnecessary for you to open a Bible to get Bible teaching. The Church teaches the Word of God in her Traditions because Tradtion is the Word of God.
In fact, even the Bible is a Tradition. The Church passes it down from generation to generation.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

What Traditions?

Don’t fall for this, De Maria. This is just a piece of mouse bait. ja4 knows exactly what Traditions you are talking about. It has been explained to him on many threads. He has rejected the existence of Sacred Tradition as “speculations of men”. His purpose here in asking this is not to learn anything about he Catholic faith, but to pursuade Catholics that they have been deceived by their teachers, and to reject these "false doctrines.

I have seen this claim many times about Sacred Tradition and those things not recorded in the scriptures. The problem is that if its not in the scriptures, its not inspired-inerrant.

Those things not in the scriptures are not binding though. They do not carry apostolic authority.

Keep in mind that most of these if not all of them are not grounded in the scriptures.

ja4 believes that the Sacred Tradition is false teaching, and wants Catholics to use the Bible to question and confront the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church, because they have strayed from Biblical Truth.

And well they should question. The scriptures warn of false teachers in the church who will decieve many. That is why you should hold your church accountable to what the scriptures teach. When you study the marian doctrines in light of the scriptures you will find that the support is not there. What you must do is be on guard against false teachers in your own church.

The scriptures do warn of false teachers in the church itself. There was no promise given by Christ that this would not happen.
Thats the issue. There are no biblical roots for these marian doctrines. Why do you believe such a thing if the scriptures never teach such a thing?

(talking about Sacred Tradition) might get someone who reads these posts to rethink their position.

"guanophore:

But you have already made it clear that you consider these “speculations of men” and false teachng that has crept into the Church, so why keep bringing it up?

i want to help others see it to.

ja4 believes all the Catholic Traditions he cannot find in his bible are “false gospel”.

If what you say is true, then this would be a false gospel since Paul was totally unaware of the many doctrines in the catholic church. See Galatians 1:8-9. He never taught anything about the marian doctrines for example. That was never a requirement of the gospel he taught.

 

[justasking4]

De Maria;3133205]

You still haven’t answered my question.

Is this the question–“Now its your turn. Provide the Scripture which says that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for doctrine.”?
I thought i had elewhere. Any way i can approach it by saying that Scripture is the only foundation for all doctrine and practices. It alone is inspried-inerrant. Only those doctrines and practices that are gounded in them are binding on Christians. There are many passages of Scripture that point to its authority and power that could be used to support my claim. Psalm 119 would be just one example of what the Scriptures are capable of. We grow in respect to salvation by the Word. See I Peter 2:2. These are just some claims of Scripture.

To answer yours:

Our entire Faith is a Tradition.-
The Mass
The Eucharist
Keeping the Doctrines of the Church.
Caring for our own and our neighbors.

Just one more thing. Your question belies the fact that you make a false dichotomy between the Scriptures and Tradition. One which does not exist in Scripture, which teaches that we should keep both because both are the Word of God. The Catholic Church teaches this doctrine.

And that is why it is unnecessary for you to open a Bible to get Bible teaching. The Church teaches the Word of God in her Traditions because Tradtion is the Word of God.
In fact, even the Bible is a Tradition. The Church passes it down from generation to generation.

Are you claiming your Traditions are in fact inspired-inerrant?

Are the marian doctrines, indulgences and scapluars Tradiitions?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

Is this the question–“Now its your turn. Provide the Scripture which says that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for doctrine.”?
I thought i had elewhere.

You did not. You provided scripture that demonstrates the value of scripture, and how important it is in the Christian life.

Any way i can approach it by saying that Scripture is the only foundation for all doctrine and practices. It alone is inspried-inerrant. Only those doctrines and practices that are gounded in them are binding on Christians. There are many passages of Scripture that point to its authority and power that could be used to support my claim. Psalm 119 would be just one example of what the Scriptures are capable of. We grow in respect to salvation by the Word. See I Peter 2:2. These are just some claims of Scripture.

Are you claiming your Traditions are in fact inspired-inerrant?

You know well this is the Catholic claim. Why are you asking this question, ja4? It has been answered for you repeatedly. What is your goal?

Are the marian doctrines, indulgences and scapluars Tradiitions?

You are trolling, ja4, and looking for Catholics that have not been well catechized. This is not the purpose of the forum. The forum is here to answer honest inquiries about the Catholic faith, not a venue for you to evangelize. If you want to evangelize Catholics, I suggest some other environment.

 

[De_Maria]

Is this the question–“Now its your turn. Provide the Scripture which says that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for doctrine.”?

Yes.

I thought i had elewhere.

I have also answered your questions about Tradition before JK4. Yet I don’t shirk from answering them again. You don’t remember our previous conversations? I’m sure you wanted to forget them real quick.

Any way i can approach it by saying that Scripture is the only foundation for all doctrine and practices.

You could, but that wouldn’t be an answer to my question would it? Or are YOUR words the equivalent of Scripture?

It alone is inspried-inerrant.

Provide the Scripture that says so and I’ll believe it.

Only those doctrines and practices that are gounded in them are binding on Christians. There are many passages of Scripture that point to its authority and power that could be used to support my claim. Psalm 119 would be just one example of what the Scriptures are capable of.

Show me. I’ve read it before. I see no mention of Scripture ALONE in that Scripture.

We grow in respect to salvation by the Word. See I Peter 2:2. These are just some claims of Scripture.

I know that one also. I see no mention of Scripture alone. So post it and explain your understanding. Otherwise I’m forced to believe that you consider your words equivalent of Scripture.

Are you claiming your Traditions are in fact inspired-inerrant?

No. The Traditions of God are infallible truth.

Are the marian doctrines, indulgences and scapluars Tradiitions?

The Marian Doctrines are infallible truth.

The Doctrine of Indulgences is infallible truth.

The scapulars are bits of cloth which bring about God’s grace and their efficacy is supported by Tradition and Scripture. But we are not required to participate in their message. Much like the blessed or healing handkerchiefs which are sold by Evangelicals.

As far as I know, scapulars themselves have not been declared doctrinal truths. But I may be wrong. However, the idea upon which they stand, that God works grace through material objects, is both Scriptural and Traditional truth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[justasking4]

De Maria;3133317]

Quote:justasking4
It alone is inspried-inerrant.
De Maria
Provide the Scripture that says so and I’ll believe it.

No need to give you a verse since none exist. However my case is made from the nature of the Scriptures themselves which alone are inspired-inerrant.
Does not your church believe them to be inspired-inerrant?