Tradition vs. Sola Scriptura

My indian friend in NY called today telling me about this lady who visits his store and gave him a dvd about Jesus today.
He told her that he has a bible in His language that was given to him by his dear friend who loves Jesus too (me)
He told her another guy brought some stuff too (watchtower) and she told him to just
read the bible but to toss the watchtower stuff !
I said yeah, toss that watchtower stuff, this is a bad guy bringing you this LOL
(Hard sometimes to communicate what you mean with someone who has such a limited understanding of the language)
Anyhow, after reading this last post, I wonder.. CAn and WOULD God help this man
to understand His Scriptures?

I am confident that if I pray for this, that He will hear me and that if it's according to
His will (ya think?) that I will have that which I have asked of Him.
(Thus saith the Lord)

God is Good all the time!

ivebeenshown said:

Did God set some in the Church to be teachers in vain? (1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4) Does Paul, writing in the Spirit, instruct Timothy on multiple occasions to teach and exhort others in vain?

Click to expand...

Now you want me to interpret it,
yet you say i cant???

I completely believe that there is a teaching
'anointing" and that God sets teachers in the church.

But is it written in code?
How do those teachers understand to teach?
They read it and what?

I taught myself many things by reading the book and
then I in turn teach my children.

Do yo seriously think that you can't read and understand the Bible?
Evidently you don't or you wouldn't keep quoting it as though we can.

sunlover1 said:

Now you want me to interpret it,
yet you say i cant???

I completely believe that there is a teaching
'anointing" and that God sets teachers in the church.

But is it written in code?
How do those teachers understand to teach?
They read it and what?

I taught myself many things by reading the book and
then I in turn teach my children.

Do yo seriously think that you can't read and understand the Bible?
Evidently you don't or you wouldn't keep quoting it as though we can.

Click to expand...

I didn't say you can't interpret it, or that I can't interpret it. That's not what I said at all. I am saying that ANYONE can interpret the Scriptures, but NOT EVERYONE can interpret them infallibly.

Why isn't the fuller understanding of NT terminology more frequently evidenced in interpretation (apart from Tradition) ?

I don't believe anyone can interpret them infallibly
Unless the Holy Spirit allows it,
which is a problem.
Since the Holy Spirit doesn't dwell in the unsaved.
So if you're unsaved you interpret it according to your own thoughts,
being fully convinced you're correct,
but completely incorrect.

But what makes you think the RCC was built on a good foundation?
Just because it is old doesn't mean it is correct,
like this Easter holiday.
Pagan, yet people celebrate it.

"Easter" is a translation from the word "east" (iirc, Luther used that term first) - presumable drawn from the OT references to Christ ...

Thekla said:

"Easter" is a translation from the word "east" (iirc, Luther used that term first) - presumable drawn from the OT references to Christ ...

Click to expand...

My understanding is that it is rooted in Baal worship
So yes It would have OT references

People worship the days in different ways though
They say Christ was resurrected on these days?
But doesn't really matter imo.

Didn't Herod in the NT celebrate Easter?
Was Christ still alive at that time?
^
I am unsure of that comment.
I just remember reading it

ivebeenshown said:

I didn't say you can't interpret it, or that I can't interpret it. That's not what I said at all. I am saying that ANYONE can interpret the Scriptures, but NOT EVERYONE can interpret them infallibly.

Click to expand...

On that we agree. We are to spiritually mature and learn to rightly divide the word of GOD. It doesn't happen overnight.

Isolation said:

I don't believe anyone can interpret them infallibly
Unless the Holy Spirit allows it,
which is a problem.
Since the Holy Spirit doesn't dwell in the unsaved.
So if you're unsaved you interpret it according to your own thoughts,
being fully convinced you're correct,
but completely incorrect.

Click to expand...

...and if you're saved? Do all saved people speak the same, and hold the exact same interpretation, or did God decide to just let the saved have varying ideas and interpretations?

But what makes you think the RCC was built on a good foundation?
Just because it is old doesn't mean it is correct,

Click to expand...

Correct -- antiquity does not in itself suggest factuality. It is not the antiquity of the Church itself that leads me to believe the RCC is correct, but rather this:

I know the Holy Spirit is what leads the Church into all truth, yet the Holy Spirit is internal and invisible. Since many churches who disagree all claim to be led in their interpretation by the Holy Spirit, and we cannot 'see' the Spirit visually, I believe God also instituted an external and visible means of transmitting the truth: his Church, which is an organized structure of his people, with governmental offices like that of the bishop. I believe it is the succession of these offices which externally identifies the Church which is led into truth by the Spirit.

ARBITER01 said:

On that we agree. We are to spiritually mature and learn to rightly divide the word of GOD. It doesn't happen overnight.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't there be someone at all times throughout the history of the Church, who is mature and Spirit-led to learn the full and proper interpretation from? Are there times in the history of the Church where you believe that nobody has held the full and correct interpretation?

sunlover1 said:

Evidently that's not the answer because you're adding to what's written lol.

He told them to hold to the traditions they'd been taught...
whether by WORDS or by READING....

Do you have their epistles?
Yes
Do you know what words they said?
No

But I am going to guess it was probably the same things they'd Write.
Either way, we really cannot possibly know ...

Click to expand...

Well, if we can trust Irenaeus, he outlines the oral words for us.

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,33213321 Literally, “without letters;” equivalent to, “without paper and ink,” a few lines previously. 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,
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

What he doesn't include is stuff about Mary or a supreme ruler called Pope or praying to the deceased or icons or purgatory or any of those things that came later, that divide the Body of our Lord on matters of conscience.

sbvd said:

Yet there is something else besides the title, and that is the body of the post

"How does one reject the notion that Tradition can be infallible, while accepting that the New Testament (a product of said tradition) was composed infallibly? I'm not predisposed to either side, just want to hear what you say."

Click to expand...

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Libraryhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html#fnf_ix.iv.ii-p1.3

Yes, they first spoke, but then they wrote it down; that is, scripture, the ground and pillar of our faith.

There is never a sense in the early Church that Tradition was infallible, but only Scripture. It is not Tradition is the ground and pillar of our faith, but Scripture.

Standing Up, he also doesn't include Baptism in that passage. There are many details and truths which he does not mention which many Protestants would agree on as being truthful. Just because he neglected to mention one thing or another in that passage does not mean he did not hold to that which is neglected. In other words, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

ivebeenshown said:

Do you not believe that Christ left us with some means of ensuring that we can have an infallible interpretation of this infallible book

Click to expand...

He instructed us to have faith. Due to our faith, He believed that we could discern the truth for ourselves.

Whether you are taking the RCC at it's word that it teaches the absolute truth, or you are trusting your understanding of Scripture, you are basing your beliefs upon your own discernent. You accept what the RCC teaches or you accept your discernment of God's word.

He(And don't say 'Yes, by the Holy Spirit', because so so so SO many people claim that their understanding of Scripture is 'illuminated by the Spirit'

Click to expand...

And who are we to say that someone's understanding is not illuminated by the Spirit? Do you not believe that the Spirit has a hand in guiding a person to the RCC and accepting it's teachings?

but contradict each other. This is not to say that the Holy Spirit is NOT the means by which infallible interpretation is achieved, but the Holy Spirit is an invisible thing.)

Click to expand...

Okay, yeah, the Holy Spirit is invisible . . . no one disagrees with that.

Standing Up said:

There is never a sense in the early Church that Tradition was infallible, but only Scripture. It is not Tradition is the ground and pillar of our faith, but Scripture.

Click to expand...

Scripture itself indicates that Paul wanted us to hold the tradition of the apostles -- do you believe Paul wanted us to hold traditions that were anything less than infallible?

ivebeenshown said:

Scripture itself indicates that Paul wanted us to hold the tradition of the apostles -- do you believe Paul wanted us to hold traditions that were anything less than infallible?

Click to expand...

What traditions though? What existed at that time? Not what came later like Mariology and Popology and other developed doctrines. What traditions existed then?

God the Father. Jesus Christ His Son. Born of a virgin. Died. Was resurrected. Will come again.

Those are the traditions.

There's no tradition at that time of 'praying to the deceased' of 'purgatory' of 'pope' of many other things that divide. They simply don't exist then, but arose later, apart from apostolic tradition by men who thought they could improve upon the apostles, that the apostles weren't clear.

ivebeenshown said:

Standing Up, he also doesn't include Baptism in that passage. There are many details and truths which he does not mention which many Protestants would agree on as being truthful. Just because he neglected to mention one thing or another in that passage does not mean he did not hold to that which is neglected. In other words, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Click to expand...

Well, that's what I'm thinking is what's going on; that is, some fail to teach that the definition of episcopate has been changed over time. It simply meant with Irenaeus overseer (elder). What it didn't mean was some sort of charisma to dole out God's grace.

... 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.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The Spirit wrote on their hearts, just as He does ours. Saved by grace through faith. Whosoever calls upon the Lord shall be saved.

ivebeenshown said:

I didn't say you can't interpret it, or that I can't interpret it. That's not what I said at all. I am saying that ANYONE can interpret the Scriptures, but NOT EVERYONE can interpret them infallibly.

Click to expand...

Not ANYone can interpret them infallibly.
EVEN the Apostles got confused..

Was that your point then? ...

That's it? You just want to say that not everyone
can interpret them infallibly?

Well you are right, NO person can, and not even those
guys who penned them could.

.

Josiah said:

.... including the RCC denomination, which agrees with NONE but itself.

Click to expand...

Did I say that the Roman Catholic Church is not in contradiction with all other churches? No. Almost every church contradicts the others in some point of doctrine.

Click to expand...

Just noting that the RCC is ONE voice among thousands, one that happens to agree ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY with itself. It's not part of the solution...

Josiah said:

And if the interpretations of self are the "rule" for the norming of the interpretations of self, then the ONLY POSSIBLE OUTCOME is for self to conclude that self agrees with self. Every self there is. Does this have ANY relevance to truth? To every self being correct?

Click to expand...

self agreeing with self does not in itself make self correct.

But now I'll ask: does self NOT agreeing with self make self INCORRECT?

Click to expand...

No, it makes it MOOT.... thus "Tradition" as a rule is also moot. For that and countless other reasons.






.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

No, it makes it MOOT....

Click to expand...

If self disagreeing with self makes self MOOT, then the 'invisible Church' that Protestants describe is MOOT.

Polycarp c155ad on oral and written Tradition.

For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom357357 Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 15. of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and stedfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter,358

358 The form is plural, but one Epistle is probably meant. [So, even in English, “letters” may be classically used for a single letter, as we say “by these presents.” But even we might speak of St. Paul as having written his Epistles to us; so the Epistles to Thessalonica and Corinth might more naturally still be referred to here].

which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour, “is the mother of us all.”
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Libraryhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.iii.html#fnf_iv.ii.iii-p3.1

Polycarp, like Irenaeus, does not point to oral Tradition as the means of building us up in the faith, but the written Tradition (aka Scripture). As well, Polycarp provides no sense that what was spoke orally would be different from what was written.

When you do study it, then go live it, love God, love the neighbor.