You can't have it both ways.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then there is the Sunday observance…
And then there is the wedding in a church…

with wedding rings…

and a bride wearing a long white dress…

and a father who gives away the bride…

in front of a minister who has a cross hanging behind him…

none of it is in the Bible. :sad_yes:
 
And then there is the wedding in a church…

with wedding rings…

and a bride wearing a long white dress…

and a father who gives away the bride…

in front of a minister who has a cross hanging behind him…

none of it is in the Bible. :sad_yes:
**That sure sounds like a lot of “extra-biblical”, traditions of men" and doesn’t sound like Sola scriptura… What should we do ??? ** :eek: * *
 
Is that the same as saying…The Quran is from allah because the book says it is from allah? We know our Bible is from GOD because it contains prophecies fufilled to proof it is from GOD.
There are other writings that have prophesies that were fulfilled among the 400 + books that were claiming to be inspired at the time the canon was closed. None but the 27 preserved by Sacred Tradition made it into the canon.

Some of the books of the NT have unfilfilled prophesies, and lack an authors name attached to them.

Why is it so hard to accept that the canon of scripture is a product of Sacred Tradition? You accept so many other things, like the Sunday observance, the hypostatic union, the Trinity, the creeds…
We have Jesus as our example- HE looked to Scripture to answer an issue, settle disputes. Jesus is GOD- we have a person of the GODhead backing up what HE is saying by quoting Scripture. I guess I am at a loss as why that isn’t enough proof for Catholics.
Much of what Jesus taught is not found in Scripture. Every time it is written “but I say to you”, he supercedes the Scripture. Jesus did not “look to Scripture to answer an issue or settle disputes”. He used the Scriptures to show how they revealed Himself. Scriptures cannot “arbritrate”, because this action requires characteristics only belonging to persons, such as acts of the will, discernment, and the ability to take responsibility.

The Scriptures lead us to Christ, and support all that He did and taught, but He is the fullness of God’s revelation to us. He founded His Church, to contain that fulness and reveal His glory to humankind. That Church wrote, preserved, promulgated and canonized the Scriptures. They are part of the two inseparable threads of Divine Revelation that God has given to get us to eternal life with Him.
Did Jesus ever look to Tradition to answer a question, solve a dispute? Jesus mentions traditions 8 times all in a negative manner. Yes these were man-made traditions.
Yes, he often referred to Sacred Tradition, and also lived by it. He did not dispute traditions of men, either, so long as they did not nullify the Word of God. One of those Traditions is the wedding in Cana, which He hallowed by His presence, and sanctified by working His first public miracle.

He followed the Tradition that stems from the Book of Maccabees (also ratifying the Deuterocanonical books) by going the the feast of Lights in the Temple.
We must be careful to not follow man’s traditions?
No.

We must be mindful that our customs never interfere with His Divine Revelation.
Code:
**Mark 7**
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
You see, “let go of the commands of God”. Salient point here.

Jesus attended synagogue, which was a tradition of men. Doing so did not interfere with the commands of God.

Paul followed the strict sect of the Pharisees all his life, which included fastings and shaving of the head connected with vows. These did not interfere either.
9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
It is not necessary to set aside the commands of God in order to observe human customs.
13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
I was listening to the radio tonight where a deacon was talking about the celebration of 'Quincinera. It is a human custom that celebrates a young woman’s rite of initiation. There is nothing in it that nullifies the word of God, and it is a beautiful tradition.
Some of GOD’s traditions - The Sabbath, Passover and Unleaven Bread, Feast of Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Attonement, Feast of the Tabernacle, Last Great Day.
It is important to distinguish between human customs,and Sacred Traditions. Sacred Tradition is the Word of God that was committed by the Apostles to the Church, and has been preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.
We have multiple witnesses telling us that GOD’s Word is true, throughout the Bible. Where does it say such and such a tradition is true?:
Psalms 119
160 All your words are true;
all your righteous laws are eternal.

Where should we look to see if there is something similar said about tradition? Is it said any where - to sanctify them with your tradition? Believe through tradition?
John 17
17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,
You are assuming that these refer to writings, when they dont necessarily. The Word of God was preached, and the disciples believed because they HEARD the Word of God. God has preserved this Word just as He promised.

Yes, God sanctifies through His Word (Sacred Tradition) which was alive and well in the Church for three centuries before the canon was closed.
 
Jesus looked to Scripture to teach/correct:
Matthew 22
29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
He did not need to do this, since He is the author. He is merely pointing out that they do not understand what is written there. His Word, told to them, was (and is) on the same level as the writings. You make it seem like His words were subordinate to what was already written.
We are saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. What is this truth? GOD’s Word.
Yes, but you are making an erroneous assumption that it is confined to the Scriptures. Even the scriptures say otherwise!
In using the following Scriptures to support tradition the Catholic Church is using the Bible as the final authority in validating tradition. The tradition should be able to stand alone on it’s own merit for it to be equal in authority with Scripture.
The two are inseparably woven together, and are equal.
2 Thessalonians 2
13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the tradition we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

What exactly is the doctrinal content of the apostolic Tradition that we need for our salvation?
Everything that is contained and taught by the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church He founded. Surely you don’t think Paul would admonish them about keeping human customs, do you?
1 Peter 1
18Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
No one is arguing that there are useless and contrary human customs. This does not mean that all human customs are contrary to God, and Sacred Tradition, since it comes from God, and not man, is not included in these.
Where does the Bible say the following about tradition?
2 Timothy 3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
In each and every place it talks about the roles of teachers, presbyters, and overseers in the church. 👍
It is traditions that have divided the church. Are traditions what I call applications of the same basic faith that we all hold?
Hmm. This is an interesting thought. I dont’ think I can agree with it…I think it is sin that has divided the Church. I will admit that there has been a great deal of sin entrenched in human customs.

Some traditions of men, such as Sola Scriptura, have fomented divisions. Such inventions are contrary to the commands of God. It is not the traditions themselves, though, just when they nullify the commands of God, such as justifying the rejection of those that God placed in authority over His Church.
Which application/tradition you choose to follow does not save you and in fact can condemn you if it is a wrong or not from GOD.

**Following Scripture will not condemn you because it is truth. **
Following an interpretation of Scripture that is contrary to what the Apostles believed and taught can very easily condemn people.
 
Christian people were inspired. They are nothing (just ask them); the Holy Spirit is everything.
They are just what God has enabled them to be, which is a reflection of His grace, and mercy. Indeed, the HS could have brought the Word of God to drop out of the sky, but He did not. He chose to work through Catholics.
 
Interesting accusing GOD’s Word for splintering the Church when in fact it was man-made money for indulgences that did the final splintering.
I agree. Rather, it is individuals trying to intrepret Scripture apart from the faith that produced it that causes the splintering.

Sin such as that of the corrupted clerics mentioned above, also always splinters the Body of Christ.
Long before there was a Catholic Church- as opposed to the universal Chur
ch that Jesus built our early Church Fathers recognized what was Scripture. I have read that the New Testament could be written from the writting of the early Church Fathers, they referenced all but a small sampling.
You are right that the early fathers did quote extensively from the Sacred manuscripts. They were Catholic, those that wrote the Scriptures, and those that quoted them. You seem to be suffering from some misinformation about the beginnings of the Catholic Church.
Men don’t always listen to the Holy Spirit.
This is also a very true statement. It is also true that people who are earnestly striving to hear and follow the HS don’t always do so. This is precisely why Jesus had to give the gift of infallibility to the church. It is also the reason why it is problematic to try to understand the Scriptures apart from what the HS has laready revealed to the Church. He does not contradict Himself.

It is also the reason why there is no contradiction between Catholic Sacred Tradtiion and the Scriptures. Since they both come from the same source, they must, by nature, be congruent.
Code:
It is not just a Book but a concrete bit of evidence of what we need to do to have an amazing relationship with GOD.


Yes, but that relationship is not contained to the book. That relationship also does not occur outside of His One Body, the Church.
Yes I understand GOD’s word won’t sway you. Actually Bible verses have swayed me and why I believe GOD’s Word to be sufficient in the matters of explaining what I need to do for my Salvation.
This seems to be the case for most persons who have accepted a truncated version of salvation.
What do Catholic Sacred Traditions tell you is needed for your salvation?
That we adhere to ALL that Jesus did and taught.

That we not separate the Word of God He deposited in the Church from that which was deposited in writing. That we accept ALL of the Apostolic message, whether by word of mouth, or in writing.
 
“Scripture is sufficient in telling us what is needed”
**
Telling us What?

What does this even mean, when coupled with a doctrine that allows personal interpretation of the Bible?

I guess it all depends on who you talk to… right?

Knowing this, how is it possible that this statement is true?

Some have interpreted the Bible to “say”, don’t celebrate Christmas, homosexual marriages are ok, multiple marriages are ok, artificial birth control is ok… one doesn’t need to go to Church, that’s ok; no baptism required… that’s ok , because “I’ve determined that the Bible says so” and so on… And yet, the Catholic Church and early Christians don’t believe any of these modern interpretations of the Bible.

So, the Bible is "telling us " what? This is the big question and the truth does and will influence our salvation.

Your thoughts?
Please read the sentence I wrote before it.

**All the information a person needs for their salvation is in the Holy Bible. Scripture is sufficient in telling us what is needed.

And some people are fooling themselves.

Again all this has been discussed on another thread but here goes:

Homosexuality is a sin it says so clear as day in the Holy Bible. Are we to stone them-no. Show them Christian love and allow them to come to church and take communion- I think yes they are sinners just like us and if they believe that Jesus died for their sins then who are we - mere sinners to deny them something that might change them spiritualy? Should they be pastors-no Bible is very clear on who should be a Pastor/Overseer.

Contraceptives- if it kills a human life - no. What if the barrier contraceptives don’t work, the couple carries Huntington’s. I believe these should be decided on an individual basis and not a blanket statement for all. Barrier contraceptive so a person can have promomiscuos sex-no.

Even when we go to Church are we keeping the Sabbath Holy? Mom used to say the devil works extra hard on Sundays- all the arguing by everyone and the dragging of feet by the kids!! I say if we try to keep any day Holy whether we go to church or not would be a blessing.
 
Please read the sentence I wrote before it.

***All the information a person needs for their salvation is in the Holy Bible. ***Scripture is sufficient in telling us what is needed.

And some people are fooling themselves.

Again all this has been discussed on another thread but here goes:

Homosexuality is a sin it says so clear as day in the Holy Bible. Are we to stone them-no. Show them Christian love and allow them to come to church and take communion- I think yes they are sinners just like us and if they believe that Jesus died for their sins then who are we - mere sinners to deny them something that might change them spiritualy? Should they be pastors-no Bible is very clear on who should be a Pastor/Overseer.

Contraceptives- if it kills a human life - no. What if the barrier contraceptives don’t work, the couple carries Huntington’s. I believe these should be decided on an individual basis and not a blanket statement for all. Barrier contraceptive so a person can have promomiscuos sex-no.

Even when we go to Church are we keeping the Sabbath Holy? Mom used to say the devil works extra hard on Sundays- all the arguing by everyone and the dragging of feet by the kids!! I say if we try to keep any day Holy whether we go to church or not would be a blessing.
I did read it and my response stands. I guess it depends on what the word “all” means and how the “information” is defined, right?.
 
And then there is the wedding in a church…

with wedding rings…

and a bride wearing a long white dress…

and a father who gives away the bride…

in front of a minister who has a cross hanging behind him…

none of it is in the Bible. :sad_yes:
These aren’t ‘Christian’ traditions that if not followed disobeys God. Correct?
 
They are just what God has enabled them to be, which is a reflection of His grace, and mercy. Indeed, the HS could have brought the Word of God to drop out of the sky, but He did not. He chose to work through Catholics.
Did the writers of the letters call themselves catholic? At what point in history did Christians call themselves catholic with a capital letter?
 
That sure sounds like a lot of “extra-biblical”, traditions of men" and doesn’t sound like Sola scriptura… What should we do ??? :eek: * *
Why do you sign, ‘respectfully’ when there’s little to no respect being shown?
 
Then there is the Sunday observance…
Jesus was raised on the 1st day of the week - our Sunday.

Then there’s these references:

Ac 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

1Co 16:2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.
 
Hey Dokimas…
Did the writers of the letters call themselves catholic? At what point in history did Christians call themselves catholic with a capital letter?
I eventually learned that the word catholic was the normal part of the vocabulary of a person living in the latter part of the 1st century, as attested by Polycarp, who lived from 69 AD to 155 AD: “When Polycarp had finished his prayer, after remembering everyone who had ever crossed his path—both small and great, high and low—and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world, the time came for him to leave. They set him on an *** and led him into the city…”

As far as I can tell the first extant reference to the “Catholic Church” occurs in a letter written by Ignatius of Antioch. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, written in 107 AD we find the following statement:

*“Wherever the bishop is, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” *

This statement is quite compelling for several reasons. One reason is that the name “Catholic” used to designate Jesus’ Church was clearly not something new. He felt no need to explain or defend the name, which, in my mind, points to an earlier time for the beginning of the name Catholic. Another reason that this statement is interesting is that the man that first wrote that the Church was called “Catholic” was from Antioch, in the East as opposed to the west. It was also in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians.” see Acts 11:26 - One more reason why this statement from Ignatius is so compelling is that Jesus and the Catholic Church, according to Ignatius who was a disciple of the apostles, are united as one.

*“Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” *

In other words, Jesus is always found with the Catholic Church and this fulfills the words of our Lord, “Behold, I am with you always even until the end of the world! (Matthew 28:20)

Dokimas, is it your contention, as it was mine, as a former protestant, that the CC, very early on, deviated from authentic biblical Christianity, and simply invented a new word to identify their newly founded man-made church (and their new brand of Christianity) - which traversed the centuries along side the authentic biblical church founded by God?
 
***All the information a person needs for their salvation is in the Holy Bible. ***Scripture is sufficient in telling us what is needed.
Scripture is profitable, but not sufficient.

For it does not tell us what was theopneustos. It was *insufficient *in that regard.

You needed the Church to tell you what was inspired.
 
These aren’t ‘Christian’ traditions that if not followed disobeys God. Correct?
Those are man-made traditions, and if you believe, as you stated below, that “sticking to the written Word” is “safer” then you ought not participate in those man-made traditions not found in Scripture. For clearly there is no mention of wedding rings, brides wearing white, brides getting married barefoot and on a beach while the ponytailed minister reads a poem…
IMO, it’s potentialy very dangerous to add to or subtract from the Gospel what’s not or what is intended by God. That’s why sticking to the written Word seems far safer.
 
Those are man-made traditions, and if you believe, as you stated below, that “sticking to the written Word” is “safer” then you ought not participate in those man-made traditions not found in Scripture. For clearly there is no mention of wedding rings, brides wearing white, brides getting married barefoot and on a beach while the ponytailed minister reads a poem…
This is an immature response. Having a wedding one way or another does not define salvation or being in Christ. The debate of tradition vs scripture is centered around what is necessary for salvation and for the Christian life.

The trust that God included all necessary direction in scripture is fundamental to the Christian life. Because the ECF’s coined the phrase ‘catholic’ does not necessarily mean Roman Catholic is the same. The church life of the ECF’s was different than the RCC today. Traditions and practices have been added that are not very well supported in scripture but are worship practices. These are the core of the debate not wedding tradition or other non-essential practices.

It is good to pray for others but not to take credit for the outcome - I’ll thank God for the good parking place!
 
This is an immature response. Having a wedding one way or another does not define salvation or being in Christ. The debate of tradition vs scripture is centered around what is necessary for salvation and for the Christian life.

The trust that God included all necessary direction in scripture is fundamental to the Christian life. Because the ECF’s coined the phrase ‘catholic’ does not necessarily mean Roman Catholic is the same. The church life of the ECF’s was different than the RCC today. Traditions and practices have been added that are not very well supported in scripture but are worship practices. These are the core of the debate not wedding tradition or other non-essential practices.

It is good to pray for others but not to take credit for the outcome - I’ll thank God for the good parking place!
So, if it’s that easy, in your opinion, “what is necessary for salvation and for the Christian life”?
 
This is an immature response. Having a wedding one way or another does not define salvation or being in Christ. The debate of tradition vs scripture is centered around what is necessary for salvation and for the Christian life.
Please tell us what’s “necessary for salvation”, and what verses tell you this. Book, chapter and verse, please.

And, after you provide us with this list, please tell us why the other verses in Scripture are, therefore, not necessary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top