Who Has Authority?

[Petergee]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Petergee
We know that. We’re asking you what are the logical reasons why you reject this “view” which the overwhelming majority of Christians have always had.
I’m afraid that, to make the slightest impression on most Christians, you’ll need a lot more to justify your decision to reject it than simply repeating that it doesn’t correlate with what you personally deduce from studying the Bible. **
But that’s just it. I’m not trying to impress anyone here. :nope:

By “impress” I mean “logically convince anyone of the logical truth of what you believe”.

Now you know that Catholics believe things which CONTRADICT what you believe, and that Catholics do things which they believe God commands us to do but which you believe God commands us NOT to do, and vice versa. You say you don’t care about this, it’s all good and that both we and you in some inexplicable way both “have the truth” even though by definition truth CANNOT contradict truth.
(If I have misunderstood and misrepresented what you’ve been saying, please correct me.)

All this doesn’t faze you. But Christ commanded us to take His Truth to everyone on Earth and teach them to believe in that Truth. Obedient to Christ, we want you to believe what Catholics believe. Surely you also in your heart want us to beliive what you believe? Are you not disobeying Christ if you do not do your best to bring us to believe what you believe is the Truth revealed to you by the Holy Spirit?

Just as seriously, there are many people, even in Western countries, who have only the vaguest idea of the claims of Christianity. When they see Christians speaking about their beliefs in a way which defies logic, they are unlikely to conclude that Christ is the Truth; rather, they would conclude that Christianity is a lot of contradictory superstitious mumbo-jumbo. And tragically, many do.

Christianity is NOT about following funny internal feelings which are attributed to mystical experiences of the Holy Spirit telling us how to interpret an eclectic collection of ancient books to tell us life’s meaning and purpose and how we should act. Christ is THE TRUTH and Christianity is eminently logical. Why did modern rational science appear in Christendom and in no other culture? Because Christianity is fundamentally rational. Don’t chuck that rationality out.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

[SIGN]HAPPY BIRTHDAY![/SIGN]

Thank you

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi guys,

Im going to start a new thread in this forum so I do not derail this one. It will be why there are so many different intrepretations.

Check it out.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Because He said so

Book, chapter, and verse, plz.

2 Tim. 3:16-17
All Scripture is ***God-breathed ***and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If you don’t understand that, we’re done talking about it.

 

[VWcrazy]

If you don’t understand that, we’re done talking about it.

That quote doesn’t prove you assertion.

 

[jmcrae]

2 Tim. 3:16-17
All Scripture is ***God-breathed ***and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If you don’t understand that, we’re done talking about it.

Where does it say that the Tradition of the Church is not God-breathed?

After all, what we find in the New Testament was just a subset of the Oral Tradition, indistinguishable from the rest of it, before it was written down. Also there is nothing in history to indicate that the Apostles and their followers were even trying to write everything down. St. Paul himself says, “I will tell you the rest when I get there.” (II Corinthians 13:10)

Whatever it was he told them when he got there was just as important as what he wrote down, and the oral teachings are still just as important for us today.

 

[MariaG]

Hi,
Yes that was good thank you. I dont have a problem with little t tradition. The way I see it if Sacred Tradition matches the Bible Im ok with it. If Sacred Tradition does not match then I would absolutely question it.

Although you would probably disagree, I submit to you that there is absolutely not one Sacred Tradition that contradicts scripture, espcially when takes into account the inspired word of God that Protestants got rid of.

If by “match” you mean EXPLICIT (although purgatory is as close to explicit as possilbe in Maccabes ), then you will be disappointed, but scripture tells us that not everything was written down.

But there is not one doctrine of the Catholic Church that contradicts properly interpreted scripture

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Although you would probably disagree,

And this is the 6 million dollar question that noone will agree on, which is really the bottom line on our differences.

 

[RNRobert]

2 Tim. 3:16-17
All Scripture is ***God-breathed ***and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If you don’t understand that, we’re done talking about it.

It does not say only Scripture is God breathed.
It does not say all Scripture is **sufficient.
**It does not even say which books constitute Scripture.

When St Paul wrote that, the New Testament canon as we know it did not exist, he was referring mainly to the Old Testament.
St Paul also tells the Thessalonians in his second epistle to them to “Hold fast to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess 2:15)

Apparently St Paul felt that his oral statements were just as binding as his letters.

 

[sterryfamily]

Should church traditions be accepted as equally authoritative as Scripture? Or, should church traditions be followed only if they are in full agreement with Scripture?

The Catholic Church has always taught the latter. And, BTW, “Tradition” (with a capital “T”), as taught by the Church, includes those things passed down by the apostles through their successors. It does not include new ideas that creep in over time.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

It does not say only Scripture is God breathed.
It does not say all Scripture is **sufficient.
**It does not even say which books constitute Scripture.

When St Paul wrote that, the New Testament canon as we know it did not exist, he was referring mainly to the Old Testament.
St Paul also tells the Thessalonians in his second epistle to them to “Hold fast to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess 2:15)

Apparently St Paul felt that his oral statements were just as binding as his letters.

Tell me where I denied oral traditions? Of course everything contained in scripture was orally passed down since it was several hundred years after Jesus died before the Bible was even composed.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Where does it say that the Tradition of the Church is not God-breathed?

Where does it say that the Tradition of the Church IS God-breathed?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

That quote doesn’t prove you assertion.

Then I guess we’re done talking about it because you’ll never understand.

 

[sterryfamily]

Where does it say that the Tradition of the Church IS God-breathed?

How 'bout 2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, and Luke 10:16, for starters

 

[ALLFORHIM]

How 'bout 2 Tim. 2:2

Jesus is talking to seventy-two men of whom we have no idea who he is talking about other then they are His Ambassadors and people must listen to the Gospel message of Christ or they are rejecting the message. Again, Apostolic succession cannot be proven from this verse.

 

[MariaG]

Tell me where I denied oral traditions? Of course everything contained in scripture was orally passed down since it was several hundred years after Jesus died before the Bible was even composed.

Oral Tradition is more than just what got written down.

An example of this is when Paul refers to a teaching of Christ that was never recorded in the gospels.

We see from this that there were things that were preached that did not always get written down. Things got written down mostly when people were straying from the Oral tradtions. That means that things people were doing right, things that had been preached on, did not get written down for scripture. They eventually were written on when people started to stray from the Oral Tradition.

Infant Baptism is a perfect example of this. We can see that it is implicit in scripture. And then around 200ad, we see it written on. Things like, no you can’t make infants wait until the eighth day!

Oral Tradition is not just that which eventually did get recorded as scripture. If you did not mean that, forgive me, but your post seemed to imply that you think that eventually all Oral Traditions did get recorded and are included explicitly in scripture.

God bless,
Maria

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
And how do we receive Christ as Saviour? Merely by wishing so? No - rather, through the Sacraments of the Church.

How? What if someone goes through all the sacrements and does not believe the way the above Scriptures mention. Do the sacrements save you regardless of what you believe? If so, how and again prove it through Scriptures

How do you TEST belief?

That is for God to do.

The sacraments help us TO believe, not substitute for it.

If you presume that because the sacraments may not be believed by an individual then they are ALWAYS useless, and therefore should be done away with,… would you imagine that God would appreciate your condemnation of the sacraments (or any one sacrament) which do in fact help SOME (not all) people to believe?

I’ll leave it to those (whom you won’t believe anyway) to come up with verse.

 

[Keikiolu]

Jesus is talking to seventy-two men of whom we have no idea who he is talking about other then they are His Ambassadors and people must listen to the Gospel message of Christ or they are rejecting the message. Again, Apostolic succession cannot be proven from this verse.

That should be a “than”.

A common boo-boo of younguns’ these days.

What, specifically, would PROVE apostolic succession to you?

If you can’t form a tight specification as to what you’re looking for, you can expect to get all sorts of answers you don’t want to hear.

Hmmmm,… perhaps that’s what you want?

To simply annoy people?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

How do you TEST belief?

That is for God to do.

The sacraments help us TO believe, not substitute for it.

If you presume that because the sacraments may not be believed by an individual then they are ALWAYS useless, and therefore should be done away with,… would you imagine that God would appreciate your condemnation of the sacraments (or any one sacrament) which do in fact help SOME (not all) people to believe?

I’ll leave it to those (whom you won’t believe anyway) to come up with verse.

No I would never condemn the sacrements. I guess I dont understand how they would help you believe Well probably because Im not catholic nor was never raised one so I really cant understand because of never going through them.

 

[MariaG]

How? What if someone goes through all the sacrements and does not believe the way the above Scriptures mention. Do the sacrements save you regardless of what you believe? If so, how and again prove it through Scriptures:thumbsup:

You are asking us to prove something that the Catholic Church does not believe.

If a person recieves all the grace from God through the sacraments but as an adult does not believe, that grace is rejected. Grace is a free gift from God, but we are free to reject it anytime. Lack of belief as an adult would be a rejection of any grace that they may have recieved because of the faith of the parents before they were able to speak for themselves.

Infants recieve the Grace from God based on the faith of the parents. But if as an adult or after the age of reason, the adult or older child chooses to reject that Grace, they are free to do so and will not be saved unless they choose to repent.

The Sacraments are visible signs of God’s miracles not superstitious nonsense that if one “does” them all right, a person will still go to heaven without having faith that Christ is Lord.