Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
cna ^

Posted on 01/31/2010 2:03:15 PM PST by NYer

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

According to most Evangelicals, a Christian needs only to believe those teachings found in Scripture (a.k.a. the Bible). For these Christians, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative teaching Church. For them the Bible is sufficient for learning about the faith and living a Christian life. In order to be consistent, they claim that this "By Scripture Alone" (sola Scriptura) teaching is found in Scripture, especially St. Paul's Letters.

The passage most frequently used to support the Scripture-Alone belief is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. St. Paul writes:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect (complete, adequate, competent), equipped for every good work. [2 Tim. 3:16-17, RSV]

According to those that hold this belief, Scripture is sufficient since it is "profitable for teaching" and makes a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." On closer examination though, it becomes apparent that these verses still do not prove this teaching.

Verse 16 states a fundamental Christian doctrine. Scripture is "inspired by God" and "profitable for teaching" the faith. The Catholic Church teaches this doctrine (CCC 101-108). But this verse does not demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture in teaching the faith. As an example, vitamins are profitable, even necessary, for good health but not sufficient. If someone ate only vitamins, he would starve to death. Likewise, Sacred Scripture is very important in learning about the Christian faith, but it does not exclude Sacred Tradition or a teaching Church as other sources concerning the faith.

St. Paul in verse 17 states that Scripture can make a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." In this verse he is once again stressing the importance of Sacred Scripture. In similar fashion, the proverb, "practice makes perfect," stresses the importance of practice but does not imply that practice alone is sufficient in mastering a skill. Practice is very important, but it presumes a basic know-how. In sports, practice presupposes basic knowledge of the game rules, aptitude and good health. Elsewhere in Scripture, "steadfastness" is said to make a Christian "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." [James 1:4] Even though the language (both English and Greek) in this verse is stronger, no one claims that steadfastness alone is enough for Christian growth. Faith, prayer and God's grace are also needed. Likewise in verse 17, St. Paul presumes God's grace, Timothy's faith and Sacred Tradition (2 Tim. 3:14-15).

Verses 16-17 must be read in context. Only two verses earlier, St. Paul also writes:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it... [2 Tim. 3:14]

Here St. Paul suggests Tradition. Notice that Paul did not write, "knowing from which Scripture passage you learned it" but instead he writes, "knowing from whom you learned it." He is implying with the "whom" himself and the other Apostles. Earlier in the same letter, St. Paul actually defines and commands Apostolic Tradition - "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." [2 Tim. 2:2] Also if St. Paul were truly teaching the sufficiency of Scripture, verse 15 would have been a golden opportunity to list the Books of Scripture, or at least give the "official" Table of Content for the Old Testament. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition:

...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings (a.k.a. Scripture) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [2 Tim. 3:15, RSV]

Even though profitable in instructing for salvation (but not sufficient), St. Paul still does not list which Books. He also does not suggest personal taste or opinion as Timothy's guide. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition to define the contents of Scripture. Verses 14-15 show that verses 16-17 presuppose Tradition.

Verse 15 brings up the problem of canonicity, i.e. which Books belong in Scripture? Through the centuries the Books of Scripture were written independently along with other religious books. There were smaller collections of Books, e.g. The Books of Moses (Torah), that were used in Synagogues. The largest collection was the Greek Septuagint which the New Testament writers most often cited. St. Paul in verse 15 probably referred to the Septuagint as Scripture. Only after the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century A.D. were all of the Books of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) compiled together under one cover to form "the Bible." Already in Jesus' time, the question of which Books are Scripture, was hotly debated. As an example, Esther and the Song of Solomon were not accepted by all as Scripture during Jesus' day. The source of the problem is that no where in the Sacred Writings are the Books completely and clearly listed. Sacred Scripture does not define its contents. St. Paul could have eliminated the problem of canonicity by listing the Books of Scripture (at least the Old Testament) in his Letters, but did not. Instead the Church had to discern with the aid of Sacred Tradition (CCC 120). Canonicity is a major problem for the Scripture-Alone teaching.

As a final point, verse 15 suggests only the Old Testament as Scripture since the New Testament was written after Timothy's childhood. Taken in context, verses 16-17 apply only to the Old Testament. "All Scripture" simply means all of the Old Testament. If verses 16-17 were to prove that Scripture is enough for Christians, then verse 15 would prove that the Old Testament is enough!
Some Christians may cite 1 Corthinians 4:6 as more proof for the Scripture-Alone belief:

I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favour of one against another. [1 Cor. 4:6, RSV]

This verse does not condemn Sacred Tradition but warns against reading-between-the-lines in Scripture. The Corinthians had a problem of reading more into the Scripture text than what was actually there. The main question with this verse is which Sacred Writings are being referred to here? Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it may refer only to earlier cited Old Testament passages (1 Cor. 1:19, 31; 2:9 & 3:19-20) and not the entire Old Testament. Calvin thought that Paul may also be referring to the Epistle Itself. The present tense of the clause, "beyond what is written" excludes parts of the New Testament, since the New Testament was not completely written then. This causes a serious problem for the Scripture-Alone belief and Christians.

Bible verses can be found that show the importance of Sacred Scripture but not Its sufficiency or contents. There are Bible verses that also promote Sacred Tradition. In Mark 7:5-13 (Matt. 15:1-9), Jesus does not condemn all traditions but only those corrupted by the Pharisees. Although 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not directly call Sacred Tradition the word of God, it does show some form of teachings "by word of mouth" beside Scripture and puts them on the same par as Paul's Letters. Elsewhere the preaching of the Apostles is called the "word of God" (Acts 4:31; 17:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 13:7). The Scripture-Alone theory must assume that the Apostles eventually wrote all of these oral teachings in the New Testament. At least for St. John, this does not seem to be the case (John 21:25; 2 John 12 & 3 John 13-14). Also no Apostle listed in the New Testament which Books belong in Scripture. Now these oral teachings were eventually written down elsewhere to preserve their accuracy, e.g. St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, written 96 A.D. (Phil. 4:3) or St. Ignatius' seven letters written 107 A.D. Clement's letter is found in the Codex Alexandrinus (an ancient Bible manuscript) and was even considered by some early Christians to be part of Scripture.

Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the word of God, while the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." [1 Tim. 3:15] The Holy Spirit through the Church protects Both from corruption. Some Christians may claim that doctrines on Mary are not found in the Bible, but the Scripture-Alone teaching is not found in the Bible. Promoters of Scripture-Alone have a consistency problem, since this is one teaching not found in Scripture.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; moapb; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-244 next last

1 posted on 01/31/2010 2:03:20 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; markomalley; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; ...

Sunday evening ping!


2 posted on 01/31/2010 2:03:56 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
2 Timothy 3:15  
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 4:1
 ¶I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2  Preach the word;
be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Here is how the verses read from a better translation. Please note how Paul told Timothy that it was the Scriptures that made him wise unto salvation and that Timothy must preach the word, not the vain traditions of men.

Colossians 2:8  
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Would to God that people would love Jesus Christ, who died to save their souls from an eternity in Hell, more than they love their vain traditions.

3 posted on 01/31/2010 2:14:29 PM PST by Bodleian_Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Oh good grief! What the passage in Timothy says is:

“14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Yes, Timothy was to continue in what he learned...from the Apostle Paul. No Protestant is denying Apostolic authority. However, many doctrines of the Catholic Church are not taught by anything we have handed down from the Apostles. We didn’t need 2nd, 3rd, or 27th generation unfolding because Paul taught the “whole counsel of God” - not part.

It then says the scriptures “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” So if we need it for salvation, it is there. Otherwise they would NOT be able, but would need help.

Then Timothy is told to use the scriptures because they have authority - they are God’s Breath - and he is to use them “for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. The result (the next verse starts with “so that”) is that the man of God “may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” “Thoroughly equipped”. “Every good work”.

Doesn’t leave much.

And in Jude we find that he is contending “for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.” ‘Once for all’ doesn’t leave a lot of room for development.

And in 2 John we read, “8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.”

Hard to abide in the teaching of Christ if you don’t HAVE the full teaching of Christ. And we are told “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God...”

Sounds serious. And we read further, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house...for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.”


4 posted on 01/31/2010 2:18:10 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Just show us where Apostolic succession is taught or promoted in scripture ..

Tradition that has a biblical base is accepted by most Protestant churches.. it is just the ones from thin air that cause us a problem.


5 posted on 01/31/2010 2:22:23 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Hmm...the odd thing is, and my Faith is Sola Scriputeral, if one looks at that reference do you ask yourself

The Scriputres when Paul wrote that Epistle were the Old Testament?

Man can say many things, the Scriptures say only one thing and have for 1,700 yrs or more.


6 posted on 01/31/2010 2:25:40 PM PST by padre35 (You shall not ignore the laws of God, the Market, the Jungle, and Reciprocity Rm10.10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Question :

What traditions would Rabbi Paul have taught ?

Would Rabbi Paul have taught the traditions surrounding the
celebration of YHvH commanded Feasts ?

Or

Would Rabbi Paul have taught the Babylonian Paganism of Nicea ?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
7 posted on 01/31/2010 2:39:31 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Just show us where Apostolic succession is taught or promoted in scripture ..

2 Tim. 2:2

8 posted on 01/31/2010 2:49:56 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012
"Would Rabbi Paul have taught the Babylonian Paganism of Nicea ?"

To refer to the Nicean Creed as paganism is an affront to the Word of God and to the millions of Christians who believe it. Saul of Tarsus, who later became known as Paul, was never a Rabbi. His only role was to spread and add clarity to the Gospel of Christ; that Christ completed the Covenants of the Old Testament. He did not legitimately add anything new.

9 posted on 01/31/2010 2:52:27 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bodleian_Girl
Would to God that people would love Jesus Christ, who died to save their souls from an eternity in Hell, more than they love their vain traditions.

John 20:30 tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

10 posted on 01/31/2010 2:53:25 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
U-2912>Would Rabbi Paul have taught the Babylonian Paganism of Nicea ? To refer to the Nicean Creed as paganism is an affront to the Word of God and to the millions of Christians who believe it. Saul of Tarsus, who later became known as Paul, was never a Rabbi. His only role was to spread and add clarity to the Gospel of Christ; that Christ completed the Covenants of the Old Testament. He did not legitimately add anything new.

Are you completely ignorant
of the fact that Saul(Paul) was a student of Gamaliel ?

Yah'shua fulfilled the "Law" in order to be the sinless Lamb of G-d.

To believe that Yah'shua did away with the Law
suggests that He was not YHvH.

Yah'shua rebuked the Pharisees who created traditions
which impugned His Holy Word.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
11 posted on 01/31/2010 2:59:51 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Well, seeing as how your religion doesn’t allow you to know for sure that you are saved, even in spite of the Bible’s direct statement that Christians CAN and DO know they are saved, I guess that would preclude you from discussing the surety of salvation?


12 posted on 01/31/2010 3:02:57 PM PST by Bodleian_Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Ping!


13 posted on 01/31/2010 3:05:13 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Then Timothy is told to use the scriptures because they have authority - they are God’s Breath - and he is to use them “for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.

OT .. NT had not yet been compiled.

14 posted on 01/31/2010 3:07:30 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
the earliest Christians...learned from oral, rather than written, instruction.

Paul was miraculously spoken to by Jesus himself and had his life completely transformed, so much so that he went through many trials willingly for the rest of his life. Peter was personally with Jesus throughout his earthly ministry. Oral instruction from such men is one thing. Doctrines fabricated by a bunch of "clerics" in some conclave are another thing entirely.

15 posted on 01/31/2010 3:07:50 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer
It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation

Romans 10:15  
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16  But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Luke 8:12  
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

John 5:46
 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

47  But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

16 posted on 01/31/2010 3:10:36 PM PST by Bodleian_Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bodleian_Girl
Well, seeing as how your religion doesn’t allow you to know for sure that you are saved, even in spite of the Bible’s direct statement that Christians CAN and DO know they are saved, I guess that would preclude you from discussing the surety of salvation?

Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches. Do you disagree with this?

17 posted on 01/31/2010 3:13:29 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

Not going to let myself get drawn in too deep here, but a few Q’s I have are; is the word being translated for “traditions” always translated traditions? or can it have other meanings... I’m not quite equipped to answer that myself. And if it always means traditions, Paul knew very well that “traditions of men” was an enemy to the truth of God. So what traditions?

In the Apostle’a era (shortly after the life, death and resurrection of Christ), what traditions could have sprung up and flourished such that they were canonized as a part of our Christian practice and heritage other than what is taught in scripture? Could it be that the traditions being spoken of here refer simply to the teachings of Christ and his disciples that we now have canonized as scripture but were not yet canonized back then?... letters and stories of the life of Christ, being written and shared back and forth between church fathers and the flock? Back then, could it not be, that the traditions were simply the sharing of the various letters and stories and then being admonished to go out and live as unto Christ?


18 posted on 01/31/2010 3:15:00 PM PST by dps.inspect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012
"Are you completely ignorant..."

One of us is and it ain't me. Everything good in Paul's writings is not new and everything new in Paul's writings is not good. Paul was not a Pharisee and actually demonstrated a very imperfect understanding of rabbinical Judaism, which was a much livelier and more humane affair than he made out. He was, by his own admission, an agent of the Sadducee High Priest, who was a Roman collaborator loathed by the Jewish population. I do not question his faith after his conversion, but I cannot accept a distortion of who he was prior to it.

19 posted on 01/31/2010 3:19:55 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It says all or every scripture - the canon wasn’t under discussion, but the role of scripture.


20 posted on 01/31/2010 3:24:16 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
Oral instruction from such men is one thing. Doctrines fabricated by a bunch of "clerics" in some conclave are another thing entirely.

Please cite a doctrine from any conclave that is fabricated.

21 posted on 01/31/2010 3:24:56 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dps.inspect
“traditions” always translated traditions

<3862> para,dosij paradosis
Meaning: a handing down or over, a tradition
Origin: from 3860
Usage: tradition(1), tradition(8), traditions(4).

Also see
Jer. 39:4; 41:2; Matt. 15:2f, 6; Mk. 7:3, 5, 8, 13; 1 Co. 11:2; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6

When you review the cited scriptures, most often Yah'shua
is rebuking the Pharisees for creating man made tradition
which impugns the Written Word of G-d.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
22 posted on 01/31/2010 3:26:37 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"This is what the Catholic Church teaches."

Your post exemplifies what is good and illustrates what is bad with so many of the Catholic related posts. I can fully understand and appreciate a discussion of Catholic dogma and another biblical perspective about why one might disagree with it, but it is getting hard to stomach non-Catholics and anti-Catholics misstating the Church's position and then getting insulting and argumentative when corrected and refuted.

23 posted on 01/31/2010 3:28:21 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

You wrote:

“Would Rabbi Paul have taught the Babylonian Paganism of Nicea ?”

There’s no such thing. Why do you make up things like that?


24 posted on 01/31/2010 3:35:58 PM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
U-2012>Are you completely ignorant...

One of us is and it ain't me. Everything good in Paul's writings is not new and everything new in Paul's writings is not good. Paul was not a Pharisee and actually demonstrated a very imperfect understanding of rabbinical Judaism, which was a much livelier and more humane affair than he made out. He was, by his own admission, an agent of the Sadducee High Priest, who was a Roman collaborator loathed by the Jewish population. I do not question his faith after his conversion, but I cannot accept a distortion of who he was prior to it.

I direct you to :
Acts 5:34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time.

Acts 22: 3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today.

Clearly you are not familiar with the Holy Word of G-d.

Nor Gamaliel

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
25 posted on 01/31/2010 3:37:11 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bodleian_Girl

Amen!


26 posted on 01/31/2010 3:37:43 PM PST by vpintheak (How can love of God, Family and Country make me an extremist?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Timothy was to continue in what he learned...from the Apostle Paul.

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy.

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

27 posted on 01/31/2010 3:38:12 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Well, I’m not sure exactly how or where the Catholic Church invented many of its doctrines, but they sure didn’t get them from the Apostles or from scripture. I’m thinking of things like purgatory, celibate clergy, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the cult of Mary, veneration of relics...just to name a few.


28 posted on 01/31/2010 3:38:40 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
Well, I’m not sure exactly how or where the Catholic Church invented many of its doctrines, but they sure didn’t get them from the Apostles or from scripture.

When you make a statement, it is always helpful if you back it up. To which 'invented' doctrines are you referring?

29 posted on 01/31/2010 3:49:41 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"Just show us where Apostolic succession is taught or promoted in scripture .."

2 Tim. 2:2

NYer, that's quite a stretch, even for you, isn't it?

30 posted on 01/31/2010 3:52:21 PM PST by Ken4TA (The truth sometimes hurts - but is truth nonetheless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

31 posted on 01/31/2010 4:01:55 PM PST by narses ("lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Yes, while the New Testament was being written, the oral teaching of the Apostles was critical, as were Prophets.

However, there IS no Apostolic oral teaching recorded outside of scripture. That was largely why scripture became scripture - because the NT writings were by Apostles or recorded what the Apostles preached.

The Catholic Church doesn’t pretend that Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Mariology, Indulgences, etc came from oral teachings of the Apostles handed down lip to ear until formally proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church.

NY “Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2).”

2 Tim 2:2 reads: “2 And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”

As I said, if you have teaching from the Apostle Paul “which thou hast heard from me”, I’ll listen. But the doctrines we differ on are ones that came up hundreds or a thousand years later. They are NOT teachings passed from Paul to Timothy.

NYer “He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).”

Again, the teachings of the Apostles are not in question.

NYer “”So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher.”

Yes, we need preaching to convert folks, and the Church is to be the true teacher - it is supposed to be the support and pillar of the truth, not the replacement for the truth. A Church that teaches non-Apostolic doctrine as required belief is therefor not a true church.

Sola scriptura doesn’t teach to abandon the church, but that the true church submits to the breath of God - the scripture. It is the only place we have the teachings of the Apostles.

Paul didn’t install priests, or hear confession, or instruct anyone to ‘do penance’. Paul didn’t teach Purgatory, or Indulgences. Paul didn’t teach that we are born again by water baptism, or teach that the Eucharist was a “re-presentation” of the sacrifice of Jesus. Paul didn’t teach that Peter was Vicar of Christ - nor did Peter. Yet Paul taught the “full counsel of God”.

Therefor, those things are not part of the full counsel of God, and a church that teaches them as dogma is a false church.


32 posted on 01/31/2010 4:23:36 PM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
purgatory, celibate clergy, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the cult of Mary, veneration of relics

All of these are strongly suggested by the scripture, albeit not spelled out directly. Pick any two, and I'll show you.

33 posted on 01/31/2010 4:27:31 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I already know that the RCC has some twisted arguments which they use to “prove” these doctrines, but the arguments are little more than sophistry. Otherwise everyone, including Protestants, would have no problem with these doctrines.


34 posted on 01/31/2010 4:32:16 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NYer

**Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the word of God, while the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” [1 Tim. 3:15] The Holy Spirit through the Church protects Both from corruption. **

A fact not recognized by all.


35 posted on 01/31/2010 4:36:14 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

So you retract your previous statement?

The article is about twisting the scripture. It shows convincingly where the foundational Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not even remotely supported by the Holy Scripture.

So, the offer stands. I can show you how any two (I am a very nice guy) of these Catholic doctrines are supported by the scripture. You show me how the Sola Scriptura superstition is supported by it. See who reads what’s written and who twists and turns.


36 posted on 01/31/2010 4:39:23 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
U-2012>Would Rabbi Paul have taught the Babylonian Paganism of Nicea ?

There’s no such thing. Why do you make up things like that?

Easter is Babylonian paganism

Celibate priests is another Babylonian pagan concept

Pontifex Maximus is from Babylonian paganism.

Christmas is Babylonian Paganism

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
37 posted on 01/31/2010 4:42:01 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Perhaps the “Perpetual Virginity of Mary” doctrine as addressed at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II and the Council of Lateran 649.
38 posted on 01/31/2010 4:51:42 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
... celibate clergy,

10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. 11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.
Matthew 19:10-12

Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one has his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.
1 Corinthians 7:1, 7-8

transubstantiation,

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and giving thanks, broke and said: Take and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:23-29

praying to saints,

We pray with the saints not TO them. Just as you would ask someone in your church to pray for you, we also ask the Saints in Heaven to pray for us.

the cult of Mary,

41 And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of your salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed are you that have believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to you by the Lord. 46 And Mary said: My soul does magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he has regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty has done great things to me: and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. 51 He has showed might in his arm: he has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He has put down the mighty from their seat and has exalted the humble.
Luke 1:41-52

veneration of relics...just to name a few.

15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that, when Peter came, his shadow at the least might overshadow any of them and they might be delivered from their infirmities. 16 And there came also together to Jerusalem a multitude out of the neighbouring cities, bringing sick persons and such as were troubled with unclean spirits: who were all healed. Acts 5:15-16

You're right, no Scriptural evidence whatsoever...

39 posted on 01/31/2010 4:52:54 PM PST by TradicalRC (Secular conservatism is liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Ok, Paul is claiming apostalic authority... I guess I better read Corinthians. To get my apostolic authority. Don’t need the Papal tradition, that line has failed. Don’t need the Patriarchs of Constantinople or Moscow. That line has failed also. So I guess I just have to read Paul, by Paul, about Paul.


40 posted on 01/31/2010 5:01:30 PM PST by DariusBane (Even the Rocks shall cry out "Hobamma to the Highest")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane

“So I guess I just have to read Paul, by Paul, about Paul.”

I recall some lady say something at a church I was at about “Oh - but that’s Paul” as she seemed to dismiss anything that he had written. I’m not sure where she was coming from - but I imagine some group(s) have a long history of “anti-Paul” theology? Not sure how you just through out so much of the New Testament though.


41 posted on 01/31/2010 5:06:00 PM PST by 21twelve (Having the Democrats in control is like a never-ending game of Calvin ball. (Giotto))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I’ll take you up on your kind offer. What Scriptural support do find for a celibate clergy and the cult of Mary?


42 posted on 01/31/2010 5:06:58 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Well, Paul is really hard often times severe. He is logical, and often times misinterpreted, particularly the misogynist charges. To throw him out would be a mistake as he developed the theology of the church as we know it today.


43 posted on 01/31/2010 5:09:04 PM PST by DariusBane (Even the Rocks shall cry out "Hobamma to the Highest")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; NYer

Mary’s complete biography is not covered in the scripture. What exactly would you like to discuss: theological reasons for the doctrine, evidentiary reasons, the scriptural references to the “brethren” of the Lord, the veneration of Mary, or?


44 posted on 01/31/2010 5:10:37 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death.

Have you been born again as Jesus said you must be, through faith in Him?

If you have been born again, which I realize your doctrine says you can't really know, the words of Jesus Christ not withstanding, you'd have to be of the belief that Jesus couldn't actually save you to the uttermost and that He has aborted you from the new birth.

45 posted on 01/31/2010 5:20:57 PM PST by Bodleian_Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death.

1 John 5:12
 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13  These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God;
that ye may know that ye have eternal life,
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

46 posted on 01/31/2010 5:23:23 PM PST by Bodleian_Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: annalex; NYer
I was responding to post #29 by NYer:
“When you make a statement, it is always helpful if you back it up. To which ‘invented’ doctrines are you referring?”

The idea that Mary remained a virgin the rest of her life after bearing Jesus is what I referred to and what the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity refers to.

47 posted on 01/31/2010 5:26:52 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Bodleian_Girl

“1 John 5:12
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God;
that ye may know that ye have eternal life,
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

Great post, Bodleian Girl! I have greatly enjoyed reading your posts. Thank you for standing for the Gospel!


48 posted on 01/31/2010 5:30:29 PM PST by JLLH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012; Natural Law
Paul also called himself a Pharisee. Was he lying? Nope!:

Acts 23:6 (New International Version) 6Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."

Acts 26:5 (New International Version) 5They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.

Philippians 3:5 (New International Version) 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;

49 posted on 01/31/2010 5:39:24 PM PST by boatbums (Pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

You wrote:

“Easter is Babylonian paganism”

Nope. Easter is the Christian feast of Christ’s Resurrection. It was once a pagan Germanic holiday. The Germans were never Babylonians. Some poorly educated people confuse Ishtar with Easter because they’re too stupid to realize there is no connection between the medieval Germans and the ancient peoples of the Near East.

“Celibate priests is another Babylonian pagan concept”

No, actually the idea of celibate priests comes from Christ and St. Paul. Celibacy was also occasionally practiced by other ancient Jews when they were called to serve the Lord:

Elijah and Elisha were celibate al their lives (Zohar Hadash 2:1; Midrash Mishlei 30, 105, Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 33). When for the sake of the Torah (i.e., intense study in it), a rabbi would abstain from relations with his wife, it was deemed permissible, for he was then cohabiting with the Shekinah (the “Divine Presence”) in the Torah (Zohar re Gn 1:27; 13:3 and Psalm 85:14 in the Discourse of Rabbi Phineas to Rabbis Jose, Judah, and Hiya).

It is well known that the rabbis spoke concerning the obligation of all males to be married and procreated: “He who abstains from procreation is regarded as though he had shed blood” (Rabbi Eliezer in Yebamoth 63b, Babylonian Talmud; see also Shulkhan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) section Evenhar-Ezer 1:1,3,4). According to Yebamoth 62b, B.T. a man is only half a man without a wife, citing Genesis 5:2 where it is said: “Male and female He (God) created them and blessed them, and called their name Adam (lit. “Man”).

Nevertheless, “if a person cleaves to the study of the Torah (i.e., dedicates all his time to it) like Simeon ben Azzai, his refusal to marry can be condoned” (Skulkhan Arukh EH 1:4). Rabbinic scholar Simeon ben Azzai (early second century A.D.) was extraordinary in his learning: “with the passing of Ben Azzai diligent scholars passed from the earth” (Sotah 9:15). He never married and was celibate all his life so as not to be distracted from his studies, and because he considered the Torah his wife, for who he always yearned with all his soul (Yebamoth 63b). He was an outstanding scholar (Kiddushin 20a, B.T.) and also renowned for his saintliness (Berakoth 57b, B.T.).

Other celibates

Jewish tradition also mentions the celibate Zenu’im (lit. “chaste ones”) to whom the secret of the Name of God was entrusted, for they were able to preserve the Holy Name in “perfect purity” (Kiddushin 71a; Midash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:11; Yer. yoma 39a, 40a).

Those in hope of a divine revelation consequently refrained from sexual intercourse and were strict in matters of purity (Enoch 83:2; Revelation 14:2-5).

Philo (Apol. pro Judaeis 1X, 14-17), Josephus, (Antiq. XVIII. 21) and Hipploytus (Philosophumena IX, IV, 28a) wrote on the celibacy of the Jewish Essenes hundreds of years before the discovery of their settlements in Qumran by the Dead Sea.

Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.-50 A.D.), a Jewish philosopher, described Jewish women who were virgins who have kept their chastity not under compulsion, like some Greek priestesses, but of their own free will in their ardent yearning for Wisdom. “Eager to have Wisdom for their life-mate, they have spurned the pleasures of the body and desire no mortal offspring but those immortal children which only the soul that is dear to God can bring forth to birth” (Philo, Cont. 68; see also Philo, Abr. 100).

For “the chaste are rewarded by receiving illumination from the concealed heavenly light” (Zohar 11. 229b-230a). Because “if the understanding is safe and unimpaired, free from the oppression of the iniquities or passions... it will gaze clearly on all that is worthy of contemplation” (Philo, Sob. 1.5). Conversely, “the understanding of the pleasure-loving man is blind and unable to see those things that are worth seeing... the sight of which is wonderful to behold and desirable” (Philo, Q. Gen.IV.245). http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

Apparently you were completely unaware of these basic facts.

“Pontifex Maximus is from Babylonian paganism.”

Nope. The title is from Roman paganism. The Romans were not Babylonian and never even conquered Babylonian territory. The Romans possessed the title and office long before they had left the confines of Central Italy. Hundreds of years into the Christian era the title was given to the pope.

“Christmas is Babylonian Paganism”

Nope. The name tells tou what it is = Christ’s Mass.

I think you should read real history rather than the slop from Hislop. A high school history teacher proved to an anti-Catholic like you that Hislop was completely wrong on this issue. A high school history teacher.


50 posted on 01/31/2010 5:49:00 PM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-244 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson