RULE#1 For anything to be Officially Christian it must be found in the scriptures.

[Particular]

Scripture is tradition. Someone has to be few cans short of a 6-pack if they don't know the goal of Christianity until they read it.

Where does the Bible say that scripture is tradition? Answer...it doesn't. You have made an illegitimate assertion.
The Bible is the inspired word of God. That's much different than tradition. Better go watch Fiddler on the Roof again, utilyan.

 

[utilyan]

None of these verses even remotely relate to what you claimed. Did you just open the Bible randomly and quote?

No its same chapter of Matthew 6.

Jesus Christ is actually teaching a practice and cure .

 

[utilyan]

Where does the Bible say that scripture is tradition? Answer...it doesn't. You have made an illegitimate assertion.
The Bible is the inspired word of God. That's much different than tradition. Better go watch Fiddler on the Roof again, utilyan.

Where does the bible say that scripture is tradition?

2 Thessalonians 2

15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

The traditions that are taught are conveyed BY word of mouth or LETTER = SCRIPTURE.


What tradition do you hold and stand firm with? OH thats right nothing?


You made the assertion that for something to qualify as Christian it must satisfy your own TRADITION which is it must be written in scripture.

"It must be written in scripture" is unbiblical man-made tradition .

 

[Adonia]

Adonia, you are adding a "central authority." Which central authority? Paul? Peter? John? Thomas? Barnabas? Phillip? Which one?

All of them together. There was but one church and the leaders of that church made the decisions for all of Christendom. As I posted earlier from Acts 16: "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey". That sounds like the people at the top were making all the important decisions of what to believe concerning the Christian faith to me.

The entire "central authority" concept is a control teaching of your denomination

No, the concept comes directly from the beginning as the scriptures themselves point out. "As they travelled from town to town...…..".

 

[Adonia]

Well that settles it. The Holy Church at Jerusalem is the Real Church!!! [emoji849]

Okay, that leaves us both out! LOL!

 

[Adonia]

The original 11 plus Paul started churches, and the NT is that history, their writings, and writings to the churches.

And what was St. Paul telling them in the NT? He was telling them where they were messing up and that they had better get with the program!

These churches had disciples that then went out and started more churches. These churches had disciples who went out, etc. No, saying the authority was in a single group is not correct. Every new church sent out disciples with the same authority from multiple churches.

What a bunch of hooey! They all had to conform to what St. Paul and the other 11 were teaching about the new Christian faith. They were not allowed to decide things for themselves or to go their own way.

No the Scriptures came about because there were dozens of churches, and the letters in the NT were coming from all over, to each other

Yes. And when St. Paul pointed out in those letters where they were deviating from the faith, the correct teachings, they were required to mend their ways. This is an unarguable truth.

You keep applying what happened between the 3rd and 5th centuries to the 1st and 2nd. History does not go backwards.

No, I am talking about those earliest of years.

and the next few generations of disciples were not as dedicated as the first generation were.

I disagree. They were giving their whole lives for the faith - they were even dying for the faith! They were just as dedicated as the first Christians were.

Since I do not accept you have all the knowledge of all time and people everywhere, I will have to pass on anything you claim.

So the scripture I posted from Acts is in error? How do you interpret it? But hey, that is okay, as I feel the same with what you folks say. We are just here having a discussion of these things with each of us voicing our opinions and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Drifter]

Any church is authoritative because it does use Scripture, God's written Word. The one reason that in today's world not just one church can support all of its own missionaries as just one singular source, is because the whole burden is spread equally over hundreds of churches. That way the members of one church are in agreement together in prayer with lots of other churches and members for one particular misionary, instead of the missionary only having a few people praying for them.

I think we are talking past each other a bit. I agree that good missionary outreach means that people need to delegate. Scripture is divinely inspired. It’s important to pray for each other.

I want to focus on this idea of Scripture as the “central" (I think you really mean exclusive?) theme that guided the early Church. Doesn’t the Council of Jerusalem provide something of an exception to this rule? Here you have what looks like a divinely assisted deliberation that issued universal guidelines to local churches (Acts 15:28-29). How do you understand it?

 

[timtofly]

I think we are talking past each other a bit. I agree that good missionary outreach means that people need to delegate. Scripture is divinely inspired. It’s important to pray for each other.

I want to focus on this idea of Scripture as the “central" (I think you really mean exclusive?) theme that guided the early Church. Doesn’t the Council of Jerusalem provide something of an exception to this rule? Here you have what looks like a divinely assisted deliberation that issued universal guidelines to local churches (Acts 15:28-29). How do you understand it?

It was the group of Jesus' Disciples. At this point they had not gone out themselves. No, it was not the location. The reason Paul was held as authority, besides the fact he was more polished than Peter, was he was educated in the OT, especially the Law. His authority was the big transition from those who lived the Law as a Jew, and the relationship of this New Messiah. All the Jews new, for the most part, was that their religious leaders, refused to see Jesus as their Messiah. The disciples did send Paul out to help the Jews through their understanding of the Gospel. Peter himself had the liberty as a Jew, to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. He was the first to travel through Turkey, Greece, all the way to Rome setting up churches. It is quite reasonable that as the leader, he went all the way to Spain, and across to Africa and traveled all the way through Ethiopia, Egypt, and ended up in Iraq. So no, it was not one location. They just communicated through letters as they traveled all over the known world.

As I pointed out. Manuscript after manuscript was how the NT came about. Copies of all the letters going here and there all over.

 

[Drifter]

It was the group of Jesus' Disciples. At this point they had not gone out themselves. No, it was not the location. The reason Paul was held as authority, besides the fact he was more polished than Peter, was he was educated in the OT, especially the Law. His authority was the big transition from those who lived the Law as a Jew, and the relationship of this New Messiah. All the Jews new, for the most part, was that their religious leaders, refused to see Jesus as their Messiah. The disciples did send Paul out to help the Jews through their understanding of the Gospel. Peter himself had the liberty as a Jew, to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. He was the first to travel through Turkey, Greece, all the way to Rome setting up churches. It is quite reasonable that as the leader, he went all the way to Spain, and across to Africa and traveled all the way through Ethiopia, Egypt, and ended up in Iraq. So no, it was not one location. They just communicated through letters as they traveled all over the known world.

As I pointed out. Manuscript after manuscript was how the NT came about. Copies of all the letters going here and there all over.

I don’t think I’m talking about a location as such. I think my point is just this: The Council (that occurred in Jerusalem) issued guidelines to Christians everywhere. Is there something wrong with this view? I don’t think it takes anything away from Paul and the epistles.

 

[Particular]

Where does the bible say that scripture is tradition?

2 Thessalonians 2

15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

The traditions that are taught are conveyed BY word of mouth or LETTER = SCRIPTURE.


What tradition do you hold and stand firm with? OH thats right nothing?


You made the assertion that for something to qualify as Christian it must satisfy your own TRADITION which is it must be written in scripture.

"It must be written in scripture" is unbiblical man-made tradition .

So let's look at the passage you quote.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruitsto be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

First, what a great passage regarding God's election of his children.
Notice the Sovereignty of God's authority oozing from these verses.
Second, in light of God's authority and his choice of Paul as His Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul has set up traditions, such as requirements for elders and deacons (both, by the way, were to be married and have believing children, which Rome rejects for it's bishops). Paul is authorized to set these up as God's Apostle.
What Paul does not say is that the Bible (scripture) is tradition. In 2 Timothy 3:16 he tells us it is profitable for doctrine, instruction and reproof. In Hebrews 4 we read that it cuts through a person's heart like a double-edged sword.
You are stretching to claim the Bible is just another form of your church tradition.
First, Paul was an authorized Apostle. Apostolic succession is a made-up philosophy of your church to make their twisted traditions equal to or greater than scripture. Such a claim is a crock. Peter was never a bishop in Rome. The Apostles never started the church at Rome (Christians were already there before the Apostles arrived). And there is no teaching of Apostolic succession in scripture.

Ultimately, your church has no legitimacy and it's present traditions are a stumbling block to the gospel.
Here's an example posted by a Roman Catholic friend on Facebook.
Watch the video. Read the words. And see the worship of Mary with no glory given to God. A perfect example of idol worship.

 

[utilyan]

So let's look at the passage you quote.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruitsto be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

First, what a great passage regarding God's election of his children.
Notice the Sovereignty of God's authority oozing from these verses.
Second, in light of God's authority and his choice of Paul as His Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul has set up traditions, such as requirements for elders and deacons (both, by the way, were to be married and have believing children, which Rome rejects for it's bishops). Paul is authorized to set these up as God's Apostle.
What Paul does not say is that the Bible (scripture) is tradition. In 2 Timothy 3:16 he tells us it is profitable for doctrine, instruction and reproof. In Hebrews 4 we read that it cuts through a person's heart like a double-edged sword.
You are stretching to claim the Bible is just another form of your church tradition.
First, Paul was an authorized Apostle. Apostolic succession is a made-up philosophy of your church to make their twisted traditions equal to or greater than scripture. Such a claim is a crock. Peter was never a bishop in Rome. The Apostles never started the church at Rome (Christians were already there before the Apostles arrived). And there is no teaching of Apostolic succession in scripture.

Ultimately, your church has no legitimacy and it's present traditions are a stumbling block to the gospel.
Here's an example posted by a Roman Catholic friend on Facebook.
Watch the video. Read the words. And see the worship of Mary with no glory given to God. A perfect example of idol worship.

You are rambling away to a ad hominem comfort zone. We were talking about TRADITION and how it CAN be WRITTEN.

Lets re-emphasize glaring obvious facts.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruitsto be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Traditions is PLURAL, more than one.
What is an OFFICIAL TEACHING --> taught by us?

IF things he says is not scripture.....fine it is however OFFICIAL TEACHING, TRADITIONS TAUGHT BY US.


1 Corinthians 11

1Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

 

[Walpole]

I don’t think I’m talking about a location as such. I think my point is just this: The Council (that occurred in Jerusalem) issued guidelines to Christians everywhere. Is there something wrong with this view? I don’t think it takes anything away from Paul and the epistles.

You bring up an interesting point. If there was not an apostolic / episcopal polity, could churches such as that Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, Corinth, etc. reject the Council of Jerusalem, and instead act completely independently, and still remain churches in good standing?

Acts 16:4 ---> "And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem."

 

[Walpole]

You are rambling away to a ad hominem comfort zone. We were talking about TRADITION and how it CAN be WRITTEN.

Lets re-emphasize glaring obvious facts.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruitsto be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Traditions is PLURAL, more than one.
What is an OFFICIAL TEACHING --> taught by us?

IF things he says is not scripture.....fine it is however OFFICIAL TEACHING, TRADITIONS TAUGHT BY US.


1 Corinthians 11

1Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

And what about St. John????

2 John 12 ---> Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that our joy may be full."

 

[Yeshua1]

You bring up an interesting point. If there was not an apostolic / episcopal polity, could churches such as that Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, Corinth, etc. reject the Council of Jerusalem, and instead act completely independently, and still remain churches in good standing?

Acts 16:4 ---> "And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem."

There was no papacy in Acts!

 

[Walpole]

You cannot provide a quote either. He is making it a rule. If he had claimed a principle, perhaps doctrine, but a suggestion, no thanks.

His rule states Christian not Scripture.


The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith states an external source, the Holy Spirit, Who guides us into truth in accordance with the Bible.

I do not see what you are attempting to say.

Like I said, spare us the faux naïveté...

---> Christian vs. Protestant - CARM.org Forums

---> Christian vs. Protestant - CARM.org Forums

 

[Walpole]

There was no papacy in Acts!

---> Could one reject the declaration of the Council of Jerusalem, led by the protos, and become an autonomous sect and remain a Christian in good standing?

 

[Adonia]

You bring up an interesting point. If there was not an apostolic / episcopal polity, could churches such as that Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, Corinth, etc. reject the Council of Jerusalem, and instead act completely independently, and still remain churches in good standing?

Of course not. There was but one Christian Church and everyone, all the far away churches, listened to the dictates of those who had been placed in authority of the new faith by God himself.

Acts 16:4 ---> "And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem."

Exactly! Obviously some here disregard that particular scripture verse because it takes away their justification for their own newfound faith tradition. There were no "go it alone" churches and I think I can safely say such a thing was not in God's plan.

 

[utilyan]

This debate would have been over real quick if people had biblical backing they claimed they had.

But because NOTHING can be shown all we have is long drawn out attacks against the alternatives and repercussions in not selling out to a Tradition not written in scriptures. Even pretending not to support but won't officially.

The TRUTH is a painful thing. Standing in the light of the truth.

Some people rather LIE to remain in their comfort zone then to say the truth.


RULE#1 For anything to be Officially Christian it must be found in the scriptures.

IS THIS TRUE? is this TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURES or IS IT A LIE?

I'm not asking how many birthdays I believe in, or if I worship squash. Im asking is this statement TRUE or A LIE?

If you stand with God the TRUTH is not a problem to face. Covering for a evil lie. thats worshipping the devil.

 

[Particular]

You are rambling away to a ad hominem comfort zone. We were talking about TRADITION and how it CAN be WRITTEN.

Lets re-emphasize glaring obvious facts.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruitsto be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Traditions is PLURAL, more than one.
What is an OFFICIAL TEACHING --> taught by us?

IF things he says is not scripture.....fine it is however OFFICIAL TEACHING, TRADITIONS TAUGHT BY US.


1 Corinthians 11

1Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Not all tradition is Godward. Paul is Godward. Rome...not so much. In fact, I say that Rome has no connection to Christ anymore. It's traditions are perverted twists from scripture.

 

[Adonia]

In fact, I say that Rome has no connection to Christ anymore.

And I would say you are absolutely wrong.

It's traditions are perverted twists from scripture.

Look whose talking, a person from a minor Christian sect which rejects Christian orthodox teachings. Your doctrines ARE NOT the gold standard of Christianity.