Replies

"No one said Scripture was not given by God, nor did anyone say that it was not useful for teaching and correction."

From a Christian's perspective using the word "useful" is a big red flag saying telling us stay away from this group.

You have created institutions (Magisterium) whom you claim have the final word on how to understand SCRIPTURE. You place oral tradition as equal to SCRIPTURE, even though oral tradition is suspect at best for its veracity. You claim "ownership" of the SCRIPTURES, as though they did not become INSPIRED until you said so.

As a Christian the only sure source of TRUTH is the SCRIPTURES. The Apostles who walked the earth with the LORD and were taught at his feet are gone. However, their WRITTEN teachings are left for us so we can have a right relationship with the LORD.

The SCRIPTURES are more than "useful".

"From a Christian's perspective using the word "useful" is a big red flag saying telling us stay away from this group."

Not at all, wmfights, we recognize that Scriptures to be Inspired by God, useful, and profitable. Saying that Scripture is useful does not exclude these other meanings.

"You have created institutions (Magisterium) whom you claim have the final word on how to understand SCRIPTURE."

The Magesterium is not an institution, it is the authority of the Church to teach correct doctrine and condemn error. We didn't create the Magesterium, Jesus did.

"You place oral tradition as equal to SCRIPTURE, even though oral tradition is suspect at best for its veracity."

Our traditions do not contradict Scripture in the least bit. By tradition, we are talking about the Historical understanding of Christianity, this includes the faith handed down by Jesus Christ through the Apostles, to the Church. This also includes important traditions from after the time of Christ, such as the understanding that the New Testament is is Inspired, and the understanding of which books do and do not belong in the Bible. (This is not something determined by the individual, but rather by the Church.) Also, there is a large body of written records which document what Christians believed and how they interpreted the Scriptures in the 1st,2nd, 3rd century. We have written documents from men who were taught by the Apostles over periods of decades. Those writings are called the writing's of the early Church Fathers.

"You claim "ownership" of the SCRIPTURES, as though they did not become INSPIRED until you said so.'

Not at all, the point of saying that the Scriptures were written within the Church, canonized by the Church and preserved within the Church is to point out the appropriate relationship between the Scripture and the Church. The two go together.

"As a Christian the only sure source of TRUTH is the SCRIPTURES.

That's incorrect.

"The Apostles who walked the earth with the LORD and were taught at his feet are gone. However, their WRITTEN teachings are left for us so we can have a right relationship with the LORD."

Yes, that is true. They also left us successors who retained a correct understanding of what authentic Apostolic Christianity is.

"The SCRIPTURES are more than "useful""

Certainly, they are vital.

From a Christian's perspective using the word "useful" is a big red flag saying telling us stay away from this group.

Really? You sure seem to have a lot of paranoia about a mere 6 letter word. However, granting that other words such as "profitable" are used (depending on translation) in "useful's" place, I will have to ask you why you have such an aversion to God's word? God's word itself says that Scripture is "profitable" or "useful" as a teaching tool and as a way to help a man to become more perfect. Do you disagree?

The SCRIPTURES are more than "useful".

But are they "sufficient"? Because my Bibles (NIV and NAB) sure don't seem to say that they are sufficient anywhere. Again, please tell me what I am missing in that verse from Paul's letter to Timothy that says Scripture is sufficient.

PS - I would also like to correct you again. You seem to use the word "Christian" as a term mutually exclusive from the term "Catholic". I ask you to please recognize again that Catholics are indeed Christians. More accurate terms you could use to differentiate between us include "Catholic Christian" or "Protestant Christian" or "Orthodox Christian".

You place oral tradition as equal to SCRIPTURE, even though oral tradition is suspect at best for its veracity.

As Jaded said in post #1683: "Paul did not learn at the feet of Jesus Christ. Paul himself said "what I have taught you by word of mouth or by letter." Word is tradition. Letter became Scripture"

Do you agree with that, or do you think the letters of St. Paul are not scripture and thereby agree with OLD Reggie in post # 1611 "It is refreshing that you recognize Paul frequently speaks for himself and himself only. Please advise some of your compatriots that I am not a bitter "ex" or anything like that when I say that not all of Paul's writings are "Commandments of God"."