You can't have it both ways.

[Rightlydivide]

Do you realize most people in that time period couldn’t read anyway and that God was sharing His Gospel THROUGH His Apostles and THEIR Apostles ORALLY?

What evidence do you have that the oral tradition of the Apostles is something different than what we have in scripture?
Thanks

 

[joe370]

I can imagine it was a hard pill to swallow primarily because the Bible does not teach that, does it?

Cool, we are on the same page. Schaick and rightlydivide, is it your belief that Jesus left the world with His established church and that His church (which ever church that is) - has been preserved, by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, regarding faith and morals only, of course found only in the bible, as opposed to tradition?

 

[joe370]

Schaick, you said:

How is it you think I interprete the Bible? Don’t you remember in Junior High how wew were to interprete novels, poems?** This isn’t rocket science.**

If interpreting the bible is not rocket science, then please settle the dispute regarding the correct interpretation and application of - This is my body versus, this is a symbol of my body, once and for all? Please, don’t give me your interpretation and call it good, for this does not settle the dispute for those who’s interpretation, disagrees with yours.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Cool, we are on the same page. Schaick and rightlydivide, is it your belief that Jesus left the world with His established church and that His church (which ever church that is) - has been preserved, by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, regarding faith and morals only, of course found only in the bible, as opposed to tradition?

No. Faith and morals? Where did that come from? I do not recall that phrase in scripture or even Ante-Nicene literature. Where did that distinction come from?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Schaick, you said:

If interpreting the bible is not rocket science, then please settle the dispute regarding the correct interpretation and application of - This is my body versus, this is a symbol of my body, once and for all? Please, don’t give me your interpretation and call it good, for this does not settle the dispute for those who’s interpretation, disagrees with yours.

So my interpretation would not settle it but your churches would?

 

[joe370]

Rightly, you said:

What evidence do you have that the oral tradition of the Apostles is something different than what we have in scripture?
Thanks

The Immaculate Conception, like the bible, is a classic example of the development of doctrine. Neither the IC nor the bible were infallibly defined from the very beginning. The early church fathers, the same people that contributed to the codification of the bible in the latter part of the 4th century, certainly believed. If you reject the claims of the early church fathers, then logically you cast some doubt on their claims, regarding the bible. Prior to the codification of the bible, by the CC in the latter part of the 4th century, Revelation, Hebrews, James, a letter from Jude, Peter and John, were absolutely not considered part of the canon, in certain parts of the Roman empire. It was the early church leaders, the same leaders that regarded Mary as pure and stain free, that made the final call, for all!

Below are a few quotes:

Athanasius

. . . pure and unstained Virgin . . .

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, **clothed with purity instead of gold! **You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.

Ephraem

Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life.

Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain.

Cyril of Jerusalem

Pure and spotless is this birth. For where the Holy Spirit breathes, all pollution is taken away, so that the human birth of the Only-begotten from the Virgin is undefiled.

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor.

Here we see an example of tradition working alongside scripture. The Catholic Church believes Mary is all-holy and free from sin **(along with the Orthodox, and the Protestant Reformers) **- even from the first moment of her existence from her conception. Why don’t the successors of the men that spearheaded the reformation agree with the men that spearheaded the reformation, regarding Mary’s sinless nature? Of course that is more of a rhetorical question…

 

[joe370]

So my interpretation would not settle it but your churches would?

Excellent question, and the answer is: no way; my interpretation absolutely would not settle anything, nor would the interpretation of the CC, if in fact the CC was not founded by JC in the 1st century, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost!!!

 

[joe370]

No. Faith and morals? Where did that come from? I do not recall that phrase in scripture or even Ante-Nicene literature. Where did that distinction come from?

Alrighty…I say again: Cool, we are on the same page. Schaick and rightlydivide, is it your belief that Jesus left the world with His established church and that His church (which ever church that is) - has been preserved, by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ, found only in the bible, as opposed to tradition? It seems that, if the word (or words) - is not to be found in the bible, it is not to be used or believed - correct?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Alrighty…I say again: Cool, we are on the same page. Schaick and rightlydivide, is it your belief that Jesus left the world with His established church and that His church (which ever church that is) - has been preserved, by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ, found only in the bible, as opposed to tradition? It seems that, if the word (or words) - is not to be found in the bible, it is not to be used or believed - correct?

No. Churches in the Bible taught error. I do not know of any churches where it states that they were perserved from error.
The church at Thessalonica had errors primarily concerning faith.
Corinth was a hotbed for many errors.
Suffice to say most of the churches, except Philadelphia, were teaching errors as John described it in Revelation.
I do not know of a church in the New Testament that I can say with 100 percent certainity was completely free of error.

 

[joe370]

No. Churches in the Bible taught error. I do not know of any churches where it states that they were perserved from error.
The church at Thessalonica had errors primarily concerning faith.
Corinth was a hotbed for many errors.
Suffice to say most of the churches, except Philadelphia, were teaching errors as John described it in Revelation.
I do not know of a church in the New Testament that I can say with 100 percent certainity was completely free of error.

If, as you believe, Jesus’ church, or any church for that matter, was not preserved from error, regarding only the teachings of JC, then I guess there is nothing more for us to discuss regarding the subject. If you are right then Christianity, in general, will have to assume that there is no way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding - This is my body versus this is a symbol of my body, for the bible cannot resolve this dispute and all churches, according to you, were NOT preserved from error via the guidance of the HS and therefor are not qualified either.

However, I do not agree with you, but there is no reason why we can’t agree to disagree. Thanks for answering the question.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You bet Joe
I am curious still, if anyone knows, the origins of this belief concerning “faith and morals”. I wondered why just those two areas, who was the first to say these two areas, etc
Thanks

 

[gtrenewed]

Hey Gtrenewed, how ya doin…

Is it your belief that Jesus left the world with His established church and that His church (which ever church that is) - has been preserved, by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, regarding faith and morals only? Or, are you a sola scriptura advocate, believing that the Christians only authority, and source of error free truth, doctrinally speaking, is the holy bible via individual interpretation? In other words, all anyone has to do, regardless of denomination, (if they want access to the infallible truths of God) - is open their bible and start reading and interpreting as the holy spirit moves them? As a former non-Catholic this was a hard pill to swallow; I tried to embrace the ideological view, but I just couldn’t get passed the obvious flaws.

Joe, I wish I could answer this directly but unfortunately labels mean different things to different people and serve as a source of contention rather than understanding.

Are those my only choices?

I believe in Jesus, His cross and resurrection, as God’s grace for eternal life. I don’t have to depend on my works to obtain eternal life for I have Jesus’ works as my foundation. As I grow in the things of the Spirit, good works will come forth out of my born again spirit and be placed on the foundation of Jesus’ works.

The Holy Spirit will bring to my remembrence the things that Jesus taught. One thing that Jesus taught was to not seek an earthly kingdom. The Apostles including Paul sought the kingdom of heaven while the false apostles sought the earthly kingdom. Quite a few churches want to control their members like an earthly king and kingdom. That was the medieval RCC. That is also the view of many RC’s on this forum. They lost sight of the Gospel and like the churches in Revelation they lost their standing.

The fruit of the Reformation today are the churches preaching Jesus, His cross and resurrection, as God’s grace for eternal life. I know many RC’s say that the bad fruit is all the denominations but as long as they give Jesus His rightful place they are part of His church on earth.

So, it takes Scripture mixed with faith and Scripture says it has all we need to come to faith and to grow in the Spirit.

 

[PRmerger]

Marriage is an ancient ceremony. It isn’t a question of salvation for the Christain. We can celebrate it many different ways as long as it is by faith since Scripture tells us that what is not done by faith is sin. For secular reasons there needs to be a paper trail.

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” Eph 5:31. How they are joined depends largely on your family history; however, it is by consummation and it is not a matter of salvation. If a man and a woman stand before God alone, in faith, as Christians, then it is blessed by God.

Can you be saved if you’re not married by a minister (i.e. married only civilly, or heck, even married in our own minds?) And how do you know?

And what about if you divorce and marry someone else? Are you committing adultery? If so, are you saved still?

 

[gtrenewed]

Let’s make a deal:

I’ll change my signature to reflect what *you *think it should say and you add a signature with what I think it should say.

I thought you agreed that only God gets the glory for answered prayer but I see that you want the glory also for I have to thank you for answered prayer.

What else can I conclude from your statement that I should thank you for the parking place because you prayed?

But why would you change it if you don’t see it as wrong?

 

[nickybr38]

I’m not a huge fan of scripture verse battles BUT during our readings tonight I stumbled upon this and thought it was pretty relevant to the discussion:

“Brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” - 2 Thess. 2:15

Notice how there is no command to hold fast ONLY to the written word? Funny how that works.

 

[gtrenewed]

Can you be saved if you’re not married by a minister (i.e. married only civilly, or heck, even married in our own minds?) And how do you know?

Yes - Jesus saves, not my works, that is the good news of the Gospel.

And what about if you divorce and marry someone else? Are you committing adultery? If so, are you saved still?

Still saved; however, being born again in the Spirit you will seek the will of God in this situation as in all situations and if in error you will repent and ask for forgiveness.
God gives us space to repent and only He determines the time.

Remember we are not under the law for salvation for all have fallen short.

 

[joe370]

Hey gtrenewed, you said:

Joe, I wish I could answer this directly but unfortunately labels mean different things to different people and serve as a source of contention rather than understanding.

Are those my only choices?

Well, either the bible is the Christians final authority via individual interpretation, or it is not? We can’t have it both ways!

I believe in Jesus, His cross and resurrection, as God’s grace for eternal life.

Amen to that brother.

I don’t have to depend on my works to obtain eternal life for I have Jesus’ works as my foundation.

I couldn’t agree more my friend, but what does that have to do with what I asked?

As I grow in the things of the Spirit, good works will come forth out of my born again spirit and be placed on the foundation of Jesus’ works. The Holy Spirit will bring to my remembrence the things that Jesus taught.

Just as the Holy Spirit did, continues to do, with the church founded by Jesus, forever guided by the same Holy spirit, into all truth, regardless of weeds mixed in with the wheat - right?

One thing that Jesus taught was to not seek an earthly kingdom. The Apostles including Paul sought the kingdom of heaven while the false apostles sought the earthly kingdom.

I agree that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this earth, but as King, He did establish an earthly Davidic kingdom, His church, which, from its very inception was as small as a mustard seed, but eventually grew into a massive tree and Jesus’ earthly kingdom, according to Jesus, is comprised of both weeds and wheat, which will not be the case in Jesus’ heavenly kingdom:

***“The kingdom of heaven ***is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

So, the church established by the Davidic King and Messiah, King Jesus, is not the earthly kingdom, promised to both Jew and gentile, in the Old Testament, comprised of both weeds and wheat, both growing together until the great harvest at which point Jesus, upon His return, will collect the weeds in bundles to be burned and gather the wheat into His heavenly Kingdom?

*"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

"The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

“‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”
*

I thought the long awaited Messiah was to be a king who would restore the Davidic line and reign on David’s earthly throne, and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever, on into the heavenly kingdom? Well, maybe I am wrong, so, thank God Jesus left His church leadership with the holy spirit, as opposed to you or me, to forever guide His church into all truth as opposed to partial truth.

continued…

 

[joe370]

Quite a few churches want to control their members like an earthly king and kingdom. That was the medieval RCC. That is also the view of many RC’s on this forum. They lost sight of the Gospel and like the churches in Revelation they lost their standing.

The church founded by Jesus was not the church of Rome or the church of Constantinople or the church of Antioch or the church of Alexandria - right? It was the church of Jerusalem? If it was not, then they never had that privileged standing. Perhaps you could identify Jesus’ authentic church stemming from Jerusalem, that traversed the centuries alongside the RCC, from the 4th century until the protestant reformation, and continued to traverse the next 5 centuries alongside the CC, the EOC and all of the PC’s? Surely that is the church with the entrusted standing and authority, to bring the gospel into perfect focus?

The fruit of the Reformation today are the churches preaching Jesus, His cross and resurrection, as God’s grace for eternal life.

Help me find that one reformed and united church bearing said fruit, stemming from the protestant reformation, as well as the authentic church stemming from Jerusalem, founded by Jesus, that again, traversed the centuries alongside the CC, the EOC and all of the reformed churches? Once we identify Jesus’ authentic church stemming from Jerusalem and Jesus’ reformed church, stemming from the protestant reformation, it looks like we have a choice to make?

I know many RC’s say that the bad fruit is all the denominations but as long as they give Jesus His rightful place they are part of His church on earth.

Forget about all those denominations, as well as the RCC and the EOC. Help me find Jesus’ authentic church or His authentic reformed church, stemming from the reformation - which is forever guided by the HS into all truth until the end of time, regardless of the weeds mixed in with the wheat???

So, it takes Scripture mixed with faith and Scripture says it has all we need to come to faith and to grow in the Spirit.

Please show me where scripture says that scripture has all we need, to come to faith and to grow in the Spirit? From a purely sola scriptura point of view, if its not in there it’s not to be believed!

Thanks Gtrenewed…

 

[joe370]

Rightly, perhaps you could directly address a few questions when you get a moment:

Is it your contention that the holy spirit inspired the apostolic authors to write the 27 books of the NT (with which I agree) - who then committed these 27 sacred writings, and only these sacred writings, (OT notwithstanding) - at the close of the apostolic age, to the guardianship of all Christians, in the form of the bound bible, as we see it today, **as opposed to **committing these sacred writings, and only these sacred writings, at the close of the apostolic age, to the guardianship of the successors of the apostolic writers, in the form of the bound bible as we see it today?

History and the bible, tells us that these teachings, which were not bound and codified for centuries, were entrusted, in the presence of many witnesses, to reliable men, (as opposed to just anyone) - who would therefore be qualified to teach others, which, according to scripture, was the reason why Paul left Titus in Crete, for example, so that he could straighten out what was left unfinished and entrust and appoint reliable, qualified elders, in every town, to which the flock is to defer. We also see a clear distinction between the every day saint in Christ and the bishops and Deacons in Christ, who were to shepherd the flock, and, according to scripture, the sheep were to obey their leaders and submit to their authority:

*“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.”

“Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons.”

“From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church…Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”

“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” *

Rightly, why obey or submit to the authority of mere men in succession with the apostles, or those who succeeded men like Timothy and Titus, who had nothing to do with the inspirational writing and interpretation of the 27 books of the NT?

Why doesn’t Paul tell them to obey and submit to the written word of God alone, and that, it is the inspired word of God that keeps watch over them…?

Is it also your contention that only the 27 books of the NT, in our present bible, were embraced as canonical, and only the 27 books of the NT, in our present bible, were accepted, without any doubt as to their authenticity, for the 1st 350 years of Christianity, ergo the CC’s unnecessary involvement in determining what should have been included and what should not not have been included?

If no then I ask: when someone in the early years of Christianity offered a book, purporting it to be sacred scripture, which happened quite often, it had to be tested, right, to see if it was in fact an authentic apostolic writing or merely a human writing?

If so, then did the early church leaders that codified the bible, in your opinion, defer exclusively to the codified bible, as a self-authenticating, self-attesting source, in need of no outside witness, to test the authenticity of the book in question, and distinguish it as a genuine apostolic wring versus a mere human writing?

One last question: if you are right and no church leadership, regardless of denomination, is protected/guided by the holy spirit, to teach and interpret the infallible bible - infallibly, then the only way we can know, with certainty, the infallible truths, (some of which are disputed everyday) - found in the bible, is to either ask Jesus, the source of the word, or ask the inspired writers of the infallible word, who could, via the guidance of the HS, infallibly interpret sacred scripture, when they walked the earth? How do we accomplish this undertaking?

 

[gtrenewed]

I’m not a huge fan of scripture verse battles BUT during our readings tonight I stumbled upon this and thought it was pretty relevant to the discussion:

“Brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” - 2 Thess. 2:15

Notice how there is no command to hold fast ONLY to the written word? Funny how that works.

Just a few thoughts:

1. It’s not a command but an exhortation to remain true to the Gospel;
2. Paul was the founding Apostle of this church so naturally he taught orally in the beginning. When he was absent he taught by letters;
3. All valid oral tradition will be confirmed by Scripture.