Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[calmcoolandelected]

FOR the last time, stop telling me I do not know what it means.

No indeed you are correct he wont just sit down...... the pastor will take the verse, and conclude what HE THINKS it means, without ever being HISTORICALLY taught what it means.

The pastor will open the Bible and preach to the ppl what his own ideas are regarding that passage, and even if history and archeological proof can back up the Catholic understanding, the pastor still has his own theory or idea what it means and will preach it that way.


THAT is what all 'Bible Only' Churches do.

And then when it comes to anything about Christ's doctrines spoke of in the Bible, then what?

What about the Paraclete staying with the Church?

Look, if I owned a house and gave my servants orders on how to tend to it, and then some folks came looking into my yard while my servants were working and then came in and started telling everyone HOW things should be........are they right in deciding what should be, yet even though they can SEE the yard, they do not know what I WANT!

That is just like Christianity at the start. The Apostles KNEW what Christ taught them, and they passed that knowledge on, and laid hands so their disciples would also be led by the Spirit, because the Spirit and Christ remain in the CHURCH....so the FIRST CHURCH cannot fail. They just CANNOT fail. MIND you corrupt men could not even change her.

Jesus told them how he wanted things done, and the Paraclete is with them and they will know ALL things. And the Spirit of God shall remain forever.....

SO how does the CHURCH Christ established and will be with until the end of time....NOT know or is unable to keep all things as He wanted??

The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit and no one can defile that which HE is with.

Parakletos is the Holy Spirit. It is given to individuals by God. I do not agree with the interpretation you have given.

As for pastors preaching, it seems evident by your characterization that you do not know what goes into pastoral training/seminary and what they do to prepare a sermon. While there may be some Protestant preachers that "wing it", most that I have known do not. They take God's Word deadly serious and have devoted their lives to studying it and servant leadership. To so flippantly make the assertions that you have is mockery.

I am bowing out of this discussion. You have been shown numerous passages of Scripture and you reject them. I think that stands for the record.

Respectfully,
CC&E

 

[ETide]

Among other things....such as the fact that wooly-headed modernist "eschatologists" confuse the Church as Israel with the State of Israel.

Not sure that I understand your 'wooly headed modernist' talk.. but aside from that.. our Lord speaks of Jerusalem being trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled..

Care to elaborate the catholic position on that..?

Or how about the fact that Israel is blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in..?

Paul makes the distinction in 1 Cor 10 with respect to the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.. these exist in this age..

We know that within the church of God, there is neither Jew or Gentile, but one new man from the two, IN CHRIST.. although outside the church, these distinctions exist as described in the NT.

Israel is and will always be the only nation on this planet that is not a Gentile nation.

Many in Christendom do make the mistake of saying that the church of God is the Israel of God, although the mystery concerning Israel in Romans 11 alone dispels that false teaching..

 

[calmcoolandelected]

They had scrolls, and it was NOT called the Bible. It was called scripture.

And the New Testament was hand picked by men & discussed in the councils in 389 AD, and finalized in 397 AD...or rather close to that time. THEY CHOOSE what they [the men] felt were inspired.

NOW can you trust that the Spirit of God worked in the men to know what should be inspired writing??

IF APOSTOLIC line of succession was inconclusive, and it does not merit anything whatsoever because it is not written in the Bible.......then by this line of thinking, then the BIBLE itself cannot be Inspired....even if we are told it is....... because the successors to the Apostles are not given credit in the CHURCH for keeping the same Paraclete.

Therefore, if a protestant protests the Spirit is within the same Church since the beginning.......then HOW can they honestly trust the Bible which men of the CHURCH decided was inspired???

See how this comes full circle? Do you understand HOW WE MUST acknowledge that God uses man, and that His Spirit remains with even the men in the same Church til the end of time.

IF He did NOT, then we all have absoluetly nothing if we cannot trust HIM to remain even with His own Church.

Peace!!!

Now you are playing word games. The Bible IS Scripture and it doesn't really matter if it was technically deemed "BIBLE" at the time or not. Most certainly the receivers of Paul's epistles knew what it was and didn't need a church council of any sort to know it.

Protestants don't deny that the writers of the NT were inspired by God, in fact, we heartily agree. The rest of the Apostolic succession is the sticking point. To claim exclusivity based on a man-made system is arrogant in light of what God's Word says.

CC&E

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I'm well aware of the fact that amillennialism extends much further than the OO and EO.. although the fact of the matter is that this doctrine rejects the fact of Israel ultimatey receiving Christ as their king as prophecied in many OT scriptures.. and has a different view of the NT fact concerning Israel being currently blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in..

Again, this is your understanding of EO eschatology, and your view is inaccurate. As I said, this is not an eschatological thread nor forum. If I wished to discuss eschatology, I would be posting on that forum.

In essence.. amillennialism teaches that we're already in the millennial kingdom of Christ.. so yes, I agree that its name is misleading..

All of these issues are pertinent of course as they touch the heart of what people see as their tradition or Tradition..

It's odd that the Tradition of a church which claims that IT IS the church, would miss the fact that we're currently within the times of the Gentiles, and that Jerusalem will be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled..

Yes, Israel will one day receive their King.. and yet many in Christendom persist in stating that they reject Christ (as the nation is still blinded in part) without acknowledging the prophetic reality of their receiving Him in that Day..

Amillenialism, as well as postmillenialism, do not by necessity excude the necessity of the fulfillment of Paul's prophetic utterance regarding the ingathering of Israel in the last days. (EO are not Replacement theology adherents. We are the continuation of, not the replacement for, Israel.)

We haven't missed the scriptures you speak of, we have a different consensus than your tradition does regarding their implications.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Parakletos is the Holy Spirit. It is given to individuals by God. I do not agree with the interpretation you have given.

As for pastors preaching, it seems evident by your characterization that you do not know what goes into pastoral training/seminary and what they do to prepare a sermon. While there may be some Protestant preachers that "wing it", most that I have known do not. They take God's Word deadly serious and have devoted their lives to studying it and servant leadership. To so flippantly make the assertions that you have is mockery.

I am bowing out of this discussion. You have been shown numerous passages of Scripture and you reject them. I think that stands for the record.

Respectfully,
CC&E

Every individual has the right to receive grace, but not the right to interpret scriptures as they see them to be.

Just because someone believes they received grace, and yet misinterpret the whole Bible, does this mean they have the Spirit?

Charles Taze Russell as an example; said the Lord gave Him the Spirit and he created the Russellites, which later changed their names to Jehovah Witnesses....and according to Charles and the followers after, Christ is NOT God and Christendom as a whole have it wrong.

NOW.....would you agree that his claims are founded??

The Spirit told him this?

So would the Spirit tells one individual one thing, and another individual another?

Lest we forget even those with individual graces can indeed be misled. And John wanrs us against following deception. In fact, all the Apostles do. Some of the earliest heresies came from individuals who 'felt' that things should be another way.

AS it was in scripture [when Paul argues against heresies, and the others do as well] as it was in the beginning of Christianity and through out time, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INDIVUAL INTERPRETATIONS.

DID John not tell us that we must always be careful? Yes.
Grace is sufficient, but the prince of darkness resides in the world.

So what individuals may FEEL is right, could be indeed error.

Grace leads us to Christ, and reason leads us to conclude where the Church is that HE founded.

If we continue to assert that the Holy Spirit guides us all, and we all have contrary doctrines, then how can that be the Spirit?
WHY would he tell John Doe one thing, and then Jane Doe another? And they are both correct??

Where is the Spirit? And how can we test Him?

Well, according to scripture He is with the Church Christ founded....and He will not move Himself, and corrupt men can never change what He has placed down.

Individualism is not in the Bible.....but that those who profess faith in humility are indeed filled with grace.

 

[calmcoolandelected]

Every individual has the right to receive grace, but not the right to interpret scriptures as they see them to be.

Just because someone believes they received grace, and yet misinterpret the whole Bible, does this mean they have the Spirit?

Charles Taze Russell as an example; said the Lord gave Him the Spirit and he created the Russellites, which later changed their names to Jehovah Witnesses....and according to Charles and the followers after, Christ is NOT God and Christendom as a whole have it wrong.

NOW.....would you agree that his claims are founded??

The Spirit told him this?

So would the Spirit tells one individual one thing, and another individual another?

Lest we forget even those with individual graces can indeed be misled. And John wanrs us against following deception. In fact, all the Apostles do. Some of the earliest heresies came from individuals who 'felt' that things should be another way.

AS it was in scripture [when Paul argues against heresies, and the others do as well] as it was in the beginning of Christianity and through out time, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INDIVUAL INTERPRETATIONS.

DID John not tell us that we must always be careful? Yes.
Grace is sufficient, but the prince of darkness resides in the world.

So what individuals may FEEL is right, could be indeed error.

Grace leads us to Christ, and reason leads us to conclude where the Church is that HE founded.

If we continue to assert that the Holy Spirit guides us all, and we all have contrary doctrines, then how can that be the Spirit?
WHY would he tell John Doe one thing, and then Jane Doe another? And they are both correct??

Where is the Spirit? And how can we test Him?

Well, according to scripture He is with the Church Christ founded....and He will not move Himself, and corrupt men can never change what He has placed down.

Individualism is not in the Bible.....but that those who profess faith in humility are indeed filled with grace.

WA,

As I have said, I'm finished. There are nearly 400 posts in this thread, we have been there, done that. It is pretty obvious that neither of us will change the others' mind. However, there are plenty of posts that explain each position and anyone lurking here can see for themselves. Both positions have been clearly stated. Yes, I said clearly stated.

Once again, I am in disagreement with your interpretation or rather, your church's interpretation with much of the Scripture presented in this thread. I myself, prefer to err on the side of Scripture.

CC&E

 

[WarriorAngel]

Now you are playing word games. The Bible IS Scripture and it doesn't really matter if it was technically deemed "BIBLE" at the time or not. Most certainly the receivers of Paul's epistles knew what it was and didn't need a church council of any sort to know it.

Protestants don't deny that the writers of the NT were inspired by God, in fact, we heartily agree. The rest of the Apostolic succession is the sticking point. To claim exclusivity based on a man-made system is arrogant in light of what God's Word says.

CC&E

Paul never said 'Today I am writing scripture, and I will index it into a book'.....nor did any of them. They compared their own writings to scriptures, but they called their own writings Epistles.

There was NOTHING named nor called New Testament. That came from the Church.

The Old Testament was named as such by the Church.

The Epistles were kept by the Church, and the CHURCH knew which texts were inspired and should be used by and for the CHURCH.

The Apostles wrote to their fathers, and Bishops.
These men kept the writings as PART OF TRADITION.


Please explain how the Church who were taught since the Apostles the same doctrines...can have it wrong?

When I write, it is on historical fact.
So please do not let it become personal.

 

[racer]

I agree that they are in Scripture. Now take into considertion that there was no Bible when St. Ignatius wrote his letter. He doesn't even quote the Scriptures. He was speaking from Traditions.

So, are you asserting that He learned from oral teachings only? We have evidence in Scripture where epistles were written and delivered to churches when the instructor was delayed in getting there to teach in person. So, are you asserting that its a fact that Ignatius had no written texts from which he may have learned?

And if you are asserting that what Ignatius wrote is Holy Tradition and not Scripture, you're only proving how Holy tradition was at some point written down and eventually combined into one text--the Bible. So, what may have been Oral Holy Tradition is now preserved for us in Scripture.

We see it in Scripture because we have been given this Tradition and has been passed down and taught through the generations.

We see it in Scripture because it is part of the Gospel taught by Christ and His apostles. It was preserved in writing to ensure that throughout the ages, until Jesus return, it would be passed on to believers.

I just wanted to show this connection between Tradition and Scripture.

We understand that what was taught orally is now Scripture. We are asking what Holy Tradition is in addition to or beside of Scripture. It you guys who claim Scripture is insufficient and lacking. What is it lacking?

One thing that does come to mind that is not explicitly in Scripture and needed to be stated explicitly by the 4th Ecumunical council was that Jesus is 100%human and divine from His moment of His conception.

This can be gleened from Scripture.

This is also why Mary was explicitly given the title. Theotokos(God-bearer, Mother of God).

This is a play on words. Mary being the Mother of God Incarnate, Jesus, is very explicilty revealed in Scripture. But, you're playing a game of semantics when you call her the Mother of God.

Nestorious argued from Scripture that Mary was not Mother of God but rather Mother of Christ.

He is correct and you know it. God the Father (known as God in the Trinity) had no mother. God the Son (known as Christ/Jesus in the Trinity) had a mother. Now, I'm sure you're going to make some sort of allusion to me being a Nestorian. But, we all know the difference here. Mary, herself, would turn flips in her grave (or in is turning flips in heaven, depending upon what you belief about her) if she knew what people would come to refer to her as.

It implied that Jesus became divine at later moment in his life.

I won't speak about Nestorius, but let me ask you this, in the beginning, did Mary exist? In the beginning did God have a mother?

There are no verses that explicitly say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human, from the moment of His conception. It is from this lack of explicit information that these heresies came to be. This is were we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide the Church through these councils to pass on the Truth.

But, it is gleened from passages that state that Jesus is God. We've only tacked a name to a concept revealed in Scripture.

This is why we say that the Scriptures are part of Tradition. They point to and compliment each other.

So far, you've stated nothing that is not Scriptural. There is only Holy Scripture and that's all that is needed.

 

[WarriorAngel]

WA,

As I have said, I'm finished. There are nearly 400 posts in this thread, we have been there, done that. It is pretty obvious that neither of us will change the others' mind. However, there are plenty of posts that explain each position and anyone lurking here can see for themselves. Both positions have been clearly stated. Yes, I said clearly stated.

Once again, I am in disagreement with your interpretation or rather, your church's interpretation with much of the Scripture presented in this thread. I myself, prefer to err on the side of Scripture.

CC&E

And I prefer to stand as one with the Ancient Apostolic Church, NOT my own conclusions, but with the same mind as what the Apostles taught who were taught BY Christ Himself, and His Spirit carries on til the end of time.

Peace!

 

[ETide]

Amillenialism, as well as postmillenialism, do not by necessity excude the necessity of the fulfillment of Paul's prophetic utterance regarding the ingathering of Israel in the last days. (EO are not Replacement theology adherents. We are the continuation of, not the replacement for, Israel.)

We haven't missed the scriptures you speak of, we have a different consensus than your tradition does regarding their implications.

Yes, I understand that.. it's basically that those churches (such as your own) which embrace amillennialism, believe and teach that we're ALREADY in the millennial kingdom of Christ.. although this view of course misses the enormous scriptural fact that Christ Jesus Himself will reign from Jerusalem in that day..

So in this regard.. ie, with those who embrace amillenialism.. there is a massive disconnection with Israel and the prophecies with respect to them in the latter days.

 

[Lynn73]

And I prefer to stand as one with the Ancient Apostolic Church, NOT my own conclusions, but with the same mind as what the Apostles taught who were taught BY Christ Himself, and His Spirit carries on til the end of time.

Peace!

Be our guest. Calmcoolandelected and I wil stand on the side of the word of God. She said it very well. Reps to her. So we'll see what happens at the end of time.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some personal thoughts...


1. That this thread spins round and round is understandable - we have two different views here. If one has the goal of "converting" or "convincing" others - CF is probably not a good forum for you. The people here tend to be rather solid in their views, which they often express with intelligence and articulation. IMO, what GT is for is mutual understanding - not mutual agreement.


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


.

 

[Asinner]

So we'll see what happens at the end of time.

Our salvation is no game.

God Bless

 

[Lynn73]

Didn't say it was. It's definitely very serious. And I happen to disagree with the Catholic version of it. CC nd E and I happen to take the Scriptures very seriously and will believe what it says above and beyond the claims of any Catholic or RCC.
I have no idea where you'd get the idea that I though salvation was a game or something.

 

[Asinner]

Didn't say it was. It's definitely very serious. And I happen to disagree with the Catholic version of it. CC nd E and I happen to take the Scriptures very seriously and will believe what it says above and beyond of the claims of any Catholic or RCC.

Lynn,

I believe you take scripture seriously.

God Bless

 

[racer]

I'm listening . . .

Hello, Asinner--

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:

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

And I prefer to stand as one with the Ancient Apostolic Church, NOT my own conclusions, but with the same mind as what the Apostles taught who were taught BY Christ Himself, and His Spirit carries on til the end of time.

Be our guest. Calmcoolandelected and I wil stand on the side of the word of God. She said it very well. Reps to her. So we'll see what happens at the end of time.

It may interest you to know that for some of us, standing with the Church and the word of God is synonymous...and to us, you have created a false dichotomy, wherein standing with the Church is standing in some form of opposition to or neglect of the Church.

By no means do I think that you don't stand with the Church, as you understand it. IOW, I don't demean your position by suggesting that you neglect or reject the words of God. It would be nice if that was reciprocated.

 

[racer]

Hello, Asinner--

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:

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.

 

[Lynn73]

Lynn,

I believe you take scripture seriously.

God Bless

Thanks, I'm sure you do also even if we can't agree on what it teaches.

 

[Lynn73]

[/font][/i]



It may interest you to know that for some of us, standing with the Church and the word of God is synonymous...and to us, you have created a false dichotomy, wherein standing with the Church is standing in some form of opposition to or neglect of the Church.

By no means do I think that you don't stand with the Church, as you understand it. IOW, I don't demean your position by suggesting that you neglect or reject the words of God. It would be nice if that was reciprocated.

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