Tradition

Equal, not above, not below. To place one above the other is error.

Never called your Dad father?

You mean even Jesus wasn't righteous?

Oh, there is that pesky matter of interpretation.

Your examples may be valid if you can prove your interpretation is correct.

How do you know that your interpretation is correct and another is wrong?

 

Curtis,

RCs don't know themselves. There is no agreement as to whether the partim-partim view or the alternative is correct. So they don't know. They are entitled to have an opinion, but they can't tell you what the RCC's official teaching is. There isn't one at this point. At the mpment either one can be accepted even of they are contradictory.

Funny how they can do that and it isn't a sign of doctrinal chaos. Anyone else does it though...

 

Hello Brother Curtis --

I am in the middle of a very good book published by St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary which is discussing this very thing. When I was reading the section on Tradition yesterday, I thought of you guys here on the Baptist board. There is a very nice, albeit very long explanation which would clarify this nicely for you.

Now, as to your questions, let me handle the two I feel I can do some justice to.

There is none righteous, no not one.

As you know, this is one of the verses used as a starting point for evangelization. But the problem is that it is taken out of the context of the larger quote it is given from in Psalms 14. If you read this verse by itself, it certainly does seem to say that there are no righteous people anywhere at any time. But is that what St. Paul is saying here?

Not at all. And Scripture backs this idea.

St. Paul was speaking directly to the Jews, who thought that because of their identity as Jews, they had a "free Pearly Gates pass" straight to the throne of glory JUST FOR BEING JEWS. The whole context of the previous chapters has been to show that all mankind, JEWS INCLUDED, have the witness of God's creation as well as the working of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. In Romans 2: 5 - 10, he is even more specific in that he states that all men will face Christ in the Judgment.

Ro 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

Try to think like a first century, smug and self-righteous Jew. Your righteousness is totally bound up in your NATIONAL IDENTITY. And along comes this X JEW, this member of this new party of heretics who follow the dead carpenter and is telling you that you will face God just like all other men and will be judged just like all other men . Can you imagine what an affront to their pride this was? No wonder St. Paul got stoned and beaten so many times. The offense of the Cross indeed!!!

Starring with 3:1 then, St. Paul as rhetorically the very question that some Jews would have been asking themselves --

Ro 3:1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

He goes on to answer this, and verses 8 and 9 set up verse 10:

Ro 3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

St. Paul speaks about those who are the doers of evil. This is the real issue here, what men do, and not their national identity, their "faith" or anything else. What we do is the icon of what we believe.

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Ah HAH!!! There it is BOTH Jew and Gentile are all under sin!!!

So again, St. Paul labors to prove that the Jews do not have a special status with God nor a free pass into Heaven by merit of their birth. They, like all others, will be judged by WHAT THEY HAVE DONE (Rom. 2: 5 - 10)

Here's our verse:

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Now remember, the whole setup has been up to this point to show that Jews AND Gentiles -- ALL will stand before God and be judged. No one gets a pass.

Here is Psalms 14:

Ps 14:1 ¶ <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

WHO is this talking about? All men? Or a certain class of men who are called FOOLS because they deny the existence of the true and living God?

2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

God looks to see IF there are any among them (those described in verse one, who are the subject of this discourse) who did understand and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

This is the quote St. Paul uses. He is describing the subject of verse one -- the FOOL!! He cannot be describing ALL MEN AT ALL TIME EVERYWHERE. Why? Because the OT itself describes several men as being righteous.

4 ¶ Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.

Again, here is the QUALIFIER for this verse. THE WORKERS OF INIQUITY? And it describes them as being opposed to MY PEOPLE, who, because of their faith in God, would be those who are called righteous!!

Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

God says through His Word that these two are righteous. Now if you take St. Paul's writing in 3:10 and apply it AS A BLANKET STATEMENT UPON ALL MANKIND, then you set up a contradiction between scriptures. I'm sure you know that this creates a serious problem.

You see, there is no putting of tradition above scripture with the verse which you quoted. What you are really doing is stating that there is a conflict between the Protestant misunderstanding of this scripture, based on the way it has been jerked totally out of context of the rest of the Bible, and the Catholic and Orthodox understanding which incorporates the whole of the Scriptures.

As for the issue of the "graven images"

Nu 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

Why did God tell them to make a graven image?

Ex 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

Why these graven images?

Ah ahhh...no, no, no. You can't say that these were special because they were incorporated onto the Ark and to be used for worship. They were graven images, and according to YOUR UNDERSTANDING they were not to be made AT ALL!!

Do you see what I am getting at? You are looking at the verse and not the INTENT behind the verse. Let's go farther with this:

Le 26:1 ¶ Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, TO BOW DOWN TO IT: for I am the LORD your God.

Do you see the contrast in that verse. Do not bow down to a false God and give to it the worship which I deserve.

Now here's a good question. If I bow down to a king or queen as a sign of respect, am I violating this by giving to them the worship which belongs to God? Afer all, I am adopting a posture of submission. And I am bowing down to an IMAGE am I not? Are we not all made "in the image of God". Why then would I think to bow to an image of God and not God Himself? Think on it!!

And Christ Himself was the icon of God. Do you realize that this was the whole answer to the iconoclasts of the 8th century? Since God has "icconed" Himself in Christ Jesus, then we, following His Own example, use icons for purposes of making known eternal truths. Christ is the true icon of God by which that which cannot be known is made known. By the similar use of icons, we show the truths of the Church and eternity which cannot be known.

Please come over here a second and look at this icon:

Christ Pantocrator

This is the icon of Christ at the Last Judgment. It is placed at the highest point in the massive onion dome in the church, signifying Christ's rule over all. In the earliest days of the Church, most folks could not read. Icons such as this told the Gospel in pictures.

Along with these icons are numerous icons of the various saints. These are those who are martyrs and holy men of the faith. They have gone before us and heroically kept the faith. They are the great cloud of witnesses and an encouragement to us to persevere in the faith.

When we enter the church, we kiss the icon. In the Orthodox Church, we also kiss one another. In both cases, I am kissing and honoring an image. One is the image of a saint who has gone before me. One is the living icon of the image of God, standing before me in the flesh. If the kissing and honoring of the one is wrong, then the other is also wrong. I cannot kiss the image of God in man and act as if that is somehow different than kissing the icon on the tetrapod in the front of the church. It is no different.

Your problem is not with a supposed distinction between Holy Tradition and Scripture. Your problem is that your INTERPRETATION of Scripture is severely lacking based upon not only a very narrow and truncated view of the teachings of the Church, but upon using scriptures incorrectly and out of context of the whole.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

[ February 13, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

Curtis,

You are kidding, right? It's okay to call a father "dad" or "daddy" or even "papa," just not "father." That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The meaning is exactly the same. If they call you "dad," they are calling you "father." And whether you like it or not, you ARE their FATHER.

Strike one. Try again.

God bless,

Grant

 

Already answered that, and your answer is ridiculous.

No, but you, when you take him to mean literally everyone, but then add in there "except Jesus," because I know you believe that Jesus was righteous. No, we never took him to mean literally every individual human being, but humanity in general. So, again, no, we are not saying that he was lying; you are.

This is called begging the question. This assumes that Catholic Tradition is "man's tradition." Since this is rather the argument, and not a fact, you cannot pose the above question.

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.

Another begging the question. It has not been determined that the verses you quoted contradict Catholic Tradition. Heck, you didn't even provide Catholic doctrine that contradicted these verses. You simply posted verses and pointed a finger at Catholics, without an ounce of explanation. Perhaps you should prove the contradiction before you state that there is one. Both of the last questions cannot be answered, because they proclaim as fact what is only argument.

Further, for your edification, calling a priest "father" is not doctrine. It is simply a practice that started in one area and spread about. It's a loving term given to those who shepard the flock in the stead of Jesus Christ. You may disagree with it all you like, but until you prove that "dad" and "father" are fundamentally different things, or that calling a priest "father" is Catholic doctrine and not simply practice, you are completely begging the question.

God bless,

Grant

 

Curtis,

Prove to me that "dad," which Dictionary.com says:

A father.

is different than simply saying "father." They mean exactly the same thing. Different word, same meaning. And if you think that is okay, since Jesus most likely actually used the word "Abba," and "father" is just an equivalent in the English language, just like "dad" is an equivalent to father, then I can say "father" because it's not the SAME word as "Abba."

I eagerly await your astounding proof that "dad" is fundamentally not the same as "father."

God bless,

Grant

 

You failed to answer my question.

You mean even Jesus wasn't righteous?

Tradition (with a capital T) is not "man's traditon". It is also God's revelation to us.

Curtis, you know the relevant verses... hold fast to tradtion... teachings whether written or oral...

You are ignoring that no matter how you spin it, it is still your interpretation.

And you do lean on your own understanding in embracing your own interpretation.

Which brings me back to my other question that you ignored.

How do you know that your interpretation is correct and another is wrong?


Please, give me a direct answer to my questions, Curtis.

[ February 13, 2003, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Curtis,

You have avoided my entire argument about "dad" and "father." Please read over that and respond.

God bless,

Grant

 

So, instead of showing me how saying "dad" does not mean "father," you roll your eyes at me. Don't you think you would better serve your case by simply addressing it?

[

Jesus is "one." Paul says "not one." Either Paul meant every human being, which includes Jesus Christ, who was fully human, or he meant "not one" in a corporate sense, which allows a Jesus exception. Pick one.

So you did beg the question, then. Thanks for clarifying that.

Did you miss the part where Paul said "by word of mouth?" Please reread the verse.

You do know that "pope," translated, means "papa." I guess to start off with, then, that it is okay to call him a pope since since the actual word "father" is not used. I mean, that has to be your argument, right "dad?"

Curtis, are you, by the blood of the lamb, holy? Answer that, and then I'll move on to the "holy father" argument.

God bless,

Grant

 

Brother Curtis--
Equal
No.
Call no man father--
Try Acts 7:2,
And Stephen said:"Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran
Acts 22:1,
"Brothers and fathers, hear the defense that I now make before you."
1 Cor 4:14-15,
14I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
1 Thess 2:11-12,
11For you know how, like a father with his children, 12we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.

1 Tim 1:2
To Timothy, my true child in the faith:Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

BTW doesn't the verse before say call no man teacher. I guess all I had in school were "instructors."

As for making graven images--
Num 21:8
The LORD said to Moses, Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.
1 King 6:35
He carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers on them and overlaid them with gold hammered evenly over the carvings.
EX 25: 17-20
Make an atonement cover of pure gold&emdash; two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide.
18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover.
19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends.
20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upwards, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking towards the cover.
I think we can agree that one shouldn't worship images or statues but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. Why would God command images to be made if they were not to be made?

 

Curtis,

Congratulations for avoiding countless arguments back there, including, again, my "dad" and "father" questions.

Is anyone AS holy as the Lord? No, never claimed they were. All holiness stems from God, and is OF God, so none is AS HOLY AS the Lord.

Does that mean that, by Jesus shed blood, that you are/cannot be made holy? Please answer the question. And the many others that I have asked. Please.

God bless,

Grant

 

2 Corinthians 1:1
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the church of God that is in Corinth, with all the holy ones throughout Achaia"

Apparently those in Achaia were holy, brother Curtis.

And thank you for again avoiding my other questions.

God bless,

Grant