I'm becoming Orthodox

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BobRyan:
Christ's charge against the MAGESTERIUM in Mark 7 is BASED on a SOLA SCRIPTURA argument SHOWING their tradition to be in error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DT
Actually, you are reading sola Scriptura back into that passage by making the unproven assumption that "commands of God" exactly equals "scripture".

In fact Christ says "The CommandMENT of God" and the "WORD of God" AND then QUOTES from the FIFTH commandment -- there is no possibly way to squirm out of this one.

IF Christ was trying to make the argument about GOOD tradition being nullified by BAD tradition He would have to use some OTHER example than the WORD written ON STONE and in scripture!

THEN He would have to ADD some argument about the basis for "great tradition" vs the less valued "tradition". Certainly if BOTH examples HAD BEEN of tradition INSTEAD of constrasting scripture against tradition then there would have been an long list of "criteria" for knowing "tradition from tradition" in stead of blanket statements AGAINST tradition.

DT said --
Scriptures indeed contain the commands of God, but are not exactly identical to "the commands of God"

Fortunately Christ QUOTES the commdMENT in violation and as it turns it - it IS in scripture and it IS part of the Word of God.

This is just too easy!

Eric

The commands that have been handed down orally and those that have been canonized in the Scriptures of course never conflict, since the source of both is God.

Obviously that is "Wrong" since the Mark 7 condemnation of tradition SHOWS that tradition to BE in violation of scritpure.

If you are "really" trying to say that the tradition that IS valid (when judged by scripture) will always be IN harmony with scripture - then you have a funny way of saying it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Armando]

I feel that the Bible fully supports Apostolic Tradition as posted already here (2 Tim 2,2 1 Cor 11,2 2 Tes 2,14). Additionally, other than the text already mentioned:

2 Tim 3,8 speaks of the Janes and Mambre resisted Moses. These 2 are the ones the contested Moses with magic. The question here is, how did Paul know their names?

Matt 2,23 "And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene" The question is how did Matthew know about this prophecy? Where in the OT can you find this prophesy?

Act 20,35 "...and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive." The question is how did Luke know that the Lord said those words?

I believe the answers to these questions have to be be Apostolic Tradition. Any other suggestions?

Armando

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by StefanM:
One question:

Why was the oral tradition of the Pharisees, some of the most devoted adherents of the Jewish faith, invalid?

Because the source of the Pharisees' tradition ("paradosis") was men and not from God. Their tradition led them to misinterpret the Scriptures. Christ and His apostles revealed to the Jews the true interpretation of Scriptures. This true interpretation of Scriptures is the heart of the Apostolic Preaching/Tradition. The word "tradition" (Greek,"paradosis") is itself neutral and merely means "that which is delivered or handed down" from one to another. It's the source of the tradition that counts, which is why on one hand Paul can warn against the tradition of men (Colossians 2:8) and on the other command the Christians to hold fast the traditions that he himself (along with the other apostles) delivered to them (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15).

 

[Doubting Thomas]

BobRyan:
....Obviously that is "Wrong" since the Mark 7 condemnation of tradition SHOWS that tradition to BE in violation of scritpure.

Yet again you ignore the other verses I referenced which specifically command Christians to hold fast the traditions--oral or written--delivered to them by Paul. (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). Way to go, Bob!

 

[BobRyan]

Thank you -

The reason for "ignoring it" is that it has nothing to do with the Mark 7 problem of tradition that violates scripture.

Your argument is of the form "yes but although there may be bad tradition - so there might be some good tradition" is beside the point.

My argument above did not say "DO NOT test tradition sola scriptura - just declare all tradition to be in error without even looking at scripture to see if your statement is correct".

Your point above - would only address "That" kind of argument on my part. An argument I did not make.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Thank you -

The reason for "ignoring it" is that it has nothing to do with the Mark 7 problem of tradition that violates scripture.

Your argument is of the form "yes but although there may be bad tradition - so there might be some good tradition" is beside the point.

My argument above did not say "DO NOT test tradition sola scriptura - just declare all tradition to be in error without even looking at scripture to see if your statement is correct".

Your point above - would only address "That" kind of argument on my part. An argument I did not make.

In Christ,

Bob

But Paul doesn't say: "Hold only the oral traditions that you test against Scripture, and discard that which doesn't either match up to your interpretation of the OT, or which isn't explicitly spelled out in the OT". Nor does he say: "Just keep the oral tradition until you have all of mine and the other apostles' writings at your disposal and when the 'canon is closed', then just observe what is written."

Nope, he states that the tradition he has delivered--whether orally or by epistle--is to be kept. Period.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul does not say "don't check what we say out against scripture according to the APPROVED practice in Berea - just believe whatever you are told".

In fact in 2Cor 11 he argues that he is "AFRAID" that they might go around "just believing whatever they are told" by anyone who claims authority and claims to be an apostle or a successor to an apostle!!

2Cor 11
3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
...
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting.
13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Paul argues AGAINST the "believe and don't VALIDATE" model that you propose and Paul COMMENDS the "Study scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things told to you ARE SO" model of Acts 17:11.

How devastating for the "believe whatever an apostle says" model you are proposing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As for sola scriptura, I was astounded when I discovered that nowhere in Scripture does Scripture claim to be the sole source of truth for the believer.

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:

In that case, I now canonize the Book of James, the Reed.

You can't be serious about this, can you?


2 Timothy 3:
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Point always made whenever the claim is made that 2Tim 3 does not exist.

Point always ignored by those who make that claim.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]2 Timothy 3 does exist, and does not say that Scripture is the sole source of authoritative truth for the believer.

As originally intended by Paul, the verses refer to the Old Testament, the books of which were the only Scriptures Timothy could have learned as a child from his grandmother--probably the Septuagint. That fact, though, does not disprove sola scriptura, anymore than the verses quoted prove sola scriptura.

Regards,
Tauf

 

[BobRyan]

The claim is that 2Tim 3 "really says"

2 Timothy 3:

17That the man of God may be almost complete - just needing a bunch of tradition to load in with that scriptur to actually BE perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It is not true.

Paul claims that SCRIPTURE ITSELF is sufficient for that instruction in righteousness! And certainly in Acts 17:11 we see it "sufficient" to validate the teachings of the Apostle.

Paul then "WORRIES" and claims that "HE IS AFRAID" (2Cor 11) that people will fall back into the "blind tradition" mdel of Mark 7 -- just believing whatever anyone claiming to be an apostle tells them to believe.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by D28guy:

"I did read your entire post, and I didnt intend on being patronising at all."

I'm glad, and sorry I took it that way--it was mostly the phrase "you guys" and such that led me to take it the wrong way. I appreciate you having taken the time to respond again, and to analyze the entire post by point by point. Thank you.

"My 1st comment..'you must be a Catholic'.. could be recieved that way, but I thought the smiley face would make it clear."

I was kind of in-between because of the smiley, but thank you for clarifying.

"If you objected to my statement about what you said being 'mantra like', I'm sorry...but in dealing with Catholics on discussion boards, in 'real life', and watching EWTN, I have heard that completly silly and ridiculous statement a million times, and it is always word for word the same way every time. Or...'mantra' like."

Yes, that was a part of it, as though I were assumed to be spouting a party line rather than thinking for myself--but again, and perhaps especially because you are dealing so often with Roman Catholics, I understand now that there was no sardonic intent.

"The scriptures do not just proclaim that we are justified by grace alone. We are justified through faith in Jesus Christ alone."

I suppose I might have made my point better by noting that the secular Greek philosophical use of the word "faith" was as intellectual assent to a series of truth claims or propositions (often the way our culture uses it today)--and that kind of faith never saves according to Scripture. Rather, the Hebrew understanding of faith as trusting obedience, the way Paul of course used it, would be a faith in Jesus that can save alone. Basically, believing in Someone, as opposed to believing about Someone.

"The book of James fits with justification through faith alone spectacularly. James teaches that when a person is justified through faith alone, their will inevitably be fruit that is the evidence that the profession of faith in Christ is legitimate and the regeneration has in fact taken place.

"Your view on the other hand mangles, butchers, and twists the scriptures horribly. Gods truth causes the scriptures to fit together like a hand in a glove."

How exactly does my view mangle, butcher, and twist Scripture? Did I miss something? I said that authentic faith will produce fruit of good works, but that good works cannot earn salvation. How is my view different than yours?

"The scriptures know NOTHING of this crazy 'works that obligate God (as if He owed us anything)', vs 'works that do not obligate God (since He doesnt owe us anything)' nonsense."

I agree.

"But any time that I have ever been involved in any kind of discussion with Catholics... or like minded folks as catholics...the specific type of justification being discussed is that which makes us fit for heaven."

Hmm. No human works can make us fit for heaven.

"All the scriptures now known as the "new testament" were inscripturated at approximatly the time the Jewish Temple was destroyed near the end of the 1st century."

They were not canonized by the Church until late in the fourth century, but I agree that does not mean they were not already Scripture.

"If Gods scriptures were not sufficent, God would not say the scriptures make us complete and thoroghly equipped, because He would be lying. We would actually be incomplete and partially equipped."

Good point.

"The Orthodox agree with Scripture that Scripture is not the only source of authoritative truth, but recognize that the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church is also authoritative."

"And that is a satanic lie that has its origin the pit of hell."

The authority of the Holy Spirit within the Church is a what that has its origins where?

"I'm not trying to be melodramatic or patronising or attempting sensationalism."

All right. Understood. Thanks again.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And the things they made were NOT images of dead people!

These "dead people" to whom you refer are saints who have been glorified by and united to the risen Christ. They are brothers and sisters who have completed the race and are part of the one whole family in heaven and earth (Eph 3:15). They are the "general assembly and church of the firstborn registered in heaven" and the "spirits of just men made perfect" with whom we worship the Holy Trinity. (Heb 12:22-24) </font>[/QUOTE]All believers are saints. Dead saints are no more special or powerful than live ones. How can you kiss the image of a dead saint?

It's not that I don't have respect for them - I do! But I would never in a million years "venerate" a saint by kissing an icon, and thinking that that gave me an actual connection to them. A connection through an image! Good Lord, that's an occult view.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Marcia:
But I would never in a million years "venerate" a saint by kissing an icon, and thinking that that gave me an actual connection to them.

IF it were in the middle of the winter where I live you would have a connection if it were ouside. Your mouth would stick to that metal icon.

 

[Eric B]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by StefanM:
One question:

Why was the oral tradition of the Pharisees, some of the most devoted adherents of the Jewish faith, invalid?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the source of the Pharisees' tradition ("paradosis") was men and not from God. Their tradition led them to misinterpret the Scriptures. Christ and His apostles revealed to the Jews the true interpretation of Scriptures. This true interpretation of Scriptures is the heart of the Apostolic Preaching/Tradition. The word "tradition" (Greek,"paradosis") is itself neutral and merely means "that which is delivered or handed down" from one to another. It's the source of the tradition that counts, which is why on one hand Paul can warn against the tradition of men (Colossians 2:8) and on the other command the Christians to hold fast the traditions that he himself (along with the other apostles) delivered to them (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15).

But precisely the point; the Jews claimed to get their "traditions" orally from MOSES, (who got them from God), and they have scriptures from the OT they use to back this up; just like your prooftexts above. (I forget which at the moment, but I can look it up when I get the time). And they criticize Christians just as much as you do for neglecting these "traditions" as authoritative. (see the Noahide Lubavitcher site www.noahide.com/compare.htm for example). Once example is the one Armando gave above: "2 Tim 3,8 speaks of the Janes and Mambre resisted Moses. These 2 are the ones the contested Moses with magic. The question here is, how did Paul know their names?" Stuff like that, and other things that were known but not written are used to point to this body of "Mosaic oral tradition". And yes, this is what they use to justify their interpretation of the scriptures, and you accuse them of "misinterpreting" just like you criticize us for doing to you. With "tradition" you can teach anything you want to, and there is NO WAY to prove it (Like the Bereans did). We cannot even prove Christ to the Jews, then.

 

[SouthernBoy]

After reading all of the post I am more convenced that Sola Scripture is NOT Biblical.

Thanks for your input.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Marcia,

How can you kiss the image of a dead saint?

How could you go to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC? How could you salute a flag? How could you hang pictures on your wall of your love ones (living and dead)?

Would you use your Bible as toilet paper? If not why? If you hold those pages in high regard what difference is that than a sacred image?
Secondly, Icons are just as sacred as Biblical text. In fact, most people pre-modern times got to know Christ through sacred images. Most people could not read or write. What good was a Bible to them? Icons tell the Biblical stories to amazing detail. The Cathedrals in Europe used Stain glass windows (although not as good as Icons). So, if you treat you Bible with respect (special table in the house) then you should show the same respect for Icons.

Why do you burn an American flag if it has touch the ground? Etc...

If you treat secular things with that kind of respect then how much greater should you respect the heros of the Bible.

 

[D28guy]

Taufgesinnter,

You said...

As originally intended by Paul, the verses refer to the Old Testament, the books of which were the only Scriptures Timothy could have learned as a child from his grandmother

Nope.

It being the "old testament" is 100% irelavent.

The admonishment to use only the scripture as our authortitative truth standard applies equally to them as it does to us.

In that day the OT was all the scripture that God had given up to that point.

Today, we have Gods completed truth standard. And just the same we have all the scripture that God has given up to this point.

That was then...this is now. And sola scriptura is the same for both times.

Lets stay in the present, shall we.

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Taufgesinnter

Me...

""The scriptures do not just proclaim that we are justified by grace alone. We are justified through faith in Jesus Christ alone."

You...

I suppose I might have made my point better by noting that the secular Greek philosophical use of the word "faith" was as intellectual assent to a series of truth claims or propositions (often the way our culture uses it today)--and that kind of faith never saves according to Scripture.

I agree. Our faith in Christ is a heart faith. We do of course acknowledge factual claims regarding Christ, but it is a heart faith that embraces and welcomes the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Rather, the Hebrew understanding of faith as trusting obedience,...

But we are speaking of the new covenent here. Adding works to faith at this point turns the saving gospel into a false gospel.

Under the new covenant its not..."I embrace you Jesus, and welcome you and trust you, and I cast all sin away and I'll be good and do good works and obey you and never sin again!"

(all those things...sinning less, casting it away, living a new way, serving Christ, etc are good and will come. But they have no part in our justification. They flow from our justification...wich is ours through faith alone.)

Its simply..."I am a wretch and I'm doomed and I embrace you Jesus, and welcome you and trust you, and I desire new life. Thank you!"

"the way Paul of course used it, would be a faith in Jesus that can save alone. Basically, believing in Someone, as opposed to believing about Someone.

I'm not argueing against that at all.

Me...

"The book of James fits with justification through faith alone spectacularly. James teaches that when a person is justified through faith alone, their will inevitably be fruit that is the evidence that the profession of faith in Christ is legitimate and the regeneration has in fact taken place.

"Your view on the other hand mangles, butchers, and twists the scriptures horribly. Gods truth causes the scriptures to fit together like a hand in a glove."

How exactly does my view mangle, butcher, and twist Scripture? Did I miss something? I said that authentic faith will produce fruit of good works, but that good works cannot earn salvation. How is my view different than yours?

Well, to be honest I may have read into some of the things you posted and assumed you to be further down the road of this particular dangerous path than maybe you really are.

If I have done that I apologize.

I may have lumped you in with a couple of others who in a pretty dangerous spot right now. I'll rephrase that...

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view mangles and butchers and twists the scriptures horribly. And the reason is because their apologists must mangle the scriptures in order to make all of the very clear declarations of justification through faith alone somehow fit with their works justification system.

When you say this...

I said that authentic faith will produce fruit of good works, but that good works cannot earn salvation. How is my view different than yours?

Actually that is precisely what I hold to. That is a statement that fits perfectly with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

(and if you are considering the EOC you wont be very happy there if you hold to what you just posted there.)

Me...

The scriptures know NOTHING of this crazy 'works that obligate God (as if He owed us anything)', vs 'works that do not obligate God (since He doesnt owe us anything)' nonsense."

You...

I agree.

Good!

Me...

"But any time that I have ever been involved in any kind of discussion with Catholics... or like minded folks as catholics...the specific type of justification being discussed is that which makes us fit for heaven."

You...

Hmm. No human works can make us fit for heaven.

Thats for sure.

Me...

All the scriptures now known as the "new testament" were inscripturated at approximatly the time the Jewish Temple was destroyed near the end of the 1st century."

You...

They were not canonized by the Church until late in the fourth century, but I agree that does not mean they were not already Scripture.

Of course they were already scripture. The cannonization was nothing more than an acknowledgement of what they already were. The were scripture the instant the last penstroke was finished.

Me...

"If Gods scriptures were not sufficent, God would not say the scriptures make us complete and thoroghly equipped, because He would be lying. We would actually be incomplete and partially equipped."

You...

Good point.

Yes it is a great point that God makes there. There are many in this BB neck of the woods that very much are in need of getting a grip on that point, and many others.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
With "tradition" you can teach anything you want to, and there is NO WAY to prove it (Like the Bereans did). We cannot even prove Christ to the Jews, then.

With "sola Scriptura" you can teach anything you want to, and there is no way to prove it as the Scriptures can be made to say pretty much anything, including contradictory doctrines depending on the proof-texts and presuppositions one starts with. Paul combined the new apostolic preaching of the risen Jesus of Nazareth with the new authentic apostolic interpretation of the Messianic passages of the OT. It's this Apostlic message and interpretation--the heart of Apostolic tradition--that was received with gladness by the Bereans, and not surprisingly they found that the OT lined up with Paul's preaching after they fairly considered what he said. However for close-minded followers of various modern day interpretive traditions of men, debates on the meaning of Scripture seem to go nowhere. That's why the controlling interpetive tradition of the Apostolic rule of faith is still needed today.

 

[BobRyan]

After reading Mark 7 SHOWING tradition to be in conflict with scripture and Acts 17:11 SHOWING sola scriptura methods used and approved EVEN when used by non-Christians - and then 2Cor 11 SHOWING that they are teaching error who CLAIM to be APOSTLES -- I am more convinced than ever that Sola Scriptura is a solid Bible Teaching.

ONLY by substituting the traditions of man in place of scripture - can error be given full control of the church!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Eric B:
With "tradition" you can teach anything you want to, and there is NO WAY to prove it (Like the Bereans did). We cannot even prove Christ to the Jews, then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DT said --
With "sola Scriptura" you can teach anything you want to, and there is no way to prove it as the Scriptures can be made to say pretty much anything,

Wrong.

That is not what we SEE in Acts 17:11 EVEN among NON-Christians!!

Intead of the text saying "They studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so - BUT They discovered that scripture is UNRELIABLE and that ANY OLD story can be supported from scripture so they just BELIEVED whatever anyone told them - starting with Paul" --

We see an entirely DIFFERENT point being made in Acts 17:11.

In fact that opposite point that you have made.

IN Christ,

Bob