Posted on 10/26/2013 6:56:10 AM PDT by NYer
There are 38 questions + a few bonus questions. I have split them into two separate posts of 20 and 18 + bonus questions. Are you ready?
1. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2. Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
3. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
4. Some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:813). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2)?
5. Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)?
(And why does the Protestant NIV change the word “tradition” to “teaching”?)
6. If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?
7. Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?
8. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?
9. On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?
10. Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)
11. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?
12. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first- century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us as Scripture 2000 years later?
13. Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?
14. Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?
15. If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?
16. If the meaning of the Bible is so clear—so easily interpreted—and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it for themselves, then why are there over 33,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?
17. Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?
18. Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?
19. Protestants usually claim that they all agree “on the important things.” Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?
20. How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?
**Oral tradition is difficult to pass on exactly; **
Another mistake.
Not after that oral tradition was referenced by the Book of John and the Letters of John and written down by the Early Church Fathers who KNEW the apostles.
Ever think about that? That they got their information first hand from the apostles?
Catholics do not hate the Bible.
Why do you say this?
Every religion has “questions that they can’t answer” ...
John also says that it is not all written down.
Where is the word, Trinity, in the Bible? Thank you for proving the value of Holy Tradition.
Because without vilifying fellow Christians by inventing, then assigning, beliefs to them, certain groups can’t feel better about themselves. It’s usually the work of some preacher boy taking the shortest, vilest route to popularity.
Um, no, actually it doesn't. It says he will build a congregation... an assembly... a discipleship.
Despite fanciful fictional claims to the contrary, only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can possibly be traced back to the Church scripture says Christ built. If you say that Church fell into error, you make of Christ an impotent liar.
No, in fact, the spirit of antichrist was moving in the Church in John's day... And Yexhua said (I am paraphrasing here) that His Church would be found on the other end of the sword from all y'all. The remnant is always hard to see until it's time.
And thus you see no usefulness and/or reject of any and/or all writings of followers of Jesus, other than what was agreed to in the Councils of Nicaea as the writings to be declared “the New Testament?”
2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “. . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Same here. The Bible directs us to oral teachings
3) 2 Thessalonians 3:6: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” Oral teachings are the norm.
4) 1 Corinthians 15:1-3: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received.” Again — Paul in writing refers to an oral teaching as authoritative and calls the people to follow it.
5) 1 Thessalonians 2:13: “. . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received {it} not {as} the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.” Oral teaching from the apostles is the equivalent of the word of God.
Get back to me when you can cite any specific content of that unwritten Apostolic tradition that differs from that which was written. You might have a meaningful point then.
The authors of the article have been confronted in debates with the fact that no Christian denies that the Gospel was at first preached and transmitted orally, so their questions in this article amount to mindless repetition of a straw man argument. Since the authors of the article were themselves participants in debates on this subject they have knowledge of the answers that were given and cannot claim ignorance of those answers. The title of this article is therefore a lie. The questions have been answered; they just don't like the answers. If they had any integrity they would at least acknowledge the answers and explain exactly why they think those answers were incorrect. They don't. This piece is nothing but mindless propaganda, to put it mildly.
Reflexively auto-importing current Romanist Tradition anachronistically back into the New Testament era every time you see the word, 'tradition' in the New Testament doesn't pass for logical reasoning or persuasion.
Cordially,
All of those churches planted by the Apostles were independent of each other from everything I can find.
“Walking in darkness means being overly pleased with ourselves, believing that we do not need salvation. That is darkness! When we continue on this road of darkness, it is not easy to turn back. ~Pope Francis
Steve Ray is not an attorney.
...he just plays one on the internets.
Armchair attorney...lol
Many many online conversations about the bible with Catholics that always lead to said Catholics attacking people who read and believe bible.
The belief in things about Mary, the pope, the priesthood, salvation, etc that are opposed to the bible.
But thanks for asking.
Speaking if fanciful fictions ....
Your definition of Church does not correspond to that of the early Christians.
**The belief in things about Mary, the pope, the priesthood, salvation, etc that are opposed to the bible. **
These are false assumptions. Please get the truth.
Where are you getting your information? From a pamphlet? From a preacher (non-Catholic) who hates Catholicism.
Source and specific references, please.
Not true. They worked together. Paul’s letters prove that.
All you have to do is check on the Councils held from the Council of Jerusalem onward.
I do, from the bible. Searching the scriptures daily shows very clearly what is not true, who Mary is not, who the Pope is not and what has become of the priesthood.
Paul’s letters, the ones that say don’t ask me what to do, look to scripture?
He didn't.
However, where there's conflict between a principle in the Bible and some kind of tradition, the Word of God takes authority.
Funny how so many Catholics are so weak in holding up the Bible as the Word of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.