I'm curious to know how a Protestant squares the notion that scripture contains all the teachings and practices for Christians, when at the end of John's Gospel, he says that all the teachings of Christ would fill every book in the world and more. Additionally, in the end of his second and third epistles, John says he has more to teach, but would rather teach in person. I could be wrong, but I think Paul says something similar at some point. Even if he doesn't Paul spent weeks or months living among the people of the various cities he ministered to (I think he spent 18 months in one city.) Are we really supposed to believe that 18 months worth of teaching can be contained in a handfull of letters? Surely there would be elaboration and interpretation that went along with what was transcribed and became the New Testament. In fact, in one of the leyters to the Corinthians, there is a reference to some kind of creed that Paul evidently taught, but that creed has been lost. Sacred Tradition does not stand in place of Scripture. Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium (which is just Latin for Teaching Office) are the lenses we use to interpret scripture. I would also suggest that if we have clear references to a particular interpretation of Scripture (the Eucharist) that can be dated to less than 100 years after Christ's crucifixtion, then that is probably what the Apostles taught. St. Ignatius of Antioch is pretty clear about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ when he wrote circa 107AD. Also, St. Justin Martyr wrote a description of Christian worship practices circa 155AD, and it pretty perfectly describes Catholic and Orthodox Mass. Even down to adding a drop of water to the wine to be used in the Eucharist.
@@gfred2622 While Jesus did much more than what Scripture records, God’s Word is complete and fully sufficient for Christian faith and practice. The early church fathers give us valuable historical context, but their writings must be tested against Scripture. We know one thing for certain - the Bible itself is inspired, infallible, and sufficient for salvation, correction, and Christian living. What more could anyone need? I encourage you to compare the teachings of Scripture directly with what tradition teaches. If anything is contrary - it must be set aside. Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
@@gfred2622 I should also clarify that I’m not a ‘protestant’ nor do I affiliate with any other group other than simply being a member of the Body of Christ by faith in Christs finished work. One might ask ‘but how is this guy not a protestant? He goes against the teachings of the ‘orthodox’ and ‘Catholic’ churches. Yes well so does scripture - and scripture itself is not ‘Protestant’ - it is simply truth.
I'm curious to know how a Protestant squares the notion that scripture contains all the teachings and practices for Christians, when at the end of John's Gospel, he says that all the teachings of Christ would fill every book in the world and more. Additionally, in the end of his second and third epistles, John says he has more to teach, but would rather teach in person. I could be wrong, but I think Paul says something similar at some point. Even if he doesn't Paul spent weeks or months living among the people of the various cities he ministered to (I think he spent 18 months in one city.) Are we really supposed to believe that 18 months worth of teaching can be contained in a handfull of letters? Surely there would be elaboration and interpretation that went along with what was transcribed and became the New Testament. In fact, in one of the leyters to the Corinthians, there is a reference to some kind of creed that Paul evidently taught, but that creed has been lost.
Sacred Tradition does not stand in place of Scripture. Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium (which is just Latin for Teaching Office) are the lenses we use to interpret scripture.
I would also suggest that if we have clear references to a particular interpretation of Scripture (the Eucharist) that can be dated to less than 100 years after Christ's crucifixtion, then that is probably what the Apostles taught. St. Ignatius of Antioch is pretty clear about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ when he wrote circa 107AD. Also, St. Justin Martyr wrote a description of Christian worship practices circa 155AD, and it pretty perfectly describes Catholic and Orthodox Mass. Even down to adding a drop of water to the wine to be used in the Eucharist.
@@gfred2622 While Jesus did much more than what Scripture records, God’s Word is complete and fully sufficient for Christian faith and practice. The early church fathers give us valuable historical context, but their writings must be tested against Scripture. We know one thing for certain - the Bible itself is inspired, infallible, and sufficient for salvation, correction, and Christian living. What more could anyone need?
I encourage you to compare the teachings of Scripture directly with what tradition teaches. If anything is contrary - it must be set aside.
Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
@@gfred2622 I should also clarify that I’m not a ‘protestant’ nor do I affiliate with any other group other than simply being a member of the Body of Christ by faith in Christs finished work. One might ask ‘but how is this guy not a protestant? He goes against the teachings of the ‘orthodox’ and ‘Catholic’ churches. Yes well so does scripture - and scripture itself is not ‘Protestant’ - it is simply truth.