logos
Full Member
Posts: 191
|
Post by logos on Jul 10, 2003 11:57:35 GMT -5
2 Thes. 2:15 tells the Thessalonians to compare all men's teachings to the Word of God and if there is a conflict disregard the men's teachings. No, it says that tradition (things pkmtyolped down, i.e. teachings, doctrines, truths) were given in different forms. Oral and written. Written is obviously Paul's letters (1 Thes for example) and oral are the things he taught to them while he was with them teaching in the synogogues. They were supposed to hold to BOTH types of revelation equally. History shows that these things pkmtyolped down orally were carried by the faithful in the forms of Creeds and other extrabiblical writings and councils and other Christian documents. 1 Cor. 11:2 Again speaks to the Church of Corinth about remembering the ordinances give by Paul and are found in his writings. Nothing is said about other sources for imformation. He then reminds those same people of the ordinances throughout the chapter. I included this verse so that people would see that not all 'traditions' are bad. Just the traditions of men (Matt 15:3, Mark 7:9) are bad. Ones that contradict the scriptures. 2 Tim. 2:2 is telling Timothy to continue to spread the gospel and aquire more faithful men to teach . This has nothing to do with outside unwritten sources of information. I am not sure what you are trying to convey in that post. Paul speaks of things they have "heard" from him. He uses the word hear, not see or read. I know we both agree that Paul also talked to the Churches But the point is, the Bible itself says nowhere that it includes everything he and all the apostles said. That is what I was asking. These things they heard, which books are they in? The bible never says. It is interesting how you and I interpret differently, God wants us to be united thinking one thing. Meaning, believing the same doctrines and truths. I know that I am writing these things with God in mind and with the intent of finding the truth. I assume you are two, at least you for sure know that you are. One of us is wrong. You and I have just proven that personal interpretation of the Bible is not sufficient. We both have good points, neither of us is stupid or making ad hominem attacks yet we both logically come to contrary conclusions. This cannot be the way God intended His Church to exist. Peace of Christ- logos
|
|
logos
Full Member
Posts: 191
|
Post by logos on Jul 10, 2003 12:15:03 GMT -5
The apostles were told by our Lord that they would bear witness to the furtherst parts of the world. (Acts 1:8) This same Lord denounced the traditions of men that were given preference to scripture. (Matt 15:9, Mark 7:7) God was gracious enough to inspire the New Testament writers, and the supposed first pope acknowledged Paul's epistles to be scripture. (2 Peter 3:16) The scriptures are God breathed and fully sufficient. (2 Tim 3:16-17) Numerous examples could be cited from the Old Testament about how the bad kings walked in the traditions of their fathers and the good kings followed the written word of God. (See the history of Josiah in 2 Kings) It stands to reason that the same holds true under the new covenant, especially with the low regard Jesus and Paul had for commandments of men and fables. (1 Tim 1:4;4:7, 2 Tim 4:4, Titus 1:14) And lastly, the supposed first pope claimed to not come with cleverly devised fables, but with eyewitness testimony. (2 Peter 1:16) Oral tradition is not eyewitness testimony. For the apostles to bear witness to the ends of the earth and give eyewitness testimony would require that testimony be written, unless the apostles came to the Western Hemisphere before their deaths. The apostle's teaching would certainly be written down given the weight of the verses I cited against commandments of men and the warnings of ravenous wolves that would come. (Matt 7:15, Acts 20:29) As a side note, the verses that speak of things given by word or epistle refer to direct communication from the apostle; the verses citing following verbal communication don't apply to the nebulous "traditons" that constantly change. Those verses relate to specific instructions the apostles gave to the churches. True that the verse don't apply to traditions that constantly change, they apply to traditions (meaning things pkmtyolped down) that are unchanging. The Catholic Church was the one who didn't change in 1930 when all the Protestant and Anglican denominations switched their minds about contraception. Or when Martin Luther removed the deutercanonicals from scripture. Or when people AFTER Luther decided you didn't have to believe in Transubstantiation (which Luther DID believe in) or the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (also believed by Luther). Once again, the difference is traditions and traditions of men. Traditions of men were the hedge laws of the pharisees but the true traditions were the ones that Jesus told the Jews to respect (respect the authority of the "chair of Moses" ) which is what we must do today, and respect the "chair of Peter" Matt 16:18. The bad traditions (the Church calls them Heresies) were fought against gallantly by Ignatius and Irenaeous and others. Ravenous wolves are just as likely to pervert scripture interpretations in peoples minds and through faulty versions (and foot notes) as they are likely to pervert an entire denomination. Bible alone is not a safeguard against Satan and his minions. I will close with some quotes from the Church Fathers: St. Irenaeus, another Church Father, refuted the idea of scripture alone in the second century. The Arians were using the argument that Christ's divinity is not mentioned in the Gospels, and therefore is not a tenet of faith. He speaks of going to the early church to find truth and says in his book 'Against Heresies'..."supposing the apostles had not left us their writings, would we not then follow the order of tradition which they handed down to the men to whom they entrusted the Churches? Many of the barbarian (meaning illiterate) nations who believe in Christ have given their assent to this order. Salvation has been written in their hearts without paper and ink, by the spirit...thanks to the ancient tradition of the apostles, they reject, even in thought, the lying inventions [of heretics]. Against Heresies 3:4:1 (AD 189)" "With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Papias
"Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other pkmtyolpages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition" (Church History 4:21).
The Early Christians held to the belief of scripture AND tradition on par with each other. Peace of Christ- logos
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 11, 2003 2:09:26 GMT -5
True that the verse don't apply to traditions that constantly change, they apply to traditions (meaning things pkmtyolped down) that are unchanging. Traditions develop. How do we get from Unam Sanctam to the Decree on Religious Liberty? I believe you are making a fallacious ad hominem tu quoque argument. What the Anglicans decided about contraception or Luther about Transubstantiation don't have any bearing on the validity of my argument for sola scriptura. As a side note, why couldn't the RCC just say that Jesus is present in the Eucharist and leave it at that? If there is truly a chair of Peter, why didn't he know to indicate it in writing? The doctrine evolved later, so how can it be claimed that he was the infallible representative of Christ on earth who would have successors with similar power? Why did the idea of the power of the bishop of Rome have to develop in the church, rather than get asserted in writing from the very onset? If it were that important, it would have been indicated in the various epistles of the Bible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Yes, and at the Council of Trent the focus was on reforming the abuses in the church. No, the Holy Spirit is. I'm not saying God will make one 100% correct. He will keep one from falling into error on serious matters if the person has the Holy Spirit living in him.
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jul 11, 2003 2:31:16 GMT -5
Brian wrote:
If there is truly a chair of Peter, why didn't he know to indicate it in writing? The doctrine evolved later, so how can it be claimed that he was the infallible representative of Christ on earth who would have successors with similar power? Why did the idea of the power of the bishop of Rome have to develop in the church, rather than get asserted in writing from the very onset? If it were that important, it would have been indicated in the various epistles of the Bible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not spelled out in the NT, so this is not a very good argument.
God bless
|
|
|
Post by guidemeLord on Jul 11, 2003 2:58:20 GMT -5
Brian wrote: If there is truly a chair of Peter, why didn't he know to indicate it in writing? The doctrine evolved later, so how can it be claimed that he was the infallible representative of Christ on earth who would have successors with similar power? Why did the idea of the power of the bishop of Rome have to develop in the church, rather than get asserted in writing from the very onset? If it were that important, it would have been indicated in the various epistles of the Bible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not spelled out in the NT, so this is not a very good argument. God bless The Holy Trinity is spelled out though.. Baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost.... Besides, Why are the 12 foundations of the Church in Revelation named after the apostles and not just Peter?
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jul 11, 2003 3:15:38 GMT -5
You seem to be grasping here, Guide; Peter is the Rock; that's much clearer then the complex doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Your dodging my friend ;D
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 11, 2003 6:36:51 GMT -5
The Bible is true. It is the basis of our faith.It is useful to learn about God and the necessity of Christ as our Savior. But to believe that it contained everything that Christ taught to his disciples is fundementally wrong. In the last Chapter of the Gospel according to John, he admits that Christ did much more then even he recorded. No one even attempts to cover everything Jesus taught.
Who ever said the bible contained everyting ever taught? The bible contains everything needed for one to attain salvation which leads to eternal life. What the bible has is all that is needed for salvation.
The Roman church has used this claim to justify manmade traditions that this 'church' is so fond of and many of their practices are non-biblical and often contrary to the bible.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 11, 2003 6:41:43 GMT -5
Can there be such a thing as Bibolatry? As important as the word of God may be it is not God. It is the closest thing we have here on earth but it is limited to human language expressed through customs of particular times and places.
Spoken like a true RC. To compare heeding the word of God to idolatry, which is a common practice in the Roman church, is blasphemy.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 11, 2003 6:47:39 GMT -5
I think that's what he meant. Through Scripture (the Bible) the man of God is perfected and fully furnished. 2 Tim 3:16 does not say, "Scripture and Apostolic tradition" or "Scripture and the Catechism" or "Scripture and Papal decree" or "Scripture and the Book of Mormon" or "Scripture and the writings of Ellen G. White" or "Scripture and..." anything else. According to the Bible we need Scripture alone = sola scriptura.
Steve, as a SDA, I agree with your post 100% and so did Ellen G. White.
It's amazing how many people claim Sola Scriptura as truth and then proceed to follow man made traditions and then call them "scriptural". When they are asked to show the scriptures to support what they claim, they can't produce one verse to back uo their claim, but we must rely on THEIR interpretation of what verses mean to come to THEIR conclusions. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 11, 2003 6:52:54 GMT -5
I fail to see the exclusivity of Scripture that you claim to see in this pkmtyolpage. Can you show me where this excludes everything else besides Scripture?[/quote]
How about this? Is this plain enough for you?
1 Corinthians 4:6 - "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos, THAT IN US YOU MIGHT LEARN NOT TO EXCEED WHAT IS WRITTEN, in order than no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."
All they had which was written then is the O.T., which is still valid. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 11, 2003 6:56:50 GMT -5
logos Sola Scriptura would be tough for all the Christians who lived between Christ and the time of the Printing Press and couldn't read. Since there were few bibles and the ones that did exist were very expensive and took years to make. How did those Christians learn the Gospels except from learning what the Church taught them? It seems like God would be limiting Himself to a certain culture (a literary culture such as the world has been since the Renaissance). What about other countries? India and Asia. The Bible wasn't translated into other languages (besides latin) until the 1200's.
This is true, and since the only official church was the Roman church which was and is corrupt, no one got the straight truth of the scriptures until the bible was translated and printed for all to see. In fact, the Roman church didn't want anyone to even see the bible until it was so wide spread that they couldn't stop people from reading it, which they did try.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by billbo1970 on Jul 11, 2003 7:01:57 GMT -5
To Logos:
Where did you receive biblical instruction? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm genuinely curious. Your beliefs differ somewhat from those of 'typical' christians. I do not know how to phrase the question without it sounding somewhat offensive, so please don't read any agenda into it, I'm just wanting to know a little more about you. Are you a non-denominational christian, or do you subscribe to a particular denomination? Also, where in the world are you (physically)? You in the states? Which one?
PIC, Bill [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 11, 2003 7:02:18 GMT -5
Cohdra
God first, Bible, then tradition Tradition is sinking sand and is of no value at all.[/color]
Bibliolotry
Definition: The term bibliolatry is derived from the word idolatry, or the worship of idols. Thus, bibliolatry refers to the worship of the bible - taking it so seriously and so literally that it becomes the entire focus of religious devotion, even to the exclusion of everything else. Fundamentalism is often accused of engaging in bibliolatry.
I fear that, when Christ comes, if He does one small thing that goes against the teachings of "Bible-believing" Christians, they will shake their own bibles in his face, just as the pharisees did. Their bible too (their interpretation), became more important than God Himself. So, they failed to recognize him. Only his sheep will know him. It will be the same at his second coming; His sheep will know him.
God bless[/quote]
Yes, and His sheep obey HIM, not men in high places who claim to be God on Earth. The true sheep follow the teachings of Jesus as those teachings were given to us in the scriptures, not as they are twisted or changed by men.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 11, 2003 7:06:19 GMT -5
God first, Bible, then tradition
Bibliolotry
Definition: The term bibliolatry is derived from the word idolatry, or the worship of idols. Thus, bibliolatry refers to the worship of the bible - taking it so seriously and so literally that it becomes the entire focus of religious devotion, even to the exclusion of everything else. Fundamentalism is often accused of engaging in bibliolatry.
I fear that, when Christ comes, if He does one small thing that goes against the teachings of "Bible-believing" Christians, they will shake their own bibles in his face, just as the pharisees did. Their bible too (their interpretation), became more important than God Himself. So, they failed to recognize him. Only his sheep will know him. It will be the same at his second coming; His sheep will know him.
God bless
Spoken like a true Rc.
The simple fact is that Jesus broke no commandment or He would have been a sinner and NOT SATISFACTORY as our Sacrifice.
You really need to get rid of those Rc gpkmtyolles and see tyhe truth of God's word for yourself. There have been tens of thousands of people who have seen the light and left that corrupt, Satanic inspired institution.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 11, 2003 7:10:48 GMT -5
Partially equipped. It has some useful stuff. I think a person shipwrecked on an island could possibly come to faith using it, but they'd be mistaken on the sacraments and laws of the church. Well, if that's all they would miss, then their salvation would almost be assured. I say "almost" because I don't have time to read and see if the B.Cat. is accurate with the scriptures, which I'm pretty sure it isn't.[/color]
|
|