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

[Gorgias]

“Holy Writ is of the highest quality or degree”, per Augustine (well he wrote “superlative”).

Funny you bring up Augustine – he was the source of the quote that PR and I paraphrased to you: “to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel.”

 

[benhur]

You HAD to do this as the sola Scriptura tradition is . . . a tradition of men that makes void the commandments of God.

"Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that revived the commandments of God that were voided by tradition.

Reminds me of my daughter’s carpet hallway runner. A corner of the carpet keeps staying up becoming a trip hazard . To fix it I bend it the other way and stand on it for a minute, then lay it out level. Sticking up is not the normal, safe position, nor is it when I bend it totally the other way and stand on it…

I propose the carpet sticking up is man made(inadvertently hitting up with your foot while walking), as is my purposeful bending to fix it . Both ways are “man made”. Level on the floor is the manufacturer’s intent.

Get the picture ?

SS had to be over stressed in order to combat over stressing “Tradition”. Both over stressings are not natural intent.

I am not saying SS is bad nor is tradition, just a balance problem.

Stressing SS ,even over stressing it ,would not have had to occur if there was not a “tripping hazard’’ of eternal consequences that needed fixing.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12714374&postcount=193

 

[benhur]

Funny you bring up Augustine – he was the source of the quote that PR and I paraphrased to you: “to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel.”

Cool. He would know that what I believe, what you believe, apart from our differences, is the gospel and nothing to do with what "pleased us’’, not in our fallen unbelieving state .

Thank you for adding the proper context of the quote.

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t think any n-Cs really want to appeal to the writings of St. Augustine in this debate since we know he made the following statements.

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
— St. Augustine of Hippo, Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

“All heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if anyone asks them where is the Catholic place of worship none would venture to point out his own." —St. Augustine of Hippo

 

[mlz]

You know as well as I do that the one (scripture) is a witness to us of the other (Jesus Christ) Jesus says as much, but I don’t remember where at this time. It seems sinister that you would seek an answer otherwise.

It’s not complicated, once A&E lost the life that God gave them, all that is to be done is the restoration of that same life, according to God’s satisfaction. So Jesus fulfilled and is the fulfillment of scripture, and that which is contrary to scripture has no real business in the church of any denomination, unless it’s to lead away from Christ, or distract from the Christian’s fulfillment in Christ.

And who decided what scripture was “valid” and when? My dear brother/sister in Christ…I know that knowing Jesus is important and scripture is important but you must look into the historical record prior when scripture was accepted in the Christian Church. Who was it? When was it? How do you know? It is simple to say to follow Jesus but unless you look historically how HE set up HIS Church you will be resting on your own understanding and not of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as HE gave authority to whom… you MUST start reading and listening to the early Church “Fathers” of the Christian faith and then you will begin to see how perfectly knit together is His One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…the ONE Church HE founded. (the bottom line is authority! Our Lord would lead us with authority and solid direction…not thousands of “denominations” or even “non denominations” !!!) My love and prayers that you be humble enough to at least research and study the early church and its fathers first.

My love in Christ,
mlz
(a Catholic convert but one who was once where you are)

 

[Gorgias]

Cool. He would know that what I believe, what you believe, apart from our differences, is the gospel and nothing to do with what "pleased us’’, not in our fallen unbelieving state .

LOL! That’s precisely not what he’s saying! In particular, he’s asserting that, when there are differences, it’s not the case that everything asserted “is the gospel”!

Thank you for adding the proper context of the quote.

Au contraire: the proper context of the quote is that Augustine was rebuking a heretic. That’s what makes it particularly poignant in the context of our discussion. :sad_yes:

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur. You said (here):

I propose the carpet sticking up is man made(inadvertently hitting up with your foot while walking), as is my purposeful bending to fix it . Both ways are “man made”. Level on the floor is the manufacturer’s intent.

Get the picture ?

SS had to be over stressed in order to combat over stressing “Tradition”. Both over stressings are not natural intent.

Yes I get the picture and I have heard that type of reasoning before. And to be fair, there is an element (not “completely” but an “element”) of truth to it that Catholics would affirm.

Your personal theory posits a main purpose of Scripture is to keep oral tradition from falling off the proverbial cliff as oral tradition cannot really be trusted because it involves men.

Likewise I’ve heard unbelievers (such as Atheists) say the same about the Bible (Written Tradition): They will say, written tradition cannot really be trusted because it involves men (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.).

But admittedly there is an element of truth to what you say at least in the transmission of doctrine.

That element is the interdependence upon Oral and Written Tradition, along with proper God-protected, authoritative interpretation!

We NEED all three aspects:

• Sacred (Oral) Tradition
• Sacred Scripture (Written Tradition)
• Magisterium (“The living teaching office of the Church”)

The Church puts it this way (bold and ul mine) . . . .

VATICAN II (Dei Verbum section 10b) . . . . It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

For extended quote see here or below.

---

VATICAN II (Dei Verbum sections 9-10) 9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

 

[zz912]

*Originally Posted by thetazlord
“All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16)

“…our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters (epistles), speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Peter refers to ALL of Paul’s writings as “epistles” (not tracts), as well as Scripture. Paul states that all Scripture is Inspired (God-breathed).*

What makes something a tract?

Also, I see nothing in those verses where “tracts” are not Scripture. Clearly, SOME epistles are Scripture. But it says nothing about “tracts”. It also says nothing about gospels, so are gospels not Scripture?

 

[zz912]

Originally Posted by zz912
Matthew 23:1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger
Give me the OT Scripture passage detailing the chair of Moses and that the scribes and Pharisees hold this authority.

Hey, I submit to the pope , when he speaks or even does “the Truth”.

Could you point out where Jesus told you to listen to the scribes and pharisees only some of the time? Or only when you believe they are speaking “the Truth”? He didn’t give any instruction that I’m aware of, other than to listen to them and obey what they say. Are you aware of another instruction He left?

And are you able to provide an OT passage that empowers with authority the scribes and pharisees and details that those in the seat of Moses have authority?

 

[PRmerger]

Also, I see nothing in those verses where “tracts” are not Scripture. Clearly, SOME epistles are Scripture. But it says nothing about “tracts”. It also says nothing about gospels, so are gospels not Scripture?

Indeed.

It is a weird amalgamation of criteria, applied arbitrarily to some texts by taz, but not others.

For example, “It must be written by an apostle or one of their disciples” applies to the Gospel of Mark, but, weirdly, it eliminates Clement. And somehow includes Hebrews, whose authorship is never declared.

“It must not contain errors” applies to Clement (still waiting for what these historical errors are) but not to the Gospel of Mark.

“It can’t contain fanciful events” applies to Clement, but weirdly doesn’t apply to Acts, and the Gospels.

“It has to be an epistle” doesn’t apply to the Gospels, but does apply to Barnabas.

What it comes down to is that taz already accepted, from the hands of the Catholic Church, the 27 book canon of the NT. And then he post hoc applies his criteria to what he already received as the inspired books.

 

[zz912]

Which incidentally relies on Writ.
I only deny CC Tradition and some of her traditions and accept many of them as well as others.No, just your magisterium,and not others.

A magisterium is only possible and relies on Writ,again.

The magisterium predates the Writ of the New Testament by several decades.

Your claim is false.

 

[zz912]

"Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that revived the commandments of God that were voided by tradition.

Reminds me of my daughter’s carpet hallway runner. A corner of the carpet keeps staying up becoming a trip hazard . To fix it I bend it the other way and stand on it for a minute, then lay it out level. Sticking up is not the normal, safe position, nor is it when I bend it totally the other way and stand on it…

I propose the carpet sticking up is man made(inadvertently hitting up with your foot while walking), as is my purposeful bending to fix it . Both ways are “man made”. Level on the floor is the manufacturer’s intent.

Get the picture ?

SS had to be over stressed in order to combat over stressing “Tradition”. Both over stressings are not natural intent.

I am not saying SS is bad nor is tradition, just a balance problem.

Stressing SS ,even over stressing it ,would not have had to occur if there was not a “tripping hazard’’ of eternal consequences that needed fixing.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12714374&postcount=193

Please show where the “carpet” had come up. Show the doctrines of the Church that changed since the time of the Apostles.

 

[PRmerger]

Interestingly, I just saw on Facebook that there’s another ancient Christian text that’s been discovered.

livescience.com/49673-newfound-ancient-gospel-deciphered.html

The Gospel of the lots of Mary.
**
Taz: ** you are going to have to read this, study it, and discern whether it is really, truly theopneustos, aren’t you?

And, you are going to have to take no one else’s word/scholarship/research on the subject but come to a discernment, on your own, whether it is the inspired Word of God.

Are you willing to, after your personal study, come back here and tell us whether you,* of your own authority,* are going to declare it to be theopneustos or not?

 

[benhur]

I don’t think any n-Cs really want to appeal to the writings of St. Augustine in this debate since we know he made the following statements.

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
— St. Augustine of Hippo, Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

“All heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if anyone asks them where is the Catholic place of worship none would venture to point out his own." —St. Augustine of Hippo

No problemo. Neither of us want to be cafeteria style readers. Many of his writings are quite universal.

 

[benhur]

The magisterium predates the Writ of the New Testament by several decades.

Your claim is false.

The claim is not false , but thank you for adding further clarification.

The claim is true today, and has been for quite some time.

 

[benhur]

Please show where the “carpet” had come up. Show the doctrines of the Church that changed since the time of the Apostles.

You want to defend what was going on then under the “practice” only problem, that bad fruit is not indicative of poor doctrine, go right ahead.

Ignatius of Loyola, and others, had nothing to reform ?

Maybe your doctrine was OK, but the practice, where the rubber meets the road (the foot hitting the carpet corner) is another story. It was not good. People were tripping, regardless of declaring sound doctrine.

 

[benhur]

Could you point out where Jesus told you to listen to the scribes and pharisees only some of the time? Or only when you believe they are speaking “the Truth”? He didn’t give any instruction that I’m aware of, other than to listen to them and obey what they say. Are you aware of another instruction He left?

And are you able to provide an OT passage that empowers with authority the scribes and pharisees and details that those in the seat of Moses have authority?

My point is and I think the Lord’s point is, that in the OT the “Law” was authoritative.

Those given to studying and expounding on it (The Law-Holy Writ ) had authority to copy, read and declare the Law/Writ. The Sadducees, nor the Sanhedrin, nor the Levis/priests are not mentioned here by the Lord. The Scribes and Pharisees in essence could almost speak ex cathedra.

It was conditional, for obviously some of their traditions, even doctrine, were in error. Mat.16:6,12
“Then understood they how that he bade them not** beware** of the leaven of bread, but **of the doctrine of the Pharisees **and of the Sadducees.”

That is the other instruction you asked about.

I see no problem in having a supreme authority of our “new” Law/covenant, and it’s teachers and expounders, nor in Him keeping His promise for these green pastures. But also to be aware of false teaching/doctrine or practices from any expounder in that pasture.

The good is mixed in with the bad, like in Jesus’ time. Those in the Chair can give both good and bad.

 

[benhur]

LOL! That’s precisely not what he’s saying! In particular, he’s asserting that, when there are differences, it’s not the case that everything asserted “is the gospel”!

Au contraire: the proper context of the quote is that Augustine was rebuking a heretic. That’s what makes it particularly poignant in the context of our discussion. :sad_yes:

I guess I would have to read entire paragraph of Augustine. He was good at differentiating differences, allowable differences, and those that were not , and the "not’ usually pertaining to the gospel.

 

[benhur]

LOL! That’s precisely not what he’s saying! In particular, he’s asserting that, when there are differences, it’s not the case that everything asserted “is the gospel”!

Au contraire: the proper context of the quote is that Augustine was rebuking a heretic. That’s what makes it particularly poignant in the context of our discussion. :sad_yes:

books.google.com/books?id=LnW3iXtxMy4C&pg=PA409&lpg=PA409&dq=%22to+believe+what+you+please,+and+not+to+believe+what+you+please,+is+to+believe+yourselves,+and+not+the+gospel.%22&source=bl&ots=kTAF906YHD&sig=_MW6D4ADyZevK1lnOyOAg-azu14&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YHzSVLGeMsylyAT22IKwCw&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22to%20believe%20what%20you%20please%2C%20and%20not%20to%20believe%20what%20you%20please%2C%20is%20to%20believe%20yourselves%2C%20and%20not%20the%20gospel.%22&f=false

I found the paragraph. He was writing against Faustus ( a Manichaen), who believed not the gospel writing of Matthew, nor the incarnation and much more. The sentence before yours is , “You ought to plainly say that you do not believe the gospel of Christ”, **to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel." **

Augustine was also a Manichaen before converting to his mother’s faith, Christianity.

So I think his context is that when one does not believe the oral or written gospel, you will have your fanciful, personal belief’s.

Hence don’t think it applies to us.

 

[zz912]

You want to defend what was going on then under the “practice” only problem, that bad fruit is not indicative of poor doctrine, go right ahead.

Ignatius of Loyola, and others, had nothing to reform ?

Maybe your doctrine was OK, but the practice, where the rubber meets the road (the foot hitting the carpet corner) is another story. It was not good. People were tripping, regardless of declaring sound doctrine.

So why was doctrine changed?