Stll waiting for an answer.

That the books that make up the New Testament (all of them) are the divinely inspired Word of God and that public revelation was closed with the death of the last apostle.

 

Better yet, how about Protestant extra-biblical traditions generally accepted by Protestants that ARE NOT traceable to the Apostolic age!
Such As:
1. total depravity of man
2. "asking Jesus into your heart"
3. Reciting the "sinners prayer"
4. belief in the "age of accountablity" for certain justifications
5. The Rapture
6. the invisible church
7. emphasis on a "personal relationship with Jesus"
8. "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour"
9. "enthroning the bible in your heart"
10. limited atonement
11. the altar call
12. rededication
13, eternal security
14. folding hands and dropping head to pray
15. Faith alone
16. Sola Scriptura
17. The Eucharist as a symbol
18. Sunday school
19. Christian Flag
and 20. The New Testament as a book! (which is traceable to the councils of the Catholic Church in the late 4th century)

 

Wow! I knew the RC membership were being asked to reject some portions of God's Word - I just did not realize - how much!

Thanks for sharing!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Another excellent post Bob, full of the three theological virtues.

 

You guys are really obsessed with your tradition, so much so, that you have forgotten the definition thereof, or cannot distinguish between what is doctrine and what is tradition. Your post is lamentable.

Such As:
1. total depravity of man
This is a doctrine--highly disputed among Baptists and others. Just take a look in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate forum.

2. "asking Jesus into your heart"
This is a doctrine--Study John 1:12--"as many as received him."

3. Reciting the "sinners prayer"
This is not a tradition. There is a sinner's prayer in Luke 18, and we don't recite it. I don't know of any one "sinner's prayer." Do you have a particular prayer in mind. Maybe you can reference the particular prayer that you have in mind, just as we can reference the Hail Marys' of the rosary that you pray.

4. belief in the "age of accountablity" for certain justifications
This is a doctrine--not agreed upon by all.

5. The Rapture
This is a doctrine--the details of which are not agreed upon by all.

6. the invisible church
This is a doctrine--one in which you actually believe.

7. emphasis on a "personal relationship with Jesus"
This is a doctrine--a very important one that is taught in the Bible. If you don't have a personal relationship with Christ, you are not a Christian.

8. "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour"
"ditto" Study again John 1:12. It leads me to believe that you know nothing of salvation or Christianity to be even asking these questions.

9. "enthroning the bible in your heart"
Somebody's adage. So what. Do you have a problem with it. It has nothing to do with either doctrine or traditions. It has to do with words, sentences, description, composition, etc. You don't like the way some people speak, learn a different language.

10. limited atonement
A doctrine of Calvinism.

11. the altar call
Finally you have hit on what some Baptist churches (but not all) might have as a tradition. It is an extra-biblical tradtion, not anti-biblical tradition, and therein is the difference.

12. rededication
If some churches do it, I don't know. It isn't a "tradition" in Baptist churches that I know of.

13, eternal security
This is a well-documented Biblical doctrine. If you don't understand it, you don't have a good grasp of the doctrine of salvation. At any rate it has nothing to do with tradition.

14. folding hands and dropping head to pray
It would be hard to say that is tradition. My position in prayer is no different now then when it was when I was a Catholic. Your point therefore is hypocritical if it is draw a difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. If it is to draw a difference between Christianity and Judaism that is another matter. But then we are not talking of Judaism.

15. Faith alone
This is doctrine; nothing to do with tradition.

16. Sola Scriptura
Again, this is doctrine. Do you need a dictionary?

17. The Eucharist as a symbol
This is doctrine. The "eucharist" itself is a word a Baptist would never use.

18. Sunday school
The history of the Sunday School is quite interesting. I suppose one could say that with some churches it is a tradition, just as morning mass at some Catholic churches are a tradition. But then one can look in the Bible and simply read how the early believers continued in the Apostle's doctrine--which is what the Sunday School is for.

19. Christian Flag
We don't have a Christian flag, and until recently never knew there was such a thing. Not much of a tradition is it?

and 20. The New Testament as a book! (which is traceable to the councils of the Catholic Church in the late 4th century)
The Scriptures were recognized by Scripture by the Apostles themselves who transmitted that knowledge on to the early believers. They were not canonized by the Catholics, but by the early believers themselves. The early believers did not have to wait until the fourth century. They had the Bible in its entirety by the end of the first century. It is just the Catholics here that are slow in realizing that, for they didn't come on the scene until the 4th century.
DHK

 

As you can see, you can't hold protestants accountable for anything.

 

Hi Psalm,

You asked, "Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively tracable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ."

Absolutely: Infant Baptism.
____

The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

taken from Catholic.com
____

 

So far it looks like we have several different oppinions on what constitutes both "demonstratively tracable" and "apostolic age." It could take us off on another wild tangent, but anyone care to define either or both terms?

 

Constantine carried a Christian banner before him in battle, and never lost.

 

So far it looks like we have several different oppinions on what constitutes both "demonstratively tracable" and "apostolic age."

The former can only be validated by means of apostolic succession, if it be an oral transmission, and that apostolic succession is a historical fact that is recognized by Protestant and secular ecclesial historians.

With regard to the apostolic age, I have seen different usages of the term. I prefer to refer to the time up until the death of the last of the twelve, commonly thought of to be John according to tradition.

 

Constantine carried a Christian banner before him in battle, and never lost. </font>[/QUOTE]#1. Call it what you want, but don't call it Christian. Call it Catholic, but don't call it Christian. "Christians" had nothing to do with the Crusades. Christians are ashamed of the Crusades. The Crusades are as much Christian as Hitler was.
#2. Constantine wasn't a Christian. He made a false profession of Christ for political means, but he wasn't a Christian. He may have been a Catholic, but he wasn't a Christian.
DHK

 

"Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively tracable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ. "
I can.


Seating arrangements in church.
Not mentioned in scripture.
Needed for the practice of the Church of Jesus Christ.
There exists an oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively tracable to the apostolic age on it.
In this case handed down by the Eastern-and Oriental-Orthodox churches.
The arrangement is that you stand during the service, pews are for wimps. Yes you can make up your own seating system like Rome&theReformation did (that includes you my fellow baptists), but that's beside the point.

The canon of the New Testament itself. The existance of a canon is biblical, but remembering which texts were the ones belonging inside the canon and which ones were the pretenders is oral tradition. and yes it can be pretty much be traced

In what context were the various texts of the New Testament written? VERY helpfull when figuring out how to get the details right of the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Once again there is info going back a very looong way on it.


Mind you on the whole I'm not that impressed with the way the pre-reformation churches maintained the oral, extrabiblical Traditions of Christianity. The simple fact that there is no Christian 'Talmud' you can put on your bookshelf containing all of the extra-Biblical Apostolic Tradition, all of it fully recognized by both the Eastern-Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church says it all.

 

DHK
The nice thing of not being a member of a churchorganization without a long history is that you never have to worry about historical dirty hands.

 

Constantine carried a Christian banner before him in battle, and never lost. </font>[/QUOTE]#1. Call it what you want, but don't call it Christian. Call it Catholic</font>[/QUOTE]Constantine died BEFORE the term 'catholic' was ever applied to any Christian. It most definitely WAS a Christian flag.

Again, there was no 'Catholic' church at the time of Constantine.

It's a shame that ahistorical fantasies are created to prop up uninformed religious bigotries.

 

Harley,

You wrote, "Again, there was no 'Catholic' church at the time of Constantine."

Why do you say that? Can you back this up with a historical reference, or an author?

 

So this topic is about "extra-Biblical" things. And then DHK goes and says "extra-Biblical" things are not bad, only "anti-Biblical" things.

It is now official. The Baptist Church has no problem with extra-Biblical methods of worship.

 

Well looky there. An extra-Biblical tradition and authority that is infallible. Whodathunkit.

 

Earlier in my post you will see that I was referring to the term 'Catholic' being applied to a group of Christians by the emperor. Constantine didn't apply this term; it wasn't until about 50 years after his death, I think, that one did.

 

If you read in the music forum (you can also debate it with Frank), there is no definitive proof in the New Testament, that the early church used any kind of instruments in their "music" or singing. Are instruments therefore, such as a piano or organ wrong to use in the church or are they simply extra-Biblical. Better think that out carefully before you answer.

When talking about extra-Biblical doctrine, Psalm 104 had that just in mind. Look at the title of the thread please. Above it says "Doctrines: Still waiting for an answer." The doctrine of purgatory cannot be shown by oral tradition to go back to the Bible, neither does it have Biblical evidence to make it a Biblical doctrine. I believe that is what Psalm 104 is getting at, not the trivialities that Stephen brought up.
Give evidence that your extra-bibilcal doctrines/traditions whether through tradition or by the Bible go back to the Apostolic Age. You cannot do it.
DHK