20 Years without one iota of New Testament Scripture?

No, Ron, you did not understand my answer.

 

In the New Testement...Doesn't Jesus tell the pepole not to be concerned with tradition. It may take me a few...but I will look it up and find scripture.

Sherrie

 

What are the elements that you find in tradition that you do not find in scripture? What are you holding to that you do not find in scripture?

 

Ahh, abiyah, let the young lad have fun. He cant find this kind of lively intelligent debate on any Catholic webites, so they all come here.

 

Ahh, abiyah, let the young lad have fun. He cant find this kind of lively intelligent debate on any Catholic webites, so they all come here.</font>[/QUOTE]I do not regard Carson as an apologist, but rather a controversalist. He is here to stir up controversy, and, if he can, use that to lead someone to shipwreck their faith.

That is the main reason he comes here IMO. Can't covert the choir!

 

Can you name me one positive thing Jesus had to say about tradition?

Scripture is not to be judged by tradition because it is scripture that is God-Breathed, not tradition.

The whole Roman Church is built up on the paradigm of Pharisaical tradition, and the Lord Jesus repudiated it and accused it of "shutting up the kindom of heaven against men".

One question for you Carson. I quote 2 Thess 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Can you tell me what the traditions taught by word, Paul was referring to in this passage? I would assume the "church" has preserved them, right?

 

Really Lateria? I take it then you never post on forums that are outside your chosen faith?

Afterall it's not right that you try to shipwreck someone's faith is it.

LaRae

 

I cannot answerr for Latreia, but I will answer your
question for myself. Ii have been on forums
belonging to other faiths, and no, I have not! When
I go to such forums, it is to learn, not to be their
critic. I will not hesitate to state what I believe, but
it is not my job to convict--that job wholly belongs
to the Holy Spirit, Who will convict, in His time,
whom He will.

 

As a matter of fact I don't.

I've lurked. (That's how, for example, I know who you are. Steve Ray's board, right?) But I've never posted.

Not that I have a problem with posting on the boards of other faiths per se. I see great value in constructive dialogue. But that isn't what you and yours are after IMO.

If you want to go to a general interest board, like yahoo's reliigion board or whatever, go for it. On such a board one may reasonably posit that they are seeking for answers about RCism. This however is, by name, the baptist board. You can't make that same reasonable claim.

 

Hello to All;
This thread has been interesting to say the least. The questions that have been raised are not hard ones to answer as some seem to think.
Q: How did the first century saints follow God without the completed New Testament in written form?
A: The Bible says, in Romans 10:17," So then fatih cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Christians and sinners a like responded to the word spoken. If this were not possible, many saved and in eternity would not be such.On the day of Pentecost the gospel was preached without the completed written New Testament. Yet, the same day the gospel was heard three thousand souls were added to the Lord. Acts 2:38,40,41,47. In short, men can be saved by hearing and repsonding to the truth without reading it. The Eunoch READ Isaiah 53 and HEARD the message of Jesus by the mouth of Philip. He responded and was saved. Acts 8:36-40.
Men could not only respond to the oral word they could know the will of heaven by the written word. In Eph. 3;3,4, the Bible says," How that by revelation he made known unot me the mystery; ( as I WROTE afore in a few WORDS, Wherby,when YE READ, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." Paul proclaimed the whole or all the counsel of God and wrote it down for permanence. Acts 20;27,Eph. 3;3,4. Men could hear and read to understand the mind of God. Moreover, the wriiten word was passed from one congregation to another. I Thes. 5;27, Col. 4;16. While Catholicism asserts men cannot know the truth without their self proclaimed successors, the Bible teaches us we can. John 8:32. In fact, the inspired John teaches us we must hear the apostles to know God. I John 4: 6,"We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth US; he that is not of God heareth NOT US. Hereby we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." It is the height of absudity and arrogance to teach someone must adhere to what the magisterium teaches. God said to hear the apostles, not the magisterium.
The real tough question is, if the catholics have modern day succesors, why don't they say what Peter, Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers say? If they have the same Holy Spirit, why don't they do what the apostles did? If the rcc says the miraculous credentials are not a part of the teaching office today, WHO CHANGED IT? AND HOW DO WE KNOW? The apostles of the Lord VERIFIED AUTHENTICATED, and CONFIRMED the word with the miraculous. Mk. 16:17-20 II Cor. 12:12. Why don't the catholic successors do the same? Is it a different spirit?
The real tough question is why does the rcc violate the inspired teachings of God as it pertains to elders or bishops. I Tim. 3:2 plainly teaches as plain as the word plain could be that the bishop MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE. Why do they call men unauthorized names. Jesus said, in Mat. 23:9, " call no man your father on the earth: for there is one who is your Father which is in heaven." Why do theyviolate I Tim 4:3, " forbidding to marry, and comanding to abstain form meats which God hath vreated to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
The answer is simple. Catholicism uses the heremeneutic principle of 1. Pope. 2. Magisterium. 3. Tradition. 4. Bible.
The real tough question is why is not the all sufficient word of God good enough for the rcc? IITim. 3:16,17.
Jesus always appealed to the word of God for his authority for what he taught and lived on this earth. Mat. 4:4,7,11. He taught the traditons of men were USELESS. Mat. 15:8,9. The real tough question is why does the rcc practice and teach contrary to the will of Christ?
Let us remember God has magnified his word above his name. Psalms 138:2. I believe that would include pope, magisterium and any traditon.

 

Ben Sira,4 QMMT, 1 Maccabees, and the Qumran(Dead Sea Scrolls) point to the OT Canon closing before 180 BC which is well before the writing of the apocryphal books. (Steinmann, A. The Oracles of God)

Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who was the earliest Christian to list the OT canon Lists it as: The five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, The Twelve, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. Origen also follows the same OT canon listing.

It wasn't until Augustine that somebody suggested canonizing the apocryphal books and that was some 200 years after the first list.

Carson, that is no excuse. If this tradition was so important to the grand scheme of things why didn't God have it written down.

Except for a few books James, Hebrews, and 2 Pt being the few I can remember off the top of my head the rest just fell into place no council determined their use, the council just made up a list of books that had already been universally accepted.

[ September 13, 2002, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

I guess my role on this board is for God to use me to point out where other's are wrong when presenting arguments that don't logically flow as that is what I have been doing for the past 2 months....

Anyway...on with it.

1.Tradition is also attested to in the writings of individuals within the Church throughout her history, and these writings are not part of Scripture yet attest to the Tradition.

Then, by your own words, tradition means nothing because you have father's in the church than don't agree on EVERY little detail. Unless every member of the church who is given weight agree's on every single subject matter completely, tradition, by what you just said, means nothing.

2. Tradition, by nature, is not written.
This would be a correct statement had it been written "Tradition doesn't have to be written down", but as you wrote it, it leads to some very sticky material. For instance, how do you know what the early church though or practiced if it wasn't written down? How do you know what they believed in 1400 if it wasn't written down. What you are saying is that it doesn't have to be written down to be Tradition, yet, the only Tradition you can use is that which is written down. Smacks of contradiction.

3. Over time, part of the content of Tradition is eventually written down, and we know of this as Sacred Scripture.

Written tradition isn't scripture, it is history, or as you call it, Tradition. You cannot call history Sacred Scripture without allowing contradictions and inconsitencies into Sacred Scripture, thereby making your religion false. I doubt you advocate this. I assume this was meant in another way....though, I can't figure out what you could have meant otherwise.

In Christ,
jason

 

What you don't realize is that the Apostles were teaching the same things by word or by epistle which is why both were to be accepted. They wrote down their tradition so that we would know the certainty of what we have been taught orally. The tradition of the Apostles is testified to by scripture, the tradition of the Roman church is a convenient excuse to support unbiblical practices.

 

Is all that is the Word of God, tradition? Yes.

Is all that is tradition the Word of God? No.

 

In 2thess 2:15 where Paul talks about tradition it is nothing more that two different modes of getting out the same message.

Carson,

I want to see how good your memory is. When you first came on this board, I posted a rather long post which, I admit, was copied and pasted, but you quoted something to me about "brevity". Do you remember what it was?