since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[benhur]

The problem is that there is no way of knowing for sure that these extra-scriptural “Sacred Traditions” were actually “commanded” by Christ & His disciples

As this problem became evident early on ,Barnabus wrote**,“It is well, that he who is learned of the judgements of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them”.** #21

 

[PRmerger]

Yes you want a definite authoritative mechanism and preferably visible I presume, like a pope ,or a council even a " magisterium. As you know P’s don,t have a pope. Many do have a magisterium, or teaching hierarchy or list of “confessions”. Some churches have bishops and of course pastors who have teaching authority for the congregation

So which is it, ben? Anyone has the authority to profess his definition of SS, or we Catholics have to believe in one particular individual’s (or denomination’s) definition?

Either/or is the case here. There can be no both/and.

Please choose which one (red or blue) we Catholics need to do in order to define SS correctly.

 

[benhur]

God [the Holy Spirit] can and does guide us in helping us understand the Word.

Amen. John says we have an unction from the Holy One to know all things, little children (not just for bishop/presbyter).

The problem is that we often don’t understand what He’s trying to tell us. Peter warns us about this very thing.

Amen. They distort scripture to their own destruction

So, knowing that you and I are both fallible interpreters of the Word, you and I can’t know for sure if we are actually understanding the Word correctly, and can even misunderstand the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

No amen here. It totally contradicts what John says. It is not either or but both/and. Of course we can know and of course we can distort. Of course we can have the unction as sure as some do not, for the wheat and tares are in the same pew.
If you are a tare you don’t say well I can’t trust myself and defer discernment to the magisterium. The real problem is you are a “tare”.

If you are wheat, your unction is confirmed by your actions and your fellow brothers even presbyters.The real need is to grow in the unction, make sure of your calling, not deferring your responsibility of unction to another.

Now, since you have no way of knowing with infallible assurance whether you are right,

In my opinion you just slammed the role of the HS in our lives. Too many people gave their lives to the lions before any established papal office or councils or even full scripture. I am not sure about infallible but to the death assurance is even better.

you can’t very well authoritatively define anything, can you?

Does not the Truth carry it’s own authority ?

The healed blind man spoke quite authoritatively before the Sanhedrin/elders. Not because he had an office or part of a magisterium but because he had first hand knowledge/experience, even unction from the Holy One, even Jesus…Was his testimony “authoritative” ? I would say so but the Jewish leaders did not think so.

The authority you seek is in the eyes of the beholder.

Sure, we can address those off-topic questions in another thread where they will be on-topic.

It is not off topic. CC history shows vascillation/debate between papal, counciiar ,scriptural authority.

 

[PRmerger]

Agreed. Yet, you’re not saying “traditions of men may be true” – you’re making the opposite unfounded assertion: “traditions of men are bad”. By your own logic, you cannot in good faith make the claim you’re making.

Precisely. And, I’ve shown examples of Scriptural evidence that show that Jesus accepted various traditions of men – the two easiest examples to demonstrate, of course, being that Jesus accepted the tradition to have a wedding ceremony and party (which He attended) and the tradition of having synagogue services on the Sabbath. Neither are commanded by Scripture, and Jesus participated in both. Now… neither of these traditions “nullify the word of God”, which is what Jesus was railing about, and so this is the reason He participated in them. But, if you want to make the assertion that you do – against all ‘traditions of men’ – you cannot make that claim, given the witness of Scripture. In other words, Sola Scriptura itself refutes Sola Scriptura…

Hmm… that seems to be a departure from your earlier assertion – that is, it seemed to me that you were saying that the traditions of men were to be eschewed because they were non-Scriptural. Now, you seem to be backing away from that statement and saying that ‘traditions of men’ are ok unless they’re held at the level of ‘inspired Scripture’. Did I, perhaps, misunderstand you originally?

In any case, I think I need to point you again to Matthew 28: Jesus commanded the apostles to “teach them to observe all I commanded you.” There’s no assertion anywhere that “all I commanded you” is written down, in its entirety, in the Gospels. In fact, in the Gospel of John, he twice notes that Jesus said and did much more than what was recorded in Scripture. In other words, a logical conclusion follows: if Jesus did and said more than what was recorded, and Jesus commanded the apostles to teach all he said, then the belief that Christians may only teach what was recorded necessarily disobeys the command of Christ.

No, that’s not at all what is going on. Please find a citation for me, from the Gospels, in which the Pharisees make the assertion that their traditions “were no different than inspired Scripture”. (It just isn’t in there.)

Rather, the Pharisees were saying that their traditions were binding, just as any authority says their rules are binding. Jesus, in fact, affirms this in Matthew chapter 23: “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you.” Jesus’ problem isn’t with their authority, but with the ways that they broke the Commandments that they were supposed to uphold. Jesus’ apostles broke tradition – but the Pharisees transgressed the Fourth Commandment, and Jesus held them to account for that transgression!

This isn’t a proof of SS – it’s a call to accountability for religious leaders!

You’re missing the point there… do you recognize this? You wanted to say, I think, that Jesus didn’t command them ‘we should do it’ … but that’s precisely what he did command (again, Mt 23:2). The rebuke doesn’t address the question of hand-washing…

Ouch. No, you really need to re-read Mt 15. Hand-washing is abandoned, immediately, as an item of concern. In its place, Jesus picks one tradition – a tradition that is problematic – and rails against it. You’ve extrapolated to include all traditions, and that’s a glaring logical error – especially when Jesus participates in Jewish traditions and affirms the Pharisees’ authority to direct the actions of Jews. I’m sorry, but your assertions fail, massively… :sad_yes:

I see. So, you trust that, although Jesus didn’t say “write a book”, his apostles are trustworthy in writing down some things He said; meantime, even though He did say “teach all the things I taught”, his apostles aren’t trustworthy in teaching them? Jesus’ protection extended to what He didn’t say, but doesn’t extend to what He did command? Wow.

 

[benhur]

So which is it, ben? Anyone has the authority to profess his definition of SS, or we Catholics have to believe in one particular individual’s (or denomination’s) definition?

Either/or is the case here. There can be no both/and.

Please choose which one (red or blue) we Catholics need to do in order to define SS correctly.

First of all, what does CC teach about SS ? Does it define it ? If so I would think you can critique it, as the church has done. They probably critiqued Wycliffe’s proposition and then Luther’s and then Westminster’s and on down the line.

I would say the red is preferrable, that way one can critique all views validly, and not leave critiquing of anyone’s view out.

It is not the first time in church history you have a moving target to critique.

Have not studied Luther’s view and Wycliff’s .Not sure if there is much variation in that target.

Sorry, it is not as concise as you like , and just critiquing "bible alone’’ is fruitless without some defining.

 

[PRmerger]

First of all, what does CC teach about SS ?

The Church doesn’t have a teaching on SS. It’s not our ball game. It’s yours.

I would say the red is preferrable, that way one can critique all views validly, and not leave critiquing of anyone’s view out.

Fair enough.

That means that taz can’t say that his definition of SS is the correct one.

Each and every person here can define SS as he wishes, and it can be held up to scrutiny just like anyone else’s.

Sorry, it is not as concise as you like , and just critiquing "bible alone’’ is fruitless without some defining.

Egg-zactly.

You have your own definition, which differs from JonNC’s, which differs from taz’s. which differs from 1beleevr’s, which differs from Attejohannes, which differs from…

that’s the rotten fruit of the Prot Reformation.

No one has the authority to define it.

 

[TimothyH]

Animated gifs. How 1999, not to mention annoying. I remember them from back in the IE5 days. LoLoLoLoLoLoL.
-Tim-

 

[benhur]

The Church doesn’t have a teaching on SS. It’s not our ball game. It’s yours.

Fair enough.

That means that taz can’t say that his definition of SS is the correct one.

Each and every person here can define SS as he wishes, and it can be held up to scrutiny just like anyone else’s.

Egg-zactly.

You have your own definition, which differs from JonNC’s, which differs from taz’s. which differs from 1beleevr’s, which differs from Attejohannes, which differs from…

that’s the rotten fruit of the Prot Reformation.

No one has the authority to define it.

Rather we all have the authority to define it. One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure.

Yes, it is a shame we have differences, even a bad fruit.

The CC has not defined everything either (which means there are differing opinions out there).

In fact she struggled over this issue also or similar issue.(role of councils and pope and scripture and tradition)

 

[benhur]

That means that taz can’t say that his definition of SS is the correct one.

Yes, he can and probably has.But not from a paradigm of infallibility, which is your ball game. He does not say he has the wrong one.

t

 

[ShanPO]

Rather we all have the authority to define it. One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure.

Yes, it is a shame we have differences, even a bad fruit.

The CC has not defined everything either (which means there are differing opinions out there).

In fact she struggled over this issue also or similar issue.(role of councils and pope and scripture and tradition)

Herein lies the problem. What if by my definition of SS I come to one conclusion and you come to another, who’s right?

Or what if my definition of SS completely contradicts your definition?

If you say 2+2=5 and I say 2+2=22, by what you said above, we’re both right. Do you see how that position has to fail?

The Catholic Church has not defined everything, but we have a source we can go to to see everything we have defined, where is the non-Catholic source that contains this information?

 

[Abu]

1. How can anyone, claiming to follow Christ, dispute with Him about His Church? As He did not write anything, all of the N.T. is from His Church, defined by Her alone, and feelings otherwise cannot change that reality.
2. He absolutely and finally shows us whom to believe, and who to trust in knowing what to believe in faith and in morals – the Church which Jesus declared solemnly to be “My Church” (Mt 16:18).

**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

All usurpers of that authority should look hard and long at themselves and start rejecting the falsehoods.

 

[benhur]

Herein lies the problem. What if by my definition of SS I come to one conclusion and you come to another, who’s right?

Or what if my definition of SS completely contradicts your definition?

If you say 2+2=5 and I say 2+2=22, by what you said above, we’re both right. Do you see how that position has to fail?

The Catholic Church has not defined everything, but we have a source we can go to to see everything we have defined, where is the non-Catholic source that contains this information?

No problem .we just do not all believe the same about SS .is there a big problem with undefined items in CC? What u want me to see CC as lacking in this problem? Icould just as easily be lutheran or anglican or a few others where they have a unified code of doctrine/definitions. Is that my goal to have a unified code of doctrine?

 

[benhur]

1. How can anyone, claiming to follow Christ, dispute with Him about His Church? As He did not write anything, all of the N.T. is from His Church, defined by Her alone, and feelings otherwise cannot change that reality.
2. He absolutely and finally shows us whom to believe, and who to trust in knowing what to believe in faith and in morals – the Church which Jesus declared solemnly to be “My Church” (Mt 16:18).

**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

All usurpers of that authority should look hard and long at themselves and start rejecting the falsehoods.

Peter is cool but some have said, “who are you?” Apostolic is as apostolic does.As surely as you think we have 30000 denominations, some think you have some errors in doctrine and practice which are respectfully discussed here.

 

[Cathoholic]

Could the Prophets of God give inspired oral testimony?

Could Elijah or St. John the Baptist give inspired oral Testimony?

How about these prophets St. Matthew wrote about (in MT. 2:23)?

MATTHEW 2:23 23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

Keeping the above verse in mind . . .

WHERE in the Old Testament was Jesus written of in the sense that “He shall be called a Nazarene”?

NOWHERE.

So which answer is correct below . . . .

• (1) St. Matthew is appealing to prophets of God who gave authoritative inspired oral testimony. St. Matthew really means what he says–that this is a “fulfillment” that was “spoken” by “the prophets” and I (St. Matthew) am appealing to these “spoken” prophecies as one way to show Jesus is the Messiah.
• (2) Its all in the Old Testament.

(But then where’s not only the verse, but WHERE are the verses from MULTIPLE prophets as St. Matthew doesn’t say “prophet” but rather he says “prophetS”).

• (3) St. Matthew is merely appealing to them like a history lesson but not really inspired teaching! (Why? Where is THAT in Scripture?)
• (4) St. Matthew appealing to them was ONLY inspired . . . later (like when Matthew wrote it down). Once it got written down THEN it BECAME inspired!
• (5) Well you have to look through the Old Testament like a “puzzle”. You pull out the word “Netzer” or “branch” from Isaiah, “he” from just about any prophet, and you can find the word “called” from many prophets of the Old Testament. Yep. There it is “clearly taught” or “perspicuous” in Old Testament Scripture alright.

The sola Scriptura person is going to HAVE to say ANYTHING but number 1 above so they can cling to their tradition of men.

But many sola Scriptura people have just been open enough to say: “I don’t know. Certainly St. Matthew WAS appealing to some sort of Oral Tradition here, and I am going to have to pray about and re-evaluate my sola Scriptura paradigm when I consider this honestly. I at least can’t say it was ‘clearly stated’ anywhere among any prophet in the Old Testament much less prophets (plural)”.

If they assert the truth, if they assert number 1 above, . . . . they will be affirming a truth that is diametrically or completely opposed to their invention of sola Scriptura.

The deniers of course will NOT have a verse to back up their denial (newly invented traditions of men invented to support other older fabricated traditions of men).

**Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God. **

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord. You stated in post 96 (parenthetical addition mine) . . .

(Sola Scriptura is) Biblical-based, which I provided the verses from Scripture to back that up, plus a Scriptural definition of sola scriptura which most people who don’t believe in it don’t quite understand.

You said you defined sola Scriptura in your post 50 (your first post on this thread if I am not mistaken).

. . . . (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; Acts 17:10-11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19). This is why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees in Matthew Ch.15 for their “precepts the doctrines of men” because not only were they contradicting Scripture, they were also ADDING TO Scripture (“precepts the doctrines of MEN”). This is why when Jesus corrected their “man-made traditions,” he used Scripture to correct them (‘As it is written…’ (Matthew 26:24; Mark 7:6; 9:13; 14:21; etc) & ‘Have you not read?’ (Matthew 12:3,5; 19:4; 22:41; Mark 12:10,26; Luke 63; etc). . . . .

(WHAT is “Luke 63” that you are quoting?–bold in your quote above mine)

Just citing a bunch of verses and saying they support and define sola Scriptura isn’t going to be good enough without stating the verses, then unpacking the verses, and then showing me HOW you some to your conclusions.

Someone else could use the same (ipse dixit) methods and say the following . . . (I am obviously using hyperbole in the immediate quote example below) . . . .

Well Scripture appeals to oral AND Written testimony (Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:2, Genesis 1:3, Joshua 1:1, Isaiah 1:1 etc.).

Just citing verses and pretending they assert your position is not going to be persuasive for me.

You need to give the verse AND reasons WHY you think it teaches sola Scriptura as you and I both know it is not EXPLICITLY there and I know its not IMPLICITY there either.

 

[Church_Militant]

Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

This fails because in its context it is specifically speaking of the laws Mosaic law and has no application elsewhere. Furthermore, if applied as you suggest it disqualifies the New Testament.

Deuteronomy; 12:32 Everything that I command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take from it.

Again, same problem as above.

Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Again…this disqualifies the New Testament.

Ecclesiastes 3:14 I know that whatever God does endures for ever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it; God has made it so, in order that men should fear before him.

This is not even talking about scripture.

Isaiah 30:1

“Woe to the rebellious children,” says the LORD,
"who carry out a plan, but not mine;
and who make a league, but not of my spirit,
that they may add sin to sin;

Here again we see a verse ripped from context that has nothing at all to do with scripture.

Jeremiah 26:2 "Thus says the LORD: Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah which come to worship in the house of the LORD all the words that I command you to speak to them; do not hold back a word.

Here again…this does not talk about scripture…

Acts 17:10-11 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroe’a; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni’ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

A common citation from SS adherents, but the context is very clear that this was only in regard to checking to see if what Paul said about Jesus being the Messiah was accurate and nothing more.

1 Corinthians 4:6 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.

This has nothing at all to do with this topic.

Revelation 22:18-19 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

The problem here is that in context this refers to the book of Revelation, but nowhere else.

I think we can all see what has been done here. These passage references apparently are set out here as supposedly supporting Sola Scriptura, but in looking at them and their context, it’s very clear that they do not in any way assign any final and ultimate authority to the Bible. It’s simply not there…

Neither do these passages tell us that scripture is self interpreting (the statement having often been put forth that “scripture interprets scripture”) even in just a practical sense it is a fallacious concept because it is proved wrong by the fact that there are so many different interpretations of scripture throughout the n-C communities. This would not be the case if this were true doctrine. The manifest result has been that there is wide diversity of both interpretations and doctrines throughout all the various n-C communities and that has resulted in both division and confusion.

But what does scripture itself say about confusion?
1st Corinthians 14: 33 says, " For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,"

 

[benhur]

]Could the Prophets of God give inspired oral testimony?

Could Elijah or St. John the Baptist give inspired oral Testimony?

of course.it happens even today.

How about these prophets St. Matthew wrote about (in MT. 2:23)?
MATTHEW 2:23 23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
Keeping the above verse in mind . . .
WHERE in the Old Testament was Jesus written of in the sense that “He shall be called a Nazarene”?
NOWHERE.

NOWHERE ? Actually it is SOMEWHERE. Nazareth can mean not just “watcher” but “branch” (netzer) as in Isaiah 11:1 “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit”. The Talmud suggests this connection of a Messiah from Nazareth.

The prophets Matthew speaks of had a scriptural basis for their inspired oral pronouncements.

hebrew4christians.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=2932

 

[benhur]

Just a thought, but we all agree that God put things in Writing and they are authoritative, so much so that I am not sure that CC has one important doctrine to believed that is not explained from a scriptural basis,(not withstanding the use of Tradition also).

Why I would even say that it is CC Tradition to have a scriptural basis for doctrine.

 

[thetazlord]

Who speaks with authority for the definition of SS?

Moses, King Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Luke, Paul, John, & most importantly, our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ

And what is the definition again of SS?

In the simplest terms: all traditions, doctrines, dogmas, rituals, or interpretations cannot ‘exceed,’ ‘add or take away from,’ nor contradict Scripture, which is supported from the beginning of the Bible all the way through to the last page of it (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; Acts 17:10-11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19).

And where is this definition found in the Bible?

Just as the definition of the concept of the Trinity is not found in the Bible (let alone the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, but the concept is), the concept of the sola scriptura is found throughout the Bible from the Torah to the last page of Scripture. It this doesn’t satisfy you, then please show me both the WORD “Trinity” in the Bible, as well as its definition.

 

[thetazlord]

Taz, since PR and I are basically asking the same thing, I won’t bother repeating this, but I will add one slice to that last question.

Since you said it in your post to me, I need you to give me the exact scripture that has YOUR definition of SS. Otherwise, if you can’t, then you’re adding something to the Bible, thereby falling outside YOUR very definition of SS.

So, as not to repeat myself, see my reply to his post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12707790&postcount=105