When Catholics are challenged to support sacred tradition, all we get is ***CRICKETS***."
Please provide evidence proving both assertions.
Sola Scriptura
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3059418/posts?page=828#828
Here is a good definition of what is meant by Sola Scriptura.
“First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
Luke 4:1-11 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry. The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” And Jesus answered him, “It is written,“‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’”
And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written, “‘He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,’ and “‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”
And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.
Matthew 4:1-11 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, “‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and “‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”
Jesus said to him,“Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”
Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.
Show us what sacred tradition was passed down faithfully from the apostles as the Catholic church claims it was.
What exactly are those traditions?
How do you know what is taught today is what was taught then? IOW, prove to us that they were handed down faithfully, without corruption?
How do you know that those traditions are from the apostles themselves?
Please provide documentation for the above.
The first: When we are challenged to support sS, we do it.
o Not hard to find evidence. There are a few posts right in THIS very thread. I'll point you to them if need be. You can get to them easily because they follow the principle that scripture is quoted. Look for quoted scripture.
By the way, if you want to take the "different interpretations" route, I welcome it. That is usually a charge that is made but hardly ever explored.
I welcome that challenge because I WANT to understand how to interpret scripture correctly. If anyone brings something that could change my interpretation (through proper hermeneutics), then I'M GOOD WITH THAT! But I will not explore the use of apocrypha. If this disturbs you, just don't respond.
The second: When Catholics are challenged to support sacred tradition, all we get is Crickets.
o Here's where the challenge is. The "evidence" given usually is an article of faith, as in this:
I choose the Catholic church with all of its sacraments, traditions, saints, devotions, universality, teachings, readings and anything else I want to through in there. I believe that the Catholic church was the one founded by Christ himself, I believe in the true presence in Christ in the Eucharist, I believe in the forgiveness of sins in the confessional, I believe in a hell and purgatory, I actually believe more people go to hell then heaven. I can choose to believe or not private revelations of Marian apparitions. Which I do believe the church approved apparitions of Fatima and Lourdes and her messages to pray for world peace. I believe Mary has her place in God's plan of salvation, and that is to lead everyone to heaven. I believe God wants us to pray for the world, and the rosary is a good means to do that. I believe Protestants are the ones who have been deceived by satan, just look at the fruits that have been produced, 30,000+ different denominations. He has done a great job of blinding the truth and deceiving many into the belief that Christ's true church is false. I will stay right where I am, in the one, universal, catholic and apostolic church of the Catholic Faith. No matter what happens on the outside, the truth of the faith will remain the same now and forever.
Another:
Again, you should thank the Catholic Church for following sacred tradition and preserving the Bible so that you can read it and dispute the words of God that you do not agree with.
Here, a poster made a challenge:
Please prove that what the Catholic Church teaches as "tradition" is exactly what the apostles were teaching that they called tradition. If you cannot we must understand that the Catholic Church teaches "another gospel" and is to be considered accursed.
Here's the response:
No replies.
I admit, I threw that in for fun. You could probably find many examples where a Christian is asked to prove sS and you get crickets. That's why I said at the top that you made an interesting challenge - to find "evidence" for the two assertions.
There's "evidence" of failure to provide "evidence" for both allegations to be found, I'm sure. This is easy to understand. A challenging post is missed. The other side has grown weary of responding. For me, I sometimes realize that I am very close to sin - so I repent from a bad attitude and back off.
I think the general rule is that Christians use scripture to defend scripture and Catholics use tradition to defend tradition. Both are acting out of faith.
I believe Scripture is perfect. My understanding may be flawed (but it is always getting BETTER.)
I believe man is inherently flawed - and to rely on the traditions of men is risky business.
...sorry I rambled on.