Why are Catholics so bad?

[Mungo]

While the words "sola scriptura" do not appear, it does seem that the noble Bereans practiced primascriptura . They did so when there was no NT to consult, but they did not accept the words even of an apostle until they compared what he told them with the Scriptures.

On the contrary it was the Jewish Thessalonikans not the Bereans who were sola scriptura (or prima scriptura)

Paul preaches in Thessalonica from the scriptures but very few Jews accept his message. God fearers and Greeks do accept his teaching and become Christians. The Jews are Sola Scriptura. They do not accept the spoken word of God.

Then Paul goes to Beroea where the Jews are more fair minded (more noble – KJV) because they accepted Paul’s oral teaching “with all willingness”. They only used scripture to verify that what they had been taught was not against scripture.

Paul didn’t teach the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ solely from the Old Testament. It’s not possible. Paul taught from his own knowledge, and would have used the Old Testament just as we quote it (e.g. to expound on the foreshadowing in the OT). But you can’t do it by the Old Testament alone.

The Bereans were converted by the spoken word not by scripture alone.

In scripture the teaching of truth is done by those with the authority to do so. It is not derived by individuals from scripture itself.

 

[Brother James]

Let's take a look at Acts 17:11 directly:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Of course the Bereans could not receive the gospel from the NT because there was no NT. What they did know, however, is that absolutely no new revelation from God would ever come to them that violated the previously revealed truths of God. They were open to the teaching, but they accepted it only after they examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was consistent. That is noble, but it means that they tested everything against the Scriptures. Their first position was that Paul's teaching might not be true, and they needed to examine the Scriptures to see if it was credible. That was their "going in" position. The Scriptures were the one thing they knew absolutely to be true.

For example, if Paul had told them that the Savior was bornin in Ceasaria, they would have told him he was wrong because the Messiah was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem. The truth of the scriptures were prime, and everything else had to resolve with them or it would have been rejected. This testifies to the truth of Paul's message, in fact. It passed muster in light of Scriptures, something the Bible itself tells us that all truths purported to come from God must do.

 

[neophyte]

Let's take a look at Acts 17:11 directly:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Of course the Bereans could not receive the gospel from the NT because there was no NT. What they did know, however, is that absolutely no new revelation from God would ever come to them that violated the previously revealed truths of God. They were open to the teaching, but they accepted it only after they examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was consistent. That is noble, but it means that they tested everything against the Scriptures. Their first position was that Paul's teaching might not be true, and they needed to examine the Scriptures to see if it was credible. That was their "going in" position. The Scriptures were the one thing they knew absolutely to be true.

For example, if Paul had told them that the Savior was bornin in Ceasaria, they would have told him he was wrong because the Messiah was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem. The truth of the scriptures were prime, and everything else had to resolve with them or it would have been rejected. This testifies to the truth of Paul's message, in fact. It passed muster in light of Scriptures, something the Bible itself tells us that all truths purported to come from God must do.

Brother James, Greetings. May I suggest that you reread Mungo's post.

"The Bereans were converted by the spoken word not by scripture alone.

In scripture the teaching of truth is done by those with the authority to do so. It is not derived by individuals from scripture itself."

 

[Axehead]

Let's take a look at Acts 17:11 directly:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Of course the Bereans could not receive the gospel from the NT because there was no NT. What they did know, however, is that absolutely no new revelation from God would ever come to them that violated the previously revealed truths of God. They were open to the teaching, but they accepted it only after they examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was consistent. That is noble, but it means that they tested everything against the Scriptures. Their first position was that Paul's teaching might not be true, and they needed to examine the Scriptures to see if it was credible. That was their "going in" position. The Scriptures were the one thing they knew absolutely to be true.

For example, if Paul had told them that the Savior was bornin in Ceasaria, they would have told him he was wrong because the Messiah was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem. The truth of the scriptures were prime, and everything else had to resolve with them or it would have been rejected. This testifies to the truth of Paul's message, in fact. It passed muster in light of Scriptures, something the Bible itself tells us that all truths purported to come from God must do.

Excellent Brother James.

Today, we now have both the NT and OT and "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2Ti 3:16).

Doesn't say all "Oral Tradition" or ANY "Oral Tradition". God is not daft and knows how men (through the influence of Satan) will manipulate each other if they could get away with using Oral Tradition on the same par as God's Word.

Axehead

 

[Brother James]

Brother James, Greetings. May I suggest that you reread Mungo's post.

"The Bereans were converted by the spoken word not by scripture alone.

In scripture the teaching of truth is done by those with the authority to do so. It is not derived by individuals from scripture itself."

With all due respect neophyte I always read posts that I reply to. Disagreement, either mine or yours, doesn't mean I didn't read it.

Paul was an apostle. He was God's conduit to actually write scripture. The early church converts heard the Word directly from eye witnesses. This was necessary because the canon of scripture had not yet been closed. Of course people were converted by the proclamation of the gospel by the apostles. Yet even in spite of hearing God's Word preached by an apostle, they checked with Scripture before accepting it because Scritpure is truth and Scripture is "prime". I don't believe anyone believes that all truth is contained in the Bible. There are truths God has chosen not to reveal to us. Yet when someone comes along preaching something new, you better believe I'm going to compare it to Scripture just as the Bereans did. The model is clear, hear and then consult Scripture.

The eye witnesses surely carried authority to preach the gospel, no doubt about that. The question at hand, and the question we always get back to with regard to Catholicism and Sacred Tradition is whether that authority somehow passes down from one non-apostle to the next like some religious monarchy such that there is someone today who can declare new truths based on those unwritten traditions. It has been the historical catch-all way to resolve controversies. I am told I should accept it on faith. Because that is the authority the Church claims for itself. So, like a pesky Berean, I consult the Scriptures and I find that I cannot subscribe to that teaching based on what I find there. I'm sure if someone had come to the Bereans preaching gnosticism, they would have rejected that too because it too would violate what Scriptures reveal.

 

[Selene]

Brother James, Greetings. May I suggest that you reread Mungo's post.

"The Bereans were converted by the spoken word not by scripture alone.

In scripture the teaching of truth is done by those with the authority to do so. It is not derived by individuals from scripture itself."

That is true. The Bereans accepted St. Paul's words because they were open to the Holy Spirit. St. Paul also spoke the same thing to the Thessalonians, but unlike the Bereans, they did not accept Paul's words. The Thessalonians accepted only the scriptures and were not open to what the Holy Spirit was saying.

The canon of the Bible was not scriptural at all. It was the Holy Spirit who chose the New Testament books. The canon of the Bible exists as a result of tradition.

 

[IanLC]

Whether you are Protestant or Catholic you need the Holy Ghost! Without the Holy Spirit living an effective Christian life, living holy, evangelizing/witnessing effectively, and rightly dividing and interpreting the Holy Writ will be null and void!

 

[Mungo]

The eye witnesses surely carried authority to preach the gospel, no doubt about that. The question at hand, and the question we always get back to with regard to Catholicism and Sacred Tradition is whether that authority somehow passes down from one non-apostle to the next like some religious monarchy such that there is someone today who can declare new truths based on those unwritten traditions. It has been the historical catch-all way to resolve controversies. I am told I should accept it on faith. Because that is the authority the Church claims for itself. So, like a pesky Berean, I consult the Scriptures and I find that I cannot subscribe to that teaching based on what I find there. I'm sure if someone had come to the Bereans preaching gnosticism, they would have rejected that too because it too would violate what Scriptures reveal.

Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (2Tim 1:13)
Paul has given Timothy sound teaching – orally. This is Sacred Tradition.

“Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us.” (2Tim 1:14)

Timothy is to be a guardian of the truth that has been entrusted to him. He is to do this with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Then Paul instructs Timothy to pass this precious treasure of teaching on to others.

“You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.” (2Tim 2:1-2).
Timothy in his turn is to entrust what he has been given to faithful people. Not just preaching to others but to pass on in trust this teaching to others he can be sure will guard it in their turn.
Then they will be able to teach others as well.
This is the passing on of Sacred Tradition

So scripture records the passing on of Sacred Tradition to four generations, – Paul – Timothy – those to whom Timothy entrusts the teaching – those who they pass it on to in turn.

Paul tells us who are the faithful people who are to be entrusted with this teaching:
Bishops – 1 Tim 3:1-7
Presbyters & Bishops – Ti 1:5-9
Deacons – 1 Tim 3:8-13

This teaching, Sacred Tradition, gradually became written down in the creeds, liturgies and writings of the early fathers. Many people went to their deaths to defend these truths. Great apologists such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr wrote extensively against heresies - guarding the good treasure entrusted to them, with the heklp of the Holy Spirit.

 

[neophyte]

Whether you are Protestant or Catholic you need the Holy Ghost! Without the Holy Spirit living an effective Christian life, living holy, evangelizing/witnessing effectively, and rightly dividing and interpreting the Holy Writ will be null and void!

Yes, and if you look into the Holy Bible you will read where the Holy Spirit was only infused, at Pentecost, into His apostolic Church only , not into a group of non-existing 16th century man-made churches along with their off-shoot Protestant cults. From the Bible ,first show me where Jesus gave His Authority to any future person to establish a church different from His Church of the Book of Acts along with [ Eph.2:19-20 ] and Oral Apostolic Tradition [ 2 Tim. 2: 2 ]

 

[Mungo]

Let's take a look at Acts 17:11 directly:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Of course the Bereans could not receive the gospel from the NT because there was no NT. What they did know, however, is that absolutely no new revelation from God would ever come to them that violated the previously revealed truths of God. They were open to the teaching, but they accepted it only after they examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was consistent. That is noble, but it means that they tested everything against the Scriptures. Their first position was that Paul's teaching might not be true, and they needed to examine the Scriptures to see if it was credible. That was their "going in" position. The Scriptures were the one thing they knew absolutely to be true.

For example, if Paul had told them that the Savior was bornin in Ceasaria, they would have told him he was wrong because the Messiah was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem. The truth of the scriptures were prime, and everything else had to resolve with them or it would have been rejected. This testifies to the truth of Paul's message, in fact. It passed muster in light of Scriptures, something the Bible itself tells us that all truths purported to come from God must do.

I think you are claiming too much for the Bereans

“they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

We do not know exactly what Paul said to them that they checked.

They could, as I think, check any references that Paul made to the OT to see if Paul was telling the truth about them and if his interpretations were reasonable.

Or they could have checked everything new that Paul said, the things they accepted with “great eagerness” against the whole Old Testament. That would be a huge job and I think impossible to do each day.

Many things in the NT are foreshadowed in the Old Testament. But foreshadowing is just that. It is a shadow. The detail is missing.

I think they checked what OT references Paul gave them to backup his arguments but no more. They found Paul’s teaching authoritative and his OT references correct, so they accepted the new teaching with “great eagerness”


You say:
“What they did know, however, is that absolutely no new revelation from God would ever come to them that violated the previously revealed truths of God.”

No Catholic doctrine contradicts scripture. But sola scriptura proponents go further than that. They don’t accept anything that is not explicitly contained in scripture. The Bereans were open to new teaching that was not contained in scripture.

 

[Brother James]

Paul reminding Timothy in a letter of what he told him in person when they last spoke is hardly "sacred tradition". That is one of those stretches made in the Catholic argument that has always kept me from accepting their claims about Sacred Tradition. It simply is not credible to me on the face of it.

Obviously we will disagree about these things or else there would not be Catholics and Protestants to this day.

And on that last point about the Bereans, until scripture had been written everyone had to accept the gospel without it being in the scriptures except in the hidden form as it existed in the OT. But in Acts we are told that it was the Holy Spirit that added to the number of the church daily those who were being saved.

I will shut up now because I'm not looking to drag anyone away from their Church or faith, but merely to point out that there are reasons why people of good faith cannot accept the claims it makes of itself. What looks completely reasonable to someone who has sat under Catholic teaching their whole life looks unreasonble to others who examine the same facts and arguments. People of good faith do come to different conclusions, and I wish it was not so. Reconciling that is God's work as I'm not called to destroy the faith of Catholics.

 

[Selene]

You say:
“What they did know, however, is that absolutely no new revelation from God would ever come to them that violated the previously revealed truths of God.”

No Catholic doctrine contradicts scripture. But sola scriptura proponents go further than that. They don’t accept anything that is not explicitly contained in scripture. The Bereans were open to new teaching that was not contained in scripture.

That is true. Like the Bereans, the Catholics understood when Sacred Scripture says:

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

There are many things that Jesus did. However, the fact that it was not written down does not mean that it is not important because everything that our Lord did IS important. Catholics understood (like the Bereans who were open to the Holy Spirit) that not everything is written in scripture. The only ones who knew of these things that were not written down in scripture would be the Apostles who lived and ate with Him. And so Catholics follow the Apostolic Tradition that has been handed down to the Church since Apostolic times (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

 

[Brother James]

The apostles knew things but didn't write them, but they are important, and so they have been handed down... how? What is the mechanism of the handing down if not in writing? To me as a non-Catholic, it appears that they emerge at convenient times when controversies errupt in the church. Details like the Assumption of Mary were declared by popes and councils many centuries after these things were supposed to have occurred. St. Gregory of Tours seems to be the first to ever mention such a thing late in the 6th century, but then long afterward it is added to the things that were "handed down" from the apostles through Sacred Tradition. This is an example of how Sacred Tradition appears to us non-Catholics as an overly convenient source of "new" doctrines.

Now, whether there really was an assumption of Mary or not is not foundational to my Christian faith in Jesus Christ. God either did or didn't do that. But if I emulate the Bereans, where do I find support for this in the scriptures? When it came to the gospel of Christ, it was simple. Once Jesus came, lived, died, and was resurrected, it was clear that the entire purpose of the OT of scripture was to point to Christ. The entire Bible is about the singular person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus was there in the OT and the Bereans could see that. They could validate it against scripture. Where to I go in scripture to validate the Assumption of Mary? Or the many other teachings attributed to Sacred Tradition that emerged in the consciousness of the church many many centuries after the Apostles?

 

[Mungo]

Brother James

You earlier said (my emboldening)
"What they [the Bereans] did know, however, is that absolutely no new revelation from God would ever come to them that violated the previously revealed truths of God."

I commented that
"No Catholic doctrine contradicts scripture. But sola scriptura proponents go further than that. They don’t accept anything that is not explicitly contained in scripture. The Bereans were open to new teaching that was not contained in scripture."

You have just made my point because now you want not just that the doctrine of the Assumption does not violate previously revealed truths, but that you ask "Where to I go in scripture to validate the Assumption of Mary?" You asking for more than non violation but explicit teaching in scripture.

 

[Axehead]

Brother James

You earlier said (my emboldening)
"What they [the Bereans] did know, however, is that absolutely no new revelation from God would ever come to them that violated the previously revealed truths of God."

I commented that
"No Catholic doctrine contradicts scripture. But sola scriptura proponents go further than that. They don’t accept anything that is not explicitly contained in scripture. The Bereans were open to new teaching that was not contained in scripture."

If Catholic doctrine were in Scripture, we would accept it. The Bereans were open-minded but would search the scriptures to confirm.

Axehead

 

[Brother James]

Let me attempt to be more clear then, and I apologize for my lack of precision or clarity previously. There are many heretical doctrines one could devise that would not specifially violate what is in the bible. Joseph Smith, while not succeeding, attempted to do exactly that. The Old Testament pointed directly at the divine person of Jesus Christ. He was already in the consciousness of people who worshipped God.

Every claim about Jesus the Messiah could be validated against the Law and Scriptures, from the place of His birth to the manner of His death. Even in the book of Esther, which many people say does not refer to God, I see Christ in the symbology of Christ's bride, the church.

As Paul spoke of Christ, he was not telling the Bereans something for which there was absolutely no scriptural support. Indeed, once Christ was incarnated, it became clear that the OT was specifically about Him. What I have asked for is any iota of support from scripture about the Assumption of Mary. If you cannot see the difference now, then I am incapable of communicating my thoughts to you but I believe the difference should be clear now.

 

[aspen]

If Catholic doctrine were in Scripture, we would accept it. The Bereans were open-minded but would search the scriptures to confirm.

Axehead

how ironic since sola scriptura is not in scripture

 

[Axehead]

The concept is there. Just like the Trinity.

 

[Brother James]

What I'm discussing is prima scriptura. God reveals things to individuals many times. He has done so for me, but if I ever believe I get truth or understanding from God that is inconsistent with scriptures, I know there's something wrong with me.

 

[Mungo]

Let me attempt to be more clear then, and I apologize for my lack of precision or clarity previously. There are many heretical doctrines one could devise that would not specifially violate what is in the bible. Joseph Smith, while not succeeding, attempted to do exactly that. The Old Testament pointed directly at the divine person of Jesus Christ. He was already in the consciousness of people who worshipped God.

Every claim about Jesus the Messiah could be validated against the Law and Scriptures, from the place of His birth to the manner of His death. Even in the book of Esther, which many people say does not refer to God, I see Christ in the symbology of Christ's bride, the church.

As Paul spoke of Christ, he was not telling the Bereans something for which there was absolutely no scriptural support. Indeed, once Christ was incarnated, it became clear that the OT was specifically about Him. What I have asked for is any iota of support from scripture about the Assumption of Mary. If you cannot see the difference now, then I am incapable of communicating my thoughts to you but I believe the difference should be clear now.

The early Christians were very careful to keep the relics of saints and martyrs, even if it involved great risk (like trying to retrieve the remains of those who were eaten by lions). They did this out of great reverence for the body as a member of Christ and temple of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 6:15, 19). We know where the remains of many Saints where but no-one has ever claimed to have the remains of Mary. Two places claim to be her final resting place but the tombs are empty.

There are many quite early “Transitus Maria” stories. They are only pious legends but they attest to a widespread early belief in the assumption of Mary. The early fathers were very zealous in the defence of true doctrines and there would be writings against these it there was no truth in them.

The Bible tells us that both Enoch and Elijah were taken up to heaven, so why not Mary, the mother of Jesus himself?

We believe Mary is the ark of the New Covenant. Because the original ark was so precious, it was made of incorruptible wood.

“Arise, Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark.” (Psalm 132:8)​

As the living ark of the New Covenant, Mary is majestic and it is fitting that she is incorruptible too. Why would God allow her to rot in a grave?

In Rev 12 the seer John sees Mary in heaven, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Queen of heaven.
“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen…. A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev 11:19-12:1).

This doctrine is also rooted in the scriptural depiction of Mary as the new Eve. Now death is the result of the Fall. It is fitting that as Mary, the new Eve, shares in the victory of the new Adam (Jesus) over sin, she also shares in his victory over death and physical decay.

Mary is a witness for us that we too will, one day, be in heaven body and soul.

There is nothing in the assumption of Mary that contradicts scripture.