- This topic is empty.
- Posts
25 Short Biblical Arguments For the Binding Authority of Tradition
* * * * *
1. The bottom line is not “tradition vs. no tradition,” but rather, “true, apostolic tradition vs. false traditions of men.”
2. Tradition can't be separated from the Bible; that would be like trying to separate hydrogen atoms from a water molecule.
3. I became a Catholic largely because Protestant innovations were merely the inventions of men. They had no pedigree in Church history, and thus, no reason to be accepted. [BCO, 113; modified]
4. Who determines which teachings are “traditions of men” and how? And why should we value their opinions or heed their authority more so than the venerable Fathers of the Church? [BCO, 113]
5. What we need to establish is: why is anything and everything that may have been passed down by the apostles, to be regarded as intrinsically questionable simply because it is not inspired Scripture?
6. If God can use sinners to write an inspired Bible, certainly He can use sinful men to proclaim infallible teachings in Tradition, as that is merely a protection from error, not a positive quality of inspiration.
7. Most early heresies (e.g., Monophysitism and Arianism), believed in sola Scriptura, and the Church refuted them by the method of “Bible-as-interpreted-by-apostolic-Tradition,” within the framework of apostolic succession. [BCO, 80; modified]
8. Jesus contrasts human tradition with the word of God in Mark 7:13, but that word of God is not only not restricted to the written Bible, but even identical to Divine Tradition, once one does some straightforward comparative exegesis.
9. The Bible points to an authoritative tradition and an authoritative Church (even to a papacy). It has apostolic succession; it has infallible councils. It has authoritative bishops. It's all in there. Catholicism is biblical: far more than any form of Protestantism.
10. Peter in Acts 2, in his sermon in the Upper Room, and in other recorded sermons, gave an authoritative New Covenant interpretation of salvation history. It was binding before it became “inscripturated,” because it was from an apostle.
11. It is ludicrous to assume sola Scriptura, and then contend that the apostles always intended for subsequent Christian teaching after their deaths to be by the written word in the Bible alone, and never by oral or Church tradition, for the simple reason that this is never taught in Scripture.
12. When Peter interpreted Old Testament Scripture messianically and “Christianly,” in the Upper Room (as recorded in Acts 2), his word was just as authoritative and inspired as when it was set down in writing later. Throughout the book of Acts we see St. Peter and St. Paul exercising apostolic authority and preaching, not handing out Bibles.
13. The Bible itself speaks explicitly of both a true divine, “received” Tradition and of the binding authority of the universal, institutional Church, and the very canon (the “stuff”) of the Bible was authoritatively determined by the Church. Therefore, the three interrelated concepts cannot be separated, any more than can the three dimensions of a cube. [PRO, 9]
14. The Church Fathers always appealed not solely to Holy Scripture, but to the history of doctrine and apostolic succession, which for them was the clincher and coup de grace, in arguments against the heretics. Groups such as the Arians, on the other hand, believed in Scripture Alone, precisely because they couldn't trace their late-arriving doctrines back past Arius (d.c. 336). [PRO, 14-15]
15. Jesus rejects only corrupt, human, Pharisaic tradition (paradosis: Mt 15:3,6, Mk 7:8-9,13), not Tradition per se, so this might be thought to be an indirect espousal of true apostolic Tradition. This is also the case with Paul in Colossians 2:8. The New Testament explicitly cites oral tradition in Matthew 2:23, 23:2, 1 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Peter 3:19, and Jude 9, in support of doctrine, and also elsewhere (2 Tim 3:8, Jas 5:17, Mt 7:12). [BCO, 87]
16. Scripture is unique, but it itself refers to an authoritative apostolic Tradition, which is not identical to itself (e.g., Jn 21:25; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; 2 Pet 2:21). Apostolic Tradition and Scripture are harmonious, but they are not identical, and that being the case, sola Scriptura is demonstrated to be untrue. It's as simple as that, but there are many other deficiencies in it as well. [BCO, 12]
17. Tradition, like the Bible, or Word of God, is also presented as immutable in Holy Scripture (in the sense that all truth is immutable), since it is spoken of as delivered “once and for all” to the saints (Jude 3). Likewise, 2 + 2 = 4 stands forever. So does a = a, and the theory of gravity (as long as this present universe exists). Every created soul, for that matter, “stands forever,” as they will never cease being. The preached gospel stood forever as truth before it was ever encapsulated in the Bible. [PRO, 15]
18. I've often noted how, in a single night of discussion, Jesus or Paul or other apostles passing along what they learned from Our Lord, could have easily spoken more words than we have in the entire New Testament. It's fallacious to think that none of that had any effect on subsequent teaching (even Bible writing) of these same apostles and disciples. One can remember encounters like this with extraordinary people for a lifetime: at least the main ideas, if not all particulars.
19. Jesus Himself followed the Pharisaical tradition. He adopted the Pharisaical stand on controversial issues (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17), accepted the oral tradition of the academies, observed the proper mealtime procedures (Mark 6:56, Matthew 14:36) and the Sabbath, and priestly regulations (Matthew 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:4). Jesus' condemnations were directed towards the Pharisees of the school of Shammai, whereas Jesus was closer to the school of Hillel.
20. A prophet's inspired utterance was indeed the word of the Lord, but it obviously was not written as it was spoken! Most if not all prophecy was first oral proclamation, but it was just as binding and inspired as oral revelation, as it was in later written form (i.e., those prophecies which were finally recorded — surely there were more). In this sense truly inspired prophecies are precisely analogous to the proclamation of the gospel, or kerygma, by the apostles.
21. Protestants will acknowledge (often when pressed) that oral forms were “authoritative” before Scripture was compiled. But then, where in Scripture are we ever informed that oral tradition is to altogether cease after the canon is established? I agree that these oral transmissions do not detract from Scripture itself, but then I believe that legitimate (not corrupt or Pharisaical) tradition, whether oral or written, is consistent with Scripture – that they are two sides of a coin. [BCO, 26; modified]
22. Many Protestants axiomatically assume the (false) premise that the Bible precludes tradition. Therefore, they reason that in the opposite scenario of Tradition being present and authoritative, the Bible therefore necessarily becomes unnecessary. But that is no more true or biblical than its logical opposite. We crush this false dilemma by asserting that the Bible itself presupposes both tradition and the written revelation (as well as the Church) as normative at all times, and not in any way, shape, or form opposed to each other at all. [PRO, 15]
23. The apostolic deposit is not “secondary” material. It was received from Jesus, passed on to the apostles and in turn passed down by them. It expands upon what we know from Scripture, and is just as valid (in terms of truth, though not inspiration). True, one must determine precisely what constitutes the Tradition. That's ultimately the job of the Church. Truth doesn't have to always be in the Bible itself to be authoritative. It has to be apostolic and to have always been held
implicitly or explicitly by the Church universal. What is apostolic always is in fact harmonious with biblical teachings. [BCO, 53]24. There are a multitude of allusions and direct citations of the “deuterocanonical” (or so-called “apocryphal”) books in the New Testament. Since Protestants consider these non-inspired and thus not part of the Bible, to authoritatively cite them is, from their perspective, citing a purely non-biblical tradition. But Jesus and the Bible writers do this quite often, which goes to show that there is a much larger Christian tradition, than the Bible Alone (i.e., the latter as defined by Protestants, who deny that the deuterocanon is Scripture; for us, it is citing of Scripture, which is no problem at all).
25. A) All true tradition = Scripture.
B) Our preliminary adopted true tradition: A (upon which we base our overall notion of tradition, and which serves as our primary definition) is not found in Scripture.
C) But then it must be a false tradition, because it fails to meet its own (non-reasoned) assumed criterion of being in Scripture, which is tradition.
D) A false, self-defeating tradition clearly cannot be the basis of all true tradition.
E) Therefore the result that flows from an already self-defeating preliminary principle is itself self-defeating and therefore false.
F) Ergo, A must be rejected as irrational and self-contradictory.
SOURCES
Armstrong, Dave, Bible Conversations: Catholic-Protestant Dialogues on the Bible, Tradition, and Salvation [BCO], Lulu, 2007.
Armstrong, Dave, Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic [PRO], Lulu, 2007.
From the book, 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 15 2010,16:26) 25 Short Biblical Arguments For the Binding Authority of Tradition
Hi CA,Welcome back!
Do you believe in: “Solo Fida”?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgCA
On 2. Jesus said, it is tradition that keeps us from understanding truth, Mat. 15:9
On 3. Aren't Protestant, churches that came out of the Catholic church? Do they not “basically” teach the same doctrine?
On 4. There are two wrongs in your statement, and you don't even recognize them; One; no human being is worth veneration. Two; the pope is father of no child, at least he shouldn't be.
On 5. 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
On 6. Like what?
On 7. Early “Christians”, first Century, had already erred from the apostolic teachings.
On 8. You know that Jesus was referring to all the extras the Pharisees had added to the Law.
On 9. The papacy was self appointed and self crowned, it is in no way the succession of the apostles, in fact, it was the emperor Justinian who in 533 AD decided that only the pope of Rome, for there were many popes/bishops, should hold that title, and be the “head” of all clergy.
On 10. You forgot to mention which scripture says that.
On 11. ?
On 12. What did Peter interpret? Bibles weren't available for many Centuries to come.
On 13. You are really hung up on tradition. What “universal” church, and instituted by whom? Constantine?
On 14. The church fathers appealed to whose scripture, their own? why did the “church fathers” forbid the reading of scriptures, punishable by death? and who where the heretics, all who disagreed with the church doctrine? Rev. 13:15?
On 15. Yes, as long as you refer to the tradition of the teaching of the apostles, it's a good tradition.
On 16. As long as they are in line with the written word, there should be no problem.
On 17. Well, you're wrong, Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
On 18. ?
On 19. Jesus was born a Jew, he had to obey the law, not until he died on the cross, did the new covenant come into effect.
On 20. 2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.On 21. That depends on the coin, does it not?
On 22. Is that why the Catholic church has written her own doctrines?
On 23. It should be apostolic, but, is that why Paul wrote this?
Gal 1:6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Have you ever read these scriptures?
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.On 24. If you were ever to read the bible, not the popes, you would find out real quick what the problem is.
You ask, “is the Bible the only infallible authority”? the answer is YES!
Georg
Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 15 2010,20:05) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 15 2010,16:26) 25 Short Biblical Arguments For the Binding Authority of Tradition
Hi CA,Welcome back!
Do you believe in: “Solo Fida”?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Sola Fide is heresy and unbiblical. The only place in the Bible where you find the words “faith alone” is in James. It says that we are NOT justified by faith alone. Pretty clear.Maybe we can talk about that on a new thread.
Quote (Elizabeth @ Feb. 15 2010,23:28) CA On 2. Jesus said, it is tradition that keeps us from understanding truth, Mat. 15:9
On 3. Aren't Protestant, churches that came out of the Catholic church? Do they not “basically” teach the same doctrine?
On 4. There are two wrongs in your statement, and you don't even recognize them; One; no human being is worth veneration. Two; the pope is father of no child, at least he shouldn't be.
On 5. 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
On 6. Like what?
On 7. Early “Christians”, first Century, had already erred from the apostolic teachings.
On 8. You know that Jesus was referring to all the extras the Pharisees had added to the Law.
On 9. The papacy was self appointed and self crowned, it is in no way the succession of the apostles, in fact, it was the emperor Justinian who in 533 AD decided that only the pope of Rome, for there were many popes/bishops, should hold that title, and be the “head” of all clergy.
On 10. You forgot to mention which scripture says that.
On 11. ?
On 12. What did Peter interpret? Bibles weren't available for many Centuries to come.
On 13. You are really hung up on tradition. What “universal” church, and instituted by whom? Constantine?
On 14. The church fathers appealed to whose scripture, their own? why did the “church fathers” forbid the reading of scriptures, punishable by death? and who where the heretics, all who disagreed with the church doctrine? Rev. 13:15?
On 15. Yes, as long as you refer to the tradition of the teaching of the apostles, it's a good tradition.
On 16. As long as they are in line with the written word, there should be no problem.
On 17. Well, you're wrong, Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
On 18. ?
On 19. Jesus was born a Jew, he had to obey the law, not until he died on the cross, did the new covenant come into effect.
On 20. 2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.On 21. That depends on the coin, does it not?
On 22. Is that why the Catholic church has written her own doctrines?
On 23. It should be apostolic, but, is that why Paul wrote this?
Gal 1:6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Have you ever read these scriptures?
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.On 24. If you were ever to read the bible, not the popes, you would find out real quick what the problem is.
You ask, “is the Bible the only infallible authority”? the answer is YES!
Georg
Hi Georg,Let's start with the first point you take issue with.
2. Tradition can't be separated from the Bible; that would be like trying to separate hydrogen atoms from a water molecule.
You say – “On 2. Jesus said, it is tradition that keeps us from understanding truth, Mat. 15:9”
Go read Mat. 15:9. Jesus is speaking of the “traditions of MEN”
You must have taken a scissors and cut 2 Thess. 2:15 out of your Bible:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
You are commanded to hold to the holy traditions.
Repent and believe the gospel.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 16 2010,03:23) Quote (Elizabeth @ Feb. 15 2010,23:28) CA On 2. Jesus said, it is tradition that keeps us from understanding truth, Mat. 15:9
On 3. Aren't Protestant, churches that came out of the Catholic church? Do they not “basically” teach the same doctrine?
On 4. There are two wrongs in your statement, and you don't even recognize them; One; no human being is worth veneration. Two; the pope is father of no child, at least he shouldn't be.
On 5. 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
On 6. Like what?
On 7. Early “Christians”, first Century, had already erred from the apostolic teachings.
On 8. You know that Jesus was referring to all the extras the Pharisees had added to the Law.
On 9. The papacy was self appointed and self crowned, it is in no way the succession of the apostles, in fact, it was the emperor Justinian who in 533 AD decided that only the pope of Rome, for there were many popes/bishops, should hold that title, and be the “head” of all clergy.
On 10. You forgot to mention which scripture says that.
On 11. ?
On 12. What did Peter interpret? Bibles weren't available for many Centuries to come.
On 13. You are really hung up on tradition. What “universal” church, and instituted by whom? Constantine?
On 14. The church fathers appealed to whose scripture, their own? why did the “church fathers” forbid the reading of scriptures, punishable by death? and who where the heretics, all who disagreed with the church doctrine? Rev. 13:15?
On 15. Yes, as long as you refer to the tradition of the teaching of the apostles, it's a good tradition.
On 16. As long as they are in line with the written word, there should be no problem.
On 17. Well, you're wrong, Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
On 18. ?
On 19. Jesus was born a Jew, he had to obey the law, not until he died on the cross, did the new covenant come into effect.
On 20. 2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.On 21. That depends on the coin, does it not?
On 22. Is that why the Catholic church has written her own doctrines?
On 23. It should be apostolic, but, is that why Paul wrote this?
Gal 1:6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Have you ever read these scriptures?
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.On 24. If you were ever to read the bible, not the popes, you would find out real quick what the problem is.
You ask, “is the Bible the only infallible authority”? the answer is YES!
Georg
Hi Georg,Let's start with the first point you take issue with.
2. Tradition can't be separated from the Bible; that would be like trying to separate hydrogen atoms from a water molecule.
You say – “On 2. Jesus said, it is tradition that keeps us from understanding truth, Mat. 15:9”
Go read Mat. 15:9. Jesus is speaking of the “traditions of MEN”
You must have taken a scissors and cut 2 Thess. 2:15 out of your Bible:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
You are commanded to hold to the holy traditions.
Repent and believe the gospel.
I just have to jump in here. The last statement you made about that we are commanded to keep the tradition, the holy tradition?
Have you ever read what
Ephesians 2:8 says this
For by grace we have been saved through Faith and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God.
verse 9 not of works lest anyone should boast.
verse 10 For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Also Christ magnified the Law on the Sermon on the Mount.
If I can recall I think the Catholic Church still goes by the Ten Commandments. Which was the Old Covenant.
Exodus 34:27 The LORD said to Moses,”Write these words, according to the tenor of these words I have made a Covenant with you and with Israel.”
verse 28 So He was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights, neither eating bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant the Ten Commandments.
That was the old Covenant.
We are in the New Covenant in
Luke 22:20 …..”This cup is the new covenant in My Blood which is shed for you.
He also gave us the great Commandment in
Math. 22:37 Jesus said to him:” You shall love the LORD God with all of your Heart and all of your soul, and all of your mind.
verse 38 “This is the first great commandment.
verse 39 “And the second is like it:” You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
verse 40 “On these two commandment hang all the Law and the Prophets.Can you see what is so different then the Old? No Sabbath..
Exodus 31:16Therefore the Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generation as a perpetual covenant.
verse 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever.
If I can remember it was taught to us to keep Sunday Holy and it was a Mortal Sin if you did not, unless you were sick etc.
It was never for us to begin with. Along with keeping the trinity how wrong can it get. Besides how you adore the Pope, Christ here on earth you call him. Then on good Friday you kiss the Cross, it is called Veneration of the cross. Nice….
The gospel is the good news which is what? That Christ died for us and now we are under Faith in Ephesians which I quoted. Your Tradition is the trinity which is a man made doctrine and not of God. You are forgetting that we were Catholics at one time, and believe you me, I am forever thankful to God that He called us out of that Church. Amen and Amen
IreneQuote (Elizabeth @ Feb. 16 2010,04:15) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 16 2010,03:23) Elizabeth,Feb. wrote:Hi Georg,
Let's start with the first point you take issue with.
2. Tradition can't be separated from the Bible; that would be like trying to separate hydrogen atoms from a water molecule.
You say – “On 2. Jesus said, it is tradition that keeps us from understanding truth, Mat. 15:9”
Go read Mat. 15:9. Jesus is speaking of the “traditions of MEN”
You must have taken a scissors and cut 2 Thess. 2:15 out of your Bible:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
You are commanded to hold to the holy traditions.
Repent and believe the gospel.
I just have to jump in here. The last statement you made about that we are commanded to keep the tradition, the holy tradition?
Have you ever read what
Ephesians 2:8 says this
For by grace we have been saved through Faith and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God.
verse 9 not of works lest anyone should boast.
verse 10 For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Also Christ magnified the Law on the Sermon on the Mount.
If I can recall I think the Catholic Church still goes by the Ten Commandments. Which was the Old Covenant.
Exodus 34:27 The LORD said to Moses,”Write these words, according to the tenor of these words I have made a Covenant with you and with Israel.”
verse 28 So He was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights, neither eating bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant the Ten Commandments.
That was the old Covenant.
We are in the New Covenant in
Luke 22:20 …..”This cup is the new covenant in My Blood which is shed for you.
He also gave us the great Commandment in
Math. 22:37 Jesus said to him:” You shall love the LORD God with all of your Heart and all of your soul, and all of your mind.
verse 38 “This is the first great commandment.
verse 39 “And the second is like it:” You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
verse 40 “On these two commandment hang all the Law and the Prophets.Can you see what is so different then the Old? No Sabbath..
Exodus 31:16Therefore the Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generation as a perpetual covenant.
verse 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever.
If I can remember it was taught to us to keep Sunday Holy and it was a Mortal Sin if you did not, unless you were sick etc.
It was never for us to begin with. Along with keeping the trinity how wrong can it get. Besides how you adore the Pope, Christ here on earth you call him. Then on good Friday you kiss the Cross, it is called Veneration of the cross. Nice….
The gospel is the good news which is what? That Christ died for us and now we are under Faith in Ephesians which I quoted. Your Tradition is the trinity which is a man made doctrine and not of God. You are forgetting that we were Catholics at one time, and believe you me, I am forever thankful to God that He called us out of that Church. Amen and Amen
Irene
Irene,You did a lot of typing. But I missed the part where you explained exactly WHAT you think 2 Thess. 2:15 is actually saying.
You don't LIKE that it says TRADITIONS….do you?
Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 16 2010,03:56) CA
i am glad the middle ages are gone ,are they??
Sounds like you prefer the utter wickedness of American and Western society…yes?Hi CA,
Philosophical musings waste everybody's time..
All must repent and come to Jesus.
No church can save youQuote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 16 2010,08:00) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 16 2010,03:56) CA
i am glad the middle ages are gone ,are they??
Sounds like you prefer the utter wickedness of American and Western society…yes?
Hi CA and welcome back
Have to agree with you there!Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 16 2010,03:23) Quote (Elizabeth @ Feb. 15 2010,23:28) CA On 2. Jesus said, it is tradition that keeps us from understanding truth, Mat. 15:9
On 3. Aren't Protestant, churches that came out of the Catholic church? Do they not “basically” teach the same doctrine?
On 4. There are two wrongs in your statement, and you don't even recognize them; One; no human being is worth veneration. Two; the pope is father of no child, at least he shouldn't be.
On 5. 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
On 6. Like what?
On 7. Early “Christians”, first Century, had already erred from the apostolic teachings.
On 8. You know that Jesus was referring to all the extras the Pharisees had added to the Law.
On 9. The papacy was self appointed and self crowned, it is in no way the succession of the apostles, in fact, it was the emperor Justinian who in 533 AD decided that only the pope of Rome, for there were many popes/bishops, should hold that title, and be the “head” of all clergy.
On 10. You forgot to mention which scripture says that.
On 11. ?
On 12. What did Peter interpret? Bibles weren't available for many Centuries to come.
On 13. You are really hung up on tradition. What “universal” church, and instituted by whom? Constantine?
On 14. The church fathers appealed to whose scripture, their own? why did the “church fathers” forbid the reading of scriptures, punishable by death? and who where the heretics, all who disagreed with the church doctrine? Rev. 13:15?
On 15. Yes, as long as you refer to the tradition of the teaching of the apostles, it's a good tradition.
On 16. As long as they are in line with the written word, there should be no problem.
On 17. Well, you're wrong, Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
On 18. ?
On 19. Jesus was born a Jew, he had to obey the law, not until he died on the cross, did the new covenant come into effect.
On 20. 2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.On 21. That depends on the coin, does it not?
On 22. Is that why the Catholic church has written her own doctrines?
On 23. It should be apostolic, but, is that why Paul wrote this?
Gal 1:6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Have you ever read these scriptures?
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.On 24. If you were ever to read the bible, not the popes, you would find out real quick what the problem is.
You ask, “is the Bible the only infallible authority”? the answer is YES!
Georg
Hi Georg,Let's start with the first point you take issue with.
2. Tradition can't be separated from the Bible; that would be like trying to separate hydrogen atoms from a water molecule.
You say – “On 2. Jesus said, it is tradition that keeps us from understanding truth, Mat. 15:9”
Go read Mat. 15:9. Jesus is speaking of the “traditions of MEN”
You must have taken a scissors and cut 2 Thess. 2:15 out of your Bible:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
You are commanded to hold to the holy traditions.
Repent and believe the gospel.
CALook again, Paul is talking about what he has taught them or written to them, “whether by word, OR BY OUR EPISTLE”.
Mat 15:1 ¶ Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?This is what Mat. 15:9 is referring to.
Apparently you agree with me on the rest.
Georg
Quote (Elizabeth @ Feb. 16 2010,08:27) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 16 2010,03:23) Elizabeth,Feb. wrote:Hi Georg,
Let's start with the first point you take issue with.
2. Tradition can't be separated from the Bible; that would be like trying to separate hydrogen atoms from a water molecule.
You say – “On 2. Jesus said, it is tradition that keeps us from understanding truth, Mat. 15:9”
Go read Mat. 15:9. Jesus is speaking of the “traditions of MEN”
You must have taken a scissors and cut 2 Thess. 2:15 out of your Bible:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
You are commanded to hold to the holy traditions.
Repent and believe the gospel.
CALook again, Paul is talking about what he has taught them or written to them, “whether by word, OR BY OUR EPISTLE”.
Mat 15:1 ¶ Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?This is what Mat. 15:9 is referring to.
Apparently you agree with me on the rest.
Georg
Georg,Didn't think I'd see the day when you would agree with the Church (again…why did you apostasize?).
You wrote:
“Look again, Paul is talking about what he has taught them or written to them, “whether by word, OR BY OUR EPISTLE”.”
Alright…we're making progress.
So you are agreeing that Paul didn't write EVERYTHING down in Scripture. Some things he handed on “BY WORD” only. Hmmm….
So I guess I want to know which Sacred Oral Traditions you currently hold? How do you substantiate their authenticity as coming through the apostles down to the present day?
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 16 2010,08:00) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 16 2010,03:56) CA
i am glad the middle ages are gone ,are they??
Sounds like you prefer the utter wickedness of American and Western society…yes?
Hi CA,
So what of the paedophilic priests who are rampant within your lofty walls?Is this wickedness not the worst and most cruel kind?
CA
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 16 2010,08:00)
Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 16 2010,03:56)
CA
i am glad the middle ages are gone ,are they??Sounds like you prefer the utter wickedness of American and Western society…yes?
no,i like truth and Godly devotion,and in no way associate my name to any organization who covers up wickedness and proclaim it selves the church of God.
your question to me looks more like do you prefer evil over Satan
Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 16 2010,10:04) CA
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 16 2010,08:00)
Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 16 2010,03:56)
CA
i am glad the middle ages are gone ,are they??Sounds like you prefer the utter wickedness of American and Western society…yes?
no,i like truth and Godly devotion,and in no way associate my name to any organization who covers up wickedness and proclaim it selves the church of God.
your question to me looks more like do you prefer evil over Satan
No. My question was fine.You were eschewing the time period called the “Middle Ages”. You made it sound as though you thought the “Modern Age” was more enlightened in some way….like you were glad you didn't live in those times.
So yes, it did seem as though you preferred this godless age to that one.
You don't like looking silly do you?
Hi CA,
Worshiping bread and wine and men and women and their teachings is unlikely to bring much favour with Almighty God.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 16 2010,09:01) Quote (Elizabeth @ Feb. 16 2010,08:27) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 16 2010,03:23) Elizabeth,Feb. wrote:Hi Georg,
Let's start with the first point you take issue with.
2. Tradition can't be separated from the Bible; that would be like trying to separate hydrogen atoms from a water molecule.
You say – “On 2. Jesus said, it is tradition that keeps us from understanding truth, Mat. 15:9”
Go read Mat. 15:9. Jesus is speaking of the “traditions of MEN”
You must have taken a scissors and cut 2 Thess. 2:15 out of your Bible:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
You are commanded to hold to the holy traditions.
Repent and believe the gospel.
CALook again, Paul is talking about what he has taught them or written to them, “whether by word, OR BY OUR EPISTLE”.
Mat 15:1 ¶ Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?This is what Mat. 15:9 is referring to.
Apparently you agree with me on the rest.
Georg
Georg,Didn't think I'd see the day when you would agree with the Church (again…why did you apostasize?).
You wrote:
“Look again, Paul is talking about what he has taught them or written to them, “whether by word, OR BY OUR EPISTLE”.”
Alright…we're making progress.
So you are agreeing that Paul didn't write EVERYTHING down in Scripture. Some things he handed on “BY WORD” only. Hmmm….
So I guess I want to know which Sacred Oral Traditions you currently hold? How do you substantiate their authenticity as coming through the apostles down to the present day?
No CAWe were talking about “tradition”, lets not change the subject.
Georg
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 16 2010,11:31) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 16 2010,10:04) CA
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Feb. 16 2010,08:00)
Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 16 2010,03:56)
CA
i am glad the middle ages are gone ,are they??Sounds like you prefer the utter wickedness of American and Western society…yes?
no,i like truth and Godly devotion,and in no way associate my name to any organization who covers up wickedness and proclaim it selves the church of God.
your question to me looks more like do you prefer evil over Satan
No. My question was fine.You were eschewing the time period called the “Middle Ages”. You made it sound as though you thought the “Modern Age” was more enlightened in some way….like you were glad you didn't live in those times.
So yes, it did seem as though you preferred this godless age to that one.
You don't like looking silly do you?
CAI believe terraricca was referring to the time when the Catholic church persecuted and killed all that disagreed with her.
Georg
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
