SPLIT: How does the catholic church define Tradition?

[mercygate]

Where did the apostles teach that the church was to develop its doctrines over time?

Have you not been reading this thread? I realize you’re juggling a handful here but this question has been addressed several times.

Jesus taught that. The Apostles taught what Jesus taught: that the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all the truth.” He explicitly taught that they did not have all the details at the time he left – “I have much more to tell you but you cannot bear it now.” The very phrase “into all the truth” implies that the truth will be revealed as new questions arise since their Commission is to teach. Jesus is the Truth, and He promises to be with the Apostles “to the close of the age.”

 

[guanophore]

:bigyikes:

Good point. This also means that a person 500 years from now for example would have no way of knowing what i said or thought unless it was written down or recorded. Today we can use recorders to record what we say but the apostles did not have such things. The only things we know of what the apostles taught is written in the scriptures. I agree that they did say more but we have no way to know what it was unless it was written down.

This is true about what you say, ja4, but you were not commissioned by Christ to bring the Word of God to the world in the same way that the Apostles were. You also do not have His promise that the Spirit will guide you into all Truth, and that He is building a Church with ja4 as the foundation, and that the gates of hell will not prevail. For those reasons, people might not put much effort into remembering what you are teaching. God prepared a people beforehand who excelled in the keeping of oral tradition, and knew how to preserve it for centuries. We see clear examples of this in the book of Acts. God did not just “happen” to choose the Jews to bring the Messianic message to the world.

The major problem with verbal transmissions is that things evenutally get corrupted whereas written documents do not suffer as much corruption over the centuries as in the case of the NT. Secondly, once the eyewitnesses die you have no more checks in regards to accuracy of the verbal transmission.
Today we don’t even rely on any verbal transmissions of the apostles.

In saying things like this, you are saying that God is unable to preserve His word from corruption. How small is your “god”? What protects Tradition is the transmission of it to a whole generation of people. This is a good protection for accuracy. It also is a way of building on another up, as well as preserving the faith.

When you say “we don’t rely” it is clear you are talking about what you call "true (bible) Christians. Bible Christians cannot rely on anything extrabiblical, because that would de-stabilize the whole structure. On the other hand, Catholics know that Jesus did not commission a book, but a Church, and gave His promises to that Church. We can trust completely in Him, who is the Head, and is able to watch over His word to perform it.

Eph 5:18-19
be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,

One of the places that Apostolic Teaching is preserved.

Paul was rebuking Peter for propagating false teachings.

No, ja4. Although this is a nice way to support anti-Catholic bigotry, it is not accurate.

We see why Paul rebuked him in verse 13-14:

13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was not being “straightforward about the truth of the gospel” which is a false teaching.

It is a bad example, and certainly worthy of reprimand, but hypocrisy is far from infallible teaching. I agree with you that not acting in accordance with one’s beliefs does muddle the message. HOwever, the message was very clear from Peter’s mouth at the council of Jerusalem. Peter made it clear that the Jews could live by faith, and not by law. Although it is regrettable that he fell when demonstrating his faith, it is not the same as teaching error. It is important to live consistently with one’s beliefs. That is why we get on you so much here about calling yourself a Christian, and bringing false witness against your neighbor, as you have done here. :tsktsk:

On what basis was Paul rebuking Peter for about “how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews”? What was Peter telling these Gentiles specifically that Paul rebuked him?

If you read further on you will see that it had something to do with the Law and perhaps having to keep that Law as the Jews hadsought and failed to do.

The letter is speaking against the Judiazers, those who wanted all the Gentiles to become Jewish converts.

Gal 2:11-14
I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity.

Peter was being a weenie. He did not want to make waves wtih the circumcision party, so when they came, he just went along with their ways. Acting insincerely is a problem, but it was primarily a problem because of Peter’s own infallible teaching that this was not necessary (circumcising Gentiles and making them follow Levitical dietary laws).

As you well know, the charism of infallibility is not equivalent to impeccability. Peter taught the Truth, then failed to measure up to it in his actions.

 

[guanophore]

You won’t find any specific scripture that says this per se but what you find in Scripture is the means and how to be saved.

Wow. :bigyikes: I thought that was found in Jesus Christ. What did people do before the scripture was written?

For example Romans 10:9-10 tells us what a man must do to be saved i.e. salvation. If a man does this he is saved. Or take 1 Cornthians 15:1-4 which tells us what saves us.

No, ja4, this is not the case. It is not correct to form a doctrine about salvation based on one or two verses pulled out of context. In order to understand the Teaching of Jesus, all the information has to be taken together. For example, Jesus also says that, unless we eat His Body and drink His Blood we shall not have life within us. He also says “unless I wash you, you have no part in me”.

Secondly, the scriptures never appeal to any traditions outside the NT that has the power to save.

That is because the power to save and the Traditions were present before a word of the NT was written. Neither the Scripture nor the Tradition has the “power to save” which is only found in the person of Christ.

However, they were never meant to be separated from each other.

Thirdly, in I Peter 2:2-3 it says that the scriptures are what we need to grow in respect to salavation when it says:
2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

You are imposing your assumption here that Peter is speaking of the written word. On the contrary, since He was just in the process of actually writing the NT, he is speaking of the Word that was preached to them.

Fourthly, the Scriptures gives us instruction in how we are to live the Christian life. See for example Colossians 3 or Matthew 5-7.

No one here is saying that the Scriptures are not useful for these ends. However, Jesus did not commission a book, but a Church, and that Church produced a book, which was not meant to be separated from the Church Jesus commissioned. Separating it results in division and error.

Not sure i follow you. Can you give me an example?

A literal interpretation is one which captures the meaning of what the writer intended. Therefore, a literal interpretation of “This is my Body” would be that Jesus is giving us His Body in the form of bread.

Any church that teaches doctrines that are grounded in the Scriptures and can be shown to be so.

Well, this is interesting. If this is the case, why are there some many denominations, all grounded in scripture? How come some of them think other Protestants are teaching error?

Where did the apostles teach that the church was to develop its doctrines over time?

Jesus taught that.

John 16:12-14

12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

He also taught that the Kingdom would be like a mustard seed, and yeast in a bread dough. Yeast is a living organism, and it takes time for it to work it’s way through the dough, changing the dough as it goes.

 

[BHTech]

Justasking4 said

You won’t find any specific scripture that says this per se but what you find in Scripture is the means and how to be saved. For example Romans 10:9-10 tells us what a man must do to be saved i.e. salvation. If a man does this he is saved.

I see. According to your logic therefore Muslims, Hindus, Zorastians, non-Christians and the like, and the babies and infants that cannot talk automatically go to hell. What about those people who lived in China before Jesus came 2000 years ago? Are they going to hell also? What a God you have.

Justasking4 said

Secondly, the scriptures never appeal to any traditions outside the NT that has the power to save.

The Nicene creed is not part of the NT, yet its part of the living Tradition expressed in writing of the early church and it has saving grace in its words. I don’t buy your argument there.

Justasking4 said

Thirdly, in I Peter 2:2-3 it says that the scriptures are what we need to grow in respect to salavation when it says:
2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

Again your appeal to use scriptures here is baseless because “word” here does not mean the Bible since it was not complied when 1 Peter 2 was written. How did Peter know what was to make up a Bible? The very idea would have been foreign to him and he certainly never lived to see it. Next if your appeal is to the scriptures alone as I believe you are trying to do with your statement here, then why do different Christian groups interpret Jesus words differently?

Justasking4 said

Not sure i follow you. Can you give me an example?

I was simply giving you the meaning of the word “literal”

Justasking4 said

Any church that teaches doctrines that are grounded in the Scriptures and can be shown to be so.

I kindly asked for an example of such a church and your response was “any”. There are 30,000+ in existence. Could you please be more specific and provide me with a name of a single church that is grounded in the Scriptures and was shown to be so? By the way please provide me with which authority determined what you claim?

In summary your 4 points here have fallen short in my opinion and I am a newcomer (convert) to the block so to speak.

Blessings

Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

 

[justasking4]

BHTech;3597361

Justasking4 said
Quote:
You won’t find any specific scripture that says this per se but what you find in Scripture is the means and how to be saved. For example Romans 10:9-10 tells us what a man must do to be saved i.e. salvation. If a man does this he is saved.

BHTech
I see. According to your logic therefore Muslims, Hindus, Zorastians, non-Christians and the like, and the babies and infants that cannot talk automatically go to hell. What about those people who lived in China before Jesus came 2000 years ago? Are they going to hell also? What a God you have.

God does not condemn people for not hearing about Christ but for rejecting the Father in whom He has given the witness of Himself in creation and their hearts. See Romans 1:18-20.
As for infants, we trust in the mercy of God since the Scriptures are not as clear.

Justasking4 said
Quote:
Secondly, the scriptures never appeal to any traditions outside the NT that has the power to save.

BHTech
The Nicene creed is not part of the NT, yet its part of the living Tradition expressed in writing of the early church and it has saving grace in its words. I don’t buy your argument there.

Is not this creed based on a summary of the scriptures?

Justasking4 said
Quote:
Thirdly, in I Peter 2:2-3 it says that the scriptures are what we need to grow in respect to salavation when it says:
2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

BHTech
Again your appeal to use scriptures here is baseless because “word” here does not mean the Bible since it was not complied when 1 Peter 2 was written.

If Peter is not referring to the Scriptures then what are the “scriptures i.e. Bible” he is referring to?
Keep in mind that the OT Scriptures were already in existence at this point in time also.

How did Peter know what was to make up a Bible? The very idea would have been foreign to him and he certainly never lived to see it.

Its not necessary for him or any writer of scripture to know if what they and others wrote was scripture or not. What makes scripture Scripture is God. All Scripture is God breathed and not dependent on human authors.

Next if your appeal is to the scriptures alone as I believe you are trying to do with your statement here, then why do different Christian groups interpret Jesus words differently?

There are a number of reasons. One is that we don’t always have all the information to determine exactly what certain passages mean. Secondly, we are fallen and we can misunderstand what the authors meant.
Thirdly, there is quite a lot of agreement on the core doctrines of scriptures among protestants. All agree that Christ both God and Man and died for our sins for example.

Keep in mind that even in the catholic church with an infallible interpreter there are different interpretations of various passages among catholics.

Justasking4 said
Quote:
Not sure i follow you. Can you give me an example?

BHTech
I was simply giving you the meaning of the word “literal”

When Jesus says He is the door should i take this “literally” or metaphorically?

Justasking4 said
Quote:
Any church that teaches doctrines that are grounded in the Scriptures and can be shown to be so.

BHTech
I kindly asked for an example of such a church and your response was “any”. There are 30,000+ in existence. Could you please be more specific and provide me with a name of a single church that is grounded in the Scriptures and was shown to be so?

Lets take the Southern Baptist covention. Here is part of the statement of faith:
The Scriptures
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trusthworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

God
There is one and only one living and true God. …The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.

God the Father
God as Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace. …God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

God the Son
Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. …He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross, He made provision for the redemption of men from sin.

BHTech
By the way please provide me with which authority determined what you claim?

My authority is the Scriptures.

In summary your 4 points here have fallen short in my opinion and I am a newcomer (convert) to the block so to speak.

Your being to kind to me here. Most would say far worse about them falling short.

Since you are a convert can you tell me what Traditions you believe in outside of the scriptures that have authority over you?

Blessings

Brent

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3597222]:

Originally Posted by justasking4
The major problem with verbal transmissions is that things evenutally get corrupted whereas written documents do not suffer as much corruption over the centuries as in the case of the NT. Secondly, once the eyewitnesses die you have no more checks in regards to accuracy of the verbal transmission.
Today we don’t even rely on any verbal transmissions of the apostles.

guanophore
In saying things like this, you are saying that God is unable to preserve His word from corruption. How small is your “god”? What protects Tradition is the transmission of it to a whole generation of people. This is a good protection for accuracy. It also is a way of building on another up, as well as preserving the faith.

Are you saying you know or church knows what the apostles taught verbally that is not written in the Scriptures? Are you claiming God preserved these verbal teachings not in Scripture somewhere? If so, where?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3597222]:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Paul was rebuking Peter for propagating false teachings.

guanophore
No, ja4. Although this is a nice way to support anti-Catholic bigotry, it is not accurate.

We see why Paul rebuked him in verse 13-14:

Here are these verses:

13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

This is what hypocrisy means and how it is denounced in the scriptures at various places:to pretend. Hypocrisy, dissimulation
Direct denunciation is the only way to counter hypocrisy, a foe of all truth. The hypocrite is in a special sense the child of the father of lies (John 8:44). Hypocrisy not being able to live with truth, can defend itself only through the persecution of others (John 8:37). The reason for the vehement denunciation by Christ of the Pharisees in Matt. 23 was that sitting in Moses’ seat, they showed a spirit in which truth cannot dwell. The Pharisees neither entered the kingdom nor allowed others to enter (Matt. 16:3, 4). Hypocrisy stands in opposition to faith as it works to debase the whole man, just as faith works to regenerate him. It takes away the key of knowledge (Luke 11:52).

As you can see this was no trival sin.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

In this verse Paul rebuked Peter for not being straight i.e. correct with gospel itself. This is why Paul rebuked him serverely.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3597302]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where did the apostles teach that the church was to develop its doctrines over time?

guanophore
Jesus taught that.

John 16:12-14

12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

This passage has nothing to do with doctrines developing over time but how Christ would reveal to them the meaning and purpose of His death and resurrection. We find this in the writings of the apostles called the New Testament.

He also taught that the Kingdom would be like a mustard seed, and yeast in a bread dough. Yeast is a living organism, and it takes time for it to work it’s way through the dough, changing the dough as it goes.

Again this has nothing to do with doctrines developing but how the kingdom would grow in the world.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

This passage has nothing to do with doctrines developing over time but how Christ would reveal to them the meaning and purpose of His death and resurrection. We find this in the writings of the apostles called the New Testament.

Again this has nothing to do with doctrines developing but how the kingdom would grow in the world.

Well, you have your own interpretation of Scripture, and the Catholic Church has another one.

I’ve been wondering why you keep asking the same questions over and over, in various and sundry threads, like the answers are going to be different. Catholics believe that Christ founded one Church and gave His Apostles the Holy Spirit, and authority to bind and loose sins, and to teach in His Holy Name. You don’t believe that, so we are at an impasse. You accept the Authority of the Catholic Church when it comes to officially declaring Sunday as the day for Christian worship, and you trust that they knew what they were doing when they determined 27 books to be Inspired Scripture, but little else. Why is that?

If you are truly “just asking” and not seeking to lure Catholics away from our Most Holy Faith, the Catholic Answers Library has a wealth of articles on everything you’re asking about, as does the Catholic Bridge. The Bible Christian Society has some excellent CDs or MP3s for you to listen to.

 

[justasking4]

Pixie Dust;3597887]Well, you have your own interpretation of Scripture, and the Catholic Church has another one.

I’ve been wondering why you keep asking the same questions over and over, in various and sundry threads, like the answers are going to be different.

Of course answers are going to be different since catholics don’t all believe or understand in the same way. Its true of protestants to.

Catholics believe that Christ founded one Church and gave His Apostles the Holy Spirit, and authority to bind and loose sins, and to teach in His Holy Name. You don’t believe that, so we are at an impasse.

He also gave that to protestant churches. They have a mandate to spread the gospel message and build believers up in the faith.

You accept the Authority of the Catholic Church when it comes to officially declaring Sunday as the day for Christian worship, and you trust that they knew what they were doing when they determined 27 books to be Inspired Scripture, but little else. Why is that?

No church is infallible and incapable of error. It can be right on some things and wrong on others.

If you are truly “just asking” and not seeking to lure Catholics away from our Most Holy Faith,

What makes you think i have such ability? Who has left the catholic church because of my posts?

the Catholic Answers Library has a wealth of articles on everything you’re asking about, as does the Catholic Bridge. The Bible Christian Society has some excellent CDs or MP3s for you to listen to.

I have and continue to listen to a lot of catholic stuff. Also read a lot of catholic articles.

 

[BHTech]

God does not condemn people for not hearing about Christ but for rejecting the Father in whom He has given the witness of Himself in creation and their hearts.

This is a better answer than what you have previously given. You initially said and I quote “For example Romans 10:9-10 tells us what a man must do to be saved i.e. salvation. If a man does this he is saved.”

Your writing in quotes was incorrect. I merely pointed out that you were initially wrong in your original statement.

Is not this creed based on a summary of the scriptures?

Its based on Oral Tradition and the scriptures. Again your initial quote was "Secondly, the scriptures never appeal to any traditions outside the NT that has the power to save. " and once again I have shown you where your argument was weak.

If Peter is not referring to the Scriptures then what are the “scriptures i.e. Bible” he is referring to?

I quote Guanophere who earlier responded to that question with :“You are imposing your assumption here that Peter is speaking of the written word. On the contrary, since He was just in the process of actually writing the NT, he is speaking of the Word that was preached to them.” I repeat his answer here for you.

What makes scripture Scripture is God. All Scripture is God breathed and not dependent on human authors.

God breathe yes, but God did not put together the Bible in the form we know it. It was the Catholic church that decided what Books should be in the Bible and you very well know that.

One is that we don’t always have all the information to determine exactly what certain passages mean.

True to some extent. However, we all have access to the same information. The problem is pride. We read what we want to read into the scriptures to tickle our ears.

Secondly, we are fallen and we can misunderstand what the authors meant.

Even easier if you don’t like what your pastor teaches and you take it upon yourself to start your own church.

Thirdly, there is quite a lot of agreement on the core doctrines of scriptures among protestants. All agree that Christ both God and Man and died for our sins for example.

They is also a significant amount of disagreement as well my friend. Here is the proof. Otherwise they would all be one or unified in their teaching.

Keep in mind that even in the catholic church with an infallible interpreter there are different interpretations of various passages among catholics.

The Catholic church allows for that. The Catholic church however, does not decide to form 3 to 4 new churches each day each proclaiming different messages.

When Jesus says He is the door should i take this “literally” or metaphorically?

I believe you know the answer to that question yourself.

Lets take the Southern Baptist covention. Here is part of the statement of faith:

Right so the Southern Baptist teach core doctrine, and have the correct interpretation of the bible over all churches. That is everybody else! Do the regular Baptists have a few things wrong then? why have Southern Baptists and the remainder of the Baptists? Shouldn’t a Baptist be a Baptist be a Baptist? You gave me one example of a correct church according to you, but I assume there is more. If there is more than one correct church that is not Southern Baptist then why are they different from the Southern Baptist?

My authority is the Scriptures.

The scriptures do not tell you that it is the sole authority my friend! It doesn’t and you can’t prove it either!

Your being to kind to me here. Most would say far worse about them falling short.

I am called to treat you as my brother in Christ even though I strongly disagree with you.

Since you are a convert can you tell me what Traditions you believe in outside of the scriptures that have authority over you?

I already gave them to you way back starting with Mary assumption and later what is meant by Tradition.

Blessings

Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

 

[BHTech]

In Justasking4 response to Pixie he said

No church is infallible and incapable of error. It can be right on some things and wrong on others.
.

Funny but you contradict yourself here my friend. Earlier on you gave me {BHTech} the Southern Baptists as an example of a church that has taught all things right. Least you think I am putting words in your mouth, I did ask you for a church (just one) that teaches core doctrine and is on the mark regarding the scriptures.

Now you are claiming the Souther Baptist is** right on some things and wrong on others**? At least you should be consistent my friend.

Blessings

Brent
converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Of course answers are going to be different since catholics don’t all believe or understand in the same way. Its true of protestants to.

Faithful Catholics believe all points of Catholic dogma. We are free to have differing opinions on matters of faith and practice, outside those things that the Church has declared dogmatically. If they actively dissent on any matter of dogma, their faith is no longer Catholic. Don’t like to pray the Rosary? No problem. That’s a discipline. Don’t believe that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate? Problem. That’s dogma.

He also gave that to protestant churches. They have a mandate to spread the gospel message and build believers up in the faith.

Jesus only founded One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Protestants are about 1600 years too late to have Christ as their founder. Continually claiming that the Catholic Church is wrong about this, that, or the other, is that your way of “building up” Catholics in the faith? From my side of the screen, your posts appear to be more tearing down than building up.

No church is infallible and incapable of error. It can be right on some things and wrong on others.

Ye of little faith.

What makes you think i have such ability? Who has left the catholic church because of my posts?

I didn’t say you had the ability. I said that your posts seem to have that goal in mind.

I have and continue to listen to a lot of catholic stuff. Also read a lot of catholic articles.

It would be nice to see you at least say, “OK, I see now why Catholics believe that. I still don’t agree, but I see where the Church is coming from.” You are totally free to disagree, but you have no authority to say the Church is wrong.

 

[grandfather]

In Justasking4 response to Pixie he said

Funny but you contradict yourself here my friend. Earlier on you gave me {BHTech} the Southern Baptists as an example of a church that has taught all things right. Least you think I am putting words in your mouth, I did ask you for a church (just one) that teaches core doctrine and is on the mark regarding the scriptures.

Now you are claiming the Souther Baptist is** right on some things and wrong on others**? At least you should be consistent my friend.

Blessings

Brent
converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

I have a good friend who is a Baptist minister in a town about an hour from where I live. He is a wonderful man and has a beautiful wife and six beautiful children. The grace of God is clearly visible in this family, in each member. In the town there are probably five or six Baptist churches. He came there in the last three or four years from the midwest to set up his church. I asked him why he picked this town since there are already several Baptist churches there. Why does the town need another one? He said the existing ones all do not teach from the Bible. I told him that every Baptist church uses the Bible and the Bible is the basis for all of their teaching. He said, “they do not teach right”. Their doctrines are wrong, because they do not understand the Bible correctly. I asked how he knows he understands the Bible correctly and he said what the Bible teaches is clear and the other Baptists in town have it wrong. He recently rented a store front and has about seven or eight families showing up on Sunday. This is called church planting. I said that the other Baptist ministers who say their doctrine is from the Bible would say their interpretations are correct. He insisted they are wrong. I asked how could we determine which is right and which is wrong. He said from the Bible. He was truly sincere. He had no idea that he was talking in circles. I stopped trying to use reason with him. It was useless. I might as well have been talking to my front door. It was as plain as day to him that his interpretation was right and the others wrong. How could anyone not see that? How can anyone not see that the cause of this mess is the Protestant doctrine sola scriptura? This has nothing to do with Catholics at all. It is a Protestant problem and it is unfixable, but they don’t see it as a problem. When you say, look at all the denominations and non-denominations caused by this, they don’t care and shrug their shoulders so what. I have many good friends who belonged to a local non-demoninational church for many years. The pastor is also a good friend. It is a big church. The families all grew up together in this church that was started about twenty five years ago. A few years ago a crazy phenomenon emmerged in Protestant circles called holy laughter. A friend of mine of many years invited me to go to a meeting. The pastor fell on the floor in the first minutes and passed out and did not get up for a couple of hours. These people carried on like lunatics and they did not even speak in sentences that made sense. The used verbs for nouns. Some families from my friend’s church decided they thought this was good stuff and the pastor had more sense and would not go along with it. The church split in three. All the families I knew there who were all my friends got all fired up and chose a side and walked out on lifelong friendships. They all believe the Bible and are convinced they understand it correctly even though their fellow Christians and life long friends with whom they used to agree, now disagree with them.

 

[mercygate]

I have a good friend who is a Baptist minister in a town about an hour from where I live. He is a wonderful man and has a beautiful wife and six beautiful children. The grace of God is clearly visible in this family, in each member. In the town there are probably five or six Baptist churches. He came there in the last three or four years from the midwest to set up his church. I asked him why he picked this town since there are already several Baptist churches there. Why does the town need another one? He said the existing ones all do not teach from the Bible. I told him that every Baptist church uses the Bible and the Bible is the basis for all of their teaching. He said, “they do not teach right”. Their doctrines are wrong, because they do not understand the Bible correctly. I asked how he knows he understands the Bible correctly and he said what the Bible teaches is clear and the other Baptists in town have it wrong. He recently rented a store front and has about seven or eight families showing up on Sunday. This is called church planting. I said that the other Baptist ministers who say their doctrine is from the Bible would say their interpretations are correct. He insisted they are wrong. I asked how could we determine which is right and which is wrong. He said from the Bible. He was truly sincere. He had no idea that he was talking in circles. I stopped trying to use reason with him. It was useless. I might as well have been talking to my front door. It was as plain as day to him that his interpretation was right and the others wrong. How could anyone not see that? How can anyone not see that the cause of this mess is the Protestant doctrine sola scriptura? This has nothing to do with Catholics at all. It is a Protestant problem and it is unfixable, but they don’t see it as a problem. When you say, look at all the denominations and non-denominations caused by this, they don’t care and shrug their shoulders so what. I have many good friends who belonged to a local non-demoninational church for many years. The pastor is also a good friend. It is a big church. The families all grew up together in this church that was started about twenty five years ago. A few years ago a crazy phenomenon emmerged in Protestant circles called holy laughter. A friend of mine of many years invited me to go to a meeting. The pastor fell on the floor in the first minutes and passed out and did not get up for a couple of hours. These people carried on like lunatics and they did not even speak in sentences that made sense. The used verbs for nouns. Some families from my friend’s church decided they thought this was good stuff and the pastor had more sense and would not go along with it. The church split in three. All the families I knew there who were all my friends got all fired up and chose a side and walked out on lifelong friendships. They all believe the Bible and are convinced they understand it correctly even though their fellow Christians and life long friends with whom they used to agree, now disagree with them.

It seems that “sola Scriptura” is not the problem so much as the idea that I can ALL BY MYSELF understand the Scriptures. It stems from reading such passages as John 14 as if they were addressed TO ME ALONE (the spirit will guide you into all the truth), when in fact, those words were addressed to the Eleven.

Every time I hear stories like yours, I am confirmed in my belief that Christ’s Church will be found where the Apostles are found. He commissioned the Eleven to teach. He gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins. He gave the Apostles the power of binding and loosing, He promised Peter the Keys of the Kingdom, and told him to strengthen his brethren. Where the Apostles are TOGETHER, the Apostolic faith is taught. Where Peter is, THERE is the core of the Apostolic faith.

Christianity is a team sport, not a private devotional exercise.

 

[justasking4]

In Justasking4 response to Pixie he said

Funny but you contradict yourself here my friend. Earlier on you gave me {BHTech} the Southern Baptists as an example of a church that has taught all things right. Least you think I am putting words in your mouth, I did ask you for a church (just one) that teaches core doctrine and is on the mark regarding the scriptures.

Now you are claiming the Souther Baptist is** right on some things and wrong on others**? At least you should be consistent my friend.

Blessings

Brent
converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

As far as i can tell the baptist got it right on these doctrines. It does not mean everything they do is correct.
Take the catholic church. It has somethings right and has gone other things wrong and has even admitted to them.

 

[justasking4]

Pixie Dust;3598593]
justasking4.
have and continue to listen to a lot of catholic stuff. Also read a lot of catholic articles.

Pixie Dust
It would be nice to see you at least say, “OK, I see now why Catholics believe that. I still don’t agree, but I see where the Church is coming from.” You are totally free to disagree, but you have no authority to say the Church is wrong.

Do you believe the catholic church was wrong in the inquistions?
Do you believe the catholic church was wrong when they condemned Joan of Are and later made her saint?

Do have you authority to say Protestants are wrong?

 

[justasking4]

BHTech;3598065]
Originally Posted by justasking4
If Peter is not referring to the Scriptures then what are the “scriptures i.e. Bible” he is referring to?

BHTech
I quote Guanophere who earlier responded to that question with :“You are imposing your assumption here that Peter is speaking of the written word. On the contrary, since He was just in the process of actually writing the NT, he is speaking of the Word that was preached to them.” I repeat his answer here for you.

The OT Scriptures were already the Scriptures for the church when Peter wrote his letter. Secondly, if were right about the date of some of the other books and letters of the NT some were already written before Peter wrote this.
Thirdly, where do the apostles refer to their oral teachings as Scripture?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3596182]Yes, I think it was a poor way of conceptualizing it. The story generated at the death of Mary. The fact that it was not recorded until later does not change the facts. The NT scriptures were inspired the moment they were written. The fact that the canon was not defined until the fourth century does not change the facts.

What “facts” of Mary’s supposed assumption are you referring to? It has already be established that it is not known what happened to her. There are no “facts” that can be shown to support any assumption.

 

[justasking4]

I have a good friend who is a Baptist minister in a town about an hour from where I live. He is a wonderful man and has a beautiful wife and six beautiful children. The grace of God is clearly visible in this family, in each member. In the town there are probably five or six Baptist churches. He came there in the last three or four years from the midwest to set up his church. I asked him why he picked this town since there are already several Baptist churches there. Why does the town need another one? He said the existing ones all do not teach from the Bible. I told him that every Baptist church uses the Bible and the Bible is the basis for all of their teaching. He said, “they do not teach right”. Their doctrines are wrong, because they do not understand the Bible correctly. I asked how he knows he understands the Bible correctly and he said what the Bible teaches is clear and the other Baptists in town have it wrong. He recently rented a store front and has about seven or eight families showing up on Sunday. This is called church planting. I said that the other Baptist ministers who say their doctrine is from the Bible would say their interpretations are correct. He insisted they are wrong. I asked how could we determine which is right and which is wrong. He said from the Bible. He was truly sincere. He had no idea that he was talking in circles. I stopped trying to use reason with him. It was useless. I might as well have been talking to my front door. It was as plain as day to him that his interpretation was right and the others wrong. How could anyone not see that? How can anyone not see that the cause of this mess is the Protestant doctrine sola scriptura? This has nothing to do with Catholics at all. It is a Protestant problem and it is unfixable, but they don’t see it as a problem. When you say, look at all the denominations and non-denominations caused by this, they don’t care and shrug their shoulders so what. I have many good friends who belonged to a local non-demoninational church for many years. The pastor is also a good friend. It is a big church. The families all grew up together in this church that was started about twenty five years ago. A few years ago a crazy phenomenon emmerged in Protestant circles called holy laughter. A friend of mine of many years invited me to go to a meeting. The pastor fell on the floor in the first minutes and passed out and did not get up for a couple of hours. These people carried on like lunatics and they did not even speak in sentences that made sense. The used verbs for nouns. Some families from my friend’s church decided they thought this was good stuff and the pastor had more sense and would not go along with it. The church split in three. All the families I knew there who were all my friends got all fired up and chose a side and walked out on lifelong friendships. They all believe the Bible and are convinced they understand it correctly even though their fellow Christians and life long friends with whom they used to agree, now disagree with them.

Do you realize this same kind of thing goes on in the catholic church? Catholics believe different things among themselves just as protestants do.
Take the Sedevacantist in the catholic church who don’t believe the current pope is legit and if i’m not mistaken the mass of today is also wrong since its not in Latin. This catholic movement as far
i can tell they reject some or all of Vatican 2.