I'm becoming Orthodox

[Marcia]

Originally posted by SouthernBoy:
I am thinking about becoming Orthodox because it seems closer to the New Testament Church.

Why does it seem closer?

God demanded sacred images be made. I am not sure why you have a problem with God's command?

Are you talking about things God had people make for the Ark and the Tabernacle in Exodus? Are you comparing that to images of saints that you kiss and venerate? I don't think anyone kissed images in Exodus. And the things they made were NOT images of dead people!

I don't see the comparison.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
[
David Bercot provides an account of some doctrinal novelties long cherished by evangelicals in Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? You probably already know this, but among the doctrines and practices early Christians would not have recognized (except, in some cases, as being Gnostic) were a Calvinistic view of predestination and free will, the teaching of eternal security/OSAS, justification by faith alone, and water baptism as a symbol of a prior Spirit baptism. Others would include congregational autonomy, the Lord's Supper as a symbolic memorial meal, and sola scriptura.

Quite true.

Have you read any of the accounts of former evangelicals who have become Orthodox without their spouses, and of their spouses later going ahead and joining them?

Not that I can recall off the top of my head.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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)

 

[Eric B]

the definitions of transubstantiation based on Aristotelian metaphysics

What's this?

the entire humanistic and rationalistic Western mindset developed by the Scholastics that led to the Renaissance, Reformations, and Enlightenment

And these things were not 100% bad. The Church really had the world in darkness for centuries, and these movements balanced it out. We may have many problems now, but I would hate to have lived back then.

a divergent concept of matrimony leading to the necessity of granting annulments

How does the Orthodox position differ from the Catholic?

looking to God as the basis of anthropology instead of to theology as the basis of man

I don't get this. What's the difference?

 

[Eric B]

The "tradition of men" is one thing. The "tradition of the apostles" (which has the authority of Christ) is quite another....

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." 2 Thess 3:6

So you see, Christ's authority is present in the Apostolic Tradition whether delivered orally or written.

I still don't see how one can use this to justofy every practice your Church has that cannot be found in scripture, or every interpretation of scripture that cannot be supported by other scripture. It's like they withheld completely all of these other teachings and practice, and conveniently enough, it is all of the ones that other Christians have questioned scripturally.
Once again, rabbinnic Judaism has also done this, and they have some silimar quotes from the OT on "Mosaic" oral tradition, and it is on this basis that they reject all of the evidences pointing to Jesus as the Messiah, and this supposedly justifies all of the restrictions thay had added to the sabbath and other laws (not boiling a kid in his mother's milk becomes not eating meat and milk together, etc), which Jesus denounced as "traditions of men".
If you really insist that this apostolic "oral tradition that is entirely omitted from the written text" has the authority of God and is not tradition of men, then you must be consistent and accept this Mosaic "tradition" has the authority of God, and is not tradition of men also, but this would call into question the validity of Christ and the Church altogether. It looks like anybody can use this.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by rlvaughn and steaver:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Taufgesinnter, I would be interested in your communicating to us specific things about the Orthodox position you found so persuasive, teachings that seemed more scriptural, points that challenged the Anabaptist viewpoint, historical facts that changed your mind, etc. I can't begin to fathom what about Orthodoxy would look like the New Testament church. I don't want to debate about it - just want to understand something about what you're seeing. Thanks.

Me too! </font>[/QUOTE]First, I took a course on early church history, and the readings of the apostolic fathers and in the Didache were disturbing. I now realize that the idea the apostles' disciples stood around waiting for John to take his last breath, before clapping their hands with glee and shouting, "There! Finally, we can become Roman Catholics," is inutterably naive. So is the thought that these men, personally trained and discipled by the apostles, abandoned everything and went straightway into apostasy within a generation or two. On the contrary, the historical record indicates an amazing conservatism that strove mightily against doctrinal innovations of any kind and to preserve the apostolic traditions intact. That said, at the time of the class, I thought to myself how appallingly Catholic (now, I'd say, Orthodox) those writings all seemed; it floored me how fast they'd apostatized!

Later, I read David Bercot's work on the early Christians, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? and could find no evidence to contradict his insistence that the early Christians held to baptismal regeneration; it was not something I could counter historically, but I shored up my opposition based on the interpretation of Scripture that had been taught to me.

I was unsettled by the historical data cited by Peter Gillquist in Becoming Orthodox, that the early church was liturgical, strongly episcopal yet conciliar, and believed in the Real Presence. Various writers were cited, such as Hippolytus and Justin Martyr, and elsewhere I saw personal disciples of the apostles, such as Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, extensively quoted, in addition to such men as Clement of Rome and Irenaeus. The evidence that the early church continued on (not as a band of true underground Christians escaping from mass apostasy, which completely lacked evidence) was conclusive. The church experienced a short series of fractures--the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East splitting off over Nestorius, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; the Western branch of the Catholic Church breaking away over the filioque and the papacy. The question was, which of the apostolic churches, as they are called, carried on in the apostolic tradition? Roman Catholicism had clearly introduced a number of doctrinal innovations, repeatedly, so it was out. I surveyed the Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, and the "Eastern" Orthodox, and admittedly with little better reasons than that the former two branches disagreed with the majority's christology and/or have a different NT canon, I reached a preliminary conclusion that the Orthodox Church was a better match than the other two. The problem was, better was still terrible: Orthodoxy baptized babies, for example, and there was the whole icon thing, their view of Mary, and saints, calling priests Father, plus they believed in going to war and I didn't, and they did not ordain women, which, despite my being quite conservative in other matters, I favored. They accepted the Apocrypha--but I did learn that when the canon of the NT was determined, the OT as found in the LXX was canonized as well. I read explanations about Mary and the saints, and "Father," that were not altogether persuasive. (I was happier to discover that when an Orthodox soldier kills in battle, he's to be excommunicated for three years.)

So I held on hard to most of the biblical interpretations of my own tradition.

After my belief in the absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage broke down under historical scrutiny during an investigation entirely independent from examining the OC, I found out that Orthodoxy permits divorce for biblical reasons, remarriage under the right conditions, and doesn't hide behind annulments.

Thanks to Ralph Woodrow, many of my Chick-inspired objections to things traditionally viewed as Catholic, such as vestments, incense, and christianized pagan holidays, were satisfactorily answered. This paved the way for me to accept liturgy and the church calendar.

A pivotal point came when I read critiques of sola scriptura that I couldn't naysay. Once I no longer had the Bible alone to rely on as my authority, I had to ask whom I could trust, and the answer came, the Church, which Christ promised would be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit, and which Scripture declared the foundation and pillar of the truth. Which Church? I had already decided that the Orthodox, which had full continuity with the early church, best represented the historical development of that same church. (The doctrinal differences between the OC and the Oriental Orthodox and especially the Church of the East are not great, though, and are partially based on misunderstandings; in at least the case of the Church of the East, progress has been made toward reunion with canonical Orthodoxy.)

I was still nagged by the issues of Mary, saints, icons, and "Father," but my main remaining objection was against infant baptism. I saw claims that there was no evidence of any movement against infant baptism in the whole history of the Church before the modern era. I could find no contrary evidence, except that certain persons suggested waiting until close to death for baptism because it would remit a lifetime of sins and give the recipient a better chance of heaven with so little time left to sin. And too, movements in the early 200s to 300s, which took a long tradition of infant baptism for granted, that pushed to delay baptism until three years of age, or to extend it to the same age as Jewish circumcision, rather than immediately after birth. Writers in the third and fourth centuries took infant baptism as a matter of course, or even specifically declared it a tradition handed down from the apostles. Since Scripture was ambiguous enough to be interpreted, using it alone, to support either credobaptism or pedobaptism, I had to face history, and the ancient practice of the Church I was coming to trust as an authority in spiritual and doctrinal matters. Then I read that the earliest existing Christian epitaphs--from the end of the second century--had included matter-of-fact references to children baptized as "believers" as early as a year or two of age, and saw there were clues from the 100s of then-aged prominent individuals in the Church having been baptized in infancy during the first century while the apostles still lived, without hint of controversy or disapproval. All things considered, the historical weight of infant baptism finally broke down my opposition. There was a total lack of supporting historical documentation opposing the baptism of very young children and even newborns, considering it controversial, or even innovative. To suggest that the Church had suppressed or destroyed any such evidence is singularly unimpressive because of the extensive documentation existing about so many different heresies and the arguments pro and con over them, e.g. Sabellianism, Arianism, Manichaeism, Montanism, Docetism, Quartodecimism, etc. So to speak, my last domino fell.

 

[D28guy]

Taufgesinnter

"The only place in Scripture where the phrase "faith alone" is used is in the Book of James, where God explicitly tells us that we are not justified by faith alone."

You must be Catholic.

Every time I hear or read that little thing..(it almost sounds like a mantra, why dont you guys change to phraseology every once in a while or something?)..it just goes in one ear and out the other.

Do you guys actually think that little thing is going to convince anyone? When dealing with evangelicals of any stripe, you are dealing with people who generally know the scriptures. Needless to say, the teaching of God found in the book of James beautifully fits with the truth of justification by faith alone like a hand in a glove. What wonderful scriptures God has given us to test all things against.

The reason I asked about the truth of justification through faith alone, and the scriptures alone as our truth standard is because its a great way to "cut to the chase" as they say and get down to the nitty gritty right away.

A denial of those two great and foundational truths has been one of the most common and deadly errors of cults and heretical groups for 2000 years now. Rather than wade through reams and reams of all kinds of problematic teachings, I like to just check on those 2 issues right at the start. So much deadly heresy and flow from those 2 foundational errors.

If Satan can get people to deny those 2 truths, its pretty much smooth sailing for him after that, unfortunetly.

Thanks for the help. Its been very beneficial for me.

Sadly,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Bro James Reed,

Sadly, it was actually said...

"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."

And you said...

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

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

Its breathtakingly sad, isnt it? When you see people fully indoctrinated in these type of deadly errors, its tragic of course.

But when you see someone just beginning to travel down this satanic road of deception, its just incredibly sad. Like watching a swimmer innocently taking the 1st cautious steps into a huge body of water that you know is filled with starving sharks.

And when you warn them they dont listen...while you see the sharks bearing down on them!

Very frustrating and sad,

Mike

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Taufgesinnter

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"The only place in Scripture where the phrase "faith alone" is used is in the Book of James, where God explicitly tells us that we are not justified by faith alone."

You must be Catholic.

Every time I hear or read that little thing..(it almost sounds like a mantra, why dont you guys change to phraseology every once in a while or something?)..it just goes in one ear and out the other.

Do you guys actually think that little thing is going to convince anyone? When dealing with evangelicals of any stripe, you are dealing with people who generally know the scriptures. Needless to say, the teaching of God found in the book of James beautifully fits with the truth of justification by faith alone like a hand in a glove. What wonderful scriptures God has given us to test all things against.

The reason I asked about the truth of justification through faith alone, and the scriptures alone as our truth standard is because its a great way to "cut to the chase" as they say and get down to the nitty gritty right away.

A denial of those two great and foundational truths has been one of the most common and deadly errors of cults and heretical groups for 2000 years now. Rather than wade through reams and reams of all kinds of problematic teaching, I like to just check on those 2 issues right at the start.

Thanks for the help. Its been very beneficial for me.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Mike,

I hope you read my entire post, since I spent a half an hour of my life on it for you. I also hope it wasn't your intent, but most of your post came across as unnecessarily patronizing.

Never been Catholic; attended one guitar Mass I was invited to when out of high school, without really knowing what all was going on, and also, as a conservative evangelical, attended a week-long seminar on fundamentalism to hear what Catholics had to say about it and to ask pointed, Chick-inspired questions.

What I wrote about James was not significantly different than what I've believed as an Arminian evangelical for most of my adult life, but how you can say that the teaching of God in the Book of James (where he says that a man "is not justified by faith alone") "beautifully fits with the truth of justification by faith alone" is certainly baffling. Maybe it's a question of terminology? I cannot really believe that you disagreed with what I wrote on the subject, unless your "in one ear out the other" open-mindedness led you to stop reading that paragraph once you saw an imaginary heresy there. Was there anything on that topic I wrote about that was unorthodox (note the small O) in any way?

There is a great deal of historical ignorance floating around about sola scriptura, however--but the demonstrable fact is that doctrine was not even invented until the Reformation. How then a denial of a great and foundational truth that had never been seen before the early 1500s could have "been one of the most common and deadly errors of cults and heretical groups for 2000 years now" is especially perplexing.

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[D28guy]

Taufgesinnter

"I hope you read my entire post, since I spent a half an hour of my life on it for you. I also hope it wasn't your intent, but most of your post came across as unnecessarily patronizing."

I did read your entire post, and I didnt intend on being patronising at all. My 1st comment.."you must be a Catholic".. could be recieved that way, but I thought the smiley face would make it clear. I didnt really know if you were catholic or not.

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.

I'm sorry, but thats my experience with it. And what I said after that is very true. I can guarentee you that absolutly no "well grounded in Gods truth" evangelical on the face of the planet earth is going to fall for something so ridiculous as that little phrase.

Its actually comical...and I'm not trying to be isulting or anything else...just telling you the truth.

Here is your entire post...the previous one...that you were wondering if I read, and I'll comment:

"In your question, you assume as axioms that justification is through faith alone and that the Scriptures are the only source for authoritative truth."

Of course I do!

BECAUSE THEY ARE.

"In Latin, sola fide, sola scriptura. The Orthodox would agree with sola gratia, definitely."

Grace alone is not enough, and its not what the scriptures are proclaiming.

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

The only place in Scripture where the phrase "faith alone" is used is in the Book of James, where God explicitly tells us that we are not justified by faith alone.

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.

"Unpacking the first part of your question, I assume the point behind the words is whether the Orthodox believe that they or anyone can earn their justification by works, which, to the best of my knowledge, they do not.

If thats true than they will joyfully proclaim justification through faith alone. If they deny justification throiugh faith alone, than their claim that "nobody can earn their justification by works" is a sham.

I was talking to a Catholic one time, and he said this...

"We must have good works to be justified!".

When I asked how he got around the passages in the scriptures that make so clear that we are justified through faith alone..(and I quoted them)... he said..(I'm not kidding)...

"Oh, its the motivation that makes the difference. We work, but not with the attitude that we obligate God, as if He owes us anything".

(And he expected me to buy that.)

I was ab..so..lute..ly..stunned! I couldnt believe that the Catholic Church had rendered him able to utter such nonsense.

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.

The scriptures of God proclaim...

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast"

Point blank, couldnt be clearer, and its just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

As best as I can so far get a handle on the theology involved, the Orthodox hold to something similar to the original English Baptist position (viz., Arminian) of prevenient grace. Or to put Paul (Eph. 2:8-10) and James on the same page, we are being (present indicative) saved (perfect participle) by grace through the means of--not on account of--("through" is in the genitive) faith, and neither the salvation, nor the grace, nor even the faith ("that" disagrees in gender with both grace and faith) comes from us, but is the gift of God; thus, nobody can boast they earned their salvation by anything they did or even that they saved themselves by their faith; we were in fact created in Jesus Christ for the purpose of doing good works, and faith without such works is dead, and saves none."

But you are speaking of an entirely different thing there. A different subject altogether. The scriptures do indeed speak of our having been saved, (upon entering into a faith alone relationship with Christ) about how we are in the process of being saved, (as our "old man" dies more and more and our "new man" takes precidence more and more) and how we will be saved, (when we finally enter heaven for eternity.)

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.

The intitial justification..(when regeneration occures)..that the other forms of justification flow from.

And the Catholics have always always always, consistently argued against that clear and foundational truth regarding justification.

The only biblically truthful stand to take against that is that it is a false gospel and those who propagate it are decievers.

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.

It most certainly does. God could not be clearer. There are literally hundreds of passages of scripture that make it abundantly clear.

Of course, it cannot be, since the NT books were written individually across half a century, and the NT was not assembled and canonized, along with the LXX, until nearly A.D. 400, but the Church had the apostles (and subsequently the bishops appointed by them) from Day One.

Nonsense. Smokesreens.The Jews prior to Christ had all the scriptures that were avaiable at that time, and that is all they were acountable to. The Bereans had all the scriptures that were avaiable at that time and that is all they were acountable to. 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. To all of Gods people at any time in history...

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work."

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.

Rather, Scripture declares that the Church is the foundation and pillar of the truth--the same Church Jesus promised would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

The reason we...all born again people,(thats all the church is of course) are the pillar and ground of truth, is because we have, and offer to the world, Jesus Christ(who is the way, the truth, and the life), we present to the world the scriptures, which is the word of God, and is Gods truth in written form, and we are empowered by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth.

"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.

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

I am telling you the truth.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:

Mike,

I hope you read my entire post, since I spent a half an hour of my life on it for you. I also hope it wasn't your intent, but most of your post came across as unnecessarily patronizing.

Unfortunately, you might as well get used to it. (However, you seem to value your time more than I do. Perhaps I should learn from you and value my time more and quit wasting it.)

Tauf:Never been Catholic...

Tauf, that doesn't matter to D28. If you deny the two "great and foundational" truths of sola Scriptura and justification by faith alone you'll get lumped in with the Catholics...and the Mormons...and the JWs...and Jim Jones...and David Koresh. (Just read some of his posts on other threads). But, as you correctly point out, these two doctrines can hardly be called foundational since they weren't invented until the 16th century.

Tauf:What I wrote about James was not significantly different than what I've believed as an Arminian evangelical for most of my adult life, but how you can say that the teaching of God in the Book of James (where he says that a man "is not justified by faith alone") "beautifully fits with the truth of justification by faith alone" is certainly baffling.

I agree...and by D28's logic, Arminian evangelical's must actually be scripture-"mangling" Catholic sympathizers as well. (Never mind the plain meaning of James 2:24 is that: "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.")

Tauf:I cannot really believe that you disagreed with what I wrote on the subject, unless your "in one ear out the other" open-mindedness led you to stop reading that paragraph once you saw an imaginary heresy there.

That's pretty much it. He even admits as much...

D28:A denial of those two great and foundational truths has been one of the most common and deadly errors of cults and heretical groups for 2000 years now. Rather than wade through reams and reams of all kinds of problematic teachings, I like to just check on those 2 issues right at the start.

Tauf:Was there anything on that topic I wrote about that was unorthodox (note the small O) in any way?

Nope, not at all. It just didn't pass Mike's litmus test of "orthodoxy".

Tauf:There is a great deal of historical ignorance floating around about sola scriptura, however--but the demonstrable fact is that doctrine was not even invented until the Reformation.

Exactly. And the same could be said of justification by faith alone.

Tauf:How then a denial of a great and foundational truth that had never been seen before the early 1500s could have "been one of the most common and deadly errors of cults and heretical groups for 2000 years now" is especially perplexing.

Very perplexing indeed. Baffling, even.

What is especially stunning and baffling is that folks accuse those who accept the plain meaning of scriptures such as James 2:24 (which says we are not justified by faith alone) of "mangling" and "butchering" the scriptures. It's stunningly ironic since those same folks are actually the ones who are themselves mangling, butchering, and distorting the scriptures as they try to hammer their 16th century square-pegs into the round Scriptural whole. How sad.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Tauf: "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.</font>[/QUOTE]If anything is close to being "a satanic lie", it is the doctrine that has done more than any other to divide Christians into the relativistic chaos of myriads of competing denominations each with their mutually contradictory teachings and versions of "Christianity", thus damaging the witness of the Church in the world and counteracting Christ's desire that they all should be one (John 17). That doctrine is sola Scriptura.

It is Tauf that speaks the truth on this matter, not D28guy.

 

[BobRyan]

This was the thinking of the Jewish Magesterium in Mark 7 as Christ condemned their practices of "teaching for doctrines the COMMANDMENTS OF MEN" and of "making VOID the commandments of God by your tradition".

Strange that the same abuses practices BEFORE the Christian church should be practiced IN some of the Christian Churches as DT suggests that it be.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
This was the thinking of the Jewish Magesterium in Mark 7 as Christ condemned their practices of "teaching for doctrines the COMMANDMENTS OF MEN" and of "making VOID the commandments of God by your tradition".

Strange that the same abuses practices BEFORE the Christian church should be practiced IN some of the Christian Churches as DT suggests that it be.

And yet, Paul commands the Christians in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians to follow the traditions, whether delivered orally or by epistle (2 Thess 2:15). The difference is the source of the "traditions" (Greek, paradosis): one is merely from men; the other is from Christ delivered through the apostles. The former we are to avoid; the latter we are to keep. The latter can never conflict with the commands of God, since the source of apostolic tradition is God.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:

If anything is close to being "a satanic lie", it is the doctrine that has done more than any other to divide Christians into the relativistic chaos of myriads of competing denominations each with their mutually contradictory teachings and versions of "Christianity", thus damaging the witness of the Church in the world and counteracting Christ's desire that they all should be one (John 17). That doctrine is sola Scriptura.

DT's statement above forms one of the best examples of a "pure contradiction" to the Word of Christ below - that one could possibly hope to imagine.

How "easily" the Jewish Magesterium could turn around and charge Christ with being "factious and divisive" for pointing out their "many" errors of tradition conflicting with the Word of God!

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.
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 Christ said that the magesterium of the ONE TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai had gone into error and yet continued to “honor ME with their lips”

1. Christ then pronounces their Worship to be in vain.
2. Christ points to the cause “Teaching as doctrine the commandments of men”/b] – as though man’s wild-ideas are equal to the inspired word!
3. Christ points out the specific damage done by such man-made tradition Neglecting the commandment of God you HOLD to the tradition of men”
4. Christ points to direct conflict between that which is written in God’s Word – regarding His own “commandments” vs “your tradition”.. What is IN the Word vs what is simply the-words-of-men.
5. Christ specifically points to the Fifth Commandment in that UNIT OF TEN – saying that this one is being “effectively” negated by man’s tradition. NOTE that the Jews would not claim they were negating it – but Christ charges that the result is the same.
6. Then the phrase that many “traditionalists” claim is not in God’s Word – “thus Invalidating the WORD of GOD by your TRADITION”. Here God points to HIS WORD as having authority above and beyond “The tradition” of the magesterium of the ONE TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai. Clearly tradition must be tested against the Word to VALIDATE that it is NOT in any way contradictory – to meet Christ’s standard.
7. Finally Christ points out that this is not the ONLY case of Tradition contradicting the “Word of God”. In fact He has already stated that they are “experts at setting aside the commandment of God” in favor of “your tradition”

Yet some today would charge that it is “factious” and “divisive” to argue against their “many traditions” and point out where they contradict the clear Word of God. They claim this act of pointing out their own error is to divide the church and break up the John 17 prayer for unity. Note how easy it would have been for the Jewish Magesterium in the above example to make the same charge against Christ for His act in pointing out “Their error” in that same way!

In fact the members of the Jewish Magesterium in Mark 7 "could have" pointed to the fact that this may well split the faithful possibly even starting an entirely new “sect” called “Christians”!!


It is D28guy that speaks the truth on this matter. Listen to him.


In Christ,

Bob

[ July 07, 2005, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
This was the thinking of the Jewish Magesterium in Mark 7 as Christ condemned their practices of "teaching for doctrines the COMMANDMENTS OF MEN" and of "making VOID the commandments of God by your tradition".

Strange that the same abuses practices BEFORE the Christian church should be practiced IN some of the Christian Churches as DT suggests that it be.

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
And yet, Paul commands the Christians in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians to follow the traditions, whether delivered orally or by epistle (2 Thess 2:15). The difference is the source of the "traditions" (Greek, paradosis): one is merely from men; the other is from Christ delivered through the apostles.

Wrong.

Both are from the "Magesterium" of the ONE TRUE Church started by God!

Both are launched by Christ and BOTH have their leadership established by God.

THE DIFFERENCE is that the teaching of the Apostles is VALIDATED against the Word of God.

Acts 17:11 "THEY studied the SCRIPTURES DAILY to see IF those things spoken to them by PAUL were SO".

This "sola scriptura" method of VALIDATING the spoken word EVEN when it is from an Apostle is the DIFFERENCE!

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

HE does not simply say "I have all kinds of authority so I simply SAY you are wrong. That should be enough"!

Rather He demonstrated SOLA SCRIPTURA the place where tradition contradicts "The Word of God" and then claims "You do MANY such things as this" even saying "YOU ARE EXPERTS at setting aside God's commands for YOUR tradition".

How devastating to those who would practice those very same errors today!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

BobRyan:
DT's statement above forms one of the best examples of a "pure contradiction" to the Word of Christ below - that one could possibly hope to imagine.

It is only seems to be "contradiction" since you've not interacted the other verses (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:6) I've posted several times now nor have considered that it's the source of the tradition(Gr."paradosis") which determines whether it is authoritative or not. Jesus and Paul both condemn the traditions of men. Paul, however, commands the Christians to keep the traditions that he and the other apostles have delivered to them from Christ, whether orally or by epistle (2 Thess 2:15).

Way to totally ignore my last post, Bob.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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

Actually, you are reading sola Scriptura back into that passage by making the unproven assumption that "commands of God" exactly equals "scripture". Scriptures indeed contain the commands of God, but are not exactly identical to "the commands of God", since Paul has commanded the Christians to hold fast to the traditions whether given orally or by epistle. God can choose to deliver His commands by the means of oral communication if He so desires, and the Scriptures indicate that He has in fact done so. 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.

 

[StefanM]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />BobRyan:
Christ's charge against the MAGESTERIUM in Mark 7 is BASED on a SOLA SCRIPTURA argument SHOWING their tradition to be in error.

Actually, you are reading sola Scriptura back into that passage by making the unproven assumption that "commands of God" exactly equals "scripture". Scriptures indeed contain the commands of God, but are not exactly identical to "the commands of God", since Paul has commanded the Christians to hold fast to the traditions whether given orally or by epistle. God can choose to deliver His commands by the means of oral communication if He so desires, and the Scriptures indicate that He has in fact done so. 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. </font>[/QUOTE]One question:

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