Why Criticism of Traditional Churches is Wrong

[Fireinfolding]

One tradition in 2 Thes chapter 3 Paul followed, that if a man work not he shall not eat.

He was an apostle who made himself an example to follow in respects to that tradition and its rare to find a working apostle now adays (holding to them traditions) lol

 

[TheDag]

So what 'traditions' do you think the scriptures were referring to? I guess it would be to convenient to think that it might be the man made traditions of the worlds biggest religious organisation... why would we be warned about that, eh?

Well at the time it was written it was talking about the jewish faith so yeah it is a stretch to say it must be talking about the catholic church.

What traditions would those be? Please list them so I can respond on whether I adhere or not... thanx.

Your personal beliefs mean nothing. You were talking about denominations and I was talking about the denomination as well as a result. It's called context.

Interesting as well that I give ample scriptural evidence for everything I am saying and am doubted on having as point yet you and others can just cite your own wisdom and claim you do. Doesn't the Bible have something to say on that?

Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

That passage is not relevant to me as I never said one way or the other anything about being wise.

 

[TheDag]

Indeed so; what is more he also ignores 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which alas seems to be standard practice for persons from his denomination. What vexes me is that they attack us on Sola Scriptura grounds, while concurrently glorifying Ellen G. White as an inspired prophet and holding her works as inerrant, when they are demonstrably riddled with factual inaccuracy. This sort of thing might look to a casual observer rather like a bit of a smokescreen; I am not one to take such an uncharitable and inherently judgmental interpretation of it, however, I would point out to Adventists that chaps in glass houses rather ought not to throw stones.

Well to be fair there are two distinct camps in the SDA. Some place that value on Ellen White's teachings while others don't.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Indeed so; what is more he also ignores 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which alas seems to be standard practice for persons from his denomination. What vexes me is that they attack us on Sola Scriptura grounds, while concurrently glorifying Ellen G. White as an inspired prophet and holding her works as inerrant, when they are demonstrably riddled with factual inaccuracy. This sort of thing might look to a casual observer rather like a bit of a smokescreen; I am not one to take such an uncharitable and inherently judgmental interpretation of it, however, I would point out to Adventists that chaps in glass houses rather ought not to throw stones.

Firstly, I already gave an answer to 2 Thess 2:15... if you're too weary to look for it, let me know and I'll explain it again for you.

To the second part of your post, your ad hominem attacks through my denomination is laughable... where have I mentioned anything about Ellen White? How do you know what I think of her or SDA teachings? Pure speculation.... throwing mud to see what sticks... lol

I guess I should expect it as this isn't the first time that when met with scripture that can't be refuted, the personal attacks commence. Why not try coming back at me with something intelligent to say instead of slurs...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

That passage is not relevant to me as I never said one way or the other anything about being wise.

I believe what the Bible says... you believe what tradition of men says.

 

[Wgw]

Well to be fair there are two distinct camps in the SDA. Some place that value on Ellen White's teachings while others don't.

Fair enough. However, it is the camp that does value them that seems so eager to criticize us, as a general rule, whoch takes us to this:

Firstly, I already gave an answer to 2 Thess 2:15... if you're too weary to look for it, let me know and I'll explain it again for you.

That's alright; at the risk of suggesting a certain arrogation on my part, I don't actually care. The raison d'etre for this thread is to object to the continued criticism of us; 2 Thessalonians 2:15 establishes we have a scriptural basis for doing what we do; you might legitimately disagree on the basis of your own alternative interpretation, and that's fine, but it isn't relevant.

To the second part of your post, your ad hominem attacks through my denomination is laughable... where have I mentioned anything about Ellen White? How do you know what I think of her or SDA teachings? Pure speculation.... throwing mud to see what sticks... lol

If in fact you are not of the Ellen G. White inspired prophecy camp, do let us know, as that would put you in a class apart from certain other members who critique us on these grounds. However, even if you do not tale the view that her writings are inspired prophecy, your denomination still adheres to the doctrines they contain, on what I consider to be a matter of tradition.

I guess I should expect it as this isn't the first time that when met with scripture that can't be refuted, the personal attacks commence. Why not try coming back at me with something intelligent to say instead of slurs...

Note that I have not attacked you personally, nor would I, as that would be legitimately an ad hominem fallacy, and also rather downmarket. I have no doubt that you have high moral character, and are probably in most respects a better man than I. In this case I simply happen to regard your view as suffering from the very great disadvantage of being wrong.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

That's alright; at the risk of suggesting a certain arrogation on my part, I don't actually care. The raison d'etre for this thread is to object to the continued criticism of us; 2 Thessalonians 2:15 establishes we have a scriptural basis for doing what we do; you might legitimately disagree on the basis of your own alternative interpretation, and that's fine, but it isn't relevant.

Very relevant for it is the rock upon which your premise rests... lets look at it again.

2Thess 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
So who was Paul speaking to here? The church at Thessalonica, right? What traditions would they have been taught to this point? We know that the apostles weren't interpreting the scriptures themselves but as they were lead by the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent in His stead. We also know that the Spirit does not speak contrary to Christ but in harmony. So the traditions that the Thessalonian's would have known would have been the teachings of Christ as given to the apostles, not another gospel. No where in this passage does this speak to future events or peoples but to the people whom the epistle was written.
The context of this epistle is that Paul is worried about the fledgling church he left in Thessalonica... they were a traditionally pagan people and this letter was an encouragement to keep the faith, to remember what the apostles had taught them according to Christ's teachings, not their own.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe what the Bible says... you believe what tradition of men says.

Why is it that nearly every member of a small denomination or of a bible using sect (such as Jehovah witnesses) says "I believe what the Bible says, you however, believe what the tradition of men say" as if that somehow ended all debate and proved their opinions and those expressed by their leadership, founding prophet, or current magazines to be the last word on what is true and what is not? It is a specious argument at best and deliberate obscurantism at worst. Surely a better case can be made for explaining why some people choose to deride traditional theology and advocate newer more current understandings as the one truth to which we must all give allegiance if we are to be pleasing to God?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Why is it that nearly every member of a small denomination or of a bible using sect (such as Jehovah witnesses) says "I believe what the Bible says, you however, believe what the tradition of men say" as if that somehow ended all debate and proved their opinions and those expressed by their leadership, founding prophet, or current magazines to be the last word on what is true and what is not? It is a specious argument at best and deliberate obscurantism at worst. Surely a better case can be made for explaining why some people choose to deride traditional theology and advocate newer more current understandings as the one truth to which we must all give allegiance if we are to be pleasing to God?

It was merely a statement based on what I have observed... I didn't not intend it to come across as offensive as it may read.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It was merely a statement based on what I have observed

Your observations are in error.

 

[Wgw]

Very relevant for it is the rock upon which your premise rests... lets look at it again.

2Thess 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
So who was Paul speaking to here? The church at Thessalonica, right? What traditions would they have been taught to this point? We know that the apostles weren't interpreting the scriptures themselves but as they were lead by the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent in His stead. We also know that the Spirit does not speak contrary to Christ but in harmony. So the traditions that the Thessalonian's would have known would have been the teachings of Christ as given to the apostles, not another gospel. No where in this passage does this speak to future events or peoples but to the people whom the epistle was written.
The context of this epistle is that Paul is worried about the fledgling church he left in Thessalonica... they were a traditionally pagan people and this letter was an encouragement to keep the faith, to remember what the apostles had taught them according to Christ's teachings, not their own.

Actually, it is non-relevant as this is a matter of subjective interpretation; suffice it to say, we disagree.

 

[thecolorsblend]

We know that the apostles weren't interpreting the scriptures themselves but as they were lead by the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent in His stead.

I agree, the Church has unique authority to teach and to interpret Sacred Scripture; by itself, Sacred Scripture is not sufficient. I very much agree and it's very big of you to admit this.

We also know that the Spirit does not speak contrary to Christ but in harmony. So the traditions that the Thessalonian's would have known would have been the teachings of Christ as given to the apostles, not another gospel.

Making this admission twice in one post is, again, very big of you. And I agree, the apostles taught orally and their verbal instructions were as binding upon the parishioners as written Sacred Scripture, you're absolutely right about that. And you hit the nail on the head, the Spirit guides the Church to prevent it from teaching error as relates to faith and morals. Amazing post, sir, great job!

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I agree, the Church has unique authority to teach and to interpret Sacred Scripture; by itself, Sacred Scripture is not sufficient. I very much agree and it's very big of you to admit this.

Making this admission twice in one post is, again, very big of you. And I agree, the apostles taught orally and their verbal instructions were as binding upon the parishioners as written Sacred Scripture, you're absolutely right about that. And you hit the nail on the head, the Spirit guides the Church to prevent it from teaching error as relates to faith and morals. Amazing post, sir, great job!

But.... that being said, the apostles never spoke their own doctrine or contrary to what Jesus taught which is where the RC/OC deviates. We know this as the epistles after Christ's ascension only reinforced the teachings of Christ both in the OT and the Gospels. There was no 'new' light given by the Holy Spirit that superseded previous doctrine.

 

[Wgw]

I agree, the Church has unique authority to teach and to interpret Sacred Scripture; by itself, Sacred Scripture is not sufficient. I very much agree and it's very big of you to admit this.

Making this admission twice in one post is, again, very big of you. And I agree, the apostles taught orally and their verbal instructions were as binding upon the parishioners as written Sacred Scripture, you're absolutely right about that. And you hit the nail on the head, the Spirit guides the Church to prevent it from teaching error as relates to faith and morals. Amazing post, sir, great job!

I did try to spare him this by making the point, even after his post, that this topic was non-relevant, but alas it would seem some chaps have a habit of ignoring the life preservers I very generously condescend, on occasion, to offer. I have on several occasions urged honourable members to not pursue a particular line of debate, but to no avail. Thus we can hardly be faulted if our interlocutors should, how shall I express this, manage to refute their own arguments despite our interventions to preclude such an outcome, even at our own expense.

 

[thecolorsblend]

But.... that being said, the apostles never spoke their own doctrine or contrary to what Jesus taught which is where the RC/OC deviates.

I totally agree, the Spirit precluded the apostles from doing that just as it protects the Church from error today. You're doing a marvelous job!

 

[MoreCoffee]

But.... that being said, the apostles never spoke their own doctrine or contrary to what Jesus taught which is where the RC/OC deviates.

The Catholic Church teaches exactly what Christ teaches. In fact one of our Catechisms is called THE TEACHING OF CHRIST because the author believes that what Christ teaches is what the Catholic Church teaches. I will let an Orthodox Christian answer for his/her own church.

Out of curiosity, do you affirm Ellen White as an inspired author in the same sense in which the word "inspired" is used in 2 Timothy 3:16?

 

[thecolorsblend]

I did try to spare him this by making the point, even after his post, that this topic was non-relevant, but alas it would seem some chaps have a habit of ignoring the life preservers I very generously condescenc, on occasion, to offer. I have on several occasions urged honourable members to not pursue a particular line of debate, but to no avail. Thus we can hardly be faulted if our interlocutors should, how shall I express this, manage to refute their own arguments despite our interventions to preclude such an outcome, even at our own expense.

I can understand that... but I don't abide by that doctrine.

 

[Wgw]

I can understand that... but I don't abide by that doctrine.

Well, strictly speaking, neither do I, but, keeping up appearances and all that, eh?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I did try to spare him this by making the point, even after his post, that this topic was non-relevant, but alas it would seem some chaps have a habit of ignoring the life preservers I very generously condescend, on occasion, to offer. I have on several occasions urged honourable members to not pursue a particular line of debate, but to no avail. Thus we can hardly be faulted if our interlocutors should, how shall I express this, manage to refute their own arguments despite our interventions to preclude such an outcome, even at our own expense.

It is possible that the holy Spirit is at work even in the attempted refutation of his teaching. In both testaments of holy scripture there are examples of people attempting to overthrow God's works only to find themselves as integral parts of his purposes. Caiaphas counselled "it is better for one man to die than for the whole nation to perish" as he and the other leaders planned Christ's murder. Balaam tried to curse Israel only to find himself unable to speak any words but the words of blessing that God put in his mouth. So if those who oppose traditional theology as taught in the ancient churches find themselves forced to affirm the traditions and in effect bless the ancient churches then they stand in a long tradition of thwarted opposition to the purposes of God.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I totally agree, the Spirit precluded the apostles from doing that just as it protects the Church from error today. You're doing a marvelous job!

But, the Church is in error... infant baptism, excess of wealth, pomp and pageantry of services, the eucharist, purgatory, confessional, indulgence, celibacy...