Certain authors of the NT cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine, in addition to old Testament Scripture...

[PRmerger]

The Scriptures should always be deferred to, no matter what mistakes church leaders make. (By church leaders I’m referring to any Christian church.)

Yet every heretic “deferred to the Scriptures”.

• Those who deny the Trinity defer to the Scriptures.
• Those who deny that Jesus is God defer to the Scriptures.
• Those who deny that Sunday is the day of worship defer to the Scriptures.
• Those who deny that baptism saves you defer to the Scriptures.
• Those who deny that divorce and re-marriage is adultery defer to the Scriptures.

 

[joe370]

Dokimas7512671:

Any ‘church’ that humbly follows (to the best of their ability - yielding to the Holy Spirit’s direction) the Lord Jesus Christ.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by ‘deposit of faith’.

Tradition should be examined in light of the Scriptures and if the tradition is not against the Scriptures and edifies believers, it’s good to follow.

The Scriptures should always be deferred to, no matter what mistakes church leaders make. (By church leaders I’m referring to any Christian church.)

Any ‘church’ that humbly follows (to the best of their ability - yielding to the Holy Spirit’s direction) the Lord Jesus Christ.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by ‘deposit of faith’.

Tradition should be examined in light of the Scriptures and if the tradition is not against the Scriptures and edifies believers, it’s good to follow.

The Scriptures should always be deferred to, no matter what mistakes church leaders make. (By church leaders I’m referring to any Christian church.)
Reply With Quote

Both sacred tradition and sacred scripture = the deposit of faith.

It seems to me that you are suggesting that no one church, out of a bevy of churches, has the God given authority, (just as Jesus’ church did for the first 500 years of Christianity) - via the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to identify valid apostolic tradition as opposed to man-made tradition, just as the apostles did as I have illustrated here on this very thread; am I interpreting that correctly?

So, any ‘church’ in the world today, that humbly follows (to the best of their ability - yielding to the Holy Spirit’s direction) - has the God given authority to identify valid apostolic tradition - yes?

What if different churches, in the world today, examine tradition in light of the Scriptures and come away from the scriptures with different traditions just as is the case with the different interpretations vis-a-vis scripture? Do we just embrace all those traditions???

 

[Dokimas]

Good. Because they were Catholic.

When was it that your church removed priests from being able to celebrate your worship services?

When was it that your church stopped venerating the saints?

When was it that your church removed the books from the Bible that these early Catholic saints and bishops used?

Do you see, Dokimas? By admitting that these men in the first centuries of the church were Catholic, you are admitting that the way your pastor practices is new. It is something HE decided to do, fallibly, and based on his own fallible perceptions.

Thanks for your opinion. I see things a bit different than you.

 

[Dokimas]

Yet every heretic “deferred to the Scriptures”.

• Those who deny the Trinity defer to the Scriptures.
• Those who deny that Jesus is God defer to the Scriptures.
• Those who deny that Sunday is the day of worship defer to the Scriptures.
• Those who deny that baptism saves you defer to the Scriptures.
• Those who deny that divorce and re-marriage is adultery defer to the Scriptures.

Thanks for your opinion. Thank you for pointing out people don’t always understand the Bible clearly, people and churches - all churches.

 

[Dokimas]

What if different churches, in the world today, examine tradition in light of the Scriptures and come away from the scriptures with different traditions just as is the case with the different interpretations vis-a-vis scripture? Do we just embrace all those traditions???

God’s big enough to deal with each and every situation.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for your opinion. I see things a bit different than you.

I only ask that you think about what I’ve proposed, Doki.

Your pastor is participating in NEW traditions. New rituals. New doctrines.

Those who lived in the first century lived the Catholic life.

It was only recently (depending upon your congregation) that you added or took away things from the faith left to us by the Apostles.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for your opinion. Thank you for pointing out people don’t always understand the Bible clearly, people and churches - all churches.

What is “clearly”, Doki? In the manner that you interpret the Bible?

Yet don’t you proclaim that each and every person must read and interpret for himself the Scriptures?

 

[Dokimas]

I only ask that you think about what I’ve proposed, Doki.

Your pastor is participating in NEW traditions. New rituals. New doctrines.

Those who lived in the first century lived the Catholic life.

It was only recently (depending upon your congregation) that you added or took away things from the faith left to us by the Apostles.

I’ve given thought and can only thank you for your opinion.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve given thought and can only thank you for your opinion.

You don’t think that what your pastor is doing is new? (New, of course, compared to these men we’re discussing like Jerome and Tertullian.)

 

[Dokimas]

You don’t think that what your pastor is doing is new? (New, of course, compared to these men we’re discussing like Jerome and Tertullian.)

The NT is not new. The epistles were around since the 1st century.

BTW1, what are the new things my pastor is doing?

BTW2, this type of discussion seems to validate David Miller’s ideas. You can find them in my thread I started with his name in the title.

 

[PRmerger]

The NT is not new. The epistles were around since the 1st century.

True. But a non-sequitor, to be sure!

BTW1, what are the new things my pastor is doing?

Well, I really couldn’t say as your pastor has no authority over him, yes? So he is not bound by anyone else’s interpretation of Scripture–just his own fallible one, right?

So whatever he does, based on his own fallible interpretation, could be as new as his own creativity. He will, of course, appeal to Scripture, but it mightn’t be something done in the 1st, 3rd, 8th, 16th or 19th centuries, but is only an innovation in his own mind.

BTW2, this type of discussion seems to validate David Miller’s ideas. You can find them in my thread I started with his name in the title.

'kay.

 

[joe370]

God’s big enough to deal with each and every situation.

There does not seem to be anything more to debate with you, for everyone is right and no one is wrong, regardless of church affiliation, when it comes to doctrinal truth, the interpretation of the bible and the identification of apostolic tradition vs man-made tradition. That does seem to be the easier way to go… Take care Dok.

 

[Dokimas]

True. But a non-sequitor, to be sure!

I don’t know what a sequitor so I doubt if I know what a non-sequitor is.

However, it was my response to the accusation that pastors teach new things. If they teach the Bible, they aren’t teaching new things. BTW, on the other thread, wasn’t it you who said that most of what you believe is the same as what I believe? So there’s not much new in “my” teaching.

Well, I really couldn’t say as your pastor has no authority over him, yes? So he is not bound by anyone else’s interpretation of Scripture–just his own fallible one, right?

Not correct.

So whatever he does, based on his own fallible interpretation, could be as new as his own creativity. He will, of course, appeal to Scripture, but it mightn’t be something done in the 1st, 3rd, 8th, 16th or 19th centuries, but is only an innovation in his own mind.

His understanding is not more or less prone to fallibility than the CC leaders, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

There does not seem to be anything more to debate with you, for everyone is right and no one is wrong, regardless of church affiliation, when it comes to doctrinal truth, the interpretation of the bible and the identification of apostolic tradition vs man-made tradition. That does seem to be the easier way to go… Take care Dok.

There may not be anything more you and I can discuss but you are to be corrected. I never said anyone is correct on all matters of the Bible and the Christian faith, so I couldn’t have said everyone is right making no one wrong. That’s not what I think and I think that because it’s very obvious the idea is very incorrect.

 

[joe370]

There may not be anything more you and I can discuss but you are to be corrected. I never said anyone is correct on all matters of the Bible and the Christian faith, so I couldn’t have said everyone is right making no one wrong. That’s not what I think and I think that because it’s very obvious the idea is very incorrect.

Dok, it seems, when I ask you questions regarding doctrinal truth or the identification of apostolic tradition vs man-made tradition, all churches, in your opinion, it seems, regardless of denomination, might be right or they might be wrong. To you, there doesn’t seem to be any way to know, with certainty, which church is wrong and which church is right, doctrinally speaking, and I believe just the opposite, because I believe that God continues to guide His church, in a world with so many wonderful churches to all truth. We seem to be at an impasse, unless I misunderstood you?

For example when I asked you a specific question such as: What if different churches, in the world today, examine tradition in light of the Scriptures and come away from the scriptures with different traditions just as is the case with the different interpretations vis-a-vis scripture? Do we just embrace all those traditions as apostolic traditions or are some of those traditions man-made? Instead of answering the question, you say:

God’s big enough to deal with each and every situation.

I was really hoping for an answer instead of a bumper sticker. LOL…

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know what a sequitor so I doubt if I know what a non-sequitor is.

That actually elicited a chuckle from me, Doki. Very clever!

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such thing as a “sequitor”, but a “non-sequitor”, coming from the word “sequence”, means, literally, “not in sequence”. Or “it does not follow”.

But what it actually means is something that’s said that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Example:
“I love apples!”.

“Yes, riding on a tractor is indeed fun!” That’s a nonsequitor.

However, it was my response to the accusation that pastors teach new things. If they teach the Bible, they aren’t teaching new things. BTW, on the other thread, wasn’t it you who said that most of what you believe is the same as what I believe? So there’s not much new in “my” teaching.

That which diverges from the teaching of the Apostles, as understood by the 1st century writers, as understood by Jerome and Tertullian, as understood by 4th, 8th, 10th, 16th century Christians, is indeed “new”.

 

[PRmerger]

His understanding is not more or less prone to fallibility than the CC leaders, IMO.

Fair enough.

 

[PRmerger]

I never said anyone is correct on all matters of the Bible and the Christian faith, so I couldn’t have said everyone is right making no one wrong. That’s not what I think and I think that because it’s very obvious the idea is very incorrect.

Actually, Joe’s summary of your position sounded quite correct to me.

It really does sound like you’re saying “As long as a person reads the Bible and thinks he’s inspired by the Holy Spirit, his interpretation is correct.” Thus, “for everyone is right and no one is wrong”.

Otherwise, how could you tell someone his interpretation is wrong, if he claims he read the Bible and the Holy Spirit told him that’s what it meant? Is the Holy Spirit fallible, now?

 

[Dokimas]

Dok, it seems, when I ask you questions regarding doctrinal truth or the identification of apostolic tradition vs man-made tradition, all churches, in your opinion, it seems, regardless of denomination, might be right or they might be wrong. To you, there doesn’t seem to be any way to know, with certainty, which church is wrong and which church is right, doctrinally speaking, and I believe just the opposite, because I believe that God continues to guide His church, in a world with so many wonderful churches to all truth. We seem to be at an impasse, unless I misunderstood you?

For example when I asked you a specific question such as: What if different churches, in the world today, examine tradition in light of the Scriptures and come away from the scriptures with different traditions just as is the case with the different interpretations vis-a-vis scripture? Do we just embrace all those traditions as apostolic traditions or are some of those traditions man-made? Instead of answering the question, you say:

God’s big enough to deal with each and every situation.

I was really hoping for an answer instead of a bumper sticker. LOL…

Quite cute

I don’t deal well with generalities. Be specific and I’ll give you a specific answer if I can.

BTW, don’t you think God is big enough to deal with His church???

 

[Dokimas]

Actually, Joe’s summary of your position sounded quite correct to me.

Surprise, surprise, surpirse.

It really does sound like you’re saying “As long as a person reads the Bible and thinks he’s inspired by the Holy Spirit, his interpretation is correct.” Thus, “for everyone is right and no one is wrong”.

Never said anything that should be destorted to mean that.

Otherwise, how could you tell someone his interpretation is wrong, if he claims he read the Bible and the Holy Spirit told him that’s what it meant? Is the Holy Spirit fallible, now?

I do the same thing I do when I come accross any church that thinks their teachings are the correct teachings, like the JWs, the Mormons and the CC. I check their teaching with the Bible and decide for myself. I’ve concluded, of the three, the CC is the only one that believes mostly as I do, yet, IMO, wrong on some of it’s teaching, which is no big deal in light to the similarities are the essentials of the Faith with a little twist at times.