Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[nephilimiyr]

Neph, I do understand they're wrong in what they claim it to mean. I understand how they see it. By using their own distortion of Scripture as the premise, I showed how that can not be true.

Its much easier to disprove their point by using what they are willing to see. Its much harder when working with what they do not want to see. It would take two big hurdles, instead of one to correct the misinterpretation. And, then needing to bring it back to where it had wandered off from. It would added many a post to this thread, with many a

Why argue for accuracy and invite all the drawn out points that their apologists teach them to present? Why not simply deal with what they do believe? For, as they believe it to be? It can easily be shown to be illogical. Plain and simple. Why complicate what can be kept simple?

Grace and truth, GeneZ

Thank you for your reply.

 

[Trento]

If Scripture is only a part of the "whole" know as by the RCC "Holy Tradition," then surely the remaining "parts" of Holy Tradition can be identified.


So, I guess my question would be, "if Scripture is only part of the teachings Holy Tradition, what are the other teachings not contained in Scripture, and where would I locate them?

If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).



The Church establishes Holy Tradition by Councils.
I can tell you what is not Holy Tradition.






Protestantism has so many beliefs it is difficult for Catholics to debate with Protestants when there is such a diversity of belief - all based on what the Scripture is supposed to say.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Neph,

It's more like John was saying there was no way to record all that Jesus did. Therefore, what is written is what Jesus taught and commanded. The things that were pertinent to our salvation, that we would need to know for ages, that needed to be preserved and passed on, etc . . . .

I understand that and agree with you.

I suppose if we followed Jesus around day to day and every hour of the day there would be no way we could write a book and give detail to everything Jesus did. Jesus lived a full life here on earth and I believe he made every second count.

I think the question should be asked though if there was something Jesus did during the time of his ministry that that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John didn't tell us about but was important for us to know. I believe the answer to that question is no. I think that what John is more or less telling us is that even though all the things Jesus did is worth writting about, it would still become very repetitive.

 

[ETide]

It's amazing to me that people will use the scriptures to support that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and then completely ignore the scriptural definition of the church of God.. and claim that their assembly or institution is the church of God..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IF Tradition and Scripture are equal, then we've embraced a circular, self-authenticating principle of accountability that provides no accountability whatsoever.

Tradition and Scripture are accountable to one another.
As said many times, you cannot have one without the other.

NOT everything was written in scripture...ask St John.

IMO...



1. St. John did NOT say that there are dogmas which the Holy Spirit kept out of Holy Scriptures. What he said was there were some things that Jesus DID that aren't recorded in the singular Book of St. John. HUGE difference there. HUGE.


2. If God's Word and our words are equal and inseparable, neither subject to the other, then they both must be correct and cannot be in conflict, the result is that whatever I say is what God says. Making them accountable to each other makes it even worse - now God must be subjected to me, placed under me, so that He must agree with whatever I say. If God's Holy Scriptures are subject to whatever I say, then I have made myself lord of Him. I don't think we should place our thoughts above His - I think we should place His thoughts above our. I believe the accountability works only one way - we are accountable to Him, He is not accountable to us. But clearly we disagree here, fundamentally.



MY thoughts...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[nephilimiyr]

It's amazing to me that people will use the scriptures to support that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and then completely ignore the scriptural definition of the church of God.. and claim that their assembly or institution is the church of God..

Why does that amaze you?

Just curious...

What amazes me is how people can be presented with the truth yet totally reject it and at the same time claim intellectual superiority. That's what amazes me. I'm speaking in general here about non-believers.

 

[racer]

If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture,

The church did not "reveal to us" the canon of Scripture. It combined for convenience sake and for preservations sake the Gospel in written form into one book.

it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles.

When do you suppose this will happen?

After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18)

.

Which means that the Church will not be defeated, that in spite of heresy, corruption, and the evil nature of men it would endure to the end. No where are we told the church would not err, suffer with corruption, struggle, etc . . . . only that it will endure to the end, be triumphant and victorious.

and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)

The Church has been charged to preserve, protect, uphold, teach and support the word of God. This does not mean that the church has the authority to define God's will and commands to its own advantagel, to protect and promote teachings that are not biblical.

The Church establishes Holy Tradition by Councils.

I can tell you what is not Holy Tradition.

Let me get this strait. You can tell me what's not Holy Tradition but not what "is" I'm sure you don't see the irony of that statement. How can you state something like this and not know why your claims are impossible for us to consider seriously?

Protestantism has so many beliefs it is difficult for Catholics to debate with Protestants when there is such a diversity of belief - all based on what the Scripture is supposed to say.

It is difficult for you to debate because you insist on addressing Protestantism as if it is a single denomination. It's not, nor does anyone claim that it is.

 

[OnTheWay]

Please explain your logic? Why is this silly? I may concede to a certain degree that if one particular council made two declarations and one was accepted and the other not, there would have to be an acceptable reason. But, the soundness of a doctrine is not determined by councils, it is determined by what the Gospel, Scripture teaches. If it is not in line with Scripture, then its not a legitimate doctrine.

The legitimacy of a particular doctrine is not based upon "who" declared it, but the authenticity of the doctrine. Is it sound? Is it in line with Scripture? Is it Biblical? Can it be substantiated? The question is not, "Did a council declare it so? Yes? Well, then it's doctrine and part of Holy Tradition."

Then the Canon of Scripture is not a sound doctrine. It was the product of a declaration made by a council. There is nothing in Scripture that backs up the list of the Canon. The problem here is that your reasoning is illogical. You cannot say that while a Church council had the authority to declare what is Scripture it does not have the authority to declare something else. In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either all the Councils were authoritive or none of them were.

This logic is baseless and unfounded, not to mention beyond silly. One reason being that just because one Council may have been led by the Holy Spirit does not by necessity mean that every council convened was led by the Holy Spirit.

So then who gets to decide? Whatever works for your sect was and what doesn't work wasn't?

So, now you're going to ask how do we know whether or not the contents of the Bible is in line with Scripture. Well, the compilation of the Bible was more than just being led by the Holy Spirit. It was also a process of elimination. The texts had to be consistent with one another to be considered Gospel. The process was not determined solely based upon guidance of the Holy Spirit, but also upon knowledge of what was constantly and consistently taught since Jesus.

I'm sorry, but you have a pretty limited historical knowledge of how the Canon was created. It wasn't elimination, it was more often negotation. Many books that were quite liked, not to mention in line with Scripture, weren't included. In other situations a deal was made to include various books. The eastern Church never really cared for the book of Revelations and found it questionable. The western Church found Hebrews to be of questionable origin. The result was that both agreed to back down and both books were included.

All they had was what was delivered to them by the Apostles. Whether or not that was Scripture as we have it now in writing or what you assert is Holy Tradition, Scripture and more, is the question. The burden is upon you to prove that it was more than Scripture.

Considering the Bible provides virtually no systematic insturctions on anything practical this is just absurd. The authors of Scripture didn't need to include such systematic instructions because they had already taught the working churches these things. Those things, and the rest of Tradtion, continue to this day. The problem comes from protestant groups that have no connection to it due to belong to churches invented by men.

That does not mean that Scripture was not circulated in writing individually, only that it was not combined into one book. I just don't know what people who use this argument think it proves. . . .

Considering that none of the documents used were written until the late first century we have the same thing. The early Christians had no written documents to work from. Furthermore, most of them couldn't read any way.

Where does St. Paul refer to this Tradition?

St. Paul is telling Timothy to keep the "rule of faith." That is the Tradition.

Because Scripture was given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit--we have that in writing. When something is preserved in writing, it can be proven throughout ages.

Yet the only reason anyone calls any of those books Scripture is because a Church council said so. So blah blah blah. You repeat the same things over and over again, but never deal with the question. You cannot declare that one council is right and the rest were wrong. If you reject the authority of the councils you reject them all. That means there is no bible.

 

[ETide]

Why does that amaze you?

Just curious...

What amazes me is how people can be presented with the truth yet totally reject it and at the same time claim intellectual superiority. That's what amazes me. I'm speaking in general here about non-believers.

Because of the reason which I stated.. some people are quick to say that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and then they'll ignore the scriptural description of the church of God which that verse is applicable to.. ie, they'll claim that their church is the church..

AND, there were many folks who were confronted with the TRUTH in the person of Jesus Christ.. ie, right in front of them.. although their delusion in claiming that they could see outweighed their ability to see..

 

[nephilimiyr]

Because of the reason which I stated.. some people are quick to say that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and then they'll ignore the scriptural description of the church of God which that verse is applicable to.. ie, they'll claim that their church is the church..

Well, what is that scriptural verse applicable to?

 

[lionroar0]

If Scripture is only a part of the "whole" know as by the RCC "Holy Tradition," then surely the remaining "parts" of Holy Tradition can be identified.

For instance, if I state a particular belief such as "baptism," (just an example) to someone who doesn't know much about Christianity, and they ask me to substaniate my assertion or what is my source, I can direct them to Scripture.

So, I guess my question would be, "if Scripture is only part of the teachings Holy Tradition, what are the other teachings not contained in Scripture, and where would I locate them?

Two places to go to would be the Councils and the Church Fathers.

Peace

 

[ETide]

Well, what is that scriptural verse applicable to?

The point is.. (in case I'm not making it clear, or if you're not getting it).. is that they will accept scripture which states that the church of God is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but then ignore the scriptural foundation of what the church of God actually is.. ie, they will claim that THEIR CHURCH is the church of God, rather than what scripture teaches.

 

[Trento]

[/size]

The church did not "reveal to us" the canon of Scripture. It combined for convenience sake and for preservations sake the Gospel in written form into one book.

If you study the Fathers and Divided into time periods, here is what the Fathers thought:
30 a.d. - 160 a.d.

Summary - The New Testament is not clearly distinguished from other Christian writings.
Gospels - Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr's "Gospels" contain apocryphal material
Polycarp was the first to use the four Gospels we have today.
Pauline Writings - Generally accepted by 130, though quotations from them are rarely introduced as scriptural.
Acts - Scarcely known or quoted from
Philippians, 1 Timothy - Rejected as scriptural by Justin Martyr
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon - Rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
Hebrews - Not considered canonical by majority, and expressly rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
James - Not considered canonical, and never quoted from; expressly rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
1 Peter - Not considered canonical
2 Peter - Not considered canonical and never cited
1,2,3 John - Not considered canonical and rejected as scriptural by Justin Martyr, and partially rejected by Polycarp
Jude - Not considered canonical and rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
Revelation - not canonical and rejected as scriptural by Polycarp
Ignatius of Antioch was unaware of half the Gospels and the majority of the Pauline writings.

160 a.d.- 250 a.d.
Summary - Awareness of a Canon begins toward the end of the 2nd century. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria were the first to use the phrase "New Testament" in the 2nd and 3rd century.
Gospels - Accepted
Acts - Gradually accepted
Pauline Writings - Accepted with certain exceptions
2 Timothy - Rejected by Clement
Philemon - Rejected by Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Clement
Hebrews - Not considered canonical until the 4th century in the West. Disputed by Origen. First accepted by Clement.
James - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement
1 Peter - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus and Clement
2 Peter - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement
1 John - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus, and rejected by Origen.
2 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement
3 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement
Jude - Gradual acceptance. Accepted by Clement and rejected by Origen.
Revelation - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Clement and rejected by the Barococcio Canon of 206
Epistle of Barnabas - Accepted by Clement
Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Clement
The Didache - Accepted by Clement
The Apocalypse of Peter - accepted by Clement
The Acts of Paul - Accepted by Clement, and appears in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations
Gospel of Hebrews - Accepted by Clement. Accepted by Muratorian Canon of 190 which excluded Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and included The Apocaplypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon.

250 a.d. – 325 a.d.Summary - The “Catholic epistles” and Revelation are still being disputed
The “Catholic,” or general, epistles are the terms sometimes used for the letters written by James, Peter, John, and Jude. They are so called because they are addressed to Christians in general, not to any church or person in particular such as the epistles to the Corinthians, Thessalonians etc. The word "catholic" originated from Greek and then Latin words which simply meant “throughout the whole.”
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Writings - Accepted
Hebrews - Accepted in the East. Disputed and rejected in the West.
James - Disputed and rejected in the East, and rejected in the West.
1 Peter - Fairly well accepted
2 Peter - Still disputed
1 John - Fairly well accepted
2, 3 John, Jude - Still disputed
Revelation - Disputed, especially in the East. Rejected by Dionysius

Council of Nicaea (325 a.d.)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude

From 325 a.d. to Council of Carthage (397 a.d.)
Summary - St. Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367 a.d. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when Canon is authoritatively closed.
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Writings, 1 Peter, 1 John - Accepted
Hebrews - Eventually accepted in West
James - Slow acceptance. Not even quoted in the West until around 350 a.d.!
2 Peter - Eventually accepted
2, 3 John, Jude - Eventually accepted
Revelation - Eventually accepted. Rejected by Cyril, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen
Epistle of Barnabas - Accepted by Codex Sinaiticus in late 4th century
Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Codex Sinaiticus in late 4th century. Used as a textbook for catechumens (those studying to become Christian).
1 Clement, 2 Clement - Accepted by Codex Alexandrinus in late 5th century!

Which means that the Church will not be defeated, that in spite of heresy, corruption, and the evil nature of men it would endure to the end. No where are we told the church would not err, suffer with corruption, struggle, etc . . . . only that it will endure to the end, be triumphant and victorious.

Jesus Christ said this would happen? So what is the problem?

Woe to the world because of scandals! For it must needs be that scandals come,
but WOE TO THE MAN THROUGH WHOM SCANDAL DOES COME!"
Matthew 1

And He said to His disciples, "It is IMPOSSIBLE THAT SCANDALS SHOULD NOT COME;
BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM THEY COME."
Luke 17:1

The words of Jesus Christ Himself he did not say the Church is the source, or the cause of the scandals but individual men.


So Sinners in the Church is Bibical.
The Bible clearly teaches that the Church is comprised of both saints and sinners, good and bad. We see this indisputably in several parables of Jesus about the kingdom of heaven (that is, the Church), such as the wheat and the weeds , where Jesus says that they will grow together until the final Judgment, or harvest time (Matthew 13:24-30; cf. Matthew 3:12). He compares the Church to a fishnet which draws good and bad fish, ultimately separated (Matthew 13:47-50), and a marriage banquet, from which one guest was cast out into the outer darkness (Matthew 22:1-14). This parable ends with the famous phrase, Many are called, but few are chosen, which may be interpreted as the distinction between lukewarm, or dead, or nominal Christians and the actual elect who will be saved in the end. Both are present in the Church, according to Jesus.
Now in denominationalism's reasonable grounds for forming a new sect is the desire to separate from sinners and sin, which may be infecting the group left which is not Bibical.

Which means that the Church will not be defeated, that in spite of heresy, corruption, and the evil nature of men it would endure to the end.

If Jesus Christ diden't lie when He said...

I am with you ALL days, even until the end of the world."
Matthew 28:20

"...and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it."
Matthew 16:18

"...and I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of Truth..."
John 14:16-17

"I will not leave you orphans."
John 14:18

The Church has been charged to preserve, protect, uphold, teach and support the word of God. This does not mean that the church has the authority to define God's will and commands to its own advantagel, to protect and promote teachings that are not biblical.

They are not Bibical for you because you rely on the Bible alone rather than Both Bible and Holy Tradition.

Let me get this strait. You can tell me what's not Holy Tradition but not what "is" I'm sure you don't see the irony of that statement. How can you state something like this and not know why your claims are impossible for us to consider seriously?

Like i said whatever the Church establishes from the Councils came from Apostolic Traditions.

It is difficult for you to debate because you insist on addressing Protestantism as if it is a single denomination. It's not, nor does anyone claim that it is.

Which is UNBibical
Our Lord even makes unity a means by which the world might believe that the Father sent the Son (John 17:21,23), and prays that it will be as profound as the unity of the Trinity itself (John 17:21-22). St. Paul makes stirring up division a grounds for virtual exclusion from the Christian community (Romans 16:17), and says that divisions (in effect) divide Christ (1 Corinthians 1:13).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The point is.. (in case I'm not making it clear, or if you're not getting it).. is that they will accept scripture which states that the church of God is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but then ignore the scriptural foundation of what the church of God actually is.. ie, they will claim that THEIR CHURCH is the church of God, rather than what scripture teaches.

I essentially agree with you, but, of course, those denominations don't view it that way. There are some deep assumptions here (we ALL live in our boxes, we ALL wear glasses). There's MUCH I could say here - but I need to be careful to stay "on topic" at least a bit...



There are several related issues here, but in an attempt to stay on topic, perhaps we can
limit them to epistemology and Authority.



IF a teacher (person, congregation or denomination) says that "X" is true - there needs to be some credability there. Who says this teacher is correct? Who says "X" is true? Since faith is the "conviction of things unseen" - the tool I'm used to as a Physics major isn't avalable - God isn't physical, the laws of physics and observations of the lab won't help. So, some other norm or Canon is needed, something to which we can point and say "because THAT says this teacher/teaching is correct!" Whatever we point to will be a matter of faith since, again, what we are discussing is largely outside the realm of empiricle proof (BTW, nearly all physical things are too - but don't get me off on that!).



Some point to what God Himself has said. IMO, the typically Protestant position is - on the surface anyway - far easier to embrace and defend. The God of Christianity is not hidden but revealed, not silent but revelatory, not ONLY in history and nature, not ONLY in the person and work of Christ - but also in word. God, through verbal inspiration - has spoken in words, the "written Word of God." The practice of this goes back to the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai. God did not give Moses the Authority to make it all up or whisper it privately to Moses, He wrote it down, on stone tablets. I confess that's the only time He did it directly, but it's not the only time He verbally inspired writtings so that His very words became inscribed. There's something very appealing - from a purely epistemological viewpoint - in having it written down. It simply makes it far less subjective, it's not a case of "He told me THIS!" "Well, He told ME this!" We have His Word on it, in black and white, in words I (as a Lutheran) can NOT change - nor can my Catholic or Baptist brother or sister. We are subject to Him, our words to His. He is Lord. He reigns.



Of course, it's not quite that simple. Christians embraced those Canonical books (we believe by direction of the Holy Spirit),there is an "incarnate" quality to the collection just as in the inspiration. While perhaps 99% of Christians accept the Canon (laying aside the DC books for this discussion), and while 99% of them - for over 1600 years - East and West, Protestant and Catholic - embrace them as Divinely Inspired, Apostolic, Infallible, Authoritative and True, nonetheless, we do accept all that as an article of faith. And, of course, there is still the issue of interpreting and applying those words from God Himself.



Others take a very different approach. Their authenticity comes not from the Word from God but some Authority from God. The RCC, the LDS and others place great emphasis that they are, essentially, THE Church (always with that capitol "c") that Christ established and that it is, in essense (variously understood), the vicar of Christ in our time - His very voice, speaking with His very authority.


Of course, it's not that simple. This, too, is an assumption - an article of faith. In this way, no different than our pointing to Scripture. But, IMO, it has many more difficulties.

For one thing, here's no precidence for this. God never established an all-authoritative religious institution that was over His written Word before - indeed, He strongly rebuked the priests and others when they forsook His written Word and applauded those who directed people to His Word rather than to institutional leaders (including one GREAT king with the wonderful name of Josiah). While Jesus was respectful of the Sanhedrin as also to Pilate, He referred them to the higher authority of Scripture. We see nothing in Scripture that clearly supports the claims of the Catholic Church and the papacy - even though such is self-claimed by them.

Another problem I see with this is that there is not one institution. I see no evidence there EVER was, but no one denies there hasn't been since 1054 at the very latest - this added to by the fact that a myriad of institutions claim to be that "one." IF there was one denomination to which 99% of Christians belonged - and this was so for say the past 1800 years - and only a tiny number of nondenoms, the argument MIGHT have a tad more strength to it, but that's just not the case. I don't think it ever has been.

But the greatest problem to ME is that it's clearly, completely, self-authenticating and circular. Even my own Catholic priest quickly admitted this. It's a self-claim, which self agrees to but virtually no one else does. In this way, it's no different whether we're talking to a Catholic or a Mormon or the Apostle Bill at the Tabernacle in my hometown - they are all simply self-claiming to have divine Authority, to be infallible and unaccountable. Anyone can self-claim to speak for Christ, and if they are infallible and unaccountable, that's the end of the process. Even Jesus Himself did not ask for such blind faith, even He subjected Himself to the Father, even He referred to the written Word of God - over 50 times!!!! Even He did "great signs and wonders."


Continues below...

 

[racer]

Then the Canon of Scripture is not a sound doctrine.

How does the table of contents in any book relate to the subject of the book? In a rule book, are the table of contents considered to be a rule in-and-of-themselves?

It was the product of a declaration made by a council.

It is the end result of a process of elimination.

There is nothing in Scripture that backs up the list of the Canon.

Because it’s not a doctrine pertaining to salvation.

The problem here is that your reasoning is illogical. You cannot say that while a Church council had the authority to declare what is Scripture it does not have the authority to declare something else.

They didn’t declare what was Scripture. Scripture is Scripture. What they did with guidance of the Holy Spirit, using a process of elimination, judging questionable texts by known scriptural documents and known scriptural teachings, was come to a consensus of what should be included and what should not be included in the Bible.
How do you conclude that because we recognize and accept—the majority—of what they included in the Bible as Scripture, that we must then accept that they have authority to declare anything else? I don’t follow that logic.

In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either all the Councils were authoritive or none of them were.

What is illogical, is to assert that something is Gospel/biblical, then teach something contrary to what you have asserted is scriptural, while claiming that because you assembled Scripture into one book, you possess sole authority to define what Scripture teaches, therefore, ignore what commons sense tells us that Scripture means, because if this church assembled it, they have the right to tell us what it means. That’s what’s illogical.

who gets to decide? Whatever works for your sect was and what doesn't work wasn't?

Nobody decides. It was settled way before it was ever spoken by Jesus or the apostles—by

Considering the Bible provides virtually no systematic insturctions on anything practical this is just absurd.

Excuse me? Instructions must be systematical to be considered instructions? Have you read your bible lately? Need I remind you what Paul said in I Tim 3:14-15; These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Sounds like instructions to me.

The authors of Scripture didn't need to include such systematic instructions because they had already taught the working churches these things. Those things, and the rest of Tradtion, continue to this day. The problem comes from protestant groups that have no connection to it due to belong to churches invented by men.

As I’ve shown this notion is glaringly wrong. The Bible does give instruction. Maybe they’re not rigid enough for your tastes.

Considering that none of the documents used were written until the late first century we have the same thing. The early Christians had no written documents to work from. Furthermore, most of them couldn't read any way.

How do you prove that? What about Paul’s letters? Or Peters? I realize that Paul did not learn directly from Jesus, but Peter did. Paul learned directly from the Holy Spirit and the apostles who learned from Christ. So, if you consider his writings to be of the late first century, fine. But, I’m confident that Paul knew what he was talking about.

St. Paul is telling Timothy to keep the "rule of faith." That is the Tradition.

The question I asked was where? Where does Paul tell Timothy that?

Yet the only reason anyone calls any of those books Scripture is because a Church council said so.

Really? God had nothing to do with it?

So blah blah blah.

Blah. Blah, blah? How old are you?

You repeat the same things over and over again, but never deal with the question.

What question am I not dealing with?

You cannot declare that one council is right and the rest were wrong.

By what logic do you assert that just because some of what councils declared are acceptable, we must believe that ll that they assert is acceptable? God is the only one I know with that much clout.

If you reject the authority of the councils you reject them all. That means there is no bible.

That’s absurd.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Continued from my post above...


Perhaps my greatest concern flows from my passion for ecumenism. Jesus' prayer in John 17 rings LOUDLY in my heart. While I REJOICE that we ARE of "one faith, one Lord, one baptism," while I rejoice that we are ALL full, unseparated brothers and sisters in Christ, while I rejoice that in Christ there is no East or West, while I rejoice in the OVERWHELMING agreement among Christians, while I embrace and celebrate all that - we are like a Body at war with itself, and I think this saddens our Lord and I KNOW it weakens our ministry.


It is MY opinion that a growing consensus will not happen until the pride that is awash in Christianity is replaced with humility and love, when the "I'm right 'cuz I am so I am, so I'm infallible and unaccountable" is overcome. I find it powerful that God left us His infallible, authoritative, verbally inspired Word - and we ALL (ALL) recongize that. We even all (ALL) agree on the exact words in it - every little iota.

Am I hopeful? Not a bit. I won't even begin to explain all my reasons for my crushed optism. Rather than humility and accountability, rather than unity and love, if ANYTHING changes, it will be to the worse - toward relativism. But I pray and work... And try to remind myself of His promises, presence and power...


Meanwhile, perhaps all that can be done is to TRY to announce that the Thirty Year's War is over, and to TRY to help some mutual understanding - at least on an individual level, at least on SOME things. And pray for forgiveness.


Just a few of MY thoughts on this...


- Josiah

 

[GenemZ]

Scripture just tells us how to seek Him, where to find Him, and how to worship Him . . . . . .

Scripture tells us how to become transformed into the likeness of Christ, as much as God has allowed man to share in his nature. We can never attain being God. Yet, Scripture allows us to become transformed into his likeness IN HOW WE THINK.

1 Corinthians 2:15-17 (Amplified Bible)
"But the spiritual man tries all things [he examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and discerns all things], yet is himself to be put on trial and judged by no one [he can read the meaning of everything, but no one can properly discern or appraise or get an insight into him].

For who has known or understood the mind (the counsels and purposes) of the Lord so as to guide and instruct Him and give Him knowledge? But we have the mind of Christ (the Messiah) and do hold the thoughts (feelings and purposes) of His heart."

​

Tradition can never impart the mind of Christ. It can only act as a means for better access for the receiving of the thinking of Christ. For, He is the Word! (John1:1)

John 1:1 (New American Standard Bible)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."


Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[GenemZ]

This is almost funny. Our distortion of scripture. Let's see. We kept the words of the church alive for 300 years until the Bible was assembled. Then for another 1000 years we used the Bible and the oral knowledge (tradition) to expand the Church. Along come someone who rips entire books from the Bible and edits out anything he doesn't like. After mutilating and totally changing the message of the Bible he declares that only sola scripture is acceptable.

And you say we use a distorted version.

Yup.

You will not find the Apocrypha in exant copies of the Torah that are used today by Jews, nor was it used in the day of Jesus.

2 Peter 2:1 niv
" But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves."
​

It has happened over time. When the time was right, God smashed the power system and raised up the Reformation. And, if need be? He will smash what came out of the Reformation with a re-Reformation.

God wants truth. Not image.

Substance. Not mere words to say one has substance.

In Christ, GeneZ

​

 

[ETide]

Continued from my post above...


Perhaps my greatest concern flows from my passion for ecumenism. Jesus' prayer in John 17 rings LOUDLY in my heart. While I REJOICE that we ARE of "one faith, one Lord, one baptism," while I rejoice that we are ALL full, unseparated brothers and sisters in Christ, while I rejoice that in Christ there is no East or West, while I rejoice in the OVERWHELMING agreement among Christians, while I embrace and celebrate all that - we are like a Body at war with itself, and I think this saddens our Lord and I KNOW it weakens our ministry.


It is MY opinion that a growing consensus will not happen until the pride that is awash in Christianity is replaced with humility and love, when the "I'm right 'cuz I am so I am, so I'm infallible and unaccountable" is overcome. I find it powerful that God left us His infallible, authoritative, verbally inspired Word - and we ALL (ALL) recongize that. We even all (ALL) agree on the exact words in it - every little iota.

Am I hopeful? Not a bit. I won't even begin to explain all my reasons for my crushed optism. Rather than humility and accountability, rather than unity and love, if ANYTHING changes, it will be to the worse - toward relativism. But I pray and work... And try to remind myself of His promises, presence and power...


Meanwhile, perhaps all that can be done is to TRY to announce that the Thirty Year's War is over, and to TRY to help some mutual understanding - at least on an individual level, at least on SOME things. And pray for forgiveness.


Just a few of MY thoughts on this...


- Josiah

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, it's nice of you to do this so openly..

The problem that I see in your above comments is this.. it assumes that everyone is literally IN CHRIST.. although the reality could be more aligned to the fact that there are some IN CHRIST and others who profess Christ, but do not possess Christ within..

There's an eternity of difference in that.. and the obvious example is the religious institutions which we read of in scripture.. they thought that they could see and yet crucified the Lord of glory..

There is perfect unity IN CHRIST.. those who have Christ within their earthen vessel are united to Him by the Spirit of God.. though they are many members, they are truly only one body.. His body.. they're growing up together into that perfect man by the effectual measure which works in every part.. they're sealed by God Himself..

It's fine to be optimistic about the body of Christ, although the wheat and the tares will never be one..

 

[ZooMom]

Who told you that the Bible/Scripture is the divinely inspired word of God?