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.
Scripture says that the church is the foundation and upholder of the truth and we see that Jesus tells us where the truth is located.. The word of God. We see the most earliest of the Church and what was taught through the scriptures. I will stick to them thanks..but there is no reason why they couldn't have spoken to the disciples if they had a reason to. There's nothing in the Bible against that.
The disciples did not even talk to them. They too spoke directly to Jesus.. So this Mary apparations is a quick way for the enemy to come in as an angel of light, If one does not know the truth of the scripture to test it against then all kinds of things will come in and deceive many. This is the enemies biggest game..
because there are different ways to INTERPRET Scripture.. and the Protestant interpretation is modern. It's different than how all Christians have always interpreted the Bible since the early Church days. Are you saying that they were all wrong?
Can you show me where it is written that we are to interpret scripture? I do not take my teaching from mens interpretation of scripture. I take my teaching from scripture itself..
I don't even know what any of the church fathers in the CC taught how can I know anything about them?
It says in the Bible that the Church is the pillar and the foundation of all truth. If sola scriptura was right, wouldn't you expect it to say this about the Bible? But it says about the Church... this goes right against sola scriptura.
Scripture
I. The Word of God is Transferred Orally
Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.
Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.
Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?
Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.
Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.
Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word.
Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth."
Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).
Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.
1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.
Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man's Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church's living tradition.
Col. 1:5 - of this you have "heard" (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.
1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have "heard" (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.
2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.
2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.
Titus 1:3 - God's word is manifested "through preaching" (not writing). This "preaching" is the tradition that comes from the apostles.
1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was "preached" (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles' successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.
2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a "means to recall these things in mind." But since this was his last canonical epistle, this "means to recall" must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.
2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.
Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God's appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.
Isa. 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.
Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.
Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.
Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.
II. Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition
Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)
Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).
Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul also writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary.
Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.
Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.
John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.
Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!”
Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.
Col. 1:5-6 – of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you. This delivery of the faith refers to the oral tradition the Colossians had previously received from the ordained leaders of the Church. This oral tradition is called the gospel of truth.
1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.
1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.
2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.
2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.
2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.
2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.
1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been "entrusted" to you. The word "entrusted" is "paratheke" which means a "deposit." Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.
2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is "tradition," or the handing on of apostolic teaching.
2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).
1 John 2:7 – John refers to the oral word his disciples have heard which is the old commandment that we love one another.
III. Examples of Jesus' and the Apostles' Reliance on Oral Tradition
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.
Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.
1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.
1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.
Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."
Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Exactley.
Completely equipped for every good work. Every good work means just that.
Yeah right and thats why the "church" in order to interpret this one verse.that's right, He's not, that's why it makes sense that there would be one Church that teaches the same things, and not thousands of conflicting denominations. The idea that God is not the author of confusion supports Catholicism more than Protestantism. There is no confusion in official Church teaching.
So we cannot understand scripture but we are to trust men in their own intepretation of it and this is to be infallable.. I trust scripture and not men of Old who interpreted what they believed scripture to say. I can read the scriptures by myself and see the truth.All the good work we can do... it does not necessarily mean that scripture is the sole rule of faith... we know it's not becuase Paul went on to say that the Church is the pillar of truth and no he was not referring to the mystical body but the 12 apostles.
You realize in order to justify your own (singular) beliefs you are holding on to just one sentence in the bible for dear life and ignoring tons, literally tons of writing from the early Christians and the fact that scripture itself just do not say that it is to be taken as the sole rule of faith.
Jesus Christ saves us and He can do so with out a bible and Jesus is not the bible. So you really can't take it the way you are becuase do so puts the bible over Christ- watch these dichotomies you set up.
You are hanging on to this one sentence imposing a very literal, strict narrow meaning to it that really is not there, but you are not looking at the context of when it was written... prior to there ever being a NT book.
So what Paul was saying is in the context of converting Jews and Gentiles to Christ by using the OT scriptures to show how he was prefigured and prophesied. of course that is sufficient and does furnish us do do every good work in converting non Christians to Christ.
So please, I appeal to you, read everything in proper context. There is not one verse that says what you think it does. and who are you anyway to infallibly interpret scripture? You don't think you can't be mistaken?
Here is a good article about what the early Church believed about Sola Scriptura: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html
Here is an excerpt from the article
"The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture."
I'm sorry but..lol..that's a lie..
I took a course about the early Church at university and my prof was a Protestant. We read a work by Iraeneus where he argued against the gnostic heretics. He said, they use Scripture to support their arguments, but we - the Church - know WE are right, and not them; you know why? He said because we have the Apostolic teaching..apostolic succession..unity in the Church. Our teachers are successors of the Apostles, that is how we know that the Church is right and the gnostics are wrong.
So I'm sorry but that source is mistaken.
Here's what he said about the heretics:
By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions.
but then in the next chapter, he says:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xi.html
he talks about the Church to support his argument against the heretics, not Scripture, since the heretics themselves use Scripture but they twist it around and take verses out of context!
Exactley.
Completely equipped for every good work. Every good work means just that.
but it doesn't say that we don't need the Church to interpret Scripture correctly! (and in another verse, it says the Church is the foundation of all truth). See what I'm saying is...the Bible and the Church go TOGETHER... they're not separate... what did Christians do before they had the Bible? Were they not equipped for "every good work"? You're basing your whole view on one verse taken out of context from other passages...
God is not the author of confusion
Yeah right and thats why the "church" in order to interpret this one verse.
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus the Messiah.
Has essentially produced the following library of books; Code of Canon law, Catholic catechism, Catechism companion, Documents of Vatican ll, AND the Dogmatic canon and Decrees of the Council of Trent...
That's not authoring confusion at all...
there's no confusion at all in the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Look at the FRUITS. The Church is one. It's in unity. Protestantism is thousands of denominations, no unity at all. WHO is the author of unity, and who is the author of disunity?
So we cannot understand scripture but we are to trust men in their own intepretation of it and this is to be infallable.. I trust scripture and not men of Old who interpreted what they believed scripture to say. I can read the scriptures by myself and see the truth.
By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions.
Can you show me where it is written that we are to interpret scripture? I do not take my teaching from mens interpretation of scripture. I take my teaching from scripture itself..
I don't even know what any of the church fathers in the CC taught how can I know anything about them?
Your church has NOT ever been just one, even prior to the schism there were different canons held in different areas. The unity of the catholic church at Rome is hilarious.there's no confusion at all in the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Look at the FRUITS. The Church is one. It's in unity. Protestantism is thousands of denominations, no unity at all. WHO is the author of unity, and who is the author of disunity?
and whose interpretation are you trusting? your own? WHY do you think that YOUR interpretation of Scripture is better than some other Christians'?
Your church has NOT ever been just one, even prior to the schism there were different canons held in different areas. The unity of the catholic church at Rome is hilarious.
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
no it is not confusing, because ther are people who have never picked up the Catechism, not read on Papal encyclical, could not name even one council, there are people who have not read one of those things and are wonderful Catholics, they stick to the simple things of our Lord.God is not the author of confusion
Yeah right and thats why the "church" in order to interpret this one verse.
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus the Messiah.
Has essentially produced the following library of books; Code of Canon law, Catholic catechism, Catechism companion, Documents of Vatican ll, AND the Dogmatic canon and Decrees of the Council of Trent...
That's not authoring confusion at all...
Your church has NOT ever been just one, even prior to the schism there were different canons held in different areas. The unity of the catholic church at Rome is hilarious.
If there is no confusion let me know a simple unconfusing definition of Romans 5:1 Therefore[SIZE=+0] being justified[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] by[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] faith[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], we have[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] peace[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] with[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] God[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] through[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] our[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] Lord[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] Jesus[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] Christ[/SIZE]
Not just some other Christians. Apparently some here think they have a better grip on things than the men taught by the Apostles themselves.
no it is not confusing, because ther are people who have never picked up the Catechism, not read on Papal encyclical, could not name even one council, there are people who have not read one of those things and are wonderful Catholics, they stick to the simple things of our Lord.
then there are others, Cannon Lawyers or a Cardinal, who have a keen intelect that is predisposed to legal thinking, and through study of these things not only does he serve the Church but he feels closer to God
that is what I love about the Catholic Church, it is big enough for everybody, the peaceful and the zealous, the simple and the scholarly, everybody has a home in the Church
The plain things are easy to understand...justification sanctification glorification propitiation are the key points to Christianity and the essential understanding of these are consistent across 90% of reformed/protestant theologies...and whose interpretation are you trusting? your own? WHY do you think that YOUR interpretation of Scripture is better than some other Christians'?
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?