According to Scripture (Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?)

Catholic Answers ^ | Tim Staples

[boatbums]

On the other hand, Roman Catholic doctrine most of the time cannot be logically deduced from the scripture at all. It stands simply upon the figment of an alleged Roman Catholic authority backed up through assertion instead of any actual evidence. Or it is backed up by myths and legends. They simply say, when they cannot defend their religion, that they have the right to make what they say the truth despite a lack of evidence. Outside of Catholics and deluded Protestants like this guy formerly was, who is going to find that line of argument persuasive?

The ONLY reason why FRoman Catholic Freepers continually post threads like this one (and this specific one has showed up here a number of times) is to assert that their church is superior to any other Christian churches and to place their leaders OVER God's inspired word. We can easily prove some of their dogmas are anti-scriptural and they know it, so the only recourse is to somehow try to prove the Scriptures are not the only source of truth for the Christian faith. That way, they can let go of reason and place their faith in their church - no matter how many ways it contradicts the Bible. Christians trust in Christ, not human leaders, and know that the rule of our faith can be found in the Holy Scriptures.

[boatbums]

Thanks for that link. I “favorited” it.

[boatbums]

Very well stated. Thank you for reposting it and to conservativegramma for stating it.

[NYer]

There is no “requires” in there. Whether they heard it taught by word or read it doesn’t mean it was two different teachings. It simply means that some heard it by word of mouth and others read it from scripture.

Paul "required" Tradition in accepting the testimony of Timothy which was orally transmitted.

No where in there does it indicate that there were two different teachings.

There are no contradictory teachings. If anything, some are more complete than others.

>>The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith.<< Say what? Chapter and verse please.

Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2).

Once again, you are returning to the circular argument. This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

[CynicalBear]

You still haven’t proven that what was taught “by word of mouth” was different than what was taught in scripture. You haven’t shown that the apostles taught something verbally that they didn’t put in writing. Until you do no credibility can be given to what the RCC teaches as “tradition” that isn’t found in scripture. It looks to me like the “tradition” the RCC foists on it’s followers is just the “teaching of man” and most of it originating in paganism.

[NYer]

You still haven’t proven that what was taught “by word of mouth” was different than what was taught in scripture.

Who ever said it was different? You are truly missing the point here. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).

Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

[boatbums]

Can’t zot the truth! Thanks.

[CynicalBear]

>> Who ever said it was different?<<

Well, if there is no difference than surely you can show from scripture the source for all of the RCC teachings. I would appreciate the scripture for the assumption of Mary first.

Actually I can’t even believe you had the audacity to post such a statement.

>> Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic.<<

Catholics really need to give that meme up. God also used an ass, Judas, Pharaohs, and many others in error or opposition to Him to accomplish His purposes.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic.”

Balaam’s ass brought him places. Balaam directed him.
From the ass’ point of view, he did the whole thing.
From Balaam’s point of view, he was in charge.
The ass didn’t brag.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“”canon of Tradition” by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles.”

That really is one of the problems. Much of it isn’t passed down from the apostles.

Many of these “traditions” don’t have any historical evidence during the time of the living apostles. As such, there is no unbroken chain.

Many don’t arise until centuries later. Much is either borrowed from cultic worship - like the use of incense, candles, vestments, etc. (according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) - or made up out of whole cloth.

Once declared as a “tradition”, from then on it is considered part of this canon.

None of those things are essential for saving faith. None of them are essential for making a Christian complete or mature.

Personally, I have no problem if someone wants to splash themselves with holy water - or whatever. Maybe is has some special, extra-Biblical, non-essential meaning to them. If so, great. As long as it does not directly contradict inspired Scripture, obscure the truths God inspired... have at it.

[presently no screen name]

Funny you forget that in Isaiah Abraham is also called the rock:

What?! What's funny is - your understanding of that Scripture. That is not what that Scripture says. Don't try to teach Christians about GOD'S WORD which is their final authority by what 'man' teaches you. It's like Catholic Comedy here reading what 'man' has taught their subjects. Stick w/your catechism that no one is interested in.

Jesus is The Rock - hear and obey or consider yourself disobedient to God!

[piusv]

My answer is that the answer to your question is found in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Just like some folks refuse to believe that the Bible is inspired by God, some folks refuse to believe that God gave the Catholic Church the authority to teach in matters of faith and morals.

Perhaps I was wrong to assume that you fit into the latter group, but your posts certainly lean that way at the very least. If you are truly open to this truth, far be it from me from keeping you from it....I think this will help to further answer your questions (and I think the section titled “How God Speaks to Us” will specifically help you with the topic at hand):

http://www.catholic.com/documents/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth

[piusv]

Moreover, they are either unable or prefer not to answer the question: "Who decided which books should be in the Canon of Scripture ... and ... by what authority did they make that determination?"

Still crickets.

[Iscool]

It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Why do you keep repeating this when we have shown you so many times that it is not true???

John clearly tells us there is nothing that the Catholic church can come up with whether it be by special revelation, or from a warning from the ghost of Mary, or a supposed infallible statement from some faker sitting on a fake throne that can add or take away from the requirements of salvation that you have read in the scriptures...

And John says, God knows they are going to lie to you and tell you the scripture will not be enough for your salvation so He had me write this down:

1Jn_5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Joh_20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Case closed...

[piusv]

James 1:4 illustrates the problem:

And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to 2 Timothy 3:16, then we would have to say that all we need is patience (steadfastness) to be perfected. We don’t need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, or anything else.

There has been no response to this part of Tim Staples' argument. He took one verse out of the Bible and by doing so it appears that all we really need is patience to make us "complete" and "perfect".

And....still some more....crickets. Just a repeat of 2Timothy 3:16.

[boatbums]

Memory palace techniques are not explained in the Bible ~ but the memnonic devices used to structure them are there. Those who have knowledge will understand.

Oh, I think the idea has always been there. For example:

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. (Psalm 119:11)

Tremble and do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent. (Psalm 4:4)

The law of their God is in their hearts; their feet do not slip. (Psalm 37:31)

I desire to do your will, my God; your law is within my heart. (Psalm 40:8)

Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1)

[presently no screen name]

I’ll read the Gospels from people who met and walked with Jesus first

They DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS in the flesh. Your lack of understanding is rated very high if you don't even know that!

Paul came later.

HE KNEW HIM 'in The Spirit' and was chosen to write over half of the NT! "For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

The Vatican/RCC is designed to keep the 'easily led' deceived and it shows with post after post.

[BlueDragon]

Still crickets.

That's because it's a specious question, and has been answered in sundry ways, many times around here.

The answers don't lead back to Rome per se...which is part of why it's specious, for that is the manner in which the leading questions are desired to apply, is it not?

[piusv]

Please do link/quote at least some of the many answers to that question. I’m new here. Perhaps I’ve missed them.

My guess is that none of the answers actually answer the question, but please do prove me wrong.

[verga]

Well since anyone is free to interpret scripture (according to you all), mine is just as valid.