Why Criticism of Traditional Churches is Wrong

[EastCoastRemnant]

Says you.

It may seem "obvious" to you that you "just believe the Bible" and others "believe the traditions of men"; that's not so obvious to others for whom precisely the opposite is maintained. You're the one following human traditions and rejecting biblical, normative Christian teaching--such as the baptism of infants, the liturgy, the Eucharist, confession, etc.

-CryptoLutheran

Scriptural evidence for your position would be nice....

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Scriptural evidence for your position would be nice....

Your posts do speak for themselves: Why do you ask for something that you are not even willing to consider? Is it more fun to make others defend their position instead of you having to defend your own?

 

[thecolorsblend]

I'm not sure if you're referring to my comment as you didn't quote whatever inspired your posts. Even so...

John 3:5 has been referred to for baptizing infants.

John 3:5 says "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,"

John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. KJV

The scripture plainly says except a MAN.

The scripture is referring to a MAN, not an infant.

That is not a reference to baptism either!

"Man" was a common general statement. That linguistic trend lasted for centuries. And yes, being as Our Lord referred to being baptized in that chapter, I believe it's safe to say that He was in fact referring to baptism.

This statement was made attempting to justify "purgatory".

"You don't believe that man needs to be purged of sin after death? You don't agree with 1 Corinthians 3:15?"

1 Cor 3:15 says this.

"If any man's work shall be burned"

Notice what the verse said.

1 Cor 3:15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. KJV

The verse spoke of "man's work".

The verse did not speak of the man himself.

The verse spoke of "man's work".

Not even close to affirming purgatory.

Not even.

You're denying that an otherwise saved person's works are being judged in that passage?

 

[Optimax]

I'm not sure if you're referring to my comment as you didn't quote whatever inspired your posts. Even so...

"Man" was a common general statement. That linguistic trend lasted for centuries. And yes, being as Our Lord referred to being baptized in that chapter, I believe it's safe to say that He was in fact referring to baptism.

The word translated "man" in Jn 3:5 is NT:5100.

It is used 547 times in the NT and is translated a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, partly, some (man, -body, -thing, -what), (+that no-) thing, what (-soever), wherewith, whom [-soever], whose ([-soever]).

The Greek word is "tis" (tis); an enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object:


KJV - a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, partly, some (man, -body, -thing, -what), (+that no-) thing, what (-soever), wherewith, whom [-soever], whose ([-soever]).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

When Jesus said "man" he meant what he said and said what he meant. Man.

If he had meant infant, baby, little one, he knew very well how to express what he meant.



You're denying that an otherwise saved person's works are being judged in that passage?

I do not deny that it is a saved person's works that are being judged.

That is the point.

Works are being judged.

The eternal state of the man is not being judged but the works.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I do not deny that it is a saved person's works that are being judged.

That is the point.

Works are being judged.

The eternal state of the man is not being judged but the works.

...

That is precisely what purgatory is. Sounds like we agree.

 

[Optimax]

...

That is precisely what purgatory is. Sounds like we agree.

It is evident that what I said did not soak in.

Consider that judging a man and judging his works are not the same.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It is evident that what I said did not soak in.

Consider that judging a man and judging his works are not the same.

Actually, what I think is obvious is you do not understand what purgatory is or the function it is supposed to serve. 1 Corinthians 3:15 is what the Church teaches purgatory is and does.

 

[Job8]

To attack them as traditions of men is to cast doubt on the veracity of the Christian faith as a whole.

Anything that cannot be solidly supported with Scripture should be regarded as "the traditions of men", and even those within Traditionalist churches should insist on this. Unfortunately "Holy Tradition" has generally trumped Scripture and become more authoritative. The veracity of the Christian faith is not in jeopardy in the least, since the essential beliefs of Christians are summarized in the creeds and confessions (for those who are Traditionalists).

 

[Optimax]

Actually, what I think is obvious is you do not understand what purgatory is or the function it is supposed to serve. 1 Corinthians 3:15 is what the Church teaches purgatory is and does.

Purgatory being something that does not exist.

1 Corinthians 3:15 judges works not people.

The works are burned not people.

the people suffer loss if their works are hay, stubble wood.

What they lose is rewards.

It takes a big stretch to weave a purgatory from that scripture

 

[Optimax]

you missed or ignored my post on infant baptism

 

[Job8]

Actually, what I think is obvious is you do not understand what purgatory is or the function it is supposed to serve. 1 Corinthians 3:15 is what the Church teaches purgatory is and does.

Let's see if this verse teaches Purgatory or something else: If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

1. Does this verse speak about a man's soul and spirit, or about his work?
2. Does "suffer loss" mean loss of eternal life or loss of rewards?
3. If "he himself shall be saved" does that not confirm that salvation is not at issue?
4. So what exactly is this fire? Is it metaphorical or is is actually Hell Fire? (or the fire of so-called Purgatory)?
5. Does this verse even hint at "punishment" or is it talking about "loss"?

It is evident that gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and stubble are simply metaphors to compare the durability and quality of the Christian's works. Thus this fire is also metaphorical in that the works which have no eternal value to Christ will be "burned up" (totally discarded) whereas those which resemble gold, silver, and precious stones in their quality and durability will be treated as valuable and the Christian will be rewarded accordingly.

The concept of purgatory is totally different. Quoting from the New Advent Encyclopedia (Catholic) here is a summary of purgatory, which is basically "temporal punishment":
Catholic doctrine
Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.

The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:

 

[Wgw]

Anything that cannot be solidly supported with Scripture should be regarded as "the traditions of men", and even those within Traditionalist churches should insist on this. Unfortunately "Holy Tradition" has generally trumped Scripture and become more authoritative. The veracity of the Christian faith is not in jeopardy in the least, since the essential beliefs of Christians are summarized in the creeds and confessions (for those who are Traditionalists).

Fortunately enough all Orthodox doctrines and praxis have full scriptural support. Actually all of the traditional churches I refer to in this read can argue from scripture in support of their respective traditions. So it really boils down to, at best, a duel of subjective interpretations, which is why I regard the polemica against traditional churches continually waged by some members with such low regard.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Rubbish. Paul made it very clear that he was entitled to get money from those he taught. He also made it clear why he chose not to. It has absolutely nothing to do with that passage. The tribe of priests were given goods by other tribes for the services they performed. Once again we see the biblical foundation of paying those who teach.

I am speaking of here

I dont believe this is rubbish

 

[thecolorsblend]

Purgatory being something that does not exist.

1 Corinthians 3:15 judges works not people.

Purgatory does not judge people; it purifies them. It judges their works.

The works are burned not people.

Agreed, that is purgatory, you're absolutely right.

It takes a big stretch to weave a purgatory from that scripture

Nonsense, you're doing great.

The concept of purgatory is totally different. Quoting from the New Advent Encyclopedia (Catholic)

We should stick with authoritative sources so here are passages taken directly from the Catechism:

The punishments of sin
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

If a person's work is burned, it is worthless unto God's kingdom. It's still a work though and, considering it was burned, it therefore relates to the stain of sin. That is what he is being purified from.

Someone in purgatory is going to heaven. Purgatory purifies him and tests his works; those burned won't be counted in his favor even though he himself is already saved. The person is being purified; his works are tested. Pretty straight forward, really.

you missed or ignored my post on infant baptism

I ignored it because, no offense, you made a real mess of the quotation of my post with your comments mixed in. It's too big a pain in the neck for me to quote the message and fix it for you. If you quote my post properly and then include your comments outside the quotation, I'll be happy to respond.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Anything that cannot be solidly supported with Scripture should be regarded as "the traditions of men", and even those within Traditionalist churches should insist on this. Unfortunately "Holy Tradition" has generally trumped Scripture and become more authoritative. The veracity of the Christian faith is not in jeopardy in the least, since the essential beliefs of Christians are summarized in the creeds and confessions (for those who are Traditionalists).

Guess we should all quit posting here; CF is not in the Bible.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Rubbish. Paul made it very clear that he was entitled to get money from those he taught. He also made it clear why he chose not to. It has absolutely nothing to do with that passage. The tribe of priests were given goods by other tribes for the services they performed. Once again we see the biblical foundation of paying those who teach.

Good advice from yourself

Please read what is said rather than what you would like to have been said or what you imagine was said.

What I am speaking of in 2 Thes can be shown elsewhere and confirmed in other epistles

As Paul was preaching the gospel there was some that mocked and others who would like to hear more on this

Acts 17:13 So Paul departed from among them.

And it continues...

Acts 17:34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

And Paul found these two (among the others with them)

Acts 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome and came unto them.

Why did he come unto these chose to abide with these two?

Acts 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

So stayed there (and with these specifically) because he was not looking for a free lunch but rather working labouring with his own hands (them being of the same craft as he)

Even as he says so much here

2Thes 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:

Which agrees and practicing what he preaches (in working) as we see him doing so he writes

2Thes 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

This is what he preached as well as what we see in him

This is also what we see in him (while he was preaching the gospel)

Acts 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers. (as was he)

So if you back up in 2 Thes 3, to when Paul says,

2 Thes 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; (contrast this wording with 2 Thes 3:11 even)

Paul continues,

2 Thes 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:

The reason he gives,

2 Thes 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

He speaks to the power they had even in 1 Cr 9 as Paul writes, asking

1 Cr 9:4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?

1 Cr 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

1 Cr 9:6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

Because

1 Cr 9:12a If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?

Of course, which is in agreement with what Paul said in 2 Thes 3:9 concerning such power, as he writes

2 Thes 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

And so we see this same in 1 Cr 9:12 as Paul continues concerning this power

1 Cr 9:12b Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

My point is that there are not many who although might have such power follow Paul in his example

Even though in 1 Cr 9:14 Paul writes the Lord has ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Paul on the other hand still said,

1 Cr 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.

So I try not to make Paul's glorying void in this matter (even though it might be called "rubbish")

I think not.

And so again, its not as though he did not have power

2 Thes 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

Its just that he did not use any of those things, and so there is a difference shown in Paul, and having power and not using it is two different things. Its not saying he does not, its saying he used it not.

 

[Wgw]

Guess we should all quit posting here; CF is not in the Bible.

Nor is the word "Bible" in the Bible; perhaps we'd better stop reading it.

Note by the way, this is literally a reductio ad absurdum, however, to a certain point I feel it is a valid, perhaps somewhat expressionist, satire, of the extreme view of nuda scriptura.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Guess we should all quit posting here; CF is not in the Bible.

2 Cr 2:14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

CF is a place, making manifest the savour of his knowledge mentions every place

 

[Fireinfolding]

Nor is the word "Bible" in the Bible; perhaps we'd better stop reading it.

Note by the way, this is literally a reductio ad absurdum, however, to a certain point I feel it is a valid, perhaps somewhat expressionist, satire, of the extreme view of nuda scriptura.

Maybe call them the law and the prophets, the scriptures or the apostles writings (the epistles)

Like sticking the Father, Son and Holy Ghost under the word trinity

 

[ViaCrucis]

Maybe call them the law and the prophets, the scriptures or the apostles writings (the epistles)

Like sticking the Father, Son and Holy Ghost under the word trinity

And yet the Biblical Canon is still never outlined in the Bible, nor is it defined what all books are to be counted among the "Law and the Prophets" or "the Scriptures".

Obviously "The Law and the Prophets" doesn't include anything from the New Testament, and with the exception of 2 Peter speaking of Paul's letters as scripture nothing from the New Testament is ever included in the concept of "scripture".

Using only the Bible can you tell me if the following books are Holy Scripture or not?

Matthew,
Mark,
Luke,
John,
the Acts,
Esther
Ezra
Ruth
Song of Songs
Tobit
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Jubilees
Enoch
Apocalypse of Baruch
Epistle to the Laodiceans
Epistle of Barnabas
the Didache
the Shepherd of Hermas
Epistle of Clement (1 Clement)
Psalms 151-155
Daniel chapter 13
Daniel chapter 14

Remember, you can only use the Bible.

-CryptoLutheran