Posted on 01/28/2014 7:27:17 PM PST by NKP_Vet
"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
How can the Catholic Church not finish the Bible when you just said the the Catholic Church never wrote anything down?
Can't have it both ways.
The Holy Spirit "took all those years off"? He took them off as ERASED them or went on vacation? I'm not sure which you mean. Not being sarcastic, just asking a question.
When did or begin to mean and?
Alter call? Rapture?
Naturally, non-Catholics cannot accept that the Catholic Church represents Christ in this world, so they are forced to look for a personal earthly reign somewhere out in the future. The notion that Jesus will come, reign, and then depart, so that the devil can trick the world again, is incompatible with the incomprehensible dignity of the Lord and His love for His people. Jesus’ Coming will be definitive, triumphant and ever-lasting, NOT temporal and limited.
Read Paul. He didn’t mince his words.
A key question, as in reality, not only is the veracity of RC doctrines not determined by the weight of Scriptural warrant, and in fact they do not necessary need actual evidence, but while they must not contradict Scripture, this is determined according to Rome, who has interpreted, or decreed, herself as being (conditionally) infallible so that she cannot be wrong under that condition.
RCs will argue that without an infallible magisterium there will be divisions, which is correct, but the questions are, is an infallible mag. Scripturally necessary for assurance of Truth, thus what it rejects is to be rejected? And is this the means of a superior unity? And what is the basis for Rome's claim to be that infallible magisterium?
As long as sufficiency as “rule of faith” is understood as being not simply formally sufficient, so that one may read such a text as Acts 10:36-43 and be born again, but materially sufficiency, providing, sanctioning even the use of reason and the Holy Spirit by which we understand Scripture, and the teaching office, etc. And i would add, Scripture alone is the wholly inspired objective body of Truth on earth, this assured Word of God alone is the supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims.
Also, "All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source," means uniquely in its completeness.
See this from 2 days ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3115093/posts?page=946#946
The apostles did orally preach the inspired Word of God, (1Thes. 2:13) and the whole church went everywhere "preaching the Word," (Acts 8:4) as do evangelicals, that of Scripture truths, but Scripture was and is to be the standard for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims, (Acts 17:11) as is abundantly evidenced . Moreover, what the apostles preached as Tradition was not some ancient stories such as the Assumption Of Mary that is lacks in early evidence, but such were known truths recently taught, which could be written, as was the norm for that which is called the "word of God/the Lord.
And in contrast, there is zero evidence these were not subsequently penned. Nor can Catholics tell us what any of these oral traditions were, without essentially presuming to be like the apostles and inspired writers.
Tradition must agree with the scripture, and the scripture cannot be broken
But this conflation is asserted by Rome under the premise that she cannot be wrong in any conflict, for she has interpreted herself to perpetually possess assured veracity when speaking authoritatively. Which is cultic, not Christian.
Good question. If you ever get an answer, let me know.
No replies yet, no surprises yet, so i will let a couple RCs answer it who have much more weight. Referring to RCs,
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority ."
“He willingly submits his judgment on questions the most momentous that can occupy the mind of man-----questions of religion-----to an authority located in Rome.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit... — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm) .
You're absolutely correct.
Can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to have it both ways. The Bible, the writings of the ECF, all were available to Luther since he could read. Time on the earth means nothing when there is a record of the events. The excesses that Luther wrote about were manifest. Searching the history, show this wasn't always the case. Scripture, at that time written for over ten centuries, showed the Church had veered off track doctrinally, the abuses of what the church was doing at the time were not taken seriously by the Vatican. Whether it was a case of benign neglect or a focus on worldly vs spiritual matters is up for debate. Rather than reform the Vatican fought. Although Trent shows that had not the Reformation happened when it did, it would have come nonetheless.
The Catholics say this but then they say Matthew was written in Aramaic which doesn't make sense as he was a tax collector knowing Greek and would have written in Greek as the majority of Jews were in the diaspora and not using Aramaic.
The only reason for this is to protect the dogma of Mary being eternally virgin.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
That is exactly the same for Catholics also, 'Resolute Conservative'. However, in His Sovereign, Almighty Holy Will, God nearly always chooses to also make use of a mere human being as a "middle-man" (like a priest, or some other human person) to help and assist ALL people with their salvation.
All of us can talk to God directly, and (of course) God can speak directly to each one of us as well, but most often, God chooses to use "middle-men/middle-women" go-betweens to assist us on our paths to salvation.
For example, our Lord did not choose to stay here and personally preach His Gospel to "all the world" forever, but rather, He delegated that important task to His apostles and their successors in the Church Jesus Christ built Himself (as He solemnly promised He would).
And while God could have easily written the entire Bible Himself, and distributed His written Word and revelations to everyone directly, He chose instead to use middle-men -- mere human beings -- to physically write every single word that is in the Bible. You and I cannot read one single word in the Bible that God did not choose to select some fellow human being "middle-man" to actually write it for us.
And the vast majority of us first heard about the Lord from some middle-man/middle-woman, like a parent, teacher, preacher, or some other fellow human being that God specifically chose to be a human being go-between to tell us about Himself.
As God's Church began to develop over time (as documented in "Acts"), certain specific formal offices and structures of authority were set up within the Church to perform specific tasks, with selected leaders to oversee each locality and various duties of the Church as the Church began to spread in the world. (These Church offices and positions of leadership and authority were spoken of in various texts in "Acts", as well as in various letters from Paul, and in various other New Testament texts.) God did not need to do it that way for us through mere middle-men/middle-women, fellow human beings, but God chose to do it that way, and God's ways are so far above our ways that we should not presume to question His Divine choices.
Translation: Tradition AND Scripture.
Naw...You might get away with perverting the scriptures in front of each other but not here...
It does not say 'tradition' and 'scripture'...
it says traditions; whether by word, or our epistle.
The oral is the tradition...The letter is the tradition...
So to put that in a Catholic context, we are to stand fast to the Catholic oral tradition or the bible written tradition...Not both...Which ever one we happened to hear...
“either by word of mouth or by letter”
Translation: Tradition AND Scripture.
Read it slow again.........then maybe it might sink in.
Tradition been around for a longer than the written word, which by the way if not for Catholic monks the Bible might not exist. Next time you see a Catholic monk thank him for saving the Bible so you would be able to read the word of God.
NKP: Ever heard of the Bible.
You mean SCRIPTURE?
Now, how about answering the other questions.
Altar calls are a tradition?
A practice, maybe, but not something that needs to be believed or adhered to as a rule of faith.
The rapture? How does that fit into a tradition?
You do realize that nobody is required to believe in the rapture to be saved, don’t you?
But it's not incompatible with Scripture.
Individuals represent Christ to the world. Organizations don't and can't.
Chapter and verse?
1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
Translation: Tradition AND Scripture.
traditions, either by word of mouth or letter...
You didn't translate anything...You only perverted the sentence...You added words and you removed words to make it say what you wanted it to say...That's not translation...That's perversion and the Apostles Paul warned us about people like you...
Tradition been around for a longer than the written word, which by the way if not for Catholic monks the Bible might not exist. Next time you see a Catholic monk thank him for saving the Bible so you would be able to read the word of God.
The manuscripts that are responsible for the bible I read as the word of God never graced the fingertips of a Catholic monk, anywhere...
And I see you are using your man-made logic to figure all this out which is foolishness to Jesus instead of believing what he tells you in the scriptures...
It's funny that non Catholics believe and accept what Jesus says in the scripture because they can read it there but you guys deny it even tho you can read it there because those guys in the long robes who love the chief seats in the synagogues tell you not to believe it ...
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.