Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.
Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.
The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation.
How can Jesus ever be separated from His own inherent Divine Power? Jesus is ALWAYS God and ALWAYS Man, therefore in every instance in which He does ANYTHING, says ANYTHING, thinks or feels ANYTHING, it is as much a Divine act as it is Human.
Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead.
This is a logical paradox, how can the lowercase church define things which are believed and taught outside of the Scriptures, and then these authors assert that such is not extra-Biblical Tradition? See, these contradictions are the holes in Protestant theology, all the more why we prefer to leave such depth of thinking to the experts, the Fathers of the capital case Church.
In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority and by that position, are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. This means that Sacred Tradition is not equal in authority to the Word of God.
No, the Tradition and Scriptures mutually fulfill each other, we do not use one to validate the other, as if they were separated or distinct, rather the Tradition and the Scriptures are one and the same, and we hold them with equal
Merely to claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so.
Actually it does, because originally in history the Bible simply WAS another aspect of Tradition, and it was only the Protestants who decided on their own authority that such was wrong, but it is an addition to Christian thinking 1600 years removed from the Apostles, a fraudulent and deceptive addition which pushes folks towards heresy, towards rejecting the fullness of God's Word, which is mutually contained in both the Scriptures and the Traditions as a single font of Grace.
If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God. If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.
Sorry but no, because again the Tradition IS Scripture and the Scripture IS Tradition, they are one and the same thing, how could they then be functionally independent? The circular argument is not by the Church, but by Protestants who claim with no authority, legitimacy, or accuracy, wrongfully suggest that the Tradition is different from the Scriptures. The fallacy is not ours, it is theirs. Further, the Bible's historical origin is within the One Catholic Church, this is simply irrefutable. So if the Catholic Church is NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, then neither is the Bible, and if the Bible IS inspired by the Holy Spirit, then by all logic so too is the Church where the Bible inherently comes from.
Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does.
No, it doesn't
So? Making such claims doesn't mean they are true.
Agreed, but saying it consistently across 2000 years of history DOES make it true, where as just starting up random Protestant churches under the will of some pastor or preacher, where is their authority? Where is their legitimacy? How does some smart Bible reading man suddenly say that his version of House of God or Missionary Baptist suddenly make THAT church somehow true? See it goes both ways, and there are more fallacies supporting the Protestant house of cards than our own
f so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible?
The New Testament is an anthology of the writings, commentaries, and epistles of the Apostles such as Luke, John, James, Paul, and Peter. The Tradition, including the Patristics, is merely a continuation and perpetuation of this process. The writings of the Fathers are no different than the writings of the Apostles, they are their dynamic successors.
One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false.
Haha, this is sooooo cute! The Bible simply DIDN'T exist until the 3rd and 4th centuries. The Canon as we read it today was ever evolving during the Early Church. Simply stated, the BIBLE orginated SOLELY within the Church, and indeed is ENTIRELY DERIVED FROM THE PROCESS OF THE SACRED TRADITION. The Canon IS Tradition silly Protestant "thinkers" (I say this facetiously because I am not quite sure the author of this article ever actually was thinking in the first place!)
The link is my defense. It says much more than I can say.
May I have your response to that link?
kx9, sincerely no disrespect intended, maybe you should get your information from more intelligent sources before you walk away from the Holy Church based on some folks high-minded by absurdly inaccurate opinions which quite literally have both no basis in or understanding of actual