The witch as Satan

[waterhogboy]

Hey CRJR, where do you get your evidence about Tradition. Tradition is something invented by the Catholic church that has no connection to the original chrurches founded by the church fathers - Peter, Paul and all that lot. Religious tradition to me is just the hocus pocus and superstition that has no Christian basis whatsoever!

 

[crjr9833]

Oh, really. Where's your evidence?

 

[waterhogboy]

Because religious tradition is never mentioned as essential or important in the bible. Also there is no evidence that the first Christians did it in the early churches. They are simply things invented by the church through its first 1500 years.

 

[inkspot]

What are y'all talking about, CRJR and WHB?

The bare bones of Christianity are in the Scriptures. There is nothing else required for salvation but belief on Christ.

Is that the subject of this exchange?

I am confused as to what traditions we are talking about?

 

[waterhogboy]

CRJR is saying that religious tradition is important for salvation. I say its not - only by grace are we saved...

 

[crjr9833]

And not works? So you can just say: "I believe in Christ as my Lord and Savior!" And thats all. Just lay back and enjoy the ride, your going to heaven anyway. Hmm?

 

[Specter]

Because religious tradition is never mentioned as essential or important in the bible. Also there is no evidence that the first Christians did it in the early churches. They are simply things invented by the church through its first 1500 years.

I am going to challenge you, then.

Tradition is something that most non-Catholics loathe. Yet tradition is not all that uniquely Catholic. It is nearly unavoidable. The Apostles teach it and tell the first Christians to hold fast to it. So why would we deny it? Tradition is a big part of family life, and in the New Covenant, family is the word. Tradition doesn't have to be feared, but should be examined and embraced.

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. 2 Thes. 2:15 (ESV)

To my Protestant brethren I must ask- where are the following found in the Bible, in a clear and objective form?

* Sola Scriptura
* The Trinity
* Special music
* Baby dedications
* the canon of scripture
* the age of reason
* How to interpret the scriptures yourself without any chance of error?

None of these doctrines or beliefs are spelled out in the Bible, two are even a traditions themselves. All doctrine relies on man to determine it and write it down. Tradition is unavoidable. The question is, does a church exist today that has been able to hold fast a tradition of faith through 2000 years, so that we can know what is true and what is false in faith, doctrine, and morals?

Is it really up to Bible scholars and college professors or even individual self-proclaimed pastors to determine truth all over again for every generation? Or is truth something to be determined by the church, the pillar and foundation of Truth? The Pillar and Foundation of Truth is not the Bible. And everything that happened in the time of Christ was not recorded in the scriptures. Instead Christ left us a teaching authority guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret the scriptures. This way we can have the full assurance that what we are being taught is truth.

At the same time we are not relieved from studying for ourselves. Sometimes those within the Church will err, but the Church itself cannot err on matters of faith and morals. For the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.

Truth is not subjective or relative.

Let's be clear on some things here concerned with Catholicism:

* The Catechism is not the inspired written Word of God. This however does not mean that the catechism has to have error in it. Something can be un-inspired, yet true. The Church believes that the only way for something that is not the Bible itself to be infallible is for the vicar of Christ- that is the Pope, to make a statement in ex-cathedra. This has only happened a couple of times in the past 2000 years.
* Dogma is doctrine which has been formally defined by the Church. Catholics are often accused of "making up doctrine" as they go along. However, this isn't so. Often statements of Dogma are made not because it never existed before, but as a way to formally show the people of the Church that a doctrine is true. This is done when a heretical group is trying to gain ground within or outside the Church and the Church needs to make a statement counter that heresy it is fighting. The Dogma which is defined may have doctrine all along, but now is "written in stone" or so to speak. "Upon This Rock" is an excellent read into church history.
* Tradition does not supercede the scriptures. They work uniquely together and complement each other. Tradition cannot contradict the Holy Scriptures and never does. Tradition and the Scriptures together give us an accurate doctrine and theology. Without Tradition- the results are detrimental- as you can see in the 10,000 denominations, all with different moral codes and different creeds of faith.

But we will ask- what is your authority? What guarantee do you have that you will be lead into all truth?

John 20:30 (ESV)
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

2 Thes. 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

1 Cor. 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Ephes. 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

[Euphrates]

This is great! Keep up the great discussion.

* Sola Scriptura
* The Trinity
* Special music
* Baby dedications
* the canon of scripture
* the age of reason
* How to interpret the scriptures yourself without any chance of error?

Not important for salvation. Traditions are important, but not at the level of salvation's importance. We don't find salvation through traditions, but through the grace of God. We know this because of the Bible, not because of traditions.

Now, crjr9833, it is polite to offer evidence or analysis when you make a claim. And when someone asks you to support your claim, it is impolite to say something like "Where's your evidence I'm wrong!?" The proposition side of a discussion always has the burden of proof. For the discussion to remain friendly and enlightening, we must all remember to try and give analysis for our claims.

Some people are saying that the path to salvation is found in Scripture, and they have given evidence/analysis to support that. That's a good example of how to continue a discussion.

Christianity, though is not based on the Bible alone but also on Tradition.

Based upon tradition and the Bible... hmmmm. Do we look to traditions for answers about our spirituality? I don't. Do we look to traditions to find out more about our Christian theology? I don't. Then where do I look? The Bible. Traditions are different in each branch of Christianity, but the canonized Bible remains the same through the branches. The Bible is the Word of God. Traditions are human creations. Christianity is based on the Bible alone. Traditions don't do anything to change Christianity, they modify certain beliefs, but the Christian theology (Christianity) comes from the Bible. The Christian content of "word of mouth" was the equivalent of the Bible before it was written down. It is not tradition.
________
Toyota Chaser specifications

 

[crjr9833]

I know Euphrates. I'm just not as clever a writer as Paul and you. I have to be simple, I can't help it. Paul, that was the point I was trying to get across, thank you. Perhaps we should start a new thread on Scripture and Tradition?

 

[inkspot]

The Bible is the Word of God. Traditions are human creations. Christianity is based on the Bible alone. Traditions don't do anything to change Christianity, they modify certain beliefs, but the Christian theology (Christianity) comes from the Bible. The Christian content of "word of mouth" was the equivalent of the Bible before it was written down. It is not tradition.

Very nice, Euphrates. This is what I believe, also. Traditions are important to us as humans cuz they link us to the past and our family of believers, they create a nice framework for keeping our styles of worship in order and so forth.

But the Scriptures themselves are the Word of God.

I have no problem at all with Catechism, Dogma and Tradition as outlined by Spectre in his astute post. My only point earlier was that the Scriptures point the only way to salvation, and that way is through Christ alone.

 

[inkspot]

And not works? So you can just say: "I believe in Christ as my Lord and Savior!" And thats all. Just lay back and enjoy the ride, your going to heaven anyway. Hmm?

Yes!!! This is EXACTLY what the Scriptures say! Isn't it marvelous?!!!

On my own, I could never come close to God's holiness, but because of the sacrifice of the Savior, I am saved by grace if I simply turn to Him! There is nothing I need DO besides believe.

The Message Bible states Ephesians 2:8-9 this way, "Saving is all His idea, and all His work. All we do is trust Him enough to let Him do it. It's God's gift from start to finish! We don't play the major role. If we did, we'd probably go around bragging that we'd done the whole thing!"

It's ALL God! No works I can do could possibly save me or even add anything to my salvation. Of course, when I come to Christ with a full heart, I will WANT to do good works for Him, but those works will be the fruit of my Christian life, not my ticket to heaven. Jesus already gave me the ticket when I accepted Him as Savior. I am GOING to heaven -- and if I want to get there with a gift in my hands for the One who loved me and gave Himself for me, then I will do all the good works I can in the meantime.

 

[crjr9833]

Does God no longer divinely inspire His servants to speak the truth? Did divine revelation begin and end with the Bible? I think not. Read 2 Peter 1:20 " Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will ; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." There are human beings today (very few of them) who still speak truths and interpret scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
One of those people is the late Pope John Paul...you might want to read a few on his encyclicals. Our new Pope Benedict will undoubtedly be blessed with this same gift for it was an act of the Holy Spirit that guided the cardinals to elect him as Pope.

 

[inkspot]

Of course God still inspires ministers and prophets, who can and do speak His truth in new and relevant ways -- one of the reasons we go to church is to hear them "rightly dividing the Word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).

But are you saying, CRJR, that the Pope's encyclicals are on the same level with Scripture? That's something most Protestants don't believe of their ministers, that their word carries the same weight as the Scriptures. In fact we are encouraged to judge the teaching we hear BY the Word, because no one under God's inspiration can contradict the Word of God.

 

[Euphrates]

Crjr, first of all, you're mixing together two different issues. The quote from 1 Peter is about prophecy. Prophecy comes (or came) my virtue of the Holy Spirit. But then you start talking about interpreting the Bible. Two different issues. That Bible passage does not support the Pope's "divine ability to interpret Scripture".

If you believe that people are still divinely inspired to speak truths, how do you know who is speaking truths and who is not?

And what, exactly, does this have to do with salvation? If the Catholic Church says that I can buy my salvation, is this based on Scripture or tradition? Well, it's not based on Scripture, and apparently the Catholic Church later agreed. Does the Catholic Church interpret traditions to find salvation? No, they interpret the Bible. There is no other resource by which we can know the path toward salvation.

Relating all this back to the original topic: the deal with Emeth in The Last Battle. Only God judges those who will go to heaven or hell. The path of salvation is explained in the Bible, and nowhere else. If you reject God, or do not accept Him, your chances of eternal salvation aren't lookin' too good.
________
vapormatic vaporizer

 

[Specter]

I have no problem at all with Catechism, Dogma and Tradition as outlined by Spectre in his astute post. My only point earlier was that the Scriptures point the only way to salvation, and that way is through Christ alone.

Salvation, yes, is from Christ alone..it's His gift to us. When it comes to the topics that I mentioned, Sola Scriptura is a term meaning "Bible Alone" and that can be dangerous. God can reveal more to us, and has.

The simple fact is that these are the same arguments that have been had between us all for about 500 years, and there's really no way to prove this way or that, unless we're all willing to do the proper research into things.

Two things I know: Tolkien was a staunch Roman Catholic. Lewis very nearly became Catholic himself, and it's partially Tolkien's faith that drew Lewis to even have faith, from his former atheism.

Arguing this out on an internet forum is like running in circles unless it is done with prayer and with understanding and patience.

The quote from 1 Peter is about prophecy. Prophecy comes (or came) my virtue of the Holy Spirit. But then you start talking about interpreting the Bible. Two different issues. That Bible passage does not support the Pope's "divine ability to interpret Scripture".

Incorrect. It's very clearly referring to scripture. It's kinda hard to deny that without taking it out of context. In context it is referring to scripture itself.

But are you saying, CRJR, that the Pope's encyclicals are on the same level with Scripture? That's something most Protestants don't believe of their ministers, that their word carries the same weight as the Scriptures. In fact we are encouraged to judge the teaching we hear BY the Word, because no one under God's inspiration can contradict the Word of God.

No encyclical of the Pope has ever contradicted the Bible. It's more of an enhancement or a way to understand more clearly the will of God. And no, he's not saying they are on the same level as the Bible, he's just trying to make that point. That they help clarify the mysteries of the Lord.

If the Catholic Church says that I can buy my salvation, is this based on Scripture or tradition? Well, it's not based on Scripture, and apparently the Catholic Church later agreed. Does the Catholic Church interpret traditions to find salvation? No, they interpret the Bible. There is no other resource by which we can know the path toward salvation.

Here's a bit of history: The Catholic Church put the Bible together. Even Martin Luther agrees to that. As well as John Calvin.

 

[Euphrates]

It's very clearly referring to scripture.

You're right. I didn't look it up at the time.

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." -2 Peter 1:20

But I don't think this is saying that every "prophecy of Scripture" is divinely influenced, if we understand "prophecy of Scripture" to mean "interpretation of Scripture". There are people who interpret Scripture based on codes and hidden meanings, and I would have to say that these prophecies are based in the will of man rather than influenced by God. Scripture, at one point, was interpreted to mean that we could buy our way into heaven. Then, at another time, it was interpreted to not mean that.

I think it would be safer, and more proper, to consider "prophecy of Scripture" as it is used in 2 Peter 1:20 to mean "prophecy in Scripture". Certainly Paul interpreted Christ's words when he wrote a bunch of the books in the New Testament. This could be an example of prophecy in Scripture, along with all the other prophecies we find throughout Scripture. I do not think it would be correct to think 2 Peter is saying that all prophecies that are/will be relating to Scripture are divinely inspired. The difference is: interpretation in Scripture vs interpretation of Scripture.

And, yes, I am aware that the Catholic Church canonized the Bible. But does the Bible say anything about Popes?

My point still remains that, 2 peter 1:20 does not support the Pope's "divine ability to interpret Scripture".
________
website design

 

[crjr9833]

You must also ask yourselves: Who wrote the Bible?
Well, divinely inspired ministers and prophets. Hmmm.

 

[Specter]

Scripture, at one point, was interpreted to mean that we could buy our way into heaven. Then, at another time, it was interpreted to not mean that.

You must realize that most of those cases were isolated instances of corruption which has been blown up to sound like it wsa more wide spread than it actually was.

And, yes, I am aware that the Catholic Church canonized the Bible. But does the Bible say anything about Popes?

Yes. For Christ will protect His Church until the end of time. "That you loose on earth is loosed in heaven, and bind on earth will be bound in heaven." Christ said "Peter, you are My rock and upon this rock I will build My Church." Don't even try to get into the greek translations with me.. I know all about them, and I know how it works, and that Christ was ACTUALLY making Peter the leader of the Church on earth at that point. Peter lead by Christ's example, and as such, selected a successor, and so on, and so forth, and the line of Popes remains unbroken since that time.

 

[Euphrates]

I still do not see where the Bible talks about Popes. Peter founded the church and selected a successor, but it's not clear that he established the hierarchy of the Church and all the dogma that came with it. Appointing a successor was less like "starting a tradition" and more like "ensuring the survival of Christianity through a rough time". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Peter never said "Let's start this thing where there is only one leader of the Church and that person must be a man, and he alone is the divine authority on interpreting Scripture, and he will be called "holy", and after he dies a group of other holy folk, let's call them Cardinals, will pray and select a new leader of the Church, and the Church will be allowed to banish people from the Church for disagreeing, and etc."

Isolated instances of corruption, huh? Well that just proves my point that not all interpretation of Scripture is inspired by God. "The Pope must be right, because he is holy and God blessed him with the ability of prophecy and put him in the position of Pope." Statements like this are pretty well debunked by these isolated instances of corruption. Popes have been wrong. No one has sole authority to interpret Scripture. And it seems clear that Peter never established this system. Is the Catholic Church really the Church that Peter started? I don't know. At least, I'm not sure he intended it to be.
________
Chevrolet Classic picture

 

[Specter]

Peter didn't start the Church as you say, that would be ridiculous. However, he did in another way. Basically, Jesus said that we were to be uniform. We were to be ONE. He didn't say "Go ye forth and teach whatever you feel from the scriptures, and interpret for thy self what is best for you." Etc. So what happened was this: Peter was the head of the Church, and the apostles were underneath him in the hierarchy, but still equal to him. He is just first among equals. Christ selected a man, and so would he, and Christ selected men to be his apostles, and so would Peter. The Pope moved to Rome, eventually, because that was (if I recall my history correctly) the center of the known world. As the Church grew, so did the need for more leaders. But the leaders had to be taught everything right, that Jesus taught them, about the Last Supper, and all of His teachings. They also had to teach the same things, because it would be stupid not to. The Church kept growing. It was called The Church until sometime around 200 A.D. when, in a letter, Alexander (I believe) called The Church "Catholic" which means "Universal." As it grew, it was decided through council and prayer that order was needed so that the teachings of Christ weren't used for one's personal gain, etc. So an order was established, of Priests. And out of necessity, the Bishops and Cardinals, as the numbers continued to grow.

And the coolest thing of all? Right now, I could go to any Catholic Church in the world, and I could follow it, because it's the same thing everywhere, no matter what language it's in. Remember, this is a very very abridged version of the history of how things happened. There would be too much in the 2000 year history of the Church to go into detail here.