What if someone, using that same logic, says to you: “It is a fact that the Bible is ‘vague’ because equally committed Christians have come up with contradictory interpretations of what the nature and content…”
Ah, BouleTheou, they are not against you, they are for you.
Do the other Catholic posters here agree with Greg? The Mass is not taught in the pages of Scripture? Mary’s [he meant to say ‘perpetual’] virginity is not taught in the pages of Scripture? And ordination of the priests is not taught in the pages of Scripture?
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
None whatsoever, all disparaging attempts to read it into kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 aside.
What is “seen” in these three passages? Something different from what is in Scripture? When they refer to “tradition” what do they mean? Someone outside of what was later committed to Scripture?
There are teachings that exist outside of Scripture, but they are not binding, infallible, or God-breathed - only Scripture is. And none of these teachings are essential to the faith, they are primarily regarding general practices within the church.
I’m just going to keep hammering away. You guys say this all the time, but when I ask: “What truth is not contained in Scripture?” Well, the ‘answers’ speak for themselves.
Indeed, 2 Timothy 3:17. And “every good work” includes teaching the Christian faith, right? Let me ask you this, Greg. Is teaching the Bodily Assumption of Mary a “good work?” If so, how does Scripture fully equip you to do that good work?
What do you mean by “the teachings?” If you mean everything that is “inspired, God-breathed, Christian truth” then I totally disagree with you. Nothing other than Scripture is ever called “God-breathed” - 2 Timothy 3:16.
What specific parts of the Christian faith are not taught in Scripture?
Again, why aren’t you telling us what it is specifically that you’re referring to? What inspired, God-breathed, essential beliefs of the Christian faith are not found in Scripture?
Greg, in order to make your argument work against Scripture containing everything we need to know about the Christian faith, you’re going to have to tell us what it is that we’re missing. Remember the title of this thread: “What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?” I’ve not heard an answer yet.[yawn]… And what are those other … nevermind.
The fact that you have danced all over the landscape, have asserted that Scripture doesn’t contain all the truths of the faith, and yet still have not produced any essential doctrines of the faith outside of Scripture demonstrates yet again the vacuous claims of one of man’s many religions which seeks to subvert and replace the authority of God-speaking in Scripture with its own authority. And this blind assent to it on your part is quite sad.
nothing new… utter misuse of the passage.
No, Paul directed Timothy to Scripture, to that which is God-breathed. Paul also told Timothy, in the same passage:
The idea of a Catholic Tradition which is different from and contains truths not recorded in Scripture is a gnostic line of thought which was repudiated by the early fathers.
As we have shown and as this entire thread has shown, Catholic “Tradition” doesn’t exist. Rome is not an infallible interpreter of Scripture, the primary reason being: she doesn’t interpret anything. What, 6 or 8 verses in 2000 years? I wonder, Greg, has Rome interpreted any of the passages you cited in this post? If not, what good is your personal, private interpretation? You do know what a double-standard is right?
When it comes to John 6, personally, I agree with sainted doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, St. Aurelius Augustine, who in his masterpiece “On Christian Doctrine” said:
[chuckle] People do that all the time to me! They’re called: Roman Catholics. My simple point is, the same line of questioning applies to you. When you use an argument against an opponent which works equally well to invalidate your own position, that is not a valid argument.
Boule, you know that the Catholic Church does not separate herself from Scripture, nor place herself above it. As is often the case, the Catholic position is “both.” It is an inevitable sequela of separation from the Church that the Protestant position must be “either/or” and, therefore, antithetical. How unpleasant and unnatural.
Scripture is not your ultimate authority, nor is it one of several ultimate authorities for you. You accept Rome over Scripture. Paul said in Romans 11:6 that if salvation is “by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.” In contrast to that, Rome says salvation is by grace plus works. I.e. grace which then enables us to do works which merit de congruo eternal life. Who do you believe? Rome. Who do I believe? Scripture.
So misinformed Catholics can hear what Protestants actually believe rather than the caricatures perpetuated by Catholic Answers.
Because Christ saved me and God is love. My response to His saving work in my life is gratitude. I express that gratitude by sharing the gospel and the truth with others.
Of course. The Roman Church will probably never reform herself. Her own position on revelation disallows it. Paul said Scripture serves to “correct” - 2 Timoty 3:16. But since Rome has exempted herself from the possibility of ever needing correction, she has cut herself off from the voice of God and replaced it with her own. Hence, she can never be reformed - by definition.
I can’t save anyone - only Christ can. Romans 5:9, John 3:36, etc. Let me ask you: Do you think you are going to go to heaven when you die? Why or Why not?
It saddens me more than anything to see the ignorance of Scripture so often displayed by Catholics because of the false system of authority they have given themselves to and have bought hook, line, and sinker.
No. It is so patently and obviously wrong that such a struggle has never occured to me.
The Catholic Church is reformed by the councils, the saints (Catherine of Siena, Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila…)
No.
Whatever his reason is, he can’t answer the basic question I ask of those that follow sola scriptura. How can you reconcile the different beliefs regarding salvation? Southern Baptist believe you cannot lose your salvation, while Freewill Baptist believe you can. Methodist believe you don’t have to be baptized, while Church of Christ believe you do have to be baptized. They cannot all be correct. These are literally life and death issues, and sola scriptura believers have conflicting beliefs about them. These are the first questions that come to mind. They are the type of questions that motivated me to look into the Catholic Church.
I agree with Dr. Svendsen.
C’mon, Phil. You know what we’re talking about here: purgatory, indulgences, the bodily assumption… Why do Catholics always obfuscate the issue of “Tradition” being extra-Biblical by bringing up the Trinity? As if that’s a meaningful parallel to what Rome has defined on the basis of Tradition.
No, that’s not what we are talking about. Your thread is “What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?” The purpose of your thread is not indulgences, Marian doctrines, etc. I have answered your thread specifically with the Trinity as an essential doctrine that is not contained in Scripture, and I am still waiting on your response. We can discuss everything in each thread, so let’s leave indulgences and purgatory for another thread. Please offer your Biblical support for the Trinity.
BouleTheou:
That would necessitate literally dozens and dozens of posts. The testimony spans the entirety of Scripture. Surely you are not suggesting that the blessed truth that there is one true God in three divine persons is not a Biblical doctrine are you?
) And please acknowledge the development of the doctrine as your evangelical mentors do. 