-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
GraceSaves
New Member
DHK,Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:
"That's your interpretation," and "it's not what the magesterium says," are NOT questions.</font>And if you had explained it well enough, we wouldn't have questions.
When have I said these words to you? If so, quote me. If not, stop applying them to me.
Are you still too proud to apologize for your mean words? I'm serious.
God bless,
Grant
Not really. Carson, on another thread, uses 2Thes.2:15 to try and defend the Catholic definition of Oral Tradition, i.e. tradition whether written or oral that is passed down throughout generations down through the centuries. It is obvious that in Thessalonians only a very few years had elapsed between the writing of the epistle and the founding of the church by Paul: (5 to 10 at the most). That is hardly enough time for any type of tradition to develop, let alone the type that is defined by the Catholic Church. Even if it is talking about Christian tradition as a whole, before the letter was written Christ had died only 30 years previous to that. In 30 years there is still not enough time to develop the kind of tradition that the Catholic Church defines as Oral Tradition. Paul specifically says in that epistle "taught by word and epistle" which defines the tradition he was referring to. He was referring to the doctrine which he had taught them, both orally and through the written epistles he had sent to them. To infer anything else is to do an injustice to the Scriptures.Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,
When a Catholic is speaking of Tradition, as in "Scripture and Tradition," they are speaking about the oral Word of God, not a "tradition" in the sense that, for instance, the priest kisses the Scriptures after reading the Gospel. This is a "tradition," while "Tradition" refers to the oral preaching (Word of God) of the Apostles.
Your whole post here confuses that.
The Oral Word of God is the Written Word of God. That is what was preached.
DHK
Go back to the original quote."That's your interpretation," and "it's not what the magesterium says," are NOT questions.
DHK,
When have I said these words to you? If so, quote me. If not, stop applying them to me.
Are you still too proud to apologize for your mean words? I'm serious.
God bless,
Grant[/QB]
I believe it was in response to T2U, and not you. You just responded to what I had said.
GraceSaves
New Member
DHK,
You're still not equating "Tradition" with the oral Word of God. You say you do, and then your post denounces that. Of course it doesn't make sense to you, because you purposefully confuse the meaning. Tradition can't develop in 30 years? Christianity was spreading rapidly, revelation was still open, and the apostles were constantly preaching! What better time for them to REVEAL the WORD OF GOD by WRITTEN WORD and BY MOUTH. TWO FORMS of the WORD OF GOD. Some was written, some was spoken.
You don't believe me, and I can't do anything about that. That doesn't change the way it is. And because you're still confusing the terms, the argument has become pretty pointless. You apparently don't desire to understand what I'm saying, because I'm making it pretty clear.
God bless,
Grant
You're still not equating "Tradition" with the oral Word of God. You say you do, and then your post denounces that. Of course it doesn't make sense to you, because you purposefully confuse the meaning. Tradition can't develop in 30 years? Christianity was spreading rapidly, revelation was still open, and the apostles were constantly preaching! What better time for them to REVEAL the WORD OF GOD by WRITTEN WORD and BY MOUTH. TWO FORMS of the WORD OF GOD. Some was written, some was spoken.
You don't believe me, and I can't do anything about that. That doesn't change the way it is. And because you're still confusing the terms, the argument has become pretty pointless. You apparently don't desire to understand what I'm saying, because I'm making it pretty clear.
God bless,
Grant
GraceSaves
New Member
Go back to the original quote.Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"That's your interpretation," and "it's not what the magesterium says," are NOT questions.
DHK,
When have I said these words to you? If so, quote me. If not, stop applying them to me.
Are you still too proud to apologize for your mean words? I'm serious.
God bless,
Grant
I believe it was in response to T2U, and not you. You just responded to what I had said.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]DHK,
The post that stemmed this was addressed to "Grace Saves." It's on page 8.
God bless,
Grant
I do realize the point that you are trying to make. But examine it in the light of Acts 17:11. What was Paul's purpose in going there? His purpose in any place that he went was to preach the gospel. The gospel was already established in written form by that time. Not only was it established in written form, Paul had received by direct revelation, and then verifies that it has been recorded in Galatians.
Gal.1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
This was the revelation of God that he was preaching. It was not tradition. Whether it had been inscripturated at that point in time and history is totally irrelevant. He was preaching the Word of God, that which had been revealed to Him.
DHK
Gal.1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
This was the revelation of God that he was preaching. It was not tradition. Whether it had been inscripturated at that point in time and history is totally irrelevant. He was preaching the Word of God, that which had been revealed to Him.
DHK
You are right the quote is directed to Grace Saves. And this is what I was referring to.Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,
Scriptures still need correct interpretation. The Magesterium is the servant of the Scriptures. Nothing in the Catholic Church is contrary to Scriptures. Your argument is futile.
God bless,
Grant
DHK
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
In my bible it says "god commanded THE MAN" - singular. I think God's laws are meant to be clear. If god had meant all people he should have said so. Eve said something about it but so what? What counts is what God said. To my mind it only works if you look at Adam and Eve as ONE being. To have male only clergy we are simply having 1/2 an Adam. Its a bit like having Jesus without Mary. Surely someone should represent Mary?
Brian, Grant, Nets...
After more studying on this matter I dont believe Mary suffered any birth pains. Here's why:
In the book of Revelation (and elsewhere), a symbol can sometimes represent more than one thing at the same time. For instance, much of the book of Revelation can refer to the end of the world, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. In any case, the woman in Rev. 12 symbolizes Israel (Jerusalem, Zion),the Church, and Mary--sometimes one is being referred to, and sometimes another. All three are related to each other: Israel is the Church of the Old Testament, and Mary is the model of the Church. The "birth pains" dont refer to anything Mary felt at Jesus' birth, but rather to sufferings felt by Israel in anticipation of the coming Messiah:
Micah 4:9-10
"Now why dost thou cry out loud? Is there no king in thee? Is thy cousellor perished? For pangs have taken thee as a woman in travel. Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travel: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be in the field, and thou shalt be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies."
Paul mentions anticipatory sufferings as being like labor pains(in this case those of all creation) in Romans 8:18-23.
Also, as Grant mentioned earlier, In Isaiah 66:7,it mentions that the Messiah was born (will be) without birth pains.
The verse right after this one also mentions the birth of the children of Zion (the people of God) following the birth of the man child, just as the passage from Revelation mentions the Woman being the mother of Christians (Rev. 12:17: "...her seeds, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ"), which in this context could refer to the Woman as being Mary or the Church.
Thanks Brian for the thought provoking question.
God bless...
[ December 04, 2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Logan ]
After more studying on this matter I dont believe Mary suffered any birth pains. Here's why:
In the book of Revelation (and elsewhere), a symbol can sometimes represent more than one thing at the same time. For instance, much of the book of Revelation can refer to the end of the world, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. In any case, the woman in Rev. 12 symbolizes Israel (Jerusalem, Zion),the Church, and Mary--sometimes one is being referred to, and sometimes another. All three are related to each other: Israel is the Church of the Old Testament, and Mary is the model of the Church. The "birth pains" dont refer to anything Mary felt at Jesus' birth, but rather to sufferings felt by Israel in anticipation of the coming Messiah:
Micah 4:9-10
"Now why dost thou cry out loud? Is there no king in thee? Is thy cousellor perished? For pangs have taken thee as a woman in travel. Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travel: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be in the field, and thou shalt be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies."
Paul mentions anticipatory sufferings as being like labor pains(in this case those of all creation) in Romans 8:18-23.
Also, as Grant mentioned earlier, In Isaiah 66:7,it mentions that the Messiah was born (will be) without birth pains.
The verse right after this one also mentions the birth of the children of Zion (the people of God) following the birth of the man child, just as the passage from Revelation mentions the Woman being the mother of Christians (Rev. 12:17: "...her seeds, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ"), which in this context could refer to the Woman as being Mary or the Church.
Thanks Brian for the thought provoking question.
God bless...
[ December 04, 2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Logan ]
GraceSaves
New Member
Net,Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
In my bible it says "god commanded THE MAN" - singular. I think God's laws are meant to be clear. If god had meant all people he should have said so. Eve said something about it but so what? What counts is what God said. To my mind it only works if you look at Adam and Eve as ONE being. To have male only clergy we are simply having 1/2 an Adam. Its a bit like having Jesus without Mary. Surely someone should represent Mary?
Why did Eve say what she said, then?
God bless,
Grant
GraceSaves
New Member
SORRY - Accidental repeat post. Please delete.
[ December 04, 2002, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]
[ December 04, 2002, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]
GraceSaves
New Member
You are right the quote is directed to Grace Saves. And this is what I was referring to.Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,
Scriptures still need correct interpretation. The Magesterium is the servant of the Scriptures. Nothing in the Catholic Church is contrary to Scriptures. Your argument is futile.
God bless,
Grant
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]And in that post, you said,
"Third, as many times as it has been posted, instead of politely replying to it, the typical response is to hide under a curtain and say that's your interpretation; that is not what the magesterium. Gee, I already knew that; he already knew that before he posted the question. Why did he even ask if he knew that we disagreed with magesterium? If there is going to be no constructive discussion don't even ask. Don't offer me: "that's your interpretation," responses. Don't give me, "that's not what the magesterium says," excuses. Quite frankly, I am sick of hearing of them. Read the front page before you enter this board and remember that it is a Baptist Board. If you can't take the heat, get out.
DHK"
This was addressed to me, accusing me of giving you these types of responses. You said, now back it up, or "be a man for once" and apologize.
God bless,
Grant
Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Originally posted by trying2understand: As I pointed out before, sola scriptura is your man made tradition, not mine. I wait in vain for Scriptural proof of sola scriptura.This was addressed to me, accusing me of giving you these types of responses. You said, now back it up, or "be a man for once" and apologize.
And then by GraceSaves:
"I do fully agree that all doctrine must be in agreement with Scriptures, and not contrary, which is faithfully kept in the Catholic Church. But something does not have to be explicitly stated in Scripture to be an article of Truth, and you have not proven otherwise."
And thus I said: "This doctrine runs like a thread through every book of Scripture, and through all true believers throughout all generations. Only the unsaved would deny such a doctrine. I have pointed out some of these things before, but for your sakes I will do it again."
Which was the beginning of a lengthy post using much Scripture to explain to both of you for the umpteenth time the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Your pitiable response to that post GraceSaves:
"Scriptures still need correct interpretation. The Magesterium is the servant of the Scriptures. Nothing in the Catholic Church is contrary to Scriptures. Your argument is futile."
I then gave a rather indignant reply to the effect that if you don't want something explained to you why do you even bother ask. As I have reviewed the posts above, I see that it was T2U that used the actual words "I wait in vain for Scriptural proof for Sola Scriptural." Many of your responses have said about the same in different words. The fact is that many on this board have explained this doctrine and given Scriptural proof for it many, many times. And once more after a Scriptural explanation, I get (paraphrased) "it is your interpretation." "It is not according to the magesterium." "Nothing in the Catholic Church is contrary to Scripture." "Your argument is futile." Blah, blah, blah...
As I said before, I will say it again: Why did you ask the question in the first place if you were just going to state the obvious: "That's not what the magesterium says." Duh, we both already knew that, and I didn't have to put all that work into that post to figure that out. I have nothing to apologize for. This will be my last post on this subject. If you want to carry on a meaningful discussion on Sola Scriptura, or any other doctrine, then do so.
DHK
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Women have labour pains not countries.
GraceSaves
New Member
DHK,
I forgive you anyway.
Net,
I don't even know what that means, but you didn't answer my last question. I hope that you will.
God bless,
Grant
I forgive you anyway.
Net,
I don't even know what that means, but you didn't answer my last question. I hope that you will.
God bless,
Grant
trying2understand
New Member
And you would say that what your posts about your beliefs are "not biased" and you "do not read into Scripture" things that are not there?Originally posted by DHK:
I have been referred to that article before and was not impressed. It is highly biased, and makes inferences that are not valid. As scholarly as it puports to be it isn't, for it reads into the Scripture things that are not there.
Come on DHK, that's what sola scriptura is all about.
Exactly. Paul was preaching something that was new to the Thessalonians and he was claiming that it was a revelation from God, and they accepted it even though it was not contained in the Old Testament! That is hardly sola scriptura!As politely as I can say it: "Hogwash!" Paul claimed that his "teaching" was direct revelation was from God alone.
Gal.1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
--This may have been new to the Thessalonians, but the Gospel was not a new message. Paul had been preaching this message for some years now. They may have heard it orally. That is what preaching is all about. But it certainly wasn't tradition. It was the Word of God, that Word which was communicated to Paul by direct revelation from God.
But how did they know that it was the Word of God? It wasn't written in the Old Testament. You know it to be the Word of God because it is written in your Bible. 20/20 hindsight.Let's get this straight. Preaching is done orally. It was the Word of God that was preached not tradition. To insert tradition in there is completely bogus on your part and the author of the link that you referred to.
You are pretending not to be familiar with the distinction made between "Tradition" and "tradition".Paul's purpose, wherever he went, was to preach the gospel, never tradition. To believe otherwise is foolishness and contrary to Scripture.
DHK, I could say the same about many of your beliefs. What would be the point?Yet you read into the Scripture something that is not there
Both groups searched the Scriptures. Do you not agree?It says they searched the Scriptures. After they searched the Scriptures and saw that it agreed with Paul's doctrine they believed it. It is a pattern for everyone to take.
How is it that by your interpretation one group is noble for searching the Scriptures and one is not?
If the difference is one group accepted Paul's teaching and the other did not then your proof text is not actually talking about searching the Scriptures but accepting the new Gospel.
That means then that your best proof of sola scriptura from Scripture fails.
You have just articulated the great lie of sola scriptura.I am not talking about interpretation. I am talking about what the Bible says. The Bible interprets itself. Stop reading into it things that are not there.
DHK
Scripture "interprets itself"... but there are countless upon countless conflicting interpretations of Scripture.
All claiming to be guided by the same Holy Spirit.
All claiming to use the same methods of interpretation.
So how do you know that your's is the right one?
You don't. As I continue to point out to you, it is "merely your interpretation".
That's as close as you can get to the Truth with your man made tradition of sola scriptura - merely your interpretation.
Sorry if that is hard to hear.
Ron
[ December 05, 2002, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]
You seem to be missing the point in Acts 17:11. Paul came with a New Testament message which he had received from God by divine revelation, a message that he had been preaching, a message that was not new among the Christian community. But it was new to the Thessalonians. When the Thessalonians searched the Scriptures, it was obvious that they searched the only Scriptures that they had--the Old Testament Scriptures, to see whether these things were so. The gospel is in the Old Testament. I am sure that Paul used it often. Peter did on the day of Pentecost. Philip did with the Ethiopian Eunuch. Stephen did just before he was martyred. They all appealed to the Scriptures that they had. That is Sola Scriptura, using the Scriptures as their final authority.
The example of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch is a good example. The eunuch was travelling back from Jerusalem to Ethiopia reading the book of Isaiah. Philip "joined himself to the chariot," and asked the eunuch, "Understandeth thou what you readeth?" He replied, "How can I understand except some man should guide me." And Philip began at the same SCRIPTURE and PREACHED unto Him CHRIST. It was the Old Testament, the Book of Isaiah. He preached (orally), yet using a written book for his authority, the message of Christ. The Ethiopian Eunuch believed and was saved. He was saved on the authority of the Word of God that he heard. That is Sola Scriptura. That is what happened in Acts 17:11. Both messages were based on Scripture. Both messages were preached orally. Both messages had a foundation in the Scriptures. The Scriptures became the final authority for the message that they preached. There was no tradition involved.
DHK
The example of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch is a good example. The eunuch was travelling back from Jerusalem to Ethiopia reading the book of Isaiah. Philip "joined himself to the chariot," and asked the eunuch, "Understandeth thou what you readeth?" He replied, "How can I understand except some man should guide me." And Philip began at the same SCRIPTURE and PREACHED unto Him CHRIST. It was the Old Testament, the Book of Isaiah. He preached (orally), yet using a written book for his authority, the message of Christ. The Ethiopian Eunuch believed and was saved. He was saved on the authority of the Word of God that he heard. That is Sola Scriptura. That is what happened in Acts 17:11. Both messages were based on Scripture. Both messages were preached orally. Both messages had a foundation in the Scriptures. The Scriptures became the final authority for the message that they preached. There was no tradition involved.
DHK
trying2understand
New Member
Now why wasn't the "self interpreting" Scripture "sufficient" for the Ethiopian?Originally posted by DHK:
The example of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch is a good example. The eunuch was travelling back from Jerusalem to Ethiopia reading the book of Isaiah. Philip "joined himself to the chariot," and asked the eunuch, "Understandeth thou what you readeth?" He replied, "How can I understand except some man should guide me." And Philip began at the same SCRIPTURE and PREACHED unto Him CHRIST.
DHK, you are standing meaning on it's head.
"How can I understand except some man should guide me.", for you is proof of sola scriptura?
Ron
Originally posted by trying2understand:
1Cor.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.Now why wasn't the "self interpreting" Scripture "sufficient" for the Ethiopian?
DHK, you are standing meaning on it's head.
"How can I understand except some man should guide me.", for you is proof of sola scriptura?
The Ethiopian eunuch was an unsaved man who could not understand the Scriptures because He did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling him. He was "spiritually discerned." He needed someone to explain it to him. If everything was self-explanatory we would not need preachers and teachers, would we?
DHK