Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[PeaceinJesus]

Well that's a rather big accusation. Maybe we just all have different experiences.

 

[PeaceinJesus]

I just think that tradition is a rather weak thing to base anything on.Speaking in tongues is definitely biblical. Even Paul said he was okay with unknown tongues.

 

[Dorothea]

I just think that tradition is a rather weak thing to base anything on.Speaking in tongues is definitely biblical. Even Paul said he was okay with unknown tongues.

Fair enough (about different experiences ). The Bible came from tradition. We accepted the Tradition of the Bible compiled by the Church. If one accepts this and the Bible from the Church, why wouldn't you accept the Church?

 

[PeaceinJesus]

Quite frankly I hold different opinions than the EO and RC churchs especially regarding confessionals and the office of the Papacy and/or priests.

 

[Montalban]

I just think that tradition is a rather weak thing to base anything on.Speaking in tongues is definitely biblical. Even Paul said he was okay with unknown tongues.

Just on this point, when you see how they spoke tongues in Acts, everyone there understood what was being said in their own mother tongue.

When people do it today, in certain churches, it is a gobbeldy-[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] that needs to be interpreted by some specially appointed person. It is in fact a confusion of tongues.

 

[Montalban]

Quite frankly I hold different opinions than the EO and RC churchs especially regarding confessionals and the office of the Papacy and/or priests.

We don't follow the papacy, Catholics do. What's this third way that you hold to?

 

[Montalban]

It sure is. What makes tradition so great anyway if it's not biblical? Speaking in tongues is biblical but tradition isn't.

Tradition is in the Bible...
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Tradition is in the Bible...
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

 

[Dorothea]

Quite frankly I hold different opinions than the EO and RC churchs especially regarding confessionals and the office of the Papacy and/or priests.

We don't have the Papacy, but most certainly we have bishops and priests and deacons as was instructed for us by the Apostles who were instructed by Christ on how to set up the Church. Here's some info:

The Church functioned as the repository and guardian of the Holy Spirit's teachings as given to the apostles. The apostles were the initial leaders of the Church, the foundation upon which it was built (Eph. 2:20). As Such, they were the first bishops (episkopos, an overseer) and originally fulfilled all leadership roles, however, "when the number of disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint" (Acts 6:1); that is, it soon becaome overly burdensome for the apostles to perform all necessary roles so they appointed assistants, deacons (Acts 6:2-6). The apostles also named successor bishops, beginning by the vacancy left by Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:20) and continuing with the commissioning of "faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). St. Clement, who as the bishop of Rome wrote a letter to the Church of Corinth in AD 95, put it this way: "The apostles received the gospel for us from Jesus Christ...[and] as they preached from country to country and from city to city, they appointed their first converts...to be the bishops and deacons of the future believers."

After having described how new bishops and deacons were installed by the apostles, St. Clement's letter to the Church at Corinth goes on to report that the apostles instructed that: "If these should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry...appointed by [the apostles] or afterward by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church."

The authorities Jesus Christ established over us: "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive" (Heb. 13:17) and "Submit yourselves to your elders" (which means presbyters = priests) (1 Peter 5:5).


~~"West of Jesus" by Anthony

 

[Dorothea]

Tradition is in the Bible...
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

Here's lots more:

"...All things that I [Jesus Christ] have commanded you [His disciples]" (Mt. 28:20)

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you" (1 Cor. 11:23)

"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received" (1 Cor. 15:3)

"For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:12)

"How that by revelation He made known to me the mystery" (Eph. 3:3)

In addition to the understanding that apostolic teaching came from the Savior we must see that much of it was passed on by the apostles orally, a fact which some of the above verses demonstrate (1 Cor. 11:23 and 1 Cor. 15:3) and that other Scripture validates:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" (Mt. 28:19-20)

"And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders (priests) of Jerusalem" (Acts. 16:4)

"And the rest I will set in order when I come" (1 Cor. 11:34)

"The pattern of sound words you have heard from me" (2 Tim. 1:13)

"And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

From the time of Adam until the Abrahamic, and perhaps even Mosaic times history was recorded orally. And we have no difficulty in accrediting full authority to subsequent written renditions of this oral tradition found in the Old Testament. Moreover, from the time of Jesus until the completion of Scripture's canon (AD 29 to AD 397), most Church instruction was transmitted orally. This points to the requirement of those receiving oral tradition to adhere to it steadfastly, another reality that Scripture authenticates:

"Note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you have learned" (Rom. 16:17)

"Keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2)

"Stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15)

"Withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6)

"Guard what was committed to your trust" (1 Tim. 6:20)

"Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me...that good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit" (2 Tim. 1:13-14)

"And the things that you have heard from me...commit these to faithful men" (2 Tim. 2:2).


~~"West of Jesus" by Anthony

 

[boswd]

Well I think many of you are missing one of the points of speaking in tongues. We do it so Satan will not understand our prayers, only God will understand them. Satan can discourage us if he knows our words.Sometimes, the words we speak are translated, other times not. I just find the whole experience very edifying.

That is unbbilical.
Speaking in tounges is a gift that came in two forms. First was the gift give to the Apostles so the word can be spread throughout the world and people can understand.

The second when Paul was speaking to Corinitians, which is what most Pentacostals use as their bases, was a gift for people to teach and enriching their faith. Paul instructed on interpretation and that is must be used to teach and enrich the faith for it does not profit anyone if know one understands.

Speaking tounges wasn't meant to be used as some form of proof of being a christian. It is abused today and it is not used in the way Paul instructed.

Did he not say he would rather speak 5 words that everyone can understand as opposed to speaking a thousand words that no one understands? (paraphrasing)

Speaking in tounges wasn't meant as some secret code to hide from Satan.
This teaching is unbiblical and an abuse of the gift. It's all too common in Pentacostal Church's , using this as some badge of membership.

 

[Montalban]

Well I think many of you are missing one of the points of speaking in tongues. We do it so Satan will not understand our prayers, only God will understand them. Satan can discourage us if he knows our words.Sometimes, the words we speak are translated, other times not. I just find the whole experience very edifying.

That's not what happened in the Bible. In Acts of the Apostles speaking in tongues was a means of transmitting the word of God to all hearers. It's not about confusion.

Further if it is as you say it is, then why does someone stand in a Charismatic church and translate what the speaker says into English?

There's only one master of confusion

 

[stelow]

2 Corinthians 3
1Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

The Judaizers had a hard time recognizing the divinity of Christ Jesus. Paul writes about the contrast between the Old and the New testament.

 

[Montalban]

That is unbbilical.

And illogical

It rests on several problems. We 'deceive' Satan by speaking in tongues! Apparently lying to a liar makes it okay.

Secondly is the person in church who actually translates the tongues, so Satan would be able to understand what was said, anyway.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And illogical

It rests on several problems. We 'deceive' Satan by speaking in tongues! Apparently lying to a liar makes it okay.

Secondly is the person in church who actually translates the tongues, so Satan would be able to understand what was said, anyway.

That sounds logical to me and I never thought about that

 

[brinny]

Just on this point, when you see how they spoke tongues in Acts, everyone there understood what was being said in their own mother tongue.

When people do it today, in certain churches, it is a gobbeldy-[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] that needs to be interpreted by some specially appointed person. It is in fact a confusion of tongues.

indeed. and of course we know that God is not the Author of confusion.

 

[brinny]

When you and your fellow parishoners are speaking in tongues do you know what is being said? Is anyone interpreting it?

from my expoerience, no...it's a madhouse of chaos with ev'ryone speaking in tongues at the same time...no one knows what is being said, and no one attempts to interpret

 

[brinny]

I have never spoken in "tongues", so I must be an enigma?

no, maybe more honest.

 

[brinny]

Well I think many of you are missing one of the points of speaking in tongues. We do it so Satan will not understand our prayers, only God will understand them. Satan can discourage us if he knows our words.Sometimes, the words we speak are translated, other times not. I just find the whole experience very edifying.

do you know what you are saying? If not, how do you know you're not being led by satan?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by PeaceinJesus
Well I think many of you are missing one of the points of speaking in tongues. We do it so Satan will not understand our prayers, only God will understand them. Satan can discourage us if he knows our words.Sometimes, the words we speak are translated, other times not. I just find the whole experience very edifying.

Unfortunately, speaking in this unrecognizable language can attract and bring Satan into one's life through this experience, rather than the opposite.

indeed.