WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 5, 2020

JAL said:
Again, pointing out a logical contradiction is not making things up. It is a logical contradiction for a prophet to say, "I know for sure what message the Lord wants me to tell you, but I still don't feel certain that I know". Huh? That's total nonsense.

Since you've decided to embrace irrational nonsense that no one can make any sense of, I don't plan to discuss any further with you.

I can understand why you do not want to discuss this topic with me as you are asked questions from your viewpoint that contradict the scripture and your questions are answered with scripture that disagree with your teachings opposed to the scriptures. It is ok we do not need to discuss the topic if you do not want to just say so. We can always agree to disagree. For me what your sharing does not make sense and neither is it biblical.

I believe that this was demonstrated by asking you some simple questions related to the scriptures earlier. Your response was to ignore my posts and questions to you and micro quote me and not respond to my questions and posts to you in relation to the scriptures. No one knows what good and evil is or sin and righteousness or truth and error dear friend, unless there is a standard to turn to and that standard according to the scriptures is the Word of God which your opposing.

It is only through the scriptures we know what good and evil, sin and righteousness and truth and error is. If you ignore God's Word as revlealed through the scriptures you ignore the very foundation of which our salvation is based through faith. We are only saved by God's grace as we believe and follow it THROUGH FAITH *Ephesians 2:8-9; John 8:31-32 and faith only comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *Romans 10:17 and whatsoever is not of faith is sin *Romans 14:23. Sin will keep all those who knowingly practice it out of God's kingdom *Hebrews 10:26-27.

Do the math...

No Word = No Faith = No Salvation

You are free to believe as you wish dear friend. For me however, only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *Romans 3:4; Matthew 15:3-9.

How can you go into battle for the Lord when you have no sword (Word) and shield (Faith) or how can you know the way when you have no lamp (the Word is the lamp and a light to my path) when the road is dark and narrow?

Hope this helps.

JAL · Jul 5, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
I can understand why you do not want to discuss this topic with me as you are asked questions from your viewpoint that contradict the scripture and your questions are answered with scripture that disagree with your teachings opposed to the scriptures. It is ok we do not need to discuss the topic if you do not want to just say so. We can always agree to disagree. For me what your sharing does not make sense and neither is it biblical.

I believe that this was demonstrated by asking you some simple questions related to the scriptures earlier. Your response was to ignore my posts and questions to you and micro quote me and not respond to my questions and posts to you in relation to the scriptures. No one knows what good and evil is or sin and righteousness or truth and error dear friend, unless there is a standard to turn to and that standard according to the scriptures is the Word of God which your opposing.

It is only through the scriptures we know what good and evil, sin and righteousness and truth and error is. If you ignore God's Word as revlealed through the scriptures you ignore the very foundation of which our salvation is based through faith. We are only saved by God's grace as we believe and follow it THROUGH FAITH *Ephesians 2:8-9; John 8:31-32 and faith only comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God *Romans 10:17 and whatsoever is not of faith is sin *Romans 14:23. Sin will keep all those who knowingly practice it out of God's kingdom *Hebrews 10:26-27.

Do the math...

No Word = No Faith = No Salvation

You are free to believe as you wish dear friend. For me however, only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *Romans 3:4; Matthew 15:3-9.

How can you go into battle for the Lord when you have no sword (Word) and shield (Faith) or how can you know the way when you have no lamp (the Word is the lamp and a light to my path) when the road is dark and narrow?

Hope this helps.

Sad to think that some participants might actually be deceived by such intellectually dishonest, disingenuous posts.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 6, 2020

JAL said:
Sad .....

Well I think it is time we agree to disagree dear friend and let others decide for themselves what is true and what is not true as it is written "If anyman wills to do God's will he shall know of the truth or wheather I speak of myself or not" *JOHN 7:17 and again dear friend .... "Gods sheep hear His Voice (the Word) and follow him. Those who do not hear and follow are not God's sheep" *JOHN 10:26-27. For me only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it *ROMANS 3:4 over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *MATTHEW 15:3-9. Thankyou for the discussion and I pray that you may receive Gods' Word and be blessed. Ignoring it does not make it disappear as it becomes our judge come judgment day according to the scriptures *JOHN 12:47-48.

GodsGrace101 · Jul 6, 2020

Tradidi said:
Who said "Tradition is the spoken Word of God" or "Tradition came before Jesus"?

I said "Tradition contains the spoken Word of God" and "the spoken Word came before the written Word", in other words, "Tradition came before the Scriptures".

You've just repeated yourself.
Could you use different language please?

You said:
TRADITION CONTAINS THE SPOKEN WORD OF GOD.

You said:
THE SPOKEN WORD CAME BEFORE THE WRITTEN WORD.

You said:
TRADITION CAME BEFORE THE SCRIPTURES.

So, let's put it this way...
What IS Tradition?
What Tradition do you believe came before the scriptures? Do you mean the N.T.?
Do you mean that Catholics pray to saints because of the book of Macabees?

And which spoken word came before the written word? Do you mean God speaking to Adam?
We only know about that through the written word.

CaliforniaJosiah · Jul 6, 2020

JAL said:
Again, pointing out a logical contradiction is not making things up. It is a logical contradiction for a prophet to say, "I know for sure what message the Lord wants me to tell you, but I still don't feel certain that I know". Huh? That's total nonsense.

Since you've decided to embrace irrational nonsense that no one can make any sense of, I don't plan to discuss any further with you.

JAL

Okay.... I "get" your point about an individual person feeling "CONFIDENT" and "CERTAIN" about some dogma.

Here's what you seem to be ENTIRELY missing (and why you have yet to even approach the issue of this thread). What if 5 Christians persons, churches and/or denoninations are 100% confident and certain of 5 entirely DIFFERENT and conflicting dogmas on some subject? Understand - each in complete disagreement - are all 100% confident, certain, sure? According to you, all 5 are correct - even though they completely contridict each other. So, are you a radical relativist? Do you hold that if truth exists AT ALL, it an be entirely different, that "truth" is entirely different for different people at different moments, so Joseph Smith is right and John Calvin is right and Jim Jones is right because they each had confidence? Or do you simply surrender to the disagreement, to you it's okay if there's no agreement, so what if Christianity has 7 billion different set of dogmas, so what if no one knows what's correct and what doesn't, who cares if Jim Jones or Arius was right or not, it just doesn't matter? What if 5 Christians come to the table with five DIFFERENT dogmas on the same point and each of them - all 5 - are confident they are right? Answer that and you will begin to address the issue that Sola Scriptura does.

.

Albion · Jul 6, 2020

Tradidi said:
I am not interested in defending incorrect statements I did not make.

You aren't asked to do that.

I merely point out that no one twisted anything. All of the statements, as they were presented to us in these posts, are incorrect--the ones you took exception to and your revised versions of them as well.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 6, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
You've just repeated yourself.
Could you use different language please?

You said:
TRADITION CONTAINS THE SPOKEN WORD OF GOD.

You said:
THE SPOKEN WORD CAME BEFORE THE WRITTEN WORD.

You said:
TRADITION CAME BEFORE THE SCRIPTURES.

So, let's put it this way...
What IS Tradition?
What Tradition do you believe came before the scriptures? Do you mean the N.T.?
Do you mean that Catholics pray to saints because of the book of Macabees?

And which spoken word came before the written word? Do you mean God speaking to Adam?
We only know about that through the written word.

Good questions stranger, welcome back

Tradidi · Jul 6, 2020

GodsGrace101 said:
You've just repeated yourself.
Could you use different language please?

You said:
TRADITION CONTAINS THE SPOKEN WORD OF GOD.

You said:
THE SPOKEN WORD CAME BEFORE THE WRITTEN WORD.

You said:
TRADITION CAME BEFORE THE SCRIPTURES.

So, let's put it this way...
What IS Tradition?
What Tradition do you believe came before the scriptures? Do you mean the N.T.?
Do you mean that Catholics pray to saints because of the book of Macabees?

And which spoken word came before the written word? Do you mean God speaking to Adam?
We only know about that through the written word.

If I have to repeat myself it is only because some people keep twisting my words, making me say things I did not say. But I am pleased to see someone asking the right question, what is Tradition?

First, we have to note that there are two types of tradition, one that is to be rejected and one that is to be kept.

The kind of tradition (with a lowercase "t") that is to be rejected is what we usually term the "traditions of men". Our Lord referred to that kind of tradition in Mark 7:7 and Mark 7:9. And why do we reject them? Because they void or nullify the commandments of God. Our Lord gives us an example in that same chapter 7 of Mark's gospel, but good current day examples of "traditions of men" that nullify God's commandments are sola fide and sola scriptura.

The kind of Tradition (with a capital "T") that is to be kept is what St. Paul is talking about when he said: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:14), and "Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances [some Bibles translate "traditions"] as I have delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2)

And this leads us to the definition of what Tradition is: the oral teachings of the Church.

It should now be obvious why I made the statements you question me about, and why I reject the statements others have tried to make me say.

A good illustration of how Tradition works is St. Paul. He never met Christ himself (other than in a vision). He never walked with Christ, ate with Him, talked to Him, etc. Yet, he is one of the inspired authors of Scripture. How do you think Paul learned the doctrine he wrote down? He learned it from the Apostles, by listening to their oral teachings, not by reading a book and not by writing a book by dictation, like a robot. Which by the way is why we see that each author writes in his own style. They wrote by inspiration, not by dictation. But the pertinent part here is that the teachings of our faith were first handed down orally, then after some time part of these teachings were written down. This written part we now call the Scriptures.

Also important to note is that the Church, after having decided on the canon of the Bible, did not stop teaching and passing down it's teachings orally. In fact, and for very practical reasons, the primary way of handing down the faith and of teaching was and remained for many centuries orally. Christ never said to "write a book and distribute it", but rather, "to teach all nations".

On the other hand, after having canonised the Bible, the Church did not stop writing down some of it's oral teachings. These writings of the Early Church Fathers are often also considered part of Tradition, because they are the oral teachings of the Church written down, just as the Scriptures were the oral teachings of the Church written down. I highly recommend you read some of these Early Church Fathers. If and when you do, you will immediately notice how Catholic they were!

I hope this explain what Catholics mean when they talk about Tradition.

Tradidi · Jul 6, 2020

Albion said:
You aren't asked to do that.

I merely point out that no one twisted anything. All of the statements, as they were presented to us in these posts, are incorrect--the ones you took exception to and your revised versions of them as well.

You are fighting phantoms. See my previous post for an explanation of the statements I made about Tradition. You may run from the truth if you like, but it doesn't change the truth and you will not find safety in fables.

Albion · Jul 6, 2020

Tradidi said:
The kind of tradition (with a lowercase "t") that is to be rejected is what we usually term the "traditions of men". Our Lord referred to that kind of tradition in Mark 7:7 and Mark 7:9. And why do we reject them? Because they void or nullify the commandments of God.

The kind of Tradition (with a capital "T") that is to be kept is what St. Paul is talking about when he said: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:14),

and "Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances [some Bibles translate "traditions"] as I have delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2)

Having said that there are two different kinds of tradition (but having not shown us why that would be so), you proceed to define the second of them as being the first of the two (!).

Obviously, when Paul spoke of "traditions," he did not mean "Tradition," the theological concept that was unknown at the time and has a meaning wholly different from "traditions."

In addition, no method for recognizing either "Tradition" or "traditions" is offered to us in that verse, and Paul says nothing there or elsewhere to the effect that any religious institution can simply create "Tradition," let alone declare it to a second (along with Holy Scripture) revelation from God.

Tradidi · Jul 6, 2020

Albion said:
Having said that there are two different kinds of tradition (but having not shown us why that would be so), you proceed to define the second of them as being the first of the two (!).

Must I really spell it all out? If the Bible in some places rejects tradition and in other places urges us to keep tradition, what conclusion can a homo sapiens draw out of that? Answer: that there are two kinds of tradition, the one that we must reject and the one that we must keep.

As for the second part of your statement, please explain.

Albion said:
Obviously, when Paul spoke of "traditions," he did not mean "Tradition," the theological concept that was unknown at the time and has a meaning wholly different from "traditions."

Are you saying that the theological concept of "oral teachings" was unknown at the time? Hmm.. I wonder whether Christ texted his Apostles every time he wanted to tell them something

Albion said:
In addition, no method for recognizing either "Tradition" or "traditions" is offered to us in that verse, and Paul says nothing there or elsewhere to the effect that any religious institution can simply create "Tradition," let alone declare it to a second (along with Holy Scripture) revelation from God.

You are mixing two things.

The first question is this: How can we recognise what is Tradition, i.e. true and authentic teachings that the Church has faithfully handed down. This is a good question, and the answer is not always easy, but that does not mean that we can throw out Tradition altogether. Likewise, it is not easy to understand the Scriptures either, but that does not mean that we can throw them out the window. It all takes a little effort, and honesty, and humility. Search and you will find.

Second, no one is claiming that religious institutions can "simply create Tradition", so throwing this gratuitous accusation into the mix is only a smokescreen to avoid you dealing with the real issue.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 6, 2020

Tradidi said:
If I have to repeat myself it is only because some people keep twisting my words, making me say things I did not say. But I am pleased to see someone asking the right question, what is Tradition?

First, we have to note that there are two types of tradition, one that is to be rejected and one that is to be kept.

The kind of tradition (with a lowercase "t") that is to be rejected is what we usually term the "traditions of men". Our Lord referred to that kind of tradition in Mark 7:7 and Mark 7:9. And why do we reject them? Because they void or nullify the commandments of God. Our Lord gives us an example in that same chapter 7 of Mark's gospel, but good current day examples of "traditions of men" that nullify God's commandments are sola fide and sola scriptura.

The kind of Tradition (with a capital "T") that is to be kept is what St. Paul is talking about when he said: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:14), and "Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances [some Bibles translate "traditions"] as I have delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2)

And this leads us to the definition of what Tradition is: the oral teachings of the Church.

It should now be obvious why I made the statements you question me about, and why I reject the statements others have tried to make me say.

A good illustration of how Tradition works is St. Paul. He never met Christ himself (other than in a vision). He never walked with Christ, ate with Him, talked to Him, etc. Yet, he is one of the inspired authors of Scripture. How do you think Paul learned the doctrine he wrote down? He learned it from the Apostles, by listening to their oral teachings, not by reading a book and not by writing a book by dictation, like a robot. Which by the way is why we see that each author writes in his own style. They wrote by inspiration, not by dictation. But the pertinent part here is that the teachings of our faith were first handed down orally, then after some time part of these teachings were written down. This written part we now call the Scriptures.

Also important to note is that the Church, after having decided on the canon of the Bible, did not stop teaching and passing down it's teachings orally. In fact, and for very practical reasons, the primary way of handing down the faith and of teaching was and remained for many centuries orally. Christ never said to "write a book and distribute it", but rather, "to teach all nations".

On the other hand, after having canonised the Bible, the Church did not stop writing down some of it's oral teachings. These writings of the Early Church Fathers are often also considered part of Tradition, because they are the oral teachings of the Church written down, just as the Scriptures were the oral teachings of the Church written down. I highly recommend you read some of these Early Church Fathers. If and when you do, you will immediately notice how Catholic they were!

I hope this explain what Catholics mean when they talk about Tradition.

According to the scriptures there is nothing wrong with traditions if they are biblical and follow the scriptures. Good traditions however are based on scripture or do not supersede or contradict the scriptures. For example good tradition is that received by the Word of God as shown in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 where as tradition that goes against scripture or leads people to break God's commandments or not follow Gods' Word we are warned against following in Matthew 15:3-9; Mark 7:3-13; Colossians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:6. There is nothing wrong with tradition if it is according to the scriptures. Tradition however is bad and wrong if it goes against the teachings of the scriptures and the Word of God. To me I believe Catholic teachings go against the scriptures and put tradition over the Word of God when the scriptures teach it is the Word of God that supersedes man made teachings and traditions.

Hope this is helpful.

Albion · Jul 6, 2020

Tradidi said:
Must I really spell it all out?
If the Bible in some places rejects tradition and in other places urges us to keep tradition, what conclusion can a homo sapiens draw out of that?

It's not "tradition." The verse has those listeners being told to hold to the traditions that they had already been observing. In other words, some unidentified customs. None of the RCC's doctrines that are justified by reference to "Holy Tradition" fall into that category, being inventions of a later time.

And "Tradition" has nothing to do with the Catholic theory of a second stream of divine revelation that manifests itself in a continuity of belief parallel to the Bible. That's entirely a creation and has no Scriptural basis.

It's not factual, but that's the theory that underlies such legends as the Assumption of Mary that have no basis in either fact or Scripture. But by claiming that there is such a thing as "Sacred Tradition," a justification for making dogmas and asserting that they are binding upon all loyal Catholics is manufactured.

Are you saying that the theological concept of "oral teachings" was unknown at the time?

Oral teachings =/= Tradition.

You are mixing two things.

The first question is this: How can we recognise what is Tradition, i.e. true and authentic teachings that the Church has faithfully handed down.

If I were a Roman Catholic, I would be expected to believe the church simply because it has said that some new doctrine is to be believed since I am also told that the Apostles allegedly handed it down to the next generation and from it to the next. However, it's just speculation at best and completely unverifiable.

None of these teachings is known to be Apostolic or universal, although both of those factors are said to be what proves them genuine. Even if they were, there's no reason to think that something like Mary's body being flown to heaven must be believed by the faithful as a condition of salvation.

This is a good question, and the answer is not always easy, but that does not mean that we can throw out Tradition altogether. Likewise, it is not easy to understand the Scriptures either, but that does not mean that we can throw them out the window.

The two are not comparable, however. There is no dispute over the importance of Scripture, not among Protestants and not among Catholics either.

Tradidi · Jul 6, 2020

Albion said:
It's not "tradition." The verse has those listeners being told to hold to the traditions that they had already been observing. In other words, some unidentified customs. None of the RCC's doctrines that are justified by reference to "Holy Tradition" fall into that category, being inventions of a later time.

I find your objections rather confused and confusing. You asked me to show why I see two kinds of "tradition" in Scripture. So, I showed you. Do you agree or disagree that there are two kinds of "tradition" in Scripture, one that is to be rejected and one that is to be kept? If not, why not. Otherwise, please explain clearly what your next problem is and I will do my best to understand and answer.

Albion said:
Oral teachings =/= Tradition.

Someone asked me to explain what I mean by Tradition, and I gave the answer. I can understand you don't like the answer, and you are welcome to make up your own definition.

Albion said:
If I were a Roman Catholic, I would be expected to believe the church simply because it has said that some new doctrine is to be believed since I am also told that the Apostles allegedly handed it down to the next generation and from it to the next. However, it's just speculation at best and completely unverifiable.

None of these teachings is known to be Apostolic or universal, although both of those factors are said to be what proves them genuine. Even if they were, there's no reason to think that something like Mary's body being flown to heaven must be believed by the faithful as a condition of salvation.

What do you mean by "a new doctrine"? If you mean a doctrine you never heard of before or discovered for yourself by pouring over the Scriptures? Get ready, there's a lot more you don't know.

But if you mean a doctrine that was invented and has no basis in either Scripture or Tradition, then I'm afraid you're in for the short string. If you want to break through your animosity (or hatred) of the Catholic Church, read the Early Church Fathers. They were as Catholic as can be. I will try and dig up a few examples for you.

With regards to the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I'd be keen to discuss this with you in a different thread.

Albion said:
The two are not comparable, however. There is no dispute over the importance of Scripture, not among Protestants and not among Catholics either.

There is no dispute over the importance of Scripture, but there is a dispute over It's meaning. It's like saying, we both agree that the truth is important, but it's not important what that truth is. It makes no sens to me.

Tradidi · Jul 6, 2020

As promised, here are a few quotes from St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who lived and wrote from about 35 to 107 A.D. St. Ignatius was, by all accounts, a disciple of St. John the apostle. He learned from one who learned directly from Christ.

Ignatius warned against breaking away from the one true Church which Christ founded. He wrote:

Make no mistake, my brothers, if anyone joins a schismatic he will not inherit God’s Kingdom. If anyone walks in the way of heresy, he is out of sympathy with the Passion. Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow slaves. In that way whatever you do is in line with God’s will.

And in his Epistle to Smyrna, St. Ignatius explains that we can recognise heretics by their denial of the Real Presence:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.

Does that sound Catholic or Protestant? Let me know if you'd like to learn more. Or better still, work out your salvation (or conversion back to the Catholic faith?) and start reading how the first Christians understood the Scriptures.

LoveGodsWord · Jul 6, 2020

Tradidi said:
As promised, here are a few quotes from St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who lived and wrote from about 35 to 107 A.D. St. Ignatius was, by all accounts, a disciple of St. John the apostle. He learned from one who learned directly from Christ.

Ignatius warned against breaking away from the one true Church which Christ founded. He wrote:

Make no mistake, my brothers, if anyone joins a schismatic he will not inherit God’s Kingdom. If anyone walks in the way of heresy, he is out of sympathy with the Passion. Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow slaves. In that way whatever you do is in line with God’s will.

And in his Epistle to Smyrna, St. Ignatius explains that we can recognise heretics by their denial of the Real Presence:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.

Does that sound Catholic or Protestant? Let me know if you'd like to learn more. Or better still, work out your salvation (or conversion back to the Catholic faith?) and start reading how the first Christians understood the Scriptures.

According to the scriptures alone there is only one definition of God's true church. That is all those who believe and follow God's Word who keep all the commandments of God. (Please read, 1 JOHN 3:4-10; 1 JOHN 2:3-4; REVELATION 12:17; REVELATION 14;12; REVELATION 22:14; JOHN 10:26-27; MATTHEW 7:21-27). There is no other true Church on earth except those who have the Word of God and are purified by it through faith.

Hope this helps.

Albion · Jul 6, 2020

Tradidi said:
I find your objections rather confused and confusing. You asked me to show why I see two kinds of "tradition" in Scripture. So, I showed you.

I believe that you think you did just that.

Do you agree or disagree that there are two kinds of "tradition" in Scripture, one that is to be rejected and one that is to be kept?

Disagree.

If not, why not.

For me to answer "yes," Scripture would have to mention two different kinds.

Besides, not even your own posts referred to two kinds of traditions. One is simply what we'd otherwise refer to as customs and you yourself tried to say that belief in Sola Scriptura is a tradition in the sense of being a commitment or practice of longstanding, but not something that identifies a dogma as the other one is alleged by a few churches to do.

Otherwise, please explain clearly what your next problem is and I will do my best to understand and answer.

My only problem is that you have not reacted to my explanations--which I offered more than one time here--as to why "Sacred Tradition" is not what is claimed for it.

Someone asked me to explain what I mean by Tradition, and I gave the answer.

All right. That can be your definition and belief if you so choose. My interest is not in opposing anyone's personal choice of beliefs but, rather, to ascertain which ones can be proven to be what they are supposed to be, and which cannot.

What do you mean by "a new doctrine"? If you mean a doctrine you never heard of before or discovered for yourself by pouring over the Scriptures?

What I mean by that is a doctrine that is not Apostolic. One that originated at a later time.

But if you mean a doctrine that was invented and has no basis in either Scripture or Tradition...

There you go!

Not confusing after all, is it?

Albion · Jul 6, 2020

Tradidi said:
Ignatius warned against breaking away from the one true Church which Christ founded.

And in his Epistle to Smyrna, St. Ignatius explains that we can recognise heretics by their denial of the Real Presence

Does that sound Catholic or Protestant? .

Actually, none of that discriminates between the reformed churches and the unreformed churches. There are people and denominations on both sides which can readily agree with Ignatius' words on both of those subjects.

Albion · Jul 6, 2020

Tradidi said:
Must I really spell it all out? If the Bible in some places rejects tradition and in other places urges us to keep tradition

Except that it (the Bible) does not do that.

The verse you cited before referred to keeping up with unnamed customs that his listeners had already been observing. That's it. Nothing more than that.

In no way is that a reference to what the Catholic churches say that their creation called either "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition" is or does.

Tradidi · Jul 6, 2020

Albion said:
I believe that you think you did just that.

Disagree.

For me to answer "yes," Scripture would have to mention two different kinds.

Besides, not even your own posts referred to two kinds of traditions. One is simply what we'd otherwise refer to as customs and you yourself tried to say that belief in Sola Scriptura is a tradition in the sense of being a commitment or practice of longstanding, but not something that identifies a dogma as the other one is alleged by a few churches to do.

My only problem is that you have not reacted to my explanations--which I offered more than one time here--as to why "Sacred Tradition" is not what is claimed for it.

All right. That can be your definition and belief if you so choose. My interest is not in opposing anyone's personal choice of beliefs but, rather, to ascertain which ones can be proven to be what they are supposed to be, and which cannot.

What I mean by that is a doctrine that is not Apostolic. One that originated at a later time.

There you go! Not confusing after all, is it?

Look @Albion, I am getting tired of this nonsense. If you have a serious question, ask it. If you have a serious argument, bring it on. Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time. I am not interested in playing scrabble with you.

WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Facilitator

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Facilitator

Active Member

Similar threads