Featured 'Tradition'

I was using the word faith synonymous to religion. Jesus was of the same faith, but Jesus adhered to it in a correct manner.

The point of this a track record or sin scoreboard has no bearing on the teachings themselves.

I can start a new "independent" religion. Claim well we 100% history of no murderers so obviously you guys are a false religion.


If the bible claimed well the true church they wear white hats, I can't just out of the blue start wearing a white hat gather group of others to do same. Look we are the ones who do just like the scriptures. So we must be the church. No sir doesn't work that way.

Jesus Christ started a church. The whole thing can be ran by murderer and thieves. If it is IT, it is IT.
There is no church leap frog.

Agony of garden ,Jesus prayed the church would never leave the face of the earth.


Pharaoh must have believed in Sola Scriptura TOO. Cause he didn't pay any mind to anything Moses had to say despite being sent by God.

The CHURCH, catholic or not, had better be sent by God. All these "churches" who just trying to fit the bill are like someone grabbing a baby photo of yours and then trying to dress like you and copy the image.

No matter how hard they try .......They are never the real deal.


For folks SWEAR its all on God and there is nothing YOU can do. Why start another religion over again thousands and thousands of times?

 

Matthew 10
24“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. 25“It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!



You know what I call your church? Nothing. Cute and one day a service to God.

 

So was I, and again I ask you, isn't the false following of any religion still false religion? The terms do not change the question.

The Catholic Church claims Oral Tradition, for example, and we can see a parallel between the practice of Indulgences with the loud clanging in the treasury box.

Yes or no?

Did God ever imply that proper following of His will was to be a public matter? In regards to what the religion was meant to teach (i.e., love of God, love of one's neighbor). Similarly, can we in any way justify a doctrinal practice or doctrine which conflicts with what has already been made clear in Scripture?

Only one man could purchase remission of sins, and His name was not Peter, nor a successor of Peter.

So in that way we can determine what is true, and what is false. That does not mean I deny there were Christians in the Catholic Church, just point out the abuse of power by those who had authority over those who were under them.

I have no idea what teachings you refer to.

And I am not sure what you mean by a track record.

No, you can't start a "new religion," and that is a flase argument Catholics present. The sad fact is that Protestants and Catholics are more alike than any of them would like to admit.

If you start a new fellowship, like Paul did on so many occasions, and missionaries continue to do, the best you can do is be judged as to whether it is a Christian assembly or not. What you boast about as accomplishments, or lack of negative press...is irrelevant to what it means to be a Christian group. If you start it in Kalamazoo, at the heart of it you would be "the Church in/at Kalamazoo." Wouldn't matter if you added Catholic, Pentecostal, or Baptist to your name...you would be known for your doctrine and practice, and that doctrine and practice would not be judged according to Catholic Doctrine, it would be judged according to the Bible.

Just for the record...we are the guys wearing the white hats.



But I am not sure why you think this is a valid illustration, because the fact is we do judge what is Christian based on what we read in Scripture. One of the greatest mistakes I think many Protestant and Reformed believers make is reliance on their own tradition and doctrine and practice. I see some who give more attention to creeds than Scripture.

So too with most groups, Tradition can sometimes nullify the actual teachings of Scripture. The tradition of meeting on Sunday, for example, is for some just another version of the Sabbath. If one violates Sunday by working, for example, they are violating the will of God. Doe Scripture teach that?

Actually, Jesus didn't just start the Church, He is still the Builder. Men do not add to the living stones, only God does that.

Despite man's greatest efforts.

Sure, as long as they are born again murderers and thieves.

Paul was a murderer, and did rather well running the Church.

It is IT (the Church) when it falls into obedience and conforms with what God said was and is the Church. And there are quite a lot of passages that make it fairly easy to see what is not the Church. It is for this reason Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have historically been denied as Christian groups.

No, Utilyan, Christ did not pray that the Church would never leave the earth.

In fact Christ made it clear that not only was He going to prepare a place for the Church, but that we would be where He was. This speaks primarily of our physical disposition, and shouldn't be confused with the fact that where we are gathered in His Name, He is there. The primary focus of the prayer in the Garden related to the soon coming missionary efforts the Lord intended for the disciples to endeavor in.

Kind of forgetting that the Bible did not begin until after the Exodus, aren't you?



But this is one reason why God gave us His Word, Utilyan, that we would have a reed by which we could measure. Your example is humorous (two thumbs up for having a sense of humor), but it does not make a good case for Tradition that does not align with what God has already taught.

So how do we know if it is the Church or not? Truly, because men are involved, there is going to be error in carrying out the will of God, but, my friend, when the error transgresses the will of God we can be sure...it isn't the Church. For example, Catholics take a beating from atheists for the Crusades. No reason to blame the Church (which by extension lays the blame on God), because there is no Biblical justification for military expeditions on the part of the Church. But, we can see Biblical justification for Missionary Efforts, right? Understand?

I wouldn't be so quick. How would you know they aren't the real deal?

You would not be able to look to Oral tradition to validate a Christian Assembly. So if a group started up and taught that one received the Spirit of God by being baptized, needed to honor Mary, and asked for money that sins might be forgiven, would you deny them as being Catholic?

If so...why?

If not...why?

And from the eternal perspective...that is precisely what Scripture teaches.

Men are born of God by His will, not their own, not the will of other men, and not through efforts of the flesh. How they come to understand the spiritual things of God, whereby they are convicted of sin, righteousness, and judgment, is through the operation of the God through His Ministry as Comforter. He, the Comforter, does the very same ministry that was accomplished through the Law (the Written Word of God, though we do not have to divorce the Covenant of Law from the Written Word, because you did not have one without the other, and when you did, we see Israel was in rebellion, even when it was still, like for Pharaoh, the Spoken Word of God), for the Law was given to show men their sin and their need for a Savior.

Why allow the true religion, Christianity, to take on unchristian doctrines and practices? Why, when trying to "reform" such a religion...not get rid of all of the error? lol

And just so you understand, I don't question the validity or sincerity of the salvation of anyone calling themselves Catholic. We owe a great deal to some great men of God who happened to be Catholic.

But when it comes to tradition, while Catholics might stand on Oral Tradition, you are going to have a hard time denying that Sola Scriptura is a bad approach. Sure there are going to be issues some will think Scripture is silent on, but it isn't going to impact Biblical Doctrine, or Christian Doctrine. People can sit around and think of oddball issues to consider (is it Christian to eat licorice?), but I do not see too many gray areas inside or out of Scripture. I feel that all conduct of the Christian is governed by the Word of God, and if there is a question...

...there's an answer in Scripture.

And I equally believe that we can, from Scripture, see the fundamental error of Oral tradition.


God bless.

 

Is that a Christian statement?

If so, why?

If not, why?


Romans 14

King James Version (KJV)


4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.


What importance do you give to Church attendance, Utilyan? Do you think you would end up in Hell if you stopped going? What if you realized that your church was teaching false doctrine, and there was not another church you could attend within a thousand miles? What if you became disabled and could not attend, which happens to most who grow old enough?

Is once a week such a bad thing? How about someone who's job makes him work on weekends and Wednesday, the days in which his church meets? What if his trade does not allow for him to find another job whereby he can feed his family? Can a police officer find another police force to work for? A nurse, another hospital? What if he is in disagreement with all of the churches of today, and see them all as money-grubbing shysters? lol

Again...what importance do you give church attendance in regards to salvation? Can one not be saved if they do not go to church?


God bless.

 

John 17
15“I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. 16“They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18“As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19“For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.
20“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.


Here Jesus prays the church would not be taken from the world. We are sent by Christ as God sent Jesus. To answer your other post a bit, We see Jesus pray not only for his church, but those who believe in him. I got pretty good faith in Christianity so even if you only got it half right I know God can work with this, which is why I know you and Mitchell will be good service to God.


The church attendance issue is matter of perspective. For a majority of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, believe in the real presence of the Eucharist.

Hebrews 10:25
25not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.


The indulgence issue, Jesus Christ gave his church the power of binding and loosing.

Matthew 18
15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
19“Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20“For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

It could be a shock to some folks to run into a group of Christians with the audacity to believe they exercise the power Christ gave them.

Here is a catechism link on indulgences: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P4G.HTM


Darrell I suggest you take a browse at the catechism link here to make it easier to find what is wrong with Catholic position rather then what is wrong with what is not catholic.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM


There is old joke goes bit like this, Napoleon told a Cardinal he had the power to destroy the Catholic church. The Cardinal laugh and replied we've been trying our best to destroy it for thousands of years.

The point being is that Being Catholic sometimes is very unlike some altar call moment with the choir of angels singing and the warm fuzzy filling your heart, Instead its more like kicking and screaming, and being dragged somewhere you don't want to go. And I search often for that kink in the armor in its teachings.

So if you can help me find whats wrong with its teachings that would be great. Even better if its something they actually teach.


“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” - G.K. Chesterton

 

Martin,

As I mentioned above, tradition is not inherently and necessarily condemnable. Nothing in the Bible indicates such a thing. Nor does the historical witness of Christian writers, fallible as they may be as individuals, indicate such a thing. Further, some of the traditions Christ mentions in His most scathing criticisms of the Pharisees are related to, for example, the washing of cups, the seeking of converts, and the decorating of graves. It is quite clear, then, that such practices are not intrinsically evil. The book of Leviticus gives a host of instructions pertaining to ritual cleansing, for example. Neither is Christ upset with the giving of alms to God. He’s, then, not upset by the mere existence of tradition. As a matter of fact, a strong historical case could be made which would indicate that, as a Jew of His times, Christ would have been observant of various traditions. Even Joseph of Arimathea’s burial considerations for Our Lord would have, it seems, included various aspects of traditional consideration. A Jew of Christ’s day could hardly go through a day without observing some religious tradition. As I said above, there is nothing wrong with the ceremonial washing *if* the washing assumes its proper place among the thoughtful and rightly ordered practices of a Jew or a Christian. Neither is there anything wrong with decorating a burial site. Neither is there anything wrong with giving alms to God. There’s nothing wrong with straining gnats from one’s water, either. These things, though, when they’re done to avoid serving God in a more weighty or fundamental manner, become particularly revealing of the evil in one’s heart. What Christ condemns, then, is the way in which the Pharisees had come to neglect the “weighty matters” of the Law while becoming obsessed with other lesser ceremonial, disciplinary, and customary acts. They went so far as to use their traditions to justify their neglect of God’s Law. As Jesus said, the Pharisees strained gnats while they swallowed camels. They “gave to God” so that they would be able to see themselves as freed from the responsibility to care for their parents, for example. It’s your reading of the texts, then, and your unwarranted conclusions concerning *all* tradition (all of which is itself done according to your particular interpretive tradition), which lead you to see the traditions of the Pharisees as “essentially” evil rather than “contextually” evil because of the particularly hypocritical and systematic unrighteousness which had developed among them.

Earlier I wrote of my perspective, saying that I don’t believe that the question is “Will Christians follow tradition or not?” Rather, as I see it, we all necessarily and unavoidably follow particular traditions. So the question is "What traditions shall I follow?: Biblicist Traditions, SDA Traditions, Baptist Traditions, Calvinist Traditions..." Remember, when one defines tradition as a received way of “being, thinking, and acting” it should be clear that we all have “traditions.” I presumed the validity of the tradition into which I was born as the grandson of a Moody Graduate from the Post-War era under whose preaching I was raised. I had no reason to question Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide for most of my life. Eventually, though, I came to see that, as I’ve said before, Sola Scriptura was not leading to unity in doctrine among those who claimed it. The explanation for this is the fact that, though we may deny it by claiming to simply follow the Bible, we all have traditions. Like glasses which are so comfortable we forget we have them on, we hold to traditions while thinking we're holding to Scripture alone (despite the fact that the Scripture Alone doesn't teach us to follow Scripture Alone). For me, coming to terms with the presence of the lenses through which I’d always viewed things involved a painful and challenging process of re-orientation. I think Frank Sheed described it well when he said: “Bernard Shaw phrased the experience very admirably: ‘When we learn something, it feels at first as if we have lost something.’ It is so, for instance, with a new stroke at tennis. Our old stroke had been a pretty incompetent affair, of the sort to make a professional laugh. But it had been ours, we were used to it, all our muscles were in the habit of it. The new stroke is doubtless better, but we are not in the way of it, we cannot do anything with it, and all the joy goes out of tennis—but only until we have mastered the new way. Then, quite suddenly, we find that the whole game is a new experience.” To become Catholic was to adopt a new stroke at the same effort, following Jesus. And it involved some things which felt very unnatural to me for a time.

Another important point: With St. Paul’s affirmation of the validity of tradition passed on “whether by word of mouth or by letter” Scripture explicitly affirms the validity of tradition. If Scripture is God’s argument, as you’ve suggested earlier, then He’s made Himself quite clear here. The tradition which is passed on through word of mouth is valid right alongside the tradition which is passed on by letter. All of this transmission, of course, takes place within the society born on Pentecost, the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.

A writer I’ve referred to a few times now had this to say about the matter “...the Catholic faith, in its wariness of human tradition usurping divine revelation... knows the ironic truth that fear of human tradition can itself become a human tradition and set aside the commands of God. How? By ignoring the rest of what Scripture has to say about Tradition and assuming that all Tradition, simply because it is Tradition, must therefore be merely human—a claim the Bible never makes. Thus, some people feel justified in adopting the Scripture-only perspective that revelation can only be in the form of written Scripture.” -Mark Shea

 

continued:

1. One doesn’t simply declare where the burden of proof lies. Such a thing is determined objectively according to various factors which must be considered by all parties. Generally, in the absence of particular qualifying factors, the burden of proof lies with the person who is making a positive claim. That’s you.
   
   
2. You’re claiming that the “tradition” referred to in 2nd Timothy is exactly what St. Paul “delivered previously.” Having presented an assertion which St. Paul nowhere makes in the text, the burden of proof rests with you.
   
   
3. Once again you’re facing the problem of induction which “cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent, and only necessary truths can be proved deductively. Nor can it be supported inductively- by arguing that it has always or usually been reliable in the past- for that would beg the question by assuming just what is to be proved.” Such arguments trade in probabilities, not logical certainties. So, at best, you can demonstrate a “likelihood,” not a definitive article of faith. “In recent times inductive methods have fissioned and multiplied, to an extent that attempting to define induction would be more difficult than rewarding. It is however instructive to contrast induction with deduction: Deductive logic, at least as concerns first-order logic, is demonstrably complete. The premises of an argument constructed according to the rules of this logic imply the argument's conclusion. Not so for induction: There is no comprehensive theory of sound induction, no set of agreed upon rules that license good or sound inductive inference, nor is there a serious prospect of such a theory. Further, induction differs from deductive proof or demonstration (in first-order logic, at least) not only in induction's failure to preserve truth (true premises may lead inductively to false conclusions) but also in failing of monotonicity: adding true premises to a sound induction may make it unsound.” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/)
   
   
4. Further, though a consideration of where the “burden of proof” lies is appropriate for a matter of law, when it comes to matters of faith, the terms aren’t equivalent. The assent of faith is a gift from God and though it considers logic, history, content of revelation, etc. it isn’t arrived at according to logical proofs and burdens of “proof.”

Further, this reading is problematic because, among other things, it represents an incomplete or unnecessarily (and unBiblically) constrained conception of “tradition” itself.

1. In previous conversation you have defined the term “tradition” as merely “teaching.” In contrast, above you say the following: “The word usually translated as ‘tradition’ is paradosis, which comes from the verb paradidomai, which is translated as ‘deliver’ 54 times in the KJV version of the NT. So paradosis is something that has been delivered or handed over.” This is a more accurate definition of the term as it is open to the inclusion of both oral and written transmission as well as a way of “thinking, seeing, and being” which may be handed on through human relationship. Still, you seem to demand that Scripture alone, apart from the witness, experience, and application of the People of God, be the means of delivery of divine revelation. You go so far as to see it as “obvious” that “tradition,” according to St. Paul, is not extra-scriptural. This is, however, an inference on your part which is nowhere taught in the Scriptures.
   
   
2. I think it worth pointing out that this is precisely the point which Mr. Matatics was attempting to drive home in the video posted by utilyan above. In that video, Dr. James White acknowledged that the Scriptures don’t actually say what it is he believes. He continually rephrased Mr. Matatics’s statements in various ways which allowed him to stress the inferential nature of the method by which one goes about recognizing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In doing this, he’s, just like you, relying upon inductive reasoning, which, again, trades in probabilities and contingencies.

All of this is consistent with a view which affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture. Apart from his use of the word “only” or “alone” (in a Protestant sense), these quotes don’t pose the slightest problem for a Catholic. And even if they did hint at somewhat of a more Protestant view, the witness of one early writer is subject to correction in light of the universal witness of the Fathers.

 

continued:
Further, it appears as though you're insisting upon some sort of rupture in the early Church. You must imagine such a rupture in order to justify your insistence upon Sola Scriptura. However, if John Henry Newman's assessment of Christian history, and the role of the Church in the evangelization of the world is true, your position may not be necessary after all. This is what he wrote. Compare it to your position:

"Till positive reasons grounded on facts are adduced to the contrary, the most natural hypotheses, the most agreeable to our mode of proceeding in parallel cases, and that which takes precedence of all others, is to consider that the society of Christians, which the Apostles left on earth, were of that religion to which the Apostles had converted them; that the external continuity of name, profession, and communion, argues a real continuity of doctrine; that, as Christianity began by manifesting itself as of a certain shape and bearing to all mankind, therefore it went on so to manifest itself; and that the more, considering that prophecy had already determined that it was to be a power visible in the world and sovereign over it, characters which are accurately fulfilled in that historical Christianity to which we commonly give the name. It is not a violent assumption, then, but rather mere abstinence from the wanton admission of a principle which would necessarily lead to the most vexatious and preposterous scepticism, to take it for granted, before proof to the contrary, that the Christianity of the second, fourth, seventh, twelfth, sixteenth, and intermediate centuries is in its substance the very religion which Christ and His Apostles taught in the first, whatever may be the modifications for good or for evil which lapse of years, or the vicissitudes of human affairs, have impressed upon it." from An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine

1. Where exactly do any of the above quotes suggest that the “heretics” are “claiming a verbal tradition”? I must have missed it.
   
   
2. You say “In the light of the opening sentences, what else can these be but the Scriptures written down and kept safe within the churches of God?” The inferential nature of your position is laid quite bare with this question. In other words, your position, as I’ve been saying, rests upon an inference which is itself drawn from the weakest of inductive terms.
   
   
3. Also, you answered your own question. You said the “Apostolic ‘traditions’ are preserved ‘in the churches.” Then you went on to ask what else could they be but the Scriptures. Well, the other thing they might be is the way of “being, thinking, and seeing” according to the revelation of Jesus Christ. And that way of “being, thinking, and seeing” is maintained by the power of the Holy Spirit, “in the churches,” just as you said, according to the witness of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ, which is what allowed St. Paul to say that the pillar and ground of truth is the “...church of the living God.”

There are many Christian writers, both Catholic and non-Catholic who understand St. Irenaeus’s words in a different way. Your perception of a contradiction isn’t proof of one. As I’ve been saying, self-assurance cannot be mistaken for a rational argument, clearly presented. Here are some comments, presented by a non-Catholic pastor, which understand Irenaeus’s words to make perfect sense with what we know of Christ’s age at the time of His crucifixion:

“...Many preterists claim that Irenaeus was saying here that Jesus lived into his fifties before being crucified. Perhaps if some of this text was wrenched out of its context then it would appear that Irenaeus did make such a profound mistake. However, let us ask ourselves what Irenaeus’ point was here? Irenaeus explains that Jesus had reached the age of a master (teacher). He further explains that the first stage of life lasts until the age of thirty. It is after this that the second phase of life begins. One needed to reach this second phase in order to be an “elder,” and thus able to teach. When Irenaeus writes, “…which our Lord possessed…” he is speaking to the fact that Jesus did indeed live into this second phase of life. He is surely not referencing “…and fiftieth year…”

Admittedly, such a mistake could be made by the modern person who assumes that an ancient writes in the same way that he does. However, it is clear that the context tells us that Irenaeus is simply explaining what the second phase of life entails. Jesus only had to begin the second phase of life for Irenaeus to be correct in his teaching.

Keep in mind that Irenaeus is correct in identifying that Jesus was baptized around the age of thirty. Also be mindful that Irenaeus says that Jesus suffered after completing his thirtieth year (i.e. second phase of life). Irenaeus is absolutely correct in affirming both of these facts. How could he have been so accurate here, and yet somehow also be teaching that Jesus lived into His fifties? Finally, Irenaeus explains that his teaching is confirmed by the Gospels and other elders. Would Irenaeus have really taught that the Gospels and other Church fathers held that Jesus lived into His fifties? If so, then why was Irenaeus respected by his contemporaries and never attacked for such an odd belief? It is because Irenaeus taught above what is found in the Scriptures.

It is important to take the words of fellow Christians in context. To abuse what Irenaeus was actually saying above is to discredit a fellow brother in Christ. It is a shame when those with an agenda attack a humble servant of the Lord because he elsewhere teaches something that they do not like.” -Matthew Ervin, Minister- Evangelical Free Church of America

Notice that without having contended with the alternate view(s) presented by so many Catholic and non-Catholic readers of Irenaeus, you proceed as though your understanding of his words is patently true. You must first contend with competing views and explain why yours is superior before you can include among the premises of a larger argument the very point in question. Without doing so, you're begging the question.

Thanks again for the interaction!

Herbert

 

The earliest Church would have been Baptist like in doctrines a nd practices, and the Christian community did NOT give authority to any books other than the 66 canonized ones until the Church of Rome approved of them to be added in...

You cannot prove that the Catholic ch

 

was

 

Here is the nut that needs to be cracked. Is ink and paper superior to all other forms of communication and is this a biblical fact?

As a human being we have a sense of reliability. There is a game called the telephone game where one person whispers a message to another and it goes around a line of people and then the last person tells us the message. Usually that message is distorted and incorrect.

Among human beings I know I am guaranteed to get a mess if I want the perfect message, the safe kept ink and paper is superior.

This is perfect and makes sense among all of us.

When we throw in the ingredient of God, the divine, however these man-made traditional rules can no longer apply.

We are talking about a God who frequently qualifies the underdog rather then call then qualified.

You don't send a child to kill a giant. Were I to maintain and lean on my own understanding of reliability we need canons and a tank to kill the giant, not this child.

I can't veer off my trust in God. I can't check with my battle tank instruments to confirm a child will be the valid weapon against a giant.

Jesus Christ wrote his own scripture. His choice of ink was bread and wine, his choice of paper were the hearts of people.

Leaning on my own understanding of reliability the bible ink and paper has a lot more to teach, is more reliable and superior to the method communication Jesus chose himself.

But like the child chosen to defeat the Giant, Christ's method carries the holy spirit. A person who believes their own sense of reliability instead of God's becomes blind to God's perfect method.

Jesus wrote in a universal language a method even a blind man could see, his choice of alphabet and grammar is humble.

In terms of reliability the unthinkable to the accuser of brethren. The idea that through Christ you can trust your brothers and sisters more then you can a piece of paper.

The Eucharist which is the scripture of GOD can teach you more about Christianity then every bible and saint ever could.

2 Corinthians 3
3being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.


A Christian who isn't greater then his bible isn't a Christian.

 

Suppose we fix a room, a library that contains the 66 books of the bible along with the hundreds of other books and epistles.
And we allow in an earnest seeker who wants to know Christianity. He would have no idea what the bible is. There is no holy table of contents. He would be at a complete loss.

2 peter 3
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Tradition has always been part of Christianity, including the tradition of having the guidance of someone looking over your shoulder to not only present you scripture for the first time but to provide guidance necessary to avoid "their own destruction".

 

His Word is a "living Word."
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

It is an "inspired Word."
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It is the Word which endures forever
1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

It is the Word by which one is born again:
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

And there is so much more.
So back to your example. If a man entered your library and these NT books were made available to him, all the while the Holy Spirit convicting him of his sin, it would be these books that would speak to him of his spiritual need and no others. These books are living and inspired. They are the ones that have life and lead to life eternal. No other books do. Table of contents or not, these living books continue to live on because unlike the other books in your library they are not dead; they live!!

 

DHK,

I think part of utilyan's very valid point here is to suggest that we receive the Faith in community. Christ established His Church among and through His People, Israel. Apart from the living community of faith, a single person in a library of texts, without the Church's guidance, would not be able to recreate the Christian Faith on his own. This is why the Church of the Living God, and not "Scripture Alone" is referred to by St. Paul the "pillar and ground of truth."

Further, everything you say about the Scriptures is fully compatible with the truth of the Catholic Faith. In other words, none of these things below represent a challenge to or a contradiction of the Catholic Faith. They are all completely compatible with the Catholic Faith:

Also, you said:

I think that this idea is problematic because it conflates "conviction of sin" with the ability to "rightly determine doctrine." There are many who are convicted of sin who hold to incorrect doctrines, are there not? The idea that due to their inspiration the Scriptures enable an individual to completely and infallibly understand them, process them, and come up with the entire Christian Faith is not something that's taught in Scripture. As a matter of fact, Scripture teaches quite the opposite in the most explicit of terms:

1. 2nd TImothy 3:16-17 teaches that reproof, training in righteousness, etc. (both of which require human agency) are necessary components of Christian development. The passage doesn't teach that a Bible sitting on a table + a person who's convicted of sin will necessarily lead to a thorough and complete identification of Christian doctrine.
2. 2nd Peter 3:16 teaches, as utlilyan rightly observed, that ignorant and unstable people may wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. Take special note of the fact that ignorance can lead one to incorrect doctrines. So it is that a person may be convicted of sin, and mean well, yet still, according to the Scriptures, through ignorance, come to believe in false doctrines.
3. Acts 8:31 is a Scriptural attestation of the Catholic reliance upon the teaching authority that comes to us through the Church Christ established.

This is why Christians are right to look to the Church Christ established, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the Creeds, to settle doctrinal differences- and not their private interpretations of Scripture which come to them through philosophical traditions of men and not by divine revelation.

In Him,

Herbert

 

You make too many assumptions.
1. Not everyone lives in a "community" of any kind, much less faith. Some have very isolated occupations (like I did shortly after I was saved). Support from a "community" is not always available.
2. Your next assumption is, "that community" however defined, is "the RCC," which we do not believe. In fact we know according to scriptures that it cannot be the RCC.
3. We know both by Scripture and by experience that various individuals have come to know Christ outside of any Church, Catholic or otherwise. Your premise is false.
Paul clearly said:
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
--This is not the tradition of the church, the work of the church per se, but of each and every individual who is born again. It is our obligation, church member or not. And through the preaching of the gospel (the Word of God) others will be saved. This has nothing to do with the church, except for the one fact that the Great Commission is given to each and every local church. But local churches are composed of individual members. It is a personal obligation.

Salvation is by faith alone.
The new birth--born again by the Holy Spirit (not by water).
--The RCC does not have a clue what salvation is. How can this message be compatible with the RCC. It is not. It is in direct opposition to it.
Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. (no works involved.)

First, in response to utilyan's post, the topic was more related to salvation. A person is saved as the Spirit of God works through the Word of God in an individual bringing him to God. In that process there must be conviction of sin or there will be no salvation. Man must see himself as a sinner before God; a sinner in need of a Savior. Why would he trust Christ as Savior unless he admits he is lost and needs a Savior?
To this end the gospel is one message that all evangelical churches agree on. If they don't they are not evangelical, such as the RCC, and end up believing a false gospel, usually a message of works like other world religions. But that is not biblical Christianity. Works cannot save; only Christ can save.

The gospel message is found in the Bible. In the scenario presented the books of the Bible are there, along with others, perhaps: Shakespeare, some history, maybe the Koran, etc. The only ones that can save said individual are those books which have life in themselves. Those living books are inspired and are directly from God, "God-breathed," and therefore have the power to save.
I know of a Muslim living in an Islamic nation with very few Christians around. He came across a Bible and began reading it. When he came to the NT he wondered how anyone could disagree with such a message as was found here in the gospels. Within a couple of weeks he was saved, without the aid of anyone else but that Bible and the Holy Spirit. It is the book that is alive and lives today. Not Shakespeare, not the Traditions of the RCC, not the Koran, but the Scriptures which we call the Bible. They alone will speak to a man's heart.

--Why do you think this teaches the opposite? It teaches that the inspired word is profitable, and... that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." This is but one of the many purposes of the Word. Paul is addressing the pastor of the church at Ephesus. He is not speaking of one who needs to be saved. Why do you take scripture out of context?

Notice your wording in this explanation. YOU say: "Ignorance can lead to incorrect doctrine."
That is not what the verse teaches.
Look again:
they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
[*]Acts 8:31 is a Scriptural attestation of the Catholic reliance upon the teaching authority that comes to us through the Church Christ established.
--They "wrest" or twist unto their own destruction. This they do deliberately. Their own ignorance is their own decision, for they are false teachers. A good example of this is the RCC Catechism's definition of the "New Birth." Here they remain willfully ignorant. They maintain that it means water baptism even though the Bible teaches otherwise. It is willful ignorance leading people to destruction. Shameful!

Perhaps if you practiced sola scriptura you would know what the new birth was and could experience it, but instead are carried astray by the unlearned and unstable false teachings of the RCC. The Bible alone gives us the truth, for Christ is the truth, not the RCC. The RCC's private interpretation is a wrong interpretation which they force upon their members taking away their obligation to study on their own. Pity.

 

Not a clue to what salvation is? Sorry, but the Catholic Church preaches Christ crucified - at every Mass no less, while you ignore that salient fact at your worship services. You have no clue as to what the Catholic Church really teaches and what it stands for. Nothing but hateful and false rhetoric comes from you as regards God's Holy Church and one day you will answer to Him for the things you have said regarding it.

 

My statements don't represent "assumptions." They represent the fact that I have adopted the Faith of the Apostles (which is known, in part, through the Motives of Credibility) to whom we attribute the origins of the Apostles' Creed, which speaks of a belief in "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." It is your "ecclesiology," then, along with your adherence to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (which is nowhere taught in Scripture), which is inconsistent with the Faith of the Christians since the earliest days. For it was St. Ignatius who told his readers to "follow your bishop as you'd follow Christ." He didn't say "Follow the Bible alone!" It is that once, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the Creed, established by Christ, with its bishops as Successors to the Apostles, which is guided by the Holy Spirit according to Christ's promise, to which all Christians should submit according to their faith in the Lord who established it.

I am not talking about "living" in a community as in hanging out and shopping together with people or leaning upon them in social terms. I am talking about receiving the Faith in community. God doesn't often (if ever) reveal the whole of the Christian Faith to individual people. Christians who've gone before you (even the Catholics whom you deny are Christians) represent a "community" from whom you've come to receive the Scriptures, for example. The Bible did not just drop out of the sky and land in your hotel drawer. In this way, though they're gone from this life, we are all beneficiaries of the faith of those who went before us. In that sense we all receive the faith in community (and not as individuals).

1. The Scriptures nowhere state anything like "The RCC is not the community of which Herbert is speaking." Therefore, you don't know such a thing according to Scriptural revelation. Instead, you (wrongly) interpret the Scriptures to suggest such a thing. Again, you're mistaking your interpretation of the Scriptures for the Scriptures themselves.
2. Further, the Catholic Church "subsists" outside of the formal physical bounds of the Church. Membership in Christ is known only to God. So Catholics don't presume to know who's "in" or who's "out." This is why, according to the Catholic Faith, I can (and do) genuinely admire you for your faith in Christ and your dedication to Him throughout your life. But our possession of Scripture does not enable us to determine one's status in God's eyes. So it's inaccurate to say that the "community" of which I speak is defined as "the RCC" without certain qualifications. The Church doesn't claim to have infallible knowledge concerning the salvation of all persons on the planet.

I agree that a person may come to know Christ in some sort of isolated circumstance, maybe according to the Gospel preached by a travelling minister or something, or maybe by reading the Bible in the silence of his own room. I am not suggesting otherwise. But coming to know Christ and coming to know and rightly understand a host of authentic Christian doctrines are two very different things.

The Bible states the following: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24) So your interpretation, since it flatly denies what the Bible actually says, proves one fundamental thing which undercuts the position you've been claiming to hold to since I showed up on this site. It's the weak link that fails and causes your whole chain to fail: You're not following the Bible. You're following your interpretation of the Bible. In this case, you're very obviously preferring your interpretation of the Bible to what the Bible actually says.

The fact that you disagree with the Church proves nothing. It doesn't give you an "upper hand" in the slightest. It doesn't make you the "Biblical" one and the Church the "apostate" one. It just means you disagree with the Catholic Church.

Again, see James 2:24. And as far as the Christ alone statement goes, I can certainly get on board with that. But I do so according to a Biblical theology which recognizes Christ's union with His Bride. Describing this relationship, St. Paul had this to say: "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."

I practiced Sola Scriptura into adulthood. Doing so in a consistent manner, however, I came to recognize the objective fact of the doctrine's absence from Scripture. It is indeed nowhere taught in Scripture. Unfortunately, the discussion I began concerning the topic was for some reason brought to an end by an administrator here. But, in my case, an honest and consistent attempt at Sola Scriptura is what led me to the Catholic Church.

To wrest is to forcefully take something. Yes, they're doing that deliberately. The ignorance, though, is something that they don't realize they have (that's why it's referred to as ignorance). So it is that out of ignorance, they twist the Scriptures. Look again:

"There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."

The passage indicates that that which is "hard to understand" may present the occasion by which a person to, through ignorance, might "wrest" or twist the Scriptures to his own destruction. It doesn't say that evil intentions are to blame in every case. It attributes the "wresting" specifically to one's ignorance.

You speak also of a willful ignorance on the part of the Church. There's a problem here, as well:

The standard definition of "ignorance" suggests a lack of knowledge or information. In the case of the Catholic Church, though, you suggest there is a sort of "willful ignorance" at play. However, willful ignorance is defined (in this case, by RationalWiki) as "the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality." It's like covering one's eyes before something bad happens so as to block the unpleasant reality from one's visual sensory input. In the case of the Catholic Church's teaching, then, "willful ignorance" isn't an appropriate label. For the Church doesn't block out or exclude from its self-understanding any portion of Scripture. Instead, the Church understands Scripture in a manner inconsistent with the way that you understand Scripture. That doesn't amount to "willful ignorance" on the part of either party. It just means you and the Church disagree. If the Church just ignored or sidelined psassages it didn't like, or pretended they weren't there, the Church might be guilty of "willful ignorance." But such is not the case.

Also, does this paragraph from the Catechism represent your disagreement with the Church?

Paragraph 505 of the Catechism states the following: "By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. "How can this be?" Participation in the divine life arises "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God". The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit's gift to man..."

Blessings to you, DHK.

Herbert

 

Are you born again Adonia? If so, how were you born again, and when and where?
Would you mind sharing?

I was in the Catholic Church for 20 years. I never heard the gospel preached even one time.
There is a difference between a "reading" out of "a gospel" and one "explaining the gospel" as Philip did with the Ethiopian Eunuch when he took the Book of Isaiah and "preached Christ (or the gospel) to him.
I don't know how old you are, but is it possible that I have been a member of the RCC longer than you have? Yes, I know what it teaches, and know it very well. Since I left the RCC, I have not ceased to study, and for this very purpose. I will answer to God, and joyfully so. It wasn't the Baptists who killed millions of Christians just because they baptized adults who had already been baptized as infants. Yes, the RCC committed genocide for that very reason.

 

DHK,

You said:

Rodney Stark, a non-Catholic historian employed at a Baptist University has recently come out with a book entitled Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History. From what I've read, and from interviews given in anticipation of the book, it is next on my reading list. And from what I've read from you and a number of people here, it might be worthwhile to give it a read. Indeed, it appears as though you are bearing false witness with comments such as the one above. Also, it may be worthwhile for you to look up the definition of the term "genocide."



Blessings to you, DHK!

Herbert