Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[racer]

Paul's writings were not called scripture in his day.

How do you know that?

AND 'the other scripture'.... MEANS JUST THAT....OTHER WRITINGS THAT THE PPL WERE TRYING TO INTERPRET FOR THEMSELVES AND IF THEY STOOD BY THEIR own INTERPRETATIONS THEY MISSED HOW THE PROPHETS SPOKE ABOUT CHRIST.

No, no, no. You can't do that. You can't say, "as for other scripture, it means just that," then restate it with different words, "other writings." Come on, WA, we're smarter than that. Peter is specifically talking about Scripture and he includes Pauls writings in this category.

fURTHERMORE, A COMPARISON DOESNT MEAN PETER SAID THAT PAUL WROTE SCRIPTURE, BUT JUST LIKE SCRIPTURE, PPL NEEDED HELP UNDERSTANDING PAUL SO AS NOT TO COME TO DESTRUCTION TRYING TO FORGE THEIR OWN OPINIONS.

Are you denying that God inspired Peter and Paul to write Scripture? Do you deny that God knew in advance what Jesus and the apostles taught were Scripture?

again...THE New Testament DIDNT EXIST AND NONE OF THEM called their writings scripture. BUT rather EPISTLES.

You just quoted Peter calling them Scripture!

WA, just because some of the people at the time were not aware that the teachings of Jesus and his apostles were Scripture, that they were not Scripture.

Or did you overlook that part??

I'm not overlooking anything.

*Caps locked sorry.

Hey, no problem.

 

[racer]

Yet there are disagreements even among the basics

Because some people get it wrong.

Christ left you His Church. What teachings did Christ leave His Apostles concerning baptism?

He sent us the Holy Spirit to comfort and guide.

 

[racer]

Go argue with Peter. Not, me. I am not going to argue a point that is presented in plain language. I see you have no problem arguing against such a thing......



That is what they were doing. It says arrogant and stupid men were doing it. We have had plenty of arrogant and stupid religious leaders over the years, just like they lived in Peter's day. Making up traditions by distoring Scripture, and telling the naive people its from God. Nothing new under the sun.

Peter, included... Jews did not use the term "Scripture" in such light way as you claim. And, it spoke of misinterpretation leading to destruction. Not what happens with reading just a book, etc. Scripture meant, "Bible" to them.

Paul's Epistles which were preserved are Scripture today.

Peter in the Spirit recognized what Paul was writing.

Can't you?

Can't you???????

Why not?

Gone fish'in ...... GeneZ

I got this fancy new computer, and it won't let me give reputation points. Something to do with "pop-up" blocker.

But, reps to you genez!

Lisa

 

[Asinner]

Um . . . no, and we know this because we have the Bible. This is the manner in which God decided to preserve the teachings to ensure there passage along to us

I have to run, but wanted to respond quickly to this. Racer , this is the crux of the matter, IMO. I agree that the Bible helps to ensure the teachings of Christ; however, the interpretation of these teachings has been preserved for us as well. 30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

God has preserved the meaning of His Words in His Church.

God Bless

 

[xapis]

[/font]

I have to run, but wanted to respond quickly to this. Racer , this is the crux of the matter, IMO. I agree that the Bible helps to ensure the teachings of Christ; however, the interpretation of these teachings has been preserved for us as well. 30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

God has preserved the meaning of His Words in His Church.

God Bless

What man do you suppose was able to guide him? The eunuch had never heard the Scriptures. He was asking the question out of a lack of knowledge. Seasoned Christians, by the Spirit, are supposed to read, study, and understand the Scriptures!

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." —2 Tim. 2:15

 

[racer]

[/font]I have to run, but wanted to respond quickly to this. Racer , this is the crux of the matter, IMO. I agree that the Bible helps to ensure the teachings of Christ; however, the interpretation of these teachings has been preserved for us as well.

30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

I have acknowledged the necessity of the Church as a "teaching authority." Yes, there are many things in scripture which take some explanation for the average Joe to understand. Nobody denies that.

However, how long did Philip give instruction to the man in the desert? Did he send the man to find a church when he was through instructing him?

God has preserved the meaning of His Words in His Church.

I disagree. You are asserting that one must belong to a particular church to get the true meaning. That's not so.

The meaning is preserved with the teachings. Yes, we are instructed and corrected by the church. However, the Spirit helps us to understand the meaning as well. It's not in sole possession of the earthly institution of a church.

 

[lionroar0]

Well, you've answered one part of my question, where to look. But, why are you tap dancing around the question as to what these traditions/or thie Tradition is?

Also, I didn't realize that the Church fathers were infallible.

They are not but when they express the faith that has been taught by Jesus and handed down through the Apostles and bishops they are.

Not because they are Church Fathers but rather because, the Faith that Jesus gave to the Apostles and the Apostles were led into all Truth by the Holy Spirit. This is what was passed down to the Church. Not just through the bishops but also taught to the laity.

This Truth is infallable.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Well, you've answered one part of my question, where to look. But, why are you tap dancing around the question as to what these traditions/or thie Tradition is?

Also, I didn't realize that the Church fathers were infallible.

Traditin is the whole of what Jesus taught to the Apostles and it is also what was revealed to tyhe Apostles through the Holu Spirit.

This is expressed in the Scriptures, and also the writtings of the Church FAthers, the Councils and the life of the Church.

Peace

 

[ETide]

Traditin is the whole of what Jesus taught to the Apostles and it is also what was revealed to tyhe Apostles through the Holu Spirit.

This is expressed in the Scriptures, and also the writtings of the Church FAthers, the Councils and the life of the Church.

Peace

Help me to understand something here..

Does the CC teach that only their successors have the Spirit of God..ie, so is that how they're able to continue teaching their Tradition..?

AND.. do all members of the cc have the Spirit of God..? If so, what makes them less apt than those who are considered successors having the same Spirit..?

 

[Asinner]

The meaning is preserved with the teachings. Yes, we are instructed and corrected by the church. However, the Spirit helps us to understand the meaning as well. It's not in sole possession of the earthly institution of a church.

The meaning is not preserved with the teachings.

I will continue to use baptism as my example. We clearly know through the reading of scripture that we must be baptized. This is the teaching. What is the praxis for baptism? The method is not defined in the scriptures.

God Bless

 

[Asinner]

What man do you suppose was able to guide him? The eunuch had never heard the Scriptures. He was asking the question out of a lack of knowledge. Seasoned Christians, by the Spirit, are supposed to read, study, and understand the Scriptures!

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." —2 Tim. 2:15

The fruits of this are absent. If what you say is true, then unity of practice would exist where there is a multiplicity of practices.

God Bless

 

[xapis]

The fruits of this are absent. If what you say is true, then unity of practice would exist where there is a multiplicity of practices.

We could say there's multiplicity of practices about anything.

 

[racer]

They are not but when they express the faith that has been taught by Jesus and handed down through the Apostles and bishops they are.

Not because they are Church Fathers but rather because, the Faith that Jesus gave to the Apostles and the Apostles were led into all Truth by the Holy Spirit.

Using that logic, we're all subject to be infallible at times.

This is what was passed down to the Church. Not just through the bishops but also taught to the laity.

This Truth is infallable.

Yes, but people are not. Therefore, anytime someone happens to express the truth as it was delivered by Christ to the Apostles, he is speaking infallibly at that moment.

 

[racer]

Traditin is the whole of what Jesus taught to the Apostles and it is also what was revealed to tyhe Apostles through the Holu Spirit.

But, which parts are not contained in the Bible?

This is expressed in the Scriptures, and also the writtings of the Church FAthers, the Councils and the life of the Church.

What is? Or show me precisely where it is expressed, please.

 

[racer]

The meaning is not preserved with the teachings.

Asinner, that does not make sense.

I will continue to use baptism as my example. We clearly know through the reading of scripture that we must be baptized. This is the teaching. What is the praxis for baptism? The method is not defined in the scriptures.

God Bless

You can not logically argue that the meaning of the teachings are not preserved in the writings. You could argue that "how" certain ordinances are to be performed, ie: your example (though some disagree with the argument.) on baptism--it may not state explicitly how this is to be done. However, the "how or when" to do something is not the same as the "meaning" of it. The command to be baptized means just that, we are to be baptized.

However, there are still those who would likely argue that Scripture gives a fair outline of how baptism is to take place. This can be gleened from passages such as these:

Mat 3:16; And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Luke 3:16; John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Jhn 1:26; John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

Jhn 3:23; And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Acts 1:5; For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence

1Cr 6:11; And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God

Hbr 10:22; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Certain teachings my not be explicitly revealed in Scripture, but the meanings are there.

 

[Asinner]

Asinner, that does not make sense.



You can not logically argue that the meaning of the teachings are not preserved in the writings. You could argue that "how" certain ordinances are to be performed, ie: your example (though some disagree with the argument.) on baptism--it may not state explicitly how this is to be done. However, the "how or when" to do something is not the same as the "meaning" of it. The command to be baptized means just that, we are to be baptized.

However, there are still those who would likely argue that Scripture gives a fair outline of how baptism is to take place. This can be gleened from passages such as these:

Mat 3:16; And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Luke 3:16; John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Jhn 1:26; John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

Jhn 3:23; And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Acts 1:5; For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence

1Cr 6:11; And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God

Hbr 10:22; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Certain teachings my not be explicitly revealed in Scripture, but the meanings are there.

Hi Racer

I am speaking of praxis. Scripture's meaning is found in it's practice.

The baptism verses you quoted suggest water is necessary. There are others, as you know, who would disagree with this interpretation, citing that baptism is by the spirit and water is not necessary. The practice of the Church is baptism by immersion (in water). So, here, your interpretation alignes with that of the Church. Keep going . . . what else does scripture tell us about the method of baptism?

God Bless

 

[racer]

Hi Racer

I am speaking of praxis. Scripture's meaning is found in it's practice.

Which is sometimes revealed in Scripture as in the examples I've provided.

The baptism verses you quoted suggest water is necessary. There are others, as you know, who would disagree with this interpretation, citing that baptism is by the spirit and water is not necessary. The practice of the Church is baptism by immersion (in water).

Read closer what I provided:

Mat 3:16; And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Hbr 10:22; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

It shows more than just water is necessary if you read closely enough.

 

[racer]

Here are some interesting verses:

1 Jo 4:1; Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

​

Why would he have told us to do this if it was believed we can not do this?

1 Jo 4:6; We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

​

Right here we are told that because we are of God, we, you and I, know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. Clearly the early church had more faith in its laity that the church came to believe.

1 Jo 5:8; And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

​

There are three proclaimed witnesses on earth, the Spirit, water and blood. How does one assert this translates to "the Church" bears witness?

 

[Asinner]

It shows more than just water is necessary if you read closely enough.

I'm listening . . .

 

[calmcoolandelected]

I will say it again --

The Bible clearly teaches everything we need to know about salvation and eternal life. So clear is it that those of primitive mind may understand it. Yes, there are some things that are more profound that scholars spend a lifetime studying, but God has given all we need to know about salvation and eternal life in plain words.

I'm not so sure that the mode of baptism will determine if someone is saved or not. The Bible teaches that to be saved one must believe in Jesus. Is it possible that one could be saved and never baptised?

CC&E

ASinner said, "This is not true. Scripture is a deep well. Let's take baptism. How is baptism administered? One dunk or three? Is it spiritual only (no water)? Is it for an entrance into His Church only? Is it regenerative? Is it merely an outward sign? What about infant baptism? Believers baptism? Ect, ect, ect. . .?

The scripture you claim is so easily understood tells me there is "one baptism". Which one is it?"



My point was that there are things that are essential such as those things we affirm in the Nicene Creed and there are things that are non-essential such as mode of baptism (sprinkling vs. dunking). I now realize that we have differences in what baptism is.

CC&E - has no idea how the green font turned on....