Traditions of men!
WM
Sola scriptura or prima scriptura
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Anastasia, Oct 24, 2011.
Page 3 of 15
-
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
The infant baptism at the beginning of his life, or the baptism by immersion for adults only at the end of his life? Which one is the "Apostolic Tradition"? Which Tertullian are you going to ask: early one or the latter one? :rolleyes: -
I imagine the alleged "shortcomings" were these:
1. Yes, there are differences among those people who believe that God's Word alone is our authority. That is to be expected, because not one human being has perfect understanding of God and His Word. But I would suggest that despite the differences (even what you call the fundamental one of "Calvinists -v- Arminians"), all who hold to Sola Scriptura (as far as I am aware) are agreed on the "basics", the "Root of the Matter", to use the title of one of Spurgeon's sermons, such as the divinity of Jesus Christ, the necessity of believing on Him to be saved, the fact that He is the only Saviour, and so on. In order to deny any element of this "root", it is necessary to go beyond the bible. The Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the scientologists, and so on, didn't get their distinctive beliefs by holding to a "Sola Scriptura" position. The JWs had to have their own "translation" of the bible in order to bolster their belief that Jesus is not God. So in their version, John 1.1 reads:
"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."And Colossians 2.9, according to them, says:
"Because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."The Mormons have the bible, but they add "The Book of Mormon" to get their distinctive doctrines. And so it goes on.
2. Your charge of there being disagreements among those who hold to Sola Scriptura could equally be made against those who don't. The "non-SS community" is not populated by folk who all believe exactly the same. -
For the first 1500 years the Church taught these doctrines. That means that God in his power let millions of people live and worship a lie only to send them all to hell at the end of their lives. If that were true, then the gates of Hell actually did prevail against the Church. Thankfully, we know that to be patently false.
Oh... and please don't provide us with revisionist historical fantasies about the REAL church being in hiding for the first 1500 years while the big bad RCC Whore of Babylon with it's anti-Christ Popes persecuted them and destroyed all of their writings and all of the historical evidence of their existence. That would be so Jack Chickish of you. :rolleyes:
WM -
Our church simply "passes the plate," so to speak. Do we call it a tradition? No. It is just the way it is done. A method that works for us. We could incorporate better technology I suppose, like portable debit machines, and incorporate a better way. Taking up an offering is not a tradition; it is a way of doing something. We are not bound by it.
Some of the churches I have been to have a mid-week service on Thursday instead of Wednesday. It is not a tradition that we are bound by. They also differ as to the nature, the order, the content, of the meeting. Some have more stress on the Bible Study. Some are almost completely given to prayer. There is no Tradition here only obedience to a command of Scripture:
Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Hebrews 10:25)
The Catholics (and others) teach for traditions the doctrines of men, which I have listed for you--doctrines, which if heeded, will send people straight to hell. -
The RCC came into existence in the 4th century, so maybe your speaking of an 1100 year period when the RCC was in existence and believed the heresies that I previously mentioned:
-
WM -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Along with all the other religions of the world, the RCC states that salvation is by works--the work of baptism, the work of confirmation, the works of the sacraments, etc. It is a religion of works that condemns instead of saves, or at least points one to the Saviour. -
Let's see now - I believe that 110 AD kind of pre-dates your 4th century claim by several hundred years documenting the Catholic Church's existence to within 70 or so years of the death of the last apostle.
Oops....
WM -
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Ireneus believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80! How reliable is that?
Origen was a heretic even by the RCC standards. Most credit him as the Father of Arianism.
Most modern-day heresies and heresies of the RCC had their seeds in the ECF. They are not reliable.
--Jesus was speaking to his disciples/apostles. He would tell them more but now is not the time. The Holy Spirit would guide them (not us) into all truth. It is a reference to the writing of Scripture. The Holy Spirit would guide them into writing all the truth of Scripture that needed to be written. He would show them exactly what to write. It would be infallible.
Do you know "all truth"? Be honest? Will you ever know "all truth"? Even in heaven, do you think you will gain omniscience, and know "all truth"?
The verse is wrongly used many many times. It was said to his disciples. It refers to the inspiration of the Word of God.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)
--There are many such Scriptures. There is no passage of Scripture that suggests we ought to do what you just said: "(study) but not independently of the community which God established i.e. the Kingdom of God..." Hogwash! Where do you find such a concept in the Bible?
Either that, or we would all be Baptists.
Since neither of those is true then Apostolic Tradition has been corrupted. We know that it has error and even heresy that the apostles themselves would never teach.
[quotte] Apostolic Traditons consist of writen words and teachings they passed down.[/quote]
What was passed down is the Bible. That alone is trustworthy. There is something here to be said for sola scriptura.
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The biggest source of unreliability on this thread would appear to be DHK, not the Patristic period writers: he's wrong on his revisionist take on church history, doctrinal meaning and Scriptural interpretation.
-
The Assumption of Mary officially became a RCC doctrine in 1950; please don't tell me it was always believed; it wasn't. It has no relation to our resurrection. It is a fable that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven--a myth with no factual basis. There is no reason to believe this any more than the moon is made of green cheese. Where are the facts?
I know what the Greek word is. It is the word for "water." The fact is that "water" is symbolic isn't it? You say it is symbolic for baptism. The other fact to notice here is that baptism is not mentioned anywhere or even suggested in this entire passage. It is the least thing that would have been on Nicodemus mind. It doesn't fit the context. The RCC affirms that it is baptism only because of their catechism and their belief in baptismal regeneration. How convenient! But that heresy is not taught here.
What is the common usage of water? For most it is washing. Nicodemus knew well the OT, and when Jesus mentioned water, his mind no doubt went back to the OT to verses such as:
Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. (Psalms 119:9)
--What makes one clean? It is the Word of God. Water is symbolic of the Word of God.
Jesus taught the same thing:
Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. (John 15:3)
--What is water symbolic of? It is the Word of God.
James teaches the same thing:
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)
--He begat us, that is, we are born again by the word of truth or the word of God. The Word of God is essential to the new birth.
Peter teaches the same thing.
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)
--One is born again by the Word of God. It is stated very clearly and plainly.
Now, according to John 3:5 there are two and only two agents by which a man is born again. One is water, and the other is the Spirit. We have now seen that water is symbolic of the Word of God. One cannot be born again without the Word of God, nor can he without the Spirit of God; both are needed. And that is what the verse means. Baptismal regeneration is not taught at all. -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Ekklesia is also used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew qahal which is used to mean the whole community of Israel. Thus the Church (singular) is the new Israel (singular).
-
Plus the fact the nation of Israel could assemble and was called to assemble many times. Hence the word means assembly as it always had. Thanks for proving my point.
Page 3 of 15