quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something is true when it conforms with Scripture; something is false when it contradicts 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!
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.
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
Were the Bereans "Sola Scripturists"?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Doubting Thomas, Jul 7, 2005.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
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".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 -
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!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 -
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.
Your comment about "help from the church" is interesting. Which church are you referring to?
In Christ,
bmerr -
DHK -
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.
-
"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?
-
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. -
-
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 -
-
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!
-
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 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 -
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 -
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?
So none of this is granting license for teachings to not need any scriptural support.
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 -
Page 2 of 3