Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:24 PM PDT by NYer
They hadn’t read scripture?
“and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace”
“and the word was with God and the word was God”.
“and the word became flesh”
How many more should I list? Maybe they were to concentrated on developing their traditions of man? People who put their faith in the RCC really need to "come out of her".
Without doubt. The audacity of the RCC and those who follow it’s teachings amazes me.
Bless his heart, it must be exhausting going through this over and over.
“Third, the Bible teaches that oral Tradition is equal to Scripture.”
And then quotes,
“And we also thank God . . . that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. (1 Thess. 2:13)”
But “oral Tradition” is large body of traditions from many sources including the false gospels.
What Paul spoke was not the word of men as so many traditions are but truly the inspired “word of God” and as such would not conflict with that inspired, written “word of God”.
The author goes on to say,
“According to Paul, the spoken words of the apostles were the word of God. In fact, when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are the word of God:”
It was the traditions (small ‘t’) taught to the disciples by the apostles both orally and written that was the “word of God” so that any oral tradition must by definition agree with that written word .
“So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)
But Paul did not urge anyone to accept some body of “oral Tradition” existing at the time but the traditions received from him, Paul, and the apostles, which unless Paul was self contradictory, would agree with what he wrote to the Thessalonians.
What do Paul's letters to the Thessalonians lack that can be found in some group of “oral Traditions”? What do his letters need added to them by this body of “oral Tradition”?
Please read the above passage ... again. The Bible, as you know it, did not exist in 325 AD. There were many, many gospels, documents and letters. Which ones were authoritative? None of them had yet been compiled into a book.
Oral Tradition is how the gospels and letters were communicated before they were ever compiled into a book. See post #29.
Nice catches
I have repeatedly asked what oral traditions it was that Paul taught that are not recorded in Scripture, how we know what they are how we can be sure they have been faithfully handed down, and I have yet to receive an answer.
There is obviously no source that tells us those things as no one has yet provided a link to the documentation of them.
So are you saying that Isaiah wasn’t part of what was referred to as “it is written”? You actually believe that none of the writings of the apostles were considered authoritative? Seriously?
No, Protestantism moved a significant number of Christ’s followers away from a corrupt institution and brought them into the Light. Even the most ardent devotee of the papacy cannot deny Rome had gone wrong.
God has worked through all of us—Roman or not—who make His Son the Lord of our life.
Anyway, I won’t try and convince you to change your mind...but I think in the world eternal you’ll see things differently.
It would follow, would it not?, that the oral and written would agree then and not contradict each other and require a Christian to entertain a question of which one to accept as truly God's Word.
As in Jesus’ day “oral Tradition” and what we accept as the God inspired Scriptures are often set in juxtapose.
It was not that ALL oral tradition was unacceptable but that which contradicted the written Word or that which was done as though it fulfilled the requirements of God's law.
Today much of what is “oral Tradition” falls in that class.
You wrote:
“No, Protestantism moved a significant number of Christ’s followers away from a corrupt institution and brought them into the Light.”
No, Protestantism is just a 16th century heresy. It deluded many and still does.
“Even the most ardent devotee of the papacy cannot deny Rome had gone wrong.”
I do. I freely admit men fall far short of proper behavior, but the Church did not “go wrong”.
“God has worked through all of us—Roman or not—who make His Son the Lord of our life.”
God works through every being in His time. Even the activities of the Devil ultimately serves His purposes.
“Anyway, I won’t try and convince you to change your mind...but I think in the world eternal you’ll see things differently.”
Nope. I have no doubt that there are good men who are Protestants. And I have no doubt that Protestantism is bad. That won’t change.
And no one will. For some part of “oral tradition” to be of equal authority with the written word it would have to come either from the lips of Christ or a person speaking under the inspiration of God’s spirit and be preserved as such so that we could have it today knowing its source.
Galatians 1 is good enough: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
The modern explanation for continued Catholic opposition to or criticism of sola scriptura as a doctrine is that "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." (taken by somebody from an catechism).
So, where does that leave us? Well, it's at that point that somebody might ask why the Catholic church would have put the Scriptures together if not as an exercise of the office or commission of the Magisterium regarding what they mean? And if so, how can those scriptures not be an accurate and inspired reflection of the Word of God, and if the Word of God, why would devout followers seek out meaning in exogenous compendiums of doctrines of all sorts?
BTW, that's just to show that virtually all claims of circular argument about sola scriptura necessarily lead back to a circular argument about the authority of the Magisterium.
BTW, in case of dispute on any given doctrine I always check on what the RC authorities have said. They do have experts in such matters and a long history, even peopled with saints, whose opinions or understandings should not be easily discarded by anyone.
Nope. I have no doubt that there are good men who are Catholics. And I have no doubt that Catholicism is bad. That won't change.
backatcha
Every word of the bible. But it’s a little like Harley Davidson, if I have to explain, you wouldn’t understand.
So we agree on a significant number of things, which is acceptable to me.
See you in eternity...I’ll go straight to the gates of pearl, no purgatorial fires. :)
LOL....Tim must be reading the posts on this forum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.