You believe that the book of James is the inspired word of God, and you cannot produce any verse from the Bible that teaches it.Why do YOU think you know what I believe????
I believe that planes fly and that is not in the Bible.
I believe that cars go forward and backwards and that is not in the Bible.
I believe computers work and I am talking to you on one and that is not in the Bible.
I believe in baseball and that is not in the Bible.
I believe in TV's and that is not in the Bible.
Name please name ONE tradition of a spiritual nature that you think I believe in which is a Church doctrine!
Nonsense.
I wish your grandson well, sir. And I wish you well too."Nonsense" is a really good word for you.
My 12 -year-old grandson is continually making up new sounds. He says a sentence then changes one word in the sentence to some silly one-syllable nonsense word. It cracks him up every time.
I agree with him.
You believe that the book of James is the inspired word of God, and you cannot produce any verse from the Bible that teaches it.
The canon of Scripture is tradition.
I wish your grandson well, sir. And I wish you well too.
I don't need to debate it. I already know that you believe that the book of James is the inspired word of God, and that you cannot produce any verse from the Bible that teaches it. If you could produce that verse, you would have done it already. The fact that you cannot produce the verse clearly demonstrate that you hold to the very same Sacred Tradition that you profess to reject.I will no longer respond to such silly NONSENSE! 10 times is enough and if you need to debate this....go back and read the other 9 posts on the subject.
This argument over James has now reached over the top.
Thank you too.Thank you. We are in fact both very well.
I pray the same for you.
By the way....I have not criticized you in any way. I have questioned your comments and posts on the things you believe but you of course free to believe whatever you choose to believe.
I believe as a Protestant that what we believe on spiritual matters must be found in the Bible which is the written Word of God.
You as a Catholic choose to believe teachings that have been added called traditions. That is OK with me.
I do not think that is the basis for Biblical Christianity but then again that is your choice.
Thank you too.
Well you said that I do not read the Bible. That was a criticism.
Regardless, there are plenty of things on which we can agree, and perhaps it would be better to focus on those. After all, both of us can agree that we are saved by grace and by the merits won by our Lord Jesus by his sacrifice on the cross.
I don't need to debate it. I already know that you believe that the book of James is the inspired word of God, and that you cannot produce any verse from the Bible that teaches it. If you could produce that verse, you would have done it already. The fact that you cannot produce the verse clearly demonstrate that you hold to the very same Sacred Tradition that you profess to reject.
James should not be removed, nor should any other book of the Bible be removed.But my dear friend......I have already told you that there is NO Scripture which specifically says James is an inspired book of the Bible. I have told you several times that the infallible church of the Catholics religion which you have said produced the Bible which includes James. Again, that argument is them muted and does not matter one way or the other.
But that is not the problem. You see, there is NO book in the Bible that claims it is specifically an inspired book. So do you think that all of them should be removed or just James.
I agree with your understanding of what the word "inspiration" means.You see, because NO individual book of the Bible claims it is inspired, your argument about James just does not have any legs to stand on.
When I speak of the Bible as inspired, I am referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.
You start by suggesting that I cannot know anything about the Catholic Church (because I'm an Anglican)
"I'd love to hear from one of our Eastern Orthodox Christians at this point to tell us how his or her church is "just another one of the many fragmentations of Protestantism."
Nice try Albion, but this does not hold water. When I wrote of the "fragmentations of Protestantism" I was obviously was making reference to my earlier post #647.
"It would be nice to think that Scripture is so clear that no visible living interpretive authority is needed to provide the authoritative interpretation, if the fragmentation of Protestantism over the past five hundred years is not enough to falsify such a position, then how many more centuries of division would be needed to falsify it?"
"Either you forgot this post, or you flat out didn't read it. At the time of my posting of the post you are referring too, I had no doubt that you were aware of the existence of the Eastern Orthodox long before the Protestant Reformation. Apparently I was mistaken.
even though I was a member of the Roman Catholic Church longer than most of the Catholics who post here, had years of Catholic instruction, and taught religion in a Catholic school.
Then you move on to repeating your flatly misinformed claim that the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, and a dozen or more that could be added to the list are not classified as "Catholic" on the basis of doctrine and practice
in just the same way as the many Protestant churches are classified as Protestant
If you insist, but there's not much there to answer to.
James should not be removed, nor should any other book of the Bible be removed.
I agree with your understanding of what the word "inspiration" means.
Let's take a look at 2 Thess 2:15 (KJV):
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
"The book of James is the inspired word of God" is a tradition that was taught by the Apostles by word of mouth. As you wrote, there is "NO Scripture which specifically says James is an inspired book of the Bible". But one of the Apostles told people in the Church that the Book of James was inspired. The teaching was handed down orally by the Apostles, but the teaching was not recorded in Sacred Scripture.
The teaching is one of the "traditions" that is referred to at 2 Thess 2:15. And you hold to that tradition, just as the Bible says you should.
The point is that not all Christian truths are found within the Bible. Some traditions are recorded in Sacred Scripture. Other traditions were given orally by word of mouth. The "traditions of men" are those traditions that were neither recorded in Sacred Scripture, nor orally taught by our Lord or the Apostles.
James should not be removed, nor should any other book of the Bible be removed.
I agree with your understanding of what the word "inspiration" means.
Let's take a look at 2 Thess 2:15 (KJV):
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
"The book of James is the inspired word of God" is a tradition that was taught by the Apostles by word of mouth. As you wrote, there is "NO Scripture which specifically says James is an inspired book of the Bible". But one of the Apostles told people in the Church that the Book of James was inspired. The teaching was handed down orally by the Apostles, but the teaching was not recorded in Sacred Scripture.
The teaching is one of the "traditions" that is referred to at 2 Thess 2:15. And you hold to that tradition, just as the Bible says you should.
The point is that not all Christian truths are found within the Bible. Some traditions are recorded in Sacred Scripture. Other traditions were given orally by word of mouth. The "traditions of men" are those traditions that were neither recorded in Sacred Scripture, nor orally taught by our Lord or the Apostles.
2 Thess. 2:15 is Paul referring to what HE HAD TAUGHT them when he was with them. It is the Word of God which enables the believer to stand and be stable where he stands.
How can this verse be used to validate Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition when its context is about the return of Christ, not about apostolic succession? There is nothing here about RCC Sacred Tradition where authority and tradition are passed down from apostle to apostle.
Matthew 15:3 & 9 God in the flesh said..............
"And He answered and said to them, “And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? . . . BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.”
2 Thess. 2:15 would be wrong to use to support what anyone has thought up or said since the death of the last Apostle.
The word "traditions" is a technical term from a Greeek verb that means....."to hand down by tradition".
These TRADITIONS in vire here that Paul is referring to were the gospel itself which had been preached among those in Thessalonians church. Taught actually means PREACHED!
The gospel accounts came from the Apostles who were with Jesus.
But the fact of the matter is that either it is true, or it is false. Really, it is that simple! It is that black and white!
There is no gray area when it comes to the truth. And the source of “truth” is only found in the Bible.
John 17:17 says........."Sanctify them with TRUTH.....THY WORD IS TRUTH"!
I don't think the verse can be used to validate the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. I think it can be used to validate the concept that there are valid traditions handed down by the apostles but which are not found in the Bible, but the verse does not prove that that specific extra-biblical doctrines taught by the Catholic Church were taught by the apostles, of course.How can this verse be used to validate Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition
Well that is a valid point. Since the very nature of the traditions that I refer to are oral and not recorded in the Bible, someone could certainly come along, make up a story, and say "this was taught by the apostles" even though the apostles never taught it. I think this is the primary reason why Protestants object to the idea of "tradition" and prefer Sola Scriptura, correct? You think that the Apostles never really taught a doctrine like purgatory, infant baptism, or the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You think that the Roman Catholic Church simply made up a story like purgatory out of thin air, and made up a story about it being "tradition handed down by the apostles" even thought the Apostles never taught that, correct?2 Thess. 2:15 would be wrong to use to support what anyone has thought up or said since the death of the last Apostle.
Thank you for the compliment. I'm well aware of the Protestant teachings that you are rooted in, and compliment you on your thorough education from Protestant teachers.I am well aware of the RCC teachings that you are rooted in. I compliment you on your through education from the RCC.
Absolutely. What you must then ask yourself is . . . is what Protestant teachers have taught me the truth?What you must then ask yourself is......what the RCC has taught me is truth????
Nonsense. The Catholic Church has not taught me that truth is relative.You see my friend, what the RCC has taught you and what you have believed is that truth is relative. What I mean by this is that by what you believe, you can “stretch” the truth based upon the situation. So then, if you are in a bad situation and the truth might bring about something unpleasant, then you can change the truth to suit your need.
Absolutely. I totally agree.But the fact of the matter is that either it is true, or it is false. Really, it is that simple! It is that black and white! There is no gray area when it comes to the truth.
Nonsense. For example, it is true that the book of James is the inspired word of God. But you already wrote that there is "NO Scripture which specifically says James is an inspired book of the Bible". So here we have a truth that is not found in the Bible.And the source of “truth” is only found in the Bible.
The Bible is the word of God, but it is not the only word of God. Is every single word that our Lord said recorded in the Bible? Is every single thing that the Apostles taught recorded in the Bible? No, but these are also the word of God.You have said several times that YOU read the Bible. You have stated that the Bible is the Word of God.
John 17:17 says.........
"Sanctify them with TRUTH.....THY WORD IS TRUTH"!
Because the word of God is not limited to the Bible. The word of God also includes everything that our Lord taught that is not recorded in the Bible, and it also includes everything that the Apostles taught that are not recorded in the Bible. To ensure that both of these and the Bible are free from corruption, our Lord built "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3). Our Lord also taught us that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16), that he gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" to the leaders of his Church, and that "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". I believe that the Catholic Church is the same church that our Lord founded when he personally walked the Earth, and that gives me confidence that the Catholic Church teaches the truth revealed in Sacred Scripture, and the truth handed down orally by our Lord and the Apostles (Sacred Tradition).Now I submitt to you my friend this simple question...how can you say what you have said and then accepted the teachings of the Catholic church which are not found in the Bible?
Well I think that @Major1 automatically equates "God's word" with "the Bible" because of his Protestant upbringing. It's natural for him to think that way because that is how the Christian communities in which he was raised think. For example, when I was a Protestant, whenever I read "This is my body" and the "Eat my flesh" verses in John 6, I always presumed that the verses were meant symbolically. It never even occurred to me that the verses could be understood in a different way, because the entire community in which I was raised always treated those passages as symbolic. I didn't even know that there was any other interpretation, let alone that the majority of the Christian world has always viewed the verses more literally. If I had been raised in a well-educated Catholic environment, I would probably have looked at the verses in a much more literal sense, the way that I do now when I see the passages.I sure don't see in this verse where it say's "the source of truth is only found in the Bible"
Key words missing.......... "only" and "Bible."
Have a Blessed Day!