Quote from signature line

[DHK]

Oh DHK looks like you’re the next victim of “out of context”

Interestingly enough it doesn’t condemn the Thessalonians for believing based on what they heard. It does commend the Bereans for doing their homework by saying they were more noble. Note he didn’t call the Thessalonians base. I like the mixed crowed not just Jews. Paul also used philosophy when he spoke so maybe they also compared his notes with theirs.

There is no out of context in my post. I know the context very well. I have it memorized. Your problem is that you are reading into this passage things that are not even there. Your post is full of suppositions and conjectures. "Paul used philosophy..." No he did not. You have no proof that he did when he spoke to the Bereans. Elsewhere he may have, but not here. Prove your case.
"Maybe".....or maybe not. I stand on the Word of God. You stand on your "maybe's." A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Maybe they compared notes--where do you get that? Pure conjecture. You might as well as have been reading the Book of Mormon; or were you??

Then
It is obvious comparison between Mediums and Spiritist to the Law. And note how it states the “law” or “Torah” and Testimony. Pray tell Testimony of whom? The Prophets surely. But at that time was that only the written word? No because Isaiah is speaking it so his Testimony as well. So, not just written.

To the law and to the testimony...(Isa. 8:20)
Yes a comjparison to the mediums, spiritists, Baal, other false gods, false prophets, false teachings, RCC Oral Traditon, the Book of Mormon, etc. All teaching that is not accordng to "this word"!

Then you quote:
“Spoken words of prophets were written down. Ok but then the command given by God through the Apostles and at this point the entire NT wasn’t written down so we assume he meant what the Apostles said to them. Ie….Oral Tradition.

The entire NT doesn't have to be written down. We work with what we have. Much of the NT had been written down as Peter testified to. He testified to Paul's epistles as Scripture. They already had those. They had the synoptics by that time. They had most of the NT. They didn't have to have it all. The principle is what Peter is speaking of. The prophets were the authors of the OT; the Apostles, as commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ, were the authors of the NT. The statement is clear.

The final thing you are right about it validates Paul as an apostle and authorizes his writings. But to say Sola Scriptura was from the beginning is a bit much. Not accurate

A bit much? Becuase it is? Because you just want to reject the evidence that I gave you for no other reason than you don't like it?
Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11 and so many other Scriptures speak so forcefully to this God-given truth that it cannot be ignored.

 

[Matt Black]

They knew what was in and what was out from the beginning, Matt. The letters, for example, were sent to churches; these were part of the early formation of the NT because these were written by apostles. The church used these as scripture.

Only some, though; for example, Paul wrote at least one other letter to the Corinthian church preceding I Corinthians, and also wrote to the Laodicean church. Why/how didn't these make it into the canon? (Granted, the 'first' letter(s) to Corinth is/are not extant, but the letter to Laodicea certainly is and indeed was included in early canonical lists.)

And that's just some of the letters. What about the Gospels, Acts etc. Luke wasn't even an Apostle! Why was there so much disagreement early on?

 

[Matt Black]

If this isn't so, then we have to deny 2 Tim 3.16, 17:

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

With respect, that doesn't answer my question: what's that verse got to do with everything being written down. If we want to engage in a 'battle of the proof texts', then I'll raise you John 20:30 and John 21:25: not everything was written down.

How else would God pass on what he wants us to know? Secret handshakes?

Well, that's pretty obvious, I'd say: oral Tradition. If you rewind to just before the Scripture you quoted, you'll see this laid out in II Tim 3: 10,14 - Timothy is beseeched by Paul to hold fast to what he has been taught, knowing from whom he received it. Now, Paul - and possibly others - may have written down their instructions and teaching for Timothy, but it is more likely it was taught to him orally; even if they did write it down, this extra instruction didn't make it into the Epistles to Timothy - hence it is extra-Scriptural Tradition. You have to read II Tim 14-17 as a whole and there you will find both Scripture and Tradition. Sticking with these two Epistles for a moment, there are plenty of other examples of Tradition:

"Hold fast the sound pattern of words which you have heard from me." (2 Tim 1:13). "Heard", plainly = oral only, not written down.


Furthermore, Timothy is told by Paul to "hand on" (traditio in Latin) what he has received: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). So Paul orally transmits to Timothy and orders him to orally transmit to others for them to orally transmit to still others, giving four 'generations' of oral transmission. That's Apostolic Tradition for you in a nutshell!


If one can be in any doubt as to the Scriptural basis of this idea of Tradition, and its corollary, Apostolic Succession, then there are ample examples to support it (and forgive me if I here go over some of the Scriptural ground covered above):
Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) having been ordained (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:-

1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.

2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.

3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock

4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.

Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT.

Either scripture is sufficient or it isn't.

Sufficient for salvation, perhaps, but not for teaching and doctrine, for the reasons given above.

[Bizarre coding and formatting errors!]

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,

This was posted....

Quote:
"In the writing of Scripture Jesus said HE (the Holy Spirit) would guide them into ALL truth. That was His promise, and that is what it refers to.

Yes, he told them they were to write a book--a book written by God, the Holy Spirit.

And you said...

Quote:
"How do you get that from the passage you've quoted? It says nothing about writing anything down. Again, with respect, you also are inferring what isn't there into the text."

You find it in multitudes upon multitudes of scriptures, Matt. One of the clearest is this....

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

Hope that helps to shed some light on it for you.

Two points:

1. I've highlighted some problems with the use of II Tim 3:16-17 as a proof text for sola Scriptura in my past post above.

2. I asked how one can possibly read the idea of inscripturation into John 16:13. You haven't answered my question: merely proof-texting a verse from a wholly-unrelated part of Scripture doesn't do that. I've simply asked where in John 16:13 or indeed anywhere in John's Gospel, Jesus asks his Apostles to write a book. It's quite a simple question!

 

[Matt Black]

Matt Black,

This was posted...

Quote:
"There is something very omniously missing from your interpretation of the Great Commission...



"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:"

That is just what they did by writing it down...."

And you then responded...

Quote:
"How?"

By causing every word of instruction that he wants us to have to be inscripturated.

I ask the same question: how? It's all very well saying 'everything' was written down (actually it wasn't as I've demonstrated above), but how do we get from that to the canon of the NT. Not everything that was inscripturated (in the literal sense of that word) is Scripture: I've already mentioned Paul's 'extra letters' which, whilst inscripturated, aren't Scripture.

Quote:
"Did a table of contents..."

:laugh:

Matt, what in the world does the "table of contents" have to do with anything?

Everything as far as the canon is concerned

Do you actually think the Table of Contents is inspired???

If it isn't, how do you know that the books in your Bible are the right ones?

Quote:
"...fall out of the sky or someone dig one up on gold plates a la Book of Mormon?"

Of course not.

Then how?

Quote:
"Or did all the believers wake up one morning sometime in, say, the second century and intuitively know what was 'in' and what was 'out'?"

Why would you think it all took place in the 2nd century?

Alright, then, whenever?

The old testament scriptures had been in existence for thousands of years and the New Covenant scriptures were recognized as scripture almost immediately.

Really? By whom? When? Dates, people, evidence, please, not merely bald assertion.

Peter referred to Pauls writings as "scripture" during their lifetimes.

Which of Paul's writings - all, some, which? Including his letter to Laodicea? And what about the rest of the NT? Does Peter (or indeed any NT writer) give us a Table of Contents?

My goodness, its amazing the confusion that exists in the liberal Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox worlds.

My goodness, it's amazing the ducking and diving of the questions that goes on in the fundamentalist world!

 

[Matt Black]

I have inferred nothing. I have exegeted the text as the Holy Spiirt has given me understanding.

Ah, I see - so we're dependent on your interpretation being correct. Totally subjective then

Has the Holy Spirit led you into ALL truth Matt? Are you perfect in your knowledge of the Scriptures?

Nope, not yet; I'm still learning, I'm an imperfect conduit and that's why I need the Church.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

This was a promise given to the Apostles when Christ was speaking to the Apostles. That is the context. Or do you beleive in context? He is telling them what the ministry of the Holy Spirit, especially in regards to them, will be. He, the Holy Spirit, will guide them (the apostles) into ALL truth.

Yes, but there is no mention of writing anything down in that verse - either as a stand alone proof-text or in the wider context of the Discourse at the Last Supper or even John's Gospel as a whole. I repeat the comments and questions to you which I've made to Alive in Christ above

I don't know of anyone else that can apply to--no, not anyone.
It applies to the writers of Scripture. He led them into all truth as they wrote down the words of Scripture.

You "don't know"; so, you're relying on speculative human reasoning. "It applies to the writers of Scripture" - most of whom weren't even present when Jesus said that!! "I don't of anyone else that can apply to" - what about the people who were actually there - the Apostles? What about their successors -Apostolic Succession - see my post earlier.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--This not only includes OT prophets but is perfectly applicable to the NT authors as well. They wrote down the Scriptures as they were moved by the Hloly Spirit--as the Holy Spirit led them into all truth.

So, you're saying that when Peter wrote 'speaking', he really meant 'writing'. His bad - guess he didn't get your memo.

Thus, Paul could say with all assurance:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Already highlighted problems with this as a proof-text...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is no out of context in my post. I know the context very well. I have it memorized. Your problem is that you are reading into this passage things that are not even there. Your post is full of suppositions and conjectures. "Paul used philosophy..." No he did not. You have no proof that he did when he spoke to the Bereans. Elsewhere he may have, but not here. Prove your case.

I said it was conjecture about Paul and the Philosophies but the point remains. The Bereans were praised for finding out and Paul did not condemn the Thessalonians didn't even say they were bad he said the "Bereans were morenoble doesn't mean the Thessalonians were not noble at all. Thats not reading into it just stating what it is.

"Maybe".....or maybe not. I stand on the Word of God. You stand on your "maybe's." A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

I can sense the vehemence driping from your every word. It seems that you resort to insults when someone disagrees with you. I assure you I stand on the word of God. I like facts and the real point of the issue issue is that you weren't there and most of how you interpret scripture is based on your knowledge and possibly how you feel about a certain passages. However, it seems to me that you're just as guilty of conjecture. As far as being a double minded man you're dead wrong. I haven't changed my affections for Jesus Christ and I haven't stopped studing the scriptures. Keep in mind there are men who have our same disagreements for years that are better educated that either you or I. However, I will not insult you I will make observations and I observed that you did not show the context but piece mealed the verses to suit your immediate need. Isaiah is responding to spiritist and mediums. Not making a statement about writen scripture. Writen scripture is refered to and then so was the Testimonies both writen and spoken. The writen word would not have existed for Moses when he wrote the Torah. All he worked off of was Oral Tradition and the voice of God when it came to the Law. The first place we have God writing these things (apart from Cain) is the 10 commandments. But Genesis happened long before exodus so the writen word was not available from the very begining. So it seems that you are conjecturing as well. Hmmmm.

To the law and to the testimony...(Isa. 8:20)
Yes a comjparison to the mediums, spiritists, Baal, other false gods, false prophets, false teachings, RCC Oral Traditon, the Book of Mormon, etc. All teaching that is not accordng to "this word"!

Comparing me to cults, which I assure you is incorrect, is just being Nasty.

The entire NT doesn't have to be written down. We work with what we have. Much of the NT had been written down as Peter testified to. He testified to Paul's epistles as Scripture. They already had those. They had the synoptics by that time. They had most of the NT. They didn't have to have it all. The principle is what Peter is speaking of. The prophets were the authors of the OT; the Apostles, as commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ, were the authors of the NT. The statement is clear.

Just so Peter clearified Pauls letters and the Apostles but you left out what the apostles themselves taught not writen down. In fact, christianity spread very well based on just what the Apostles said. Mark was writen by a man who wrote based on what Peter told him at Rome. My argument is the writing supplements what was oral at the time. Doesn't mean it was not inspired by God but they wanted to get everything down that they were teaching Orally. Basic Christian history. So there again we see the writen word only after the spoken word to contradict your "since the begining"statement about the writen word.

A bit much? Becuase it is? Because you just want to reject the evidence that I gave you for no other reason than you don't like it?

No your reasons were based on conjecture piece mealing the scripture together to fit your need. It is not the same thing. I'm not saying not to rely on scripture but you were being unfactual and out of context. I have a problem with that. But I won't call you a mormon or a catholic or a hindu or a muslim. Because despite the fact that I disagree with you, you believe on the lord Jesus Christ as your Savior which makes you a christain and my brother (though I am certain you will not share the same sentiments). Its funny Peter was agreeing with the Judaisers and Paul strongly disagreed with Peter and the Judaisers. You don't see them calling each other mormons or non-christians. Samething with John Mark and Barnabas. They just agreed to disagree and parted ways. Can you see Paul saying to Barnabas. You're a disciple of Mithras!

 

[Marcia]

Only some, though; for example, Paul wrote at least one other letter to the Corinthian church preceding I Corinthians, and also wrote to the Laodicean church. Why/how didn't these make it into the canon? (Granted, the 'first' letter(s) to Corinth is/are not extant, but the letter to Laodicea certainly is and indeed was included in early canonical lists.)

And that's just some of the letters. What about the Gospels, Acts etc. Luke wasn't even an Apostle! Why was there so much disagreement early on?

Not everthing that was written was meant to be part of the canon. The early church did not use all writings as scripture. Luke was not an apostle but he knew eyewitnesses who knew Jesus and events surrounding Jesus and the church. He was a good historian.

I can't explain the formation of the canon in posts here on the BB. You should read a book on it:
A General Introduction to Bibliology by Norman Geisler
or
Lay version : From God to Us: How We Got the Bible by Norman Geisler.

 

[Marcia]

With respect, that doesn't answer my question: what's that verse got to do with everything being written down. If we want to engage in a 'battle of the proof texts', then I'll raise you John 20:30 and John 21:25: not everything was written down.

So? Not everything was written down. How does that prove anything? Don't you think that God got what he wanted us to have in the Bible, or was that too hard a task for God? Everything he wants us to know is in the Bible.

Sticking with these two Epistles for a moment, there are plenty of other examples of Tradition:

"Hold fast the sound pattern of words which you have heard from me." (2 Tim 1:13). "Heard", plainly = oral only, not written down.


Furthermore, Timothy is told by Paul to "hand on" (traditio in Latin) what he has received: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). So Paul orally transmits to Timothy and orders him to orally transmit to others for them to orally transmit to still others, giving four 'generations' of oral transmission. That's Apostolic Tradition for you in a nutshell!

Matt, come one, this does not prove oral tradition! The NT was not completed at this point, so Paul is teaching Timothy and urging him to stick to what he has learned, to sound teachings. And yes, to pass them on. Well, they didn't have the NT. So of course they were orally teaching! This is just common sense.

We have to make a distinction between what was said to the person in the passage, and what is being said to us. Clearly, Paul is not talking to us, but to Timothy. The principle here is not oral tradition but to hold to sound doctrine, a phrase that is repeated over and over in both 1 and 2 Timothy.

If one can be in any doubt as to the Scriptural basis of this idea of Tradition, and its corollary, Apostolic Succession, then there are ample examples to support it (and forgive me if I here go over some of the Scriptural ground covered above):
Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) having been ordained (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:-

1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.

2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.

3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock

4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.

Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT.

Sufficient for salvation, perhaps, but not for teaching and doctrine, for the reasons given above.

There is no tradition here, just words from scripture. Doctrine is found in scripture. How to choose elders is found in scripture, etc. The church was given instructions on choosing these people and we have that in the Bible.

Matt, don't you find it ironic that you are trying to back up extra-biblical tradition by using scripture? Because, of course, what else do you have?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Matt,

Your posts seem to betray a very high level of confusion on your part. Many of the things I would point out to you in response to your post to me have already been pointed out to you excellantly by others, such as Marcia and DHK, so....rather than repeat what they posted I'll post this exerpt from an excellant web-site

This material has referances to the "Catholic" view of tradition, but since your arguments are pretty much the 100% "stock" arguments that Catholics employ, I think this article will be an excellant response for you to hopefully pay close attention to and heed.

The issue at hand is incredibly important.

Here it is...

"To me, it is not enough to simply say that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture based upon the decree of the Catholic Magesterium. Like any spiritual teaching, I must compare it to the Bible.

Jesus own words in Matt. 15:3 lend support for myself and many non-Catholics to subject the fruit of Sacred Tradition to the pruning of God's word. In other words, do the teachings of the Catholic church that are derived through tradition transgress the commands of God? Of course, the Catholic will say that they do not.

When Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in Matt. 15:1-6, He reprimanded them for not understanding God's word. They were appealing to the tradition of the elders, those who had passed down oral and written tradition. Jesus, on the other hand, exposed their error by citing scripture. Please take note of what He said in Matt. 15:1-6.


"Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2"Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."

3And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4"For God said, Honor your father and mother,' and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5"But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, "Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God," 6he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."


Whatever might be said about this passage, at least one thing must be observed: The tradition of the religious leaders was subject to the Word of God. Are the religious leaders of the Catholic Church exempt from subjection to the Word of God? And likewise, is their Sacred Tradition also exempt? I think not.

Where the Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite. Consider the following, "The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. 1. Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.'. . . 2. Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church.' . . . 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith." (Par. 111, 112, 13, 114).


It is number 2 that is the main concern here. What does it mean to read Scripture "within the living Tradition of the whole Church?" If Scripture is "within the living Tradition," then Tradition encompasses Scripture. In other words, it is the tradition of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of God spoken by Jesus in Matt. 15:1-6.

Some object and say that the Pharisees didn't have apostolic authority and succession that was ordained by the apostles as does the Catholic Church and, therefore, Matt. 15:1-6 cannot be used to nullify Sacred Tradition. But the issue in Matt. 15:1-6 is not succession of authority but the traditions of men being used in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. Essentially, the Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition.

Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles, likewise, continuously admonished their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11), thereby substantiating the position that even what they taught was subject to God's Word. After all, no doctrinal teaching should contradict biblical revelation and the Sacred Word of God was and is the final authority in all things spiritual. The Catholic Church's position and teaching is based on Sacred Tradition are no different. They must be compared to Scripture.

My desire in writing this is not to alienate Catholics nor belittle their beliefs. I believe that there are some Catholics who love the Lord and are saved. But I would like to add that I believe it is in spite of official Roman Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Catholic church has added teachings that are not consistent with biblical revelation.

If you are a Catholic, I hope my words do not offend you. Rather, I hope and pray that you would consider what this site has to say and compare it with the Word of God."

http://www.carm.org/catholic/tradition.htm



Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.


:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

I said it was conjecture about Paul and the Philosophies but the point remains.

Yes it was conjecture. Yes the point remains. The point remains that there is no evidence anywhere that Paul used any philosophy in his preaching to the Bereans. He expounded to them the Word of God. You cannot read into the Scripture that which is not there. Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch. Are we to infer that Paul did that here also? No. We can only go by that which we read here. And what we have is Paul preaching from the Scriptures.

The Bereans were praised for finding out and Paul did not condemn the Thessalonians didn't even say they were bad he said the "Bereans were morenoble doesn't mean the Thessalonians were not noble at all. Thats not reading into it just stating what it is.[/uote]
Have you even read the first ten verses? How can you say that nothing bad was said about the Thessalonians?

Acts 17:5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
--I suggest you read the context before making such statements. Paul did not have the best of experiences.
After that experience he wrote: But the people of Berea were more noble than those at Thessaloniica! Duh!
Why? Instead of kicking him out of the city, and causing a big uproar, they were willing not only to listen to the Scriptures but to search them diligently. They were more noble. Paul commneded them.

I can sense the vehemence driping from your every word.

Because I said maybe? Because I said you are reading into the Word which you were? Those are the plain facts. Live with them.

It seems that you resort to insults when someone disagrees with you. I assure you I stand on the word of God. I like facts and the real point of the issue issue is that you weren't there and most of how you interpret scripture is based on your knowledge and possibly how you feel about a certain passages.

You are right. I wasn't there, and neither were you.
Neither was "Frosty the Snowman," "Santa Clause," and a host of others, that you seem to claim to have the right to read into the Scriptures, and then claim "that is my interpretation. Sorry, but Biblical hermenetics doesn't work that way. In fact that is how heresies and cults start. That is how the RCC came up with infant baptism. "There must have been infants in the jailors household," even though the text doesn't say that.

You are right in that I base my interpretation of Scripture on my knowledge. Interpretation of Scripture is based on knowledge, not by reading into it things that are not there.

However, it seems to me that you're just as guilty of conjecture. As far as being a double minded man you're dead wrong. I haven't changed my affections for Jesus Christ and I haven't stopped studing the scriptures. Keep in mind there are men who have our same disagreements for years that are better educated that either you or I. However, I will not insult you I will make observations and I observed that you did not show the context but piece mealed the verses to suit your immediate need. Isaiah is responding to spiritist and mediums. Not making a statement about writen scripture. Writen scripture is refered to and then so was the Testimonies both writen and spoken. The writen word would not have existed for Moses when he wrote the Torah. All he worked off of was Oral Tradition and the voice of God when it came to the Law. The first place we have God writing these things (apart from Cain) is the 10 commandments. But Genesis happened long before exodus so the writen word was not available from the very begining. So it seems that you are conjecturing as well. Hmmmm.

There is no conjecture at all.
Isaiah 8:20 sets forth a timeless principle: one that can be applied to all ages--that God's Word is to be applied as the Standard of Truth by which we measure doctrine. If it does not measure up to "this word" then reject it. It is a simple verse teaching a simple truth.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--It applies to all false teaching whether it be from the occult or otherwise.

Comparing me to cults, which I assure you is incorrect, is just being Nasty.

Why the false accusation. I in no way inferred or said that you were in a cult. I told you the meaning of the verse. I didn't say that you were in a cult. Your profile says that you are a Baptist. How would you then conclude that I am putting you into one of the groups aforementioned?

Just so Peter clearified Pauls letters and the Apostles but you left out what the apostles themselves taught not writen down. In fact, christianity spread very well based on just what the Apostles said. Mark was writen by a man who wrote based on what Peter told him at Rome.

So what is your point? The Ethiopian Eunuch was saved by Philip verbally explaining to him the NT message of the gospel from the book of Isaiah. It didn't have to be written down. "From there he preached unto him Jesus."
I preach every week. I preach from the Bible. But not every word I say is from the Bible. Paul did the same thing. I expound the Word of God. Paul did the same thing. Yet one doesn't call what I do Oral Tradition; but they want to call what Paul did Oral Tradition. What inconsistency!!

I go from door to door, telling others about Christ. If they are interested I may leave them a copy of John and Romans in pamphlet form. I don't leave them an entire Bible. Just becase they only have two books; does that mean they don't have the Word of God?

You said:
"Mark was writen by a man who wrote based on what Peter told him at Rome."
The truth is that Mark was written by Mark, who was Peter's Emmanensis, and learned all that he needed to know directly from Peter.
So what you say is not true at all.

My argument is the writing supplements what was oral at the time. Doesn't mean it was not inspired by God but they wanted to get everything down that they were teaching Orally. Basic Christian history. So there again we see the writen word only after the spoken word to contradict your "since the begining"statement about the writen word.

God's word is not basic Christian history. It is the inspired Word of God, God through the Holy Spirit, guiding His apostles what he wanted them to write.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

That which was oral was the teaching that was given that was based on which was already given--preaching or expounding the Word of God--not any different than what we do.

No your reasons were based on conjecture piece mealing the scripture together to fit your need. It is not the same thing. I'm not saying not to rely on scripture but you were being unfactual and out of context.

Hardly. All Scripture is in harmony. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. That is why I gave you plenty of Scripture--to back up what I say. But you don't like Scriptural proof, and therefore criticize it. That is really a pitiful stance to take. You should be ashamed.

I have a problem with that. But I won't call you a mormon or a catholic or a hindu or a muslim.

No false accusations. If I have done that then back it up with quotes.

Because despite the fact that I disagree with you, you believe on the lord Jesus Christ as your Savior which makes you a christain and my brother (though I am certain you will not share the same sentiments). Its funny Peter was agreeing with the Judaisers and Paul strongly disagreed with Peter and the Judaisers. You don't see them calling each other mormons or non-christians.

I don't see it here either. Quite frankly I am tired of your false accusation. Back them up in quotes

 

[Matt Black]

Not everthing that was written was meant to be part of the canon. The early church did not use all writings as scripture.

So, what was the discernment process? Who decided what was 'meant to be part of the canon' and what wasn't?

I can't explain the formation of the canon in posts here on the BB.

That's unfortunate.

You should read a book on it:
A General Introduction to Bibliology by Norman Geisler
or
Lay version : From God to Us: How We Got the Bible by Norman Geisler.

I've read many writings on it. I'm asking here for your answers, not someone else's, and it's a shame that you state above that you're unable to give them.

 

[Matt Black]

So? Not everything was written down. How does that prove anything? Don't you think that God got what he wanted us to have in the Bible, or was that too hard a task for God? Everything he wants us to know is in the Bible.

Really? So how come there is so much disagreement amongst Christians as to what the Bible means? Why so many interpretations of the various Scriptures by Christians? Why was it necessary for the First Council to Nicaea to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity?

Matt, come one, this does not prove oral tradition!

It doesn't just prove oral tradition; it is oral tradition! How can you be so blind as to not see that?!

The NT was not completed at this point, so Paul is teaching Timothy and urging him to stick to what he has learned, to sound teachings. And yes, to pass them on. Well, they didn't have the NT. So of course they were orally teaching! This is just common sense.

Not really no - and it is entirely extra-Biblical conjecture and supposition. Were that to be true, you would expect Paul to say in addition in this passage; "But only hand these teachings on until Scripture is complete." He doesn't so your bare assertion is an argument from silence.

We have to make a distinction between what was said to the person in the passage, and what is being said to us. Clearly, Paul is not talking to us, but to Timothy.

Oh, I fully agree. Paul was indeed talking to Timothy, his appointed successor and bishop (leader, if you would prefer) at Ephesus, and instructing him to 'hand on' the teachings to the next two generations of leaders after him (who would, incidentally, be around long after the NT was finished, thus scotching your argument above).

There is no tradition here, just words from scripture.

Then you're obviously reading a different Bible to the one on my desk (Amplified NKJV for the record).

Matt, don't you find it ironic that you are trying to back up extra-biblical tradition by using scripture?

No irony at all; I'm just trying to conduct the debate on your sola Scriptura terms since I reckon it's unlikely that you'll accept any other evidential source. I do find it ironic, however, that you and others who claim to be ss are repeatedly eisegeting and adducing extra-Biblical supposition. Now, that is ironic!

Because, of course, what else do you have?

Oh, I have plenty of other evidence from Tradition and Church History - but is there any point in my bringing it to the table? Will you accept it?

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,

Your posts seem to betray a very high level of confusion on your part. Many of the things I would point out to you in response to your post to me have already been pointed out to you excellantly by others, such as Marcia and DHK, so....rather than repeat what they posted I'll post this exerpt from an excellant web-site

This material has referances to the "Catholic" view of tradition, but since your arguments are pretty much the 100% "stock" arguments that Catholics employ, I think this article will be an excellant response for you to hopefully pay close attention to and heed.

The issue at hand is incredibly important.

Here it is...

Quote:
"To me, it is not enough to simply say that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture based upon the decree of the Catholic Magesterium. Like any spiritual teaching, I must compare it to the Bible.

Jesus own words in Matt. 15:3 lend support for myself and many non-Catholics to subject the fruit of Sacred Tradition to the pruning of God's word. In other words, do the teachings of the Catholic church that are derived through tradition transgress the commands of God? Of course, the Catholic will say that they do not.

When Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in Matt. 15:1-6, He reprimanded them for not understanding God's word. They were appealing to the tradition of the elders, those who had passed down oral and written tradition. Jesus, on the other hand, exposed their error by citing scripture. Please take note of what He said in Matt. 15:1-6.


"Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2"Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."

3And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4"For God said, Honor your father and mother,' and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5"But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, "Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God," 6he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."


Whatever might be said about this passage, at least one thing must be observed: The tradition of the religious leaders was subject to the Word of God. Are the religious leaders of the Catholic Church exempt from subjection to the Word of God? And likewise, is their Sacred Tradition also exempt? I think not.

Where the Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite. Consider the following, "The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. 1. Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.'. . . 2. Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church.' . . . 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith." (Par. 111, 112, 13, 114).


It is number 2 that is the main concern here. What does it mean to read Scripture "within the living Tradition of the whole Church?" If Scripture is "within the living Tradition," then Tradition encompasses Scripture. In other words, it is the tradition of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of God spoken by Jesus in Matt. 15:1-6.

Some object and say that the Pharisees didn't have apostolic authority and succession that was ordained by the apostles as does the Catholic Church and, therefore, Matt. 15:1-6 cannot be used to nullify Sacred Tradition. But the issue in Matt. 15:1-6 is not succession of authority but the traditions of men being used in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. Essentially, the Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition.

Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles, likewise, continuously admonished their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11), thereby substantiating the position that even what they taught was subject to God's Word. After all, no doctrinal teaching should contradict biblical revelation and the Sacred Word of God was and is the final authority in all things spiritual. The Catholic Church's position and teaching is based on Sacred Tradition are no different. They must be compared to Scripture.

My desire in writing this is not to alienate Catholics nor belittle their beliefs. I believe that there are some Catholics who love the Lord and are saved. But I would like to add that I believe it is in spite of official Roman Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Catholic church has added teachings that are not consistent with biblical revelation.

If you are a Catholic, I hope my words do not offend you. Rather, I hope and pray that you would consider what this site has to say and compare it with the Word of God."

http://www.carm.org/catholic/tradition.htm



Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.

There is no confusion on my part and I'm curious as to where you think there is...

The above article which you cited does not put forward a case for sola Scriptura, ie: Scripture without Tradition; rather, it appears to be arguing for suprema Scriptura, ie: Scripture with Tradition, but with the former superior to the latter, which is pretty much the position adopted by the Magisterial Reformers such as Luther and, to a certain extent, by my own Church. But, in a sense, it doesn't break us completely out of the 'circular argument deadlock', which is: "Ok, Scripture is superior to Tradition and Tradition must submit itself to Scripture, but whose interpretation of Scripture is the correct one; since we don't know the answer to that it follows that some kind of teaching authority or Tradition is necessary, but that Tradition must submit itself to Scripture etc etc".

For the record, I would disagree with the Catholic definition of "the whole Church", as in "read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church".

I also disagree with the article's author in his(?) conflation of Church Tradition with "the commandments of men". The author tries to dodge the issue of Apostolic Succession, but really that issue is germane if not central to the entire exegesis of the passage from Matthew's Gospel which he cites (and indeed the similar passage in Mark 7). The author's objection would indeed be valid if Apostolic Tradition and 'the commandments of men" were one and the same thing; however, one has to be very wary of conflating man-made Jewish traditions and customs with the authority given by Jesus to the Apostles in Matt 18:18.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Just one comment on this Thanksgiving day....

The above article which you cited does not put forward a case for sola Scriptura, ie: Scripture without Tradition; rather, it appears to be arguing for suprema Scriptura, ie: Scripture with Tradition, but with the former superior to the latter, which is pretty much the position adopted by the Magisterial Reformers such as Luther and, to a certain extent, by my own Church. But, in a sense, it doesn't break us completely out of the 'circular argument deadlock', which is: "Ok, Scripture is superior to Tradition and Tradition must submit itself to Scripture, but whose interpretation of Scripture is the correct one; since we don't know the answer to that it follows that some kind of teaching authority or Tradition is necessary, but that Tradition must submit itself to Scripture etc etc".

Good point, Matt. I submit the answer out the dead lock is to follow the rule of Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century: the Bible as interpreted by the consensus of the Church--"that which hath been believed everywhere, always, and by all men" in the Church (universality, antiquity, and consent).

(Could elaborate, but I gotta scoot....)

Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

 

[Matt Black]

Yep, and that rule holds good up until the Great Schism of 1054; thereafter one loses the Vincentian characteristic of 'universality' (hence the disagreement with the Catholic Church's definition of 'the whole Church' referred to in my last post).

 

[Marcia]

So, what was the discernment process? Who decided what was 'meant to be part of the canon' and what wasn't? That's unfortunate. I've read many writings on it. I'm asking here for your answers, not someone else's, and it's a shame that you state above that you're unable to give them.

It was the books considered scripture by the early church and the ones by apostles or those with apostolic authority.

The bottom line for me is how amazing the Bible is - I was saved while reading Matthew -- how all those books over all those centuries have one theme; the over 300 prophecies of Christ coming true in the NT; the way archeology keeps validating the Bible; the way people are saved reading the Bible; etc. God had it all planned out how we could get the canon and I trust that He worked it out.

There is more to it but my son is here right now; it's Thanksgiving, and I'm going away for a week on Sat.

 

[Marcia]

Really? So how come there is so much disagreement amongst Christians as to what the Bible means? Why so many interpretations of the various Scriptures by Christians? Why was it necessary for the First Council to Nicaea to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity?

I don't think there are any interpretations that challenge major doctrine; that is why all believers agree on the essentials about God, Jesus, the Trinity, the atonement, the bodily resurrection, etc.

The reason the Council of Nicea had to affirm the Trinity is because of Arius who was denying it! He was spreading his beliefs about Jesus being created. Have you heard of Athanasius' "Against Arias," I think it's called?

Most creeds and councils met to defend the faith that was once already given to the saints against false teachings.

It doesn't just prove oral tradition; it is oral tradition! How can you be so blind as to not see that?! Not really no - and it is entirely extra-Biblical conjecture and supposition. Were that to be true, you would expect Paul to say in addition in this passage; "But only hand these teachings on until Scripture is complete." He doesn't so your bare assertion is an argument from silence.

But your basis for oral tradition is from Scripture. Where is the oral tradition? Who knows it? How do we find it? Where is the authority for it?

Oh, I fully agree. Paul was indeed talking to Timothy, his appointed successor and bishop (leader, if you would prefer) at Ephesus, and instructing him to 'hand on' the teachings to the next two generations of leaders after him (who would, incidentally, be around long after the NT was finished, thus scotching your argument above).

And these teachings are in the Bible, which was not completed at this time.

No irony at all; I'm just trying to conduct the debate on your sola Scriptura terms since I reckon it's unlikely that you'll accept any other evidential source. I do find it ironic, however, that you and others who claim to be ss are repeatedly eisegeting and adducing extra-Biblical supposition. Now, that is ironic! Oh, I have plenty of other evidence from Tradition and Church History - but is there any point in my bringing it to the table? Will you accept it?

On what basis should it be accepted?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Matt,

"So how come there is so much disagreement amongst Christians as to what the Bible means?"

Because we are thinking people, not mindless drones who are commanded to be indoctrinated by some "magesterium", or any other cultic indoctrination authority.

"Why so many interpretations of the various Scriptures by Christians?"

Because we are thinking people, not mindless drones who are commanded to be indoctrinated by some "magesterium", or any other cultic indoctrination authority.

Its a very very healthy thing, and exceedingly profitable. God wants it that way, and He approves of it.

Just take a look at what happens when people forsake the priciple known as "sola scriptura".......

Jehovahs Witnesses
Jim Jones
Catholicism
Mary Baker Eddy
The Orthodox
Mormonism
Ultra liberal protestantism
David Koresh

THAT is the result when each of us, individually, turn from sola scriptura, and instead surrender to any so called "authority" to interpret the scriptures for us.

"Why was it necessary for the First Council to Nicaea to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity?"

Surely you dont think the triune nature of God became true at that point, do you????

And surely you dont think that Gods people couldnt discern error without that "Council" do you????


:godisgood:

 

[Matt Black]

It was the books considered scripture by the early church and the ones by apostles or those with apostolic authority.

The bottom line for me is how amazing the Bible is - I was saved while reading Matthew -- how all those books over all those centuries have one theme; the over 300 prophecies of Christ coming true in the NT; the way archeology keeps validating the Bible; the way people are saved reading the Bible; etc. God had it all planned out how we could get the canon and I trust that He worked it out.

There is more to it but my son is here right now; it's Thanksgiving, and I'm going away for a week on Sat.

Have a blessed break and I look forward to reading the evidence behind your claims when you return