Sola Scriptura...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Faith13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nicea325 said:
For the life of me I have no idea why so many hold to belief** everything is accountable **to Scripture? Just read early church history and it is no where taught. Scripture was and is important,but I read no where early Christians expressing the same view as today.
Click to expand...
Never said that EVERYTHING IS ACCOUNTABLE TO SCRIPTURE. 😃
 
SteveVH said:
Sorry about that, Dustin. 🙂

You misunderstand the Catholic meaning of Tradition. Sacred Tradition is under the same divine protection as is Sacred Scripture. It is the deposit of faith given to us from the Apostles, lived out in the very life of the Church. To be correctly interpreted it is absolutely necessary that Sacred Scripture be viewed through the lens of Sacred Tradition.

Do you understand that before something can be considered Scripture it must first have occurred in the absence of Scripture? The New Testament is just part of the life of the early Church that was committed to writing.

There was much more going on then is recorded in the New Testament. We know that Christ went through the entire Old Testament with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and opened their eyes to its true meaning in light of his coming. But we find not one thing mentioned in the Bible of what they were taught. We know, from Scripture, that Paul preached continually in the Temple for many, many days. But not one word of any of those teachings is recorded. Does this then mean that what Jesus taught the two disciples and what Paul taught in the Temple was unimportant?

That is why I say that it is the Bible which is dependent upon Sacred Tradition, not the other way around. And this Tradition is a Sacred Tradition which, with divine protection, protects and teaches that which it received from the Apostles.

Bottom line is this: If every Bible in the world was destroyed, the Catholic Church would still retain the fullness of truth. Those who depend upon the Bible as their sole source of truth would be lost.

God bless.
Click to expand...
I know what Sacred Tradition is. What I mean is that Sacred Tradition is fine as well as Sacred Tradition. If…and when…they clash, if ever, I would look to Scripture first.

Example: Many fundamentalist believe Mary had other children. I can see where they get that idea from in Scripture but I also do not see Scripture speaking against the belief of Mary being an ever virgin.

Make sense?
 
aidanbradypop said:
I know what Sacred Tradition is. What I mean is that Sacred Tradition is fine as well as Sacred Tradition. If…and when…they clash, if ever, I would look to Scripture first.

Example: Many fundamentalist believe Mary had other children. I can see where they get that idea from in Scripture but I also do not see Scripture speaking against the belief of Mary being an ever virgin.

Make sense?
Click to expand...
And you are then left as the final authority as to what truth is contained in the Scriptures. I would defer to the Sacred Tradition. What has the Church believed and taught about this matter through the centuries?
 
SteveVH said:
And you are then left as the final authority as to what truth is contained in the Scriptures. I would defer to the Sacred Tradition. What has the Church believed and taught about this matter through the centuries?
Click to expand...
The RCC or the OHCAC?
 
aidanbradypop said:
The RCC or the OHCAC?
Click to expand...
I would go the Roman Catholic Church, but I never read the views of the Ohio Heartland Community Action Commission. Are they Christian? Where in the Bible did it tell them to make the sign of the Cross? 😛 Sacred Tradition!
 
GaryTaylor said:
I would go the Roman Catholic Church, but I never read the views of the Ohio Heartland Community Action Commission. Are they Christian? Where in the Bible did it tell them to make the sign of the Cross? 😛 Sacred Tradition!
Click to expand...
My grandma told me to make it 😛
 
aidanbradypop said:
I know what Sacred Tradition is. What I mean is that Sacred Tradition is fine as well as Sacred Tradition. If…and when…they clash, if ever, I would look to Scripture first.

Example: Many fundamentalist believe Mary had other children. I can see where they get that idea from in Scripture but I also do not see Scripture speaking against the belief of Mary being an ever virgin.

Make sense?
Click to expand...
And that precisely are the results of: The Bible says this and that on this matter.

What is the missing external factor? The Church.
 
Nicea325 said:
And that precisely are the results of: The Bible says this and that on this matter.

What is the missing external factor? The Church.
Click to expand...
And reason also.

See whether she had other children or not does not matter to me. I believe she is the Mother God and that is all I need to know.
 
aidanbradypop said:
My grandma told me to make it 😛
Click to expand...
Mine too, sacred tradition. Nothing defective there. The grandmas and mothers were definitely interceding. In scripture too Jesus Mother, good point about sola scripture. I guess some didn’t need the blessing of the sign of Cross anymore. They think they are right and Church is wrong, imagine that?
 
aidanbradypop said:
And reason also.

See whether she had other children or not does not matter to me. I believe she is the Mother God and that is all I need to know.
Click to expand...
Reason is part of theology for Catholics,we do not adhere to “faith-alone” will guide me. But Christ church is founded on: Church,Scripture and Tradition.

Mary had no other children. I have dared non-Catholics over the years to find one verse where it states Mary gave birth to other children and I will convert tomorrow.

The same burned out verse they use to defend their positions is based on poor Biblical exegesis.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Mother of the Lord in scripture, Mother of God in Tradition. We don’t want to give Her too much credit for the supernatural birth of the Word of God. 😃
Click to expand...
Well see Gary you just helped me out. We know Christ to be fully God and the Trinity comes from Scripture and Tradition so both support one another when saying Mother of God
 
Nicea325 said:
Reason is part of theology for Catholics,we do not adhere to “faith-alone” will guide me. But Christ church is founded on: Church,Scripture and Tradition.

Mary had no other children. I have dared non-Catholics over the years to find one verse where it states Mary gave birth to other children and I will convert tomorrow.

The same burned out verse they use to defend their positions is based on poor Biblical exegesis.
Click to expand...
Stop preaching to the chior lol
 
aidanbradypop said:
Well see Gary you just helped me out. We know Christ to be fully God and the Trinity comes from Scripture and Tradition so both support one another when saying Mother of God
Click to expand...
Good point, but we have to admit the Incarnation defined at the 4th ecumenical council isn’t in there. Does seem to be a slight stumbling block today. Course that’s not of question here, but still the two of Sacred Scripture and Tradition work hand in hand, we wouldn’t have had all the wonderful theological insight on the Assumption otherwise. 😃
 
Nicea325 said:
Reason is part of theology for Catholics,we do not adhere to “faith-alone” will guide me. But Christ church is founded on: Church,Scripture and Tradition.

Mary had no other children. I have dared non-Catholics over the years to find one verse where it states Mary gave birth to other children and I will convert tomorrow.

The same burned out verse they use to defend their positions is based on poor Biblical exegesis.
Click to expand...
Stop preaching to the chior lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top