Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[PaulAckermann]

Quoting scripture does not make one an adherant of sola scriptura.

God Bless

I totally agree.

Here is an example. Since a Jew believe in the Old Testament and not the New Testament, a Jew could be termed sola-Old Testament, whereas a Protestant Christian would be sola-scriptura (both OT and NT), and a Catholic is scripture and tradition.

If a Protestant Christian quotes from the Old Testament to a Jew, does that mean the Protestant Christian is denying the New Testament? Of course not! The Protestant Christian is merely finding common ground with the Jew, Since they both believe that the Old Testament is God's Word, it is better for the Protestant Christian to use the Old Testament.

If a Catholic quotes from the Bible to the Protestant does that mean he is denying tradition? Of course not! Just as the Protestant Christian finding common ground with the Jew by using the Old Testament, the Catholic is finding common ground with the Bible-only Protestant by quoting from the Bible.

 

[ETide]

The faith expressed in both by St. Ignatious and the Creed are the same.

I can see the continuity of the Faith with in Tradition. I can see this objectively.

So the question was, how do you know that this is what Jesus taught.. and your response it to quote the words of men rather than the word of God..

Perhaps you think that the words of men are as living and powerful and effectual as the word of God is.. although that does not make them equal.. and that does not prove that Jesus taught what men might have to say.

See above.

Peace

The question here was how do you know that baptized people (even if they're infants) have the Spirit of God within them.. and so again, you resort to the words of men, because it's clear in the scriptures that men do not add members to the body of Christ..

Nothing new here of course.

 

[WarriorAngel]

So the question was, how do you know that this is what Jesus taught..

Its called faith. Catholics accept everything because Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit.
That is sufficient proof for us.

The question here was how do you know that baptized people (even if they're infants) have the Spirit of God within them.. and so again, you resort to the words of men, because it's clear in the scriptures that men do not add members to the body of Christ..

Nothing new here of course

We are Baptized into the family of Christ...basically this is how we are reborn.
Born once by flesh, born twice by the Spirit.

 

[WarriorAngel]

a Catholic is scripture and tradition.

Actually Jews are traditionally bound too, for instance the prayer for the souls in 'purgatory' [not sure what they call it] and they pray for 11 months for their loved ones souls.

Purgatory is an OLD doctrine.....very ancient.
And they believe as we do, that we can pray for relief for their souls while they are waiting to be released.

Since they know there is a Bosom of Abraham...... and a place where Christ said He spoke even for those souls.

NOT part of the OP exactly, but Tradition is an oral teaching... not always put word for word into writing.

BUT there is OT quotes for purgatory. And an alluding to it in the NT

Hello nice to meet BTW.

 

[WarriorAngel]

If a Catholic quotes from the Bible to the Protestant does that mean he is denying tradition? Of course not! Just as the Protestant Christian finding common ground with the Jew by using the Old Testament, the Catholic is finding common ground with the Bible-only Protestant by quoting from the Bible.

Tradition and scripture are siamese twins and cannot be seperated.

 

[ETide]

[/size]

Its called faith. Catholics accept everything because Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit.
That is sufficient proof for us.

Yes, it seems like catholics accept just about everything.. although the church of God has a most precious faith which has substance, ie, a foundation to it.. it's not about taking man's word for 'everything' as you say.. it's about taking His word for it..

Like the word of God says.. Let God be true and every man a liar.. why listen to men when you can listen to God.?

We are Baptized into the family of Christ...basically this is how we are reborn.
Born once by flesh, born twice by the Spirit.

I understand that catholic men say these things.. and actually believe that they add members to the body of Christ.. the problem is that you will not find this in God's word..

His word speaks of the fact that men are not born of blood, or the will of the flesh, or of the will of man.. but of GOD..

But again, this is nothing new, Christendom has believed that they have been building the body of Christ for centuries now.. and this is what happens when you don't take God's word to heart, but rather lean on the words of men.

 

[ETide]

Tradition and scripture are siamese twins and cannot be seperated.

Many of the catholics and orthodox were talking about how Scripture lacks, in another thread.. how about your Tradition.. does it lack too..?

 

[lionroar0]

So the question was, how do you know that this is what Jesus taught.. and your response it to quote the words of men rather than the word of God..

ANd the answer that I posted was, because of the continuation of the expression of the Faith.

Perhaps you think that the words of men are as living and powerful and effectual as the word of God is.. although that does not make them equal.. and that does not prove that Jesus taught what men might have to say.

I know that the Apostles and their deciplies taught and passed on the Truth, because of the continuity of the faith and the expression of that faith by them.

Perhaps you think that the Apostles got something wrong and this error was propagated by their diciples?

The question here was how do you know that baptized people (even if they're infants) have the Spirit of God within them.. and so again, you resort to the words of men, because it's clear in the scriptures that men do not add members to the body of Christ..

Nothing new here of course.

No this was not the question at all. This was the question.

How do you know that it's what Jesus taught ?

And this was my answer.

This is my responce to racer's question. I will post part of it here because , it is appropriate.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

This is an excerpt from one of the letters of Ignatious of Antioch and dicipel of St. John the Apostle. This was written abot 200yrs. before the Creed.


CHAPTER IX,--REFERENCE TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.

And this is are excerpts from the Creed.

....and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,
and sits at the right hand of the Father; ...
...I look for the resurrection of the dead

The faith expressed in both by St. Ignatious and the Creed are the same.

I can see the continuity of the Faith with in Tradition. I can see this objectively.

This was the question posed again.

How do you know..? Can you see the Spirit of God in them..?

If you had wanted to ask a specific question about baptism then you should have asked about it or clarified it.

This is where I believe that there is a huge disconnect between the scriptures and what many institutions teach.. because there are many in Christendom today who actually believe that they can add members to the body of Christ by the act of baptism.. even if it's an infant who doesn't understand the gospel etc..

You won't find any scriptural support at all for men adding members to the body of Christ..

God alone adds members to His body as it pleases Himself. We (the body of Christ, the church of God) have been all baptized into one body by one SPIRIT. God seals men and women with the Spirit of promise when they trust in Him, after they hear the word of truth, the gospel of their salvation, and after they believe.

This is the rest of the post. Where is the question about baptism? All I see are statements about baptism assertting what you belive about it.

Peace

 

[ETide]

Perhaps you think that the Apostles got something wrong and this error was propagated by their diciples?

The apostles got a lot of things wrong.. just read scripture.. this is why God chose to write things down, so that we could have His word for it and not the word of men.

Peter would even tell us that we should take heed to scripture as it is a more sure word.. more sure than hearing God audibly, as they did from the mountain.. now if scripture is more sure than God's audible word.. then how much more sure is it than the words of men?

If you had wanted to ask a specific question about baptism then you should have asked about it or clarified it.

You said yourself that anyone who was baptized had the spirit of God in them.. and I asked how you knew that..? I'm sure that you'll come up with the words of men because the word of God teaches that men who receive Christ are not born of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man.. but of GOD..

Men are not building the body of Christ lionroar.. God is..

 

[WarriorAngel]

Many of the catholics and orthodox were talking about how Scripture lacks, in another thread.. how about your Tradition.. does it lack too..?

Actually scipture tells us quite succintly that oral teachings happened.

AS I said a few times [ forget which thread...... ]
That St John wrote he would speak mouth to mouth and face to face and did not wish to write everything he wanted to tell them, and ALSO that everything Jesus did could NOT be written.

So I would not say it lacks......it defines an absense of everything else that sola scriptura lacks especially in light of when John shows us in his letters that he would NOT write it.

So scripture.......in essense tells us that things were taught orally. Know what I mean?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yes, it seems like catholics accept just about everything.. although the church of God has a most precious faith which has substance, ie, a foundation to it.. it's not about taking man's word for 'everything' as you say.. it's about taking His word for it..

An odd sort of argument considering you take the Catholic stance on the Trinity.
And you take their word for it that the NT is authentic. Know what I mean?

I understand that catholic men say these things.. and actually believe that they add members to the body of Christ.. the problem is that you will not find this in God's word..

Sorry clueless what you mean by adding men to Christ's body. Those who believe are part of His Body.
Can the hand say to the feet we have no need of you?........

His word speaks of the fact that men are not born of blood, or the will of the flesh, or of the will of man.. but of GOD..

an interesting perspective, yet I see it slightly flawed given we indeed are born of flesh........but perhaps knowing He meant we are born again in Spirit thru the act of baptism [obedience] and that God is working in us as Grace.....that only He can dispense.

Or what turn did we take that I got lost at???

But again, this is nothing new, Christendom has believed that they have been building the body of Christ for centuries now.. and this is what happens when you don't take God's word to heart, but rather lean on the words of men.

Ahhhh, see we differ, because as I repeatedly tell you, that the gates of hell shall NOT prevail...and the Paraclete is with His Church.

BTW, who taught you scripture?
Did God give you a teaching face to face?
Or did you decide scripture alone?

Who runs your church? And are they a man?

 

[ETide]

Actually scipture tells us quite succintly that oral teachings happened.

AS I said a few times [ forget which thread...... ]
That St John wrote he would speak mouth to mouth and face to face and did not wish to write everything he wanted to tell them, and ALSO that everything Jesus did could NOT be written.

So I would not say it lacks......it defines an absense of everything else that sola scriptura lacks especially in light of when John shows us in his letters that he would NOT write it.

So scripture.......in essense tells us that things were taught orally. Know what I mean?

So if the apostles spoke to people face to face, does that make it the word of God..?

Know what I mean.. ?

 

[WarriorAngel]

The apostles got a lot of things wrong.. just read scripture.. this is why God chose to write things down, so that we could have His word for it and not the word of men.

First of all, the Apostles got alot wrong..UNTIL Christ sent His Spirit.

Actually your post seems to contradict itself.

You say they got it wrong....but that is why God wrote it Himself...?

The only account that I know of when God wrote anything for Himself was the Ten Commandments.

Is there really a place He Himself penned the passages?

He used men.....so by your account, if they are flawed, then how is it you trust their writings?

Ya have me confused buddy. I cannot keep up with your logic.

Either they got it right when Jesus sent His Holy Spirit, or they didnt......what is it?

Naturally you say they wrote it accurately so if they can write.......what makes it impossible for them to teach and preach??

Hold up......didnt Christ command them to PREACH TO ALL NATIONS?

I didnt see anywhere that He said.....'Write to all nations...' DID you?

FYI, the Bible IS the Word thru men........
How can you state otherwise?

 

[ETide]

First of all, the Apostles got alot wrong..UNTIL Christ sent His Spirit.

So you're implying that they were perfect after they received the Spirit of God..? Are you, or is any Christian perfect in all things after they receive the Spirit..?

Although for the sake of discussing apostles.. let's see if there are examples with them..

Paul corrected Peter after they had received the Spirit, because he had a problem assembling with Gentiles in the early church..

You say they got it wrong....but that is why God wrote it Himself...?

The only account that I know of when God wrote anything for Himself was the Ten Commandments.

Is there really a place He Himself penned the passages?

He used men.....so by your account, if they are flawed, then how is it you trust their writings?

You can't be serious..? No wonder you took the 2 Peter 1:20 verse out of context.. anyway.. Peter explains that the word of God is scripted through men by the Spirit of God..

God is the author WA.. this is a fundamental principle of the scriptures.. men didn't author them, they wrote them down through the Spirit of God.

Hold up......didnt Christ command them to PREACH TO ALL NATIONS?

I didnt see anywhere that He said.....'Write to all nations...' DID you?

FYI, the Bible IS the Word thru men........
How can you state otherwise?

Preach what to all nations..? The words of men, or the gospel, which is the power of GOD unto salvation to every one that believes.

 

[WarriorAngel]

So you're implying that they were perfect after they received the Spirit of God..? Are you, or is any Christian perfect in all things after they receive the Spirit..?

You are now in quite a quandry you realise.
IF you say they were acting imperfectly in regards to PREACHING GOD'S WORD then you cannot accept scripture as perfect.....including the verses you keep quoting.

Tell me please...what is the difference between writing or saying something??

So the Apostles had magic pens, but became ignorant stoodges when they spoke about God?

There is a real problem with your theory since they TAUGHT about Christ [at His command] by preaching LONG b4 they wrote anything down at all.

I am going to explain that the Churches were already established b4 the Epistles were written. You knew that right?
They converted the ppl thru PREACHING.

Although for the sake of discussing apostles.. let's see if there are examples with them..

Paul corrected Peter after they had received the Spirit, because he had a problem assembling with Gentiles in the early church..

Um, you do realise that a Cephas besides Peter existed. A young disciple.
But if by chance that Cephas was Peter..... that action had NOTHING to do with what was being preached.

HIS Words mattered, not his preference of whom he ate with.

You can't be serious..? No wonder you took the 2 Peter 1:20 verse out of context.. anyway.. Peter explains that the word of God is scripted through men by the Spirit of God..

AND you believe they established the Churches without ORALLY TEACHING?

AS I said earlier....were they morons when they preached but had magic pens that wrote for them?

Christ said."GO out and PREACH to all nations."

Did He command this knowing they would couldnt possible get it right??

God is the author WA.. this is a fundamental principle of the scriptures.. men didn't author them, they wrote them down through the Spirit of God.

AGAIN....did the Spirit leave them when they talked about Christ? O mercy, how did they manage to teach ppl 20-30 years b4 they wrote anything??

Preach what to all nations..? The words of men, or the gospel, which is the power of GOD unto salvation to every one that believes.

Well, this is correct....they preached the Gospel.

What did they preach E?
They preached the things Christ taught them for forty days...and that is alot of things to teach ppl and write it all down.

O thats right, St John didnt write it all.....in fact he said by his own words, Jesus did many things and they COULDNT ALL BE WRITTEN DOWN.

DOES that make everything ELSE Jesus did, null and void?

 

[ETide]

WA,

Nobody said that the apostles were ignorant stooges, well, except you..

The point is that they are not perfect.. just like you and I are not perfect..

Scripture is the word of God.. it's not the word of men, its author is God.. accept it or not.. that's fine.

Peter admonishes those who speak, to speak the oracles of God.. Does that mean that every thing which he ever spoke after he received the spirit, were the oracles of God?

Perhaps you think so, perhaps you think that they're perfect.. that's fine.. I really have no further desire to go back and forth with you on this..

So good evening.

 

[xapis]

DOES that make everything ELSE Jesus did, null and void?

...I suppose you believe "everything ELSE Jesus did" includes His teaching of praying to the dead, Mary worship, and men wearing silly hats.



The fact is we don't know what else He taught (if anything) other than what's included in the pages of Scripture... and as 2 Tim. 3:15-17 teaches, that is perfectly sufficient.

 

[xapis]

The point is that they are not perfect.. just like you and I are not perfect..

You failed to mention a long line of imperfect popes.

 

[ETide]

...I suppose you believe "everything ELSE Jesus did" includes His teaching of praying to the dead, Mary worship, and men wearing silly hats.



The fact is we don't know what else He taught (if anything) other than what's included in the pages of Scripture... and as 2 Tim. 3:15-17 teaches, that is perfectly sufficient.

Amen to that..

Good night

 

[ETide]

You failed to mention a long line of imperfect popes.

Foolish me.. I forgot about all those perfect popes !

It's what I get for staying up past my bed time..