Just a question and inquiry to you geekborj, how sure you are that the practices and the sacred traditions that you are referring are the “real and original apostolic tradition”.

Second question, how do you measure whether or not RCC tradition is inclined with the “original apostolic tradition”???

These questions puzzles me a lot since you are holding on steadfastly that Sola Scriptura is “NOT” an apostolic idea. And furthermore, you haven’t presented a good argument that proves that “Sola Scriptura” is a wrong practice. The article does not convinced you as you have said, but you haven’t convinced me either not to practice Sola Scriptura. Don’t leave me hanging in limbo bro.:) Blessings!!!

I would say thanks to the Councils who worked hard for the identification of what is authoritative scripture and which are not. And that I value the most. Now tell me, do you value their work? Because it seems like you are even questioning the credibility of their work.

Concerning Sola Scriptura as a doctrine. Again, as I have said, Sola Scriptura is what we only call to the practice of following the Bible as the guide for our spiritual lives. And again, as I have said, you will not see “SOLA SCRIPTURA” in the Bible, this is what the article is telling you. Now, isn’t it Trinity not in the Bible? Why do you practice it then? Is there a word “Holy Trinity” in the Bible? You will never find it in the Bible Geekborj, because that’s what you only call to the essence of God in three persona, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

This is the same thing as “Sola Scriptura”. You cannot see that word in the Bible. But the essence of telling us to meditate the Scriptures day and night is there. If you only want the OT, then read Deuteronomy 5 and 6, and practice what is being said there so that you can significantly transfer the “apostolic” practices to which I doubt you are practicing.

Yes, you are correct in quoting the Jewish culture. But isn’t Jesus a Jew??? Isn’t the apostles a Jew? Isn’t apostle Paul a pharisee himself??? Maybe you should wonder why Islam has that kind of dress… because they are following the ways the quoran and their tradition is telling and is being applied to all Muslim world wide. Now that is what you call keeping the tradition.

Well, thank you for giving more notes about what you are pertaining to be the “Sacred Tradition”.
“The arguments above missed the argument against Sacred Traditions such as the Sacraments, Laws and Beatitudes, Lord’s Prayer, and Sacred Scriptures.”

I believe we could not debate whether or not we practice this “sacred traditions”, because Protestants also do this. Except to what you meant by “sacraments” and the “Lord’s Prayer” (which of course would be another topic). Furthermore, these are Biblical practices. What only the protestant did is to practice what was said in the Bible and not the “traditions” that has been modified and evolved through ages to which we believe have been perverted and has gone beyond and directly contradicts to what the Bible says.

Example (Just an Example) Baptism. I believe this is one of your sacraments. And this is definitely one of your practices which is also a practice of a protestant. Where would “Sola Scriptura” enters?

In your baptism, you baptized infants through sprinkling. Is this practice Biblical and following the “sacred tradition”????

No way in the Bible that you will see baptism of the infants. Jesus Christ himself was baptized 30 years old. People in his time and in the apostles time where baptized old enough to understand the apostles and Jesus’ teachings. Furthermore, baptism is from the greek word “baptizo” which means “emmersed”.
People were baptized because they believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and not to wash “Original Sin” to which RCC teaches.

And this practice, is what the protestants are doing. Baptizing those people who accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, immersing them on water, baptizing people who understand God’s word. And all those are both Biblical and “sacred tradition/practice”. Now tell me, which do you think follows the sacred tradition? Was it the Protestant or the RCC?

(You don’t have to answer the example above. It will be another topic. I am just demonstrating you how “Sola Scriptura” works in the practice of Protestants.)

As far as your argument is concern, I am only seeing a legalistic argument of whether or not “Sola Scriptura” an apostolic practice.

75-79,
83,
96, 98

Apostolic Tradition is the transmission of the message of Christ, brought about from the very beginnings of Christianity by means of preaching, bearing witness, institutions, worship, and inspired writings. The apostles transmitted all they received from Christ and learned from the Holy Spirit to their successors, the bishops, and through them to all generations until the end of the world.

13. In what ways does Apostolic Tradition occur?

76

Apostolic Tradition occurs in two ways: through the living transmission of the word of God (also simply called Tradition) and through Sacred Scripture which is the same proclamation of salvation in written form.

The word “Tradition” came from the Latin word “traditio” which means “to pass on.” Wikipedia entry on “Tradition” writes: “The word tradition comes from the Latin traditionem, acc. of traditio which means “handing over, passing on”" which is broadly defined in English translations.
.-= geekborj´s last blog ..Sola Scriptura is not an Apostolic idea =-.

Ans. I am not really sure if you understand the word “apostolic”. When you say apostolic, it came from the apostles. The teachings in the NT is apostolic because it came directly from the apostles of Jesus Christ and apostle Paul, so as to their contemporary servants of Christ such as James. Meaning, first hand information, as to evidence, they were the direct witnesses. NT is their testimony about Christ and teachings.

Response: While you have (re)defined the term “apostolic,” this did not answer the question whether Sola Scriptura is apostolic as per your definition above. Based on your definition however, do you mean those who gathered on the first 7 General Council of the (then united) Church, are not apostolic? Further, what is your take on the scholar’s research that the authorship (names such as “1 Peter,” “Mark” etc) are just attributed since they reflects their teachings not necessarily first hand?

“2 Timothy 3:15-17 tells that the Scripture (which does not include 2 Tim, therefore I would say that it is the OT in this context) is: (a) inspired by God, and that (b) it can be used to produce a perfect man of God doing good works. This does not support Sola Scriptura but that Scriptures can be used to produce good works.

… Let us say then that it refers to the OT, this still have the same question that you did not refute; where is the tradition in the passage? Or at least you will see that the Scriptures encourage us to follow the “Traditions” that you believe? You are not answering the question geekborj.

Response:
Does the passage say anything about ONLY the scriptures? It only defends the inspiration of the Scriptures. I do not say about any traditions within the Scriptures. I’m following the argument for the Sola Scriptura. Isn’t Paul exhorting Timothy not a Tradition? Isn’t it that Tradition gave St. Paul the authority over Timothy, Titus, and the particular churches that he founded?

I wrote: “Therefore, the Scripture is not the only one needed by every Christian! We also need faith and truth. Holding ground can also indicate to “hold on” to the apostolic faith.”

You answered: The teaching here is spiritual battle. As you have quoted previously the book of James, “faith without action is dead”. This just mean that if we claim to have faith (which all of us do), yet without action, which means we do not apply what it teaches, then it is completely useless and the faith that we claim is in question. You have closed this part in another assumption, holding on to the apostolic faith. Ok, let us say that it is “apostolic faith” can you described the apostolic faith? What they believe, what they do. And try it to compare with the “faith” that you have right now, with the tradition that you are saying to be “authoritative”?

Response:
My argument still stands. Let us first concentrate on my question and avoid derailing the topic.

Isn’t sola scriptura a very recent doctrine not known to the apostles?

You wrote: “I haven’t seen that the Bible says, “sola scriptura”. However, you can find lots of passages against “Tradition” and you can see lots of passages in the Bible that tells us to read and study the word of the Lord.”

Response: There is a lot of difference between the “traditions” and “Tradition.”

You wrote:
Now, this is a challenge to you then, since you do not believe in it, then prove to me that the “Traditions” that you are doing in RCC are Biblical, are indeed following the “Traditions” and the ways of the apostles and of Jesus Christ.

Since you are so skeptics on Protestant practice and continue to claim that what we do are not Biblical, then prove to me that RC ways are Biblical and are at least following the “apostolic tradition/teachings.”

You can start with topics you like. Here are the topics that you may choose if you want, “Praying of the Rosary”, “Infant Baptism”, “Immaculate Conception”, “Assumption of Mary” etc…

Again, make sure that the passage you quote are “REALLY” referring to your practices and is indeed “FOLLOWING”, what the apostles are doing.

If you are then not convinced with the passages above about the Scriptures, then let us test your tradition if it is Biblical.

Response:
Let us just concentrate on the Sola Scriptura. Let us not derail the topic into an offensive move (on Catholic “doctrines” which are rather practices, except for Immaculate conception and assumption of Mary). You are here to defend the Sola Scriptura; I’m not here to defend the Catholic Church’s Faith.

I still do not see the Bible speaking about Sola Scriptura but rather against “traditions” which clearly are Jewish traditions arising from Mosaic laws (e.g. washing of hands to be “clean”, marriage to the widow of brother, etc) which are clearly allowed by God because of their hardness of heart. The arguments above missed the argument against Sacred Traditions such as the Sacraments, Laws and Beatitudes, Lord’s Prayer, and Sacred Scriptures.
.-= geekborj´s last blog ..Sola Scriptura is not an Apostolic idea =-.

Ans. I am not really sure if you understand the word “apostolic”. When you say apostolic, it came from the apostles. The teachings in the NT is apostolic because it came directly from the apostles of Jesus Christ and apostle Paul, so as to their contemporary servants of Christ such as James. Meaning, first hand information, as to evidence, they were the direct witnesses. NT is their testimony about Christ and teachings.

Response: While you have (re)defined the term “apostolic,” this did not answer the question whether Sola Scriptura is apostolic as per your definition above. Based on your definition however, do you mean those who gathered on the first 7 General Council of the (then united) Church, are not apostolic? Further, what is your take on the scholar’s research that the authorship (names such as “1 Peter,” “Mark” etc) are just attributed since they reflects their teachings not necessarily first hand?

“2 Timothy 3:15-17 tells that the Scripture (which does not include 2 Tim, therefore I would say that it is the OT in this context) is: (a) inspired by God, and that (b) it can be used to produce a perfect man of God doing good works. This does not support Sola Scriptura but that Scriptures can be used to produce good works.

… Let us say then that it refers to the OT, this still have the same question that you did not refute; where is the tradition in the passage? Or at least you will see that the Scriptures encourage us to follow the “Traditions” that you believe? You are not answering the question geekborj.

Response:
Does the passage say anything about ONLY the scriptures? It only defends the inspiration of the Scriptures. I do not say about any traditions within the Scriptures. I’m following the argument for the Sola Scriptura. Isn’t Paul exhorting Timothy not a Tradition? Isn’t it that Tradition gave St. Paul the authority over Timothy, Titus, and the particular churches that he founded?

I wrote: “Therefore, the Scripture is not the only one needed by every Christian! We also need faith and truth. Holding ground can also indicate to “hold on” to the apostolic faith.”

You answered: The teaching here is spiritual battle. As you have quoted previously the book of James, “faith without action is dead”. This just mean that if we claim to have faith (which all of us do), yet without action, which means we do not apply what it teaches, then it is completely useless and the faith that we claim is in question. You have closed this part in another assumption, holding on to the apostolic faith. Ok, let us say that it is “apostolic faith” can you described the apostolic faith? What they believe, what they do. And try it to compare with the “faith” that you have right now, with the tradition that you are saying to be “authoritative”?

Response:
My argument still stands. Let us first concentrate on my question and avoid derailing the topic.

Isn’t sola scriptura a very recent doctrine not known to the apostles?

You wrote: “I haven’t seen that the Bible says, “sola scriptura”. However, you can find lots of passages against “Tradition” and you can see lots of passages in the Bible that tells us to read and study the word of the Lord.”

Response: There is a lot of difference between the “traditions” and “Tradition.”

You wrote:
Now, this is a challenge to you then, since you do not believe in it, then prove to me that the “Traditions” that you are doing in RCC are Biblical, are indeed following the “Traditions” and the ways of the apostles and of Jesus Christ.

Since you are so skeptics on Protestant practice and continue to claim that what we do are not Biblical, then prove to me that RC ways are Biblical and are at least following the “apostolic tradition/teachings.”

You can start with topics you like. Here are the topics that you may choose if you want, “Praying of the Rosary”, “Infant Baptism”, “Immaculate Conception”, “Assumption of Mary” etc…

Again, make sure that the passage you quote are “REALLY” referring to your practices and is indeed “FOLLOWING”, what the apostles are doing.

If you are then not convinced with the passages above about the Scriptures, then let us test your tradition if it is Biblical.

Response:
Let us just concentrate on the Sola Scriptura. Let us not derail the topic into an offensive move (on Catholic “doctrines” which are rather practices, except for Immaculate conception and assumption of Mary). You are here to defend the Sola Scriptura; I’m not here to defend the Catholic Church’s Faith.

I still do not see the Bible speaking about Sola Scriptura but rather against “traditions” which clearly are Jewish traditions arising from Mosaic laws (e.g. washing of hands to be “clean”, marriage to the widow of brother, etc) which are clearly allowed by God because of their hardness of heart. The arguments above missed the argument against Sacred Traditions such as the Sacraments, Laws and Beatitudes, Lord’s Prayer, and Sacred Scriptures.
.-= geekborj´s last blog ..Sola Scriptura is not an Apostolic idea =-.

Ans. I am not really sure if you understand the word “apostolic”. When you say apostolic, it came from the apostles. The teachings in the NT is apostolic because it came directly from the apostles of Jesus Christ and apostle Paul, so as to their contemporary servants of Christ such as James. Meaning, first hand information, as to evidence, they were the direct witnesses. NT is their testimony about Christ and teachings.

“2 Timothy 3:15-17 tells that the Scripture (which does not include 2 Tim, therefore I would say that it is the OT in this context) is: (a) inspired by God, and that (b) it can be used to produce a perfect man of God doing good works. This does not support Sola Scriptura but that Scriptures can be used to produce good works.

Ans. You are indeed right again in your “exegesis”. Yes that’s true, it does not include 2 Timothy. And indeed you are right in saying that Scriptures can be used to produce good works. However, your exegesis is “incomplete” again, you are reading the passage as it is without seeing deeper things in it. You are there just to prove that “Sola Scriptura” is NOT authoritative. Let us say then that it refers to the OT, this still have the same question that you did not refute; where is the tradition in the passage? Or at least you will see that the Scriptures encourage us to follow the “Traditions” that you believe? You are not answering the question geekborj.

“Therefore, the Scripture is not the only one needed by every Christian! We also need faith and truth. Holding ground can also indicate to “hold on” to the apostolic faith.”

Ans. The teaching here is spiritual battle. As you have quoted previously the book of James, “faith without action is dead”. This just mean that if we claim to have faith (which all of us do), yet without action, which means we do not apply what it teaches, then it is completely useless and the faith that we claim is in question. You have closed this part in another assumption, holding on to the apostolic faith. Ok, let us say that it is “apostolic faith” can you described the apostolic faith? What they believe, what they do. And try it to compare with the “faith” that you have right now, with the tradition that you are saying to be “authoritative”?

As I have said in this article at the very beginning:

“I haven’t seen that the Bible says, “sola scriptura”. However, you can find lots of passages against “Tradition” and you can see lots of passages in the Bible that tells us to read and study the word of the Lord.”

Now, this is a challenge to you then, since you do not believe in it, then prove to me that the “Traditions” that you are doing in RCC are Biblical, are indeed following the “Traditions” and the ways of the apostles and of Jesus Christ.

Since you are so skeptics on Protestant practice and continue to claim that what we do are not Biblical, then prove to me that RC ways are Biblical and are at least following the “apostolic tradition/teachings.”

You can start with topics you like. Here are the topics that you may choose if you want, “Praying of the Rosary”, “Infant Baptism”, “Immaculate Conception”, “Assumption of Mary” etc…

Again, make sure that the passage you quote are “REALLY” referring to your practices and is indeed “FOLLOWING”, what the apostles are doing.

If you are then not convinced with the passages above about the Scriptures, then let us test your tradition if it is Biblical.

The verses against traditions are basically against the traditions but not against the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. Note that the Sacred Tradition includes the Catholic Faith, Sacraments, Prayers, and the Sacred Scriptures (OT, 4 Gospels, Epistles, and the Acts).

I agree that the Sacred Scriptures is one good source of Christian doctrine, i still argue that it is not the best because there is always a problem of translation which is not part of the Sola Scriptura essence.

I still do not find this article convincing when it comes to defending the idea that “the Bible should be the sole/only source for doctrines.” Even Lk 24:27 states that sticking to the Scriptures alone does not reveal everything about what is being said in the Scriptures.

Since not everyone can read, it is not by reading but from hearing: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17)
.-= geekborj´s last blog ..The Ark of the Covenant =-.