• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

If Protestantism is true, why they are not united? (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,769
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟211,037.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Here let me help. List 3 oral traditions extant in Paul's time to which we should abide. Please do not quote scripture. Once you list them, then tie them to apostles as Irenaeus requested.

1) [enter 1 oral tradition here from 2000 years ago]

2) [enter #2]

3) [enter #3]

Please don't refer to posts that do not answer this simple question. Just replace the brackets with your 1 sentence words. Please.
May the lurker notice where the individual has been unable to actually deal with the scriptures or the history of the Apostles and the Bishops in the early Church - this tends to happen when people neither know Church history or have any real concern for it.


But on the subject as noted earlier:

Spell out exactly the oral traditions extant in Paul's time about which we should abide.

Gxg (G²);66295985 said:
And as said before, it was already addressed earlier - if you cannot choose to deal squarely with the information, you need to quit protesting as if you were able to (or concerned to begin with).

Again, Cherry picking and arguing selectively doesn't change where you already avoided several points where oral traditions were present in Paul's time that the Church continued. And thus far, you've yet to deal with Scripture - or the early Church. For as said before, several were already noted earlier - and it was addressed in #731 - It was also addressed in #748 ...and even further back in #35. Again, It was laid out plainly here - and it was also dealt with earlier here (as well as here)- if one really wants to deal with it, they can deal with it there - or go to From Shadow to Reality - Ancient Christian Worship. Other Jewish Christians have long noted the same reality as it concerns Oral Traditions - as mentioned before with others like Father James Bernstein and other Jewish Christians who came into Liturgical camps (more in A Brief History of Jewish Conversion | The Groom's Family ) and Ancient Christianity because of seeing the culture they were told to honor being more than present..

Fr James Bernstein on: Beauty in Orthodox Worship - YouTube

The Jewish Roots of Orthodox Christian Worship - Fr. A.J. Bernstein - YouTube:

Fr. James Bernstein lecture: "Disciple of Christ" - YouTube

If you cannot even address 2-3 traditions present in the Church orally that were present in the time of the Apostles (and not just Paul), then you don't really have any room to be talking on the subject - and to continue speaking on the issue while avoiding what others note is to promote willful falsehood on what others have stated. A bad choice on your part if choosing to to do - but it is what it is and enough has already been given for any excuses from yourself to fly on why you cannot address what St. Paul said on tradition or what the history of the Church said.


Until what was addressed is actually noted rather than avoided (and enough reference has been given on the matter), it is rather evident that there is not concern for real answers. And as said before, one needs to cease immediately with any false claims of others not addressing questions when they were already tackled. To do so would be a matter of bearing false testimony - and to insist on doing so after others have said to quit making reference until able to deal with the answers is within the realm of flamming..

e.

When you do that, now tie them back to apostles (per Irenaeu).
When you do that, now tie them back to apostles (per Irenaeus)

And as noted already, for the sake of the lurker, there was direct misquoting on Irenaeus and the whole of his teachings earlier - regardless of any attempts to dodge it in order to make things up as one goes go along, as was noted earlier:

Well, here is Irenaeus on Tradition AND Scripture side by side:

2.1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth;..

2.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
Irenaeus on Tradition - from Adversus Haereses
In this, we see the Tradition is placed next to existent Scripture in authority, so that it, TOO comes from the Apostles.


Let's see some of the other lines from that series:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.
Here we see that the Tradition, unlike the written Scripture, was manifested throughout the whole world.

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
And now we see that Scriptures from the Apostles did exist, but that their Tradition existed in marriage thereto.

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.


And finally we see that, without a written Scripture, the Gauls were capable of knowing the truth thanks to the Tradition, rebuffing the heresies of Marcion and clinging to Christ.
No, Irenaeus points only to the authority of Scripture. He does not say the same about tradition. In fact, he refutes those who claim some tradition that does not tie directly and unequivocally to Apostles.

Tradition must source to apostles.
... a bunch of people had no Scripture, so they therefore had no ability to know the Truth, according to you. But according to Irenaeus, they did. Your interpretation of Irenaeus ignores 4.1-4.3, thus meaning your interpretation is out of context.

Besides that, there was no New Testament in the time of Irenaeus. There were only a bunch of letters, both of true Apostolic origin and forgeries, floating around. No church had the same set of Scriptures, and none accepted all 27 as we know them.

Of course, I bet you think John just took the letters to the Patmos Publishing House and had them bound up to be distributed to all people. At least, that is the only assumption that fits your current statements.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,769
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟211,037.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Lol, simple questions unanswered.
Lurkers take note.
LOL - when questions are answered and the best retort is "unanswered", that will always suffice for lack of an answer...as well as lack of scripture. It's what tends to happen more so in the Unorthodox forums in making things up as folks go....

But indeed, lurkers take note - people not doing as the early church don't reall need to talk on it.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Gxg (G²);66296044 said:
May the lurker notice where the individual has been unable to actually deal with the scriptures or the history of the Apostles and the Bishops in the early Church - this tends to happen when people neither know Church history or have any real concern for it.

But on the subject as noted earlier:

Now, now, don't do what you've accused me of (see how that works?).

So far, all we have is zero oral traditions. The only one you mentioned actually referenced Scripture.

List 3 extant oral traditions from 2000 years ago.

PS. Obviously neither you or anyone else can answer this question. We all know OO EO RC all pretend to, but again, that's why there is EO RC OO, rather than ONE.

PPS. So, while P has a variety of traditions and interpretations, so too does the rest of the Body. The only mistake we make is not to recognize other believers.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,769
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟211,037.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Now, now, don't do what you've accused me of (see how that works?).

So far, all we have is zero oral traditions. The only one you mentioned actually referenced Scripture.

List 3 extant oral traditions from 2000 years ago.

PS. Obviously neither you or anyone else can answer this question. We all know OO EO RC all pretend to, but again, that's why there is EO RC OO, rather than ONE.

PPS. So, while P has a variety of traditions and interpretations, so too does the rest of the Body. The only mistake we make is not to recognize other believers.
And once again, another avoidance of evidence (which is cherry picking - a form of ad hoiminem and not being sincere in real argumentation) - as claiming there are "zero oral traditions" is falsehood as well as avoiding the fact the fact that it was never those mentioned alone which are referenced in scripture.


It is bearing false testimony to claim no one addressed the question...

And as said before

Spell out exactly the oral traditions extant in Paul's time about which we should abide.

Gxg (G²);66295985 said:
And as said before, it was already addressed earlier - if you cannot choose to deal squarely with the information, you need to quit protesting as if you were able to (or concerned to begin with).

Again, Cherry picking and arguing selectively doesn't change where you already avoided several points where oral traditions were present in Paul's time that the Church continued. And thus far, you've yet to deal with Scripture - or the early Church. For as said before, several were already noted earlier - and it was addressed in #731 - It was also addressed in #748 ...and even further back in #35. Again, It was laid out plainly here - and it was also dealt with earlier here (as well as here)- if one really wants to deal with it, they can deal with it there - or go to From Shadow to Reality - Ancient Christian Worship. Other Jewish Christians have long noted the same reality as it concerns Oral Traditions - as mentioned before with others like Father James Bernstein and other Jewish Christians who came into Liturgical camps (more in A Brief History of Jewish Conversion | The Groom's Family ) and Ancient Christianity because of seeing the culture they were told to honor being more than present..

Fr James Bernstein on: Beauty in Orthodox Worship - YouTube

The Jewish Roots of Orthodox Christian Worship - Fr. A.J. Bernstein - YouTube:

Fr. James Bernstein lecture: "Disciple of Christ" - YouTube

If you cannot even address 2-3 traditions present in the Church orally that were present in the time of the Apostles (and not just Paul), then you don't really have any room to be talking on the subject - and to continue speaking on the issue while avoiding what others note is to promote willful falsehood on what others have stated. A bad choice on your part if choosing to to do - but it is what it is and enough has already been given for any excuses from yourself to fly on why you cannot address what St. Paul said on tradition or what the history of the Church said.
tell us 2 or 3 traditions extant in Paul's time to which we should hold.
Liturgical services. They were Jewish, so they just took the service traditions of the Jews and ran with it. There was sermonizing too, but Liturgy was a big part of the Apostolic era. It is actually shown through in the letters, too, where Paul would use very standardized methods of greeting, blessing, and farewells in his letters.

Feasts and Fasts. The Apostles and their disciples still kept the feasts and fasts of the Jewish calender. For instance, Paul was arrested while celebrating Pentecost in the temple.
Gxg (G²);66294240 said:
The same dynamic with Eucharist can be added to the list as well, in light of the symbolism that was present in OT and NT analogies on the Jewish Sacrifical system and how sacrifices had a new light to be interpreted in when seeing the finished work of Christ - with Communion being done in a sense foreign to what many in Protestantism do today. The Traditions of the Early Church are consistent with the Jewish culture in regards to Communion and they all had no issue with the concepts of Real Presence when it came to the Eucharist. which was celebrated

In addition to that, there's the dynamic with architecture based on OT Designs, the practices of priesthood.....and the use of incense. In Revelation 8:3 we read, "And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne." Fr. Michael Johnson went much more in-depth on the similarities between the Liturgy and what is outlined in Revelations.. Orthodoxy truly offers the closest to reflection of what the scriptures testified to when it came to liturgical practices in the heavens. Early in my own spiritual development, it was amazing learning of the ways that incense adds an entirely differing dimension to how we see the spiritual.

What's fascinating to me is realizing the extensive ways that smell was a BIG DEAL in the early Jewish culture and other Eastern cultures - it was essential to know what scents needed to be picked up since that is a focus for the Lord. He went out of his way to mention it many times....and when seeing that theme present in Revelation at the end, I have to wonder why many make it out like it's not a big deal. one of my dear brothers in Christ/one of the leaders at one of the fellowships I attended gave an excellent presentation on the subject of Essential Oils and the various ones available that can make a difference in the health of our bodies - just as they did in the lives of the Saints/Early Church (and for others who wish, To listen to the audio, one can go here and here :)



Gxg (G²);66293294 said:
To see the response of Ireneus is not surprising - especially when seeing Jewish cultural backgrounds. For Oral History was a key facet of Jewish culture, even before the 1st Century [/URL]...and Liturgy itself in the Eastern tradition is FULL of scriptural focus due to following the oral tradition of Jewish culture) - the idea that the Bible alone is the primary authority for faith and morals is not taught in the Bible...and likewise, the idea that the Bible is to be the sole source of authority for the Christian is not taught in the Bible. The Church recognizes one and only one source of authority for Her faith and practice: the apostolic tradition...and thee Divine Scriptures are part - albeit the most important part - of that tradition, but to set Scriptures up as something over and apart from tradition is to have the tail wagging the dog. For that will always go back to the Scriptures being based solely on people's opinions - and that does not honor the scripture, more pointed out here in Sola Scriptura | Orthodox-Reformed Bridge and here:










Scriptures developed in a context and were to be seen in a setting - the Church
- and there has always been a way to see them. Even other Anglican Ministers such as N.T Wright have pointed out this simple reality - more shared in How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright - and others have noted it as well when it comes to the concept of PRIMA scriptural...the model that the Early Church advocated


As said before, the Orthodox Church sees the Bible as inspired by God and authoritative...even though Saint Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15wrote, “Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" - something he repeated in 1 Corinthians 11:1-3 consistent with what Christ noted when it came to his comments on examples( John 13:15 ) when it came to being cautious of any tradition that goes against things the Lord desired/noted in the name of honoring God (Matthew 15:5-7).

But anyone Talking on the Word of God while ignoring the Early Church Councils and what the vast consensus of the Bishops/leaders in the Church said (when they made scripture) is inconsistent with claiming to defend Scripture - for Scripture did not exist in a vacuum or come out of nowhere since the Early Church (the Fathers - including early Jewish Fathers in the first century ) also debated/helped to cannonize what was to be scripture - as noted best by Fr. James Bernstein in Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?
QUOTE=Gxg (G²);66295586]Some things really are not that complicated - for the Scriptures are themselves a product of the oral tradition of the early Church, seeing that the gospels were preached orally, later being written down by the leading of the Holy Spirit - but even if wanting demonstration of where history has verified the numerous connections between the Jewish culture (including Oral) and the Eastern traditions, even without the use of scripture, it doesn't take much. For reference:


There's no escaping where the Holy Scriptures, as interpreted by the Church, have the final say over any and all matters of faith and practice - even though they do not have the only say. (see 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 3:6-7; 1 Corinthians 11:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:1-2; 1 Timothy 3:14-15).
[/QUOTE]​


Until what was addressed is actually noted rather than avoided (and enough reference has been given on the matter), it is rather evident that there is not concern for real answers. And as said before, one needs to cease immediately with any false claims of others not addressing questions when they were already tackled. To do so would be a matter of bearing false testimony - and to insist on doing so after others have said to quit making reference until able to deal with the answers is within the realm of flamming...something that will be taken to Members' Complaint forum or reported if it continues further since it has been asked to cease.


Last chance, Bruh...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,769
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟211,037.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The real presence of Jesus Christ is not a corrupting influence. The belief in baptism for the remittance of sin is not a corrupting influence.
So true...
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟37,569.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Unless someone decide to disagree th a t they did. Then we have division on that.

Believing that one error = the gates of hell prevailing, is a serious ERROR that needs to be addressed.

Have you any idea what exactly the "gates of hell" was referring to?
Hint: it wasn't simply error.
One error? You're not talking one error, friend. If you're saying the Solas are true, then you're saying the Church fell into heresy, not just Apostasy. You're talking of a crash and burn.

If the Truth becomes compromised and there is no place that the Fullness of the Truth exists, then the Church has failed, and Christ is a liar.

As CS Lewis said, Christ is either liar, lunatic, or Lord. Christ said the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church. Since that is because it stands on the Truth, and the Church is the Pillar of the Truth (I Timothy 3:15), and diversion from the Truth constitutes a failure of the Church and a victory of the gates of hell.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟37,569.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Lol, simple questions unanswered.
Lurkers take note.
Not so simple, when you create impossible standards that even Scripture can't meet. You may as well require the doctrines to grow legs and walk around after they are written in a book.

I will not entertain the delusion that you can provide unquestionable proof that every single Tradition is directly taught by the Apostles. The closest one can get is their disciples. And requiring every Tradition to be in Scripture is in violation of Scripture itself, for John said that even all the books in the world could contain all the teachings and actions of Christ.

And before you say it didn't say teachings, teaching is an action.
 
Upvote 0

ChristsSoldier115

Mabaho na Kuya
Jul 30, 2013
6,765
1,601
The greatest state in the Union: Ohio
✟41,502.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It is thread like these why I denounce any idea of a "christian" america or a christian theocracy. Which denomination would control the government, and what would become of the others if an extremist one gets the reigns?
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Gxg (G²);66295985 said:
And as said before, it was already addressed earlier - if you cannot choose to deal squarely with the information, you need to quit protesting as if you were able to (or concerned to begin with).

Again, Cherry picking and arguing selectively doesn't change where you already avoided several points where oral traditions were present in Paul's time that the Church continued. And thus far, you've yet to deal with Scripture - or the early Church. For as said before, several were already noted earlier - and it was addressed in #731 - It was also addressed in #748 ...and even further back in #35.-snip-

Since you can't lay out the three examples, I've looked at your three references and found this.

#731 refers to eucharist which refers to Luther
refers to architecture which refers to scripture
refers to incense which refers to scripture

#743 refers to scripture

#35 refers to scripture

Apparently I haven't been clear.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

What are those oral (not written, not scripture) traditions that Paul taught them?
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Not so simple, when you create impossible standards that even Scripture can't meet. You may as well require the doctrines to grow legs and walk around after they are written in a book.

I will not entertain the delusion that you can provide unquestionable proof that every single Tradition is directly taught by the Apostles. The closest one can get is their disciples. And requiring every Tradition to be in Scripture is in violation of Scripture itself, for John said that even all the books in the world could contain all the teachings and actions of Christ.

And before you say it didn't say teachings, teaching is an action.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

We didn't create an impossible standard. It's there at 2Thes 2:15 that those of the Traditions like to use to justify their different dogmas.

But you are right. It is an impossible standard. Alas for some, this leaves us with, as Irenaeus pointed out, the authority of Scripture.
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
Scripture is there for us, if we shed tradition glasses. But what's really interesting is to find Tradition that actually testifies to what Scripture has said. In this case with Cyril of Jerusalem, virginity is over and why (proof Christ came in the flesh). This was the same argument Tertullian used against the ever-virgin myth.

The difficulty, as you well know, is that the biblical, Apostolic tradition contradicts the later Tradition which is now held above that of the original tradition. In order to admit that the Apostolic tradition is true our Orthodox friends must confess that they have been misled for centuries. So, what is their response? Obfuscation.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,769
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟211,037.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I will not entertain the delusion that you can provide unquestionable proof that every single Tradition is directly taught by the Apostles. The closest one can get is their disciples. And requiring every Tradition to be in Scripture is in violation of Scripture itself, for John said that even all the books in the world could contain all the teachings and actions of Christ.

And before you say it didn't say teachings, teaching is an action.
Much of that all goes back to the fact that Scripture itself is tradition (with others in the era when it was developed noting where there other traditions present based on John 21 with the miracles of Christ and so many other things being based on the tradition itself ) and it is part of the greater category of Tradition (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15). For both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are a means of transmitting the deposit of faith, as they are bound closely together and communicate one with the other to give illumination to one another.

As others have noted wisely (for brief excerpt):

Much as Protestants are at a loss in being logically consistent with Jude's extra-biblical sources from God or with the unwritten beliefs concerning Baptism or with Eucharistic oral traditions, they are equally at a loss about the Apostles' commands for all Christians in all churches for all generations to follow and preserve the written and oral traditions of the Apostles. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." The Early Christians read this same verse and they understood that they must preserve all the oral and written traditions, even the ones not recorded in the New Testament (NT), oral traditions which they were aware of and spoke about. The Early Christians did not believe that the books of the NT had somehow miraculously sucked up all the oral traditions, so that this command from Paul had ceased to have any relevance once all the books of the NT were written. Instead, it was irrefutable to the Early Christians that there were unwritten doctrines and practices from the Apostles which had never been recorded and which all churches had professed since Apostolic times. The Protestant writer uses 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as though it is proof against Tradition, though ironically, Scripture and the Early Christians used it as proof for Tradition. This is because the context of this letter itself, which Protestants abuse, does not prove nor even suggest the concept of "inscripturation", the doctrine that every single Apostolic oral tradition became completely incorporated into Scripture. Paul simply mentions oral traditions of the Apostles and then, as 1 Corinthians 11:34 makes clear, he actually leaves behind certain doctrines to remain outside the Bible for oral transmission.

One of the most important things to remember when reading 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is the fact that Paul never teaches that the Apostolic oral Tradition, which was also called the Gospel, would one day cease to have relevance or would be completely incorporated into Scripture. Protestants insist on believing that every single oral doctrine from the Apostles had eventually become written down in Scripture, but the only way to believe this doctrine is to rely on teachings not recorded in Scripture, since the Bible does not make such statements. In fact, the only way to prove it is to force unbiblical interpretations into the Bible whenever it says something about a genuine oral Tradition from the Holy Spirit. In other words, Protestants must assert a strong man-made bias in assuming the meanings of certain Bible verses and then come up with fanciful explanations unheard of in Sacred History in order to make Apostolic Tradition in Scripture mean what they desire it to mean.
.


And as already noted before to folks (be it in #765 or #757 or #761 and other places), people divorce themselves from the context of the Church when they avoid the Church as it said itself to be. At the end of the day, people simply do not care for the Church nor trust the Church...

And all of that stems from how one chooses to see the history of Scripture within the lens of tradition. Understanding the Scribal culture and the way that even the Jews themselves had a very complicated cultural understanding of scripture which developed over time - this helps in knowing the way that Scripture cannot be divorced from Tradition (no matter how much people claim "Sola Scriptura" ) or not seen as a Tradition. There were always debate on the nature of Scripture in the time of the Apostles - with differing canons used even then based on traditional differences. And the same dynamic applies today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7H6wJ43K_s&list=PL05B93F7F6E7A04FF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ztfwfS6FEc&list=PL05B93F7F6E7A04FF&index=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpmHZzURwZY&index=3&list=PL05B93F7F6E7A04FF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVEM-vZXWOI&index=4&list=PL05B93F7F6E7A04FF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGfTWr39yKw
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Alive_Again

Resident Alien
Sep 16, 2010
4,167
231
✟27,991.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
One thing I have found refreshing in Protestant churches is that they promote a righeousness consciousness, instead of a sin consciousness.

That's the very thing you need to flow in the Spirit.
When you read about the struggles of people like Luther, who gave 200% to try and please God. They followed all of the prescribed forms and were zealous to "do" to find God. But when you finally get a revelation of righteousness (as a gift), it works freedom into you. The just shall live by faith. That's the very starting point after say "yes" to Jesus.

You might have attended church for 20 years and never heard it once in some circles, but churches that preach righteousness have some kind of a move, because that is something the Holy Spirit agrees with. Jesus cleansed the church (the repentant church in spirit) and when you learn how to stand up within that and declare yourself righteousness (not based on your own merits), then God agrees with you.

It's "yea and amen" to the glory of God.
You start mixing faith with the promises of God (not just hope), then you start flowing with the nature of God in your reborn spirit. You've got the nature of the vine flowing in you. Now you're bearing fruit that is not of you. That's how God gets the glory. It's not you doing the good deeds. It's God working through you from the rest of faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
One error? You're not talking one error, friend. If you're saying the Solas are true, then you're saying the Church fell into heresy, not just Apostasy. You're talking of a crash and burn.

If the Truth becomes compromised and there is no place that the Fullness of the Truth exists, then the Church has failed, and Christ is a liar.

As CS Lewis said, Christ is either liar, lunatic, or Lord. Christ said the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church. Since that is because it stands on the Truth, and the Church is the Pillar of the Truth (I Timothy 3:15), and diversion from the Truth constitutes a failure of the Church and a victory of the gates of hell.
Christ is a liar or you and many, many others have redefined "church".
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm not quite sure what you mean about unity conforming to freedom, Rick Otto. Can you explain? Forgive me if you've said it before, as I don't believe I've seen it.

I admit I tend to look at doctrinal unity, and no matter which side of the fence I was standing on, I had to admit that Protestants of every stripe and belief can be found.
Sorry I missed this.
A unity that generaly conforms to freedom of religion.
It isn't monolithic or supremacist, except in exceptions, of which I'd agree one is too many. By supremacist, I mean claiming "the one-true" status, and denying obvious errors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Albion
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The difficulty, as you well know, is that the biblical, Apostolic tradition contradicts the later Tradition which is now held above that of the original tradition. In order to admit that the Apostolic tradition is true our Orthodox friends must confess that they have been misled for centuries. So, what is their response? Obfuscation.
I noticed (that & immediate ad hom + accusation*). It is as if volumes of refined speech is able to baffle and bury what is a simple question requiring a simple answer:
List 3 oral traditions extant in Paul's time and tie them to the apostles.


*"May the lurker notice where the individual has been unable to actually deal with the scriptures or the history of the Apostles and the Bishops in the early Church - this tends to happen when people neither know Church history or have any real concern for it."

Scripture needs the lens of tradition... no mention of the Holy Spirit... hmmm.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,769
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟211,037.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The difficulty, as you well know, is that the biblical, Apostolic tradition contradicts the later Tradition which is now held above that of the original tradition. In order to admit that the Apostolic tradition is true our Orthodox friends must confess that they have been misled for centuries. So, what is their response? Obfuscation.
I noticed (that & immediate ad hom + accusation*). It is as if volumes of refined speech is able to baffle and bury what is a simple question requiring a simple answer:
List 3 oral traditions extant in Paul's time and tie them to the apostles.


*"May the lurker notice where the individual has been unable to actually deal with the scriptures or the history of the Apostles and the Bishops in the early Church - this tends to happen when people neither know Church history or have any real concern for it."

Scripture needs the lens of tradition... no mention of the Holy Spirit... hmmm.
It has yet to be shown where Apostolic tradition violates Biblical tradition (just as it has NEVER been shown where the Holy Spirit was not mentioned since Tradition is based on the Inspiration of the HOLY Spirit), indicating a lack of ability to truly address what is said in the context something was stated. For an accusation does not show that to be true anymore than claiming a black man to be "guilty" because one assumes it means that it is verified.

As others noted, repeated insinuations can never change where there has been a refusal to simply deal with what was noted - obscuring rather than addressing (Appeal to Ridicule and poisoning the well) is always a means of avoiding dealing with what one does not wish to tackle. It's not that complicated - nor is it that difficult to answer what others have said when asking you/others "Show that Scripture itself is NOT based on tradition" or "Show where traditions in the Church are NOT based on Scripture." That has yet to occur or even be handled honestly..

But so long as it's not realized that scripture itself is a tradition, it's really incomplete speaking on Tradition having to soley align with scripture in order for it to be valid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGfTWr39yKw

And as was pointed out earlier:

I will not entertain the delusion that you can provide unquestionable proof that every single Tradition is directly taught by the Apostles. The closest one can get is their disciples. And requiring every Tradition to be in Scripture is in violation of Scripture itself, for John said that even all the books in the world could contain all the teachings and actions of Christ.

And before you say it didn't say teachings, teaching is an action.

From #773 or #765 to others, there have been plenty of examples listed in regards to traditions kept in the Church - from those based in scriptural precedent to others that were not based in scripture (just as other things in the time of the Apostles were practiced and yet not recorded fully in scripture). And people not scared to deal with it will address it as it is...

As others have already said, either one can address where there were already more than 3 oral traditinon in Paul's time given - one has no real concern with St. Paul or with Scripture as St. Paul noted it. It's really rather simple and there's no need to argue around the issue..
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,769
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟211,037.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Hence the degradation of Protestantism, rather then deal with the reforms that needed to be dealt with, as is the case with some mainline denominations moving back to the center and actively engaging in ecumenical talks, you get the spirit that the entire tradition of the Church is wrong....which led to the current situation and the polarization in the church.
There are a lot of people, thankfully, who are trying to address the situation as best as possible when it comes to Church Tradition and reconciling it as best as possible.

I love the work of iMonk and the discussions they have sought to foster on the matter - with One discussion on the issue that came to mind:



One book I am reminded of on the matter is entitled Evangelicals and Tradition: The Formative Influence of the Early Church (Evangelical Ressourcement: Ancient Sources for the Church’s Future) (more at Evangelicals and Tradition: iMonk review | Grateful to the dead). It's by Baylor University professor of patristics and Baptist minister D. H. Williams (Ph.d, University of Toronto.).

 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Gxg (G²);66298776 said:
It has yet to be shown where Apostolic tradition violates Biblical tradition (just as it has NEVER been shown where the Holy Spirit was not mentioned since Tradition is based on the Inspiration of the HOLY Spirit), indicating a lack of ability to truly address what is said in the context something was stated. For an accusation does not show that to be true anymore than claiming a black man to be "guilty" because one assumes it means that it is verified.

As others noted, repeated insinuations can never change where there has been a refusal to simply deal with what was noted - obscuring rather than addressing (Appeal to Ridicule and poisoning the well) is always a means of avoiding dealing with what one does not wish to tackle. It's not that complicated - nor is it that difficult to answer what others have said when asking you/others "Show that Scripture itself is NOT based on tradition" or "Show where traditions in the Church are NOT based on Scripture." That has yet to occur or even be handled honestly..

But so long as it's not realized that scripture itself is a tradition, it's really incomplete speaking on Tradition having to soley align with scripture in order for it to be valid:

Holy Cross Live! - The Bible in the Orthodox Church - YouTube

And as was pointed out earlier:


From #773 or #765 to others, there have been plenty of examples listed in regards to traditions kept in the Church - from those based in scriptural precedent to others that were not based in scripture (just as other things in the time of the Apostles were practiced and yet not recorded fully in scripture). And people not scared to deal with it will address it as it is...

As others have already said, either one can address where there were already more than 3 oral traditinon in Paul's time given - one has no real concern with St. Paul or with Scripture as St. Paul noted it. It's really rather simple and there's no need to argue around the issue..

All you need to do to prove him wrong is list 3 oral traditions and tie them to the apostles.
You don't need to criticize him or anything, you don't have to ask us read thru numerous links, watch videos, or read books to prove anything,...

Just list 3 oral traditions extant in Paul's time and tie them to the apostles.

With your encyclopedic knowledge of them, I would think you could do it off the top of your head.

Hmmmm...
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.