true tradition, false tradition?

[JM]

Problem is, Drew, your argument works against tradition better then Scripture. Scripture is static, it doesn't change. Tradition "involves using words and phrases whose meanings are "culturally-relative" - one cannot talk about the "absolute" meaning of the term "love", its meaning depends on the culture in which the author lived." See, it works. :wink: Problem is, the historical grammatical method seeks to understand the works in the context in which they were written. For anyone interested in a full explaintaion of sola scriptura, for a wonderful apologetic work that hammers the traditional argument, pick of “Disputation on Holy Scripture†by William Whitaker. It’s over 700 pages and was written when [1588] Bible believer meant just that.

Tradition is NEVER EVER said to be theopneustos.

You have a very, very low view of Scripture Drew and in the end; you're left without any authority, which dies in unbelief. This is why you deny God’s sovereignty. For you, it seems from your posts, it’s a game of one up man ship with God. “God is sovereign, when I say so.†“There is no ultimate authority, outside of what I can control.†Rom 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" When will you get it Drew? You're breaking the second commandment by creating a God that doesn't exist, a system of belief that is abhorrent to God.

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (130-202)
We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith. (Adv. H. 3:1)
Read more diligently that gospel which is given to us by the apostles; and read more diligently the prophets, and you will find every action and the whole doctrine of our Lord preached in them. (Adv. H. 4:66)

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (150?-213?)
They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves. (Stromata 7:16:3)

ORIGEN (185?-252)
In which (the two Testaments) every word that appertains to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge may be understood out of them. But if anything remain which the Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for authorizing any knowledge or doctrine; but that which remains we must commit to the fire, that is, we will reserve it for God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things. (Orig. in Lev., hom. 5, 9:6)
We know Jesus Christ is God, and we seek to expound the words which are spoken, according to the dignity of the person. Wherefore it is necessary for us to call the Scriptures into testimony; for our meanings and enarrations, without these witnesses, have no credibility. (Tractatus 5 in Matt.)
No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures. (Tract. 26 in Matt.)
As all gold, whatsoever it be, that is without the temple, is not holy; even so every notion which is without the divine Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some, is not holy, because it is foreign to Scripture. (Hom. 25 in Matt.)
Consider how imminent their danger is who neglect to study the Scriptures, in which alone the discernment of this can be ascertained. (in Rom. 10:16)

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (200?-258)
Whence comes this tradition? does it descend from the Lord's authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? for those things are to be done which are there written. ... If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed. (Ep. 74 ad Pompeium)

HIPPOLYTUS ( -230???)
There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Holy Scriptures. For as he that would possess the wisdom of this word cannot otherwise obtain it than to read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever of us will exercise piety toward God cannot learn this elsewhere but out of the Holy Scriptures. Whatsoever, therefore, the Holy Scriptures do preach, that let us know, and whatsoever they teach, that let us understand. (Hip. tom. 3, Bibliotheque Patrium, ed. Colonna)

ST. ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA* (300?-375)
The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.)
The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written. (Exhort. ad Monachas)

ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN* (340?-396)
How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures? (Ambr. Offic., 1:23)
I read that he is the first, I read that he is not the second; they who say he is the second, let them show it by reading. (Ambr. Offic., in Virginis Instit. 11)

ST. HILARY OF POITIERS (315-367)
O emperor! I admire your faith, which desires only according to those things that were written. ... You seek the faith, O emperor. Hear it then, not from new writings, but from the books of God. Remember that it is not a question of philosophy, but a doctrine of the gospel. (Ad Constant. Augus. 2:8:2)

ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (330?-395)
Let a man be persuaded of the truth of that alone which has the seal of the written testimony. (De Anima et Resurrectione, 1)

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (315?-386)
Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me speaking these things to you except you have the proof of what I say from the divine Scriptures. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the divine Scriptures. (Cat. 4)

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF ANTIOCH AND BYZANTIUM* (347-407)
[The Scripture], like a safe door, denies an entrance to heretics, guarding us in safety in all things we desire, and not permitting us to be deceived. ...Whoever uses not the Scriptures, but comes in otherwise, that is, cuts out for himself a different and unlawful way, the same is a thief. (Homily 59, in Joh. 2:8)
Formerly it might have been ascertained by various means which was the true church, but at present there is no other method left for those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ but by the Scriptures alone. And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it amid so great resemblance, but by the Scriptures alone? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that such a great confusion of things would take place in the latter days, ordered the Christians to have recourse to nothing but the Scriptures. (FOOTNOTE???)
The man of God could not be perfect without the Scriptures. [Paul says to Timothy:] "You have the Scriptures: if you desire to learn anything, you may learn it from them." But if he writes thise things to Timothy, who was filled with the Holy Spirit, how much more must we think these things spoken to us. (Hom. 9 in 2 Tim. 1:9)
It is absurd, while we will not trust other people in pecuniary affairs, but choose to reckon and calculate for ourselves, that in matters of far higher consequence we should implicitly follow the opinions of others, especially as we possess the most exact and perfect rule and standard by which to regulate our several inquiries: I mean the regulation of the divine laws. I, therefore, could wish that all of you would reject what this or that man says, and that you would investigate all these things in the Scriptures. (Hom. 13, 4:10 ad fin. in 2 Cor)

THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA ( -412)
It is the part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the authority of the Holy Scriptures. (Ep. Pasch. 2)
ST. JEROME* (342?-420)
The church of Christ, possessing churches in all the world, is united by the unity of the Spirit, and has the cities of the law, the prophets, the gospels, and the apostles. She has not gone forth from her boundaries, that is, from the Holy Scriptures. (Comm. in Micha. 1:1)
Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the word of God smites. (ad Aggai 1)
As we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it; that Mary did marry after she was delivered we believe not, because we do not read it. (Adv. Helvidium)

ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO* (354-430)
In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)
Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)
All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence. (Ep. 42)
Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write. (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult)
Let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their church if they can, not by the talk and rumor of the Africans; not by the councils of their own bishops; not by the books of their disputers; not by deceitful miracles, against which we are cautioned by the word of God, but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the verses of the Psalms, in the voice of the Shepherd himself, in the preaching and works of the evangelists; that is, in all canonical authorities of the sacred Scriptures. (De Unit. Eccl. 16)

ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (380?-444)
That which the Holy Scriptures have not said, by what means should we receive and account it among those things that are true? (Cyril. Glaphyrarum in Gen. 2)

THEODORET OF CYRRHUS (393?-458?)
By the Holy Scriptures alone am I persuaded (Dial. 1, Atrept.)
I am not so bold as to affirm anything which the sacred Scripture passes in silence. (Dial. 2, Asynchyt.)
We ought not to seek those things that are passed in silence, but rest in the things which are written. (in Gen. Q. 45)

ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS (675?-749?)
We receive and acknowledge and reverence all things which are delivered in the law, the prophets, the apostles and evangelists, and we seek after nothing beyond these. (de Fid. Ortho. 1:1:1)

Hummmmmm….we find evidence of sola scriptura in history.

From The Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin
4. It is a calumny to represent us as opposed to the Fathers (I mean the ancient writers of a purer age), as if the Fathers were supporters of their impiety. Were the contest to be decided by such authority (to speak in the most moderate terms), the better part of the victory would be ours.1 While there is much that is admirable and wise in the writings of those Fathers, and while in some things it has fared with them as with ordinary men; these pious sons, forsooth, with the peculiar acuteness of intellect, and judgment, and soul, which belongs to them, adore only their slips and errors, while those things which are well said they either overlook, or disguise, or corrupt; so that it may be truly said their only care has been to gather dross among gold. Then, with dishonest clamour, they assail us as enemies and despisers of the Fathers. So far are we from despising them, that if this were the proper place, it would give us no trouble to support the greater part of the doctrines which we now hold by their suffrages. Still, in studying their writings, we have endeavoured to remember (1 Cor. 3:21-23; see also Augustin. Ep. 28), that all things are ours, to serve, not lord it over us, but that we axe Christ’s only, and must obey him in all things without exception. He who does not draw this distinction will not have any fixed principles in religion; for those holy men were ignorant of many things, are often opposed to each other, and are sometimes at variance with themselves.
It is not without cause (remark our opponents) we are thus warned by Solomon, “Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set†(Prov. 22:28). But the same rule applies not to the measuring of fields and the obedience of faith. The rule applicable to the latter is, “Forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house†(Ps. 45:10). But if they are so fond of allegory, why do they not understand the apostles, rather than any other class of Fathers, to be meant by those whose landmarks it is unlawful to remove? This is the interpretation of Jerome, whose words they have quoted in their canons. But as regards those to whom they apply the passage, if they wish the landmarks to be fixed, why do they, whenever it suits their purpose, so freely overleap them?
Among the Fathers there were two, the one of whom said,1 “Our God neither eats nor drinks, and therefore has no need of chalices and salvers;†and the other,1 “Sacred rites do not require gold, and things which are not bought with gold, please not by gold.†They step beyond the boundary, therefore, when in sacred matters they are so much delighted with gold, driver, ivory, marble, gems, and silks, that unless everything is overlaid with costly show, or rather insane luxury1 , they think God is not duly worshipped.
It was a Father who said,1 “He ate flesh freely on the day on which others abstained from it, because he was a Christian.†They overleap the boundaries, therefore, when they doom to perdition every soul that, during Lent, shall have tasted flesh.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.htm#_ftn15

I have a feeling you won't read all of the above, your set in throne and can't be moved.

j

 

[DivineNames]

Without tradition we wouldn't have a Bible.

This is an interesting point. How do Protestants answer it? Which books happen to form the Bible does seem to be a matter of tradition.

 

[DivineNames]

You have a very, very low view of Scripture Drew and in the end; you're left without any authority, which dies in unbelief. This is why you deny God’s sovereignty.

Calvinists seem to want to emphasize God's sovereignty, but I have my doubts that they can prove their own view of divine sovereignty is either (a) necessary to theism, or (b) necessarily Biblical.

 

[JM]

Without tradition we wouldn't have a Bible.

This is an interesting point. How do Protestants answer it? Which books happen to form the Bible does seem to be a matter of tradition.

Nature of Canonicity Distinguished from Its Recognition

What books properly make up the canon for the church? In answering this question, it is imperative that we not confuse the nature of the canon with the recognition of certain writings as canonical. The legitimate authority of canonical books exists independently of their being personally acknowledged as authoritative by any individual or group. The nature (or grounds) of canonicity is thus logically distinct from the history (or recognition) of canonicity.

It is the inspiration of a book that renders it authoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of the book. If God has spoken, what He says is divine in itself, regardless of human response to it. It does not 'become divine' through human agreement with it.

Accordingly, the canon is not the product of the Christian church. The church has no authority to control, create, or define the Word of God. Rather, the canon controls, creates and defines the church of Christ: '...having been begotten again, not by corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God which lives and abides forever.... And this is the word of good news which was preached unto you' (I Peter 1:23-25).

When we understand this, we can see how erroneous it is to suppose that the corporate church, at some council of its leaders, voted on certain documents and constituted them the canon. The church cannot subsequently attribute authority to certain writings. It can simply receive them as God's revealed word which, as such, always has been the church's canon. Authority is inherent in those writings from the outset, and the church simply confesses this to be the case. http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/p ... asp?ID=131

Read the full article to get the point.

Back to the op...

Does the fact that people understand the Bible in dfferent ways diminish the nature of the Bible? No. The irregularity traditionalists speak of is also found among traditional churches, how do you have any lasting confidence in what you are told is 'orthodox' tradition? People try to show irregularity among Bible believers as a sign that sola scriptura doesn't work, well, the argument is now being used against them...should we follow the traditions of the Nestorian Church, which recognizes only 22 books, excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation? Maybe the traditions of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which gives the same 27 books in its "narrower" NT canon but then adds 8 books to its "broader" canon? ("four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Books of Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia.") You have a false presupposition, believing the teachings of your Church have a unity but they don’t. Much separates the ‘traditional’ churches from each other, at least Bible believers have a canon. Another example would be the tradition of one Bishop in one jurisdiction. Why is there more then one if tradition is "God breathed" and able to support doctrine? We have EO's with 2 and 3 Bishops in one city, doesn't the RC Church believe the Russian Orthodox Bishops are valid? Why are they setting up RCC jurisdictions in the Eastern Orthodox backyard, where they existed for hundreds of years? Tradition is man made and changes with time, Scripture does not.

Quote
The following dialogue is a good representation of the importance of presuppositions. In other words, you will interpret things according to your presuppositions. Dan raised an excellent question regarding how do we know who has the right interpretation for something. I really didn't focus on the standard answer to that question dealing with interpretive methods. Instead, I tried to demonstrate that we are right in so far as we agree with the Bible.

Dan: Hi. I am a Catholic and I know that I am in the true church because it was started by Jesus, expanded by the Apostles who gave the power of leadership to the bishops. My question is how do you know that your beliefs are right when other Protestants claim to do everything that you do but still come with different believes?
Matt: I base it on the Bible.
Dan: But Luther said the same thing and he believed in the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. Other Protestants do not.
Matt: That's nice.
Dan: That is my question. All Protestants say they base it on the Bible, but each church comes with something different.
Matt: Purgatory? Praying to Mary? Penance? Indulgences? Are these in the Bible? No.
Dan: Is it in the Bible is not the right question. Because each church claims that different things are in the Bible. Luther and Catholics claim Eucharist is in the Bible other churches do not. My question is how do you know who is right?
Matt: Is it in the Bible or not? That is the issue...
Dan: Yes, but different people interpret the Bible differently. Who is right?
Matt: The Bible is right. Stick to it.

see carm.org for the rest.

 

[Drew]

Problem is, Drew, your argument works against tradition better then Scripture. Scripture is static, it doesn't change. Tradition "involves using words and phrases whose meanings are "culturally-relative" - one cannot talk about the "absolute" meaning of the term "love", its meaning depends on the culture in which the author lived." See, it works. :wink: Problem is, the historical grammatical method seeks to understand the works in the context in which they were written.

This material clearly does not dispute the content of my argument and in fact plays into it. The fact remains that the Scriptures were written in words and words have meanings that are culturally relative. When we read the word "love" we ascribe a certain meaning to it which may not be the meaning that Paul intended. Wisely, we try to figure out the intended meaning as you point out. But the problem is that to claim that this process can yield an infallible end result (as you and White seem to claim) clearly requires that the "historical grammatical method" must itself not be fallible - and you have now expanded the domain of the "infallible" beyond the Scriptures. This would seem to be problematic to the position you seem to be defending. How can a process of Scriptural interpretation that is fallible yield an infallible end product?

You have a very, very low view of Scripture Drew and in the end; you're left without any authority, which dies in unbelief. This is why you deny God’s sovereignty. For you, it seems from your posts, it’s a game of one up man ship with God. “God is sovereign, when I say so.†“There is no ultimate authority, outside of what I can control.†Rom 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" When will you get it Drew? You're breaking the second commandment by creating a God that doesn't exist, a system of belief that is abhorrent to God.

I disagree and would say that I am being intellectually honest and recognizing the very real flaws of logic that are present in this and many other arguments of yours. I deny your view of God's sovereignty because I (and many others, including well-respected writers) think the Scriptures do not support it, and because in the end such an extreme view simply makes no sense to us. I suspect that you will claim that demanding that something makes sense to me is to set myself up as an authority over God. I will counter by saying that ideas that make no sense to us are effectively useless and cannot guide us in any effective way toward the destination of truth.

I have a feeling you won't read all of the above, your set in throne and can't be moved.j

I will grant you one thing - you are a more skilled rhetorician than I.

 

[JM]

You have a very, very low view of Scripture Drew and in the end; you're left without any authority, which dies in unbelief. This is why you deny God’s sovereignty.

Calvinists seem to want to emphasize God's sovereignty, but I have my doubts that they can prove their own view of divine sovereignty is either (a) necessary to theism, or (b) necessarily Biblical.

Redherring, has nothing to do with this topic and was mentioned in passing.

 

[JM]

I disagree and would say that I am being intellectually honest and recognizing the very real flaws of logic that are present in this and many other arguments of yours. I deny your view of God's sovereignty because I (and many others, including well-respected writers) think the Scriptures do not support it, and because in the end such an extreme view simply makes no sense to us. I suspect that you will claim that demanding that something makes sense to me is to set myself up as an authority over God. I will counter by saying that ideas that make no sense to us are effectively useless and cannot guide us in any effective way toward the destination of truth.

:

You can try to dodge it however you like, we can see it in your posts.

I'll repost Hodges work on this topic: http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/ ... lascrp.htm

 

[DivineNames]

Redherring, has nothing to do with this topic and was mentioned in passing.

Well I mentioned "in passing" that I doubt Calvinists can prove their view of divine sovereignty is either (a) necessary to theism, or (b) necessarily Biblical.

You may want to look up what the term "red herring" means, as it seems you don't understand it.

 

[Drew]

I disagree and would say that I am being intellectually honest and recognizing the very real flaws of logic that are present in this and many other arguments of yours. I deny your view of God's sovereignty because I (and many others, including well-respected writers) think the Scriptures do not support it, and because in the end such an extreme view simply makes no sense to us. I suspect that you will claim that demanding that something makes sense to me is to set myself up as an authority over God. I will counter by saying that ideas that make no sense to us are effectively useless and cannot guide us in any effective way toward the destination of truth.

The above is pure silliness. The fact that I claim my beliefs and refer to myself as believing this or that reflects the fact that I a thinking agent in the world.

When you're ready to elevate the discussion our of the sandbox and post some real content, let us all know. Until then, I will let have the last word if you wish.

 

[JM]

Redherring, has nothing to do with this topic and was mentioned in passing.

Well I mentioned "in passing" that I doubt Calvinists can prove their view of divine sovereignty is either (a) necessary to theism, or (b) necessarily Biblical.

You may want to look up what the term "red herring" means, as it seems you don't understand it.

"A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."

When you're ready to elevate the discussion our of the sandbox and post some real content, let us all know.

The above is pure silliness. The fact that I claim my beliefs and refer to myself as believing this or that reflects the fact that I a thinking agent in the world.

Hummmm....one who is always thinking from post enlightenment mind set, not a Biblical one...I understand Drew.

 

[DivineNames]

"A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."

Well by this definition, there was no red herring.

Some people around here seem to be dumb enough to think that a "red herring" is committed merely by something off-topic. A red herring is committed in the context of arguing on an issue, (i.e. not something said that is off topic) where you are supposedly arguing on the issue in question, but actually aren't. (The argument is to an irrelevant conclusion.)

 

[DivineNames]

JM is the one that mentioned God's sovereignty, and when I make a comment in response he accuses me of a "red herring" and sends me a PM warning that I may get "booted".

:roll:

 

[Drew]

JM is the one that mentioned God's sovereignty, and when I make a comment in response he accuses me of a "red herring" and sends me a PM warning that I may get "booted".

:roll:

While I know we come to different conclusions at the end of the day, your challenging questions and insights serve to keep us on our toes. We need all the clear-thinkers that we can get around here (they are in short supply!).

 

[DivineNames]

While I know we come to different conclusions at the end of the day, your challenging questions and insights serve to keep us on our toes. We need all the clear-thinkers that we can get around here (they are in short supply!).

Thank you Drew, nice that a Christian can see some merit in having skeptics around here. I think you are right about the lack of clear-thinkers in these forums. We get a few Christians like yourself who are willing to discuss an issue and provide argument, but it seems many prefer to try and label their opponents as heretics and/or claim that they have the "truth" from the Holy Spirit.

 

[John the Baptist]

--satanic Tradition--

Douay version on Mark 7:6-7 (with my emphasis added)

"But answering He said to them, "Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors Me with there lips, but their heart is far from Me; and [in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of mem.]"
Who do they worship then?? See Matthew 4:6 & Revelation 3:9

One can see in Ecclesiastes 3:14 K.J. "I know that whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever; [nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it]. .."
Not any different than the Word's of Christ in His final WARNING to His saints! Revelation 22:18-19 Here we see that to add anything to Gods Word, (tradition) or to remove anything from God Word, will find the people or church with it's name removed from the book of life, if it was ever there to begin with.

And Rome's [one man], has done both of the above! Their catechism is that fatal documentation!

And this verse is not tradition found in Genesis 6:3, with the Holy Spirit 'STRIVING' with the lost for 120 years, and here we have Rome who has not budged, in many a moon! Same old stuff of Daniel 7:25 + satanic tradition! See Christ's Words of Matthew 12:31-32.

---John

 

[Vic C.]

JM is the one that mentioned God's sovereignty, and when I make a comment in response he accuses me of a "red herring" and sends me a PM warning that I may get "booted".

:roll:

I'd heed his warning and would also suggest you not divulge the contents of PMs in public. PM stands for Private Message.

Thank you.

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

Can anyone tell me where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible?

 

[Drew]

+JMJ+

Can anyone tell me where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible?

Is someone going to answer this or not?

 

[Drew]

Re: --satanic Tradition--

Not any different than the Word's of Christ in His final WARNING to His saints! Revelation 22:18-19 Here we see that to add anything to Gods Word, (tradition) or to remove anything from God Word, will find the people or church with it's name removed from the book of life, if it was ever there to begin with.

This is not how I read this text. The text merely warns against adding to the words of prophecy in this book. There is no warrant to extrapolate to a general wide-sweeping conclusion about the authority of tradition. The text in question refers to the book of Revelation, not to the whole Bible, doesn't it?

 

[John the Baptist]

Re: --satanic Tradition--

Not any different than the Word's of Christ in His final WARNING to His saints! Revelation 22:18-19 Here we see that to add anything to Gods Word, (tradition) or to remove anything from God Word, will find the people or church with it's name removed from the book of life, if it was ever there to begin with.

This is not how I read this text. The text merely warns against adding to the words of prophecy in this book. There is no warrant to extrapolate to a general wide-sweeping conclusion about the authority of tradition. The text in question refers to the book of Revelation, not to the whole Bible, doesn't it?

****
This was the 'bottom' line of the complete post. And NO, Gods Word is never left up to tradition's [replacement]! Never!
_____

One can see in Ecclesiastes 3:14 K.J. "I know that whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever; [nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it]. .." Not any different than the Word's of Christ in His final WARNING to His saints! Revelation 22:18-19 Here we see that to add anything to Gods Word, (tradition) or to remove anything from God Word, will find the people or church with it's name removed from the book of life, if it was ever there to begin with.

I know that the Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15 is to straight to be misunderstood, but those verses make it too simple, huh? :fadein: 1 John 4:6

---John