Where Is That Taught in the Bible?

cna ^

[NYer]

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 Thessalonians 2:15

According to most Evangelicals, a Christian needs only to believe those teachings found in Scripture (a.k.a. the Bible). For these Christians, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative teaching Church. For them the Bible is sufficient for learning about the faith and living a Christian life. In order to be consistent, they claim that this "By Scripture Alone" (sola Scriptura) teaching is found in Scripture, especially St. Paul's Letters.

The passage most frequently used to support the Scripture-Alone belief is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. St. Paul writes:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect (complete, adequate, competent), equipped for every good work. [2 Tim. 3:16-17, RSV]

According to those that hold this belief, Scripture is sufficient since it is "profitable for teaching" and makes a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." On closer examination though, it becomes apparent that these verses still do not prove this teaching.

Verse 16 states a fundamental Christian doctrine. Scripture is "inspired by God" and "profitable for teaching" the faith. The Catholic Church teaches this doctrine (CCC 101-108). But this verse does not demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture in teaching the faith. As an example, vitamins are profitable, even necessary, for good health but not sufficient. If someone ate only vitamins, he would starve to death. Likewise, Sacred Scripture is very important in learning about the Christian faith, but it does not exclude Sacred Tradition or a teaching Church as other sources concerning the faith.

St. Paul in verse 17 states that Scripture can make a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." In this verse he is once again stressing the importance of Sacred Scripture. In similar fashion, the proverb, "practice makes perfect," stresses the importance of practice but does not imply that practice alone is sufficient in mastering a skill. Practice is very important, but it presumes a basic know-how. In sports, practice presupposes basic knowledge of the game rules, aptitude and good health. Elsewhere in Scripture, "steadfastness" is said to make a Christian "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." [James 1:4] Even though the language (both English and Greek) in this verse is stronger, no one claims that steadfastness alone is enough for Christian growth. Faith, prayer and God's grace are also needed. Likewise in verse 17, St. Paul presumes God's grace, Timothy's faith and Sacred Tradition (2 Tim. 3:14-15).

Verses 16-17 must be read in context. Only two verses earlier, St. Paul also writes:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it... [2 Tim. 3:14]

Here St. Paul suggests Tradition. Notice that Paul did not write, "knowing from which Scripture passage you learned it" but instead he writes, "knowing from whom you learned it." He is implying with the "whom" himself and the other Apostles. Earlier in the same letter, St. Paul actually defines and commands Apostolic Tradition - "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." [2 Tim. 2:2] Also if St. Paul were truly teaching the sufficiency of Scripture, verse 15 would have been a golden opportunity to list the Books of Scripture, or at least give the "official" Table of Content for the Old Testament. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition:

...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings (a.k.a. Scripture) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [2 Tim. 3:15, RSV]

Even though profitable in instructing for salvation (but not sufficient), St. Paul still does not list which Books. He also does not suggest personal taste or opinion as Timothy's guide. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition to define the contents of Scripture. Verses 14-15 show that verses 16-17 presuppose Tradition.

Verse 15 brings up the problem of canonicity, i.e. which Books belong in Scripture? Through the centuries the Books of Scripture were written independently along with other religious books. There were smaller collections of Books, e.g. The Books of Moses (Torah), that were used in Synagogues. The largest collection was the Greek Septuagint which the New Testament writers most often cited. St. Paul in verse 15 probably referred to the Septuagint as Scripture. Only after the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century A.D. were all of the Books of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) compiled together under one cover to form "the Bible." Already in Jesus' time, the question of which Books are Scripture, was hotly debated. As an example, Esther and the Song of Solomon were not accepted by all as Scripture during Jesus' day. The source of the problem is that no where in the Sacred Writings are the Books completely and clearly listed. Sacred Scripture does not define its contents. St. Paul could have eliminated the problem of canonicity by listing the Books of Scripture (at least the Old Testament) in his Letters, but did not. Instead the Church had to discern with the aid of Sacred Tradition (CCC 120). Canonicity is a major problem for the Scripture-Alone teaching.

As a final point, verse 15 suggests only the Old Testament as Scripture since the New Testament was written after Timothy's childhood. Taken in context, verses 16-17 apply only to the Old Testament. "All Scripture" simply means all of the Old Testament. If verses 16-17 were to prove that Scripture is enough for Christians, then verse 15 would prove that the Old Testament is enough!
Some Christians may cite 1 Corthinians 4:6 as more proof for the Scripture-Alone belief:

I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favour of one against another. [1 Cor. 4:6, RSV]

This verse does not condemn Sacred Tradition but warns against reading-between-the-lines in Scripture. The Corinthians had a problem of reading more into the Scripture text than what was actually there. The main question with this verse is which Sacred Writings are being referred to here? Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it may refer only to earlier cited Old Testament passages (1 Cor. 1:19, 31; 2:9 & 3:19-20) and not the entire Old Testament. Calvin thought that Paul may also be referring to the Epistle Itself. The present tense of the clause, "beyond what is written" excludes parts of the New Testament, since the New Testament was not completely written then. This causes a serious problem for the Scripture-Alone belief and Christians.

Bible verses can be found that show the importance of Sacred Scripture but not Its sufficiency or contents. There are Bible verses that also promote Sacred Tradition. In Mark 7:5-13 (Matt. 15:1-9), Jesus does not condemn all traditions but only those corrupted by the Pharisees. Although 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not directly call Sacred Tradition the word of God, it does show some form of teachings "by word of mouth" beside Scripture and puts them on the same par as Paul's Letters. Elsewhere the preaching of the Apostles is called the "word of God" (Acts 4:31; 17:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 13:7). The Scripture-Alone theory must assume that the Apostles eventually wrote all of these oral teachings in the New Testament. At least for St. John, this does not seem to be the case (John 21:25; 2 John 12 & 3 John 13-14). Also no Apostle listed in the New Testament which Books belong in Scripture. Now these oral teachings were eventually written down elsewhere to preserve their accuracy, e.g. St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, written 96 A.D. (Phil. 4:3) or St. Ignatius' seven letters written 107 A.D. Clement's letter is found in the Codex Alexandrinus (an ancient Bible manuscript) and was even considered by some early Christians to be part of Scripture.

Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the word of God, while the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." [1 Tim. 3:15] The Holy Spirit through the Church protects Both from corruption. Some Christians may claim that doctrines on Mary are not found in the Bible, but the Scripture-Alone teaching is not found in the Bible. Promoters of Scripture-Alone have a consistency problem, since this is one teaching not found in Scripture.

[ADSUM]

The two words, “salvation” and “being saved” in the New Testament are the words, soterion, a noun (denoting deliverance, preservation, salvation), and, sozo, a verb (denoting to save).

Both words have a number of meanings, determined by the varying contexts in which the words are used.

In a first and basic sense, the word “salvation” virtually stands for Jesus Christ, Savior, by whose act of salvation, we are saved.

Lk 2:28,30-31
He (Simeon) took him into his arms and blessed God, saying: ... for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you prepared in sight of all the peoples,
Lk 19:9-10
And Jesus said to him (Zacchaeus), “Today salvation has come to this house ...”
Jn 4:21-22
Jesus said to her (the Samaritan woman), “... because salvation is from the Jews.”
Acts 4:11-12
He (Jesus) is “the stone rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.” There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved.
In a second sense, the words, “salvation” and “being saved,” are also used of the present experience, God’s power to deliver from the bondage of sin.

1 Cor 15:2
Through it (the gospel) you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
Heb 7:25
Therefore, he (Jesus) is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them.
Phil 2:12
So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
1 Pet 1:8-9
Although you have not seen him you love him; even though you do not see him now yet believe in him, you rejoice with an indescribable and glorious joy, as you attain the goal of (your) faith, the salvation of your souls.
2 Tim 3:15
... and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Heb 2:3
how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?
In a third sense, “salvation” and “being saved” are also used for the future deliverance of believers at the Second Coming of Christ. This salvation is the object of the confident hope of the saints.

Rom 5:9
How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.
Rom 13:11
And do this because you know the time; it is the hour now for you to awake from sleep. For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed;
1 Thess 5:8-9
But since we are of the day, let us be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love and the helmet that is hope for salvation. For God did not destine us for wrath, but to gain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

[terycarl]

If you don’t know, and are not allowed to know by your religions dogma, you might want to examine the claims of Christ instead of the claims of your religions dogma.

so let’s see now, I am 16 years old, proclaim that Jesus is my savior and that I am SAVED “halleluia” That pretty much sums my responsibility for salvation. From this point on I can pretty much live my life as I please....WOW!!!bring on the girls and booze!! life is good. I thought that I read somewhere in James that faith, without corresponding works, was meaningless. I can’t believe that people can really believe that all you have to do to accept Christ’s gift of salvation, is acknowledge Him. I realize that He pretty much paved the way, But I remember such things as many are called but few are chosen, or reminders that the road was narrow.....doesn’t sound like a freebie to me.....I think you need to do more than just read the book......reading a book about stars does not make you an astronomer.....how about listining to the church that has been here continuously for 2,000 years, the Catholic church. She makes few mistakes overall and never errs in matters of faith and morals....Jesus promised that He’d not allow it...I’ll take His word for it.

[roamer_1]

I have no idea what YHvH is

MAYBE you should find out.

[Mr Rogers]

“But there are parts of the revelation that are later conciliar teaching, absolutely, such as perpetual virginity of Mary or the wrongfullness of abortion, that do not directly derive from the scripture.”

8Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. - 2 John

26Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears. - Acts 20

[boatbums]

Thanks for the non-slap. So you are saying:

DOGMA - Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. they are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation.

DOCTRINE - Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. this teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church's magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.

So, dogma is doctrine and doctrine is dogma. Was I right in my use of "dogma" or not? It seems these definition are using them interchangeably. Am I being thick again?

[JLLH]

Not a problem! I would love to hear how you came to know the Lord, though. I don’t know many Messianic Jews. (Although the Southern Baptist pastor at the church my husband and I used to attend was one! He gave so many great insights into the OT and everyone loved him and we were all sorry when he decided to return to his old church.)

[terycarl]

Who predestined Luke to record the ‘appointed’ time. It sure did not come out of some man made up tradition. Luke lays out with specificity that appointed time. I cannot express to you the amazement of reading the word ‘meaningless’... The Bible is the HIS-story from Genesis to Revelation, and whether people like it or not they will in this life learn what it tells or else they will have a ‘day’ of primer lessons at the end of this flesh age.

Wow, welcome into your place to exchange gifts etc sometime in September...When you look around your neighborhood, you might be surprised to note that there are no other nativity decorations to be seen. I didn’t say when Christ was born, I said we celebrate it on Dec. 25 and I really don’t think that Jesus cares one way or another

[ADSUM]

Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts—sight, taste, smell, touch—do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! “Transubstantiation” merely labels it.

According to a Polish blog, the Metropolitan Curia of Bialystok has announced the results of the investigation of an Ecclesial Commission appointed by Archbishop Edward Ozorowski on March 30, 2009. The original post (in Polish) can be found here.
http://breviarium.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-miracle-in-sokolka-curia.html

Father Andrzej Kakareko, Chancellor, writes that on October 12, 2008, a consecrated Host fell out of the hands of the priest distributing Holy Communion. The priest had it picked up and placed in the vasculum in the Tabernacle. After Mass, the vasculum and its contents were transferred to the safe in the sacristy.

Seven days later, after opening the safe, a red stain was seen on the Host. Ten days afer that, the vessel with the Host was transferred to the Tabernacle in the chapel of the rectory. The next day, the Host was removed from the water and placed on the corporal in the Tabernacle.

On January 7, 2009 a sample from the host was sent to the University in Bialystok for analysis. According to two medical professionals, professor Maria Sobaniec-Lotowska and professor Stanislaw Sulkowski, the sample, in their opinion, most resembled the myocardial (heart) tissue of a living organism.

As part of its investigation, the Commission interviewed witnesses and pathomorphology experts. The Commission determined that there was no third-party intervention. The case has been forwarded to the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw.

Perhaps the most famous and well-known, is the Miracle of Lanciano, which occurred about 750 A.D

[annalex]

Well, what Luther changed in his German translation -- and it was later expunged -- had nothing to do with that particular error. Luther inserted "allein", "alone", so that Romans 3:28 would read

For we account a man to be justified by faith cough cough alone cough cough, without the works of the law.

I just wanted to see what Bodleian_Girl is basing her theory on: people who are saved know that they are saved. Maybe there is something similar in the scripture, it just doesn't ring the bell presently.

I can post a dozen places where the scripture seems to contradict that, but firstly it would be nice to see the case for it.

[Natural Law]

"Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers."

Thank you.

[annalex]

Yes, these passages sure warn against false teaching. The “reformers” should really read them twice. Any reason you, a reformer, bring this up?

[annalex]

The original question was scriptural support, and of course there is plenty. I would suggest the inambiguous words of the Institution, repeated and clarified by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11, as well as the episode with recognizing Christ in the bread on the road to Emmaus.

You are absolutely right though: the continuing life of the Church and the continuing Eucharistic miracles attest to the miracle of the Transubstantiation.

Glory be to God, from Whom all good things come.

[count-your-change]

Paul said at Gal. 4:21-31 that “the Jerusalem above is free and she is our mother”, not Mary. The woman described in Rev. therefore is not Mary.
At Matt. 12:46-50 Jesus gave no special position to Mary but described as “mother” and brother and sister those who did God's will. Hence when entrusting her care to John at John 19, Jesus knew John would treat Mary as a son would a mother.
Indeed the Greek word “idia” means “own” but the subject is determined by the context as in the other places where this word is used. Own home/house is understood by most translators to be the meaning of “idia” here.

Remaining unmarried was voluntary and whether laid down as a rule, discipline or what have you, no one had authority to require it of those serving, in fact such requirements not authorized by the Scriptures marked a departure from the faith no matter how convenient. (1 Tim 4:1-3)

But the Bible does mention a “Queen of Heaven” at Jer. 7:18.

[annalex]

dogma is doctrine and doctrine is dogma

The post #120 should not allow a reasonable person to conclude so. Examples of doctrines which are not dogmas are given in the definitions themselves: "theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception)" -- these would be doctrines but they, not being formally revealed by God, are not dogmas.

I don't think it matters greatly in a fast-moving discussion, but since you ask, there is a difference.

[Just mythoughts]

Wow, welcome into your place to exchange gifts etc sometime in September...When you look around your neighborhood, you might be surprised to note that there are no other nativity decorations to be seen. I didn’t say when Christ was born, I said we celebrate it on Dec. 25 and I really don’t think that Jesus cares one way or another

I guess I could say that word meaningless about what I do or do not do when it come to what was predestined and foretold. IF as is described by Luke, the unborn in the womb at 6 months, John, recognized the 'Soul' and 'Spirit' of Emmanuel - (means God with us), within the body of Mary as she came to tell the 'good news' to her relative Elizabeth... is called by some the nativity then oh well.

See now what others do and claim really is immaterial when all is said and done given Christ Himself said I have foretold you all things. But for some reason Luke was inspired to give enough specificity regarding the 'date' of the conception for those who were of the will to look can with enough certainty for the 'record' get at least a grasp of that thing about seasons, signs, etc. of appointed events.

[annalex]

Yeah, right. The mother of Christ is not Mary because Jerusalem is our mother. Makes a lot of sense.

In Gal 4:21-31 an allegory is drawn between Sarah and Agar, the former being freedom, the latter bondage. St. Paul was not telling the Galatians who their mother is.

This is a good time to recall that the issue really is twisting the scripture rather than reading it. I have the words of Christ, spoken with great economy: “behold your mother, — behold your son”. And then I have the woman described as mother of Christ and of His followers, wearing a crown in heaven. Direct, plain language. You are trying to tell me that my mother is Jerusalem, because St. Paul used a geographical metaphor in an argument about circumcision. Keep them coming,please.

No, “ta idia” does not mean “home”. For one thing, it is plural (”ta”, duh). The translations that insert “home” where there is none either try to make an obscure expression make everyday sense, or simply obfuscate the scripture.

A priest today is free to enter the Church in any of her Oriental rites if he is married (once) and does not wish to become a bishop, and is comfortable with the idea that should his wife pre-decease him, he will stay unmarried. This is why it is a requirement that does not depart from the ancient practices.

That some people worshiped a false Queen of Heaven does not mean there is not a true one for our veneration.

Bu tthe question was not even if you might find ways to interpret the scripture differently. I am sure you can: this is why you are a Protestant, — someone who forms his beliefs in protest against the true ones. You stated that the Catholic doctrines are opposed to the scripture, did you not? Or, you joined another who stated that. I showed you how they are not contrary to the scripture. I did not intend to show how they are not contrary to your ideas about the meaning of the relevant scripture. I was fairly sure that your ideas about the relevant scripture are probably fanciful and wrong, and now I know that.

If you have further questons, I will get to them tomorrow.

[roamer_1]

It was once a pagan Germanic holiday. The Germans were never Babylonians. Some poorly educated people confuse Ishtar with Easter because they’re too stupid to realize there is no connection between the medieval Germans and the ancient peoples of the Near East.

Not true. Read Jerome. Read Periplus (Sylax, c.500 BC)

Trier, Germany finds it's fabled founder in Trebeta, son of Ninus (Nimrod, king of Babylon). The Guti (Goths) were kin to the Assyrians, and the Indo-Germanic tongue finds it's roots among the Hatti (High caste of Assyria).

The OEstar (Ishtar, Semiramis (wife of Nimrod) celebration can easily be found to have traveled to Germany in the earliest of times, not to mention later...

No, actually the idea of celibate priests comes from Christ and St. Paul. Celibacy was also occasionally practiced by other ancient Jews when they were called to serve the Lord:

Whether your take on it is true or not, UriÂ’el-2012 is correct about celibate/eunuch priests being founded in the Babylon Mystery religion. The references you point to are of Hebrew traditions - the very same traditions that Christ abhorred - probably deriving from the Babylonian captivity, where Babylon's Mystery Religion infected the Hebrew truth. It is *not* Torah.

Nope. The title is from Roman paganism. The Romans were not Babylonian and never even conquered Babylonian territory. The Romans possessed the title and office long before they had left the confines of Central Italy. Hundreds of years into the Christian era the title was given to the pope.

Again, UriÂ’el-2012 is right in this (at least partly, as he stopped at Pergamum) - Both Pontifex Maximus and Pater Patrum come directly from Pergamum - Titles of Pergamum's priest-kings... princes and a priesthood that fled to Pergamum on the heels of Cyrus conquering Babylon. Attalus III, the last Babylonian king of Pergamum willed his kingdom to the Roman Caesar, and thus Nimrod's (and Satan's) throne moved from Babylon to Pergamum, and from there to Rome.

You are correct that there was a Pontifex Maximus in Rome too, though... It is the position of "Chief Pontiff (Bishop)" in the Mystery Religion, and no doubt Rome, as the chief city of Rome, would have had a Chief Pontiff over Rome (the country) going back into the ages.

But UriÂ’el-2012 is more correct, that the "High Chief Pontiff", the Pater Patrum, was in Pergamum, and before that in Babylon. It was Julius Caesar AFAIR, (elected first as Pontifex Maximus) who vested the priest-king titles in perpetuity upon the emperors of Rome, wherein it became an automatic title.

Hundreds of years into the Christian era the title was given to the pope.

Yes, that is true - But the Roman church was already sitting on Vatican Hill - Thus Satan's seat didn't need to move an inch. :D

Nope. The name tells tou what it is = Christ’s Mass.

Again, UriÂ’el-2012 is right. Christmas is a perfect re-enactment of the celebration of Tammuz, which fell on the eve of the 3rd day past the winter solstice. Look it up - the parallels are undeniable - Even as the pagan roots of Easter.

*none* of this was God ordained, and in a haste to make converts, power, and the blessings of the Emperor, The church of Rome has wholly neglected the Holy things of Jehovah - To include His Sabbath, founded upon the last day of Creation. *None* of the High Holy Days of Jehovah, *HIS appointed times*, are found in Rome (or in Protestantism, to be sure).

[boatbums]

Not to drag on here, but I don't think I was being unreasonable when I said the definitions provided were not distinct. It was quoted to me that:

DOGMA - Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation.

and

DOCTRINE - Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.

Does ANYONE else read this as saying the two are the same? Dogma is doctrine by divine revelation. Doctrine is dogma reveal by God. What is the difference??? Perhaps a better source should be used for the "official" definition because this sure doesn't do it.

Either way the Catholic Church has used its authority to demand adherence to whatever is declared doctrine/dogma by whatever method, by whoever is in the Magesteria office at the time, regardless of Scriptural confirmation.

[Belteshazzar]

Gee, another thread about the need of Christians for more teaching authority than is to be found in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. One might be tempted to think that there is an agenda being put forth by a tag team of apologists.

All efforts to discuss reasonably this matter with them will eventually be out-shouted by them. They will point to the so-called “oral tradition” or “oral teaching” that was supposedly given to the church (here, of course, read Roman Catholic). It goes something like this: What the Scriptures say, while inspired by God and inerrant, is not necessarily complete. That is the RC argument in a nutshell. In support of this certain passages are cited that speak of oral teaching and the handing on of certain traditions as if this meant something other than the oral teaching that of necessity preceded the writing of the New Testament Scriptures or, thereafter, that which naturally accompanied the Holy Scriptures as the duty to which the apostles and their successors were called to by Christ Himself, Matthew 28:18-20. Clearly, the approved teachers, beginning with the twelve, were to go out into the world and make disciples by baptizing and teaching. They in turn were to train up a new generation of teachers/pastors/bishops/elders (call them what you will, Scripture has many names/aspects for this calling), and so on.

In the stead of this simple, contextually clear reading of the various New Testament texts that speak of traditions and oral instruction, the idea is put forth that there is other important, nay, indispensable, material never committed to writing in the time of the apostles that, nevertheless, was passed on in the apostolic succession and only in the course of time revealed as needed by the teaching authority of the church headed by the successor of Peter, i.e., the Roman Pontiff and believed by those who recognize his authority even though they are not as directly under his thumb, e.g., the Greek Catholics of eastern Europe or the Melchite Catholics of the Near East. This is the agenda.

Think of it this way: The Jews have the Tanakh (the written word of God, recorded between c. 1400 and c. 400 B.C.) and the Mishnah together with its supplementary Tosephta (the oral word of God not written down until the time of the Tannaim (roughly 70-200 A.D.). In practice, as the various commentaries and expansions of Tanakh and, especially, Mishnah/Tosephta appear through the centuries, the Tanakh itself (which really is just an acronym for Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim (the Law (though better translated, the Teaching), the Prophets and the Writings) suffers and is more or less supplanted in authority by the so-called “oral word of God,” the Mishnah. In other words, the traditions become the tail that wags the dog.

The same thing happened with the Qur’an, the supposed word of God given to Muhammad and immediately written down. It too was and still is supplemented by the ahadith, which are basically oral traditions passed on by those who knew and heard Muhammad, and written down only later.

In all these cases, the later so-called oral word or, we could even say, somewhat confusingly, the “oral Scriptures,” in time come to be the lens through which the earlier written Scriptures (yes, I know, redundant) are understood and interpreted.

It was precisely against such well known and well understood practices by the Roman Church, mirrored in the practice of the other so-called religions of the “Book,” Judaism and Islam, that the term SOLA SCRIPTURA arose and, more importantly, the practice of relying on Scripture alone as the final and only authority on all doctrinal matters of Christendom became the watchword of the Reformation of the Catholic (universal) Church.

Where much of the Reformation went off the rails was in connection with the other so-called reformers, properly, the radical reformers (the Reformation associated with Luther was a conservative one). The radical reformers threw out church tradition and understanding completely, as if God had not spoken to every generation through the Scriptures, as if God had not spoken clearly to earlier generations, as if the church of Christ had somehow disappeared at times, even though her Lord said she would never fail, even as she stood before the very gates of hell. So, instead of the twin authorities of Scripture and tradition that Rome was always struggling to reconcile, usually at the expense of Scripture, the radical reformers ended up employing the twin authorities of Scripture and human reason/experience (depending on which branch of the reformed you are talking about). Alas, here too human reason and/or human experience tends to trump the authority of the Holy Scriptures.

In a nutshell, Romanist and Reformed are like two sides of the same coin. The twin authorities are the written word, Holy Scripture, and human judgment, either through time, Rome, or contemporaneous, the Reformed. Or put it another way, human understanding as the second authority is a top down, hierarchical authority for the Romanist, but a bottom up, individual authority for the Reformed (hence why you have apparent, and it is only apparent, unity in the former, and chaotic multiplicity in the latter).

The Lutherans (confessional Lutherans) insist that the Scriptures interpret themselves. That is to say, that God’s word is the final, clearest, and only authoritative commentary on itself. It trumps all human judgment and understanding, whether of the past (tradition) or of the present (reason/experience/emotion).

I for one will rely on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament alone, but without disregarding the teachers and traditions that have come to us, for they, our fathers in the faith, are to be honored (simple 4th Commandment duty) and listened to, unless they contradict the written word.

sola gratia
sola fide
sola scriptura
and solus Christus

[boatbums]

I teensy bit more fuel to the fire. The “sign of the cross” was orginally the “sign of Tammuz” a “T” traced from forehead to chest to shoulder to shoulder. Note it is four stops, not three to designate the trinity. The name Holy Spirit is broken up into two words and should not be. Just another pagan custom added to the church back then.