Why do we need more than scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CompSciGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That supposition indicates the failure to realise that mankind has fallen from the created state through a free choice as possessing free-will, and thus due to Original Sin has corrupted his nature. .
That is my very point. It should be the purpose of Revelation to offer humanity the Way, means and truth, to restore the original created state. And by your own reply you accept that existing tradition is unable to do so. Because in humanities ‘fallen’ state, reason is unable to comprehend the mind of God nor any divinely inspired writing. And thus the theological attempt to do so is without merit. And if the ‘church’ is unable to offer such a teaching, I cannot accept that it has anything to do with God.
 
RCCB #41
Because in humanities ‘fallen’ state, reason is unable to comprehend the mind of God nor any divinely inspired writing. And thus the theological attempt to do so is without merit. And if the ‘church’ is unable to offer such a teaching, I cannot accept that it has anything to do with God.
Another false supposition, for the “mind of God” is the revelation of His Son, Jesus of Nazareth, who proved that he is God by His Resurrection after His crucifixion, climaxing the many other miracles He performed which facts were validated in post #40.

The fallen state is precisely why God the Son established His Church with St Peter as His Supreme Vicar – to clearly show the way to heaven.

The spiritual helps of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the seven sacraments instituted by Christ, with Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are the means which enabled the many canonised saints of heroic virtue to be further examples of the efficacy of His Church in leading to the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Fr Dubay qualifies a healthy doubt as “a sensible person does well to suspend judgment either because he is ignorant of the matter under consideration or because he sees no conclusive evidence for a sure affirmation or a sure denial.” (Faith And Certitude, p 83).

So, no, the faithful Catholic has little doubt, and takes the time and trouble to clarify any difficulties.

“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than an indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.” (p 81-2).
 
And that remains an open question that history has yet to resolve to the satisfaction of many, including myself. It seems highly unlikely that God would reveal anything that allows for two thousand years of theological dispute, division, schism and blood over the exact nature of that revelation. Not to mention three competing mono-theisms that at their core deny the validity of each other. And even without the question of interpretation, how can one presume that the scriptural record is even complete with new discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Library and possibly more on the way. And there are many conflicting ideas contained within the new discoveries that beg hard questions. I can only wonder if theology is even a valid human intellectual endeavor. Does theology only exists because nothing has been revealed and is what history has handed down to us no more than a theological counterfeit, waiting for to be judged?
Looks like you have a bit of confusion there.
History cannot answer any questions, it can only faithfully (one hopes) record the events of human affairs down through time.

So many times wars were waged in the name of religion but the REAL motive behind them was power or economical advantage.
Can any one deny that the reason Henry VIII did what he did so that he could take the wealth that the monasteries and churches had?
It is not an isolated example.

Then I fail to see how the discoveries you mentioned affect the credibility of the Gospels.
If anything they reaffirm the confidence we have in them.

The Nag Hammady is a collection of Gnostic documents. Gnosticism was a heresy and the Church held councils to deal with it.

The Dead Sea Scrolls on the other hand PROVE that the Deuterocanonical books were as are part of the Old Testament.

Theology cannot invent religion. It’s a humanistic science that uses reason to try to understand GOD. Without a prior revelations there would be NO theology.
 
Another false supposition, for the “mind of God” is the revelation of His Son, Jesus of Nazareth, who proved that he is God by His Resurrection after His crucifixion, climaxing the many other miracles He performed which facts were validated in post #40
While I’m happy with the idea that there may have once been a revelation and scripture may very well be a part of that, but the very idea of a ‘revelation’ being held by the church is intellectually dishonest. The origins of the early church were founded in confusion and disputes that remain unresolved today. You can offer no means that demonstrates that any theologically derived dogma or doctrine is of God.

And the Resurrection of Jesus and his other miracles does not mean he ‘is God’ just the man God chose to work His will on earth, in what was a failed attempt to seed humanity with a new spiritual wisdom that would restore us to the ‘original state’. Of course what those things do demonstrate is that God is obviously very willing in intervene directly into the natural world to accomplish his will and confirm His covenant and Law.

I cannot image that God has any other interest than restoring mankind to it’s originally created state’ And the continuing pedophile priest scandal is ample proof that the ‘church’ is as fallen and corrupted as anybody else. All remain separated from the grace of God.

Whatever wisdom Jesus brought with him was lost through disobedience and now waits for the second and last ‘coming’ for history to repeat itself. When God confronts mankind with just how far reasoned ignorance can carry it’s step. Which is probably what put Jesus on the cross in the first place!

Do you think that when judgement begins, those who have claimed falsely to speak in the name of Christ will not be first in the firing line of God’s anger? And as all tradition is theological, either all is true or all is false and my guess is the latter.
 
RCCB #46
While I’m happy with the idea that there may have once been a revelation and scripture may very well be a part of that, but the very idea of a ‘revelation’ being held by the church is intellectually dishonest.
To be “happy” with a revelation and the concomitant scripture, while holding that the revelation given to the Church is a sham, fits philosopher William James’ truism: “Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices”.
The origins of the early church were founded in confusion and disputes that remain unresolved today. You can offer no means that demonstrates that any theologically derived dogma or doctrine is of GodAnd the Resurrection of Jesus and his other miracles does not mean he ‘is God’ just the man God chose to work His will on earth, in what was a failed attempt to seed humanity with a new spiritual wisdom that would restore us to the ‘original state’. Of course what those things do demonstrate is that God is obviously very willing in intervene directly into the natural world to accomplish his will and confirm His covenant and Law…
Acknowledging a “God willing to intervene” while rejecting Jesus Christ who proved that He is God by His miracles culminating in the fact of His Resurrection is another example of mere prejudicial feeling.

The inanity of presuming that God chose a man to do His will on earth, while ignoring the Resurrection and the fact that Jesus claimed to be God. There are no other “revelations”. No other religious founder claimed to be God, or could prove it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

The fact that the Catholic Church continues resolutely to teach the same truths from the beginning, demonstrates that those who fell away were in the grip of falsehood and/or evil intention. The mandate from Christ, the Son of God, to teach, so clearly shown in post #37 has not, and cannot, be refuted.

Nothing can restore mankind “to the ‘original state’ ” – such is fantasy. What Christ has done is to redeem us and “by the sweat of thy brow” enable us to freely cooperate with His grace to achieve salvation – the joys of heaven – by following Him through His Church.

The vast gulf between Catholicism and any other religion is that the Catholic Church has been founded by a Divine Person who lived with a human and divine nature and claimed to be God, proving that claim by His resurrection. When God leads us through His Church, others fashion there own beliefs and morals.
as all tradition is theological, either all is true or all is false and my guess is the latter.
A “guess” is a puerile copping out.

The reality is that Tradition is the teachings of Jesus, His Apostles and His Church. The other “tradition” is legitimate customs – erroneous traditions whether in doctrines or practices are condemned.
 
To be “happy” with a revelation and the concomitant scripture, while holding that the revelation given to the Church is a sham, fits philosopher William James’ truism: “Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices”.

Acknowledging a “God willing to intervene” while rejecting Jesus Christ who proved that He is God by His miracles culminating in the fact of His Resurrection is another example of mere prejudicial feeling.

The inanity of presuming that God chose a man to do His will on earth, while ignoring the Resurrection and the fact that Jesus claimed to be God. There are no other “revelations”. No other religious founder claimed to be God, or could prove it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

The fact that the Catholic Church continues resolutely to teach the same truths from the beginning, demonstrates that those who fell away were in the grip of falsehood and/or evil intention. The mandate from Christ, the Son of God, to teach, so clearly shown in post #37 has not, and cannot, be refuted.

Nothing can restore mankind “to the ‘original state’ ” – such is fantasy. What Christ has done is to redeem us and “by the sweat of thy brow” enable us to freely cooperate with His grace to achieve salvation – the joys of heaven – by following Him through His Church.

The vast gulf between Catholicism and any other religion is that the Catholic Church has been founded by a Divine Person who lived with a human and divine nature and claimed to be God, proving that claim by His resurrection. When God leads us through His Church, others fashion there own beliefs and morals.
A “guess” is a puerile copping out.

The reality is that Tradition is the teachings of Jesus, His Apostles and His Church. The other “tradition” is legitimate customs – erroneous traditions whether in doctrines or practices are condemned.
  1. There was no revelation ever given to the early church. As far as I’m concerned, the entire theological history of the church is no more than rearranged prejudices. The church is a human theological creation. No more than paganism with a scriptural spin for decoration.
  2. The Resurrection is the key to restoration, but not as the church understands it. But in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods’ willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof! Which the church doesn’t have to offer.
  3. And what is the restoration? A direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, “correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries.” Thus, by this ‘first Resurrection’ is a man ‘created’ in the image and likeness of his Creator.
  4. Of course the church has no interest in the original restoration, for the very existence, ‘as in the beginning’ of such a single Law and command would be heretical to the established religious order, for in practical terms, it would make them all instantly redundant, changing the very nature of religion itself from the top heavy, institutional temple/church traditions we observe in the world today, to an individual spiritual-virtue ethic conception, founded within the marriage of one man and one woman and without the need of a self ordained, theological priestcraft and any other mumbo jumbo. Just integrity and fidelity to new Divine moral purpose.
  5. Theology has redeemed no one and saved no one. That is the illusion the church retails to a gullible world, deaf, dumb and blind and Dead to the living truth of the living God.
“The fact remains that someone must enter it, [the Kindonm of God] and since those who first heard the good news failed to enter through unbelief, God fixes another day”

" will destroy the wisdom of the world and bring to nothing the cleverness of the clever."

For as I turned there greeted mine likewise
What all behold who contemplate aright
That’s Heaven’s revolution through the skies

What generation will live to see it all?
 
RCCB #48
Theology has redeemed no one and saved no one.
This myopia with “theology” is the repetitive mantra. Theology = the study of religion/a particular system of beliefs, and that mantra fatally ignores the historical context of the divinity of Jesus through His Resurrection and subsequent recorded presence with His Apostles, and His explicit foundation of His Church under His Supreme Vicar. The historical facts completely refute the presumptions being offered.

It is His Crucifixion and death which redeemed mankind and enables mankind’s free-will to seek salvation in with and through Him.

And Christ bestowed before His Resurrection:
“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” [Mt 28:18-20].

The sneerers completely ignore the facts.
 
This myopia with “theology” is the repetitive mantra. Theology = the study of religion/a particular system of beliefs, and that mantra fatally ignores the historical context of the divinity of Jesus through His Resurrection and subsequent recorded presence with His Apostles, and His explicit foundation of His Church under His Supreme Vicar. The historical facts completely refute the presumptions being offered.

It is His Crucifixion and death which redeemed mankind and enables mankind’s free-will to seek salvation in with and through Him.

And Christ bestowed before His Resurrection:
“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” [Mt 28:18-20].

The sneerers completely ignore the facts.
I’m more than confident that history will judge whether the ‘church’ as you understand it has anything to do with God or is no more than a theological counterfeit. And my confidence rests not with any human argument from any source of history or tradition but from the fact that I am personally testing the first wholly new interpretation of the moral teaching of Christ in two thousand years.

And radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon the ‘Promise’ [called the Word] of a precise, predefined, and predictable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called ‘the first Resurrection’ in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods’ willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!

Not susceptible or stoppable by your church, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria for definitive proof now exists. It’s now only a matter of time before sufficient numbers of individuals, seeking progress in the world by ‘other’ means, confirm this teaching and establish this ‘Resurrection’ and unique moral insight as absolute, irrefutable fact. Leaving tradition starring into it’s own theological abyss. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way.

So what the church always presumed to be impossible has now happened. I will know the truth and be free from your illusions. And it’s spreading on the web. I rest my case
 
I’m more than confident that history will judge whether the ‘church’ as you understand it has anything to do with God or is no more than a theological counterfeit. And my confidence rests not with any human argument from any source of history or tradition but from the fact that I am personally testing the first wholly new interpretation of the moral teaching of Christ in two thousand years.

And radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon the ‘Promise’ [called the Word] of a precise, predefined, and predictable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called ‘the first Resurrection’ in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods’ willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!

Not susceptible or stoppable by your church, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria for definitive proof now exists. It’s now only a matter of time before sufficient numbers of individuals, seeking progress in the world by ‘other’ means, confirm this teaching and establish this ‘Resurrection’ and unique moral insight as absolute, irrefutable fact. Leaving tradition starring into it’s own theological abyss. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way.

So what the church always presumed to be impossible has now happened. I will know the truth and be free from your illusions. And it’s spreading on the web. I rest my case
I think history has already had a few of those.
 
I can’t add much to the replies that have already been given. But it does seem to me that in practice, every Christian preacher of every denomination acts as though we do need more than the scriptures.

For if all we needed were the scriptures, which I take to mean those writings included in the bible—whichever bible one uses—then all that is needed is to pass out bibles. Print them and distribute them. That meets the requirements of sufficiency of scripture. But no one does only that.

After all, if a preacher stands before a congregation and does anything more than simply read from the scriptures, he is engaging in interpretation, in handing on his own tradition! Any word he speaks which is not directly from the scriptures is a part of his tradition. He is no longer relying on scripture alone.

But obviously this was not the intent of Jesus. He wrote no books, nor did He command any to be written.

Even if scripture alone were thought to be sufficient, it would not be sufficient. As a prerequisite, one would need literacy. Literacy as a requirement for salvation? I don’t think that’s what Jesus had in mind.

No, his command was to hand down what had been taught.

Those who do not accept the teaching handed down from the beginning from his Church through tradition and scripture invariably find a thousand ways to go wrong.
 
RCCB #50
Not susceptible or stoppable by your church, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria for definitive proof now exists.
What a hoot – the Enlightenment! The present worsening in reason and faith is the obvious result of the relativism and secularism following the revolt and so-called Enlightenment – that anything goes. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.

The “Enlightenment” ushered in a new world religion, as recognised by Pope Paul VI in closing the Second Vatican Council: “At the Council, the religion of God made man” had encountered “the religion of man aspiring to be God” in its deepest roots and in many of its practical objectives a Christian heresy.”

“When wrenched from their Christian context and raised to the status of absolutes, the notions to which the children of the Enlightenment give priority, such as liberty and equality, no matter how good in themselves, can receive a quite different significance and even become appallingly destructive….”
[Philip Trower, *The Catholic Church And The Counter-Faith, Family Publications, Oxford, 2006, p 18-21].

From Dr Benjamin Wiker (Ten Books Every Conservative Must Read).
‘Thomas Hobbes was the first modern thinker to systematically attack the notion that there is any natural moral order. He argued that the words “good” and “evil” are merely descriptions of our own individual likes and dislikes – he was thus the father of modern relativism.

‘Hobbes felt that the idea of moral truths meant that they would be fought for and so were the cause of all war. In such a relativistic world tyranny he thought that would be required to keep the peace and so is the father of modern absolutism and modern liberalism in politics. As Philip Trower has written: “After Descartes had philosophically shut men up inside their minds, the English philosopher John Locke redecorated the prison’s interior, the Scott David Hume locked the door and the Prussian Immanuel Kant through away the key.” ’ (The Catholic Church And The Counter-Faith, Family Publications, Oxford, 2006, p 73).
tothesource.org/10_6_2010/10_6_2010.htm

Father John McCloskey, reviewing *How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization *by Thomas E. Woods Jr. - published by Regnery Publishing, 2005:
“Western institutions, though often originating in Athens and Jerusalem, were developed into a Catholic culture in a process that accelerated from the early Middle Ages right up to the time of the Reformation and the Enlightenment.

“At that point, the progenitors of these distinct rebellions against the Church began using Western institutions for their own particular purposes, growing out of but foreign to their Catholic origins…. Woods notes, ‘Western civilization stands indebted to the Church for the university system, charitable work, international law, the sciences, and, important legal principles. … Western civilization owes far more to the Catholic Church than most people — Catholic included — often realize. … The Church, in fact, built Western civilization.’….
 
I very brief one sentence summary before I start: I am a convert to Catholicism from a devout Protestant family and my father is a Presbyterian minister.

I recently went on vacation to Washington state and my parents were there with me. I didn’t get any sleep on the last night we were there and I was in the hotel lobby by myself when my dad came down and started talking to me about religion. I wasn’t really in the mood for it but I did my best to indulge him. I went through the normal routine of explaining why I believed that the church was apostolic and that the deposit of faith of the church is the only reasonable standard for orthodoxy. He understood where I was coming from but the question I couldn’t apparently answer to his satisfaction was why do we need more than scripture. I told him that the New Testament is not comprehensive, it is not written in such a way that it expounds upon every facet of the Christian faith but is rather a set of accounts, letters and one vision. He said that oral tradition is not reliable because it can change so much as it is passed down through the generations. I said that the writings of the early fathers are evidence that in fact it did not change. However he brought up a point that is hard to argue, for example, the Catholic Church’s position on heretics, especially Protestants, appears to be very different at the council of Trent than it was at Vatican II. Also when I brought up the obvious failures of sola scriptura and the resulting 38,000 denominations, he was not convinced that these divisions are a necessary result of sola scriptura. He thinks that if the scripture is read systematically and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit then its true meaning can be derived. This is impossible to argue because it is so subjective. Anyways it is difficult to argue with protestants because they are so sincere and are able to make it sound as if their standard of sola scriptura is a very honest and reliable way of living a Christian life and that nothing more should be necessary.
Well you’re correctand your father is not only incorrect but he is at odds with scripture. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 we read this:

“15…So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

Last time I looked Paul’s letters were part of scripture. Here is a question to ask your father. Since all protestant denominations claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit then which one of the protestant denominations has the true meaning and how does one prove it?
 
The Protestants can`t hold this teaching. It´s a difficult question: Where stand this teachings?
  • that Jesus had two natures
  • that God knows all
  • sola scriptura
  • the canon of the bible
 
I very brief one sentence summary before I start: I am a convert to Catholicism from a devout Protestant family and my father is a Presbyterian minister.

I recently went on vacation to Washington state and my parents were there with me. I didn’t get any sleep on the last night we were there and I was in the hotel lobby by myself when my dad came down and started talking to me about religion. I wasn’t really in the mood for it but I did my best to indulge him. I went through the normal routine of explaining why I believed that the church was apostolic and that the deposit of faith of the church is the only reasonable standard for orthodoxy. He understood where I was coming from but the question I couldn’t apparently answer to his satisfaction was why do we need more than scripture. I told him that the New Testament is not comprehensive, it is not written in such a way that it expounds upon every facet of the Christian faith but is rather a set of accounts, letters and one vision. He said that oral tradition is not reliable because it can change so much as it is passed down through the generations. I said that the writings of the early fathers are evidence that in fact it did not change. However he brought up a point that is hard to argue, for example, the Catholic Church’s position on heretics, especially Protestants, appears to be very different at the council of Trent than it was at Vatican II. Also when I brought up the obvious failures of sola scriptura and the resulting 38,000 denominations, he was not convinced that these divisions are a necessary result of sola scriptura. He thinks that if the scripture is read systematically and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit then its true meaning can be derived. This is impossible to argue because it is so subjective. Anyways it is difficult to argue with protestants because they are so sincere and are able to make it sound as if their standard of sola scriptura is a very honest and reliable way of living a Christian life and that nothing more should be necessary.
Here is something. Ask your father if he believes in the inerrancy of scripture. He will say yes he does. Then ask him if he believes that scripture is just as true today as when it was originally written. He will say yes he does. Then ask him why he takes an unscriptural position on the Oral Tradition. Then show him what Paul wrote in 2 Th 2:15

“-Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” [Th 2:15 KGV]

Then ask him if that verse is inerrant and is still as true today as when Paul wrote it.
 
My friend, standing on the banks of the Tiber, I have one word for you “Jump”.
Eventually, eventually, I can’t right now, taking it one step at a time. See the ‘teen’ part in my user title? I’m still living at home and will be for a few more years now, at this moment it would cause too much controversy and backlash. Next summer, next summer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top