I Was Wrong

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Bob, you asked for my view on Tradition.

Given that, as has been amply demonstrated by several ludicrous threads on this Board,particularly in the Theology Forum and most notably and recently the absurd 4x20-pagers on Millenialism, "sola Scriptura+individual interpretation=theological nonsense and anarchy", I conclude that some form of absolute teaching authority is absolutely necessary to properly interpret Scripture. That is what I see the role of Tradition (now whether that be a wide catholic Tradition or a narrow Roman Catholic Tradition is another matter)to be: to authoritatively and definitively interpret Scripture. Therefore, your question about Tradition conflicting with Scripture is for me oxymoronic; since Tradition explains and expands upon Scripture, by definition it does not conflict. It of course can and does frequently conflict with individuals' interpretation of Scripture through sola Scripture, but that is of course to be expected...

Yours in Christ

Matt

Your above post is very ironic. You take millennialism for an example, and state that due to conflicting views on it one has to have an authority. It is obvious that sola scriptura (in your mind) does not work.
And yet you accept sola scriptura from all the church fathers who exercised it for you. They certainly did not all agree on millennialism (though I am certain that you will dispute this point). They had the soul liberty to disagree with one another, and exercised their obligation in sola scriptura to find the truth of the Scripture as is evidenced in Acts 17:11.
The church fathers disagreed with each other on many fronts. Yet you appeal to them in your "Oral Tradition," which is sacred to the RCC. The Catholic Church dizzies itself in enless circles of illogical semantics.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

Re the ECFs' view on millenialism: yes, there were disagreements, which is why the Church in Council had to step in to adjudicate; the divergence of views proves the necessity of a single teaching authority.

Who is qualified to adjudicate the millenialist disputes on BaptistBoard?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus said --

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

But Matt said --

Therefore, your question about Tradition conflicting with Scripture is for me oxymoronic; since Tradition explains and expands upon Scripture, by definition it does not conflict. It of course can and does frequently conflict with individuals' interpretation of Scripture through sola Scripture, but that is of course to be expected...

If only the Pharisees had thought of that response to Christ!!

Jesus shows how the tradition of the ONE TRUE CHURCH started by God at Sinai (undisputed between RC and non-RC Christians today) with successors officially chosen (undisputed fact as well) -- were in error.

10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

Notice that the "by definition tradition CAN NOT be in error" idea "never comes up".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Re the ECFs' view on millenialism: yes, there were disagreements, which is why the Church in Council had to step in to adjudicate; the divergence of views proves the necessity of a single teaching authority.

Who is qualified to adjudicate the millenialist disputes on BaptistBoard?

Yours in Christ

Matt

#1 This is a message board where people from all over the world with different backgrounds and different faiths are posting. Of course there are going to be differences. It is the internet--a concept Paul never thought of.

#2."Who is qualified to adjudicate the millenialist disputes on BaptistBoard?"
Since this is private Baptist Board--Try the Webmaster.

#3. You perhaps fail to understand Baptists (especially IFB). We do not belong to a denomination. Our church is independent. We are accountable to no one but Christ. The Bible is our foundation. It doesn't matter one iota to us what you or any other church believes. We are accoutable to Christ and Him alone. In that our church has unity. We don't have the "millennial squabbles" that you see on the board; neither the versions debates, neither any of the other heated arguments (Calvinism/Arminianism) etc. We are one in doctrine as a church should be. Paul was speaking about local churches when he taught that. He was never addressing an internet audience.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

It is the "ploy of the RCC" to spawn off all the major schisms in history and then demand that non-Catholic churches all adhere to a single pope (a kind of non-RC Pope) "AS IF" the non-RC Christians own BOTH sides of a schism any more than the RCC owns BOTH sides of ITS schisms!!

What is amazing to me - is how many RC members think that argument makes sense!

In Christ,

Bob