Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[Rdr Iakovos]

I don't believe you neglect or reject the words of God even if we have a different understanding of it.

Fair enough.

 

[Trento]

Some personal thoughts...



2. If self declares self as the "sole final arbiter" for self, then self will be arbitrated as correct. If a Teacher (a person, congregation or denomination) is simply deemed as unaccountable and infallible, then the whole issue of accountability is completely moot - they are correct because they just are. It does seem to lead to these "round and round" discussions...


Ironcially, I've OFTEN found that the very people most irretated by this approach are the very ones most strongly embracing it. "I'm just right" "My church is just right!" Whoever is your Teacher, if he/she/it is considered infallible and unaccountable, if it is assumed he/she/it is correct because he/she/it so self-claims that, then for that person, such is the case. Round and round we go....


Understandable, I suppose
I just find it ironic that these people soooooooooo clearly see the self-authentication and circular affirmation when OTHERSuse it (often ridiculing it) but seldom see it at all when they use it...


Discussions like this just remind me - firmly - of the need for accountability and humility.
And renew my caution when someone insists that they (person, congregation, denomination) are infallible and therefore unaccountable and beyond question.



MY thoughts...
I never ask anyone to agree with me, I'm pleased when people understand my point of view.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

Ironcially, I've OFTEN found that the very people most irretated by this approach are the very ones most strongly embracing it. "I'm just right" "My church is just right!" Whoever is your Teacher, if he/she/it is considered infallible and unaccountable, if it is assumed he/she/it is correct because he/she/it so self-claims that, then for that person, such is the case. Round and round we go....

I came to a painful realization long ago that,while the idea that the Bible is the only authority works to dodge imperial convictions in European courtrooms,it simply doesn'tpan out in real living. Baptists (or pick your denomination) are no different than Catholics. They believe they are the true Church and there way to understand the Bible as taught by their leaders, is THE way.
After all you couldn't go to a Baptist Church and saywe should listen to the Pope can you?
Thats because Baptists insist that it is an incorrect interpretation of Matt. 16 . If Baptists teach that , then it stands to reason that Baptists set themselves up as an authority on par with scripture and so does everyone else even though they don't admit it.
This is as inconsistant as the faux convictions and rampant contradictions in modern secularism which non Chrisians described when converting to the Church.

 

[ETide]

Baptists (or pick your denomination) are no different than Catholics. They believe they are the true Church and there way to understand the Bible as taught by their leaders, is THE way.

I can not speak for all baptist denominations (and I know that you were only using them as an example), although I have two sisters which assemble together in baptist congregations.. and they do not believe that they are the true church in the sense that catholics do..

We've been through 40 pages on this thread and there's still a massive disconnect as to what the church of God actually is, nevermind Tradition or traditions..

Catholics believe that the RCC is the true church of God, and this simply reveals to many that they have no scriptural idea as to what the church of God actually is..

That may sound harsh.. but let's face it folks.. this is not the church of God as revealed through the word of God.

There are massive dis-connects like this between those who take the word of God as it is.. the word of God.. versus those who will say that it lacks and that it's a product of their own tradition..

There will never be unity in this.. although there is unity in Christ. Those in Christ have the Spirit of God and this unites them together as one body.. many members, one body..

There's even enormous disconnect in that though.. because many preach and teach that they are born again through the acts of men in baptism.. as if they can add members to the body of Christ at will.

Let's see it for what it is folks.. massive disconnects between these portions of Christendom.. how can we go on and on when we do not agree as to what the church of God is.. ?

 

[Asinner]

Or this verse:
Acts 8:38 & 39; And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Does this verse stir no image in your mind?

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:

You are inferring immersion, correct?

God Bless

 

[WarriorAngel]

I came to a painful realization long ago that,while the idea that the Bible is the only authority works to dodge imperial convictions in European courtrooms,it simply doesn'tpan out in real living. Baptists (or pick your denomination) are no different than Catholics. They believe they are the true Church and there way to understand the Bible as taught by their leaders, is THE way.
After all you couldn't go to a Baptist Church and saywe should listen to the Pope can you?
Thats because Baptists insist that it is an incorrect interpretation of Matt. 16 . If Baptists teach that , then it stands to reason that Baptists set themselves up as an authority on par with scripture and so does everyone else even though they don't admit it.
This is as inconsistant as the faux convictions and rampant contradictions in modern secularism which non Chrisians described when converting to the Church.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Trento again.



​

 

[racer]

You are inferring immersion, correct?

God Bless

Do the verses bring any image to your mind? Do you infer nothing when Scripture mentions going down and coming up from the water?

 

[Asinner]

Do the verses bring any image to your mind? Do you infer nothing when Scripture mentions going down and coming up from the water?

Yes, Racer, to me, that much is obvious. To others, not so . . .

You quoted one verse earlier to me that mentioned the water being "pure". What does this mean to you?

God Bless

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some personal thoughts...



2. If self declares self as the "sole final arbiter" for self, then self will be arbitrated as correct. If a Teacher (a person, congregation or denomination) is simply deemed as unaccountable and infallible, then the whole issue of accountability is completely moot - they are correct because they just are. It does seem to lead to these "round and round" discussions...


Ironcially, I've OFTEN found that the very people most irretated by this approach are the very ones most strongly embracing it. "I'm just right" "My church is just right!" Whoever is your Teacher, if he/she/it is considered infallible and unaccountable, if it is assumed he/she/it is correct because he/she/it so self-claims that, then for that person, such is the case. Round and round we go....


Understandable, I suppose
I just find it ironic that these people soooooooooo clearly see the self-authentication and circular affirmation when OTHERSuse it (often ridiculing it) but seldom see it at all when they use it...


Discussions like this just remind me - firmly - of the need for accountability and humility.
And renew my caution when someone insists that they (person, congregation, denomination) are infallible and therefore unaccountable and beyond question.



MY thoughts...
I never ask anyone to agree with me, I'm pleased when people understand my point of view.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

I came to a painful realization long ago that,while the idea that the Bible is the only authority works to dodge imperial convictions in European courtrooms,it simply doesn'tpan out in real living. Baptists (or pick your denomination) are no different than Catholics. They believe they are the true Church and there way to understand the Bible as taught by their leaders, is THE way.
After all you couldn't go to a Baptist Church and saywe should listen to the Pope can you?
Thats because Baptists insist that it is an incorrect interpretation of Matt. 16 . If Baptists teach that , then it stands to reason that Baptists set themselves up as an authority on par with scripture and so does everyone else even though they don't admit it.
This is as inconsistant as the faux convictions and rampant contradictions in modern secularism which non Chrisians described when converting to the Church.

IMO...

I respectfully disagree with you.

I cannot speak for every Baptist in the world, but I've not met one that beleived that the church of Christ is a denominational institution and that theirs happens to be "it" nor have I ever met a Baptist who thinks their denominaiton (Southern Baptist Convention, for example) is infallible or unaccountable or that whatever it says is equal to or above the Bible in Authority.


My own view is that NO denomination is the church of Christ. And one who embraced that - whether they be Catholic, Mormon or otherwise - would be at varience with my view.


It is not helpful to discussion or the quest for mutual understanding to simply accuse others of doing what you insist should be done. This is a point I've often found ironic. If you are so against private interpretation - then it should be wrong when ANY denomination does it - even if such be your own, and if you are so against a denomination claiming to be "the Christian church" infallible and unaccountable, then it should be wrong when ANY denomination does it - even if it happens to be your own. At least, that's how I see it. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" so to speak.

But Protestants don't buy into this institutionalization of Christ and His church. We tend to not equate such with any institution - INCLUDING OUR OWN. We are apt to think that Christians are people, so the church is people. "The mystical union of all beleivers" is how we put it. We confess each week that we believe in "one holy catholic and apostolic church" we speak of the church as "the Body of Christ," we speak of the "communion of saints" embracing equally into His church even those now passed into death, so clearly we aren't speaking of 1,000,000 + congregations for 1,000 + denominations, including our own. It's a different view of the church - and we apply it JUST AS MUCH to ourselves as to others. We are ALL equal, full brothers and sisters in Christ by faith through grace - Soli Deo Gloria!


The same goes for our leaders. It often strikes Protestants as, well, odd, when Catholics quote from promanent Protestants as if we regard them as an infallible, unaccountable Visible Head and Vicar of Christ - at least equal to the written Word of God in normative authority. We don't. Not even if they are the most noted figure in our denomination. For me, as a new Lutheran, I see Luther as a student of the Bible - nothing more, nothing less. He put his pants on one leg at a time - just like I do. He said some wise things, she say some stupid things - even offensive things. The 'norma normans' for Protestants is the Lord's Word - for He is our Lord, we are not His lord. Our words are subject to His, His are not subject to ours. It's a different way of looking at things.


I hope this helps....


MY views...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[racer]

Yes, Racer, to me, that much is obvious. To others, not so . . .

You quoted one verse earlier to me that mentioned the water being "pure". What does this mean to you?

God Bless

My point was more focused on the "washed" part. When you talk about going down in water, coming up from water and being "washed," it's kind of hard coming up with any understanding other than immersion.

Here's an exerpt from article on water baptism:

http://www.prime.org/manuwal/water_baptism.html

Water Baptism

An important factor is overlooked by the exponents of sprinkling. The original New Testament text and the spoken language of that day was Greek. The authors of the New Testament knew the Greek word "baptizo" meant to immerse. They also knew the Greek word "rantizo" meant to sprinkle. These often used words were never interchangeable, having separate meanings. If God had intended for His ministers to sprinkle, the Greek word "rantizo" would have been employed, not "baptizo."

From the Greek to English Lexicon: Baptism taken from Greek word baptizo - to dip, immerse.

Classic Greek dictionary by Pollet: Greek word baptizo means to dip under.

 

[Asinner]

Racer,

Something else that is not inferred through the written word is triple immersion. The triple immersion, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is representative of His three days in the tomb.

God Bless

 

[racer]

Here's a quote for Augustine which addresses both authority of Scripture and baptism:

"For who would dare to say that Christ is not the Savior and Redeemer of infants? But from what does He save them, if there is no malady of original sin within them? From what does He redeem them, if through their origin from the first man they are not sold under sin? Let there be no eternal salvation promised to infants out of our own opinion, without Chris's baptism: for none is promised in that Holy Scripture which is to be preferred to all human authority and opinion." (St. Augustine, "A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on the Baptism of Infants, p. 171).

 

[racer]

Racer,

Something else that is not inferred through the written word is triple immersion. The triple immersion, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is representative of His three days in the tomb.

God Bless

We posted at the same time . . . .

I believe that Triple immersion falls under the realm of (t)radition. It is representative of being reborn in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and the three days of Jesus being in the tomb as you pointed out.

Do you assert that "triple dipping" is necessary to salvation, that if one is not dipped three times, the baptism is void?

 

[Trento]

Here's a quote for Augustine which addresses both authority of Scripture and baptism:

"For who would dare to say that Christ is not the Savior and Redeemer of infants? But from what does He save them, if there is no malady of original sin within them? From what does He redeem them, if through their origin from the first man they are not sold under sin? Let there be no eternal salvation promised to infants out of our own opinion, without Chris's baptism: for none is promised in that Holy Scripture which is to be preferred to all human authority and opinion." (St. Augustine, "A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on the Baptism of Infants, p. 171).

AUGUSTINE on BAPTISM AS REGENERATIVE

“If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this…The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration. But just as the man who never lived cannot die, and one who has not died cannot rise again, so too one who was never born cannot be reborn…..Unless we voluntarily depart from the rule of the Christian faith it must be admitted that inasmuch as infants are, by the Sacrament of Baptism, conformed to the death of Christ, they are also freed from the serpent’s venomous bite. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own proper life, but in him who first suffered that wound.”

(Augustine, “Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of sins, and the Baptism of Infants, AD 412)

Augustine Believed in Authoritative Tradition
But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary ecumenical councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).


400]).

"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).


AUGUSTINE ON APOSTOLIC TRADITION

"Those which we keep, not as being written, but as from, if observed by the whole of Christendom, are thereby understood to be committed to us by the apostles themselves or plenary Councils, and to be retained as instituted." (Ep 118).



AUGUSTINE: CATHOLIC CHURCH IS AN AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH
“The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints…. When, then, we see so much help on God’s part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the apostolic chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the CROWN OF TEACHING AUTHORITY.” (emphasis mine) (Augustine, “The Advantage of Believing 35…392 A.D.)

AUGUSTINE ON AUTHORITY OF CATHOLIC CHURCH


“I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel me.”

​

 

[ETide]

We wouldnt want to trust the scriptures for something like this.. let's go to Augustine instead.. there's a lot more weight there..

 

[Trento]

We wouldnt want to trust the scriptures for something like this.. let's go to Augustine instead.. there's a lot more weight there..

Here is a denomination that trusts scripture. Do you believe what they do.


Christadelphianism

1. They believe the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God. (The Christadelphians: What They Believe and Preach, p. 82)

2 They teach that Jesus had a sin nature (What They Believe, p. 74)


3 They teach that Jesus needed to save himself, before he could save us. (Christadelphian Answers, p. 24)


4 They teach that Jesus will return and set up his kingdom on earth. (What They Believe , p. 268)


5 They deny the doctrine of the Trinity. (What They Believe, p. 84-87)

6 They deny immortality of the soul. (What They Believe , p. 17).

7 They deny that Jesus is God in flesh. (Answers, p. 22)

8 They deny that Jesus existed prior to his incarnation. (What They Believe , p. 85,86)

9 They deny the existence of hell and eternal punishment. (What They Believe, p. 188-189

So how can scripture be all that scripture says it is by itself?

 

[Lynn73]

We wouldnt want to trust the scriptures for something like this.. let's go to Augustine instead.. there's a lot more weight there..

“I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel me.”

Funny, I never had that problem. I believe the Bible is authoritative in and of itself and it doesn't need the approval of the Catholic church.

 

[ETide]

Here is a denomination that trusts scripture. Do you believe what they do.

Are you implying that you do not trust scripture..?

I don't know much about these folks, and it doesn't matter what they believe, but rather what the word of God says.. because if anyone rejects the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, the same word will judge them in the end.

I do believe that Christ will return and that the kingdoms of this earth shall become the kingdoms of our LORD and of His Christ.. just as the word of God says.. so in this respect I am not amillennial, like the RCC happens to be.. ie, the RCC believes and teaches that we're already in the millennial kingdom of Christ.. but that's simply not the case..

These are still the times of the Gentiles.. and Jerusalem will be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled..

So imo, the RCC doesn't even know what times it is.. but they claim to be the church of God nonetheless..

Go figure..

 

[ETide]

<B>

“I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel me.”
</B>​

​

This truly is an amazing statement.. for the gospel of GOD concerning His Son, is the power of God unto salvation unto every one that believes..

Paul says this in 1 Cor 15 concerning the gospel of God's only begotten and beloved Son, our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ..

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures...

 

[WarriorAngel]

This truly is an amazing statement.. for the gospel of GOD concerning His Son, is the power of God unto salvation unto every one that believes..

Paul says this in 1 Cor 15 concerning the gospel of God's only begotten and beloved Son, our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ..

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures...

I want to point out a few things.
The first quote shows they already PREACHED [orally] THE GOSPEL. They already laid down what was orally taught.

Then they took the Old Testament scripture, to show how Christ was already prophecied...thru the books of Isaiah, and Jeremiah.
And all the other prophetic scriptures leading to Christ Incarnate and His Passion and suffering.

.....how that Christ died
According to the OT scripture and His fulfilment.

AND

if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you.....
Again, what was taught orally. So although the scripture tells us they taught and preached the Gospels already, it does not proove exactly what was already taught.

Hence Tradition.....as they are told to keep what was preached in memory.....and they did not again elaborate on this.

But said to remember what was taught already.

Alot of the NT is stating the same thing over and over again.

We preached......remember......keep the oral...we preached to you and now we hear some among you....

etc etc

 

[WarriorAngel]

because if anyone rejects the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, the same word will judge them in the end.

Does this include the Traditional teachings of His Word?