That's taking a good point and stretching it way past the breaking point. Tradition is undoubtedly important, but "as important as scripture"? Just because there are different traditions as to minor books in various canons does not make tradition as important as scripture. No tradition is as important as the truths in Genesis or the Gospels. Tradition is not even in the same universe as those scriptures.ChaplainMCH said:
There's an entire year of university studies that would probably answer that question efficiently.
But it again points out that tradition is as important as scripture, and further states that scripture might be more fully understood if considered a result of tradition.
The concept of Purgatory in the Bible...
15,338 Views |
228 Replies |
Last: 10 mo ago by Thaddeus73
TheGreatEscape said:
For the Catholics have changed since the church fathers with novelties. And the Orthodox claim that they haven't changed since the church fathers, which is attractive to we conservatives, but they have in fact the more you study Eastern Orthodoxy. Universalism is just one of the issues which many Orthodox have adopted, for example. This goes against a recognized church counsel. It may not be official church dogma. But they aren't really doing anything about it currently.
There's quite a bit to unpack in this sweeping broad statement but I leave you to sit in it.
It is difficult to write as if I was in your presence. However, it is a necessary skill. Communication should be full of smiles, respect, and a desire to relate. If you cannot relate to me, and I to you, there is little chance of us positively influencing each other.
I appreciate that position. Thanks for highlighting that!
I often wonder and am amazed how folks in the first few centuries of the church held it together. I like how they relied on the "word" handed down by the apostles.
I often wonder and am amazed how folks in the first few centuries of the church held it together. I like how they relied on the "word" handed down by the apostles.
It is difficult to write as if I was in your presence. However, it is a necessary skill. Communication should be full of smiles, respect, and a desire to relate. If you cannot relate to me, and I to you, there is little chance of us positively influencing each other.
You're welcome, but I must apologize for the aggressive tone in my post responding to yours. I really appreciate the graciousness and understanding in your posts.ChaplainMCH said:
I appreciate that position. Thanks for highlighting that!
I often wonder and am amazed how folks in the first few centuries of the church held it together. I like how they relied on the "word" handed down by the apostles.
And good point on the early Christians. I wish we had contemporaneous histories of the early Church. From my brief reviews of the writings of the early church fathers, they seem to be more theological in content rather than historical, but could well be wrong since I have not read them extensively or carefully.
Would you mind clarifying or expanding on what you meant by your last sentence? I'm not exactly sure of the import or significance of the point you're making.
You bet! No apologies needed but I'll accept anyway. It's a privilege to be able to converse!
Regarding my last sentence...I imagine myself 70 years after the crucifixion having just heard the preaching of the gospel and now have joined this group in "the way," as they were sometimes called. I may not be able to read, and even if so, would have only a smattering of letters floating around to rely on. My recourse is to rely on this group of people being led by an individual who got their authority from studying under one of those apostles that knew Jesus. My faith, and all the practices and nuances are derived from that handing down of faith through word of mouth.
I know this is somewhat an incomplete picture but possibly sets the important tone of where faith derived...the word of God as handed down by the apostles both through mouth and deed, and the written word.
I love talking about this so could word vomit for pages but will leave it there for the moment. Any of that make sense, or perhaps does it sound like I have no idea of what I'm talking about? Hahaha
Regarding my last sentence...I imagine myself 70 years after the crucifixion having just heard the preaching of the gospel and now have joined this group in "the way," as they were sometimes called. I may not be able to read, and even if so, would have only a smattering of letters floating around to rely on. My recourse is to rely on this group of people being led by an individual who got their authority from studying under one of those apostles that knew Jesus. My faith, and all the practices and nuances are derived from that handing down of faith through word of mouth.
I know this is somewhat an incomplete picture but possibly sets the important tone of where faith derived...the word of God as handed down by the apostles both through mouth and deed, and the written word.
I love talking about this so could word vomit for pages but will leave it there for the moment. Any of that make sense, or perhaps does it sound like I have no idea of what I'm talking about? Hahaha
It is difficult to write as if I was in your presence. However, it is a necessary skill. Communication should be full of smiles, respect, and a desire to relate. If you cannot relate to me, and I to you, there is little chance of us positively influencing each other.
Careful brother or next you may point out that Scripture is really Tradition and Works done for Christ are really Faith.
Are you of the nondenominational label, a Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist, PCUSA, etc.?
There's some evidence that the Gospels and many of Paul's letters may have been written and distributed within 10-30 years of Christ's crucifixion, so many would not necessarily have had to rely solely upon word of mouth.ChaplainMCH said:
You bet! No apologies needed but I'll accept anyway. It's a privilege to be able to converse!
Regarding my last sentence...I imagine myself 70 years after the crucifixion having just heard the preaching of the gospel and now have joined this group in "the way," as they were sometimes called. I may not be able to read, and even if so, would have only a smattering of letters floating around to rely on. My recourse is to rely on this group of people being led by an individual who got their authority from studying under one of those apostles that knew Jesus. My faith, and all the practices and nuances are derived from that handing down of faith through word of mouth.
I know this is somewhat an incomplete picture but possibly sets the important tone of where faith derived...the word of God as handed down by the apostles both through mouth and deed, and the written word.
I love talking about this so could word vomit for pages but will leave it there for the moment. Any of that make sense, or perhaps does it sound like I have no idea of what I'm talking about? Hahaha
In addition, if the theory that a "Q" document existed is correct (I'm skeptical), then there may have been other and even earlier documents also floating around.
So is his point half as valid if they went 30 years without the Gospels being written?
Huh? Did you miss the 10-30 years?jrico2727 said:
So is his point half as valid if they went 30 years without the Gospels being written?
And what do you think his point was? A ringing endorsement of your take on RCC authority vs. the authority of the Bible?
Do you disagree that there's a dramatic difference between 10-30 years and 70? At 70, there were no eyewitnesses left who had been adults at the time of the crucifixion. At 10-30, there were plenty.
Jabin said:Huh? Did you miss the 10-30 years?jrico2727 said:
So is his point half as valid if they went 30 years without the Gospels being written?
And what do you think his point was? A ringing endorsement of your take on RCC authority vs. the authority of the Bible?
Do you disagree that there's a dramatic difference between 10-30 years and 70? At 70, there were no eyewitnesses left who had been adults at the time of the crucifixion. At 10-30, there were plenty.
No didn't miss it.
Regardless of the amount of time which 10 years would be incredibly speculative. Those early witnesses were still following a Bishop,, receiving Eucharist and forming the apostolic faith that within a 100 years was known as Catholic.
What do you mean? Are you saying that the 10 year number is speculative? If so, there's strong evidence that at least some of Paul's letters were written that soon, and that the gospel of Luke may have been written within perhaps 20 years of the crucifixion.Quote:
Regardless of the amount of time which 10 years would be incredibly speculative.
Known as catholic, not Roman Catholic. And the bishops and organization of the church at that time looked nothing like what the RCC does today. As for bishops, the Greek word that is translated as "bishop" is episkapos, also meaning and translated elsewhere in the Bible as "episcopal," "elder," "overseer," or "pastor." The Bible's authors clearly were not referring to men in funny robes, who wield great power (often for evil), and live in castles and mansions.Quote:
Those early witnesses were still following a Bishop,, receiving Eucharist and forming the apostolic faith that within a 100 years was known as Catholic.
And I don't remember reading anything in the NT about priests, cardinals, or Popes.
Yes unless someone has produced a 1,980 year old Gospel or has evidence of someone reading from one 1,980 years ago it is speculative. I would be interested in seeing what evidence there would be for it. Although it could have been written 10 minutes after the crucifixion and my conclusion would be the same.
By your logic I guess a child just conceived as a single cell organism and newly born infant are two different creatures. They look nothing alike and are different in so many ways.
By your logic I guess a child just conceived as a single cell organism and newly born infant are two different creatures. They look nothing alike and are different in so many ways.
Jabin said:Huh? Did you miss the 10-30 years?jrico2727 said:
So is his point half as valid if they went 30 years without the Gospels being written?
And what do you think his point was? A ringing endorsement of your take on RCC authority vs. the authority of the Bible?
Do you disagree that there's a dramatic difference between 10-30 years and 70? At 70, there were no eyewitnesses left who had been adults at the time of the crucifixion. At 10-30, there were plenty.
Well…maybe the Apostle John was left until roughly around 90AD.
Maybe and perhaps he was he still instructing Sts. Ignatius and Polycarp. We have their writings available to us to see their perspectives on things.
Yes. And God through his sovereignty over all things preserved the original truths that held up against Scripture having final say. You see much conversation in the church fathers over the doctrine of God. You don't really get back to John and Paul's doctrine of predestination until church father Augustine.
Some of the foundation of the sovereignty of God in salvation by…
Church Father "John Chrysostom (c. 349/354-407), who denied that scripture taught freewill before salvation.
Some of the foundation of the sovereignty of God in salvation by…
Church Father "John Chrysostom (c. 349/354-407), who denied that scripture taught freewill before salvation.
The concept that God created someone to never know Christ's forgiveness and suffer eternally in hell on purpose seems a lot less likely than Heaven has "mud room" for us to clean up and not bring uncleanliness into paradise.
Two church fathers. Two.
Some remain under Adam while some are recreated into Christ and are safe.
Be a creation. Do not be an evolution.
Some remain under Adam while some are recreated into Christ and are safe.
Be a creation. Do not be an evolution.
There is a whole lot more than 2 church fathers and those 2 wouldn't agree with Calvin.
Again, St. Paul quotes from the pseudepigrapha twice to my knowledge. Does that make the gnostic letters and gospels authoritative, too?
Yes, but 70 years after the crucifixion would be ~ 100 AD, or 10 years after John's death.
I'm confused. What exactly is your point?Quote:
Yes unless someone has produced a 1,980 year old Gospel or has evidence of someone reading from one 1,980 years ago it is speculative. I would be interested in seeing what evidence there would be for it. Although it could have been written 10 minutes after the crucifixion and my conclusion would be the same.
And, despite the fact that your point (whatever it is) is not related to the date of the NT books, I'm going to summarize the evidence as best I can simply because I think it is interesting and others may also.
- Paul died in approximately 64/65 AD.
- Paul wrote 1&2 Thessalonians in 50-52 AD, ~ 20 years after the Crucifixion. I think that most scholars agree with those dates.
- Paul wrote the book of 1 Corinthians in AD 55-6, ~25-6 years after Christ's crucifixion. Significantly, Chapter 15 contains the entire gospel message. References to Paul in Corinthians in the Book of Acts help date the book. AFAIK, no scholar seriously questions that date, although some scholars believe that Paul may have written it much earlier.
- Evidence that Acts had to have been written by the early 60s was that it does not mention the Fall of Jerusalem (70 AD), the Jewish War of 66 AD, Nero's persecutions (65 AD), Paul is still alive, and James is still alive (he died 62 AD).
- Luke wrote his Gospel prior to writing the book of Acts, so likely before 60 AD.
- Luke incorporates portions of the book of Mark, so Mark was written earlier still.
- In a fascinating bit of Bible sleuthing, Bible scholar Michael Kruger has noted that Paul may quote from Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18. Paul states:
18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."
- The first half of the quote comes from Deut. 25:4 but the only place that the second part can be found in the Bible is in Luke 10:7. It's not conclusive, but it seems powerful evidence that the book of Luke was written well before Paul's death and was already considered to be Scripture and canonical.
jrico2727 said:
There is a whole lot more than 2 church fathers and those 2 wouldn't agree with Calvin.
They did on double predestination as did Thomas Aquinas.
Whatever we are lacking in regards to the Apocrypha is no big deal.
There is more early agreement and foundation for double predestination than there are for papal infallibility and the suggestion to bless same sex unions, for instance.
Interesting, what did they say about the Eucharist?
Our Lady promises that devotion to the Holy Rosary is a sign of predestination but it doesn't make her a calvinist.
It's easy to condemn others to hell and say that is how God made them. If he had the fortitude to make it until the resercution I firmly believe Judas would have been forgiven and would be counted as a saint. I believe the Lord is that merciful. What about you?
Interestingly enough the Church has never formally declared anyone to be in hell. I know plenty of Catholics have, but not the church formally. The church will tell what leads to hell, some take this as condemnation but the choice is up to us. I will always contend that with proper contrition of heart, even at the last breath there is always there is hope for us wretched sinners.
Our Lady promises that devotion to the Holy Rosary is a sign of predestination but it doesn't make her a calvinist.
It's easy to condemn others to hell and say that is how God made them. If he had the fortitude to make it until the resercution I firmly believe Judas would have been forgiven and would be counted as a saint. I believe the Lord is that merciful. What about you?
Interestingly enough the Church has never formally declared anyone to be in hell. I know plenty of Catholics have, but not the church formally. The church will tell what leads to hell, some take this as condemnation but the choice is up to us. I will always contend that with proper contrition of heart, even at the last breath there is always there is hope for us wretched sinners.
Well the council of Trent anathemas anyone who holds to Justification by Faith alone as well.
Do you not see the inconsistency with these accusations upon God being God?
Do you not see the inconsistency with these accusations upon God being God?
St James in Holy scripture which is your foundation, or at least a fifth of it, I don't know how many Solas you personally affirm, condemns faith alone. Says it is dead. Sounds like the Council affirmed scripture, which is God inspired, no?
St. James isn't contradicting St. Paul.
James teaches us that genuine and mature faith produces works. James isn't mistaking the root from the fruit.
In fact, St. James has a very high view of the sovereignty of God. For he gives an example that when we tell others of our plans to do such and such that we should say "If it be God's will" to do such and such.
James teaches us that genuine and mature faith produces works. James isn't mistaking the root from the fruit.
In fact, St. James has a very high view of the sovereignty of God. For he gives an example that when we tell others of our plans to do such and such that we should say "If it be God's will" to do such and such.
OK. St. Paul never said faith alone either.
Martin Luther never did either without qualifications.
He stated that we are saved by faith alone but a faith which is not alone.
He stated that we are saved by faith alone but a faith which is not alone.
Absolutely have a closer view of the Eucharist to the Eastern Orthodox Church as Reformed.
Just to make it clear, that there was a time between the death of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament in no way negates Sola Scriptura.
That the Apostles preached prior to things being written down, does not materially matter because what was written down was what they preached. No one is claiming that what they preached is materially different than what they wrote. We know the Holy Spirit made sure of this.
However, as that time passed, there's no support for ongoing revelation.
The Scriptures are perfect and we should feel very comfortable that we can read and rely on them to understand God's Word. As others pointed out, this doesn't mean "nuda Scriptura," but instead that we can look to the church fathers to see what they said and compare it to the Scriptures. Where they spoke in accordance with the Scripture, we say "yes and amen" and where they don't we offer correction and critique.
No man is infallible though. Only the Scriptures.
That the Apostles preached prior to things being written down, does not materially matter because what was written down was what they preached. No one is claiming that what they preached is materially different than what they wrote. We know the Holy Spirit made sure of this.
However, as that time passed, there's no support for ongoing revelation.
The Scriptures are perfect and we should feel very comfortable that we can read and rely on them to understand God's Word. As others pointed out, this doesn't mean "nuda Scriptura," but instead that we can look to the church fathers to see what they said and compare it to the Scriptures. Where they spoke in accordance with the Scripture, we say "yes and amen" and where they don't we offer correction and critique.
No man is infallible though. Only the Scriptures.
This.AgLiving06 said:
Just to make it clear, that there was a time between the death of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament in no way negates Sola Scriptura.
That the Apostles preached prior to things being written down, does not materially matter because what was written down was what they preached. No one is claiming that what they preached is materially different than what they wrote. We know the Holy Spirit made sure of this.
However, as that time passed, there's no support for ongoing revelation.
The Scriptures are perfect and we should feel very comfortable that we can read and rely on them to understand God's Word. As others pointed out, this doesn't mean "nuda Scriptura," but instead that we can look to the church fathers to see what they said and compare it to the Scriptures. Where they spoke in accordance with the Scripture, we say "yes and amen" and where they don't we offer correction and critique.
No man is infallible though. Only the Scriptures.
I don't see any logic to the argument, if someone is actually making it, that a short gap between the crucifixion and the writing of the NT negates Sola Scriptura. Is someone actually making that argument and what conclusions or points are they trying to draw from it?
Very well articulated.
I'll just add that the liberals as I have discussed with a SMU adjunct professor, well she was then maybe full time now, mentioned that the oral tradition had the issue of the telephone game in preserving the word of God.
Well…God through his providence certainly preserved his Spirit inspired word written down and the memory of those souls who recorded it as so. That's yet another reason why Scripture has an high view of the Providence of God in all things. No one can thwart both the ultimate sovereign will, nor the prescribed will of God in His word.
I'll just add that the liberals as I have discussed with a SMU adjunct professor, well she was then maybe full time now, mentioned that the oral tradition had the issue of the telephone game in preserving the word of God.
Well…God through his providence certainly preserved his Spirit inspired word written down and the memory of those souls who recorded it as so. That's yet another reason why Scripture has an high view of the Providence of God in all things. No one can thwart both the ultimate sovereign will, nor the prescribed will of God in His word.
Jabin said:
There's some evidence that the Gospels and many of Paul's letters may have been written and distributed within 10-30 years of Christ's crucifixion, so many would not necessarily have had to rely solely upon word of mouth.
In addition, if the theory that a "Q" document existed is correct (I'm skeptical), then there may have been other and even earlier documents also floating around.
Sorry I wasn't able to respond earlier. I'm still rookie status and have limited posts.
I think that's a fair point. I'm sure those back then would have appreciated it for sure!
I appreciate your passion for The Lord. It brings encouragement to me. I don't think we can go wrong depending on scripture to the nth degree. Where I have always faultered is the interpretation of it. There are lots of people smarter than me that stand on different sides of issues. This board is an example of that. So it always interests me how individuals handle that uncertainty. I appreciate your thoughts on this!
It is difficult to write as if I was in your presence. However, it is a necessary skill. Communication should be full of smiles, respect, and a desire to relate. If you cannot relate to me, and I to you, there is little chance of us positively influencing each other.
Featured Stories
See All
85:33
15h ago
4.7k
Texas A&M earns top-25 win over Creighton in Las Vegas, 77-73
by Luke Evangelist
7:22
19h ago
7.6k