M
medwigel
Guest
I have enjoyed your comments as well. Yes, though we have not agreed, the issues raised have strengthened my faith.
- Status
C
Cathoholic
Guest
medwigel. Bobperk said . . .
You changed his premise to . . .
This is the fallacy of equivocation. It is moving the proverbial goal posts.
.
You changed his premise to . . .
.
This is the fallacy of equivocation. It is moving the proverbial goal posts.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Bobperk talking about . . .
Medwigel’s challenge to bobperk . .
ACTS 2:38 Says to ADULTS, repent and be baptized and you will receive the GIFT of the Holy Spirit."
Then it goes on in the same context saying “the promise is for you AND for your CHILDREN”.
Jesus insists upon Baptism of “all nations .”
Do you think there might be some “infants” . . . among “all nations” that we are to be making “disciples” of?
Do we “wait” until they are 10 years old before beginning to “teach them all that I have commanded you” too? No of course not.
.
Medwigel’s challenge to bobperk . .
.
ACTS 2:38 Says to ADULTS, repent and be baptized and you will receive the GIFT of the Holy Spirit."
Then it goes on in the same context saying “the promise is for you AND for your CHILDREN”.
Jesus insists upon Baptism of “all nations .”
Do you think there might be some “infants” . . . among “all nations” that we are to be making “disciples” of?
Do we “wait” until they are 10 years old before beginning to “teach them all that I have commanded you” too? No of course not.
Last edited:
Scripture never stands as the sole authority.
Anyone saying otherwise is simply not thinking it through.
There is the written word.
But then there is the word of the person you trust to tell you what it says.
Whether that person is God’s church or yourself, there is a good argument to be made that this person carries more authority than scripture alone.
Anyone saying otherwise is simply not thinking it through.
There is the written word.
But then there is the word of the person you trust to tell you what it says.
Whether that person is God’s church or yourself, there is a good argument to be made that this person carries more authority than scripture alone.
S
Sean77
Guest
Completely agree. Scripture stands as the authority above the other sources of authority that you would uphold against it because it is God’s word. By my reckoning of God’s created order, God’s authority exceeds the authority of man, hence the authority of God’s word exceeds the authority of man-made tradition. One submits to the other, just the way God intended in creation. That is what sola scriptura means. It doesn’t mean that its just scripture by itself. It means that God’s word, because it is God-breathed is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and doctrine. When some other authority is in conflict with God’s word, God’s word takes precedent.
Last edited:
A
ajfrab
Guest
Not to mention, Jesus established a new covenant. The initiation into this new covenant is baptism, replacing the initiation of circumcision into the old covenant. At what age was Jesus circumcised? 8 days old, as prescribed by the Law (see Luke 2:21).
If infants, including Jesus, were able to be initiated into the old covenant, then there is no reason they cannot be initiated into the new one also.
S
Sean77
Guest
You are assuming the Church to be the one speaking the words in scripture. Scripture is God-breathed. It is God doing the speaking. That is the way the prophets of old saw it as well. They didn’t preach on their authority. They spoke the words God gave them to speak. Thus says the Lord…
Very few speak the language it was written in.
Everyone concedes authority to the one telling us what it says.
S
Sean77
Guest
I can read the Greek. Reading it in Greek doesn’t make it say the opposite of what it says. English translations seek to accurately render the original Greek into the target language of English. For the most part your formal equivalent translations provide a very accurate translation.
I seriously suggest you rethink your apologetic stance here. You seem to be saying that Christians can have no assurance of what the Bible says in order to present an interpretation that is opposite of what Paul states. How then do you defend your stance against critics such as Muslims who argue the Bible is corrupted. You can’t have it both ways. Either we have confidence in our text or we don’t.
I seriously suggest you rethink your apologetic stance here. You seem to be saying that Christians can have no assurance of what the Bible says in order to present an interpretation that is opposite of what Paul states. How then do you defend your stance against critics such as Muslims who argue the Bible is corrupted. You can’t have it both ways. Either we have confidence in our text or we don’t.
Last edited:
I cannot read Greek.
So I should be trusting YOUR authority that scripture says something?
Those that lay claim to sola scriptura fail to recognize the authority they give to those teaching them.
J
jlhargus
Guest
Last edited:
J
jlhargus
Guest
Two does not make a Trinity. By the way I have started another post for the sacrament of reconciliation here is the link. Scriptural evidence for Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confessionjlhargus:
So how can the Word “be” God and “be with” God at the same time?
I will more than likely but not necessarily post very little till after holiday.
Last edited:
S
Sean77
Guest
I absolutely agree, each denomination has tradition which helps them to interpret scripture. The question is whether that tradition is infallible. The answer is quite emphatically no as you yourself just pointed out by highlighting the differences between denominations. The issue however is this, how does one correct infallible tradition? You can’t, which is why we reject the infallibility of tradition, which while it may be helpful does not rise to the level of being infallible. Christ himself demonstrates this in several places by castigating the Pharisees for their traditions which ran roughshod over the scriptures.
J
jlhargus
Guest
I don’t have time now. So short answer that’s why Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth, not hit and miss truth. That’s why Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth. It is the Church who infallibly discerns Apostolic Tradition from tradition of men. I would like to go on about the difference in Apostolic Traditions and tradition of men, maybe latter.
Last edited:
S
Sean77
Guest
The apostolic tradition is the gospel which was enscripturated at the end of the apostolic age so that it would be faithfully passed down. That gospel is what provided the norm for the church in Paul’s time and should provide the norm for us now. And I completely agree with your assessment of the Holy Spirit being the teacher. I don’t agree that somehow the infallibility of the Holy Spirit means that man is infallible, particularly when we are instructed to use the god-breathed scriptures as the means by which we instruct, teach, and correct…you guessed it, the Church.
J
jlhargus
Guest
If that is so you should be able to post scripture telling us all oral Tradition is enscripturated. Scripture tells to hold Tradition.
Apostolic Tradition and Scripture are the Word of God the one revelation given to the apostles.
[1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]
[2Tm2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.]
[2 Tm1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.]
[Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.]
Sean I know you don’t believe Christ can’t accomplish what he promised. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Paul to call the Church the pillar and ground of truth if that could not be done?
Apostolic Traditions are those Traditions handed on by the apostles whether by word (oral) or epistle (scripture) 2Thes2:15. There are also traditions (disciplines), which can be called traditions of men. They can be changed as the Church sees fit. Such as not eating meat on Fridays, kneeling for communion, etc.
Christ didn’t condemn traditions of men except when those traditions of men nullify or override the Word of God.
The Church was up and running, teaching the manifold wisdom of the gospel, fifteen to twenty years or so before the first word of the NT was even penned and almost four hundred years before the canon was officially listed. By what authority then was the gospel taught? What infallible authority decided which books were inspired and which were not inspired?
Last edited:
S
Sean77
Guest
The scripture you would use to uphold tradition actually supports my point. In 2 Thessalonians 15 the traditions that were taught by us is the gospel he was referring to in verse 14. In other words, the gospel which Paul handed down, was enscripturated for us. But just to demonstrate a point since you are referring to this oral tradition that Paul is referring to that we must uphold, please provide any Pauline quote that is not captured in scripture that has been infallibly defined by the Church. Is there any Pauline doctrine you can point to outside of scripture?
Now, with regard to the gospel being taught before NT scripture was written. You are absolutely correct. The gospel was declared orally through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t change the fact that the gospel writers felt the need to document this gospel so that it could be faithfully handed down as the apostolic age came to an end. Also, you will note that much of the oral tradition being spread in the early church was in error. This is what prompted many of the NT epistles in the first place. They had to correct false doctrine that was being preached, or incorrect practices, and did so by writing encyclical letters, that were passed around from church to church in order to restore the pure gospel. Galatians, Colossians, Jude, and the epistles of John are wonderful examples of this. Now if these letters were written to correct the catholic church, how can you then declare that the teaching of the church was infallible? We both agree the Holy Spirit is infallible. We both agree the scriptures are the product of the Holy Spirit. However, we differ in that I believe the scriptures were written teach and correct the church, which is not infallible. 2 Timothy demonstrates just that.
With regard to the authority which decided which books were inspired or not inspired, that’s a red herring question I hear frequently. It completely flips the nature of scripture upon its head. You are saying that scripture is authoritative because the Church declared them to be so. That is bass-ackwards. The scriptures are authoritative because it is the word of God. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” It is their nature as being the product of God that makes them authoritative and infallible. Not only that, they are infallible regardless of whether I acknowledge them as so or not. My declaring them as authoritative or denying that they are authoritative does not change the fact that they ARE authoritative.
Now, with regard to the gospel being taught before NT scripture was written. You are absolutely correct. The gospel was declared orally through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t change the fact that the gospel writers felt the need to document this gospel so that it could be faithfully handed down as the apostolic age came to an end. Also, you will note that much of the oral tradition being spread in the early church was in error. This is what prompted many of the NT epistles in the first place. They had to correct false doctrine that was being preached, or incorrect practices, and did so by writing encyclical letters, that were passed around from church to church in order to restore the pure gospel. Galatians, Colossians, Jude, and the epistles of John are wonderful examples of this. Now if these letters were written to correct the catholic church, how can you then declare that the teaching of the church was infallible? We both agree the Holy Spirit is infallible. We both agree the scriptures are the product of the Holy Spirit. However, we differ in that I believe the scriptures were written teach and correct the church, which is not infallible. 2 Timothy demonstrates just that.
With regard to the authority which decided which books were inspired or not inspired, that’s a red herring question I hear frequently. It completely flips the nature of scripture upon its head. You are saying that scripture is authoritative because the Church declared them to be so. That is bass-ackwards. The scriptures are authoritative because it is the word of God. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” It is their nature as being the product of God that makes them authoritative and infallible. Not only that, they are infallible regardless of whether I acknowledge them as so or not. My declaring them as authoritative or denying that they are authoritative does not change the fact that they ARE authoritative.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think what you are trying to say is that the Catholic Church refused and rejected the Word of God, and therefore is cracked and ready to fall, or has already fallen. If this is the case, when do you think this occurred?
There are errors in this reasoning. The primary one is that the Church has Jesus as her Head, and the Holy Spirit as her Soul. These divine elements are what provide infallibility, not the fallen men who are members of the Church.
A second error is that men who have sinned cannot perform infallible acts by the grace of God. There are examples throughout the scriptures of miracles performed at the hands of men.
The writing of the Scripture represents a number of infallible acts (27 at least).
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Pet. 1
The Holy Spirit moved them to write without error, God breathed words.
You also seem to be confusing the gift of infallibililty with being impeccable. These are two different things.
Yes, we will all agree on this. Where we will not agree is your framework of interpretation.
No, the Holy Scripture is a written record of covenants. Jesus Body and Blood are the New Covenant.
Do you know when the New Testament began to be written? The earliest letter is around 50 AD. If what you are saying is true then there would be no “new Covenant” for the first 20 years!
No, Jesus established a Church, which is the pillar and ground of the Truth, and the Church produced the New Testament.
Yes, many people did this during the Reformation, and since that time.
G
guanophore
Guest
Definitely!
1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
And who is to do that equipping and instructing? Did he say that the Bible was to teach people, or were there persons that were specially called and gifted to do this?
11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love. Eph. 4
Scripture is profitable for instruction in the hands of those who were given the authority and calling to use it, for the equipping of the saints. This is the duty of the Church, not the individual reading the Bible by themselves!
The two are not mutually exclusive. Both things are true. Jesus put “men” in charge of His Church, and instructed the disciples to bring their disputes to the men, not the text.
Depending on the Word of God does not exclude people as a resource for growing with God. Otherwise Jesus would not have established a Church. He did this for many important reasons, one of the primary so that people would not think they should sit around and teach themselves alone with a Bible.
- Status