SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

[ryanoneil]

"justasking4:

The point is that while the apostles were alive there was an oral authority that they themselves possessed. After they died this is no longer the case in terms of an authority. The ultimate authority in the church today is not the church itself but the Scriptures alone.

Where does scripture say this, or where did the Apostles themselves say this, or where did the Apostolic fathers say this.

I ask the same questions.

An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. That includes the authority of the office. Look what Paul says about his office.

of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, Col 1:25

This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 1 Tim. 3:1

at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry .

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who willjudge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. 2 Tim 4:1-2

This verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. 2 Tim. 2:1-2

And I have not even mentioned the authority that is transferred in Acts of the Apostles.

Please prove that the Apostles authority died with them.

 

[justasking4]

Gamera;4204414]No, you misunderstand Tradition. Nobody claims that the preaching of today’s bishops (the Apostles’ successors) is inspired. It doesn’t constitute Tradition. Both Tradition and Scripture stoppedbeing created upon the death of the last Apostle. Nothing new can ever be added to the deposit of faith.

What exactly is Tradition? Where has the church listed all its Traditions? This is vitally important so we can make distinctions between Scripture and Tradition. They are not the same thing.

Today’s bishops still have the same authority as the Apostles, but they lack the inspiration which allowed the Apostles to write the Bible.

Where is this stated in the Scriptures that bishops have the same authority as Apostles?

 

[justasking4]

I ask the same questions.

An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. That includes the authority of the office. Look what Paul says about his office.

of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, Col 1:25

This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 1 Tim. 3:1

at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry .

**I charge you **in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who willjudge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. 2 Tim 4:1-2

This verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. 2 Tim. 2:1-2

And I have not even mentioned the authority that is transferred in Acts of the Apostles.

Please prove that the Apostles authority died with them.

The office of a bishop and an apostle are 2 different offices with different functions. They are not the same things. Once John died that was the last of the apostles. For example do we see anyone in the 2nd century claiming to be an apostle? If so, who was it?

 

[Gamera]

What exactly is Tradition?

The teaching of Jesus and the Apostles.

Where has the church listed all its Traditions?

Several places, but the easiest and most accessible is the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

This is vitally important so we can make distinctions between Scripture and Tradition. They are not the same thing.

No, they are not the same thing. However, they both are God’s word. Together, the comprise the entire deposit of faith.

Where is this stated in the Scriptures that bishops have the same authority as Apostles?

Acts 1:15-26 is where we first see a bishop taking on the role vacated by an original Apostle. This transition has continued for two millenia to our present day bishops.

 

[Gamera]

The office of a bishop and an apostle are 2 different offices with different functions. They are not the same things. Once John died that was the last of the apostles. For example do we see anyone in the 2nd century claiming to be an apostle? If so, who was it?

Nobody says that bishops are Apostles. Bishops have inherited the authority of the Apostles. Bishops have not inherited the inspiration of the Apostles.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4204544]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The point is that while the apostles were alive there was an oral authority that they themselves possessed. After they died this is no longer the case in terms of an authority. The ultimate authority in the church today is not the church itself but the Scriptures alone.

guanophore
Please show in scripture where it states that the Apostolic Authority ended with their deaths.

Before i can answer that we need to understand what an apostle is and what are his qualifications. Certainly seeing the risen Christ was esential. Secondly do we see any apostle passing on his apostleship directly as an apostle to anyone else in Scripture?

Third, is there anyone in the 2nd century called an apostle and reconized as one by the entire church?

while you are at it, show the scripture that says " The ultimate authority in the church today is not the church itself but the Scriptures alone."

No need to show this from Scripture since it does not mention it. Rather the case is very strong that the Scriptures alone are God-breathed and are the only such things in the world. We know for example the church is never said to be inspired-inerrant. The same goes for its leaders and councils. Since these would be the only contenders for such an authority and none of them are inspired-inerrant we are left with the Scriptures alone.

Chapter and verses, please.

None needed. View attachment 4141

Or, if not, perhaps you will concede that neither of these is found in Scripture. In fact, Scripture teaches the opposite, and the witness of the early fathers confirms that both these statements are false.

i’m not aware of any Scripture that says traditions, men, popes etc are inspired-inerrant. If this is the case then the fathers are irrelevant in terms of an authority. All that they can do in truth is to support the Scriptures. If they don’t then they are either teaching falsely or incorrectly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Since the Scriptures are the writings of the Apostles it is them that are inspired-inerrant. Only the Scriptures because they are the Word of God and have their source in Him do they qualify as being the ultimate and final authority in matters of doctrine and practice. No church, man, pope or council can today be said to be inspired or inerrant. Only the Scriptures are such.

guanophore
This belief is not in the bible. It is an extrabiblical belief.

That may be but is it true? Thats what matters.

Furthermore, there are several books in the NT not written by Apostles. Where is their gift of infallibility? We are not even sure who wrote Hebrews. How do we know that is inspired-inerrant?

There were other tests to use than just being associated with an apostle. We can deal with this later since it would take up some precious time. And we agree on this point anyway…

The Church also has her Source in Christ. He founded the Church, breathed upon her, authorized and commissioned her, and sent His Spirit to lead her into all truth. It was this Church that produced the NT that you have, by your own opinion, set up as your ultimate authority. It is your freedom to do so, of course.

I agree with most of what you say here. Sadly the church has erred in many areas…

 

[justasking4]

Nobody says that bishops are Apostles. Bishops have inherited the authority of the Apostles. Bishops have not inherited the inspiration of the Apostles.

So we agree that the office of apostle ended when John died?

 

[justasking4]

Gamera;4204421]Chapter and verse?

The Bible itself says it is NOT God’s only word. Rather, the Bible says the Apostle’s oral preaching is the word of God, not the word of man (1 Thes 2:13).

While the apostles were alive and preaching the Scriptures in part were oral. After they died this stopped.

You throw together “inspired” and “inerrant” as if they were the same thing. They aren’t. Catholics agree that no church, man, pope or council today must be held to be inspired. That is entirely different from being inerrant.

To be inerrant means to be without error. We know the church is not without error. There are many examples of error in its history.

 

[Gamera]

So we agree that the office of apostle ended when John died?

You’ve got “office” thrown in there. We agree that no apostles have existed since the first genreation of Christians, correct. Catholics believe that their office remains, but holding the office does not make one an apostle. Nobody says it does. Bishops hold the same authority as the apostles but that doesn’t make them apostles, any more than holding George Washington’s office as President makes the current president into George Washington.

 

[Gamera]

While the apostles were alive and preaching the Scriptures in part were oral. After they died this stopped.

To be more precise, Gods’ word was in part oral. Scriptures by definition are written (enscribed). There’s no such thing as an oral scripture. There is Scripture and there is oral preaching. During the Apostolic age, God’s word was generated in two forms (1) Scripture, and (2) the Apostles’ preaching. Both are God’s word. And yes, the death of the last apostle marked the close of God’s general revelation to humanity.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera
Tradition actually includes the Apostles’ preaching, not just teachings of Christ given to the Apostles.

Do you have some examples of this?

Gamera

1. Mary’s assumption into heaven. It can’t have been taught by Jesus here on earth because Mary was still among us when Jesus ascended to heaven. It must have been taught by the Apostles (most likely by John, who had taken Mary in).
2. Mary’s perpetual virginity (same reasons as above).
3. The fact that John the Evangelist was the same John who received the Patmos revelation (this isn’t stated in Scripture).
4. Mark’s authorship of his Gospel.

I’m confused how you can say these are Tradition actually includes the Apostles’ preaching when you wrote in your post at
964 the following:

“No, you misunderstand Tradition. Nobody claims that the preaching of today’s bishops (the Apostles’ successors) is inspired. It doesn’t constitute Tradition. Both Tradition and Scripture stopped being created upon the death of the last Apostle. Nothing new can ever be added to the deposit of faith. Today’s bishops still have the same authority as the Apostles, but they lack the inspiration which allowed the Apostles to write the Bible.”

If Tradition stopped at the last apostle then you can’t also say that Mary’s perpetual virgintiy and assumption is Tradition nor is apostolic since the apostles never taught such things. These would be man made doctrines…

 

[Gamera]

To be inerrant means to be without error. We know the church is not without error. There are many examples of error in its history.

There are zero examples of the Church erring in its teaching on matters of faith and morals. That is the only inerrancy claimed by the Church. Nobody claims the Church cannot err in other matters.

 

[justasking4]

To be more precise, Gods’ word was in part oral. Scriptures by definition are written (enscribed). There’s no such thing as an oral scripture. There is Scripture and there is oral preaching. During the Apostolic age, God’s word was generated in two forms (1) Scripture, and (2) the Apostles’ preaching. Both are God’s word. And yes, the death of the last apostle marked the close of God’s general revelation to humanity.

I agree.

 

[Gamera]

I’m confused how you can say these are Tradition actually includes the Apostles’ preaching when you wrote in your post at
964 the following:

“No, you misunderstand Tradition. Nobody claims that the preaching of today’s bishops (the Apostles’ successors) is inspired. It doesn’t constitute Tradition. Both Tradition and Scripture stopped being created upon the death of the last Apostle. Nothing new can ever be added to the deposit of faith. Today’s bishops still have the same authority as the Apostles, but they lack the inspiration which allowed the Apostles to write the Bible.”

If Tradition stopped at the last apostle then you can’t also say that Mary’s perpetual virgintiy and assumption is Tradition nor is apostolic since the apostles never taught such things. These would be man made doctrines…

Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Apostles did teach Mary’s perpetual virginity and Mary’s assumption. Why do you think the Apostles “never taught such things?” How else could they be so widespread so early in Church history?

But yes, you are correctly following Catholic thought: no post-Apostolic revelation can ever be binding. This is why, for instance, apparitions of Mary can never become required belief to Catholics. We cannot function the way the early Mormon Church did with a leader suddenly getting a ‘revelation’ to move to this town, then that, and so forth. No post-Apostolic revelations are binding on Catholics.

 

[Gamera]

I agree.

Woo-Hoo! It’s a banner day here at Catholic Answers forums!

 

[justasking4]

Gamera;4205105]Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Apostles did teach Mary’s perpetual virginity and Mary’s assumption. Why do you think the Apostles “never taught such things?” How else could they be so widespread so early in Church history?

There is no evidence to support this assertion that Apostles did teach Mary’s perpetual virginity and Mary’s assumption. If there was then we would see it Scripture or at least have some support historically. Sadly it fails there also.

But yes, you are correctly following Catholic thought: no post-Apostolic revelation can ever be binding. This is why, for instance, apparitions of Mary can never become required belief to Catholics. We cannot function the way the early Mormon Church did with a leader suddenly getting a ‘revelation’ to move to this town, then that, and so forth. No post-Apostolic revelations are binding on Catholics.

 

[Gamera]

There is no evidence to support this assertion that Apostles did teach Mary’s perpetual virginity and Mary’s assumption. If there was then we would see it Scripture or at least have some support historically. Sadly it fails there also.

I wouldn’t say there is “no” evidence, since both beliefs were widespread in the early Church, but I cannot cite historical proof that their source was the Apostles because it requires an inference (only the Apostles could have spread such teachings so widely). However, when one adds Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in all truth, it’s not hard to accept.

As for not having been recorded in Scripture, let’s assume that Mary’s earthly life ended in her old age. Had not most of Scripture already been completed by then? Further, the argument that everything must be recorded in Scripture, sort of defeats the point of Apostilic Tradition, which is that the Apostles’ preaching constituted God’s word just as much as did their writings (1 Thes 2:13).

 

[sodak]

While the apostles were alive and preaching the Scriptures in part were oral. After they died this stopped.

How do you know this?

No need to show this from Scripture since it does not mention it. Rather the case is very strong that the Scriptures alone are God-breathed and are the only such things in the world.

Really? Where in the Scriptures does it say this? Or are you relying on extra - Scriptural support? This oughta be good…

None needed.

Yes, to support your argument, you DO need to supply chapter and verse.

What exactly is Tradition? Where has the church listed all its Traditions? This is vitally important so we can make distinctions between Scripture and Tradition. They are not the same thing.

This has been answered at least 3 times to you just in this thread. Yet you never acknowledge the answer, but you keep repeating the question as if nobody has answered it. Do you think we can’t read?

 

[po18guy]

My guess is that JA4 is several users at a Protestant seminary, or similar. Anyway, this thread is dead in a few more posts. At least all of them have heard the truth. Amen.

 

[JLongoria]

JA4, can you answer this question:

Why does St. Paul call the Church the “church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Thess. 3:15), and only say that Scripture is “useful” or “profitable” (2 Thess. 3:16)?

In Timothy, you don’t see St. Paul telling St. Timothy, “pass on these letters”. No, instead you see him saying things like:

“So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.”

“On this account I am suffering these things; but I am not ashamed, for I know him in whom I have believed and am confident that he is able to guard what has been entrusted to me until that day. Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us.”

He’s not saying to guard the letters: he’s saying to guard the teachings that have been passed to him by St. Paul. And where are these teachings contained?

“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

And we find something else interesting:

That is why, when we could bear it no longer, we decided to remain alone in Athens and sent Timothy, our brother and co-worker for God in the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith, so that no one be disturbed in these afflictions.

The Apostles sent people to strengthen believers, not letters. These people were co-workers.

No Catholic contends that the Letters are inspired. Yet you contend that the Apostles left us everything we needed in letters; and this is thoroughly anti-biblical, not just extra.

In St. Paul’s absence, he sends St. Timothy to the Thessalonians, with authority. Why else would St. Paul send him?