'Tradition'

[Martin Marprelate]

I think the time has come to look at the question of ‘Tradition’ in a little more depth.

The word usually translated as ‘tradition’ is paradosis, which comes from the verb paradidomai, which is translated as ‘deliver’ 54 times in the KJV version of the NT. So paradosis is something that has been delivered or handed over.

The first occurrences of paradosis occur in Matthew 15:2-3, 6 and in Mark 7:3-13. The Pharisees ask the Lord Jesus, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?’ (Mark 7:5). In reply our Lord quotes from Isaiah 29:13. “‘This people honours Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of Men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men…….making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down” So the ‘traditions of the elders' are roundly condemned by the Lord Jesus.

Another occurrence of paradosis is in Galatians 1:14.‘And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.’ Paul was educated as a Pharisee (Acts 26:5), and he acknowledges that the Jews were ‘zealous toward God’ (Acts 22:3), but this zeal was directed to God via the traditions of the elders (or ‘fathers’) rather than via the Scriptures, ands this was fatal to their understanding.

On similar lines is Colossians 2:8. ‘Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.’ Any form of human reasoning is to be rejected and Christ followed exclusively. Where do we find Christ and His teachings? In the Bible.

A seemingly different note is struck in 1 Corinthians 11:2. ‘Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered [Gk. Paradidomai] them to you.’ He then goes on to explain something that he had presumably not ‘delivered’ to them before, namely the question of head coverings (if he had already delivered it, he would be reminding them and not wanting them to know). I don’t want to get into head coverings here- anyone who wants to may open another thread- but I want to point you to verse 23. ‘For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered [Gk. Paradidomai] to you; that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread……..’ So the ‘tradition’ that Paul is passing over to the Corinthians is something that is clearly found elsewhere in the NT- namely the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

So now let us come to 2 Thessalonians 2:15. ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle’ and 2 Thessalonians 3:6. ‘But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.’ So what ‘traditions’ had Paul ‘delivered’ previously to the Thessalonians? The onus is on those who say that these teachings were different from anything that is found elsewhere in the Bible to prove this and to explain what these were and how we can know what they were. But surely it is obvious that the ‘tradition’ in Paul’s epistle is the teaching contained in 1 Thessalonians, and the oral ‘tradition’ is simply the Gospel that Paul preached to them along with material now found in other Pauline letters. It would have been some years before copies of the letters to the Romans and Ephesians came into the possession of the Thessalonians, but Paul would have delivered the teaching to them verbally when he was with them.
[To be continued]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

[Part 2]

The first Church Father to use the word ‘tradition’ regularly is Irenaeus. What did he understand by the word? [NB. In quoting Irenaeus, I am not giving him any authority. Much of his teaching is rank bad and as far as I’m concerned, his writings carry only as much authority as they are faithful to the Scriptures]

These [traditions] have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ, the Son of God. If anyone do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; yea, more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.’ [From The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Roberts and Donaldson, 1:414-415]

Obviously, this ‘tradition’ is not extra-scriptural; the Bible plainly teaches these things.
[Tertullian says the same at greater length in The Prescription against Heretics, 13]

Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:

When the heretics are refuted from the Scriptures they turn to accusing the Scriptures themselves, as if there were something amiss with them. They impugn the authority of Scripture on the ground of ‘inconsistency’ and because, they say, only those who have the tradition can discover the truth; and this tradition has been handed down by word of mouth, not by the written word. This, according to them, is Paul’s meaning when he says, ‘But wisdom we speak among the mature; but it is a wisdom that does not belong to this world.’ Each of these heretics claims that this wisdom is what he himself has discovered by himself- or rather, invented. Thus the truth is found only with them………But when on our side we challenge them by an appeal to that tradition which derives from the Apostles, and which is preserved in the churches by the successions of presbyters, then they oppose tradition………… [Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses III]

The ‘heretics’ are claiming a verbal tradition, but the Apostolic ‘traditions’ are preserved ‘in the churches.’ In the light of the opening sentences, what else can these be but the Scriptures written down and kept safe within the churches of God?

But elsewhere, Irenaeus claims that the Lord Jesus was more than 50 years old when He suffered at Calvary; he claims that because He came to save infants, children, youths, adults and old men, He had to pass through all those stages of life. He ‘proves’ this by insisting that he was told it by those who knew the apostles: in other words, by Apostolic Tradition.

Now, that first stage of early life embraces 30 years, and that this extends onwards to the 40th year, everyone will admit; but from the 40th and 50th year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity] of the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?

[Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses II:XXII:V]

Now if Ireneaus is right then Luke 3:23 & John 8:57 are wrong, and either our Lord was not ‘called out of Egypt’ as a child after the death of Herod, or He did not suffer under Pilate. Yet Irenaeus claims the support of the Gospel and ‘all the elders’ for his teaching. Not only that but he says that the Apostle John and all ‘the other apostles’ taught that the Lord Jesus Christ was in the 6th decade of His life when He was crucified. No one that I’m aware of believes Irenaeus’ claims because they are not Scriptural, but not to believe it means that either Irenaeus was lying or he was deceived, and the latter means that ‘oral tradition’ can be corrupted very quickly since he was writing less than 100 years after the death of John.

Therefore, if an allegedly apostolic ‘tradition’ can be corrupted in less than a century, how can we take seriously the claims of the Church of Rome concerning, for example, the various Marian dogmas, which were not even mentioned in their modern form until centuries after the time of the apostles, and not dogmatically defined until recent years?

[NB. Much of this post has been adapted from James White’s book, Scripture Alone. Bethany House, 2004. ISBN 0-7642-2048-9]

 

[utilyan]

They said In churches by the succession of presbyters. AKA apostolic succession.

The heretics were claiming "tradition alone". Notice the come back wasn't sola scriptura. It was ok well we hold the tradition, we have the apostolic lineage straight to Jesus.


If these guys were Baptist they would have brought up Sola Scriptura from the get-go and brick wall the entire situation right there. They would not have to entertain any thing having to do with tradition.



The reliability of ink and paper over people, Definitely counts when only people are involved.

But if God is involved it shifts over to his choice method first.


In a race take the car not the bike. But if God said take the bike, take the bike.


Jesus Christ established his choice method "THE BIKE" in the Eucharist, bread wine, people. That was HIS choice of tools. <-- if you look to scripture to validate the Eucharist you are already choosing the Car over God's bike. In short you don't trust Jesus.

His method doesn't satisfy your expectations.


The people who killed Jesus were not of some different false faith. Same faith Jesus adhered to in a correct manner.




Now James White is a Calvinist. Shouldn't the Calvinist approach be..."SO WHAT?"

Neither the heretic nor the "true faith-er" can do anything to improve or better their relationship with God.

Pray for common sense folks. If there is nothing in your power to help me, nor my power to help me, and neither of us can tweak God or convince him to change his mind. SO WHAT!?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I think the time has come to look at the question of ‘Tradition’ in a little more depth.

The word usually translated as ‘tradition’ is paradosis, which comes from the verb paradidomai, which is translated as ‘deliver’ 54 times in the KJV version of the NT. So paradosis is something that has been delivered or handed over.

The first occurrences of paradosis occur in Matthew 15:2-3, 6 and in Mark 7:3-13. The Pharisees ask the Lord Jesus, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?’ (Mark 7:5). In reply our Lord quotes from Isaiah 29:13. “‘This people honours Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of Men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men…….making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down” So the ‘traditions of the elders' are roundly condemned by the Lord Jesus.

Another occurrence of paradosis is in Galatians 1:14.‘And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.’ Paul was educated as a Pharisee (Acts 26:5), and he acknowledges that the Jews were ‘zealous toward God’ (Acts 22:3), but this zeal was directed to God via the traditions of the elders (or ‘fathers’) rather than via the Scriptures, ands this was fatal to their understanding.

On similar lines is Colossians 2:8. ‘Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.’ Any form of human reasoning is to be rejected and Christ followed exclusively. Where do we find Christ and His teachings? In the Bible.

A seemingly different note is struck in 1 Corinthians 11:2. ‘Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered [Gk. Paradidomai] them to you.’ He then goes on to explain something that he had presumably not ‘delivered’ to them before, namely the question of head coverings (if he had already delivered it, he would be reminding them and not wanting them to know). I don’t want to get into head coverings here- anyone who wants to may open another thread- but I want to point you to verse 23. ‘For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered [Gk. Paradidomai] to you; that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread……..’ So the ‘tradition’ that Paul is passing over to the Corinthians is something that is clearly found elsewhere in the NT- namely the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

So now let us come to 2 Thessalonians 2:15. ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle’ and 2 Thessalonians 3:6. ‘But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.’ So what ‘traditions’ had Paul ‘delivered’ previously to the Thessalonians? The onus is on those who say that these teachings were different from anything that is found elsewhere in the Bible to prove this and to explain what these were and how we can know what they were. But surely it is obvious that the ‘tradition’ in Paul’s epistle is the teaching contained in 1 Thessalonians, and the oral ‘tradition’ is simply the Gospel that Paul preached to them along with material now found in other Pauline letters. It would have been some years before copies of the letters to the Romans and Ephesians came into the possession of the Thessalonians, but Paul would have delivered the teaching to them verbally when he was with them.
[To be continued]

The age before Paul and of Paul's lifetime, the first century more or less, was the era of Divine Revelation, "in times past through the prophets and in these last days by the Son" and his own "sent" at the 'apostolic' or Pentecostal (Paschal) gift of the Holy Spirit.

All claimed 'prophets' ever after are of the same kind of SOP-prophets identical in 'spirit' as their great great sister-in-law, Ellen G White. Examples, Justin Martyr and Jakob Lorber ---apprentices in comparison with her--- and thousands more in between and after.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

They said In churches by the succession of presbyters. AKA apostolic succession.

The heretics were claiming "tradition alone". Notice the come back wasn't sola scriptura. It was ok well we hold the tradition, we have the apostolic lineage straight to Jesus.


If these guys were Baptist they would have brought up Sola Scriptura from the get-go and brick wall the entire situation right there. They would not have to entertain any thing having to do with tradition.



The reliability of ink and paper over people, Definitely counts when only people are involved.

But if God is involved it shifts over to his choice method first.


In a race take the car not the bike. But if God said take the bike, take the bike.


Jesus Christ established his choice method "THE BIKE" in the Eucharist, bread wine, people. That was HIS choice of tools. <-- if you look to scripture to validate the Eucharist you are already choosing the Car over God's bike. In short you don't trust Jesus.

His method doesn't satisfy your expectations.


The people who killed Jesus were not of some different false faith. Same faith Jesus adhered to in a correct manner.




Now James White is a Calvinist. Shouldn't the Calvinist approach be..."SO WHAT?"

Neither the heretic nor the "true faith-er" can do anything to improve or better their relationship with God.

Pray for common sense folks. If there is nothing in your power to help me, nor my power to help me, and neither of us can tweak God or convince him to change his mind. SO WHAT!?

Would you like to re-post this, translating it into English? I will then try to answer it. The only part I can make sense of is the last part which is off-topic and only serves to illustrate you complete ignorance of Calvinism.

 

[JonC]

The Bible makes a distinction between "traditions" as God's Word in practice handed down (the teaching of children to obey God, for example) and the traditions of men. When we look at Mark 7:8, for example, we come face to face with the traditions of the Pharisees. These men had developed a theology of interpretation and of meeting the requirements of God as revealed in scripture. They did not see the flaw in their reasoning as they elevated their understanding to the level of scripture. In Mark 7 this is dealing with purification.

Mark 7:5-13 The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?" 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. 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. "For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH'; 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),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

Here is the passage Jesus quotes: Isaiah 29:13 Then the Lord said, "Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote

There is a sense where words like "tradition" and "religion" are something we should cling to. There is also another sense by which these are abominations. I believe that we should maintain tradition even in form as it is the mode that binds one generation to another. But at the same time, we do not submit ourselves to tradition but instead we consistently hold our tradition up to God's Word so that we will not stray and become like the Pharisees - obeying the traditions of men apart from obedience to God.

For illustration - Creeds and confessions are good examples of what I mean. They are explanations and traditions that many of us hold because they carry the truths of Scripture. But we consistently evaluate the validity of those things with Scripture as they have no authority of themselves. I believe Hymns could also serve the same purpose, bridging generations with the truth of God's Word.

 

[DHK]

From "Catholic Online," a Catholic Encyclopedia, the RCC writes:

The word tradition (Greek paradosis ) in the ecclesiastical sense, which is the only one in which it is used here, refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom ) transmitted from one generation to another; sometimes to the organ or mode of the transmission ( kerigma ekklisiastikon, predicatio ecclesiastica ).

In the first sense it is an old tradition that Jesus Christ was born on 25 December, in the second sense tradition relates that on the road to Calvary a pious woman wiped the face of Jesus. In theological language, which in many circumstances has become current, there is still greater precision and this in countless directions. At first there was question only of traditions claiming a Divine origin, but subsequently there arose questions of oral as distinct from written tradition, in the sense that a given doctrine or institution is not directly dependent on Holy Scripture as its source but only on the oral teaching of Christ or the Apostles. Finally with regard to the organ of tradition it must be an official organ, a magisterium , or teaching authority.
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11655

Note: inherent in this definition, spelled out at the very beginning:
The word tradition (Greek paradosis ) in the ecclesiastical sense, which is the only one in which it is used here, refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom ) transmitted from one generation to another;

The Catholic definition of "tradition" defines it as a doctrine...passed on from one generation to another. The two places where "tradition" are most quoted from are 2Thes.3:6 and 2Thes.2:15

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

Put the RCC definition of "tradition" to the test.
Pentecost took place within 50 days of the death of Christ, or ca. 29 A.D.

Paul wrote his letters to the Thessalonians while he was at Corinth ca. 51-53 A.D. That is only a 20 year difference or a little more. The definition says "from one generation to another." Thus this goes against the RCC definition as 20 years cannot be from one generation to another or multiple generations.

EWTN states:
I think I understand that written tradition comes thru the bible, however, I do not understand from where comes the oral tradition. Thank you.

Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 7/1/2002:
Both come from the Lord. Jesus taught and did many things during His life on earth. Some were written down, others were passed on in the preaching, teaching and example of the apostles. This is turn may have been written down later, such as in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. The apostles also used what they were told by the Lord, with the special guidance of the promised Holy Spirit, in the development of the Church's structure, her liturgies and prayer life, all of which form part of the Tradition.

So, Tradition is not a vague oral tradition, at all, but the concrete way of living and teaching which is evidenced in history in every time and place. In fact, by looking at the records of the early Church we can see that certain things were taught always and everywhere as coming from the Apostles. That is the evidence of Sacred Tradition, as opposed to a merely human tradition. The Church has those as well, such as what language to celebrate Mass in, but they can be changed. Sacred Tradition comes from Christ through the Apostles and cannot be changed, such as the Mass being the central act of worship of the Church.
Note that the present sacrifice of the Mass supposedly comes from the time of the Apostles. We supposedly know this because the Catholic claims "tradition" for their authority. Yet I doubt that they can provide the evidence and prove the claim they are making.

Only the Bible is infallible. It alone is authoritative.
Error entered into Christianity through the ECF.

 

[utilyan]

There is no scripture listing the cannon of scripture.

That is held by tradition.

Gospel according to MARK is not in scripture. The church traditionally added and called the gospel MARK.

We can look at the oldest manuscripts.......it doesn't say Gospell of mark. We put that there.

No table of contents NONE zero zilch.

 

[DHK]

There is no scripture listing the cannon of scripture.

That is held by tradition.

Gospel according to MARK is not in scripture. The church traditionally added and called the gospel MARK.

We can look at the oldest manuscripts.......it doesn't say Gospell of mark. We put that there.

No table of contents NONE zero zilch.

No common sense here is there?

1. When a book is written (any book), usually the content is first written and then the Table of Contents is written that the title of each chapter may correspond to its respective page no. It wouldn't work any other way. This is a no-brainier.

2. Secondly, even today there are many Bibles printed without a Table of Contents. That page is not necessary and does not make the Bible incomplete in any way.

3. The Table of contents is no more inspired than my name written in the inside cover of my Bible. Both are equally "inspired." IOW, they aren't.

4. Your diatribe about Mark is just that--a diatribe, an opinion, not worth much. The Gospel of Mark is one of the four gospels inspired of God, written by Mark, who was a co-worker with Peter. He no doubt got most of his information from Peter. Which ever way you put it God is the author. Unbelief is a terrible sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

We can look at the oldest manuscripts.......it doesn't say Gospel of Mark. We put that there.

Which manuscripts are you thinking of? To the best of my knowledge they all say Kata Markon, 'According to Mark.'

 

[utilyan]

Which manuscripts are you thinking of? To the best of my knowledge they all say Kata Markon, 'According to Mark.'

What verse is that? That is not in scripture.
The Title is traditional. The church wrote it in.

You have to TRUST tradition. No where does it say Mark wrote mark in mark or any other scripture.

You won't see in pauls writings: "oh yeah mark wrote the gospel of mark" or that there even is a gospel of mark.

The words "gospel according to mark" is not inspired scripture.

If you look at the original manuscripts they don't have verse numbers, chapters, or titles of "gospel of mark"
You would not even have a gospel of mark in any way without a traditional authority to allow or even identify it.

You need a holy verse that says Ok the books are genesis to revelation.

The bible is not one book it is 66 books.
If I have the 66 books separate I have the entire bible. There is no magical rule that all must be within one binder.

How do I know I got all the right books? The books don't tell you.


Where did the bible come from? It did not fall out the sky. Someone had to go through thousands of works come across 66 of them and declare for you , yes these are ok.


You guys are taking for granted something prepared prior by tradition.


I can't pick up my bible and think yuck yuck yuck of course I got list of what books belong in my bible they are right here in my bible durrrrrr..

Bible identification itself is traditional.


If scripture was only in English you still depend on the tradition of English to organize the information to be understood.

 

[Adonia]

From "Catholic Online," a Catholic Encyclopedia, the RCC writes:

The word tradition (Greek paradosis ) in the ecclesiastical sense, which is the only one in which it is used here, refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom ) transmitted from one generation to another; sometimes to the organ or mode of the transmission ( kerigma ekklisiastikon, predicatio ecclesiastica ).

In the first sense it is an old tradition that Jesus Christ was born on 25 December, in the second sense tradition relates that on the road to Calvary a pious woman wiped the face of Jesus. In theological language, which in many circumstances has become current, there is still greater precision and this in countless directions. At first there was question only of traditions claiming a Divine origin, but subsequently there arose questions of oral as distinct from written tradition, in the sense that a given doctrine or institution is not directly dependent on Holy Scripture as its source but only on the oral teaching of Christ or the Apostles. Finally with regard to the organ of tradition it must be an official organ, a magisterium , or teaching authority.
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11655

Note: inherent in this definition, spelled out at the very beginning:
The word tradition (Greek paradosis ) in the ecclesiastical sense, which is the only one in which it is used here, refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom ) transmitted from one generation to another;

The Catholic definition of "tradition" defines it as a doctrine...passed on from one generation to another. The two places where "tradition" are most quoted from are 2Thes.3:6 and 2Thes.2:15

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

Put the RCC definition of "tradition" to the test.
Pentecost took place within 50 days of the death of Christ, or ca. 29 A.D.

Paul wrote his letters to the Thessalonians while he was at Corinth ca. 51-53 A.D. That is only a 20 year difference or a little more. The definition says "from one generation to another." Thus this goes against the RCC definition as 20 years cannot be from one generation to another or multiple generations.

EWTN states:
I think I understand that written tradition comes thru the bible, however, I do not understand from where comes the oral tradition. Thank you.

Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 7/1/2002:
Both come from the Lord. Jesus taught and did many things during His life on earth. Some were written down, others were passed on in the preaching, teaching and example of the apostles. This is turn may have been written down later, such as in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. The apostles also used what they were told by the Lord, with the special guidance of the promised Holy Spirit, in the development of the Church's structure, her liturgies and prayer life, all of which form part of the Tradition.

So, Tradition is not a vague oral tradition, at all, but the concrete way of living and teaching which is evidenced in history in every time and place. In fact, by looking at the records of the early Church we can see that certain things were taught always and everywhere as coming from the Apostles. That is the evidence of Sacred Tradition, as opposed to a merely human tradition. The Church has those as well, such as what language to celebrate Mass in, but they can be changed. Sacred Tradition comes from Christ through the Apostles and cannot be changed, such as the Mass being the central act of worship of the Church.
Note that the present sacrifice of the Mass supposedly comes from the time of the Apostles. We supposedly know this because the Catholic claims "tradition" for their authority. Yet I doubt that they can provide the evidence and prove the claim they are making.

Only the Bible is infallible. It alone is authoritative.
Error entered into Christianity through the ECF.

Only the Bible is infallible, but what about YOUR interpretation of it? Completely fallible I would say. Error entered into Christianity through the supposed "reformers" and the resulting thousands of new Christian sects, not the early Bishops of the One Universal (Catholic) Church.

 

[Revmitchell]

The Catholic heresy of church tradition is straight from the pit of hell.

 

[Yeshua1]

Only the Bible is infallible, but what about YOUR interpretation of it? Completely fallible I would say. Error entered into Christianity through the supposed "reformers" and the resulting thousands of new Christian sects, not the early Bishops of the One Universal (Catholic) Church.

The point here that brother martin is pointing out is that how the Bible itself defines and explains tradition is NOT the way the Church of Rome has, as the traditions in the Biblical sense of the term always refers to known truths of the scriptures, that have been brought and highlighted unto us in the text...

So they are doctrines that were already given to us from god, but the tradition of the roman church are ONLY those of men, and condemned by words of jesus to the pharisees.. For the traditions of rome conterdict those of the Bible!

And the Church of rome CANNOT claim to be neither the true church of Christ, nor infallible intepretor of His words, for they have false doctrine of Apostolic succession, and a false papacy, as their gospel is not the One of jesus nor paul!

 

[DHK]

Only the Bible is infallible, but what about YOUR interpretation of it? Completely fallible I would say. Error entered into Christianity through the supposed "reformers" and the resulting thousands of new Christian sects, not the early Bishops of the One Universal (Catholic) Church.

Here is what is needed to interpret Scripture:

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
--Unless a man has the Spirit of God dwelling in him he cannot know Spiritual things; he is unable to interpret the Bible.
When I got saved (was born again of the Spirit of God--not baptism), the Holy Spirit, by the power of Jesus Christ came and began to reside in me. He does so to this day. He guides me, and gives me understanding in His Word.
This is not true with the magesterium of the RCC

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
--That which dwells in me is not the spirit of the world.
Look at the RCC! Look at its pomp and pageantry, the past Crusades and Inquisitions, lack of holiness among its leaders today (sex scandals, immorality, etc.), apathy in general of its members.
There is no Holy Spirit that dwells among the Catholics. Not even their leaders can properly interpret the Bible, as is evidenced in their interpretation of John 3:3,5. . They have not the Spirit of God. How can they have the Spirit of God?

Rather:
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
--Spiritual things are foolishness to the Catholics. They don't understand them.
That is why you make such foolish statements as:

"Error entered into Christianity through the supposed "reformers" and the resulting thousands of new Christian sects, not the early Bishops of the One Universal (Catholic) Church."

As Jesus said:
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

 

[utilyan]

Jesus Christ nor did the Apostles practice Sola scriptura, neither did he practice faith alone.
His way is better.

Since you accept James White:

When asked Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, yes or no? James White replies, NO.

You can fast forward debate 2:04:33. and watch James White crash and burn.

 

[utilyan]

Jesus Christ nor did the Apostles practice Sola scriptura, neither did he practice faith alone.
His way is better.
Since you accept James White:
When asked Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, yes or no? James White replies, NO.
You can fast forward debate 2:04:33. and watch James White crash and burn.

Edit: didn't want to put the video just the link. Maybe someone can help me with that, thanks.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus Christ nor did the Apostles practice Sola scriptura, neither did he practice faith alone.
His way is better.

Since you accept James White:

When asked Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, yes or no? James White replies, NO.

You can fast forward debate 2:04:33. and watch James White crash and burn.

The Apostles were in VERY unique situation though, as they had received and stood by the OT canon of scriptures, and were also adding their books unto the completed collection of the 66 canon of scripture...

So they followed the OT books of the the jews, the sayings and teachings of jesus, and their own inspired works, so how can they be anything but scripture alone for all things concerning doctrines and practices?

 

[Darrell C]

The people who killed Jesus were not of some different false faith. Same faith Jesus adhered to in a correct manner.

Isn't adhering to a true faith in an incorrect manner a different, false faith?

Isn't that precisely why Christ had to die?


Hebrews 8:7-9

King James Version (KJV)


7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.



God bless.

 

[DHK]

Jesus Christ nor did the Apostles practice Sola scriptura, neither did he practice faith alone.
His way is better.

Jesus Christ is the Word.
He spoke the world into existence by the power of his word.
Everything he says is inspired. There is nothing that he does not say that is not without meaning or without authority. Of course he practices sola scriptura. Every word he speaks has the final say the greatest authority in all things. He does not have to appeal to any other source. He is the source of all truth. He is the Truth!
Perhaps you should memorize John 14:6.