Posted on 12/05/2014 7:18:21 PM PST by Salvation
Then Catholics need to stop taking credit for *giving the world the Scripture* and telling non-Catholics to *thank the Roman Catholic church for the Bible*.
The only "scripture" that predates the Catholic Church is the Old testament.
And yet no response from you on direct questions. Can I call it or can I call it?
Ping me when you decide to actually answer the questions you were asked instead of going off on a tangent.
I don’t accept tradition, no matter how it’s packaged.
It’s not up to me to prove that it’s from the apostles and has been passed down faithfully because I’m not making the claim that it has.
So why would I have to prove where the tradition is from and that it has allegedly been passed down faithfully?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3199993/posts?page=617#617
If you don’t use HTML, the link works as is.
The minute you use any HTML, the link shows up but doesn’t go anywhere.
Catholics claim three verses primarily to support the use of "tradition" to justify all they do. These are 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:16.http://www.catholicbible101.com/sacredtradition.htm
To clarify some things first. I don't think anyone disputes a lot of the NT was spread by preaching. This is the primary form we today of sharing the Word. Each Sunday preachers around the world step into the pulpit and proclaim the Gospel message. At least I hope they do. However, these preachers are not claiming new doctrines.
Next, I don't think anyone disputes the truths of the NT that the apostles taught were passed from one generation to another. They would have to or else Christianity would have stopped with the death of the original disciples and apostles. However it has continued through the priesthood of all believers.
The disputes come into play when catholicism started claiming certain “tradition/teachings” that are not supported by the texts the apostles have written for us and left for us to spread the Word. For example, the teaching on Mary being sinless in contradiction to Romans 3:23, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Another is the infallibility of the pope which is not found in the Word. We know a man is going to be infallible as evidenced by Peter having to be admonished by Paul when Peter didn’t want to keep eating with the Gentiles. The whole office of the papacy is not supported by the texts either. That is another man-made tradition which not all of the ECFs agreed on either.
Catholicism has taken tradition and redefined it to mean what they want it to mean and this is the problem Christians have with catholicism.
But let's examine the use of tradition in the Bible. This will help us have some context as to the Biblical use of the term and its meaning. There are 13 instances of the word tradition being used.
Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:1-8 deal with the traditions of men regarding the washing of hands before eating. In these verses Christ condemns this man-made action. In Matt 15:9 Jesus said, "But in vain do they worship me; teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."
In Mark 7:10-13 Christ condemns man's tradition regarding neglecting to honor your father and mother. Jesus notes: “thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
Galatians 1:14 Paul is discussing his ancestral traditions as a Jew and Pharisee.
Colossians 2:8 Paul condemns the tradition of men when contrasted against the Gospel.
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
This leaves us with the three verses claimed by catholicism to justify their tradition. In each of the verses we must ask what is Paul talking about? What tradition/instruction was he passing down?
In the Greek, the word for tradition is παράδοσις. It can mean an instruction, tradition. In the NASB it is rendered as tradition. HELPS Word-Studies notes its meaning as: to give (hand over) from close beside, referring to tradition as passed from one generation to the next. This word is uses in all thirteen uses of tradition on the NT.
Let’s start with 1 Corinthians first. Recall that context is the key to understanding a passage.
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
In this passage Paul is writing to the Corinthians on several topics. These deal with participating in idol feasts, whether meat sacrificed to idols should be eaten or not and the veiling of women. He also deals with the Lord’s Supper and how the Corinthians were turning it into a mess.
Next we have 2 Thess 2:15. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
If we want to learn what these traditions were we need to read the letters to the church at Thessalonica.
Now here, the catholic may holler and say, see, told you there were oral teachings. No Christian will dispute that. However, we do not have what ALL of those oral teachings were. Nor do we need them nor were we intended to have them. We have the written Word that God has intended us to have. In the Word we have the means of learning how to be saved which is the primary topic of the Gospel.
Lastly we come to 2 Thess 3:6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.
Paul clarifies what this “tradition” is in the remainder of 2 Thess 3:7-15. It deals primarily with no work, no eat. Paul was setting the example of being a good citizen by “earning” his keep and not being a burden on society.
So we have covered what the New Testament says regarding tradition.
In none of these passages do we find the catholic abuse of tradition that includes the assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, her sinlessness, indulgences, the papacy and the list goes on and on. All of these go beyond the text when read in context and when applying the original languages.
Where catholicism errs is the claim that oral tradition means that revelations from God continue. Catholicism claims we should listen to the ECFs because they “received” these additional revelations from the apostles and that they were close to them. If these additional teachings were so important, why didn’t Paul write them down? When he was writing Romans 3:23 why didn’t he declare, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, except Mary, the mother of Christ? Why weren’t they included at the Council of Trent as part of the canon? That somehow the pope continues to receive new teachings and that his word cannot be challenged. That somehow God has contradicted His Word, which He does not do, and has proclaimed Mary sinless. On this Christians, and the Bible disagree.
If we follow this concept of ongoing oral revelation the Gospel is open to contradiction as we have seen this week with the pope with him declaring, “May Our Lady, the teacher of true theology….”. Since when was Mary appointed to this lofty position? The Bible notes in John 16:13….But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come
This is why Christians call into question teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
Well said.
It's authoritative based on it being by its very nature authoritative as the very word of God."
We agree.
And you?
They were in the Catholic bibles from the beginning and were not ex post facto included after the CofT as you state.
Whereas your protestant brethern deleted the deuterocanonicals after the Lambeth Conferences in teh early 1920.
Now those D-C are scarce as hens teeth in modern protestant bibles.
It is precensoring pure and simple by your protestant brethren.
AMDG
I don’t accept tradition, no matter how it’s packaged.
You did at one time - now you don’t .
Its amazing how you get to pick and chose.
AMDG
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
I'm interested, metmom.
So then according to you, you refuse to accept the Bible since those books were handed down by tradition. Your words:I don’t accept tradition, no matter how it’s packaged.
The books of the OT were handed down by tradition until the Canon was set. Now Catholics believe in the Alexandrian Canon, ordered several hundred years BC. Prots believe in the Palestinian canon ordered in 90 AD. Following the Palestinian canon gives several problems. This is the canon that denied Jesus. Second by what authority was it ordered?
So while you are going off on your tangents the questions still remain (See above in Italics.)
Scripture was written down.
That is not the kind of tradition that Catholics are referring to when they say that the RCC uses *sacred tradition*.
And since it was written down, it’s no longer tradition.
I knew what you were referencing and agree with you.
My comment was pointed at a person I feel takes offense at everything, when it's obvious what the statement is about.
You are correct, that your reference in 1 Kings happened centuries before the existence of the Catholic church. You were pointing out how somebody else lied and how IT COULD be done again.
As you mentioned in #51
In #51 you explained how you I certainly wasn't calling anyone here a liar but talking ,in general, that is why tradition does not hold the same weight as Scripture.
And yet 17 minutes later, in post #54, I was told to read #22 again. Basically, after what you just said in #51, they are still trying to claim that you accused Catholics of lying and I need to reread #22.
Thank you.
**My comment was pointed at a person I feel takes offense at everything, when it’s obvious what the statement is about.**
Then why wasn’t that person named in your post address box? (One of the rules, don’t you know?)
Maybe he wasn’t trying to offend anyone.
Your logic fails now Please try answering the question that was asked.
Are you starting to recall dodging this question so many times previously?
It is courteous to ping a Freeper mentioned in a reply post. When posters fail to do this, we generally point it out on thread. And if the remark is apt to incite a flamewar, we usually pull the post.
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.