[Akoue]

Hey Joe,

I didn't mean for you to withdraw anything, though I appreciate the graciousness that led you to do so. Very decent of you.

[JoeT777]

Hey Joe,

I didn't mean for you to withdraw anything, though I appreciate the graciousness that led you to do so. Very decent of you.

I get carried away sometimes. I'm beginning to see where you're headed with this and I didn't want to start the Catholic vs. not-Catholic thing. It does get old.

Great job keeping this hot-head in line!

JoeT

[Akoue]

I get carried away sometimes. I’m beginning to see where you’re headed with this and I didn’t want to start the Catholic vs. not-Catholic thing. It does get old.

Great job keeping this hot-head in line!

JoeT

Happy to be of service--though I think you did it all on your own. Nevertheless, I am just shallow enough to accept the credit!

[Wondergirl]

Thanks, De Maria. I've read many of your other posts in other threads, so I can predict your answer, but thanks for spelling out so cogently the Catholic side of those two questions.

Now how about tackling "justification by faith alone," another break from Catholic Tradition. (I say "Catholic" because that is the church body that most often offers a defense for Tradition.)

[JoeT777]

Happy to be of service--though I think you did it all on your own. Nevertheless, I am just shallow enough to accept the credit!

Now you're learning Doc! Take the credit and run! At least throw money!!

[Akoue]

Now you're learning Doc! Take the credit and run! At least throw money!!!

I'm throwing! I'm throwing! The coins just keep bouncing off the screen!

[De Maria]

Thanks, De Maria. I've read many of your other posts in other threads, so I can predict your answer, but thanks for spelling out so cogently the Catholic side of those two questions.

Now how about tackling "justification by faith alone," another break from Catholic Tradition. (I say "Catholic" because that is the church body that most often offers a defense for Tradition.)

Sure. Thanks for asking.

In this case, we must take into consideration what is said of St. Paul in the Scriptures:

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his (St. Paul's) 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.

So, Scripture says that some of St. Paul's teachings are hard to understand. And this is one of them.

Because St. James is very clear in saying:

James 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

And also:

James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that clear cut. Because St. Paul seems to contradict St. James directly:

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

See the problem?

The good thing is that they both referred to Father Abraham to support their doctrine. And no one can deny that Father Abraham worked in obedience to God's call:

Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

So how could St. Paul say that Father Abraham did not work?
Romans 4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Well he didn't. He said that he was not justified because of what he did. But because of the faith with which he responded to God's voice.

Hebrews 11:8
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

And this is the Catholic position. If we have faith, we will obey God's voice, and be saved. As we can see, in another place, St. Paul says that Jesus gives eternal salvation to all who have faith? No, to all who obey.
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

And this is in complete agreement with St. James, who says:
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[JoeT777]

Let me throw out a question.

Scattered throughout the New Testament is references to the word “scripture,” e.g. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. (Gal 3:22). This occurs 30 or 32 times.

I've always understood this to mean the Septuagint or Old Testament. The reason I drew this distinction is when reading the Gospels and the Epistles I don't get the sense that the author knew he was writing “Sacred Scripture.” In places other than 2 Tim 3 where we see “ALL scripture, inspired of God, is profitable,” the writer is referring to the Old Testament. And even here, at the time Paul was writing his epistle surly wasn't referring to other New Testament writings?

Any opinions?

JoeT

I've developed a new category of computer problems - money keeps falling out of my monitor? Strange!

[talaniman]

Talaniman,

I get the impression from your posts--and it's just an impression, I don't mean to put words in your mouth--that you are sensitive to the historical conditions surrounding the production and canonization of both the Bible and Tradition. I wonder if you would be willing say a few words about how you see the relationship between the Bible and Tradition, on the one hand, and those historical conditions that you find to be salient, on the other.

Feel free to beg-off if you don't feel like giving a history lesson, though!

To keep it very brief, the history of your own religion, is but a fraction of the history of total man, so you can see where my response is a broader view, than the regional one you have. Many upon the earth predate Christianity, and let us not forget that even Christianity is based upon Judaism, as is Islam also, but of course, for some reason the evolutionary truth between the relationship of these religions is often disputed, distorted, and misrepresented, and as all history tells us, when we have interfaith disputes, we just go down the road, and take our followers with us, and start our own church, and the best example is modern day Christianity. Not to single one religion out, but they all follow the same model. So one is no more unique than the other, nor any closer to the truth than another. So far as tradition, that's only the expression of man in what he believes, and so what he passes down, for his children to believe. Just my view.

[arcura]

De Maria,
Your view is ineresting.
I do not fully agree.
I do believe that Catholicism is the true, full Christian faith as The Church IS guided by The Holy Spirit.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

Show me where the book of Revelation says there are "ONLY 12".

For example:

Rev 21:14-15
14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
NKJV

[Tj3]

No. Anytime you want to debate anything you think is an addition to Scripture, start a thread. I'll be glad to educate you.

We've been through that many times - the only education that I got from that is that as I looked into the claims that I put forward, my faith in the truth of scripture rather than the claims of tradition was increased.

It is actually you who does that all the time. Like for instance, in this thread saying that Jesus appointed St. Paul in place of Judas. That is an addition to Scripture.

Really? Do you deny Paul is an Apostle?

Nope. Those books were in the Catholic Scriptures from the time of Jesus who used the Septuagint Old Testament which included them. It was Luther who took them out.

We've been through this before also, and your claims does not stand up to historical examination. Even Jerome opposed the Apocrypha as being canonical.

[arcura]

De Maria,
The Rev mention about on the wall's foundation were the names of the original 12 apostles which included Judas.
That can not be proven wither way,
It also does not say Only 12.
It is a stretch but people who don not want to believe in apostolic suggestion as the bible demonstrates that there is like to use that passage in an attempt to claim there were 12 ONLY apostles and never any more.
Peace and kindness,
]Fred

[Tj3]

De Maria,
The Rev mention about on the wall's foundation were the names of the original 12 apostles which included Judas.

Please show us where scripture says that and where scripture tells us that there were more than those documented in the future foundation of the New Jerusalem.

It is a stretch but people who don not want to believe in apostolic suggestion as the bible demonstrates that there is like to use that passage in an attempt to claim there were 12 ONLY apostles and never any more.
Peace and kindness,
]Fred

Where does scripture dictate Apostolic succession?

[arcura]

Tj3,
You have been told that many time over several years. Please don't bother to ask again.
It will just start another confrontation and the hut down of another thread,
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

Let me throw out a question.

Scattered throughout the New Testament is references to the word “scripture,” e.g., But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. (Gal 3:22). This occurs 30 or 32 times.

I’ve always understood this to mean the Septuagint or Old Testament. The reason I drew this distinction is when reading the Gospels and the Epistles I don’t get the sense that the author knew he was writing “Sacred Scripture.” In places other than 2 Tim 3 where we see “ALL scripture, inspired of God, is profitable,” the writer is referring to the Old Testament. And even here, at the time Paul was writing his epistle surly wasn’t referring to other New Testament writings?

Any opinions?

Here, too, I think, a lot turns on what ends up counting as Scripture. When the NT quotes Scripture it of course quotes the OT; I'm inclined to agree with what you wrote. But how do people explain the canon of the NT, which didn't exist--at least, it didn't exist outside God's mind--in the first century. People had to make decisions about what went in and what got left out, and we today, each of us, has a decision to make whether to abide by the canon we've received. Since you, Fred, and De Maria have explained your views on this, it would be really nice if others, who hold a different view from yours, would pony up and address the question. Instead, we are apparently meant to drop the topic we've all been discussing in order to argue about Trent and how many Apostles there were (though, notice, I started another thread on that very topic for anyone interested).

[De Maria]

For example:

Rev 21:14-15
14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
NKJV

Where does that say ONLY twelve and where does that say that St. Paul replaces Judas?

[Fr_Chuck]

The bible shows where Judus was replaced, the other Apostles picked and replaced him. Please it is there, and it was not Pual, Paul was chosen by God, but not as a replacement to any of the 12,

This is a very clear part and I can't see why it is even a question on Judas replacement

[De Maria]

De Maria,
Your view is ineresting.
I do not fully agree.
I do believe that Catholicism is the true, full Christian faith as The Church IS guided by The Holy Spirit.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

What point is it with which you disagree. I believe I have expounded Catholic Teaching. But if a faithful Catholic disagrees, perhaps I made a mistake.

[De Maria]

Let me throw out a question.

Scattered throughout the New Testament is references to the word “scripture,” e.g., But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. (Gal 3:22). This occurs 30 or 32 times.

I’ve always understood this to mean the Septuagint or Old Testament. The reason I drew this distinction is when reading the Gospels and the Epistles I don’t get the sense that the author knew he was writing “Sacred Scripture.” In places other than 2 Tim 3 where we see “ALL scripture, inspired of God, is profitable,” the writer is referring to the Old Testament. And even here, at the time Paul was writing his epistle surly wasn’t referring to other New Testament writings?

Any opinions?

JoeT

I've developed a new category of computer problems - money keeps falling out of my monitor? Strange!

St. Peter seems to imply that they knew they were writing Scripture:
2 Peter 3:16
As 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.

Whether he meant "Sacred Scriptures" is a debatable point. But I think he does mean Sacred Scriptures, otherwise, why does he mention that twisting them can lead to destruction?