The $100,000 Roman Catholic Question.

[Ps104_33]

I have thrown this question out there on this board numerous times in my approximte 5 years as a member. I have seen Romanists come and go here and have yet to receive a straight answer. So I'll keep tryin. Here goes:


Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ?

 

[billwald]

How would one trace an unwritten tradition unless it still existed it still existed as oral tradition?

 

[music4Him]

I have thrown this question out there on this board numerous times in my approximte 5 years as a member. I have seen Romanists come and go here and have yet to receive a straight answer. So I'll keep tryin. Here goes:


Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ?

Can you?

 

[neal4christ]

What is it, may I ask, that you are truly looking for? How are you defining "oral" and "extrabiblical?" And what do you consider "necessary" for the faith and practice of the Church? And which church are you referring to?

 

[grahame]

I'm not sure I really understand the question? I'm probably dumb anyway. Could you word it a different way?

 

[billwald]

Oral tradition like Scofield's marginal notes are in most Baptist churches?

 

[tragic_pizza]

Exactly. Pretrib or you're gonna burn in Hell.


I'm thinking the Nicene "homoousius" isn't found in Scripture, nor is, for that matter, the word "Trinity."

 

[DHK]

C'mon folks, The question is fairly simple.
Extra Biblical is outside of the Bible, like Purgatory, indulgences, assumption of Mary, perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. These are all man-made doctrines of the RCC found only in tradition.
Which of these so-called doctrines found only in tradition (not in the Bible) are essential to the Biblical doctrine of salvation?

 

[grahame]

None of them. But then I'm not a Roman Catholic. Obviously you wanted Catholics to answer. I remember reading that Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones asked a similar question of one of his Catholic friends. He asked if he could see the Roman Catholic Church in the New Testament and his friend had to acknowledge that he couldn't.

 

[bound]

This question should be broadened to include Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches as well.

Personally I believe the Trinity to be eisegesis at the moment.

 

[DHK]

This question should be broadened to include Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches as well.

Personally I believe the Trinity to be eisegesis at the moment.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

IJohn 5:7 is clear and direct statement of the Godhead being three in one. There is no clearer statement of the trinity in the Bible than that verse, and certainly no eisigesis required. You will also find it in the Great Commission in Mat.28:19,20

In Mat.3:16,17 We have all three persons of the trinity present at one time. Christ the Son being baptized, the Holy Spirit descending upon Him, and the Father's voice coming out of heaven. Here they are all present and yet all separate. There are coutless of other separate Scriptures which individually attest to each person being deity.

How is this eisigesis?

 

[tragic_pizza]

C'mon folks, The question is fairly simple.
Extra Biblical is outside of the Bible, like Purgatory, indulgences, assumption of Mary, perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. These are all man-made doctrines of the RCC found only in tradition.
Which of these so-called doctrines found only in tradition (not in the Bible) are essential to the Biblical doctrine of salvation?

Actually, Purgatory is in the Deuterocanonicals, which to the Catholic Church is authoritative.

And no, the fact that you don't think it's authoritative doesn't matter. Sorry.

 

[tragic_pizza]

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Most reliable manuscripts do not include this verse.

 

[DHK]

At the same time there is not one iota of Scripture for the afore mentioned man-made doctrines of the Catholic Church. They result from their tradition, not from the Bible. Indulgences and Purgatory, for example cannot be proved from the Bible.

 

[DHK]

Most reliable manuscripts do not include this verse.

Take your excuse to the versions forum. This is not an "attack the Bible" thread.

 

[tragic_pizza]

At the same time there is not one iota of Scripture for the afore mentioned man-made doctrines of the Catholic Church. They result from their tradition, not from the Bible. Indulgences and Purgatory, for example cannot be proved from the Bible.

If you'l read what I just wrote, you will see that from the Catholic perspective, purgatory can.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Take your excuse to the versions forum. This is not an "attack the Bible" thread.

Not my excuse, DHK, put your daggar away. You can make your point about the Trinity being an exegeted theological concept (which it is) without using doubtful texts.

 

[DHK]

Actually, Purgatory is in the Deuterocanonicals, which to the Catholic Church is authoritative.

And no, the fact that you don't think it's authoritative doesn't matter. Sorry.

Pre-Catholic Christians never accepted them, early Christians never accepted them, Protestant never accepted them, and most important of all the Jews never accepted them. The only ones that did were the Catholics because the books supported their heresy. But this is not about fairy-tale uninspired books. This is about doctrine from the 66 books of the Bible. Stick to the topic.

 

[DHK]

Not my excuse, DHK, put your daggar away. You can make your point about the Trinity being an exegeted theological concept (which it is) without using doubtful texts.

I am not getting into a versions debate nor a debate about the apocrypha here. Lets use the KJV as our standard (the present edition), then we will avoid those pitfalls. Don't try to derail the thread with those rabbit trails. Besides the thread is not about the trinity, a well known orthodox doctrine that the RCC accepts. It is about Catholic man-made doctrine that is extra-biblical. Quit trying to derail the thread.

 

[tragic_pizza]

OK, whatever.

I don't use KJv, b the way. NRSV and NASB are better translations.