I really don’t know why you insist on reducing the totality of the revealed Word to Scripture alone. The Bible nowhere does this—as the passage you quote, viewed in context shows:
Note that the “Word” mentioned here is an orally preached Word, not an inscripturated one.
Maybe you would compare it to such, but I don’t believe so. So, what you are saying is that God putting enmity, which I defined between the snake (Devil) and the Woman, means there will be a virgin birth? Huh? Did you actually read my statement? You just used the explanation of second part of the passage to explain the whole passage and conveniently ignored the first part. And included some disparaging words towards me to “put me in my place”. Ahhhh, such a good debator.
Guys,
Homer isn’t listening
Not to be rude, but it seems to me that Homer starts these threads and then can’t handle the answers so leaves. Although I am enjoying the answers and am learning a lot. Thanks for the threads you start Homer they are great. Also there was someone who said everyone was dogpiling on Homer, I just wanted to make a statement. This is not the first thread Homer has started like this, where he ups and leaves and also he really doesn’t want answers(just my opinion). It seems he just likes to try and start trouble, the little instigator. But it’s not working.
What translation of the Bible did the early Church use? The Old testament that they had did contain purgatory, and the New was wither not composed or not yet formulated into the cannon. What translation? Rember that in Acts, Paul used a quote from Christ not recorded anywhere else, and no one said anything about it (Acts 20:35) so there was tradition. Just tell me which translation the early church used, and I will use it too.
First of all, the doctrine of “inspiration” pertains ONLY to Scripture: *“All Scripture is inspired by God…” *(2 Tim. 3:16). Prophets, “moved by the Holy Spirit” spoke to their own generation, but what they spoke became permanent, divinely inspired (theopneustos, God-breathed) Scripture only when what they spoke was then WRITTEN. I’m sure the prophets spoke many things to their generation that did not subsequently become “God-breathed” Scripture. But what was inspired to be written became a permanent record for subsequent generations (see 1 Cor. 10:11, “they were written for our instruction…”).
Yeah right. The Assumption was handed down by the Apsotles only to first show up hundreds of years later. I am always amazed that Islamics insists on holding to a 7th century mentality in regards to their religion. I am even more amazed when Romanists desire to ahere to a superstitious, mediaeval mindset regarding “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” The Christian faith is not based on stories fabricated centuries after the claimed events. NO, I don’t at all misunderstand how the Church (not Rome) derives its teachings. How are you going to prove to me that the story of the Assumption is actually true and was divinely inspired to be written centuries later? Not one of the writers of the N.T., or the Apostles, or even Christ Himself elevates Mary to the exalted, heavenly and mediatorial postion Rome has predicated to her. ALL extrabiblical and All developed after the Apostolic age. Yet Scripture states that household of God (the Church) is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone (Eph. 2:19-22). A foundation is laid ONCE. This poo-poos the notion of Apostolic succession and the authority to introduce new revelation into the faith.
You can’t be serious!!! This wasn’t a “doctrine” developed late." Doctrines “developed” are rooted in Scripture. This was a story fabricated centuries later. There’s is a BIG difference, my friend. “The most we can say for sure is that we have no written eyewitness???” What? The story itself supplied the fantastic idea that it was witnessed by angels, the patriarchs, the Apostles and even Adam and Eve. Notice… nobody living at the time the event was suppose to have happened? That is on earth, anyway.
Joseph Smith could not give the same translation twice to his plates, so how could they be real. Anyway, I would not expect you to accept our traditions. Paul said that he commended those who held to the traditions as even as he delivered them to him (1 Cor 11:2) and he told them to hold fast to traditions tought to them whether by WORD of mouth or letter (2 Thes 2:15). And he said the the CHURCH is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). But, these are our traditions, not yours. Look up the Church Fathers see what they thought, if oyu are not afraid. The Church does not define a teaching until there is a controversy, which is why it took so long to define the Assumption and Immaculate Conception.
Yes I do Kinsman. But I let Scripture define itself; not a man made tradition that came along during the so-called Reformation period.
In 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, Scripture described itself as “profitable” not “sufficient” as you claimed. Your argument is not with me but with the Holy Spirit who inspired the writer to use this word in regards to Scripture. Am I putting Scripture down by saying that it is “profitable”? Should I go against the Spirit of God and say that Scripture is not profitable but instead sufficient. No my friend, you are in error. I am simply restating what the Holy Spirit said. You are the one that is adding words that do not appear in the text. We have supplied you with ample proof that your proposition of Sola Scriptura is not taught by God in Scripture using proper exegesis.
Scripture does acknowledge this unwritten Word of God as you have surmised. And you correctly state that these words would be of equal authority to Scripture. At this point we need to recall the words of the Lord that you previously cited: “Peter writes. . .‘But the word of the Lord abides forever. And this is the word that was preached to you’ (1 Pet. 1:24-25).” Make no mistake, the Word of God in any form (here Paul refers to the spoken word) endures forever (Psalm 119:89; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; Mark 13:31). In the beginning, the Bible informs us that “God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Genesis 1:3). God’s Word is currently upholding our very existence. God could have brought the universe into existence by merely willing it. However, this demonstrates the permanence of any Word of God. Do not underestimate the power of the One that brought us into existence. It is not impossible for Him to uphold His Word permanently. “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).
Many of the assertions you make were levied against the Church by the Jews from the beginning. They thought that Christianity was a corruption of the true faith (a Jewish cult of Jesus). They accused Christians of twisting Scriptures by introducing novel interpretations that had not been known before to defend Jesus as the Messiah. These new interpretations replaced ones that had been around for hundreds of years (for example that of Isaiah 7:14). Yet, the Holy Spirit had a deeper meaning in the texts than what most of the Old Testament Church understood. This did not mean that the fuller meaning was invalid or novel. Even in our own times, the Spirit speaks through the Scriptures to the people of God to combat the errors of today. Certain passages in Scripture carry new relevance with every new crime against God and man. And the people of God, through study and prayer, gain greater insights into His Word. The Word of God is both alive and active (Hebrews 4:12). I have more to say on this but will leave it for next time.
Good, I see we agree that we should reject the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura that was invented without historical precedent around 1500 years after the birth of the Church. And yes, the Catholic Church was around in the Middle Ages, as it is today, and as it was on Pentecost.
I have rightfully acknowleged from the beginning that Scripture is God-breathed. I have used this compound word strictly in reference to Scripture.
Exactly, you just made my point. You objectively examine the story behind Mormonism and conclude it must be rejected based on the evidence, but you fail to do the same with the fantastic, extrabiblical story of the Assumption. You simply accept it because someone told you that you must. Mormons do the same thing.
The Assumption was not a “doctrine” formed from controversy. It was an extrabiblical story presented in the 4th century. Controversial teachings were settled by examining the Scriptures. That’s not the case with the Assumption. It was a story that Rome eventually accepted as dogma.
By nature *“spoken” *word is never binding on subsequent generations. It can not be permanent. It can only be for those to whom it was spoken. How could subsequent generations possibly know for sure what was spoken centuries before? That’s why the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures to be wirtten. To give us a permanent “hard copy.” Think man, think.
You contradict what the Bible, itself, teaches.
The orally preached Word truly is the Word of God, not the word of men.
Provisions were made for the ongoing transmission of that oral Word. Note that already, four generations are accounted for: Paul’s generation, Timothy’s, those that Timothy is to teach, and those who, in turn, Timothy’s successors are to teach. Sounds like both oral Tradition and, incidentally, the Magisterial office of the bishops, the successors of the Apostles to me.
Scripture, the “permanent hard copy” is not the pillar and foundation of the truth, the Church is. It is within the Church that the living Tradition is maintained.
Genesis 17:1-14
Now, since Genesis was not written until at least the time of Moses, the Abrahamic Covenant must have been binding as an Oral Tradition for several hundred years.
Kinsman said:
Thanks for your opinion but its not Scriptural. It matters not what I “think” or what you “think” man. The Bible does not teach that God’s oral Word is not permanent. On the contrary, Scripture views God’s Word, regardless of mode, as permanent. God spoke and the world came into existence. If God’s spoken Word is not permanent, how is it that the world continues to exist?