true tradition, false tradition?

[Vic C.]

Re: --satanic Tradition--

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?

Hey Drew. I agree with you on the warning in Revelation; that it speaks specifically about the words in that very book. You should understand though, that it's only fair that it be an overall rule for God's Holy word. In saying that, I agree with John's bottom line. God's word is not to be manipulated to suit the doctrines of Man.

Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

We are free to and encouraged to search the scriptures and test the spirits:

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

 

[JM]

"upon this rock I will build My church" (Mt 16:18)
"do not say ‘I am of Peter’" (1 Cor 1:10)
"as gardeners and builders... each man must be careful how he builds on it." (1 Cor 3:10)
"I used the gardener and builder figures to that you learn not to exceed what is written" (1 Cor 4:6)

Jesus repeatedly rebuked the Devil with, "it is written", not "I say".

As Paul tell us, do not exceed what is written.

Should I go on with this topic? Is it worth it? Is anyone reading what is being posted?

J

 

[Drew]

Re: --satanic Tradition--

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]. .."

Eccl 3:14 states:

I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him.

There is nothing even close to a clear statement that the "sufficiency" of the Scriptures is specifically what is being addressed here. Please provide a specific justification for concluding that the statement: "everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it" is talking about the authority of the Scriptures. The actual words say no such thing. There is, of course a reference to "what God has done" remaining forever. But since the "what" is not specified, it could equally be seen as encompassing tradition as well.

One is reading into this text to suggest that the "what" includes the Scriptures (which are written by man under inspiration from God) yet not tradition (which arguably could also be generated by man under inspiration from God).

Having said all this, I personally accord authority to Scripture and not to tradition. But the arguments presented thus far in defence of "sola scriptura" do not work.

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?

Same argument here. These scriptures make general reference to the permanence of "what God has done" and there simply is not warrant to conclude that this a defence for "sola scriptura". One has to assume that tradition is not part of that "which God has done". This involves begging the very question at issue.

 

[Drew]

Re: --satanic Tradition--

You should understand though, that it's only fair that it be an overall rule for God's Holy word.

How does this work? What is your specific basis for generalizing the scope of applicability beyond the book of Revelation?

Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

This simply does not work for the very specific reason that we are warned to avoid the traditions of men. Again, and I cannot emphasize this enough, this begs the question by sneaking in an undefended presumption against the possibility that some "traditions" are not of men, but in fact arise from the actions of God informing the "tradition" in the same general way that God informs the content of Scripture.

As stated, I ascribe to the authority of the Scriptures (perhaps in not the same as some of you do), but the arguments should not beg the question.

 

[John the Baptist]

The Ecclesiastes verses say what??

John here: God inspired, Vic posted..
Quote:
Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Drew states:
This simply does not work for the very specific reason that we are warned to avoid the traditions of men. Again, and I cannot emphasize this enough, this begs the question by sneaking in an undefended presumption against the possibility that some "traditions" are not of men, but in fact arise from the actions of God informing the "tradition" in the same general way that God informs the content of Scripture.

As stated, I ascribe to the authority of the Scriptures (perhaps in not the same as some of you do), but the arguments should not beg the question.

________

Lets just look over these few verses again? And ask God if it covers everything including the above 'tradition'? and surely Johns penned Revelation??

Subject is asking what the few Eccl. verses are saying? are they having anything to do with the Thread of Tradition?

First off was some saying that the Revelation's last few verses are pertaining only to that book? That in itself needs study, for were the folks that divided up the 'Complete Whole' inspired? You know, into books, into chapters, adding periods, comas, and what else? NO, THE BOOK is [THE BOOK]! Christ tells how to study His Inspired Book! Matthew 4:4. He even went [back] (what 'man' calls the O.T.) into the book in His answer to satans remark in verse 6. of Matthew 4:6.

These ones who say that Revelation 22:18-19 is only regarding that chapter of the book, or the book itself, need to ask their self if they mean just the chapter that uninspired man divided up, or all of Revelation who uninspired man divided up?

OK: In Ecclesiastes 1:9-10.
"The thing that [hath been, it is that which shall be]; and that which [is done is that which shall be done:] and there [is NO NEW THING UNDER THE SUN.] (if there is, it is so few times that God tells us of these rather than the opposite. Such as the rainbow & Nahum 1:9)

Is there [anything] whereof it may be said, See [THIS IS NEW?] It hath already been [already of old time, which was before us.]"

Does that include any 'inspired tradition'? (if there was such a thing?) And does that include ALL REAL INSPIRATION? Most certainly! But Revelation is something new huh? : Now, we are not talking of a last day fulfillment in a larger [scale] such as prophesied trouble escalating. But God says that this same trouble is repeated. We see tradition over Bible being repeated. But lets go on? But these two verses seem simple & clear if one Believes the Godhead???

Now over in Ecclesiastes 3:14-15 we see that God [REPEATS HIMSELF]! Are you seeing that? It has just been done a 'prophesied' twice at least!
But where in the Word of God does one see verse 14 (almost Word for Word) REPEATED for this above verse documented? You see it in the Revelation 22:18-19 verses!!

Verse 14 says: (verse 14? well.. The BOOK says)
"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, (SAYS!) it [shall be for ever:
nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it],.." Now, if you have a problem with my bottom line word of using 'says' for 'doeth'? Ask yourself if there are not many things that the Godhead did that will not stand that test? God created Lucifer perfect! And Adams free will testing? + much more. So again we see the Matthew 4:4 every Word needed. (NOT TRADITION!)

And verse 15 followed verse 14! Did the Godhead make a mistake asking.. "See, this is new?' in the Eccl.. 1:9-10 verses? No, they quickly answered Their self before any of us'ins could mess it up or 'create a tradition' with something 'uninspired' & [NEW], huh? If there was any inspired tradition in the Word of God, it would be found REPEATING itself in other places! Yet, we find the EXACT OPPOSITE! See Jeremiah 17:5, and if you don't like the comparison, you find me the repeated history anywhere in the BOOK of 2 Timothy 3:16's doctrine on any tradition!

Verse 15 says: "That which [has been is now]: (the Gen. tree testing ='s Rev. 666 Testing, BOTTOM LINE!) and that [which is to be hath already been]; and [God REQUIRETH THAT WHICH WAS PAST]." And you say that adding to or taking away from [THE BOOK] only means Revelation?

---John

 

[Drew]

Re: The Ecclesiastes verses say what??

These ones who say that Revelation 22:18-19 is only regarding that chapter of the book, or the book itself, need to ask their self if they mean just the chapter that uninspired man divided up, or all of Revelation who uninspired man divided up?

This does not work. I think that JTB is essentially saying that I am arbritrarily deciding that the scope of that which is being referred to in Rev 22;18-19 is limited to the single book that we call Revelation. He (JTB) asks why not say these verses refer only to the specific chapter?

Of course, when the author of Revelation penned his book, he wrote it as a book, not as a set of 22 chapters. The chapter divisions were added later (correct me if I am wrong). So when John says "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them...", he is clearly talking about the book, not the chapter, and certainly not the other books of the Bible. I do not see what the difficulty is here.

 

[John the Baptist]

Re: The Ecclesiastes verses say what??

These ones who say that Revelation 22:18-19 is only regarding that chapter of the book, or the book itself, need to ask their self if they mean just the chapter that uninspired man divided up, or all of Revelation who uninspired man divided up?

This does not work. I think that JTB is essentially saying that I am arbritrarily deciding that the scope of that which is being referred to in Rev 22;18-19 is limited to the single book that we call Revelation. He (JTB) asks why not say these verses refer only to the specific chapter?

Of course, when the author of Revelation penned his book, he wrote it as a book, not as a set of 22 chapters. The chapter divisions were added later (correct me if I am wrong). So when John says "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them...", he is clearly talking about the book, not the chapter, and certainly not the other books of the Bible. I do not see what the difficulty is here.

**********

Hi [forum]!
Please do not take anything that you might think that I am saying, in a personal way! If Romans 8:14 is felt, then that is not my reading anyone mind, OK?

Was it not several including a friend that I believe missed his calling that say that the verse was only for the chapter? (or whatever)

My bottom line is not like anyone's here I suspect? I am an old timer who has been doing the Matthew 4:4 eating for most of my life. So surely, either right or wrong, I am pretty much set in spiritual concrete! (no tradition : )

Anyway, let me say it this way? We have Gods WORD. It has ALWAYS BEEN, and has ALWAYS BEEN TRUTH! When it was recorded as in AD 96 by the 'penman' John, matters very little, it is still IMMORTAL TRUTH, as I see it. In other words, does Gods WORDS have a starting period? Not for me! :fadein:

Yes, surely, He might tell us of a start for our time, but that does not change the bottom line ETERNAL TRUTH. The verse of Revelation (two if you agree with uninspired compilers) says:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the word's of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

You see, I can never believe that John's 'pen' does not cover the COMPLETE BOOK! It is the INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST, THE ETERNAL WORD OF GOD, not 'Johns'!

Revelation is to me, is included in with the ETERNAL DOCTRINE OF CHRIST
as John also penned! 2 John 1:8-11 We need to see John as only the penman of all of his 'penmanship'. (several books)

I see 2 Timothy 3:16 as [ALL INCLUSIVE] in Truth of any & [ALL] Doctrine! All the Word is needed for understanding. How can 'i' limit it to two verses that the compilers separated & numbered from Rev.??? I can't! : ( :o OK, that is me!)

In Isaiah 28 'i' find the way to understand the Eternal Word, that is needed for understanding [ETERNAL] doctrine. (something new? No God said!)
v one talks of drunkards? whats that mean? Spiritual wine that is fermented doctrine. (my take on the Revelation 17:1-5 ones) But these ones are Israel that God is chastising in His Word. Yet, the Word tells more in verses 7-10! (Isaiah 28:7-10 in the K.J.) I see it as telling 'me' that we [must run] from all of God's recorded Truth, (not tradition) and that it is His Word, not Isaiah or Johns! And that running (Matthew 4:4) TIES ALL SUBJECTS TOGETHER like a puzzle, let me say it this way.. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precipe; line upon line, line upon line, hear a little, and there a little." That cannot exclude the last few verses in THE WORD for me!

But what is interesting is what is in the previous verses of these 'overcome' ones with wine! Verses of Isaiah 28:7-8!
Just some 'spiritual' Words:

'Have erred through strong drink' (wine of Revelations Babylon! FERMENTED DOCTRINES)

'For [all tables] are full of vomit and filthiness'. Tables are where we are supposed to eat 'spiritual food' (CHURCH!) We have SICK food that makes us & Christ 'sick'! Revelation 3:16-17 And we do not know it! Bible 'study' is not understood!!! We do not understand how to KNOW TRUTH!

'There is NO Place clean' Thus we see Revelation 17:2.

OK! Now for verse 9 of Isaiah 28:9 for how God REQUIRETH us to know Truth! (not tradition)
"Whom shall [He] teach knowledge? and whom shall He [make to understand DOCTRINE?] them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts." Like Hebrews 5:11-14 'repeated' ones!
Anyhow, if you can get anything from this ETERNAL WORD, it is a requirement of how 'i' can only understand any Doctrine! :fadein:

Once again, nothing personal meant! But I do not believe that any portion of the Godheads WORD stand alone, such as their [last warning to mankind]. For that is the EVERLASTING GOSPEL (including heavens rebellion) from Adam's sin on, to the last FINISHED work with the Word of God being its own hermeneutics! :fadein:

---John

 

[Imagican]

The idea that the Scriptures "are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church and all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures" sounds nice but does not ultimately work.

The reason lies in the rather obvious fact the Scriptures are expressed in human language, and human language necessarily makes reference to extra-scriptural sources in order to construct meaning. The very meaning of words like "faith", "love", "pre-destined", "free will", etc. are brought to the process of extracting meaning from the Scriptures. The words and expressions that make up the Biblical texts derive their meaning from "cultural" sources that lie "outside" the Bible itself.

Therefore the very act of constructing any meaning from the scriptures is necessarily "contaminated" - there simply is no Biblical message that can be identified as somehow disconnected from other extra-Biblical elements.

Now here is why this creates problems for the extract from James White paraphrased in blue in the first para of my post: It seems that White ignores the fact that the act of extracting meaning from the Biblical texts necessarily 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.

So any attempt to disambiguate the meaning of "love" (in this example) necessarily introduces extra-Biblical sources and makes it effectively impossible to talk about the authority of Scriptures as standing apart from the "authority" of the extra-Biblical sources that were used in writing the Bible in the first place.

Drew,

While I will agree that your argument has a bit of validity when aproached from a 'worldly' angle, this by NO means has any 'true' validity when we add God to the picture.

Your statements are very analytical, yet this is NOT spiritual AT ALL. The Bible IS written in a particular language and if simply confronted as such, is nothing more than words. However, once one allows the Spirit access to their hearts, something different takes place. We are no longer ONLY dealing with the understanding of man, but are offered an understanding that the 'flesh' is UNABLE to discern.

So, I appreciate your view from an 'educated' perspective, but this takes NOTHING from the 'truth' and only pales in comparison to 'true' understanding offered by the Spirit through the Holy Word of God.

So, all the 'cultural' influence that you insist is able to alter the meanings of what is offered through scripture is ONLY true from the perspective from which you offer it. Not 'true' by any means when one considers and accepts the spritual ALONG with the mental or cultural aspects of the meaning behind scriptures.

Man alone can ONLY understand what man alone is capable of. God, on the other hand is the ONLY source of 'true' knowledge and therefore without His influence on what we learn, we can only see through the glass dimly and without clarity.

Bless you brother.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

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.

You know guys, what I see within statements like these is NO FAITH in the Father whatsoever. Bare with me and you too will see what I offer.

God has used friend and foe throughout history to exercies HIS WILL. Why He used the Catholic Church to compile His Word is NOT within my understanding. Perhaps it was done this way to ultimately condemn those that refused to HEED the Words, even when given the oportunity to publish them. I don't know that this is true. It is NO more than speculation, as, what I have noticed, seems to be the direction that a couple of you would turn this topic if allowed.

Now, with this said, PLEASE explain how the 'man-made' traditions of the Catholic Church have ANYTHING to do with the Bible? I see NO correlation to 'a bastardization' of the Word with the Word itself. Even though the Cathollics compiled the Word into the Holy Bible, I see that they have done little more over the centuries than vere as far away from these words as possible. Manipulating their followers at will for power and gain.

But, back to the subject at hand. Fulton, you would have to offer 'some' proof that the traditons of the Catholic Church were inspired by 'something' other than those that 'created' them. I have seen NO proof of anything of the sort. I 'hear' the words that are offered in the defense of the CC, but, as of yet, I have seen NO proof that their traditions are ANYTHING other than 'contradictory' to that brought to them by the apostles. 'Man-made' without any basis other than the previous pagan beliefs of these people.

Now, I am more than willing to read anything that you have that offers any validity whatsoever concerning the 'traditions' of the CC. But, if you simply choose to defend without any valid proof, I can do NOTHING other than reject what you offer and write it off to the brainwashing that you have chosen to subject yourself to. For it is EASY to quote what others have offered and believe it if you so choose. But to offer any 'proof', TAKES proof and I don't believe that the CC has a 'leg to stand on' so to speak.

 

[John the Baptist]

Where is tradition found in any doctrine in the Word of God? Surely one believes the N.T. Inspired verse of 1 Corinthians 14:32 If so, there seems no way for the doctrine to be left out, unless it is only tradition!

"And the [spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets]."
It sure seems to me that we are hearing contradicting spirits?

---John

 

[John the Baptist]

More Apostate False Tradition Seen In Rome

This was put together by another, yet it is all a thus sayeth the Lord, not tradition such as Peter being a rock!
--John
________


2Sa 22:2 and he said: The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;
(JPS) The God who is my rock, in Him I take refuge; my shield, and my horn of salvation, my high tower, and my refuge; my savior, Thou savest me from violence.

Psa 31:2 (31:3) Incline Thine ear unto me, deliver me speedily; be Thou to me a rock of refuge, even a fortress of defense, to save me.
Psa 31:3 (31:4) For Thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for Thy name's sake lead me and guide me.

Psa 61:2 From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I.
Psa 61:3 For thou hast been a shelter for me, and a strong tower from the enemy.
Psa 61:4 I will abide in thy tabernacle forever: I will trust in the covert of thy wings. Selah.

Psa 62:2 He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defense; I shall not be greatly moved.

Psa 94:22 But the LORD is my defense; and my God is the rock of my refuge.

Isa 26:4
(JPS) Trust ye in the LORD for ever, for the LORD is GOD, an everlasting Rock.

(Isa 48:21-22 NIV) "They did not thirst when he led them through the deserts; he made water flow for them from the rock; he split the rock and water gushed out."

(1 Cor 10:2-5 NIV) "They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. {3} They all ate the same spiritual food {4} and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

(John 4:10 NIV) "Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.""

2 Sam 22:32-33 NIV) "For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? {33} It is God who arms me with strength and makes my way perfect."

(Psa 18:31-33 NIV) "For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? {32} It is God who arms me with strength and makes my way perfect. {33} He makes my feet like the feet of a deer; he enables me to stand on the heights."

(Exo 33:18) "Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory."
(Exo 33:20-23 NIV) "But," He said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see Me and live." {21} Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. {22} When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. {23} Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.""

Notice here, that Moses has to be hid in the cleft of the rock to be able to see God and live. It is that because our life is hid in Christ, we may someday see God in all His glorious splendor and live!

(Isa 44:7-9 NIV) "Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. {8} Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." {9} All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame."

Of course, this goes on and on and on like this, so we may know who is our Rock, but some men choose the man Peter to be their rock - I just do not understand it, but i understand what the Lord says about it - selecting the doctrine of man over Him.

Deu 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
Deu 32:32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:
Deu 32:33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.


Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

 

[Imagican]

"upon this rock I will build My church" (Mt 16:18)
"do not say ‘I am of Peter’" (1 Cor 1:10)
"as gardeners and builders... each man must be careful how he builds on it." (1 Cor 3:10)
"I used the gardener and builder figures to that you learn not to exceed what is written" (1 Cor 4:6)

Jesus repeatedly rebuked the Devil with, "it is written", not "I say".

As Paul tell us, do not exceed what is written.

Should I go on with this topic? Is it worth it? Is anyone reading what is being posted?

J

I go away for a day and everyone forgets me. hehehe. No, JM I have followed every one of your posts and agree with them in their entirety. I had to wait until this morning to 'catch up', but I'm back 'for a time', (It's Fathers Day and I am forced, by marriage, to attend my inlaws 'get together'.

Don't let a 'few' cause you to feel that we are 'all' like unto these. No, if anything, I feel that there has been an attempt to 'hijack' my thread and turn it into a 'personal argument' with you instead of dealing with the subject at hand.

Let us get back on track. I'll start it with this;

Many churches teach that we are to follow them rather than the Word. As an example of what I state, let us discuss the tradition of 'the churches themselves'. WHERE in the Word is there ANY offering concerning the 'modern day temples' that have been constructed for us to 'gather' within? Is there ANY Biblical basis for these?

 

[Imagican]

John,

I thank you for your words of wisdom that obvious come directly from the Spirit. That we could but heed them unto understanding.

God Bless you brother.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Fulton,


I have reserected an old thread, 'Trinity, Biblically sound or Catholic baggage'. If you are interested in continuing this debate, please visit it and see if there are any points offered within that haven't been hit upon yet.

 

[Klee shay]

Is the 'tradition' taught by the churches the Word of God, passed down FROM the Son of God and His apostles, or 'something else'? And if something else, then what is 'wrong' with following them.

Tough question. Church tradition is not all of God but then in part, it can be inspired of God too. Take baptising in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for example. This can be found in scripture and churches practice it. Many churches teach the Word of God as well; scripture for scripture, and while some of it can be corrupted by man-made interpretation - digesting scripture is the seed God meant to be planted inside believers from the very beginning.

On the outside it looks as if the man-made churches are twisting scripture but when God is in control (through Christ) he nurtures his seed inside every individual, despite outside intervention. "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." ROMANS 8:38-29

When we learn of God's love for his Son through scripture, we are impregnated with the seed of life. Church is where many go to be inspired of God's love...and this is the part which can only be of righteousness. If belief in God was counted as righteousness unto Abraham, then so too any person who believes in God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, must in some part obtain that same righteousness?

Enter tradition however - the bane of mankind's eternal fall from grace. The Jews fell unto their man-made traditions as will the Christian churches fall upon the cornerstone and be broken. For only the Lord's words will remain after heaven and earth pass away; and so every God-fearing person should study the scriptures for his Son's word and find truth.

To sumarise, what I am saying is that church tradition is not of God unless it follows the original commandments set by him and what Jesus taught as well - but also, Church provides the storehouse of seeds which can be planted of God - despite death, life, angels, principalities, powers, things present, things to come, height, depth or any other creature. God's love is eternal and has been offered as a gift for those who are humble, respectful and fearful before God.

Whether through scripture or tradition; given unto the hands of God in full submission to him alone will our understanding be made manifest in his righteousness. No-one has control over when or how we obtain this righteousness either. For some have tried tradition, some have tried sacrifices, some have tried fear of damnation and others have tried doctrine. : In the end God only respects the humble, the respectful and the fearful unto his love through Jesus Christ.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

+JMJ+


Where is the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

Scriptural support can be found from the following:
Deuteronomy 8:3; Psalms 119:105; Proverbs 30:5-6; Matthew 4:4; Matthew 15:2-6; Luke 4:4; Luke 8:4-15; Luke 24:26-27; John 17:17; Acts 17:11; Galatians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Peter 3:15-17

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scrip ... tura_creed)

 

[Drew]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scrip ... tura_creed[/url])[/quote:7410f]
My present position on the "sola scriptura" vs "scripture+tradition" probably leans a lot closer to the former than the latter. However, I have looked at the first three of these texts (for brevity, this post only addresses the first three) and I do not think they really do much to specifically support a sola scriptura position. Of course, they are consistent with such a position, but they are also consistent with the "scripture + tradition" position:

Text 1: Deuteronomy 8:3: He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.

This text does not do the important job of making it clear that only scripture makes up the content of what "proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord". On what basis do we conclude that God cannot also speak to men and inspire tradition as well?

Text 2: Psalm 119:105: Your word is a lamp to my feet nd a light to my path.

Same thing here - there is ambiguity about God's "word" is. Perhaps it is Scripture only, but perhaps it is scripture + tradition. It is important to not presume that "word" must mean written scripture only - additional arguments are needed. After all, it seems reasonable to assume that God's "word" could find representation in both scripture and tradition. Besides, even if "word" can be shown to mean "scripture", this text does not rule out other sources of guidance from God (although to be fair, other texts, such as one addressed below, from the list do seem to do the job of ruling out other sources, but still there is no warrant I can see to conclude that "word" = Scripture and not "Scripture + other forms of God's word being made manifest in the world".

Text3: Proverbs 30:5-6: Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. 6 Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

This is a stronger text that clearly warns against adding to God's words. But is there really a justification to conclude that this refers only to Scripture. If we take other texts in the Bible serioulsy, we know that God is very much in the business of interacting with his children in their day to day lives. Christians speak all the time of receiving specific guidance from God. Are these not His words also? The same could be said about "tradition" - one can believe that God "spoke" to various people through the ages and divulged divine truth to them.

In the end, if someone can make a case that "word" would have been understood by the writers of Scripture to specifically refer to Scripture, I would feel a lot more comfortable with the Sola Scripture position

 

[Imagican]

Drew,

Either one accepts the Word AS the Word, or they don't. I am of a firm belief that the Holy Bible IS the inspired written Word of God. NO, not the ONLY form of Word, for Christ Himself personified this 'Word'.

While there is the surety that God is able to inspire individuals or groups BEYOND the 'written Words contents', one must ALSO take into account that there ARE other 'powers' that are able to influence these as well. In other words, just because one makes the 'claim' that their inspiration comes from God Himself is NO proof whatsoever that this is 'true'. One MUST allow discernment THROUGH the Spirit in order to determine whether something is of 'truth' or somehting 'different'.

I don't believe that even those that claim Sola Scriptura are even able to follow ONLY the written Word. For God will offer MORE than that contained ONLY in the written Word. The written Word is ONLY the beginning of knowledge and without the Spirit, could also be considered the END of knowledge also. So even those that believe in ONLY Scripture to guide their walk will be offered ADDITIONAL truth and wisdom beyond the written Word, through the Spirit.

But what we discuss here is TRADITION. Not whether ALL tradition is based on Sola Scriptura. There WAS some tradition that was passed down from 'word of mouth' I am sure. Just how we discern this from other is the question of import. It would be utterly foolish for anYone to believe that EVERYTHING taught by or through the apostles was 'written down'. Now, the important thing to understand is 'true' tradition AS taught by the apostles and Christ Himself, and separate 'this' from that which is falsely taught by 'man alone'.

So Drew, your question can NOT be answered in the way in which you desire it. It is not a matter of even being able to be discerned in the way in which you seek 'your' answer. You are asking for 'someONE' to 'prove what they offer. Yet, this is impossible without the Spirit. For man is incapable of 'knowing' ANYTHING that matters without It.

Let me break this down to it's simplist terms. The wisdom of man is NOTHING without being in 'tune' with the Wisdom of God. This ONLY takes place through the Spirit. No amount of words of men is able to offer this in truth. No colleges can teach it, no siminary schools. NO WHERE can it be found other than through the Spirit.

While you seem to be seeking truth, you seem to be seeking from a 'fleshly perspective' instead of Spiritual. This can only lead to unanswered questions for the lack of allowing the Spirit to lead and instead, following the vain wisdom of man.

Bless you bro

MEC

 

[John the Baptist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scrip ... tura_creed[/url])[/quote:61601]
***

John here:
Very good verses! But some here would need a study on each one alone & then connecting the 'meaning'! : In other words, unless one is 'spiritual' John 3:3-8 they will bring up 2 Timothy 3:16 for one example, the K.J. says ALL SCRIPTURE is to be used for ..." But the skeptic will say, but it does not say anything about not using 'tradition'! Yet, it say's exactly that to the ones of 1 John 4:6. All Scripture does not say some 'tradition'!! (that is both a :fadein: & a )

And your verse in Matthew 4:4 is the same WORD FROM GOD. But the skeptic says.. can not God speak through tradition? They toss in a side issue, huh? God just said ALL SCRIPTURE!!

Then we see where we might reply with the context of the verse as did Christ? (remember that it was the devil that was tempting Him!) And the SPOKEN WORD OF GODcame from only one place in the 66 Books of Inspiration, and in their pure clarity! From God Himself! He did not leave it for the Inspired writers to pen. And this Truth is found in Isaiah 8:20. GOD SPAKE IT VERBALLY, then HE WROTE it on Stone, then He put it into the [Born Again] mind of some. (conditional Jn. 3:5-8)

The K.J. has it this way:
"To the law (Heb. 13:20's Eternal Covenant) [and] [to the testimony:] (not tradition! all 66 books as in 2 Peter 1:20-21) [IF THEY SPEAK NOT ACCORDING TO THIS WORD,] it is [BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM.]"

And again the skeptic will still say, but cannot God use tradition?? Well, here is the catch, God's Word is its own hermeneutics! Any tradition that violate what we already have in the 66 Books, or violates the Covenant of the Godhead, which is the first & top priority! is to be cast out as having NO LIGHT IN THEM!

And tradition? Any church tradition that has changed the Eternal Covenant of God has just been 'executed' by God Himself in these verses. Lightless!! Now, has any church gone against the Ten Commandment law of God? Rome boasts that they have!

Beloved John, the one who lived the longest, and who wrote much.. John, + 1,2,3 John, and Revelation and recorded the Doctrine of Christ, states it VERY CLEARLY by 'Inspiration'. He says it like this in the Catholic Douay version of 1 John 2:4
"He who says that he knows him, and does not keep his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him."

Interesting that we are told in the N.T. even, that [all] of 'the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets' (1 Corinthians 14:32) and we had just read the above that anything claimed to be truth (such as tradition) which violated either the Eternal Covenant or the 'Testimony', has NO LIGHT and NO TRUTH, AND IS A LIAR! And Rome has 'boastfully' done both!! :

 

[Drew]

Now, the important thing to understand is 'true' tradition AS taught by the apostles and Christ Himself, and separate 'this' from that which is falsely taught by 'man alone'.

Precision is important here. Let me ask what I hope is a clear and direct question: This "true" tradition that you refer to, does any of it provide additional content over and above what is present in the Scriptures? I suspect that you will answer in the negative. Now please hold that thought for now....

Let me break this down to it's simplist terms. The wisdom of man is NOTHING without being in 'tune' with the Wisdom of God. This ONLY takes place through the Spirit.

I believe what you are saying to be true, but I have some qualifications. Let me ask you another question. Is your position basically the following: "The truth that all tradition outside of the scriptures is not authoritative is a truth that can only be discerned 'spiritually'. It simply cannot be shown to be the case in through any kind of evidence-based argument."

Reading between the lines of what you have already written, I expect that you will answer "yes" to this question. If so, there really is nothing to discuss, since the truth about the validity of tradition cannot be defended using the tools of what you call the "wisdom of man", which, I claim, is really the only game in town (as it were) for any humans to have any constructive interactions (with each other) at all. If the "wisdom of man" is totally dismissed, the world is reduced to a set of persons who sit in a kind of immediate relation to the 'spiritual' and who cannot trust all the conventional faculties of human thinking - logic, consistency, analysis, synthesis, etc. I have no trouble with the former, but I do with the latter.

I think it is fairly clear that God has given mankind reasonably reliable "tools" to think and reason properly. It should not be assumed that these cannot be complementary to any kind of direct revelation through the Spirit.

In other words, the fact that we have a spiritual faculty to interact with God is not really a reason to reject the faculties of "human reason" that have served mankind so well through the millenia. We need to be careful to not play the game of denying the validity of the tools of human "wisdom" and yet clearly use these same tools to make that very point. This happens a lot in the Church - teachers will apply the principles of "human wisdom" (e.g. building a scriptural case based on principles of logic and textual interpretation) to try to make the very case that these tools are not to be trusted.

By the way, I appreciate the cordial manner you use in these discussion.