Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[Cinette]

** I believe that you are sincere and have a refreshing approach. My answer is embedded in your text and I have to work quickly because of time…**

It seems that we wish to know what our Protestant brethren truly believe, but before they even tell us - we tell them that they are wrong. You see there is a problem here – they have partial truth and we have the fullness of truth. Sometimes we might appear conceited because we are right and do not want to “destroy” our opponent. We have our minds already made up we do because we have the fullness of truth - we should never scorn … We should guard against the sin of “pride” – it is pernicious for it is the ROOT of all sin.

we cannot accuse our Protestant brethren that their theology is inconsistent. This is problematic because Truth is consistent and partial truth is not! This is the true Catholic spirit. I agree that we must be gracious and we need to listen to them. By doing so, we also learn from them. We must not criticize but we are debating a very delicate issue.

but my Catholic brethren on this forum have been anything BUT consistent - . I appreciate your comments but have witnessed a lot of “provocation” from the other side – snide remarks, attacks……

We tell the Protestants that they cannot know what is, and what is not Sacred Scripture without the Catholic Church right? So the Protestant has an unsolvable dilemma……………

But then, the question becomes - How can they, and how can we for that matter, know what constitutes the Church? The Watchtower Society, the Mormons…,Catholic Church have the same claim. This creates a huge dilemma for us both Why? We have evidence and the testimony and history of over 2000 years.- and puts us in the same boat as them. Don’t agree, sorry!

…
If we answer - Well we have history . . . they can immediately answer:

"History according to who? History also must be interpreted. Should we take the Protestant perspective of history - the Orthodox perspective - or the Jewish? And if we look to history - how do we even know that the sources that we look to are reliable sources? …

You see- We Catholics think we have it all figured out - but we do not. We are masters at setting double standards. This is why, I suspect, we see a high level of anger coming from our fellow Catholics… You have forgotten the words of Jesus that the H Spirit would guide us. The Magisterium is the authoritative teaching office of the church and therefore spokesperson of the H Spirit! You speak of Oral Tradition – let us identify this. For instance the Apostles Creed is Oral Tradition (which is not in the Bible). Justin Martyr at the end of the 1st Century described exactly what takes place at the Mass – this too is not in the bible but it is proof that the Mass as inacted today has not changed. The pronouncements, now written down, of the 1st ecumenical councils are also oral tradition. This happens to be part of History and is recorded.

Maybe we ought to stop pretending that we know it all, We are not making up our answers, we are just stating what the Church believes. Our references are the Bible, the Catechism and authoritative Church documents and begin to open our minds a little, and at least hear our Protestant brethren out. I…

…accusing the beloved, and blood-bought children of our Heavenly Father? Of course we strutinize our theology. Look at the trouble the Popes go thru to present learned encyclicals. The CC produces mountains of authoritative documents throughout the ages which is one of the great heritages of the Church – apart of the lives of the great saints and doctors.

We must not forget that Jesus said that those to whom much has been given (Catholics) much will be expected. We have a duty to help those who do not know what Catholics believe.

Going back to your statement about how we sometimes are not charitable enough towards our Protestant brothers and sisters. I agree with you but I have to tell you that when I first came on these forums I would get so exasperated and mad with some of the postings. I said to my husband that I think the moderators of Catholic Answers deserve a medal. Certain topics have been debated time and again – we patiently give an explanation, repeat ourselves and after doing this the same person will come up with the question he posed before all this information was passed on to him showing that he had not taken in anything at all!

I will also acknowledge that Protestants and Catholics are the same human beings. In fact I always say that Protestants are there to keep us on our toes. Those who come home to the CC are absolute treasures and have made a colossal contribution.

If I have left something out forgive me as I raced thru your post to answer and keep within the limits of 6000 words!

So my friend I hear you but you must please read my response before you respond.

 

[onenow1]

HI,all
Satans’ Master Plan…

THE MASTER PLAN OF THE DEVIL. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN ERRORS…

For approximately seventeen centuries men acknowledged that authority comes only from God, and temporal rulers sought the approval and the blessing of their bishops who, by divine right, ruled in their dioceses as successors of the Apostles. Then came the Philosophists. As always, the Power of Darkness used pride to achieve his aims, the pride of human reason. As always he called the Light, Darkness and the Darkness, Light (Isaiah 5:20). That is why the Medieval times are now referred to as the “Dark Ages”; (in fact, the Dark Ages were pre-Medieval), and why Philosophism is referred to as “Enlightenment”.

As always, the Devil acted with subtlety: he did not bring in Communism immediately, he brought in Modern Democracy first, knowing that the one would lead to the other. The lures inherent in the first would more easily lead to the destruction of man by the second. The Devil acted with cunning. So shrewd is he that even Christians were deceived. To make a thorough job of it he instilled into modern minds the myth of historical inevitability. “We must march with the times” we are told, as if the times were not what we are making them!

A SUBTLE AND GRADUAL PROCESS…

The present state of the world is not due to chance, it is the outcome of the everlasting struggle between good and evil. The Devil knows that his fight against God has to be gradual if it is to have any chance of success. Therefore, he began his fight in the 16th century by dividing Christianity.
When the first battle had been won, the Devil moved from the religious field into the philosophical field, and conceived Rationalism, which put human reason before Revelation.
Christians being already divided, there was no single front to defend the primacy of Divine Revelation. The interpretation of Divine Revelation being divided against itself, it could not resist the claim of the so-called primacy of human reason. Human reason appeared more reliable, and so the new philosophy installed itself. It naturally followed that man began to think about an earthly paradise.
Hence Rationalism begot Human Messianism (i.e. Humanism). It was then logical that man should not want to be impeded by standards of moral conduct. He had to be free from all restraints, and his reason alone was going to tell him how to act and behave.
Thus came into being the doctrine of Liberalism. Almost immediately, this doctrine extended to every field of human activity, especially economics, politics and science. From being philosophical, it became practical a way of life, the philosophical origin of which, most people do not suspect nowadays.

AN UNHOLY TRINITY…

After this, Human Messianism combined with Liberalism to set up CAPITALISM, an economic system based on greed and usury, which paves the way for Communism. Rationalism and Liberalism combined to give birth to the principle of POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, being free and reasonable, every human being was to make all decisions.
Rationalism, and Human Messianism, combined to give birth to SCIENTISM (or the cult of Technology, the worship of the work of man, i.e. TECHNOLATRY) whereby we expect salvation from better and higher production, an error which was observed by Pius XII in his 1952 Christmas message. We speak of “Progress” in terms of industrialisation, completely unaware of “the undeniable advantages of an economy based chiefly on agriculture”. (Pius XII)

DIABOLICALLY LOGICAL…

Thus, the unholy trinity, that is, Rationalism, Human Messianism, and Liberalism, laid the ground-work for all the evils which are destroying modern society. Observe how gradual the process has been:
a) Difference in religious views (affecting the soul).
b) Alteration in philosophical thinking (affecting the intellect).
c) Organisation and purpose of the physical world (affecting the will).

Observe how logical the development:
a) REFORMATION (dividing Christianity to weaken Divine Revelation).
b) RATIONALISM (doubting that man can rely on Divine Revelation).
c) HUMAN MESSIANISM (asserting that man can rely on himself).
d) LIBERALISM (trusting man wholly).
e) CAPITALISM (Human Messianism plus Liberalism).
f) DEMOCRACY (Rationalism plus Liberalism).
g) TECHNOCRACY (and Technolatry) - (Nationalism plus Human Messianism).

These developments are too gradual and logical to leave any doubt that there is an Intelligence behind it. This Intelligence is that of the Power of Darkness.
A number of Saints have said that, in the Latter Days, evil will be done by men of good will. There is no doubt that many Catholics believe in good faith that we are living in an age of progress, and that Modern Democracy IS Progress. The superficial advantages which it presents hide from many its intrinsic nature, the errors on which it is based, and the evils which accompany it.

The deception of the Devil has worked. Author: Unknown.

Quote= OneNow1 found this in my notes, thought it apropos to this topic and others ?

home.inreach.com/bstanley/

Peace, OneNow1

 

[PerryJ]

How have people like Erhlman affect your confidence in your Bible? Remember the same arguments he makes against Protestant Bibles applies to yours.

Ps- i would strongly, strongly advise anyone who does not understand the issues of textual criticism to stay away from people like Erhlman. i can think of a couple people who have lost their faith because of him. He is also used by the enemies of the faith to attack Christianity.

You change the subject.

His and others like him do not impact my faith or my faith in the Bible. As stated my faith uses tradition and the Bible. My faith also has an authority that approves the words and beliefs from the Bible.

You have no such authority. SS relies on the Bible being as it was first written. Your Bible is not approved and has many intentional changes. Obvious examples: “Highly Favored”, “Alone” are two changes that impact the faith. There are other changes that you know impact the faith. (Not my faith; but, yours). You are correct SS can lead to losing faith. It is not his Bible study that caused him to lose his faith. It was his belief in a man made theory of SS. Erhlman was a devote SS Episcopalian that through extensive study of the Bible found that doing intense exegesis on the word was difficult at best. The oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible dates from the Middle Ages (the copy was made in A.D. 1008). The oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament dates from the fourth century A.D. About 5,000 different Greek manuscripts or fragments of the New Testament are known. Of these, no two are identical. I point this out not to shake ones faith. It is to show that SS is not possible. There are too many variants and interpretations to do word by word exegesis. Or even line by line exegesis. The only way to know the Bibles meaning is via the one true Church. If you have studied this as you say you know this to be true. You will also know that Erlhman is just one of many that have come to this conclusion. Erhlman is the best know because he became an agnostic which the main stream media loved. Others have not lost there faith; but, now understand how the Bible should be used. The Bible supports the one true Church as it should be because the Church defined it in every aspect.

If you have studied this you know that you can not perform the exegesis you try to do on this forum, unless of course you start to use a Catholic Bible that has been approved by the Faith.

 

[RisenAgain]

Please - dont do that.:tsktsk:

Don’t critique my post in such a selective and discriminating way. Be honest with my post. Either answer it in it’s entirety - or do not answer it at all. Don’t chop up my statements - that is rude and manipulative. When people read your post to consider your response - they are led astray by this method. Please keep my comments in line - and answer the concerns that I have; do not simply repeat my own Catholic position.

I have always given these same answers; about HISTORY - and about what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit - (SACRED SCRIPTURE) - and about 2000 years of TRADITION. What my whole post was about was the inconsistency of our position - for as I posted, our Protestant brethren have already demonstrated that we Catholics are building upon a double standard!

Please re-read my post - and think about this. Nothing you said, proved my post wrong - but only confirmed it.

Besides - we do not have “the whole truth” - because there is no way for us to receive it! If we as Catholics say that all truth cannot be contained in Scripture - we also know that it certainly cannot be contained in Scripture AND Tradition - for they both came through the apostles, and the Apostle Paul tells us plainly: “FOR WE KNOW IN PART!” (1 Cor. 13:9) “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (v13)

Please - take your time to consider - and do not be so arrogant. It is posts like yours that give us a bad rep among Protestants who have the slightest bit of wisdom and logic!

Grace be unto you! And no hard feelings - please!

 

[Cinette]

Please - dont do that.:tsktsk:

Don’t critique my post in such a selective and discriminating way. Be honest with my post. Either answer it in it’s entirety - or do not answer it at all. Don’t chop up my statements - that is rude and manipulative. When people read your post to consider your response - they are led astray by this method. Please keep my comments in line - and answer the concerns that I have; do not simply repeat my own Catholic position.

I have always given these same answers; about HISTORY - and about what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit - (SACRED SCRIPTURE) - and about 2000 years of TRADITION. What my whole post was about was the inconsistency of our position - for as I posted, our Protestant brethren have already demonstrated that we Catholics are building upon a double standard!

Please re-read my post - and think about this. Nothing you said, proved my post wrong - but only confirmed it.

Besides - we do not have “the whole truth” - because there is no way for us to receive it! If we as Catholics say that all truth cannot be contained in Scripture - we also know that it certainly cannot be contained in Scripture AND Tradition - for they both came through the apostles, and the Apostle Paul tells us plainly: “FOR WE KNOW IN PART!” (1 Cor. 13:9) “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (v13)

Please - take your time to consider - and do not be so arrogant. It is posts like yours that give us a bad rep among Protestants who have the slightest bit of wisdom and logic!

Grace be unto you! And no hard feelings - please!

I HAD to chop your sentences because we are limited to 6000 words. Didn’t you know that?

I don’t agree with you regarding double standards. I believe all that is contained in our Creed, The Pope and the Magisterium. I believe! I believe in the teaching authority of the Church. Jesus’ promises are been fulfilled. We go off track and when we do the Pope steers us back on line.

2000 years of witness and despite the abuses, the heresies, the fighting, the the the…the Church is intact. The Church fights back, the Church dialogues, the Church teaches, the Church triumphs. I would not acuse the Pope of double standards - the Protestants do that. I am a faithfull Catholic. However, if I see something that is not right I speak up!

 

[guanophore]

These so called “gospels” were never real contenders as the real Gospels, For one they lack apostolic authority and are written after all the apostles died.

On the contrary, there were “real contenders” in the gospel category. In fact, most of the Gospels were written after the Apostles died. Fortunately, the Apostles passed on their authority, so this is not a problem!

The same methods we employ in other disciplines. We look at context, comparison with other passages and word meanings. These and other methods can help us to determine which application is correct.

The Church uses primarily the guidance of the HS. The rest of these, though valuable, are secondary.

Please brother do not be offended at me - for I agree with you on almost every post you post - however - here I think that you have built a faulty argument against our Protestant brethren.

I am offended that you claim to be a Catholic, then represent anti-catholic ideas I do not argue “against” my separated brethren, but against the heresies they have unwittingly embraced.

In my morning Bible devotion, today I read Hebrews chapter 4, and around verse twelve it says that “the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

I only wish to say this - for I am myself Catholic and do not wish to be divisive: But God uses his sacred word to communicate to us the truth about many things - even our own condition. The word can speak to our heart and soul. Can it not therefore speak to a doctrinal issue that would be essential to the Catholic faith? Did not the holy church fathers of old appeal to the testimony of Sacred Scripture in order to dispute the false teachings of heretics?

Absolutetly.

Are we not to also appeal to Sacred Scripture as well - even as it is the word of God - able to be the discerner of the thoughts and intents of the hearts of those who would speak falsehood?

No, I think not. We are to look into the Scripture as into a mirror, and allow the thoughts and intents of our own hearts to be discerned. We are not to use the Scripture to judge one another. Only God can discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. When we presume to do this with others, accusing them of “speaking falsehood” we tread on dangerous ground.

No the Scriptures cannot speak audibly - but from a demonstration of the Spirit’s testimony therefrom - can the truth not be established? This then - with all due respect - is all that our Protestant brother wishes to communicate to us - as he uses these terms -“the highest court of appeal.”

The Scripture, though it can bear witness to the Truth, cannot function as a “court”. Scripture, of itself, does not render judgement. This is a quality that required intellect and will, neither of which Scripture have.

For the court is not the people - it is the place where the people come to settle disputes among themselves. Should we not allow that the Sacred Scriptures are just that - even as they were to the holy church fathers as they established the deity of our Lord and other such doctrinal truths essential to the Catholic faith?

Indeed. And Jesus told the disciples to take their dispute where?

Please do not be offended - but I think we should be slow to critique ALL that our Protestant brethren post; but be open minded and try to show the validity of their respective positions. Let’s find what we have in common with them first - and then we shall reveal to them the bridge that they may travel for the rest of the truth. We need not shut them down entirely as if they have no truth - this is not the case! Many Protestants can and are teaching us Catholics many things about the grace of God daily - even on this very forum - I am not the least ashamed to be numbered in this category - are you?

I agree, and I am honored to learn.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have read some very interesting debates on this forum from both sides of the Sola Scriptura theology.

I have concluded from all these wonderful posts. that The first century Christian Church lives on in her Oral Traditions of the Catholic church which is the living memory of the apostolic Oral teachings lived out and practiced in the Catholic church today for 2000 years unchanged.

The bible which comes after the Catholic church, The new testament are letters containing the written memory of the apostles and Jesus himself, to which not all got recorded to these first century communities, because a lot of what did not get written, was already believed and accepted as Christian faith and belief’s by eyewitness accounts and Oral teachings from the apostles and Jesus.

We learn later after the first century christians that the Catholic church and the successors of the apostles (early church fathers) defended these written and Oral Tradition teachings from the apostles council after council defeating heresies in the Church and heretical teachers in the Catholic church throught out the ages from the apostles themselves to today.

The Traditional teachings got defended and then written as a Creed, or a doctrine that cannot be changed or challenged again by anyone who wish to remain in the one Holy Catholic Apostolic church. Non Catholics confuse this factual history with the new notion that the Catholic church invented new Christian doctrines, when she only defined, or protected the apostolic Oral and Written teachings from any changes. This false notion implies that a non catholic does not have a clue to the Oral Teachings of the apostles. For one their non Catholic faith does not retain the succession of the apostles themselves and these non catholic christian founders come from man no later than 500 years ago, including the Sola Scriptura theology.

A non Catholic does not practice the living Memory or the Traditional teachings of the apostles, if they subscribe to Sola Scriptura. To make an argument that Sola Scripturast believe in the Oral Traditions of the apostles is total nonsense, for one it already contradicts the Sola Scriptura theology by adding Oral, or anything else to it. Secondly as others explained here, there was no new testament for the first century Christians, only apostolic letters and Oral Tradition that did not get written until these teachings were defended by the Catholic church.

There is only one living authority on earth that God himself appointed to teach, baptize with the authority to bind and loose, not to mention given the keys of the kingdom of heaven on earth; and that is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church for 2 millenium now until the second coming of our dear Lord Jesus Christ. It is a historical fact that Jesus founded the Catholic Christian faith and built his church on our first pope St. Peter and the apostles. For physical proof, go visit the Vatican and see that the Catholic church posseses Peter and Pauls remains not to mention Christian (teachings) letters that date farther back than the inception of Sola Scriptura theology, which is not found in the Oral Traditions of the apostles or the Written Word of God which contradicts the Sola Scriptura theology, as others have revealed here.

Peace

 

[justasking4]

Gabriel of 12;4196665]I have read some very interesting debates on this forum from both sides of the Sola Scriptura theology.

I have concluded from all these wonderful posts. that The first century Christian Church lives on in her Oral Traditions of the Catholic church which is the living memory of the apostolic Oral teachings lived out and practiced in the Catholic church today for 2000 years unchanged.

There is no such thing as an oral tradition from 2000 years ago unless its written down. You have no way to know what any oral tradition was unless it was written down.

The bible which comes after the Catholic church, The new testament are letters containing the written memory of the apostles and Jesus himself, to which not all got recorded to these first century communities, because a lot of what did not get written, was already believed and accepted as Christian faith and belief’s by eyewitness accounts and Oral teachings from the apostles and Jesus.

We learn later after the first century christians that the Catholic church and the successors of the apostles (early church fathers) defended these written and Oral Tradition teachings from the apostles council after council defeating heresies in the Church and heretical teachers in the Catholic church throught out the ages from the apostles themselves to today.

The Traditional teachings got defended and then written as a Creed, or a doctrine that cannot be changed or challenged again by anyone who wish to remain in the one Holy Catholic Apostolic church. Non Catholics confuse this factual history with the new notion that the Catholic church invented new Christian doctrines, when she only defined, or protected the apostolic Oral and Written teachings from any changes. This false notion implies that a non catholic does not have a clue to the Oral Teachings of the apostles. For one their non Catholic faith does not retain the succession of the apostles themselves and these non catholic christian founders come from man no later than 500 years ago, including the Sola Scriptura theology.

A non Catholic does not practice the living Memory or the Traditional teachings of the apostles, if they subscribe to Sola Scriptura. To make an argument that Sola Scripturast believe in the Oral Traditions of the apostles is total nonsense, for one it already contradicts the Sola Scriptura theology by adding Oral, or anything else to it. Secondly as others explained here, there was no new testament for the first century Christians, only apostolic letters and Oral Tradition that did not get written until these teachings were defended by the Catholic church.

There is only one living authority on earth that God himself appointed to teach, baptize with the authority to bind and loose, not to mention given the keys of the kingdom of heaven on earth; and that is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church for 2 millenium now until the second coming of our dear Lord Jesus Christ. It is a historical fact that Jesus founded the Catholic Christian faith and built his church on our first pope St. Peter and the apostles. For physical proof, go visit the Vatican and see that the Catholic church posseses Peter and Pauls remains not to mention Christian (teachings) letters that date farther back than the inception of Sola Scriptura theology, which is not found in the Oral Traditions of the apostles or the Written Word of God which contradicts the Sola Scriptura theology, as others have revealed here.

Peace

 

[guanophore]

There is no such thing as an oral tradition from 2000 years ago unless its written down. You have no way to know what any oral tradition was unless it was written down.

What you are saying is that God is a liar, and a weakling. He was not able to keep His promises, or was disinterested in doing so.

Do you not realize that He prepared a people for millenia how to maintain the Sacred Tradition into which Jesus was born?

You will have to invalidate all the the Bible prior to the writings of Moses, since all these centuries predated the writing, and therefore, must be invalid.

Isa 55:11
1 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
There is no such thing as an oral tradition from 2000 years ago unless its written down. You have no way to know what any oral tradition was unless it was written down.

guanophore
What you are saying is that God is a liar, and a weakling. He was not able to keep His promises, or was disinterested in doing so.

Do you not realize that He prepared a people for millenia how to maintain the Sacred Tradition into which Jesus was born?

You will have to invalidate all the the Bible prior to the writings of Moses, since all these centuries predated the writing, and therefore, must be invalid.

Isa 55:11
1 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

What you need to do now is to show exactly what these oral traditions are that were not written down. Even though much was taught orally in the Scriptures the only thing we have today is the written Scriptures of what they may have taught orally.

Now again, what exactly were these oral teachings that Jesus and His apostles say that was not written down?

 

[guanophore]

What you need to do now is to show exactly what these oral traditions are that were not written down. Even though much was taught orally in the Scriptures the only thing we have today is the written Scriptures of what they may have taught orally.

Now again, what exactly were these oral teachings that Jesus and His apostles say that was not written down?

Actually, no. The topic of the thread is not about Sacred Tradition. I know when you feel bested you want to change the subject, and turn in attack mode against the very Church that produced the NT to which you claim to adhere. However, you have not shown that the bible itself teaches sola scriptura, and have also admitted that you came to this conclusion on your own through study, making yourself the infallible rule of your own belief.

 

[justasking4]

Actually, no. The topic of the thread is not about Sacred Tradition. I know when you feel bested you want to change the subject, and turn in attack mode against the very Church that produced the NT to which you claim to adhere. However, you have not shown that the bible itself teaches sola scriptura, and have also admitted that you came to this conclusion on your own through study, making yourself the infallible rule of your own belief.

Lets assume i have been “bested”— -and am now in “attack mode” ---- View attachment 4131 can you at least tell me what one oral Sacred Tradition not recorded in the NT is?

 

[Cinette]

Lets assume i have been “bested”— -and am now in “attack mode” ---- View attachment 4131 can you at least tell me what one oral Sacred Tradition not recorded in the NT is?

I have mentioned Oral Traditions in my posts. Read from 192 and you will find my statement.

I would like to ask you a question. How did the Apostles spread the good news and those who succeeded them? Which version of the NT do you think they used?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There is no such thing as an oral tradition from 2000 years ago unless its written down. You have no way to know what any oral tradition was unless it was written down.

The Catholic church teaches that you cannot have Sacred Tradition without Sacred Scripture. The answer you seek are in the Sacred Traditional teachings of the Catholic church which Sola Scriptura followers reject, even though they are believed in Sacred Scripture, for example Purgatory is implied and believed in since the first century Christians, not to mention the first century Jews.

Sola Scriptura followers do not follow the Didache a first century document that explains the Catholic christian faith from the Oral traditions. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Oral Tradtional teachings do not come to the surface by a letter or written in time; until the Oral Teachings come under attack from heresies or heretics.

But for your curosity and to entertain you; here is a few Oral Traditions handed down from Jesus and the apostles which most Sola Scripturalist reject. The Eucharist, Confession to a Priest, attending Mass on the Lord’s Day, Sacraments, The Our Father used in the Liturgy, Selection of Priests, and Deacons, Successors to the apostolic chair, Trinity, Belief in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother Mary, Her coronation, Her assumption into heaven, Mary Mother of God (Thetokos) The names of the parents of the blessed Virgin Mary, the name of the Roman soldier who speared Jesus, just to name a few topics because the list gets longer.

So tell me, do you carry on the Oral Traditions of the Apostles especially from the instructions given to the Church from the Didache? You cant have the full deposit of faith from Jesus and his apostles without Sacred Tradition/Sacred Scripture. To hold to a new theology of Sola Scriptura begins to sound like a very weak theology when held up to the 2000 year old Sacred Traditional teachings from the apostles unchanged and still practiced by the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church, which scripture proves is the body of Jesus Christ.

I cant see justice for one to accept a Sola Scriptura theology, because the first Christians from the apostles to the fourth century did not have the New Testament Canonized by the Catholic church yet. So how can a Christian 1500 years later invent a new theology of Sola Scriptura and deny the first Christians faith who never heard of a Sola Scriptura theology, not even from Heretics in their time believed in such a man made invention of Sola Scriptura. I think the Christian heretics would have a hard time accepting Sola Scriptura because they had no new testament to support the Sola Scriptura theology.

Peace

 

[Cinette]

Originally Posted by justasking4 View Post
There is no such thing as an oral tradition from 2000 years ago unless its written down. You have no way to know what any oral tradition was unless it was written down.

So did you go back and check my posts?

You no doubt must know that when the Apostles went out to spread the gospel they did not have the NT. They used “word of mouth” which is Oral Tradition. This was passed on thru the centuries until the gospels were written and for some centuries these scriptures were copied by hand - a process which took a very long time as you can imagine. The first printing press was invented in 1440 and it was sometime after that that the first bibles were printed and distributed.

What is obvious is that the New Testement emanated from Oral Tradition. Therefore one can say that the Bible is the written form of Oral Tradition.

The Apostles Creed which goes back many centuries and preceeded the Nicea Creed, can be said to be part of Oral Tradition. Also the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is a very, very old prayer.

There is a book by Patrick Madrid called "Why is That in Tradition and in there you will find a section on Oral Tradition. Buy the book and read it - is is very informative

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

The Catholic church teaches that you cannot have Sacred Tradition without Sacred Scripture. The answer you seek are in the Sacred Traditional teachings of the Catholic church which Sola Scriptura followers reject, even though they are believed in Sacred Scripture, for example Purgatory is implied and believed in since the first century Christians, not to mention the first century Jews.

Yet the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Tradition has authority over Scripture, kind of contraditory. I’ve noticed that a lot of Roman Catholic doctrine is implied, yet when a Protestant uses implication as a platform is it ignored.

Sola Scriptura followers do not follow the Didache a first century document that explains the Catholic christian faith from the Oral traditions. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Oral Tradtional teachings do not come to the surface by a letter or written in time; until the Oral Teachings come under attack from heresies or heretics.

Why follow a document that even the Roman Catholic historians admit is a forgery? Why do you think some of the books that were canonized were removed by the protestant reformers, it wasn’t out of arrogance or hatred for the RCC it was because these books were in question as to their validity. Better to remove something that is in doubt then to have error enter into ones beliefs

But for your curosity and to entertain you; here is a few Oral Traditions handed down from Jesus and the apostles which most Sola Scripturalist reject. The Eucharist, Confession to a Priest, attending Mass on the Lord’s Day, Sacraments, The Our Father used in the Liturgy, Selection of Priests, and Deacons, Successors to the apostolic chair, Trinity, Belief in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother Mary, Her coronation, Her assumption into heaven, Mary Mother of God (Thetokos) The names of the parents of the blessed Virgin Mary, the name of the Roman soldier who speared Jesus, just to name a few topics because the list gets longer.
[/QOUTE]

You presume too much, not all protestants deny all the above. And some of which you have listed they only take a different stand upon. What is solid is that most, but sadly not all, believe in the divinity of Christ and the Grace that he has brought to us through his sacrificial blood.
Gabriel of 12;4202356:

So tell me, do you carry on the Oral Traditions of the Apostles especially from the instructions given to the Church from the Didache? You cant have the full deposit of faith from Jesus and his apostles without Sacred Tradition/Sacred Scripture. To hold to a new theology of Sola Scriptura begins to sound like a very weak theology when held up to the 2000 year old Sacred Traditional teachings from the apostles unchanged and still practiced by the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church, which scripture proves is the body of Jesus Christ.

See above

I cant see justice for one to accept a Sola Scriptura theology, because the first Christians from the apostles to the fourth century did not have the New Testament Canonized by the Catholic church yet. So how can a Christian 1500 years later invent a new theology of Sola Scriptura and deny the first Christians faith who never heard of a Sola Scriptura theology, not even from Heretics in their time believed in such a man made invention of Sola Scriptura. I think the Christian heretics would have a hard time accepting Sola Scriptura because they had no new testament to support the Sola Scriptura theology.

Peace

Question, would the Apostles have written anything they had not spoken? of course you would say that Tradition is that which they spoke but did not write, and I can agree to that. But, what I cannot agree to is that it was kept pure for all these years. And therefore, if were are to maintain our path to salvation then we must rely on Holy Writ.

If we rely on Holy Writ how do we determine which is correct and which is not correct? It therefore must be evaluated against other documents during the time of the Apostles as they are the originators of NT writ and then we must look to OT writ, and the has be preserved by the Jews.

See illistration to follow.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Illistration.

Now what of the writ that is questionable. I liken this to suspected poisoned wine.

Let’s say that we have 20 bottles of wine in various colored bottles.

These bottles are of two different sizes and the bottoms are of three different configuations; flat, slightly concave and medium concave

now some come to us and says “There is poison in one of the bottles of this size.” What do we do? Do we ignore the warning because there is poison in only one of the bottles and the chances of us getting poison are only 1 in 20 or do we seperate out the bottles of that size to insure that no one gets poisoned?

Now let’s take it further. Let’s say someone else comes and says, "the poison is in a bottle with a slightly concave bottom. So now of the ten bottles that are of the size stated we find that 6 have the bottom discribed. We have salvaged 4 of our bottles of wine and have narrowed down the poison.

Finally we have a final person that comes and sais, " The poison is in a red bottle." Ahh, there are three red bottles. But the problem is that these bottles contain the most expensive of the wines. What do we do? Shall we take a chance and drink them anyway? (By the way, we are assuming that there are no valid tests that we can further test this wine so what we have is what we have.) For my part the wine is forfeit. Rather pour it down the drain then take a chance on poisoning anyone.

This is in essence of how the protestant translators developed the protestant Bible.

 

[onenow1]

Illistration.

Now what of the writ that is questionable. I liken this to suspected poisoned wine.

Let’s say that we have 20 bottles of wine in various colored bottles.

These bottles are of two different sizes and the bottoms are of three different configuations; flat, slightly concave and medium concave

now some come to us and says “There is poison in one of the bottles of this size.” What do we do? Do we ignore the warning because there is poison in only one of the bottles and the chances of us getting poison are only 1 in 20 or do we seperate out the bottles of that size to insure that no one gets poisoned?

Now let’s take it further. Let’s say someone else comes and says, "the poison is in a bottle with a slightly concave bottom. So now of the ten bottles that are of the size stated we find that 6 have the bottom discribed. We have salvaged 4 of our bottles of wine and have narrowed down the poison.

Finally we have a final person that comes and sais, " The poison is in a red bottle." Ahh, there are three red bottles. But the problem is that these bottles contain the most expensive of the wines. What do we do? Shall we take a chance and drink them anyway? (By the way, we are assuming that there are no valid tests that we can further test this wine so what we have is what we have.) For my part the wine is forfeit. Rather pour it down the drain then take a chance on poisoning anyone.

This is in essence of how the protestant translators developed the protestant Bible.

Quote=OneNow1
Here’s the real deal !
…that the decision documented in Acts 15 was NOT made by Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura)?
The question which arose in this chapter, was about the Gentile converts and whether or not they had to be circumcised (vs 3-5). The Apostles, in their very first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem, made the decision not to demand circumcision for converts (vs 28-29), and that decision was made by the Apostles and the Holy Spirit alone, and with no mention of Scripture being consulted. There is no doubt that the Apostles knew that this particular circumstance was NOT in Scripture, and that they knew they would have to decide the result by using their own GOD given authority (Matthew 16:19,18:17-18, John 20:21-23), and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Compare that with John 14:16-17 and John 16:13-15.
This is a prime Scriptural example of the Development of Doctrine, which continues to this very day and which others reject.
See! Everything is NOT in the Bible, as the Bible plainly tells us in John 20:30-31 and John 21:25.
The situation is exactly the same today when different circumstances arise. The Catholic Church calls a council, and the Pope, the Magisterium, the Bishops and Cardinals in conjunction with the Holy Spirit make a final decision to resolve the question. Rome has spoken, the issue is settled.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4 View Post
There is no such thing as an oral tradition from 2000 years ago unless its written down. You have no way to know what any oral tradition was unless it was written down.

So did you go back and check my posts?

You no doubt must know that when the Apostles went out to spread the gospel they did not have the NT. They used “word of mouth” which is Oral Tradition. This was passed on thru the centuries until the gospels were written and for some centuries these scriptures were copied by hand - a process which took a very long time as you can imagine. The first printing press was invented in 1440 and it was sometime after that that the first bibles were printed and distributed.

What is obvious is that the New Testement emanated from Oral Tradition. Therefore one can say that the Bible is the written form of Oral Tradition.

The Apostles Creed which goes back many centuries and preceeded the Nicea Creed, can be said to be part of Oral Tradition. Also the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is a very, very old prayer.

There is a book by Patrick Madrid called "Why is That in Tradition and in there you will find a section on Oral Tradition. Buy the book and read it - is is very informative

The problem is that even though the apostle did teach some things orally we don’t know exactly what they were. The only things we know from the apostles is found only in the NT.

 

[guanophore]

The problem is that even though the apostle did teach some things orally we don’t know exactly what they were. The only things we know from the apostles is found only in the NT.

If you do not wish to know what they are, you are free to avoid learning that. If you wish to limit yourself to the parts that are found in the NT, you are free to do that also. This being the case, why are you here?