ECT NO, THE BIBLE IS NOT THE CHRISTIAN'S ONLY AUTHORITY

[genuineoriginal]

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." ?????

Thought not...So much for following scripture instead of making it up!

God Bless!

You seem to be content in proving that your ignorance of the Bible is only exceeded by your ignorance of history.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.​

Deuteronomy 31:27 27 For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death?​

 

[CabinetMaker]

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.


This glaring Red Herring on your part has also already been answered.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Say anything you want but it will never hide the fact that any question I ask regarding catholic doctrines goes unanswered.

 

[Cruciform]

Say anything you want but it will never hide the fact that any question I ask regarding Catholic doctrines goes unanswered.

Say anything you want but it will never hide the fact that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is NOT in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and therefore that the assumptions, interpretations, and opinions that you have derived from that sect carry no doctrinal authority whatsoever. They can never be considered anything more than the mere "traditions of men."

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Say anything you want but it will never hide the fact that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is NOT in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and therefore that the assumptions, interpretations, and opinions that you have derived from that sect carry no doctrinal authority whatsoever. They can never be considered anything more than the mere "traditions of men."

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

So why can't you answer the questions I asked? I mean with a real, honest answer that deals with the question I asked. From where I am, my church is beating the pants off of yours when it comes defending Jesus's teachings. That too, is a fact.

 

[Cruciform]

So why can't you answer the questions I asked?

I can, and (specifically regarding your post 518) I've already explained why I haven't bothered. Again, this has already been answered.

From where I am...

...which is concisely described in Post #383 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

I can, and (specifically regarding your post 518) I've already explained why I haven't bothered. Again, this has already been answered.

Because you can't.

...which is concisely described in Post #383 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

That post has some words in it but it doesn't list the exact traditions Paul was referring to. It doesn't deal with a single point of the Marian doctrines. It is just more of you pounding your shoe on the podium insisting you have done something you have not.

 

[Cruciform]

Because you can't.

This coming from a documented liar (Ex. 20:1; Prov. 19:5). Again, you've already been answered.

That post has some words in it but it doesn't list the exact traditions Paul was referring to.

The exact Traditions that Paul is referring to are any and all teachings delivered verbally by the apostles and their ordained successors, the bishops (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac.15:6, 22; 16:4; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). It's really not a difficult concept to grasp---unless you've been conditioned by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect to simply and willfully not "get" it. Here, this might help:

It is just more of you pounding your shoe on the podium insisting you have done something you have not.

[CM pounding shoe:] "I don't LIKE it! I don't LIKE it! I don't LIKE it...!!!"



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[genuineoriginal]

The exact Traditions that Paul is referring to are any and all teachings delivered verbally by the apostles and their ordained successors, the bishops

Not true at all.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.​

"Which ye have been taught," is past tense and refers to traditions that had been taught by Paul himself prior to the command to hold to those traditions.
Paul did not say, "hold the traditions which the false prophets and false teachers that come after me will teach you," as you are claiming he said.

 

[Vincent Lerins]

I see people asking for traditions preserved..... The most obvious sacred tradition the church maintains is what books make up the New Testament. That list of books is not documented anywhere in the New Testament.

It is only known by sacred tradition preserved till the present day.

There is not any disagreement what books are in the NT, the church even in its separated forms has kept this sacred tradition. A tradition which preserves decisions reached by the believers in post apostolic times.

If one is so bold as to refuse the testimony of the early and later church fathers regarding the list of new testament books, as it is refused regarding various other aspects of church life, we wouldn't have any list of what books were included in the new testament at all.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I see people asking for traditions preserved..... The most obvious sacred tradition the church maintains is what books make up the New Testament. That list of books is not documented anywhere in the New Testament.

It is only known by sacred tradition preserved till the present day.

There is not any disagreement what books are in the NT, the church even in its separated forms has kept this sacred tradition. A tradition which preserves decisions reached by the believers in post apostolic times.

If one is so bold as to refuse the testimony of the early and later church fathers regarding the list of new testament books, as it is refused regarding various other aspects of church life, we wouldn't have any list of what books were included in the new testament at all.

The books accepted as the New Testament are the ones that were widely accepted by the ekklesia and canonized by the Synod of Hippo Regius without any interference from the church of Rome.

 

[republicanchick]

The Bible is the final authority for all doctrine. If a doctrine contradicts the Bible, the doctrine in question is false. No question.

it is up to the CHURCH to say if something contradicts Scripture not some disgruntled, perfidious, narcissistic, delusional, rebellious person like Luther (and co)



+

 

[Vincent Lerins]

The books accepted as the New Testament are the ones that were widely accepted by the ekklesia and canonized by the Synod of Hippo Regius without any interference from the church of Rome.

Granting your statement is true it remains that the list of books is preserved as a tradition to the present day.

 

[genuineoriginal]

it is up to the CHURCH to say if something contradicts Scripture not some disgruntled, perfidious, narcissistic, delusional, rebellious person like Luther (and co)

The church of Rome has no authority to say if something contradicts scripture.
The church of Rome sold that right for a mess of pottage when it climed in bed with the emperor of Rome.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Granting your statement is true it remains that the list of books is preserved as a tradition to the present day.

Yes, and it is a prime example of how the ekklesia made better decisions on doctrine before the church of Rome claimed it alone had authority.

 

[Vincent Lerins]

Yes, and it is a prime example of how the ekklesia made better decisions on doctrine before the church of Rome claimed it alone had authority.

Then your position would be very close to that of eastern orthodox, at least in this respect. And thats certainly a reasonable position.

:cheers:

 

[CabinetMaker]

This coming from a documented liar (Ex. 20:1; Prov. 19:5). Again, you've already been answered.

You have asserted such many times but my consionce is clear.

The exact Traditions that Paul is referring to are any and all teachings delivered verbally by the apostles and their ordained successors, the bishops (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac.15:6, 22; 16:4; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). It's really not a difficult concept to grasp---unless you've been conditioned by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect to simply and willfully not "get" it. Here, this might help:

This is a catholic tradition and not a statement of fact. A statement of fact would be a document that clearly indicates exactly what traditions Paul was referring to when he wrote his letter. Stating that Paul's statement encompasses all catholic traditions for all time us a logical fallacy that crosses the line into stupidity. Sorry to be blunt. (but I am in Colorado)

[CM pounding shoe:] "I don't LIKE it! I don't LIKE it! I don't LIKE it...!!!"



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Doesn't really matter if I like it or not. What matters is whether or not Jesus or His apostles actually taught it. The only documented teachings we have are to be found in scripture.

 

[Cruciform]

You have asserted such many times but my consionce is clear.

You have asserted as much many times, but your own posted statements testify against you (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5).

This is a Catholic tradition and not a statement of fact.

Contrary to the glaring False Dilemma Fallacy you've engaged in here, it is both Catholic Tradition and fact. Try again.

A statement of fact would be a document that clearly indicates exactly what traditions Paul was referring to when he wrote his letter.

Now go ahead and provide us with the biblical text which states that "A statement of fact would be a document that clearly indicates exactly what traditions Paul was referring to when he wrote his letter." Chapter-and-verse, please.

Doesn't really matter if I like it or not.

...and yet your assumptions and opinions can never rise above the level of mere human opinion---i.e., personal preference---and so this is simply all you have to offer. Every answer you give merely amounts to the declaration, "I don't LIKE that!"

What matters is whether or not Jesus or His apostles actually taught it.

...and the apostles' successors---the bishops---as well. You always seem to conveniently forget about them. Even in the time of the apostles, the bishops held the very same doctrinal authority as the apostles themselves (Ac. 15:6, 22; 16:4).

The only documented teachings we have are to be found in scripture.

This is a recently-invented, man-made Protestant tradition, and not a statement of fact. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Does the Bible say "In the Beginning, there was parchment and ink"?

Scripture did not fall out the skies, and so Sola Scriptura is nonsense.

To note, I am not Catholic, as I do not believe in the apostolic succession being the prime ordinance of Christianity. At the same time, I don't hold to to the ridiculousness of much protestant doctrine either.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You have asserted as much many times, but your own posted statements testify against you (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5).

I gave seen your "documentation", my conscience remains clear.

Contrary to the glaring False Dilemma Fallacy you've engaged in here, it is both Catholic Tradition and fact. Try again.

That is just another statement if your preferred man-made traditions.

Now go ahead and provide us with the biblical text which states that "A statement of fact would be a document that clearly indicates exactly what traditions Paul was referring to when he wrote his letter." Chapter-and-verse, please.

Just as soon as you give is the list of the exact traditions Paul was referring too in his letter. Remember, Paul, "... You have been taught..." Which us past tense so you need to provide the traditions Paul was referring to in the past tense.

...and yet your assumptions and opinions can never rise above the level of mere human opinion---i.e., personal preference---and so this is simply all you have to offer. Every answer you give merely amounts to the declaration, "I don't LIKE that!"

That is no different than you. Most of what the Catholics teach is just man-made personal preference by the men who lead the church. This is easily proved by your utter and complete failure to document the traditions Paul was referring to.

...and the apostles' successors---the bishops---as well. You always seem to conveniently forget about them. Even in the time of the apostles, the bishops held the very same doctrinal authority as the apostles themselves (Ac. 15:6, 22; 16:4).

The only valid teachings that any "bishop" can teach are those that Jesus and His Deciples taught. They never taught the Marian doctrines the Catholics teach as proven by your inability to refute post 518. You cannot prove that the vast traditions taught by the Catholics today are consistant with the traditions Paul taught as proven by your inability to list the traditions Paul was referring to in His letter. God gave us the bible to guide us. If somebody tells me I must believe something that is nit in God's word, why should I believe such a wolf?

This is a recently-invented, man-made Protestant tradition, and not a statement of fact. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

God's word has been around for a long long time. All Protestants have done us abandon the traditions of the RCC in favor what God has actually said. You have given us absolutely no reason to suspect that that is an error.

 

[jwp98]

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.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I don't recall expressing a certainty in sola scriptura but rather am concerned about RCC tradition causing problems. In that, I am far from a lone skeptic in need of snuffing out. I already conceded we need oral tradition to interpret scripture and am aware catechism teaches that scripture is the "principal source".

If the RCC had a bit more sola and less oral then the gulf between Rome and the average catholic might close a bit.
Semantics. If not "adding" then corrupting confusing and misinterpreting. These are major concerns. You say they are invalid and cite catholic references supporting catholic doctrines. Some of them sound like editorials for fast track RCIA class consumption.

The measure of catholic truth seems (from the outside) to be whether the source is officially recognized. I know of little resembling the kind of fact checking, evaluation of internal and external coherency, consistency, and validity to which we subject scripture. As if there could be no other source, and, additionally, none of the human error that pervades every other aspect of our lives.. Right. Our great God gave me more common sense than that.

Isn't this a question of material sufficiency?