L
Little_Mary
Guest
2 Tim 3:15
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Cath.orProtes.?:
Heb 13:17 “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”
Titus 3:1 “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates”
We are also to “listen to the Church”…
Matt 16:17 “if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”
Luk 10:16 “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”
We also need to “listen to tradition” …
To reject “tradition” (Gk “paradosis”) as non-authoritative is to de-value Sacred Scripture, since St. Jude (Jude 3) asserts that the deposit of faith is handed on or delivered (Grk “paradidomi”), which literally means that it was “traditioned” to the faithful.
Jude 3 “ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered (Grk “paradidomi”) unto the saints.”
According to Vine’s *Expository of New Testament Words *(Protestant source):
2 Thess 3:6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition (Gk “paradosis”) which he received (Gk “paralambano”) of us.”
Moreover, according to Scripture, these traditions are both oral and written…
2 Thess 2:16 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions (Gk “paradosis” )which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
According to Thayer’s Lexicon (Protestant source):
Protestants too use "extra biblical helps" in their attempt to understand the teachings of the apostles. For example, the preface to my Protestant KJV Bible recommends extra-biblical “study helps” to better understand Scripture, affirming that …
The Bible teaches that we are supposed to “obey our leaders.” (Heb 13:17). Thus, according to the Bible, we cannot simply “listen” to the Bible only.
Heb 13:17 “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”
Titus 3:1 “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates”
We are also to “listen to the Church”…
Matt 16:17 “if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”
Luk 10:16 “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”
We also need to “listen to tradition” …
To reject “tradition” (Gk “paradosis”) as non-authoritative is to de-value Sacred Scripture, since St. Jude (Jude 3) asserts that the deposit of faith is handed on or delivered (Grk “paradidomi”), which literally means that it was “traditioned” to the faithful.
Jude 3 “ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered (Grk “paradidomi”) unto the saints.”
According to Vine’s *Expository of New Testament Words *(Protestant source):
St. Paul tells us that we are to shun those who do not hold fast to the tradition (Gk “paradosis”) that has been taught (Gk “paralambano”) by the apostles.
2 Thess 3:6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition (Gk “paradosis”) which he received (Gk “paralambano”) of us.”
Moreover, according to Scripture, these traditions are both oral and written…
2 Thess 2:16 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions (Gk “paradosis” )which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
According to Thayer’s Lexicon (Protestant source):
So, it appears that to uphold tradition is Biblical. Sacred Tradition is an “extra biblical help”, the faithful instruction of lawfully ordained pastors handed on throughout Christian history which help us to understand the true deposit of faith handed on by the apostles.
Protestants too use "extra biblical helps" in their attempt to understand the teachings of the apostles. For example, the preface to my Protestant KJV Bible recommends extra-biblical “study helps” to better understand Scripture, affirming that …
B
bekalc
Guest
Cath. The first thing I would suggest that the Bible does tell us enough of what we need to do to be saved. Doesn’t the Church already say this when they say that Protestants are saved because they have the Word of God? The Bible does tell us about salvation…
However, the issue is that the Bible doesn’t fill in all the answers. The Bible was not meant to be a blue print for a church? Why becuase the Church existed before the New Testament. You can show him verses to explain that and prove it, show him that the authors were writing to Churches that already existed!
But then explain to them that the issue is how we understand Scripture. Use the story of the eunach who said “how can I understand what I’m reading if someone doesn’t explain it to me, and then Phillip explains to him the text.” Even the apostles who met Jesus on the road, needed Jesus to explain the verses which led to his resurection (remember when they met Jesus there.)
Also point out that Peter warns us that Scripture will be taking out of context.
I think it would be important to note that the Sacraments are completely Scriptural, even if the term isn’t mentioned that they are based on Scripture…That’s the way to answer them. The issue is how do we interpert Scripture. It is that which seperates us from the Protestants…And we say through Tradition and the Church.
However, the issue is that the Bible doesn’t fill in all the answers. The Bible was not meant to be a blue print for a church? Why becuase the Church existed before the New Testament. You can show him verses to explain that and prove it, show him that the authors were writing to Churches that already existed!
But then explain to them that the issue is how we understand Scripture. Use the story of the eunach who said “how can I understand what I’m reading if someone doesn’t explain it to me, and then Phillip explains to him the text.” Even the apostles who met Jesus on the road, needed Jesus to explain the verses which led to his resurection (remember when they met Jesus there.)
Also point out that Peter warns us that Scripture will be taking out of context.
I think it would be important to note that the Sacraments are completely Scriptural, even if the term isn’t mentioned that they are based on Scripture…That’s the way to answer them. The issue is how do we interpert Scripture. It is that which seperates us from the Protestants…And we say through Tradition and the Church.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Ask this person what the Bible teaches about the morality of embryonic stem cell research and in vitro fertilization.
E
exoflare
Guest
That’s what I ask Muslims who tell me everything we need to know is in the Quran! 
C
captaincoog
Guest
One of the criteria for a NT book to be officially recognised as divinely inspired was whether it contained doctrine that was in harmony with what the Church had already accepted as orthodox. What was this yardstick? It could be nothing but oral Tradition, could it not?
I could anticipate the response to that as something like,“Well, once it was written down, the traditions were done away with!”. Really? Where does the Bible say that?
There’s something for the Fundamentalist to think about - Scripture and Tradition together bring the Church (the Magisterium) to the full understanding of the truth of the Gospel. Remove one or the other, and the whole thing falls apart. The Bible was never intended to be kept in isolation - rather, it is designed to reveal it’s full meaning in the context of the Church. The defining of the Canon was so everyone could know for sure which books could be used in Mass.
I could anticipate the response to that as something like,“Well, once it was written down, the traditions were done away with!”. Really? Where does the Bible say that?
There’s something for the Fundamentalist to think about - Scripture and Tradition together bring the Church (the Magisterium) to the full understanding of the truth of the Gospel. Remove one or the other, and the whole thing falls apart. The Bible was never intended to be kept in isolation - rather, it is designed to reveal it’s full meaning in the context of the Church. The defining of the Canon was so everyone could know for sure which books could be used in Mass.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
1 Corinthians 15:3-5 (New International Version)
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
If I were you, I would say “I agree, quote I Cor 15:3-5, and us Catholics believe quote the apostles creed.”
You need to start by showing him your relationship with Christ.
With all Respect, catholic apologetists do things backwards online, they start with authority and get no where. They should discern what non-catholics consider major theology vs minors and work from there.
Major Theology;
Jesus as the Christ, Messiah.
Personal relationship with Jesus, the more your relationship with Jesus is on display, the more weight your opinions carry.
Who Jesus is, fully God, fully Man
What Jesus did, I Cor 15:3-5 death and ressurrection.
What is the meaning of the atonement.
How do we work out our salvation.
How do we handle the sin issue.
Minor Theology which should only be discussed after Major Theology is done to death.
Mary doctrines.
Authority of the Church.
Catholic Distinctives.
No Salvation outside the Church
advoid, anti-catholic boards, but instead concentrate on “biblical discussion boards” and learn to sound protestant.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
If I were you, I would say “I agree, quote I Cor 15:3-5, and us Catholics believe quote the apostles creed.”
You need to start by showing him your relationship with Christ.
With all Respect, catholic apologetists do things backwards online, they start with authority and get no where. They should discern what non-catholics consider major theology vs minors and work from there.
Major Theology;
Jesus as the Christ, Messiah.
Personal relationship with Jesus, the more your relationship with Jesus is on display, the more weight your opinions carry.
Who Jesus is, fully God, fully Man
What Jesus did, I Cor 15:3-5 death and ressurrection.
What is the meaning of the atonement.
How do we work out our salvation.
How do we handle the sin issue.
Minor Theology which should only be discussed after Major Theology is done to death.
Mary doctrines.
Authority of the Church.
Catholic Distinctives.
No Salvation outside the Church
advoid, anti-catholic boards, but instead concentrate on “biblical discussion boards” and learn to sound protestant.
R
rightbehind
Guest
Cath.orProtes.?:
Interesting how people balk at infallibility. Well meaning Christians around the globe, sola scripturists, fundamentalists, Orthodox- everybody. The RCC Creed and the Nicene Creed open with “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth.” It continues later with Christ’s passion, death and resurrection.
How interesting. Everyone professes to believe that God created the universe and set the stars in place. He created earth and all living things. He created a Son who died and then rose again, alive. They believe that he parted the Red Sea- sent a flood that covered the earth and then allowed it to dry again. Thye believe he can make the blind see, the lame walk and the dead to be raised to life. But somehow this all powerful God who can do all of this falls short in his power when it comes to Papal Infallibility. Somehow he is not powerful enough to make one man speak without error on one subject. Fascinating. The RCC proposes Papal Infallibility and the world cries that no God has the power to do that. He can only speak through Abraham, Moses, Isiaah, Elijah and ultimately through his One and only son, Jesus Christ, but somehow not through the Pope. Please, those who are anti Papal Infallibility, please explain how your God falls short?
His God is weak in the knees. Ask him this:
Interesting how people balk at infallibility. Well meaning Christians around the globe, sola scripturists, fundamentalists, Orthodox- everybody. The RCC Creed and the Nicene Creed open with “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth.” It continues later with Christ’s passion, death and resurrection.
How interesting. Everyone professes to believe that God created the universe and set the stars in place. He created earth and all living things. He created a Son who died and then rose again, alive. They believe that he parted the Red Sea- sent a flood that covered the earth and then allowed it to dry again. Thye believe he can make the blind see, the lame walk and the dead to be raised to life. But somehow this all powerful God who can do all of this falls short in his power when it comes to Papal Infallibility. Somehow he is not powerful enough to make one man speak without error on one subject. Fascinating. The RCC proposes Papal Infallibility and the world cries that no God has the power to do that. He can only speak through Abraham, Moses, Isiaah, Elijah and ultimately through his One and only son, Jesus Christ, but somehow not through the Pope. Please, those who are anti Papal Infallibility, please explain how your God falls short?
- Status