Sola Scriptura Silence

[inkaneer]

Consider this concerning Sola Scriptura or the Bible as the only or even final authority. Baptists and Lutherans both adhere to the Sola Scriptura doctrine. Yet Lutherans justify infant baptism on the basis of scripture and Baptists, citing the same scripture, deny it. Obviously they are diametrically opposed to each other so both can not be correct doctrine. So which is correct? Who is to decide? The believer? That’s is why we have so many protestant denominations. That 30,000 figure mentioned earlier came from a study conducted by the Oxford University (England) School of Divinity. This, by the way, is not a Catholic institution. In addition, is there any evidence that sola scriptura was ever taught as a doctrine in the church in the first 15 centries? I have asked this of protestants and have never received an answer. I can not find any evidence and my guess is they can’t either. Sola scriptura is one of those “traditions of man” that protestants like to accuse Catholics of.

 

[Sharp11]

There seems to be some misapprehension here that the Catholic Church (i.e. the one presided over by the Bishop of Rome) compiled the Bible.

This is simply not historical.

The earliest churches in Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Caesarea, Antioch etc. were all separate entities and from the earliest times were in possession of the various letters and ‘gospels’ which form our present canon.

The formation of the canon was due to a growing grass-roots consensus rather than a decision that was handed down by ecclesiastical authorities. The canon was not imposed by church leaders or by councils. They stand at the end of the process rather than at the beginning.

No action of a council or a synod was early enough to have had a decisive influence on the course of events. The council decrees have the form: “This council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical”.

And even if it had been a “church” that selected the canon, it would certainly not have been the Catholic Church in Rome as all ecumenical Councils before 900 AD were held in the Greek East and all were convoked by the Emperor from Constantinople.

The order of church development was conditioned by the availability of scriptures in the common tongue. The Bible passed from Hebrew to Greek and thence into Latin, and the churches developed in similar order.

Hi Vynette,

I agree with much of what you say. In particular, I agree that the formation of the canon was a “grassroots” process, and the declarations of the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) served more as a formal recognition of what was already standard Christian belief than an introduction of a novel doctrine.

This is, of course, exactly in line with Catholic teaching on ecclesiastical authority and the deposit of faith. All doctrine comes from the deposit of public revelation, which consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Church has no authority to introduce new doctrine; rather, she has the authority only to testify without error to the contents of this deposit of faith.

Sacred Tradition can be thought of as the corporate belief of the Christian community, passed down from generation to generation. As we have discussed on this thread, the canon of Scripture is an extra-biblical element of public revelation that, by definition, must come from Tradition.

Therefore, from a Catholic standpoint, it makes perfect sense that the canon of Scripture is first and foremost a product of a “grassroots” belief, held corporately by the Christian community and passed down from generation to generation, one which the Magisterium does not conceive but to which the it does correctly attest (unofficially at Carthage and Hippo and dogmatically at Trent).

But I disagree with some of your conclusions. For instance, if the Catholic Church–the Church over which the Bishop of Rome presides–is characterized by doctrines that follow this pattern, and the grassroots movement that produced the canon sprang up from this same Church, then how can you say that the Catholic Church did not compile the Bible?

Perhaps the Catholic Church did not compile the Bible in a “top-down” fashion, but that is not how the doctrines of the Catholic Church come into existence anyway.

I’m also not sure about what you say regarding the various early churches being “separate entities.” If you simply mean that they were distinct in some way, then of course I agree. But if you mean that they were independent in such a way that none had authority over another, or that there was no hierarchy among them, then I don’t think history supports what you’re saying.

In addition, whether or not the Catholic Church compiled the Bible is irrelevant to my argument for why Sola Scriptura is internally inconsistent. As long as the Bible does not “compile itself” by defining its own table of contents, then for the purposes of this debate it doesn’t matter who compiled it–Sola Scriptura defeats itself regardless.

Sharp 11

 

[joe370]

Howie01

Yes, the reformers were right. Sola Scriptura, and all of the solas, came about because of the reformers belief that the visible Church, at that time, was corrupt, and those who followed them believed that it remained corrupt. I agree with them.

**So, Jesus was not the Savior of His Body, until M.L. came along…the gates of hell did in fact prevail, at least until a mere man came along…the Holy Spirit was unable to guide Jesus’ One church, at least not without the help of Martin Luther??? **

The reformers were aware that the words sola scriptura weren’t in the Scripture, but also, they were keenly aware that the scriptures were the only true repository of God’s revelation to man, and that they were the means God had ordained to lead sinners into the truth and to guide Christians in their daily lives. Many scripture passages attest to that. Christ Himself, held all of the Jews to the teachings of Moses and the prophets—another name for the OT.

So, Jesus said, as per Matthew 18:17 --take it to the bible via private interpretation???

Another argument you’ll hear is, the NT wasn’t canonized until long after the death of Christ, and the apostles. That is true, and the reformers knew that, they were CATHOLICS! They also knew that the writings of the NT were in circulation well before they were assembled as the NT.

**What’s your point? If I can’t trust the church, then I can’t trust the bible -period? If they could have botched one set of teachings, then they certainly could have botched the correct inclusion/exclusion of books in your bible! **

Next you’ll hear, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But what is a pillar and foundation if not that which holds up the truth found in God’s written revelation.

**The Holy Spirit holds up the truth, as per the bible; Jesus holds up the truth, as per the bible; take the Trinity out of the equation and your bible is totally untrustworthy? Also, if sola scriptura via private interpretation is the order of business, then why do we need teachers, which of course we can find in every church the world over; which church is right? How many truths can there be vis-a-vis any one doctrine?
**

Furthermore, you’ll hear that the apostles taught oral tradition, and 2 Thess 2:15 is cited as proof of that.

Anyone caring more about truth, than about some overused and faulty apologetic, would take the time to read the entire chapter and beyond.

In so doing, one finds that Paul states, in writing, the oral teachings he already delivered to the Thessalonians.

OK…why do we see pastors and ministers teaching orally, extracting what they believe to be truth, from the bible?

In v1, the oral teaching concerns the Coming of our Lord, and our gathering to Him, and Paul reminds them that he had told that to them before in person v5. Regarding the holding to traditions in v15, one finds the other oral teaching already delivered in v 6, keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life. That’s a clearly written teaching throughout scripture.

**Is the C.C. the only church that failed? Are all the other myriad divided churches on the right path? Is the One C.C. the only church we should keep away from…the only church leading an unruly life? Is Satan the author of confusion? Do we find confusion in the multifarious protestant churches, or do we find confusion in the Only church established by God circa 33 AD? **

With respect to the RCs oral tradition, the inference is that it somehow differs from that which was written by the apostles.

**Everything the Apostles taught can be found in the Bible? nothing could have been lost for those first few centuries when pagan Rome was persecuting the brothers and sisters in Christ…was burning books at every opportunities? Did Jesus Christ say, go teach everything I have commanded, and remember --I am with you always, or did He say --write down everything I have commanded, and remember --I am going to leave you at some undisclosed period of time; the gates will in fact temporarily prevail, but not to worry, I will pick another leader that will start another church, and he will be the savior of that church --and BTW forget all that stuff I said about adhering to unity and oneness; forget about all that stuff I said about steering clear of division, disunity and dissension? **

That being the case, the burden of proof is upon the Church to substantiate that claim. But I’ve yet to have any Catholic provide a list of unwritten oral tradition, taught by any apostle. It can’t be done.

Wrong again!!! The burden of proof is on Jesus, who said He would be the Head and Savior of His One Church, which is His Mystical Body; did Jesus fail to be the Savior of His Body, which is comprised of brothers and sisters in Christ, or did the anti-Christ succeed at converting some of the wheat to chaff in Jesis’ One Church, as he did with Judas; did the anti-Christ defeat Christ, necessitating the need for Christ to build a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th church, to the tune of thousands of churches??? The burden of proof lies squarely on the Spiritual shoulders of the Holy Spirit, Who is the Spirit of Truth, Who was commissioned by God on Pentecost to “teach” and “guide” Jesus’ One Church into unity and oneness…in perpetuity, as per John 14!!!
continued…

 

[NHInsider]

There seems to be some misapprehension here that the Catholic Church (i.e. the one presided over by the Bishop of Rome) compiled the Bible.

This is simply not historical.

See comment below

The earliest churches in Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Caesarea, Antioch etc. were all separate entities and from the earliest times were in possession of the various letters and ‘gospels’ which form our present canon.

The formation of the canon was due to a growing grass-roots consensus rather than a decision that was handed down by ecclesiastical authorities. The canon was not imposed by church leaders or by councils. They stand at the end of the process rather than at the beginning.

No action of a council or a synod was early enough to have had a decisive influence on the course of events. The council decrees have the form: “This council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical”.

And without those decrees, how do you know that the Gospel of John is canonical and the Gospel of Thomas isn’t? The letters, gospels, apocalypses and other writings that the various churches had in their custody constituted a MUCH larger body of work than the 27 books we all consider authoritative.

And even if it had been a “church” that selected the canon, it would certainly not have been the Catholic Church in Rome as all ecumenical Councils before 900 AD were held in the Greek East and all were convoked by the Emperor from Constantinople.

Really??

You’ve made some assertions of history that do not seem to correlate with what is generally reported or understood - perhaps you’d like to cite some sources?

 

[JJ59]

Hi!

Maybe we should all stay on one topic. It’s just getting to be a mess!

How’s about we stay on say, the canon for now. For Protestants: How do you know what books are in the canon of the Bible? The Bible is silent on the subject. Doesn’t it ring true that if the Bible doesn’t say it, (doctrinally) we shouldn’t do it?

Oddly enough, a lot of Protestants I hear have a high standard for things being written in the Bible. (Veneration of Mary isn’t explicit enough in the Bible. Off it goes! The Mass isn’t explicit enough in the Bible. Off it goes!) Except for when it comes to Sola Scriptura, when it’s: “It says it’s God-Breathed, and doesn’t call anything else that. Plus it says ‘it is written’ a whole bunch” and it’s completely true. Where’s the canon???

Oh, and for anyone still wondering, I think I’ve made my decision (In case what I wrote above wasn’t obvious enough ) I’m Catholicism-bound.

God Bless.

 

[ralphy]

Hi there everyone.

Anyway, to start off, I’ve been having some problems recently. Back nearly a year ago was when I decided to leave protestantism behind, and go towards Catholicism. (But, at the present time, I am unable to be baptized. Yet, that is.) The past few weeks, though, I realized that I hadn’t prayed and asked God if Catholicism is the way. (I feel as if I need that confirmation) Now I find myself afraid to ask for the truth, because Catholicism makes me so glad, and it’s so much… fuller. I don’t want protestantism to be true.

But now for my real question:
One of the obvious flaws Catholics point out in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (myself included) is that the Bible never says that the Bible alone is our authority.
Then I got thinking: Should the Bible say that? Why?

Let’s take Jesus (ie the gospels) and the Epistles, which never say anything explicit about Sola Scriptura. Scripture being our sole authority as opposed to something else was never a matter of debate among Christians then. Why should they have said anything about it? I mean, the epistles were written to address issues of the time (For instance, Paul’s talk of the Lord’s Supper didn’t say much explicit about how we should to it: It was to address the problem that people were eating their own meals during that time.).

So I’m unsure… The matter of authority was not a problem back then, and Scripture was quoted frequently and spoken of as “God-breathed”, the way one would speak of it if they held it as the sole authority. Is the silence of Sola Scriptura meaningful? Are the protestants right??

So confused…

God Bless.

Hello my friend. I was catholic for 43 years,and when I studied the Bible I came out from it.Why?. Because they rely mostly on catholic tradition. However if you look up John 12:44-50 you will see what we will be judged by in the last days,and that is not tradition. I would suggest that you should go to a bible believing man you can trust to tell you the truth and have a discussion with him. I believe that some catholics are saved, but only God knows for sure. The catholic church will not baptise you because have not been indoctrinated into their church teaching.Do you want to feel glad or know you are where God wants you to be. In Christian love, Ralph.

 

[SSTeacher]

Is the silence of Sola Scriptura meaningful? Are the protestants right??

Hi JJ59,

Even if I were to contend that the Bible does teach Sola Scriptura and then draw your attention to any number of verses or passages in the Bible that “proved” my case it is you that would ultimately decide the matter. So it really is a question of authority. The ordinary Catholic knows that anything he or she reads in the Bible has to be filtered through the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Thus the Catholic Church is able not only to declare to its people that objective truth can be known with certainty but it’s also capable of delivering uniformity of doctrine. It can also guarantee to provide a definitive answer to difficult questions that arise in the area of faith and morals. It can do this because its claim to having the authority over the Bible is accepted by those who call themselves Catholics.

Compare that scenario with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which declares that the Bible alone as interpreted by each individual believer is the sole rule of faith. The implication is that objective truth can be discerned by a subjective method.

Can it?

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura delivers discordant “interpretations of truth” thus confirming that objective truth cannot be discerned by a subjective method. Moreover, the doctrine cannot adjudicate on disputes because Sola Scriptura, by its very nature, endorses every single interpretation however contradictory those interpretations might be. This means two Protestants might read their Bibles together following which one Protestant concludes one thing on an issue and the other Protestant comes to understand the complete opposite on that same issue. Does at least one of them hold a faulty view? Absolutely. But how could anybody say for certain which one it might be given the framework in which both have agreed to operate?

A classic example of the unavoidable impasse is seen within the disagreement inside Protestant Christendom over the issue of capital punishment. This is no trifling issue. It’s literally a matter of life and death. And if one acknowledges that it’s a moral issue, then one must also acknowledge there must be a right and a wrong about it, which God wishes His people to recognize, believe and then act upon. Yet Protestant Christians are sharply divided on the issue. Some are passionately for it. Others are passionately against it. Both sides are certain they’re right. Both sides appeal to the Bible as their guiding authority. Both sides claim the Bible endorses their respective positions. And both sides fail to see that they are applying that claim not to the Bible but to their own disputed and unverified understanding of it. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura makes such scenarios inevitable because it demands this kind of illogical reasoning.

Consider the idea of evolution, which atheists suggest renders God unnecessary. One Protestant reads the creation account in Genesis and concludes: “I’ve always understood Genesis in a literal sense. There’s nothing in here about any kind of evolution so evolution adduced as an explanation for life contradicts biblical truth.” Another Protestant reads the creation account in Genesis and concludes: “I’ve always understood Genesis to be a theological and not a scientific statement. I don’t think Genesis is a treatise on geology, biology, or any other science. We’re not told when creation took place. Nor are we given details as to how God brought the earth and all of life into being or how long it all took. I’ve always understood this passage to depict not how but just that God is the Creator so there’s no reason why I shouldn’t default to secular science and popular opinion and suppose that evolution is true.”

Don’t these two opinions flatly contradict each other? Sure they do. Yet despite that, and despite that fact that both are built on the premise that “what I’ve always understood equals truth,” the doctrine of Sola Scriptura endorses both of them as true. Because the doctrine of Sola Scriptura cannot authoritatively define truth, its proponents are forced to presuppose they already have it. But if truth is merely supposed then error could be true. Right? So the doctrine of Sola Scriptura actually makes objective truth completely inaccessible because it treats truth and error as equals and shunts both into the nebulous realm of what people suppose or have always understood to be true or not true. When one Sola Scriptura advocate disagrees with another Sola Scriptura advocate about a passage of Scripture they are, in effect, saying to each other, “That part of the Bible might be true for you but it’s not true for me.” Don’t you think the Protestants that embrace the doctrine of Sola Scriptura sound a little like the secular relativists whose logic they reject as nonsensical?

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is wayward because it encourages its followers to regard their own opinions as supreme. And people who think their own opinions are supreme aren’t teachable. The Bible can guide those who are willing to be guided by it. The Bible can inspire those who are willing to be inspired by it. But the Bible cannot control spiritual insurrectionists or explain difficulties to earnest inquirers. For that we need something more. Because the Bible itself doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura some students, both ancient and modern, contend that this doctrine leads the unwary toward bibliolatry and under close scrutiny appears to have as many holes in it as a lump of Swiss cheese.

I encourage you to keep on with your search.

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[shoeladyz]

Re: Sola Scriptura Silence

The best way I can help you is to refer you to scholarly people who give very convincing arguments against Sola Scriptura. In the link below, they start with as quote from an article written by James Akin, which I find rather compelling. James Akin was a former Presbytarian minister who converted to Catholicism.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a12.htm

On the link below you will find an article written by James Akin, called “Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura,” which I think is very good. Another practical problem to Sola Scriptura, which I don’t believe he mentioned, is that before the invention of the printing press in 1450, people were illiterate.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRACTICL.htm

 

[Jerry_Marino]

all sound doctrine comes from scripture: 2 timothy 3:16-17

this passage of scripture gives us three more reasons why we should make the Bible part of our day to day life.

1. the Bible teaches us what it true
2. the Bible shows us what is wrong in our lives
3. the Bible helps us do what is right.

once one strays from truth and sets their own ideas of what is right or wrong then we are basing it on mans point of view instead of God’s.

Sola Scriptura

 

[SHW]

Hello my friend. I was catholic for 43 years,and when I studied the Bible I came out from it.Why?. Because they rely mostly on catholic tradition. However if you look up John 12:44-50 you will see what we will be judged by in the last days,and that is not tradition. I would suggest that you should go to a bible believing man you can trust to tell you the truth and have a discussion with him. I believe that some catholics are saved, but only God knows for sure. The catholic church will not baptise you because have not been indoctrinated into their church teaching.Do you want to feel glad or know you are where God wants you to be. In Christian love, Ralph.

Hi Ralph,

Actually we are judged by our works/deeds on Judgment Day, as proof of our true faith which approves us for inheriting the crown of eternal life; or else as proof of our lack of faith which condemns us to hell for eternity. (Matthew 25:31-46)

Revelation 20:12 “And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,[a] and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.”

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8** in flaming fire taking vengeance** on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord”

Romans 2:5-9 “But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil,”

What does Scripture tell us about tradition in the Church?

1 Corinthians 11:2 “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

1 Corinthians 14:37 “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual,** let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord**.”

Galatians 1:9 “As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”

James 1:12 “Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.”

Seems you have a misunderstanding of Scripture concerning judgment and tradition.

Pax,
SHW

 

[rocketrob]

all sound doctrine comes from scripture: 2 timothy 3:16-17

This is not actually what is written in the referenced Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states that all Scripture is profitable for teaching, and can be used to expose false teachings. Rather than saying all sound doctrine comes from Scripture, the passage is saying that all sound doctrine will be consistent with Scripture. Or, alternatively, that Scripture will expose unsound doctrine:

All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice (2 Tim 3:16)

Interestingly enough, the Sacred Tradition that the Catholic Church attests to is mentioned just two verses earlier:

But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them (2 Tim 3:14)

And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. (CCC 81)

rocketrob

 

[Sharp11]

all sound doctrine comes from scripture: 2 timothy 3:16-17
…
Sola Scriptura

Hi Jerry,

You quoted 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

…and claimed it implies that “all sound doctrine comes from scripture.”

I can see that these two verses teach that Scripture is a source sound doctrine, but where does it say that Scripture is the source of ALL sound doctrine, or, put another way, where does it say that Scripture is sufficient as the ONLY source of sound doctrine?

It doesn’t–even if you want to ascribe sufficiency to “complete, equipped for every good work,” the Greek word hina (“so that” in v. 17) merely implies that what comes before it serves the purpose of what comes after it. We do not have to assume that what comes before it is sufficient for what comes after it.

Moreover, strictly speaking, the grammar of the two verses is such that it is the “teaching”, “reproof” and “correction” that are said to serve the purpose of making the man of God complete. Scripture is merely profitable (Greek ophelimos) for these things; nowhere is it stated that Scripture alone is sufficient for them.

Also, the words translated as “All Scripture” are pasa graphe. The Greek word for all (pas, pasa, pan) takes different meanings depending on whether or not it is accompanied by the direct article (ho, he, to). With the article and in the singular, it generally means “all” in the sense of “all of ___ as a whole”; without the article and in the singular, it generally means “all” in the sense of “each ___ taken individually”.

The direct article he is not present in 2Tim 3:16. Therefore the words translated “All Scripture” mean, literally, “Each writing considered individually.”

In order to prove Sola Scriptura from 2Tim 3:16-17, you must demonstrate that what follows “All Scripture” implies the sufficiency of its subject as the sole source of Christian doctrine.

Yet even if you could do that, you would be proving to much. You would be proving that each writing, each book in the Bible (strictly speaking, the each book in the Old Testament, because that was the extent of Scripture as the writer of 2 Timothy knew it), is sufficient in and of itself as the sole source of Christian doctrine. Clearly we can both agree that this is false. Hence we can conclude that whatever 2Tim 3:16-17 is teaching, it can certainly not be teaching Sola Scriptura.

Sharp 11

 

[vynette]

Hi Sharp 11 and NHInsider,

There seems to be a little confusion about what the term “catholic” meant in the early church.

All the early “catholic” [universal in faith] churches existed independently of the one situated in Rome. Christian churches of both East and West were deemed to be “Catholic” if they held to the same orthodox set of beliefs, such as those decreed at Nicea.

The Nicene Creed as approved at the Council of Constantinople [381] says:

“We believe in…One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church…and we look for the resurrection of the dead…”

The word “Catholic” here means “universal” and refers to the whole Christian church of East and West. Rome was only a minor player at Nicea as the overwhelming majority of Bishops in attendance came from the Greek East [about 300] rather than from the Latin West [7].

From the time that the primacy of the See of Rome was recognised by the Emperor Phocas in 607 AD, the terms “Roman Church” and “Catholic Church” have gradually become interchangeable in the West.

But for the first 600 years of Christianity, regardless of what certain individuals may have claimed, no See or Bishop was recognised by the universal [catholic] church as having any pre-dominance over another, as is evident from the First Council of Nicea, Canon 6:

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges…”

 

[Jose_Isla]

Listen to Christ’s Church and everything she teaches about Sacred Scripture. This is our faith. There was a church at least two centuries before there was a Bible. Anything else or any opinion other than the catholic position on sacred scripture is not the whole truth. No one else is close to our magestrium and teaching authority. It’s that simple. God bless.

Jose

 

[ralphy]

Hi Ralph,

Actually we are judged by our works/deeds on Judgment Day, as proof of our true faith which approves us for inheriting the crown of eternal life; or else as proof of our lack of faith which condemns us to hell for eternity. (Matthew 25:31-46)

Revelation 20:12 “And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,[a] and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.”

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8** in flaming fire taking vengeance** on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord”

Romans 2:5-9 “But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil,”

What does Scripture tell us about tradition in the Church?

1 Corinthians 11:2 “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

1 Corinthians 14:37 “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual,** let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord**.”

Galatians 1:9 “As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”

James 1:12 “Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.”

Seems you have a misunderstanding of Scripture concerning judgment and tradition.

Pax,
SHW

First of all ,God is talking about the saved and unsaved.The first quote about Rev 20 was talking about a book (these are saved people ,one book of names) the next says “books”,that is many unsaved and these people are judged for their works and will recieve degrees of puishment in Hell,all punishment in Hell is extremely bad. 2 Thes 1:7-9 is refering to when Christ comes back with His angels (the saved are already taken out and gone home to glory)He will destroy those who did not know God and did not obey the gospel of Christ (I want you to note -“the gospel of Christ”, not by tradition).Anything that God wants us know, He has seen to it that it is all written down in his word. His word will be your judge in the last days. God will look at our works at the judgement seat of Christ to see if they stand the test of fire. If they survive the test of fire we will receive rewards ,if they don’t pass the fire test they will be burnt up. These rewards (or crowns) will be given to Jesus as our gift to Him as He is worthy to receive them, for all things are His. Tradititon can and will change, Gods word is steadfast forever, you make the choice. Ralph

 

[mijac]

Yeah right. Prove me wrong then Martin.

Show me that there are not multiple thousands of n-C communities. You cannot do it so I submit that it is your own allegation that might better qualify as (how you put it) :yawn:

Anything to try to indict the Catholic faith, this has been discussed and debated and you just won’t accept that you are whacking a straw man when the documentation supports my own contention that the high end numbers are not as important and the fact that it exceeds any reasonable number and that the result is the very confusion that the New Testament plainly tells us cannot be from the Holy Spirit. 1st Corinthians 14:33

I doubt that anyone can prove the exact number of protestant churches, And the number has to be huge when one considers both denominational as well as nondenominationa. Every single nondeminational church is an independent church… The point remains it has been devision upon devision within the Protestant churches based on Solo Scriptura all claiming to be true, and all teaching something different. Check this out for a listing of of different churches en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Christians

Here are a few from the List blows me a way, look Luter establishe one church the Lutheran church. Here are a list of Lutheran denominations…
There are probably more than this:
I count 50 different Lutheran denominations:

[edit] Lutheranism
Main articles: Lutheranism and Martin Luther
Apostolic Lutheran Church of America
Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America
Church of the Lutheran Confession
Concordia Lutheran Conference
Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference
Evangelical Lutheran Church “Concord” (Russia)
Evangelical Lutheran Free Church (Germany)
Evangelical Lutheran Synod (United States)
Lutheran Church of Central Africa Malawi Conference
Lutheran Church of Central Africa Zambia Conference
Ukrainian Lutheran Church
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (United States)
Evangelical Catholic Church
Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran
Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America
International Lutheran Council
American Association of Lutheran Churches
Evangelical Lutheran Church - Synod of France and Belgium
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil
Evangelical Lutheran Church of England
Gutnius Lutheran Church
Independent Evangelical-Lutheran Church
Japan Lutheran Church
Lanka Lutheran Church
Lutheran Church - Canada
Lutheran Church—Hong Kong Synod

Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (United States)
Lutheran Church of Australia (associate member)
German Evangelical Church in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (no longer in existence)
Laestadian Lutheran Church
Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Lutheran Church of China (no longer in existence)
Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (United States)
Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church (United States)
Lutheran Ministerium and Synod - USA
Lutheran World Federation
Church of Denmark
Church of Iceland
Church of Norway
Church of Sweden
Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church
Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Slovakia
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania
Evangelical Lutheran Free Church of Norway (associate member)
Lutheran Church of Australia (associate member)
Malagasy Lutheran Church

There are close to 100 different Baptist denominations. The lists go on

 

[ralphy]

I doubt that anyone can prove the exact number of protestant churches, And the number has to be huge when one considers both denominational as well as nondenominationa. Every single nondeminational church is an independent church… The point remains it has been devision upon devision within the Protestant churches based on Solo Scriptura all claiming to be true, and all teaching something different. Check this out for a listing of of different churches en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Christians

Here are a few from the List blows me a way, look Luter establishe one church the Lutheran church. Here are a list of Lutheran denominations…
There are probably more than this:
I count 50 different Lutheran denominations:

[edit] Lutheranism
Main articles: Lutheranism and Martin Luther
Apostolic Lutheran Church of America
Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America
Church of the Lutheran Confession
Concordia Lutheran Conference
Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference
Evangelical Lutheran Church “Concord” (Russia)
Evangelical Lutheran Free Church (Germany)
Evangelical Lutheran Synod (United States)
Lutheran Church of Central Africa Malawi Conference
Lutheran Church of Central Africa Zambia Conference
Ukrainian Lutheran Church
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (United States)
Evangelical Catholic Church
Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran
Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America
International Lutheran Council
American Association of Lutheran Churches
Evangelical Lutheran Church - Synod of France and Belgium
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil
Evangelical Lutheran Church of England
Gutnius Lutheran Church
Independent Evangelical-Lutheran Church
Japan Lutheran Church
Lanka Lutheran Church
Lutheran Church - Canada
Lutheran Church—Hong Kong Synod

Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (United States)
Lutheran Church of Australia (associate member)
German Evangelical Church in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (no longer in existence)
Laestadian Lutheran Church
Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Lutheran Church of China (no longer in existence)
Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (United States)
Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church (United States)
Lutheran Ministerium and Synod - USA
Lutheran World Federation
Church of Denmark
Church of Iceland
Church of Norway
Church of Sweden
Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church
Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Slovakia
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania
Evangelical Lutheran Free Church of Norway (associate member)
Lutheran Church of Australia (associate member)
Malagasy Lutheran Church

There are close to 100 different Baptist denominations. The lists go on

Can you tell me who makes up the church, who belongs to the Body of Christ. Ralph

 

[rocketrob]

…He will destroy those who did not know God and did not obey the gospel of Christ (I want you to note -“the gospel of Christ”, not by tradition)…Tradititon can and will change, Gods word is steadfast forever, you make the choice. Ralph

To be clear, Catholics would not disagree with these words. The Sacred Tradition that has been discussed and defended in the posts above ***is ***part of Christ’s Gospel:

Catholic Catechism Article 76:

In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
—orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received—whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;

—in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.”

The oral method of transmission is Sacred Tradition. The written method is obviously Sacred Scripture. Togeher, they make up the complete Gospel of Christ, which cannot change.

In contrast, the traditions of the Church (lower case ‘t’) can and do change, as long as they are true to the Gospel of Christ (ie, both Sacred Tradition and Scripture):

Catechism Article 83
…Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium.

rocketrob

 

[mijac]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mijac
I doubt that anyone can prove the exact number of protestant churches, And the number has to be huge when one considers both denominational as well as nondenominationa. Every single nondeminational church is an independent church… The point remains it has been devision upon devision within the Protestant churches based on Solo Scriptura all claiming to be true, and all teaching something different. Check this out for a listing of of different churches en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Christians

Here are a few from the List blows me a way, look Luter establishe one church the Lutheran church. Here are a list of Lutheran denominations…
There are probably more than this:
I count 50 different Lutheran denominations:

[edit] Lutheranism
Main articles: Lutheranism and Martin Luther
Apostolic Lutheran Church of America
Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America
Church of the Lutheran Confession
Concordia Lutheran Conference
Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference
Evangelical Lutheran Church “Concord” (Russia)
Evangelical Lutheran Free Church (Germany)
Evangelical Lutheran Synod (United States)
Lutheran Church of Central Africa Malawi Conference
Lutheran Church of Central Africa Zambia Conference
Ukrainian Lutheran Church
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (United States)
Evangelical Catholic Church
Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran
Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America
International Lutheran Council
American Association of Lutheran Churches
Evangelical Lutheran Church - Synod of France and Belgium
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil
Evangelical Lutheran Church of England
Gutnius Lutheran Church
Independent Evangelical-Lutheran Church
Japan Lutheran Church
Lanka Lutheran Church
Lutheran Church - Canada
Lutheran Church—Hong Kong Synod

Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (United States)
Lutheran Church of Australia (associate member)
German Evangelical Church in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (no longer in existence)
Laestadian Lutheran Church
Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Lutheran Church of China (no longer in existence)
Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (United States)
Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church (United States)
Lutheran Ministerium and Synod - USA
Lutheran World Federation
Church of Denmark
Church of Iceland
Church of Norway
Church of Sweden
Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church
Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Slovakia
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania
Evangelical Lutheran Free Church of Norway (associate member)
Lutheran Church of Australia (associate member)
Malagasy Lutheran Church

There are close to 100 different Baptist denominations. The lists go on

Can you tell me who makes up the church, who belongs to the Body of Christ. Ralph

The Body of Christ per Catholic definition is the Church Militant all those on earth fighting in union with Christ against the evils and sins of the world internal and external, the Church suffering thos undergoing final purification before entering into heaven, and the church triumphant, those who are in heaven before the throne of God.

Now if you asking if Christians in general or protestants are part of the Body of Christ, yes they are.

If you are asking me which church stems from Christ with the fullness of truth, there is only one church that can show or trace it’s history directly back to Christ, through the Apostles and that is the Catholic Church.

 

[inkaneer]

There seems to be some misapprehension here that the Catholic Church (i.e. the one presided over by the Bishop of Rome) compiled the Bible.

This is simply not historical.

The earliest churches in Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Caesarea, Antioch etc. were all separate entities and from the earliest times were in possession of the various letters and ‘gospels’ which form our present canon.

The formation of the canon was due to a growing grass-roots consensus rather than a decision that was handed down by ecclesiastical authorities. The canon was not imposed by church leaders or by councils. They stand at the end of the process rather than at the beginning.

No action of a council or a synod was early enough to have had a decisive influence on the course of events. The council decrees have the form: “This council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical”.

And even if it had been a “church” that selected the canon, it would certainly not have been the Catholic Church in Rome as all ecumenical Councils before 900 AD were held in the Greek East and all were convoked by the Emperor from Constantinople.

The order of church development was conditioned by the availability of scriptures in the common tongue. The Bible passed from Hebrew to Greek and thence into Latin, and the churches developed in similar order.

I disagree. The Bible came about because of one thing, Gnosticism. Gnostics were producing their own writings, attributing them to the Apostles and claiming they were divinely inspired. The whole matter had been going on for some time [about two centuries]. During this time various bishops came out with their own lists of ‘approved’ reading. None of these were the same. Some included non inspired writings while others left out some the inspired writings. There was no real consensus on just what was inspired writing and what was not. Most included the four gospels and most of the letters of Paul but also added such works as the Didache, Protoevangelium of James, The Shepherd, the epistle of Barnabus and others. The Book of Revelation was largely not included as was the epistle to the Hebrews. It wasn’t until about 350 AD that a NT canon consisting of the 27 books as contained in our Bibles was proposed by a bishop named Athanasius. It is important to note what the reason for a canon of NT scripture was. The purpose was not to have a self study book as protestants have tried to remake it to be. Rather the reason was to have a universal set of writings to be used as readings at Mass. The purpose was entirely liturgical. So the canon was decided in a series of local councils or synods all of which came up with the same canon beginning at Rome in 382 AD, then Hippo in 393 AD then Carthage in 397 the stage was set for the very first Bible to be written. There was no ecumenical council that decided the canon until Trent in about 1547 AD. During this time [400 AD -1547 AD] there were no challenges to any of the books. At this same time [late fourth century] the language of the Roman empire in the West was changing from Greek to Latin. Pope Innocent commissioned the Great scholar Jerome to translate both the OT and the NT canon to Latin. The result was the Vulgate, the very first Bible. That Bible contained 73 books. The OT was the Greek Septuagint with its 46 books. This was the Jewish scriptures during the lifetime of Jesus and most of the Apostles. The abridged ‘Jerusalem version’ with its 39 books came near the end of the first century AD. The 73 book canon remained until the 16th century when Luther removed seven OT books from the established canon. He did so for one reason, they did not support his theological position.