Abused texts of Scripture: What is your example?

[The Liturgist]

Now, obviously those who hold to apostolic succession are going to view Scripture within a larger tradition, and see some elements of that role of the original apostles passed down, which is a legitimate difference. You should focus on that aspect, perhaps.

Well that issue is not limited to those who believe in Apostolic Succession - Lutherans regard episcopal apostolic succession as unessential, although many of them have it, via the Scandinavian churches.

However, the belief in the importance of tradition was accepted by the early Protestants, and for good reason, because it is explicitly taught in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. And this idea of tradition being supportive of scripture, for example, in the Anglican model of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, or the Wesleyan quadrilateral of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience, is well established.

In contrast, the Nuda Scripture idea, which claims to reject all tradition on the basis of Mark 7:13 , is clearly an error - it is inconsistent with the beliefs of both the traditional Protestants and the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, whose beliefs are derivved from multiple verses throughout the New Testament - 2 Thessalonians 2:15 , 1 Corinthians 11:2 and Galatians 1:8-9 , for example, and furthermore, Mark 7:13 is clearly in the context of a response to the Pharisaical interpretation of the Torah, which was being written down by the Scribes and would become the Mishnah, which is foundational to Rabbinical Judaism. These were the man-made traditions, not the Holy Tradition of the Church, which includes such important things as the canon of New Testament scripture and the Nicene Creed.

 

[RileyG]

I believe the Holy Spirit will teach us all things of what God said- His Spirit of Truth, it comes with some conditions that not everyone agrees with John 14:15-18 Acts 5:32

Scripture says

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [a]instruction in righteousness,

That was referring to the Hebrew Old Testament, but still a very beautiful verse, nonetheless.

 

[The Liturgist]

So are you denying that individuals can receive the Holy Spirit or only can be received when in the process of being grafted into the church?

I’m sorry, you’re going to have to rephrase that, because I can’t understand what you mean, due to a syntactic error in grammar.

 

[RileyG]

I’m sorry, you’re going to have to rephrase that, because I can’t understand what you mean, due to a syntactic error in grammar.

They receive the Holy Spirit when they are grafted into the Church? Is that what she means?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

That was referring to the Hebrew Old Testament, but still a very beautiful verse, nonetheless.

It means exactly what it says, but believe what you want.

All gets sorted out soon enough anyway.

 

[RileyG]

It means exactly what it says, but believe what you want.

All gets sorted out soon enough anyway.

I didn't say anything against it. Just that at the time Paul was writing that, the NT hasn't been completely written.

Sorry, I came off as confusing.

 

[The Liturgist]

That was referring to the Hebrew Old Testament, but still a very beautiful verse, nonetheless.

Correct.

2 Timothy 3:16 and other references to Scripture in the New Testament are referring to the Old Testament, however, the Church has, with its teaching authority as the Body of Christ, recognized the New Testament as Scripture as well, so it can be applied to it.

However, it is an error to say that 2 Timothy 3:16 contradicts the importance of Holy Tradition, which is supported clearly in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 , 1 Corinthians 11:2, Galatians 1:8-9 and in other places. For example, not requiring people to convert to Judaism before becoming Christian was decided upon and made doctrine at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, which was the prototype for the later Ecumenical Synods in Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I didn't say anything against it. Just that at the time Paul was writing that, the NT hasn't been completely written.

Sorry, I came off as confusing.

All scripture is God breathed, so is the NT, so no reason to believe it doesn't come with the same promises.

 

[The Liturgist]

They receive the Holy Spirit when they are grafted into the Church? Is that what she means?

I don’t know what she meant, which is why I have asked her to rephrase it. I can’t reply speculatively to a question I don’t understand.

However, I did in fact say that when we are grafted into the Church, we receive the Holy Spirit, in that being grafted into the church requires us to receive the Holy Spirit, so one is not a part of the Church without the Holy Spirit.

Earlier in the thread I was accused of having argued that one first had to join the Church before receiving the Holy Spirit, which is not true. They are co-dependent.

 

[The Liturgist]

All scripture is God breathed, so is the NT, so no reason to believe it doesn't come with the same promises.

Indeed, that is not controversial. The inspiration of Scripture is foundational to the Christian faith.

 

[tall73]

I believe the Holy Spirit will teach us all things of what God said, I'm sorry this is not your belief.

a. I believe the Holy Spirit does teach us.

b. Note, you didn't address any of the context of the particular Scripture you previously posted. Instead you posted a different one.

c. You were not there. You did not hear Jesus' words. They could not be brought to your mind, because you were not one of the foundational apostles He was speaking to. If you are going to rely on Scripture, then you need to look at it in context.

e. I do not believe that Scripture records everything God ever said. In fact, John, in the Scriptures, notes that it can't even record all that Jesus did because there would not be enough books.

So can you share the statements that Jesus made, that the Holy Spirit revealed to you, that are not in Scripture?

Scripture says

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [a]instruction in righteousness,

I certainly agree with that.

How does that make you present to hear Jesus' words, for for them to be recalled?

Also, @concretecamper is likely to note that was also written by an apostle, to one who had hands laid on him and was a successor to that apostle. So that isn't addressing his argument either.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I’m sorry, you’re going to have to rephrase that, because I can’t understand what you mean, due to a syntactic error in grammar.

Here- let me ask this way, do individuals receive the Holy Spirit? or only once grafted into the Church (your words, not mine)

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Indeed, that is not controversial. The inspiration of Scripture is foundational to the Christian faith.

Then no reason to disagree that it applies to NT teachings.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

a. I believe the Holy Spirit does teach us.

b. Note, you didn't address any of the context of the particular Scripture you previously posted. Instead you posted a different one.

c. You were not there. You did not hear Jesus' words. They could not be brought to your mind, because you were not one of the foundational apostles He was speaking to. If you are going to rely on Scripture, then you need to look at it in context.

e. I do not believe that Scripture records everything God ever said. In fact, John, in the Scriptures, notes that it can't even record all that Jesus did because there would not be enough books.

So can you share the statements that Jesus made, that the Holy Spirit revealed to you, that are not in Scripture?





I certainly agree with that.

How does that make you present to hear Jesus' words, for for them to be recalled?

Also, @concretecamper is likely to note that was also written by an apostle, to one who had hands laid on him and was a successor to that apostle. So that isn't addressing his argument either.

Sorry, but I didn't ask you to mediate my post between me and others posters. I know your bias and I'm not really interested.

 

[The Liturgist]

Here- let me ask this way, do individuals receive the Holy Spirit?
or only once grafted into the Church (your words, not mine)

I have already answered that question eight times. I have asserted clearly that being grafted in is not a prerequisite to receiving the Holy spirit, but rather the two events are co-dependent. If you receive the Holy Spirit, the act of receiving the Holy Spirit joins you to the Body of Christ, which is the Church, according to the Apostle Paul.

 

[tall73]

Well that issue is not limited to those who believe in Apostolic Succession - Lutherans regard episcopal apostolic succession as unessential, although many of them have it, via the Scandinavian churches.

However, the belief in the importance of tradition was accepted by the early Protestants, and for good reason, because it is explicitly taught in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

I am not disputing that tradition is seen as valuable to more than just those churches with apostolic succession. But in the context of her discussion with the RC poster she was addressing, he is viewing it as specifically the teaching of the apostles passed down through such succession. And if any common ground is to be found, which is unlikely since she considers his church to be the harlot who had various protestant daughters, and he views the RC to be the only true church, it should probably start with looking at the context of these statements in Scripture that she is relying upon, and the nature of their actual disagreement.

 

[The Liturgist]

Then no reason to disagree that it applies to NT teachings.

No one is disagreeing that it applies to the New Testament. The remark of our friend @RileyG pertained to historical context.

 

[tall73]

Sorry, but I didn't ask you to mediate my post between me and others posters. I know your bias and I'm not really interested.

You didn't have to ask me to. This is a public forum. And if you are going to argue from Scripture, you should look at context.

My bias is not the reason you are out of step with the context of the passage you quoted. You really were not on earth to hear Jesus' words and have them recalled to mind.

 

[The Liturgist]

And if any common ground is to be found, which is unlikely since she considers his church to be the harlot who had various protestant daughters,

Where? @SabbathBlessings , do you believe the Protestant churches to be the daughters of a “Harlot”?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I disagree with your proof text.

Soul sleeps as never taught by the historical Church nor the Church Fathers.

Luther may have flirted with the idea, but he never officially believed in it.

You mean what Jesus taught that is clear as day. This is where we differ and will probably never come to terms with. I believe what the bible teaches, especially with a thus saith the Lord, you follow church fathers on what was written outside of scripture.

We will never fundamentally believe on much and that ok.

No point in taking up pages of space. I'll leave it as agree to disagree.

I do wish you well though and pray you will get better soon.