SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[benhur]

My specific’s lay with SS. How can a *SS use SS *to defeat any historical or new heresy without an infallible authority to do so?

SS does not use SS .The church uses SS.

One does not defeat heresy. One can only uphold the truth, and pray souls to hear His voice on the matter thru you. And pray you do not get infected after having delivered others. He has already defeated all heresies. If we walk in Him we are safe.

You introduced Catholic Saints and Catholic Councils. I respectfully declined to respond to a off topic subject, that has no relation to my question.

That is right. Saints and councils, and really tradition, are off topic for SS folk. Not their forte…?

From what I understand SS to be saying here. SS does negate the power of God. When SS rejects that God can make His Church infallible and as Paul states the Church being without any stain, Immaculate without spot or wrinkle.

Does Paul say the church is *infallible *, or that she will be presented, in that day, spotless ?

Otherwise I agree. SS is definitely to displace the other notion that the church is infallible and an equal source to theopneustos.

SS would deny that power, as the other (CC) would deny the unique power of Writ that comes from specifically being, distinctly being superlatively normative

According to your post’s. SS possesses an invisible authority,

Well I have not posted anything being "invisible’’(save Diety and His Wind though we see the affect) SS is a quite visible foundation of apostles and their writ. SS is to be used then by all the visible authorities. After all it is her Writ to be custodian of. Tradition then is how the church acts as a rule of faith, by that same said Apoostolic/Writ foundation. It is not an equal, infallible revelation, for nothing new can be laid that which was already laid by apostles/Writ.

Just as the OT developed tradition around their prophets/Writ, with the Mishna and the Talmud. But like our discussion today, the latter became as binding, authoritative as theopnestos Writ, but with much debate and not by all. Writ troubled not the Lord, but the other stuff (fallible traditions) sure did.

I am seeking answers to how a SS practices that authority from SS.

Well one must look at the authority structure say in Lutheranism, or Anglicanism, or even look at any one congregation/ church body. For the most part, one must teach from Writ but as understood in or by their respective tradition, small t. I would add that their small t tradition is to go back to the first church.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

God bless you rc.

 

[Darryl_B]

its solid: where is the error

1 Tim 3:15 is NOT a proof text for Catholic Church infallibility.

The church (ekklesia =all believers) is to uphold the truth which is Jesus and His Word.

Your argument was silly because you assumed the absence of a definite article changed the genitive case into the dative. That is just a problem with the English use of “of”. Genitive equals ownership.

The absence of the definite article implies indefinite article. It would read “Pillar and Bulwark of A Truth”. One of many. So the Church is the “Pillar and Bulwark of THE Truth” as everyone knows.

What quality does this then imply about that Church?

A. That it has the Truth in the first place, that it has been granted that Truth from the Builder of that Church, that the Pillar is incapable of “falling” (because of the Builder), and the “Truth” will be protected against “error”.

Proof text it is. Reaction to it is also evidence that “sola scriptura” is its own rampant monster.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Just as the OT developed tradition around their prophets/Writ, with the Mishna and the Talmud. But like our discussion today, the latter became as binding, authoritative as theopnestos Writ, but with much debate and not by all. Writ troubled not the Lord, but the other stuff (fallible traditions) sure did.

Firstly, one must distinguish between “fallible” traditions and “infallible” ones. The Bible makes no specific mention of how the various Jewish feasts were celebrated in detail, however, we know that Christ and His family did indeed celebrate them. I see nowhere in Tradition or subsequently in the Bible, where Jesus or His Apostles supported Karaism (a Jewish sect that rejected all Rabbinical law, and accepted only the written Torah as relevant, rejecting the Rabbinical notion of “Oral Torah”).

Well one must look at the authority structure say in Lutheranism, or Anglicanism, or even look at any one congregation/ church body. For the most part, one must teach from Writ but as understood in or by their respective tradition, small t. I would add that their small t tradition is to go back to the first church.

If so, they would not have the use of a Bible, as the 1st Cent. Church did not have any Writ other than the Old Testament (still in flux, as different texts were accepted by Greek-speaking and Palestinian Jews).

 

[rcwitness]

God bless you rc.

Amen. I believe in Papal Infallibility, but I don’t regard the Pope as an infallible human. Only Jesus is this.

 

[susanlo]

Firstly, one must distinguish between “fallible” traditions and “infallible” ones. The Bible makes no specific mention of how the various Jewish feasts were celebrated in detail, however, we know that Christ and His family did indeed celebrate them. I see nowhere in Tradition or subsequently in the Bible, where Jesus or His Apostles supported Karaism (a Jewish sect that rejected all Rabbinical law, and accepted only the written Torah as relevant, rejecting the Rabbinical notion of “Oral Torah”).

Karaism began in the 8th century. britannica.com/topic/Karaism

Matthew 15:3 - Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
Mark 7:8-9 - You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions!

I have quickly counted over 20 times in the 4 gospels where Jesus stated: “It is written.” I did not see once where Jesus said “It is in the oral tradition.” (Except when he criticized it in the 2 above quotes.)

 

[benhur]

This presupposes that there is no objective Truth,

No. It presupposes the Power of God’s truth and His inner workings on man. Satan could preach a perfect sermon for one’s salvation, just as a saint could preach a muddled message, but with enough truth to save to the utmost. Never underestimate what an ounce of medicine (even with another ounce of filler) can do for a a sick person.

I am not saying you get saved with falsehoods. I am saying you need the basic truths somewhere in the message.

If Jesus is Truth, and knowable, would not those who go against His “authorized authority” be unauthorized?

Unauthorized to do what , the Lord’s work ?

Generally speaking though yes. If you against my pastor’s authority, I doubt he will put you up in the pulpit.

You want an infallible message or an authorized preacher ? OK.

The proof is in the pudding. The infallible, authorized workings of the Holy Spirit are quite visible, just as sure as the wind leaves its mark on the sand, or on the quivering leaves of the tree.

Protestants are graced with salvation and are brethren. Up to a third of present day Christendom is birthed and nurtured thru supposedly unauthorized, non successors to the apostles. Go figure. Well the CC has figured and claims responsibility, that we add to the unity that is the Catholic Church.

Do you agree that when a person (a group, or even the Church) speaks the Truth, that this Truth can be infallible and also authoritative?

Would you object to being inerrant . Not sure truth needs to be described as infallible. An authority, an agent of truth certainly can be described as infallible, or inerrant, or fallible, or in error.

The US Constitution, for example, is authoritative, yet not infallible.

No but if you want an inerrant law (infallible) it better be constitutional

The Bible is infallible but not primarily authoritative.

And early rule of faith, tradition, was that the church authority was to be “biblical”.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Your argument was silly because you assumed the absence of a definite article changed the genitive case into the dative. That is just a problem with the English use of “of”. Genitive equals ownership.

The absence of the definite article implies indefinite article. It would read “Pillar and Bulwark of A Truth”. One of many. So the Church is the “Pillar and Bulwark of THE Truth” as everyone knows.

What quality does this then imply about that Church?

A. That it has the Truth in the first place, that it has been granted that Truth from the Builder of that Church, that the Pillar is incapable of “falling” (because of the Builder), and the “Truth” will be protected against “error”.

Proof text it is. Reaction to it is also evidence that “sola scriptura” is its own rampant monster.

Is prevailing same as not falling ? I mean I used to wrestle and sometimes I would fall , but would prevail in the end. Like is the promise never to error, or that if an error arises, it is corrected, as if by Good Shepherding. Just what is error protection ? Does it have a time frame ?

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Karaism began in the 8th century. britannica.com/topic/Karaism

Matthew 15:3 - Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
Mark 7:8-9 - You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions!

I have quickly counted over 20 times in the 4 gospels where Jesus stated: “It is written.” I did not see once where Jesus said “It is in the oral tradition.” (Except when he criticized it in the 2 above quotes.)

interesting article about the movement. It states that they eventually needed to create oral traditions to apply scripture to life situations. And the movement suffered from splintering division.

Karaism proclaimed theBibleto be self-explanatory and sanctioned personal interpretations of the Scriptures. The movement, however, soon found it necessary to develop an oral tradition of its own in applying scriptural principles to daily life.

…For a long time the movement suffered from numerous schisms and from a lack of competent scholars to defend its position on the Bible.

 

[rcwitness]

I have quickly counted over 20 times in the 4 gospels where Jesus stated: “It is written.” I did not see once where Jesus said “It is in the oral tradition.” (Except when he criticized it in the 2 above quotes.)

I agree, if you are asserting that the Traditions which are necessary for salvation are found in the NT! However, I disagree if you are implying that are Traditions handed down from the Apostles are only that which is explicit in Scripture. Though I think Oral Traditions are more in the way of accompanying the Scriptures.

Major Traditions which are not from men, but not found in Scripture would be Intercession of the Saints, Infant Baptism, and Marion Beliefs. And these (or belief in these) are not directly related to salvation.

 

[Wannano]

I agree, if you are asserting that the Traditions which are necessary for salvation are found in the NT! However, I disagree if you are implying that are Traditions handed down from the Apostles are only that which is explicit in Scripture. Though I think Oral Traditions are more in the way of accompanying the Scriptures.

Major Traditions which are not from men, but not found in Scripture would be Intercession of the Saints, Infant Baptism, and Marion Beliefs. And these (or belief in these) are not directly related to salvation.

Hi rc, with interest I note that infant baptism is not directly related to salvation. I somehow had in my understanding that the Catholic Church would say it is?

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc, with interest I note that infant baptism is not directly related to salvation. I somehow had in my understanding that the Catholic Church would say it is?

I’m stating that as “belief in infant Baptism is not directly related to salvation”

Infant Baptism, in itself, is related to salvation.

 

[Wannano]

I’m stating that as “belief in infant Baptism is not directly related to salvation”

Infant Baptism, in itself, is related to salvation.

I somehow read it the other way, sorry!

 

[susanlo]

I agree, if you are asserting that the Traditions which are necessary for salvation are found in the NT! However, I disagree if you are implying that are Traditions handed down from the Apostles are only that which is explicit in Scripture. Though I think Oral Traditions are more in the way of accompanying the Scriptures.

Major Traditions which are not from men, but not found in Scripture would be Intercession of the Saints, Infant Baptism, and Marion Beliefs. And these (or belief in these) are not directly related to salvation.

My post was in reply to a post about how Jesus and the Apostles viewed the Jewish oral tradition. Jesus and the apostles often quoted OT Scripture, but did not cite OT Tradition (at least not in a positive way).

 

[rcwitness]

My post was in reply to a post about how Jesus and the Apostles viewed the Jewish oral tradition. Jesus and the apostles often quoted OT Scripture, but did not cite OT Tradition (at least not in a positive way).

Oral Tradition does not equal traditions of men.

 

[benhur]

Firstly, one must distinguish between “fallible” traditions and “infallible” ones. The Bible makes no specific mention of how the various Jewish feasts were celebrated in detail, however, we know that Christ and His family did indeed celebrate them. I see nowhere in Tradition or subsequently in the Bible, where Jesus or His Apostles supported Karaism (a Jewish sect that rejected all Rabbinical law, and accepted only the written Torah as relevant, rejecting the Rabbinical notion of “Oral Torah”).

HI Sy,

So tradition infallibility or not, is about feast days and celebrations ? Maybe that is what Paul was talking about when he said stick to traditions that were taught. That one partakes of a festival does not mean one believes it is "required’’ as if by divine command. I mean much Christmas and Easter celebration, and others is not by divine command. Legalistic hair splitting is not needed for that . Now, if we were to discuss if there be resurrection or not, that is something else. Do not think Jesus partook of any celebration or feast that had leaven doctrine (error) as foundation. Pure speculation to say He did otherwise.

If so, they would not have the use of a Bible, as the 1st Cent. Church did not have any Writ other than the Old Testament (still in flux, as different texts were accepted by Greek-speaking and Palestinian Jews).

Flux? Did not stop Jesus from much referencing of it.

“No other Writ other than OT” kind of makes the OT seem like small potatoes (St. Paul , cover your ears/eyes!").

SS also deals with normative authority after the Apostles and their Writ were laid down, after all such divine revelation given.

Blessings

 

[Darryl_B]

Is prevailing same as not falling ? I mean I used to wrestle and sometimes I would fall , but would prevail in the end. Like is the promise never to error, or that if an error arises, it is corrected, as if by Good Shepherding. Just what is error protection ? Does it have a time frame ?

Blessings

The Builder is traditionally viewed as being God. If there is a problem with the building then the responsibility would lie on the Builder, not the building. This is one thing that niggled me when I was wandering the path of “sola scriptura”.

 

[benhur]

The Builder is traditionally viewed as being God. If there is a problem with the building then the responsibility would lie on the Builder, not the building. This is one thing that niggled me when I was wandering the path of “sola scriptura”.

Hi DB,

Reminds me of those who say then everything is His fault , all the way back to the Garden. Adam and Eve , they say were not responsible for the mess.

There is a difference between fault and responsibility. We both agree God is not at fault. We both should agree that we also bear the responsibility. We both agree for loves sake and by grace God makes it His responsibility, beginning with our individual faith to the outcome of the Bride/Body /Church.

The first church recognized that God did His part with infallible foundation of Apostles/ Writ. The challenge then was to cooperate and share responsibility of binding and loosing as He does, as the foundation did, and we as “living stones”, still to be judged as to being up to spec/alignment. The seven letters to the churches is evidence of this, the Shepherd correcting, for there already was error in practice/application/vision. John was the “prophet”, carrier of the message. How do we know if any reformer were not also such message carriers? We know the perfect carriers of the OT promise of the Messiah (Judaism) sometimes had trouble with this. God does not change and is responsible for His covenants while leaving obedience/alignment conditional (not robotic, cruise control).

But understand the premise that if any reformer be right that somehow God failed in His promise, and not that the current living stones had fallen, with a graced ability to get up and finally prevail again on the matter.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Karaism began in the 8th century. britannica.com/topic/Karaism

Matthew 15:3 - Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
Mark 7:8-9 - You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions!

I have quickly counted over 20 times in the 4 gospels where Jesus stated: “It is written.” I did not see once where Jesus said “It is in the oral tradition.” (Except when he criticized it in the 2 above quotes.)

Hi s,

Thanks for article.

Blessings

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi DB,

Reminds me of those who say then everything is His fault , all the way back to the Garden. Adam and Eve , they say were not responsible for the mess.

There is a difference between fault and responsibility. We both agree God is not at fault. We both should agree that we also bear the responsibility. We both agree for loves sake and by grace God makes it His responsibility, beginning with our individual faith to the outcome of the Bride/Body /Church.

The first church recognized that God did His part with infallible foundation of Apostles/ Writ. The challenge then was to cooperate and share responsibility of binding and loosing as He does, as the foundation did, and we as “living stones”, still to be judged as to being up to spec/alignment. The seven letters to the churches is evidence of this, the Shepherd correcting, for there already was error in practice/application/vision. John was the “prophet”, carrier of the message. How do we know if any reformer were not also such message carriers? We know the perfect carriers of the OT promise of the Messiah (Judaism) sometimes had trouble with this. God does not change and is responsible for His covenants while leaving obedience/alignment conditional (not robotic, cruise control).

But understand the premise that if any reformer be right that somehow God failed in His promise, and not that the current living stones had fallen, with a graced ability to get up and finally prevail again on the matter.

Blessings

Are you able to answer me instead of instead of giving me gung ho.