Steve Petersen
Senior Veteran
So all you are left with is the claim that God speaks directly to you via the Holy Spirit.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree.
I keep His word in my heart and God guides me in all things that i need to know.
Im not confused. God is my Refuge, Help, and Shepherd. The Lord said "Come unto me all you who are weary and i'll Give you rest". He also said that His sheep know His voice and they follow it. He taught us the beatitudes and Paul did the same when he taught us that the power of Christ is manifested through persecution, distresses, and hardships.EVERYONE believes that and we STILL disagree on things. God is not the author of confusion, and since he guides you personally, everyone who holds different views from you is obviously not being led by God.
I don't mean YOU personally, but the line of thinking.
And as I repeatedly point out to you, you try to use the a contemporary meaning of tradition, so you go off at a tangent. You cannot interpret scripture how it suits you: which is the reformationist disease.
The faith was handed down by word of mouth and letter.
That is the meaning of paradosis.
There wasn't a New Testament. Protestants are amnesic. So clearly the ONLY way the faith was handed was paradosis, tradition. Even the liturgy of mass predates the New Testament!
There was a letter from ignatius to smyrneans. Read it.
Find out what John the apostle taught and handed down. That is the meaning of tradition.
Tradition is what has combated heresy throughout the history of the Church. The Church Fathers continually refer to what has been handed down from the Apostles.
The Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, The Virgin Mary, The Church are all Traditions passed down from the Apostles. It is just that protestants believe some of the Oral Traditions and not others. Are you really surprised by this?
Paul said : " stay true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter" - precisely because history shows there was no New Testament for centuries,and even if there had been, very few could read or afford it, the printing press was a millennium into the future.
Indeed the first canons were deemed heretical, and many contained books we no longer even accept as apocryphal.
It was inspired councils centuries on that pronounced the canon with authority, and one of the criteria for selection was ensuring scripture did not contradict tradition - the faith handed down.
Indeed It is only very recently ( last century) the average person could afford and read a bible.
So Our Lord did not give us a book, he gave us apostles and succession to hand down the faith , primarily by word of mouth, which is the meaning of " paradosis" translated as tradition.
That is also why scripture says " the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" , NOT scripture!
So You quote entirely out of context of history of scripture. That's the problem with evangelical proof texting.
I suggest you study the early fathers, see what the apostles handed to them! I suspect you are in for a surprise, when you see a liturgical sacramental church including Eucharist of the real presence, sacraments valid only if performed by succession bishops or their appointees, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
The acorn that grew into the oak that is the Catholic Church.
Those fathers who decided your canon, also believed in intercession of saints and Mary! Even much mass liturgy predates the official New Testament!
Sola scriptura, is not only easily proven logically false, it is amnesic!
It means the Bible is the sole rule of faith. Virtually all Protestantism rests all its doctrines on this principle. I'm sure you have heard of it.MountainMike, you use the phrase "sola scriptura." I have actually never heard these words spoken in a church. The churches I attend use no Latin phrases.
Please use the quote thingy, I went back 3 pages and couldn't find where MM said any such thing. Scripture and Tradition are inter-related; if a Catholic says otherwise they are wrong.I notice that the Roman Catholics on this thread draw a strict separation between oral tradition and the written record. You talk about these things as two separate categories. One problem that I have with this is I don't believe they are as separate as you think.
You're half right. The Bible itself says that not everything could fit into one book. Oral Tradition is preserved in Apostolic Succession, and can never be destroyed. To say that all Oral Tradition later turned into Scripture is a false man made tradition in itself.Picture the First Century church. A roll of scripture is unrolled and read aloud in church. Is that oral teaching or written teaching? It's a bit of both, oral teaching of what has been recorded in writing. The two aren't completely separate.
I notice that the Roman Catholics on this thread draw a strict separation between oral tradition and the written record. You talk about these things as two separate categories. One problem that I have with this is I don't believe they are as separate as you think. Picture the First Century church. A roll of scripture is unrolled and read aloud in church. Is that oral teaching or written teaching? It's a bit of both, oral teaching of what has been recorded in writing. The two aren't completely separate.
No no no. The Bible fell from the sky in 33 AD, bound in black leather in the KJV that Jesus and the Apostles read from, and gave a copy to each individual believer so they wouldn't need bishops. There was no tradition.You've got it wrong. The Church does nnot separate Oral Tradition and the Written Word. The Written Word (scripture) is part of Oral Tradition. They cannot be separate.
If a local church has statements of belief that it admits go beyond the essentials (those core beliefs that unite us all in Christ), have they added to scripture? Are they no longer gathering around the Gospel, and instead gathering around their own specific system of thinking?
Let me give an example: Suppose a local church identifies two categories of doctrines: 1) The core Gospel message and doctrines which unite every believer in the body of Christ; and 2) The doctrines added to the core that unite this particular local body of believers - that one must hold in order to be a member of the local body.
Category 1 would include things like the sinfulness of man, the divinity of Christ, Christ's atonement for our sins, etc.
Category 2 would include additional doctrines - for the purpose of this example let's say the doctrine of Eternal Security.
By admitting that people can believe contrary to doctrines that fall in category 2 and still be brothers / sisters in Christ as long as they hold to all doctrine in category 1, has the local church elevated the category 2 doctrines to the level of scripture? Have they elevated their own personal beliefs to the level of God's Truth? Would this make this local body more of a club than a local church body? You can organize clubs around anything from an interest in stamp collecting to an affinity for Star Trek. But can you legitimately organize a local church around beliefs that are admittedly open for Christian debate?
When you stand behind the pulpit and declare eternal salvation as Fact without qualifying it with "I believe", and without pointing out that other saved Christians believe differently, are you raising your particular belief to a higher level to which it does not belong?
Long post. Thank you for your patience and your loving responses. This has been weighing on me lately. Trying to figure out how to rightly understand these questions.
You've got it wrong. The Church does nnot separate Oral Tradition and the Written Word. The Written Word (scripture) is part of Oral Tradition. They cannot be separate.
No we don't. Whether Tradition is taught in the oral or written mode doesn't matter.First of all I think that we have to distinguish between oral “tradition” and oral “transmission.”
You are mingling Tradition and tradition which may be part of you confusion.The term tradition implies a long-held belief or practice that is not necessarily connected to any explicit facts or evidence.
No we don't. Whether Tradition is taught in the oral or written mode doesn't matter.
You are mingling Tradition and tradition which may be part of you confusion.
Interesting sceneiro. Do you believe that this "roll of scripture" would have included the New Testament as we know it today in the first century?
It is almost impossible for a sola scripturist to comprehend the meaning of Oral or Sacred Tradition, even though it is mandated in the Bible.No we don't. Whether Tradition is taught in the oral or written mode doesn't matter.
You are mingling Tradition and tradition which may be part of you confusion.
It is almost impossible for a sola scripturist to comprehend the meaning of Oral or Sacred Tradition, even though it is mandated in the Bible.
LOOSE DEFINITION:
the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices.
"Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word
CATECHISM DEFINITION:
CCC 76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit"
- in writing
STUPID DEFINITIONS
- corrupt, excessive and unbiblical doctrines
- all traditions are man made
- Jesus condemned all tradition
The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions).
Of course not. The New Test. was not even completed until approx. 95 AD by John's Revelation of Jesus Christ.
However, the letters and writings of the New Test. were in existence and were read in churches when delivered to them. Also, the early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint.
And there were 100's of other documents read at the Divine Liturgy too. At some point, someone(s) had to take the list of 1000's of documents and determine which ones were inspired text. And the only way this could be accomplished was by using Sacred Tradition. That is why the Church say the Written Word is part of the whole of Sacred Tradition.
Extremely unbiblical. Of course you can prove me wrong by showing me where in scripture is says that "scripture alone is the ONLY authoritative and INFALLIBLE source for.Christian doctrine.Scripture alone is the only authoritative and infallible source for Christian doctrine and practice
Wrong again. The Church safeguards scripture and Sacred Tradition and guards the faithful against heresies.The Roman Catholic Church and it appears that you also argue that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it
You cannot show me where Jesus promised us a book. I however can show you where He promised an authoritative and teaching Church.That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states...........
"when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, does not give the church council equal authority with those books."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?