DeoOmnisGloria.com

I know better than to try to answer those questions. :) But, just to turn it around a little bit, I have a couple questions. (I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious.)

If the apostles really wrote virtually all of the canonized books of the New Testament, why didn't they make it clear in their writings that Jesus had ordained the church structure as has come to be the Tradition of the Catholic Church, since that seems to be what the Catholic belief is. (Maybe my understanding is faulty?) Why not just come right out and say that "Peter is the head of the Church on earth" or something to that effect? If all these traditions were really so important, why didn't they make them clear when they were writing the Gospels and Epistles? Why didn't Luke find them important enough to record when he was writing Acts?

Posted by: Rebecca at November 2, 2005 1:30 PM

With all due respect, I think Rebecca is looking at this from a Protestant mindset. We must remember that the New Testament was not written before the Church was being established and the world evangelized, but indeed after.

Surely we can agree that everything Christ said is not in the Gospels, and since by the time the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written (the dates of which I can never remember, but surely towards the end of the 1st century), we must remember that the New Testament writers, apostles as though they were, we must remember that they were writing to evangelize people into the Church that was already established. And that the Church's basic structure, nascent as it may have been, was assumed.

Posted by: james at November 3, 2005 1:16 AM

Rebecca,
Good question and I'm glad you asked. First of all you must remember that the Bible is NOT a catechism for the Christian faith. The Gospels and Epistles were to either to serve as accounts for Christ's redemptive work or as letters to Christians already part of the Church. Second, there was no need to explicitly say that, "Peter is the head of the Church" because the Sacred Tradition passed on by the Apostles was and is authoritatively binding. You have to remember that the Bible came after the Church not before it, and that it was compiled 300 years after the death of St. John--the Bible itself is part of Tradition! Just like a small child the Church's "formative years" and foundation were laid by oral Tradition and teaching. Additionally, "Sola Scriptura" was unheard of until the 1500s and the majority of people (Christians and non-Christian alike) were illiterate. So the oral Tradition of the Apostles was THE primary source of how the Word was spread and the Church developed. This oral authority was unquestioned by believers for almost the entirety of Christianity. So the real question is why would Christ build his Church on the preaching of the Word for over 300 years and then decide 1200 years later that is was a bad idea and instead it would be be better if all Christians authoritatively decided for themselves what Scripture meant and which doctrines were to be followed? This line of thinking is illogical, unhistorical, and unbiblical. I hope that this is helpful in understanding Tradition (Apostolic) and why there was no reason to explicitly dilineate the structure of the Church.

Posted by: Matthew at November 3, 2005 10:02 AM

Yes, I sound Protestant because I am Protestant. At least that's how I was born and raised and more or less have been for my whole life.

Posted by: Rebecca at November 3, 2005 6:56 PM

Rebecca, I too was born a Protestant. I was brought up in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and even married a Lutheran pastor. I learned German and read Luther's works in the original language, translating them for my husband to use in his sermons.

After a divorce, raising two children and bringing them up in the Assembly of God denomination, I returned to my Lutheran roots, preached the sermon on two consecutive "women recognition Sundays."

A couple of years later, I started reading a translation of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The more I read, the more I wanted to know. The more I wanted to know, the deeper in Church and Liturgical history I searched. I finally found myself "in the upper room" and then "followed Peter to Rome."

An excellent book to read is Scott Hahn's book Rome Sweet Home. He has a website: http://www.scotthahn.com. You can find the book at: (http://www.getfed.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=531&AID=164&new=yes) Scott is a former Presbyterian Minister. I highly recommend any of Scott Hahan's books and especially Rome Sweet Home for Protestants to read to help them understand Catholicism from a Protestant's point of view.

Posted by: Coosa at November 6, 2005 1:55 PM

1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

During His ministry on earth, Jesus taught people from scripture (Luke 4:18-21), taught His closest disciples about Himself from Scripture (Luke 24:27), refuted Satan with scripture (Matt 4), and claimed that scripture could not be broken (John 10:35). Do you see a pattern here? In word and deed, Jesus taught a special reliance on the written word of God.

But what of tradition? Jesus frequently rejected it--in favor of the word of God. Take for example one of His many rebukes for the tradition-soaked Pharisees: "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition." (Mark 7:9)

We should thank God that our faith is not held captive by any contemporary group of fallible men who may or may not possess the faith of the Apostles. As Jesus admonished, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." (Matt 23:9). Accordingly, Peter wrote that we are not slaves of men but of God: "Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God." (1 Peter 2:16). Paul, too, spoke of this freedom in Col 2:16-17: "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

What good news it is that the Holy Spirit Himself indwells us, teaches us, and leads us to glorify Christ. With this good news in mind, we can look favorably upon Christian tradition. It can inform us, enlighten us, and even inspire us. But for Christians who rely upon the word of God, we know it cannot enslave us! Let us always bring honor and praise not to the past traditions of the church, but to the Lord Jesus Christ in the steadfast hope of our glorious future with Him!

Posted by: Kaffinator at November 8, 2005 1:47 PM

I will try to respond to a few of these.

1. Jesus is not the only one that has anything worthwhile to say in scripture. If we would go by your rules we would have to throw out all the Old Testament and all but four books of the New Testament.

We listen to what is said in all of scripture. So, what does scripture say about the importance of scripture. In Joshua 1:8 we see "Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful."

Now put this in context. This is the Old Testament book Of Joshua. He is the guy that took over for Moses after Israel crossed the river Jordan after being in the desert for 40 yrs. So I think it is safe to assume that by the time Joshua wrote this, he at least had access to the first five books of scripture. So Joshua was a man of the book.

Now in the New Testament: In Paul's second letter to his student Timothy we have... 2 Timothy 3:15-17

15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So I think it is pretty clear we get at least a huge chunk of our revelation about God and our knowledge of how to live from scripture.

Question one down... I think the rest would be a doctoral dissertation so I will stop for now.

I think Catholics do a huge disservice to the Universal Church by degrading or downplaying the importance and the role of scripture.

Thank being said, I think evangelicals do a huge disservice to the Universal Body of believers, "The holy catholic church" by totally ignoring the power richness and value of tradition. Correct tradition can be good. Erroneous tradition is very bad, and yes the Catholic church has been wrong on some traditions. Why can't we admit this?

Posted by: Wayne M at November 8, 2005 2:10 PM

Wayne,

I think there is a danger in these discussions of employing arguments from authority (a fallacy) i.e. "This tradition is good and true because I believe it. That tradition is false because I don't believe it."

I would be interested in hearing which traditions you think the Church has been 'wrong' on; and whether you distinguish between 'traditions' and 'Tradition'.

I would also like to hear your views on the relationship between the Church and the Holy Spirit, with particular reference to the promises Christ made to the apostles.

Peace

Posted by: fidens at November 9, 2005 1:29 AM

Kaffinator,
My first question would be to you as a Christian is do you believe that it is necessary to believe and abide in all that Christ taught? I am assuming an enthusiastic--YES! Since I believe that I can safely assume this is the case for you and for all who call themselves Christians, I would ask you to ponder this. Why would John in 21:25 say, "there are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world could contain the books that would be written.?" This is an incredible statement and illustrates that there was so much that the Apostles witnessed and learned during their time with Christ that they were overwhelmed by it. Further, it indicates that much of Jesus' teaching was left out of his (John) writings, and the question is does it make them less important? Do you not want to know what they are? I certainly do! Therefore, we rely on Tradition (capital "T") to shine light on the Holy Scripture to illuminate it and help us to undersatnd it in its fullness. You must understand that Scripture and Tradition are not competing with one another and one does not supercede the other. As the Catechism states, (CCC 80) "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age". Therefore, Tradition is the oral part of Christ's teaching given to and witnessed by Peter and the others who have faithfully transmitted it from the beginning of Christianity. The Bible itself attests to this oral tradition and that is the reason for my initial question. So if you did answer yes, and I'm sure you did, then it is imperative to read Scripture as a whole and not individually pick and choose verses that seem to create a doctrine or agree with your pre-conceived beliefs. This approach to Scripture is the real "tradition of men" that is to be avoided at all cost.
In Truth,
Matthew

Posted by: Matthew at November 9, 2005 3:38 PM

All:

I have a few questions:

What was the point of writing down the Gospels, if they knew that everything could have just as easily been handed down via an infallible Tradition?

What was the point of figuring out what was Scripture and what was not in the fourth century if Tradition already sufficiently and infallibly encompassed it all?

Why has the Catholic Church historically refused to translate the Scriptures (God's own Word to his people) into the layman's native tongue, so that anyone could read it for themselves?

Why has the Catholic church historically discouraged the layman from reading Scripture for himself?

I have never gotten a satisfactory answer for these questions.

In Christ,

Thomas

Posted by: Thomas at November 10, 2005 3:16 PM

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for the kind response. Indeed, I join with all believers past, present, and future in seeking to follow the teachings of Christ: the ones he gave on earth, the ones He modeled for us, and the ones delivered through His apostles.

John 21:25 compares to an earlier statement of John’s in chapter 20:30-31 which contains perhaps a more complete statement:

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

These have been written so that we may believe, so that we may have life in His name. And that's just the gospel of John! The teachings of Scripture are an unending source of riches, the depths of which I will never fully explore in this lifetime! Now I too believe it is wise to look to the traditions (i.e. activities and beliefs) of the saints who followed in the apostles. They have much to teach us! But there is no reason to think that those activities and beliefs are to be placed on an equal footing with what God explicitly reveals to us in Scripture.

For example we can look back to the tradition spoken of by Tertullian in The Chaplet. He spoke of the "tradition" of his time--to baptize three times, to avoid bathing for a full week after baptism, to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, to consider kneeling or fasting on Sunday to be unlawful, and so forth (see Chapter III). Now, we do not follow these traditions today but we can look back to them and find ideas for traditions that might be appropriate in our day and age.

You mentioned that certain of Jesus' teachings were passed to the apostles but were never written down by them. What were these teachings, and why were they not written down? In my studies of Christianity I have never encountered a doctrine 1) can be shown to have originated with the apostles and 2) seems essential to "life in His name". Perhaps you could describe one of these teachings, and how it is you know that it originated with the Apostles.

In Christ,
Kaffinator

Posted by: Kaffinator at November 10, 2005 11:28 PM

Hi Matthew,

Something else occurred to me while I considered your post. It suggested several interpretations of John 21:25:

• the apostles were "overwhelmed" by the scope of Jesus' teachings,
• therefore the Apostles left out many of His important teachings,
• therefore we should seek out those teachings (which are presumably to be found exclusively within Roman Catholic tradition).

I'm not sure I agree with those conclusions based simply on the text (and especially in light of the parallel passage in John 20), but that's beside the point.

My question for you is this: How do you know that you are not picking and choosing an interpretation of John 21:25 to create doctrine that agrees with your pre-conceived (Roman Catholic) beliefs? Later in your post you said we must avoid doing this at all cost, but it seems like this is exactly what you did. This leaves me a bit confused. Perhaps you can explain?

Posted by: Kaffinator at November 11, 2005 2:49 PM

Thomas,

You questions are in bold, my comments follow each questions in normal font.

What was the point of writing down the Gospels, if they knew that everything could have just as easily been handed down via an infallible Tradition?

First of all, the Gospels are specific testimonies of those who followed Christ, written down to “bear witness to these things.” The four Evangelists were not alone in this “bearing witness” as St. Luke clearly attests to:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning these things of which you have been informed. – Luke 1:1-4

St. Luke nor any of the other Evangelists make the claim that they were even aware that what they were writing would be the “sole” rule of faith for all believers. St. Luke also testifies to the fact that an “oral” tradition was clearly active in the early Church since he was simply writing to confirm those things which had been previously “proclaimed” to Theophilus.

Again, how do we know that the New Testament is divine revelation if not for the Apostolic Tradition present in the Catholic Church? The New Testament never makes such a claim. The theology of Sacred Scripture itself has developed down through the ages, namely through interpretation and the compiling of the canon. The belief that the writings of the Apostles and those early followers like St. Mark and St. Luke were inspired by God is a tradition held from the earliest of times itself. In Acts and in the various epistles we see the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition unfolding, we see their dependence on one another. This continued to play out from those early centuries following the time of the Apostles down to our present age.

What was the point of figuring out what was Scripture and what was not in the fourth century if Tradition already sufficiently and infallibly encompassed it all?

Thomas this is where you continue to misunderstand the proper meaning of Tradition. Tradition, as taught by the Catholic Church and manifested throughout her history, does not act as an independent authority “creating” as it were new beliefs, rather it is the interpreting and defining of those things necessary for belief in accord with, first and foremost, Sacred Scripture and, secondly, with those doctrines and dogmas previously declared by other councils and Magisterium teachings (all based on interpretations of Sacred Scripture by those appointed successors of the Apostles). In terms of the need for figuring out what was Scripture allow me to quote again what I presented before:

"Scripture itself does not state what writings make Scripture . . . It was the Church which decided which were inspired writings, and formed them into the New Testament . . . It is all very well to say that Scripture is inspired, but we must also know what is and what is not Scripture. It was the Church that made this decision and thus made the Bible . . . The Church which made the Bible, likewise interprets the Bible."

Why has the Catholic Church historically refused to translate the Scriptures (God's own Word to his people) into the layman's native tongue, so that anyone could read it for themselves?

Why has the Catholic Church historically discouraged the layman from reading Scripture for himself?

In reply to these last two questions, I have posted an article on this commonly held misunderstanding of the history of the Catholic Church and the Bible.

Are Catholics Allowed To Read The Bible: An Article by Francis J. Ripley

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 12, 2005 9:05 AM

Greetings all in Christ Jesus
(from Daniel)

Here's a thought, how about letting scripture interpret scripture.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

After reading those scripture there shouldn't be any questions as to what scriptures are from God and are indeed God. Hebrews 4:12 sheds more light.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

By revelation we understand that Christ is the Word. He is the focus in the old testament as the Land of Cannan and is typified by everything else God brings into the lives of His people. The temple is Christ, the produce of the Land reveals Christ, the commandents express His character and heart and almost every item or Godly man in the old testment points to Christ.

Colossians 2:2
that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself,

Colossians 1:27
to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Also, pretaining to other teachings and the testing of our faith:

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Corinthians 13:5
Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?

What do you think Paul was asking the Corinthians to examine themselves against. A writting word or prophet? Or the Spirit of Christ in them.

1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

ABIDE IN HIM, AMEN! GOD BLESS

Posted by: Daniel at November 12, 2005 7:07 PM

Jesus said "Go ye into all the world and teach my gospel to every creature," not "write my gospel to every creature." Teaching may incorporate speaking as well as writing, but is not exclusively made up of writing. One has to assume that the manner in which Jesus taught the disciples was the manner in which He intended them incorporate in order to "teach" others.

Posted by: AJ at November 14, 2005 3:31 AM

Kaffinator,
In response to your second question: "How do you know that you are not picking and choosing an interpretation of John 21:25 to create doctrine that agrees with your pre-conceived (Roman Catholic) beliefs?" This is an easy one. First, I do not assume for a moment to interpret Scripture in any way to create doctrine due to my fallible nature. Second, Tradition is not a doctrine per se. If you read my comments carefully I wrote that the passage "indicates" certain things and that it is all. I also didn't make an assumption that "agrees with my Catholic beliefs" at all. Simple reasoning and logic tells you that the "many things" not recorded that Jesus did in the presence of his disciples that guided them in preaching the Gospel were passed on by other means. Simple as that. It requires no interpretation at all. Scripture testifies to that fact (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; Rom. 10:17). That is the part that amazes me about Protestantism. Every Protestant denies the authority of the Church and the Pope, but instead would reserve the individual right to BE the Pope for themselves. This is the Achilles heel of the post- "Reformation" in my estimation.

To answer your previous quesiton it is even easier: You stated, "In my studies of Christianity I have never encountered a doctrine 1) can be shown to have originated with the apostles and 2) seems essential to "life in His name". Perhaps you could describe one of these teachings, and how it is you know that it originated with the Apostles." Well, to stay on topic we are talking about Tradition which flows from the Apostles, to the Church, to the faithful. First and foremost is the Trinity. All Christians believe in the Trinity. Why is that? Because you trust the teachings (Tradition) of the Church. Why do you believe that Jesus was both God and man (the hypostatic union)? Because you trust the teachings of the Church. Lastly, and probably most importantly from a Protestant perspective is the Bible itself! You believe that the 27 books of the New Testament are the God-breathed, inspired, and infallible word of God because of the Church and how it it handed it on (i.e. Tradition) to the whole world! So my question to you is why do Protestants find it so easy to accept the authority of the Church to define the canon of Scripture, but deny that same authority to determine what Apostolic Tradition is? Why would Jesus tell his disciples that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18) and Paul would say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) if it were not the case? The Church was and is protected from teaching error from Christ himself. So why would Christ protect the Catholic Church from determining what books belong in the Bible, but nothing else. It is illogical, unbiblical, and makes Jesus untrue to himself if the Protestant view is to be believed. How do you reconcile that inconsistency of belief in the Protestant camps?
In Truth,
Matthew

Posted by: Matthew at November 14, 2005 10:18 AM

Hi Matthew, thanks for responding. Unfortunately being limited in space and time I cannot respond to all of the questions in your post. But I will try to hit the main points. You said you were not actually interpreting John 21:25 but merely "indicating" an interpretation. You went on to say that you used "simple reasoning and logic", and then finally that your extra-Biblical conclusions required "no interpretation at all". Unfortunately this leaves me more confused then when I asked for clarification. Do your suggested conclusions comprise an interpretation, or not? Did you apply human reasoning and logic, or not? Is this your interpretation, or the RCC's? Are you not arguing that I should interpret the passage as you do?

When I have engaged Catholic apologists I have often seen this sort of dual-mindedness. On the one hand, it is the RC magisterium alone that retains the ability to interpret scripture. But on the other hand, it is always manifest that the Catholic apologist has a free license to interpret scripture without first seeking ecclesiastical approval (I can only assume you did not first check with your Bishop before posting your statements regarding John 21:25?). I would think that an apologist who truly accepts the RC magisterium's sole interpretive authority would always refer me immediately to the magisterium for any interpretation.

My position is that scripture, for the most part, speaks quite plainly, and especially so in the essentials of the faith. I know that has not always been the position of the RCC. But take the doctrine of the Trinity, which I have been studying recently. You claim this as an example of doctrine which is apostolic and essential but not essentially scriptural. I disagree. I believe in the Trinity because the Holy Scriptures teach it. But I do find lots of help from theologians through the ages, Athanasius for example in his Four Discourses Against the Arians. You should note that he argued his points extensively from scripture, and rarely if ever from the conclusions of church councils. For example:

"For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast at them from every side." (from Chapter III, Paragraph 10)

Of course, Athanasius did praise the conclusions of the councils. Not because they emanate from authority higher than scripture, but because they were drawn from and reminiscent of the faith expressed in scripture:

"…for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I, Paragraph 6)

Your second example of an essential, apostolic, but not scriptural belief is the NT canon itself. It is not known whether any apostle assembled a complete New Testament canon; only John survived long enough to do so and it is not clear whether he had access to all of them. So you cannot assert that canonical list came from the apostles themselves, nor can you assert that it was one of the teachings referred to by John 21:25. My understanding is that the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, came to conclude which books were scripture and which were not, and that this was merely formalized at a later point by church council. It is the working of God which I recognize as authoritative, and this may or may not occur through the action of any church council made up of fallible men.

And so I remain unaware of any teaching which the Apostles (or Christ Himself) passed on, which is essential to the faith, and which is not already contained in the Holy Scriptures.

May the Lord bless you as you seek His truth, Matthew.

Posted by: Kaffinator at November 14, 2005 3:40 PM

Kaffinator,
First of all I had no question related to John 21:25 and I don't know why it is such a sticking point here. I've tried to answer it twice now. However to respond to your somewhat condescending remark I did not get the approval from my diocese on John 21:25, but I'll gladly give you there number if you wish:) Beyond that, as an apologist there is free reign to the extent that as long as I or any other apologist does not go beyond or against the teaching of the Church all is good. I thank God that we have the Magisterum to guide us. Scripture no matter how much Protestants try to argue otherwise is NOT perspicuous in many matters. Now on the other hand, when a Protestant engages in apologetics it is like the wild west...anything goes so long as they are personally convinced of it because there are no boundaries. Again, we have millions of aspiring "Popes" with their fallible yet sincere determinations of doctrine. This causes further division in the body of Christ and is unfortunate.

As far as the Trinity goes, the Bible does suggest it but it is not clear as you would purport it to be. Where in the Bible does it explain the doctrine of the Trinity, or even use the word “Trinity”? Also, where does the Bible tell us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity? Sure there are verses that allude to the Trinity (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Heb. 9:14), but I want to know how do you KNOW that the Trinity is true from the Bible alone? You say that you believe it because Scripture clearly teaches it, but this is a circular line of reasoning. A book cannot authenticate itself. Besides that, and this is another topic altogether, if you only know of the Trinity because of Scripture then how did the majority of Christians, especially before 393 A.D., come to know about it? The same way that you and every other Christian knows today…the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church. What all non-Catholics must understand is that the Magisterum is the servant of God’s Word—not the servant of the Bible alone--and not superior to it.

As far as a canonical list goes, I never said that the Apostles compiled it nor did I say that John 21:25 had anything to do with it. However, the entire NT canon as we have it today WAS determined by the Catholic Church with the protection promised by Christ himself (Matt 16:18). In your words: “My understanding is that the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, came to conclude which books were scripture and which were not, and that this was merely formalized at a later point by church council.” Well, you are partly right, but needless to say the canon was not “merely” formalized at a later point. Besides, when you say “the [C]hurch” what church are we talking about here…? There was only one Christian church in existence at the time. This is a historical fact. Beyond this, the canon was determined according to whether or not the epistles adhered to Apostolic teaching (i.e., Tradition). As I said in a previous post, the Bible itself is part of Sacred Tradition.

Kaffinator, I’m sorry that you may still feel that you unaware of these things, but if you go further in your search I promise that you will find it. As Cardinal Henry Newman once said, “to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” I will pray for your continued journey as my brother in Christ and would ask that you would do the same for me.
In Truth,
Matthew

Posted by: Matthew at November 15, 2005 11:54 AM

Hi Matthew, I honestly was not attempting to condescend, just to help you clarify your position. You confirmed that you did not check in with your diocese--so how it is you know you are not going beyond or against the teaching of the RCC when you freely interpret John 21:25 to have certain specific implications? Certainly you arrive at a conclusion that seems friendly to magisterial teaching authority, but how do you know that the means you used to get there were correct? If it is just that it "seems reasonable" to you, I ask, what if your interpretation does not seem reasonable to others? I hope it is not your claim that your powers of reasoning are improved simply by way of your allegiance to Rome.

Speaking of reasoning, you have claimed my reasoning is circular when I say I believe something (doctrine of the Trinity) simply because Scripture teaches it. But what is this teaching: simply that Christ Jesus is and always was God; the Holy Spirit is and always was God; and God the Father is and always was God--yet there is one God. Are these teachings not made crystal clear in scripture? Athanasius certainly thought so; perhaps your argument is with him, not me. As an example of his position in action, Athanasius in the Four Discourses quotes a blizzard of NT and OT scripture and concludes:

"It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity" (Chapter 4 paragraph 13)

Once again, I emphasize Athanasius did not point to "apostolic tradition", in fact he didn't even mention tradition in his one-hundred-thousand-word Argument. Rather, he quoted scripture, hundreds upon hundreds of times, to make his case. I hope it is not your claim that that Athanasius, by firmly grounding his arguments exclusively in Holy Scripture, was circular in his reasoning?

Matthew, we need to go back to the beginning here. You first claimed, based on John 21:25, that important, extra-scriptural teachings were passed from Jesus to the apostles and that we therefore should seek them. I challenged you to show me a doctrine that is a) essential to the faith, b) demonstrably apostolic in source, and c) absent from scripture. So far you have offered the Trinity (which is clearly referred to as scripturally-derived by those we both agree were saints of God) and the Canon (which we have both agreed is not directly apostolic). Is there not one single teaching you can offer as a demonstration of your original interpretation of that passage?

I thank you kindly for your prayers. May the Holy Spirit guide us all.

Posted by: Kaffinator at November 15, 2005 3:18 PM

Kaffinator,

I have come to give Matthew some assistance in the debate on the correlation of Sacred Scripture with Church Tradition.

From reading your posts, it is clear that you, the “Kaffinator,” believe in “Scripture Alone” as the means to attain salvation, and, therefore, consequently you believe that Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Church are “not necessary.” However, your arguments for “Scripture Alone” are insufficient in so much as you misinterpret Scripture, and misunderstand what the Church means by Tradition.

What is Tradition?

In this debate it is important to understand what the Catholic Church means by Tradition. Contrary to the belief of numerous persons outside and even within the Church, the term, “Tradition,” does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, liturgical rubrics or even “avoiding to take a bath for a full week after baptism.” Sacred or Apostolic Tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. It is true that a majority of these teachings overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

Jesus and the Apostles were Pro-Tradition

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3) (Mark 7:9 is parallel). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles (Sacred Tradition) which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs. Let’s look at Matthew 15:6–9, "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Jesus was not condemning all traditions, only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12). Kaffinator, granted you are correct in saying that Jesus used and instructed with passages from the Old Testament often, but He also instructed His followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3, Mark 7:9 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They fail to see that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

The Bible denies that it alone is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching compiled in Sacred Scripture that came to them years later. Jesus instructed his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given by Christ the authority to teach; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

How would the apostle make disciples of all the nations? By giving everyone they met a Bible? No, but by preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a serious error to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "‘But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that Peter, who never laid eyes on the Bible, used the word "preached"—that is, communicated orally. The integrity of the oral Word of God endures for the Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13). It would not be replaced by a written record like the Bible but rather supplemented and would continue to have its own authority. The truth that the preached word of the Lord would continue to have authority after the passing away of the original apostles is easily seen when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of Sacred Tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his martyrdom (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

Paul tells what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). Furthermore, the apostle praised again those who held to Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, Sacred Tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).

These teachings have been handed down and entrusted to the Church. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow Sacred Tradition, which is supplemented and strengthened by Sacred Scripture, for Christ said to His apostles, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me.” (Luke 10:16)

Scripture Alone

Kaffinator and many other Fundamentalist and Evangelicals claim that Sacred Scripture is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for salvation and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s Magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In Kaffinator’s view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, recognizes that Sacred Scripture does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture (See Above about Tradition) The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus Sacred Tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by stating a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). However, these two passages and the significance given to them by Protestants can be thwarted.

First as Kaffinator so graciously brought to the light, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). What does this mean? It means John 30:21 does not prove the theory of sola scriptura but rather only that the Gospel of John is sufficient. Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Gospel was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, it is common fact and I have already stated that the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

The Protestant argument for 2 Timothy 3:16-17 falls short for their designs just as the verse from John. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against these claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

He wrote:

"It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. "Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic Epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

In addition, the two verses immediately before 2 Timothy 3:16-17 state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15) Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to Sacred Tradition; the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. In other words when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is really teaching the importance of Sacred Tradition!

Obviously, Protestants might be sold on the belief that Sacred Scripture is solely sufficient for salvation but Sacred Scripture, itself, rebuts the notion of “Scripture Alone.”

Licensed To Interpret?

Here’s the answer, straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to your question on the Catholic Church’s guidelines on the reading and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. There is also a little on the interpretation of Sacred Tradition as well.

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77 The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80 (St. Thomas Aquinas)

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89 (St. Augustine)

III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum Fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

I Am So Confused

I want to clearly establish that the Church under the authority of Peter and his successors, the popes, was given the keys of the kingdom and the guidance of the Holy Spirit by Christ, as attested to by Sacred Tradition and later written down in Sacred Scripture. Therefore, the Catholic Church solely holds the right to the authentic interpretation of the revealed truths of God found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. As seen by Her declaration of Dogmas, such as the Trinity, the Catholic Church exercises this right to propose and expound truths found in the richness of Divine Revelation at the time deemed proper by the Holy Spirit.

So with this said, by what authority do you, Kaffinator, interpret Sacred Scripture? Can you show where you have received the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in these matters? And if personal infallibility, as you believe, is granted to each individual in interpreting Sacred Scripture than why does the so-called personal infallible method of interpretation always produce confusion, contradiction, and disunity among Christians. Prime example, the mess Martin Luther and his followers caused in Europe and the world? You yourself said, “The teachings of Scripture are an unending source of riches the depths of which I will never fully explore in this lifetime!,” but later on you say, “My position is that scripture, for the most part, speaks quite plainly, and especially so in the essentials of the faith.” So, the teachings found in the Scriptures reach depths that you as a man will not explore, and yet for the most part Scripture speaks plainly! Are not confusion, contradiction, and disunity the direct opposites of what Christ prayed for at the close of John’s Gospel?

Closing Thought

Peter, the first pope of the Church, speaks of the dangers of personal interpretation of Scripture, “In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:16)

In truth attested to not by my own personal sanction but by the authority of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,

Joachim

Posted by: Joachim at November 16, 2005 12:05 PM

Kaffinator,
To answer you in finality to your question: "I hope it is not your claim that your powers of reasoning are improved simply by way of your allegiance to Rome." If my “interpretation” as you say does not seem reasonable to others I do not have to worry. I cannot force my views on anyone. My allegiance to the Catholic Church is synonymous with my allegiance to Christ, and since Christ promised the [Catholic] Church that he would not lead it into error I am confident in its teachings. So the answer is a definite yes in terms of improved reasoning. As I said before, as long as I do not go against or beyond the Church’s teachings then I can be confident in my reasoning. That is how the Church encourages the faithful to read the Bible, “within the living Tradition of the Church.” In this way one can always check their understanding of a passage against the way the Church teaches. I know that most Evangelical Protestants and Fundamentalists find it hard to submit to ecclesiastical authority, but these are not my precepts. They are of Christ. Lastly, I think I have made it rather clear at several points in my posts where I stand on the issue of Tradition as it relates to reason, logic, and interpretation, but I find it rather perplexing that you have continually dodged SEVERAL pertinent questions of mine or any of the 10 questions that began this blog. I asked...

1.Why do Protestants find it so easy to accept the authority of the Church to define the canon of Scripture, but deny that same authority to determine what Apostolic Tradition is? AND…
1a. Why would Jesus tell his disciples that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18) and Paul would say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) if it were not the case?
3. Where in the Bible does it explain the doctrine of the Trinity, or even use the word “Trinity”?
4. Where does the Bible tell us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity?
5. How do you KNOW that the Trinity is true from the Bible alone?
6. If you only know of the Trinity because of Scripture then how did the majority of Christians, especially before 393 A.D., come to know about it?

I feel that it is necessary at this point for you to address these questions because it seems that they are purposefully avoided to pin me down on issues of passage interpretation (i.e., John 21:25). I have provided several arguments from Scripture verses, the Catechism, Church Fathers, and Church history itself to back up my claims. I would like for you to help me to better understand your perspective on these things.

Additionally, I find it interesting that you would use Athanasius to bolster your claims on the Trinity--especially since he is a Catholic par excellence. I’m glad that you are exploring the Fathers though. Yes, his treatise on the Trinity is jam packed with Scripture, but his writings were not used to PROVE the Trinity from Scripture. Many of the Fathers writings were intended to defend the faith against heresies. Instead he used Scripture in line with the Apostolic teaching (i.e., Tradition) already in place from the beginning of the Apostles mission. Athanasius was far from being circular in HIS reasoning because his reasoning was supported by the teaching of Church and confirmed at Nicea (325 A.D.) As far as saying that I have not given you a single demonstration of a teaching not clearly taught in Scripture I would strongly disagree (ex. Trinity, hypostatic union, canon). There are many things that are explicit in Scripture and many things that are implicit in Scripture. Regardless, Apostolic Tradition cannot be escaped by defaulting to Scripture. I say once again, they are NOT competing with one another—they compliment one another--and I find it hard to understand why it is so hard to understand or accept.

Again, I think it is important for you to address the questions above before we continue any further. Due to the lack of a cogent argument in regards to them I don’t see the Protestant view holding much if any weight. I look forward to your answers.
In Truth,
Matthew

Posted by: Matthew at November 16, 2005 1:44 PM

Well, wow, what can I say, Joachim. It's too bad that you insist on lumping me in with those who believe the whole of tradition is unnecessary, irrelevant, and wrong. I've never said that, in fact I've said just the opposite. If you wish to engage in a dialogue it will serve us both if you respond to what I say, not what you would hope that I might say, simply so that my position might be more readily demolished.

Nevertheless I appreciate many of your comments and the obvious care that you put into your post. So I hope to return your investment by making three observations.

First, you claimed that Jesus' frequent condemnations of tradition extended only to erroneous ones (with the implication that He did not condemn what would later become Roman Catholic tradition, because such tradition is always correct). But I ask you to turn back to scripture for a fresh look. Consider Matthew 23:5. At first reading, Jesus appears to be condemning the wearing of phylacteries (texts of scripture worn on the arm or forehead). But this kind of tradition, in and of itself, is certainly not unscriptural, see Exodus 13:16 where the very practice is commanded! So, back to the Matthian passage: it begins "they do all their deeds to be noticed by men". I think you'll agree that here and elsewhere, Jesus condemns the misuse, corruption, or addition by men of what was originally a practice established in scripture. And why does he condemn these corruptions? Because they cause us to neglect the actual commandments, teachings, and word of God. So we see that Jesus consistently did not point to religious tradition as normative or infallible, because it is corruptible; for authority he always pointed either to the infallible word of God in scripture, or His impeccable self. It is my belief that this general pattern, advocated and practiced by our Lord, should remain.

Second, you mentioned 2 Tim 2:2. Now, I have no problem with that passage, or others that refer to oral tradition, because it seems evident to me that the faith of the Apostles was purposefully encoded into scripture by a special work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, I trust that the faith delivered by the apostles orally is fundamentally equivalent to what they passed on in writing. But, like the poster Matthew, you seem to take these passages as referring to additional teachings which are a) certainly apostolic, b) essential to the faith, and c) absent from scripture. So now I ask you, as I asked Matthew, to describe a single one of these teachings. Matthew seems unable to do this. And in all of your words above I do not see that you mentioned one either. Why is this challenge so difficult for Catholic apologists to answer?

Third, you accused me of a self-contradiction when I state that scripture teaches a faith so deep and so rich that a lifetime is not enough to plumb its depths, and also that the essential truths are plain. Take for example the dual nature of Christ. It is quite plain from Scripture both that Jesus is and always was God, and that Jesus became man. What a mystery we have in this simple statement! Meditating on such a mystery is like drawing water from a bottomless well. It speaks so plainly yet it is rich with meaning. We might cry out in gratitude that God loved us so much as to humble Himself in this way. Or, we might observe that God could still be God even while clothed in human flesh…and this might strengthen our hope that He can make some of His attributes alive in us.

I hope this explains better what I meant. It does hurt me personally, Joachim, that in your very first post to me, you didn't give me a chance to explain the contradiction you identified, but instead accused me of attempting to subvert the intent of Jesus Christ Himself! But I do not say this to shame you. I realize I am encouraging people on this board to think critically about tradition and that this is going to lead to some negative reactions. So I beg your forgiveness if I have said anything unkind, and your correction if I have said anything untrue.

In Christ's name,
Kaff

Posted by: Kaffinator at November 16, 2005 1:47 PM

Hi Matthew,

I'm sorry you feel I am dodging and lack cogent argument. You are gracious to continue dialogue even though you feel this is the case. But let me say, it is not my intent, nor do I have time, to answer every possible question you might pose. I beg you to see this as a personal weakness in myself before you see it as an expression in of any weakness in my position.

I am befuddled by your claim that Athanasius was not using scripture to prove the Trinity, especially when Athanasius himself explained that this was precisely what he was doing when he writes such things as "proofs from scripture will be cast at [the Arian heretics] from every side".

I completely agree that tradition and scripture should not compete, when both are properly understood. Yet, I believe it is your assertion that they are different in their teaching content that sets up a "competition" as it were. This is why I continue to seek a defense of your interpretation of the John passage. I believe none of your examples (such as the canon) meet all three criteria discussed above.

In good faith, I will do my best offer answers to your questions 1-6. I say "in good faith" because I do not seek an attack from you, but only that you might understand why I do not think my position is as completely devoid of reason and perspective as you seem to think it is. Also please note that I do not consider myself "Protestant" any more than you think of yourself as "Papist". I am first and foremost a Christian, a believer in Jesus Christ, totally dependent on his grace for my salvation. So I will answer not from some supposed "Protestant" perspective, but from my own heart and mind, which I can only pray is being conformed into the image of Christ's.

1. I believe it is the entire body of saints who recognized the authority that was already present in the works of scripture. I believe, just as all pre-Hippo (393 AD) Christians must have, that any formal proclamation by any governing church body is helpful but not strictly necessary in order to accept the New Testament works as "scripture".

1a. The universal Christian church seems quite strong to me, and I continue to see the universal Christian church holding forth the light of truth in God's word out to the world. So I see Jesus' prophesies fulfilled, just perhaps in a different way than you do.

3. (Incidentally there was no question 2). The notion of "trinity" is composed of distinct elements, each of which is adequately demonstrated in scripture. That Jesus is and was always God (for example, Heb 13:8, Titus 2:13), the Holy Spirit is and always was God (for example, 1 Cor 12:3), the Father is and always was God, and there is indeed one God (Isaiah 46:9-10, James 2:19, Mark 12:29). The word trinity is not used but the concept is clear.

4. I mentioned 1 Cor 12:3 where the Holy Spirit is identified as the Spirit of God.

5. By examining the direct scriptural proofs, and by seeking to learn how Christians have always understood and lived out such passages.

6. Either through the teaching of scripture itself, or the teaching of those who adequately handle scripture, or in the very earliest cases, from the apostles themselves. And I do not mean that pre-Nicean Christians believed and taught something they called "Trinity" per se, only that Jesus truly was God eternal, which is really the point, isn't it?

May God's grace flow down on us all, because, man, do we need it,
Kaff

Posted by: Kaffinator at November 16, 2005 3:39 PM

Kaffinator,

I have taken up this discussion under the new article that Joe posted.

The Correlation of Sacred Scripture with Church Tradition.

Joachim

Posted by: Joachim at November 17, 2005 12:28 PM

At the Beginning of this discussion I read someone quoting "call no man on earth your father". John Corapi said "Then Paul was a heretic" in regards to this interpretation.

In Romans 4:16 and James 2:21 the Apostle Paul calls Abraham his father. In Romans 9:10 he calls Isaac "our father".

The discussion has some good points on both sides. Whether you are Catholic, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, etc. You must admit that you have the Bible you do and you read it the way you do because early in your christian life someone handed you a Bible and showed you how to read and interpret it (unless you are an exremely unusual individual who examined all your alternatives first.)
This is your tradition, and no matter what church you go to you believe that the preacher at that church is guided by the Holy Spirit to teach you correct doctrine. This is true whether you are Catholic or Fundamentalist or Lutheran or etc..
I'm sure someone will say "No, No, The Bible is my authority" but even with that said an infallible book (which the Bible is) is only as good as the guidance (by the Holy Spirit or one's own will) given to the individual reading from it.

Posted by: Brian at November 23, 2005 12:09 PM

Dear Joe:
The early Church was Bible-reading christians. They were not Bible+Tradition reading christians.The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written. Rom. 10:l7: “So then faith cometh by HEARING and hearing by the word of God.” Matt. 28:19; “Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Mark. 16:20: “And they went forth, and PREACHED everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” Mark 16:I5: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and PREACH the gospel to every creature.” (Underlines in this section is FCFC’s emphasis.)
Jesus founded a teaching AND (not or) Bible-reading church. Paul testifies in 1 Thess.5:27:“I charge you by the Lord that THIS EPISTLE BE READ unto all the holy brethren.” The Bible in those days were read, not according to the Traditions. Yes there were Traditions, as i said before in the Blog "I believe in everlasting Life" but those traditions were spirt-filled that were not pass-on the other uninsipired Catholic fathers.
In Revelation 1:3, we read:

“BLESSED IS HE THAT READETH, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
We also read in Acts 17:11 of the Bereans who were “more noble” in that they

“...received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures DAILY, whether those things were so.” This was talking about False teaching, if a doctrine is made, SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES.
In Acts 28:31, we read that Paul for two whole years was “preaching the kingdom of God” and “teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ”. (Emphasis mine) Now does this mean that Paul was teaching and preaching something other than scripture? The answer is no. If we back up to verse 23-24 we read:

“And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, BOTH OUT OF THE LAW OF MOSES, AND OUT OF THE PROPHETS, from morning till evening. And some believed the things which were spoken [oral], and some believed not.”
Paul never told us that Traditions were equal with the Bible and that there were needed in Church's. This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the early church was a Bible-reading church
Shortly before 400 A.D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own Divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.

Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not.

If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question. The Council erred when they used the corrupted manuscripts out of Alexandria, Egypt, instead of the true manuscripts out of Antioch.the Council’s decision to use corrupt manuscripts is only one example of her fallibility. They took the unispired books instead of the Insipired ones.
The Lord promised to preserve His word (Ps.12:6-7) but He did not promise to preserve the “church fathers”.
Answer to Q 4: Because there is so much different interpretation of the Bible; there is so much different interpretation of the Bible because there is so much wrong interpretation; there is so much wrong interpretation because the system of interpreting is radically wrong. You cannot have one Fold and one Shepherd, one Faith and one Baptism, by allowing every man and every woman to destort and pervert the Scriptures to suit his or her own pet theories.

I Just answer certian questions.

God Bless
Ramon

Posted by: Ramon at November 27, 2005 8:05 PM

I really cant believe that Catholics would say that The Bible and Traditions are there supreme Authority. The Bible is infallible and our only Authority.
Can the same things be said about tradition? Is it pure, perfect, inerrant, or infallible? If it is not, then the claim that tradition is equal to the word of God is false. The answer is NO...Jesus used Scripture to correct the errors of tradition in several instances. In Matt.15:1-9 for instance, Jesus answers the Pharisees and scribes who complained that the disciples were transgressing the tradition of the elders:

"...Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.
I believe it is revelant that Jesus never appealed to tradition as a standard of authority, but quite the contrary, he always corrected tradition with Scripture. Should we not imitate our Lord and Savior, who set before us His standard? And as we can see from the above Scripture, tradition is not inerrent, infallible and it definitely is not settled in heaven since Jesus rebuked it. Colossians 2:8 warns us to beware of "traditions of men". Is it pure? Again, the answer is NO!
Paul said "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." (I Cor.15:3-4) The gospel that Paul and the apostles preached is not of man (Gal.1:11), but it is that which "...he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures" (Rom.1:2) and "...now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God...." (16:26)

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." (I Pet.1:18-19)

God does not want us tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine (Eph.4:14), He wants us rooted in His Word as Peter says,

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Pet.1:19-21, 2:1)

Eph.6:17 only mentions one weapon, not two! And that weapon is the sword, the Word of God. In your other hand you should have the shield of faith. That leaves no hands to hold on to tradition.
The inspired scriptures are our authoritative source for doctrine and conduct (2 Timothy 3:16-17). They fully equip us "unto every good work" because they are inspired of God (God-breathed). The only way to hear Christ today is through the message preached by His apostles and prophets (Matthew 17:5; Hebrews 1:1-2; Luke 10:16; John 13:20). So the idea of Bible-Reading or Bible-only christians is very true.
I think many Catholics aways go to this Scripture to back them up:
2 Thes 2:14 says, ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.’ St. Paul places oral Tradition on the same level as the Written Word of God.’”
But Paul said “whether by word or by our epistle.” This denotes that the tradition he is speaking of was already written in his epistle, so that whether or not you heard it spoken or read it in the epistle, you were to stand fast on it. Had Paul said we should stand in the oral traditions and the epistles, then Rome would have a leg to stand on. But as it is, Paul is very clear that the tradition was already written in the epistle, “whether by word or by our epistle”. Also, if you look up the Greek word for tradition, you will notice that it says “specifically Jewish traditionary laws”. We are not talking about Roman traditions which they claimed “evolved”. Paul couldn’t possibly have meant that we were to stand on the traditions that would evolve 1,000 years down the line, especially in light of the scripture where Paul says: "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." (Acts 20:27) Therefore the tradition that Paul talks about could not be the same traditions that Rome speaks of. But I guess there just want to follow more Traditions than the word of God.....
2Tim.3:14-15:

“But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Notice that it said “Holy Scriptures” are able to make thee wise unto salvation. Cathloic church admits that when it says, “holy scriptures” that it is speaking of the written word of God, not tradition. Here we have Paul, speaking to Timothy telling him that the only necessary thing to make him wise unto salvation is the “holy scriptures”. In Romans 15:4, Paul again talks about the written word as scripture:

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience, and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.”

If tradition is the word of God, then why didn’t Paul say something like “whatsoever things were written and orally passed down were for our learning that through the comfort of scripture and tradition we might have hope.”??? It’s evident that Paul is placing the written word above all, as he does in 1Cor.4:6 where he says, “that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written.”
Did Paul preach outside the law and the testimony? No, by his own confession, the gospel he preached was "promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures.” (Rom.1:2) That’s why Paul also said,

“Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the word began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting god made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.”

The gospel is made manifest by the Scriptures! There is no evidence that the gospel is made known by written scriptures and oral traditions. The gospel Paul preached was already written in the Old Testament. That’s why Paul said to stand fast in the traditions, or the Jewish traditionary laws. It was the law and the prophets that revealed Christ. In Gal.1:14, Paul said that he had been “exceedingly zealous for the traditions of his fathers.” (This is before he got saved, my friend, so the traditions he is talking about are definitely Jewish traditions) and in Romans 11:2, Paul bore record that the Jews had a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. You see, the written law which Paul loved and was so zealous for, the “traditions” of his fathers, could not be understood unless a man was born-again. In 2Cor., starting at verse 14, we read,

“But their minds were blinded: for until this day remainteth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.”
Revelation 20:12 says that we will be judged by the things written in the books. Doesn’t say we will be judged by the traditions that are not written down, but only by those things which are written. So why Have Traditions, is useless!!!!!!!!!. We Cant serve both God and Men!.

And my last post was address to Joe, but everyone.

God Bless
Ramon

Posted by: Ramon at November 27, 2005 8:38 PM

Ramon,
Tell me this. Since the Bible was not authoritatively determined for almost 400 years after Christ was crucified, it was written in Greek, few people in the world could read (much less read Greek), and the printing press was not invented until around 1500 A.D., how did the Gospel (i.e., the good news) primarily spread?? ...Preaching and teaching BY WORD OF MOUTH i.e., oral or APOSTOLIC TRADITION! I confidently say that the Traditions of the Apostles are not mere "traditions of men." However, since these previous points are historical facts which one can easily find how could one believe that sola scriptura which was invented by Martin Luther [a man] is a true doctrine? Isn't this the real "tradition of men"?

Posted by: Matthew at November 30, 2005 10:11 AM

We all know the Bible is the written word of God. I have attended many "Bible is my only authority" churches. and in every case the preacher does not simply read the text and let it speak for itself, he then tells you what HE believes the text or series of verses means: by doing so he is subjecting it to his tradition.
Once you say "the text means..." you are subjecting it to your tradition whether you are willing to admit you have one or not.

The difference between Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics are emphatic about their tradition while Protestants deny they have one-which is a tradition in and of itself, and may be responsible for the 33,800 different protestant churches who all think their church belief set alone is 100% correct in following Christ, and every one of them can give you a load of biblical proofs for the unique beliefs of their faith. So who has the authority to interpret scripture anyway?

When the Apostle Paul rebuked the Apostle Peter neither one of them cried out "The Bible alone" and broke away to start his own rival church. Perhaps this is why both men went on to write infallible encyclicals that you will find in the back of your New Testament.

God Bless

Posted by: Brian at November 30, 2005 4:50 PM

Dear Matthew:

It was not oral tradition. Like i said before the Traditions that Paul was talking about does mean what many Catholics is professing to be. It did not gave us the Authority to PASS-DOWN unlaw, unholy tradtitions that men just made up. Sola-bible is true doctrine. It may not be word for word in the bible but look: See what Acts says:

We also read in Acts 17:11 of the Bereans who were “more noble” in that they

“...received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures DAILY, whether those things were so.” This was talking about False teaching, if a doctrine is made, SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES.
The inspired scriptures are our authoritative source for doctrine and conduct (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Do you disagree with God's Word?

By 100 A.D. all the books were completed. Until the testimony of Jesus was written down, they depended on the Old Testament, which prophesied of that same grace. (1 Pet.1: 10-12) As the apostles wrote the epistles, faithful men copied them and sent them to all the churches commanding them to be read. This means that the early Christians had access to the word of God at all times. How else could the Bereans search the scriptures daily?

Romans 1:1-2 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

The true Bible was placed under one cover no later than 145A.D., and was known as the Syrian Peshitto. The “Old Latin Vulgate” was the next Bible to be compiled by the year 157 A.D. The corrupted Latin version of Jerome, translated by order of Constantine, was published in about 380 A.D. The RCC chose the name “Vulgate” or “Common” for Jerome’s translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people. It was rejected by real Christians such as the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albigenses, and other groups throughout Europe who held doctrinal purity dear to thier hearts. According to Dr. Bill Grady, in his book Final Authority, page 34:

“For the Syrian people dwelling northeast of Palestine, there were at least four major versions: the Peshitta (A.D. 145); the Old Syriac (AD. 400); the Palestinian Syriac (A.D. 450); and the Philoxenian (A.D. 508), which was revised by Thomas of Harkel in A.D. 616 and henceforth known as the Harclean Syriac. True to the meaning of its name (straight or rule), the Peshitta set the standard because of its early composition and strong agreement with the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. Because of the obvious embarrassment caused by this document bearing witness to a text some two centuries older than either X [Codex Sinaiticus]or B [Codex Vaticanus] , modern Nicolaitane scholarship has conveniently assigned the Peshitta's origin to A.D. 415. The first translation into a purely European tongue is known as the Gothic version. This work was prepared in 330 A.D. by the soul-winning missionary Ulfilas...Once again, the strength of this version is found in its age and agreement with the Textus Receptus. Edward Hills cites F.G. Kenyon's 1912 edition on New Testament criticism that, ‘The type of text represented in it is for the most part that which is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. Thus, Ulfilas had access to King James Version readings a full two decades before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were copied. An excellent example of his superior manuscripts is reflected by the Gothic inclusion of the traditional ending to ‘The Lord's Prayer’ of Matthew 6:13. The familiar words, ‘for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen’, are conspicuously absent from both of the ‘two most ancient authorities.’ There are only eight surviving manuscripts of the Gothic version.”

God Bless
Ramon

Posted by: Ramon at November 30, 2005 8:13 PM

Ramon,
First of all I would encourage you to formulate your replies from more credible sources than from cutting edge.org or from FCFC and not merely copy and paste from them. Sadly, both sources do not have an understanding of the Catholic faith at all. I would encourage you if you really want to know what Catholic's believe then read the official Catechism of the Church.

To begin, I would encourage you to actually research the Syrian church for yourself. The Syrian church is identical in many ways to the Catholic Church. Everything from the seven sacraments (Eucharist, baptism, holy orders, marraige, confirmation, annointing of sick, penance) to the perpetual virginity of Mary. In fact there are several joint declarations between the Catholic Church and the Syrian church that demonstrate how much we share in common. So if your argument is for the Syrian church then you've made a step toward Catholicism, and I hope that you are open to that.

In regards to your copy and paste from FCFC the writer is only partly right.

"The true Bible was placed under one cover no later than 145A.D., and was known as the Syrian Peshitto."

However, according to information directly from the Syriac Orthodox Resources website they say:

"In the early fifth century, the long process of revising the Old Syriac came to a halt, culminating in the Peshitto version. Hence, the Peshitto is not a new translation, but rather a revision of the Old Syriac Gospels. However, the Peshitto also contains the rest of the books of the New Testament except for the Minor Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude) and Revelation. To this day, readings from these books are not read in Syriac Churches. In the Peshitto manuscripts, the Catholic Epistles are placed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles."

So if your argument is for the Syriac translation of the Bible then you are advocating for removal of certain books from the Bible as indicated above. I am assuming that the Bible that you own contains all 27 books of the New Testament, and since you do, you have undermined your argument. Because you trust that the Catholic Church was given the authority to determine the New Testament canon in 393 A.D. Otherwise if you adhere to the Syrian translation of the Bible then your Bible is incomplete at best.

Beyond that, the Scripture that the Syrians compiled was NOT the complete Bible. It was merely the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John called the Diatessaron a Greek word meaning 'through [the] four [Gospels]'. As the Syrian Orthodox Resources site explains:

"As its name implies, this Gospel was made up by 'combining' the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) into one text. The Diatessaron was very popular in the early Syriac Church, but later was replaced by the four separate Gospels."

So Ramon your sources are flawed here. Yes, the early Syrian church did read the epistles from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and compiled them into a manuscript, but it is not the Bible per se. The issue here is that these writings were recognized almost universally because the people (i.e., Christians) were alive at the same time of the Apostles or were second generation Christians who recognized them as the Apostles because of the things they were taught "either by word of mouth [oral tradition] or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15) So Ramon again, I pray that in your search for truth that you at least search out the truth for yourself versus taking someone else's "truth" at face value. This is my prayer and encouragement for you as a brother in Christ. God bless.
Matthew

Posted by: Matthew at December 1, 2005 3:40 PM

Dear Matthew:

I didnt copy and paste from that site, i sent a email to the author. Thanks anyway for letting me know it was there all along.
Our discussion is base on wither the Bible supreme authority right? I will reguest to look-upon my discussion on the Authority of the bible before you posted and the post i made under the topic "I beieve in everlasting life".
Are tradition equal with the Word of God?, did Jesus teach the Word of God plus Tradition?, Did Jesus told us that Traditions should place as if there were equal with the Word of God?. I really request you to look-upon your Doctrines and compare them with the Word of God please.
In John 7:38 Jesus said " As the scripture has said"
Jesus referres to the "Scripture" because it was the very Word Of His Father (Do you believe that?) and therefore the Supreme authority for his life and teaching. Scripture is also the supreme authority for Christians, For God alone ha sthe right to determine our standards of Conduct. He has chosen to exercise this aithority by making his truth known in scripture. Why then you put Traditions above the Bible? Matthew do you think you better than God? The Bible, as God's revealtion, carries the same authority as if God himself were speaking to us directly.
The inspired Scriptures (Do you believe that matthew?) are the believer's ultimate authority. Ecclesiastical traditions, prohecies, suppose new revelations, doctrines and human ideas must be tested against Scripture and should never be elevated to a place of equal authority with the Bible. (Mk 7:13, Col 2:8, 1Pe 1:18-19).
To profess equal or greater allegaince to any other authority (Traditions) than to God and his inspired Word is to remove oneself from the biblical faith and the lordship of Christ. To say that any person, institutions, creed or church possesses equal or higher authority than God's inspired revelation is tantamount to idolatory. In the same way all those who are not willing to submit their beliefs to the authority of the NT place themselves outside of Biblical Christianity and slavation in Christ.
Matthew it was already proved that the Early church were Bible-Reading Christians.
We also read in Acts 17:11 of the Bereans who were “more noble” in that they

“...received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures DAILY, whether those things were so.” This was talking about False teaching, if a doctrine is made, SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES. How can there have searched the Scriptures without having one in the first place.
The inspired scriptures are our authoritative source for doctrine and conduct (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
God's Word must be received, believe and obeyed as the final authority in all things pertaining to life and godliness (Mt 5:17-19; Jn 14:21; 15:10; 2Ti 3:15-16) Matthew if you Church does not obey this Biblical Doctrine then you should leave that Chruch and find one that does.
Also you need to open your eyes. "Scripture" as used in 2Ti 3:16 refers primarily to the OT writings (3:15). There is inducation, however, that at about the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy some NT writings were already viewed as inspired and authoritative Scripture (1Ti 5:18, which quotes Lk 10:7; 2Pe 3:15-16). For us today, Scripture refers to the Authortive Scriptures of Both the OT and NT, now called the "BIBLE".
You cant not say, that because one church in which you find to all true to teach both the Scriptures and Traditions to be equal. Why because not all churches follow of the Bible says. Does your obey everything in the Bible and do not put Traditions obove or queal to the Word of God? True Chrurch's do not follow or even teaches Traditions because they are not equal with the word of God. If your Does then you need to Moved.

The Church
Christ has given authority to certain men to be leaders (often termed elders or bishops) in his church. Their task is to shepherd the church with love and humility as the servants of Christ and his people (I Tim. 3:5; I Pet. 5:1-4). A loving submission to their leadership is urged on Christians (I Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:7, 17). Christ never gave authority to today churches to preach onother Gospel (Traditions), he told them to preach the original teachings. There will be absolute loyalty to the Gospel, the original teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

So Matthew i prayed that you look at your so called Beliefs and doctines and look at you Church and see for you self if they go by everything from the Bible or they putting there unholy Church Fathers false teachings to corrupt, destroy and mix with the Bible authority.

God Bless
Ramon

Posted by: Ramon at December 4, 2005 7:49 PM

Ramon:
You remarked that the Albigenses and the Waldenses were "Real Christian" groups. So your idea of Real Christianity goes like this:
The Albigenses taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another "spirit" in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden though fornication was permitted (try finding THAT in your King James Bible, I know its not in mine).
Don't Protestants always complain about the celibacy requirement of the western rite Catholic priesthood, where marriage is not universally forbidden by the way: married ex Protestant clergy can become Catholic Priests.

The Waldenses for the most part believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the effectiveness of the sacraments, infant baptism, that “the Sacrifice [of the Mass], that is of the bread and wine, after the consecration are the body and blood of Jesus Christ”, that good deeds of the faithful may benefit the dead, to name just a few. This sounds quite Catholic to me.

The Baptist-Fundamentalist tradition looks absolutely nothing like the beliefs of these two groups you call Real Christians. So you are telling me that "Trail of Blood" (another example of a non-Biblical tradition b.t.w.) believing Baptist-Fundamentalists are not real Christians. Even I don't believe that.

I can't find those Bible verses in my KJV where Jesus & the Apostles give Altar Calls. In the 9 conversions in the Book of Acts no one "got saved" by praying a "sinner's prayer".
What really amazed me was that the most vicious attack on these beliefs that I have seen comes from another "Bible Alone" Church called The New Testament Church.

Posted by: Brian at December 7, 2005 1:36 PM

Ramon,

You wrote (or at least cut and paste):

"The RCC chose the name “Vulgate” or “Common” for Jerome’s translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people. It was rejected by real Christians such as the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albigenses, and other groups throughout Europe who held doctrinal purity dear to thier hearts."

From reading your previous posts, I think I have a fair understanding of your beliefs. That you can state that Waldenses and Albigenses were true Christians reveals that you do not really know what they believed.

Brother, please, less cutting and pasting - more research.

Peace

Posted by: fidens at December 8, 2005 5:59 AM

Brian

I must say you do a great job showing God's love and mercy to protesting christians while defending the faith. I am currently reading The Catholic Controversy by St Francis de Sales... I'm sure you know he aided in the conversion 72,000 Calvinists (via printed apologetics) in 4 years in an area of France that had not heard a mass in 3 generations! He was known as the gentleman saint as you are gentle. In regards to the primitive thoughts on the trail of blood- like excuses by "pretend churches" (St. Francis' word for them) he says :

"Our Lord had cast a fire of his charity upon the earth, the Apostles blowing on it by their preaching had increased it and spread it throughout the world: you say it has been extinguished by the waters of ignorance and iniquity;-who shall enkindle it again? Blowing is of no use: what is to be done then? Perhaps we must strike again with nails and lance on Jesus Christ the holy living stone, to bring forth new fire:-or shall it be enough to have Calvin or Luther in the world to relight it?"

St. Francis de Sales

pray for us

Posted by: when we were one at December 9, 2005 4:21 PM

I keep on hearing from our seperated brothers that the catholic church is not the true church. Who are we to believe? Jesus or some man? Jesus clearly told us that he would be with us always and that the gates of hell would not prevail. I have heard the argument from our seperated brothers(baptists, pentecostels, "bible believing christians") that the there are other churches that seperated on early that are the true churches, like the Greek orthodox or other faiths. My question to them is, Why not Join these "true" churches. As catholics we accept them any ways. They can never give me a straight answer. Just a little food for thought. and to my Hermano Ramon, since you have an hispanic name i can only assume that at one point you were catholic. I encourouge to study and learn the catholic faith on your own and not from false teachers. In Latin america we have a huge crisis of extremists anti-catholism that only disperse lies about the faith that Jesus himself established. I will pray for you on your journey back HOME!

Posted by: esaul viramontes at December 13, 2005 4:54 PM

Esaul:
You make a great point about our separated brothers and sisters, we must pray for them and point out their errors, especially the falsehoods they spread about the One Holy Catholic Church.
I have heard people slam the Church and then say "I love Catholics". This is dumb. You don't have a Catholic Church without Catholics they are all part of the same body. Does it sound smart to say I hate the New York Yankees but I love every person who works for their organization?

Hearing people slam the Church is upsetting, but reading some of ArchBishop Fulton Sheen's radio replies taught me that an attack by a misinformed accuser gives you the opportunity to bear your cross for Christ and show the person what the Church is really about, it can be tough because there is so much to know and learn.

I'm actually a fallen away Catholic who is disgruntled with "non-denominationalism" and looking to return because I have been turned off by the Anti-Catholicism that saturates many Protestant and non-denominational sects.

God Bless

Posted by: Brian at December 14, 2005 12:59 PM

Brain I mean Brian

I'll pray for you bro...have you looked into the coming home network? www.chnetwork.org or do you watch the Journey Home on EWTN?

Why did you fall away?

Posted by: when we were one at December 14, 2005 8:37 PM

Brian,
I am so happy for you my friend. We are made by God to seek truth and I rejoice as does all of the Church to welcome you back. This is a wonderful site to learn more about the faith. Joe, Jay, and Dave present relevant topics and provide accurate, insightful, and articulate responses to any and all who misunderstand the Church or are downright anti-Catholic. I commend them most for their non-defensive straighforward manner. When truth is on your side there is no need to make things ugly. Again Brian, I welcome you back as a brother in the true faith and may God continue to light your path with His truth.
In Christ,
Matthew

Posted by: Matthew at December 15, 2005 8:20 AM

Thanks for your support.
Why did I fall away?
I didn't feel the Catholic church was the only way to heaven when I met the woman that would become my wife, she is from the Assemblies of God and her parents are anti-Catholic (through both the AOG's doctrines and some bad past experiences with Catholic Priests).
Before finding her I was disappointed by my previous relationship (by an avid Catholic girl who quit on our relationship and ironically turned me down when I asked her to go to mass with me). I asked the Lord to show me the right girl, and he did! that's how I noticed my future wife in grad school. I even waited 5 months thinking it was not her, during that time no one else surfaced. So I finally asked her for a date and we started seeing each other, we totally clicked in everything except we came from different faith backgrounds.

At that time I was a bit of a "cafeteria Catholic", specifically I was not comfortable with the sacrament of Reconcilliation. Thanks to the Holy Scriptures I now understand the importance of this sacrament.

I kept love for the church though I left to try to find a church that both my wife & I would be comfortable with. I did my best (though often my lack of knowledge hurt the cause) to explain and defend the Catholic faith to the critics I would face.

Last Christmas I hit a turning point when my in-laws were saying that "I can't find anything that justifies infant Baptism in the Bible" I responded "The Catholic Church has a biblical basis for everything it does, you may not agree with their interpretations but that begs a more important question: Who has the authority to interpret scripture anyway?" They were stumped. Since then I began reading such Catholic Apologists like Steve Ray, Dave Armstrong, Jim Akin & Lane Elcore, you want the Bible? these guys will give you the Bible.

I watch quite a bit of EWTN, mostly Marcus & the Coming home network along with Classic Mother Angelica and my personal favorite: Father John Corapi.

To help get us back top the main discussions of this forum: Someone asked for an apostolic tradition that is not found in scripture: I'd say Infant Baptism: though there are many more indirect references such as when Jesus said : Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We do not find an explicit endorsement or prohibition of Infant Baptism in the Holy Scriptures. Even Martin Luther believed in Infant baptism.
Your thoughts?

Posted by: Brian at December 16, 2005 1:54 PM

Brian LOL!!!

What a story!

Ahem...well that is pretty much my story (substitute Presbyterian for AOG). That God of ours what a sense of humor. I think there are alot like us out there...Curtis Martin of "Focus" comes to mind. I guess you never realize how much you like Water until you are stuck in a desert. Then you return to your Father's house to find all the Water you could ever drink!

That IB question is one that started my feet backward to home. When getting my kids (before the age of accountablity) baptized at the Presbyterian church we ran into a huge fight from my wife's grandfather (a non denom pastor) who never thought Catholics could be "saved" (he has changed his mind since yours truly) He came to the baptizm to raise well ummm heck and got his asterisk kicked by the PCUSA pastor in Greek re: all the times in acts you see "household" baptized, that somehow is strongly inferred to include kiddos...I wasn't really paying attention I was more worried about not tripping up front...but it stuck in my mind the vast differences in interpretation btw protesting christians (heck if he'd been amish he may not have made the baptism due to the whole transportation thing somehow being clearly scriptural and all...ooooh if I'd been a shaker I wouldn't have had kids to baptize being clearly scriptural and all) anyway I ran into Hahn/Grodi/Keating/Sungenis but I think I'm going Boyer then Armstrong next. Keating (Catholicism and Fundamentalism) as well as that PCUSA pastor have solidified my belief in infant baptism especially if you accept material sufficiency of scripture like Ratzinger. If you haven't read Keating's above book it is a MUST read.

In fact that would be the Cardinal's point I believe if he was on that above debate..."Catholics can't find any of their doctrines outside of scripture" he would say "Of course we can't because all of our doctrines are either directly stated or implied by Holy Scripture. What is your point? Why then do you protest against us if you yourself find our doctrines materially sufficient?"

In the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ

wwwo

Posted by: when we were one at December 17, 2005 1:32 PM

Dear esaul:

Been gone for a while. Need to catch up. Anyway. I was never Catholic. I was born and Raise as a full Petecostal. From my toes to my head. I been studing the Catholic Faith for a long time, and i felt almo