Already answered.
Where?
Already answered.
Given that they're entirely self-explanatory, genuinely interested and honest readers can easily read them for themselves.
Already answered.Where?
Already answered.So you can't do that either. You are batting 0.
Already answered.
Already answered.
I've already answered you on both your "War-and-Peace"-length post on the Marian Doctrines and your demand on where to locate the apostolic Traditions of St. Paul. You do not prefer these answers. We get that. The answers, however, stand exactly as posted.But where Cruc? Where did you counter the points I raised against the Marian doctrines? Where did you list Paul's traditions? Where did you ever do something other than say I don't have the authority to ask the questions in the first place?
And yet, not one of the biblical text you cited actually teaches sola scriptura. Rev. 22:19, for example, is referring specifically to "the prophecies of this book," that is, the book of Revelation itself. In any case, the Catholic Church has "added" nothing whatsoever to the Scriptures since the Church herself formally defined the canon of scripture in the 4th century A.D. No inspired writings have been "added" to the Bible since that time, nor will they be. The biblical canon is closed.Has anyone mentioned Revelation 22:19 yet? What better way to add to scripture than malleable tradition and oral history of mostly hidden provenance? Numerous copies and translations of scripture don't quell debate over inclusion and interpretation. How much more nebulous then is oral tradition? How much a tool for any papal agenda? If tradition were adequate would we need scripture? I must admit though vey difficult to interpret scripture without church history.
Also, 1 Cor 4:6; Proverbs 30:5,6; Deut 4:2; Deut 12:32
Has anyone mentioned Revelation 22:19 yet? What better way to add to scripture than malleable tradition and oral history of mostly hidden provenance?
Numerous copies and translations of scripture don't quell debate over inclusion and interpretation. How much more nebulous then is oral tradition? How much a tool for any papal agenda?
If tradition were adequate would we need scripture?
Yes, "traditions of men" are certainly condemned in Scripture. Not so, however, with Apostolic Tradition, which believers are actually commanded to follow and obey (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2). In short, there are two kinds of "tradition" in Scripture---one is condemned, and the other is commanded.Obviously, traditions of men are the devil's playground, the stuff self serving cults are made of.
Yes, "traditions of men" are certainly condemned in Scripture. Not so, however, with Apostolic Tradition, which believers are actually commanded to follow and obey (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2). In short, there are two kinds of "tradition" in Scripture---one is condemned, and the other is commanded.
Sadly for GO its his anti Catholic doctrine's which are in fact the traditions of men condemned in scripture. His latest screwball doctrine is well and truly refuted in Acts where we actually find Apostolic Tradition in action. Here we see the apostles (men) along with the* elders (also men), ALL actually making decisions together, consented to by the whole church (wow! even more men).There is a difference between the traditions of the Apostles and Apostolic Tradition.
The traditions of the Apostles are the traditions that the Apostles practiced and taught and are commended by the scriptures.
Apostolic Tradition are the traditions of men condemned by the scriptures.
If the church of Rome followed the scriptures instead of making up traditions, then God would never have needed to bring in the Reformation.Sadly for GO its his anti Catholic doctrine's which are in fact the traditions of men condemned in scripture.
Saying I lack the authority to ask the questions is not an answer. Complaining that the post is to long speaks to simple laziness on your part.I've already answered you on both your "War-and-Peace"-length post on the Marian Doctrines and your demand on where to locate the apostolic Traditions of St. Paul. You do not prefer these answers. We get that. The answers, however, stand exactly as posted.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
If the church of Rome followed the scriptures instead of making up traditions, then God would never have needed to bring in the Reformation.
I said no such thing---you just cannot seem to argue your case without engaging in directly fallacious reasoning, can you. Your "case," therefore, must not be very substantial, is it. No, you are perfectly free to ask about the Marian doctrines and Pauline Tradition. What you're not free to do is replace the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church with the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. Try again.Saying I lack the authority to ask the questions...
This glaring Red Herring on your part has also already been answered.Complaining that the post is to long speaks to simple laziness on your part.
"THE BIBLE, NOT ORAL TRADITION, IS OUR ONLY AUTHORITY!"
False. Christ sent the Apostles to teach all things that He had taught them, but the Bible tells us that not all that He did was written in Scripture (Jn. 21:25). Therefore, if all is to be taught, and not all is in Scripture, part of Christian truth must be elsewhere. But where?
St. Paul tells us clearly to "stand fast and hold to the traditions which we have learned, either by word or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:14).
Thus, the Catholic Church, "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), teaches that Divine Revelation is contained fully in the Word of God, which is comprised of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
http://www.StreetEvangelization.com
The Church of Rome has no authoritative teachings.What you're not free to do is replace the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church with the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
You wouldn't happen to have a scripture verse for where it says in the Bible "If the church of Rome followed the scriptures instead of making up traditions, then God would never have needed to bring in the Reformation." ?????If the church of Rome followed the scriptures instead of making up traditions, then God would never have needed to bring in the Reformation.
Thought not...So much for following scripture instead of making it up!
And here is GO's proof....The Church of Rome has no authoritative teachings.
That was proven at the first Council of Nicaea.
Sorry folks! As usual GO's forgotten to post any!?