Posted on 06/18/2017 10:19:30 PM PDT by boatbums
The Catholic church and the various Protestant churches attempt to lure each other into a strange circular argument regarding the doctrinal debate over "Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura" (the bible alone). The Catholic faction gets Protestants arguing against all traditions rather than just the inventions of men; and more specifically, the inventions of the Catholic Church. The argument is really against traditions of men that are not supported by the written word of God. The Catholics will not regard scripture because they are pushing so hard on the point of traditions that they attempt to prove traditions by traditions, or extrabiblical writings, rather than with scripture. The Protestants won't consider the oral transmission of God's word because they push the written text only. The circle is a dizzying spiral that leads to nowhere fast. Who do you believe? We should always believe God's own testimony. Why? because He is infallible and True. [Numbers 23:19 ] "God is not a man, that he should lie...." [Heb 6:18] "... it was impossible for God to lie..." The apostle Peter had learned this and his words recorded in the book of Acts 5:29 "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."
The Bible and tradition both teach that our convictions are not to be based upon human wisdom but upon the power of God and His spirit which He gives to those who obey Him! The problem is not that human (carnal) wisdom is always wrong but that human wisdom is clearly fallible and is not a sufficient foundation for believing anything about God. Hence our doctrinal convictions should not be based upon human wisdom. The apostle Paul warned against such and we see that he knew this because of the written word..
(Excerpt) Read more at truthontheweb.org ...
“The Protestants won’t consider the oral transmission of God’s word “
What does that mean?
(And you should post the entire piece)
Horse hockey.
Horse hockey!! We agree!! The end must be near! ;-)
The entire piece has a LOT of HTML coding in it and is best viewed on its original website for the full effect.
As for “The Protestants won’t consider the oral transmission of God’s word”, the author is making a point about why there is so much arguing about Sola Scriptura vs. Tradition between Protestants and Catholics. Obviously, there was a long time where oral transmission of God’s word was there but eventually it was written down. In many cases, Catholics defend tradition by tradition instead of by God’s word. Both views are wrong. There is a balance but Divinely-inspired Scripture is the higher authority over tradition.
Did you read the whole article?
Thanks for your comment.
I need to clarify my question.
What does “the oral transmission of God’s word” mean?
You say this: “there was a long time where oral transmission of God’s word was there but eventually it was written down”.
I am not sure how that relates to this topic.
I am not a Catholic with a capital C, but a catholic with a small c.
Most Protestants are unaware of truly intellectual Catholic authors who do indeed find scripture for almost every one of their traditions.
E.g., just read an explanation of the veneration of relics - right here on FR. The veneration of relics was supported by the woman touching Jesus’ garment, and the handkerchief that Paul had touched that brought healing to others.
So it is not necessarily that our Catholic brethren (not all are brethren - but some certainly are - just as not all Baptists or Presbyterians are brethren - but some are. Only God knows....) don’t have scripture on which they base all their doctrines. It’s just like almost every denomination, sometimes their use of scripture is......a stretch.....
Who among us is correct on everything? We all “see through a glass darkly...” If you think you have it all nailed down and are 100% correct on everything - you are deceived. 10 years from now, you should be able to look back and see where you were off base, and be glad your understanding has progressed........
Christian unity will never come from wrestling over doctrine (attaining “the unity of the faith”, Ephesians 4:13, but by maintaining the unity of the spirit (Eph. 4:3) in the bond of peace. No - this is not ecumenism - which is a false declaring of unity where there is none.
We err because we seek to preserve that which we do not have - the unity of the faith - something we will attain only when we see Him......and because we try to attain the unity of the spirit - which we are rather commanded to preserve......not to attain.
We’ve got it backwards from Ephesians 4.
I am feeling a little presumptuous today, enjoying assurance of salvation. Is that ok with you? Some people may not like that. Ask me if I care. 🤗🤡 Actually, I don't. 😂
Cute that this author writes off the most crucial era of Christian history with the dismissive term "extrabiblical writings"....as if that nullified what they had to say.
Let's state plainly what exactly these "writings" are. They refer to the earliest generations of Christians after the Apostles, some of whom actually knew the Apostles personally. Clement, appointed by St. Peter. Polycarp, who sat at the feet of St. John.
They are the only historical record we have of a newly formed Christian Church and its defining controversies, interests, and practices.
They are the writings closest in place, time, and culture to the New Testament and show us how the New Testament was interpreted and lived out while it was written, and for several centuries afterward.
They are *irreplaceable* historically, doctrinally, and theologically.
But of course we know the answer as to why they are ignored, don't we? They are ignored because they prove quite clearly that the early Church was not Protestant.
"Not supported by the written word of God" amounts to someone's opinion. I think they are supported by the written word of God, but people can explain away every Scripture I cite to support any Catholic belief, because that's how they get to believe what they want.
And that's just a specific case of the more general problem that people can explain away every Scripture cited to support any Christian belief, which is why you have liberal Protestants who can convince themselves that the Bible endorses e.g., homosexual behavior.
What a stunning, intellectual refutation of the points made.
I see you improving by the day.
Well, considering some Catholics seem to believe that simply speaking something translates into “tradition”, it does relate.
oral transmission is not by default automatically tradition.
Why does the poster have to post the entire article? The link takes you there.
The intellectual depth is overwhelming.
Hey look, it’s little Luther....he’s come out to play from the caucus threads.
I see you're now using "Luther" as a derogatory word.
Good for you!! There's hope for you yet.
You completely miss the point. Not surprised.
I was never into dark humor. I think it’s evil.
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.