RELIGION

[mannyamador]

---

If so, then please name me the Church that Christ founded? It is thoroughly absurd to assume that the Church that Christ Himself founded should be lost, because He explicitly said it could not be ("the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it"). So if that Church exists, then why can you not name a single Church that can trace its lineage to it?

Israel of God. - Gal. 6: 16

Nonexistent. Israel of God is not a church and it hasn't been in existence since the time of Christ.

You're imagining things. Try again.

[mannyamador]

And as written in many places in the letters of Paul to the Romans or Hebrews the sacrifice of sin is already complete and there is no further question of that.

That's a convenient personal interpretation that is thoroughly contradicted by James 2:14-26. The sacrifice of Christ is sufficient to allow us to be saved, but we must accept it and live in accordance to it. Refusal to do so results in loss of salvation. As the Bible itself says, faith alone in Christ's sacrifice (or whatever) is insufficient:

James 2:14-26

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does
not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear
and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep
warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what
good is it?

So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say,
"You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works,
and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one.
You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.

Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not
Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the
works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was
credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."

See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way,
was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers
and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead,
so also faith without works is dead

[mannyamador]

Scripture and Tradition
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scri..._Tradition.asp

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "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."

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).

Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

Â*
Newman’s argument

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

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).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "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.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–, as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

Â*
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).

Â*
Handing on the faith

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "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" (Col. 2:8 ). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

Â*
"Commandments of men"

Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

Â*
The indefectible Church

The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:1 and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

[mannyamador]

You see, anti-Catholics like Obese Bo Ricardo, a.k.a. MrBiddle, throw up bold statements like
"As with any verse in the Bible, to fully understand it, we must look at it in its biblical context."
[sic], but flunk when measured by the standard they put up. Confronted with contradictory
passages like this-- that is contradictory to the doctrine they are trying to smuggle into the
text --they usually clash it with their most cherished proof texts or ignore it outrightly (perhaps
wishing that line was never written).

Quite true. This is a common contradiction that I encounter very frequently when dealing with such people. But this is something that can be pointed out quite quickly too, as you have done. Touche'!

[MrBiddle]

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).

Traditions as taught by them the apostles and the NT writers, traditions that don't contradict the Scriptures. NOT the ones taught by the apostates who were supposedly prominent theologians.

James 2:14-26

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does
not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear
and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep
warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what
good is it?

So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say,
"You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works,
and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one.
You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.

Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not
Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the
works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was
credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."

Per se he wasn't saying "faith and works" but he was saying that you aren't faithful at all if you don't have any deeds to back you up. But in the same way Paul says we are saved by faith - not by our own works (Eph. 2: 9 ) lest someone should boast, but we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do good works (Eph. 2: 10 )

To the man who works, his wages are not a gift but an obligation,
but to the man who worketh not, but trusts in God who justifies the
ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness - Rom 4: 4 - 5

[richard79]

man this place is still at war?Can we summarize everything on both sides coz i know one will never concede no matter how good their presentations are.

[MrBiddle]

man this place is still at war?Can we summarize everything on both sides coz i know one will never concede no matter how good their presentations are.

Para tingbon hehehe:

We are saved by faith and not by works (Eph. 2: 9, Rom. 3: 28 ) but we are saved to do good works that God in advance has prepared for us to do (Eph. 2: 10 )

The four pillars of faith are

1. Belief (Jn 11: 25, 2 Thes. 2: 13, Acts 10: 43 )
2. Trust (Luke 8: 24 - 25 )
3. Reliance (Jn 21: 18 )
4. Fidelity (James 1: 27 )

without one of these mahagbong gihapon as faithlessness, but with these four, automatic na na ang obedience.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Col. 1: 24 refers to what is lacking in Christ's sufferings through us for the sake of the Gospel.

As expected, MrBiddle is distracting you from the right context of my counter proof text Col 1:24. He wants you to believe that St. Paul's "sufferings" are for-- and only --for the spreading of the Gospel, the evangelization of the world, as can also be implied in verse 23. What he does not want you to notice is the end of Col 1:24 that clearly reveals exactly what St. Paul's sufferings are for: "for his body, which is the church". St. Paul therefore suffers for the Church, which is the body of Christ.

You know why he doesn't want you to notice the end of Col 1:24? Here's why: when you realized in Col 1:24 that the "sufferings of Christ" are "for his body, which is the church", you will tempted to take the next step of asking: Why does St. Paul say "the sufferings of Christ" are wanting? And from there, you could even be tempted to take another step and ask: What makes St. Paul think his "sufferings...in my flesh" could somehow "fill up those things fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ"? And that is dangerous and unacceptable to MrBiddle's wrong interpretation of "It is finished.", because if all the believers in Christ, which he says is the church (his favorite name being "Israel of God"), are already saved since Christ has suffered for these "once and for all", what the heck is St. Paul suffering for? Oh, no, no, we can't allow that, can we MrBiddle? We have to distract them, throw them off, draw away their scent from making the connection between St. Paul's body pains and Christ's body-- the Church. God, that "wanting" word is so unwanted in there, isn't it?

Pax.

[MrBiddle]

As expected, MrBiddle is distracting you from the right context of my counter proof text Col 1:24. He wants you to believe that St. Paul's "sufferings" are for-- and only --for the spreading of the Gospel, the evangelization of the world, as can also be implied in verse 23. What he does not want you to notice is the end of Col 1:24 that clearly reveals exactly what St. Paul's sufferings are for: "for his body, which is the church". St. Paul therefore suffers for the Church, which is the body of Christ.

You know why he doesn't want you to notice the end of Col 1:24? Here's why: when you realized in Col 1:24 that the "sufferings of Christ" are "for his body, which is the church", you will tempted to take the next step of asking: Why does St. Paul say "the sufferings of Christ" are wanting? And from there, you could even be tempted to take another step and ask: What makes St. Paul think his "sufferings...in my flesh" could somehow "fill up those things fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ"? And that is dangerous and unacceptable to MrBiddle's wrong interpretation of "It is finished.", because if all the believers in Christ, which he says is the church (his favorite name being "Israel of God"), are already saved since Christ has suffered for these "once and for all", what the heck is St. Paul suffering for? Oh, no, no, we can't allow that, can we MrBiddle? We have to distract them, throw them off, draw away their scent from making the connection between St. Paul's body pains and Christ's body-- the Church. God, that "wanting" word is so unwanted in there, isn't it?

Pax.

But is sin ever mentioned? body pains? what are you talking about? you're talking about "body" as in "body of Christ", the church... still, sufferings for the sake of the Gospel and whatever is needed for you to deny yourself for the sake of members of the body. As in do good to all especially those who belong to the body of believers (Gal. 6: 10 )

It wasn't myself who quoted "It is finished" as I didn't write that article..... but the ones I use to rebuke the fictitious doctrine of purgatory are Hebrews 9 - 10.. ;-b

It's just so hard to accept that Christ's sufferings for sin is complete (Heb. 10: 18 ) cos doctrines like the Transubstantiation and purgatory will be disproven In these end times, Christ's firstfruits are chosen to complete his mission of leading the astray back to God. And that won't come like a bed of roses... there will be sufferings in the way. NOT masochistic sufferings to atone for sin.

[MrBiddle]

fill up those things fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ"? And that is dangerous and unacceptable to MrBiddle's wrong interpretation of "It is finished.", because if all the believers in Christ, which he says is the church (his favorite name being "Israel of God")

Zion sad cos we are the spiritual temple now (Eph. 2: 20 - 22, 1 Cor. 6: 19 ) aww, di na matawagan Saviour si Christ kung wa pa ta na saved (Titus 3: 5, Rom 10: 9 ) and we can be sure of it 1 Jn 5: 13