1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Quote from signature line

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by guitarpreacher, Nov 19, 2008.

  1. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    There is no out of context in my post. I know the context very well. I have it memorized. Your problem is that you are reading into this passage things that are not even there. Your post is full of suppositions and conjectures. "Paul used philosophy..." No he did not. You have no proof that he did when he spoke to the Bereans. Elsewhere he may have, but not here. Prove your case.
    "Maybe".....or maybe not. I stand on the Word of God. You stand on your "maybe's." A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.
    Maybe they compared notes--where do you get that? Pure conjecture. You might as well as have been reading the Book of Mormon; or were you??
    To the law and to the testimony...(Isa. 8:20)
    Yes a comjparison to the mediums, spiritists, Baal, other false gods, false prophets, false teachings, RCC Oral Traditon, the Book of Mormon, etc. All teaching that is not accordng to "this word"!
    The entire NT doesn't have to be written down. We work with what we have. Much of the NT had been written down as Peter testified to. He testified to Paul's epistles as Scripture. They already had those. They had the synoptics by that time. They had most of the NT. They didn't have to have it all. The principle is what Peter is speaking of. The prophets were the authors of the OT; the Apostles, as commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ, were the authors of the NT. The statement is clear.
    A bit much? Becuase it is? Because you just want to reject the evidence that I gave you for no other reason than you don't like it?
    Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11 and so many other Scriptures speak so forcefully to this God-given truth that it cannot be ignored.
     
  2. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Only some, though; for example, Paul wrote at least one other letter to the Corinthian church preceding I Corinthians, and also wrote to the Laodicean church. Why/how didn't these make it into the canon? (Granted, the 'first' letter(s) to Corinth is/are not extant, but the letter to Laodicea certainly is and indeed was included in early canonical lists.)

    And that's just some of the letters. What about the Gospels, Acts etc. Luke wasn't even an Apostle! Why was there so much disagreement early on?
     
  3. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    With respect, that doesn't answer my question: what's that verse got to do with everything being written down. If we want to engage in a 'battle of the proof texts', then I'll raise you John 20:30 and John 21:25: not everything was written down.

    Well, that's pretty obvious, I'd say: oral Tradition. If you rewind to just before the Scripture you quoted, you'll see this laid out in II Tim 3: 10,14 - Timothy is beseeched by Paul to hold fast to what he has been taught, knowing from whom he received it. Now, Paul - and possibly others - may have written down their instructions and teaching for Timothy, but it is more likely it was taught to him orally; even if they did write it down, this extra instruction didn't make it into the Epistles to Timothy - hence it is extra-Scriptural Tradition. You have to read II Tim 14-17 as a whole and there you will find both Scripture and Tradition. Sticking with these two Epistles for a moment, there are plenty of other examples of Tradition:

    "Hold fast the sound pattern of words which you have heard from me." (2 Tim 1:13). "Heard", plainly = oral only, not written down.


    Furthermore, Timothy is told by Paul to "hand on" (traditio in Latin) what he has received: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). So Paul orally transmits to Timothy and orders him to orally transmit to others for them to orally transmit to still others, giving four 'generations' of oral transmission. That's Apostolic Tradition for you in a nutshell!


    If one can be in any doubt as to the Scriptural basis of this idea of Tradition, and its corollary, Apostolic Succession, then there are ample examples to support it (and forgive me if I here go over some of the Scriptural ground covered above):
    Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) having been ordained (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:-

    1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.

    2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.

    3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock

    4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.

    Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT.

    Sufficient for salvation, perhaps, but not for teaching and doctrine, for the reasons given above.

    [Bizarre coding and formatting errors!]
     
    #103 Matt Black, Nov 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2008
  4. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Two points:

    1. I've highlighted some problems with the use of II Tim 3:16-17 as a proof text for sola Scriptura in my past post above.

    2. I asked how one can possibly read the idea of inscripturation into John 16:13. You haven't answered my question: merely proof-texting a verse from a wholly-unrelated part of Scripture doesn't do that. I've simply asked where in John 16:13 or indeed anywhere in John's Gospel, Jesus asks his Apostles to write a book. It's quite a simple question!
     
  5. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    I ask the same question: how? It's all very well saying 'everything' was written down (actually it wasn't as I've demonstrated above), but how do we get from that to the canon of the NT. Not everything that was inscripturated (in the literal sense of that word) is Scripture: I've already mentioned Paul's 'extra letters' which, whilst inscripturated, aren't Scripture.
    Everything as far as the canon is concerned
    If it isn't, how do you know that the books in your Bible are the right ones?

    Then how?

    Alright, then, whenever?
    Really? By whom? When? Dates, people, evidence, please, not merely bald assertion.
    Which of Paul's writings - all, some, which? Including his letter to Laodicea? And what about the rest of the NT? Does Peter (or indeed any NT writer) give us a Table of Contents?

    My goodness, it's amazing the ducking and diving of the questions that goes on in the fundamentalist world!
     
    #105 Matt Black, Nov 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2008
  6. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Ah, I see - so we're dependent on your interpretation being correct. Totally subjective then
    Nope, not yet; I'm still learning, I'm an imperfect conduit and that's why I need the Church.

    Yes, but there is no mention of writing anything down in that verse - either as a stand alone proof-text or in the wider context of the Discourse at the Last Supper or even John's Gospel as a whole. I repeat the comments and questions to you which I've made to Alive in Christ above

    You "don't know"; so, you're relying on speculative human reasoning. "It applies to the writers of Scripture" - most of whom weren't even present when Jesus said that!! "I don't of anyone else that can apply to" - what about the people who were actually there - the Apostles? What about their successors -Apostolic Succession - see my post earlier.

    So, you're saying that when Peter wrote 'speaking', he really meant 'writing'. His bad - guess he didn't get your memo.

    Already highlighted problems with this as a proof-text...
     
  7. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I said it was conjecture about Paul and the Philosophies but the point remains. The Bereans were praised for finding out and Paul did not condemn the Thessalonians didn't even say they were bad he said the "Bereans were morenoble doesn't mean the Thessalonians were not noble at all. Thats not reading into it just stating what it is.

    I can sense the vehemence driping from your every word. It seems that you resort to insults when someone disagrees with you. I assure you I stand on the word of God. I like facts and the real point of the issue issue is that you weren't there and most of how you interpret scripture is based on your knowledge and possibly how you feel about a certain passages. However, it seems to me that you're just as guilty of conjecture. As far as being a double minded man you're dead wrong. I haven't changed my affections for Jesus Christ and I haven't stopped studing the scriptures. Keep in mind there are men who have our same disagreements for years that are better educated that either you or I. However, I will not insult you I will make observations and I observed that you did not show the context but piece mealed the verses to suit your immediate need. Isaiah is responding to spiritist and mediums. Not making a statement about writen scripture. Writen scripture is refered to and then so was the Testimonies both writen and spoken. The writen word would not have existed for Moses when he wrote the Torah. All he worked off of was Oral Tradition and the voice of God when it came to the Law. The first place we have God writing these things (apart from Cain) is the 10 commandments. But Genesis happened long before exodus so the writen word was not available from the very begining. So it seems that you are conjecturing as well. Hmmmm.

    Comparing me to cults, which I assure you is incorrect, is just being Nasty.

    Just so Peter clearified Pauls letters and the Apostles but you left out what the apostles themselves taught not writen down. In fact, christianity spread very well based on just what the Apostles said. Mark was writen by a man who wrote based on what Peter told him at Rome. My argument is the writing supplements what was oral at the time. Doesn't mean it was not inspired by God but they wanted to get everything down that they were teaching Orally. Basic Christian history. So there again we see the writen word only after the spoken word to contradict your "since the begining"statement about the writen word.

    No your reasons were based on conjecture piece mealing the scripture together to fit your need. It is not the same thing. I'm not saying not to rely on scripture but you were being unfactual and out of context. I have a problem with that. But I won't call you a mormon or a catholic or a hindu or a muslim. Because despite the fact that I disagree with you, you believe on the lord Jesus Christ as your Savior which makes you a christain and my brother (though I am certain you will not share the same sentiments). Its funny Peter was agreeing with the Judaisers and Paul strongly disagreed with Peter and the Judaisers. You don't see them calling each other mormons or non-christians. Samething with John Mark and Barnabas. They just agreed to disagree and parted ways. Can you see Paul saying to Barnabas. You're a disciple of Mithras!
     
    #107 Thinkingstuff, Nov 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2008
  8. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not everthing that was written was meant to be part of the canon. The early church did not use all writings as scripture. Luke was not an apostle but he knew eyewitnesses who knew Jesus and events surrounding Jesus and the church. He was a good historian.

    I can't explain the formation of the canon in posts here on the BB. You should read a book on it:
    A General Introduction to Bibliology by Norman Geisler
    or
    Lay version : From God to Us: How We Got the Bible by Norman Geisler.
     
  9. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    So? Not everything was written down. How does that prove anything? Don't you think that God got what he wanted us to have in the Bible, or was that too hard a task for God? Everything he wants us to know is in the Bible.


    Matt, come one, this does not prove oral tradition! The NT was not completed at this point, so Paul is teaching Timothy and urging him to stick to what he has learned, to sound teachings. And yes, to pass them on. Well, they didn't have the NT. So of course they were orally teaching! This is just common sense.

    We have to make a distinction between what was said to the person in the passage, and what is being said to us. Clearly, Paul is not talking to us, but to Timothy. The principle here is not oral tradition but to hold to sound doctrine, a phrase that is repeated over and over in both 1 and 2 Timothy.


    There is no tradition here, just words from scripture. Doctrine is found in scripture. How to choose elders is found in scripture, etc. The church was given instructions on choosing these people and we have that in the Bible.

    Matt, don't you find it ironic that you are trying to back up extra-biblical tradition by using scripture? Because, of course, what else do you have?
     
  10. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    1
    Matt,

    Your posts seem to betray a very high level of confusion on your part. Many of the things I would point out to you in response to your post to me have already been pointed out to you excellantly by others, such as Marcia and DHK, so....rather than repeat what they posted I'll post this exerpt from an excellant web-site

    This material has referances to the "Catholic" view of tradition, but since your arguments are pretty much the 100% "stock" arguments that Catholics employ, I think this article will be an excellant response for you to hopefully pay close attention to and heed.

    The issue at hand is incredibly important.

    Here it is...

    http://www.carm.org/catholic/tradition.htm



    Hope this helps to clear up your confusion.


    :godisgood:
     
    #110 Alive in Christ, Nov 27, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2008
  11. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Yes it was conjecture. Yes the point remains. The point remains that there is no evidence anywhere that Paul used any philosophy in his preaching to the Bereans. He expounded to them the Word of God. You cannot read into the Scripture that which is not there. Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch. Are we to infer that Paul did that here also? No. We can only go by that which we read here. And what we have is Paul preaching from the Scriptures.
     
  12. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    So, what was the discernment process? Who decided what was 'meant to be part of the canon' and what wasn't?
    That's unfortunate.
    I've read many writings on it. I'm asking here for your answers, not someone else's, and it's a shame that you state above that you're unable to give them.
     
  13. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Really? So how come there is so much disagreement amongst Christians as to what the Bible means? Why so many interpretations of the various Scriptures by Christians? Why was it necessary for the First Council to Nicaea to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity?

    It doesn't just prove oral tradition; it is oral tradition! How can you be so blind as to not see that?!
    Not really no - and it is entirely extra-Biblical conjecture and supposition. Were that to be true, you would expect Paul to say in addition in this passage; "But only hand these teachings on until Scripture is complete." He doesn't so your bare assertion is an argument from silence.

    Oh, I fully agree. Paul was indeed talking to Timothy, his appointed successor and bishop (leader, if you would prefer) at Ephesus, and instructing him to 'hand on' the teachings to the next two generations of leaders after him (who would, incidentally, be around long after the NT was finished, thus scotching your argument above).



    Then you're obviously reading a different Bible to the one on my desk (Amplified NKJV for the record).

    No irony at all; I'm just trying to conduct the debate on your sola Scriptura terms since I reckon it's unlikely that you'll accept any other evidential source. I do find it ironic, however, that you and others who claim to be ss are repeatedly eisegeting and adducing extra-Biblical supposition. Now, that is ironic!
    Oh, I have plenty of other evidence from Tradition and Church History - but is there any point in my bringing it to the table? Will you accept it?
     
  14. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    There is no confusion on my part and I'm curious as to where you think there is...

    The above article which you cited does not put forward a case for sola Scriptura, ie: Scripture without Tradition; rather, it appears to be arguing for suprema Scriptura, ie: Scripture with Tradition, but with the former superior to the latter, which is pretty much the position adopted by the Magisterial Reformers such as Luther and, to a certain extent, by my own Church. But, in a sense, it doesn't break us completely out of the 'circular argument deadlock', which is: "Ok, Scripture is superior to Tradition and Tradition must submit itself to Scripture, but whose interpretation of Scripture is the correct one; since we don't know the answer to that it follows that some kind of teaching authority or Tradition is necessary, but that Tradition must submit itself to Scripture etc etc".

    For the record, I would disagree with the Catholic definition of "the whole Church", as in "read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church".

    I also disagree with the article's author in his(?) conflation of Church Tradition with "the commandments of men". The author tries to dodge the issue of Apostolic Succession, but really that issue is germane if not central to the entire exegesis of the passage from Matthew's Gospel which he cites (and indeed the similar passage in Mark 7). The author's objection would indeed be valid if Apostolic Tradition and 'the commandments of men" were one and the same thing; however, one has to be very wary of conflating man-made Jewish traditions and customs with the authority given by Jesus to the Apostles in Matt 18:18.
     
  15. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    Just one comment on this Thanksgiving day....
    Good point, Matt. I submit the answer out the dead lock is to follow the rule of Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century: the Bible as interpreted by the consensus of the Church--"that which hath been believed everywhere, always, and by all men" in the Church (universality, antiquity, and consent).

    (Could elaborate, but I gotta scoot....)

    Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
     
  16. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Yep, and that rule holds good up until the Great Schism of 1054; thereafter one loses the Vincentian characteristic of 'universality' (hence the disagreement with the Catholic Church's definition of 'the whole Church' referred to in my last post).
     
  17. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    It was the books considered scripture by the early church and the ones by apostles or those with apostolic authority.

    The bottom line for me is how amazing the Bible is - I was saved while reading Matthew -- how all those books over all those centuries have one theme; the over 300 prophecies of Christ coming true in the NT; the way archeology keeps validating the Bible; the way people are saved reading the Bible; etc. God had it all planned out how we could get the canon and I trust that He worked it out.

    There is more to it but my son is here right now; it's Thanksgiving, and I'm going away for a week on Sat.
     
  18. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't think there are any interpretations that challenge major doctrine; that is why all believers agree on the essentials about God, Jesus, the Trinity, the atonement, the bodily resurrection, etc.

    The reason the Council of Nicea had to affirm the Trinity is because of Arius who was denying it! He was spreading his beliefs about Jesus being created. Have you heard of Athanasius' "Against Arias," I think it's called?

    Most creeds and councils met to defend the faith that was once already given to the saints against false teachings.


    But your basis for oral tradition is from Scripture. Where is the oral tradition? Who knows it? How do we find it? Where is the authority for it?


    And these teachings are in the Bible, which was not completed at this time.




    On what basis should it be accepted?
     
  19. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    1
    Matt,

    Because we are thinking people, not mindless drones who are commanded to be indoctrinated by some "magesterium", or any other cultic indoctrination authority.

    Because we are thinking people, not mindless drones who are commanded to be indoctrinated by some "magesterium", or any other cultic indoctrination authority.

    Its a very very healthy thing, and exceedingly profitable. God wants it that way, and He approves of it.

    Just take a look at what happens when people forsake the priciple known as "sola scriptura".......

    Jehovahs Witnesses
    Jim Jones
    Catholicism
    Mary Baker Eddy
    The Orthodox
    Mormonism
    Ultra liberal protestantism
    David Koresh

    THAT is the result when each of us, individually, turn from sola scriptura, and instead surrender to any so called "authority" to interpret the scriptures for us.

    :eek: Surely you dont think the triune nature of God became true at that point, do you????

    And surely you dont think that Gods people couldnt discern error without that "Council" do you????


    :godisgood:
     
    #119 Alive in Christ, Nov 27, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2008
  20. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Have a blessed break and I look forward to reading the evidence behind your claims when you return
     
Loading...