Featured 'Tradition'

You say circumcision has nothing to do with baptism.

The holy bible says:
Colossians 2
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;[/quote]
There is nothing here about being circumcised. There is not one verse in all the NT that requires any person to be circumcised. Talk about taking scripture out of its context!! Unbelievable!
Have you read the rest of the chapter??
Here is some of it:
Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
--This particular ordinance of circumcision has been nailed to the cross. It is required no more.

Colossians 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
--He has triumphed over the Law and all the legal ramifications thereof such as circumcision. There is no such command in the NT. It has been nailed to the cross. He has triumphed over such legalistic demands.

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
The covenants only get better God can't pull out on his contract which say the heirs are Abraham and his children.
--All of the demands of the law: keeping the Sabbath, other holy days, and Jewish festivals, circumcision, etc. they were all shadows that have now been fulfilled in Christ.
Do you need a shadow: want a shadow; require a shadow for anything? I hope not.
I have "the real thing" Jesus Christ. I don't need to have his faint image in a shadow, for, to me, he is real and living. Perhaps to you he is only a shadow. I feel sorry for you if that is the case.

No one is ever baptized unless they put their faith in Christ first. Look in your Bible and see.
Show me an infant that has been baptized. Give me chapter and verse. Why can't you do that?

No one is talking about rights. Stay on topic.

Christ never said the Kingdom belongs to infants. Read it again, and this time don't read what you want to believe into the text. What does it teach?

Chapter and verse. Prove your case.

Do they believe in transubstantiation, and purgatory as well, and don't forget about indulgences? Who taught them? You???

Why? You tell me. Did you read the passage you posted? Jesus says why. Did you understand his words?

Actually they are not. No one is. We all have an "adamic nature." Even the RCC teaches this. It is one of the reasons a person needs to be saved. They need a new nature, without which they cannot enter into heaven.

Baptism doesn't save; Jesus saves. Baptism simply gets you wet. It makes a child more prone to sickness if anything. Then you are the bad person.

You haven't shown me any person in the NT that required circumcision.
You haven't shown me any infant in the NT that was baptized.

 

Hello-

I was a Baptist until the age of 30. I once held to Sola Scriptura. Further, I admire the Baptist tendency to remain true to so much of what Scripture teaches and am thankful for all that is good in my Baptist heritage. And I agree with the idea that neither a person nor an institution has the right to add to, take away from, or otherwise alter the Word of God (whether it's received by word of mouth or by letter).

As a matter of fact, this is precisely what the Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would ensure would NOT happen when He said the following to the Apostles:

"I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. However, when the Spirit of truthcomes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come. He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you..."

But the problem is this: Baptists believe their beliefs are taught in the Bible. Methodists do, too. Catholics do, too. Assemblies of God Christians do, too. Church of Christ Christians do, too. Lutherans do, too. Episcopalians do, too. Seventh-Day Adventists do, too. Presbyterians do, too. Nazarenes do, too. 5-Point Calvinists do, too. Non-denominational Christians do, too. Among those many groups are represented a host of contradictory doctrines. We must, then, ask ourselves what principled and objective means we might identify which would allow us to rightly identify those doctrines which have been revealed by God. And that principle, that objective reality, is the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church. For each one of those groups above has its own tradition, its own way of "being, thinking, and seeing" which plays a fundamental part in the doctrines it accepts. And as one former Baptist turned Catholic writer said, GK Chesterton "knew that everyone outside of the Church is either moving toward it or away from it." This is why Chesterton once said (well before Chesterton himself became a Catholic) that were men to live a thousand years "every man would end up either in utter pessimistic skepticism or as member of the Catholic creed."

To make my point a little clearer, I'd ask you to re-consider what's been shared above. Martin has suggested the following:

1. Christ offered a "blanket condemnation" of all tradition
2. Martin acknowledges the fact that St. Paul affirmed "tradition" (in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, for example) but he apparently understands St. Paul's reference to tradition to actually refer only to that which was elsewhere inscripturated. So, I understand Martin to be saying that what St. Paul really meant when he said "tradition" was actually the other stuff he said which became Scripture. Therefore, he, according to Martin's reading, was affirming tradition in a very unique and qualified sense.
3. We all have things which are handed down to us, but the question of whether or not they're valid is to be determined according to whether or not they align with the Word of God.

• The problem with #1 is that Christ never did this. I attempted to, by appealing to the Scripture itself, demonstrate this above. But instead of responding to my comments, he spoke about my intentions as a person, suggesting that I am being disobedient to the Scriptures (when I am actually being disobedient to his interpretation of the Scriptures) and suggesting that I am looking for "loopholes."
• The problem with #2 is that St. Paul never qualifies his use of the term "tradition" as Martin does. And though Martin claimed that St. Paul condemned "all other" tradition, he didn't cite a Scriptural passage to indicate such a thing. In order to reach the conclusion he does, Martin takes something St. Paul said in one place and combines it with something he says elsewhere to reach a most strained conclusion which St. Paul never actually presented anywhere himself. In other words, Martin's qualification of St. Paul's use of the term "tradition" is not found in Scripture and he reaches it according to a man-made interpretive tradition which, ironically, is the thing he claims to be arguing against.
• The problem with #3 is that Martin is essentially acknowledging the presence of tradition among Christian believers... but then he goes on to apply an unScriptural standard (Sola Scriptura, which ironically comes to him through his particular tradition) to determine which things he will and will not accept.

I'd be happy to hear any criticisms of what I've shared. I'm all ears! For though on his way out of the conversation which was just getting started Martin suggested that I am (desperately) trying to avoid what Scripture says, I hope my honesty and continued commitment to discerning its meaning here in this forum will demonstrate otherwise.

Thanks for the dialogue!

In Him,

Herbert

 

Darrell C,

Thanks a ton for responding. I do truly appreciate your kindness and your interaction. Thanks! Allow me to attempt to respond to some of your remarks as best I can.

If this were a forum for Mathematicians, all Mathemeticians would be subject to the laws of Math during their time here (and anywhere for that matter). For such laws are universal. Similarly, logic applies itself universally. The fact that we're in a Baptist forum shouldn't mean Baptists get a "heads we win, tails you lose" sorta position when it comes to basic forms of argumentation.

I said the following:
First off, notice that "I" there. It is indeed you "comparing" Scripture with Scripture and seeking to make sense of things. All of this happens in your mind according to your reason and experience. This all results in a particular "interpretation" which mustn't be confused with the Scripture itself. For example, according to your study you've concluded that Christ presented a "blanket" condemnation of tradition. Such is not the case, however. He even went so far as to instruct the people to do what the Scribes and Pharisees told them to do (Matthew 23:3), even though the Scribes and the Pharisees were hypocrites. I imagine that what Christ instructed the people to do here certainly included at least one single thing which might be understood as a "tradition"?
And you responded, saying:

I affirm the importance of interpretation. And I am not saying that "interpretation is mutually exclusive to the Scripture." But when a person's interpretation of Scripture isn't Scripture itself, he isn't justified in proceeding as though his interpretation is itself the Scriptural deposit upon which his interpretation is based.

Hypocrisy receives a "blanket condemnation." But tradition doesn't. That is why right there in that passage we have a record of Christ stressing the importance of the state of one's heart. For it is not the outward things which make a man unclean but that which proceeds from his heart. So those outward things (traditions) aren't the origin of the evil, but the heart is. In the case of the Pharisees, the outward traditions were put on display to conceal their self-righteousness. Again, remember what we're talking about here: ritual handwashing, adornment of burial sites, giving alms to God. These things are not intrinsically evil. But when used as outward signs of righteousness to conceal a selfish and vain heart, they represent a most pernicious evil.

Once again, I disagree. Please reconsider what I said:
...He even went so far as to instruct the people to do what the Scribes and Pharisees told them to do (Matthew 23:3), even though the Scribes and the Pharisees were hypocrites. I imagine that what Christ instructed the people to do here certainly included at least one single thing which might be understood as a "tradition"...

The Scribes and Pharisees were upset at the failure on the part of some disciples to properly wash before eating. This is one of the things they expected people to do. When Christ responded to them, saying "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." you don't mean to suggest that He was condemning the washing of pots, etc. do you?

As I see it, those traditions, when rightly observed, and done with a reverent heart, are perfectly good and acceptable. But I don't say this according to my fancy. I say it because of Matthew 23:3. If that which the Scribes and Pharisees expected people to do was intrinsically evil, Christ could not have said "So be careful to do everything they tell you. But don't follow their example, because they don't practice what they preach." or "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." Here He's telling them to observe and do "all" that the Scribes and Pharisees expect of them. What the people are not supposed to do is complete such thing as the Scribes and Pharisees themselves complete them, that is, hypocritically so. This reading of the text is the only one I see which makes sense because otherwise we'd be stuck saying that Christ is saying "Do and do not do what they tell you to do." which doesn't make sense... or He'd be telling them to do things which were, if Martin's right about the "blanket condemnation" intrinsically immoral. So it is that I see Christ as identifying one's heart as central to his message here, again, which is why within this portion of Scripture He speaks directly to the fact that outward things do not make a person uncleand, but rather, that evil things which flow from the heart are what make a person unclean.

Let's look again at the text. We know what the Scribes and Pharisees bid a man to do by looking at the text. They expected certain ritual washings to occur. And it was in response to this that Christ offered His comments concerning the prophecy of Isaiah. So we don't have to "guess at" what it was the Scribes and Pharisees expected of people, for it's right there in the text. Further, it wasn't strictly the Law that they taught. For a whole host, even a way of life, had developed among them concerning those ways which one would go about rightly observing the Law. The problem, then, is that the "means of legalistic observance" themselves had come to take precedence over the point of the Law itself. And that, the outward show, combined with the inward self-assurance, is the very thing Christ identified as particularly despicable.

 

continued

I'd say it's debatable as to whether or not many modern televangelists are preaching the Gospel at all! Some of them hardly mention the Cross, suffering, Christ's call to holiness, etc.

Again, Jesus didn't qualify His statement the way you are. This is where one mustn't confuse his interpretation of the text with the text itself. Christ said, in unqualified terms, for the people to be careful to practice and observe "everything that they tell you." He didn't say that and mean the opposite. He said it and meant it. The people were called to obedience in outward form, but unlike the Pharisees who were inwardly vain, Christ called the people to right hearts.

What I mean to say is just what He said. Yes, their deeds are evil, but not on account of their outward nature. Their deeds were evil not for the outward nature of the deeds, but according to their hearts. For as He goes on to explain, it's not the outward aspect of the deed that makes a person unclean: "And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." (Mark 7:14-15) this is why He could tell the people to do "everything" the Scribes and Pharisees instructed them to do (which would include ritual washing of hands and pots, etc.) without contradicting Himself.

The whole system of works under which the Jews of Christ's time were operating was not *entirely* Scriptural. There were myriad disciplines and practices which had come about among them as their lives were communally ordered toward observance of the Law. This is simply natural and it occurs anywhere people aspire to common goals in community. These are the traditions which we all have as Christians. Those practices and disciplines, however, when they're misused in such a way as to violate the very laws they had developed to uphold, become particular condemnable among the People of God. And your point about St. John the Baptist is perfectly compatible with the text as I am reading it.

I can "divorce" their works from Christ's condemnation because of the fact that he called the people to Him to explain the very point I am trying to express to you: It's the inward state of the Pharisees and not the outward actions, which defile a man. Hence, Christ could call the people to obedience to men whom He knew were themselves hypocrites. And again, what the Scribes and Pharisees were teaching wasn't *strictly* the Law on account of the fact that various disciplines and practices which were not prescribed in Scripture had arisen among them.

I don't see that as the "primary objection" that people have with the Catholic view of Tradition. If that is the primary objection, it only goes to prove Fulton Sheen's maxim:
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
For the Catholic view of Tradition, far from representing a threat to the Word of God, sees itself as, together with Scripture, under the guidance and safekeeping of the Holy Spirit, the steward and servant of the Word. A problem arises, however, when the Church's efforts to maintain Apostolic Tradition conflict with the private interpretations of Scripture which people come up with privately. So the Church by no means denies "that adherence to the Word of God is a primary teaching of Scripture." The Church just denies that private interpretation is preferable to the witness of the Magisterium of the Church. Both Catholics and Protestants alike wish to uphold the Word of God. Protestants tend to see this occurring through Sola Scriptura. Catholics see it differently. But as a former Baptist who became a Catholic (Mark Shea) said: "The truth is at the bottom, both the Scripture-only Christian and the Catholic Christian have the same concern: the corruption of revelation." He also said this: "But the Catholic faith, in its wariness of human tradition usurping divine revelation, sees a bit further. For it knows the ironic truth that fear of human tradition can itself become a human tradition and set aside the commands of God. How? By ignoring the rest of what Scripture has to say about Tradition and assuming that all Tradition, simply because it is Tradition, must therefore be merely human—a claim the Bible never makes. Thus, some people feel justified in adopting the Scripture-only perspective that revelation can only be in the form of written Scripture."

Here, Mark puts his finger right on the problem by identifying the fact that we both have the same ideals in mind (Obedience to that which is divinely revealed) and that adherence to a Scripture-Alone policy is itself not taught in Scripture.

I said this:
Notice, He says that the people must be careful to do "everything they tell you." That "everything," it seems would likely include the traditions of these men charged with teaching and instructing and to whom even Christ called for the peoples' obedience...
And you responded, saying:

It seems as though you are under the impression that the Scribes and Pharisees were Scripture-only Jews. They weren't. There were numerous practices concerning ritual washing established in the Old Testament. But various accommodations, exceptions, symbolic ways of fulfilling them, etc. had arisen among the Scribes and Pharisees over the years. They even had debates about washing up to the wrist, the elbow, etc. So by the time Christ came, the community wasn't operating according to the "letter of the law." Rather, they operated according to traditions of the elders (Mark 7:3-4). Barnes' Notes on the Bible has this to say about the passage: "The tradition - What had been handed down; not what was delivered "by writing" in the law of Moses, but what had been communicated from father to son as being proper and binding." So among the instructions of these men had made their way elements of teaching which were not explicitly found in the Law. Yet Christ charged the people to observe "everything" they tell them to do. Again, you, like Martin, are reading things into the passage which are not actually there. You're reading according to your own received tradition which holds to the notion that all tradition is bad, period. But again, I once held to this same view and was an adherent to Sola Scriptura because of it... Until I realized that Sola Scriptura isn't taught in Scripture.

 

continued

Wait. You just hopped from obedience skipped to the Law and jumped to the authority of the Seat of Moses and leaped to the Word of God (by which, do you mean the 66-Book Bible sitting on your desk?). This seems to be a conflation of four distinct things:

1. The Law as received by Moses
2. The Seat of Moses through which a special and symbolic authority was maintained among the Jews.
3. The Word of God (in the Scriptural sense)
4. The Word of God (in the Christological sense).

Christ called them to obedience to Himself. For the Jews of His time, that call was yet in harmony with a call to obedience to the Law of Moses, however. And the practical authority of a steward was also affirmed by Christ in His call to obey those who sat in Moses' Seat. All of this was soon to be turned on its head, though.

When Christ offered His famous "Ye have heard it said... but I say unto you" He wasn't contrasting tradition with His teaching, He was taking the Law itself to a higher standard, one which would be fulfilled in the New Covenant in His blood. That's why He began that speech (which has come to us, most famously from the 5th Chapter of Matthew's Gospel) with the statement: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Further, Christ says things which speak to the "practice of righteousness." Such things as ritual washing (which is itself taught frequently in the Old Testament) would fall under this description, would they not? And givine alms to God, doing so was identified explicitly as one of the "traditions" of the Pharisees by which they'd avoid caring for their parents. So it was that by an outwardly good thing (dedicating one's wealth to God) that the Pharisees, according to their selfish hearts, avoided obedience to the Law. Again, the only way to say that "all tradition" is bad is to dismiss among all traditions things as basic as those which Christ identifies which include things as appropriate as washing, almsgiving, and the decorating of burial sites. Look what He says here, He says to do righteous things in a private and Godly manner and NOT like the hypocrites. This is His consistent theme:

• Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven...
• So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full...
• But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you...
• When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Again, obviously prayer is good. You don't take these passages to suggest that prayer is evil on account of the fact that it provides the occasion for the hypocrisy of certain people. Neither should you hold to a "blanket condemnation" of tradition on account of the fact that through the exercise and practice of various traditions Christ drew attention to the vain and conceited hearts of the Pharisees.

Christ is the Word of God. He is the Authority. There is nothing in the texts in question which suggests the idea you present above. As the Scriptures attest, Christ Himself called the people to Him and told them to be careful to observe everything those who sat in Moses' Seat instructed them to do. I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but it's right there in the text. And as I said, even if they instructed the people to do just one single thing that wasn't found explicitly in the Law, we'd have a case of Christ teaching the people to commit sin. And we know that is impossible. Therefore, we appeal to what He said abut the inward and not the outward defiling a man. And we, in recognition of the fact that He called out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, was instructing the people NOT to feign Godly righteousness through outward acts.

What does this have to do with anything? We know that Christ contended with the application of Law of Moses even in a case such as the woman caught in adultery. According to their legalistic framework the woman would be stoned. They were right on that point. But Christ saw through their scheme and without calling for an outright dismissal of the Law, He pointed at the hearts of each of the people present there. And they walked away. Thus He could say that He came not to abolish the Law or the prophets. For he raised the Law to a new level... and went on to fulfill its demands by His own Blood.

I appreciate the interaction. Thanks for your time. I mean that. I hope you can come to see that I am seeking to receive what the Scriptures actually teach with regard to tradition. And since St. Paul affirms Apostolic Tradition, whether we receive it by word of mouth or by letter, it cannot be "all tradition" which receives a blanket condemnation. It must be certain traditions which are condemnable according to certain considerations. Those, I believe, Christ lays out quite nicely for us in His teaching that it is what's inward and not outward that defiles a man.

God bless you! And truly, thanks for your time and charity!

Herbert

 

There is a popular MAN MADE tradition that the CHURCH is somehow THE RESPONSE to SCRIPTURE. That some how I can create THE CHURCH by reading the bible.

Jesus Christ created THE CHURCH, you did not. The church existed HUNDREDS of years before there was any bible..


Who were the great Christians and examples of faith between 100AD to 1400ad? What were those TRUE CHRISTIANS called? where is the great cry of an apostasy being committed or a revolt.


We read about system of bishops and overseers. How many times did this system work? how many times was this HOLY SCRIPTURE DECLARED algorithm successfully go into effect?

These people existed.

We read the earliest installed bishops like Ignatius

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."


What is this "BAPTIST" Bishop saying here?

You have to argue the system you see written in place in the bible, DIDN"T EVEN WORK ONE TIME!! that's nuts.

This is a guy baptized by the apostles! The are STILL ALIVE while he is saying these things.

Already saying stuff prior to bible even being created.

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

This guy was taught by the APOSTLE JOHN.

You got to convince me well he was only MERELY taught by the APOSTLE WHO LOVED CHRIST MOST and not by your UNCLE BUCK who got to shake Billy's hand in a altar call.



You understand? You have SCRIPTURE, Perfect holy scripture. It lays out a church system and an authority system. And your gonna swear to some Atheist "well this godly system is perfect, written out in the word of God" And turn around to tell a CATHOLIC "It never worked, it didn't even work ONE TIME!" HA HA HA! LOL

Name 5 great Baptists between 200AD and 1200AD those Christians to who did it right.

You can't even find ONE.

 

I'm not sure you are understanding what I am saying, and that is likely my fault, so let me put it this way: the subject of the forum is not the issue, everyone here is a "Theologian" to some degree or other. The issue is the motivation for being where one is. As I said, I go to numerous forums of all types. The possibility that you chose a Baptist forum because of Doctrinal Position is very real, and I think that is what Martin was meaning, but again, he can correct me if he so chooses, if I am in error.

Secondly, this is a Non-denominational forum, lol. It is a Baptist Forum, true, but this forum itself is open to all kinds of differing views. Not all you debate with here are necessarily Baptist.

I don't think anyone who has been here long enough to see the variance in Doctrine between Baptists would entertain a notion that being Baptist places one on higher ground.

I am sure you do, my friend. And that is one of the issues that strikes me as ironic, because I have spoken with many Catholics that deny the possibility that anyone that is not authorized by The Church could possibly interpret Scripture properly. Yet many of them go on to do that, sometimes with interpretations that even I know the Catholic Church would denounce.

So I am not being personal when I say you effectively deny interpretation and its importance in Scripture, it is just an observation of what I see as the conclusion of your statement.

You said...

He even went so far as to instruct the people to do what the Scribes and Pharisees told them to do (Matthew 23:3), even though the Scribes and the Pharisees were hypocrites. I imagine that what Christ instructed the people to do here certainly included at least one single thing which might be understood as a "tradition"?


...which brings a correlation between the authority of Moses' Seat and the hypocrisy Christ here denounces.

That was the focus of the statement.

The hypocrisy of the Sadducees and Pharisees...was the tradition.

It was not in accordance with the Law. It was what they had both decided and been taught from their tradition, and the underlying Point Christ manes is that this is not to be done.

And that is, as mentioned, one of the things I see in, not just Catholicism, but in every group that adopts traditions which are not validated by the Word and will of God.

Indulgences, for one, stands out as a good example, where Biblical Doctrine concerning remission of sins is violated. That is the kind of traditions that arise that must be condemned, for Christ condemned this kind of tradition. Again, it is a matter of practice which violates the Word and will of God.

We aren't really talking about "ritual handwashing, adornment of burial sites, giving alms to God," but the underlying issue of improper application of the Word of God. I agree, it is a heart issue, but we go beyond the foundational teachings of the Law to the general principle taught here.

Again, Christ gives "Moses' Seat" authority, but condemns the works of the leaders. The Word of God stands, the practices of men which violate His Word falls.

That's the general disagreement perceived between Catholics (and other groups that also teach Oral Tradition, many Charismatics being a good example, because they believe in "new revelation" which then becomes doctrine and practice (i.e., slaying in the Spirit)) and those who embrace Sola Scriptura.


Continued...

 

Again, it is not a matter of the Scribes and Pharisees being upset about how other men were practicing what they preached, lol, it is a matter of what they were practicing not being what they preached.

You are merging two teachings and throwing the issue into shadow in an attempt to make your point.

Let's see what Christ was speaking about here:


Matthew 23

King James Version (KJV)

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.


Christ defines what they are doing, and the fact remains that these things are not instructed from Moses' Seat.

The issue is hypocrisy. The basis for the hypocrisy is not adhering to the very teachings they were giving. The Law was intended to show man his sin, not to be a basis for hyposcrisy.

So we see a difference between what you say...

...He even went so far as to instruct the people to do what the Scribes and Pharisees told them to do (Matthew 23:3), even though the Scribes and the Pharisees were hypocrites. I imagine that what Christ instructed the people to do here certainly included at least one single thing which might be understood as a "tradition"...

...which suggests that Christ is somehow validating the practices in view, as though they derived from the Law, when in fact the issue is their practice which is not derived from the Law, but from their tradition.

And that, my friend, effectively denies the teaching we should be gleaning from this passage. Again, not trying to offend you, just pointing out what I see to be an attempt to justify tradition and minimalize the importance of adherence to what Scripture teaches, which is contrasted with, as you say...

...what we think it means, lol.

I would have to disagree with on a very fundamental level:


Hebrews 6:1-3

King James Version (KJV)


1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.


If you notice "baptisms," or washings are included there.

The basic thrust of the objection is that we are not under the (Covenant of) Law, but under the New Covenant, which means that we have progressed (Gone on unto) the completion (perfection) Christ manifested when He established the New Covenant.

We don't preach as those who sat in Moses' Seat preached, because they preached the fundamentals of the Doctrine of Christ, rather than the realities that would be manifested by the Spirit in this Age.

The teachings of Christ are applicable to us in that we still refrain from making the Word of God void due to tradition, but that doesn't mean we lay again the basis for the complaint of the Scribes and Pharisees. We wouldn't, for example, complain that men didn't wash their hands before eating (though we might not receive food from them, lol), because we understand the deeper truth revealed to us in regards to sin and the heart. And that is Christ's point: they did what they did because their hearts were evil, but they did not understand this, even though the Law should have showed them their sin and brought about repentance, making it clear there is only One Who is God, that is, God.

The Law" is in Scripture a reference to both the Word and Will of God as well as the Covenant, and we need to distinguish this in every given text.

In Matthew 23:3, the text I am addressing, there is no context of "legalistic observance," but rather false practices which are their works, which are contrasted with the Law (implied in Moses' Seat). There was legalistic observance to be sure, but, that is not the point being made. THe point is that the people were to obey that which was taught, and not replicate the deeds they actually performed, which we see caters to their desire for status.

And sorry for being brief, Herbert, busy week, and only so much time. I didn't get the chance to talk with you on my last visit, and am actually needing to wrap this one up, but have been delayed by a matter of importance.

I will take a look at the other posts but think I would just like to focus on this point for now, but if I see anything that should be addressed I will, when I get the time.


God bless.

 

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.


Jesus states OBSERVE AND DO. A sola scripturist would not agree because there is no scripture indicating the workings of "Moses' seat" which is purely traditional.

 

You are equating their works with their authority based on the Law, which is the intention of "Moses' Seat."

The Scribes and Pharisees did not teach men these things:


Matthew 23

King James Version (KJV)


5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.


Jesus states "...do not do."

Your conclusion is in error.

Again.




God bless.

 

Martin, if you're still reading...

I have been reflecting upon what you last shared and a number of considerations have come to mind. I'd like to record them here in case you're still reading. If not, maybe Darrell or some other reader may take a moment to look them over. They are all offered in charity and peace. I hope you can detect that in my tone. If not, I assure you, I wish you and everyone here nothing but the best and consider you all, in this world of atheism and secularism, to be fighting right alongside every other Christian, even we Catholics whom you, for various reasons, don't agree with. You ended your participation here, saying:

What I seem to be doing and what I am doing may be two very different things. So that you don't have to depend upon your impressions of what I'm doing, I've laid out my thoughts in some detail so you could critique my perspective as you see fit.

Again, I have specifically responded to these passages in an effort to show you why it is I don't believe they suggest the things you believe them to teach. In doing so I've made myself vulnerable. I've opened myself up to criticism. I've attempted to allow my blind spots to be exposed. Yet how does it end up? It ends up with my having been characterized as one who is not open to reason and is unwilling to be convinced.

This is like telling someone he needs to stop beating his wife or drinking too much when he denies having done so and you've done nothing to demonstrate that he has done so. "What they clearly say" is the very thing in question here. And I've explained why. St. Paul affirms a place for tradition within the Church. Christ attacks the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and the manner in which they'd come to systematize their unGodliness according to outward shows of false righteousness. So it is that "all tradition" shouldn't be confused with "unGodly traditions" or traditions which are leveraged in such a way as to avoid rightful obedience to God. Most of all, the evil tied up in Pharasaical Traditions should not become the basis for one's dismissal of Apostolic Traditions.

• I see a certain irony in the fact that a person who goes by the name of a famous polemicist and radical reformist (who while criticizing people by name in print remained anonymous according to his use of a pseudonym) would call me to a child-like faith. For the faith of Martin Mar-prelate was anything but childlike. Yet here you are going so far as to assume his name for Internet purposes while calling me to childlike obedience.
• I see a certain irony in the fact that a man who has quite an internet presence (and even authors a blog full of deeply intellectual analysis of a host of complicated theological and historical topics) would suggest that I put aside "supposed wisdom and intelligence."
• I see a certain irony in the fact that a person who associates with a certain movement grounded in "protest" would call me to childlike obedience to (his interpretation of) Scriptures.
• I see a certain irony in the fact that I who've come to hold to a majority position am being called to affirm a minority position grounded in dogged protest which represents a countercultural resistance to the broader historical and societal structures of the Christian Faith.
• A great man (Charles Hartshorne) once said something about our present age, suggesting that everything that could be said has already been said and our task as individuals, if we will take it up, is simply to separate the truths from the falsehoods. I was born into a Baptist tradition. As I came to see that Baptist theology falls short of the Biblical fidelity it claims for itself, I questioned. I discerned. I tested. To do these things isn't to rely upon one's wisdom, but to simply fact-check, do lots of homework, consider differing perspectives, weigh arguments, read books written by those with views which challenge your own... Simply put, to test all things, and to hold fast to that which is good. None of these require any "wisdom" on my part. They require discernment, which is something done in community. I have relied upon CS Lewis (though he was an Anglican), GK Chesterton, Dale Ahlquist (former Baptist), Rod Bennett (former Baptist), Mark Shea (former Baptist), and a number of other Christian writers to guide me as I've sought to discern the truth concerning matters of faith.
• I see a certain irony in the fact that I am being told by an adherent to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to submit to (his interpretation of) Scripture when such an approach to Scripture isn't prescribed within Scripture itself.
• Also, I see a certain irony in the fact that an adherent to Sola Scriptura is calling upon me to submit to someone else at all. For "when I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me."
• Though Jesus called for us to receive the Kingdom like children, He also spoke to His Apostles, saying "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." And though this call was directed at the Apostles, it is likely good for us also, as His disciples, to be on guard, alert, cunning, and without guile as much as possible, as well.
• Finally, the submission that I offer to Christ in my heart when I lay my head upon my pillow each night is something not to be confused with my efforts at dialoguing here on this site. The way that I receive Christ in the quietness of my room may very well be not unlike the reception a child offers even while I may still strive, to the best of my abilities, to engage other Christians in charitable conversation on a site such as this one.

Again, I don't know if you're still reading. But those thoughts came to mind as I considered your most recent words to me. Thanks again.

Herbert

 

I don't see any scripture where Paul affirms a place for "tradition" within the "Church" or churches.
I believe you take the word "tradition" and define it the way you want it to fit the verse. You ignore what the verse teaches and especially what it teaches in the light of the rest of the Bible.

To put some fresh light on this word "tradition" and its concept, I would like to go to a different passage, and perhaps even a different translation.,

1Cor.11:2 in the ASV says:
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.
--Now the Greek word is "paradosis," the same Greek word used in 2Thes.2:15.
In the first half of this chapter Paul commands a woman to wear a head-covering. He spends 16 verses giving six reasons for women to wear head-coverings while in the assembly (church). Now you may consider this a custom, a tradition, (for another generation, another time, etc.). I don't. Culture doesn't change the commands of God's Word, not his commands to the NT churches. This is not simple custom or tradition. It is a command, an inspired command of God.
That being so:
Why don't our women wear head-coverings today? (They do in the East and mid-eastern churches).
But, even though it is commanded, why don't women obey it?

Paul gives reason after reason for this command to be obeyed.
Then he concludes with the strongest of all arguments which I would like you to consider well.

(KJV) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
--Paul's command is for women to wear a head-covering. Just like all the churches in the East do today, they did in Paul's day. If any of you come and are contentious with Paul or any of the pastors, we have no such custom of being contentious. That is the meaning of the verse. The custom relates to being contentious.

(WNT) But if any one is inclined to be contentious on the point, we have no such custom, nor have the Churches of God.
--We have no such custom to be contentious about this point.

(ISV) But if anyone wants to argue about this, we do not have any custom like this, nor do any of God's churches.
--We don't have a custom of arguing about this.

(GW) If anyone wants to argue about this they can't, because we don't have any custom like this-nor do any of the churches of God.

The churches of God, Paul says, are united in doctrine. If you want to bring your "tradition," your custom, and introduce it into our churches, you will have no such luck. We are united in our doctrine, and are not going to argue about your traditions. Keep your traditions. Our churches are united in doctrine, all of which is anchored in the Word of God, not in tradition.
Paul settled the question about custom and tradition in this passage once and for all.

 

DHK,

I am not following you very clearly with this latest commentary. With these comments I am especially confused:

When you say "our churches," who exactly is included in the "our"?

Who, also, is it who is "united in doctrine"?

You aren't a Calvinist. So you're not lining up with a number of people here. Since they're not united in doctrine with you what's their status as believers?

What about BobRyan? He's not "united in doctrine" with you. How does that reflect upon his status? Is he part of the "we" and "us" to which you referred?

There's even someone here who calls himself ReformedBaptist while a classically reformed theology is quite at odds with typical Baptist views. John Calvin himself was a Paedobaptist. John Calvin even said that a proper understanding of the Eucharist was necessary for salvation in his Petit traicté de la Sainte Cène (1541). And in his famous Institutes he also said "We readily admit, that when any doctrine is brought under discussion, there is not a better or surer remedy than for a council of true bishops to meet and discuss the controverted point. There will be much more weight in a decision of this kind, to which the pastors of churches have agreed in common after invoking the Spirit of Christ, than if each, adopting it for himself, should deliver it to his people, or a few individuals should meet in private and decide. (Institutes on the Christian Religion: IV, 9:13) Coming from arguably the most systematic, thorough, consistent Reformed theologian, that does not sound very Baptist to me. Not only that, it suggests that Calvin, an adherent to Sola Scriptura, was not part of the "us" or the "we" to which you just appealed, either. Was he? If yes, why? If no, why?

Also, among adherents to Sola Scriptura you'll find the following:

• Paedobaptists and credobaptists.
• Those who affirm Sola Fide... and those who don't .
• Those who, like Calvin, affirm the authority of "true bishops"... and those who don't.
• Those who, like Luther, affirm Christ's Real Presence in Holy Communion... and those who don't.
• Those who affirm Baptismal Regeneration... and those who don't.
• Those who think church attendance is mandatory... and those who don't.
• Those, like the Salvationists, who don't baptize at all.
• Westboro Baptist Church.
• Amish and Mennonites, who trace their roots back to Anabaptists yet who now remain to varying degrees quite separate from the outside world even for the purposes of evangelization.

So you speak of a "we" and you speak of an "us."

But I don't know exactly to whom those pronouns refer.

Also, in order to be united in doctrine, you must first have principled way of determining what doctrine is. And to answer that question, it doesn't work to say "What the Bible says!" because each of those who hold to that list of contrasting doctrines above claims to do just that. And even you don't actually do that, which is why you maintain your denial of James 2:24. I imagine also, that this is why you say your views are "anchored in" the Bible. It's good that you used the phrase. Because it shows that your views aren't actually defined by the Scriptures Alone but instead come about through Scripture + Tradition to result in an attempt at a systematic theology which is "anchored in" the Scriptures.

Finally, you cannot exercise obedience to your church when you are only obedient when you agree. Such an obedience is a false obedience due to the fact that it is conditioned upon your alignment with the congregation's chosen profession of faith which, incidentally, can change. Therefore, any form of obedience which comes about through Sola Scriptura is actually oriented toward one's self. It's self-submission masquerading as Biblical submission. This is why I often repeat the phrase "When I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me."

Herbert

 

Hi Herbert, just wanted to comment on this statement. Look, it is just a fact of forum debate that we can learn our strengths and weaknesses through discussion with our brothers. That is actually to our advantage, because as the Body we all sit under the instruction of our Teacher a little differently. That means we are likely to have a relevant contribution to any given issue, and it may also mean that we have a weakness our brother can point out.

As far as being "characterized," lol, don't let that bother you. Doesn't matter if you were a Baptist, Catholic, or Charismatic, you are going to always have people who are going to disagree with you. Get used to it, and put it out of your mind. We have a mandate to make disciples of Christ, not friends. Sometimes our antagonist is the best friend we can have as we seek to grow in knowledge and understanding of the Word. The antagonist is going to be honest with you, usually, whereas a friend may overlook what they know to be error. Me, I want any weaknesses, or blind spots, as you say, to be pointed out so they can be dealt with. And if we are true to God's Word, when an error is pointed out, and we can admit it, then our Theology is made stronger, and that can only be to our benefit.

Me personally, I have been much impressed with your interaction here. I have always found you to be very courteous, and that goes a long way in successful discussion and debate.

I think most of us are a little stubborn, so you are not alone. It's not a matter of when a Baptist is stubborn, it's determination, and when a Catholic is stubborn, it unreasonable, lol, it's just something we all share as a common trait, because let's face it...all of us think we're right.

Right?

Again, this is the "Other Denominations" forum, and you have as much right to be here as anyone else, and I just want you to know you aren't really singled out any more than the rest of us.




God bless.

 

It was a biblical example which you basically destroyed by entering in a string of hypotheticals which are not in the passage of scripture and therefore red herrings.

For the record I do not deny the correct meaning of James 2:24; you do. It is you that cannot harmonize the verse with the rest of scripture; it is you that ignores the context of both chapter and book, and therefore come to a wrong conclusion of the meaning of the verse. I know what the verse both says and means. Apparently you don't and won't admit it.

In the scripture provided "our churches" are quite evident.
1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
--They were the churches that he started and that he had fellowship like the church at Jerusalem. By the end of his life he had gone on three different missionary journeys and established over 100 different churches--all independent of each other. There was no denomination, no pope, no hierarchical organization. Some of these churches didn't even know the others existed. There was not WEB; there was no facebook--not even a telephone to pick up. Travel was slow. And after Paul died who would take care of all the churches he started?

Paul made it clear that they were united in doctrine. They didn't entertain new customs and traditions. The churches, (plural) --their women were to wear headcoverings in the services of the church. If you had different ideas then go somewhere else. Don't bring your arguments and contentions here, Paul was saying. Our beliefs are not based on tradition but on the Word of God which he had taught them, and in which they were united.

If churches are not united today the primary reason is sin, usually the sin of pride.
The truth comes out eventually.
Here is an interesting verse you also might study:

In the same chapter, just three verses later, Paul says:
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
--Paul does not say this in a condemning way, but in a positive manner.

The sense of the passage is more accurately put like this:
(CEV) You are bound to argue with each other, but it is easy to see which of you have God's approval.
--Generally speaking, it is easy to tell which person has God's approval. It is not the person who takes one verse out of context and pits it against the rest of the teaching of the Bible. All the Bible teaches the same thing; there are no contradictions. One needs to see how the Bible is harmonized.
Thus the verse:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--Instead of defending someone's wrong interpretation, "rightly divide the Word of truth,"
About this verse, Walvoord explains:

Lit. "cutting it straight"—a reference to the exactness demanded by such trades as carpentry, masonry, and Paul's trade of leather-working and tent-making. Precision and accuracy are required in biblical interpretation, beyond all other enterprises, because the interpreter is handling God's Word. Anything less is shameful.

 

DHK, I asked you the following questions. You did not answer them. Until you answer them I can't understand what you mean by "we" and I cannot determine whether or not you are really "united in doctrine" as you claim:

1. When you say "our churches," who exactly is included in the "our"?
2. You aren't a Calvinist. So you're not lining up with a number of people here. Since they're not united in doctrine with you what's their status as believers?
3. John Calvin himself was a Paedobaptist... Was he (included in your "us" and "we")? If yes, why? If no, why?

I still don't know what you're saying. And I am not sure exactly what you're referring to as a string of hypotheticals.

James 2:24 states that a man is not justified by faith alone. You state that a man is justified by Faith Alone. I'd consider that to be what we call "denial," not harmony. How could the Holy Spirit, through the inspired author, get any clearer? We have one clear sentence which states something in the most direct of terms. And you appeal to context to make it say the opposite of what it says. We are to use the clear passages of Scripture to better understand the less-clear passages, not the other way around. So it is that we affirm and accept James 2:24 and because of its clear and straightforward nature, strive to understand what St. Paul means when he elsewhere refers to "works" which do not justify.

Sure, on the surface one may think the two inspired authors are contradicting one another. But there is a way to reconcile such "apparently contradictory" passages without denying one so that we might affirm a particular reading of another. True harmony accepts and *affirms* both of the teachings:

• In light of St. James's direct teachings, we can see through the context of St. Paul's teachings, that he was elsewhere speaking of "works of the law" and not works done by, in, and through the charity of Christ.
• So we qualify St. Paul's references to works by understanding them as "works of the law." This way we can affirm both teachings.
• Those are the works that St. Paul was speaking of when he, for example, in Galatians 5:6 said "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Notice, what "counts" is faith "expressing itself" through love- NOT faith alone. That expression of faith in love is, according to St. Paul, "what counts."
• Similarly, he says says that a man may have faith to move mountains, but without love he is nothing (1st Corinthians 13:2).
• Works of the Law such as circumcision, in the New Covenant, have no "saving" value.

Again, though, none of this means that a person can "earn" his salvation. Such a notion was put to rest plenty of times as the Church addressed various heretical views offered throughout history. Quite pointedly, at the Second Council of Orange (529) such notions were definitively put to rest:

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

Yes, they were united. And they shared in the life of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church founded by Christ whose local communities of faith were joined to the broader universal Christian community. They were united in doctrine, government, and sacraments despite the fact that heresies arose among them. They retained their unity in doctrine according to the Holy Spirit's guidance (Acts 15:28). And it was according to this universal unity that St. Paul could travel about and exercise a special authority wherever he went.

There is one Church founded by Christ which is essentially unified according to its divine institution. As far as doctrinal purity is concerned, schism from this one church established by Christ, like jumping off Noah's Ark, endangers those who jumped, not Noah.

You say that "generally speaking" it is easy to tell if a person has God's approval. This is why I asked the questions of you which I re-stated above.

Also, if you're suggesting that I am taking one verse out of context and pitting it against the rest of the teaching of the Bible, I'd ask that you please present a clear argument which demonstrates that I am doing such a thing with James 2:24. To conclude that someone else is doing this, one must be assured that he isn't guilty of the same thing. And though the Church's teaching offers a way of reconciling St. Paul's teaching with that of St. James without dismissing either text, you, for the sake of your reading of the one, sacrifice the plain meaning of the other.

To point out the fact that Scripture calls upon us to rightly divide the word of truth should not be presented as a demonstration of you having personally done such a thing. I, too, wish to see the Scriptures interpreted and handled rightly.

And by citing 2nd Timothy 2:15 you're appealling to the role we play in "rightly handling" or "correctly explaining" the word of truth. This is an appeal to the same agency to which St. Paul refers when he speaks of "teaching," "rebuking," "correcting," and "training in righteousness" in 2nd Timothy 3:16-17. All of those things require human agency and not Scripture Alone. So you're following "Scripture + DHK's Interpretation" and it is by this combination of things (only one of which is infallible) that you proceed as though only one of the two things is active. And in closing, you call for precision and accuracy in Biblical interpretation as though the mere statement of the ideal is itself a demonstration of your having lived up to it.

Thanks, DHK.

Herbert

 

The "we" is the "we" in 1Cor.11:16
1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

The "our churches" are Paul's churches in the same verse.
1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
--They were "his" churches, the churches he started, and with his co-workers such as Timothy and Apollos, he could say "our churches."
If I used the word in another context please provide the quote so I know what context you are speaking about. Otherwise I am referring to this illustration that Paul gives us via his ministry.

Is not this a red herring?
Calvinism developed via Augustine by Calvin 1500 years after Christ and his apostles.
The Apostle Paul was not a Calvinist; neither am I. That is a red herring and irrelevant to the illustration I gave to you.
The "churches" Paul was referring to were united in doctrine. Paul had just taught them about one specific doctrine (head-coverings). Then he makes a very blunt statement that if anyone is going to argue or be contentious about this we don't have that "custom" (tradition) [about being contentious]. So go away. Find some other person to argue with. The churches of God (our churches, Paul's churches), are united in doctrine. Paul had taught them God's Word not tradition.

Paul was no friend to Calvinists. The doctrine was not even in existence. And he certainly was not a pedo-baptist as there is not one case of infant baptism recorded in the Bible. That doctrine could be said not only to be unbiblical but anti-biblical. No, he is not included in Paul's "our churches." He wasn't alive at that time. There is no Calvin in 1Cor.11:1-16. I didn't see his name there, did you?

 

Any statement that starts with "What if" or a similar phrase or thought is a hypothetical.
I was/am expounding a passage of scripture and using it as an illustration to make a point.

You started in post #73 and have been asking the same hypothetical questions since;

Who, also, is it who is "united in doctrine"?
IOW, WHAT IF, we are not all united in doctrine.

You aren't a Calvinist. So you're not lining up with a number of people here. Since they're not united in doctrine with you what's their status as believers?
IOW, WHAT IF, we are not all Calvinists.

What about BobRyan? He's not "united in doctrine" with you. How does that reflect upon his status? Is he part of the "we" and "us" to which you referred?
IOW, WHAT IF, Bob Ryan is not in agreement with us.
--What if; What if; What if. I am referring to one passage of Scripture. These are basically hypotheticals which have nothing to do with 1Cor. 11.

Things aren't always as they seem are they, James does not contradict Paul, as you have them in contradiction.

It is a nice day. The sun is shining. The sky is blue.
But truthfully, the sky is not blue. It is every color but blue. Blue is the simply the color reflected back to us.
The "color" black is not a color at all--it is the absorption of all colors, while white is the reflection of all colors.

And we are not justified by works. Things are not always what they seem to be.
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--If any person could think that this teaches anything else but "justification by faith alone" then they are not acquainted with the English language or the Greek. There is no allowance here for a "faith plus".

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
--In this scripture the most pertinent question is asked as it always should be: "What saith the scripture?" It is a very good example of sola scriptura.
Then comes a good example of justification by faith alone. Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Note--there is no works involved. He believed, that is had faith, and faith alone.

Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Abraham didn't work for God's righteousness. Those that work do not earn or deserve grace. Work and grace do not go together. They can't; they cancel out each other. If one works then he deserves a wage or the debt needs to be paid.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--To him that works not but simply believes on Him that justifies the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness. Faith alone brings salvation or justification. No works is involved.
James 2:24 does not contradict all of this scripture as you would have it contradict the scripture.

What does it say:
First, the context of the book: James, writing to dispersed Jewish Christians is writing about practical day-by-day Christian living. Unlike Paul, who (in Romans) has written a theological dissertation on soteriology, James is writing about practical Christianity, the Christian walk. He is writing to believers, not about their salvation, but about their walk with Christ. If that context is not kept in mind the book will not be understood.

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
2 My brethren,...

When one comes to chapter two, there also the context must be understood.
1. Once again realize he is speaking to Christians about their walk with Christ. This is not about salvation.
In the book of James the word "brethren" referring to "brother in Christ" or believer, Christian, is used 15 times. It is used three times in chapter two alone. He is speaking to believers in Christ.
2. This chapter is written in such a way that it is "conversational." It is as if he is speaking to an imaginary friend. It is a specific literary method. Thus the key verse is found here:
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
--This is the crux of the whole matter. Many people can say they have faith. Will their faith save them? Will faith in the RCC save? faith in the Mormon church save? faith in baptism or any sacrament save? The "Word of Faith" sect says "faith in faith" saves. Can it? The object of faith is important. Only Christ can save. See John 14:6. When speaking of salvation our faith must be in Christ. But James is not speaking of salvation thus he does not expound on that.

I will show you my faith, NOT BY MY CHURCH, but by my works. IOW, my works will be the demonstration that salvation is by faith alone, or that I have already put my faith in Christ. This is the key to the entire passage.

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
--What is the object of your faith: Is it baptism, the RCC, the sacraments, or is your faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ and Him alone. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. Even the demons have faith, but their faith is not in Christ alone. Their misplaced faith is in Satan, but they do believe in God.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
--Abraham was justified long before this act. This act was a demonstration, a work that provided the evidence that he already had been justified by faith and faith alone. Abraham already was a believer long before that. Paul tells us this.
Justification here is not being used in a "salvic" way.

Here is when Abraham was justified, and the verse that Paul quoted in Romans 4:
Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Now 7 chapters later in Genesis 22 Abraham "offers" Isaac his son. He was justified many years earlier. By this time Isaac was 18-21 years old. That is not when Abraham was justified. Angels and God Himself had already visited him.
See Genesis 18:1ff. This was a theophany. He spoke to the Lord here personally. He was already justified.

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
--Looking back over 20 years of his life he was already the friend of God.
After that 20 year walk with God, Abraham is tested once again. Once again he comes through the test as being faithful to God demonstrating that more than 20 years ago he had been justified. His works demonstrated his salvation. It was not a part of it, never was.

 

Here we go again with taking everything Jesus says BACKWARDS.

Jesus says " All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do"

What you stated was what the Pharisees were doing wrong. What Jesus is saying is that old saying "practice what you preach".

The Pharisees still taught for example Love God, Love neighbor. They were not doing it, but the teaching still stands.

The Pharisees DID what you stated in Matthew 23, That is nothing they would ever PREACH or TEACH.

You say the authority is based on law. Show us in scripture where the rules surrounding the seat of Moses is stated.

It cannot be found in scripture because it is a TRADITION one that Jesus still recognizes as an authority.

 

Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

This is the only time in the Bible where this phrase "Moses' seat" is used. It is not even found in the OT. It is only here just this one time.

MacArthur says this:
Moses' seat is equivalent to a university's "chair of philosophy." To "sit in Moses' seat" was to have the highest authority to instruct people in the law. The expression here may be translated, "[they] have seated themselves in Moses' seat," emphasizing that this is an imaginary authority they claim for themselves. The priests and Levites had some authority to decide matters of the law (Deu_17:9), but the scribes and Pharisees had exceeded any legitimate authority and were adding human tradition to the Word of God (Mat_15:3-9). For that Jesus condemns them (Mat_23:8-36).

Like the RCC, it is an imaginary authority they were claiming for themselves.