Evidence for God from Science

Just curious, but were to protestants get the idea 'sola Scriptura'(scripture alone)
I mean, if you beleive in scripture alone, yet scripture says nothing about scripture alone, then someone is in error...I'm sorry I if I offended anyone in saying that. It was not intentional.
Just curious
God Bless!
Alanna

Alanna wrote:Just curious, but were to protestants get the idea 'sola Scriptura'(scripture alone)
I mean, if you beleive in scripture alone, yet scripture says nothing about scripture alone, then someone is in error...I'm sorry I if I offended anyone in saying that. It was not intentional.

Scripture is God's Word; isn't it logical that if anyone should disagree with the scripture that he/she is not speaking on behalf of the Lord? It seems ludicrous to me that I would ever accept the words of another person over and above those of the Bible.

Essentially we get it from Christ who considered the OT authoritative, and 2 Timothy 3:16 also provides authority. This is not circular since the Bible is composed of many books by different authors.

The NT books are ones which have Apostolic authority (and Apostles gained their authority from Christ), and which came to be accepted by early Christians. Therefore the NT books are respected as authoritative by Christians (whether Catholic or Protestant). However, many don't realise that the NT is a product of tradition, being a deposit left behind by the Apostles to future Christians. For this reason Scripture also stands outside post-Apostolic tradition, serving as a norm by which future Christian beliefs within traditions are refined, and protecting the essential messages within Christianity from distortion.

Tradition always changes and develops from one generation to the next, and this tradition can corrupt teachings. For example, the RCC had their own reformation after Luther to correct teachings they saw as corrupt. Thus, tradition can't always be trusted to pass on correct teachings. To use an example I remember reading from you, you dislike the new pope possibly endorsing priests that are married? Yet, if the Pope made such a change, being Catholic you would be obliged to accept the new change as correct (even if you believe differently). Such a change would be accepted within the RCC, and therefore the new Pope influences the tradition of the RCC with his own beliefs and experiences of his day and age.

I wrote a paper some time ago that spoke of relationship between Scripture and tradition which I think you might be interested to read.

Kurieuo.

The celibacy of priests is not a doctrine or a dogma so it can be changed. I personelly didn't like the idea of priests getting married because I think that a piest can better serve the people if he does not have to worry about a wife and family.

"From the Documents of Vatican II
"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God's word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ's word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

What is Tradition?


In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13)."
(taken from, Catholic.com http://www.catholic.com/library/Scriptu ... dition.asp)

God Bless!
Alanna

Here's something I find amusing—Protestantism is an outworking of the Catholic tradition.

Kurieuo.

Alanna wrote:I personelly didn't like the idea of priests getting married because I think that a piest can better serve the people if he does not have to worry about a wife and family.

Do you have any Bible references that say that you cannot serve God and the church to the fullest if you have a wife and family? I said it in the other thread -- who has the authority to restrict God like that? God can use anyone, regardless of their situation, for His purposes. You should read Proverbs 18:22 -- "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD."

Also, without a wife, I'd say that most men's ability to serve God and the church is actually lessened. A good Christian wife is the most powerful motivational force in all of creation. When a wife acts within God's will, she is both inspiring and empowering to a degree to which nothing else in God's creation can hope to compare.

Alanna wrote:It is a mistake to limit "Christ's word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

You're right -- it doesn't. The Gospel of John even says that Christ said many things that would have taken up too many books to write down. However, it does support the notion that the Word of God, whether written or spoken, does not contradict itself.

The tradition of a celibate priesthood contradicts the Bible.
The tradition of praying to dead saints for intercession contradicts the Bible.
The tradition of honoring Mary as the mother of the church contradicts the Bible.
Praying for the dead contradicts the Bible.
Purgatory contradicts the Bible.
Priests wearing distinctive robes contradicts the Bible.
Kissing of the Pope's rings and feet contradicts the Bible.
The use of holy water contradicts the Bible.
That majority of the seven sacraments of the RCC contradict the Bible.
The tradition of Lent is actually a pagan tradition stemming from the mother-child cult of the Babylonian empire that was started by King Nimrod's wife.
The image of the Madonna and baby Jesus is the same image that was the symbol of the same pagan cult.
Pope John Paul II actually dismissed the "widespread idea that one can obtain forgiveness directly from God" even though I Jn 1:9 clearly states, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The He in question in that verse is Christ, who is God Himself.

It is important to understand that none of the above traditions were in any way begun by any of the apostles, have no basis in the Bible, and they were only considered Christian tradition after the Emperor of Rome in the 4th century AD declared the ancient mother-child cult of Babylon and Medo-Persia to also be "Christian," creating the RCC. The Roman Catholic Church actually began as an amalgamation of the traditions and doctrines of the Christian church and the ancient mother-child cult, and was backed by the power of the Roman Empire. Many of the traditions that came from the cult still persist within the RCC to this day.

Anyone interested in Rome, the RCC, and Biblical prophecy would do well to read Revelations 17 and 18 and do a little comparison analysis.

Alanna,

Here's something that might interest you. The definitive 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly grounds the authority of Scripture in its divine inspiration:

In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "101 Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:
<blockquote>You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.</blockquote>
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God". "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

It is clear that Scripture is therefore accepted by Catholic and Protestant alike as divine and therefore authoritative. Therefore where Scripture touches on an issue, it serves as the norm by which tradition must be kept aligned. Where tradition may differ to Scripture, Scripture has final say. And this is usually what many mean when they say Sola Scriptura.

Kurieuo.

I completely agree. Scripture is divine, and all that you pointed out. It has divine authority, etc, and I deeply love scripture as well. However, I also think tradition has a place in the Church. In other words, I do not beleive in 'sola scriptura'

What the Catechism says about tradition:

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".

So then, IF you agree that sacred scripture and sacred tradition are bound closely together and communicate with one another, why would protestatants have something against sacred tradition? Its an honest question, I really want to know why protestants beleive in sola scriptura and most of them 'rebuke' tradition.

Little Shepherd, yes I have any Bible references that say that you cannot serve God and the church to the fullest if you have a wife and family.

1 Corinthians 7:32-35, I do beleive.
"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God.
But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided.
And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world: how she may please her husband."

Lets say a priest recieves a midnight call that someone is sick and wants him, and that the priest has a very sick wife and child at home that he is trying to take care of. If he were unmarried, he would not have to chose between the two. However, I agree that a married priest and anyother person for that matter, would be able to serve both the church and family.

God Bless!
Alanna

Alanna wrote:So then, IF you agree that sacred scripture and sacred tradition are bound closely together and communicate with one another, why would protestatants have something against sacred tradition? Its an honest question, I really want to know why protestants beleive in sola scriptura and most of them 'rebuke' tradition.

I think that most Christians rebuke those traditions that find no biblical support. Tradition is fine (some will argue that but most wont') but only where it has a foundation in the Bible, because that is really the only thing that we can trust as divinly inspired. Otherwise, one disguised leader doing Satan's bidding can corrupt an entire religion.

So the problem with the RCC is traditions that have no biblical basis. Some traditions do have biblical basis and they are fine: baptism, communion, etc. Even where the bible doesn't speak to an issue (like the way a leader dresses) then we have the authority to act as called by God or by tradition - but only to the extent that our behaviour is synergous with the larger and broader teachings of the Bible.

Note that Anglicans are deep in tradition too, and most people have a lot fewer problems with them as a whole (gay priest controversy notwithstanding).

Protestants don't believe in "Sola Scriptura". Protestans believe in "Sola our interpretation and you'll burn if you don't agree Scriptura" At least that's the idea I get from most of them. Then again, Catholics have Mel Gibson to make up for it.

Alanna wrote:So then, IF you agree that sacred scripture and sacred tradition are bound closely together and communicate with one another, why would protestatants have something against sacred tradition?

I don't believe they're as closely bound as you make them out to be, although all traditions you ascribe to should be firmly grounded in scripture and should never contradict it. However, many of the traditions of the RCC outright contradict scripture -- and both can't be right.

Alanna wrote:1 Corinthians 7:32-35, I do beleive.

Then look at verse 36. "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry."

It doesn't say "He'll lose any leadership position," or anything of the sort. My problem isn't that some people choose to be celibate and focus wholly on the Lord. My problem is that it's mandated by an organization that has no right to do so, and contradicts the guidelines already laid out in Scripture for church leadership.

Alanna wrote:Lets say a priest recieves a midnight call that someone is sick and wants him, and that the priest has a very sick wife and child at home that he is trying to take care of. If he were unmarried, he would not have to chose between the two.

This is the reason churches have delegation. When the widows of the church weren't having their needs met, the apostles didn't stop preaching and go attend to them -- they had the church elect deacons! They delegated.

Also, if God calls you to do something, He will always provide a way for you to do it. Your situation is not greater than the power of God. If it's God's will for you to visit the sick person, then he'll provide some way for you to also take care of your sick wife and child. He never gives us more than we, with His help(very important), cannot deal with.

Maybe we should take this back to the 'Cathlolic Priest' discussion

Kurieuo wrote:
Tradition always changes and develops from one generation to the next, and this tradition can corrupt teachings.

Kurieuo.

Only ecclesial traditions are changeable/removeable.

And yes, the church had problems during the reformation. And very immoral popes. For example-Alexander VI, whos one main goal was to make himself and his family popular. He was greedy, and had illegitimate children, which he didn't even try to hide. And after Julius II, Leo X was elected as pope. And he was known as a materialistic pope. More interested in artt than spiritual matters. I could go on for a while, but I think it's very well known the church had some dark ages during the time of the reformation, and many other times before and after. But God is faithful and keeps his promises.

However, I do have another question. Do you really beleive, as luther did, that God overlooks our sins and that it is not necessary to ask forgiveness? Doesn't grace make us NEW? Not God overlooks ones sins, but rather, after asking forgiveness, the sins are gone? That is what I beleive. I most definitly do not beleive God overlooks ones sins, but isn't that what luther beleived? Please, correct me if I'm wwrong about luther's beleif on this.
(btw, an interesting fact...I do beleive even Luther beleived iin the immaculate conception)

God Bless!
Alanna

Alanna wrote:Do you really beleive, as luther did, that God overlooks our sins and that it is not necessary to ask forgiveness? Doesn't grace make us NEW? Not God overlooks ones sins, but rather, after asking forgiveness, the sins are gone? That is what I beleive. I most definitly do not beleive God overlooks ones sins, but isn't that what luther beleived?

It's not that God overlooks ones sins, but that repenting and asking forgiveness is effective for future sin also. Once God has conferred His grace, your sins are forgiven.

Otherwise, what would happen if you just forgot about a sin and forgot to ask forgiveness? What if you don't even realize that you're sinning and never ask forgiveness? What if you sin when you're walking down the street and then 15 seconds later you get hit by a bus?

It makes no sense that you'll be condemned in these types of situations.

Luther believed in asking for forgiveness, and that God doesn't overlook sin. And that salvation was through grace by faith alone, and not by works -- the most blatant example of works in his time was the selling of indulgences.

God doesn't overlook sin. Either you take your own punishment, or Christ takes it for you. The RCC in the day taught that Christ didn't have to do this, and that you could receive salvation through the buying of trinkets. Now I'm all for supporting the church, but this is a despicable practice. It has since been abolished by the RCC as well.

As for the immaculate conception -- it depends which immaculate conception you're talking about. The virgin birth of Jesus that all Christians accept? Or the lesser-known doctrine of the Catholic church that states that Mary herself was the product of an immaculate conception?

If you're speaking of the former...well, yes. Of course Luther believed in it. I don't know of any Christians who don't. One can't claim to believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and then disregard something as important as that.

If you're speaking of the latter...I don't know Luther's stance on this. I know there is no Biblical basis for this belief, and I strongly suspect this doctrine is rooted in the RCC's Babylonian mother-child cult heritage, much like Lent.