Ask Me Help Desk - Sola Scriptura vs Church, Sacred Tradition and Scripture

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Look at 2 Tim 3:16

2 Timothy 3 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

We believe that all Scripture is God breathed. But not Scripture ALONE. First man was God breathed, that is inspired, to speak and then to write the Scriptures:

2 Peter 1 20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

So, 2 Tim 3:16 certainly does not support the idea of Scripture alone.

Quote:

and tell me where you find tradition in that.

Sure. But you have to read the entire letter of 2 Tim for that.

IMPOSITION OF HANDS - this is how priests are ordained. It is a Tradition.

First Chapter - verse 6 For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.

COMMEND TO FAITHFUL MEN WHO SHALL TEACH OTHERS - the very definition of tradition.

Second Chapter - 1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus: 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

TEACH, REPROVE, CORRECT AND INSTRUCT - Again, the definition of tradition.

Third Chapter - 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

THE WORK OF AN EVANGELIST - another Tradition.

Fourth Chapter - 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. 5 But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.

Quote:

Indeed, you will never find your denomination's tradition given any authority anywhere in scripture.

I've proven it over and over. All you do is deny what I produce. But you produce nothing tangible in response.

Quote:

Note that this refers to what the Apostles taught. And then what does it say?

2 Thess 2:15-16
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
NKJV

Note that the same traditions that they speak of were taught verbally by the Apostles and in writing. We no longer have the Apostles, therefore we have that word in writing alone.

What you seem not to understand is that the Traditions came first. The New Testament is an example of Tradition which is written down. The Traditions of word did not lose effect because they were written down.

Quote:

Nothing about tradition here.

1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

C'mon TJ, it is the very definition of tradition. Tradition is passed down or taught. St. Paul says that they accepted the word of the Apostles, not as the word of men, but as the Word of God, which it is.

Quote:

Nothing about tradition here.

The Bible is, in essence, tradition written down. We pass the Bible down from generation to generation don't we?

This verse, 1 Tim 3:15, is the basis for our Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church which is here described as the Pillar of Truth. Only an infallible institution could be so described.

Quote:

Your denomination teaches that. That is what scripture refers to here:

Mark 7:9
9 And He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
NKJV

Actually, Scripture says that.

Quote:

I note that you avoided the question.

I did? Where?

Quote:

But if you say that the word "church" refers to the body of Christ, then it is most certainly not your denomination or any denomination.

I have traced my Church to the Bible by showing the basis for our beliefs, Traditions and teachings. I have also proven that your traditions of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide contradict the Scriptures.

Quote:

Note that he only used scripture when dealing with doctrine. Many Bibles contain other books as reference material - that does not make them canonical.

What does then? For Catholics, we understand that the Catholic Church selected the Canon.

Also, we notice that Luther, an extra biblical person, threw out seven of the originally canonized Scriptures. This puts Protestants and other so called Bible Christians of the Reformed traditions in a precarious position. In either case, they have accepted an extra biblical authority.

If the Catholic Church did not select your canon of Scripture, and if Luther did not modify the Church's original canon, who did?

And if each book of Scripture identifies itself or if Scripture contains a list of the canonized books, show me where it is chapter and verse.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

2 Timothy 3 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

We believe that all Scripture is God breathed. But not Scripture ALONE. First man was God breathed, that is inspired, to speak and then to write the Scriptures:

Then the onus is on YOU to prove that anything that you wish to add to the canon is the word of God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

I don't understand your message.

Since you are addressing it to the point that the Church was called Catholic,as recently as 100 years after the birth of Christ, I assume you think that this somehow contradicts that statement.

But I don't see how. Please explain.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Posting #94

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Although the Catholic Church was not known as the "Catholic" Church until 100 years after the Birth of our Lord, ....

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D. ).

...it is the Catholic Church alone which is described in Scripture:
De Maria

First on your list was as shown: Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D.
I did indeed research this to find what the Catholic church, as their teaching
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians 18-19

As the research reveals also what the Bible / scripture has Ephesians 6:24 which was by a friend of Paul's who was a Asiatic Christian. The information below tells you what scripture says and includes the meaning of Asiatic Christian which was confirmed by Strong's Hebrew - Greek Dictionary. I offer the links yet you have a choice in your own research.

Ephesians 6:24 Grace [be] with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. [[[To [the] Ephesians written from Rome, by Tychicus.]]]

Meaning : Grace 5485 [be] with 3326 all 3956 them that love 25 our 2257 Lord 2962 Jesus 2424 Christ 5547 in 1722 sincerity 861. Amen 281. [[[To 4314 [the] Ephesians 2180 written 1125 from 575 Rome 4516, by 1223 Tychicus 5190.]]]

Tychicus 5190 = meaning Asiatic Christian

As for the christian teaching would be offered on Asiatic Christian
NETBible: Tychicus

This definitely takes some study time and research. I wanted to understand the Catholic Church's first on the list, rule of thumb. Yet I do confirm scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who wrote the letter and what connection it has to the ministry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Since you are addressing it to the point that the Church was called Catholic as recently as 100 years after the birth of Christ, I assume you think that this somehow contradicts that statement.

Don't make the mistake of mixing up catholic meaning "universal" with the Roman Catholic Church denomination started in 325AD by Constantine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Then the onus is on YOU to prove that anything that you wish to add to the canon is the word of God.

Why? I never professed such a thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sndbay

Posting #94

First on your list was as shown: Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 Ignatius of Antioch; 110 A.D.
I did indeed research this to find what the Catholic church, as their teaching
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians 18-19

As the research reveals also what the Bible / scripture has Ephesians 6:24 which was by a friend of Paul's who was a Asiatic Christian. The information below tells you what scripture says and includes the meaning of Asiatic Christian which was confirmed by Strong's Hebrew - Greek Dictionary. I offer the links yet you have a choice in your own research.

Ephesians 6:24 Grace [be] with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. [[[To [the] Ephesians written from Rome, by Tychicus.]]]

Meaning : Grace 5485 [be] with 3326 all 3956 them that love 25 our 2257 Lord 2962 Jesus 2424 Christ 5547 in 1722 sincerity 861. Amen 281. [[[To 4314 [the] Ephesians 2180 written 1125 from 575 Rome 4516, by 1223 Tychicus 5190.]]]

Tychicus 5190 = meaning Asiatic Christian

As for the christian teaching would be offered on Asiatic Christian
NETBible: Tychicus

This definitely takes some study time and research. I wanted to understand the Catholic Church's first on the list, rule of thumb. Yet I do confirm scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who wrote the letter and what connection it has to the ministery.

Are you saying that the word "Catholic" means "asiatic"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Why? I never professed such a thing.

Good. Then we are agreed that the canon is composed of the 66 books of the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Don't make the mistake of mixing up catholic meaning "universal" with the Roman Catholic Church denomination started in 325AD by Constantine.

The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ. I remember your posting a document by the Great Cardinal Newman, please post it again and we can highlight your error again.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Good. Then we are agreed that the canon is composed of the 66 books of the Bible.

Lol!! :eek:

C'mon TJ. Is this debate?

I have agreed to no such thing. I simply said that I never added anything to the canon. Nor did the Church. It was Luther who removed 7 books from the Canon.

Unless you want to skip 1400 years of Christian worship and use the Jewish council of Jamnia as your basis for such a decision.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Lol!!!:eek:

C'mon TJ. Is this debate?

Well, you said that you did not want to add anything to the canon which I indiacted earlier as being the 66 books that we all agreed upon, so either you are willing to defend the additions to the canon or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ. I remember your posting a document by the Great Cardinal Newman, please post it again and we can highlight your error again.

De Maria

Since you already know that even your Cardinal Newman stated what is historical fact, and that is that your denomination started in 325AD (started by Emperor Constantine), there is no need to repost. I see no one else on this thread who is under the mis-understanding that the Roman Church was started earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Are you saying that the word "Catholic" means "asiatic"?

No.. It would not be true. Paul had 12 friends that helped him with teaching.

NETBible: Tychicus

TYCHICUS - tik'-i-kus (Tuchikos, lit. "chance"): Mentioned 5 times in the New Testament (Acts 20:4; Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; 2 Tim 4:12; Tit 3:12); an Asiatic Christian, a friend and companion of the apostle Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Unless you want to skip 1400 years of Christian worship and use the Jewish council of Jamnia as your basis for such a decision.

1400 years of what?

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent”
(Source: The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)

As I said, the Roman Church added these books to their Bible at the Council of Trent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Well, you said that you did not want to add anything to the canon which I indiacted earlier as being the 66 books that we all agreed upon, so either you are willing to defend the additions to the canon or not.

There were no additions to the Canon. Luther removed seven books from the Canon.

By what authority did Luther remove these seven books?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Since you already know that even your Cardinal Newman stated what is historical fact, and that is that your denomination started in 325AD (started by Emperor Constantine), there is no need to repost.

Twisiting my words doesn't add to your credibility TJ.

You provided a document in a previous debate wherein you claimed that Cardinal Newman recognized that the Catholic Church was started by Constantine in 325ad.

I repeat, provide it again and AGAIN I will point out your error of interpreting that document.

Cardinal Newman was a Bishop of the Catholic Church TJ. You don't get to be a Bishop of the Catholic Church if you teach error. And if you become a Bishop of the Catholic Church and begin to teach error, you are quickly anathematized.

Quote:

I see no one else on this thread who is under the mis-understanding that the Roman Church was started earlier.

1. It isn't a misunderstanding. It is verifiable history.
2. Are there any other Catholics on this thread?

And certainly, no Sola Scripturist can claim that their beliefs were held from the time of Christ, since that false doctrine was introduced by Luther in the 1500s.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

There were no additions to the Canon. Luther removed seven books from the Canon.

By what authority did Luther remove these seven books?

Heh heh heh - so you refuse to even accept from Roman catholic sources say:D . If you reject what is known historical fact, acknowledged by both Catholic and non-Catholic sources, then there is really no room to discuss the issue with you.

For an intelligent discussion to take place, it is important that you be willing to acknowledge historic facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

1400 years of what?

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent”
(Source: The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)

As I said, the Roman Church added these books to their Bible at the Council of Trent.

That is true. St. Jerome had a bit of a rebellious spirit in him. And he was very close to his Jewish buddies who convinced him that the deuterocanonicals were not inspired Scripture.

But in the end, did St. Jerome include the deuterocanonicals in his Bible or not?

Why yes, yes he did. Why? Because he accepted the authority of the Catholic Church.

Here is what St. Jerome himself had to say about the matter:
"What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are won't to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. Canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are won't to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).
5 Myths about 7 Books

So, there you have it. It is true that St. Jerome at one time did reject the canonical status of the deuterocanonicals. But he did so because he was misled by his Jewish friends. But the Church set him straight. And being a true Saint, he accepted the authority of the Pillar of Truth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

heh heh heh - so you refuse to even accept from Roman catholic sources say:D . If you reject what is known historical fact, acknowledged by both Catholic and non-Catholic sources, then there is really no room to discuss the issue with you.

I believe you've misunderstood what that Catholic source said. Either that or you deliberately misrepresented what that Catholic source said.

Its hard for me to believe that a Catholic source worth its weight does not know that the Latin Vulgate produced by SAINT Jerome included within its pages the 73 books of the Catholic Canon.

Quote:

For an intelligent discussion to take place, it is important that you be willing to acknowledge historic facts.

It is also important that you not pick which facts you want to acknowledge.

You seem very enthusiastic in acknowledging that St. Jerome once rejected the seven books.

But a bit less enthusiastic in acknowledging the equally historical fact that he ended up accepting all seven, including them in his Latin Vulgate and defending their canonicity in his later years.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Twisiting my words doesn't add to your credibility TJ.

I twisted nothing. You admitted that you saw it before. I can only then assume that you are denying what Cardinal Newman wrote and published - is that correct? The book is readily available, and once again acknowledged by both Catholic and non-Catholic sources.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.
(Source: An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

I twisted nothing. You admitted that you saw it before. I can only then assume that you are denying what Cardinal Newman wrote and published - is that correct? the book is readily available, and once again acknowledged by both Catholic and non-Catholic sources.

Not at all. I am simply stating that you have misunderstood what he wrote. Either that or you are twisting the meaning of his words, something which you have been prone to do in our discussions. I can point to several occasions where you have twisted the meaning of my words.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.
(Source: An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/QUOTE]

I don't see where he says that Constantine started the new religion.

Please show me where he says that?

Sincerely,

De Maria