The Bible is Catholic -

[JRKH]

**Prot. 101 is simply goading catholic’s at this thread, nothing more. He’s already made up his mind; He’s not interested in the C.C. —just humour him, he’ll get bored and move on. His arguments are nothing but a bunch of bunk anyways! **

I would hope that we do not “Humour Him”, hoping he gets bored and leaves. While I agree to an extent that he is “goading”, I don’t believe it is with a malicious or callous intent. Rather I think it is more a situation where he cannot let go of certain errors and misconceptions about catholic teachings. Perhaps it is an issue of scruples. I see him becoming so involved with the details until it ties him up in knots. Now it has reached a point where he expressed his frustration with the “denigrating” remark.

Protestant101 has posted any number of well thought out and intersting posts on this thread as well as others. He has certainly made me grab my Bible more than once, and he makes us all think. I wrote my post about his tactics, not to drive him away, but simply to point out, to him as much as anyone else, what I noticed about his approach. It is my hope that, if P101 reads that post, he will take it to heart and look carefully at himself and his reasons for comnig here.

Protestant101 has strong convictions. Given the number of posts he has made I believe he is a true seeker. I would gladly see him stay on the boards and continue to ask questions. However, I hope that he will recognize that, just because he doesn’t get an answer he likes, it doesn’t mean his question wasn’t answered.

Peace
James

 

[joe370]

I would hope that we do not “Humour Him”, hoping he gets bored and leaves. While I agree to an extent that he is “goading”, I don’t believe it is with a malicious or callous intent. Rather I think it is more a situation where he cannot let go of certain errors and misconceptions about catholic teachings. Perhaps it is an issue of scruples. I see him becoming so involved with the details until it ties him up in knots. Now it has reached a point where he expressed his frustration with the “denigrating” remark.

Protestant101 has posted any number of well thought out and intersting posts on this thread as well as others. He has certainly made me grab my Bible more than once, and he makes us all think. I wrote my post about his tactics, not to drive him away, but simply to point out, to him as much as anyone else, what I noticed about his approach. It is my hope that, if P101 reads that post, he will take it to heart and look carefully at himself and his reasons for comnig here.

Protestant101 has strong convictions. Given the number of posts he has made I believe he is a true seeker. I would gladly see him stay on the boards and continue to ask questions. However, I hope that he will recognize that, just because he doesn’t get an answer he likes, it doesn’t mean his question wasn’t answered.

Peace
James

My bad; you are right!!!

 

[mercygate]

**Prot. 101 is simply goading catholic’s at this thread, nothing more. He’s already made up his mind; He’s not interested in the C.C. —just humour him, he’ll get bored and move on. His arguments are nothing but a bunch of bunk anyways! **

If you were in P-101s position and read this, would it draw you closer towards accepting the doctrinal truths of the Church? Or would you conclude that Catholics are cranky, self-righteous, go-to-Hell people who just want to score?

 

[joe370]

I would hope that we do not “Humour Him”, hoping he gets bored and leaves. While I agree to an extent that he is “goading”, I don’t believe it is with a malicious or callous intent. Rather I think it is more a situation where he cannot let go of certain errors and misconceptions about catholic teachings. Perhaps it is an issue of scruples. I see him becoming so involved with the details until it ties him up in knots. Now it has reached a point where he expressed his frustration with the “denigrating” remark.

Protestant101 has posted any number of well thought out and intersting posts on this thread as well as others. He has certainly made me grab my Bible more than once, and he makes us all think. I wrote my post about his tactics, not to drive him away, but simply to point out, to him as much as anyone else, what I noticed about his approach. It is my hope that, if P101 reads that post, he will take it to heart and look carefully at himself and his reasons for comnig here.

Protestant101 has strong convictions. Given the number of posts he has made I believe he is a true seeker. I would gladly see him stay on the boards and continue to ask questions. However, I hope that he will recognize that, just because he doesn’t get an answer he likes, it doesn’t mean his question wasn’t answered.

Peace
James

My point was not to be insensitive, sarcastic or glib, all things Prot. 101 has been guilty of doing from time to time, to differing degrees. All I am saying is that it sounds like he’s made up his mind based on his technique of answering questions with a question, ignoring posts that clearly and directly focus on any issue he happens to bring to this thread and his rock solid self assuredness that the Bible is his final authority on faith and morals, and I totally respect that! As a matter of fact, I applaud his conviction! I as others at this thread, have offered him many answers that align perfectly with what the bible teaches, e.g. --is the bible catholic; does the church have authority or is it the bible, etc and he never attempts to refute any of it; he simply says, that proves nothing, so I have surmised that he has either made up his mind on the subject(s) he’s really not that interested or he simply can’t see beyond the pages of his bible (sola scriptura), like my sister, who shares his conviction and perspective. (again Prot. 101 I am not minimizing the bible; why would I, after all it was codified and given to us by the C.C.) You said, While I agree to an extent that he is "goading, I don’t believe it is with a malicious or callous intent. Rather I think it is more a situation where he cannot let go of certain errors and misconceptions about catholic teachings and that was all I was conveying. " I don’t think he is being malicious or callous either, quite the contrary, he is being somewhat indifferent when he chooses to ignore amiable refutations.

You quoted me: "I would hope that we do not “Humour Him”, hoping he gets bored and leaves.’

With all do respect that’s all he is doing—humoring people at this thread with constant red herrings. If I were him, based on his obvious, unwavering and irrefutable confidants in the Bible as his sole authority, I would surely get bored and leave this forum. —OR perhaps I was way out of line and he really is having some misgivings about his faith and has come to this forum searching for answers that can’t be found in his bible!

Prot. 101, I meant no disrespect, **it just seemed to me ** anyway, that you have found all the truth you need and that truth is contained within the pages of your bible, and I totally respect that. If you ever get the time, maybe you could address some of the points I have made or possibly read the articles I have submitted here at this thread pertaining to the apocrypha. I have a very open-mind and I am easily persuaded by logical and convincing polemic.

 

[Protestant101]

Again, show me where the bible claims to be Jesus’ SOLE authority!

The psalms were written over an extended period of time (around 1000 B.C. until 400 B.C.) by different authors, hundreds of years before one word was uttered by Jesus. Don’t cite O.T. verses as proof for biblical authority; you will convince no one with this methodology!!!Do you really think the author(s) of Psa 119:105 “Thy word (or as you would like to imagine, thy new testament) is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my paths.” —was referring to the New Testament?

A fundamental principle set forth by Scripture concerning itself is that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth, the primary and absolute source of authority,the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice.

The classical text which expresses this basic premise is Isa 8:20 (NIV): “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.”

The two Hebrew words torah (Law) and tecudah (testimony) point to the two loci of authority in Isaiahs day which now constitute Holy Scripture: the Pentateuch (the Torah or Law of Moses) and the testimony of the prophets to the previously revealed will of God in the Torah.

Jesus summarized the two divisions of OT Scripture similarly when He referred to the Law and the prophets (Matt 5:17; 11:13; 22:40).

The NT adds the authoritative revelation given by Jesus and His apostolic witnesses (see Eph 2:20; 3:5).

In both Old and New Testament, the principle of sola Scriptura implies two corollaries: the primacy and the sufficiency of Scripture.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The Bible was written for an audience, the Church. So which the better question is, which Church is the true Church?

The Catholic Church of course!

 

[anthony022071]

A fundamental principle set forth by Scripture concerning itself is that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth, the primary and absolute source of authority,the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice.

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101;3768091:

You have not shown where scripture says that scripture is sufficient.

I am not sure how you could miss the Scriptural references of my last post, but you might want to actually read them carefully. It seems Jesus did not agree with you - He often referred people to “the law and the prophets.” He quoted them as proof of many doctrines.

The principle of sola Scriptura implies the further corollary of the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible stands alone as the unerring guide to truth; it is sufficient to make one wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15). It is the standard by which all doctrine and experience must be tested (2 Tim 3:16-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5, 6; Isa 8:20; John 17:17; Acts 17:11; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb 4:12).

Scripture thus provides the framework, the divine perspective, the foundational principles, for every branch of knowledge and experience. All additional knowledge and experience, or revelation, must build upon and remain faithful to, the all-sufficient foundation of Scripture.

The sufficiency of Scripture is not just in the sense of material sufficiency, i.e., that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Protestants also believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture, i.e.,that the Bible alone is sufficient in clarity so that no external source is required to rightly interpret it.

Protestants maintain the rallying cry of the Reformation–sola Scriptura, the Bible and the Bible only as the final norm for truth. All other sources of knowledge and experience must be tested by this unerring standard. The appropriate human response must be one of total surrender to the ultimate authority of the word of God (Isa 66:2).

 

[joe370]

A fundamental principle set forth by Scripture concerning itself is that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth, the primary and absolute source of authority,the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice.

***Where in scripture is this fundamental principle set forth; certainly not in the O.T.? ***

…concerning itself is that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth…

Where in the bible does it explicitly say, “the Bible alone is the final norm of truth?” The bible does explicitly say that the church is “the final norm of truth.” —"…you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

…the primary and absolute source of authority…

The bible (according to Jesus Christ) says the “primary and absolute source of authority” is the church, "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ." Matthew 16:17-19 K.J.V.

…the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice…

Not according to your bible, "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. and if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

…The classical text which expresses this basic premise is Isa 8:20 (NIV): “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.”

**Isaiah 8:19-20…
*“Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me [are] for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount ZioAnd when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word (this is not the word of God, as in the N.T.) [it is] because [there is] no light in them.”

---

Here we have a continuation of more detailed descriptions of the despair of Israel due to their disloyalty, which they shall fall into, according to Isaiah, if necromancy (the subject of these verses) is sought, instead of God. Isaiah is reporting the words of his opponents who claim that the people have the right to practice divination. In Isaiah 8:20, the prophet seems to be saying, this can only lead to a dead end, and that they must seek the Law and the testimony of the prophets, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word [it is] because [there is] no light in them.” The word seems to be referring to the law of Moses (not the N.T. compiled at the end of the 4th century), which was the “Magna Charta” on which prophetism commented. (Deuteronomy 32:31)—"For their rock is not as our Rock…"

 

[joe370]

Sidelight:
Isaiah wrote after the fall of Israel to Assyria. The Assyrians’ attack on the land of Zebulun and Naphtali, in the northern part of Israel, came in two waves. The first “distress” resulted in the deportation of some Israelites. The second oppression was much heavier, resulting in the deportation of virtually everyone. Then, the Assyrian’s imported Gentile peoples to the area of Zebulon and Naphtali, the area of Galilee. Their descendants—the Samaritans—heavily populated Galilee in Christ’s day. Jesus actually started His ministry in Nazareth of Galilee. if the Jews of Jesus’ day had carefully read the Old Testament Scriptures they would have realized that Nazareth had an important place in Messianic prophecy and an important role to play in Messianic ministry. It was Isaiah the prophet who predicted this —a passage from Isaiah that Matthew quotes at the start of Jesus’ ministry (Mt 4:15-17): “Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-- (2) The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned. (3) You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice when dividing the plunder.”

Isaiah is saying, God, in the Messiah, “will honor Galilee of the Gentiles.” —And, He did this by having Jesus grow up there and start His ministry there.

"…and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: “He will be called a Nazarene.” (Mt 2:23)

 

[joe370]

The two Hebrew words torah (Law) and tecudah (testimony) point to the two loci of authority in Isaiahs day…

I Agree!!!

…which now constitute Holy Scripture: the Pentateuch (the Torah or Law of Moses) and the testimony of the prophets to the previously revealed will of God in the Torah.

I agree!!!

Jesus summarized the two divisions of OT Scripture similarly when He referred to the Law and the prophets (Matt 5:17; 11:13; 22:40).

What does the two divisions of O.T. Scripture (the Law and the prophets) have to do with the N.T.? I do not see any fundamental principle set forth by Scripture (Matt 5:17; 11:13; 22:40) concerning itself, that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth, the primary and absolute source of authority,the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice.

*“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” *Matt 5:17-18

*“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” *Matt. 11:13

“Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matt. 22:36-40

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101;3768091:

…the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice…

Not according to your bible, "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. and if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church

, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

But the Church in such cases would always use the Scriptures as their Guide to determine how to make a decision in this kind of situation.

The Bible is always it’s own best Expositor; or as Martin Luther put it, Scripture is its own light.

Because there is an underlying unity among the various parts of Scripture, one portion of Scripture interprets another, becoming the key for understanding related passages.

Jesus demonstrated this principle on the way to Emmaus when, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:27).

Later that night in the upper room, he pointed out that everything written about Himself in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled. Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures . . . (Luke 24:44-45).

Paul expresses this same principle in 1 Cor 2:13 (NKJV): These things we also speak, not in words which mans wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. This text has been translated in different ways, but certainly the apostles own use of Scripture indicates his adoption of the principle.

We can already note the whole catena of OT quotations cited in Rom 3:10-18. The same phenomenon may be observed in Heb 1:5-13; 2:6-8, 12, 13. And in many other places.

In practical application of this principle that the Bible is its own expositor, Jesus, on the way to Emmaus,shows how all that Scripture says about a given topic (in His case the Messiah) should be brought to bear upon the interpretation of the subject (Luke 24:27, 44-45).

This does not mean the indiscriminate stringing together of passages in proof-text fashion without regard for the context of each text. Nor does it mean making of an entire doctrine out of just one verse, such as Catholics do with Mat.16:18 or 19.

But since the Scriptures ultimately have a single divine Author, it is crucial to gather all that is written on a particular topic in order to be able to consider all the contours of the topic. Hence, the Bible is it’s own light, and needs no other sources, Catholic or otherwise to “interpret” it. It is exactly as it reads.

 

[joe370]

The NT adds the authoritative revelation given by Jesus and His apostolic witnesses (see Eph 2:20; 3:5).

The New Testament explicitly spells out the authoritative revelation given by Jesus, and this revelation stated by Jesus Christ to His apostle Saint Peter is again: “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. .” Matthew 16:17-19 K.J.V. His apostolic witnesses continued to share this revelation (and many others I might add) through His church, via sacred tradition…

Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God’s word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God’s law of honoring one’s father and mother.)
Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).
Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul also writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary.
Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, “paradosis”) means “to hand on” teaching.
Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord’s day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.
John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.
Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!”
Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.
Col. 1:5-6 – of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you. This delivery of the faith refers to the oral tradition the Colossians had previously received from the ordained leaders of the Church. This oral tradition is called the gospel of truth.
1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.
1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.
2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.
2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

 

[joe370]

2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.
2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.
1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been “entrusted” to you. The word “entrusted” is “paratheke” which means a “deposit.” Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.
2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is “tradition,” or the handing on of apostolic teaching.
2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).
1 John 2:7 – John refers to the oral word his disciples have heard which is the old commandment that we love one another.

…and sacred scripture, both safegurded by the very same church Jesus established circa 33 AD.

In both Old and New Testament, the principle of sola Scriptura implies two corollaries…

**First, Sola scriptura (bible alone) negates the preceding passages by Saint Paul regarding tradition, leading me to believe, that possibly, the bible could be invalid elsewhere; which is why I put all my trust in the the apostolic church created by Jesus. Secondly, If I am to buy into sola scriptura (a 16th century man-made tradition) I am no different than the corrupt Pharisees and their man-made traditions. Mark 7:3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; Mark 7:5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?”

Mark 7:8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." Mark 7:9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! Mark 7:13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit(sola scriptura, which Jesus never taught), according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
I do my best to follow the axample of the apostles as opposed to the 1st century Jewish Pharisees and the scribes who rejected Jesus out of hand. **

 

[Protestant101]

2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. Joe,

Nothing you can say will justify the claim that the Bible is Catholic. The Apocrypha is Catholic, but it is not Biblical.
**
**Joe; it is one thing to treat the Bible as a book of good moral instruction, to be heeded so far as is consistent with the spirit of the times, and our position in the world; but it is another thing to regard it as it really is: The Word of the Living God, the Word that is our life, the Word that is to mold our actions, our words, our thoughts.

To hold God’s Word as anything less than this is to reject it, and to dilute it’s authority and character. The Word of God is a character detector, a true motive tester. We are to read this Word with our hearts and minds open to receive any impressions that God might give. But we must not think that the reading of the Word can accomplish that which only He whom the Word reveals, who stands behind the Word, can accomplish.

Some are in danger of hastening to the conclusion that because they hold firmly to the doctrines of the truth, they are actually in possession of the blessings which these doctrines declare shall come to the receiver of the truth.

Many people today hold the truth in the outer court; it’s sacred principles having no controlling influence over the words, the thoughts, or the actions. In this perilous day of evil, when the allurements to vice and corruption are on every hand, let the earnest, heart-felt cry of the young people be raised to heaven: ‘Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his path?” And may his ears be open, and his heart inclined to obey the instruction given in the answer: “By taking heed according to thy word.”

“Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his path? by taking heed according to thy word.” (Ps.119:9)

The only safety for youth or adults, in this age of pollution is to make God and His Word their trust. Without divine help; we are unable to control our human passions and appetites. The Church cannot help anyone do this.

In Christ is the very help that we need. Bible truth must reach down into the deepest recesses of the soul and cleanse away everything that is unlike the Spirit of Christ, (Rom.8:9), and the resulting “vacuum” must be filled by all the attributes of His character (2 Cor.5:17), who was pure and holy and undefiled, that all the springs of the heart may be as flowers – fragrant with perfume, a sweet smelling savor, a savor of life unto life. (Eph.5:2).

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Pet.1:23)

 

[joe370]

… the primacy and the sufficiency of Scripture.

and finally, the principle of sola Scriptura (which again is not a principle that Jesus Christ taught or the apostles endorsed) —absolutely and unequivocally does not imply, indicate or reveal the primacy of scripture or the sufficiency of Scripture. I have already proven in previous posts, using the bible all by itself, that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth; not the bible. Yor own words betray your premise! Sola scriptura rules out anything that is not found in scripture, and the words primacy and sufficiency cannot be found anywhere in scripture!!!

Jesus in Mark 7:5-13 or Matt. The NT adds the authoritative revelation given by Jesus and His apostolic witnesses (see Eph 2:20; 3:5).
15:1-9 does not condemn all traditions, but those corrupted by the Pharisees. Unlike the human traditions of the Pharisees, Apostolic Tradition is God’s Word spoken through the Apostles, not recorded in the Bible. The Church as promised by Christ (Matt 16:18-19, Matt 18:17-18) preserves and teaches the Apostolic Tradition. Since the bible tells me the Church is the pillar and support of the truth, I will embrace both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture!

Examples of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Reliance on Oral Tradition
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.
1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.
1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.
Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”
Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

 

[anthony022071]

I am not sure how you could miss the Scriptural references of my last post, but you might want to actually read them carefully. It seems Jesus did not agree with you - He often referred people to “the law and the prophets.” He quoted them as proof of many doctrines.

 

[joe370]

Here is an excellent site you might want to puruse. I have purused many protestant sites just to make sure I am getting the over all big picture. It can be hard to remove those myopic glsses, but once you do, an incredible unbiased journey awaits you.
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
(2 Tim. 2-2) - And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

…and sacred scripture, both safegurded by the very same church Jesus established circa 33 AD.

In both Old and New Testament, the principle of sola Scriptura implies two corollaries…

First, Sola scriptura (bible alone) negates the preceding passages by Saint Paul regarding tradition, leading me to believe, that possibly, the bible could be invalid elsewhere; which is why I put all my trust in the the apostolic church created by Jesus. Secondly, If I am to buy into sola scriptura (a 16th century man-made tradition) I am no different than the corrupt Pharisees and their man-made traditions. Mark 7:3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; Mark 7:5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?”

Mark 7:8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." Mark 7:9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! Mark 7:13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on.

And many such things you do."Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit(sola scriptura, which Jesus never taught), according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
I do my best to follow the axample of the apostles as opposed to the 1st century Jewish Pharisees and the scribes who rejected Jesus out of hand.

… the primacy and the sufficiency of Scripture.

and finally, the principle of sola Scriptura (which again is not a principle that Jesus Christ taught or the apostles endorsed) —absolutely and unequivocally does not imply, indicate or reveal the primacy of scripture or the sufficiency of Scripture. I have already proven in previous posts, using the bible all by itself, that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth; not the bible. Yor own words betray your premise! Sola scriptura rules out anything that is not found in scripture, and the words primacy and sufficiency cannot be found anywhere in scripture!!!

Jesus in Mark 7:5-13 or Matt. 15:1-9 does not condemn all traditions, but those corrupted by the Pharisees. Unlike the human traditions of the Pharisees, Apostolic Tradition is God’s Word spoken through the Apostles, not recorded in the Bible. The Church as promised by Christ (Matt 16:18-19, Matt 18:17-18) preserves and teaches the Apostolic Tradition. Since the bible tells me the Church is the pillar and support of the truth, I will embrace both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture!

 

[joe370]

Examples of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Reliance on Oral Tradition

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.
Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.
1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.
1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.
Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”
Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

 

[Protestant101]

… the primacy and the sufficiency of Scripture.

and finally, the principle of sola Scriptura (which again is not a principle that Jesus Christ taught or the apostles endorsed) —absolutely and unequivocally does not imply, indicate or reveal the primacy of scripture or the sufficiency of Scripture. I have already proven in previous posts, using the Bible all by itself, that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth; not the bible. Yor own words betray your premise! Sola scriptura rules out anything that is not found in scripture, and the words primacy and sufficiency cannot be found anywhere in scripture!!!

To use the Catholic argument Joe; “Trinity cannot be found in Scripture either;” so there’s not much sense in you tossing about the fine points of how “primacy” or “sufficiency” cannot be found in Scripture. My points are pretty clear above, and can all be found in the Bible. The fact that there is such a thing as “oral tradition” does nothing to disprove sola scriptura; for all tradition is in the Bible in one way or another.

Now you stated above in one example:

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

However, your private interpretation here is falsehood. It’s like saying “Trinity is not in the Bible so it cannot be true.” There are many Scripture verses which would give us the idea that it is better to give than to receive!! I would suggest that all of the other texts you just mentioned could be shown in a similar light where you have turned them into patent falsehoods to support your private (instead of Biblical) interpretations.

But I will give you one thing; you sure appeal to the Bible a lot for someone who’s ultimate authority is the Church. Maybe you are becoming Protestant, by associating with me??