Where is the spoken word?

[SPOKENWORD]

1962Missal:

Whatever ones provide us with sub-Apostolic Chistian writers whose writings survive. I’m more interested in the list of writers than from where they come. Examples:

Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Hippolytus; Cyprian; Caius; Novatian, Gregory Thaumaturgus; Dinysius the Great; Julius Africanus; Anatolius, Methodius; Arnobius, Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius.

All Christians of the age of the Martyrs. All with extant writings.

We are dealing with the case books (post-Apotolic writings) not the law, itelf (the Bible), remember?

Justin

Ok Justin,Where is Gods spokenword. My answers were to no avail to you. This might be strawman whatever its called,who cares?

 

[1962Missal]

SPOKENWORD:

Ok Justin,Where is Gods spokenword. My answers were to no avail to you. This might be strawman whatever its called,who cares?

SPOKENWORD, I am sorry if you feel frustrated. It was not my intent to frustrate you. We hold different opinions, and while I may not agree with your opinion, I respect the person who holds it. However, two contradictory opinions cannot both be true simultaneously. At least one of us is wrong. I appreciate your with patience me and your honesty as we try to uncover the truth.

I’ll use this quote that I’ve used before to explain my understanding of where the spoken Word is.

In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts…This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

*n order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their own place.”…

And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes…

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.*

 

[1962Missal]

Continuation

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort…

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

That is a paraphase. I earnestly ask that you follow the link and read the entire document.

Yours in Christ,
Justin

 

[SPOKENWORD]

1962Missal:

SPOKENWORD, I am sorry if you feel frustrated. It was not my intent to frustrate you. We hold different opinions, and while I may not agree with your opinion, I respect the person who holds it. However, two contradictory opinions cannot both be true simultaneously. At least one of us is wrong. I appreciate your with patience me and your honesty as we try to uncover the truth.

I’ll use this quote that I’ve used before to explain my understanding of where the spoken Word is.

I am in agreement that the word of God was passed on down through the apostles. The apostles passed on Gods Word onto the body of Christ[christians]. Did that great commision apply only to the apostles? I thought Christ gave us that same responsability to go out and preach the Good News. Isnt that our calling as christians? .

 

[rod_of_iron]

1962Missal:

Let say that we haven’t been able to come to a conclusion by using Scripture and prayerful discernment and you’ve now come to me for my advice. I’d say that we can look at it rather like the problem faced by a judge when two interpretations of law are presented to him by two lawyers. When a judge needs to decide which of two conflicting interpretations of a law (the Bible, in this metaphor) is correct, he goes to the case books (the writings of the early Church fathers, to continue our metaphor) to see what the earliest recorded decisions involving that law say. The earliest rulings decide which way the judge judges. So when you come to me for my help, we’d turn to the writings of the ECF’s.

So, if you search the scriptures and you pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth, as the Bible tells us, how long are you willing to wait before you give up on the Holy Spirit? You sound too impatient. You said that if prayerful discernment doesn’t solve the matter, that you will turn to the writings of the ECF’s. Are those ECF’s more qualified to reveal the truth to you than the Holy Spirit is? Perhaps, the ECF’s were as impatient for an answer as you were. If they were, whom did they turn to? Church fathers that lived before them? If you must turn to the ECF’s to answer your questions, who did the ECF’s turn to for answers to their questions?

According to the Bible, Jesus told his disciples to rely on the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. But when did the Holy Spirit fail to lead men to all truth? When did men give up on the Holy Spirit? When did men begin to treat lightly the counsel of Jesus when He told them that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth? Did the ECF’s trust the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth? If not, how did they arrive at the truth? On the other hand, if they did trust the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth, why don’t you do the same? If at first you do not get the answers to your questions, don’t give up on God. Ask and ask again. We are told to pray without ceasing. We must never give up until the truth is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

rod of iron:

So, if you search the scriptures and you pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth, as the Bible tells us, how long are you willing to wait before you give up on the Holy Spirit? You sound too impatient. You said that if prayerful discernment doesn’t solve the matter, that you will turn to the writings of the ECF’s. Are those ECF’s more qualified to reveal the truth to you than the Holy Spirit is? Perhaps, the ECF’s were as impatient for an answer as you were. If they were, whom did they turn to? Church fathers that lived before them? If you must turn to the ECF’s to answer your questions, who did the ECF’s turn to for answers to their questions?

According to the Bible, Jesus told his disciples to rely on the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. But when did the Holy Spirit fail to lead men to all truth? When did men give up on the Holy Spirit? When did men begin to treat lightly the counsel of Jesus when He told them that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth? Did the ECF’s trust the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth? If not, how did they arrive at the truth? On the other hand, if they did trust the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth, why don’t you do the same? If at first you do not get the answers to your questions, don’t give up on God. Ask and ask again. We are told to pray without ceasing. We must never give up until the truth is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.

Rod of Iron, Its funny because I sensed the same thing.Maybe our Lord is trying to teach Missal Justin}.how to wait on the Lord for answers. Oh Lord teach Justin patience because he wants it right now.

 

[MariaG]

Spokenword,

Justin is not speaking of just the great commission, which has been given to us all. Yes we all are to go out and preach the Good News. But God also told us to hold fast to His words. The Catholic Church has held fast to those oral words, they are called Sacred Tradition.

preaching God’s word does not equal holding fast to God’s spoken word

These are two different things.

As for testing the Spirit, I find it odd that you would agree so often with Rod of Iron. The “spirit” has led him to a Morman church. Is this where you think all of God’s truth is? The Morman Church “truth” is vastly different than any Christian denomination, Catholic, Protestant or even nondenominational. Clearly, testing the spirit brings people to many different conclusions. Where is an honest person to look when they are not sure of the spirit?

This is not a patience issue, it is a salvation issue.

God Bless

 

[SPOKENWORD]

MariaG:

Spokenword,

Justin is not speaking of just the great commission, which has been given to us all. Yes we all are to go out and preach the Good News. But God also told us to hold fast to His words. The Catholic Church has held fast to those oral words, they are called Sacred Tradition.

preaching God’s word does not equal holding fast to God’s spoken word

These are two different things.

As for testing the Spirit, I find it odd that you would agree so often with Rod of Iron. The “spirit” has led him to a Morman church. Is this where you think all of God’s truth is? The Morman Church “truth” is vastly different than any Christian denomination, Catholic, Protestant or even nondenominational. Clearly, testing the spirit brings people to many different conclusions. Where is an honest person to look when they are not sure of the spirit?

This is not a patience issue, it is a salvation issue.

God Bless

Maria, I only agree with Gods Word. I think there is Gods Truth in all christian churches. I also know that there is twisted truth in many churches. I agree that the Morman church has many errors that do not line up with the Word of God. Im not defending Rod of Iron,im only saying I am in agreement with what God says.

 

[MariaG]

That’s good. But you and rod agree that you must test the spirit, but the spirit has brought you both to a separate truth. As Justin said, Scripture alone and prayerful discernment do not bring truth or even agreement of what to believe. In “testing” the spirit, you must be able to be willing to change directions when it is clear your path is not going to lead you to all truth. Scripture with prayerfull dicernment, clearly, does not lead to all truth. It leads to many “truths”.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

MariaG:

That’s good. But you and rod agree that you must test the spirit, but the spirit has brought you both to a separate truth. As Justin said, Scripture alone and prayerful discernment do not bring truth or even agreement of what to believe. In “testing” the spirit, you must be able to be willing to change directions when it is clear your path is not going to lead you to all truth. Scripture with prayerfull dicernment, clearly, does not lead to all truth. It leads to many “truths”.

Is it possible for the Holy Spirit to teach error? I dont think so. The problem is not the Holy Spirit but those who listen to the Holy Spirit. Sometime we think we are listening to the spirit but in actuality are not. If its not Gods spirit then it has to be a false spirit.Thats why we have to test it. If I have a problem I will pray with my wife and wait to recieve a confirmation through His Word.

 

[jimmy]

SPOKENWORD:

Is it possible for the Holy Spirit to teach error? I dont think so. The problem is not the Holy Spirit but those who listen to the Holy Spirit. Sometime we think we are listening to the spirit but in actuality are not. If its not Gods spirit then it has to be a false spirit.Thats why we have to test it. If I have a problem I will pray with my wife and wait to recieve a confirmation through His Word.

How can you test a spirit that is giving you an interpretation if you don’t know the true interpretation?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

jimmy:

How can you test a spirit that is giving you an interpretation if you don’t know the true interpretation?

THATS WHY YOU TEST IT TO SEE IF IT IS OF GOD AND THAT IT IS IN LINE WITH GODS WRITTEN WORD. .

 

[MariaG]

But Rod thinks he is right, after testing the spirit and comparing it with God’s word, you think you are right after testing the spirit and comparing it with God’s word, and Justin, Jimmy and I think we are right. We all can not be right. The criteria you use for finding out if interpretation is correct is faulty and subject to personal interpretation.

As well as the fact it brings us back to the original post. You compare your interpretation you think was given to you by the Holy Spirit to God’s written word. But where in the Bible does it tell you it has all been written down now, you do not have to follow the oral words I told you to hold fast to?

I have not found one place that tells me to no longer hold fast to those oral teachings.

Neither have you.

So, what are those oral words and who has them? Only by answering that question can you truly follow ALL of God’s words that He does have written down.

God Bless
Maria

 

[rod_of_iron]

MariaG:

Justin is not speaking of just the great commission, which has been given to us all. Yes we all are to go out and preach the Good News. But God also told us to hold fast to His words. The Catholic Church has held fast to those oral words, they are called Sacred Tradition.

How do you prove that the Sacred Tradition is actually the oral tradition spoken about in the Bible? Just because the Catholic church claims it is? Asking us where else the oral word is if it is not the Sacred Tradition, does not prove that the Sacred Tradition is indeed the oral word. You must provide evidence that the Sacred tradition really is the oral word of scripture. Where is your proof?

MariaG:

As for testing the Spirit, I find it odd that you would agree so often with Rod of Iron. The “spirit” has led him to a Morman church. Is this where you think all of God’s truth is? The Morman Church “truth” is vastly different than any Christian denomination, Catholic, Protestant or even nondenominational.

I have already said several times that I am not a member of the LDS church, but you choose to ignore me. Then, you claim that my truth is “vastly different than any Christian denomination, Catholic, Protestant or even nondenominational.” What truth do you think I have that is so different? What do you think I believe? Instead of assuming what I believe, ask me.

MariaG:

Clearly, testing the spirit brings people to many different conclusions. Where is an honest person to look when they are not sure of the spirit?

So, are you claiming that the Holy Spirit is a failure? Are you claiming that the Holy Spirit should be bypassed because there is a better guide to lead us into all truth? Can you believe that there really is a better guide than God Himself?

 

[rod_of_iron]

MariaG:

But Rod thinks he is right, after testing the spirit and comparing it with God’s word, you think you are right after testing the spirit and comparing it with God’s word, and Justin, Jimmy and I think we are right. We all can not be right. The criteria you use for finding out if interpretation is correct is faulty and subject to personal interpretation.

How do you know that Spokenword and I disagree with each other? We both agree that each person must try the spirits to see if they are of God. We may disagree with what sources we read to learn the truth. Spokenword may not use the Book of Mormon to learn about God and Jesus, but if he and I come to the knowledge of the same truth, what does it matter what books I read to receive this truth? Isn’t a truth still a truth no matter where it is written?

But Justin has told me to turn to the ECF’s as if they are able to guide me to all truth better than the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that Justin relies on the Holy Spirit to lead him into all truth. He seems unable to wait for an answer from the Holy Spirit, so he turns to the ECF’s. Maria, do you wait on the Holy Spirit to give you the answers you desire, or do you become impatient and turn to the ECF’s like Justin seems to?

If Spokenword and I did not seem to agree on an issue, perhaps we have not been asking God the same question. If you do not ask the same question as I do, you probably will not get the same answer as I have.

 

[MariaG]

Rod,

I have not said you are a member of LDS. But since you use the book of Morman, you clearly must belong to some "sect or denomination of the Morman church. Give me a name of what you wish to be called and I will call you that. Until you do, I must refer to you as Morman, meaning a person who believes in the further revelations of Jesus Christ as contained in the book of Morman. And here is where you would disagree with Spoken word. He does not believe in further revelations, but the Bible alone.

Since I came from a fundamental Christian church, my proof that the church is correct on where the oral words are, as I said before, comes from the Bible and history. The church will be a “pillar and foundation of the truth”. History shows that church is the Catholic church. The Bible tells us the church must be one. There was one church for 1000 years.

And I have been willing to admit that there could be another explanation. I have asked for you to show me where the oral words I am to hold fast to if it is not the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic church. The Bible says hold fast to the words. Where are those words if the Catholic church is wrong? And since this thread was to fundamental Bible Christians who believe in Bible alone, where in the Bible does it say it has all been written down now, you don’t have to hold fast to the oral traditions any more?

Gotta go, child crying. Try to get back later.
God Bless
Maria
p.s. Rod I do not mean to offend you by calling you Morman, but since you use the book of Morman for finding truth, I don’t see what else you can be. Christians I know completely reject the book of Morman so Christian is not specific enough for your beliefs. Give me a name and I will refer to it, otherwise as a person who follows the book of Morman in addition to the Bible, I will call you Morman in that sense.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

MariaG:

Rod,

I have not said you are a member of LDS. But since you use the book of Morman, you clearly must belong to some "sect or denomination of the Morman church. Give me a name of what you wish to be called and I will call you that. Until you do, I must refer to you as Morman, meaning a person who believes in the further revelations of Jesus Christ as contained in the book of Morman. And here is where you would disagree with Spoken word. He does not believe in further revelations, but the Bible alone.

Since I came from a fundamental Christian church, my proof that the church is correct on where the oral words are, as I said before, comes from the Bible and history. The church will be a “pillar and foundation of the truth”. History shows that church is the Catholic church. The Bible tells us the church must be one. There was one church for 1000 years.

And I have been willing to admit that there could be another explanation. I have asked for you to show me where the oral words I am to hold fast to if it is not the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic church. The Bible says hold fast to the words. Where are those words if the Catholic church is wrong? And since this thread was to fundamental Bible Christians who believe in Bible alone, where in the Bible does it say it has all been written down now, you don’t have to hold fast to the oral traditions any more?

Gotta go, child crying. Try to get back later.
God Bless
Maria
p.s. Rod I do not mean to offend you by calling you Morman, but since you use the book of Morman for finding truth, I don’t see what else you can be. Christians I know completely reject the book of Morman so Christian is not specific enough for your beliefs. Give me a name and I will refer to it, otherwise as a person who follows the book of Morman in addition to the Bible, I will call you Morman in that sense.

Maria, Again I dont want to be repeticious but Jesus did say as He spoke to satan .IT IS WRITTEN. Jesus knew the Word of God was written.So why do you have a problem finding it? Where was it WRITTEN? Thats the question.

 

[rod_of_iron]

MariaG:

I have not said you are a member of LDS.

But you seemed to say that when you said the following in regards to me:

The “spirit” has led him to a Morman church. Is this where you think all of God’s truth is? The Morman Church “truth” is vastly different than any Christian denomination, Catholic, Protestant or even nondenominational.

First, you claim that I have been led to a Mormon church. Then, you make a comment about the Mormon church, as if I belong to the LDS church headquartered in Salt Lake City. With these comments, you cause me to think that you believe that all the sects of what you refer to as Mormonism are very close in doctrinal beliefs. I have said before that even though I read the Book of Mormon to learn truth, my sect is as different from the LDS church as the Catholic church is different from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That is what I was objecting to. You can call me Mormon if you choose to, because Mormon literally means: the restoration of the covenant. But please don’t assume that the beliefs of all the sects you classify on Mormonism are very close in their doctrinal beliefs. Also, you may want to spell the word Mormon correctly. There is no “a” in the word.

MariaG:

But since you use the book of Morman, you clearly must belong to some “sect or denomination of the Morman church.”

This is not necessarily true. There is a Baptist minister who has read the Book of Mormon and believes it to be true, yet he has not joined a sect of Mormonism. He is still Baptist.

A Jewish Rabbi used to have a web site promoting the Book of Mormon, but he was still a rabbi. He referred to himself as Rabbi Yosef. There may still be info about him on the internet.

You do not have to be a member of a sect of Mormonism to believe in the Book of Mormon. You could read the Book of Mormon and believe it is true, and still be a member of the Catholic church, as long as you wouldn’t get excommunicated for believing in that book.

MariaG:

Give me a name of what you wish to be called and I will call you that. Until you do, I must refer to you as Morman, meaning a person who believes in the further revelations of Jesus Christ as contained in the book of Morman.

I prefer to be referred to as a Restoration Saint. You may not be comfortable calling me a saint, even though the Bible refers to the disciples of Jesus and early Christians as saints.

MariaG:

And here is where you would disagree with Spoken word. He does not believe in further revelations, but the Bible alone.

If the further revelations do not contradict what is in the Bible, your point here is irrelevant. Again, do not assume I believe something, just because Mormons believe it.

 

[rod_of_iron]

MariaG:

Since I came from a fundamental Christian church, my proof that the church is correct on where the oral words are, as I said before, comes from the Bible and history.

From the Bible? Let’s examine the verse you have previously referred to.

2 Thessalonian 2:15, says, **“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
**
As I read this verse again today, I see something that I did not see before. This verse told the brethren to hold to the traditions which they have been taught. But not all of them had been taught the same way. Some had been taught the traditions by word of mouth, and others had been taught through an epistle that had been sent. This verse does not say that the traditions taught by word were different than the traditions taught by epistle. If it did, it would have said, "Hold fast to the traditions which ye have been taught by word, as well as the traditions that ye have been taught by epistle."

But this is not the way that verse reads. The traditions that were taught were sent in two different ways, but both ways taught the very same traditions. Apparently, Paul did not know at the times whether all the people he was writing this epistle to had been taught either by word or by previous epistle. Therefore, he told the people that regardless of whether they had been taught these traditions by word or by epistle, they should hold fast to them. But this verse amply implies that the exact same traditions were transmitted to the believers by both word and by epistle, depending upon how the believer was able to be taught.

MariaG:

The church will be a “pillar and foundation of the truth”. History shows that church is the Catholic church. The Bible tells us the church must be one. There was one church for 1000 years.

Still, it has not been proven that the church spoken about as being the “pillar and foundation of the truth” is indeed the Catholic church. No one here yet has shown me firsthand evidence that Peter passed on authority to a successor. History only assumes that the church mentioned in the Bible is the Catholic church. But it is just an assumption, until proven absolutely true.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

rod of iron:

From the Bible? Let’s examine the verse you have previously referred to.

2 Thessalonian 2:15, says, **“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
**
As I read this verse again today, I see something that I did not see before. This verse told the brethren to hold to the traditions which they have been taught. But not all of them had been taught the same way. Some had been taught the traditions by word of mouth, and others had been taught through an epistle that had been sent. This verse does not say that the traditions taught by word were different than the traditions taught by epistle. If it did, it would have said, "Hold fast to the traditions which ye have been taught by word, as well as the traditions that ye have been taught by epistle."

But this is not the way that verse reads. The traditions that were taught were sent in two different ways, but both ways taught the very same traditions. Apparently, Paul did not know at the times whether all the people he was writing this epistle to had been taught either by word or by previous epistle. Therefore, he told the people that regardless of whether they had been taught these traditions by word or by epistle, they should hold fast to them. But this verse amply implies that the exact same traditions were transmitted to the believers by both word and by epistle, depending upon how the believer was able to be taught.

Still, it has not been proven that the church spoken about as being the “pillar and foundation of the truth” is indeed the Catholic church. No one here yet has shown me firsthand evidence that Peter passed on authority to a successor. History only assumes that the church mentioned in the Bible is the Catholic church. But it is just an assumption, until proven absolutely true.

What were the traditions that were taught? A tradition is something that was passed down. Did these traditions the apostles learned in thier time continue to be trickled down to this day?. Or were there new traditions added on as the rcc became institutionalized?