John Henry Newman's defense of Sacred Tradition

Teresa

Member
2 Timothy 3 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

“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.” - “Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation.” JHN 1884
 

mica

Well-known member
2 Timothy 3 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

“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.” - “Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation.” JHN 1884
the NT reveals what is hidden in the OT.

how were OT saints saved?
 

PeanutGallery

Well-known member
2 Timothy 3 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

“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, .... `
That passage makes no mention of RCC Tradition, let alone uninspired unwritten Tradition.

... still it is not said to be sufficient ...
How much more than 'throughly furnished' and 'perfect' had you in mind?

2Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). ...
What RCC Traditions did Paul teach that was not included in his writings?
 

balshan

Well-known member
2 Timothy 3 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

“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.” - “Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation.” JHN 1884
So what is he infallible, was he a pope? No he only made the rank of cardinal started as an Anglican (which is a sect of the RCC) and then turned to the RCC.

A quote from him -

"A great memory does not make a mind, any more than a dictionary is a piece of literature.”


He should have said sacred tradition is does not make scripture, it is not the Word of God.

Another quote from him -

“Evil has no substance of its own, but is only the defect, excess, perversion, or corruption of that which has substance.”

The substance of evil is the RCC, it is defective, excessive, perversive and ccorrupt. It lies, sacrifices children, wallows in all forms of sexual sin and has false doctrines.
 

balshan

Well-known member
That passage makes no mention of RCC Tradition, let alone uninspired unwritten Tradition.


How much more than 'throughly furnished' and 'perfect' had you in mind?

2Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


What RCC Traditions did Paul teach that was not included in his writings?
Your are so correct.
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
2 Timothy 3 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

“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.” - “Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation.” JHN 1884
You guys go out of your way to minimize the inspired word of God while falsely puffing up your own sacred tradition. When you say Gods word isn't sufficient youre essentially saying God didn't do it good enough. My question is, sufficient for what? You can answer that one since you don't think it is. The arguement Paul furnishes for the bible being our highest/final standard is that it is God breathed. Now find us an equally clear verse where tradition is called God breathed and you might have an argument. But you won't find that verse because your tradition isn't God breathed. But then you turn around and make more of tradition than Paul gives it. Where does Paul say its 'required'? All he is saying there is whatever they were taught by word or by letter, hold on to it. And nothing Paul taught orally would have been different from what he taught by letter.

As far as Newman goes, hes doing the same thing with scripture. Catholic motto; when in doubt throw God under the bus. He has to in order to lift up this silly notion of sacred tradition which doesn't exist. Peter called Pauls writings scripture. Paul speaking under inspiration of the Holy Spirit was most certainly prophetically including all new testament scriptures that would be written. During the apostolic era the n.t. scriptures would be a rule of faith as they were written and passed around. Then by the close of the apostolic age those scriptures are all we would have from God for what he wanted us to know.
 
That passage makes no mention of RCC Tradition, let alone uninspired unwritten Tradition.


How much more than 'throughly furnished' and 'perfect' had you in mind?

2Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


What RCC Traditions did Paul teach that was not included in his writings?
Sir, the Roman Catholic claim is that the certainty of the Christian Faith is not derived from the Scriptures alone. Revelation comes to the believer through Scripture and Tradition.

We do not claim that Tradition is different in substance from what the Scriptures teach. We do not teach that Tradition exists because there are things the apostles revealed that weren't included in the Scriptures. All we are saying is that the deeds, words, actions and teachings of Christ come to us by way of Scripture and Tradition.

The minute you start asking "So what was included in Tradition that isn't taught by the Scriptures" you have already misunderstood the Catholic claim.

I also need to note that we do not claim that Scripture cannot "equip" the man of God. We do not claim that Scripture cannot "make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Scripture is a weapon; it is the weapon of God's Truth. Thus, in order to use Scripture, one must know how to use it. For Catholics, that is where the Church comes in. Scripture is God's Word, the Church teaches us how to use it.

In the passage, contextually, Paul is speaking to Timothy. Timothy was a bishop, and elder. Hence, in context, the passage seems to have in mind that the "man of God" is a leader, an overseer in the Church. They are the ones who have the authority to teach and use Scripture. The passage does not seem to have in mind every believer.

Now a question: from your perspective, who is the "man of God" Scripture has in mind? Would that be the man of God who practices infant Baptism or the one who denies it? The one who believes in TULIP, or the one who denies it? Who is the man of God that Scripture has in mind, sir?
 

Johan

Active member
Now a question: from your perspective, who is the "man of God" Scripture has in mind? Would that be the man of God who practices infant Baptism or the one who denies it? The one who believes in TULIP, or the one who denies it? Who is the man of God that Scripture has in mind, sir?
The context does not preclude that "man of God" could be applied to every Christian. But since Paul specifically mentions tasks like "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness", it seems to specifically refer to those who have been called to spread the Gospel and edify the church. So these roles should fit into the expression:

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Eph. 4:11–13)
 
But since Paul specifically mentions tasks like "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness", it seems to specifically refer to those who have been called to spread the Gospel and edify the church. So these roles should fit into the expression:

And who are these people, sir? The ones who support infant Baptism or deny it? The ones who subscribe to TULIP or deny it? The ones who ordain women or the ones who don't? Who are the people "called to spread the Gospel and edify the Church" from your view?

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
(Eph. 4:11–13)
Who are the people called to equip the people for works of service etc? See above.
 

PeanutGallery

Well-known member
Sir, the Roman Catholic claim is that the certainty of the Christian Faith is not derived from the Scriptures alone. Revelation comes to the believer through Scripture and Tradition.
Where does scripture state inspired Scripture and RCC's uninspired Tradition?
2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
 
Where does scripture state inspired Scripture and RCC's uninspired Tradition?

That would be here: "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings [Paradosis] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15.)

What does the Bible say to do? Go by the Scriptures alone? No. Go by the teachings that have been passed on---whether by word of mouth (Tradition) or Scripture.

What sect goes by word of mouth and Scripture? The Catholic Church. What sects do not? The Protestant sects.


2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I am not denying this. Scripture is certainly useful to these ends.
 

Mik

Member
That would be here: "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings [Paradosis] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15.)

What does the Bible say to do? Go by the Scriptures alone? No. Go by the teachings that have been passed on---whether by word of mouth (Tradition) or Scripture.

What sect goes by word of mouth and Scripture? The Catholic Church. What sects do not? The Protestant sects.

I am not denying this. Scripture is certainly useful to these ends.
So what teachings is Paul talking about that didn’t make it into the New Testament eventually?
What teachings did God not include in His written Word that leaves a believer lacking and not able to fulfill God’s Word at 2 Timothy 3:16-17? (All Scripture-not tradition)
 

So what teachings is Paul talking about that didn’t make it into the New Testament eventually?

None.
What teachings did God not include in His written Word that leaves a believer lacking and not able to fulfill God’s Word at 2 Timothy 3:16-17? (All Scripture-not tradition)
None.

Honestly, do you people even read my posts?

I made it clear in my original post, sir, that there is nothing in Tradition that isn't in Scripture.

The Catholic maintains only that the certainty of the Christian Faith is not derived from the Scriptures alone. We maintain that Tradition exists; we do not maintain that it is fundamentally different from what is in Scripture, or that there are things revealed in Tradition that aren't in Scripture.

There are a minority of Catholics who subscribe to the "Partum/Partum" view. This view is permissible, but the majority no longer hold to it. Your questions are better directed to those Catholics who subscribe to the Partum/Partum view.
 

Mik

Member
Good. So we agree that all teachings of Paul made it into the New Testament.


None.

Honestly, do you people even read my posts?

I made it clear in my original post, sir, that there is nothing in Tradition that isn't in Scripture.

The Catholic maintains only that the certainty of the Christian Faith is not derived from the Scriptures alone. We maintain that Tradition exists; we do not maintain that it is fundamentally different from what is in Scripture, or that there are things revealed in Tradition that aren't in Scripture.

There are a minority of Catholics who subscribe to the "Partum/Partum" view. This view is permissible, but the majority no longer hold to it. Your questions are better directed to those Catholics who subscribe to the Partum/Partum view.
Thank you. So you agree that Scripture contains all we need as believers. It includes all of Paul’s teachings.
None.

None.

Honestly, do you people even read my posts?

I made it clear in my original post, sir, that there is nothing in Tradition that isn't in Scripture.

The Catholic maintains only that the certainty of the Christian Faith is not derived from the Scriptures alone. We maintain that Tradition exists; we do not maintain that it is fundamentally different from what is in Scripture, or that there are things revealed in Tradition that aren't in Scripture.

There are a minority of Catholics who subscribe to the "Partum/Partum" view. This view is permissible, but the majority no longer hold to it. Your questions are better directed to those Catholics who subscribe to the Partum/Partum view.
 

Teresa

Member
Good. So we agree that all teachings of Paul made it into the New Testament.

Thank you. So you agree that Scripture contains all we need as believers. It includes all of Paul’s teachings.
The problem lies in how the teachings are interpreted. ie Romish's question is it the teaching of infant baptism and TULIP or the teaching against the principle of infant baptism and TULIP? Or do you believe that each Christian can make there own beliefs and tenets to live and pass on?
 

utilyan

Member
If one wanted to find out their meter was the authentic standard they would have to go to Paris to find the original.
A place in France holds standard gram too I think.

When a person needed to check if his Yard stick was actually a yard long he traces back to that kept standard.


Same goes for scripture. CANON means "measuring stick". Canon of Scripture. There plenty reformers who won't touch this subject with a 10ft pole. Good reason.

How do you know you have the right bible? NO KIDDING you got it off Catholics?

If your claim is NO NO I went into a library with thousands of Christian works and with the holy spirit personally selected the corrects texts......I can give that a pass.

But if your claim is along the lines of OF course I got the right bible see it says bible on here. Forget it this will always be over your head.

Even the most NOVICE BEGINNERS and SEEKERS peeking into Christianity Would be stomped to pieces for what they think on account of a person's better knowledge of scripture.

So how do they from zero knowledge find the genuine writings?

Someone has to do it for them and that someone is named TRADITION.
 

Mik

Member
The problem lies in how the teachings are interpreted. ie Romish's question is it the teaching of infant baptism and TULIP or the teaching against the principle of infant baptism and TULIP? Or do you believe that each Christian can make there own beliefs and tenets to live and pass on?
‘Good. So we agree that all teachings of Paul made it into the New Testament.

Thank you. So you agree that Scripture contains all we need as believers. It includes all of Paul’s teachings.’


I’m glad to see you also agree with the above. One rc at a time is starting to see the light. So it is easy then to see that any rc doctrine/teaching/tradition that goes against Scripture is false. Good for you.
 
‘Good. So we agree that all teachings of Paul made it into the New Testament.

Thank you. So you agree that Scripture contains all we need as believers. It includes all of Paul’s teachings.’


I’m glad to see you also agree with the above. One rc at a time is starting to see the light. So it is easy then to see that any rc doctrine/teaching/tradition that goes against Scripture is false. Good for you.
Oh, you Protestants. How long must I endure?

I guess as long as I continue to post on this site.

Sir, I never disagreed with Protestants that Scripture "contains all we need as believers" in the sense that everything necessary to build beliefs and doctrine is found in the Scriptures.

If all you are looking to do is formulate propositions about God, sure, the Scripture is all we need.

The issue, sir, is precisely that Revelation isn't just a set of divine propositions delivered from on high. Revelation is first and foremost an experience and relationship with Christ.

If you want to actually experience Christ? For that you need Tradition. If you are simply content to formulate doctrinal propositions, then all you need is Scripture.

Because our Faith isn't static, and because revelation is experiencial, we have Tradition. Tradition is the collective experience of the Church in her relationship with Christ. Seen this way, Scripture is actually encompassed by Tradition; it does not stand apart from it; this, because Scripture is part of the collective experience of the Church. Tradition also tells you how to use and understand the Scriptures because they are read in light of the collective experience of the Church.
 

mica

Well-known member
None.

None.

Honestly, do you people even read my posts?

I made it clear in my original post, sir, that there is nothing in Tradition that isn't in Scripture.

The Catholic maintains only that the certainty of the Christian Faith is not derived from the Scriptures alone. We maintain that Tradition exists; we do not maintain that it is fundamentally different from what is in Scripture, or that there are things revealed in Tradition that aren't in Scripture.

There are a minority of Catholics who subscribe to the "Partum/Partum" view. This view is permissible, but the majority no longer hold to it. Your questions are better directed to those Catholics who subscribe to the Partum/Partum view.
what is your definition of tradition?

what is your definition of Tradition?

what is your definition of Sacred Tradition / ST?

what is your definition of scripture?
 
Top