Doctrine that Adds to Scripture

[Steve Petersen]

I agree.

So all you are left with is the claim that God speaks directly to you via the Holy Spirit.

 

[W2L]

So all you are left with is the claim that God speaks directly to you via the Holy Spirit.

I keep His word in my heart and God guides me in all things that i need to know.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I keep His word in my heart and God guides me in all things that i need to know.

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.

 

[W2L]

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.

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.

 

[Dale]

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!

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.

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.

 

[kepha31]

First of all, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices.
Read more at "Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word
The authority of Scripture is a Tradition. They are inseparable. Orally transmitting the Word of God is not automatically inferior to the written Word. In fact, it was this oral Tradition that was used to prove inspired books from false books. In the same way, if a tradition didn't line up with inspired Scripture, it got tossed. There is a complementary relationship between the two; for one to contradict the other is impossible.
Making false dichotomies between Tradition and Scripture is a false man made tradition in itself.

 

[kepha31]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[concretecamper]

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.

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.

 

[kepha31]

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 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.

 

[Major1]

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.

"I believe" that Eternal salvation is a Bible fact my friend.

Romans 8:30 declares.......
"And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified."

Doesn't that verse tell you that from the moment God chooses us, it is as if we are glorified in His presence in heaven. There is nothing that can prevent a believer from one day being glorified because God has already purposed it in heaven. Once a person is justified, his salvation is guaranteed - he is as secure as if he is already glorified in heaven.

Romans 8:33-34 ..............
"Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died more than that, who was raised to life - is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us."

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? No one will, because Christ is our advocate. Who will condemn us? No one will, because Christ, the One who died for us, is the one who condemns. We have both the advocate and judge as our Savior.

Now, if a church includes that in its statement of faith, it will attract those who accept that Bible teaching. IF YOU or anyone else does not accept that Bible teaching YOU will be free to find a church that does not teach OSAS.

Doctrines such as Purgatory, child baptism, baptism needed in order to be saved, are xtra Biblical legalisms and should be studied and considered carefully before accepting that church. IMO!

 

[Fidelibus]

Picture the First Century church. A roll of scripture is unrolled and read aloud in church.

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?

 

[Major1]

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.

First of all I think that we have to distinguish between oral “tradition” and oral “transmission.”

The term tradition implies a long-held belief or practice that is not necessarily connected to any explicit facts or evidence.

Transmission is a method of conveying information. The content of the Bible was, in some cases, first relayed through oral “transmission,” but not as the result of “tradition.” Rather, what was being transmitted was a direct explanation of specific facts regarding certain people, places, and times. In most cases, the biblical text was put into written form at the time of, or soon after, the events described.

Oral transmission, in and of itself, is not a completely unreliable method, particularly for simpler messages. In a time when most people did not read or write, oral transmission was common, and maintaining the exact original words was considered critical.

The real advantage of a written over an oral message is that the writing preserves a snapshot of a message from an instant in time. One can compare the differences between different claims objectively, and a single message can be re-read with identical precision over and over. According to internal and external evidence, the words of the Bible were preserved in written form extremely early as records of fact, not oral traditions.(How much of the Bible was transmitted by oral tradition?)

 

[concretecamper]

First of all I think that we have to distinguish between oral “tradition” and oral “transmission.”

No we don't. Whether Tradition is taught in the oral or written mode doesn't matter.

The term tradition implies a long-held belief or practice that is not necessarily connected to any explicit facts or evidence.

You are mingling Tradition and tradition which may be part of you confusion.

 

[Major1]

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.

No sir. I am not confused in any way. I just thought you would like some clarity on your comments.

It makes all the difference in the world if one considers the difference between oral traditions and oral transmissions. It seems to me that is an easy understood teaching.

In most cases, the biblical text was put into written form at the time of, or soon after, the events described.

A good example of this is the book of Luke, which explicitly states its origins in chapter 1. Luke is putting the results of his investigation into writing, using the experiences of actual eyewitnesses. Historians have found Luke to be a first-rate source of accurate information. Parts of this Gospel could be considered “oral transmission” prior to his authorship, though many of the same facts are found in the earlier Gospel.

Mark is believed to have been written around AD 55, far too close to the events described for it to fall into the “oral tradition” category.

The same can be said of the Old Testament. The words were being written intentionally, to record the message or events occurring. The Old Testament books are not collections of prior legends, phrased in “once upon a time” language, and they are not detached from historical facts.

But, you are free to believe as you wish and I respect your choices.

 

[Major1]

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?

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.

 

[kepha31]

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).

 

[bbbbbbb]

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).

Just a quick question here from this benighted Protestant.

Does your Oral Tradition contain anything that is not contained in the Bible and, if so, does it contradict anything in the Bible?

Thank you.

 

[concretecamper]

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.

 

[Major1]

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.

As I have stated before. Tradition is fine and it is acceptable up the point where it becomes Doctrine.

Scripture alone is the only authoritative and infallible source for Christian doctrine and practice. Traditions are only valid if they are built on the firm foundation of Scripture and in full agreement with the entirety of Scripture.

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. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident.

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."

 

[concretecamper]

Scripture alone is the only authoritative and infallible source for Christian doctrine and practice

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.

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

Wrong again. The Church safeguards scripture and Sacred Tradition and guards the faithful against heresies.

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."

You cannot show me where Jesus promised us a book. I however can show you where He promised an authoritative and teaching Church.

BTW...what criteria did the early Church use to recognize which books were God breathed? Was it just a feeling? Was everyone in agreement?