Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Surely, tradition is valid as the Bible was not put together for quite some time after the ministry of Christ on earth.
If the apostles preached without the Bible, Christianity would have been doomed before it really began.[/QUOTE
Amen to that.
Excellent Brioy-Gloriana, unrefutable, how could anybody deny that intelligent observation.
Surely, tradition is valid as the Bible was not put together for quite some time after the ministry of Christ on earth.
If the apostles preached without the Bible, Christianity would have been doomed before it really began.[/QUOTE
Amen to that.
Excellent Brioy-Gloriana, unrefutable, how could anybody deny that intelligent observation.
You are confused! All prophets prophesy during their ministry and urge their listeners to remember and to do what they say. However, their written ministry is the gold standard for making sure future generations remember what they said during their life time and remember what they are to do and that is precisely Peter's point (2 Pet. 1:16-19).
Sure prophets proclaimed new revelations from God but Rome has no prophets who are presently proclaiming and never has because she is 300 years to late.
It is not true that prophets did not base their teachings on scripture as Jesus the prophet of prophets repeated did so.
The ECF were not prophets.
You are confused! All prophets prophesy during their ministry and urge their listeners to remember and to do what they say. However, their written ministry is the gold standard for making sure future generations remember what they said during their life time and remember what they are to do and that is precisely Peter's point (2 Pet. 1:16-19).
Sure prophets proclaimed new revelations from God but Rome has no prophets who are presently proclaiming and never has because she is 300 years to late.
It is not true that prophets did not base their teachings on scripture as Jesus the prophet of prophets repeated did so.
The ECF were not prophets.
Biblicist, you are incorrect. All Apostolic Teachings/Traditions must jive with Holy Scripture.
" So, then, brethren, stand firm, and hold the teachings that you have learned , rather by word or by letter of ours" [ 2nd Thessalonians 2 v 5 ].
I hope you also take Luke 10: 16 serious.Jesus wasn't just talking through His hat.
The above verse [ s ] is the understanding of God's word as passed on to us by the Apostles in their peaching and by their successors in the Church to the present day. Jesus appointed His Apostles as teachers. The Apostles chose their successors as commanded by Jesus.The Teachings of Jesus to His Apostles/ Successors were not only for the 1st century Christians but also for all future Chistians in the ages to come.
Apostolic Tradition hands on a full understanding of God's Word. Sacred Tradition [ from God ] together with Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God.
One more thing, the ECFs knew a heck of a lot more than any of your many different mere-men/women founders, who were like 13000-2000 years too late.
Biblicist, you are incorrect. All Apostolic Teachings/Traditions must jive with Holy Scripture.
" So, then, brethren, stand firm, and hold the teachings that you have learned , rather by word or by letter of ours" [ 2nd Thessalonians 2 v 5 ].
I hope you also take Luke 10: 16 serious.Jesus wasn't just talking through His hat.
The above verse [ s ] is the understanding of God's word as passed on to us by the Apostles in their peaching and by their successors in the Church to the present day. Jesus appointed His Apostles as teachers. The Apostles chose their successors as commanded by Jesus.The Teachings of Jesus to His Apostles/ Successors were not only for the 1st century Christians but also for all future Chistians in the ages to come.
Apostolic Tradition hands on a full understanding of God's Word. Sacred Tradition [ from God ] together with Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God.
One more thing, the ECFs knew a heck of a lot more than any of your many different mere-men/women founders, who were like 13000-2000 years too late.
You simply miss the point of 2 Timothy 3:16. It is not the oral traditions that God has preserved that the man of God may be "THROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS" but is the "scriptures" that preserve from their oral teachings what God selected for correction, instruction, doctrine, reproof.
It seems to me that your understanding of oral traditions and "Oral Tradition" are equated. They are not the same. It has been shown that "Oral Tradition" is 100% accurate. You must understand how things were remembered in those days. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" cannot be forgotten but could easily be written wrong if it were copied thousands of times.Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time......22 But I say unto you, - Mt. 5:21,22
Oral traditions were passed down generation to generation along with the copying of the Old Testament Scriptures.
However, the weakness of any and all oral traditions is that they depend upon fallible and uninspired human beings to correctly convey them from person to person and from generation to generation.
The oral traditions of the elders that came down to the time of Christ and the Apostles were so corrupted that both Jesus and the apostles had to correct them and/or condemn them (Mt. 15).
It seems to me that your understanding of oral traditions and "Oral Tradition" are equated. They are not the same. It has been shown that "Oral Tradition" is 100% accurate. You must understand how things were remembered in those days. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" cannot be forgotten but could easily be written wrong if it were copied thousands of times.
It seems that you are mixing the traditions of men and oral tradition of how scripture was memorized and passed down. It was common for men studying to be a rabbi to memorize the OT. The traditions of men refers to traditions created by men who adulterated God's of the OT as well. Jesus addressed that in the Sermon On The Mount. The traditions of men were a misinterpretation of the OT. Jesus did not come to do away with (misinterpret) the Law but to fulfill it. The traditions of men subtracted from what God had inspired.What you fail to see is that Scriptures SUPERSEDE oral tradition and that is why Paul OMITTED oral tradition in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and only INCLUDED scriptures as COMPLETELY THOROUGH for the man of God to determine doctrine, correction, instruction, teaching, reproof for ALL HIS WORKS. If oral traditions were necessary, essential, permenant and lasting he would not have excluded them but included them. HE DID NOT. Scriptures supersede traditions as traditions have the inherent weakness of being preserved accurately by UNINSPIRED humans.
This is why Jesus NEVER quoted the "traditions of the elders" as authority but always said "It is WRITTEN" and never "it is SAID."
Anyone can look at the written version of so-called oral traditions (EFC) and see how corrupted they are. Rome has no INSPIRED prophet, counsels or church but only UNINSPIRED sinful humans which is obvious by its pagan doctrines and traditions.
It seems that you are mixing the traditions of men and oral tradition of how scripture was memorized and passed down.
It was common for men studying to be a rabbi to memorize the OT.
The traditions of men refers to traditions created by men who adulterated God's of the OT as well. Jesus addressed that in the Sermon On The Mount. The traditions of men were a misinterpretation of the OT. Jesus did not come to do away with (misinterpret) the Law but to fulfill it. The traditions of men subtracted from what God had inspired.
The Biblicist, your foolish grammer school litmus test doesn't cut it with Jesus being that it was Jesus Himself that introduced this way of communicating His true Teachings :" Go ye into all the world", He commanded , '' and preach the gospel to every creature " [ Mark 16:15 ] ' ... ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit ....."[Acts 1:8 ] In confirmation of these instructions was the practice of the early Church. It is recorded , for instance, that the Christians in Jerusalen " continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrin"e" [ Acts 2 : 42 ] Again I refer you again to Luke 10:16 , If Jesus wanted a "Bible Alone" religion He would have had passed out Bibles first, but no, God used "Oral Tradition passed on to His Teaching Apostles. Make deciples of other men , meaning to pass on the same Apostolic Teachings to future generations via those that were "ordained" [ the Bible way ] and they to other Bible way ordained men. Jesus was the Inventor of this practice and He commanded His Apostles to follow the same way of preaching. Sola Scriptura was never taught by Jesus or His Apostles/ Successors it only came into existance around the protesters reformation [ agaist God's Church & Teaching method, because it was too Catholic ]
You simply don't get it do you? Oral always precedes written and written always supersedes oral! Each has their respective place. But oral is not to be equated equal to written as written is "MORE SURE" in every way than "oral" as oral depends upon fallible uninspired memories.
Can you remember everything you said two days ago? Case closed!
The Biblicist, you're form of writing is in the form of defending man's way of explaning things . Oral in this case "comes from God" and that "Oral Teaching" is most definitely 'inspired' because it comes from God/ Jesus
, it supersedes any thing written,
in this Inspired situation both are equal, as can be seen from 2 Thess 2:15.
Who said it is not inspired? Not I! Indeed, I have repeated that the oral teaching of prophets was the spoken word of God!
That is absurd! That implies the inferiority of previous scripture or that there is contradiction between previous scripture and what a prophet speaks! The Bible is clear that any prophet that speaks contrary to previous scriptures is a FALSE prophet. God does not speak write one thing and then correct by sending a prophet to speak another thing!
The equality is only durable as long as they "REMEMBER" it correctly (1 Cor. 15:1-2). This text does not teach that oral apostolic teaching was to continue beyond the apostolic ministry EQUAL TO apostolic scriptures but both Peter (2 Pet. 1:15-19) and Paul (2 Tim. 3:16) both teach at the close of their ministry that scriptures are "MORE SURE" and are THROUGHLY (thoroughly) sufficient in and of themselves for all doctrine, correction, instruction, reproof" in EVERY GOOD WORK. No traditions included!
You place limits on God by writing the things that you write . Jesus infused his power and Authority into those Apostles making any of their Oral Teachings infallible and" binding", need Holy Scripture to show you that you are wrong ?
I simply don't distort and pervert the scriptures like you do. I interpret them in keeping with their historical and grammatical context. You do not!
The Biblicist, It is you that distorts the intended way that Scripture should be interpreted, you simply negate the importance of understanding Holy Scripture as it was intended.
If that is so, then why can't you respond with contextual based arguments from scripture????? Why is it you ALWAYS respond by proof texting or personal opinions or assertions????? Go back and look at your responses to scriptures.
Does Luke 10:16 say "hear your disciples" or "hear YOU"????
Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Rome's interpretation would require it to read "hears your disciples who heard you."
Biblicist, no where is that which you write found in the Holy Bible.
" Matt 28 :18-20 "All power in heaven....... Go, therefore , and make disciples of all nations , baptizing them .... , teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; ....."