Comments on: Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 1) http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:13:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: O.W. http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-96066 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:10:29 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-96066 Bob, This is not really a direct answer, but I believe it is a pre-requisite for further discussion. If you've seen the movie A Few Good Men, there's the scene in which Kevin Bacon gives Noah Wylie the handbook and asks him to show him where it says about a Code Red. Wylie says there is no such part, to which a mock fundamentalist Bacon implies that Code Red's don't exist and are not done, since there is no formal instructions on when or how to administer one. As a confident Bacon goes to sit down, an equally confident Tom Cruise grabs the book and asks Wylie to show him where in the book it tells him how to get to the mess hall. Wylie guffaws and says there is no such part. Cruise, with mock incredulity, asks Wylie if the court is supposed to believe he never eats because there is nothing in the instruction manual on how to get to the chow hall. Wylie proudly says he eats three squares a day. Cruise, with continued mock disbelief, asks Wylie how he finds the dining hall, to which Wylie replies that he just follows people there. Point: just because something is not contained in the Bible does not mean that it hasn't been assumed from the beginning, such that nobody saw much need to write it down. Nobody ever thought that something continuously lived out was in risk of being lost due to not being in scripture. That's tradition and how it works. But it would not be obvious to a follower of a denomination that threw out the baby with the bath-water, especially if that follower is living in a "tradition" that threw out most of the original Tradition roughly 500 years ago. It's not their fault. *Anyone* would be at a disadvantage to comprehend and appreciate this doctrine under such circumstances. O.W. Bob,

This is not really a direct answer, but I believe it is a pre-requisite for further discussion.

If you’ve seen the movie A Few Good Men, there’s the scene in which Kevin Bacon gives Noah Wylie the handbook and asks him to show him where it says about a Code Red. Wylie says there is no such part, to which a mock fundamentalist Bacon implies that Code Red’s don’t exist and are not done, since there is no formal instructions on when or how to administer one. As a confident Bacon goes to sit down, an equally confident Tom Cruise grabs the book and asks Wylie to show him where in the book it tells him how to get to the mess hall. Wylie guffaws and says there is no such part. Cruise, with mock incredulity, asks Wylie if the court is supposed to believe he never eats because there is nothing in the instruction manual on how to get to the chow hall. Wylie proudly says he eats three squares a day. Cruise, with continued mock disbelief, asks Wylie how he finds the dining hall, to which Wylie replies that he just follows people there.

Point: just because something is not contained in the Bible does not mean that it hasn’t been assumed from the beginning, such that nobody saw much need to write it down. Nobody ever thought that something continuously lived out was in risk of being lost due to not being in scripture.

That’s tradition and how it works.

But it would not be obvious to a follower of a denomination that threw out the baby with the bath-water, especially if that follower is living in a “tradition” that threw out most of the original Tradition roughly 500 years ago. It’s not their fault. *Anyone* would be at a disadvantage to comprehend and appreciate this doctrine under such circumstances.

O.W.

]]> by: Robert http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-26427 Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:15:00 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-26427 Hi, what an interesting discussion! Let me try an understand this ok? Catholic belief is that there is a parallel amount of teaching that is not found in the scriptures that has been passed down thru the Apostles, then to the Popes. Have I got it correct? So, can someone point to a current tradition that doesn't line up with Scripture? Also, I'm trying to grasp the idea that because the Holy Spirit inspired the bible authors to write certain things down, that someone can add something and call it authoritative. thanks, bob Hi,
what an interesting discussion! Let me try an understand this ok?
Catholic belief is that there is a parallel amount of teaching that is not found in the scriptures that has been passed down thru the Apostles, then to the Popes.
Have I got it correct?

So, can someone point to a current tradition that doesn’t line up with Scripture?

Also, I’m trying to grasp the idea that because the Holy Spirit inspired the bible authors to write certain things down, that someone can add something and call it authoritative.

thanks,
bob

]]> by: Joe http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22738 Wed, 16 May 2007 18:51:15 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22738 The "Tammy" / "Mrs Burrows" discussion is a good one. They really argue both positions well and a lot can be learned. I haven't read the other two articles and will not comment on the "T/Mrs B" discussion as of yet, but I do think there is a common ground to this divide. The “Tammy” / “Mrs Burrows” discussion is a good one. They really argue both positions well and a lot can be learned. I haven’t read the other two articles and will not comment on the “T/Mrs B” discussion as of yet, but I do think there is a common ground to this divide.

]]> by: Ruben http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22670 Wed, 16 May 2007 07:15:42 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22670 Good to hear in these discussions that the Bible is referred to as scripture and not as "the Word" - as so many christians are in the habit of doing. What is authoritative, what gives life? Scripture or tradition or both? How about the Holy Spirit? Reference to the Spirit is absent above. True, the Spirit, often a vague notion in our churches(so milky white) is such a messy and often scary thing compared to the solidness of scripture and tradition. The Spirit does not offer much to hold onto for those of us who need to touch (even the concept of truth) to believe and begin living this new life we have supposedly received. Nonetheless, it is in the Spirit in you that one needs to trust - which may result in having to work out our lives in fear and trembling for it is the Spirit that works in us - both to will and do. Rather than the prescribed, "do this and do that" Jesus declares, "Behold the wind which blows where it will; you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going, so it is for those who are born of the Spirit." Good to hear in these discussions that the Bible is referred to as scripture and not as “the Word” - as so many christians are in the habit of doing.

What is authoritative, what gives life? Scripture or tradition or both? How about the Holy Spirit? Reference to the Spirit is absent above. True, the Spirit, often a vague notion in our churches(so milky white) is such a messy and often scary thing compared to the solidness of scripture and tradition. The Spirit does not offer much to hold onto for those of us who need to touch (even the concept of truth) to believe and begin living this new life we have supposedly received. Nonetheless, it is in the Spirit in you that one needs to trust - which may result in having to work out our lives in fear and trembling for it is the Spirit that works in us - both to will and do. Rather than the prescribed, “do this and do that” Jesus declares, “Behold the wind which blows where it will; you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going, so it is for those who are born of the Spirit.”

]]> by: Gerry http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22583 Tue, 15 May 2007 16:40:09 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22583 Tammy, God bless you my dear sister, in Christ Jesus. Tammy,

God bless you my dear sister, in Christ Jesus.

]]> by: Tammy http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22581 Tue, 15 May 2007 15:45:15 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22581 Mrs. Burrows, I deeply regret that you feel I am in deadly error. But according to your doctrine, I suppose this is no fault of my own because I am not the elect? If I cannot be saved through any effort of my own and if I cannot work out my own salvation through fear and trembling then why chastise me if it ain't my fault? I am amazed that the very people who loudly proclaim catholics to be in deadly error also proclaim that one has nothing to do with their own salvation because the choice has been made for them. Jesus died for me while I was yet a sinner through no effort of my own. I have searched Scriptures and the Holy Spirit very clearly showed me that MY actions DO matter. He showed this to me before I was Catholic and through the Bible alone. I was born Baptist then parents ended up in a non-denominational church until I reconciled to the catholic Church in 1997. I'm not sure how you can start in Genesis and believe that men have no free will or responsibility for their actions. How can you read the Old Testament and not see that God was angered when the Israelites CHOSE to sin? Like so many who hold the beliefs that you do, you continue to parrot your pet verses that seemingly prove your point while dodging the hard questions that are thrown at you. I will list again the questions that you have failed to answer: 1. Who was in charge in Acts ch 15 at the Council of Jerusalem? the Bible alone or the apostles and elders? (it's a simple question, isn't it?) 2. How did the apostles arrive at the decision that Gentiles weren’t required to be circumcised? through Bible alone? (Acts 15) and related to that question is this: What Old Testament Scripture leads one to believe that circumcision was not necessary? 3. Did Paul deliver decrees decided upon in Jerusalem for the whole church to obey? (a simple yes or no answer, hint Acts 16:4) 4. What if Abraham had decided that he didn’t want to be circumcised? would that still be OK with God? when have God’s commands ever been optional? (I would REALLY like an answer to this question) 5. “…if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:17 How can you contradict the very words of Jesus and say obedience to God’s commands are not necessary? What do you think Jesus meant by these words? Mrs. Burrows, I really hope you will consider actually answering the questions presented instead of talking around them and changing the subject. and Gerry, if you are reading, keep up the good work dear brother! Mrs. Burrows,

I deeply regret that you feel I am in deadly error. But according to your doctrine, I suppose this is no fault of my own because I am not the elect? If I cannot be saved through any effort of my own and if I cannot work out my own salvation through fear and trembling then why chastise me if it ain’t my fault? I am amazed that the very people who loudly proclaim catholics to be in deadly error also proclaim that one has nothing to do with their own salvation because the choice has been made for them.

Jesus died for me while I was yet a sinner through no effort of my own. I have searched Scriptures and the Holy Spirit very clearly showed me that MY actions DO matter. He showed this to me before I was Catholic and through the Bible alone. I was born Baptist then parents ended up in a non-denominational church until I reconciled to the catholic Church in 1997.

I’m not sure how you can start in Genesis and believe that men have no free will or responsibility for their actions. How can you read the Old Testament and not see that God was angered when the Israelites CHOSE to sin? Like so many who hold the beliefs that you do, you continue to parrot your pet verses that seemingly prove your point while dodging the hard questions that are thrown at you. I will list again the questions that you have failed to answer:

1. Who was in charge in Acts ch 15 at the Council of Jerusalem? the Bible alone or the apostles and elders? (it’s a simple question, isn’t it?)

2. How did the apostles arrive at the decision that Gentiles weren’t required to be circumcised? through Bible alone? (Acts 15) and related to that question is this: What Old Testament Scripture leads one to believe that circumcision was not necessary?

3. Did Paul deliver decrees decided upon in Jerusalem for the whole church to obey? (a simple yes or no answer, hint Acts 16:4)

4. What if Abraham had decided that he didn’t want to be circumcised? would that still be OK with God? when have God’s commands ever been optional? (I would REALLY like an answer to this question)

5. “…if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:17 How can you contradict the very words of Jesus and say obedience to God’s commands are not necessary? What do you think Jesus meant by these words?

Mrs. Burrows, I really hope you will consider actually answering the questions presented instead of talking around them and changing the subject.

and Gerry, if you are reading, keep up the good work dear brother!

]]> by: Gerry http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22553 Tue, 15 May 2007 12:39:01 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22553 Praise God that other Catholics have joined the fray!! Thank you Lord. Chad, my brother..As St. John Cardinal Newman said when he converted from Anglicanism "To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant" John, (Mio Fratello) concerning your "invisible church" Certainly it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared, addressing its first earthly leader, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). What good would it have done to bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: "Refer it to the Church" (Matt. 18:17). He tells his followers, who make us the Church on earth, that they are "the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house" (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33). John 20: 19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. 23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." *Why would Jesus give the Apostles and their successors the power to forgive a retain sins to an “invisible church” 15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep. *A visible Church has a shepherd. There have been 266 “Bishops of Rome” (Pope-Papa) with the current one being Benedict the 16th. A visible Church convenes “Councils” like the one in Acts (there have been 21) God bless. Praise God that other Catholics have joined the fray!! Thank you Lord.

Chad, my brother..As St. John Cardinal Newman said when he converted from Anglicanism “To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant”

John, (Mio Fratello)

concerning your “invisible church”

Certainly it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared, addressing its first earthly leader, “I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). What good would it have done to bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: “Refer it to the Church” (Matt. 18:17). He tells his followers, who make us the Church on earth, that they are “the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house” (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).

John 20:
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

*Why would Jesus give the Apostles and their successors the power to forgive a retain sins to an “invisible church”

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.

*A visible Church has a shepherd. There have been 266 “Bishops of Rome” (Pope-Papa) with the current one being Benedict the 16th.

A visible Church convenes “Councils” like the one in Acts (there have been 21)

God bless.

]]> by: Mrs. Burrows http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22548 Tue, 15 May 2007 11:56:37 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22548 Tammy, it is clearly obvious that we are on opposing sides of the truth of God. The Bible teaches that a person is made spiritually alive of no effort of their own ~ faith, love, obedience to God's commandments, repenting, believing, glorifying God, hearing with ears that have been made to hear and seeing with eyes that have been made to see ~ all those aspects and more WILL follow when spiritual life has been given by God's sovereign grace. God first chose and foreloved/foreknew the individuals He saves. Spiritually dead people do not choose to love God or choose to obey in order to receive what is a gift of God's free grace and sovereign will. How can a person see or enter God's kingdom when spiritually unable in deadness(their will only freely allows them to act in their spiritually dead nature in sin in Adam...they reject and hate what is spiritually discerned and cannot and will not come to the Light in their deadness)? He must enable them first(the Truth sets them free in Christ to choose to act as enabled as a new creation in the Spirit in Christ). He gives a clear picture of this as He quickened Lazarus prior to the command to obey the call of Jesus to come forth(John 11). Just as He quickened/opened the heart of Lydia prior to her attending to the things spoken of by Paul(Acts 16:14). What value is there in arguing what is spiritually discerned? You aren't asking of the hope that is in me but rather are trying to disprove what I am showing you in God's Word...trying to prove teaching of error with verses that do not say what you want them to say because you are leaving out part of the equation in light of other verses in the Bible. Deadly error. Sheep have been given eternal life and thus prove that they are God's workmanship in their actions. Goats are goats and act accordingly as vessels of wrath because God didn't choose them to eternal life. The horse must come before the cart with regeneration and obedience. It is error to put the cart first and give man glory due God alone concerning salvation. This is what Catholicism teaches and it is a gospel message not found in the Word of God. Catholcism offers a non-saving demon-type believing faith to receive eternal life rather than a saving faith of God where He gives it freely of His sovereign choice to those that do not and cannot and will not believe in their spiritual deadness. In humility and with gratitude that drives me to my knees ~ I choose the Word and love Him and what He says because He first loved me and caused and enabled me to even think to respond that way. May we not always disagree concerning the things of God. Tammy, it is clearly obvious that we are on opposing sides of the truth of God. The Bible teaches that a person is made spiritually alive of no effort of their own ~ faith, love, obedience to God’s commandments, repenting, believing, glorifying God, hearing with ears that have been made to hear and seeing with eyes that have been made to see ~ all those aspects and more WILL follow when spiritual life has been given by God’s sovereign grace. God first chose and foreloved/foreknew the individuals He saves. Spiritually dead people do not choose to love God or choose to obey in order to receive what is a gift of God’s free grace and sovereign will. How can a person see or enter God’s kingdom when spiritually unable in deadness(their will only freely allows them to act in their spiritually dead nature in sin in Adam…they reject and hate what is spiritually discerned and cannot and will not come to the Light in their deadness)? He must enable them first(the Truth sets them free in Christ to choose to act as enabled as a new creation in the Spirit in Christ). He gives a clear picture of this as He quickened Lazarus prior to the command to obey the call of Jesus to come forth(John 11). Just as He quickened/opened the heart of Lydia prior to her attending to the things spoken of by Paul(Acts 16:14).

What value is there in arguing what is spiritually discerned? You aren’t asking of the hope that is in me but rather are trying to disprove what I am showing you in God’s Word…trying to prove teaching of error with verses that do not say what you want them to say because you are leaving out part of the equation in light of other verses in the Bible. Deadly error. Sheep have been given eternal life and thus prove that they are God’s workmanship in their actions. Goats are goats and act accordingly as vessels of wrath because God didn’t choose them to eternal life. The horse must come before the cart with regeneration and obedience. It is error to put the cart first and give man glory due God alone concerning salvation. This is what Catholicism teaches and it is a gospel message not found in the Word of God. Catholcism offers a non-saving demon-type believing faith to receive eternal life rather than a saving faith of God where He gives it freely of His sovereign choice to those that do not and cannot and will not believe in their spiritual deadness.

In humility and with gratitude that drives me to my knees ~ I choose the Word and love Him and what He says because He first loved me and caused and enabled me to even think to respond that way. May we not always disagree concerning the things of God.

]]> by: Tammy http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22529 Tue, 15 May 2007 05:08:20 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22529 Dear Mrs. Burrows, Acts 17:11 does not prove sola Scriptura. Who was in charge in Acts ch 15 at the Council of Jerusalem? the Bible alone or the apostles and elders? The apostles said very clearly that there were some people teaching things who did not have authority to be teaching. And in Acts 16:4, Paul and Timothy didn't deliver Bibles to the people in the different towns, they delivered the decrees that the apostles and elders decided upon. I'm not saying that Scripture isn't important. Whether you believe it or not, Scripture is HIGHLY revered in the Catholic Church. We believe what Paul said, it is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Tim 3:16 But this verse is not saying that only the Bible can be used for doctrine. If this were the case, how did the apostles arrive at the decision that Gentiles weren't required to be circumcised? At the time of the Jerusalem Council, there was NO New Testament. What Old Testament Scripture leads one to believe that circumcision was not necessary? The apostles made a decision at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) that was not based on Scripture and actually could have been viewed as being contrary to the Scriptures that the people had at the time. you said: The traditions Paul spoke of surely involve the gift of faith that the Old Testament saints would have also understood(God working with His elect which results in the believer acting in righteousness ~ again, a person does not obey in order to gain faith. Abraham was granted faith and believed prior to being circumcised… I never said a person had to obey in order to gain faith. I said a person had to obey God's commandments in order to receive eternal life. Yes, Abraham believed (even the demons believe) but he also obeyed. What if he had decided that he didn't want to be circumcised? would that still be ok with God? when have God's commands ever been optional? I'm fairly certain that those Old Testament saints would have understood that 1) the priests had teaching authority. "For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts." Malachi 2:7 and 2)obedience to God's commandments was an absolute necessity. "The LORD is with you when you are with Him And if you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you." 2 Chronicles 15:2 “…if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:17 How can you contradict the very words of Jesus and say obedience to God's commands are not necessary? This saith Mrs. Burrows: God says a person can’t do anything to become His sheep. and where does God say this? In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus said on Judgment Day He will separate the sheep from the goats. It sure looks to me like the sheep are those who actually DO His will and the goats are those who don't. I know the standard response, "but they weren't truly believers." True, those who truly believe OBEY. not because it is easy or automatic but because they choose to obey out of love for their Savior. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned....If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. John 15 Dear Mrs. Burrows,

Acts 17:11 does not prove sola Scriptura. Who was in charge in Acts ch 15 at the Council of Jerusalem? the Bible alone or the apostles and elders?

The apostles said very clearly that there were some people teaching things who did not have authority to be teaching. And in Acts 16:4, Paul and Timothy didn’t deliver Bibles to the people in the different towns, they delivered the decrees that the apostles and elders decided upon.

I’m not saying that Scripture isn’t important. Whether you believe it or not, Scripture is HIGHLY revered in the Catholic Church. We believe what Paul said, it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim 3:16

But this verse is not saying that only the Bible can be used for doctrine. If this were the case, how did the apostles arrive at the decision that Gentiles weren’t required to be circumcised? At the time of the Jerusalem Council, there was NO New Testament. What Old Testament Scripture leads one to believe that circumcision was not necessary? The apostles made a decision at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) that was not based on Scripture and actually could have been viewed as being contrary to the Scriptures that the people had at the time.

you said: The traditions Paul spoke of surely involve the gift of faith that the Old Testament saints would have also understood(God working with His elect which results in the believer acting in righteousness ~ again, a person does not obey in order to gain faith. Abraham was granted faith and believed prior to being circumcised…

I never said a person had to obey in order to gain faith. I said a person had to obey God’s commandments in order to receive eternal life. Yes, Abraham believed (even the demons believe) but he also obeyed. What if he had decided that he didn’t want to be circumcised? would that still be ok with God? when have God’s commands ever been optional?

I’m fairly certain that those Old Testament saints would have understood that 1) the priests had teaching authority. “For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.” Malachi 2:7

and 2)obedience to God’s commandments was an absolute necessity. “The LORD is with you when you are with Him And if you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.” 2 Chronicles 15:2

“…if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:17 How can you contradict the very words of Jesus and say obedience to God’s commands are not necessary?

This saith Mrs. Burrows: God says a person can’t do anything to become His sheep.

and where does God say this?

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus said on Judgment Day He will separate the sheep from the goats. It sure looks to me like the sheep are those who actually DO His will and the goats are those who don’t. I know the standard response, “but they weren’t truly believers.” True, those who truly believe OBEY. not because it is easy or automatic but because they choose to obey out of love for their Savior.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned….If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. John 15

]]> by: John http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22523 Tue, 15 May 2007 04:20:30 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/#comment-22523 Thx Nate, I'd like to know what the early father's meant when they said "Apostolic traditions." If its anything like your article in TMJ about the gift of Tongues and the Early Fathers, I'm sure it will be great. -John Thx Nate,

I’d like to know what the early father’s meant when they said “Apostolic traditions.”

If its anything like your article in TMJ about the gift of Tongues and the Early Fathers, I’m sure it will be great.

-John

]]>