God’s Tradition and Men’s Traditions: A Reply to Protestant Critics

Remnant Newspaper ^ | August 16, 2024 | Robert Lazu Kmita

[delchiante]

Keep the 3 days of Passover(14th), Unleavened Bread(15th), and First Fruits (16th) and you’ve kept Paul’s first importance of the gospel, a tradition in accordance with the scriptures..

[ebb tide]

Judas walked away from Jesus Christ after receiving His Body and Blood at the Last Supper.

If you want to compare yourself to Judas, so be it.

[philman_36]

If you want to compare yourself to Judas, so be it.

You're the one making the comparison, not me.

[ebb tide]

You both “walked away”.

[daniel1212]

“And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition (τὴν παράδοσιν) which they have received of us” (II Thessalonians 3:6). Thus, in an inspired text of Holy Scripture, ‘tradition’ is not only not condemned but, on the contrary, recommended to be respected and followed by the members of the first Christian community in Thessalonica. Clearly, the ‘tradition’ to which the apostle refers has nothing to do with the ‘traditions of men’ or ‘traditions of the elders’ mentioned in the passages cited earlier.

Which, consistent with the track record of such attacks, this polemic is also utterly invalid. For men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of which popes and councils claim to do.

"God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document...when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Thus, unless you want to impose new RC teaching, then it remains that the Scriptures alone are the sure, substantive wholly God-inspired assuredly infallible word of God.

And thus Scripture provided the *doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church.

Which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, with even the veracity of apostolic preaching being subject to examination by Scripture. For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15

And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture.(Acts 17:11)

“Should you make use of the Bible alone as the source and norm of your Faith, then you must also be certain that the Bible that you have is the genuine Bible. Who vouches for that?” It is impossible to accept the Biblical canon without someone with divine authority vouching for it.

Likewise this argument fails - as it did the last time you attempted it - with its premise being that an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God, or at least men are to concur with all the judgments of those who were the historical magisterial discerners and stewards of Holy Writ.

For as you were shown, rather than an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)

Holy Scripture itself shows us that it is impossible for someone to understand the revealed texts entirely on his own, without being guided by someone truly guided by the Holy Spirit.

SS is not contrary to the teaching office in the body of Christ, but at the least a properly disposed (by obeying the light one has) soul can be saved by reading a sermon such as in Acts 10:34-43, and long before there was Scripture or a church God always provided enough light for one to know God and find essential salvific Truth and be saved. Ps. 19:1-14).

Moreover, the damnable premise behind this RC argument here is that she is the sure salvific shepherd, yet distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

And the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Thus, following the premise of Catholicism that souls should submit to all the judgments of the historical magisterial discerners and stewards of Holy Writ, then 1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses as to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, thus nuking the church.

[philman_36]

You’re trying to walk away from your atrocious comment.

[skr]

That’s your prerogative, although I caution you about your judgment of other people’s souls. I am bound by the Word of God, not by Vatican II or any other Vatican-commissioned document.

[ebb tide]

Not at all.

I stand by my comment.

[philman_36]

I stand by my comment.

You have my pity, not my respect.

[daniel1212]

Moreover, since ebb tide persists (twice now in one week) in posting provocative prevaricating attacks on basic beliefs of conservative evangelicals (unless he imagines that liberal Prots are his target here), then should it be presumed that at least a couple articles per week exposing false major doctrines of Catholicism can be posted - per RM rules- without them crying to mods for censure? Not that such are actually needed, as every single one against Scriptural basic evangelical beliefs have been refuted, and at length, by the grace of God, and we are not compelled to defend a one true organic church as being an object of faith, but we are to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints," (Jude 3) which Catholics can only imagine is their faith.

We can begin with its false gospel.

[Big Red Badger]

“Brother” being The opererative word...

[ebb tide]

Go ahead, Daniel; go and pimp your blog.

Frankly, I see no difference between protestants and evangelicals.

[ebb tide]

“And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition (τὴν παράδοσιν) which they have received of us” (II Thessalonians 3:6). Thus, in an inspired text of Holy Scripture, ‘tradition’ is not only not condemned but, on the contrary, recommended to be respected and followed by the members of the first Christian community in Thessalonica. Clearly, the ‘tradition’ to which the apostle refers has nothing to do with the ‘traditions of men’ or ‘traditions of the elders’ mentioned in the passages cited earlier.

Which, consistent with the track record of such attacks, this polemic is also utterly invalid.

You consider that to be an attack, Daniel?

Aren't you the sensitive one.

[metmom]

“Should you make use of the Bible alone as the source and norm of your Faith, then you must also be certain that the Bible that you have is the genuine Bible. Who vouches for that?” It is impossible to accept the Biblical canon without someone with divine authority vouching for it.

What with the condition of the Catholic hierarchy throughout the ages and their immorality and corruption, the governing body of the Catholic religion is the last one I would trust to have discernment in spiritual matters.

Seeing as they don’t obey Scripture themselves, they cannot be trusted to give wise spiritual, Scripturally sound guidance to anyone.

[ebb tide]

Seeing as they don’t obey Scripture themselves, they cannot be trusted to give wise spiritual, Scripturally sound guidance to anyone.

It's not the Catholics who are disobeying John 20:23.

[daniel1212]

Frankly, I see no difference between protestants and evangelicals.

Considering what you want to see, vs. reality, which is akin to seeing no difference between V2 Novus Ordo Rcs and TradCaths as yourself.

[ebb tide]

I’m a Catholic. Period.

[daniel1212]

I’m a Catholic. Period.

Who is your living pope?

[Elsie]

A “true” Catholic would love his pope and pray for him and not bad-mouth him in front of the company.

[Elsie]

Here it is! In Holy Scripture itself, we have a crystal-clear instance where someone, reading a biblical text alone, acknowledges that it is not self-explanatory.

Glad to see you are relying on Scripture to make your point...

John 14:26  Douay-Rheims Bible
But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

 

 

 

Romans 15:4
 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.