Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

Hi BobRyan,

I suppose that the Catholic Church was so infiltrated by pagan beliefs that it went so far as to stop keeping the Sabbath, right? And, I suppose that the pagan belief in hell crept in there somewhere too? - (even though Stoic and Epicurean pagans didn't believe in hell from what I have read)

For your edification, I challenge you to read Stephen K. Ray's article on the Bereans:

http://www.catholicconvert.com/Page_Viewer.asp?inc=writings/sola.html

God bless you,

Carson

[ November 26, 2002, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

I read most of the article Carson. I got tired of the attack when I got tired of the phrases: "It seems logical," "it is implicit in the text," etc. He is teaching his pure opinion and nothing else. He adds to some parts of the Scripture and takes away from others. Complete injustice is done to this passage of Scripture. You might call it a butchering of Scripture, rather than rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

Acts 17:11 still stands as a sound Scriptural proof for those who believe that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

I read most of the article Carson.

You should read all of it.

I got tired of the attack when I got tired of the phrases: "It seems logical," "it is implicit in the text," etc. He is teaching his pure opinion and nothing else.

Nice rebuttal! Well thought out and well presented. I suppose this is how you usually argue?

He adds to some parts of the Scripture and takes away from others. Complete injustice is done to this passage of Scripture. You might call it a butchering of Scripture, rather than rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

Nice analysis of what he wrote. I really like the way you quoted the parts where S. Ray went awry and demonstrated his logical fallacies.

Acts 17:11 still stands as a sound Scriptural proof for those who believe that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

And nice synthesis! You sure did bring your argument to its logical conclusion. Wow - amazing. Good job!

 

[QUOTE A prominent anti-Catholic organization [Endnote 1] out of Oregon, with Dave Hunt at the helm, publishes a monthly newsletter entitled "The Berean Call." The title is taken from Acts 17 where Paul refers to the Bereans in Asia Minor as "noble-minded," and Dave Hunt chose the title to promote his belief in sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura, or the "Bible only," is a Protestant doctrine developed in the sixteenth century, which says that the Bible is the sole source of infallible teaching and is the only and final judge in all matters of the Christian faith[/QUOTE]
As you (and the author) probably know, Dave Hunt does not believe the opinion of Sutton. Sutton just presented his opinion which he cannot back up. That the Bible is our final authority in all matters pertaining to faith is not simply a sixteenth century doctrine, but one which has existed ever since the prophets of the Old Testament, who appealed time and time again to the Word of God. 413 times "Thus saith the Lord," is mentioned in the Bible. The Word of God is continually referenced to as the final authority; Tradition is often condemned.

Pure speculation, and typical Catholic drivel! The Oral Tradition of which the Jews had was condemned by Christ. The assumption that this so-called teaching authority (magesterium) is the chair of Moses being replaced with the chair of Peter is so ridiculous it is truly sad, if that is what you truly believe. As the lady in the Wendy's commercial said: "Where's the beef?" Give the evidence. Show Scripture! There is no Scriptural support for this little fairy tale story of Sutton at all. The chair of Moses?? The chair of Peter?? Were they plaited with gold by any chance?

Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the door. It wasn't sola scriptura only. It was a whole lot of damnable heresies that he had against the Catholic Church. Justification by faith was one of them if you remember. However, being the good Catholic that he was, he was a reformer: he tried to reform the church from within. It was the Catholic Church that resisted positive change according to the Word of God. They preferred to wallow in their sin and debauchery as they do to this day. They preferred to hold to their heretical traditions contrary to the Word of God, as they do to this day. Luther was against it and spoke out against it. It was Luther who stood on the Bible; and the Catholic Church that rejected it, not the other way around.

Every paragraph is like this Carson. Do I have to go through the whole thing for you? It would make for a rather lengthy post.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

The Word of God is continually referenced to as the final authority

I agree.

The Word of God is given to us in two forms: Scripture and Tradition as Scripture teaches.

St. Paul wrote to Timothy, "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

St. Paul did not write to Timothy, "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus and what you have read from me by yourself, copy down and give to everyone else so that they can read for themselves."

Tradition is often condemned.

So? Picky, picky, picky. Pick and choose, pick and choose. When will you ever listen to the whole of Scripture?

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

Pure speculation, and typical Catholic drivel!

Blah, blah, blah. Emotion, emotion, emotion.

The Oral Tradition of which the Jews had was condemned by Christ.

All of it, or part of it?

Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

All you doing, unfortunately, is seeing the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected.

You forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

It was Luther who stood on the Bible

For all the praise you give Luther, I'm surprised that you're not a Lutheran?

Do I have to go through the whole thing for you?

No, that's enough to show me that you will not listen, that you will not see. That's okay. Not everyone believes. We all have free will, and I respect yours.

God bless you,

Carson

[ November 26, 2002, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Posted by Carson:

I am glad you do. It is a good starting point.

Now you have contradicted yourself. If Scripture is the final authority, Tradition is not needed at all for an authority. It makes for interesting reading but that is about all.

The expression means "The instructions which I have given you." As Paul taught Timothy (whether by mouth, example, or by written word), he was to teach others (disciple them), that they in turn would be able to teach other faithful men. This is the heart of missions, and the essence of the propagation of the local church.

I listen. You don't like the truth.

The word "tradition" used in 2Thes., as has already been discussed elsewhere, means "truth." Whether it was transmitted orally or written does not matter, it was the truth of God's Word. By your own definition of "tradition" it is knowledge handed down through centuries by the church. This was truth given by Paul to the Thessalonians. The epistle had only been written approximately thirty years after the death of Christ, hardly enough time for "Tradition," defined by the Catholic church to develop. You can't have it both ways.

We have referred to this passage already. It is the essence of missions and of the propagation of the local church. It has nothing to do with tradition. It is speaking of teaching the Word of God. Paul always referred back to the Word of God, and stressed knowing the Scriptures, the truth, the doctrine, the Word, not Tradition.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

Let's see if you can follow your line of faulty reasoning right here.

DHK: The Word of God is continually referenced to as the final authority

Carson: I agree. The Word of God is given to us in two forms: Scripture and Tradition as Scripture teaches.

DHK: Now you have contradicted yourself. If Scripture is the final authority, Tradition is not needed at all for an authority. It makes for interesting reading but that is about all.
___

No, I never contradicted myself. You first stated, "The Word of God is continually referenced to as the final authority", and I agreed with you. You did not state, "Scripture is continually referenced to as the final authority".

It is your fallacy to limit the Word of God to Scripture, which the New Testament does not do, and your limiting is anti-Scriptural as it goes against what the New Testament teaches. In doing so, you limit God's Word as you siphon off the living waters of the living preaching of the apostles.

It is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached" — that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

The expression means "The instructions which I have given you." As Paul taught Timothy (whether by mouth, example, or by written word), he was to teach others (disciple them), that they in turn would be able to teach other faithful men. This is the heart of missions, and the essence of the propagation of the local church.

Very good!

The word "tradition" used in 2Thes., as has already been discussed elsewhere, means "truth." Whether it was transmitted orally or written does not matter, it was the truth of God's Word. By your own definition of "tradition" it is knowledge handed down through centuries by the church.

Wow - we've made progress.. you're "getting it" now.

God bless you,

Carson

[ November 27, 2002, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

God Himself has limited the revelation of Himself to His Word. He has not revealed Himself through any other means but the Word of God. Consider:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--God incarnate, Jesus Christ, the Word, was made flesh, and John says "we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth." John saw God in Christ. It was Christ who revealed God to mankind.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--God, has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son. How? Through the written Word. What John saw, he recorded. What Matthew saw, he recorded. What revelation was given to Paul, he recorded. What Peter saw, he recorded. The New Testament was written by the Apostles, eyewittnesses of the Lord, so that God speaks to us through His Son even today. We have His Word. He has limited Himself to that Word. God always spoke through the prophets in the Old Testament, and he used the Apostles in the New Testament when giving Divine revelation. As I said previously tradition makes for interesting reading but it has no divine authority. It may inform us that Thomas went to India. At least that is what tradition tells us. Or that Peter was crucified upside down on a cross in Rome, things that are not verifiable in history but are passed down as tradition.

The word of the Lord abides forever--the Bible. However many times we are commanded to go and preach the message contained within the Bible orally. "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Preach or proclaim the gospel or good news to all the world. Yes, we can do that orally. That is not tradition. That is taking the written Word and teaching the message that is in it, after learning it, and teaching it to others. That is what preaching is all about. I do a lot of it, and in different countries as well. It has nothing: repeat, nothing to do with tradition; but everything to do with the Word of God.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1Cor.1:18)

[QUOTEThe word "tradition" used in 2Thes., as has already been discussed elsewhere, means "truth." Whether it was transmitted orally or written does not matter, it was the truth of God's Word. By your own definition of "tradition" it is knowledge handed down through centuries by the church.
Wow - we've made progress.. you're "getting it" now.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but are you getting it? This "tradition," as you define it, could not possible have happened over just 30 years: the period of time between the death of Christ and the writing of Thessalonians where Paul used the word, "tradition." So your use of the word "tradition," in this traditional Catholic sense is all in vain. It simply means truth. It was the truth, whether oral or written passed down to the Thessalonians over the past 30 or less years (probably the past five years). It more likely refers to the time period from when Paul first started the church to the time he is now writing the epistle, a much shorter time.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "God Himself has limited the revelation of Himself to His Word. He has not revealed Himself through any other means but the Word of God. Consider"

Okay, let's consider the verse.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. God incarnate, Jesus Christ, the Word, was made flesh, and John says "we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth." John saw God in Christ. It was Christ who revealed God to mankind."

No argument here. Christ is God's Word to mankind; he is the full revelation of the Father.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Right.. God spoke through Christ, the revelation of the Father.. I agree.

--God, has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son. How? Through the written Word.

No. You are incorrect. Nowhere above does it say that Christ came as a written Word. It said that he came in the flesh, which means that he spoke and did things that revealed the Father.

What John saw, he recorded. What Matthew saw, he recorded. What revelation was given to Paul, he recorded. What Peter saw, he recorded. The New Testament was written by the Apostles, eyewittnesses of the Lord, so that God speaks to us through His Son even today. We have His Word.

All very true. These authors did write down revelation, and we do have it. I'm in complete agreement with you.

He has limited Himself to that Word.

He has limited Himself to that written Word? Nowhere does the New Testament say this. Now, you're imposing your tradition upon the Bible.

God always spoke through the prophets in the Old Testament, and he used the Apostles in the New Testament when giving Divine revelation.

I agree.

As I said previously tradition makes for interesting reading but it has no divine authority.

That's not what the Bible teaches.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

The Bible contradicts you who contradict the Bible.

The word of the Lord abides forever - the Bible.

No, Peter doesn't say that the Bible abides forever. He says that the Word of the Lord which was preached. At that time, when he was preaching, there was no New Testament.

Again, you contradict the Bible.

However many times we are commanded to go and preach the message contained within the Bible orally. "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Preach or proclaim the gospel or good news to all the world. Yes, we can do that orally. That is not tradition.

When these commands were given, there was no New Testament, so your argument falls apart immediately. The Gospel was not spelled out in the Old Testament, as hidden as it was in the foretypes. It was revealed in Jesus, who came after the New Testament. And this Jesus was who was being proclaimed, without a New Testamnet.

Again, you contradict the Bible.

The word "tradition" used in 2Thes., as has already been discussed elsewhere, means "truth."

No, it does not. The Greek is "paradosis", which is in Strong's Concordance, #3862:

"objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence" (Strong's Concordance #3862).

Now, you're speaking falsehood, DHK. Now, you're committing evil to defend your human traditions. I suggest that you stop now.

Whether it was transmitted orally or written does not matter, it was the truth of God's Word.

Absolutely!

May God bless you,

Carson

[ November 28, 2002, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[ November 28, 2002, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "The word "tradition" used in 2Thes., as has already been discussed elsewhere, means "truth." to which I responded, "No, it does not. The Greek is "paradosis", which is in Strong's Concordance, #3862: 'objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence' (Strong's Concordance #3862)."

And then, you wrote, "Yes, it convey the idea of handing down of truth."

No, that's not what it means.

Mark 7:8 says, "You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition (paradosis) of men"

2 Thess 2:15 says, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions (paradosis) which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

One paradosis is the traditions of men that nullify the word of God, and the other is Apostolic Tradition, which is the Word of God.

One is false, one is true; so, the word does not connotate truth in and of itself.

You wrote, "What "tradition" or truths were handed down in "unbroken succession to subsequent generations" between the time that established the church and wrote the epistle"

The time that lapsed before the epistle was written is irrelevant for the precise reason that when it was written, Paul says, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

So, at that moment in time, all believers should hold fast both to New Testament Scripture and New Testament Tradition. This is a command that is the Word of the Lord, which abides forever.

The question is: has the Word of the Lord in this instance lost its relevance; has it lost its character as a command for you today? Or is it still in effect? Is Paul's command set to expire at a particular time in history? Or is it to endure for all generations as Scripture to us in the here and now?

God bless,

Carson

 

As to the meaning of the word tradition, that seems to be a major difference, so:

Hold the traditions (krateite tav paradoseiv). Present imperative of kratew, old verb, to have masterful grip on a thing, either with genitive (Mar_1:31) or usually the accusative as here. Paradosiv (tradition) is an old word for what is handed over to one. Dibelius thinks that Paul reveals his Jewish training in the use of this word (Gal_1:14), but the word is a perfectly legitimate one for teaching whether oral, by word (dia logou), or written, by epistle of ours (di epistolhv hmwn). Paul draws here no distinction between oral tradition and written tradition as was done later. The worth of the tradition lies not in the form but in the source and the quality of the content. Paul in 1Co_11:23 says: "I received from the Lord what I also handed over (paredwka) unto you." He praises them because ye "hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them unto you." (A.T. Robertson)

The tradition which he taught them was the revelation that he received from the Lord, and which is now recorded in Scripture.

traditions--truths delivered and transmitted orally, or in writing (2Th_3:6; 1Co_11:2; Greek, "traditions"). The Greek verb from which the noun comes, is used by Paul in 1Co_11:23; 1Co_15:3. From the three passages in which "tradition" is used in a good sense, Rome has argued for her accumulation of uninspired traditions, virtually overriding God's Word, while put forward as of co- ordinate authority with it. She forgets the ten passages (Mat_15:2-3, Mat_15:6; Mar_7:3, Mar_7:5, Mar_7:8-9, Mar_7:13; Gal_1:14; Col_2:8) stigmatizing man's uninspired traditions. Not even the apostles' sayings were all inspired (for example, Peter's dissimulation, Gal_2:11-14), but only when they claimed to be so, as in their words afterwards embodied in their canonical writings. Oral inspiration was necessary in their case, until the canon of the written Word should be complete; they proved their possession of inspiration by miracles wrought in support of the new revelation, which revelation, moreover, accorded with the existing Old Testament revelation; an additional test needed besides miracles (compare Deu_13:1-6; Act_17:11). When the canon was complete, the infallibility of the living men was transferred to the written Word, now the sole unerring guide, interpreted by the Holy Spirit. Little else has come down to us by the most ancient and universal tradition save this, the all-sufficiency of Scripture for salvation. Therefore, by tradition, we are constrained to cast off all tradition not contained in, or not provable by, Scripture. The Fathers are valuable witnesses to historical facts, which give force to the intimations of Scripture: such as the Christian Lord's day, baptism, and the genuineness of the canon of Scripture. Tradition (in the sense of human testimony) cannot establish a doctrine, but can authenticate a fact, such as the facts just mentioned. Inspired tradition, in Paul's sense, is not a supplementary oral tradition completing our written Word, but it is identical with the written Word now complete; then the latter not being complete, the tradition was necessarily in part oral, in part written, and continued so until, the latter being complete before the death of St. John, the last apostle, the former was no longer needed. Scripture is, according to Paul, the complete and sufficient rule in all that appertains to making "the man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2Ti_3:16-17). It is by leaving Paul's God-inspired tradition for human traditions that Rome has become the forerunner and parent of the Antichrist. It is striking that, from this very chapter denouncing Antichrist, she should draw an argument for her "traditions" by which she fosters anti-Christianity. Because the apostles' oral word was as trustworthy as their written word, it by no means follows that the oral word of those not apostles is as trustworthy as the written word of those who were apostles or inspired evangelists. No tradition of the apostles except their written word can be proved genuine on satisfactory evidence. We are no more bound to accept implicitly the Fathers' interpretations of Scripture, because we accept the Scripture canon on their testimony, than we are bound to accept the Jews' interpretation of the Old Testament, because we accept the Old Testament canon on their testimony. (Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown)

"And hold the traditions which ye have been taught." On the word traditions, Cmt. on Mt 15:2. It means properly things delivered over from one to another; then anything orally delivered--any precept, doctrine, or law. It is frequently employed to denote that which is not written, as contradistinguished from that which is written, (comp. Mt 15:2,) but not necessarily or always; for here the Apostle speaks of the "traditions which they had been taught by his epistle." Comp. Cmt. on 1Co 11:2. Here it means the doctrines or precepts which they had received from the apostle, whether when he was with them, or after he left them; whether communicated by preaching or by letter. This passage can furnish no authority for holding the "traditions" which have come down from ancient times, and which profess to have been derived from the apostles; for
(1.) there is no evidence that any of those traditions were given by the apostles;
(2.) many of them are manifestly so trifling, false, and contrary to the writings of the apostles, that they could not have been delivered by them;
(3.) if any of them are genuine, it is impossible to separate them from those which are false,
(4.) we have all that is necessary for salvation in the written word; and
(5.) there is not the least evidence that the apostle here meant to refer to any such thing. He speaks only of what had been delivered to them by himself, whether orally or by letter; not of what was delivered from one to another as from him. There is no intimation here that they were to hold anything as from him which they had not received directly from him, either by his own instructions personally or by letter. With what propriety, then, can this passage be adduced to prove that we are to hold the traditions which professedly come to us through a great number of intermediate persons? Nowhere is the evidence here that the church was to hold those unwritten traditions, and transmit them to future times?

"Whether by word." By preaching, when we were with you. It does not mean that he had sent any oral message to them by a third person.
"Or our epistle." The former letter which he had written to them.
{*} "Traditions" "doctrines" (Albert Barnes)

Here are some other authorities for you to ponder over.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

May I point out the various holes in your last argument?

(1.) there is no evidence that any of those traditions were given by the apostles

Show me the evidence that 2 Peter contains contents that were given by the apostles. Prove it. Show it to me.

Eusebius of Caesarea, the Church historian, tells us, "One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon" (History of the Church, 3:3:1, 3:25:3, A.D. 325)

The evidence says that 2 Peter is not Scripture. Who are you going to believe? The evidence or the Church and her Apostolic Tradition as maintained by the Magisterium?

Why do you accept 2 Peter as Scripture DHK? The evidence says that 2 Peter isn't Scripture.

Can you give me an answer?

(3.) if any of them are genuine, it is impossible to separate them from those which are false

This harkens back to question #1. Out of the hundreds of documents purporting to be Scripture in the New Testament era, if any of them are genuine, it is impossible to separate them from those which are false?

I hope not.

(4.) we have all that is necessary for salvation in the written word

"All that is necessary" is a loaded phrase. "Necessary for what?" is the next logical question.

(5.) there is not the least evidence that the apostle here meant to refer to any such thing. He speaks only of what had been delivered to them by himself, whether orally or by letter; not of what was delivered from one to another as from him.

and

With what propriety, then, can this passage be adduced to prove that we are to hold the traditions which professedly come to us through a great number of intermediate persons?

Contrast what you have just written with Paul's command to Timothy:

"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

Do you see just how blatantly your criteria contradict Scripture?

You can persevere in reasserting the same falsities that squarely contradict Scripture for as long as your stamina lasts, DHK, but it will not add up to the truth that Paul commands us to adhere to Tradition, and you do not accept the Biblical record in your defense of your tradition of men, which disregards the Word of God in Apostolic Tradition.

May God bless you,

Carson

[ November 29, 2002, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

"Here it ("tradition") means the doctrines or precepts which they had received from the apostle, whether when he was with them, or after he left them; whether communicated by preaching or by letter. This passage can furnish no authority for holding the "traditions" which have come down from ancient times, and which profess to have been derived from the apostles; for
(1.) there is no evidence that any of those traditions were given by the apostles;"

What evidence can you offer that the word "traditions" is referring to that which comes down from ancient times. Paul specifically says in the same verse "by word (his) or our epistle." He started the church. He led them to the Lord. He taught them orally and then wrote two epistles to them. Any traditions (otherwise referred to as doctrine) are contained in the teaching that he gave them. Only thiry years had passed since the death of Christ. He is not speaking of Judaism; this is Christianity. What traditions of Christianity developed in 30 years other than the doctrine that Paul taught these believers that he himself had led to the Lord?

2Peter? You want evidence?
2 Pet 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
--That in itself is all the evidence that I need. Peter identifies himself as the apostle that wrote this epistle. What more do you need. There is much more internal evidence, but this one verse settles it for me.

And Ireaneus said that Christ lived to be 80 years old. I don't put much stock in the church fathers, and I don't put any faith whatsoever in the magesterium. I put my faith in the Word of God which lives and abides forever; of which Jesus said that not one jot or tittle should pass away.

I think I just did.

"If any of them (the ancient traditions) are genuine, it is impossible to separate them from those which are false." It was not hard for the believers to determine what was Scripture. They had the gospels and the epistles. But there were some ancient documents floating around that held to Greek or Jewish traditions which were totally anti-Christian. It is impossible to separate the false from the false, in other words.

Necessary for salvation, as is quoted.

[QUOTE(5.) there is not the least evidence that the apostle here meant to refer to any such thing. He speaks only of what had been delivered to them by himself, whether orally or by letter; not of what was delivered from one to another as from him.
and

With what propriety, then, can this passage be adduced to prove that we are to hold the traditions which professedly come to us through a great number of intermediate persons?

Contrast what you have just written with Paul's command to Timothy:

"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

Do you see just how blatantly your criteria contradict Scripture?[/QUOTE]
No contradition at all. It plainly says that there is no evidence that "tradition" as used in this verse, came to us through a great number in intermediate persons. And that is true. As I have been saying, how can you have a great many generations pass by in 30 years to develop that kind of tradition. Why do you insist on evading that question Carson? Please answer it! Thus the tradition refers to the doctrine that Paul himself taught them both orally and by written letter. Paul, in this verse, is looking to the past.
Paul in 2Tim.2:2 is looking to the future. "And the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses the same commit thou also to faithful men who shall be able to teach others."
"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."
I teach my children the Word of God. I trust that they will teach their children the Word of God. I hope that those grandchildren will teach their children the Word of God, and thus throughout their generations. The same is true spiritually, as we disciple others in the church. But everything is based on the Word of God; none of it is based on tradition.

No where does Paul or the Bible command us to adhere to tradition in the way that you define it. You have a wrong concept of tradition. It is unbiblical.
DHK

 

It is blasphemy to say that Mary or John knew it all. Only God Almighty is omniscient.
DHK

 

Can you give a chapter and verse please. It would probably refer to the fact the Mary would remeber those things about the life of Christ, when Christ was around her. Christ was not alway in Mary's presence. Again, Mary is not omniscient.

No, in fact Mark probably got his facts from Peter who no doubt knew much more about the life of Christ than Mary. Mary was not one of the twelve Apostles. She did not travel with them. She was not there on the Mount of Transfiguration. She knew comparatively little as opposed to James, John, and Peter.

Now that's almost hilarious. It was Mary Magdalene that He first appeared to after He arose from the dead. (John 20:1-18)
Search the Scriptures.

You are grossly uninformed. Almost all knew of the virgin birth--even the Pharisees. They tried to excuse it by saying, "that he was one born of fornication." They knew that Joseph was not his real father.

That's for sure. You need to study your Bible.

John did not live with Mary until after the death of Jesus. Matthew was right there along with Jesus recording accurately the events of Jesus. He has the longest Gospel. John did not get his facts from Mary. John Himself says that He got His facts from observing the Lord Jesus Christ: "and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

Where did John get his information from?

1John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Not from Mary!
DHK

[ November 29, 2002, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]