Sola Scripture?

[Matt Black]

And both are very different from the living, God-given and mandated Tradition which Jesus gave His Apostles authority to dispense.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, but Tradition interprets Scripture.

For example, following yours above, you interpret I Tim 3:2 as contradicting clerical celibacy, yet it can be equally interpreted as just prohibiting polygamy ie: not forcing a minister to be married but just demanding he marries no more than one woman. And, following your baptismal example, we can say that the Acts passages referred to by you do not necessarily lay down the order in which the actions must occur (see also Mark 16:16) and we can also refer to the baptism of the Philippian jailer's family in Acts 16 as strongly suggesting infant baptism. Certainly there is no Scripture which forbids infant baptism, in fact Jesus arguably has harsh words for those who would prohibit it in Mark 10, and so the Tradition of infant baptism, which goes back to the earliest history of the Church, does not contradict Scripture

On this issue we should limit the discussion to whether Tradition can supersede Scripture.

If you say Tradition is just based on Interpretting Scripture or Interpretation itself, it is OK. Then we encounter the following question.

1. Interpretation cannot change the Scripture!
I don't think you are saying that Interpretation can abolish Scripture itself, do you agree? If you agree, you are agreeing to the Sola Scripture! or to Supreme Sovereignty of Scripture, right?

2. As for the interpretation of the Bible,
I would say you are WRONG! and you just follow the typical errancy of Roman Catholic way of interpretation.

2-1: 1 Tim 3:2 is primarily talking about the monogamy against Polygamy, however, can we not detect that Bible doesn't prohibit the marriage of the overseers ( Bishops) ? If Bible prohibits Marriage of the Priests as Roman Catholic does today, then can Bible say that a Bishop should be a husband of one wife?

Can we tell the Roman Catholic priests today that they can be husbands of each one's wife?

Can any one who has one wife be a bishop of Roman Catholic today?

Do you not understand the difference here yet?

If you still insist that there is no problem with COMPULSORY celibacy of Roman Catholic, you are declaring your mentality has
something wrong and you are not qualified for your job!

2-2: Infant Baptism

Where do you find Philippian Jailor had infants? from your imagination? That is the typical way of Roman Catholic interpretation, deriving a profound but whorish theory from the verses of Bible, as they derive the prayer to the dead.

Mark 10: Yes, Jesus told the people to allow the children come to the Lord, and that's why many Protestant churches have the Sunday schools.
Did Jesus ask the people to baptize the infants there? Are you claiming that one should be baptized regardless of their repentance?
That might be why Roman Catholic drowned many Anabaptists!, ?
Moreover children could hear the Gospel while the infants don't understand anything!

Allowing Children to come to the Lord and have them hear the Gospel is absolutely welcome and that is what Protestant churches are doing well today ! You should distinguish it from Infant Baptism

[ April 26, 2006, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

[Living_stone]

On this issue we should limit the discussion to whether Tradition can supersede Scripture.

Like the notion of a set and definite canon which never itself appears in scripture...

Or the idea that we should limit ourselves to "sola scriptura"...

Ephesians 4 says the Church is here to equip us, 2 Tim 3 says the scriptures equip us. 1 Tim 3 says of the two of them that it is the Church which is the pillar and ground of the truth. The teachings of the Church - i.e. of the bishops in communion - never has nor never will contradict biblical truth.

If Bible prohibits Marriage of the Priests as Roman Catholic does today, then can Bible say that a Bishop should be a husband of one wife?

The bible doesn't mandate priests/bishops be married. That's just silly when you think about it. It also says his kids (plural) must be under control. By your reading of scripture, only a married man with more than one kid can be a priest/bishop. If that's the case, what happens if one of his two kids dies, or his wife passes on? Does he lose his authority?

No.

It DOES mandate that they can only ever have one wife. It does mandate that if they have kids they need to be under control.

Also, there are married Catholi priests, both in the latin rite and the eastern rites. If you want to discuss celibacy we can in another post, but to deal with it briefly: the church forces celibacy on nobody.

It DOES expect those who take vows of celibacy to keep them - but this is also very biblical! Paul himself speaks of those taking vows of celibacy then seeking to remarry and incurring condemnation. (1 Tim 5:9-16)

2-2: Infant Baptism

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant

Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults, men and women.

The OT speaks of "entire households" being circumcized - and we know this included even children 8 days old.

The NT speaks of "entire households" being baptized - there is no reason to assume this DOESN't include children 8 days old.

And in fact, if you look at history (which of course you wont) you'll see that there WAS a controversy in the early church about infant baptism - whether or not we still needed to wait 8 days!

 

[Matt Black]

Eliyahu, Living_stone put it better than I can. I agree with you that interpretation does not change Scripture, it...er...interprets it. But, since Scripture alone does not always give us that interpretation, then we have to rely on something outside of Scripture ie: the Tradition of the Church, to give us that; therefore, whilst I accept that Scripture is supreme, it cannot stand alone and needs Tradition to interpret it

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Eliyahu, Living_stone put it better than I can. I agree with you that interpretation does not change Scripture, it...er...interprets it. But, since Scripture alone does not always give us that interpretation, then we have to rely on something outside of Scripture ie: the Tradition of the Church, to give us that; therefore, whilst I accept that Scripture is supreme, it cannot stand alone and needs Tradition to interpret it

So Matt,
We should all follow the "tradition" of Origen and become heretics. Even the Catholic Church finally recognized Origen as a heretic. But in his writings we do find tradition.

Or shall we follow the "tradition" of Augustine and all become hyper-Calvinists, the same Calvinism that Calvin himself plagiarized. Be sure to allegorize all of Scripture while you are at it. Is this the tradition that we should follow. Is Augustine's interpretation right?

One after another ECF and other early theologians have been dead wrong when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. Early does not mean better. The Bible itself is our only authoritative guide in all matters of faith and doctrine. It alone is inspired and infallible.
DHK

 

[Living_stone]

The Early Church Fathers aren't infallible. But on what they agree upon they show such beliefs existing in the early church.

And Augustine was not a hyper-calvinsit. He taught predestination is a permissable belief - jsut not Double Predestination.

And even if he did, it woudln't matter, for alone he does not speak for the Church.

I don't know quite what you're trying to "prove" or what case you're attempting to make? That the ECFs aren't infallible? Yeah, that's a given.

But they sound awfully "Catholic" on most points:

Infant Baptism
Eucharist as Christ's flesh
Apostolic Succession
Obeying the Bishops
Authority of the Church
Etc...

I must even conceed that many of them supported the primacy of the bishop of Rome because he was Peter's successor.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living_stone:
But they sound awfully "Catholic" on most points:

Infant Baptism
Eucharist as Christ's flesh
Apostolic Succession
Obeying the Bishops
Authority of the Church
Etc...

I must even conceed that many of them supported the primacy of the bishop of Rome because he was Peter's successor.

No they weren't "Catholic" or agreed on these points, and, in fact agreed on very few of them.
Tertullian, for example, was the first one to believe in infant baptism. And that came at the end of his life when he had changed his view for about the third time in his life. Before that time he was a Montanist with a completely different view on baptism--immersion after salvation as an adult. So what part of Tertullian's life do you want to quote from? Only the part that suits you the best, right?

The Eucharist of Christ's flesh is probably accepted by very few of the ECF. I have read the literature, and the arguments for and against. The problems are at least two fold. First we must remember that we are dealing with texts that have been translated and thus have lost some of their original meaning. Secondly you can deliberately take one meaning out of what these ECF are saying whereas they are actually saying the exact opposite. You do this with the words of Jesus. In fact they may be quoting the words of Jesus, and just because they quote the words of Jesus, you will say: "Ah, Ha! Transubstantiation, just like we believe," when all along they mean something entirely different. You read into those writings what you want to believe, not necessarily what they actually wrote.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Obviously in Acts 17 they are "judging Paul".

The RCC would claim that the oral teaching and traditions of PAUL are the active living "church tradition" that someone might have in those days.

Clearly the non-Christians of Acts 17:1-11 don't use the circular argument of relying on Paul as the standard of truth to judge Paul and see if he is telling the truth.

That means that by RC standards THEY CAN NOT be using tradition to evaluate scripture and SEE IF the oral tradition of Paul is "true".

I think you are stuck on that one.

AS for my previous question - how do you know when tradition is contradicting God's Word vs simply being correct in explaining what the text actually says?

How are you avoiding the Mark 7 "problem"?

In Christ,

Bob [/qb]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But the Jews in all instances had only the OT at the time [/QB]

This only makes your problem worse.

#1. In Acts 17:1-11 They were able to do with just 39 books of the Bible what you claim you can not do with all 66!

#2. You still have not answered the question in the post above - how do you avoid the Mark 7 problem GIVEN that you already admit to the problem of Tradition that contradicts scripture!

 

[BobRyan]

The "first Eucharist" admitted to outside of scripture by the RCC - makes no mention of "confecting God".

The priesthood itself is "admitted" to have "evolved over time" EVEN by RC historians themselves! They admit that the NT church leaders REFUSED to be called "priests". They also admit to the evolution of the rift dividing what "became" sacred clergy -- vs profane laity.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living_stone:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Right. The OT scriptures...

Here Paul calls the believers of Berea "noble" because they searched the Word of God daily in order to check Paul and see if what he said was according to the Word of God

That's right. And that's why the Berean's rejected sola scriptura.
</font>[/QUOTE]WHY THE BEREANS REJECTED SOLA SCRIPTURA

By STEVE RAY
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

A prominent anti-Catholic organization out of Oregon, with Dave Hunt at the helm, publishes a monthly newsletter entitled The Berean Call. The title is taken from Acts 17, where Paul refers to the Bereans in Asia Minor as "noble-minded," and Hunt chose the title to promote his belief in sola scriptura.

A Catholic organization has tried to discredit an honest Baptist pastor who believes the Bible is the Word of God. He publishes a newsletter called “the Berean Call.” In it he expounds Biblical doctrine such as sola scriptura which the Catholic Church hates. Therefore they often take any unethical means to discredit such a Godly man.

Sola scriptura, or the "Bible only," is a Protestant doctrine invented in the fifteenth century. It declares the Bible is the sole source of revelation and the only and final judge in all matters of the Christian faith. Martin Luther developed it as a reaction to the historic teachings of the Catholic Church and of the Fathers of the first centuries. Luther rejected the authority of the Church and the apostolic tradition and so was left with sola scriptura—the Bible alone.

The author, Steven Ray, shows his ignorance of Biblical history. Sola Scriptura was not invented by the Protestants at all. In fact the Protestants (especially reformers such as Luther) did not use sola scriptura at all. These men were former Catholics, who hung on to the Bible study methods that they had learned as Catholics. They compared their conclusions to the conclusions made by the ECF. They used the ECF profusely in their studies. This is not an example of sola scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is used all throughout the Bible from the times of Moses to the Apostles throughout the early churches, and even until this day. It is a biblical doctrine that has been rejected by the Catholic Church because it would usurp the authority of the Catholic Church. The Bible would become the authority instead of the magesterium and that just wouldn’t do for the Catholic Church. So the RCC either discredits Dave Hunt or the doctrine itself, defended by honest people like Dave Hunt.

In reality, though, Hunt has turned the episode in Berea on its head, since the noble-minded Bereans actually condemn his sola scriptura position. This Bereans passage has been commandeered by Fundamentalists for too long, and it is time Catholics reclaim it. Many have been troubled by this text, and many explanations from a Catholic perspective have been mediocre at best. Not only can the text be explained easily by Catholics, but it is actually a strong argument against sola scriptura and a convincing defence of the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The text is a very good explanation of sola scriptura. I think you want to say that the Catholic Church wants to butcher this text to try and make it mean something that it really doesn’t say. Let us see shall we?

We are told that the Bereans were more noble-minded (open-minded, better disposed, fair)—but more noble-minded than whom? The Thessalonians! It is convenient for Fundamentalists to pull this passage out of context and force it to stand alone. That way their case seems convincing, but the context tells the real story. Before we look at the Bereans, let’s take a look at those they are compared to, the Thessalonians. What did the Thessalonians do that made them less noble-minded?

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
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.
Acts 17:9 And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
--This was a common occurrence wherever Paul went. He would enter a synagogue and preach the gospel. There would be many that would believe. However, there were many that would be antagonistic to the gospel and would stir up trouble. Paul met such people in every city that he went/ Mostly these were Jusaizers who believed that keeping the Law and that Circumcision ought to be necessary as a part of salvation. But Paul put a stop to that errant type of theology immediately. Salvation was always by grace through faith.

We find out in Acts 17:1–9: "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.’ And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and, taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, ‘These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.’ And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this. And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go."

Yes that is what the Scripture says. Now what is your take on it?

The Thessalonians rejected Paul and his message, and, after denouncing him, they became jealous that others believed. They treated Paul with contempt and violence, throwing him ignominiously out of town. Why? "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures" in the synagogue, as was his custom. They did not revile Paul the first week or the second; rather, they listened and discussed. But ultimately they rejected what he had to say. They compared Paul’s message to the Old Testament and decided that Paul was wrong. We must remember that many were proclaiming a wide variety of new teachings, all supposedly based on the Scriptures and revelations from God. Heresies, cults, and sects were as numerous in the Roman Empire as they are today. The Jews in Thessalonica had a right to be skeptical.

Let’s get the facts straight shall we. What does it really say:

Acts 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
--There was a great multitude that believed. It appears that those who went after Paul were in the minority, in fact just a few rabble-rousers—specifically, “took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company.” In other words, in modern language there was a “gang” that went after Paul, not the city, not a multitude, but a small number of people that were angry at what Paul had said. The Thessalonians as a whole accepted Paul, and the gospel. A great multitude, both Jews and Gentiles believed. A few rabble-rousers did not, and followed Paul to Berea. It wasn’t “the Thessalonians,” per se. It wasn’t the city. It was a few people, some of his enemies. This happened wherever Paul went is was a common occurrence. Don’t exaggerate the facts. The Jews of Thessalonica did indeed accept what Paul had to say. Read the Scripture again. Steve Ray lies at this point. He is wrong, and seeks to deceive many.
Acts 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
Now let’s look at Luke’s comment about the noble-minded Bereans: "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men" (Acts 17:10–12).[/qb][/quote]
Always good to quote the Scripture. What is his twist on this passage? Will he tell the truth this time?

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred.

Here Ray is ignorant of the Scriptures. Sola Scriptura has been held by the Jews (Hellenistic and otherwise) from the time of Moses onward. The appeal has always been to the Scripture as the authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. “Thus saith the Lord is mentioned 430 times. It is an appeal to the words of God (the Word of God). The Jews constantly appealed to the Law (the Word of God) in all decisions that they had to make. It was their constitution. Jesus quoted from the Word of God in the Temptation to Satan. He used it as His authority. Always was there an appeal to the Word of God as the final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. A false prophet was judged according to the Word of God. If what was prophesied was not according to the Word of God the false prophet was to be taken out and stoned to death. Thus the appeal to the Word of God in Acts 17:11. They were to find out whether or not Paul was a false prophet, a false teacher. The Scripture was their guide. He was preaching a New Testament message which was verifiable by the Old Testament. Philip started with the Book of Isaiah and preached unto the Eunuch Jesus. The message of the gospel is in almost every book of the Old Testament.
Ray’s problem is this:
He errs in not knowing the Scripture neither the power of God.

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.
--This was the standard the Jews went by. It defines sola scriptura. If it wasn’t by the Word of God (the law and testimony) it was because there was no light in them. Ray only proves there is no light in him, by denying sola scriptura.

Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book,"

Amazing! Ray is quoting here from the Koran! “The people of the book” is an oft used phrase by Mohammed in the Koran to refer to the Jews and the Christians. Why would Ray be quoting from the Koran, in a discussion of sola scriptura? Does he count the Koran as Scripture also?

in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.

Of course the Jews had a strong oral tradition. Jesus condemned it. It wasn’t the tradition that was inspired it was the Word of God. When the divine message of the Paul lined up with the Word of God (sola scriptura) it was accepted as Scriptural. This has nothing to do with tradition.
An example of their tradition was this:
If one walked in front of a Rabbi and sneezed, he would be considered accursed. Much of their tradition is written in the Talmud. It is condemned by Jesus. Read Matthew chapter 23 and Mark 7:1-23.

Mark 7:6-13 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching.

Wrong! The great multitude accepted the Scriptures.

They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah.

If it contradicted the Torah why did “a great multitude “both Jews and Greeks” accept his message?

Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

The Jewish leaders as a whole rejected Christ. Why should this be hard to understand?

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house.

Not the Jews who had become Christians (a great multitude), but only a small minority—a company, a gang, a bunch of rabble-rousers. Why does Ray not read the Bible, and get the facts straight? Fact is he doesn’t want to believe the Bible, and the Biblical teaching of sola scriptura. He would rather deliberately deceive, and deliberately defame the good name of another.
To be continued
DHK

 

[Eric B]

Of course, by going sola scriptura, you have to throw out sola scriptura because it's nowhere in the bible, and it leaves you without a canon of books to read from. By assuming even those 27 NT books, you're already giving creedence to the Churches binding and loosing authority in such matters.

So scripture is only good enough just to substantiate tradition, which then takes over as the real source of all our knowledge, right?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who use Gods scriptures as their truth standard are the ones who will not be "hoodwinked" by Romes lies and distortions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, they will hoodwink themselves.

So the Bible alone only get people hoodwinked? This perfect parallel's the earlier statement that Arianism was caused by people reading the Bible alone.

That's right. And that's why the Berean's rejected sola scriptura.

They listend to Paul, and accepted what he said on-top of scripture, seeing it as the fulfillment of what was prophecied. The Thessilonicans in acts 17 rejected Paul. Why? "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures" in the synagogue, as was his custom. They did not revile Paul the first week or the second; rather, they listened and discussed. But ultimately they rejected what he had to say. They compared Paul’s message to the Old Testament and decided that Paul was wrong.

Once again, the OT scripture alone would lead one to reject Christ? Rather, it was actually the scriptures interpreted through a supposed "Mosaic oral tradition" (much like this "apostolic tradition" you all are pushing) that led people to reject Christ. Much of the reasoning thtrough the scriptures involved challenging these traditions, as we see with Jesus and the Pharisees. Since that tradition came first, they would have a much stronger argument.

Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2),

and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

Traditions were GIVEN - orally and in the written word, and were meant to be passed on.

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

That there is no reason to assume these "traditions" are anything more than teachings we see int he scriptures is proven by the fact that one of them is mentioned right here in one of the texts: "keep away from any brother who is living in idleness". "living in idlenes" is what is contrasted with "the traditions". And other scriptures speak against this as well. No later "Catholic" doctrines or practices there! All "Tradition" means is that it is a principle the apostles hold, and many who people who did not get an epistle had only heard about it orally. It is not an entire separate body of teaching and practice!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, but Tradition interprets Scripture.

Bob said
That is certainly how the Jews of Christ's day "played the game".

Bravo!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.''

And it is NOT what the saints did in Acts 17:1-11 as they "judged the statements of Paul" by studying scripture "TO SEE IF those things were so"!

</font>[/QUOTE]

Matt said --

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would accept you argument if Tradition contradicts or nullifies the word of God - but where is explains, clarifies and interprets that word, no way! [/QB]

Great! So how do you "tell the difference" so that you don't fall into the Mark 7 problem?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the "dogs," not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

What has that got to do with the price of tea in China. It is a red herring. The people in Berea were Jews.

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."

Yes, they accepted the Word of God, and were saved—great multitudes of them. Read your Bible. A few rabble-rousers who rejected Paul’s message does not constitute that the “Thessalonians” themselves concluded that Paul’s new teaching was unbiblical. Your conclusion is wrong, for you have failed to read the whole passage. Read verse four again.

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No.

Your unbelief in the Scriptures is astounding. The Scripture is right before your eyes and yet you fail to believe it. Let’s try your question and answer again.
Q. Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures.
Ans. Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Paul commended them because they searched the Scriptures daily. Do you not believe the Bible? Or do you just try to put your own twist on things. Ray deliberately deceives. This is obvious.

Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures.

Too bad. That is not what the Bible says. Unbelief is a serious sin.

A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

It doesn’t matter who you quote. Quote Shakespeare if you like. This is where sola scriptura reigns supreme. It is what the Bible says itself. They were noble because they searched the Scripture, not because of what any fool says. Believe the Bible. Unbelief is a serious sin.

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a "tradition," it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures.

Yes, both the Thessalonians and the Bereans accepted the gospel as Paul preached it. What did Paul preached?

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Paul preached the gospel (1Cor.15:3,4), which was easily verifiable through the Old Testament, and through sola scriptural.

These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an "extension" of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the "other Scriptures," which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

It is too bad Catholics don’t know the Biblical meaning of “tradition.” Yes the word “tradition” as used in 2Thes.2:15 simply means the “truth of the Word of God.” It was to be equated with divine Scripture. There was no “tradition” in the Catholic sense of the word, as defined in the Catholic encyclopaedia. Oral tradition takes centuries to develop. The Day of Pentecost took place in 33 A.D. at the very earliest. This epistle was written about 60 A.D. What kind of Christian “traditions” accumulated over a period of less than 30 years? The very idea is preposterous? Yet Catholics blindly hold to this idea.

From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.

See the bias of Ray immediately. There are no “anti-Catholics” here, only Biblicists, those who love the Bible and want to defend it, not the magisterium and all of its anti-Biblical doctrines.
Councils don’t mean much to us. We know where the canon of Scripture came from and the Catholics had nothing to do with it. But that is another topic for another thread. Your point here is a red herring. Sure the Thessalonians were noble as well. Multitudes trusted Christ. Paul wasn’t referring to them He was referring to that minority of rabble-rousers when he said “than the Thessalonians.” To be more clear he could have said “than the Thessalonian rabble-rousers.” Remember their were multitudes that were saved in Thessalonica.

Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they were the sole source of revelation and authority? No,

Yes, because they were the sole source of revelation and authority. Believe the Scriptures, not man’s petty ideas.

but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew—to confirm additional revelation. They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted the credibility of Paul’s teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. After that, like the converts who believed in Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old Testament equally as God’s word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16). Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.

They accepted his message as Scriptural once they had compared it with their own Scripture. That is sola scriptura. You almost got it right. Paul did receive direct revelation from God which eventually did become Scripture. But it did have to be in line with other Scripture. The Scripture does not contradict itself. There is no tradition here.

By contrast, the Jews of Thessalonica would have condemned Peter’s biblical exegesis at the Council of Jerusalem. They would have scoffed at the Church’s having authority over them—the Torah was all they needed. Those who held to sola scriptura rejected Paul because he claimed to be the voice of "additional revelation."

The people of Thessalonica never condemned Paul’s teaching—only a small minority. Why do you insist on painting an entire city on the basis of the actions of just a few. Have you ever heard of the term “hermeneutics?” Apparently Ray hasn’t and deliberately deceives and defames.

Luke makes it plain that those who were willing to accept apostolic Tradition as binding were more noble-minded.

Quackery! Luke makes no such statement about Oral Tradition. You can’t read into Scripture that which is not there. I suppose Luke says that Paul’s message was all about the Assumption of Mary according to Ray also. He preached the gospel. He preached from the Word of God. He preached the Scriptures which were compared to the Scriptures—sola scriptura. This is what it says. Why doesn’t he believe the Bible. Because the magesterium commands him not to.

The Bereans passage, therefore, is hardly a proof text for those who espouse sola scriptura. This text proves too much for Fundamentalists. Anti-Catholics love to associate themselves with the Bereans, but the example of the Bereans actually condemns their exegesis.

Ray has failed to demonstrate this. Acts 17:11 more than adequately demonstrates how the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so, just as it says. That is sola scriptura. Ray has gone to great pains to try to say that Acts 17:11 says something else. The plain word for that is lying.

Luke’s praise of the Bereans cannot be applied to Fundamentalist Protestants, who resemble rather the Thessalonians, who held to sola scriptura and rejected the oral word of God contained in Tradition and in the teaching authority of the Church.

How many times do we have to remind Ray—the Thessalonians did not reject the Word of God. That in itself makes Ray’s hypothesis fall flat on its face.

To be consistent with his novel theology of sola scriptura, Dave Hunt ought to rename his monthly newsletter. Let me suggest a new title: The Thessalonian Call.

Steve Ray engages in apologetics work in Michigan. He joined the Catholic Church in 1994. He is the author of Crossing the Tiber (Ignatius Press).

Dave Hunt does just fine in expounding the truth of the Word of God, which the Catholic Church hates. They are bound by the man-made doctrines found in their catechism and strictly enforced by the magesterium. They have a hatred for Biblical doctrine because it goes directly against their doctrine. One cannot believe in the doctrines of the Catholic Church and be a true believer in Christ at the same time. It is an impossibility. I was already there.
DHK

 

[Living_stone]

His book, Hunting the Whore of Babylon was chocked full of errors.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living_stone:
His book, Hunting the Whore of Babylon was chocked full of errors.

The subject is sola scriptura. How easy it is for Catholics to turn the tables to hatred against Baptists or even Protestants when they have no arguments left. It is the sign of defeat. When you can't debate the issue any longer you come back with innuenndo, personal attack, and name-calling.
I saw nothing in your last post about sola scriptura.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Let's just take the first bogus example of error claimed at your link.

#1: Seven Hills


Hunt argues that the Whore "is a city built on seven hills," which he identifies as the seven hills of ancient Rome. This argument is based on Revelation 17:9, which states that the woman sits on seven mountains.

The Greek word in this passage is horos. Of the sixty-five occurrences of this word in the New Testament, only three are rendered "hill" by the King James Version. The remaining sixty-two are translated as "mountain" or "mount." Modern Bibles have similar ratios. If the passage states that the Whore sits on "seven mountains," it could refer to anything. Mountains are common biblical symbols, often symbolizing whole kingdoms (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Amos 4:1, 6:1; Obad. 8–21). The Whore’s seven mountains might be seven kingdoms she reigns over, or seven kingdoms with which she has something in common.

The number seven may be symbolic also, for it often represents completeness in the Bible. If so, the seven mountains might signify that the Whore reigns over all earth’s kingdoms.

Even if we accept that the word horos should be translated literally as "hill" in this passage, it still does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven hills as well.

Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome, which Rome are we talking about—pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of Hunt’s criteria as well, or better, than Rome during the Christian centuries.

Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City—the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered—and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one:

It is meandering and lacks any point at all!!

#1. Rome was called the "city of 7 hills" OUTSIDE of the book of Revelation! ALL historians (even Catholic ones) admit this.

#2. This is only ONE identifying mark. But the obvious fact is that the RCC ITSELF as identified ITSELF with "ROME" see it's name as an example.

#3. RC authors and historians and others "like Malachi Martin" ALSO freely admit that the RCC WAS the GREAT super power in Europe to follow Pagan Rome. The succession is admitted to by ALL historians!!

#4. Trying to "pretend" that the "city of 7 hills" is not being mentioned here is totally bogus EVEN in the text of the argument it is ADMITTED that pagan Rome IS identifiable as such!!

#5. Constantine TURNED OVER the entire city as the Capital city of the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome when he MOVED his capital to Constantinople. This gave the Bishop of Rome supremecy over the other Bishops.

In any case - this first example is a good one for how their case WAS NOT made against Hunt!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Living_stone:
Ephesians 4 says the Church is here to equip us, 2 Tim 3 says the scriptures equip us. 1 Tim 3 says of the two of them that it is the Church which is the pillar and ground of the truth. The teachings of the Church - i.e. of the bishops in communion - never has nor never will contradict biblical truth.
[/QB]

Which church are you talking about?

Idol worshipping church or Idol rejecting church?

or Goddess worshippers church or Human Hierarchy church?

How can we discern the True church out of thousands?

In that case should we not refer to the Bible? Doesn't Bible have the authority to discern the True church from the heretic Idol Worshipping church?

Is Bible insufficient to teach us all the Truth for our living?

Any interpretation of traditions are under Scripture or on top of Scripture?

 

[Living_stone]

Idol worshipping church or Idol rejecting church?

Idol rejecting.

Goddess worshippers church

Nope.

or Human Hierarchy church?

Bishops, Priests, and deacons are all mentioned in the NT as intricate parts of the NT Church.

In that case should we not refer to the Bible?

It is a most valuable tool - but it never claims to be our only one...

Any interpretation of traditions are under Scripture or on top of Scripture?

The Canon of Scripture is a tradition.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Living_stone:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />or Human Hierarchy church?

Bishops, Priests, and deacons are all mentioned in the NT as intricate parts of the NT Church.
/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Where are Priests mentioned else than 1 Pet 2:5-9? Are we all the born again believers not the priests?

No man is on top of any man, no church is on top of any other church shown in NT.

There is no hierarchy in the church as we read in Matt 23:8-11.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Living_stone:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Idol worshipping church or Idol rejecting church?

Idol rejecting.

Goddess worshippers church

Nope.

</font>[/QUOTE]Then Roman Catholic church is disqualified to interpret the Bible Scripture, because they worship idols.

http://www.aloha.net/%7Emikesch/baruch.htm


They worship goddess only by changing the name into Mary or Maria, as we see this:


http://www.aloha.net/%7Emikesch/crown.htm