Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[mackbrislawn]

In regards to Traditions that all Christians accept that are not in scripture, Sunday worship has been mentioned. Sunday worship is weakly attested to in scripture. There are two or three instances where the first day of the week, and the Lord’s Day are mentioned. Does John mean Sunday when he says the Lord’s Day? Christians have always called Sunday the Lord’s Day, but again that is tradition Seventh Day Adventists know about these weak references, and have arguments they use against them.

If Jehovah’s Witnesses are right, belief that Jesus died on a cross is also not scriptural. Sure, in our bibles the word cross is used, but they point out that the Greek word, stauros, does not mean cross, but some sort of single upright stake. Hence, the knowledge that Christ died on a cross shaped device depends upon tradition. So, the cross may not be in scripture, but it is amply attested to in tradition.

Did the early Christians derive their belief in the deity of Jesus and the personality of the Holy Spirit by pondering over scripture? I doubt it. This knowledge was most likely delivered orally to the early Christians by the apostles, so when later this was challenged by heretics they knew how to properly interpret the scriptures, which the heretics were trying to use against them.

 

[MDK]

In regards to Traditions that all Christians accept that are not in scripture, Sunday worship has been mentioned. Sunday worship is weakly attested to in scripture. There are two or three instances where the first day of the week, and the Lord’s Day are mentioned. Does John mean Sunday when he says the Lord’s Day? Christians have always called Sunday the Lord’s Day, but again that is tradition Seventh Day Adventists know about these weak references, and have arguments they use against them.

If Jehovah’s Witnesses are right, belief that Jesus died on a cross is also not scriptural. Sure, in our bibles the word cross is used, but they point out that the Greek word, stauros, does not mean cross, but some sort of single upright stake. Hence, the knowledge that Christ died on a cross shaped device depends upon tradition. So, the cross may not be in scripture, but it is amply attested to in tradition.

Did the early Christians derive their belief in the deity of Jesus and the personality of the Holy Spirit by pondering over scripture? I doubt it. This knowledge was most likely delivered orally to the early Christians by the apostles, so when later this was challenged by heretics they knew how to properly interpret the scriptures, which the heretics were trying to use against them.

Not much has changed since then in regard to those who desire to truly protect and keep God’s word, and those who attack it.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Not much has changed since then in regard to those who desire to truly protect and keep God’s word, and those who attack it.

You are sure right, not much has changed.

Tradition provides the proper background, the context, for interpreting scripture. For those who abandon Tradition, scripture becomes a playground in which they can do anything, only limited by their imagination. They form their own, new, man-made tradtions.

Heck, Peter himself tells us this. “There those who are ignorant and unstable who twist the letters of Paul to their own destruction, as they do the rest of scripture.”

Who are the ignorant? Those who do not know Tradition.

Who are the unstable? Those who abandon or reject Tradition.

We are warned about taking bible verses out of context–well, it is possible also to take the bible itself out of context. Yes, the bible has a context, and that context is Tradition.

Hence, no sola scriptura.

 

[justasking4]

The canon of Scripture and Sunday worship are two examples.
I can anticipate part of your reply: “Sunday worship is in the Bible.”
Agreed - but the decision to move the obligation for worship from Saturday to Sunday is not. Who made that decision?

Same with the replacement of Judas: yes, the event is recorded in Scripture, but it is presented as de facto without the authoritative decree to do so being presented.

Monogamy is another example. Nowhere in the NT is Christian monogamy decreed.

Does the Catholic church list these examples as Sacred Tradition somewhere?

 

[cfrancis]

Does the Catholic church list these examples as Sacred Tradition somewhere?

First, do you agree these examples are not taught in Scripture?

The canon of Scripture

Catechism, #120 - I’ve shown this to you before.

and Sunday worship are two examples.
I can anticipate part of your reply: “Sunday worship is in the Bible.”
Agreed - but the decision to move the obligation for worship from Saturday to Sunday is not. Who made that decision?

Catechism #1166 - I’ve shown this to you before.

Same with the replacement of Judas: yes, the event is recorded in Scripture, but it is presented as de facto without the authoritative decree to do so being presented.

Catechism #77-78:

77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

See also #861-862.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4272027]In the sense that they are both strands of the one Divine Deposit of faith, they are similar.

But they are not identical. There must be differences since they are referred to as 2 disctinct things.

No. At least take responsibility for yourself, and don’t shuffle your problems off on others. We do not “need to do the following”. We have received the Sacred Traditions from the Apostles, that is why we don’t “need” these things. We accept them by faith. If you need, them, which apparently you do, then at least take some ownership of your needs.

It appears you don’t know what you have recieved and accepted since you have shown that even you don’t know specifically what they are. :takeoff:

And what would give you such surety? I don’t think it is possible. You distrust the Catholic Church because you have been taught that she was inflitrated by false teachers, so hw could you have “surety” about anything she teaches? This is why it is so peculiar that you accept the vast majority of the Sacred Tradition, but don’t recognize it for what it is.

i don’t think the Catholic church is wrong on everything. This is our opportunity to come to a greater understanding what the church teaches and means by seeking out the specifics…

You asked for an official Church document on the Immaculate conception and it’s relation to Sacred Tradition the other day on another thread. I linked you to an infallible teaching of the Church on the Vatican website. Now, a few days later, you say you have read many examples but “I am not sure”. This has to do with you, and not the available evidence.

This seems to answer one question about Sacred Tradition being formed today. Thanks

We don’t make them. We don’t need to make them. We understand that they are both equal, and come from the same Source. It is you who seems to have a need to separate them. :shrug

:
You to need to separate them and understand if you want to grow in your faith and defend the catholic faith.

The teaching authority appointed by Jesus that you have rejected.

I only reject that which denies the Scriptures.

Just do a search on justasking4 and tradition, and you can easily read the answer to this question on the many other posts made with this username which have answered this same question dozens of times from dozens of well meaning CAF members, all of whom you have ignored.

What i have found are catholics opinions about Sacred Traditions and traditions but not much or any help in the sense that there does not seem to be any offical church backing for them.

It is exactly this phenomenon tha leaves some of us thinking that there is a group that does not read the posts made by the others, or else a person with a grievious learning disability.

All of the Sacred Traditions come from Jesus, through the Apostles. But, you have been told this repeatedly too, with no effect, apparently.

No, no such list exists. The Sacred Tradition is a way of life:

“Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not** according to the tradition that they received from us**. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us…” 2 Thess 3:6-7

It is a world view, in the NT called The Way, a manner of living and being in the word that imitates the life of Jesus and the Apostles. Through this perspective, we interpret the scripture that was produced by that Sacred Tradition.

Without knowing the specifics of your Sacred Traditions how would you know if you are following them as a way of life?

You have been given this answer repeatedly also, but for the sake of those who are really sincerely interested in this, and may be reading the thread, I will answer it again.

You’re very gracious—:thankyou:

The public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. From the time that God began to reveal to mankind until that time, the deposit of faith has been accumulating. This faith was once for all given to the saints:

Jude 3-4
“I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

It is this faith, entrused to the saints, which is called the Divine Deposit. There are two strands, the faith that was delivered (Sacred Tradition) and the Writings that reflect that faith (Scripture).

Since it was once for all entrusted, nothing is added.

How can you say nothing has been added when the Marian doctrines have been added?

I have learned that this is not a true statement, since these questions have been asked by persons on this username and answered faithfully here for the last two years by the thousands, and you have still rejected what has been shown to you. May God have mercy on all of the souls affected by this.

May many be set free— :yyeess:

 

[justasking4]

cfrancis;4273640]First, do you agree these examples are not taught in Scripture?

We have no record of anyone deciding to move worship from Saturday to Sunday. Scriptures records it as a fact that it was changed.

Catechism, #120 - I’ve shown this to you before.

Is apostolic Tradition the same as Sacred Tradition?

Catechism #1166 - I’ve shown this to you before.

Since the Scriptures are all we know of the Apostles teachings and it never records them making this decision how would you know they did such a thing? Was there another council of the apostles besides Acts 15?

Catechism #77-78:
See also #861-862.

Lets focus on #78 which says:
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

How many “Traditions” are there?
How do you make the disctintions between a Tradition and tradition?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

How can you say nothing has been added when the Marian doctrines have been added?

They were not added, they’ve always been believed by faithful Christians. It was only when a heresy arose that it was necessary for the Pope to declare once and for all what the Truth of the matter was.

Would you say that the “Trinity” was added to the Christian faith in 325 AD?

 

[justasking4]

Pixie Dust;4273718]
Originally Posted by justasking4
How can you say nothing has been added when the Marian doctrines have been added?

Pixie Dust
They were not added, they’ve always been believed by faithful Christians. It was only when a heresy arose that it was necessary for the Pope to declare once and for all what the Truth of the matter was.

Most of the marian doctrines were unknown by the church for centuries. Its not true these have always been believed.

Would you say that the “Trinity” was added to the Christian faith in 325 AD?

The nature of God was clarified and quantified then.

 

[guanophore]

Does the Catholic church list these examples as Sacred Tradition somewhere?

You (or others using this login) have been provided with multiple lists, and references. I suggest you do a little homework on this username before you embarrass yourself. Do a search of justasking4 and tradition, and you will find list upon list. The post you responded to with this question referenced Sunday worship as one.

However, it has been my experience that no matter how many examples are given, you will reject them all eventually.

Another example is that there is no such Apostolic doctrine as Sola Scriptura, and this is not found in the writings of the Apostles or the early fathers. It is part of a “different gospel” that emerged 1500 years after the Apostles had entrusted the fullness of faith to their successors.

 

[guanophore]

But they are not identical. There must be differences since they are referred to as 2 disctinct things.

Yes. The portion of the Divine Revelation that was placed into writing is preserved in the New Testament, and the rest is preserved in other ways.

It appears you don’t know what you have recieved and accepted since you have shown that even you don’t know specifically what they are.

How could it appear otherwise? You deny that they exist, so of course you can’t see them when they are shown to you.

You to need to separate them and understand if you want to grow in your faith and defend the catholic faith.

No. The desire to separate and divide is the fruit of the Reformation. Catholics know that the Divine Deposit of Faith is one unified whole.

I only reject that which denies the Scriptures.

I am sure that it seems to contradict to you, since you have been schooled in an anti-catholic perspective. I understand. I went through it myself.

What i have found are catholics opinions about Sacred Traditions and traditions but not much or any help in the sense that there does not seem to be any offical church backing for them.

How else could it seem? You have rejected all the evidence that you cannot find in your bible! Naturally it would have to seem like there was no official church backing, since you refuse to accept it.

Without knowing the specifics of your Sacred Traditions how would you know if you are following them as a way of life?

I don’t believe on could. this is one reason why they need to be “received” from those who know them, and follow them.

How can you say nothing has been added when the Marian doctrines have been added?

All that has been added is our understanding of the Teachings. We did not have the word “Trinity”, either, but we did not “add” the Trinity - just an explanation and a term for what already existed from the beginning.

 

[guanophore]

We have no record of anyone deciding to move worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Well, of course those of you that have rejected the Apostolic Traditions dont have it! How would anyone expect you to keep documents about things you insist don’t exist.

Scriptures records it as a fact that it was changed.

No. If this were true, there would not be so many fervent Sabbatarians today. Scripture supports keeping the Sabbath on the seventh day just as much as on the first.

Is apostolic Tradition the same as Sacred Tradition?

I am not aware of any distinction.

Since the Scriptures are all we know of the Apostles teachings and it never records them making this decision how would you know they did such a thing? Was there another council of the apostles besides Acts 15?

We know they did such things because we know of a surety that scripture does not contain everything. Even scripture does not say this about itself! Since you reject what you don’t find in scripture, there is no way for YOU to know these things.

Lets focus on #78 which says:
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

How many “Traditions” are there?

Tradition is a perspective. It is expressed in scripture, doctrine, life, and worship. Let’s see. How many doctrines are there? How many “lives” are there"… How many “worships”. Do you see what a silly question that is? How many doctrines are in the scripture? Why does it matter? Would it improve your walk with God at all if you wrote out all the doctrines in scripture, and numbered the in a list? Would it make you a better disciple of God?

How do you make the disctintions between a Tradition and tradition?

We follow the Magesterium, the authority appointed by Christ. This is how we know which commandments in scripture are disciplines, and which are infallible doctrines that can’t be changed.

 

[po18guy]

Such a statement reflects the heart of a person who has little inclination or ability to have faith, perhaps a very weak faith. It elevates the ability of the carnal mind (reason) to the revelation of God, since one believes one must understand by way of that finite fallen mind in order to apprehend truth. On the contrary, the whole of Christianity is based upon mysteries that far exceed human understanding.

Oh, what little faith - that of those who must see written proof before they will believe! While the Pharisees claimed Abraham as their father, bible Christians have the Apostle Thomas as theirs. I pray that by revelation, the Lord will open their hearts to the fulness of truth.

500 years ago, the demon lead their predecessors far astray. And, so blinded to the truth, is it any wonder they cannot recognize it at this stage of their faith? We must pray for them all.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Well, as is typical when I’m in a discussion with JA4, my post (#468) was completely ignored.

 

[GailMac]

Dear justasking - you state:" Quote:
Isa Almisry;4164309]and what did Satan use?

He used the Scriptures also. He never appeals to a tradition. Notice how Jesus used the Scriptures in context.

Quote:
Read St. Peter’s warning in II Peter 3:16-7, 1:19-21 before you answer.

I did and i don’t see the connection. Can you clarify?" to which I reply “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”

Peace,

Gail

P.S. How’s you conversion going! Leapin’ lizards man! Praise the Lord!

 

[GailMac]

P.P.S. Justasking - there are quite a few more letters of St. Peter. I think they’re called encyclicals! Does a heart good. Are you reading any yet?

God bless!

Gail

 

[justasking4]

P.P.S. Justasking - there are quite a few more letters of St. Peter. I think they’re called encyclicals! Does a heart good. Are you reading any yet?

God bless!

Gail

Are you saying your church possesses letters of the apostles Peter beyond the 2 letters in the NT?

 

[justasking4]

You can claim that scripture is the sole rule of faith but it cannot be shown at all. If you believe it is without proof, then you are putting your faith in speculations.

As a matter of fact, you have already stated that you place your faith in speculations. Back in the “Protestants Do Not Really Believe in Sola Scriptura” thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=265256

I asked you exactly what you based your belief that scripture is the sole rule of faith upon. You replied:

“My belief comes from a lot of study and understanding the nature of the Scriptures.” and “Not just this but what others have also concluded.”

You admitted, “There is no ‘revelation’ from God on this and a number of other things we believe.” (post 835)

So you yourself admit you base some of your beliefs upon your own personal study and the conclusions of others, not upon what God has revealed in scripture.

How you can believe scripture is the sole rule of faith after admitting this is beyond me.

My belief about this is not based on speculations but on facts. It is a fact for instance that the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Even your own church believes as much.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Justasking - You state:“Are you saying your church possesses letters of the apostles Peter beyond the 2 letters in the NT?” YES! They’re called encyclicals. Have you read any yet? Please do! They’re *honey from the rock *to me at least.

BTW, why aren’t you Catholic yet?

Peace,

Gail

 

[GailMac]

This thread is getting mean. Do good Catholics always remind converts of their mistakes till doomsday? Or do they allow conversion?

Peace,

Gail