The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[MariaG]

First of all, there is a teaching of Jesus that Paul taught about but was never written in the gospels. Acts 20:35. Is this what you mean?

As to the teachings and beliefs of the early Christians, here is a link to an article by Catholic Answers that gives quotes from Christians as early as 80ad and through 600ad. They teach that the written word and oral tradition go hand and hand.
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

As for finding the Church contradicting scripture, I started a thread on this here: forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=15910 I had meant to start it here in non-Catholic but was in a hurry and accidently put it in apologetics. “What in Catholic Tradition contradicts the Bible” For the most part, it has been mostly Catholics saying that it doesn’t. At about post #32 someone gets specific about Catholic beliefs. (There was a discussion earlier, but I think it is on hold until it can be verified that the belief stated is not a forgery and is actually church teaching) But I would invite you over to discuss those beliefs that you think the Catholic Tradition has beliefs that contradict the Bible. (One at a time please!) I personally have never found one. But if there is, I want to know :yup:
God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Here is one of the references from the above article:
Papias

“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, *Church History *3:39 [A.D. 312]).

For those who want the full deal you can find Church History here: newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm.

 

[p90]

MariaG:

First of all, there is a teaching of Jesus that Paul taught about but was never written in the gospels. Acts 20:35. Is this what you mean?

I asked for one that is independent of the Scriptures, not just the Gospels. Knowledge of the example you’ve given comes from knowledge of the written word of God.

quotes from Christians as early as 80ad and through 600ad. They teach that the written word and oral tradition go hand and hand.

I didn’t ask for fathers that support the concept of an oral and written deposit of the word of God. I asked for a specific example of oral teaching, from either Paul or Jesus, found independently of the written word. Such a teaching should be able to be traced straight to Paul or to Christ Himself.

But I would invite you over to discuss those beliefs that you think the Catholic Tradition has beliefs that contradict the Bible.

I don’t think I could handle being so “outnumbered” (if you will allow such a word). Although I appreciate your offer, the potential of being swamped with early church father quotes, long quotations from apologetic sources, and lengthy argumentation in general from a variety of persons is not something I can commit to at this time.

~Matt

 

[MariaG]

Hi Matt,

I do not have a specific teaching, but I now have a quest! Someone else might, but I don’t. As for wading through the church fathers, the discussion will by it’s very topic, I think be limited to the Bible. I am not trying to show anyone how early a belief was practiced or that early Christians did it, we all know Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition, beliefs we say were passed down from the Apostles.

What I am trying to discuss is which of those Sacred Traditions **contradicts the Bible. **I am just trying to show that Catholic Traditions are not UnBiblical but completely in harmony with Scripture just not always found explicitly in Scripture. So mostly Scripture is what will be quoted not the early Church Fathers.

But I do understand about not having time or of being outnumbered. (You are outnumbered! Hopefully, outnumbered but still treated with Christian Charity for the most part.) But may God Bless you and keep you. Thank you for the dialogue.

Maria

 

[ahimsaman72]

fulloftruth:

ahimsaman72
First of all the Priest molestation analogy is completely off topic. No priest molested any children because of his ability to interpret Scripture in his own way. Thats the topic, I wasn’t bringing up the greedy pastor bit to say you have sinners and we don’t. I was making a point about the liberal interpretations that have come from Sola Scriptura. Nice try. Thats the beauty of the Catholic Church. We have a Holy Priesthood, that is endowed with the powers that Christ gave the First Apostles. And to be a Priest is a call to humilty and charity and piety. You don’t make any money as a priest.

You brought up greedy pastors which was kind of a “low blow” and unfortunately I retailiated with the bit about priests.

I see you take issue with me using one verse to back up the construction of the Church. How many verses did it take God to make man. How many verses should God have used, seeings how you think you know better that he on what the world needs as far as an authority. I think it should be taken into account who said it and what was said. He said He was going to start His Church with Peter and gave him the keys to the kingdom, and said it would last until the end of time. You as a Protestant have chosen to leave that church, with the rest of the “reformers,” Martin Luther and so on. Remember, he was a Catholic priest. There was only one Apostolic Church for 1500 years.What is so puzzling about that verse. Why the confusion. Protestants just do not like what the true church stands for, just like the Jews that crucified Christ, they could not see the truth as it stood in front of them. If you could only relax your peripheral objections, and see the core of what the Catholic Church teaches. Are there any moral teachings that you disagree with the Church on.

Actually, I hope that in issue so large and important would be taught much more than in one verse. Out of 66 books (protestant version) the catholic church at rome has built the doctrine of the papal office. If it was that important there should be more. So, one has to go back and make sure the verse is understood in context and interpreted correctly.

I really never chose to leave the catholic church. I was born a baptist, so how could I leave?

Yes, I realize Dr. Martin Luther was a catholic priest. I also realize he found gross abuses in the church and wanted reform, but was thrown out. Both sides did some wrong things.

“true church” is different in your mind than mind. My definition is “all who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, whether they be catholic, baptist, methodist, lutheran, so on.” Unfortunately, your definition is “roman catholic church”.

I have no problem with what the “true church” stands for - the good news of Jesus Christ and him crucified - as Paul eloquently stated. I love the “church”.

I’ve been reading and researching the catholic faith, so I’ve had this “truth” in front of me for some time. I’ve also been reading and researching my own faith. Given the two sides, I see more evidence for the universal “invisible” church filled with all believers from all ages who believe and confess the gospel and that those believers are all priests and have no use for a priesthood as defined by the roman catholic church.

I do disagree with some moral teachings of the church. I disagree with what may be considered mortal and venial sins. I don’t see the point in those specific topics though. They are secondary in my mind.

One final note: truth is somewhat relative. There is absolute truth - it is Jesus Christ as He says in John 14:6. “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the father but by me.” It is through Jesus that we come to God. Other truths are hard to come by as we are fallible sinful beings after all. I don’t believe we can really comprehend absolute truth outside of Jesus. If we could, wouldn’t we be God?

 

[ahimsaman72]

Greg_McPherran:

Hello Matt and Ahimsaman,

Catholics believes that the Catholic Church has continued the belief and practice of the apostles. For example I believe that our belief in the true Body of Jesus and communion and our practice of mass are learned from the apostolic Church.

There is no question that Scripture makes it clear that there are teachings outside of Scripture. Therefore Scripture makes it clear that it does not contain all the truths of faith. Yes, St Paul says that Scripture equips one for every good work. Showing from Scripture that Scripture itself does not contain all the teachings is a good work.

If people do not believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness that Scripture refers to, then you do not share the same faith. However, you do still are left with the question of what Church does have the fullness that Scripture makes clear exists:

So Matt and Ahimsaman, I ask you, what Church has carried on these teachings, traditions, and beliefs that St. Paul refers to? What Church is this?

Greg

Greg,

Yes, Scripture alludes to some traditions not in Scripture. It also alludes to all the things that Christ did is in the Scripture, but notice with me one good verse here: John 20:30,31. “…but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name.”
Those things outside what has been written down for us are not necessary for our salvation. “These are written” refers to what has been written in his gospel, not what is outside his gospel.

Just because catholics believe those things are what has been handed down doesn’t mean they are therefore correct, does it? I’ve used this same analogy before. Mormons believe they have the restored priesthood. They pass it on to their children. Their children grow up and believe the same things their parents taught them. Does that mean their parents were right? No.

I’m afraid given your defintion, we don’t follow the same faith as you stated.

Again, as I stated with another poster. Your definition of “true church” is different from mine. My understanding is the true church is made up of all believers (referred to as “invisible” which is not accurate). It’s made up of catholics, baptists, methodists, lutherans, so on - all who believe and profess Jesus Christ. Therefore the “church” that has carried on the teachings and beliefs of the Christian faith are those that exist today in their various forms, although some have erred from those teachings.

 

[MariaG]

Matt,

How about these:

The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times; however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion? How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all?

I found them here in this article if you want to read the whole thing.
newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Is this closer to what you are looking for?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[oat_soda]

My definition is "all who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, … I have no problem with what the “true church” stands for… I love the “church”. I see more evidence for the universal “invisible” church …have no use for a priesthood… I do disagree with some moral teachings of the church. I disagree with what may be considered mortal and venial sins. I don’t see the point in those specific topics though. They are secondary in my mind. …I don’t believe we can really comprehend absolute truth outside of Jesus…

i notice a lot of I’s and my’s in this post. this is a perfect example of the errors of protestantism. instead of being focused on God first, it is focused on the individual. it is always what i think or what i believe. just like luther said, "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and* I will not** recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."*

your making up your own religion as do many cafeteria catholics and most protestants. therefore, who cares about your opinon.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

i notice a lot of I’s and my’s in this post. this is a perfect example of the errors of protestantism. instead of being focused on God first, it is focused on the individual. it is always what i think or what i believe. just like luther said, "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and** I will not** recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."

your making up your own religion as do many cafeteria catholics and most protestants. therefore, who cares about your opinon.

Well***, I*** guess I could refer to myself as my other self, my twin brother or I could just refer to myself as ***I ***or me or myself which might or might not help your understanding of what ***I ***am trying to tell you about what ***I ***believe.

I rather believe referring to myself as I, me, my or myself is pretty basic to english language and grammar for proper comprehension when dealing with others who also speak the same language instead of evidence of errors of protestantism.
But, I could be wrong.

Part of the reason why protestants protest against the roman catholic church is because we look to God first where we sense that roman catholics look to the Pope and then to God for clarity and direction. So, I would ask you who is putting God first?

Nice to see you again as always.

Who cares about my opinion? Well, hopefully some do. That’s why we have forums - to express opinions, debate topics and hopefully learn from each other in the process. If that is not how you view it, maybe you have an agenda and should be banned by moderators as that is one criteria for being banned.

I kind of look forward to your posts, as they do make me think about my faith and your faith and it is helpful. I don’t see how I am making up my own religion. I’m not atheist, buddhist, agnostic, muslim, hindu or a Jew. I’ve always been a Christian just like the church at Antioch where they were FIRST called Christians. My religion was handed down to me just like yours and everyone else’s. Now, I could make a new religion if I wanted to - I could claim I had visions and that Peter gave me the keys of the kingdom and authority and the priesthood was re-instituted and start my own traditions , but I’m afraid that one already has millions and millions of faithful.

 

[p90]

Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion? How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all?

Is this closer to what you are looking for?

It is closer, but it seems to be confusing the issue of whether or not Protestants adhere to traditions outside of Scripture, and does not specifically produce an oral tradition traceable to Jesus or Paul.

Do let me know how your search goes. I am interested in the results.

~Matt

PS

Please do check your inbox. I sent a message regarding your other post.

 

[MariaG]

Matt,
Jesus or any of the apostles I assume would be acceptable? Okay, I’ll keep looking and definitely keep you posted. Thanks for the explanation, I understand completely!
God Bless,

Maria

 

[Philthy]

p90:

~Matt

= black
Philthy = blue

Hey Matt - sorry this is so late - I was away in Alaska…looks like this will be a 3 part post!

A) You’re just repeating the comments and arguments of other posters without addressing the issues I’ve previously raised. Instead of repeating what other posters have written, why don’t you address the problems I’ve raised with the Scriptural proof that was used to support the Papacy?
OK, I’ll post every objection you’ve raised up to this point and attempt to address each.

B) The Papacy is a succession of different people. Peter isn’t alive today, and if it is to be accepted that the keys gave infallibility, it needs to be demonstrated that each successor had those keys or it can only be applied to the one who received it.
No, the papacy is an office. The popes are a succession of people through the office. What do you mean by “demonstrated”? I can give you “a demonstration” of the keys by way of the analogies previously discussed re: Isaiah 22 and the passing of the authority of the office - but it still remains up to you to accept or reject the “demonstration”. The biblical standard that Paul uses to Timothy was that he was to accept the teachings “because you know from whom you’ve learned them” (1Tim 3:14) The argument presented on papal infalliblity stems from the argument of the pope being Peter’s successor - that is how you “know from whom you’ve learned.” And when you combine that with the statements of Christ (verse escapes me) that “He who listens to you listens to me” and “that which you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven” I think the concept of papal infallibility is demonstrable. Is it really possible to “bind” something unacceptable in Heaven? No, it will be directed by the Holy Spirit.
C) You can’t move from the succession of apostles in general to the succession of the papal office. There were other positions in the church that were not appointed by succession (elder, deacon, etc.). Would you argue that those should be filled through succession because the office of apostle was passed on through appointment? The association is unwarranted
I disagree with your analysis. All apostolic offices remain filled by succession, including Peter’s See. The other offices you bring up are not apostolic and any analogy you attempt to draw between them and the apostolic offices is off topic.

 

[Philthy]

p90, Matt =black

Philthy, Phil = blue

D) Classical Protestantism has not considered the existence of God’s word in oral form to militate against Sola Scriptura. If the Catholic Church could actually produce the oral record of God’s Word existing today, that verse would be more convincing.
Please define your criteria for “producing the oral record of God’s Word existing today.” I can think of nothing other than the tradition of His Church to carry these beliefs on through history as the evidence, but this is unnacceptale to you - so tell me exactly what it is you have in mind as proof of the oral record. 3 examples of oral tradition that come to mind are the Real Presence, contraception and infant baptism
E) You might direct me to the early church fathers as representative of this “oral belief” not contained in the Scriptures. I would, however, point out that such an appeal is largely arbitrary when you consider the wide and varied belief among the fathers. Which beliefs do we follow? Jerome and his decision to follow an Old Testament canon without the deuterocanonicals? Irenaeus and his belief that Jesus lived to be over fifty? Augustine and his belief that Jesus Christ was the only immaculately conceived being? Appeals to a succession of belief are largely arbitrary because you have to appeal to the father that agrees with you, or, in the case of no father agreeing with you, to a development of doctrine that disproves your very position on the oral word being passed down.
ECF’s are not “largely arbitrary” on their teachings - they are predominantly orthodox in their teachings. one thing they most certainly are not is Protestant. Jerome can have a belief regarding the canono of scripture that differs from the Church based on the development of canon in his day, but when the Church comes out and declares the canon set - you go with the Church, not the individual. Who cares how old Christ lived to be? that doesn’t change anything regarding faith, morals and salvation - you’re nitpicking. As for Augustine, he said a lot of things, but one statement he made places the others in context; and that is that he deferred to the Church as the final arbiter in areas of controversy. Didn’t he say that without the Church he wouldn’t even believe in the gospels as being inspired?
F) How do you determine when the oral word of God was faithfully passed on and when it wasn’t?
You can’t - only the Church can! That much being said, it will never contradict the true Spirit of Scripture. When you think it does, you will know by faith (and humility) that you a)don’t truly understand the Scripture at hand fully b) don’t understand the Church’s actual teaching or c) both a and b
G) Until this oral tradition can be produced instead of referred to, the objection is not practical.
If I lived during the time of the Apostles, I would give both the written and oral word equal treatment. This is why I keep asking for a record of the oral tradition; if indeed it does exist today I would follow it.
How the heck do you think you would have gotten the oral tradition during the lifetime of the apostles? Surely you don’t expect everyone to have access to an Apostle. You would have had to believed someone the apostles gave the authority to preach it. that, again, is what the RCC developed from and currently is, and will continue to be.

 

[Philthy]

p90, Matt =black

Philthy, Phil = blue

H) Until you can produce these teachings in a way that would give them the same credibility of the written Scriptures, I cannot believe your claim that your church is in possession of them. Other denominations or religious movements make claims similar to yours regarding the existence of an oral tradition, yet come to different beliefs. How can I know if your church is following the oral tradition correctly? I need to examine it for myself, and I can’t do that until it’s presented for analysis.
Well let’s start with the basics: the “credibility of the written Scriptures” comes from the Catholic church. You can wiggle all you want on this, but the scriptures don’t claim their authority for themselves, have no table of contents, and they say that we are to have an oral tradition(2 Thess) and “subject ourselves” to the elders(1Peter 5:5). The Church that has the authority of Peter’s See claimed the authenticity of Scripture and now the world accepts it. You know, you have defended your position by saying that you need “proof” of the validity of the RCC oral tradition. In reality, given Scriptures’ statements regarding holding fast to oral traditions as well as written ones, any church claiming to lack them would be the Church that you should logically, scripturally, be the most suspicious of.

Regarding my defense of the existence of oral tradition(2 Thess) in post 53 I said: “My reasoning is this: God did author Scripture. He doesn’t make mistakes. For him to include a redundancy like this ( assuming oral teaching and written word are equal) would be unnecessary and potentially confusing for the believers He knew were to read it.”
And you responded with:
I) You’re appealing to the consequences of a belief as the reason for rejecting it. That’s fallacious. I don’t like the fact that nuclear weapons cause a lot of destruction, but that wouldn’t be legitimate grounds for arguing that they don’t exist.
No, I didn’t argue from the consequences of the belief as the reason for refecting it, I argued from God’s perfection in authoring Scripture. All scripture is inspired by God and for God to have such a redundancy is unacceptable. The logical conclusion , therefore, is that there is no redundancy; oral and written tradition are not one and the same.

 

[p90]

MariaG:

Matt,
Jesus or any of the apostles I assume would be acceptable?

Yes, that would be fine. I just mentioned Paul because the passage from Thessalonians mentions oral tradition he passed on.

When you let me know how your search goes, I would like to discuss the results along with some examples of what I think might constitute an “oral tradition” of the early church.

Thanks for taking the time to “speak” with me. I hope to do it again soon.

~Matt

 

[p90]

I wrote regarding the Scriptural proof of the Papacy:

B) The Papacy is a succession of different people. Peter isn’t alive today, and if it is to be accepted that the keys gave infallibility, it needs to be demonstrated that each successor had those keys or it can only be applied to the one who received it.

You responded:

Philthy:

No, the papacy is an office. The popes are a succession of people through the office. What do you mean by “demonstrated”? I can give you “a demonstration” of the keys by way of the analogies previously discussed re: Isaiah 22 and the passing of the authority of the office - but it still remains up to you to accept or reject the “demonstration”.

The “demonstration” doesn’t present a reason for accepting the passing of the authority associated with the keys to future holders. Where in Isaiah 22 are the keys passed on? If the analogy is to be used to prove the New Testament papacy, it should contain the significant components of the papacy.

I wrote concerning oral tradition:

F) How do you determine when the oral word of God was faithfully passed on and when it wasn’t?

You answered:

You can’t - only the Church can!

Then why do you appeal to oral tradition at all in discussions with Protestants? If they can’t check that oral tradition without submitting to the authority of the Catholic Church to determine whether or not that tradition is being followed, of what value is it to admonish Protestants to hold fast to them?

If the only way to consider the claims of Catholicism on oral tradition is to submit to Catholic authority regarding oral tradition, I am at a loss as how to test the Catholic Church in this area.

~Matt

 

[mayra_hart]

supposed that the owner of a company had all the employees together and announced that he was going to be gone for awhile. during his absence,he was going to give the KEYS of the company to his vice president,john doe,and whatever john doe commanded would be backed by him. would you have any doubts that john doe was going to be in charge of the company while the boss was away? of course not! then why can’t protestant accept that this is exactly what is described in mt16:13-19?bless you all

 

[fulloftruth]

Actually, I hope that in issue so large and important would be taught much more than in one verse. Out of 66 books (protestant version) the catholic church at rome has built the doctrine of the papal office. If it was that important there should be more. So, one has to go back and make sure the verse is understood in context and interpreted correctly.

As I said before, How many times does God have to say something for it to come into existance. It obviously was understood by those who heard it, so clearly that no other word were needed. And since no one objected to it, the church never saw the need to defend it.

I really never chose to leave the catholic church. I was born a baptist, so how could I leave?

I was speaking generically of all protestants leaving the Church through Luthers act. You are all seperated brethren.

Yes, I realize Dr. Martin Luther was a catholic priest. I also realize he found gross abuses in the church and wanted reform, but was thrown out. Both sides did some wrong things.

Curiously I never here Protestants question, if the Catholic Church which was the only Church around at Luthers time, was not the True Church, then where did Luther get his Christianity.
Having sinners in the church was never enough to remove its authority.He was too egotistical to wait for reform from within, In Gods time not his. The devil knows that a divided church is an easier exploited church, and he used Luther to seperate from Christs church.

“true church” is different in your mind than mind. My definition is “all who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, whether they be catholic, baptist, methodist, lutheran, so on.” Unfortunately, your definition is “roman catholic church”.

I have no problem with what the “true church” stands for - the good news of Jesus Christ and him crucified - as Paul eloquently stated. I love the “church”.

I’ve been reading and researching the catholic faith, so I’ve had this “truth” in front of me for some time. I’ve also been reading and researching my own faith. Given the two sides, I see more evidence for the universal “invisible” church filled with all believers from all ages who believe and confess the gospel and that those believers are all priests and have no use for a priesthood as defined by the roman catholic church.

What is the evidence for an invisible loose association of believers and not the one flock Christ talked about living with one gospel and one church. Christ said he would pray that we would be one.

I do disagree with some moral teachings of the church. I disagree with what may be considered mortal and venial sins. I don’t see the point in those specific topics though. They are secondary in my mind.

That is not a moral teaching. I mean something like abortion, homosexuality, stuff like that. Do you disagree with any teachings like that.
One final note: truth is somewhat relative. There is absolute truth - it is Jesus Christ as He says in John 14:6. “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the father but by me.” It is through Jesus that we come to God. Other truths are hard to come by as we are fallible sinful beings after all. I don’t believe we can really comprehend absolute truth outside of Jesus. If we could, wouldn’t we be God?

 

[Aris]

To interpret the Bible, the Old Testament or the New Testament is not for everybody.

St. Paul actually defines how to know if a teaching is true. He tells Timothy to stand firm with the teachings that he knows were passed on by Paul. Timothy will know it is true because he knows from whence it came.

This is the main essence of Tradition. Teachings are handed down from the Apostles to the first Christians and the first generation Christians passing it to the next generation.

Teachings of the Church are judged against these Traditions.

No other church will be able to trace back year after year their teachings back to the Apostles.

The reason why Sola Scriptura is untenable is because if we base on the Bible alone a teaching’s truth, we encounter a problem with the first 400 years of Christian History without a Bible to speak of. It becomes illogical that the Christian Church would have survived if there was not another pillar, Sacred Traditions.

We then have another 1100 years wherein there is no mention of Bible alone will suffice for doctrines. So it is fairly easy to assume that this teaching was a new invention.

 

[p90]

mayra hart:

of course not! then why can’t protestant accept that this is exactly what is described in mt16:13-19?bless you all

Where is there a succession of the papal office in Matthew 16:13-19? Since it’s not there, why should Protestants think that the passage proves the papacy?

~Matt