The Sufficiency Of Bible Revelation

[St.Eric]

Hi, if you’re going to use that verse, let’s not take it out of context. You’re assuming that Catholic church is THE Church. Apparently in THE church, the deacons will be allowed to marry. Remember, Peter was married. But in the latter days… a church will be deceived by forbidding the deacons not to be married AND commanding to abstain from meats. Sound familiar?

1Ti 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

1Ti 3:13
For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

1Ti 3:14
These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

1Ti 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Paul warns that in the"latter times some shall depart from the faith"…

1Ti 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1Ti 4:2
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1Ti 4:3
Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats

, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. Point the first:
Believers, you are too predictable. You are defocusing and shifting topics. To the topic of the thread, you cannot prove that the scriptures are the be all and end all of the deposit of faith. The bible itself refutes this:
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
Bible Alone or Bible Plus Tradition?
1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men
2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
1Pet 1:25 - God’s eternal word = word preached to you
Rom 10:17 - faith come from what is heard
1Cor 15:1-2 - being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached
Mk 16:15 - go to the whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you

Tradition Condemned?
1Cor 11:2 - commends them for following Apostolic tradition
2Thess 2:15 - commands them to keep traditions
2Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition

Point the second:

The church forbids no one to marry. It simply chooses its priests from among its members that renounce marriage for the sake of serving God. Jesus and Paul both tell us that this is a superior state of life:
Celibacy
Eph 5:21-33 - marriage is good: holy symbol of Christ & church
Mt 19:12 - celibacy praised by Jesus, who was chaste
Jer 16:1-4 - Jeremiah told not to take wife & have children
1Cor 7:8 - St. Paul was celibate
1Cor 7:32-35 - celibacy recommended for full-time ministers
2Tim 2:3-4 - no soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits
1Tim 5:9-12 - pledge of celibacy taken by older widows

Point the third:

The Church does not forbid us to eat meat. The church encourages the discipline of FASTING which is a totally biblical discipline:

Fasting
Mk 7:19 - Christ declared all food clean
1Tim 4:4-5 - everything created by God is good
Dan 10:3 - Daniel refused to eat choice foods for 3 weeks
Mt 9:15 - Christ’s followers will fast once he is gone
Mt 6:16-18 - Jesus gave regulations concerning how to fast

Continued…

 

[St.Eric]

Continued…

Point the fourth:

The deception in the latter days certainly has occured. It happened in a BIG way in the 1500’s.

Point the fifth:

If you are not Catholic it is not an automatic ticket to Hell. See the Cathecism:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Point the sixth:

Deacons are allowed to married in the church.

Point the seventh: Your foundation is laid upon sand. Every one of your arguments can be proven otherwise and you cannot prove that the bible itself says it is the sole deposit of faith. If you can truly find one Catholic doctrine that goes against scripture, I will join your denomination.

 

[St.Eric]

Would you kindly interpret them for me? 1 Tim 4: Verses 1-6

No problem:thumbsup:

Verses 1-3:

From Catholic.com
"This brings us to Fundamentalism’s last line of attack: that, by requiring at least some of its clerics and its religious not to marry, the Catholic Church falls under Paul’s condemnation in 1 Timothy 4:3 against apostates who “forbid marriage.”

In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They “renounce marriage” (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: “But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge” (5:11–12).

This “first pledge” broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today.

Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against “forbidding to marry.” The real culprits here are the many Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description, as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists (whom, ironically, some anti-Catholic writers admire in ignorance, apparently purely because they happened to have insisted on using their own vernacular translation of the Bible; see the Catholic Answers tract Catholic Inventions).

Verses 3-6

• when Paul refers to doctrines that require abstinence from foods, some Protestants refer to this verse to condemn the Catholic Church’s practice of fasting. But Paul is referring to abstinence and any other practice that is performed apart from Christ’s teachings. Fasting, on the other hand, is done in obedience to Christ’s teachings of taking up our cross and following Him, by participating in His sufferings so we can share in His glory. When citing this verse, these Protestants do not explain why Jesus prophesied that his followers would fast and why Jesus gave instructions on how to fast.

 

[St.Eric]

I must go to bed for the night. My Acolyte duties call me to serve the alter tomorrow morning at 6AM Mass. Believers, I look forward to reading your responses tomorrow evening. Good night and God Bless.

 

[Pug]

Would you kindly interpret them for me? 1 Tim 4: Verses 1-6

I would surmise that Paul is warning that some people, who really know better, are going to come in the last times and tell people not to ever eat some kind of food, say meat, like it isn’t good. Also, they will say it is evil to ever marry.

Catholics do eat meat, and lots of it. The Church does not tell them meat is evil. Catholics do fast, however. Fasting is not about foods being evil.

This seems to be off topic from OP’s original questions?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Paul said to NEVER abstain from meat. He also said to remind everyone so they could be good ministers of Jesus Christ.

1Ti 4:4
For every creature of God [is] good, and NOTHING TO BE REFUSED, if it be received with thanksgiving:

1Ti 4:5
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

1Ti 4:6
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ,

That is what the Bible says.

Scripture is not to be used as weapon in battle but is God’s Revelation for us to know Him better so we can love and serve Him better. I only reference the following passages to show that to take a Scripture out of context can actually confuse the Truth and not illuminate it.

Catholics don’t abstain from meat because to consume it is evil or out of a lack of gratitude for what God has given us. We fast as a sacrificial gift to God as we are called to do in Scripture. Penitential practices offer important ways for all to grow in the Lord, by strengthening the resistance to temptation, allowing expressions of sorrow for sins committed, opening the door for charitable works and so much more. Penitential practices take many forms: apologizing to an injured party, healing divisions within our families, fasting during the Lenten season, or graciously accepting the menial tasks of life. The purpose of penance is not to diminish life but to enrich it.

Mathew 6: 16-18- "When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may not appear to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you.

I could take more time to site passages but I pray that the purpose of my response doesn’t become a “war of scripture” verses but instead an opportunity to explain to you the reason for the Catholic practice of fasting is an expression of our love of Jesus Christ. I encourage you to read this link as I think it gives a good overview: usccb.org/dpp/penitential.htm

 

[St.Eric]

Jeez…What happened to everyone?

 

[richardeekw]

I think there are too many ACADEMICS than DOERS of the Bible Message.

e.g. I hear someone preach… if we LIVE the teachings of the Gospel of Matthew Chapters 5 - 7… it would be sufficient to attain Sainthood at our final end… how true.

God Bless

 

[DARichards]

I think that there are three other points to make here in regard to the Formal Sufficiency of Scripture.

1. Prior to Martin Luther the Church had never held the Sola Scriptura positon. Now there were threads of Sola Scriptura running prior to the Reformation, however none took hold until Martin Luthers profession. It is also quite interesting that the way by which Luther came to his enlightenment of Sola Scriptura would not even be tolerated in the mainline Protestant Churches. If I were to read the Scripture and I came up with this “new revelation” on the meaning of Scripture, I would be called a heretic because there is no “new revelation”. Yet this is exactly how the Luther came to his doctrine of Sola Scriptura: PRIVATE REVELATION. In addition, I have heard more than one Protestant especially in the Reformed Presbyterian Churches say that the “true Christianity” was restored in the Protestant Reformation. Does that mean that Christ lost control of His Church for 15oo years? Does that mean that the Christian Church has only lived in the “true” truth for 55o years? Me thinks not.
2. Look at the results of the Sola Scriptura doctrine in the past 500 years: the Protestants are still protesting, still fracturing, and still dividing. I was raised in a Non Denominational/Charismatic Church which was part of a small fellowship of Churches mainly based in the Southeast. I even attended their Bible College for 3 years. But let’s look at their history. The original church was founded by a gentleman who left his Baptist roots due to the fact that he had received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. He “protested” and started his own church, Bible college, and fellowship of churches, and a missions organization. All of this was based on his interpretation of Scripture and what the Holy Spirit had shown him. Since that time, there have been numerous pastors in his fellowship that did not agree with him and “protested” his authority to start their own works. The Bible college closed my third year in, and the fellowship of churches has also split into two separtate groups. The pat answer I always got was that “God just used a bad situation to start another church so the Gospel can reach more people…” Again, I think not. Our Lord would never split His body, His Church just to reach more people. We are what we are ONE BODY, ONE BAPTISM. Just as our Lord was not divided in His divinity and His humanity, so our Church must not be divided.

Lets not even start with the assundry varieties of Baptists, Presbyterians (often called the "split P’s), Church of Christs, Episcopals ( which believe the Holy Spirit has led them to ordain homosexual bishops and place a woman as head of their church), and the list expands to the thousands of Protestant denominations. Which one is rights and can assure your soul that their teachings are 1oo% accurate and would place their souls on the line for it.

3)Lastly, in many Protestant denominations, there are no boundaries for accountability in their teaching. They truly believe that what they are teaching is the Holy Spirit. Who is to tell them they are wrong? In extreme cases, let me say again EXTREME cases, this is how we have wound up with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Jim Jones scandal, David Koresh, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc… All these people were using their warped interpretation of Scripture to back up their ideas without any accountability. Again, the Bible Christians say: “anyone would be able to say they weren’t orthodox and they were outside of the mainstream…” and in closing I would ask them: Show me in the Bible, from Scripture according to your Sola Scriptura doctrine, the list in Scripture that would list for us the definitions of what makes one “orthodox” or “hetero-orthodox”, or “heretical”. The fact is that it is not there. It takes somebody from some denomination to pull it out of Scripture to meet their paradigm…

I Digress…

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

THANK YOU, St. Eric, for your great reply in giving to the OP a real explanation of Paul’s passage. I obviously neglected to keep up with the thread.

 

[Catholicfriend]

I really enjoy studying the Bible. I understand just a wee bit what catholics teach re “Tradition, Magisterium,” and the like, so in this topic, I am interested in exchanging notes on the sufficiency of Bible revelation.

I have a few, brief study notes that I thought would be a good start to the topic, and will look forward to all the replies; either for or against. Please note that I am not at this point using the phrase “sola scriptura.” This is an over-worked term by both reformers and catholics, but for different reasons on the respective sides, I am sure. Therefore, I chose the wording you see in the title of this thread.

THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A SUFFICIENT REVELATION TO INSTRUCT US IN THE WAY OF SALVATION

1. It was recognized by Jesus Christ as the all-sufficient source of light:

a.He always appealed to the Bible as the supreme authority for truth - Matt. 4:1-12; Luke 4:1-9
Hello Protestant101!. It is interesting how you give yourself the authority to interpret the Word of God, because Jesus has never given us that authority without collected interpretation like the Magesterium, (who has by the way never been wrong in its conclusion over interpretation of Holy Scriptures.) In Matthew 4 Jesus is temted by the devil in the desert, the first temptation is to transform stones into bread, why?, because man shall not live by bread alone, he quotes 5 Deut.8:3. why does he say MAN SHALL NOT LIVE? have you thought about it?! This three temptations is all connected to 5 Deut.6:4-5,13,16. I call them the three compulsions of the world(Henry Nouwen frase), because that’s what they are. The devil is trying to throw Jesus of balance, to fall away from focus, not knowing that he has met the Word of God! So my word to you is that ; be very careful how you interpret the Word of God, it could happen that you have interpreted it like the devil! Put it in the context and try not to fall for the temptation of the three compusions of the world. God Bless you. from Catholicfriend:thumbsup:
b. He based His faith in Him upon what the Bible said concerning Him - John 5:39, 46, 47; 7:37-39; Luke 24:25-28

2. It was the very basis of the preaching by the apostles:

a. Paul warns against departing from the Bible -
2 Tim. 4:1-6

b. Peter, too, admonishes us to heed the Word of God -
2 Pet. 1:16-20; 3:1-6

3. Think, dear friends:

a. What would the world know about the origin of sin?
Isa. 14:12-17; Ezek. 28:12-18

b. What would we know about creation? - Ps. 33:6, 9; Rom. 1:20; Ps. 19:1-6

c. What would we know about redemption? - 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Matt. 22:29

d. What would we know about the second coming of Christ? - John 14:1-3; Acts 1:9-11

e. What would we know about the state of the dead and the resurrection? - 1 Thess. 4:13-17; 1 Cor. 15:12-57

f. What would we know about the World of Tomorrow? - 2 Pet. 3:13; 1 Cor. 2:9-17; Rev. 21:1-17; 22:1-22

 

[DARichards]

1. It was recognized by Jesus Christ as the all-sufficient source of light:

a.He always appealed to the Bible as the supreme authority for truth - Matt. 4:1-12; Luke 4:1-9

b. He based His faith in Him upon what the Bible said concerning Him - John 5:39, 46, 47; 7:37-39; Luke 24:25-28

2. It was the very basis of the preaching by the apostles:

a. Paul warns against departing from the Bible -
2 Tim. 4:1-6

b. Peter, too, admonishes us to heed the Word of God -
2 Pet. 1:16-20; 3:1-6

3. Think, dear friends:

Protestant,

Think about the very nature of what you are putting forth. The Bible was not even finished when Christ, or Paul were around. There was nothing execpt for the Torah and the Jewish scriptures. So for the Protestants to use this argument to support Sola Scriptura is a far twising of not only the interpretation of Scripture, but of history itself. To think that Paul and Christ meant the 66 books of your protestant Bible is reading into Scripture something that cannot be proven from Scripture itself which defeats the entire Sola Scriptura argument. For this argument to be valid there would have to be a divine articulation on what books were to be included in the Bible. This doesn’t exist.

 

[Catholicfriend]

Hello, i am a soon ex-protestant who has come to an conclusion about the interpretation of the Word of God. I think it all comes down to Matt.4:1-11 when it comes to read and live the life as a christian. we shall all try to live it the way Jesus tells us here and it is a prototype for all interpretation of the Word as i see it , anyway, it is funny how i now see it clear that we need Creationtheology more than ever, but our forerunners has been telling us this all the time. Jesus Christ is the TRUE Man and God, and we shall all be fighting the “good fight” and not to give in for the three compulsions of the world(Henry Nouwen). Whatever denominational background you have, be alert to: 1) what is being said. 2) what is being taught. 3) what is being concluded(in teaching). These three fronts should be watch all the time, it has been, and are still being watched. As it has been down through history, to this very day. I have been a all-sufficient(sola scriptura) Bible believer, but have come to this conclusion that it does not fit with the teaching of the True Church down through the history. But hey!, that’s not just me talking, thesaints and all the theology teachers through history can back me up on this point! God Bless! Deus Semper Major! IN GOD AND CHURCH WE TRUST.

 

[Catholicfriend]

Hello, i am a soon ex-protestant who has come to an conclusion about the interpretation of the Word of God. I think it all comes down to Matt.4:1-1; three compulsions of the world: 1)to be relevant(‘turn stones into loaves’) 2)to be spectacular(‘throw yourself down’) 3)and to be powerful(‘i will give you all these kingdoms’) when it comes to read and live the life as a christian. we shall all try to live it the way Jesus tells us here and it is a prototype for all interpretation of the Word as i see it , anyway, it is funny how i now see it clear that we need Creationtheology more than ever, but our forerunners has been telling us this all the time. Jesus Christ is the TRUE Man and God, and we shall all be fighting the “good fight” and not to give in for the (three compulsions of the world Henry Nouwen, see above). Whatever denominational background you have, be alert to: 1) what is being said. 2) what is being taught. 3) what is being concluded(in teaching). These three fronts should be watch all the time, it has been, and are still being watched. As it has been down through history, to this very day. I have been a all-sufficient(sola scriptura) Bible believer, but have come to this conclusion that it does not fit with the teaching of the True Church down through the history. But hey!, that’s not just me talking, thesaints and all the theology teachers through history can back me up on this point! God Bless! Deus Semper Major! IN GOD AND CHURCH WE TRUST.

 

[DARichards]

It was quite interesting that one of the readings in yesterdays Mass was Hebrews 4:12. This is obviously one of the verses that has been brought up several times on this thread in regard to the Formal Sufficiency of Scripture. As I and other people stated earlier in this thread, there is no definition that Scripture lends to the phrase “Word of God” in this verse. Last night, our priest brought out the fact that the “Word of God” is our Lord. He is the One that is … "living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart. "
Putting this into context, follow up with vs 13: “No creature is concealed from him, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account.”

 

[Protestant101]

Point the seventh: Your foundation is laid upon sand. Every one of your arguments can be proven otherwise and you cannot prove that the bible itself says it is the sole deposit of faith. If you can truly find one Catholic doctrine that goes against scripture, I will join your denomination.

What are the Scriptures able to do?

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:15.

The Scriptures are sufficient for this, just as the Bible says.

You have done a poor job of describing the Bible picture of “Tradition” here. Many of the texts you named above simply do not even refer to Tradition. Plus, you did not mention the type of tradition that Jesus Himself condemned quite clearly:

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your **tradition?/**QUOTE]

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition

of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Can you name specific Catholic “Traditions” that are in the Bible? Perhaps if we examine some, such questions about what is God’s Word will be better answered here.

 

[DARichards]

What are the Scriptures able to do?

The Scriptures are sufficient for this, just as the Bible says.

Protestant,

Let’s take a look at what you are saying. In many senses, I do agree with what you are saying. First of all nobody is saying that you are not able to come to knowledge of Christ through the Scriptures. Secondly, nobody is saying Scripture is not for that purpose. The purpose of this thread is to determine if Scripture is the final and sole deposit of faith for us as Christians. With this passage you have used you have still failed to do so. My Presbyterian minister once told me “context is our friend.” (So why am I now Catholic and he is still Presbyerian…I digress) anyway. Paul is writing to Timothy in this verse and referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. These are the Scriptures that pointed them to Christ. If they had not had those Scriptures they would not have been able to recognize the Messiah. Paul again is not referring to the 66 or even the 73 books of the Protestant or Catholic Bibles, respectively. There is no way that he could have done so because the Bible as both you and I know it did not exist at that time.

You have done a poor job of describing the Bible picture of “Tradition” here. Many of the texts you named above simply do not even refer to Tradition. Plus, you did not mention the type of tradition that Jesus Himself condemned quite clearly:

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Traditions of men were condemned by Jesus not because tradition is bad. The traditions Jesus condemned were those that the Pharisees put on the people of that time because they(the Pharisees) were hypocrites and they put burdens on the people that they themselves were not either willing or able to bear. At the same time they made these “traditions” mandatory. In addition, how do you deal with Jesus direction in Matthew 23:Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

This doesn’t sound condemning of the Tradition when the Pharisees were seated in the Chair of Moses.

Can you name specific Catholic “Traditions” that are in the Bible? Perhaps if we examine some, such questions about what is God’s Word will be better answered here.

Yes, there are plenty of Catholic “Traditions” that are in the Bible, but let’s first look at plenty of Protestant “Traditions” that are nowhere in Scripture:
Please show me in Scripture where we are supposed to:

• Get Saved
• “Invite Jesus into our Hearts”
• Have a “personal relationship” with Jesus
• Total Depravity of Man
• The Rapture (Please look at this one)
• Clothed in the Righteousness of Christ (Never found in the N.T)
• the “invisible church”
• “enthroning the Bible in our heart”

Shall I go on…O.K.

• limited atonement
• altar calls
• rededication of your life to Christ
• tent revivals
• eternal security
• denominationalism
• faith alone
• sola Scriptura
• “full time ministry”
• Seminary
• Church Buildings
• the Eucharist as a mere symbol
• Sunday School
• The Christian flag

Oh, and by the way, the New Testament is never mentioned in the Bible either.

Please answer these and then we shall discuss the Traditions of the Holy Roman Catholic Church that bases our Traditions on the infallible teaching passed down through Apostolic Succession!

 

[Catholicfriend]

It is a interesting fact that in a dialouge, that what one supposes to be right and another must think twice about. Take for instance the debate on how fundamentals interpret the bible, last night, once again at; CCTL (Catholic Church Teaching and Life) course.I was told once again from our courseleader’s(Jesuit Pater Erwin Bischofberger) lifestory, that in a debate on a train with a Jehovas Witness, they were discussing the Rabbit, because it chewed the cud, and at one point the Pater asked the JW how he could know that rabbit “chews the cud”?! And the answer was that “it said so in the bible”! and because also the recent(latest) scientific discoveries has shown that it was so". So the Pater asked the JW on which day Jesus died; was it on the day after Sabbats night , or was it on the day before Sabbats night, because John’s Gospel tells one thing and other synoptics tells another(you can check this one out, if you want!); can you tell me this he asked, and the answer was; “that he had to ask his pastor on this matter.” And the response on this was; “ask him qiuckly, because he doesn’t have the answer to this either!” I laugh when i hear him tell this story , because there you have the problem with the verbal inspiration tradition! You don’t get the whole picture, only broken pieces of glass.!:banghead: So my advice to you verbal believers of the Bible is that you have to find another way of looking at the Scriptures, and by doing so, you will discover that the Scriptures is backed up by Church and History. God Bless. Deus Semper Major!

 

[mo3]

Protestant101;1575967] Plus, you did not mention the type of tradition that Jesus Himself condemned quite clearly:

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?/

This verse speaks about traditions of “Men”, not Sacred Tradition. I gave you a biblical answer (chapter & verse) on Traditions in post #72 which you have not acknowledged.

Can you name specific Catholic “Traditions” that are in the Bible? Perhaps if we examine some, such questions about what is God’s Word will be better answered here

All “Sacred Traditions” are backed up in the bible. Of course we can address them but it would be better to start a new thread. The bible itself is part of “Sacred Tradtion” because the Catholic church existed before the bible. I don’t think most non-Catholic Christians can concieve of believing in Jesus without the bible, but that is how Catholics started His church. God bless.

 

[rr1213]

Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for the salvation of men. Whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man to be believed as an article of the Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.