Bible Alone!?!

[cataracts]

One of the major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is how they relate the Bible to their beliefs. Catholics consider the Bible to be 1/2 of the Revelation of God with the other half being Tradition. Both of these make up the whole of God's Revelation to man.
Protestants believe that Sola Scriptura or Bible alone is the source and rule of the Christian Faith. They claim that the Tradition of the Catholic Church is corrupted by the arbitrary traditions of men. They further claim that Scripture is superior to and judges all Tradition. They claim that Scripture is sufficient in and of itself to explaim Christianity and for the attainment of salvation.

Protestants ane not necessarily against Church history or Tradition, it's just that they feel that Scripture has authority over these. Unfortunately this idea of theirs has not given uniformity of belief among the Protestant religions.

Catholics define Tradition as the handing on of beliefs and practices by written as well as oral means. The Bible itself is considered a part of Catholic Tradition. Catholicism claims that its Tradition is neither more nor less than the preserved teaching of Christ as revealed to the Apostles. Catholicism claims that they are the custodian of the original deposit of Faith.

Scripture should lead the novice to the Tradition and the Church rather than a disdain for Tradition. It is truly unwise for any Christian to disregard what God has taught millions of people throughout the centuries.

I am inviting any Protestant to this conversation and will gladly give them a chance to explain Bible Alone. I, for my part, am Catholic and will defend the Catholic's belief on Tradition and the Bible. I invite you all to a peaceful, educational, and Christian experience.

Cataracts

[cataracts]

I was truly hoping for more brave souls to challenge me on this very important topic. The answer to this debate will actually do more for ecuminism than anything I can think of.
C.

[jfree]

We've really already gone there in other threads Cat. God made the word flesh in Jesus and his teachings are recorded by the Apostles in the bible, also a verse on false prophets being numerous and not one verse backing up the added traditions of Catholicism, including the pagan title and role of pope being added to it, so many of the Catholic practices stem from pagan rome is there any question of why people would doubt it considering this? Then we have the Apocrypha, called so by Catholics and even Popes of early times, then it is added during the protestant revolt to justify so much, it's little wonder why people object to the RCC, whats more puzzling is given these facts why so many still believe in a church instead of God.

[cataracts]

Hi jfree,
I had a hunch that you would answer my post. I'm glad to hear from you.
However, to the point, Catholicism teaches that the Revelations of God are in the Bible and in Tradition while our brothers the Protestants believe that everything is in the Bible 'only'.
1) I can prove, by using Scripture, that all of the teachings of Jesus are not in the Bible.
2) It is the very Traditions of Catholicism that are the true Traditions mentioned in the Bible.

I don't know what Catholic practices stem from pagan Rome. Whatever they are they cannot be proved to be that. If there are any that you know of they must be inventions of some opinionated Protestants.

The word Apocrypha has definately a Protestant meaning, however I have never heard it used by Catholic theologians. I believe it has something to do with books of the Bible that were taken out of the original Bible. The original Bible being put together by Roman Catholics around the year 397 AD.


For starters jfree, the New Testament presents clear-cut testimony to the effect that Scripture does not contain the whole of Christ's teachings. Protestants generally believe, as you have, that any of Christ's teachings not recorded in Scripture couldn't possibly be faithfully transmitted orally by primitive apostolic Tradition. Who could make the claim that the Apostles remembered, and communicated to others, absolutely nothing except what we have in the four Gospels.

It appears that whenever the Catholic argues that the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of the Christian Faith, he is accused of disrespecting God's Word. This is one of the many unfortunate Protestant false divisions that must be dispelled. It is unquestionably untrue.

Please note the Scripural evidence:
1) Mark 4:33: "With many such parables he spoke the word to them......."
In other words, by implication, many parables are not recorded in Scripture.

2) Mark 6:34: "He began to teach them many things."
None of these things are recorded here.

3) John 16:12: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now".
Perhaps these 'many things' were spoken during His post Ressurection appearances. Very few of these teachings are recorded, and those that are contain only minimal detail.

4) John 20:30: "Now, Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book".

5) John 21:25: "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Everyone of the above points show that the Bible does not contain everything that Jesus taught.

Next I will go over how Scripture insists that we follow Tradition. Certainly not once but many times.
Jfree, I know that this subject has been gone over many times in the past, but those whose responsibility to show the truth of Catholic teachings didn't do a complete job. I will do a thorough job and I will prove it by using the Bible.
Looking forward to your responses.

Cataracts

[cataracts]

Let's take Tradition. The New Testament speaks of 'good' and 'bad' tradition. If there is good Tradition, then it must be understood and believed. The bad tradition is there as a warning to us. But in no case does Scripture tell us to ignore Tradition.

Examples:
1) 1 Corinthians 11:2: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."
This would be considered a good tradition.

2) Colossians 2:8: "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."
This would be a negative form of tradition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tradition may be defined as something handed on or passed down from one person to another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

4) 2 Thessalonians 3:6: "Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tradition in the Bible may be either written or oral. It implies that the writer, St. Paul, is not expressing his own viewpoints, but is delivering a message received from someone else. The importance of tradition rests in its content.
1Corinthians 11:23: " For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread."

Jree, as you can well see for yourself tradition is all over Scripture. It cannot be ignored. Everything was simply not written down.

Cataracts

[cataracts]

I certainly don't want to offend any Protestants on this forum, however, if there is a person looking for the truth, please tune in to this post. Nothing I say can hurt you. If you find that you are incorrect in what you believe Scripture to indicate, the truth will set you free. Again, I welcome all Protestants, and for that matter, any other religion including Catholics to this post.
C.

[cataracts]

There are three concepts in the Bible that are so close in meaning that they are essentially synonymous. These concepts or terms are:

Tradition
Gospel
Word of God

All of them are predominately oral and all of them are referred to as being delivered or received.

1 Corinthians 11:2: "Maintain the traditions....even as I have delivered them to you".

2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Hold to the traditions taught....by word of mouth or by letter".

2 Thessalonians 3:6: "......the tradition that you received from us."

Now for the term Gospel.

1 Corinthians 15:1: "....the Gospel which you received".

1 Thessalonians 2:9: " We preached to you the gospel of God".

1 Galations 1:9: "....the gospel...which you received".

Now for the term "Word of God"

Acts 8:14: "Samaria had received the word of God."

1 Thessalonians 2:13: "You received the word of God, which you heard from us..."

2 Peter 2:21: "....the holy commandment delivered to them."

Jude 3: "...the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."

Clearly then, tradition is not a dirty word in the Bible, particularily for St. Paul. In his two letters to the Thessalonians alone, we see that three of the above terms are used interchangeably.
If the Protestants want to continue with their belief that 'tradition' is a dirty word then 'gospel' and 'Word of God' are also bad words.
What this short proof explains is that the commonly asserted dichotomy between the gospel and Tradition, or between Bible and Tradition must be unbiblical. This dichotomy must therefore be discarded by the truly biblical person as a corrupt tradition of men.

Everything written so far is very simple to understand and clearly found in the Bible. I encourage all of our Protestant brothers to look into them and find the truth.

Cataracts

[jfree]

What pagan practices? Okay if you really want it...

Pontifus Maximus-the leader of Pagan Rome, title given to Ceasar and other high leaders, depending on time period, ie Republic vs Empire

Christmas and Easter- Pagan holidays long practiced in Pagan Rome before Jesus' birth

There are many more, but really is it necessary after the first one?

No Catholic ever used the term Apocrypha? Okay, whatever, you all consider Jerome a Catholic don't you? He is the man credited w/the term, and w/authoring the Glossa Ordinaria which stated these books were not biblical backed by Pope Gregory the Great who said exactly the same, but believe whatever you wish...

[FightingFalcon]

I don't know what Catholic practices stem from pagan Rome. Whatever they are they cannot be proved to be that. If there are any that you know of they must be inventions of some opinionated Protestants.

LOL....quite possibly the best statement ever from Cataracts. Despite the fact that the high priest of pagan Rome was called the Pontifex Maximus (literally, greatest priest), as Jfree also pointed out.

The Catholic Church (and Christianity in general) is steeped in pagan ritual. Even most believers will acknowledge this but why am I not surprised that you won't, Cataracts?

[peterd]

Sorry for getting involved in this discussion. The title of this post was interesting. I may go little bit different direction. I personally consider Bible as a guidline. If you are true Christian than you have to focus on your personal life. It is easy to criticize a person for different believe, however before you do that, look at yourself first. Each Christian religion does things differently. If they follow the guidline from the bible, than it does not matter if you are Catholic, Protestant, etc. The clear focus is the bible. At the end of our lives, we will find out who is going up and who is going down. If Jesus is your focus, than there is nothing to worry about.