Were the Bereans "Sola Scripturists"?

[Doubting Thomas]

In the debates over the 16th century doctrinal novelty, "Sola Scriptura", it is often claimed that the Bereans in Acts 17 are examples of sola Scripturists in the Bible since they..."searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." I submit, that not only does this argument not do justice to the context of the passage, but it doesn't consider what "these things" were that the Bereans were looking for in the Scriptures.

Let's back up to verse 2 where Paul was at a synogogue of the Jews in Thessalonica:
"Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead and saying, 'This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ'. And some were persuaded..." (Acts 17:2-4)
So specifically Paul, in His preaching of Christ to the Jews, was demonstrating to the Jews from their Scriptures (the OT) that the Messiah indeed "had to suffer and rise again from the dead" no doubt pointing to Messianic prophecies. He then concluded that this specific person, Jesus of Nazareth, whom he was preaching fulfilled these specific prophecies--suffering and rising again. Paul had to do this as many Jews had the mistaken notion that Messiah was not to suffer and die, let alone rise again. Paul, thus, preached to these Jews the correct, authentic interpretation of Scriptures and how they were recently fulfilled in the historical figure of Jesus of Nazereth. It is these particular truths--that the Messiah must suffer and rise again--that Paul was using the (OT) Scriptures to point out in order to make his case that Jesus is the Christ. (So far, so good.)

The result was that many were persuaded by Paul's preaching--his correct interpretation of Messianic Scriptures and that these were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. However not all bought Paul's interpretation:


"But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious..." (v.5)


Now to verse 10 at Berea:
"When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair minded than those in Thessalonica in that they receive the word[ie the apostolic preaching of Paul] with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out if these things were so. Therefore, many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men."(v.10-12)

Note that the Bereans are called "more fair minded" primarily because they receive the apostolic word with all readiness. Secondarily, they looked into the (OT) Scriptures to verify to themselves that "these things"--Paul's specific arguments from the OT that the Messiah must suffer and rise--could be found in the Scripture. (So far, so good)

The problem comes when the advocates of Sola Scritpura conclude by claiming that everything must be not only verifed by Scripture, but derived from Scripture with no help from the Church. This doesn't follow for several reasons:

(1)It was the Apostolic Preaching--both in Acts 17 and in Philip's encounter with the eunuch--that provided the correct, authentic interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures (OT), particularly how the Messianic passages were to be interpreted. The Apostles learned this authentic interpretation from Christ Himself. Sadly, today Jewish apologists continue to ignore this Apostolic teaching and using "sola Scriptura" tactics conclude that Christ could not have been the Messiah. Similarly, error is likewise the fate anyone who seeks to interpret the Scriptures--OT or NT--outside the Tradition of the Apostles.

(2) It took the Apostolic Preaching to identify, to the Jews, the specific historical Individual who fulfilled these Scriptural prophecies (rightly interpreted) and was, thus, "the Christ".

(3) Although the OT foretold the fact of a New Covenant, the specific details and praxis of the New Covenant could not always be verified by or derived from the Old Testament as there was only vague hints of this in the OT. For example, despite having the OT scriptures there was a dispute in the Church over whether the Gentiles had to be circumcised or not to enter the covenant. Instead of searching in vain for a proof-text from the OT (other than mentioning that the Scriptures foretold the fact of the Gentiles coming into the covenant), the Apostles made their decision that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised because "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28). They could do with confidence this because Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them (collectively) into all the truth (John 16:13)...even if they couldn't find an OT proof text to answer all their questions.

In addition to this, other examples include the details of baptism, the details of celebration of the Eucharist and church order and other teachings and praxis of the New Covenant which were handed down to the churches for two decades without any OT proof-text or before any NT epistle was written. Yet, the Christians obeyed because they discerned that the Apostolic Traditions were delivered to them by the Apostles from the Lord and were thus authoritative, the very commands of God. This is the same tradition which Paul commands Christians to keep whether delivered orally or by epistle (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15).

So to sum up, "sola Scriptura" can only be "demonstrated" from the case of the Bereans if one reads that doctrine back into the passage while ignoring the context and the historical realities of the early Church. Reading "sola Scriptura" into this passage clearly goes beyond what the Scriptures themselves are saying.

[BobRyan]

DT -

The result was that many were persuaded by Paul's preaching--his correct interpretation of Messianic Scriptures and that these were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. However not all bought Paul's interpretation:
Certainly a valid result of his sola-scriptura approach AND THEIR own sola-scriptura method of TESTING to "SEE WHETHER those things are so".

"Sola Scriptura" as a principle is NOT dependant on WHICH doctrine of scripture you are testing at the time. (A spin you seem to have hoped to place on this).

The "principle" is that one can and SHOULD TEST the teaching that you hear (EVEN if the one teaching is AN APOSTLE!) against scripture to "SEE IF those things are so".

As you point out Paul had a teaching about the Messiah - that claimed that Jesus was the CHRIST (the Messiah). But he needed to PROVE that claim SOLA Scriptura and his doctrine - his teaching had to be VALIDATED by scripture to SEE IF it was so - "Apostle or not".

THere is nothing like "Well in this one particular case I give you non-Christians PERMISSION to validate this against the Bible" -- in the text. (Though you seem to NEED it).

DT said -
The problem comes when the advocates of Sola Scritpura conclude by claiming that everything must be not only verifed by Scripture, but derived from Scripture with no help from the Church. This doesn't follow for several reasonsDefine "help from the church".

How much "help" was Paul giving in Acts 17?

Basically he preaches "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1Cor 2) determined to "know nothing among you but this" and his direct teaching is "tested" to "see IF it is true".

Impossible to spin this one.

DT said -
(1)It was the Apostolic Preaching--both in Acts 17 and in Philip's encounter with the eunuch--that provided the correct, authentic interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures The problem with that circular argument is that they did not "study Paul daily and compare Paul to Paul to SEE IF PAul is correct".

You have to have a single agreed upon standard to judge against. A moving target won't do and self-authenticating is not what is happening (by explicit statement) in Acts 17.

Your point that Paul has a message at all about Jesus being something that violates Sola Scriptura is a failed argument. IN EVERY case the doctrine tested is ALWAYS of a form "OTHER" than a straight "paraphrase" of scripture. So in this case - they were not testing to see "if a paraphrase was correct" rather they were testing to see IF JESUS was the MESSIAH as Paul said!

And as they are studying 'the scriptures' the Holy Spirit is leading them.

There is nothing in the "New Covenant" of Heb 8 (quoted from Jeremiah) that they could not "test" against scripture to see "IF it was so"!

In fact when you take a look at Heb 8,9 and 10 you see that Christ is fullfilling OT scripture AND that ALL the arguments made FOR HIS NT work as our High Priest is coming FROM The OT TEXT!!

To Sum it up - Acts 17:11 DOES SHOW VALIDATION being made NOT by "studying TRADITION to see if those things were so" and NOT by "studying TRADITION plus SCRIPTURE to see IF those things are so" but by studying "SCRIPTURE" to see IF those things were so.

And we see in Mark 7 the clear condemnation of those who would introduce TRADITION that can not be harmonized with scripture!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""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.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the Word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''
Notice that Christ said that the magesterium of the ONE TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai had gone into error and yet continued to “honor ME with their lips”

1. Christ then pronounces their Worship to be in vain.
2. Christ points to the cause “Teaching as doctrine the commandments of men” – as though man’s wild-ideas are equal to the inspired word!
3. Christ points out the specific damage done by such man-made tradition Neglecting the commandment of God you HOLD to the tradition of men”
4. Christ points to direct conflict between that which is written in God’s Word – regarding His own “commandments” vs “your tradition”.. What is IN the Word vs what is simply the-words-of-men.
5. Christ specifically points to the Fifth Commandment in that UNIT OF TEN – saying that this one is being “effectively” negated by man’s tradition. NOTE that the Jews would not claim they were negating it – but Christ charges that the result is the same.
6. Then the phrase that many “traditionalists” claim is not in God’s Word – “thus Invalidating the WORD of GOD by your TRADITION”. Here God points to HIS WORD as having authority above and beyond “The tradition” of the magesterium of the ONE TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai. Clearly tradition must be tested against the Word to VALIDATE that it is NOT in any way contradictory – to meet Christ’s standard.
7. Finally Christ points out that this is not the ONLY case of Tradition contradicting the “Word of God”. In fact He has already stated that they are “experts at setting aside the commandment of God” in favor of “your tradition”

Yet some today would charge that it is “factious” and “divisive” to argue against their “many traditions” and point out where they contradict the clear Word of God. They claim this act of pointing out their own error is to divide the church and break up the John 17 prayer for unity. Note how easy it would have been for the Jewish Magesterium in the above example to make the same charge against Christ for His act in pointing out “Their error” in that same way!

In fact they could point to the fact that this may well split the faithful possibly even starting an entirely new “sect” called “Christians”!!

[DHK]

Where is the gospel message found?
What do "these things" refer to?
Do they refer to the teachings of Christ?

Let's see:
Luke 24:25-28 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.

What did Jesus speak of to these disciples. They were worried, concerned. It was now the third day and they had heard nothing of his resurrection.
What did Jesus say first to them: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things?" Then he went through the Scriptures and showed them all the prophecises related to his death, and the need for his death in relation to its necessity for dying for their sins.

Again what did he do:
Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Wouldn't you call that sola scriptura used by Christ himself? Using only the Scripture, he went through all the Old Testament and proclaimed the gospel to them. This was the New Testament message that Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch had. This is the message that the disciples had learned from Jesus. This is what "these things" refers to. This is what they coud study from the Scriptures.

There is no tradition here; only Scripture.
Baptism is not a part of salvation. Paul said in 1Cor. 1, that he came not to baptize. His mission was to preach the gospel. Either others with him did the baptizing, or more probably those that he left in charge, or appointed as pastors would do the baptizing. Paul made it clear that God had not called him to baptize. Likewise with the Lord's Supper.
The context then, of Acts 17:11 is strictly the gospel message. It is when he first went there and proclaimed to them the gospel message which is easily preached from the book of Isaiah, Genesis 3, many of the Psalms, many of the minor prophets, etc. The gospel message is found throughout the Old Testament.

To say that sola scriptura cannot be demonstrated in Acts 17:11 is actually to deny the words of Jesus in in Luke 24, who used the Old Testament via sola scriptura very thoroughly.
DHK

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />DT -

The result was that many were persuaded by Paul's preaching--his correct interpretation of Messianic Scriptures and that these were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. However not all bought Paul's interpretation:
Certainly a valid result of his sola-scriptura approach AND THEIR own sola-scriptura method of TESTING to "SEE WHETHER those things are so".</font>[/QUOTE]The emphasis is on correct interpretation. It took the coming of Christ and the preaching of the Apostles to demonstrate the correct interpretation of Scriptures and how they were filled with Christ. Had the Bereans not "received the word (preaching) with all readiness" they would have failed to see that the Scriptures, correctly interpreted, were in fact consistent with the Apostles' preaching.
"Sola Scriptura" as a principle is NOT dependant on WHICH doctrine of scripture you are testing at the time. (A spin you seem to have hoped to place on this).Actually, for reasons I mentioned above, using the Bereans passage (in which they examined very specific claims made by Paul regarding the suffering and resurrection of the Jewish Messiah) to demonstrate "sola Scriptura" goes beyond the intent and context of the passage. "Details", Bob! :cool:

The "principle" is that one can and SHOULD TEST the teaching that you hear (EVEN if the one teaching is AN APOSTLE!) against scripture to "SEE IF those things are so".Only by assuming "sola Scriptura" can you even hope to attempt to derive this "principle" from this passage.

As you point out Paul had a teaching about the Messiah - that claimed that Jesus was the CHRIST (the Messiah). But he needed to PROVE that claim SOLA Scriptura and his doctrine - his teaching had to be VALIDATED by scripture to SEE IF it was so - "Apostle or not".He demonstrated that by arguing from "scriptura", not "SOLA scriptura"...big difference. It was his preaching--that Jesus of Nazareth--fulfilled the prophecies (correctly interpreted) that was received with all readiness.

Define "help from the church".The authentic interpretation of the apostles who are the foundation of the church.

How much "help" was Paul giving in Acts 17?He's showing that popular misconceptions of the Messiah were wrong (ie correcting their interpretation of the OT) and revealing the specific historical individual--Jesus of Nazareth--in which the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled. Without the preaching of the apostles, the Jews would not have known either.


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />DT said -
(1)It was the Apostolic Preaching--both in Acts 17 and in Philip's encounter with the eunuch--that provided the correct, authentic interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures The problem with that circular argument is that they did not "study Paul daily and compare Paul to Paul to SEE IF PAul is correct".</font>[/QUOTE]No, they, given this new information from Paul, re-examined their previously held interpretations of Scripture (particulary the Messiah passages) and discovered that the Messiah indeed had to suffer and rise again. They received the good news that Jesus, whom Christ preached, was this Messiah.

You have to have a single agreed upon standard to judge against. A moving target won't do and self-authenticating is not what is happening (by explicit statement) in Acts 17.The single agreed upon standard is the Canonical Scriptures, as determined by the Church by the guidance of the Spirit, and interpreted in the Church where the authentic Apostolic tradition resides. The standard is emphatically not the Scriptures left to be interpreted however a specific individual or group sees fit outside the parameters of the Apostolic rule of faith.

Your point that Paul has a message at all about Jesus being something that violates Sola Scriptura is a failed argument. Nope, not at all.


And as they are studying 'the scriptures' the Holy Spirit is leading them.Only if they come to the same conclusions as the apostles. If not, the Holy Spirit is not leading them as He does not lead into contradiction.

There is nothing in the "New Covenant" of Heb 8 (quoted from Jeremiah) that they could not "test" against scripture to see "IF it was so"!"Details", Bob. The doctrine and praxis of baptism and the Eucharist were not specifically spelled out in the OT. Yet these were vital parts of the New Covenant communities established by the Apostles even before any NT works were written. The Christians didn't have to wring their hands, nervously waiting on an epistle to be written before they could worhsip as the apostles commanded them. They obeyed the Apostles because they recognized they had the authority of Christ even on these specific issues which were only hinted at in the OT. Christ said: "he who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me" (Luke 10:16) "Hearing" implies oral communication, Bob. That's why despite having no specific OT proof-text, the Apostles were able to teach the detail that the Gentiles need not be circumcised to enter the Covenant. That's also how the early Christians were able to worship on Sunday without any specific OT proof text to justify this move.

In fact when you take a look at Heb 8,9 and 10 you see that Christ is fullfilling OT scripture AND that ALL the arguments made FOR HIS NT work as our High Priest is coming FROM The OT TEXT!!Details, Bob! :cool: The early Christians were united in seeing the Eucharist as the central point of worship in which the believers really participated in Christ's body and blood which was shed for them on Calvary. Although, there are vague hints of this (seen in hindsight) in the OT, the specific details were delivered to the Christians by the Apostles.


And we see in Mark 7 the clear condemnation of those who would introduce TRADITION that can not be harmonized with scripture!And we see in 2 Thess 2:15, that the Christians were commanded to hold the traditions delivered to them by the apostles whether oral message or by epistles. Of course, oral tradition and Scripture, correctly interpreted, will always harmonize as their source is Christ.

[Doubting Thomas]

DHK:Wouldn't you call that sola scriptura used by Christ himself? No, because left to themselves they could not discern that Christ is the fulfillment of (and who gives authentic meaning to) the Scriptures. They would have most likely become like the unbelieving Jews who use the OT to disprove Christianity.

Using only the Scripture, he went through all the Old Testament and proclaimed the gospel to them. Indeed He used the Scriptures, and His explanation and interpretation gave the true meaning to these Scriptures.

This was the New Testament message that Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch had.And it took the preaching of Paul and of Philip (and of the other apostles) to open up and point out the true meaning of Scriptures. Left to themselves, the Jews couldn't figure out what these Scriptures meant despite their most diligent efforts. This authentic and authoritative interpretation of Scripture, handed down from Christ and the Apostles, is the heart of Apostolic tradition.

There is no tradition here; only Scripture.But it is tradition (paradosis)--"that which is handed down or delivered". Christ and His apostles "handed down" the true meaning of Scriptures and that they were fulfilled in Christ, and thus how the New Covenant communities were to then worship. And Paul commanded that these traditions be held whether delivered orally or by epistle.

Baptism is not a part of salvation. Christians for the first 1500 years of the Church and most Christians on earth today would disagree with you.

[D28guy]

"Christians for the first 1500 years of the Church and most Christians on earth today would disagree with you."Catholic propagandists just love to invent a past...and present...world of their own creating in order to perpetuate such nonesense.

If indeed what was posted were true, which of course its not, it would only mean the majority would be wrong.

Truth of course is not determined by "popular opinion"...truth is determined by "what sayeth the Lord?"

The incredible importance of turning to Gods scriptures alone as our truth standard continues to made more and more evident.

Grace and peace and truth,

Mike

[billwald]

Sola S only computes when scripture is taken in chronological order. It isn't reasonable to claim that SS started at the time of Jesus or Isaiah. One must start at Moses.


Christians and rabbis (Pharisees)read the book from back to front. Only the Sadducees maintained the correct order.

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no tradition here; only Scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But it is tradition (paradosis)--"that which is handed down or delivered".THis is not true even today.

Tradition can be ADDED tomorrow!

SCRIPTURE was completed in the first century AD.

Christ points to TRADITION as being contradictory to scripture. He does not say "Some of your tradition is contraictory to some ancestor's tradition" and that is why you are wrong.

Heaven only knows the myriad of ancestor's traditions that exist - or the NEW tradition that will be added tomorrow!

In Christ,

Bob

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no tradition here; only Scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
But it is tradition (paradosis)--"that which is handed down or delivered".THis is not true even today.

Tradition can be ADDED tomorrow!

SCRIPTURE was completed in the first century AD.

Christ points to TRADITION as being contradictory to scripture. He does not say "Some of your tradition is contraictory to some ancestor's tradition" and that is why you are wrong.

Heaven only knows the myriad of ancestor's traditions that exist - or the NEW tradition that will be added tomorrow!

In Christ,

Bob ]</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, Bob that is indeed the definition of the Greek word, paradosis that is translated "tradition"--"that which is delivered or handed down". That is the meaning of the word, which is why certain traditions (that "of men") can be condemned in Scripture (ie Mark 7; Col 2:8); while others (that "handed down" by the apostles from Christ) are commanded to be kept in Scripture (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). It's the orignial source of "that which is handed down" that matters--man or God. Therefore, any new "tradition" that can be "added tomorrow" is not part of the orignal Apostolic deposit and therefore not Apostolic Tradition.

[BobRyan]

But that is NOT the definition of "scripture" or "the WORD" or "The COMMANDMENT of God". In Mark 7 Christ condemns their "Tradition" their "paradosis".

And so in 2Cor 11 He condemns the tradition the teaching the words the doctrine of the APOSTLES - those who call themselves APOSTLES.

The problem is not that false apostles are readily accepted even though they say they are false apostles. THEY ALL claim to be REAL!

Paul says that they are to be judged by what scripture says "TO SEE IF THOSE THINGS ARE SO" in Acts 17:11, and then based on what has already been approved through that method - in 2Cor 11.

It could not be an clearer in the method to use.

In fact Paul condemns any Apostle or even "an ANGEL FROM HEAVEN" if they come teaching ANYTHING other than what has ALREADY been given (as in "contrary" to what has been given).

So ALL doctrine must be validated "sola scriptura" - we then have a safe anchor that can not be moved by the false apostles and teachers of some church in the dark ages.

In Christ,

Bob

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />DHK:Wouldn't you call that sola scriptura used by Christ himself? </font>[/QUOTE]No, because left to themselves they could not discern that Christ is the fulfillment of (and who gives authentic meaning to) the Scriptures. They would have most likely become like the unbelieving Jews who use the OT to disprove Christianity.[/qb][/quote]
The question was: Did Christ use sola scriptura? It matters not who the audience was in this case. It could have been a bunch of Hindus. Sola Scriptura, literally means "Scripture alone." What did Christ use to prove that 'Christ ought to suffer these things.' Did he use:
Oral Tradition?
Catholic Dogma?
Teaching of the Magesterium?
A Catecheism?

What did he use ?!
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

This is sola scriptura. He used the Bible alone to prove his point, going through all the Scriptures to explain to the disciples why he should die and suffer these things. He used the Scripture only. That is sola scriptura.

Using only the Scripture, he went through all the Old Testament and proclaimed the gospel to them. Indeed He used the Scriptures, and His explanation and interpretation gave the true meaning to these Scriptures.And so do we when we expound the Scriptures using only the Scriptures as our authority. This is, and always has been sola scriptura. It is expositional preaching. We find the truths of Scripture by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and we preach the Word of God. Our only authority is the Scripture. We have no authority such as the church fathers or tradition. It is the Bible alone.

This was the New Testament message that Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch had. And it took the preaching of Paul and of Philip (and of the other apostles) to open up and point out the true meaning of Scriptures. Left to themselves, the Jews couldn't figure out what these Scriptures meant despite their most diligent efforts. This authentic and authoritative interpretation of Scripture, handed down from Christ and the Apostles, is the heart of Apostolic tradition.Paul and Philip used sola scriptura. They opened up the Word of God and preached from the Word of God. No other source was used. It is true that the Ethiopian eunuch did not, as an unsaved man have understanding of that passage Scripture. That is why God works through men, such as pastors and evangelists. Even in the lives of ordinary believers he uses the Holy Spirit to illumine their minds to the correct understanding of the passage.
That is why the people at Berea could understand. They were devout Jews. They had a knowledge of the Old Testament already. All that they had to do was go and search the Scriptures that they had learned from their youth, and check and see if what Paul was preaching was true according to what they had learned. It was all sola scriptura from both sides. Paul preached solely from the Scriptures, and they checked his message solely from the Scriptures. People today need to do the same thing.

There is no tradition here; only Scripture. But it is tradition (paradosis)--"that which is handed down or delivered". Christ and His apostles "handed down" the true meaning of Scriptures and that they were fulfilled in Christ, and thus how the New Covenant communities were to then worship. And Paul commanded that these traditions be held whether delivered orally or by epistle.There was no tradition handed down here. That is ridiculous. The only thing handed down is the Word of God, which was completed by the first century. Thus only sola scriptura was handed down. We are to prove all things by the Bible. This was the method throughout all the Bible. Isaiah 8:20 states it as a principle. Believers in the New Testament everywhere practiced it. Tradition in the sense you speak of, was condemned by Christ.

Baptism is not a part of salvation. Christians for the first 1500 years of the Church and most Christians on earth today would disagree with you. You are wrong. False religions, false teachers, cults, false sects, taught such things; but never true believers in Christ. History for the last 2,000 years would disagree with you.
DHK

[Pastor Larry]

I have seen a lot of attempts to disprove Sola Scriptura, but this one has to be right at the top of the list of the most lame. The verse itself proves that the test for any message was Scripture. They judged Paul's words by the test of Scripture, and that is essentially what sola scriptura is. Something is true when it conforms with Scripture; something is false when it contradicts Scripture.

Added to that the fact that the canon had not yet been closed, and Paul was one of the apostles that completed the Scriptures in the NT, this whole thread becomes an even worse argument for sola scriptura. Once again, attempts to disprove what the Bible teaches about itself in order to support Romanism falls flat on its face.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
But that is NOT the definition of "scripture" or "the WORD" or "The COMMANDMENT of God". In Mark 7 Christ condemns their "Tradition" their "paradosis".Yep, and the "their" refers to the Pharisees' traditions, not the apostles'.


The problem is not that false apostles are readily accepted even though they say they are false apostles. THEY ALL claim to be REAL!This has nothing to do with Paul's (a real apostle) commands to the Christians to keep the tradition that he delivered to them, whether orally or by epistle. (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15)

In fact Paul condemns any Apostle or even "an ANGEL FROM HEAVEN" if they come teaching ANYTHING other than what has ALREADY been given (as in "contrary" to what has been given).Exactly, and this Apostolic message was "given" orally and by epistle.

So ALL doctrine must be validated "sola scriptura" - we then have a safe anchor that can not be moved by the false apostles and teachers of some church in the dark ages.
Nope, because the results depend on who is doing the validating by the "scritpura" and what presuppositions they bring to the "scriptura" Without the controlling interpretive framework of the Apostolic rule of faith, the "scriptura" can made to say pretty much anything. "Scriptura" cannot be interpreted "sola" irrespective of the Apostolic tradition.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[QB] I have seen a lot of attempts to disprove Sola Scriptura, but this one has to be right at the top of the list of the most lame.Well, I personally think the attempt to defend Sola Scriptura from Acts 17 is "pretty lame" itself given the context of the passage and the historical realities of the early Church.

The verse itself proves that the test for any message was Scripture. They judged Paul's words by the test of Scripture, and that is essentially what sola scriptura is.As I pointed out in my initial post, the verse only "proves" Sola Scriptura" if one reads it back into the passage. The Bereans received Paul''s new interpretation of Scripture and did indeed discover that his message, that the OT shows the Messiah must die and rise again, was true. Before they received the apostolic preaching they were lost. However, as I also mentioned in the post above, there were specific details of the New Covenant that were not spelled out in the OT. These were received by the Christians from the apostles based on the authority given to them by Christ Himself.

Something is true when it conforms with Scripture; something is false when it contradicts Scripture.Of course, depending on who is doing the interpreting, a given doctrine can either "conform with" or "contradict the Scripture". To the unbelieving Jews of today, Christianity contradicts Scripture. To those holding fast to the Apostles Traditions (given to them from Christ), Christianity is the fulfillment of Scriptures. (And so on....)

Added to that the fact that the canon had not yet been closed, and Paul was one of the apostles that completed the Scriptures in the NT, this whole thread becomes an even worse argument for sola scriptura. Of course, nowhere in Scripture does it say to hold fast the traditions until the "canon is closed". Paul commands the Thessalonians to hold fast the tradition whether delivered orally or by epistle. Period. The irony is that sola Scriptura actually goes beyond the plain teaching of Scripture.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by DHK:

This is sola scriptura. He used the Bible alone to prove his point, going through all the Scriptures to explain to the disciples why he should die and suffer these things. He used the Scripture only. That is sola scriptura. No He didn't. He didn't just present a bare text. He gave the true meaning of Scripture to them, something they lacked before. This true meaning of Scriptures is the heart of the tradition that the Apostles handed down to the church.

And so do we when we expound the Scriptures using only the Scriptures as our authority. This is, and always has been sola scriptura. It is expositional preaching.But depending on who is doing the "expounding", different and contradictory conclusions are reached about the Scriptures actually means.
We find the truths of Scripture by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and we preach the Word of God.And depending on what presuppositions and what proof texts one starts with, "comparing Scripture to Scripture" leads to contradictory conclusions on some key issues. The discussions on this message board is proof enough of that.
Our only authority is the Scripture. We have no authority such as the church fathers or tradition. It is the Bible alone. Actually your authority turns out to be your interpretation of Scripture which unfortunately seems to be unduly influenced by 16th century traditions of men.

Paul and Philip used sola scriptura. They opened up the Word of God and preached from the Word of God.Not exactly--they preached OT as being fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.
Even in the lives of ordinary believers he uses the Holy Spirit to illumine their minds to the correct understanding of the passage. Yet the Holy Spirit doesn't "illumine" minds to accept contradictory versions of Christianity. Yet this relativistic denominationalism is the fruit of sola Scriptura.

There was no tradition handed down here. That is ridiculous. The only thing handed down is the Word of God, which was completed by the first century. Yes, it was the Word of God which was handed down orally or by epistle.

Thus only sola scriptura was handed down.Nope. Scripture was indeed handed down. And the authentic apostolic interpretation of the Scripture was handed down. And the specific details of the praxis and teachings of the New Covenant were handed down, even if not systematically spelled out in either the OT or NT.

We are to prove all things by the Bible.Yet depending on who is doing the "proving" different conclusions are reached as to what the Bible means.
This was the method throughout all the Bible. Isaiah 8:20 states it as a principle. Believers in the New Testament everywhere practiced it.This is what you've asserted without proving.

Tradition in the sense you speak of, was condemned by Christ. Not at all--tradition in the sense I speak was commended by Paul. Only false Pharisaical tradition was condemned by Christ.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Baptism is not a part of salvation. Christians for the first 1500 years of the Church and most Christians on earth today would disagree with you. You are wrong. False religions, false teachers, cults, false sects, taught such things; but never true believers in Christ. History for the last 2,000 years would disagree with you.
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]And yet there is no historical evidence of anyone for the first 1500 years who did not believe that baptism was part of salvation.

[bmerr]

Doubting Thomas,

bmerr here. You are doing well, sir. I don't know enough about you yet to call you "brother", but I like what I've read so far. Keep it up.

Regarding interpretation, there is a right way and myriad wrong ways to go about it.

In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus asks the question, "What is written in the law? how readest thou?"

He's asking for the man's interpretation of what is written, or Scripture. Continuing on, Jesus tells the man, "Thou has answered right...", indicating that he could have answered wrong.

You are correct in the assertion that presuppositions about Scripture cloud the understanding of it. I wrestled with preconcieved ideas for about four years, myself. I kept running into things that didn't fit with them. In the end, I had to give them up. Not many are willing to (Matt 7:13, 14).

In Christ,

bmerr

[Doubting Thomas]

bmerr here. You are doing well, sir. I don't know enough about you yet to call you "brother", but I like what I've read so far. Keep it up.bmerr,

Thanks for the kind words.

In Christ,

DT

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Well, I personally think ... And herein lies the problem. You are basing your doctrine on what you "personally think" rather than on what God revealed.

As I pointed out in my initial post, the verse only "proves" Sola Scriptura" if one reads it back into the passageAnd has been pointed out, you are incorrect. Why did the Bereans study the Scriptures? To see if Paul was correct. To say that Paul gave a "new interpretation of Scripture" in nonsense. In fact, Paul appealed to the authority of Scripture for his message. You see earlier in Acts 17 that Paul reasoned with them from the Scriptures. Why? BEcause they were the authority.

Of course, depending on who is doing the interpreting, a given doctrine can either "conform with" or "contradict the Scripture".This is a lame excuse, to argue about interpretation. When the Bible is clear, you conform your interpretation to that. And that is where you fail.

]Of course, nowhere in Scripture does it say to hold fast the traditions until the "canon is closed". Paul commands the Thessalonians to hold fast the tradition whether delivered orally or by epistle. Period.Exactly. And those traditions are found only in Scripture. That is exactly the point. Yet you, based on following a faulty man made doctrine, reject it.

The irony is that sola Scriptura actually goes beyond the plain teaching of Scripture. No it doesn't. You don't score points by stating something incorrectly. The plain teaching of Scripture is that Scripture alone is sufficient for God's revelation to us.

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[QB] I have seen a lot of attempts to disprove Sola Scriptura, but this one has to be right at the top of the list of the most lame.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DT said --
Well, I personally think the attempt to defend Sola Scriptura from Acts 17 is "pretty lame" itself given the context of the passage and the historical realities of the early Church.
That is pretty amazing since the text itself SAYS that they were only using scripture to validate the APOSTLE!

Your claim all along has been that we should accept whatever someone says if they also claim to be an Apostle.

The example in Acts 17:11 utterly devastates every argument you have made so far.

As pointed in 2Cor 11 - EVEN the claim to be "an Apostle" is insufficient to avoid error.

In fact in Gal 1 - EVEN the claim to be "an angel from heaven" is INSUFFICIENT to avoid error and just swallow whatever you are told!

In ALL cases the only defense is the method APPROVED in Acts 17:11 - "Search the scriptures DAILY TO SEE IF those things ARE SO".

A more devastating case against the idea of just swallowing whatever a high-enough leader "Says" -- could not be imagined!!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something is true when it conforms with Scripture; something is false when it contradicts Scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DT said -
Of course, depending on who is doing the interpreting, a given doctrine can either "conform with" or "contradict the Scripture".
Good point but your "swallow tradition" model is devastated "again" by the fact that those DOING the interpreting in this case are NON-CHRISTIANS. Check it out - Acts 17:11 it is a NON-CHRISTIAN group validating a CHRISTIAN Apostle!!

This is the ABSOLUTE WORST case - because it is right "here" if EVER there was an argument for saying "you are NOT qualified to judge an apostle" it is to a bunch of NON CHRISTIANS!!

And yet - in this most EXTREME example it is STILL the valid - approved - honored - reliable method!!

Case closed!

DT
To the unbelieving Jews of today, Christianity contradicts Scripture.
And this is EXACTLY who is VALIDATING Paul!!

Read the text!

This is the case that blows away every argument you have raised on this point.

DT --
To those holding fast to the Apostles Traditions (given to them from Christ), Christianity is the fulfillment of Scriptures. (And so on....)Indeed - so you would "think" that a CHRISTIAN would be EVEN MORE qualified to VALIDATE the teaching/word of one claiming to be an Apostle- MORE Than a bunch of non-Christian non-believing Jews! Yet it is the METHOD of the NON-Believers that APPROVES and VALIDATES the Apostle. AND it is the Apostle in 2Cor 11 that FEARS for the Christians that they may indeed simply fall back to the method you recommend and "swallow the teaching" of anyone coming along and claiming to be an Apostle or someone with Bible authority!!

The fact that you would want to start a thread and highlight your greatest point of weakness -- (and with each post demonstrate it) is amazing to me.

I applaud you for going right after the most devastating case against your POV.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
But that is NOT the definition of "scripture" or "the WORD" or "The COMMANDMENT of God". In Mark 7 Christ condemns their "Tradition" their "paradosis".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yep, and the "their" refers to the Pharisees' traditions, not the apostles'.The disciples were following a local carpenter and the Pharisees were a key part of the Magesterium of the ONE true CHURCH started by God (by Christ) at Sinai!!

This means that Christ was condemning THE magesterium!!

There was no other church to go to - and there was no other Bible, no other God, no other Gospel, no other Creator!

They had the RIGHT church but they were In ERROR! Their traditions were WRONG!

Read Mark 7 it is clear that the CHURCH had fallen off the track via its leaders and specifically in regard to its TRADITIONS!

The idea that "tradition could not possibly be in error" is totally foreign to scripture!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is not that false apostles are readily accepted even though they say they are false apostles. THEY ALL claim to be REAL!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DT
This has nothing to do with Paul's (a real apostle) commands to the Christians to keep the tradition that he delivered to them, whether orally or by epistle. (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15)
In fact it has everything to do with it because it SHOWS the requirement to REJECT the teaching of false apostles.

HOW are you to KNOW??? Do false apostles come to your day and say "Hey I am FALSE APOSTLE and I would like you to listen to a story of mine"???

Your approach seems to be that we should BELIEVE the good ones but not the bad ones - but HOW could we KNOW one from the other unless we had a way to VALIDATE them.

So IF Paul is already VALIDATED via the Acts 17:11 fact of history that we SEE actually happening "TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were SO" -- then we SEE how Paul was validated. If that SAME validation were NOT applied to the others who CLAIM Apostleship THEN they just might "swallow whatever they are told".

AND Paul says "HE FEARS" that such might be the case.

You seem to argue that "they know the REAL ones because those are the only ones they listen too".

It is a circular argument constructed for the sole purpose of avoiding the solution!

In Christ,

Bob

[bmerr]

DT,

bmerr here. I was reading back over this thread, and I was hoping you could help me understand your position better. There are a couple of comments you made that caught my eye.

The problem comes when the advocates of Sola Scritpura conclude by claiming that everything must be not only verifed by Scripture, but derived from Scripture with no help from the Church.Let me start (I know I'm jumping in a little late) by saying that I do hold the position that Scripture (specifically the NT) is our sole authority today. It is the standard by which we must prove the many doctrines of men that clamor for our allegiance. It is the standard by which we will be judged at the final day (John 12:48).

Your comment about "help from the church" is interesting. Which church are you referring to?

In Christ,

bmerr

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:

Your comment about "help from the church" is interesting. Which church are you referring to?

In Christ,

bmerr He isn't referring to the Church of Christ denomination and the creed of Cambellism, Bmerr.
DHK

[Eric B]

(3) Although the OT foretold the fact of a New Covenant, the specific details and praxis of the New Covenant could not always be verified by or derived from the Old Testament as there was only vague hints of this in the OT. For example, despite having the OT scriptures there was a dispute in the Church over whether the Gentiles had to be circumcised or not to enter the covenant. Instead of searching in vain for a proof-text from the OT (other than mentioning that the Scriptures foretold the fact of the Gentiles coming into the covenant), the Apostles made their decision that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised because "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28). They could do with confidence this because Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them (collectively) into all the truth (John 16:13)...even if they couldn't find an OT proof text to answer all their questions.

In addition to this, other examples include the details of baptism, the details of celebration of the Eucharist and church order and other teachings and praxis of the New Covenant which were handed down to the churches for two decades without any OT proof-text or before any NT epistle was written. Yet, the Christians obeyed because they discerned that the Apostolic Traditions were delivered to them by the Apostles from the Lord and were thus authoritative, the very commands of God. This is the same tradition which Paul commands Christians to keep whether delivered orally or by epistle (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). The fact the the Gentiles did not have to be circumcized or keep the rest of the Law could be proven from the very fact that circumcision and other ceremonies were apart of that first covenant with Israel ONLY. The fact that this was a new covenant that did not center around the physical nation of Israel meant that circumcision was no longer binding.
Every thing the apostles taught could be verified from the OT, even if it was not as clear reading it not in in light of their teaching. Nothing contradicted or added anything completely foreign to the scriptures.
Sadly, today Jewish apologists continue to ignore this Apostolic teaching and using "sola Scriptura" tactics conclude that Christ could not have been the Messiah. OH, to the contrary, they use "ORAL TRADITION" tactics identical to yours, only it is supposedly "handed down" from Moses! So now, we have two sets of "oral tradition", with Moses pitted against these apostles. It is understandable for the Jews to choose Moses over these new people coming up "1500 years later" (SOUND FAMILIAR? Wow! even the time span is roughly the same! :eek: ). With scripture removed as the sole authority, we now have no ground to stand on at all! People may still interpret the written word any which way they choose, but a bunch of conflicting traditions is far worse!

[Doubting Thomas]

The fact the the Gentiles did not have to be circumcized or keep the rest of the Law could be proven from the very fact that circumcision and other ceremonies were apart of that first covenant with Israel ONLY. But where are the specific OT references that says these specific things will no longer be in force when the Gentiles come in? The Jews assumed that circumcision was part of an everlasting covenant (Gen 17)--and if the Gentiles joined in, they too would have to be circumcised. There's nothing that says this would be abrogated.

The fact that this was a new covenant that did not center around the physical nation of Israel meant that circumcision was no longer binding. Of course, this is a hindsight deduction (having the benefit of reading the specific comments about this in the NT), but even this wasn't immediately clear to the apostles who debated this in council as recorded in Acts 15. The specific detail about whether circumcision would or wouldn't be abrogated was not mentioned in the OT. In fact the apostles based their decision not on an OT proof-text, but on the basis that "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."

Every thing the apostles taught could be verified from the OT, even if it was not as clear reading it not in in light of their teaching. That's funny, because Paul specifically says in Ephesians that:
"By revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which when you read you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of of His promise in Christ through the gospel". (Eph 3:3-6)
How could the various details of the New Covenant be verified in the OT if it wasn't yet revealed by the Spirit to the apostles?

Nothing contradicted or added anything completely foreign to the scriptures.I'd say that the abrogation of circumcision, food laws, etc. were seen by many Jews to contradict Scriptures, since there was nothing in the OT that would indicated to them that these specific details would change. The believing Jews (such as the Bereans) would have to take the apostles word for it regarding these specifics. (As they would for the specifics regarding baptism, the Eucharist, salvation, and the rule of faith--specifics "sola scripturists" can't agree upon today.)

OH, to the contrary, they use "ORAL TRADITION" tactics identical to yours, only it is supposedly "handed down" from Moses! So now, we have two sets of "oral tradition", with Moses pitted against these apostles. It is understandable for the Jews to choose Moses over these new people coming up "1500 years later" Except that the Holy Spirit descended on the Church at Pentecost AD 33--not in the 16th century AD (or the 15th century BC). And that Christ died, rose again, and fulfilled the Old Covenant in AD 33--not in the 16th century AD (or the 15th BC)

. With scripture removed as the sole authority, we now have no ground to stand on at all! People may still interpret the written word any which way they choose, but a bunch of conflicting traditions is far worse!The irony is that "sola Scripturists" are already interpreting Scripture by "a bunch of conflicting traditions"--the Lutheran tradition, the Baptist tradition, the Calvinist tradition, the Weslyan tradition, the Pentecostal tradition, etc., etc., etc--they just don't own up to it. :cool:

[Eric B]

The fact that a NEW covenant "Not like the one I made with their fathers" would be brought in, wouls assume the possible abrogation of many of those practices.
Once again, specifics were taught by the Holy Spirit, but it was still nothing completely foreign to the earlier principles. But accoring to you, the apostles taught all of these other "details", such as candles, vestments, icons, spiritual presence in the bread instead of in the members of the body, etc. and consistently withheld them from their writings. Do you have an explanation of why they did this? Was it som secret society type of thing?
And while the apostles had the Holy Spirit, the Jews wouldn;t know that, unless they judged the spostles by the scriptures, and found them true. It was theiridea of "oral tradition from Moses" that biased them against this in the first place. Likewise, the Holy Spirit still operates in the Church; not inspiringnew scriptures, but convicting people when they go astray. The problems of interpretation you see are from people not letting Him guide them back into all truth. Once again; in favor of "tradition". But it is possible for some to let Him, and truth to be restored after centuries.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
[QB] The fact that a NEW covenant "Not like the one I made with their fathers" would be brought in, wouls assume the possible abrogation of many of those practices. Maybe...but maybe not. Without the specific practices spelled out that would be abrogated, the early church had to discuss what actually was no longer necessarily without recourse to a specific OT prooftext. By the Holy Spirit's guidance the apostles came to a consensus that the Jew's boundary markers such as circumcision, Jewish sabbaths/festivals, and certain food laws (ie, the "works of the Torah") were no longer necessary to be part of the Covenant since the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. (Of course, the Judaizers continued to make some mischief which is evident in the subject matter of some of Paul's letters)
Once again, specifics were taught by the Holy Spirit, but it was still nothing completely foreign to the earlier principles.Right, they were taught by the Holy Spirit through the apostles to the Christians--Jewish and Gentile. But to the Jews, abrogation of specifics such as circumcision and the like was still a foreign concept.

But accoring to you, the apostles taught all of these other "details", such as candles, vestments, icons, spiritual presence in the bread instead of in the members of the body, etc. and consistently withheld them from their writings. Do you have an explanation of why they did this?First of all because the epistles were never meant to be exhaustive church manuals. They were occasional letters the content of which varied based on the perceived need of the particular communities Paul was addressing, in which the churches were already established. He mainly encouraged, corrected, and gave some theological points and practical doctrinal reminders to congregations that had already been worshipping according to the principals of the New Covenant that the apostles already delivered to them. The writing in the early church that comes closest to being a church manual is the Didache, but even it wasn't an exhaustive source of liturgical rubrics. So it wasn't necessary to write again of every single specific liturgical practice or to rehash the form of the liturgy now centered around Christ, particularly in the Eucharist. (Therefore, writing about iconography and candles and such wasn't germane to issues the apostles were addressing in their particular epistles.) As far as the fact of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist goes, however, the gospel writers and Paul did indeed teach this in their writings, and this fact was universally recognized for the first 1500 years of the Church. (You seem to think it must be "either/or"--that if there is a spiritual presence in the body of believers then there cannot be a Real Presence of Christ's divinity/humanity in the Eucharist. However, scripture and the Church has consistently taught both.)


And while the apostles had the Holy Spirit, the Jews wouldn;t know that, unless they judged the spostles by the scriptures, and found them true. It was theiridea of "oral tradition from Moses" that biased them against this in the first place.True, although not all Jews held to these Pharisaical traditions. First century Judaism wasn't monolithic.
Likewise, the Holy Spirit still operates in the Church; not inspiringnew scriptures, but convicting people when they go astray.I agree.
The problems of interpretation you see are from people not letting Him guide them back into all truth.Correct, because they generally are more comfortable with their individual or denominational interpretations, going by the version of things that they were taught in their particulary denomination.
Once again; in favor of "tradition". But it is possible for some to let Him, and truth to be restored after centuries. And here's where we disagree--I submit that the Holy Spirit didn't allow any of the fullness of truth to be lost from the Church only to be rediscovered centuries later.

[BobRyan]

2Cor 11 SHOWS the need to test "APOSTLES" and PREDICTS false Apostles coming in and trying to get THEIR teachings swallowed.

Acts 17:11 shows the VALIDATION process EVEN for a TRUE Apostle.

Mark 7:8-12 shows HUMAN tradition EVEN at the HIGHEST LEVELS of the magesterium of the ONE TRUE church started by God at Sinai - IN CONFLICT with God's Word and being CONDEMNED for that conflict.

Gal 1:6-12 shows that NO RANK - (not APOSTLE and NOT ANGEL FROM HEAVEN) is exempt from the TEST!

Case closed!

In Christ,

Bob

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
2Cor 11 SHOWS the need to test "APOSTLES" and PREDICTS false Apostles coming in and trying to get THEIR teachings swallowed.But Paul is not a "false apostle". The oral traditions (ie the gospel and details of New Covenant worship/praxis) delivered from the true apostles are commanded by Paul to be followed. Next...

Acts 17:11 shows the VALIDATION process EVEN for a TRUE Apostle.All this shows is that the Bereans found out that what Paul was specifically claiming--that the (OT) Scriptures said the Messiah must suffer and rise again--was in fact in the (OT) Scriptures. It's a leap of logic to get "sola Scriptura" from this passage (that Scripture is the only authority and that everything could be verified from it) especially when neither the Bereans or any others could verify the details of the New Covenant from the OT since these were not spelled out in the OT. They had to take the apostles word for these specifics. Next...

Mark 7:8-12 shows HUMAN tradition EVEN at the HIGHEST LEVELS of the magesterium of the ONE TRUE church started by God at Sinai - IN CONFLICT with God's Word and being CONDEMNED for that conflict.It shows that the Pharisaical tradition was in fact "traditions of men" and conflicted with the commands of God. It did not condemn all tradition handed down through men, since the source of apostolic tradition was Christ Himself. Next...

Case closed!Not even close. "No soup for you!" Next...

[Eric B]

Maybe...but maybe not. Without the specific practices spelled out that would be abrogated, the early church had to discuss what actually was no longer necessarily without recourse to a specific OT prooftext. By the Holy Spirit's guidance the apostles came to a consensus that the Jew's boundary markers such as circumcision, Jewish sabbaths/festivals, and certain food laws (ie, the "works of the Torah") were no longer necessary to be part of the Covenant since the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. (Of course, the Judaizers continued to make some mischief which is evident in the subject matter of some of Paul's letters)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, specifics were taught by the Holy Spirit, but it was still nothing completely foreign to the earlier principles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, they were taught by the Holy Spirit through the apostles to the Christians--Jewish and Gentile. But to the Jews, abrogation of specifics such as circumcision and the like was still a foreign concept. By "foreign concept" I meant more in terms of new practices and ideas that had no grounding in scripture at all. Gentiles not being circumcised or keeping other laws was not new. They already were not keeping them, as it wasn't expected of them (unless they joined the nation under THAT covenant). The new covenant was not really gentiles joining Israel in its covenant, but a whole new covenant altogether (though it is sometimes expressed as something that sounds like that, as, for instance salvation being "opened up to the Gentiles").
First of all because the epistles were never meant to be exhaustive church manuals. They were occasional letters the content of which varied based on the perceived need of the particular communities Paul was addressing, in which the churches were already established. He mainly encouraged, corrected, and gave some theological points and practical doctrinal reminders to congregations that had already been worshipping according to the principals of the New Covenant that the apostles already delivered to them. The writing in the early church that comes closest to being a church manual is the Didache, but even it wasn't an exhaustive source of liturgical rubrics. So it wasn't necessary to write again of every single specific liturgical practice or to rehash the form of the liturgy now centered around Christ, particularly in the Eucharist. (Therefore, writing about iconography and candles and such wasn't germane to issues the apostles were addressing in their particular epistles.) But these issues would have drawn the same level of attention, controversy, and the need for correction, theological points and practical doctrinal reminders as anything else. Even moreso, because of their sheer novelty. Like in 1 Cor. we see Paul correcting the Church on Communion, because it was being done wrong. If it was attached to some whole mystic theology of some "real presence", beyond Paul's reiteration of Christ's own description of it as done in remembrance in order to show (not reenact) Christ's death, then it definitely would have continued to raise more dissension and apostate view (just as the Jews who misunderstood and were offended at it in John 6), and would have received more detailed attantion from Paul. All of the other "liturgical" practices as well. To say that these issues were consistently skipped over, yet carried the same weight as the written teachigns is to create a secret code of "deep things" (as in Rev.2:24), which is generally condemned in the NT. (Eph.5:12)
Now, in this same chapter of 1 Cor.11; we see Paul mention "the ordinances I have delivered unto you". Rather than assuming this is candles, vestments and icons, we look at the following verses where he reiterates what he was referring to, and we see they were quite familiar teachings!
As far as the fact of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist goes, however, the gospel writers and Paul did indeed teach this in their writings, and this fact was universally recognized for the first 1500 years of the Church. (You seem to think it must be "either/or"--that if there is a spiritual presence in the body of believers then there cannot be a Real Presence of Christ's divinity/humanity in the Eucharist. However, scripture and the Church has consistently taught both.) I know it could hypothetically be both, but the church in practice didn't really seem to hold both. The Church's teaching was clearly more focused on the physical elements than on the people. (I don't know about the EOC, but Rome even stopped giving the people the wine). What happned is that it was one or the other, and the church simply transferred it from one to the other!
And here's where we disagree--I submit that the Holy Spirit didn't allow any of the fullness of truth to be lost from the Church only to be rediscovered centuries later. Unless you consider that both the EOC and RCC were still changing in those first few centuries, and neither is identical today to the early CChurch. --unless you propose that they were in fact identical, and the teachings were continued to be kept secret and withheld from history.

[Doubting Thomas]

EricB: The new covenant was not really gentiles joining Israel in its covenant, but a whole new covenant altogether (though it is sometimes expressed as something that sounds like that, as, for instance salvation being "opened up to the Gentiles").And it was because of these ambiguity, the lack of specificity, that the Apostles had to make a decision to be followed by the church. The Christians would just have to take the Apostles word for it here--that it seemed good to them and the Holy Spirit--since there were no proof texts they could verify their decision from in the OT. If they weren't convinced that the Apostles were ministers of the New Covenant then, based on what assumptions the different Christians may brought to the Scriptures, they could have believed that they were in line with or contradicting the Scriptures. In fact, many believed the latter and this particular movement in its extreme form became the Ebionites.

But these issues would have drawn the same level of attention, controversy, and the need for correction, theological points and practical doctrinal reminders as anything else.Only if there was--at that time, or in the particular community being addressed--abuses of or misunderstandings of these things.
Even moreso, because of their sheer novelty.Ahh...but you're assuming these were sheerly novel. That's the question at hand. For instance, even some Jewish synagogues at that time have been discovered to have icons (depicting Biblical scenes or individuals) on their walls/posts. And we also have the evidence of early Christian paintings on the catacomb walls.

Like in 1 Cor. we see Paul correcting the Church on Communion, because it was being done wrong. If it was attached to some whole mystic theology of some "real presence", beyond Paul's reiteration of Christ's own description of it as done in remembrance in order to show (not reenact) Christ's death, then it definitely would have continued to raise more dissension and apostate view (just as the Jews who misunderstood and were offended at it in John 6), and would have received more detailed attantion from Paul.But he did reiterate the fact of the real presence reminding the Corinthians that the bread was in fact the communion (participation in) of the body of Christ and the cup was the communion (participation in, not a mere symbol of) of the blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16) and that therefore whoever ate the bread or drank the cup in an unworthy manner were guilty of the body and the blood of Christ (1 Cor 11:27) and would actually drink judgement on himself not discerning the Lord's body (1 Cor 11:29). This belief remained consistent and was mentioned by Ignatius for the reason the Docetist heretics abstained from the Eucharist--because the Docetists , like other "good" gnostics, didn't believe the Real Presence.

All of the other "liturgical" practices as well. To say that these issues were consistently skipped over, yet carried the same weight as the written teachigns is to create a secret code of "deep things" (as in Rev.2:24), which is generally condemned in the NT. (Eph.5:12)Not at all. Again, if there were currently no abuses with a given practice in those communities, there was no need for Paul to address it. Plus you're confusing the "deep things" of the gnostics, which were allegedly reserved for a so-called spiritual elite, with the inner tradition of the Church which was available to all in the church once they were baptized. The fathers made this distinction clear, IMO.
Now, in this same chapter of 1 Cor.11; we see Paul mention "the ordinances I have delivered unto you". Rather than assuming this is candles, vestments and icons, we look at the following verses where he reiterates what he was referring to, and we see they were quite familiar teachings!They were quite familiar teachings, I agree. However, my point is that the oral traditions Paul delivered to the Christians and commanded to be kept had some things that were familiar to them, but not necessarily familiar to those today who have been separated from that tradition.

I know it could hypothetically be both, but the church in practice didn't really seem to hold both.I disagree, at least based on the writings I've read.
The Church's teaching was clearly more focused on the physical elements than on the people. (I don't know about the EOC, but Rome even stopped giving the people the wine). I disagree...the impression I have was the the Church was considered to be most itself when it was gathered as the people of Christ around the table of Christ. This is just echoing what Paul said in 1 Cor 10:16-17. The Eucharist celebrated in its liturgical setting was the chief expression of the unity of the believer with Christ and the believers with each other. However, I would agree that, when divorced from this setting, the physical elements became the source of all sorts of scholastic speculation. (For a good treatment of this see Fr. Alexander Schmemanns's For the Life of the World.) But, no, the Orthodox church has always to my knowledge celebrated the Eucharist with the bread and the wine.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
2Cor 11 SHOWS the need to test "APOSTLES" and PREDICTS false Apostles coming in and trying to get THEIR teachings swallowed. Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
But Paul is not a "false apostle".
A - This is a circular argument on your part!! Paul does not say "do not listen to FALSE apostles that CLAIM to be FALSE apostles"!!

Obviously.

Paul is "vetted" by NON-Believers in the example seen in Acts 17:11. That SAME process would REVEAL a false Apostle.

The STRENGTH of a false Apostle is that they DON'T TELL you that is what they are!!

(unbelievably obvious)

next.

Acts 17:11 shows the VALIDATION process EVEN for a TRUE Apostle. Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
All this shows is that the Bereans found out that what Paul was specifically claiming--that the (OT) Scriptures said the Messiah must suffer and rise again--was in fact in the (OT) Scriptures.
Again you seem to fear the text rather than embracing it.

It does not say "it just so happened that what Paul said is actually in scripture" as you seem to hope!

Rather they were checking him out to "SEE IF" those things spoken to them by Paul "WERE SO".

That is VERY different from "Well as it turned out - in this case - what they were hearing happened to be supportable from scripture"!!

The facts of the text seem to obliterate the spin you need to place on them.

Next.


Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:

neither the Bereans or any others could verify the details of the New Covenant from the OT Here again is nother argument that is grossly in error.

Hebrews 8 SHOWS how the New Covenant is argued FROM the OT text that they all viewed as "scripture".

What in the world are you saying about the New Covenant?

Is it your position that the VERY texts used to SHOW the Jesus IS the Messiah - are PROOF that the Bible could not be trusted to tell the truth about the Messiah such that IT would confirm that JESUS was the MEssiah???!!

What kind of self-conflicted argument are you using now??

Next.


Mark 7:8-12 shows HUMAN tradition EVEN at the HIGHEST LEVELS of the magesterium of the ONE TRUE church started by God at Sinai - IN CONFLICT with God's Word and being CONDEMNED for that conflict. Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
It shows that the Pharisaical tradition was in fact "traditions of men" Yes - they were in fact humans no question about it.

And the tradition of humans can not taken IN PLACE OF the Word of God!!

Christ does not argue "IF you had found a HUMAN with MORE authority than the HIGHEST authority within the ONE TRUE CHURCH -- THEN these erroneous doctrines derived from tradition would be OK".

Next.


Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:

It did not condemn all tradition handed down through men,
Again this is misdirection.

I have never argued that by finding one tradition to be in error - ALL tradition is in error.

I am arguing that ALL tradition must be TESTED as Christ SHOWED in Mark 7 with the TEST that their tradition flunked.

Notice Christ did NOT say "you got your tradition from a man of too low of rank within the ONE TRUE CHURCH God started at sinai".

That is NOT the error he charges them with!

RAther He claims that the act of taking HUMAN ideas in place of GOD's WORD (no matter WHERE those human ideas came from) is "error".

It is WRONG to take the traditions of humans and "Teach them as doctrine" when in fact they contradict God's Word!

next.
Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
since the source of apostolic tradition was Christ Himself. Paul makes the OPPOSITE point in 2Cor 11 regarding tradition coming from Apostles!!

He argues that IT MUST BE TESTED since one can not merely ASSUME the Apostle is rightly motivated or inspired!!

Case closed!!

In Christ,

bob

[Matt Black]

If the Bereans were SS-adherents, how come they reached different conclusions about Jesus than the Jews who also had the same Scriptures?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If the Bereans were SS-adherents, how come they reached different conclusions about Jesus than the Jews who also had the same Scriptures?

Yours in Christ

Matt The Jews were unsaved rebellious individuals who rejected Christ as their Messiah, and with wicked hands took Him and crucified Him.

The Bereans compared what Paul had said with an open mind to the Scripture. Unlike the Jews they had not determined in their minds to reject Christ. They were willing and glad to hear what Paul had said. Only they did the right thing. They checked what he had to say by the Scriptures. When they found out that it was true, they believed, and trusted Him as Saviour. John 1:11,12 explains it well:

John 1:11-12 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (The unbelieving Jews)

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (Both the Gentiles and the believing Jews)
DHK

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If the Bereans were SS-adherents, how come they reached different conclusions about Jesus than the Jews who also had the same Scriptures?

Yours in Christ

Matt Because THEY were Jews and Gentiles (NON Christians) that actually USED Scripture (SOLA SCRIPTURA TESTING) to "SEE IF the things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

The Acts 17 text does NOT Say that this was the method used by the "traditionalist Jews" that rejected Paul. THEY were much more inclined to value corrupt traditions of the religious leaders and "False apostles" above the pure Gospel teaching that IS validated "sola scriptura".

But if BOTH of those methods lead to the SAME conclusion THEN (and only then) you might have a point!

In Christ,

Bob

[Eric B]

Let's not forget; the Jews added "oral tradition handed down from Moses", so rather than they being "sola scripturists", they held a view more like the catholists here, and the question really is; why did they come to different conclusions from the catholists?
And it was because of these ambiguity, the lack of specificity, that the Apostles had to make a decision to be followed by the church. The Christians would just have to take the Apostles word for it here--that it seemed good to them and the Holy Spirit--since there were no proof texts they could verify their decision from in the OT. If they weren't convinced that the Apostles were ministers of the New Covenant then, based on what assumptions the different Christians may brought to the Scriptures, they could have believed that they were in line with or contradicting the Scriptures. In fact, many believed the latter and this particular movement in its extreme form became the Ebionites. But the people "just having to take the apostles' word about it" was not the point. When they searched the scriptures to test what they taught, it obviously went together in a reasonable way. There were no practices that were completely foreign to the scripture; else, they would have questioned the spostles from the scriptures, or concluded "well, it's not in the scriptures, but these apostles say it's so, so we just have to take their word for it regardless of what the written word says". Gentiles not apart of the OLD covenant not having to be circumcized and keep the other laws is something they could see existed in the scriptures, for instance. For gentiles not joining the nation were never expected by God to be circumcized. That was only for the people of THAT covenent. (Once again, they all knew they were not coming into that Old covenant).

So none of this is granting license for teachings to not need any scriptural support.
Only if there was--at that time, or in the particular community being addressed--abuses of or misunderstandings of these things.
Again, if there were currently no abuses with a given practice in those communities, there was no need for Paul to address it. So there were controversies on every other doctrinal, practical and moral issue; buit they were THAT unanimous on the high liturgy, and there were NO misunderstandings at all ANYWHERE on them, until the docetists and gnostics. (John warned of the gnostics' doctrines creeping in then, and they were issues we can see addressed)
Ahh...but you're assuming these were sheerly novel. That's the question at hand. For instance, even some Jewish synagogues at that time have been discovered to have icons (depicting Biblical scenes or individuals) on their walls/posts. And we also have the evidence of early Christian paintings on the catacomb walls. All images were STRICTLY forbidden by the Jews (even if not religious) so any "synagogue" having them was obviously some aberrant sect, and definitely a novelty for the people of faith! Yes, it's THESE influences that eventually gained influence in the Church, and then were projected back to the Apostles!
But he did reiterate the fact of the real presence reminding the Corinthians that the bread was in fact the communion (participation in) of the body of Christ and the cup was the communion (participation in, not a mere symbol of) of the blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16) and that therefore whoever ate the bread or drank the cup in an unworthy manner were guilty of the body and the blood of Christ (1 Cor 11:27) and would actually drink judgement on himself not discerning the Lord's body (1 Cor 11:29). This belief remained consistent and was mentioned by Ignatius for the reason the Docetist heretics abstained from the Eucharist--because the Docetists , like other "good" gnostics, didn't believe the Real Presence. And notice, the "unworthy manner" was not "not having all your sins confessed", and all the other assumptions both Catholist and Protestant alike make. It was certainly not something like DROPPING it accidentally, with liturical churches trating the elements like it actually was the body of baby Jeesus or something. It was gluttony, which means, among other things, that this was not some special little crackers or wafers and tiny vials of wine, but a MEAL, and gathering to eat was a very important part of spiritual fellowship, hence "participation in" the body (even in the world, dinners and banquets are the centers or even mark special occasion!) So such gluttony would be seen as such a serious offense to the BODY of the Lord.
Not at all. Plus you're confusing the "deep things" of the gnostics, which were allegedly reserved for a so-called spiritual elite, with the inner tradition of the Church which was available to all in the church once they were baptized. The fathers made this distinction clear, IMO. But your church is making itself a sort of "spiritual elite". We claim that all one has to do is receive Christ to be in the Church universal, but you say "no, because you are all in these numerous conflicting 'schisms' (organizations founded on lesser doctrines), and not baptized into the "true church", which has the apostles's [secret] tradition not written down by them, but which only we have preserved handed down from them". I'm sorry, but that is a type of elitism.
They were quite familiar teachings, I agree. However, my point is that the oral traditions Paul delivered to the Christians and commanded to be kept had some things that were familiar to them, but not necessarily familiar to those today who have been separated from that tradition. But then that becomes pure speculation. So we are just to take the word of the oldest organization on what they were, as if that organization couldn't have gotten them wrong or even deliberately twist things themselves.

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
If the Bereans were SS-adherents, how come they reached different conclusions about Jesus than the Jews who also had the same Scriptures?

Yours in Christ

Matt The Jews were unsaved rebellious individuals who rejected Christ as their Messiah, and with wicked hands took Him and crucified Him.

The Bereans compared what Paul had said with an open mind to the Scripture. Unlike the Jews they had not determined in their minds to reject Christ. They were willing and glad to hear what Paul had said. Only they did the right thing. They checked what he had to say by the Scriptures. When they found out that it was true, they believed, and trusted Him as Saviour. John 1:11,12 explains it well:

John 1:11-12 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (The unbelieving Jews)

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (Both the Gentiles and the believing Jews)
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]So...er...SS is not enough, then. QED

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
[[QUOTE] ]All images were STRICTLY forbidden by the Jews (even if not religious) so any "synagogue" having them was obviously some aberrant sect, and definitely a novelty for the people of faith! Not true. Images of Cherubim were commanded to be made in the tabernacle and then the temple. In fact the temple had images of oxen, lions, and cherubim (I Kings 1:28-29). Moses even made an image of a bronze serpent in the wilderness so that people would look at it an live (Num 21:9). So to say that images were strictly forbidden is incorrect, and therefore your conclusion that only "aberrant sects" would have images in their synagogues is likewise incorrect.

And notice, the "unworthy manner" was not "not having all your sins confessed", and all the other assumptions both Catholist and Protestant alike make. Just because he doesn't specifically mention all the various ways in which the Eucharist could be partaken of in an unworthy manner in this passage doesn't rule out the things you mentioned. The Christian is specifically commanded to examine himself before he partakes in 1 Cor 11:28. And the Didache (which possibly dates back as early as AD 70) makes it clear that confession was to be made before taking the Eucharist so that the Christian's sacrifice would be a pure one.

But your church is making itself a sort of "spiritual elite". We claim that all one has to do is receive Christ to be in the Church universal, but you say "no, because you are all in these numerous conflicting 'schisms' (organizations founded on lesser doctrines), and not baptized into the "true church", which has the apostles's [secret] tradition not written down by them, but which only we have preserved handed down from them". I'm sorry, but that is a type of elitism.But your invisible Church ecclessiology is the doctrinal novelty which only gained steam during the "Reformation". (Besides, the different denominations do not always agree on what it exactly means "to receive Christ", ie whether Baptism is necessary, etc.) The early Christians believed that the Church was visible and one. Those who separated from the church were heretics and/or schismatics.
But then that becomes pure speculation. So we are just to take the word of the oldest organization on what they were, as if that organization couldn't have gotten them wrong or even deliberately twist things themselves.
Nope, because the Church has been (and continues to be) the "pillar and ground of truth" and "the fullness of Him who fills all in all". Christ promised His church (visibly built on the foundation of the visible apostles) that the gates of hell would not prevail against it and that His Spirit would guide it into all truth. This is no more "elitist" than it is for Christ to say "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So...er...SS is not enough, then. QED

Yours in Christ

Matt In the light of my post your statement is quite baffling. SS is taught in the Bible. This is demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt.
I know of a Muslim that had memorized the entire New Testament. He also knew what it meant to be saved. Did the knowledge of the New Testament lead him to a saving knowledge in Christ? No.
That has nothing to do with SS. It has everythig to do with an act of the will, just as it had to do with the unbelieving Jews. The ability to prove a doctrine or demonstrated it using the Bible alone has always been there. It has always been the method used of the Christians and of the devout Jews. It was only during the inter-testamental period that the Pharisees and Saduccees arose and began to depend on tradition. Devout Jews used the Word of God, and it alone. Check Isaiah 8:20.

The will to choose to believe has nothing to do with SS. The Catholic Church refuses to believe SS whether or not it is taught in the Bible. They do every thing in their power to deny and discredit Biblical doctrines. Here is a doctrine clearly taught in the Word of God. The Catholic Church denies that it is, as they do many other doctrines. That is nothing new. And no wonder. Their Church confines them to the teachings of the Magesterium thus they must discredit the doctrine of SS, or their whole unBiblical ungodly system of doctrine comes tumbling down.
DHK

[Eric B]

Not true. Images of Cherubim were commanded to be made in the tabernacle and then the temple. In fact the temple had images of oxen, lions, and cherubim (I Kings 1:28-29). Moses even made an image of a bronze serpent in the wilderness so that people would look at it an live (Num 21:9). So to say that images were strictly forbidden is incorrect, and therefore your conclusion that only "aberrant sects" would have images in their synagogues is likewise incorrect. One thing you seem to fail to understand about the Jews is the regulative principle. We have discussed this here with the Campbellists (and sometimes, Primitive Baptists)regarding intruments in Church. While I do not agree that this carries over today in the way these groups insist, still, to the Jews, the only things that were authorized were those things God specifically permitted, and anything else was autmomatically forbidden. People could not just improvise and take it upon themselves to go and make any other kind of image. So if God told them to make images of those things, they would, but any other image was strictly forbidden, as per their understanding of the second commandment. So any group that would make any image of anything other than those temple items, in the Temple only was obviouly an aberrant sect.
Just because he doesn't specifically mention all the various ways in which the Eucharist could be partaken of in an unworthy manner in this passage doesn't rule out the things you mentioned. The Christian is specifically commanded to examine himself before he partakes in 1 Cor 11:28. And the Didache (which possibly dates back as early as AD 70) makes it clear that confession was to be made before taking the Eucharist so that the Christian's sacrifice would be a pure one.
then the didach was wrong on that point, as we are not making a new sacrifice. A person shoudl confess his sins before continuing to fellowship in the body (which of course would include Communion), not only before he takes the bread and wine. (We see the orgins of some of the practices of modern nominal catholics who get religious only on special occasions).
But your invisible Church ecclessiology is the doctrinal novelty which only gained steam during the "Reformation". (Besides, the different denominations do not always agree on what it exactly means "to receive Christ", ie whether Baptism is necessary, etc.) The early Christians believed that the Church was visible and one. Those who separated from the church were heretics and/or schismatics. but this "visible" church originally was not defined in terms of an organization or magisterium. The addition of such was only the beginning of the very "denominationalism" you criticize, only it took time for the first one to lose power, and then begin to splinter. Your denomination did not always agree either, as the fracture between east and West began long before the official organizaion split in 1054, and then there were followers of Augustine, and those who did not follow him, etc. Once again, having one all powerful organization did not solve any of this, but helped fuel the problem.
Nope, because the Church has been (and continues to be) the "pillar and ground of truth" and "the fullness of Him who fills all in all". Christ promised His church (visibly built on the foundation of the visible apostles) that the gates of hell would not prevail against it and that His Spirit would guide it into all truth. This is no more "elitist" than it is for Christ to say "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." But if all of these denominational organizations are wrong, as you insist, then one you want us to choose becuase of its age could be wrong as well. When Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail, He was not talking about an organization. In fact, I believe that was one of the very instruments of Hell used to try to destroy the Church and turn it into just another vehicle of men's sinful desire of control (Rev.17). We have to look past the organizations, to see the true Body of Christ, that the gates of hell have nor ptrevailed against, even though the organizations have often obscured its truth.

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DHK:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matt Black:
So...er...SS is not enough, then. QED

Yours in Christ

Matt In the light of my post your statement is quite baffling. SS is taught in the Bible. This is demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Where?

I know of a Muslim that had memorized the entire New Testament. He also knew what it meant to be saved. Did the knowledge of the New Testament lead him to a saving knowledge in Christ? No.
That has nothing to do with SS. It has everythig to do with an act of the will, just as it had to do with the unbelieving Jews. So...er...SS is not enough. I rest my case

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
One thing you seem to fail to understand about the Jews is the regulative principle. We have discussed this here with the Campbellists (and sometimes, Primitive Baptists)regarding intruments in Church. While I do not agree that this carries over today in the way these groups insist, still, to the Jews, the only things that were authorized were those things God specifically permitted, and anything else was autmomatically forbidden.And what is your primary source for this belief?
So if God told them to make images of those things, they would, but any other image was strictly forbidden, as per their understanding of the second commandment.This is conjecture on your part. Second commandment prohibited making images for the purpose of worshipping as gods. It obviously didn't prohibit images altogether.
So any group that would make any image of anything other than those temple items, in the Temple only was obviouly an aberrant sect.Again, this is speculation on your part. Also, first century Judaism was far from monolithic (see NT Wright's THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD), and it's quite a difficult task saying which faction was the "true" representative of Judaism, and which was the "aberrant sect".
then the didach was wrong on that pointAnd I'm sure whoever wrote the Didache would return the favor. :cool:
...as we are not making a new sacrifice.But this sacrifice was actually a re-presentation of and a participation in Christ's once-for-all sacrifice. At least that's how the early church thought of it.

But if all of these denominational organizations are wrong, as you insist, then one you want us to choose becuase of its age could be wrong as well.No, because Christ said the gates wouldn't prevail against the Church, the one Church founded by the apostles and which continues today.

When Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail, He was not talking about an organization.However, the visible assembly founded by the apostles is an "organization"...just not merely so. This was an organized assembly of believers around the worship and doctrine they learned from the apostles, and which continued to exist in time and space as those visibly united with their God ordained leaders continuing in the same worship and doctrine bequeathed from the apostles. However, because the visible Church established by the apostles is also Christ's body it is protected from falling completely into error. Yes heretics arose from among the visible assemblies as predicted by Paul and left the visible assemblies as mentioned by John, but the Church itself never completely went into error in any of its doctrines. She remains the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Eph 1:23), and this "fullness" is what is expressed in the term "catholic" (meaning, according to the whole) church.
In fact, I believe that was one of the very instruments of Hell used to try to destroy the Church and turn it into just another vehicle of men's sinful desire of control (Rev.17).Only if a particular institution abandons the apostolic faith and thus separates itself from the Church. The Church, which continues to have its institutional and organizational aspects, remains more than just a mere institution and organization of men. It remains as the Body which still has the fullness of the truth, not as a conglomeration of competing denominations each with pieces of the truth scattered among them.

[BobRyan]

DHK
In the light of my post your statement is quite baffling. SS is taught in the Bible. This is demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt.
I know of a Muslim that had memorized the entire New Testament. He also knew what it meant to be saved. Did the knowledge of the New Testament lead him to a saving knowledge in Christ? No.
That has nothing to do with SS. It has everythig to do with an act of the will, just as it had to do with the unbelieving Jews.I see. So the fact that a person HAS the Bible does not mean they will CHOOSE to accept what it says. They may CHOOSE to ignore the "details" that don't fit their traditions - and simply cling to man-made tradition and or "self-centered" living EVEN though God the Holy Spirit was "convicting them of sin and righteousness and judgment".

Ok - so that is pretty obvious from the statement you made above.

But "what if" someone doesn't "want" to pay attention to the detail in your post any more than paying attention to the "detail" given in Mark 7 (*scripture vs tradition") or the detail given in Acts 17:11 (NonChristians using SS to test AN APOSTLE!!) or the details given in Gal 1:6-11 (Even though an APOSTLE or an ANGEL FROM HEAVEN should come teaching some OTHER gospel - compared to THIS one - let them be accursed) -??

Will not that person ignore any and ALL "details" that are contrary to the direction of their own preferences?

IF so - then not only would someone HERE turn a blind eye to what you have said above - to the point of "pretending" not to get the point of what was said... but also people in ALL denominations would have a "Tendancy" to "LISTEN TO THE TRADITIONS" of their OWN magesterium in their OWN denominations rather than "the magesterium of someone else".

So the "proposal" that we abandon the objective rule of SS - leads to MORE intrenched denominationalism -- not less!

In Christ,

Bob

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So...er...SS is not enough, then. QED

Yours in Christ

Matt In the light of my post your statement is quite baffling. SS is taught in the Bible. This is demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Where?

I know of a Muslim that had memorized the entire New Testament. He also knew what it meant to be saved. Did the knowledge of the New Testament lead him to a saving knowledge in Christ? No.
That has nothing to do with SS. It has everythig to do with an act of the will, just as it had to do with the unbelieving Jews. So...er...SS is not enough. I rest my case

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>So without SS, as the Catholics have it, every person of the Mafia makes a good Catholic because they pay lip service to the Catechism no matter how they live. You can live like the devil, be what ever you want in life--hit man, adulterer, thief, etc, and still be a Catholic. Why? You have a Catechism you can pay lip service to. If your conscience bothers you sometimes you can always avail yourself of confession and then go back to your practice of murder or being a hit man. SS is not welcome in the Catholic Church. SS (because of the Bible) convicts people of their sin, and urges them to do right. It has a much higher success rate. It would cause people (like Luther) to revolt against the Catholic Church, because he, through SS, could see the heresies that the Catholic Church was teaching.
DHK

[Eric B]

And what is your primary source for this belief? That is a well known belief of orthodox Jews.
This is conjecture on your part. Second commandment prohibited making images for the purpose of worshipping as gods. It obviously didn't prohibit images altogether. That is the way I would take it. But the way they looked at it was that any image could possibly become an object of worship, or at least be mistaken for one ("appearance of evil"). The thing about their reading of the Law, was that they they didn't take any chances.
And their use in Christian Churches, which is what we are diuscussing, certainly would be seen as crossing the line into "worshipping as gods" anyway. A "god" being any supposedly exalted individual ("even leaders of Israel were sometimes called "gods", and glorified saints would definitely count as such).
Again, this is speculation on your part. Also, first century Judaism was far from monolithic (see NT Wright's THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD), and it's quite a difficult task saying which faction was the "true" representative of Judaism, and which was the "aberrant sect". the Pharisees, Whom Jesus acknowledged as "sitting in Moses' seat" would not have had any images.
And let's not forget, Mosaic oral traditionapparently said so, as well!
But this sacrifice was actually a re-presentation of and a participation in Christ's once-for-all sacrifice. At least that's how the early church thought of it. Romans 12:1 "I plead to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that all of you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." That is the "re-presentation of and participation in Christ's once-for-all sacrifice". Once again,; it's all about the members of the Body; not inanimate objects "which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk" (Rev. 9:20)
No, because Christ said the gates wouldn't prevail against the Church, the one Church founded by the apostles and which continues today. However, the visible assembly founded by the apostles is an "organization"...just not merely so. This was an organized assembly of believers around the worship and doctrine they learned from the apostles, and which continued to exist in time and space as those visibly united with their God ordained leaders continuing in the same worship and doctrine bequeathed from the apostles. However, because the visible Church established by the apostles is also Christ's body it is protected from falling completely into error. Yes heretics arose from among the visible assemblies as predicted by Paul and left the visible assemblies as mentioned by John, but the Church itself never completely went into error in any of its doctrines. She remains the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Eph 1:23), and this "fullness" is what is expressed in the term "catholic" (meaning, according to the whole) church.
Only if a particular institution abandons the apostolic faith and thus separates itself from the Church. The Church, which continues to have its institutional and organizational aspects, remains more than just a mere institution and organization of men. It remains as the Body which still has the fullness of the truth, not as a conglomeration of competing denominations each with pieces of the truth scattered among them. So how do you prove that yours is that one Church? Because you find a couple of your practices in the early fathers, then claim they must have gotten these practices from an "oral tradition handed down" from the apostles, but when we question this, it is proven because "the gates of hell shall not prevail against the true Church". See how cyclical this is? You use one argument to prove another, in a circular fashion.
This to me further proves that your group is just another part of that manmade "conglomeration of competing denominations" in the same game as all the rest, and that the best (though not perfect, given our sinfulness) way is SS. Anybody can claim their group is the original Church Christ founded. The Church of Christ does it. The JW's do it. Armstrongism did it. The Mormons, too, I believe. You can appeal to "their doctrines are heresies, and the early Church stood unanimously against them, but another point is suppose one of those "heresies" was actually the truth, and the "big corrupt Church" oppressed it, as most of these groups maintain. (I.e the JW's would say Arianism was the truth, and since it existed back then, it could be traced to the apostles, (Barnabas' and Hermas' statements on the preexistence of Christ really do not specify His full deity, and thus could be compatible with Arianism, and even Ignatius' statements on "Christ our God" could be construed in light of the way the JW's take John 1:1); and then claim that the gates of hell never prevailed against the truth. They can even appeal to prophecy, of the "Mother Babylon" Church oppressing the truth.
Once again, all of these organizations are playing the same game, the EOC included. That one just happens to be older. It's all about control and self-exaltation, anyway. The truth Church of Christ must be an invisible organization of a visible body. Man's organizations just get in the way, and what have caused all of the problems. But at least ours reconizes others in Christ, despite some of the other doctrinal differences. You want perfect adherance in every single belief, and while that is an ideal in the NT, still, the only way we can bring that about it to control and force everyone into a particular mindset. --like cults aim to do. Even then, the people would not really be convinced, but rather go through the motions and not really be sanctified; hence the nominal "cultural catholics" DHK describes above.

[ July 13, 2005, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
The thing about their reading of the Law, was that they they didn't take any chances.
And their use in Christian Churches, which is what we are diuscussing, certainly would be seen as crossing the line into "worshipping as gods" anyway. How is it "crossing the line"? These images weren't worshipped as "god". Can you judge their hearts? They were honored for Who they represent--Christ and His saints, those glorified by Christ. They testified to the truth that God had become Incarnate for our salvation. You wouldn't accuse someone of saluting the American flag of worshipping a flag or a nation or of idolatry, would you? (I know JWs do) Would you accuse the ancient Jews of worshipping a scroll when they kissed the Torah book? If these two examples are not crossing the line into idolatry, how can you be so presumptuous to judge the hearts of those who venerate (but not worship) icons?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Again, this is speculation on your part. Also, first century Judaism was far from monolithic (see NT Wright's THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD), and it's quite a difficult task saying which faction was the "true" representative of Judaism, and which was the "aberrant sect". the Pharisees, Whom Jesus acknowledged as "sitting in Moses' seat" would not have had any images.</font>[/QUOTE]Yet Jesus also acknowledge that they nullified the commands of God with their man-made (originating in themselves) tradition. So it would seem they weren't the faithful followers of OT "Judaism" that they made themselves out to be.

]Romans 12:1 "I plead to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that all of you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." That is the "re-presentation of and participation in Christ's once-for-all sacrifice".Though not discounting the fact that we must present ourselves as living sacrifices (in view of God's mercy), the Eucharist (the bread and cup), being the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, is the participation in and re-presentation of Christ's unique sacrifice on the cross. This is the commmon belief of Chrisitians for the first millenium-and-a-half.

Once again,; it's all about the members of the Body; not inanimate objects "which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk" (Rev. 9:20)You mean inanimate objects such as the cross of Christ, or the blood He spilt? You err because you ignore the numerous Scriptures in which God uses physical events and objects to effect not only physical but spiritual healing.
So how do you prove that yours is that one Church? Because you find a couple of your practices in the early fathers, then claim they must have gotten these practices from an "oral tradition handed down" from the apostles, but when we question this, it is proven because "the gates of hell shall not prevail against the true Church". That the "gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church" is a promise of Christ that believers have accepted on faith. Historically one can point to the consistency of doctrine/practice, over the years, across time and space, between the early church and the Orthodox teachings of today to show the Orthodox continuity with the church of the apostles.

See how cyclical this is? You use one argument to prove another, in a circular fashion."Circular"--oh, do you mean like your argument that presupposes that Christians who share your Baptist interpretations must have actually existed (despite the absence of historical evidence) because your interpretation of the Bible demands that such must have existed?

This to me further proves that your group is just another part of that manmade "conglomeration of competing denominations" in the same game as all the rest, and that the best (though not perfect, given our sinfulness) way is SS.Except the Orthodox Church is not a conglomeration of competing denominations with conflicting beliefs. It is unified on matters of the faith--God, Christ, salvation, and the sacraments.


Anybody can claim their group is the original Church Christ founded. The Church of Christ does it. The JW's do it. Armstrongism did it. The Mormons, too, I believe. But none of those groups you listed can back it up. :cool:

..but another point is suppose one of those "heresies" was actually the truth, and the "big corrupt Church" oppressed it, as most of these groups maintain. Uh, oh...Dan Brown alert again. :eek:

Thankfully, we have Christ's promise that the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against the Church. The Church, through the guidance of the Spirit, maintained the Apostolic Tradition and has been able to proclaim the truth and speak out against error.

It's all about control and self-exaltation, anyway.Nope, it's about proclaiming the truth and fighting against error,


The truth Church of Christ must be an invisible organization of a visible body. An assertion you keep making but have yet to prove.

Man's organizations just get in the way, and what have caused all of the problems.But the visible Church is not "man's orgnization"; it's Christ's divine-human Body. It has it's organizational and instutional aspects, but it has more than that--it has the promise of God to preserve it from error.

You want perfect adherance in every single belief, and while that is an ideal in the NT, still, the only way we can bring that about it to control and force everyone into a particular mindset.Or just insist that folks maintain the fulness of apostolic faith that has been deposited into Christ's church. The Church has been given authority to bind and to loose; it has authority to proclaim truth and denounce error as it guards that which has been committed to it. Heretics are always free to leave, and the Church has always had the power to expel the immoral person or false teacher. There is "one faith" just as there is "one body", so it's not unreasonable for this "one body" to seek to proclaim this "faith" in all of its fulness--to have one mind, the mind of Christ.

[Eric B]

How is it "crossing the line"? These images weren't worshipped as "god". Can you judge their hearts? They were honored for Who they represent--Christ and His saints, those glorified by Christ. They testified to the truth that God had become Incarnate for our salvation. You wouldn't accuse someone of saluting the American flag of worshipping a flag or a nation or of idolatry, would you? (I know JWs do) Would you accuse the ancient Jews of worshipping a scroll when they kissed the Torah book? If these two examples are not crossing the line into idolatry, how can you be so presumptuous to judge the hearts of those who venerate (but not worship) icons? We are talking about the Jews now. With them, it was not a matter of "the heart", but the letter of the Law as seen through their supposed Mosaic oral tradition". It certainly was a double standard if they were kissing the Torah scroll back then (I know from the service I attended once, that their reverence of it is something I would question). I could also understand the JW's concerns about the flag. Chrsitan author Michel Horton mentions the "mixed message" we send hy huddling to pray around it, and the "american faith" of many conservatives that this partiotism is apart of certainly is something I would say goes too far sometimes.
And none of this is to be the example for Christians who want to do what is right.

[Eric B]

Yet Jesus also acknowledge that they nullified the commands of God with their man-made (originating in themselves) tradition. So it would seem they weren't the faithful followers of OT "Judaism" that they made themselves out to be.
Well, I'm not saying they were particularly right. They are the ones who claimed to follow "oral tradition". They could show you ways in which all of God's "commandments" weren't always written (e.g. murder already wrong even though no written command was given to Cain or reecorded in the Torah, etc). From this, they would rebuff your claim that their tradition "originated in themselves" just like you try to do with us. So if they were right, and Jesus and His followers' teachings contradicted this "equally authoritative" form of God's word, then no amount of claims of truth or miracles they did would authenticate them. There would be no way to tell who had the truth except that "we said it, it was handed down to us, that settles it". I don't know why you can't see that what you're doing is the same exact thing as they! The "catholic" churches have shown themselves not to be the faithful followers of NT "Christianity" that they made themselves out to be, even though, they could trace themselves all the way back, just like the Pharisees could. That's what I mean in not looking at a visible organization. Even when founded by God, and initially endowed with His truth; they go astray. The whole point of Christ's Kingdom was that it would no longer be institution based like Israel.
Though not discounting the fact that we must present ourselves as living sacrifices (in view of God's mercy), the Eucharist (the bread and cup), being the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, is the participation in and re-presentation of Christ's unique sacrifice on the cross. This is the commmon belief of Chrisitians for the first millenium-and-a-half.
Sorry, but our "sacrifice" is what is made the re-presenation of Christ's sacrifice. Why do you think we are instructed in terms of "take up our Cross"? Once again, after a whole Milennium and a half, the Church largely became a cultural/sentimantal element, that did not change most people's lives anymore, because these principles became focused on lifeless physical elements, and not the life-changing power of God in our lives.
You mean inanimate objects such as the cross of Christ, or the blood He spilt? You err because you ignore the numerous Scriptures in which God uses physical events and objects to effect not only physical but spiritual healing.
I don't venerate crosses, and none of us claims to have any of His actual spilled blood preserved anywhere in order to make such an idol of it. The Cross and blood are legal concepts that purchase our spiritual salvation. The physical objects themselves did not do anything for anyone. Before anyone, even some Baptists and others flips over this, just think of it this way. The other thief on the Cross, the one who mocked and did not repent, could very well have gotten some of Christ's blood on him. But that would not save him. This "blood" is applied spiritually, not physically. The physical application of blood (on the doorposts in Egypt) was the type.
So for Churches to make virtual idols out of all of these other things: the Cross, or supposed pieces of it they think they have, or a claim to have a vial of His original blood preserved, or the cup He drank out of, or the shroud he was buried in, as well as bread, wine and baptismal water; is all apart of the shift from the Spirit as the center of things of the Spirit to material items, and this is what promotes the nominalism where people think they are saved by the Church through these items, no matter their actual relationship to Christ.
That the "gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church" is a promise of Christ that believers have accepted on faith. Historically one can point to the consistency of doctrine/practice, over the years, across time and space, between the early church and the Orthodox teachings of today to show the Orthodox continuity with the church of the apostles.
There has not been a consistencey of doctrine and practice. Only basically baptism and communion, and perhaps Mary and icons. Then, you try to prove those things are from the apostles by this "consistency", which begs the question of whether they are really consistent with the apostles. If we do not have any statement from they themselves, then there is no real PROOF at all they believed these things. You are basically asking us to place our faith in the organization of the Church, based on the premise that God would not let it depart from the truth, but when we see it looks like it did, then we are pointed to a bunch of truths that were omitted from writing by the apostles. So then we are right back where we started. How can we know that? We have to haveve faith in the later church's word.
Also, the Church teaching was "consistent" on the world being flat and at the center of the universe; until the physical evidence forced them to eventually drop it. But that was seen as right up there with the other doctrines.
"Circular"--oh, do you mean like your argument that presupposes that Christians who share your Baptist interpretations must have actually existed (despite the absence of historical evidence) because your interpretation of the Bible demands that such must have existed?
But I have not even been arguing that here. You are hearing something others may have said, and trying to throw something I said back at me with it, but I have not emphasized that idea. As I have just said in one of these discussions; a lot of things were not clearly understood even in the early Church, and became official statements as time went on. The Trinity is a perfect example. The dosctine as we know it was formulated in the fourth century. Before then, more and more of the statements associated with it were beginning to be coined, as people tried to put togethter the truths from the scriptures, as they were becoming more available (not oral tradition)!. At one point, the Church did not even think of Jesus as "being" God, but rather linked God and Jesus in terms of doing the same works. You can see this addressed in Shirley c. Guthrie's Christian Doctrine. Then, we see 2 Clement come and tells us "Bretheren, we ought to think of christ as of God, as the judge of the quick and the dead". We know we can say that Christ is God, but people in the beginning saw it in completely different terms. If it was about a "tradition" passed down from the apostles, then there would never have been any such development or problems. We should not see fathers and apologists framing statements in reaction to heretical views. It would simply be "the apostles told us thus themselves, and it is not in the scriptures, so you are missing some of the revelation; so that settles it". (I have not studied up upon baptism, Eucharist, icons, and the rest of that stuff, you you could challenge me more on those, but the history of the Trinity I am well studies in).
Except the Orthodox Church is not a conglomeration of competing denominations with conflicting beliefs. It is unified on matters of the faith--God, Christ, salvation, and the sacraments. I didn't say that it was a conglomeration; but that it was just another part of that conglomeration )called "Christendom". Just like any other particular denomination that claims to be truer, and is unified on matter of faith within its own group.
But none of those groups you listed can back it up. They all claim to. You use your group's age and proximity of some of the teachings ot the apostles. Others, as I said, will claim one of the "heresies" was really the truth that was suppressed by a corrupted institution. It could go either way, as the Church did often wrongly quash practices that were not really heretical (quartodecimanism and other Jewish practices kept as per Rom.14, for instance).
Uh, oh...Dan Brown alert again.

Thankfully, we have Christ's promise that the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against the Church. The Church, through the guidance of the Spirit, maintained the Apostolic Tradition and has been able to proclaim the truth and speak out against error. Yes, those groups are often conspiratorial. (I don't know who this "dan Brown" is, though). But if they happened to be right, that the truth would have been kept by these small groups, or at least preserved in the written Word, as I maintained. Either way, we would have to choose one side and have faith in what they are saying. None of us were around back then, so we can;t see for ourselves. You have to have faith in something. So many of us see it is better to go back to the source, and try to decipher it for ourseolves. Now you say this is just everyone going by their own personal opinion and produces hundreds of conflicting groups. Well, then, the people will be judged for how they handle the Word. If all are wrong, all will give account. But the solution is not to place our faith in any of these goups claiming to have the monopoly on the truth. All that is is another set of individuals going by their own personal opinions, but forrcing them on others ont he premise of an unprovable, untestable apostolic tradition.
Nope, it's about proclaiming the truth and fighting against error, And that's what all of those goups you are dismissing are saying; espcially the cults and fundamentalists (who are hardest on catholic groups).
An assertion you keep making but have yet to prove You yourself attest to the same things, in different words/indirectly. On one hand; it is possible for those in the visible church to go astray, oof ro there to be some conflict, until they sit down and decide on the issue; but God still prevents all from going astray. A whole section of the Church apparently fell away from the true "East" church, even though it descended from the apostolic Church as well. What you have is an invisible organism, which to you is now embodied in the visible EOC oraganization. If Constantinople were to go astray, and Jerusalem were to maintain the practices, then iot would be embodied in Jerusalem. God's Spirit is invisible, and the spiritual Body He maintains is invisble, but manifest visibly through its members.
But the visible Church is not "man's orgnization"; it's Christ's divine-human Body. It has it's organizational and instutional aspects, but it has more than that--it has the promise of God to preserve it from error. I think you may be confusing what I mean by "visible Church". A visible body of Christians is Christ's body. It's the "organizational and instutional aspects" I;m etting at, and yes, it should be "more than that", but in practice, it comes to be defined by that. So likewise, you look at a "conglomeration" of oraganization and then deny that we are one Church, claiming that only your one organization represents it. That is making the Body "no more" than just an organization. If you really saw it as more than that, we wouldnt be having this debate over multiple oragnizations versus one organization. All of this is why I say organizations get in the way.
Or just insist that folks maintain the fulness of apostolic faith that has been deposited into Christ's church. The Church has been given authority to bind and to loose; it has authority to proclaim truth and denounce error as it guards that which has been committed to it. Heretics are always free to leave, and the Church has always had the power to expel the immoral person or false teacher. There is "one faith" just as there is "one body", so it's not unreasonable for this "one body" to seek to proclaim this "faith" in all of its fulness--to have one mind, the mind of Christ. Heretics, immoral, and false teachers are free to leave, bu those who do not fall into such catefories then are forced into this body with all its trappings, if they would be saved (in Christ). I'm sorry, but that is still control and manipulation. Christ is not about a legally incorporated institution (to make it more clear what I mean by "organization".

[BobRyan]

BTW - do those who reject the scripture as trustworthy and reliable for doctrine ALSO reject it as a "primary source"??

[Matt Black]

No, Bob.

DHK, your last post was a blatant straw man. Surely you know from your Catholic days that Catholic doctrine condemns the unrepentant murderer, especially if he be a baptised Catholic, to Hell?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, Bob.

DHK, your last post was a blatant straw man. Surely you know from your Catholic days that Catholic doctrine condemns the unrepentant murderer, especially if he be a baptised Catholic, to Hell?

Yours in Christ

Matt So how does believing or non-believing in SS (as the unrepentant murderer), affect the fact that it is a Biblical doctrine. It is you who has the straw man.
DHK

[BobRyan]

DHK
So without SS, as the Catholics have it, every person of the Mafia makes a good Catholic because they pay lip service to the Catechism no matter how they live. You can live like the devil, be what ever you want in life--hit man, adulterer, thief, etc, and still be a Catholic. Why? You have a Catechism you can pay lip service to. If your conscience bothers you sometimes you can always avail yourself of confession and then go back to your practice of murder or being a hit man.Didn't a famous Catholic by the name of Martin Luther make that same charge as Tetzel came around selling indulgences at the direction of the Pope?

Surely all those good folk just "listening to their magesterium and doing whatever a SUCCESSOR said was ok to do" could not have known to "search the scriptures and SEE IF what they were being told is valid".

IF they had been given the "primary source" Scripture in their own language - the way the non-Christians in Acts 17:11 had it given to them - "maybe" just "maybe" they would not have been so duped as to need Martin Luther to disabuse them of the myths and errors handed to them by their own magesterium.

In Christ,

Bob