Sola scriptura or ECF-like traditions of man? Christ in Mark 7

[chevyontheriver]

I know you think so. It is why you won't even try and have no other response but apoplexy, as it is too straight forward especially with the Candlestick texts. Thy word is a lamp ...

Where did you come up with this? I have never seen any such eisegesis before to prove a 66 book Bible.

 

[Crosstian]

Where did you come up with this? ... Bible.

I quoted the texts to you. The reason you cannot see that, is because you choose not to see it. This I cannot help. You can.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So many new threads recently turning from scripture and insisting that traditions of man are all that matters...

What did Christ say?

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Not saying that all ECF statements are errors of man - only that scripture is the "Gold standard" and not the other way around

Paul himself "tested" sola scriptura
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

Gal 1:6-9
"6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

Acts 20
28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be on the alert,

======================================

Notice - I believe in sola scriptura -- which means I predict that scripture alone will debunk any sort of error raised against it.

No wonder then that the scripture that does it - would be the focus and solution for complaints against the very practice we see in scripture.

It is like saying "here is the medicine that will cure that sickness" and then each time the sickness shows up -- "that same medicine" appears as the solution. Not all that surprising.

The early church fathers’ writings are beneficial to determining the correct interpretation of the scriptures. They are not in contradiction of one another. At least not in the first 3 centuries.

 

[Albion]

All view scripture through a lens of their tradition. Not just catholics.

Once again, a confusion of tradition(s) and "Holy Tradition."

(That is why you were adamant the only OT reference to "keys of the kingdom" had nothing to do with the NT reference)

No, it isn't. If you or anyone else compares the two events, there is no real equivalence. One is about political authority and one is about a religious commission. One gives a key; the other gives keys (and Rome makes much of the symbolism of there being two of them, as you may know.)

So there is no real parallel between the two, and the attempt to make it seem as though the one foreshadows the other is simply a fabrication.

 

[Not David]

10 pages already so I am not answering anymore. Thanks everyone!

 

[Barney2.0]

Nonsense again.

Elizabeth doesn't once say "mother of God", directly or "indirectly" (code word for 'I made it up and want to add it to Gods word somehow'). It is pure imagination and fiction of the devil. It is blasphemy. It is a direct assault upon God.

"mother of my Lord", as spoken by Elizabeth refers to the throne of David in the very context.

God (even the Son of the Father) exists before, from eternity, before 'mothers' (for only humanity has such) ever created. Mothers, in verity, deal with the flesh.

Joh_3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Using the backward logic some use, would mean that David is the Father of God, Solomon is the Father of God, etc, and Bathsheba is the Mother of God, and Sarai/h is the Mother of God, and Eve is the Mother of God and so on.

Mat_12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mar_3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mar 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mar 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

All Christians have Christ Jesus born within.

Try dealing with facts - Theotokos or theoNOTokos

You blasphemy by removing the title of theotokos from the mother of Christ. The throne of David would be inhabited by the Lord of David, God himself according to Christ:

If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?"

Matthew 22:45

So either way Elizabeth refers to Christ’s divinity here. Of course God existed before Mary, however our Lord took on flesh becoming our savior on earth as pure man while remaining the Lord of the universe as true God in his divinity, his humanity forever united to his divinity forever without any alteration to either, thus Mary is the Mother of the One Christ who was human as well as God, although she wasn’t the originator or his divinity however Christ’s divinity and humanity incarnated in her belly so she was the mother of Christ who was true God as well as true man.

How would Solomon, David and Eve or any other Biblical figures be God’s fathers or mothers, please explain how that relates to what I’m saying or my argument.

Jesus calling all Christians his brethren means we are all his beloved, however Jesus’s biological mother was more beloved then all. However only one women is full of grace by having Christ incarnated in her belly while we need grace bestowed on us by God. To be full of grace one has to be fully Holy from the start which means being sinless, while we are born in sin and struggle with it not so the ever virgin vessel of the Lord and best of all creation, pure and sinless from the start.

Christians have Christ once they accepted him however Christ didn’t come to the world through us.

 

[redleghunter]

Trinity is present but Sola Scriptura isn't.

Trinity is not there, but the demonstration of One God Three Divine Persons is there and that is where the early church started.

 

[redleghunter]

Pharisees were not present in the Old Testament.

The priests and elders were present. They were the 1st century version.

 

[redleghunter]

You blasphemy by removing the title of theotokos from the mother of Christ.

Actually the title was given due to the Person of Jesus Christ the Divine Logos.

 

[Albion]

Trinity is not there, but the demonstration of One God Three Divine Persons is there and that is where the early church started.

That's true. While both the Trinity and Sola Scriptura are testified to in the Bible, the description or identification of the Triune nature of God is less evident than the status and worth of Scripture.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I quoted the texts to you. The reason you cannot see that, is because you choose not to see it. This I cannot help. You can.

It's sort of the same way you get 666 from Ellen Gould White. Only that is straight letter to Roman numeral.

You say:

There are two stacks of 6 loaves on the table of shewbread, which represents God's word, taken together. 6-6.

Where in the text does that not equal twelve for the twelve tribes?

Across from the table of shew bread is the candlestick when all the flowers, knops etc added up. 66.

Where in the text is it allowed to add apples and oranges and get books?

The book of Isaiah, being the mini bible, from creation to redemption and new heavens and earth, are chapters. 66

Stephen Langton added chapters to the Bible in the 13th century. How could someone know before the 13th century how many chapters there were in Isaiah? Was Stephen Langdon, a cardinal in the Catholic Church by the way, infallible in numbering 66 chapters for Isaiah?

The number of man is 6. Jesus took upon himself the form of a servant, and became 'man', 6. There God who took upon himself humanity (Jesus) and man. 6 - 6.

Where in the Bible alone does it tell us this is (6x10)+6=66 and not 6+6=12 or 6x6=36. From the Bible alone now.

The OT itself, the standard of judgment is the limit of the law, meaning, 40 stripes save 1. 39.

Where in the text is the number of lashes equal to the number of books in the OT?

The NT is a little more interesting, in that there are 4 gospels, corresponding to the 4 living creatures of Revelation, 7 letters to 7 churches by Paul as like in Revelation, etc and it also ties into the Sanctuary. The 4 gospels in the altar of Sacrifice, the book of Acts the Laver of Baptism, the letters to the churches and epistles the life in the Holy Place (bread (word), incense (prayer), light (share)), and Revelation ending in the Most Holy Place.

Sorry. I can't follow how you get twenty-seven out of that paragraph. Nor how that paragraph tells us anything revealed about the number of books in the New Testament. It's a bit of a ramble if you ask me.

It also is 3 to the 3rd power (3x3x3). 27.

From the Bible alone can you show why three to the third power is any more special than any other number in determining the number of books in the Bible? From the Bible alone now, what is the significance of any cubed number?

They’re absolutely true. Consider the 7 Branch Candlestick and 66 number in totaling all the knops, etc.

Psa_119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Exo 25:31 And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same.

Exo 25:32 And six branches shall come out of the sides of it; three branches of the candlestick out of the one side, and three branches of the candlestick out of the other side:

Exo 25:33 Three bowls made like unto almonds, with a knop and a flower in one branch; and three bowls made like almonds in the other branch, with a knop and a flower: so in the six branches that come out of the candlestick.

Exo 25:34 And in the candlestick shall be four bowls made like unto almonds, with their knops and their flowers.

Exo 25:35 And there shall be a knop under two branches of the same, and a knop under two branches of the same, and a knop under two branches of the same, according to the six branches that proceed out of the candlestick.

Exo 25:36 Their knops and their branches shall be of the same: all it shall be one beaten work of pure gold.

Exo 25:37 And thou shalt make the seven lamps thereof: and they shall light the lamps thereof, that they may give light over against it.

Exo_37:17 And he made the candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work made he the candlestick; his shaft, and his branch, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, were of the same:

Exo_37:20 And in the candlestick were four bowls made like almonds, his knops, and his flowers:

Exo_37:22 Their knops and their branches were of the same: all of it was one beaten work of pure gold.

[1] Knops per side (6) branch x 3 = 18
[2] Flowers per side (6) branch x 3 = 18
[3] Bowls per (6) branch x 3 = 18
[4] 6 side branches (3 of each knop, flower and bowl per (thus 9)) = 54
[5] 1 central (branch) stock (4 knops, 4 flowers, 4 bowls) = 12
[6] Total = 18 + 18 + 18 + 12 = 66

This numerological eisegesis simply takes the cake. Who did you learn this one from?

I know which books are canonical because the Church that Jesus Christ established tells me so. I don't need any numerology to know what is Bible and what isn't.

 

[Albion]

You blasphemy by removing the title of theotokos from the mother of Christ.

You cannot very well blaspheme against Mary unless she turns out to be the fourth person of the Blessed Quadrinity.

 

[FenderTL5]

You cannot very well blaspheme against Mary unless she turns out to be the fourth person of the Blessed Quadrinity.

The blasphemy is not against Mary, it's against the Divinity of Christ.

 

[redleghunter]

The blasphemy is not against Mary, it's against the Divinity of Christ.

I'm Protestant and fully see the logic of the title theotokos. That being that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly human but One Person and cannot be divided. I don't think the council was setting up a title for Blessed Mary to be worshiped or venerated by.

 

[Knee V]

JUST the Old Testament. Ok.

Do you know how bad that sounds?

It doesn't sound bad at all. The point of that discussion is that the Scripture being referred to is the Old Testament and not anything else. Thus, it is strictly, or JUST, the Old Testsment. Surely that point was evident.

 

[Athanasius377]

It's good that you stressed that point. One thing that all of us here have get straight before going into our respective 'pitches' is that traditions (or tradition in the singular) and "Holy Tradition" are NOT the same thing.

Indeed, "Holy Tradition" is a completely arbitrary and made-up term.

Church leaders could just as easily have called the idea of making the opinion of ordinary men into a second source of divine revelation (other than the Bible) by almost any other term that was handy. The church chose this one, but we, at least, need to keep them separate.

I like a lot of what you wrote. I suppose I could even find the idea of Holy Tradition possible properly defined. What I mean Is the Rule of Faith practiced by the Early Church during inscripturation of the NT. what I reject is the other later doctrines that are smuggled in under the same heading. Just thinking aloud.

 

[redleghunter]

I like a lot of what you wrote. I suppose I could even find the idea of Holy Tradition possible properly defined. What I mean Is the Rule of Faith practiced by the Early Church during inscripturation of the NT. what I reject is the other later doctrines that are smuggled in under the same heading. Just thinking aloud.

Probably a good thing to review what the Rule of Faith was in the 2nd Century as opined on by St Irenaeus:

Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10)

1. The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess Philippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

3. It does not follow because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe, (as if He were not sufficient for them), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten. But the fact referred to simply implies this, that one may [more accurately than another] bring out the meaning of those things which have been spoken in parables, and accommodate them to the general scheme of the faith; and explain [with special clearness] the operation and dispensation of God connected with human salvation; and show that God manifested longsuffering in regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed, as also with respect to the disobedience of men; and set forth why it is that one and the same God has made some things temporal and some eternal, some heavenly and others earthly; and understand for what reason God, though invisible, manifested Himself to the prophets not under one form, but differently to different individuals; and show why it was that more covenants than one were given to mankind; and teach what was the special character of each of these covenants; and search out for what reason God Romans 11:32 has concluded every man in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all; and gratefully describe on what account the Word of God became flesh and suffered; and relate why the advent of the Son of God took place in these last times, that is, in the end, rather than in the beginning [of the world]; and unfold what is contained in the Scriptures concerning the end [itself], and things to come; and not be silent as to how it is that God has made the Gentiles, whose salvation was despaired of, fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers with the saints; and discourse how it is that this mortal body shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption; 1 Corinthians 15:54 and proclaim in what sense [God] says, That is a people who was not a people; and she is beloved who was not beloved; Hosea 2:23; Romans 9:25 and in what sense He says that more are the children of her that was desolate, than of her who possessed a husband. Isaiah 54:1; Galatians 4:27 For in reference to these points, and others of a like nature, the apostle exclaims: Oh! The depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! Romans 11:33 But [the superior skill spoken of] is not found in this, that any one should, beyond the Creator and Framer [of the world], conceive of the Enthymesis of an erring Æon, their mother and his, and should thus proceed to such a pitch of blasphemy; nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Æons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.​

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Why not think of tradition as God guiding the church in the world by granting wisdom to those who lead and faith to those who follow and all the while speaking in the holy scriptures for the benefit of all?

I guess I could follow that line of reasoning if I took the advice of a certain Mr Worldly Wiseman.

 

[GingerBeer]

I guess I could follow that line of reasoning if I took the advice of a certain Mr Worldly Wiseman.

Is the advice of Mr Spiritual Charlatan better?

 

[Athanasius377]

Come on, settle down. There’s no reason for the thread to get nasty. Let’s stay away from the ad hominems.