Question for Catholics

Let me add more concerning what some early christians taught concerning tradition and scripture.

The crafitiness of the papacy and others is pretty good. But the devil wouldn't be tricky and deceptive if his words were not sly. What is expected of the hearer to believe by the words of the ECFs is that there exists an oral Tradition, as equally authortitative to that of Scripture, where is found Divine revelation that is not found in the Scripture. It is expected that one believe such papal dogmas as papal primacy, the mass, purgatory, et. as taught by the Roman Catholic church today, were also taught by the Apostles themselves in oral form which we dont have written down.

I prefer to stick to important subjects such as the very faith of Christians. Consider the words from Cyril of Jerusalem as he instructs some new believers:

What I notice in this man's exhortation is a contant appeal to the Scriptures, even regarding his own teaching to them. He is not making some appeal to an equally authoritative Tradition as the papists do, for his current doctrine concerning the faith of Christ.

And what does one make of Basil the Great's comment?

Are these comments in contradiction to other ECFs? Or is this teaching helping define what is written in other places?

Consider this quote from a well-respected Roman Catholic:

That is an amazing statement to me because it is, essentially, an statement of Sola Scriptura concerning the Old Testament!

What we and many others throughout the century are saying, is that way in which Mr. Congar took the OT, so should the NT be taken. Was there an oral tradiion? Yes, of course. Do we have everything that both Jesus and His Apostles taught orally? No. Is God's promise to His people to preserve an infallible Authoritative Oral Tradition? No.

Just as God preserved the oral tradition (teaching) of the prophets in the OT Scriptures, so He has preserved the oral teaching (tradition) of the Apostles in the New.

 

Your preference is meaningless when the majority of the translations quote the word otherwise. It is meaningless when the context of the word shows that Paul is not giving opinion but commands. We are commanded to take the Lord's Supper. It is an ordinance of the Church, not a mere tradition. Proper Bible Study puts words in their context in order to find out the meaning. The meaning is ordinance (as the Lord's Supper is), and not tradition.

 

The RCC, by means of the magesterium has its own private interpretation.
The SDA by means of Ellen White has its own private interpretation.
The J.W.'s by means of Russel Smith has its own private interpretation.
Jim Jones had his own private interpretation, and look at the outcome.

That is what the meaning of the verse is. A private interpretation is an interpretation that is imposed on a group of people, such as a denomination does.

The Bible forbids that as it has commands that are very personal; for individuals:
Study to show yourselves approved unto God...
--This is for everybody, not written to a denomination.

Search the Scriptures---for everyone to do, not for a denomination to enforce upon the people.

We have many such Scriptures that tell us to: hear, read, study, memorize, and meditate on the Scriptures. The Church or denomination is not to impose their private interpretation (as the RCC or Jim Jones) does (and did) upon the people, but the people are to study for themselves. That is what the Bible commands us to do.

 

DHK made a very proper application of that verse. Also go back and actually read it in context:

Observe and take your doctrine straight from the text itself:

1. The Apostles announce they had heard the audible voice of God the Father.

2. They declare they have a more sure word of prophecy than that..the Scriptures.

3. The prophecy of Scripture is not of private interpretation...

4. It did not come to whom it came by the will of man, but holy men were moved (carried along) by the Holy Spirit.

This text is an infalilble Apostolic declaration on the pefection of Holy Scripture as being without mixture of the private interpretation of the men to whom the Word fo God was sent.

I have to add more, because looking at this text has stirred up my zeal and love for the Scriptures.

This passage ought to bring great hope, peace, and joy to the believer. It is an absolute statement of truth that gives every believer every concievable confidence that in no way, shape, or form did any personal ideas or interpretations of God's unadulterated Word make its way into Holy Writ.

When you read the Scriptures of both Old and New Testments, we are exhorted by such great and awersome words that the Scriptures we have are the very speaking of God Himself. This not only should cause us to rejoice, but also to tremble and to take heed in how we hear.

Praise God! I find it remarkably ironic that Roman Catholics who would seek to enslave my conscience to their system would seek to use a passage of Scirpture such as that which actually points me to the only sure objective place for unadulterated and un-interpreted Word of God, Scripture!!

 

AMEN!

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

I wish I had more thumbs!

 

If you will read the following verse, you will have a better understanding of what verse 20 means.


20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21For 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.


The word "interpretation" throws people off, I think. What Peter is saying is that prophecy and the scriptures did not come from man's will or man's mind, they came from God. Therefore, we have absolute assurance of their truth. Peter is in no way talking about humans who interpret the already written scriptures.

 

Amen! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

more thumbs.

 

Making stuff up at that point - is not helping your argument as much as you may have at first imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

 

To that point in the answer - I must agree that Agnus-Dei has done very well in answering the question in the OP.

After seeing the Purgatory thread, and knowing the many other areas I differ with Catholic doctrine - I had thought that I would be coming here to object to some doctrinal position of Catholics.

but in fact I find Agnus-Dei's statements to be very well stated. And in the 5 or 6 pages that followed - I find the Catholic response to be the more Biblical model.

The fact that some catholic doctrinal errors "exist" does not mean that Catholic views on everything are automatically wrong. Each point must be tested "sola scriptura".

Then let the chips fall where they may.

in Christ,

bob

 

Agreed. Thus the sola scriptura response the Catholic-ish (I am not sure that anyone here is "actually" a Roman Catholic) posters are giving - is correct.

in Christ,

Bob