the Church Councils = Church TraditionIn several different councils, the church made the determination. There has been a general consensus among Christians of different denominations ever since that that was a correct decision. However, it is also important to note that the selection of the particular books that are in the canon--the Bible--was not made on the spot or at random. Every one of them was already in general use among the various congregations, dioceses, etc. of the world before these councils met. They were all already accepted, with the exception of the three that are listed last in the New Testament, as being the word of God.
That said, it could certainly be asked, "What if the church was mistaken about that?"
Theoretically, that is a possibility, but then what is the solution? Other books? Start over? One thing that I would say is not in order is to turn instead to something MUCH LESS reliable and without any Scriptural basis at all--which is tradition.
Not that tradition is meaningless if used by us to understand better, but as the alternative to the word of God? No, that doesn't make sense.
If you are referring to Holy Tradition--the alternative used by the Catholic churches--why would it be the answer? It is nothing more than the church leaders, claiming to be personally guided by God, saying that something or other that was voiced or believed by some people (but not all) in the past looks good to them, so lets stipulate that God was speaking though them! That process fails the test of what the word tradition means, for one thing.
As for books that were placed in the Apocrypha and later judged, by the Protestants, not to be inspired writings....that decision is because, from the beginning of the Christian era, those books were considered to be part of the Hebrew Bible by SOME Hebrews but not so by other Hebrews.
The whole of the Old Testament was carried over, but these were in dispute. Therefore, they were put in the Christian canon, the Bible, provisionally. Then, during the Reformation, the Protestants generally continued to use them but said that they were good for understanding the mind of the Hebrews in the several centuries before Christ but not for setting any doctrine. They are, BTW, written in a style quite unlike all the other books of the OT. The Catholic Church also removed a few of them from their translations of the Bible at about the same time as the Protestants did.
so could I quote from the Apocrypha (which the most ancient Orthodox & Catholic traditions have long held to be inspired) ?But if the Sola Scriptura position is true (and it is), then this only proves that men are either not interpreting God’s Word correctly to begin with because they prefer their sin, or they have fallen away from the faith. It is an internal problem and not Sola Scriptura. You fail to understand that John tells us about brethren who did not need any man to teach them because they have the anointing of the Spirit. This truth goes against what you are saying here. You also should read my Biblical defense for Sola Scriptura. I posted two links for you to another set of posts of mine on this (here at CF). If you have any regard for what the Bible says, you should at least look at the verses I presented.
it defines traditionNo. Look up the meaning of the words. A decision made at a point in time by a deliberative body is not a "tradition."
it defines tradition
Yes, but that in itself does not make their decisions be traditions. I also believe that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, but not because people have been saying it for so long that I just go along with the story. That is not why I think it happened.you're still referring to those Councils 1500+ years later
so could I quote from the Apocrypha (which the most ancient Orthodox & Catholic traditions have long held to be inspired) ?
Scripture alone does not clarify which books are actually inspired... it all comes down to human traditions...
some say 73 books, others 66 books... still other 39 books... at some point you're trusting human traditions along with Scripture, to define your canon of Scripture... which is therefore never your only logical source of guidance
I can't answer your questions because scripture does not use names like Saturday & Sunday with reference to the sabbath day. In addition I do not advocate for Saturday sanctity nor do I identify Saturday as a sabbath day commanded for Christians to keep.What does the Bible actually say about the Sabbath? Does it specifically specify? A particular day or does it simply say one day out of 7 every seventh day. I mean? How do we really know? When God started creation. Thousands and thousands of years ago. How do we know whether or not the legitimate seventh day of rest? Is on the day we call Saturday in English or the day we call Sunday in English? One day out of every 7 would still fulfill Biblical Commandments correct?
PART 1
WHO SHOULD WE OBEY GOD'S WORD OR THE TEACHINGS AND TRADITIONS OF MEN?
The very same topics that we discuss here was also discussed in the day of Jesus. The mainstream preachers of Christ's time all claimed to be Children of God because their claim was that they were the Children of Abraham right? This was their claim to being God's people.
JOHN 8:33-45
[33] They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how say thou, Ye shall be made free?
They claimed belief on the God of Abraham, they claimed to be in bondage to no man. But what did Jesus tell them...............?
[34] Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin.
[39] They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
[40] But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
[44] Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
[45] And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
There is more on this engagement between Jesus and the Mainstream God of Abraham preachers of His time in John 8.
Certainly the Pharisees studied the bible as it existed then. AS did Jesus.
LUKE 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Yet these two factions, Jesus and the Mainstream preachers of His time had almost opposite understandings of the Bible.
It is fair to say not all Jews of that time had the same understanding as the Mainstream Preachers.
LUKE 1:5-6 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
So there seems to be a trend here.
The Mainstream Preachers claimed to be God's people, they read God's Words, yet they "Transgressed the Commandments of God by their own doctrines and traditions." (Matthew 15:3-9)
Yet there is no indication that Zacharias or Jesus did this and followed them.
So we have one example of understanding that was gained by study in obedience to the instructions in God's Word, ( Zacharias and Jesus)
And another example of study in disobedience to the instructions of God's Word. (Mainstream preachers of that time)
There were more than just Zacharias.
MATTHEW 2:1-2
[1], Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
Here is another example of people who had a completely different understanding than the Mainstream preachers of that time. Is it wrong to assume that they, like Zacharias, also studied in obedience to the instruction?
And Peter, which side of this topic did he fall on?
ACT 5:32-33 [32], And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
[33] When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.
Now why was it that the Jews sought to persecute Jesus and the prophets? It was because they refused to obey the instruction of God, and created their own instructions, and the other example did not.
So fast forward to today. We have a Mainstream Christian teaching that "Transgresses the Commandments of God by their own traditions and doctrines."
This is not a judgment, rather, a simple fact.
It is Mainstream Christian Tradition to transgress God's Sabbath Commandment and replace it with the Catholic Sabbath (Sunday worship). It is Mainstream Christian Tradition to create images of God in the likeness of some long haired men's shampoo model, transgressing the first and greatest commandment.
It is Mainstream Christian Tradition to transgress God's Food Laws, and create their own definition of clean and unclean.
So it seems that even today, if a person studies in obedience to God's simple instructions he see's the scripture one way.
If a person studies scripture in disobedience following the traditions and teachings of man in place of God's Word and to God's simple instructions, he sees the scripture in another way.
I believe what Peter taught, that the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Truth) is given to those who do not "Transgress the Commandments of God by their own religious doctrines and traditions.
But I also know from Peter and Jesus that this belief will infuriate "many" who come in Christ's/God's name.
[23] "When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them."
MATTHEW 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endures to the end shall be saved."
My hope is that you might consider these words and understand.
JOHN 3:19-21
[19] And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (Is it evil or righteous to transgress the commandments of God by doctrines and traditions of men?)
[20] For every one that doeth evil (Transgress God's Commandments by their own Traditions) hates the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Is this why the Mainstream preachers of Peters time set about to kill or silence Peter, so he wouldn't expose their transgression of God's Commandments?
[21] But he that does truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest,.(let your light shine) that they are wrought in God.
So a circle complete once again. Those who live a doctrine created (wrought) by God have a different understanding than those who live a doctrine created by man who follow the traditions of man. The above was shared with me recently by a friend. I hope it was a blessing to you as it was for me.
Some interesting Word from Jesus...
MATTHEW 15:3-9
[3], But he answered and said to them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
[4], For God commanded, saying, Honor your father and mother: and, He that curses father or mother, let him die the death.
[5], But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatever you might be profited by me;
[6], And honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
[7], You hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
[8], This people draws near to me with their mouth, and honors me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
[9], But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
According to Jesus if we follow the teachings and traditions of MEN over the WORD of GOD we are NOT following God.
.............
THE TRADITIONS OF SUNDAY WORSHIP HANDED DOWN FROM THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TO PROTESTANTISM (CATHOLIC CONFESSIONS).
* Now the important question is who should we obey God or man?
................
Look forward to your comments.
The word of God is tradition of men.
You said:The Bible is compiled by the same authority that the traditions are formulated by.
You said:God never came down and said here give this book to everyone.
The word of God is tradition of men. The Bible is compiled by the same authority that the traditions are formulated by. God never came down and said here give this book to everyone.
“On the first day of the week, we gathered with the local believers to share in the Lord’s Supper. Paul was preaching to them, and since he was leaving the next day, he kept talking until midnight.” (Acts of the Apostles 20:7) (NLT).
No. It doesn’t say what you just said.
You are just bolding the text and you are suggesting that it is saying what you are saying. The text you bolded does not say, “And the reason why they gathered on the 1st day is because Paul was departing the next day.”
You need to add the words “the reason why...” in the text to prove that this is what it is saying.
Hello Jason, well none of that is true my friend.
The GREEK for bread here is lechem; ἅρτος which means bread or food in general]. Yours is a bad translation. It does not mean or say the "Lord's Supper". For example the Good News Translation says it this way...
ACTS 20:7 On Saturday evening we gathered together for the fellowship meal. Paul spoke to the people and kept on speaking until midnight, since he was going to leave the next day (GNT).
For me personally however, I do not have any problem with breaking bread either as Jesus says to do this in rememberance of him. There is no mention when this should be done or how often in the scriptures. It can be done at any time or any day of the week.
The reason however that the disciples gathered together was to have a meal and fellowship and hear the Word of God because Paul was departing the next day. You can believe God's WORD of not. I do not judge you.
So back to the point at hand. Where does it say in this scripture that God's 4th commandment in now ABOLISHED and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a Holy day?
Hope this helps.
They can only do so in violation of the clear words of the text (Acts 20), and thus to justify their practice of men's traditions which transgresses the commandment of God (Matthew 15:3; Exodus 20:8-11; John 14:15; Exodus 20:6), highly esteemed no doubt by their various 'pastors' or worse their 'professors/scholars' (Luke 16:15), have to imagine all manner of (bad) theology eisigetically into the text (adding and taking away from God's plain word). Their judgment is coming, and wrath of God is stored up. They shall not escape.So back to the point at hand. How do you use this scripture (Acts 20:7) to say that God's 4th commandment in now ABOLISHED and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a Holy day? You have to read a lot into the scripture to come up with that interpretation don't you? It says no such thing.
the Church Councils = Church Tradition
if we need Councils to define the canon of Biblical books, then we need Church Tradition to do so
so, the only question is who's traditions do you trust the most ?
They can only do so in violation of the clear words of the text (Acts 20), and thus to justify their practice of men's traditions which transgresses the commandment of God (Matthew 15:3; Exodus 20:8-11; John 14:15; Exodus 20:6), highly esteemed no doubt by their various 'pastors' or worse their 'professors/scholars' (Luke 16:15), have to imagine all manner of (bad) theology eisigetically into the text (adding and taking away from God's plain word). Their judgment is coming, and wrath of God is stored up. They shall not escape.
Paul himself will rise in the judgment and condemn them. Those in Acts 20 will rise in the judgment and condemn them.
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Act 20:7 εν δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων των μαθητων του κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος διελεγετο αυτοις μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου
Yep, the 7th day is still the Sabbath in Acts 20:7 and the 'first [day]' is simply a number towards that great culmination of God's creative acts and rest.
Where in those texts does it say the "the sabbath" (Of the LORD; Exodus 20:8-11) is no longer "binding"? Be specific please, as Romans 14 doesn't use the word "sabbath", "seventh day" (in fact, all of Romans never uses the words, even once), anywhere or even "commandment"The Saturday Sabbath is no longer a binding command in the New Testament (See: Colossians 2:14, Colossians 2:16-17, and Romans 14:5).
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?