The Problem with Oral Traditions

You Baptists are critical of certain doctrines of the Catholic Church, which, according to you, have no basis in Scripture. In fact, you Baptists embrace the theory of sola Scriptura in an attempt to use the Bible to contradict, to prove baseless, certain Church teachings, such as the Real Presence and the existence of purgatory. However, these teachings are reflected in Scripture, as the following passages we will look at illustrate.

To you Baptists and other non-Catholics, my purpose is to provide a scriptural evidence for these doctrines. Under each Catholic doctrine in the list that follows are passages from Scripture that witness to the doctrine’s divine origin. For the Catholic, what follows will make clear the harmony of Scripture and tradition: truth cannot contradict truth. Whether God speaks to us through the Bible or through the voice of tradition, the word spoken is always a true and steadfast guide.
Please note that all scriptural citations are taken from the RSV Bible



Scripture and Tradition


"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).

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

"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)

"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

"‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12).



Faith and Works will be next-

 

I think the saying goes:
"Ignorance is no excuse for not knowing the law."
The application of course is that you can find out anyone's denomination by simply looking at their profile.

You are a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and that is what you are referring to. And not every "Protestant" (such as the Anglicans) protests against it.

I have never protested against apostolic teaching; but you don't even believe it.

Biblicist believes that. There is another poster here who believes the church (baptist) started with Jesus. I believe it started on the Day of Pentecost. We basically believe the same thing. I don't think anyone of us believe in a direct "successionist" theory, but rather what is called a "spiritual kinship theory," that is: that in every age since the time of the Apostles there were churches (local assemblies) holding to the same Biblical truths that we do today, Baptistic in belief, though they may have been called by some other name. ( The First Baptist Church at Jerusalem [Acts 2] )

 

Do you actually believe that merely quoting texts proves they mean what you simply infer or suggest they mean?

We have already taken you to task on every one of these texts and shown they do not promise that the disciples of the Apostle would preserve the oral teachings of the apostles as an oral apostolic tradition.

We have already shown that your interpretation of 2 Pet. 1:20 is absurdly contradictive of the very explanation given by Peter in verse 21.

I thought the true church was the "pillar and ground of the truth"??? Why can't you present a contextual based defense of your assertions if you really have "the truth"?????

 

Please reference your work. All undocumented work is plagiarism and is not permitted on the board.

 

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.

Most of apostolic Tradition contains the same material that is found in apostolic Scripture, only in a different form. This makes the two useful for interpreting each other because they contain the same material phrased different ways.

For example, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is found several places in Scripture, such as in John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But because Jesus uses the metaphor for baptism, "born of water and the Spirit," many Protestants have tried to deny that it is a reference to baptism at all and have claimed that baptismal regeneration is false.

This is disproven through the apostolic Tradition preserved in the writings of the Church Fathers, who not only teach baptismal regeneration but also unanimously interpret John 3:5 as referring to baptism



(all of the above information was copied from"The Fathers Know Best" column in the October 1994 issue of 'This Rock Magazine.]

 

DHK, you wrote: "You are a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and that is what you are referring to. And not every "Protestant" (such as the Anglicans) protests against it."


Yes they did protest against the Catholic Church, in fact it was their King Henry the Eighth that coined the label 'Roman" and this new Protestant Church of England repel [ by execution of Catholic ] the authority and Sacraments as installed by Jesus and His Apostles into His One Church. So ,I still stand by my statement ,that all who protests against the Apostolic/ Catholic Church are rendered "Protestants".

 

DHK. in reference to your claim about Baptists back then , I don't think so ,because in Acts I ask you two questions
1- Do the instances of baptism described establish immersion as the mode of Christian baptism , either explicitly or by implication ?
2- Do the descriptions of the baptisms of groups of people in Acts suggest that personal and individual belief did not inevitably precede baptism, especially in those cases where the head of the household decided upon and professed the Christian faith on behalf of his or her entire household?

 

Immersion was the mode of Baptism. It is still practiced by the Greek Orthodox Church. I wonder why? I guess they know what the Greek word "baptidzo" means. It means "immersion." You can't get around the meaning of the word.
The examples in the Bible require it to be baptism. Without looking up all the references for you, I will just quote some of them:
--"for there was much water there." The place where Jesus disciples' baptized.
--There was much water at the place where the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized. It says specifically: "They both went down into the water, and both came out of the water--indicating immersion. This was in the middle of a desert area. The Eunuch was a rich man. He could have used water from his "canteen" or supplies if it were just pouring or sprinkling. But it wasn't. It was immersion.
--Jesus was baptized in the River Jordan. He wouldn't go waist deep to be sprinkled. He was immersed. And like I said, the word baptidzo means immersion.

It also pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, whereas other forms do not.
It also pictures our death to our sinful self, and our resurrection to a new life in Christ. No other mode of baptism can do that.

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4)

Yes, all people being baptized were previously saved by faith. Their faith had to precede baptism.
The head of the household could not decide for anyone!
All must decide for themselves whether or not they will trust Christ. That is the heart of salvation. One cannot be born a Christian. Just because you have Christian parents doesn't make you a Christian. People who believe that only deceive themselves.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (John 1:12)
--Salvation is to them that receive Christ; to them that believe on His name. They must make that decision themselves. But look what it says next:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)
--Not of blood. That means your family, your blood lines, your ancestry doesn't count. You must make the decision. You must be born again.
Look at the first part of the verse and the last part:
Which were born...of God. You must be born again.
Once a person is born again then they may be baptized.
The decision is an individual decision. A child may need a parent's permission to be baptized, but never to be saved. No one needs permission to come to Jesus.

 

That is all history, and that wasn't my point. You were speaking of looking at profiles of people on the board. There are a couple of Anglicans here, but I don't think they are as old as Henry VIII!! That is irrelevant.
The relevancy of the Anglican Church today, being protestant, is it is now cooperating with the RCC, more than it ever has in the past. Therefore it is not "protesting," as you said.

 

DHK, the origin of the word Protestant was the word applied to all non-Catholic Christians stemming from the Reformation, of course new words and meanings will develop as time goes on. It's good to know that the Anglicans are coming "Home'', I pray and hope they do.
DHK, I will be getting back with a clarification on " baptizo ".

 

It is true that baptizo often means immersion.but in the NT this carried a primary range of meanings other than "to immerse", for example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, "went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).

But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative "baptism" is a sort of "immersion"; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, "I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be "immersed" in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit."

In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include "pouring."The Catholic Church uses all three methods anyways,so I don't know why all the fuss from you anti-Catholics .

Taken from both the "The New American Bible' and Stephen K. Ray's book " Crossing the Tiber"

 

Still waiting for anybody to give their understanding of the above '' baptizo ".

 

dipped, dunked, baptized, immersed. They all mean the same thing. You can't change the meaning of the word just because you imagine the scene differently.

No. That's your meaning.

They would dip their hands in water, immerse them, as most of the world still does to this day where running water is scarce. They put water in a basin, and they, one by one wash or dip their hands in the same basin. Sound strange? We, as a family, did the same thing every time we went camping.

That is why the RCC is a cult and not Christian. They read the Bible metaphorically or allegorically and come up with many strange and anti-Biblical doctrines.

 

I realize that.
But there are some "Protestants" (i.e. Anglicans), that are not longer "protesting" against the Catholic Church, thought they were of those "Protestants," so named because they came out of the Reformation.

And then there are the Baptists, who never had their beginnings in the Reformation, and therefore are not part of those "Protestants." We are not Protestants; we are Baptists, though we detest what the RCC teaches. We existed long before the Reformation ever took place. So now you can stop the game of semantics, ok?

 

DHK, you wrote: "That is why the RCC is a cult and not Christian. They read the Bible metaphorically or allegorically and come up with many strange and anti-Biblical doctrines. "

I don't think so. You are the one that claims to read the Bible literally, but then suddenly change your mind at the discourse on the Holy Eucharist contained in John 6
[ only because somebody told you that it is too Catholic ] . The Catholic Church has always read the Holy Bible as it was intended, not as a 1511 A.D. novelty of mere men.

 

DHK, you wrote" And then there are the Baptists, who never had their beginnings in the Reformation, and therefore are not part of those "Protestants." We are not Protestants; we are Baptists, though we detest what the RCC teaches. We existed long before the Reformation ever took place. So now you can stop the game of semantics, ok? "

Even Dan Brown isn't gullible to believe that one, believe me if Tim LaHaye or Brown even for a minute thought that they could get people to believe that then an equal to the De Vinci Code or Trail of Blood would have been published. But being that those two novels were proven false , what sense in trying to publish another false book. Anybody can claim anything, but backing it with competent , reputable historical data as is in this case a real problem.

 

No, I have the common sense (as did the people back then) to recognize a metaphor when I see one.

"I am the door," Jesus said. He is not a block of wood, or any other similar thing, is he?
"I am that manna that fell from heaven." It was round like coriander seed. Is that how you envision Christ.
"I am the Bread of life." Is Christ a loaf of bread?
"I am the good shepherd." Is he dressed like a shepherd?
"I am the vine." Does he look something like a grape vine to you? Is that how you picture him?

Christ used metaphors all throughout the gospels, and more in the Gospel of John than in any other place. If you don't have the good sense to recognize one when you see one, I don't know what to say. Actually I do. You have been brainwashed by a cult--the RCC. You have swallowed their lies: hook, line and sinker. And you are posting them here. All the lies that the RCC has been propagating from their inception, and then some.

When I grew up the Catholic Church made it quite clear that we were not to read the Bible. And if we dared to read the Bible only the priest could interpret it. Before my generation, Catholics weren't even allowed to have Bibles. Before then, they burned people who tried to publish a Bible. Read the history of William Tyndale. They did their best to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common person--always have.

 

Do your own research.
There are many Baptist History books.
J.T. Christian, "A History of the Baptists"
Armitage, "History of the Baptists"
Cramp's "Baptist History"

And there are many more. The one's I listed (and I could look up more) all believe the same thing--that Baptists or Baptistic believing peoples lived right from the days of the Apostles. So do some of the Catholics, like Cardinal Hosius who in 1300 said of the Waldenses that they had existed for the last 1200 years down to the age of the Apostles. The Catholics themselves testify to these things.

 

The difference is ,is that Jesus wasn't holding up a door or a vine, Jesus was handling the bread / speaking literally and that is why they said it was impossible to believe that this Man was going to give them His body to eat, They really did" believe" that the words of Jesus meant canabalistic . If you and others were really honest with yourself and thought back at your first reading of the discourse contained in John 6 you too did believe it was as if Jesus was telling us that He was giving us His body to eat, until somebody who was anti-Catholic told you differently.
Even the early Roman soldiers went around looking for that new religious sect that "ate the body of their god ' . because just as you , those soldiers didn't understand how they were eating the "Body, Blood ,Soul and Divinity " of God. Only God Himself could have ever thought of that decent humane way of receiving Him into our bodies . It is really the ultimate way of actually receiving Jesus intimately into our body, heart and soul.. The mysteries of God are wondrous ,way beyond the finite minds of mere men.

 

DHK, the very informative article written by the convert Fr. Longenecker was too lengthly-here is a snippit from the ending

From the Reformation onward, Protestant Christians have fallen into the same errors as the Reformers—the idea that the existing Church has become corrupt and departed from the true gospel and that a new church that is faithful to the New Testament can be created. These sincere Christians then attempt to "restore" the church by creating a new church. The problem is each new group of restorationists invariably create a church of their own liking, usually subject to their contemporary cultural assumptions. They then imagine that the early Church was like the one they have invented.

All of the historical documents show that, in essence, the closest thing we have today to the early Church is actually the Catholic Church. In these main points the Catholic Church is today what she has always been. Her leadership is unapologetically monarchical and hierarchical. Her teaching authority is centralized and universal, and the pope is what he has always been, the universal pastor of Christ’s Church, the steward of Christ’s kingdom and the Rock on which Christ builds his Church.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fr. Dwight Longenecker is an American who has spent most of his life living and working in England. Fr Dwight was brought up in an Evangelical home in Pennsylvania. After graduating from the fundamentalist Bob Jones University with a degree in Speech and English, he went...

more...