By the way, thank you once again, because you have just admitted that there is another Rule of Faith: the Old Testament and Apostolic Tradition.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
By the way, thank you once again, because you have just admitted that there is another Rule of Faith: the Old Testament and Apostolic Tradition.Because scripture is the only God Breathed source we have
Yes. Based on the OT and apostolic teaching that was later recorded for us in the NT But again you asked if SS was sufficient to function as a rule of faith.
I agree.
And something I don't think a lot of Protestants take the time to consider is the fact that the Church can (and did) exist without Sacred Scripture being collected into a single volume called "the Bible". Rather, a lot of Protestants seem to view the Bible as a sort of constitution upon which the Church is founded. I have to wonder if their fundamental misunderstanding of the Church's origin isn't a major factor in their fundamental misunderstanding of what Sacred Scripture is and what it isn't.
Thank you. If the first Christians were fully equipped, and we both agree they were, then it follows that the New Testament Scriptures were "additional equipment" and not "essential equipment". Correct?
Do you mean you take back your previous agreement that the first Christians were fully equipped? Because if they were fully equipped, then how can anything else not be optional? Please explain.No. That’s what you are trying to make me say. A variation colors sidestep of the issue and thus creating a strawman. I said Paul said “all” scripture. You are trying to get me to agree to something other than scripture. But again the verse says.
2 Timothy 3:16–17 (ESV): All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
that is sufficient for a rule of faith. “All” no matter how much you wish that the word isn’t there.
It's been 2,000 years. Christianity started as a hated, persecuted minority in the most powerful empire in history and went on to become the dominant cultural force in the western world, bar none.The church you are a part of is unrecognizable from its simple origins
I have never said otherwise. What my membership offers me is the sacraments and the fullness of truth given only to the Catholic Church; nothing more, nothing less.and your membership of this doesn't invoke some free pass
Do you mean you take back your previous agreement that the first Christians were fully equipped? Because if they were fully equipped, then how can anything else not be optional? Please explain.
This entire post is an attempt to frame the issue.The Church has never existed without the scriptures. God's people before the time of JESUS had the old testament scriptures of the Word of God. At the times of Jesus and the Apostles their bible was the old testament scriptures. The new testament scriptures are the recorded words of Jesus and the Apotles that the old testament pointed to. God's people (the Church) have always had Gods' Word in the beginning through the spoken Word of God, then from Mt Sinai to this present day the spoken and written Word of God and God's people having the written Word of God to this present day. The new testament does not contradict the old testament scriptures they are a fulfillment of them.
Same problem.Not correct.
The very first Christians were equipped with living eyewitnesses of the Resurrection.
Second Century and later Christians were equipped with written records of eyewitnesses of the Resurrection.
Your response here...The first Christian were fully equiped with the Word of God (scriptures) and the living Word of God (Jesus - John 1:1-4; 14). The new testament scriptures are the recorded words of Jesus (God) and the Apotles which are a fulfillemnt of the old testament which pointed to Jesus and God's plan of salvation in the new covenant. God's people (the Church) have always had Gods' Word in the beginning through the spoken Word of God, then from Mt Sinai to this present day the spoken and written Word of God and God's people having the written Word of God to this present day. The new testament does not contradict the old testament scriptures they are a fulfillment of them.
This entire post is an attempt to frame the issue. The Church started life without all of Sacred Scripture being collected into a single volume called "the Bible". Your straw man post above does not change that fact.
Same problem.
1. When the eyewitnesses were alive, the Rule of Faith would have been: OT Scripture and NT Oral Tradition.
2. When the eyewitnesses died, the Rule of Faith would have been: OT Scripture and NT Written Tradition.
3. When the last eyewitnesses had died, and the Church canonised the Bible, the Rule of Faith would have become: OT Scripture and "some" NT Written Tradition, i.e. NT Scripture
If Christ intended His Church to be based on a Book, He certainly picked a very bad and impractical business model.
I'm not buying your distinction between "NT Written Tradition" and "NT Scripture" in the least.
What Apostolic "NT Written Tradition" do you think got left out of "NT Scripture"?
Are you asking for an index? How's that relevant to the argument?
The Catholic Church (big "C" ) is an evolved version of its origins (small "c") It has pivoted many times and turned itself into a version of the original but no longer the original. Looking at the early church Fathers and saying this is Catholic is no more relevant than a Jew looking at Abraham and saying this is Jewish. Going back far enough every Christian has a converging point and it's arbitrary to call it uniquely yours when all Christians carry the same DNA. Critical evaluation is responsible stewardship but you seem to indicate because it's Catholic it's off the table but everyone else is on the chopping block. This "us" and "them" way of approaching faith seems counter-gospel to me.It's been 2,000 years. Christianity started as a hated, persecuted minority in the most powerful empire in history and went on to become the dominant cultural force in the western world, bar none.
If you refer to superficialities then I would be shocked if an organization with the Church's history didn't look different after all that.
And yet, the Early Church Fathers believed in and taught something that is unmistakably Catholic. They believed many things that Protestants today wholeheartedly reject.
Forgive me for saying this. But I think Protestant institutions resemble the Early Church far less than the modern Catholic Church does.
I have never said otherwise. What my membership offers me is the sacraments and the fullness of truth given only to the Catholic Church; nothing more, nothing less.
That is history friend. And it was what I quoted to colorsblend some 50 posts ago because there were other rules of faith. Yet here we go again by trying to shoehorn some amorphous tradition that no one can point to as opposed to apostolic tradition which was recorded for us. That tradition is called the NT.By the way, thank you once again, because you have just admitted that there is another Rule of Faith: the Old Testament and Apostolic Tradition.
Once again. We are not saying there was not a time when scripture existed in oral form. So yes, the first century christian was fully equipped.Do you mean you take back your previous agreement that the first Christians were fully equipped? Because if they were fully equipped, then how can anything else not be optional? Please explain.
Claim: "The Scriptures are sufficient to function as a Rule of Faith."
Challenge: Prove it!
That's why He's God. Scripture has a supernatural source. And don't discount the use of the many Scriptorium in the ancient world. We. can show the origin of the NT but you are unable to show us the source of tradition. I just thought of a real world example of the different rules of faith in action. Because the notion that tradition and scripture together with the magisterium are superior why is there a chasm between these two men:It's a novel theory, but not very Scriptural, and certainly not very practical considering to start with there was only ONE copy of each book of the Scriptures to go all around Christendom!
If Christ intended His Church to be based on a Book, He certainly picked a very bad and impractical business model.
Your close to the heart of the matter. Apostolic Succession. One who has given authority from above. I myself don't hold to Apostolic succession. There is none today who has authority from above to add or take away from the writings/teachings given in the NT. Leaders that are appointed should be held accountable to truths found in the NT. As in a faithful following of the teachings of Christ Jesus and the Apostles. The source of any doctrine should be supported by scripture. To me there is nothing new from above.That's why He's God. Scripture has a supernatural source. And don't discount the use of the many Scriptorium in the ancient world. We. can show the origin of the NT but you are unable to show us the source of tradition. I just thought of a real world example of the different rules of faith in action. Because the notion that tradition and scripture together with the magisterium are superior why is there a chasm between these two men:
but not these two men (SS as a rule of faith) all separated by about a 100 years.
.
And don't try and tell me Pius X taught the same doctrine as Francis because we both know that is not true. In fact you going to have a hard time convincing me they are members of the same church. Yet the men on the bottom most certainly teach the same doctrine. (CFW Walter and Matthew Harrison past and current president of the LCMS).
Now that is a strawman.The Church started life without all of Sacred Scripture being collected into a single volume called "the Bible".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?