M
Montalban
Guest
Traditionally, the Didache is also considered inspired. Do you follow it?
Many pick and choose, when it comes to tradition
Why’s it not in the Bible?
Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?
- Status
Many pick and choose, when it comes to tradition
Why’s it not in the Bible?
S
sandusky
Guest
Because Luther rejected it as a “didache of straw?”
G
Ginger2
Guest
Quote: “What scripture did Paul test his Epistles against when they’re generally considered to have been written before the Gospels.”
Geesh! I thought we covered this.
Paul received the the word directly from Jesus. Don;'t you rmember he was hunting down Christians to kill them.
But, for your sake I will answer the question: Paul was a Jew. He had the OT writings to test for truth.
Good night.
Geesh! I thought we covered this.
Paul received the the word directly from Jesus. Don;'t you rmember he was hunting down Christians to kill them.
But, for your sake I will answer the question: Paul was a Jew. He had the OT writings to test for truth.
Good night.
M
Montalban
Guest
Ah, the genius of Luther. I forgot that he was such an authority as to over-turn 1,500 years of tradtion - which you also are selective in accepting - based on what?
M
Montalban
Guest
We did. You offered a measure that has holes in it.
So he knew Jesus through the OT?
I note the slight avoidence of the test regarding the *Acts of Paul *and an epistle by that Saint
B
Bishopite
Guest
G
Ginger2
Guest
How quickly minutes turn to hours…
Mantalban, Why do you insist that Jesus words to Paul needed to be tested for truth? Can a man’s word be taken over Christ’s?
You are beginning to sound like you are arguing for the Pharisees:
"The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.” John 8:13-18
Jesus spoke directly to Paul. Paul did not need anyone else to affirm what was reveal to him by Christ Jesus.
Mantalban, Why do you insist that Jesus words to Paul needed to be tested for truth? Can a man’s word be taken over Christ’s?
You are beginning to sound like you are arguing for the Pharisees:
"The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.” John 8:13-18
Jesus spoke directly to Paul. Paul did not need anyone else to affirm what was reveal to him by Christ Jesus.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Quote Montalban: “So he knew Jesus through the OT?”
No, Paul knew Jesus because Jesus revealed himself to Paul.
Luke 24:13-35 They knew the Scriptures, but didn’t understand until Jesus opened their minds to understand.
No, Paul knew Jesus because Jesus revealed himself to Paul.
Luke 24:13-35 They knew the Scriptures, but didn’t understand until Jesus opened their minds to understand.
S
savedsinner
Guest
What authority did Martin Luther have do determine this?
B
Bishopite
Guest
Montalban,
You mean you didn’t know that early church fathers taught sola scriptura?
I’m still looking for it but I know it’s out there. Maybe we can split the search. Roman Catholics take A through F early church fathers and the Eastern Orothodox take G through Z. Or vise versa if it works out better for you. That way I know we will find sola scriptura somewhere in their writings.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Luther had the authority because he finally, after 1500 years of Tradition passed down finally came upon the correct interpretation of the Bible. And since the Bible says it is inspired that makes it inspired…(tongue and check).
M
Montalban
Guest
But you said that the test was that they had to compare to the Scriptures. You’re now going back on your own test!
M
Montalban
Guest
I missed that!Montalban,
You mean you didn’t know that early church fathers taught sola scriptura?
Of course it would be funny if Protestants attempted to say “We believe in sola scriptura because Church Fathers (tradition) says it”Well their only basis for going *sola scriptura *would be scripture and I’ve yet to see one post a part of scripture saying that they should do this. One of them cited Martin Luther(!) as an authority - which denies sola scriptura.I’m still looking for it but I know it’s out there. Maybe we can split the search. Roman Catholics take A through F early church fathers and the Eastern Orothodox take G through Z. Or vise versa if it works out better for you. That way I know we will find sola scriptura somewhere in their writings.
Ginger2 says scripture MUST be tested against scripture, then says Paul had authority from Jesus - which is another attack on sola scriptura as well as an attack on his own ‘rule’.
M
Montalban
Guest
Indeed!
They’re saying “Scripture *is *enough” but suddenly “NO, Martin Luther authorised this”, appealing to an authority beyond scripture!
M
murphdog261
Guest
Perhaps Protestants find it difficult to accept Tradition as an authority along (not above) with Sacred Scripture because they feel it does not come from God.
I’ve posted a few times already, but my point seems to be ignored (maybe its just not a good’un)
Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition come from the same source, which is God. God’s Revelation through His Word is found in both the teachings and preachings (Tradition) of the Apostles, as well as in the writings of the Apostles (Scripture), with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Since both Scripture and Tradition come from the same spring of God’s Revelation, the relationship between Scripture and Tradition is extremely close. Since Sacred Scripture is the inerrant Word of God written down, so too must Holy Tradition be inerrant, not only because it speaks of the same divinely inspired doctrines Scripture does, but also because God’s Revelation is found in Scripture just as much as it is found in Tradition.
The Church in turn uses both Scripture and Tradition (which is recognized, not completely fabricated) to teach its members.
I’m pretty sure that protestants still hear “man-made” when catholics say “Tradition”. If we don’t get our terms straight, we are going to be barking the same old stuff at each other forever…
Who’s up for trying to help each other see the Truth?
In Christ,
Murph
I’ve posted a few times already, but my point seems to be ignored (maybe its just not a good’un)
Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition come from the same source, which is God. God’s Revelation through His Word is found in both the teachings and preachings (Tradition) of the Apostles, as well as in the writings of the Apostles (Scripture), with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Since both Scripture and Tradition come from the same spring of God’s Revelation, the relationship between Scripture and Tradition is extremely close. Since Sacred Scripture is the inerrant Word of God written down, so too must Holy Tradition be inerrant, not only because it speaks of the same divinely inspired doctrines Scripture does, but also because God’s Revelation is found in Scripture just as much as it is found in Tradition.
The Church in turn uses both Scripture and Tradition (which is recognized, not completely fabricated) to teach its members.
I’m pretty sure that protestants still hear “man-made” when catholics say “Tradition”. If we don’t get our terms straight, we are going to be barking the same old stuff at each other forever…
Who’s up for trying to help each other see the Truth?
In Christ,
Murph
B
Bishopite
Guest
Good post. You are correct the relationship between scripture and Tradition is close much like a brick wall, the bricks being scripture, Tradition being the mortar which holds the bricks together.
God’s speed at the attempt. Maybe you have the list of oral Traditions passed down from the Apostles Sandusky was asking for?
S
sandusky
Guest
What does that have to do with my answer to your question concerning the didache?
S
sandusky
Guest
Sola Scriptura does not limit appeals to outside authority.Indeed!
They’re saying “Scripture *is *enough” but suddenly “NO, Martin Luther authorised this”, appealing to an authority beyond scripture!
M
Montalban
Guest
Then you misunderstand the word ‘alone’ or ‘only’.
M
Montalban
Guest
We call it ‘scripture *in *tradition’
An oral tradition we keep; that Jesus had no brothers and sisters. Another as to the names of Mary’s parents.
- Status