Sola Scriptura

[daydreamergurl15]

The living Tradition is the oral teaching of the Apostles, and this Tradition goes alongside Holy Scripture.

That's not the question.
I asked:

"Interpreting the Scripture "in the light of the tradition which produced it".
I'm confused, are you saying that tradition is what produced Scripture?

 

[steve_bakr]

Except the Scripture doesn't say "IF a bishop is married"
It says
"IF a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then MUST be
-blameless,
-the husband of one wife,
-temperate,
-sober-minded,
-of good behavior,
-hospitable,
-able to teach;
-not given to wine,
-not violent,
-not greedy for money,
-but gentle,
-not quarrelsome,
-not covetous;
-one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care o the church of God?)
-not a novice, less being puffed up with pride he falls into the same condemnation as the devil.
-Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, less he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Do you want to know the difference between my interpretation and yours?
You make the claim that the person is a bishop first and then some of the qualifications can apply. For example when you said "IF a bishop is married he must not be married to more than one woman", you inferred that one can be a bishop but they do not need to meet all the qualifications. My interpretation says that if one does not meet the qualifications--and those qualifications are a must--they should not be a bishop. The position of a bishop is NOT given to the man and then they meet the qualifications, the position of a bishop is something to be desired and then if they meet the qualifications they should be bishops.

I'm getting the feeling that someone is going to say that "must" only applies to the qualification of "blameless" but I implore you to read it again because Titus 1:5-9 re-illiterate many of those same qualifications.

Since Jesus never married and Paul never married, I would guess that a Bishop is not required to be married, either. But that's just IMHO.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The other points for Priests being unmarried are:

1. Priests mimic Christ the High Priest. Christ was not married. He was celibate.

Tradition not Scripture.
Never told in Scripture that Priest mimic Christ the High Priest.

2. The Church teaches that the family should always be a primary focus for parents. Priests with families have divided attention. The Priests focus should be on Christ, on his flock and their spiritual needs.

Tradition, not Scripture.
Never told it was wrong or right to have a family and in fact we are told that it's better to marry than to burn with passion.

Not everyone agrees with this Teaching, some Catholics included. It is a difficult and hard one to understand and agree with in this modern world. That doesn't change the fact that it is Doctrine and must be abided by.

This all boils down to authority and whose Teachings you are going to succumb to which is a personal, emotional and spiritual choice.

I'm go by Scripture.

Some Christians believe that the Scriptures have always taught Doctrine. Catholics believe Christ and the Apostles taught Doctrine orally FIRST. Jesus never wrote anything down. The Apostles wrote down their memoirs after a while, certainly not the days or months after Christs Ressurrection.

They were dependent upon the Holy Spirit to remember

John 16:12-15
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.​

How and what did they preach in those months? We say they taught orally and they preached about Christ and what they had seen, heard and experienced. They did not have Scriptures to pass out as the majority of their audience was illiterate. They heard Confessions, they shared the Eucharist (bread&wine), they Baptised people. This is called Holy Tradition or Divine Tradition. It is Divine Tradition because Jesus established it. Later on the Apostles teachings and memories of Christ was written down.

I think sometimes we forget that the Spirit of God was poured out on these people and they had the Spiritual gifts. Illiteracy would not have been a problem with them because they were being taught these things, but it wasn't illiterate people who were writing the Scriptures.

 

[steve_bakr]

That's not the question.
I asked:

All I can say is that, according to Catholicism, the oral Tradition is a way that God communicates his message in addition to Holy Scripture. What I meant to say--or ought to have said--is the two are so closely connected that to separate Holy Scripture from Tradition (and on top of that, the teaching authority of the Apostolic Church) is to risk having an incomplete understanding of what Scripture teaches and what God is communicating to us. That is the Catholic view, as I understand it.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Since Jesus never married and Paul never married, I would guess that a Bishop is not required to be married, either. But that's just IMHO.

I would never argue against Jesus, He is called the Shepherd and I most certainly believe it to the fullest, but Jesus will ALWAYS be the except. The same way that the Scripture says "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..." I automatically take Jesus out of that...

As for Paul being a Bishop, I don't think so. He was an Apostle, yes, and He shared in the same tasks that Bishops did, but Scripture doesn't say he was an Bishop and seeing as he didn't meet the qualifications, he wouldn't be. But Christ gave Paul a different task as said in Acts 9:15-16. A lot of people confuse that because of 1 Timothy 4:14.

 

[steve_bakr]

I would never argue against Jesus, He is called the Shepherd and I most certainly believe it to the fullest, but Jesus will ALWAYS be the except. The same way that the Scripture says "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..." I automatically take Jesus out of that...

As for Paul being a Bishop, I don't think so. He was an Apostle, yes, and He shared in the same tasks that Bishops did, but Scripture doesn't say he was an Bishop and seeing as he didn't meet the qualifications, he wouldn't be. But Christ gave Paul a different task as said in Acts 9:15-16. A lot of people confuse that because of 1 Timothy 4:14.

Well, if you maintain that a Bishop MUST have a wife, then that is your interpretation. Current Bishops in the Catholic Church have chosen to consecrate their lives and their bodies to the Lord so as to better serve him.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

All I can say is that, according to Catholicism, the oral Tradition is a way that God communicates his message in addition to Holy Scripture. What I meant to say--or ought to have said--is the two are so closely connected that to separate Holy Scripture from Tradition (and on top of that, the teaching authority of the Apostolic Church) is to risk having an incomplete understanding of what Scripture teaches and what God is communicating to us. That is the Catholic view, as I understand it.

"Closely connected"? I think that's the problem.
How can we have an "incomplete understanding" of what Scripture teaches if we think that Scripture needs something else to complete it BUT that then turns around and contradict Scripture when Scripture says:

1 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.​

The question isn't, "Is Scripture complete without Holy Traditions and teaching authority of the Apostolic Church" the question becomes "can I understand the Scripture without the Holy Traditions and the teaching authority of the Apostolic Church?"

And to answer that question, we must ask ourselves another question:
How does one come to understand the Scriptures?
How does those who believe in the Holy Tradition understand Scripture accurately enough to teach it to even claim what is "Holy Tradition"?

I think you look to Scripture for the question for "How does one come to understand Scripture?

1 Corinthians 2:6-16
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.



2 Peter 1:19-21
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.


1 Thes 1:2-5
2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, 3 remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of our God and Father, 4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God. 5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.​

The Holy Spirit!

See, when I read Scripture I know that these men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. I know that their gospel came in word and power by the Holy Spirit, so I know I can trust Scripture. And because of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, I know that by it I may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

As for anything else, I'll take what they say "in light of Scripture".

EDIT: Changed colors, I felt that the black was running into each other.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Well, if you maintain that a Bishop MUST have a wife, then that is your interpretation. Current Bishops in the Catholic Church have chosen to consecrate their lives and their bodies to the Lord so as to better serve him.

As for Christ being a Shepherd, again, I'll maintain that Christ is always the except. The same way I think He's sinless, even though Romans 3:23 tells us "all have sin" is the same way I'll take it as Christ being Shepherd. It's HIS church. And when the HOLY SPIRIT gives us qualifications for man to be Bishops, I think we should listen to Him.

And just so you know, we are ALL supposed to live our lives for the Lord. It's neither better or worst if you're married or single. Even in marriage, you are still to live your life for Christ,. And in fact the marriage of a man and woman represents Christ and His church as said in Ephesians 5:22-33.

Edit: Changed verse, I quoted the wrong verse in Romans, edit paragraph 2.

 

[steve_bakr]

I think what we are encountering is the difference between Protestant thinking and Catholic teaching. We believe that the holy Church (which Paul has called the pillar of truth) is the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit reveals himself, so that all those councils of bishops, including the ones that compiled and canonized the Scriptures we now have and who wrote the Creeds that we profess have not been the mere traditions of men, but are what consists of the sacred Tradition, AS DIRECED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. I also observe that you are very bright and that I am not going to convince you of anything you don't want to be convinced of. I don't like to pursue the mentality that one of us must be proven "wrong". (That's no way to win anybody over anyway.) I simply reiterate the fact that we represent two different ways of thinking about the faith we share in common.

 

[Montalban]

Except the Scripture doesn't say "IF a bishop is married"

Yes, I accept that's your reading of it.

 

[Montalban]

There's no evidence Paul was married. I thought what evidence there was suggested he was not.

 

[steve_bakr]

As for Christ being a Shepherd, again, I'll maintain that Christ is always the except. The same way I think He's sinless, even though Romans 3:23 tells us "all have sin" is the same way I'll take it as Christ being Shepherd. It's HIS church. And when the HOLY SPIRIT gives us qualifications for man to be Bishops, I think we should listen to Him.

And just so you know, we are ALL supposed to live our lives for the Lord. It's neither better or worst if you're married or single. Even in marriage, you are still to live your life for Christ and it can happen whether you're married or single. And in fact the marriage of a man and woman represents Christ and His church as said in Ephesians 5:22-33.

Edit: Changed verse, I quoted the wrong verse in Romans.

You are right . The Catholic Church teaches that each of us have one of three vocations (ie, ways of serving the Lord); that is 1) Religious (ie, a monk or nun), 2) Single, 3) Married.

 

[Montalban]

"Closely connected"? I think that's the problem.
How can we have an "incomplete understanding" of what Scripture teaches if we think that Scripture needs something else to complete it BUT that then turns around and contradict Scripture when Scripture says:

So you don't need the Holy Spirit to guide you to/through scripture because that would be something else

 

[Standing Up]

I think what we are encountering is the difference between Protestant thinking and Catholic teaching. We believe that the holy Church (which Paul has called the pillar of truth) is the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit reveals himself, so that all those councils of bishops, including the ones that compiled and canonized the Scriptures we now have and who wrote the Creeds that we profess have not been the mere traditions of men, but are what consists of the sacred Tradition, AS DIRECED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. I also observe that you are very bright and that I am not going to convince you of anything you don't want to be convinced of. I don't like to pursue the mentality that one of us must be proven "wrong". (That's no way to win anybody over anyway.) I simply reiterate the fact that we represent two different ways of thinking about the faith we share in common.

So that "holy Church" you're speaking about, is it RC or EO or LDS?

See, the problem is, while the sentiment is intoxicating, the reality is far different.

I embraced Tradition. And I found very little correlation between Tradition taught today and Tradition of scripture/apostles/first mention in Tradition. The fact of conflict between EO and RC proves the vacuousness of Tradition.

Scripture alone is to recognize reality (schisim, division) and try to do something about it. Agree on a rule of faith. Now we can talk.

 

[Montalban]

Again this objection comes up (including the apparent boogey-man of the LDS - for some reason)

The best defence this argument is goes "Okay we can't know what is true, but then again neither can you."

It's not much of a defence.

And it's always a case of goal-shifting anyway - it's a case of "Let's not talk about how we can't show proof for SS, let's ask what church is true"

 

[Montalban]

There's a plethora of arguments trying to have all points at once.

a) Those that argue that scripture alone contains everything one needs, then adding Jesus, then the Holy Spirit, but then maintaining that they don't exclude these - thus undermining their statement of 'everything one needs'. Then we're back to scripture alone contains everything!

b) There's the statement that sola scriptura is simply a method - without showing why one should follow it EXCEPTING to use highly selective evidence; ignoring where tradition is praised/used.

c) There's the diversion to another question entirely - which church; EO, RCC, etc.? (with the LDS thrown into the mix just to add spice to the diversion).

d) There's also the 'just-so' statement that some things in my church are different from the bible because they are. Who knows what these things are?

The re-cycling of these flawed and illogical arguments should spell a warning to those reading them.

The thread endlessly goes through a) b) c) d) back to a) then perhaps this time to d) and back to a) again.

 

[steve_bakr]

So that "holy Church" you're speaking about, is it RC or EO or LDS?

See, the problem is, while the sentiment is intoxicating, the reality is far different.

I embraced Tradition. And I found very little correlation between Tradition taught today and Tradition of scripture/apostles/first mention in Tradition. The fact of conflict between EO and RC proves the vacuousness of Tradition.

Scripture alone is to recognize reality (schisim, division) and try to do something about it. Agree on a rule of faith. Now we can talk.

I am a Catholic of the Roman Rite. I don't know why you mention LDS, but the Catholic Church feels herself to be extremely close to the Eastern Orthodox to the point where it gives Communion to Orthodox members who spontaneously request it. However, the Orthodox Church tells its faithful not to receive in a Roman Catholic Church. So....the holy Church would be all those Churches who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

It sounds like you and I went in different directions as a result of our searches. There is traffic moving in both directions, and I don't doubt the sincerity of anyone who took a different direction than I did, nor their faith, nor their intelligence. There was a Protestant Professor of Theology named Scott Hahn who converted to Catholicism and who wrote several books about his journey into Catholicism. Perhaps there is an equivalent person who was Catholic and converted to Protestantism. I don't know what those statistics are. At bottom--and what is often left out of intellectual discussions--is that conversion is a matter of the heart. Whether it happens quickly or slowly, a conversion must take place in the heart. My conversion to Catholicism, I think, took seven years or longer. My first attempt at conversion--ie, in RCIA--didn't take because I was the one who brought in my Bible verses and said, "What about this?" and "What about that?" Ironically, it was during my years at Calvary Chapel when my questions about the Catholic faith resolved themselves.

 

[Standing Up]

Again this objection comes up (including the apparent boogey-man of the LDS - for some reason)

The best defence this argument is goes "Okay we can't know what is true, but then again neither can you."

Not exactly. The assertion is we already know the truth because of Tradition, Councils, Scripture. But those groups who rely on those things contradict each other. So, we know Tradition/Councils/Scripture doesn't provide the truth.

Where would we find it? It is written ...

What will happen from that decision is a whole lotta shaking of Tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

I am a Catholic of the Roman Rite. I don't know why you mention LDS, but the Catholic Church feels herself to be extremely close to the Eastern Orthodox to the point where it gives Communion to Orthodox members who spontaneously request it. However, the Orthodox Church tells its faithful not to receive in a Roman Catholic Church. So....the holy Church would be all those Churches who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

It sounds like you and I went in different directions as a result of our searches. There is traffic moving in both directions, and I don't doubt the sincerity of anyone who took a different direction than I did, nor their faith, nor their intelligence. There was a Protestant Professor of Theology named Scott Hahn who converted to Catholicism and who wrote several books about his journey into Catholicism. Perhaps there is an equivalent person who was Catholic and converted to Protestantism. I don't know what those statistics are. At bottom--and what is often left out of intellectual discussions--is that conversion is a matter of the heart. Whether it happens quickly or slowly, a conversion must take place in the heart. My conversion to Catholicism, I think, took seven years or longer. My first attempt at conversion--ie, in RCIA--didn't take because I was the one who brought in my Bible verses and said, "What about this?" and "What about that?" Ironically, it was during my years at Calvary Chapel when my questions about the Catholic faith resolved themselves.

There was no searching. God moved a mountain "for me". I thank Him.

 

[steve_bakr]

There was no searching. God moved a mountain "for me". I thank Him.

Excuse me, I thought you said that you studied Tradition and then found it wanting. Anyway, as William James observed in The Varieties of Religious Experience, there are both sudden conversions and gradual conversions. And I might add that what matters is the quality and change in the heart that results.