Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . .

Christ did not hold tradition itself as authoritative over the Word of God.

Depends upon which type of “tradition” you are alluding to.

If you are talking about “traditions of men that make void the commandments of God”, I agree with you.

(By the way, sola Scriptura IS one of those “traditions of men that make void the commandments of God”.)

If you are talking about traditions of men in the Church that are prescriptions (like customs and disciplines such as the “Friday Discipline”) those can be abrogated. They are still authoritative, but do not make up the “Deposit of Faith” or faith and morals passed down at least in seed form from Jesus and His Apostles. So these “customs and disciplines” are changeable.

If you are talking about tradition in the sense of “Apostolic Tradition” which has a written component and an oral component all springing forth from the SAME Divine source, them I am going to take issue with your assertion.

These Traditions have been handed down at least in seed form from the time of Christ and the Apostles and are safeguarded by God Himself for our benefit.

These Teachings/Traditions concern faith and morals.

2nd THESSALONIANS 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and
hold to the traditions which you were taught by us,
EITHER
by word of mouth
or by letter.

(Emphasis and minor format changes mine)

.

Traditions from Apostles by letter? Check (for Catholics and to a certain extent for Protestants too.)

Traditions from Apostles by “word of mouth”? Check for Catholics. (Protestants have rejected this unless they themselves can be OVER Tradition such as for example, with various “rapture” variations).

 

[Cathoholic]

VATICAN II (Dei Verbum section 10) 10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)
.
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[medwigel]

I don’t know about SDA but I would bet when you were baptized SDA you said nothing. If you did what did you say calling on the Lord?

Just to clarify, SDA meaning Seventh Day Adventist?

 

[Unnamed]

Jesus never said look to the new testament. In fact the new testament is basically the early church’s authority and traditions that were written down. Jesus intended to found a church guided by the spirit to be one that would survive the powers of hell until the end of time. Paul said that we should hold firm to the traditions that he taught. The bible that non catholics are quoting came from Catholic tradition!

 

[medwigel]

As a Protestant I attended several baptisms in different denominations, I have yet to hear any baptized person call on the name of the Lord or say anything.

Calling on the name of the Lord is the act of salvation; so by they time they are baptized they have called on the name of the Lord to be saved.
There are instances where the person is saved and baptized immediately and there are instances where the person is saved and then baptized at a later date.
At our church it’s not feasible to baptize everyone and the moment that they are saved, so they are saved by calling on the name of the Lord and accepting His as their Savior, and we have a baptism sermon later on so that the order of the Scripture is consistent.

 

[medwigel]

In fact the new testament is basically the early church’s authority and traditions that were written down.

So if that is what the New Testament is, as you said, then why weren’t the “sacred traditions” included in the New Testament?
You pointed out that the New Testament as we know it was not yet established, so there was ample opportunity to include these traditions in the Scripture and yet they are not there. Why is that?

 

[Unnamed]

Also Jesus established traditions such as do this in memory of me and whoever sins you forgive are forgiven. Why would he tell the early apostles this and give them this authority if he did not intend them to do these things?

 

[Unnamed]

Because the new testament was written in reference to a certain period of time. If you want to see what happened after it there are many writings from early church fathers.

 

[medwigel]

Ephesians 5:25-28 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might [g]sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.

JL: How often do you wash your wife in water and then preach the word to her? Your own post in verse 27 tells you Christ is speaking of the Church.
[/quote]

I never offered this Scripture up as an example of baptism; I believe you did.

This Scripture on the surface is about husband and wives but is also shows us Christ’s relationship to the church where Christ represents the husband and the church represents the wife.

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . .

Calling on the name of the Lord is the act of salvation . . .

This is a partial truth medwigel.

Taken ALONE it is un-Biblical.

Taken ALONE, it denies Baptismal regeneration. Something that the Bible is emphatic on.

Taken ALONE, this denies the saving grace associated with Baptism, and replaces it with a tradition of men that nullifies God’s commandments in these regards.

Taken ALONE, “calling on the name of the Lord” DISSOCIATED with Baptism, turns “calling upon the Lord” (if you take it ALONE) into a quasi-“wage”.

You cannot “earn” salvation medwigel.

By the way. The "sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism."

There is perhaps nothing that illustrates the NON-earning nature of Baptism better that the Baptizing of infants.

.

CCC 1216b . . . Baptism is God’s most beautiful and magnificent gift. . . .We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own . . . .

.

CCC 1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50
The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

 

[Unnamed]

I know this is off topic but if we need to accept Jesus as our “personal Lord and savior” and can only be baptized once we can accept the message then what about people that have no understanding of any of this due to severe mental disabilities and might have the intellect of a newborn? Are they doomed protestant friends?

 

[medwigel]

Also Jesus established traditions such as do this in memory of me and whoever sins you forgive are forgiven. Why would he tell the early apostles this and give them this authority if he did not intend them to do these things?

While these instructions were told first to the apostles by Christ, they are meant for all believers. For example, Paul says the everyday believer that he has ability to forgive and he said that he, Paul, would uphold it.
2 Corinthians 2:10
10 Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake,

 

[medwigel]

I know this is off topic but if we need to accept Jesus as our “personal Lord and savior” and can only be baptized once we can accept the message then what about people that have no understanding of any of this due to severe mental disabilities and might have the intellect of a newborn? Are they doomed protestant friends?

They would be covered by grace since the act of baptism does not save one’s soul. Baptism is meant to be an outward representation of one’s salvation, not salvation itself.

 

[Unnamed]

Paul was mentioning the forgiveness of the harm done to his friend but not the sin itself it looks like. We can forgive others the harm they do use but it is another thing to execute absolution under the authority that Christ gave the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not hostile to Catholicism, I am hostile to ignorance and untruths.

In this case it makes sense that your tone seems hostile, since you consider Catholicism to be ignorant and untrue!

It just seems whenever I point out inconsistencies, many seem to get very defensive and it seems to me when they realize discrepancies do in fact between the Scripture and tradition they are reluctant to acknowledge it

This makes sense. We know there are no discrepancies, since the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself. The Holy Spirit is the author of both Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, so it is impossible for them to have any discrepancies or contradictions.

The only discrepancy is in your PERCEPTION of one, the other, or both.

I get comments like “you must be young that’s why you don’t understand”.

You do come across as a rigid minded fundamentalist, which is a spiritually immature position.

Actually yes. The Gospel of Christ was a radical message at that time, some could argue it still is now, and people had to change the way they view and did things in order to accept Christ’s message.

In fact, the early Church used the Septuagint, which they read through the lens of Apostolic Teaching. At the end of the first century, when the books of the NT were completed, the interpretation of them was based upon what the Apostles believed and taught (Sacred Tradition). The authentic Church (Catholic) has always read the Scriptures from the point of view from which they were written.

In order to understand Scripture in its fullness one needs to understand the context in which it was written. The context of the New Testament is the Catholic Church.

Some had to let go of the lens of their pagan past in order to understand and accept the message of the Gospel.

Yes! And some will have to let go of their Reformation theology in order to understand and accept the message of the Gospel.

Actually Christ constantly referred to the scriptures (huh, he pointed people to scripture before they were dogmatically defined by the Council of Trent, interesting in and of itself),

Yes, Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, which was affirmed in AD 382, with the 27 books of the NT.

Dogmatic pronouncements are only made when rampant heresy is occurring.

 

[Unnamed]

I thought that the bible said baptism now saves you and peter said be baptized for the promise is for you and your children. I can’t post anymore since i am a new user so to answer your question below. I think Jesus mentioned it when he said whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven

 

[medwigel]

Paul was mentioning the forgiveness of the harm done to his friend but not the sin itself it looks like. We can forgive others the harm they do use but it is another thing to execute absolution under the authority that Christ gave the Church.

Ok, so where does Paul, or anyone, teach about the elders or priest providing absolution for sins?

 

[guanophore]

Christ did not hold tradition itself as authoritative over the Word of God.

There are two errors here. One is that you are not making a distinction between Sacred Tradition and human tradition. Jesus chastized the Pharisees for letting human traditions interfere. But He affirmed the Sacred Tradition, and created more of it Himself.

The second error is that Sacred Tradition (the teaching of the Apostles) is not “authoratative over the Word of God”. It IS the Word of God, and it complements the written word. they are two equal strands that work together.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Hence, it is that which is god-breathed that holds authority over that which man creates.

Always. The Church and the Scripture are both God Breathed.

The issue here is not that Protestants have jettisoned tradition as a source of authority, the issue is that they have rightly placed it back where it belongs, which is in submission to the Word of God.

Sacred Tradition as the Word of God has been jettisoned.

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

The Word of God has never stopped being at work in the believers. The Word of God is sharper than any two edged sword. God has preserved His Word in the Church infallibly where He has placed it.

Protestants deny that Jesus is able to protect His Word in the Church, where He placed it.

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

Protestants believe only that which was committed to writing, which was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

 

[guanophore]

There are instances where the person is saved and baptized immediately and there are instances where the person is saved and then baptized at a later date.
At our church it’s not feasible to baptize everyone and the moment that they are saved, so they are saved by calling on the name of the Lord and accepting His as their Savior, and we have a baptism sermon later on so that the order of the Scripture is consistent.

These seem to be some very fine human traditions.

why weren’t the “sacred traditions” included in the New Testament?

The entire contents of the NT is a product of Sacred Tradition. Portions of the Word of God that was given to the Church were written.

Sacred Tradition has more to say about HOW those writings are to be understood. For example, the baptism of “entire household” includes infants and young children.

This Scripture on the surface is about husband and wives but is also shows us Christ’s relationship to the church where Christ represents the husband and the church represents the wife.

Yes. Washing with water and word is a reference to baptism.

10 Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake,

This is in the person of Christ, which is the priestly role in confession.

They would be covered by grace since the act of baptism does not save one’s soul.

This is an example of a human tradition. It is a rather modern innovation that claims baptism does not save, which is contrary to what the Apostles believed and taught.

1 Peter 3:2 1 Baptism… now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…

It is a human tradition that directly contradicts the Word of God.

Baptism is meant to be an outward representation of one’s salvation, not salvation itself.

This is another human tradition that is not found anywhere in Scripture.

Ok, so where does Paul, or anyone, teach about the elders or priest providing absolution for sins?

Honestly, there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see!

 

[medwigel]

Sacred Tradition has more to say about HOW those writings are to be understood. For example, the baptism of “entire household” includes infants and young children.

hmm…

These seem to be some very fine human traditions.