The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome

Sorry, you think so.

Okay. I wonder how many are afraid to leave because of the continual, " . . . now that you know the truth, IF YOU LEAVE, you are an anathema and heretic and bound for Hell."

How do you know you are capable of making this determination, since as an everyday lay person you can not trust your own judgement and interpretation where Scripture is concerned?

I don't think anybody chooses to disagree with any "church." As christians, they simply choose to follow the word of God.

Okay, you telling me what type of analogy I am attempting to play off is not only wrong but also unwarranted.

Yeah, well Grant, I'm wondering when you are going to respond to my response to the rebuttal you so anxiously awaited.

In case you haven't noticed, if I make a logical, sound argument suddenly nobuddy knows I'm around. Make the least bit of a controversial comment, people notice you are still around.

[ January 26, 2003, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

So, what? Are you pushing for a communist country? A monarchial country? A totalitarian country?

Exactly what does any of that BS have to do with what Grant wanted me to see? Zero, nada, nothing, zip, nil, . . .

We are not commanded to obey people to the point of going against the word of God. How, am I wrong for disbelieving we are to obey anybody without question? Where are we ordered to do that? The Bereans were praised for "searching" scriptures.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mar 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect.

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Now, how would determine if someone is a false prophet or teacher? How do we tell if a teaching is false? How did you determine that RCism was the way?

The word "Scripture" is mentioned 31 times in the NT alone. "Scriptures" is mentioned 21 times.

Scripture is used to confirm scripture, teach, test, lead, etc . . . . NEVER is following Scripture condemned or discouraged. Tradition is something else completely. Tradition/traditions are mentioned a mere 13 times.

Only two of the 13 mentionings of "tradition(s)" is the word used in a positive way. And there is no way to prove that the tradidions mentioned in those verses are anything besides "Scripture."

Me? I follow the Word of God:

1Cr 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

2Cr 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

Nowhere are we ordered to blindly and unquestioningly bow to any authority besides God. We are not instructed to give any more authority to the church than we are the government or each other.

You know, CC, I mistook you for an intelligent man with whom I could hold a meaningful debate. *sigh* Well, I've been wrong before. You dodge the meaningful arguments but drop in to sling mud. Oh, well . . . .

No, we truly do not understand how you disregard the word of God, and follow many false teachings of the RCC . . . .

[ January 26, 2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

Hi Lisa,

Is it just me or did I just witness you count how many times the Greek word paradosis is employed in Scripture, turn the Scriptures into a sort of Assembly House, witness a vote, and discount two of those occurances through a "majority" ruling?

Wow.

Bless you,

Carson

 

If someone thought the Church was wrong, why would they care? They wouldn't, or they would still believe the Church was right. And if the Church was right, and they thought so, they wouldn't want to leave. Circular logic, you have employed.

You're right: who am I and by what authority do I have to authoritatively determine what Scriptures say? However, God did lead me, by His Holy Spirit, to the interpreter that He left for my benefit.

So basically you agree with me, but you refused to "actually" do that, so you reworded it and resubmitted it. Cute.

So you tell me that as a Catholic, I have no choices, but then when I say that, you tell me you're not really saying anything like that. You really like this circular arguing.

I'm posting on multiple threads. I'm not sure what rebuttal I have left unanswered.

Just like every time we explain, in detail, a Catholic doctrine, and 24 hours later 95% of the people have forgotten about it, and start a new thread attacking the Catholic view on it as if we had never talked about it before.

Or perhaps I'm just busy and I lost track. Please let point me to what you wish me to respond to.

God bless,

Grant

 

Think I'm wrong? Care to tell me why?

 

Grant,

Um, it's not that simple and you know it. Especially for people who have been raised in the RCC. They may see where RC teaching completely contradicts Scripture, but don't follow it because it's been pounded into their heads that they can't trust their own understanding. As I've said before, RCism employs circular logic also, your circle is just bigger than ours.

You have just as much authority as the Pope. Want me to give you chapter and verse? I will. Can you give me chapter and verse telling me I can not trust my own understanding?

Where does Scripture appoint an interpreter? You think you can trust yourself as far as the steps of the RCC then you gotta check your mind at the door? Doesn't make sense. Just as I asked Ed, and he glaringly failed to reply, how does the everyday "pagan" distinguish/discern between the teachings of the Pope/RCC or someone like David Koresh or Jim Jones?

I'm not offended by your sarcasm, because I completely understand how without your infallible interpreter, you are unable to comprehend the meaning and intent of my words.

What I said was, "I don't think as a Catholic you can do that? Choose--I mean." That's not quite the same as telling you you have no choices. I said I don't "think." If you think I'm wrong (and you do), then tell me so (and you have).

Nope. Hate it, but if you think I'll lose track or get tired of chasing you and RC arguments in circles, you're wrong. When it comes to "tail chasing," I'm a Pit Bull.

I'm posting on multiple threads and multiple message boards. I would assume since you were so anxious for my response, you'd have checked back it to see what it was.

Disagreeing with RC doctrine does not mean one forgets your explanation, nor does it mean that the person who disagrees is attacking RCism. Afterall, why should I take your interpretation over what I read in black and white? You're not infallible and don't trust yourself to interpret scripture accurately. So, why should I believe your understanding of RC doctrine and teachings are anymore infallible than your understanding of Scripture?

Protestants becoming Catholics thread, page 3, you said:

God Bless!

[ January 27, 2003, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

Hi Lisa,

You wrote, "Think I'm wrong? Care to tell me why?"

Because the word can refer to one of two separate entities, and when it is used, it is referring to one of these: (A) traditions of men and (B) apostolic tradition, which carries with it the deposit of faith given once and for all in the life, words, and deeds of Jesus Christ.

When you take all instances, notice that the majority are speaking of (A), then simply discount (B), you are performing sincere harm to the Word of God.

The Bible continues to instruct us to hold fast to Apostolic Tradition outside of Scripture, irregardless of how you discount what it says. These verses will not disappear, and we are continually instructed by God's Word to find God's Word in Tradition apart from Scripture.

God bless,

Carson

 

Australian Baptist Student you said:

Just a quick question, if you don't beleive in obedience, how would you interpret the following verses:

Det 17,12 But he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall die

Heb 13,17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls

Phili 2,12:Wherefore, my dearly beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but much more now in my absence with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

Thanks

 

You continue to assert this false statement, without any Biblical basis. "The Bible continues to instructs us...," What? Your false doctrine? I don't think so! The Bible continues to instruct us that the Bible is our only infallible guide, and not to trust in the traditions of men. If anything Christ condemned the traditions of men.
DHK

 

Just a quick question, if you don't beleive in obedience, how would you interpret the following verses:

Det 17,12 But he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall die

Heb 13,17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls

Phili 2,12:Wherefore, my dearly beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but much more now in my absence with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

Thanks</font>[/QUOTE]Hi there,
I am more than happy to obey my pastor when he gives lawful instruction. As a Christian, I also need to check that instruction against the more sure word of God. Took at my posts on the previous page. Popes and church councils, quoting canan law and saints mandated sin. Are you prepared to sin because a priest tells you to?
I wish they hadn't commanded sin, I really do, but they did, and blind obedience is therefore dangerous. Unless you keep the Bible as your ultimate authority, you will find yourself in real trouble.
Take care, Colin

 

Carson,

I attempted to post this yesterday, but my net server went down.

Care to show me where Scripture makes this distinction? What about these two verses bestows equal authority to any tradition? What about these verses indicates that the traditions Paul mentions are anything other than what we now recognize as biblical teachings?

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Can you give me an example of one of these elusive Apostolic Traditions?

What I am taking is not merely the number of verses addressing Scripture versus the number of verses addressing traditions. I am taking in to account what Scripture says about traditions versus what Scripture says about Scripture.

Show me where the Bible says that. Twisting Scripture to make it fit your beliefs is what harms the word of God.

That's an exaggeration if I ever saw one. Please show me the continual exhortation to search for God's word apart from Scripture. You can't even show me where it says that once.

God Bless!

[ January 28, 2003, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

Hi Lisa,

You asked, "Can you give me an example of one of these elusive Apostolic Traditions?[/b]"

Yes. An example of Apostolic Tradition is to decide what books are Scripture. Take your pick:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

What I am taking is not merely the number of verses addressing Scripture versus the number of verses addressing traditions. I am taking in to account what Scripture says about traditions versus what Scripture says about Scripture.

Yes. That's true.. that's what you did. And, the verses about Apostolic Tradition remain, and they are still valid, just like the verses concerning Scripture.

You asked, "Please show me the continual exhortation to search for God's word apart from Scripture. You can't even show me where it says that once"

Turn with me to the 1st chapter of Peter's first epistle, verses 23-25:

You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord abides for ever."
That word is the good news which was preached to you.

Remember, the Good News was being preached by the Apostles, Bishops, Deacons, and Presbyters for twenty years after Christ's Ascension without even a single word of the New Testament having been written.

How is this possible apart from Apostolic Tradition? It's impossible.

Paul writes in 2 Thess 3:6, "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."

The Greek word for Tradition is paradosis, and this is what Strong's, a Protestant Concordance, says about this word, "i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.; of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion ofthe later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence"

God bless,

Carson

 

Carson,

Good morning!!!!!!!!!

How and who determined that the decision of which books are in Scripture falls under Apostolic Tradition?

So, then you are attributing the contents of the OT to Apostolic Tradition?

And take my pick of what? Are you saying that those early christian texts fall under ATs?

Like I said, nothing about those verses indicate equal authority to Scripture. Also, what about those verses indicates to you that they are speaking of Apostolic Traditions being separate from Scripture?

1) Just because the Bible had yet to be compiled into one volume, does not negate the circulation of the teachings of the apostles in writing.

2Pe 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Your favorite verse to support the authority of the Church:

1Ti 3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

How did Paul instruct them in regards to conduct within the house of the Lord? Did he send a messanger to verbally tell them how to behave? Uh uh. He sent a messenger with a written letter. Why? Most likely Paul did not want to risk his teachings being distorted by inaccurate repition of his words.

2) Why do you assume that any teachings, that may have still been verbal at the time we were told to hold fast to such traiditions, were never put in writing?

And how do you as a christian dare to credit men with the determination of what was or wasn't Scripture?

Yes, it was preached, but why do you refuse to accept that these teachings were put in writing?

How can you say that? Paul speaks of writing epistles himself. What about the verses I quoted from Peter for you? Peter acknowledges the fact that Paul wrote epistles?

I don't follow your logic on this statement. I guess because I don't see how you can state factually that the apostles never wrote anything down.

Let's look at the verses from 1 Peter that come before the verses you quoted:

1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently:

No hint that the church is a go-between.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Still no mention of the church as a go-between.

1Pe 1:24 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

So, we go back to this verse:

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The Gospel is one Truth. We can receive it in two ways: we can read it (epistles) or we can hear it (orally). Whether you receive it orally or by epistle is insignificant, you are still bound by it. The Gospel that is preached (oral teaching) is the same as the Gospel that is read. Whatever the apostles were teaching was either already written Gospel or bound by the will of God to become written Gospel.

If I were living in the time of Moses, Peter, or Paul, I would have followed any teaching they issued in writing or orally. So, at the time Scripture was written when the word paradosis was used, it is highly possible than many of the teachings had yet to be put in writing. Nothing about the above definition rules out oral traditions ever being put in writing.

God Bless!!!!!!!

[ January 28, 2003, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

Moses and Paul were both murderers, Peter denied Christ. Yet you would follow their teaching without exception. My thought (and remember I grew up a Southern Baptist) is most Baptists problem is not with the Pope it is with authority. If one cannot accept authority one cannot accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is easy to put the blame on the Pope but my opinion is it is much deeper. Baptists want to stay open to their own interpretation of scripture. Baptists want to call and remove their own pastors. Baptists don't hesitate to divide into separate churches in the same town when they disagree. Baptists (once again my opinion) rule by democracy. I find no precedent for this biblically. My rambling is due to my reading of the post that one could follow the teachings of Peter, Paul and Moses without question. Following the teaching of the Pope however is not acceptable.

 

Cameron,

Good afternoon! First things first, I'm not Baptist. I'm not saying that being Baptist is a bad thing, I'm just not Baptist.

As for Moses, we can list many of the prominent OT figureheads and their major sins. David, a man after God's own heart, was an adulterer. Paul was a murderer until he was converted by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Peter did deny Christ before he was empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Would have followed their teachings to the best of my human ability. It may have taken much prayer and Godly influence, but I would like to think I would have. Guess I can't guarantee it though. Probably can't even guarantee that I would not question them. Oh . . . the flaw of being human . . .

Well, like I said, I'm not Baptist. Yes I do have a problem with human authority, especially when it contradicts the word of God.

I don't blame the Pope, as in this Pope, John Paul II. I blame past, less than moral popes, who acted upon their own ambitions and greed to encourage and gain Papal power.

You have the nerve to say all that and you are Methodist? HA! There is this section on this MB where we can check out each others profile. I always do this before I attempt to address what I perceive to be someones belief. You should practice the same. I am not Baptist. Even if I was, you are absolutely out of line to make such a blanket statement about "Baptist" or any other denomination! Tell me, as a Methodist to you submit to the authority of the Pope and the RCC?

Well, do yourself a favor and get your facts strait before you decide to rant and ramble.

Not when his teachings are not in line with the word of God.

You know, I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you condoning Papal Infallibility or condemning recognition of the power and authority of the Apostles?

[ January 28, 2003, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

Hi Lisa,

Good morning!!!!!!!!!

You posted at 1:16 PM this afternoon. Good grief, girl - how late did you sleep in?

You wrote, "How and who determined that the decision of which books are in Scripture falls under Apostolic Tradition?"

Well, you have two options: Scripture and Tradition, and we were not handed an inspired Table of Contents with Scripture, so that leaves us with one option.

I encourage you to read an Introduction to the New Testament and read for yourself how the canon was formulated. One of the primary criteria for whether the Catholic Church accepted a book to be read in her liturgy (this is why the canon was formulated) was whether the particular text was in line with the received Apostolic Tradition. If it wasn't, it was not considered.

Take your pick.. sift out of all of these writings and determine which ones are inspired and a part of the New Testament:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

So, then you are attributing the contents of the OT to Apostolic Tradition?

No, only the New Testament. The Old Testament was written before the definitive revelation of Jesus Christ was given to humanity.

And take my pick of what? Are you saying that those early christian texts fall under ATs?

I'm not familiar with that abbreviation.

Just because the Bible had yet to be compiled into one volume, does not negate the circulation of the teachings of the apostles in writing.

I'm not saying that the apostles' teaching was not circulated in writing. That is what New Testament Scripture is. Biblical scholars today have determined that 1 Thess was most probably the first piece of the New Testament to be written, and that was approximately twenty years after Jesus ascended into heaven.

How did Paul instruct them in regards to conduct within the house of the Lord?

Actually, Paul established the Churches himself and taught them himself verbally. His epistles are usually texts written after the Churches were established and catechized.

Take, for instance, what John writes in 3 John 1:13-14, "I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face."

Why do you assume that any teachings, that may have still been verbal at the time we were told to hold fast to such traiditions, were never put in writing?

The vast majority have been put into writing, and that is what we call Scripture. However, most Tradition today is found in the Liturgy. For instance, the Tradition that Jesus Christ said, "This is my body" at the last supper and meant it literally continues today in the Liturgy. The Scriptures teach this truth, and the practice and belief continues to this day in the liturgy, which is the lived out experience of this reality. It's still going on today in Catholic and Orthodox churches throughout the world at this very moment.

And how do you as a christian dare to credit men with the determination of what was or wasn't Scripture?

How do I dare? It's a historical fact. I encourage you to read a book on the formulation of the canon of the New Testament. Here are some suggestions:

C.F. Evans, "The New Testament in the Making," P.R. Ackroyd & C.F. Evans, eds. The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 1. From Beginnings to Jerome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

W.R. Farmer & D. Farkasfalvy, The Formation of the New Testament Canon, H. Attridge, editor. New York: Paulist, 1983.

B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 6th edn. Macmillan, 1899. Reprint Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

why do you refuse to accept that these teachings were put in writing?

As I've said, I don't refuse to accept that they were put into writing. It's your assumption that all revelation was put into writing and is termed "the New Testament".

Remember, the Good News was being preached by the Apostles, Bishops, Deacons, and Presbyters for twenty years after Christ's Ascension without even a single word of the New Testament having been written ... How can you say that? Paul speaks of writing epistles himself.

Paul's first epistle was 1 Thessalonians, which was written in about 51 A.D. The question isn't whether Paul wrote. He did. The question is when he wrote. That's how I'm able to say this. Isn't that astounding? It's as if Jesus ascended into heaven in 1985 and we still don't have a word of the New Testament penned!

Q: How did Christians come to know what Jesus commanded for them to be taught at the Great Commission without any of the New Testament existing?

A:Apostolic Tradition.

God bless,

Carson

[ January 28, 2003, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Carson,

Ooops, okay, when I started typing it was in the a.m. Got a little sidetracked, sawREE, jimminy!!! Can't a girl catcha break?

Who says?

Okay, say you are a famous poet/author and you die and leave many, many works around. So, someone decides to publish your works in an anthology. Well, you've written SOOOO much that they know they can't possibly fit all your poems/short stories in one book. How do they determine what to include? They will probably want to include all the writings that are most representative of your work. Some of it is so much alike that it's repetitious, so they pick one or two of the best examples of those works to include. They encompass the vastness of your talent without being too repetitious.

Now, look at the Bible. You have four (4) Gospels, 3 of which are so similar that they are referred to as "The Synoptic Gospels" and the forth is slightly different as to the parables and happenings, but the actual message is the same--isn't it? Then you have the rest of the NT. What do the authors of the remaining texts say/teach? They clarify or expound upon the teachings of Christ in the Gospels, no new content. So, why would God in His infinte wisdom, have left out anything He felt we should know, when so much of Scripture is seemingly redundant? BTW, would the people who compile your work into one text have authority over your work?

Now, if you believe that the Holy Spirit is infallibly guiding the Pope and the Magisterium, why do you doubt that the Holy Spirit could not have infallibly guided those who compiled the Biblical texts?

I have done some reading on this subject. And I have read many of the writings listed on the link you provided.

You err, as all RCs do, in claiming that the Catholic Church as an institution is responsible for this.

So, you agree that what began as Apostolic Tradition became NT Scripture?

Well, you had said: Yes. An example of Apostolic Tradition is to decide what books are Scripture. So, I guess you meant only New Testament Scripture?

Sorry. I got lazy. I meant Apostolic Traditions.

I seem to recall reading that somewhere.

That doesn't mean that what he taught was never put in writing.

Yes, but we have 1 Tim 3:15, where when Paul could not be face-to-face, he instructed them in writing. He did not trust his teachings to be passed on verbally. So, barring his presence, he used written teachings.

So, how do you determine that these Traditions are of God and equal to Scirpture?

Now, you wouldn't be admitting that the theology of the "Real Presence" is not Biblical, would you?

Okay. It's either Scripture or Tradition--not both. Otherwise you have to admit that Scripture and your so-called Apostolic Tradition are one-and-the-same.

So, God, The Holy Spirit had nothing to do with it?

It's not an assumption. There is just no substantiation or evidence that anything outside of Scripture bears the authority of God.

Still not sure how you think this substantiates Apostolic Tradition. Just because he didn't write it down the second he spoke the words does not prove he never wrote it down. What was Apostolic Tradition became Scripture. Okay, I don't remember who said this, but remember--during the Apostolic age, it was believed that Christ would return before the end of their lifetime, otherwords in a very short period of time. Most likely, as Paul aged, he began to realize that Jesus may not come before he, himself (Paul) passed away, so he then put his teachings in writing.

Apostolic Tradition delivered by the apostles themselves. Once they put this teaching in writing, the Apostolic Tradition became Scripture.

God Bless!

[ January 28, 2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

Hi Lisa,

You asked, "would the people who compile your work into one text have authority over your work?"

You're presuming, first of all, that "your work" is "yours" when you use the adjective "your". How do you know that these Gospels were authentic and that Paul's epistles are authentic? Visit http://www.earlychristianwritings.com and take note of how many writings claim to be written by apostles.

Now, if you believe that the Holy Spirit is infallibly guiding the Pope and the Magisterium, why do you doubt that the Holy Spirit could not have infallibly guided those who compiled the Biblical texts?

I've got news for you, Lisa: it was the Magisterium that compiled the Biblical texts.

You wrote, "You err, as all RCs do, in claiming that the Catholic Church as an institution is responsible for this."

Which is why I doubt that you've read a major work on the formulation of the New Testament canon, because your opinion contradicts what I've read from scholars as a graduate student studying theology.

You wrote, "So, you agree that what began as Apostolic Tradition became NT Scripture?"

Of course - what else could it be?

So, I guess you meant only New Testament Scripture?

Yes, you are correct.

That doesn't mean that what [Paul] taught was never put in writing.

You are correct. Some of what Paul taught may have been put in writing, but we don't have that today considering the fact that the earliest writing of Paul that we do have comes from nearly 20 years after Christ ascended into heaven.

My point is that the Early Christians did not look to Scripture alone for their Christian doctrine; in fact and in practice, it was impossible.

Yes, but we have 1 Tim 3:15, where when Paul could not be face-to-face, he instructed them in writing.

Again, I don't deny that Paul wrote. Why would I even make such a denial? That would be ludicrous for me to do so. The majority of the New Testament is composed of various letters composed by him or dictated by him to a scribe. What I affirm, and what I will continue to affirm, is that the New Testament Church did not adhere to Sola Scriptura, as it was de facto impossible for them to do so. So, to require that I believe only what is written in the Bible is to make a requirement that is anti-Scriptural.

So, how do you determine that these Traditions are of God and equal to Scirpture?

Because they are the word of God animated by the power of the holy Spirit and guarded by the Magisterium, which is guided and protected by that same Spirit - the Spirit who inspired Scripture.

You have to ask the same question of the first Christians:

"How, Christians, how do you determine that these Traditions are of God and equal to Scirpture?" They would answer: because they were taught to us by our bishop Matthaeus, who was given authority to preach in the name of Christ by the apostle Thomas who was commissioned by the Son of God, who was sent with all authority in heaven and on earth by the Father.

Now, you wouldn't be admitting that the theology of the "Real Presence" is not Biblical, would you?

Of course I'm not admitting that. I'm demonstrating how the liturgy, which is living Tradition lived out, expresses the correct interpretation and belief regarding the Eucharist. Nowhere in scripture can we find these actions. Yes, we'll find a reference to them, but you won't find the actual people. You won't find the actual bread. You won't find the life of the community. Yes, you'll find written accounts about these people. But the Scripture itself is not the People themselves. There is still a living, breathing Church that is living and practicing and believing the Apostolic Christian faith - one to which the Scriptures witness.

Okay. It's either Scripture or Tradition--not both. Otherwise you have to admit that Scripture and your so-called Apostolic Tradition are one-and-the-same.

No, you are creating a false dichotomy. We've had Apostolic Tradition from the get-go, and Scripture is Apostolic Tradition (the word of God) written down in the words of men. This is part of Apostolic Tradition. The Tradition continues up until this very day. We're still celebrating and worshipping the Eucharist, and we've never stopped.

So, God, The Holy Spirit had nothing to do with it?

Of course the Spirit had everything to do with it. Now the question of instrumentality comes in. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity used the instrument of 12 men to begin His Church, guided as they were by the Holy Spirit. Men, Apostolic Men, are the instrument of the Spirit. Where you find the Magisterium, you find the teaching body protected and guided by the Spirit, irregardless of their human weaknesses (like Peter, for instance).

There is just no substantiation or evidence that anything outside of Scripture bears the authority of God.

As I've shown, all that existed for the first twenty years of Christianity was Apostolic Tradition outside of Scripture that bore the authority of God.

And, in that first writing of the New Testament, what does Paul say? 1 Thess 2:13 - "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God".

What Paul was teaching was not in Scripture. Yes, the Old Testament Scriptures pointed to what Paul was teaching in the sense that they prefigured what he was preaching, but they did not contain the revelation of Jesus Christ in his person, deeds, and words.

What was Apostolic Tradition became Scripture.

We agree on this point. Where we disagree is when you make the bold statement that Scripture encapsulates every last drop of Apostolic Tradition, which I find to be presumptuous.

Okay, I don't remember who said this, but remember--during the Apostolic age, it was believed that Christ would return before the end of their lifetime, otherwords in a very short period of time.

Yes, and the Lord did come in 70 A.D. when he destroyed Jerusalem.

Read this passage in context: Matthew 24:34 - "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place".



God bless,

Carson

[ January 28, 2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Lisa, just a quick point on Tradition. Do you realize that the NT mention many Traditions? For instance:

Jud 9 "When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses"

You will not find anywhere in the OT this passage. How did Jude knew about this?

2 Tim 3,8 "Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses"

How did Paul knew the names of the Pharoes' magicians? It is not in the OT either

Mat 2,23 "And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene"

Can you find this prophecy in the OT?

Act 20,35 " ...and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive."

Can you find in any of the Gospels where Our Lord said this?

Lisa, IMO, the only way you can explain this is by accepting Tradition.

Thanks
Armando

 

Good point Amando.
These passages appear to affirm information found in the Intertestimental Writings. Clearly, these writings were not accepted as canonical, but did contain some truths. This is, however, the nub of the problem. Some, not all. They are not regarded by anyone as 100% inspired, they just had some points of inspiration. I can accept the traditions of the catholic church under those conditions - they may contain some good ideas, but they are not 100% inspired or accurate. Just like my pastor's sermons! Catholic tradition is not the same as God's word. One is infallable, the other is not.
Take care, Colin