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

[thetazlord]

I have posted this before but it is worth re-stating here as it is appropriate to the discussion.

It is not a verse citation so much as an appeal to common sense.

If God intended us to follow sola Scriptura, you’d expect the Old Testament Church to follow sola Scriptura too.

The Old Testament Church did NOT affirm sola Scriptura though. Nor could they affirm that. Why?

Because the ancient Hebrew language was a “consonantal language” (it was all consonants). You NEEDED oral tradition to pass it on accurately from person to person then. Why?

Well think of an English analogy (of course the analogy is not inspired but I’m using the correlation merely to illustrate a point).

I’ll give you one word: “mn”. This is an English word with no vowels. But what word is it?

Is it “man”? Is it “men”? Is it “amen”? Is it “many”? Is it “money”? Is it “omen”?

You don’t know do you?

You don’t know unless you have an oral interpretation to tell you what word it is.

If this were impossible with one uninspired word, how much more would you NEED oral tradition to be protected in the inspired Old Testament ancient Hebrew Scriptures?

Wouldn’t God protect His teachings to us? Yes.

How do you KNOW oral Tradition is protected? The same way you KNOW written Tradition is protected—by the assurance of God. He will not leave us orphans.​

No offense, but that’s a really bad example. First, the believers in the OT weren’t the Church, but pre-Flood believers, the Patriachs, & Israel, not the “OT Church.” The Church began at Pentecost. Second, Hebrew being a “consonant language” has nothing to do with when the language was spoken or written that the Jews would have known what those “consonant words” meant, just as a Jew today can read a Hebrew character & be able to discern what it means. Third, if you study the OT, beginning with the Torah & going through Moses, King Solomon, & the Prophets, God reveals over & over & over again, not to “add to” nor “take away” from what God reveals in His Word, which both Paul & John reinforced in the NT. So, no offense, but your “example” is strawman.

 

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord.

God reveals over & over & over again, not to “add to” nor “take away” from what God reveals in His Word,

If you reduce “His Word” down to the printed page, you are taking away from “His Word” thetazlord.

So there was no sola Scriptura in “pre-flood believers”? When did sola Scriptura begin?

No offense, but that’s a really bad example. . . . no offense, but your “example” is strawman.

That’s fine. Then answer the question. HOW can you pass down Scripture using a language that has all consonants, WITHOUT some sort of authoritative Oral Tradition in harmony with the all-consonant writings?

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur.

You said in post 492,

Kind of like the Pahrisees declaring their interpretation correct, on all things, all the time . . .

One problem with this (there are others) is that the Catholic Church doesn’t CLAIM the Church is correct on “ALL THINGS all the time.”

The Church claims infallibility for the official teaching office (often just called “The Magisterium”) in areas of faith and morals under certain conditions.

The Church claims no infallibility in agronomy, mathematics, microbiology, etc.

“The Magisterium” incidentally, is the Pope, and the Bishops in union with the Pope (CCC 100).

 

[thetazlord]

thetazlord.

If you reduce “His Word” down to the printed page, you are taking away from “His Word” thetazlord.

That is based on your assumption that “His Word” also applies to extra-biblical “Sacred Tradtion” that has ZERO Scriptural basis being equally as God-breathed as Inspired Scripture, because the Catholic church “says so,” which is circular reasoning.

So there was no sola Scriptura in “pre-flood believers”? When did sola Scriptura begin?

Well, since sola Scriptura refers to God’s revelation being placed into written form, then that would have begun with Genesis 1:1 by Moses. But we can’t “assume” that there was any godly doctrines, dogmas, rituals, etc that God intended Israel or the Church to practice or believe in, prior to the written form that wasn’t eventually written down. If there was, then the burden of proof is on the non-believer in sola scriptura to prove this through Divine Revelation. Simply saying, “there is, which the Catholic church calls ‘Sacred Tradition,’” is just circular reasoning again.

That’s fine. Then answer the question. HOW can you pass down Scripture using a language that has all consonants, WITHOUT some sort of authoritative Oral Tradition in harmony with the all-consonant writings?

You’re making the mistake that the written Hebrew characters that were transliterated into English, were somehow “different” that their original intended meaning. It’s no different than when you translate Chinese characters into English. Whether verbally spoken or written down in Chinese characters, they are have the exact same meaning. When the Chinese characters are transliterated into English & vowels are added, anyone who speaks both Chinese & English will tell you that adding vowels doesn’t change the original meaning, but merely helps you pronounce it better. But the original meaning itself remains intact. So, again, your example is really a bad one - no offense.

 

[benhur]

benhur.

You said in post 492,

One problem with this (there are others) is that the Catholic Church doesn’t CLAIM the Church is correct on “ALL THINGS all the time.”

The Church claims infallibility for the official teaching office (often just called “The Magisterium”) in **areas of faith and morals under certain conditions.
**
The Church claims no infallibility in agronomy, mathematics, microbiology, etc.

“The Magisterium” incidentally, is the Pope, and the Bishops in union with the Pope (CCC 100).

Thank you .That was understood (boldened). The Pharisees did not claim to be mathematicians either. The context was all things pertaining to Law, Prophets etc -Writ per and in Judaism.

 

[PRmerger]

That is based on your assumption that “His Word” also applies to extra-biblical “Sacred Tradtion” that has ZERO Scriptural basis being equally as God-breathed as Inspired Scripture, because the Catholic church “says so,” which is circular reasoning.

No, taz. I don’t think you understand what circular reasoning is.

(Incidentally: you accept the 27 book canon of the NT “because the Church says so”, so it’s curious that you reserve for yourself what you prohibit in others. There is NO OTHER WAY for you to know that the Shepherd of Hermas is not theopneustos and the Epistle to the Hebrews is, except…“because the Church says so”.)

Circular reasoning starts with a premise and ends with premise.

So, here’s an example of circular reasoning: I believe that Jesus rose from the dead because it’s in the Bible. And I believe that the Bible is the Word of God because it talks about miraculous events, such as Jesus rising from the dead.

See?

It started with the premise that Jesus rose from the dead, and it ends with the premise that Jesus rose from the dead.

#circular.

Now, the CC teaching that Scripture is not the ONLY means of revelation is NOT circular because it comes from the mouths of the apostles.

#notcircular.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s just too bad that is not what I’ve been saying about how one discerns whether or not a piece of writing is Inspired or not.

Ok. Then please tell me how you know whether something is Inspired or not?

Remember, you don’t have the Bible to compare whether something is “correct” or not.

So let’s say you’re evaluating the Gospel of Mark. How do you know that the things in it are “correct”–where did you get the correct info from initially?

I think the best way for us to digest this is for you to answer the above in bold first.

Please don’t be vague with some abstract answer like: it came from God.

How is it, exactly, that God gave you the “correct” data, by which you can compare all of the over 400 ancient manuscripts?

 

[CatholicHockey7]

I’m sorry if this has already been covered, but can someone who believes the Bible is all we need please prove a couple things to me:

1.) Prove the Bible has all the correct books (none missing and none added that should not be)

2.) Prove the Bible is indeed all we need

I’m betting you can’t do it using Sola Scriptura. If you do, you’re using a logical fallacy known as “circular reasoning” or “begging the question.” If you use an outside source, then you prove the Bible is not all we need.

But please, prove me wrong.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Now, the CC teaching that Scripture is not the ONLY means of revelation is NOT circular because it comes from the mouths of the apostles.

#notcircular.

PR, you were right about the circular reasoning but you didn’t do enough on the non-circular.

The correct way to look at it is to look at Scripture as merely a historical document.

1.) The text we have is more than 99 percent accurate compared to the originals
2.) Outside historical sources confirm much of what is recorded in the Gospels, so we know they are historically accurate
3.) If they are historically accurate, then Christ was either God, crazy, or evil. We eliminate the crazy because of his followers. Why invent and keep alive a hoax that will result in your death if there is no benefit?

So we’re left with either God or evil, because if He wasn’t God then He was a liar and none of his teachings are worth anything.

4.) According to this historical record, Christ established a church
5.) The Church, which He said would be protected from teaching error, recognized the Holy Spirit in the 73 books we have as Sacred Scripture.

Yes, we can trust the Bible is inerrant because the Church says so. But it’s how we arrive at the conclusion that we can trust the Church to begin with that matters.

catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration

 

[PRmerger]

2.) Prove the Bible is indeed all we need

Egg-zactly right, Hockey7.

This is just something that a man heard, who heard a another man, who heard another man say “The Bible is all we need”…

but no one–NO ONE–ever read “The Bible is all we need” in a single page of the Bible.

#iirony
#duped

 

[PRmerger]

The minute you “permit” yourself to impute “your own private interpretations” INTO Scripture, at that point, you’re not exercising sola scriptura, but ADDING YOUR “beliefs” about what the text says that aren’t supported by the text.

The above is very Catholic, taz.

No one ought to be imputing meaning into the Scriptures that aren’t supported by the text.

However, Catholicism allows for private interpretations, as long as it doesn’t contradict the Word of God.

For example, if I am giving a dinner party and am anxious about whether I have enough food, and in preparation I sit down with the Scriptures and pray with the Word…and I open up the Bible, coincidentally, to the parable of the loaves and the fishes…I am certainly free to add my private interpretation to this: Hey! God is telling me not to worry! I will have plenty of food for our party!

That’s certainly permissible.

For there is no Bible verse to which my personal private interpretation of Luke 9 contradicts.

So that leads me to another question for you, taz, which I’m sure you’ve never considered before:

What is your paradigm:

Where the Bible is silent on an issue it is permitted?

OR

Where the Bible is silent on an issue it is forbidden?

For you must, as a Bible Alone advocate, choose one or the other. And apply it consistently.

You can’t say, “Well, the Bible is silent on issue A, so I get to do issue A”… while also saying, “The Bible is silent on issue B, so you are prohibited from doing issue B”.

Right?

 

[clem456]

That is based on your assumption that “His Word” also applies to extra-biblical “Sacred Tradtion” that has ZERO Scriptural basis

This is fabricated nonsense.
Not even the general protestant community would agree with you. From the scriptures that you profess to know:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Find us the word “book” in there. Find us the word “scriptures” in there.
Do you see “in the beginning was the scripture, and the scripture was with God, and scripture was God?” No, you don’t see that. Your position is fabrication.

Who is the Word? A person. Christ is a person. It’s right there in your bible.
Tradition is Christ. Without Tradition there is no scripture. Your point of view is idolatry. You idolize the book out of context with it’s source and creator. That’s idolatry. Persistent idolatry in your case.

being equally as God-breathed as Inspired Scripture, because the Catholic church “says so,” which is circular reasoning.

Again, since you profess to know the scriptures, here is another passage which shows the transparent vacuity of your assertions.

22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

Who do you imagine the word “He” refers to? The guy from the mouthwash commercial?
Taz, do you deny the personhood of Christ? :sad_yes: Might be unwittingly, but yes.
Catholics and protestants can have reasonable discussions about the durability of Tradition, but to say that only scripture is god-breathed is silly at best.

Since you rely on Scripture alone, and since Scripture is plain that human beings are God-breathed, you contradict scripture. You have created your own idolatrous tradition, which not only contradicts scripture itself, but also real God-breathed Tradition.

 

[Abu]

thetazlord #500
That is based on your assumption that “His Word” also applies to extra-biblical “Sacred Tradtion” that has ZERO Scriptural basis being equally as God-breathed as Inspired Scripture, because the Catholic church “says so,” which is circular reasoning.

thetazlord is more confused than ever – no wonder his conclusions are so wrong…

The reality is that on the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that we conclude an infallible Church was founded. Then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. It reduces to the proposition that, without the existence of the Church, we could not tell if the Bible were inspired. As St Augustine said, ‘I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.’ ”

That infallible Church established by the Christ has His full authority to “say so” as She teaches dogma and doctrine infallibly by His command.

It is high time to seek to follow the real Christ through His established Catholic Church against which the gates of hell will never prevail.

 

[Magdalena59]

This is the part you’re not getting. The minute you “permit” yourself to impute “your own private interpretations” INTO Scripture, at that point, you’re not exercising sola scriptura, but ADDING YOUR “beliefs” about what the text says that aren’t supported by the text. For example, when Scripture says, “Jesus wept,” do I really need someone to explain to me what that verse means? And if I “permit” myself to “interpret” that “Jesus wept” has some greater allegorical or symbolic meaning, like “Jesus was really happy because Lazarus was going to Heaven,” then I’m imputing “my interpretation” into Scripture that’s not there. Sola scriptura, not “Sacred (extra-biblical) Tradition” avoids imputing “my interpretation” into Scripture that’s not there.

Again, as far as your analogy, you can “interpret” them any way you want, but that doesn’t mean you & your pastor who disagree with each other are right. One (or both) of you is wrong. And the way to discern this is by whoever is ADDING their interpretation INTO Scripture that’s not supported by Scripture is the one(s) doing the “interpreting.”

That is based on your assumption that “His Word” also applies to extra-biblical “Sacred Tradtion” that has ZERO Scriptural basis being equally as God-breathed as Inspired Scripture, because the Catholic church “says so,” which is circular reasoning…"

With all due respect I am an ex-protestant who wandered from denomination to denomination, I learned each denomination was started by someone who interpreted the Scriptures according to their own belief and others followed that person. Later some would no longer agree with the first person on interpretation of certain scriptures and then start a church of their own and on and on it goes, to the point now many people have church in their home so to teach the way they believe. That is why they are all different on many subjects, such as: baptism, speaking in tongues, the meaning of Communion, what the role or education of a preacher or minister should be, women’s headcoverings, prosperity or no prosperity, why suffering, marriage and divorce, instruments or no instruments, read the OT or exclude the OT, End Times,…
I could go on and on.

I have sat and listened to argument after argument over who is right in their interpretation of Scripture. It was very exhausting and confusing.

I thought I might give just a couple of scriptural examples where the Bible clearly tells us Sacred Tradition is Biblical. There are more but here is just a couple:

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain.

I like this Scripture verse because it clearly tells us where God expects us to find His truths:
1 Timothy 3:15… if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

We are not to lean on our own understanding but to acknowledge God in everything and He will direct our path. He also promised to lead us into all truth, not some truth and then I’ll let you know who is right when you get to heaven.

The Bible is not all we need. After wandering as a protestant for many years I came to the realization it is unconceivable to think that God would leave us here to battle out our own private interpretations of His Word and not leave us with a Church to guide us.

Check out Marcus Grodi’s The Journey Home website and show and listen to ex-protestant pastor after ex-protestant pastor explain how and why they left and came into the Catholic church. It is an eye opener and was instrumental in bringing me home.

God bless.

 

[PRmerger]

With all due respect I am an ex-protestant who wandered from denomination to denomination, I learned each denomination was started by someone who interpreted the Scriptures according to their own belief and others followed that person. Later some would no longer agree with the first person on interpretation of certain scriptures and then start a church of their own and on and on it goes, to the point now many people have church in their home so to teach the way they believe.

Egg-zactly.

I have never read, in a single page of the Bible, the concept of leaving a pastor when you don’t agree with his position (and, since you know that he’s FALLIBLE, you know he’s going to be WRONG at some point in his doctrines)…and starting your own church…or finding a church whose pastor preaches what you believe.

That’s a crazy way to be a “follower” of Christ.

What that turns out to be is a follower of the Almighty*** Self.***… church shopping to create a god after one’s own image, rather than God’s.

 

[Cathoholic]

Nice post (here) Magdalena59

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur. You said in post 501 . . . .

The Pharisees did not claim to be mathematicians either. The context was all things pertaining to Law, Prophets etc -Writ per and in Judaism.

No. I think you have only a partially true view of the Pharisees and their teaching. The Pharisees had some teachings quite right (under certain circumstances).

That’s why Jesus would castigate the Pharisees for being “hypocrites”.

“Hypocrites” means they (the Pharisees) were NOT acting in accord with . . . what they themselves (again, the Pharisees) were teaching.

Presumably if they were acting bad, and their behavior was hypocritical to what they TAUGHT . . . . then what they taught must have been quite different from than how they acted.

So I would be careful about dismissing out of hand the Pharisees teaching. Some things you CAN dismiss to be sure, but some things the people were bound to.

• Acting wrong = Teaching Right (if they are really hypocrites) - At least under certain circumstances

One was right, the other was wrong (under certain—not all—circumstances).

Certainly they taught things in a manner that was wrong, and I admit that too. But under certain circumstances, the Pharisees DID teach correctly (it isn’t defined in written Tradition when but it is evident that it was well known from Oral Tradition).

(I would suggest it was when they invoked their authority when teaching, in a certain capacity)

But again, under certain circumstances, the Pharisees DID teach correctly. That’s WHY Jesus can ALSO say . . .

**
MATTHEW 23:1-3** 1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 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.

This passage implicitly shows at least two Oral Traditions that are authoritative here.

One Authoritative Oral Tradition Implied

In some sense and some circumstances the Pharisees teach so that the people at least for now, MUST do what the Pharisees tell them! What circumstances are these?

We don’t know from Scripture ALONE do we?

But there ARE circumstances when Jesus said the people were bound to obey the Pharisees.

A Second Authoritative Oral Tradition Implied

Why?

WHY are even Jesus own “disciples” bound to do “whatever” the Pharisees tell them (under these undefined circumstances)?

Fortunately Jesus tells us. Because the Pharisees sit on the “Cathedra” or “seat” of Moses.

The Cathedra of Moses in this authoritative usage, is something else that is not in the Old Testament explicitly. Yet Jesus matter-of-factly asserts it without any need to explain it.

All the people knew what Jesus was talking about in both of these circumstances. That’s why Jesus would have no need to define them.

---

Yet neither of these aspects are in the Old Testament. They are not to be explicitly found from Scripture ALONE. Yet Jesus binds the people to this.

 

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord. You said . . . .

That is based on your assumption that “His Word” also applies to extra-biblical “Sacred Tradtion” that has ZERO Scriptural basis being equally as God-breathed as Inspired Scripture, because the Catholic church “says so,” which is circular reasoning.

It is not circular reasoning to appeal to someone who was given Divine authority.

You can say the Church wasn’t given Divine authority (and I would challenge that), but you cannot honestly say NOBODY was gifted with God-given God-protected authority. (If you want, start a thread on it and I will back it up)

What IS circular reasoning thetazlord, is to appeal to Scripture because of Scripture.

THAT is circular reasoning.

You said:

But we can’t “assume” that there was any godly doctrines, dogmas, rituals, etc that God intended Israel or the Church to practice or believe in, prior to the written form that wasn’t eventually written down.

Is it “assuming” doctrinal matters were not taught authoritatively when people are held to account by God Himself? Many were. **What do you think the prophet Enoch was warning the people of his day about? **

Was Cain accountable for a doctrinal transgression? Or wasn’t he because he isn’t authoritatively bound to this until it gets written down.

Or maybe you are now saying it is authoritative even though it isn’t written down but ONLY for things that eventually get written down?

If THAT is what you are asserting, you are just digging the sola Scriptura hole deeper. If THAT is what you are asserting, I want you to show me where THAT new doctrine is taught in Scripture.

When you build on a false foundation of sand like sola Scriptura, the proverbial goal posts must continually be moved.

The only possibility at this time (of the Prophet Enoch for example) was some sort of Oral Tradition, Natural Law, or both. But it WASN’T . . . Scripture ALONE. It wasn’t Scripture at all (at that point).

I am not appealing to Tradition to assert Tradition (but you are appealing to Scripture to assert Scripture).

I am appealing to people who have been given God-given, God-protected authority. And there is evidence WHY I assert that (it is strewn all over this thread). And I think I have said this before thetazlord. EVEN if you want to deny the authority of the Catholic Church, you are left with SOMEONE needing to have authority.

It is either . . .

• the Church
• YOU
• Some other Church
• Some other person.

Who is it thetazlord? (If you appeal to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John etc. you will just be appealing to Scripture because of Scripture, again).

It cannot be any other way.

My primary goal on this thread is not to defend the Catholic Church, but to show why sola Scriptura is unworkable. And sola Scriptura IS unworkable.

You also said:

That is based on your assumption that “His Word” also applies to extra-biblical “Sacred Tradtion”

I give thanks thetazlord, that at least now it seems you are not continuing using “His Word” to be equivalent to Sacred Scripture ONLY. And that is a step towards Truth.

 

[zz912]

This is the part you’re not getting. The minute you “permit” yourself to impute “your own private interpretations” INTO Scripture, at that point, you’re not exercising sola scriptura, but ADDING YOUR “beliefs” about what the text says that aren’t supported by the text. For example, when Scripture says, “Jesus wept,” do I really need someone to explain to me what that verse means? And if I “permit” myself to “interpret” that “Jesus wept” has some greater allegorical or symbolic meaning, like “Jesus was really happy because Lazarus was going to Heaven,” then I’m imputing “my interpretation” into Scripture that’s not there. Sola scriptura, not “Sacred (extra-biblical) Tradition” avoids imputing “my interpretation” into Scripture that’s not there.

Now using the standard you set here, explain what these verses mean, and using ONLY the standard you set above.

Luke 22:19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

Mark 14:22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

1 Cor 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

 

[zz912]

It’s just too bad that is not what I’ve been saying about how one discerns whether or not a piece of writing is Inspired or not.

Please list out the criteria for how one determines whether a writing is inspired or not. And please list the support for how these criteria are determined and we can know they are infallible for determining a writing is inspired or not.