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

[JLongoria]

A quick comment on a few other points.

Eucharistic miracles was mentioned. Firstly, I don’t see any accounts of this miracle in the church portrayed in the Bible. Perhaps there were miracles many years later, but I have seen and heard of many miracles from other beliefs and faiths throughout the world. I don’t believe all miracles are from God.

Agreed, not all miracles are from God. However, let’s take a look at Scripture here:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

1 Corinthians 11:27-30

How can people be dying if it were anything less than truly offensive to God? St. Paul makes it abundantly clear that you will have to answer for it.

You may need the miracle of transubstantiation (which is really our attempt at understanding how it happens, not if) out for you, but that wasn’t the point here: St. Paul was reprimanding them for treating the Eucharist without respect. The miracle would have been understood by readers, but you couldn’t possibly know that since you’re going to ignore Sacred Tradition altogether.

But there, St. Paul says it is the body and blood of the Lord. Answer that how you will my friend, but if you deny it, you’re only keeping yourself from the Truth that Christ has given us.

I simply disagree that Arianism cannot be refuted with Scripture alone. I’m not sure I understand the confusion with this. Jesus’ deity is clear throughout Scripture. I studied with JWs years ago and was actually flabergasted to discover that they reject the deity of Christ as being unbiblical.

It is unbiblical if you cut yourself off from the light of tradition. You seem to take for granted the fact that you read scripture with an eye that has been trained to interpret it in a certain way.

Christ only says, flatout, that He is the Son of God. This does not entail that He is God, and there are many cases where He acts very un-Godlike.

The same follows of the Holy Spirit; you’d be extremely hard pressed to find cut-and-dry evidence of the Holy Spirit being one with the Father and the Son anywhere outside of Sacred Tradition. The answer that Sacred Tradition has for these heresies is the dogma surrounding the Holy Trinity.

It’s funny, you know? As I started reading Scripture, I began to feel myself pulled towards the Catholic faith. And that’s because I started as a Catholic-bashing Evangelical [not all Evangelicals are Catholic bashers… but a lot of them are].

I pray for you, my friend. May the Holy Spirit work in you to make you return from these ways; may you accept the tradition that He has faithfully passed on to us through the Church.

 

[ryanoneil]

What I see repeatedly stated here is that we can know there is extra-biblical tradition because tradition says that is how God did it. I see extra-biblical tradition here supporting e.b. tradition. I know there are many referrences to tradition and oral preservation in the Scriptures, but it is still an assumption to believe that those oral teachings and traditions were not preserved in Scripture.

If all oral teaching and tradition was preserved in Scripture there would be no need for footnotes. Footnotes and commentaries are extra-biblical tradition.

Your not suggesting we throw them out are you? (I doubt it)

What assurance do you have that the footnotes in your Bible are accurate?

**Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food. Heb. 5:12 **

Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. Acts 8:30-31

These verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us. The proper way to understand Scripture is preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and is equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

“Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed (as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down, from which the Church, receiving, and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity, has transmitted them to her sons. Then also-having disposed of all questions which the heretics propose to us, and having explained the doctrine of the apostles, and clearly set forth many of those things which were said and done by the Lord in parables…that they may preserve steadfast the faith which they have received, guarded by the Church in its integrity, in order that they be in no way perverted by those who endeavor to teach them false doctrine…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Preface V (inter A.D. 180/199).

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Didn’t think I’d get back on this today, but I couldn’t resist. I only peeked

Not sure what exactly to say except that I’m mulling some of it over.

 

[justasking4]

ryanoneil;4202117]Here is another example of Paul appealing to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

And when this letter is read before you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and you yourselves read the one from Laodicea. Col. 4:16

This verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. The fact is, Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word, because it mandates the use of tradition.

No problem here. However we do not know what this letter to the Laodicea was. We don’t know its contents nor do we have any record that it ever was considered Scripture.

We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us. 2 Thess 3:6

 

[justasking4]

Is that any different than Scripture supporting Scripture? If one believes the Bible because the Bible says to, how is that different than believing Tradition because Tradition says to?

What specific Traditions are you referring to here?

 

[justasking4]

Well you seem to have snipped the part of my post that gave examples of Sacred Tradition, which is the Teachings of Christ that were given to the Apostles. Why did you do that?

I went back to your post and i didn’t see any examples of Sacred Tradition. What are you calling Sacred Tradition?

 

[justasking4]

Gamera;4202929]Tradition actually includes the Apostles’ preaching, not just teachings of Christ given to the Apostles.

Do you have some examples of this?

Some truths of faith (notably Mary’s assumption) are part of Tradition yet didn’t happen until after Jesus died, rose and returned to heaven, meaning they were not part of His teaching here on earth.

This means then that not all that the Catholic church teaches is the same as what Jesus and His apostles taught. Correct?

 

[justasking4]

ryanoneil;4203997]If all oral teaching and tradition was preserved in Scripture there would be no need for footnotes. Footnotes and commentaries are extra-biblical tradition.

Your not suggesting we throw them out are you? (I doubt it)

What assurance do you have that the footnotes in your Bible are accurate?

**Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food. Heb. 5:12 **

Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. Acts 8:30-31

These verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us. The proper way to understand Scripture is preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and is equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

There are some problems with your last statement.

1. There is no evidence for the “oral apostolic tradition”. The only thing we have from the apostles is found only in the NT.
2. The Catholic church has supposedly infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures. I’m not even sure this is true since it has yet to be shown where this can be found.

“Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed (as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down, from which the Church, receiving, and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity, has transmitted them to her sons. Then also-having disposed of all questions which the heretics propose to us, and having explained the doctrine of the apostles, and clearly set forth many of those things which were said and done by the Lord in parables…that they may preserve steadfast the faith which they have received, guarded by the Church in its integrity, in order that they be in no way perverted by those who endeavor to teach them false doctrine…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Preface V (inter A.D. 180/199).

 

[Gamera]

No problem here. However we do not know what this letter to the Laodicea was. We don’t know its contents nor do we have any record that it ever was considered Scripture.

Well, that’s the point. We see the Apostles asserting that their teachings which were not Scripture had equal authority with their teachings which do constitute Scripture.

 

[justasking4]

Well, that’s the point. We see the Apostles asserting that their teachings which were not Scripture had equal authority with their teachings which do constitute Scripture.

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.

 

[savedsinner]

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.

 

[justasking4]

savedsinner;4204328]
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.

savedsinner;
Where does scripture say this, or where did the Apostles themselves say this,

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.

or where did the Apostolic fathers say this.

I’m not that familiar with the fathers. I do know they do appeal many times to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority if I’m not mistaken.

 

[Gamera]

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.

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

 

[Gamera]

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.

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).

No church, man, pope or council can today be said to be inspired or inerrant. Only the Scriptures are such.

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.

 

[guanophore]

No problem here. However we do not know what this letter to the Laodicea was. We don’t know its contents nor do we have any record that it ever was considered Scripture.

The point is, there was something authoritative that was written that was not included in scripture. This is your pattern. You ask for something not in scripture, an example is given, then you say
“but it isn’t in scripture!”

What specific Traditions are you referring to here?

The ones that inform our world view. The teaching of Jesus through the Apostles that give direction on how the Scriptures are to be understood. The lens through which we look to see the fullness of faith.

Do you have some examples of this?

2000 years worth! One would be that the fullness of the faith was not committed to Scripture. Another would be that God is able to preserve His word in the hearts of believers as well as on paper. Another would be the Apostolic succession, and the authority on earth to forgive sins. Another would be the promise that Jesus would send the HS to lead the Church into all truth, and that the church would never err (the gates of hell prevail).

This means then that not all that the Catholic church teaches is the same as what Jesus and His apostles taught. Correct?

No, it means that some of what was taught was not fully understood until later. For example, the Apostles did not understand the Bread of Life discourse in Jn. 6 until the Last Supper, when he showed them how He meant for them to eat His Body.

There are some problems with your last statement.

1. There is no evidence for the “oral apostolic tradition”. The only thing we have from the apostles is found only in the NT.

In fact, this is a contradiction, since the entire NT is composed completely of oral apostolic tradition, it is the most widely known example of it. Jesus never wrote any books. He taught the Apostles everything orally, and this was preserved by them.

2)	The Catholic church has supposedly infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures. I’m not even sure this is true since it has yet to be shown where this can be found.

An irrelevant factoid, since the Catholic Church is the one that added all the verses anyway. The New Testament reflects the teachings of the Catholic faith because it was written by, for, and about Catholics.

 

[Gamera]

There are some problems with your last statement.

1. There is no evidence for the “oral apostolic tradition”. The only thing we have from the apostles is found only in the NT.

That isn’t true. We possess many writings from the Apostolic age, showing what Christians said, did and taught.

1. The Catholic church has supposedly infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures. I’m not even sure this is true since it has yet to be shown where this can be found.

That’s because the Church doesn’t go line by line through Scripture and say, “This verse means X.” That isn’t how it works. The Catholic Church has taught many, many things infallibly (mostly through ecumenical councils). But the format is to teach “X is true,” not to teach “This verse means X,” simply because a statement that “This verse means X” would exclude all secondary meanings that the verse may have. It’s clearer for the Church to read the Scriptures, determine that the Scriptures teach X, and then teach “X is true.”

 

[Gamera]

Gamera;4202929:

Tradition actually includes the Apostles’ preaching, not just teachings of Christ given to the Apostles.

Do you have some examples of this?

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.

 

[Gamera]

I’m not that familiar with the fathers. I do know they do appeal many times to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority if I’m not mistaken.

But Protestants don’t believe Scripture is the “ultimate” authority. Protestants believe Scripture is the ONLY authority (well, not the only administrative authority, but the only authority in terms of being God’s word). Catholics, Orthodox, and the Bible itself (1 Thes 2:13) disagree.

 

[Methodi]

The title of pope, or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas in the year 610 A.D. Jesus did not appoint Peter …"

what happened to in the bible, Jesus says to Peter, Thou art Peter & upon this rock I shall build my church & the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Thats How peter became the first pope according to the bible

 

[guanophore]

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.

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

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."

Chapter and verses, please.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

The ultimate authority in the church today is not the church itself but the Scriptures alone.

You can make anything or anyone you want into your authority as you wish. You can adopt Yoda as your ultimate authority if you desire. What is your goal here? Do you honestly believe you will succeed in getting people at CAF to throw out the great treasure given to us by Christ, so we can live under the limited and confused man-made doctrine created by the Reformers?

I’m not that familiar with the fathers. I do know they do appeal many times to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority if I’m not mistaken.

You have something to look forward to, then, in your study to show yourself approved as a workman. The fathers are part of your family history. No, all the early fathers wrote before the canon was formed, and none of them had the full collection of holy writings. However, scripture has always been an important part of defending against heresies, along with the Apostolic Teachings.