Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[tm30]

It is important for Roman Catholics to argue against *Sola Scriptura *because if they believe it, they can’t claim that the New Testament writers viewed certain *non-scriptural sources *as authoritative oral tradition. They have no precedent for the belief we should give the same consideration to church tradition if it can’t be proved by Scripture. Then they claim that scripture is not sufficient in itself but scripture tells us otherwise.

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 (1 Tim 3:16-17).

Scripture is said to be “God-breathed.” Nothing else is given this designation. This term is never applied to “tradition.” Paul gives this information to Timothy in order to instill confidence in the scriptures. Paul reminds Timothy of the “difficult” times coming upon them, during which all kinds of heresies and disobedience will arise. (3:1-9). Timothy is told to stand firm in the things he has learned. Things known from the scriptures. Scripture is “God-breathed” and therefore inspired and infallible and that can’t be applied to tradition.

What most Roman Catholics know about tradition is not correct. Once a Catholic tries to establish “tradition” to justify his beliefs, then he must show that it is **Roman Catholic Tradition **and not **Eastern Orthodox Tradition **that provides the truth. The Eastern Orthodox appeals to **exactly the same tradition **the Roman Catholic Church does and they **both can’t be right because they differ in their beliefs. **That is something a Roman Catholic cannot overcome. Roman Catholics cannot appeal to scriptures in this case because they already claim scripture alone is insufficient, even though it tells us it is sufficient. He can’t appeal to the early church fathers for a Roman Catholic belief because the Eastern Orthodox appeal to the same fathers for their tradition. It is up to the Roman Catholic to show their church tradition is authoritative and that can’t be done.

The only reason the Catholic Church wanted to canonize the scriptures is because of heretical figures, such as Montanius and others and the only way to prove them wrong is by scripture. They also appealed to the same fathers for their beliefs. If the Roman Church viewed oral tradition as authoritative and the church as infallible, what need would there have been to establish a ”rule” or “Canon” of scripture? In that case there would be no need for scripture at all; it would be quite sufficient to continue handing down teachings orally from one infallible ecclesial body to the next. There was no binding oral tradition given after the last apostle and New Testament writer laid down his pen. Nothing written after 100 A.D. has ever been accepted for the Canon.

Church tradition that does not pertain to matters of salvation, morals or faith are the only oral things handed down that could not be proven by scripture. The early church fathers agreed that tradition had to be supported by Scripture or it was invalid.

Protestants agree on what their rule of faith is. They follow a 66 book canon of scripture. But what is the “rule of faith” among those who reject sola scriptura? Not only do they disagree in their interpretations of their rule of faith, as *sola scriptura *advocates do, but they also disagree among themselves about what their rule of faith is to begin with. Catholics disagree among themselves about just which papal decrees, council rulings, etc., are infallible and which ones are not. A Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox or an Anglican may refer to how he follows “the church” or “tradition”, but he’s not able to define just what that is. He can’t cite something authoritative or infallible, comparable to the evangelical’s 66 book canon.

This is a good question, then, to opponents of sola scriptura. What is your rule of faith, and how can you verify it and interpret it without facing the same difficulties that you criticize in association with sola scriptura?

I will list the early fathers and their views on *Sola Scriptura *in another post.

Please—a nice Christian thread…

If Sola Scriptura is the proper rule of faith, why didn’t Jesus express this? In fact, Jesus spoke quite often about “hearing” - nothing about “reading”.

Additionally, if Sola Scriptura is the proper rule of faith, you must be asserting that the early Church was rife with error, since the Gospels, themselves, post-date even the letters of Paul. Therefore, since there was no “New Testament”, or even “Gospels”, there was no rule of faith?

 

[tm30]

What is your rule of faith, and how can you verify it and interpret it without facing the same difficulties that you criticize in association with sola scriptura?

I have no difficulties believing that Paul, James, Peter, John, Andrew, Matthew, Bartholomew, Matthias, Barnabas, Jude, et al. spread the Gospel primarily through the use of their voices and not the written word. The letters of Paul are dwarfed by the hundreds and hundreds of hours he spent preaching from the oral tradition passed on from the Apostles he knew.

If you deny oral tradition, then, by extension, Paul’s own writings must be denied, since those emanated from the teaching of the Twelve, and not Scripture.

The only difficulty is in the cognitive dissonance that makes possible your skipping the first several decades of Christianity - the ones most proximate to Christ’s actual time on earth - to find an established rule of faith.

All of Scriptural is beneficial for our faith just like all high-fiber cereal is good for my colon. Does that mean nothing else is good for my health? No offense, but this is basic reading comprehension. What is implied does not convey universal value over all other things, but that, totally of itself, Scripture is beneficial.

 

[tm30]

What most Roman Catholics know about tradition is not correct. Once a Catholic tries to establish “tradition” to justify his beliefs, then he must show that it is **Roman Catholic Tradition **and not **Eastern Orthodox Tradition **that provides the truth. The Eastern Orthodox appeals to **exactly the same tradition **the Roman Catholic Church does and they **both can’t be right because they differ in their beliefs. **That is something a Roman Catholic cannot overcome. Roman Catholics cannot appeal to scriptures in this case because they already claim scripture alone is insufficient, even though it tells us it is sufficient. He can’t appeal to the early church fathers for a Roman Catholic belief because the Eastern Orthodox appeal to the same fathers for their tradition. It is up to the Roman Catholic to show their church tradition is authoritative and that can’t be done.

Tradition doesn’t have to be established anymore that “history” has to be established. Tradition simply “is” by the quality of universal assent within the Church, handed down through unbroken generations of bishops.

If someone came along and said, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 5th, not the 4th, what would your proof be that you celebrate Independence Day correctly on the 4th of July? DNA samples? Photographs you took at the signing? Time machine? No. You would say, “we know it was signed on the 4th of July because we have always known this and have always celebrated it this way in America.” That would be your only proof, but I’m pretty sure it would be more than sufficient in your mind to counter your opponent. The fact that Independence Day is celebrated on the 4th of July is not a tradition you have to “establish” to make your point. It simply is the tradition, and there is implicit truth and universal agreement in the life of that tradition.

In the same way, the Church doesn’t have to “establish” something that exists of its own accord. The impetus is not on you to prove that the Declaration of Independence was signed on the 4th of July, the impetus is on your challenger to prove that it wasn’t. There is no need for me to defend Tradition because it doesn’t need your assent to be a fact. Your argument to the negative, however, does require a defense, since it supposes that an accepted reality is just a mirage.

 

[elvisman]

Old “Scholar” -
Please stop your Hit and Run game. Answer the replies to your attacks.
That being said, here is what JESUS has to say about the importance of the authority of the Church. When you can refute this, I’ll listen to your arguments as to why we accept Tradition as well as Scripture:

Matt. 18:16-18
***"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. ***
***If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ *****If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. **
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[tm30]

If the Roman Church viewed oral tradition as authoritative and the church as infallible, what need would there have been to establish a ”rule” or “Canon” of scripture? In that case there would be no need for scripture at all; it would be quite sufficient to continue handing down teachings orally from one infallible ecclesial body to the next. There was no binding oral tradition given after the last apostle and New Testament writer laid down his pen. Nothing written after 100 A.D. has ever been accepted for the Canon.

If God is perfect, why does He have to exist as three persons instead of just one?

 

[Subrosa]

I will list the early fathers and their views on *Sola Scriptura *in another post.

Please—a nice Christian thread…

Hi Old Scholar and God bless -

Where are those Church Father’s quotes?

Also, the Catholic faith agrees that Tradition must not oppose scripture or it is invalid, even today.

BTW - did you know that the Jews established thier canon of 66 books in the year 90ad? That’s when the other books not used in the Protestant canon where removed. Do you understand what that means? It means the books used in the Catholic canon, as well as every other Apostolic church, were used by the Apostles because the Jewish canon wasn’t invented yet.

The Rabbinic Council of Jamnia (90ad) also expelled anyone teaching christianity from the synogogues under pain of death. They removed those books because they taught things such as an afterlife and saints in heaven and prayers for the dead. There are Jews today who say that there is no afterlife because there is NO part of thier canon that says there is.

Protestants use the Jewish canon, not the christian canon, ironically the canon established at the council that officially rejected christianity.

Did you know also that establishment of the biblical canon was a 400 year process? For instance, some churches used the Didache, Clement’s First Letter, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, and man yothers epistles in thier scripture readings. Many churches disputed the 2nd letter of Peter, the 2nd & 3rd letters of John, the Revelation of John was hotly disputed (even Luther wanted it out) Jude and Hebrews were very much in doubt.

To this day the Ethiopian church uses 1st Clement and the Didache because they were so isolated when the canon was being established. And they reject Revelation.

Here’s a nice little cross reference chart with links so you can do a little research yourself…ntcanon.org/table.shtml

Subrosa

 

[Old_Scholar]

You said, **"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 (1 Tim 3:16-17).

Notice in 1 Tim 3:16-17, it does not say “ONLY”!. Sacred Scriptures is not the only rule of faith!

When it comes to faith and morals it is. Complete means just that—complete and sufficient.**

Second. the Apostle Paul told his followers to stand fast on Traditions which they received by Him either in writing or oral:

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

So according to Saint Paul, you are wrong Old Scholar.

You said, "Church tradition that does not pertain to matters of salvation, morals or faith are the only oral things handed down that could not be proven by scripture. The early church fathers agreed that tradition had to be supported by Scripture or it was invalid."

The traditions handed down had nothing to do with faith or morals. Only traditions that pertain to how to operate a church, when to worship, etc. were handed down. There is no evidence at all that anything pertaining to salvation or life was handed down as tradition.

There was no Church Father who believe in Sola-Scriptural, all Fathers believed in the importance of Sacred Traditions as well as Sacred Scriptures. Here is a few citations:

AMBROSE

‘But if they will not beleive the doctrines of the priests, let them beleive Christ’s oracles, let them beleive the admonitions of angels who say, “For with God nothing is impossible”. Let them beleive the apostles CREED WHICH the ROMANS CHURCH as always kept undefiled’
To Sircius

Although I notice no citation for that saying, I see Ambrose is saying “let them believe Christ’s Oracles” and not mentioning tradition at all.

Here is a quote of Ambrose (2) and citations for where they came from. Please list citations for what you post!

**I do not wish that credence be given us; let the Scripture be quoted. **Not of myself do I say: ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ but I hear it; I do not feign but I read what we all read… (“The Sacrament of the Incarnation of our Lord,” 3:14, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 44 [Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963], p. 224)

On consideration…of the reason **wherefore men have so far gone astray, **or that many – alas! – should follow diverse ways of belief concerning the Son of God, the marvel seems to be, not at all that human knowledge has been baffled in dealing with superhuman things, but that it has not submitted to the authority of the Scriptures. (“Of the Christian Faith,” IV:1, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. X, p. 262)

ATHANASIUS

‘The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, SUFFICIENT and enough by ITSELF, for the subversion of all ireligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church’
Ad Afros 1

‘But the WORD OF THE LORD which came THROUGH the Ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever’
Ad Afros 2

And more from Athanasius:

The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.)

The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written. (Exhort. ad Monachas)

AUGUSTINE

“Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it”
Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis

And more from Augustine:

In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)

Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)

BASIL

“Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture AS WELL those which have been gathered concerning it as those which we have RECEIVED from the UNWRITTEN tradition of the Fathers”
Holy Spirit 22

And still more from Basil:

“Therefore, **let God inspired Scripture decide between us; and on
whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, **in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth” ()

You just don’t read the early fathers enough. They ALL believed Scripture was the final word and tradition should not be believed without Scriptural proof.

 

[davidv]

And still more from Basil:

“Therefore, **let God inspired Scripture decide between us; and on **
**whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, **in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth” ()

You just don’t read the early fathers enough. They ALL believed Scripture was the final word and tradition should not be believed without Scriptural proof.

Seems to me you have read more into this selection than which is really there. “in harmony with” does not mean must prove, as you have concluded. So, this quote does not support your premise.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Continued:

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

’If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures(OT), I will not beleive the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. Epis Philadelphians 8,2

‘Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church’
Epis Symyrnaens 8

Seems to be touting Scripture to me. also Ignatius lived in the times of the apostles and followed them. He was there while the New Testament Scriptures were being written.

IRENAEUS(The Father of Tradition)

**‘The apostles at that time FIRST PREACHED the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith’**Against Heresies(AH) 3,1

Seems pretty plainly advocating Scripture…

‘Since, therefore, the TRADITION from the apostles DOES thus EXIST in the Church, and is PERMAMENT AMONG US,** let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him’**AH 3,5,1

And just further proof of Sola Scriptura. I appreciate your quotes as they show I am right.

‘For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’
AH 3,4:1

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME

‘It is NOT by drawing on the Holy Scriptures NOR BY GUARDING the TRADITION of some holy person that the HERETICS have formulated these doctrines.’
Refutation of All Heresies 1,Preface

Certainly the heretics are not getting their information from Scripture, nor tradition.

And of course this is a quote from Hippolytus about Scripture:

There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Holy Scriptures. For as** he that would possess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise obtain it than to read the doctrines of the philosophers;** so whosoever of us will exercise piety toward God cannot learn this elsewhere but out of the Holy Scriptures. Whatsoever, therefore, the Holy Scriptures do preach, that let us know, and whatsoever they teach, that let us understand. (Hip. tom. 3, Bibliotheque Patrium, ed. Colonna)

CYRIL of JERUSALEM

‘But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now DELIVERED TO THEE by THE CHURCH, AND which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES.’
Catechetical Lectures 5,12

‘Learn also diligently, and FROM THE CHURCH, WHAT ARE THE BOOKS of the Old Testaments, and WHAT are the books of the NEW’
Catechetical Lectures 5,33

You are still quoting reliance on the Scriptures.

Of course Cyril made it a little clearer here:

Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me speaking these things to you** except you have the proof of what I say from the divine Scriptures**. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the divine Scriptures. (Cat. 4)

ORIGEN

“The Church’s preaching has been handed down through an orderly succession from the Apostles and remains in the Church until the present. That alone is to be believed as the truth which in no way departs from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition”
First Principles 1,2

Yep! Scripture was handed down. Here is what Origen really thought about Scripture:

In which (the two Testaments) every word that appertains to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge may be understood out of them.** But if anything remain which the Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for authorizing any knowledge or doctrine; but that which remains we must commit to the fire,** that is, we will reserve it for God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things. (Orig. in Lev., hom. 5, 9:6)

We know Jesus Christ is God, and we seek to expound the words which are spoken, according to the dignity of the person. Wherefore it is necessary for us to call the Scriptures into testimony; for our meanings and enarrations, without these witnesses, have no credibility. (Tractatus 5 in Matt.)

No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures. (Tract. 26 in Matt.)

As all gold, whatsoever it be, that is without the temple, is not holy; even so every notion which is without the divine Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some, is not holy, because it is foreign to Scripture. (Hom. 25 in Matt.)

Consider how imminent** their danger is who neglect to study the Scriptures,** in which alone the discernment of this can be ascertained. (in Rom. 10:16)

So as you can, Fathers from the Second Century and so forth did not believe in the Bible alone theory, NO FATHER DID! I am curious to on your “list” to show that the Fathers believed in Bible alone or that they believe ALL Traditions is in the Bible.

Obviously you have not read enough of the early church fathers. THEY DID BELIEVE IN SOLA SCRIPTURA. Their own words speak for them…

 

[inthecloud]

All sacred scripture in any religion is sutained by tradition.
Tradition tell us what scripture is sacred or Godbreathed.
Even Timoty was talking about Old Testament scripture that was not settled yet canonically for the Christians.
The NT authority comes only from Church Tradition.
And BTW i find less theological differences between the RCC and the EOC despite almost 1000 years of schism than between some protestant denominations that are less that 100 years old.
Tradition does help in fixing Biblical interpretation.
Lest face it, the Bible might be Godbreathed but is written, edited, and compiled by human hands. There is no such thing as a self authenticating text. That is a logical fallacy. All texts need a reader for authentification as information theory has proved. Sacred texts are sacred becasue they are read by believers, IOW the Churches.
You believe the Bible is godbreathed because a Church told you so. So Tradition in fact creates Scripture.

 

[Old_Scholar]

You said, "Protestants agree on what their rule of faith is. They follow a 66 book canon of scripture. But what is the “rule of faith” among those who reject sola scriptura? Not only do they disagree in their interpretations of their rule of faith, as sola scriptura advocates do, but they also disagree among themselves about what their rule of faith is to begin with."

By what Authority do Protestants have 66 book? The Christians in the First, Second, Third (etc) all accepted the 7 books that Protestants took out of their Bibles. So really Old Scholar, by what Authority do you based your man made 66-Bible? And don’t say “Jesus and the Apostles never quoted them”, because they did!

**No the 7 books were not accepted by Christians. It was mostly heretics that wanted to accept them. When Jerome translated the Hebrew into Latin, he refused to list the 7 books as he knew they were aprocryphal. Augustine was the one who insisted he list them and when he did, he made sure he posted a notice saying they were not canonical and were to be read for reading purposes and historical issues only. They were never accepted by Christians until the Roman Catholics declared them canonical at Trent. **

The Catholic Faith is one Faith, while the Protestant Faith are so diverged. So what works? Sola-Scriptural has only been around for 500 years and look at all the damage it has done. Over 35,000 Protestant Churches!

**You are saying all the Catholics are together on issues? You’re very wrong about this. Even the Roman Catholics can’t agree on the same issues. Look at the hundreds of different churches with different beliefs that claim to be Roman Catholic.

At least all the Protestants believe about 95% of the same things**.

You said, "Then they claim that scripture is not sufficient in itself but scripture tells us otherwise."

As I alreadly proven, Scriptures states that Apostles’ Traditions are in the same level as Sacred Scriptures.

Scripture does not say that—nowhere. Please list the verses that say that.

 

[Old_Scholar]

You have a wrong view on the Fathers. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH said that he will not believe the Gospels unless the OT speaks of Christ. CYRIL of JERUSALEM believed that the Church has authority to decide which books are Scriptures and which are not.

Citation please from Cyril. I believe Ignatius but as we know, the Old Testament does mention Christ.

For Irenaeus tradition included the faith that was handed on-oral or in writing. The Scriptural proof were about Christ in the OT.

I have already posted Irenaeus’ beliefs on Scripture in this thread. Please read it. I have given the citation.

Third, Catholics do not believe Scriptures are not necessary, but that not everything needs the Holy Scripture to prove if its correct or not. Remember, the Apostles use the Old Testament to prove that Jesus is Christ, but this does not prove Sola-Scriptural.

So instead, Roman Catholics believe whatever someone tells them is true? Is that why the different popes come in and change what other popes have done? How can you rely on humans with the built in human error?

The Fathers are the Church believed in the Authority of Scriptures. But they also believed in Sacred Traditions. Did the Fathers of the Church used Sacred Scriptures to prove doctrines? Yes, heavly in fact. Did the Fathers of the Church believe Scriptures is sole rule of faith/Authority? No! Saint Irenaeus, for instance, believe that the Bishops has authority.

Can you show any verses from the New Testament that mentions “sacred traditions?” The apostles never mentioned "sacred tradition."

Old Scholar, do you believe that the Bread and Wine is transform into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, The Authority of Bishops, Infant Baptism, Apostical Succession? All these were believe by the Fathers of the Church, including the First and Second Century!

Of course you are going to prove that the early church fathers believed all this…

So if you going to point out Fathers who believe in Bible Alone, which none did, then please tell us why you don’t believe them on other issues. The Fathers of the Church did not believe what Protestants believed today.

Again, you are in error. I have listed several quotes from the early church fathers that believed nothing was truth without Scripture and that is Sola Scriptura. I can quote many other early fathers as well.

This what I cannot understand, Protestants tried to prove that the Fathers of the Church did not believe in Sacred Traditions, but the same Fathers that they claim did not believe in Traditions also believe in other Catholic Doctrines that Protestants do not believe.

The early church fathers did not believe in “sacred tradition.” They believed in the kind of tradition Protestants believe in. Can you give any quotes about “sacred tradition” from any father in the first 200 years?

 

[ralphinal]

Logic. Logic. Logic.

For example, Scripture does not actually explain HOW we are to worship. THere are some generaltities, but not line by line. Read the Letters of Paul without the theology. They are corrections on how to conduct life, worship, or how to believe. Logic says that Churches were founded and people taught orally then the letters were sent to correct errors.

How was the faith taught before anything was written? Even the most liberal dater puts the first books around 35 a.d.

How big is your Bible? Is it man portable? If so, then you are not carrying the origional. Was it printed by a machine? Again, you have a new one. The old ones were expensive, bulky, hand-written scrolls. It is illogical to think that people carried the whole book everywhere they went. Therefore, the teaching had to be done a different way.

One more thing, in Acts of the Apostles, Paul uses a quote from Jesus that is no where in the Bible. No one called him on it. Where did he get it?

 

[Old_Scholar]

The following is a transcript of a taped debate between Scott Hahn, Catholic convert and former Presbyterian minister, and Dr. Robert Knudson of Westminster Seminary.
[The original tape was distributed by Catholic Answers.]



…I do believe that the Bible is to be regarded by all Catholics as our guide, as our source, as our judge, as the living and active Word of God, alive in our lives, in addition to which the Church confesses a living tradition to which she is bound out of obedience to Scripture. For Scripture speaks of that living tradition very naturally, very easily and matter-of-factly, as we’ll see in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 where Paul commends and commands the Thessalonian Christians to hold fast to what Christ passed on to him, to what he passed on to them, to the tradition, whether it is written or whether it is spoken. Now Paul could take matter-of-factly, and he could state matter-of-factly the authority and existence of a living tradition. He didn’t feel any need to argue for this living tradition; he assumed it and he assumed the Thessalonians knew what he was talking about, so I would ask my Protestant brethren, where is that living tradition and how is it that we are held fast to that living tradition and how is that living tradition distinct from my own individual interpretation of the Bible?

**History shows that it was because of the heretics that it became necessary to write down everything so that there could be a record of everything the apostles and the Holy Spirit taught. Without such truth, you can see what happened to the church because of the heretics.

That is why Irenaeus and others had to combat heresies like they did and they ALWAYS referred to Scripture to combat them. There was nothing else they could do. They couldn’t simply say, you are wrong, it is this way. They had to have proof and the Scriptures provided it.**

 

[davidv]

Scripture does not say that—nowhere. Please list the verses that say that.

How can the “effect” define what the “cause” is. The chain of events goes like this:
Jesus taught the gospel → The apostles that their disciples teach the gospel → some of the teachings are recorded in writing → The Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit determines which writing will make up the Bible.

All this while the apostles and their successors contiune to teach what Jesus taught.

A verse, which I cannot find, declares that not all the Jesus taught was recorded in writing.

 

[mschrank]

I don’t have to do squat. It’s the Protestants that came into the game 1500 years into play, and now they say I have to start defending what has been believed up to the point where they arrived?

Who the heck do these people think they are?

If any more of these people bother the Catholics on here, just tell them their ideas are nothing more than novel innovations that mean nothing and subsist in nothing and their opinions are not worth addressing.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Saint Irenaeus

“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition…It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition”
Against Heresies 3,2:1

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?"
Against Heresies 3,4:1

According to Irenaeus, Tradition is substantive in content, normative in authority and continues to live in the Apostolic churches. Trying to twist Irenaeus words to mean that he believe in Bible alone is what cults do to Scriptures.

“But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,2:2

When Iraenaeue wrote Against Heresies is was to refute Gnosticism which claims to have secret teachings and traditions that only a few knew. Iraenaeus was agaisnt these types of Traditions.

“For Irenaeus, on the other hand, tradition and scripture are both quite unproblematic. They stand independently side by side, both absolutely authoritative, both unconditionally true, trustworthy, and convincing.”
Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church, p139

I believe Joseph A. Gallegos wrote it very well, and I wish Old Scholar read this:

"There are a couple of recurring themes throughout the writings of the Church Fathers on the rule of faith. First, the Fathers affirmed that the most perfect expression of the Apostolic faith is to be found in Sacred Scripture. The Fathers affirmed the material sufficiency of Scripture. According to the Fathers, all doctrines of the Catholic faith are to be found within its covers. Secondly, the Fathers affirmed in the same breath and with equal conviction that the Apostolic faith also has been transmitted to the Church through Tradition. According to the Fathers, the Scriptures can only be interpreted within the Catholic Church in light of her Sacred Tradition. The Fathers, particularly those who combated heresies, affirmed that the fatal flaw of heretics was interpreting Scripture according to their private understanding apart from mother Church and her Tradition. In sum, when the Fathers affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scripture, they did so not in a vacuum, but within the framework of an authoritative Church and Tradition." (cin.org/users/jgallegos/web.htm)).

You are quoting what someone else said about Irenaeus and not what Irenaeus himself wrote. That is merely an opinion and not fact.

 

[Old_Scholar]

1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you…(Matthew 23:1-2)

This is a good example of “Oral Tradition.” Nowhere in the whole OT is there this “Moses’ Seat.” This is completely oral tradition. Notice how Christ says “practice and observe.” Why do the crowds and disciples have to practice and observe? They,“the Pharisees,” sit on “Moses’ Seat.”

How do you know Christ said this?

 

[davidv]

You are quoting what someone else said about Irenaeus and not what Irenaeus himself wrote. That is merely an opinion and not fact.

But so is most of what you wrote, just your opinion. You have not demonstrated that any of it contradicting the teachings of the Church are factual or true.

 

[mschrank]

But so is most of what you wrote, just your opinion. You have not demonstrated that any of it contradicting the teachings of the Church are factual or true.

I wouldn’t bother arguing with these people. You can’t reason someone out of something they haven’t been reasoned into. They actually believe that they can redefine a religion that had existed for one thousand, five hundred years before their prophet (Luther) had lived.

That’s like as long as the exodus to the birth of Christ, just to get a sense of time scale here.