Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thank you.I am neither proud of nor impressed by your use of sarcasm, and I doubt others here are, either. Only the Holy Spirit can help to establish truth.
This is incorrect, because Torah itself was orated before it was read.Except that tradition had to rely on scripture in the first place before that.
With the possible exception of the ten commandments written by the finger of God in/on stone. But I suspect that the voice from the cloud (which the Israelites were afraid to hear lest they die) spoke the commandments before they were written by God's finger.That's right. Tradition is just unwritten revelation. All revelation begins that way.
I didn't say it was, but whether or not a certain writing is in fact Scripture or not, as with the writings I was discussing in the post you quoted, is something that Scripture alone cannot determine, and it is not something that can be tested against Scripture itself.
You ignore the Bible when it commands you to follow Tradition:
Okay, I will restate my view.
It is always discouraging to encounter a post that is thick with blue, red, bold, and underlined text a
One could add a comment and a little underlining to make one's point easier to locate in the passageHe said to them, 'Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines." You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.' Then he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, "Honour your father and your mother"; and, "Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die." But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, "Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban" (that is, an offering to God)-- then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.'
(Mark 7:6-13)
The Pharisees scrupulously obeyed every single part of the Mosaic Law. Then they invented new rules to prevent themselves from even breaking the God-ordained rules. Then they insisted that everybody had to obey their rules. Through every step of the process, they were not allowing their hearts to be transformed. They were simply creating rules which everybody had to follow to the letter but they never allowed themselves to see the intent behind the Mosaic Law.
These were not doctrines that they were teaching. They were more similar to liturgical practices and/or devotional exercises. They were not even remotely close to Sacred Tradition.
Again, those were liturgical practices and religious observances; they were not specifically doctrinal in nature.Yet in the case of the CORBAN practice Christ DOES declare it to be their tradition and in Mark 7 regarding the ceremonial baptizing of fingers and pots to cleanse from sin - they themselves admit that this is part of their tradition.
I think we have to stick with the text on those points.
What is the 'baseline' Scripture against which we can build the canon of Scripture by means of Sola Scriptura, and then what do we have to test that baseline against?It can be tested "sola scriptura" to see if it is disqualified - if it is error.
And that they accept that writing as Scripture was their tradition. No Scripture said that "such and such writing by Paul to Philemon is Scripture." It is Tradition which says that.But as to whether that which is found to be "truth" is also to be accepted as "Scripture" -- well in the NT writers themselves say that their writings were being accepted as "scripture" right then and there in the first century.
Alright, then am I correct to say that we agree that the canon of Scripture is itself Tradition?As for how someone comes along in the days of Christ and notices that the OT was canonized 400 years prior to that - well I agree as stated in my prior post - that such a fact as "what books were included" is not listed in scripture - but the sola scriptura "testing" doctrine is not dependent on every fact of history being included in scripture. So I am not arguing against such tradition.
Nor have I said that it was.My argument has never been that "all tradition is shown to be error according to the sola scriptura test".
I am well aware of where Jesus referred to the Law and the Prophets. One must note that he did not say "read and decide for yourself if I am wrong", but rather he proclaimed the Truth in authority to shine His Light on the Word, much how Peter and Paul and the other bishops and presbyters were charged with the ministry of preaching the Word and bring Truth to mankind while guarding against false doctrines.However the need for and demonstrated use of "Sola Scriptura testing" can easily be seen in these examples.
In this example Christ demonstrates how to hammer tradition and doctrine "sola scriptura" when they don't measure up
Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
fhansen said: ↑
And who will deem themselves the authentic interpreter of Scripture, since the doctrine of SS is obviously useless without such an authority seeing as it's adherents, such as yourselves and others, can't agree on many other doctrines which are said to stem from Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
How do you know those books aren't legitimate Sacred Scripture?
Um, back in 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation issued the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification where both sides agreed that justification is by grace through faith in Our Lord. If you read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, you'll notice the tell-tale absence of "faith alone" anywhere in there.
The Church has never wavered on the proposition that justification is by grace through faith and even the Lutheran World Federation seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.
yes, we believe in the living communion of saints, any of whom, physically dead or alive, can be asked to intercede for us.
some Protestant groups, not many, believe in purgatory or an afterlife state of purification.
Protestants divide on the relevance of the early councils, some believing they’re valid while others could care less. Either way they divide with the church, both east and west, on many points, the church that actually called and held these councils.
Reformers changed the canon, not the church
I thought I’d address #4, doctrine of discovery, and the other issues above together, as none of these involve articles of faith; they do not constitute Catholic teachings on the faith, IOW. So, since they have nothing to do with beliefs that one needs to hold in order to be Catholic,
although I’m not sure about the extremism of self-flagellation, etc even as that’s been practiced by various individuals and groups within the church.
In any case I’ll agree that those directives were not made in the light of the gospel, but rather, for the most part, were influenced or motivated by human weakness and nationalistic desire for gain. Rather than loving one’s neighbor, let alone their enemy, these various pronouncements supported the opposite. While the integrity and continued existence of the Christian faith itself were feared to be in jeopardy due to heresy at that time, by both sides, Protestant and Catholic, who both supported or committed atrocities along the same lines as you probably know, none of it can be condoned.
IMO it's mainly the light of the gospel that has in more recent centuries challenged and drawn humankind into a place where at least some parts of the world would no longer even countenance committing such evils.
Now SS adherents disagree on many things that the older church- east and west- agree on. Even justification is not so pristine or unified a doctrine as some think once we begin to look closer at Protestant variants. Some believe we must be baptized in order to be saved while other believe this position directly opposes justification by faith alone. A few teach a virtual antinomianism while others acknowledge that true faith alone is never alone; works and obedience will always accompany it. Some teach that man’s will can resist the grace of justification while others reject this belief. Some teach that man must be regenerated and justified before any faith in God is possible while others believe God first draws us by grace, and, by an act of faith, we’re then made just and regenerated by Him.
Most evangelicals and some others believe in OSAS while most, including SDA, reject this teaching.
Again, those were liturgical practices and religious observances; they were not specifically doctrinal in nature.
And...on the contrary - we agree that the RCC doctrinal errors that contradict scripture include these errors:
prayers to the dead
Purgatory
The system of Indulgences
The "Doctrine of Discovery"
The infallabiliy of Papal and RCC church council statements on doctrine, and law governing Christians.
Claims to "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ"
Rejection of Sola Scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine
"powers" of the priests
Adding in apocryphal books as if they are scripture
No. You just reiterated the very same claims for which I requested documentation from Sacred Scripture. Had you not done so, I probably would've not even bothered replying. But since you've posted the same exact post twice now in this thread, I reassert my request for documentation. For convencience's sake...The initial question above was about the issue of non-Catholic churches following the Bible yet having no agreement. I simply show that they do have a great deal of agreement. And of course all of them based on the "sola scriptura" test. As for which scriptures show a given error to be -- error... well that would take up a lot of this thread. But we could take them one-by-one on their own dedicate thread if you like.
I look forward to your reply.Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
Based on what Scripture?
How do you know those books aren't legitimate Sacred Scripture?
Um, back in 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation issued the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification where both sides agreed that justification is by grace through faith in Our Lord. If you read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, you'll notice the tell-tale absence of "faith alone" anywhere in there.
The Church has never wavered on the proposition that justification is by grace through faith and even the Lutheran World Federation seems to be coming around on that one in recent times.
I'm running out of ways to express this so I'll try to simplify it further.Mark 7 condemns both doctrine and tradition that is found to be contrary to the Bible. The "Sola Scriptura" claim is that all must be tested -- it is not the claim that all will be shown to be in conflict with the Bible.
According to this article, if Protestants did kill Catholics, it could be because of Luther and other Reformers' viewing the RCC Papacy as the "antichrist", which to me is simple a ludicrous and unfounded accusation. IMHO*snip*
1. That is a significant point in your post - not to be ignored.
2. My view is that both sides should be willing to say as you have said "mistakes in the past - we learned our lesson - we were wrong to torture, torment, burn people alive etc. Let's move on and never do it again". The problem is that when I bring this up to those "in the know" - for example EWTN church history representatives - I am told that the church had not admitted to any specific decree to exterminate heretics to be a case of "error".
By contrast I don't know of any Protestant group holding to a doctrine of "infallibility" regarding past protestant actions involving burning catholics alive or torturing them or stealing Catholic homes etc.............................
Bob
What is the 'baseline' Scripture against which we can build the canon of Scripture by means of Sola Scriptura, and then what do we have to test that baseline against?
And that they accept that writing as Scripture was their tradition. No Scripture said that "such and such writing by Paul to Philemon is Scripture." It is Tradition which says that.
Alright, then am I correct to say that we agree that the canon of Scripture is itself Tradition?
I am well aware of where Jesus referred to the Law and the Prophets. One must note that he did not say "read and decide for yourself if I am wrong", but rather he proclaimed the Truth in authority to shine His Light on the Word,
According to this article, if Protestants did kill Catholics, it could be the results of Luther and other Reformers viewing the RCC Papacy as the "antichrist", which to me is simple a ludicrous and unfounded accusation. IMHO
http://etb-history-theology.blogspot.com/2012/03/thirty-years-war-and-protestants.html
That was said before the trial and crucifixion of Jesus and the coming destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple in ad 70.In 1 John 2 John say "antichrist is coming" and he also says "many antichrists have come" - so then -- look for all the examples in the NT where Christians were burning people alive, exterminating them, torturing them -- because they thought they were among the "antichrists".
BobRyan said: ↑
In 1 John 2 John says "antichrist is coming" and he also says "many antichrists have come" - so then -- look for all the examples in the NT where Christians were burning people alive, exterminating them, torturing them -- because they thought they were among the "antichrists".
It simply is not there at all for NT gospel Christians. If Luther or the RCC (which by the way used the term "antichrist" against its own popes before Luther did - Papal armies at war with Papal armies) were burning people alive - they did not have a Bible basis for it.
That was said before the trial and crucifixion of Jesus and the coming destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple in ad 70.
I think Jesus was referring to corrupt murderouls Judean Priests, Pharisees and Scribes and were the true "antichrists". IMHO
The RCC is not the harlot in Revelation......
Notice who came to arrest Jesus in the garden in John 14:?
John 14:30
"Not still much I shall be talking with ye, for is coming the ruler/chief/arcwn <758> of this world, and in Me not he is having anything.
[John 18:3 Judas, therefore, having taken the band and officers out of the Chief-priests/arc-ierewn <749> and Pharisees, doth-come thither with torches and lamps, and weapons;]
John 16:11
"About yet judging, that the ruler/chief/arcwn <758> of this world, has been judged
John 12:31
"Now is the judging is of this world. Now the ruler/chief/arcwn <758> of this world shall be being cast out.
Mark 14:43
And immediately, while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, with a great multitude with swords and clubs, is coming from the Chief-Priests/arcierewn <749> and the Scribes and the Elders.
I would love to discuss that on this thread I created on that:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/john-14-and-the-ruler-chief-of-world.7328728/
John 14 and the "ruler/chief" of World
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?