Examples of Sacred Tradition

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You mentioned the risk of following one like Jim Jones. I asked about the risk of following a catholic priest.
I missed the likeness. I've never heard a Priest teach an interpretation that wasn't what the Catholic Church's teaches. Jim Jones was a pedophile? JK
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I missed the likeness. I've never heard a Priest teach an interpretation that wasn't what the Catholic Church's teaches. Jim Jones was a pedophile? JK
I dont know what he was. Just like you dont know what your priest is. So what if Catholic priests dont teach contrary to their church? neither did jim jones teach contrary to his. Whats that prove? It sure doesn't prove catholicism is sound doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

4x4toy

Newbie
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
3,599
1,773
✟116,025.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But how do you distinguish authentic development of the faith from a 'different' Gospel? Scriptures aren't able to accomplish that or else a united faith would have emerged from Martin Luther. That's what he expected but the opposite happened.
A different Gospel would be for another example Mormons , they claim Jesus but their chief can make rules as he sees fit

Martin Luther I thank God for but I don't agree with every thing he seemed to believe
 
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
A different Gospel would be for another example Mormons , they claim Jesus but their chief can make rules as he sees fit
True that. Joseph Smith intended to present a different Gospel. Examples of developments of faith are found in the various definitions of the Trinity. There were several but one is a deeper understanding of what is revealed and believed since the beginning. The other's required believing something not ever believed and inconsistent with what is revealed. They were heretical. Modalism is a doctrine that violates the belief that God is three persons. Understanding God is three Persons is necessary to believe Jesus is God. One has to believe things like Jesus was praying to Himself at Gethsamene to believe in a God of modes. That understanding isn't consistent with what is revealed. No one ever believed that before. No one unless they needed to believe modalism more than the truth. There is a sect of Pentecostals who teach Modalism. Oneness Pentecostals. One God with three modes of expression. One God with three faces is another way they explain it. One God three manifestations.

Martin Luther I thank God for but I don't agree with every thing he seemed to believe
No doubt a great and good man.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No, it says that
"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles."

You can try to make the argument that we have reached the point we no longer need the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers because we've reached the point described - the 'until' point. But you can't eliminate one of the gifts and think we still need the others.

I'm waiting for the Scripture that shows the role of apostle is to end with the 12.
We surely could use some, but besides Rome's so-called apostolic successors failing of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles, (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) I do not see such manifest men of God today as were,

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)

But we do see we see pastors - taking the place of the foundational apostles as overseers. See next post by the grace of God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Paul told Timothy many things. He laid hands on him, and told him that he had received the gift of God through that action. He told him that he was now being entrusted with the Gospel. He told him that the Holy Spirit was entrusting him with the truth. He calls him an apostle. He tells him to command and teach the church. He tells him that when his time is done, to hand that teaching on to other faithful men who would be entrusted to teach, and then hand that on to others. Paul and Timothy both seem to have missed the memo that Scripture was supposed to take his place.
Rather, although we see pastors - presbuteros/episkopos (one office) - taking the place of the foundational (Eph. 2:20; cf. Rv. 21:14) apostles, looking after "all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood," (Acts 20:28) there is not Scripture taking there place, but a continuation of Scripture being the supreme authority over leadership.

Which is why they so abundantly appealed to Scripture, as their Lord did. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2) Plus with Scriptural supernatural attestation. (Romans 15:19)

Thus Paul tells Timothy to "continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them," (2 Timothy 3:14) meaning that Paul was a faithful Scriptural teacher, thus one is to continue in them., But not on the basis of Paul possessing ensured infallibility, but as we see next, the only substantive source of Divine Revelation that he affirms is wholly inspired of God is Scripture, not whatever an apostle says.

Yet men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby, neither of which the words of "infallible" popes or councils claim to do, and which the writings of so-called church fathers are not. Thus their words cannot be equal with Scripture, which is not merely True, but as the word of God it is "quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)






command and teach the church. He tells him that when his time is done, to hand that teaching on to other faithful men who would be entrusted to teach, and then hand that on to others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well let's see. I can go talk to the Lutherans, General Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Church of Christ, Amish, Mennonites, Methodists, Assembly of God who have all turned to Scripture for that answer and be told that yes, I can lose my salvation.

Or, I can go talk to most Baptists, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Pentecostals who have all turned to Scripture for that answer and be told that no, I cannot lose my salvation.

So the answer to my question based upon Scripture has to be that yes I can, and no I cannot lose my salvation.
And like me, you could talk to most Catholics (and many Protestants) and not find salvation. I myself as evangelical Pentecostal believe it is very clear that Scripture warns believers as believers against having an evil heart of unbelief, departing from the living God, drawing back unto perdition rather than living by faith as the just do, (Hebrews 3:12; 10:38,39) and making Christ of no effect, to no profit, such as by faith in a gospel based upon your own righteousness, falling from grace. (Galatians 5:1-4)

However, it is one thing to forfeit what was appropriated by heart-purifying faith, and it is another thing to never have it, and to have cultic reliance upon an office which "infallibly" (but not as speaking under full inspiration of God as Scripture) claims it can and will never err when speaking according to her infallible scope and subject-based criteria. And never salvifically errs in a lower level of magisterial teaching.

But of course, this does not eliminate the problem of variant interpretations any more than having wholly inspired Scripture does, for in both cases the words of the authority are subject to interpretation to varying degrees. And which is abundant in Catholicism, regardless of paper professions, while Bible Christians testify to and show greater unity in core beliefs than those whom Catholicism treats as members in life and in death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The question was to give an example of Sacred Tradition. I responded with the examples of the interpretation that when the Scripture refers to being born again that is the Sacrament of Baptism, and the interpretation that Scripture teaches that a person can fall from grace into mortal sin. For what reason do you not consider those to be examples?
These are not examples of oral tradition, such as the Assumption is, but are interpretations of Scripture. The fact that some persons and magisterial offices are wrong does not change that, and requires souls to discern what is of God as they had before a church presumed it was essential for souls to know this.

If a central magisterium provided the kind of Scriptural substantiation that the apostles did as being so, which is the idea, then Bible Christian would need to obey them, and likely most would. But again, Rome's so-called apostolic successors fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) and as possessing her self-proclaimed ensured veracity.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Ok, so I am a person who has a question about what Scripture means when it says we must be born again. Some read the Bible and say that's baptism. Others deny that and say that the Bible means it's to profess faith in Christ. Kind of a basic question for a beginner.

Scripture says that when we have a conflict that needs to be resolved, we take it to the church (Matthew 18:17). Where in your view of things do I go for my answer?
Considering that you are invoking Scripture as authoritative in a polemic against invoking Scripture as authoritative in a polemic it seems we have a conflict.

And considering that Matthew 18:17 refers to personal disputes then your argumentation comes short of the needed substantiation. But if you looked to the OT basis for this you would find that there is a basis for taking unresolved conflict to progressive higher levels, Exodus 18:21,22; Deuteronomy 16:18; 17:8-13) but that this office never possessed or required ensured infallibility, which Rome has infallibly decreed she has.

And that this office was not above reproof by Scripture, and valid dissent on the basis of their disobedience to Scripture.

But perhaps you want to disagree.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
1 John 4
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already. 4 Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
This is an example of those who "wrest the Scripture," imposing a meaning that is not in the text, and is actually contrary to it. The apostle John is not telling the laity to simply "trust the magisterium to try the spirits to see whether they are of God," but tells them that they are to test the spirits.

If John meant that they needed to bring every case to the magisterium then it is reasonable to assume he would have expressed that, but seeing as the church began with the common people ascertaining that John the baptist was "a prophet indeed," versus the magisterial leadership, (Mark 11:27-33) and hearing the Lord gladly (Mark 12:37) while the leadership judged Him to be of the devil, then it would be strange indeed for John to teach that one is to simply rely on the magisterium.

Likewise the "we" of "We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us" is not simply referring to the apostles, but to John's audience, whom he just told, "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world." (1 John 4:4)

John even goes so far as to state, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27) And which some abuse to support the opposite extreme, that one need no teachers, etc., versus referring contextually, "concerning them that seduce you," (1 John 2:26) and which is understood to be that of a claim to esoteric secret knowledge. Which is essentially what Catholicism claims.

For just what is the basis of the Catholic's assurance that such a thing as the Assumption is true?

As Keating affirms, “Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

*..having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all....”

“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
All I am asking for is the Scriptural reference that indicates that the authority entrusted to the apostles is to be transferred to Scripture at the time of their death.
There is no transference, but a continuance, that of the veracity of what authority teaches being subject to conflationary Scriptural substantial and warrant, versus the premise of ensured magisterial veracity.

The magisterial office and its authority (even to dissent being a capital offense: Dt. 17:8-13) is affirmed under SS, but not as assuredly infallible, so that dissent based on a higher authority was necessarily disallowed as invalid:
It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.[4] (Westminster Confession, Chapter XXXI)

The question then is whether in dispersion and in a type of divided kingdom all must be subject to a one magisterial authority, based upon its claim to be the one true supreme infallible but non-inspired (as Scripture is) magisterial authority, and what to do when its claim and teachings are not what is manifest
in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), especially Acts thru Revelation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
We may be. I've had an extensive discussion about the Bereans in another thread, but I'll sum it up here. They are indeed commended to being open to what Paul brings them -- the 'word' -- the good news of Jesus Christ. And learning Scripture is always a good thing.
Just a good thing? The Lord invokes it as authoritative in defeating the devil (who likewise appealed to it as authoritative), and likewise invokes it as authoritative in reproving the magisterial powers, and for doctrine, and in establishing His fulfillment of its prophecies, and opens the understanding of it to His disciples (not only the apostles), and learning Scripture is always just a good thing?
But if they had relied on Scripture alone and rejected the oral teaching of the Church, when Paul told them that the historical person of Jesus Christ had died, risen from the dead, and fulfilled those Scriptures they would have asked him where that information could be found in Scripture, and it would not have been there for them to see. They accepted the oral proclamation of the church, the teaching authority that Christ had established to believe that Christ was the Messiah they had been waiting for.
How (i know why) can you come up with this rationalization? Parroting Catholic Answers? Instead of accepting the oral proclamation of the church as de facto authoritative as Catholics are to do, whose proclamation needs not Scriptural substantiation for all it teaches, but is to be accepted based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, they did not, but subjected the claims of the apostles to testing by Scripture, as being the established authoritative word of God.

Only on that basis did they believe and assent to what the apostles taught, contrary to Catholic theology. In which believers are not able to discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her, and thus appeal is to be made to Scripture merely as a reliable historical document, whereby the soul may find warrant to believe in and submit to The Church®. Which logic has its own problems.

But like as with "Bible churches," truth is orally proclaimed, including as interpreting prophecy, which is what the apostles were doing, that Christ and what occurred was a fulfillment of prophecy, but the veracity of this preaching must be based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation (which is how the church began, in word and in power). Thus in addition to Scriptural miracles, the Lord beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)

However, another fundamental difference is that men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also proclaim new public revelation thereby, neither of which your popes and prelates nor your typical SS preacher claims to do. Thus, while they may proclaim Scriptural Truth - which the whole church did in Acts 8:4 - what they say is not not equal with Scripture.

If you want to dispute any part of this then show me where I am wrong.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
John's answer to that question is to listen to the apostles. It matters to me that is what he tells us to do. If you want to do something else, then that is certainly up to you.
No, that is not John's answer, as explained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The devil does presume to be a legitimate authority to interpret Scripture although I suspect he knew he had no claim to that.

You said "The Lord did not invoke Himself here as authoritative as the basis of refutation, but countered the wresting of Scripture by the devil, who knew what was authoritative to the Lord". I think what is of primacy of importance for all here is to acknowledge that while Scripture is indeed God-breathed, Jesus Christ IS God. Scripture is not His authority. God has no authority other than Himself who has eternally existed before He ever breathed forth Scripture. He brought all things (including Scripture) forth by merely speaking that they be brought forth. He banished Satan from heaven long before Scripture ever existed and could remove him from existence completely by a mere "I say" and is no way dependent upon Scripture to have the power or authority to do that.
Of course God is the supreme authority, as a person, and which means that His express revelation of Himself, of who and what He is and loves and hates, and of will, are authoritative, and to which are must submit. (Matthew 4:4) How can one even submit to God unless He reveals Himself and His will?

In so doing as a person Christ is called the "word of God," being in person "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person," (Hebrews 1:3) and who invoked Scripture as the authoritative word of God, to which everyone from the devil to His disciples were to believe and act according to, and corrected them when they believed or acted contrary to this authority. And it is one thing to be God and another thing to persuade souls that you are, and thus the Lord invoked Scripture as the authoritative standard on His Messiahship.
(Mt. 22:23-45; Mark 7:1-19; Lk. 4:1-12; 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39)

Which is utterly contrary your denial, which would have Christ requiring faith Himself just based upon who He was and perhaps His own self-attestation.
Christ himself is who gives his authority to the apostles and they are the foundation the valid NT church is built upon. They too become God-breathed.
Wrong. Even your popes are wholly inspired of God when speaking infallibly as writers of Scripture were. If you deny that you are ignorant of your own theology.
Side note -- do you know the Bible references "authority" more than 80 times and not once does it call itself an authority?
Which is another falsehoods in addition to your others. Scripture is the word of God, and it is abundantly referenced as authoritative. Show me the over 80 Bible references to "authority" and I will show you references to the word of God as being authoritative As is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)
Yet you place it as an authority over God Himself.
A false dichotomy. You are confusing the person of God with His expression, and there is no conflict in that understanding. It is God who treats His word as authoritative, while you only make God the authority, and not His inspired word by which men will be judged. (John 12:48)
I would suspect that if anyone else quoted a Scripture and said, "but I say to you", you would quickly accuse them of ignoring Scripture to promote their own teaching. Jesus can do that because He is God and Scripture is subject to Him, not the other way around. He is indeed fulfilling prophecy when he takes Scripture written by Him in the first place to the next level.
The Lord was speaking His word by the Spirit, in accordance with His word, and the two cannot be separated, not made unequal except as God providing and sending His word, which He cannot contradict, any more than God can sin.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And Constantine's role in the history of Christianity can't be dismissed,
Wow! I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing. I see a parallel of the Constantine dynasty and Solomon. Both originate a process that ends in idolatry that lost them their Kingdom.

Kings 11

11. Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The devil does presume to be a legitimate authority to interpret Scripture although I suspect he knew he had no claim to that.

You said "The Lord did not invoke Himself here as authoritative as the basis of refutation, but countered the wresting of Scripture by the devil, who knew what was authoritative to the Lord". I think what is of primacy of importance for all here is to acknowledge that while Scripture is indeed God-breathed, Jesus Christ IS God. Scripture is not His authority. God has no authority other than Himself who has eternally existed before He ever breathed forth Scripture. He brought all things (including Scripture) forth by merely speaking that they be brought forth. He banished Satan from heaven long before Scripture ever existed and could remove him from existence completely by a mere "I say" and is no way dependent upon Scripture to have the power or authority to do that.
Of course God is the supreme authority, as a person, and which means that His express revelation of Himself, of who and what He is and loves and hates, and of will, are authoritative, and to which are must submit. (Matthew 4:4) How can one even submit to God unless He reveals Himself and His will?

In so doing as a person Christ is called the "word of God," being in person "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person," (Hebrews 1:3) and who invoked Scripture as the authoritative word of God, to which everyone from the devil to His disciples were to believe and act according to, and corrected them when they believed or acted contrary to this authority. And it is one thing to be God and another thing to persuade souls that you are, and thus the Lord invoked Scripture as the authoritative standard on His Messiahship.
(Mt. 22:23-45; Mark 7:1-19; Lk. 4:1-12; 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39)

Which is utterly contrary your denial, which would have Christ requiring faith Himself just based upon who He was and perhaps His own self-attestation.
Christ himself is who gives his authority to the apostles and they are the foundation the valid NT church is built upon. They too become God-breathed.
Wrong. Even your popes are wholly inspired of God when speaking infallibly as writers of Scripture were. If you deny that you are ignorant of your own theology.
Side note -- do you know the Bible references "authority" more than 80 times and not once does it call itself an authority?
Which is another falsehoods in addition to your others. Scripture is the word of God, and it is abundantly referenced as authoritative. Show me the over 80 Bible references to "authority" and I will show you references to the word of God as being authoritative As is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)
Yet you place it as an authority over God Himself.
A false dichotomy. You are confusing the person of God with His expression, and there is no conflict in that understanding. It is God who treats His word as authoritative, while you only make God the authority, and not His inspired word by which men will be judged. (John 12:48)
I would suspect that if anyone else quoted a Scripture and said, "but I say to you", you would quickly accuse them of ignoring Scripture to promote their own teaching. Jesus can do that because He is God and Scripture is subject to Him, not the other way around. He is indeed fulfilling prophecy when he takes Scripture written by Him in the first place to the next level.
The Lord was speaking His word by the Spirit, in accordance with His word, and the two cannot be separated, not made unequal except as God providing and sending His word, which He cannot contradict, any more than God can sin.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
This obviously isn't enough to distinguish authentic development or those who practice it would be one faith.

I don't see anything in there that wasn't said to the Jews.
Really? So Jews had a "city wholly given to idolatry" Livy (45, 27) “full of the images of gods and men, adorned with every variety of material, and with all the skill of art,” (Barnes) who were thus reproved for this and told that God is not "worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things"?
(Acts 17:25)

But that if they set up graven images of God for worship that would be fine? Stop trying to make Scripture confirm to Catholicism.
There really aren't any idols to smash anymore. I know you think the Catholics are the idolaters of the world but you are deceived.
Really? So because Christians are not to physically do so then they are to be OK with violations of the commandment against setting up graven images for worship? How nice o tell God that His commandment no longer applies, because the nature of man and or the tactics of demons has changed since the time of Acts.
So, you say the only thing Jesus changed were laws governing lifestyle and social norms. Philosophers would call that accidental change. Do you know what it means to satisfy the demands of the Law? What event that would be the cause of? Paul taught that the power of sin is death. The Law increases the power of sin. The purpose of the Law was to show man that sin had dominion over him. This is much more than dietary laws. So, what happens when the Law is finally destroyed? Quite a change you're missing. The word reformed as a descriptive term for the fulfillment of the old covenant is new to me. It seems an odd meaning to attach to the Gospel since the Apostles descriptive word of the same is New.
No i did not say he only thing Jesus changed were laws governing lifestyle and social norms, and in fact you would be essentially saying He changed laws governing lifestyle if the morality of Law was abrogated but which instead is magnified under Christ, with the righteousness of the Law being what Christians are to fulfil.

You are equating the changes as regards the use of the law as regards salvation, so that one no longer attains salvation by actually becoming good enough (as in Roman Catholicism via baptism and Purgatory, if "by grace"), and the abrogation of literal observance of typological ceremonial and ritual laws with abrogation of the moral laws, which are reiterated.

Is the world condemned on the basis of disobeying the Law? Yes. Is there a new covenant? Yes. Is idolatry, murder, covetousness etc. still sin? Yes. Is Christ the supreme standard for righteousness? Yes. But what did He example, but fulfilling the Law in its full intent? Which again, Christians are to progressively walk as to fulfil. And which usually means keeping the moral laws according to the letter and always their intent in following Christ.
You post scriptures to support your statements as if they are going to mean to me what they mean to you. Words are transitory, it's the concepts we attach to them that are not. You aren't grasping that so a sincere exchange of ideas is impossible.
You post words to support your church as if they are going to mean to me what they mean to you. Words are transitory, it's the concepts we attach to them that are not. You aren't grasping that so a sincere exchange of ideas is impossible. But in a reasonable exchange, appeal to a supreme authority, even if subject to interpretation, is necessary.
PeaceByJesus said: But because your church does it then you must impose a change upon how demons operate.

No, actually my brain does not contain stone or porcelain or plastic images, but instead these graven (firmly fixed, carved, sculpted) images are set up right in and on your churches, inviting souls to worship before them. Thus your compelled recourse to "but demons have changes tactics."
Not worth responding to because of the bolded. The bolded is bias that dominates your ability to exchange matters of faith and religious ideas sincerely.
Your rejection of what is manifest is bias that dominates your ability to exchange matters of faith and religious ideas sincerely.
That isn't a distinction the how is still a tradition a priesthood a temple an oracle, it's fundamentally the same.
The difference is in the details. Scriptural worship never incorporated graven images that man on his own accord set up for souls to bow down before in worship. Nor did the NT church ever ordain a separate class of sacerdotal believers, or use the<a href="Deformation of the New Testament Church and context of the Reformation "> distinctive Greek word for such for them </a>, apart from being part of the general priesthood of all believers,

PeaceByJesus said: we see the reiterations of OT moral laws. But nothing sanctioning your graven images, ir even setting up, exalting the Mary of Catholicism, as a omnipotent ("by grace") demigoddess.


Your sophistry ignores the fact that the distinction is for the Hebrews was not simply that the true God was worshiped, but how, and thus, among other distinctions, there were not to make and set up representative graven images for people and even people to worship before, and which is nowhere abrogated under the New Covenant, in teaching or examples.

Do you think Paul would teach them that his God is the true object of their worship if what you say were true?
Yes, what i said is not contrary to Paul showing them their altar represented the True God, but who is not properly worshiped according to their manner.
I bolded a statement of yours because you missed the point of Paul's attraction to the worship of this god.
One can hardly say they actually worshipped God if they did not know who He was (can you worship a blind date?), and which a graven image would not provide, and such i nowhere sanctioned, but what therefore they worshipped as unknown, Paul gives identity to.
An unknown god is by definition a god with no 'graven images'. So He wasn't giving them commands to obey.
Except to correct their ignorant worship, since God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands [graven images], as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (Acts 17:24-25)
That isn't a good approach to conversion. He was taking advantage of a likeness to true worship they were already doing. Basically he was using something they all agree on to persuade.
So you disagree with Paul again since confirmation bias got the best of you. Paul reproves them for their manifest idolatry, but according to you gives no command to the contrary, including form. Yes, Paul basically he was using something they all agree on to persuade, as one can with can culture, but that does not mean sanction of their form or object. We can tell lost souls that what they are really seeking in their lusts is God, but that does not mean sanction of how they seek.

PeaceByJesus said: Actually the people of God are taking their homeland of milk and honey away from peoples and nations who thought it was theirs, since the meek shall inherit the earth, and "the god of this world" presumes it is his, and thus do the rebellious, and at the end the devil will "gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea... on the breadth of the earth" against the people of God. (Revelation 20:8,9) But since you reject that prophecy as literal you will be in for a real surprise.
are they mutually exclusive? I believe both material and spiritual are united as one. You are the either or thinker not me.
Wrong. I am not the either or thinker since I do believe in both the material and spiritual being one in a literal millennial reign of Christ on the literal earth with supernatural means, while RC theology denies the millennial reign of Christ.
The surprise will be on you since you and the world are in agreement about who the enemy is right now.
Wrong once again, since the world sees God as its enemy.
no, the Divine law transcends the natural law, those two are immutable. The moral law is part inherent and part learned and conformed to the laws above it because of our fallen state. The prohomosexual polemists violate the natural law.
Prohomosexual polemists violate the Divine law against unnatural sexual relations.

PeaceByJesus said: That only applies to how the church is to treat such as not being a theocracy (contrary to your history), not to the lawfulness of what they do. idolatry, homosexual relations, etc. are still sinful, even though the church is not to execute them.
You think Jesus is ok with the Church taking up arms and going to war with a pagan nation? Because they're pagan?
Just how do you see my words as affirming the Church taking up arms and going to war with a pagan nation, when i excluded that? The point was that while the church is not to punish sin as per Lev. 20, yet the such sins that were to be punished are still sins, and the church is to discipline those who claim to be members, if not with the sword of men, even though Catholic theology sanctions coercive punishment.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0