The sufficiency of Christ

[Rocket_Man]

So what does it mean to be moving forward? Does have anything to do with what yoou DO?

Verse 5, “Supply moral excellence and in your moral excellence knowledge, and in your knowledge self-control, and in your self-control perseverance, or endurance, and in your endurance godliness and in your godliness brotherly kindness and in your brotherly kindness love.” Seven virtues to be pursued. And these virtues each are embodied somehow in the previous one. Out of faith comes moral excellence, out of moral excellence comes knowledge, and so forth.

Justification is an event …Sanctification is a process

 

[2nd_Adam]

The teachings of the Church-the CCC itself, for example- are “the actual contents of approved oral and written Sacred Tradition.” Additionally she references statements from both Scripture and Tradition to support her teachings in the CCC as well as in her many other Magisterial documents.

Why we radically differ in the sufficiency of Christ for us stems from our source of authority. And that my brothers and sisters caused the Protestant Reformation almost 500 years ago. The two central issues of justification and authority haven’t changed much. I have always posted that I adhere to the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation, yet I can pesonally call you Christian siblings.

 

[fhansen]

Why we radically differ in the sufficiency of Christ for us stems from our source of authority. And that my brothers and sisters caused the Protestant Reformation almost 500 years ago. The two central issues of justification and authority haven’t changed much. I have always posted that I adhere to the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation, yet I can pesonally call you Christian siblings.

I don’t deny the sibling relationship-and its importance -but you have to understand that the CC will always consider separated brethren to be separated from the fullness of the gospel truth. One major problem is that many sincere Protestants disagree over the understanding of their authority on significant points.

 

[izoid]

Why we radically differ in the sufficiency of Christ for us stems from our source of authority. And that my brothers and sisters caused the Protestant Reformation almost 500 years ago. The two central issues of justification and authority haven’t changed much. I have always posted that I adhere to the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation, yet I can pesonally call you Christian siblings.

And that brings us right back to the un Biblical idea of Sola Scriptura for you authority.

How do you defend Sola Scriptura in light of Paul’s writtings that I posted?

It is quite clear that oral tradition is authoritative in the life of the believer. That tradition has been preserved through the teachings of the church.

 

[Rocket_Man]

And that brings us right back to the un Biblical idea of Sola Scriptura for you authority.

How do you defend Sola Scriptura in light of Paul’s writtings that I posted?

It is quite clear that oral tradition is authoritative in the life of the believer. That tradition has been preserved through the teachings of the church.

Whenever tradition is elevated to such a high level of authority, it inevitably becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture. Jesus made this very point when he confronted the Jewish leaders. He showed that in many cases their traditions actually nullified Scripture. He therefore rebuked them in the harshest terms:

“Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

He was saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that” (Mk. 7:6-13).

 

[fhansen]

Why we radically differ in the sufficiency of Christ for us stems from our source of authority. And that my brothers and sisters caused the Protestant Reformation almost 500 years ago. The two central issues of justification and authority haven’t changed much. I have always posted that I adhere to the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation, yet I can pesonally call you Christian siblings.

I guess I’m not sure why Protestants have such an issue with authority outside of Scripture. Do they believe their creeds or any other confession of faith or catechisms, etc, to be non-authoritative-or the agent that produced them to be non-authoritative? And if so aren’t they admitting that it’s too much of a stretch to adequately, authoritatively interpret the source of those creeds, regardless of how inspired we view Scripture to be?

 

[Rocket_Man]

And that brings us right back to the un Biblical idea of Sola Scriptura for you authority.

How do you defend Sola Scriptura in light of Paul’s writtings that I posted?

It is quite clear that oral tradition is authoritative in the life of the believer. That tradition has been preserved through the teachings of the church.

It was inexcusable that tradition would be elevated to the level of Scripture in Judaism, because when God gave the law to Moses, it was in written form for a reason: to make it permanent and inviolable. The Lord made very plain that the truth He was revealing was not to be tampered with, augmented, or diminished in any way. His Word was the final authority in all matters:“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2).

They were to observe His commandments assiduously, and neither supplement nor abrogate them by any other kind of “authority”: “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it” (Deut. 12:32).

So the revealed Word of God, and nothing else, was the supreme and sole authority in Judaism. This alone was the standard of truth delivered to them by God Himself. Moses was instructed to write down the very words God gave him (Exod. 34:27), and that written record of God’s Word became the basis for God’s covenant with the nation (Exod. 24:4,7). The written Word was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31:9), symbolizing its supreme authority in the lives and the worship of the Jews forever. God even told Moses’ successor, Joshua:

Be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it (Josh. 1:7-8).

 

[izoid]

Whenever tradition is elevated to such a high level of authority, it inevitably becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture. Jesus made this very point when he confronted the Jewish leaders. He showed that in many cases their traditions actually nullified Scripture. He therefore rebuked them in the harshest terms:

“Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

He was saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that” (Mk. 7:6-13).

The traditions that are being spoken of are traditions that interfere with Scripture. I am not taliking about that. There is NO WAY to deny that oral tradition has a place in the Christian life and that tradition is authoratative for the behavior of believers.

It seems that protestants in general have a hard time differentiating between Pharisaical traditions, traditions of men and Godly tradition. There is no way that Paul can tell us to adhere to oral tradition if Jesus did not intend for us to. You must learn to understand the full counsel of God and not just the tests that support your view.

Explain to me the verses that I have quoted, do not attempt to proof text your point away.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I don’t deny the sibling relationship-and its importance -but you have to understand that the CC will always consider separated brethren to be separated from the fullness of the gospel truth. One major problem is that many sincere Protestants disagree over the understanding of their authority on significant points.

Sure because we all know in part. I see a simliar problem in the Catholic Church. Please read the thread “Magestrium alone”.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I guess I’m not sure why Protestants have such an issue with authority outside of Scripture. Do they believe their creeds or any other confession of faith or catechisms, etc, to be non-authoritative-or the agent that produced them to be non-authoritative? And if so aren’t they admitting that it’s too much of a stretch to adequately, authoritatively interpret the source of those creeds, regardless of how inspired we view Scripture to be?

The best way to explain it for me at least is through the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Chapter I
Of the Holy Scripture
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:…

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]

 

[Rocket_Man]

The traditions that are being spoken of are traditions that interfere with Scripture. I am not taliking about that. There is NO WAY to deny that oral tradition has a place in the Christian life and that tradition is authoratative for the behavior of believers.

Explain to me the verses that I have quoted, do not attempt to proof text your point away.

You cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible’s true meaning. Quite plainly, that makes tradition a superior authority. Moreover it renders Scripture superfluous, for if Catholic tradition inerrantly encompasses and explains all the truth of Scripture, then the Bible is simply redundant.

 

[PRmerger]

You cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary -]to explain the Bible’s true meaning/-]. rather, Rocket,Tradition is necessary to tell you what exactly* is* Scripture and what it is not.

Quite plainly, that makes tradition -]a superior authority/-]. come first. But not necessarily does it elevate it. It simply precedes it. Similarly, Adam came first, but he is not superior to Eve.

Moreover it renders Scripture superfluous, for if Catholic tradition inerrantly encompasses and explains all the truth of Scripture, then the Bible is simply redundant.

That’s nonsensical. If Catholic tradition inerrantly explains all the truth of Scripture, it still requires Scripture to exist.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Sola Scriptura verse Apostolic Succession in the true battle.

 

[PRmerger]

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

The existence of the now over 40,000 Christian denominations, each teaching different doctrines and each reading the very same Scriptures (ok, plus or minus 7 books), is testament to the fact that the above statement can not possibly be true.

 

[Rocket_Man]

How do you defend Sola Scriptura in light of Paul’s writtings that I posted?

First Corinthians 11:2:

“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”

First of all, the apostle is speaking not of traditions passed down to the Corinthians by someone else through word of mouth. This “tradition” is nothing other than doctrine the Corinthians had heard directly from Paul’s own lips during his ministry in their church. It refers only to Paul’s own preaching–not to someone else’s report of what Paul taught.

The Corinthians had had the privilege of sitting under the apostle Paul’s ministry for a year and a half (Acts 18:11), so it is ironic that of all the churches described in the New Testament, Corinth was one of the most problematic. Paul’s first epistle to this church deals with a series of profound problems related to church discipline and practice, including serious sin in their midst, disunity among the brethren, disorder in church meetings, Christians who were taking one another to court, abuse of spiritual gifts, and so on. Second Corinthians is an extended defense of Paul’s ministry in the face of opposition and hostility. Someone in the church–possibly even someone whom Paul had entrusted with a position of leadership–had evidently fomented a rebellion against Paul during his long absence.

The Corinthians knew Paul. He had been their pastor. Yet they were obviously slipping away from the moorings he had so carefully established during his pastorate there. Far from being instruments through which Paul’s tradition was infallibly preserved and handed down, the Corinthians were rebelling against his apostleship! That is why Paul encouraged them to remember what they had heard from him and follow it to the letter.

What did he teach during that year and a half in their midst? We have no way of knowing precisely, but we have every reason to believe that the substance of his teaching was the same truth that is recorded throughout his epistles and elsewhere in the New Testament. Once again, we do know for certain that everything essential for thoroughly equipping Christians for life and godliness was preserved in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:15-17). The rest is not recorded for us, and nothing anywhere in Scripture indicates that it was handed down through oral tradition–especially not through any means that guaranteed it would be inspired and infallible.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Explain to me the verses that I have quoted, do not attempt to proof text your point away.

Second Thessalonians 2:15:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” This is perhaps the favorite verse of Catholic apologists when they want to support the Catholic appeal to tradition, because the verse plainly delineates between the written word and oral “traditions.”

The Greek word is paradosis. Clearly, the apostle is speaking of doctrine, and it is not to be disputed that the doctrine he has in mind is authoritative, inspired truth.

So what is this inspired tradition that they received “by word of mouth”? Doesn’t this verse rather clearly support the Catholic position?

No, it does not. Again, the context is essential to a clear understanding of what Paul was saying. The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly from the apostle Paul, telling them that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess. 2:2). The entire church had apparently been upset by this, and the apostle Paul was eager to encourage them.

For one thing, he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by phony "inspired truth."And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him: it would be signed in his own handwriting: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write” (3:17). He wanted to ensure that they would not be fooled again by forged epistles.

But even more important, he wanted them to stand fast in the teaching they had already received from him. He had already told them, for example, that the day of the Lord would be preceded by a falling away, and the unveiling of the man of lawlessness.“Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?” (2:5). There was no excuse for them to be troubled by a phony letter, for they had heard the actual truth from his own mouth already.

Nothing in Scripture suggests that the tradition Paul and the other apostles delivered is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself. Now, no one–even the most impassioned champion of sola Scriptura–would deny that Paul had taught the Thessalonians many things by word of mouth. No one would deny that the teaching of an apostle carried absolute authority. The point of debate between Catholics and Protestants is whether that teaching was infallibly preserved by word of mouth. So the mere reference to truth received firsthand from Paul himself is again, irrelevant as support for the Catholic position. Certainly nothing here suggests that the tradition Paul delivered to the Thessalonians is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself.

In fact, the real thrust of what Paul is writing here is antithetical to the spirit of Roman Catholic tradition. Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been delivered to them via second- or third-hand reports. On the contrary, he was ordering them to receive as infallible truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips.

Paul was very concerned to correct the Thessalonians’ tendency to be led astray by false epistles and spurious tradition. From the very beginning the Thessalonians had not responded to the gospel message as nobly as the Bereans, who “received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

 

[Rocket_Man]

Explain to me the verses that I have quoted, do not attempt to proof text your point away.

Second Thessalonians 3:6:
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” This is the only other verse in all the New Testament where Paul uses the words tradition or traditions to speak of apostolic truth that is to be obeyed.

By now, Paul’s use of this term should be well established. This cannot be a reference to truth passed down from generation to generation. Again, Paul is speaking of a “tradition” received firsthand from him.

This is the closing section of the epistle. Paul is summing up. And he once again underscores the importance of the teaching the Thessalonians had received directly from his mouth. The “tradition” he speaks of here is doctrine so crucial that anyone who refuses to heed it and live by it should be rejected from the fellowship.

What is this “tradition”? It is simple, practical apostolic doctrine, taught and lived out by example while Paul was among the Thessalonians. Paul goes on to define specifically what “tradition” he has in mind:

“We did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good (3:7-13).”

In other words, Paul was speaking of simple, practical doctrine about stewardship of one’s time, a man’s responsibility to work and provide for his family, and personal discipline in daily life. These truths are now part of holy Scripture, by virtue of Paul’s including them in this epistle. Put that together with everything else the New Testament records, and you have every part of the apostolic message that was infallibly preserved for us.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The existence of the now over 40,000 Christian denominations, each teaching different doctrines and each reading the very same Scriptures (ok, plus or minus 7 books), is testament to the fact that the above statement can not possibly be true.

From the Protestant perspective we add the number 2 to the 40,000 = 40,002. The two additional denominations from the Protestant perspective would be the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. If you look up secular sources, the Catholic Church would fall under another Christian denomination in which it is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

And we know wikipedia is true.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Second Thessalonians 2:15:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” This is perhaps the favorite verse of Catholic apologists when they want to support the Catholic appeal to tradition, because the verse plainly delineates between the written word and oral “traditions.”

The Greek word is paradosis. Clearly, the apostle is speaking of doctrine, and it is not to be disputed that the doctrine he has in mind is authoritative, inspired truth.

So what is this inspired tradition that they received “by word of mouth”? Doesn’t this verse rather clearly support the Catholic position?

No, it does not. Again, the context is essential to a clear understanding of what Paul was saying. The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly from the apostle Paul, telling them that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess. 2:2). The entire church had apparently been upset by this, and the apostle Paul was eager to encourage them.

For one thing, he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by phony "inspired truth."And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him: it would be signed in his own handwriting: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write” (3:17). He wanted to ensure that they would not be fooled again by forged epistles.

But even more important, he wanted them to stand fast in the teaching they had already received from him. He had already told them, for example, that the day of the Lord would be preceded by a falling away, and the unveiling of the man of lawlessness.“Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?” (2:5). There was no excuse for them to be troubled by a phony letter, for they had heard the actual truth from his own mouth already.

Nothing in Scripture suggests that the tradition Paul and the other apostles delivered is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself. Now, no one–even the most impassioned champion of sola Scriptura–would deny that Paul had taught the Thessalonians many things by word of mouth. No one would deny that the teaching of an apostle carried absolute authority. The point of debate between Catholics and Protestants is whether that teaching was infallibly preserved by word of mouth. So the mere reference to truth received firsthand from Paul himself is again, irrelevant as support for the Catholic position. Certainly nothing here suggests that the tradition Paul delivered to the Thessalonians is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself.

In fact, the real thrust of what Paul is writing here is antithetical to the spirit of Roman Catholic tradition. Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been delivered to them via second- or third-hand reports. On the contrary, he was ordering them to receive as infallible truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips.

Paul was very concerned to correct the Thessalonians’ tendency to be led astray by false epistles and spurious tradition. From the very beginning the Thessalonians had not responded to the gospel message as nobly as the Bereans, who “received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

And how is good ol’ John MacArthur doing?

Best policy, if you are going to rip off someone else’s work and pass it off as your own; try at least to change a few words so it isn’t so easy to catch:

gtysg.org/Resources/Articles/A246

Or better yet; give credit where credit is due. Intellectual dishonesty is never good in a discussion where you are hoping people will put weight on your words.

You simply cut and pasted from the 6th bolded paragraph. All of it. So do you have anything to add of your own or are you only able to resort to your tradition (John MacArthur)?

God bless you

 

[fhansen]

The best way to explain it for me at least is through the Westminster Confession of Faith:

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

The problem is that the authority cannot be separated from the interpreter. The interpreter is, of necessity, the authority, as witnessed to by the fact that many different interpreters come up with significantly different interpretations. This thread demonstrates this fact. Antinomians vs Arminians vs 5 point Calvinists vs 4 point Calvinists vs Lutheranism vs Pelagianists vs Arianism vs Molinists vs Thomists vs synergists vs monergists-the list goes on and while not all of these are necessarily irreconcilable nor particularly significant in terms of salvation, many are. We all need to believe we can depend on the HS to be leading us but He can’t be leading us in widely different directions.