Posted on 03/18/2015 6:21:18 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Luther's tradition isn't biblical.
Why do Protestants follow human tradition?
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
Go ahead, rationalize this passage however you want. Luther said you can.
Jesus said the OT law and Prophets were ABOUT HIM (luke 24: 25-27)
Please tell us how many times Jesus appealed to Tradition to teach
.
You post what I said, then you post the opposite as a question.
Can you live without false contradiction?
.
Yes, the Bible is the Word of God.
While Catholics and Protestants disagree over the canon of Scripture, we agree in principle that the Bible is the written Word of God, and that Jesus Himself is the Eternal Word.
No one is debating this.
The debate regards Sacred Teaching Authority and Tradition outside of Sacred Scripture.
Please tell us how many times Jesus appealed to Tradition to teach.
Hebrew tradition?
Keep in mind that Jesus could have cited Hebrew tradition during His lifetime, whether or not these citations were recorded in Scripture.
Your argument presupposes not only the authority of Luther's non-biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but an even narrower presupposition, that all valid Christian doctrine must be found in Jesus' Teachings alone --a principle that even Luther didn't espouse.
Regardless, there is a Scriptural example of Jesus' recognition of Hebrew tradition (and also extra-Scriptural Hebrew teaching authority):
Jesus recognizes the validity of a traditional teaching office, believed by the Jews to have been passed on from Moses. This tradition isn't mentioned in the Old Testament."The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you."
Below are exerpts from (Hebrew) Oral Tradition in the New Testment:
Example 1Examples of extra-Scriptural Teaching Authority in the New Testament:"He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt. 2:23) is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on "by the prophets."...
Example 2
Paul shows how Christian sacraments—baptism and the Eucharist—were prefigured in the Old Testament. He treats baptism first: "Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (vv. 1-2). Next he highlights the Eucharist, prefigured by the manna in the wilderness (v.3; cf. John 6:26-40), and the water that God provided for Israel: "All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4).
The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness. In a further development, another Tradition, given by Philo, even equates this rock with preexistent Wisdom: "For the flinty rock is the Wisdom of God, which he marked off highest and chiefest from his powers, and from which he satisfies the thirsty souls that love God."
It seems that Paul is drawing on this Tradition, but he elevates it to even a higher level. Christ himself was the Rock who provided for the people of Israel, which in turn makes their rebellion all the more heinous (1 Cor. 10:5ff.). Paul does not hesitate to draw on stock oral Tradition to illustrate and enhance his presentation of the gospel.
Since Apostolic Tradition must logically follow after Jesus, Scripture shows that Jesus passed his teachings on to his Apostles during his life on earth, and that He established an authoritative Church:The early Christians on extra-biblical Teaching Authority:"Go and make disciples of all the nations... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector."
Paul calls the church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2)
"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)
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6)
Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
Irenaeus"...by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Like I said. Show me any other infallible source for what the apostles taught and you can disprove that scripture is the only source.
And, like I said, Sola Scriptura is impossible. It is not scripture only. You cannot put Holy Scripture in the dock and ask: On Christian doctrine, is Calvin right? Or Jacobus Arminius? Or is Cynical Bear?
There is no such thing as sola scriptura in practice.
You choose Scripture and yourself as the determiner of what it says, means and therefore right doctrine.
Not scriptural, and certainly a failing method for One Lord, One baptism, One faith.
Still have no other source than scripture ey?
I thought my reply was clear: There's no such thing as scripture only or source only. So your point is moot.
Sola Scriptura says each individual plus scripture. In your case, you.
No, your reply was not clear. Paul said that anyone who taught something they didn't was to be considered accursed. No Catholic has shown an infallible source for what the apostles taught other than scripture. So unless you can show any other infallible source for what the apostles taught you leave us with nothing but scripture.
Then you are accursed. Or I am accursed according to you.
No Catholic has shown an infallible source for what the apostles taught other than scripture.
It's the same source. You disagree with the Church on what it says.
Get the point now?
Um, no, it's not. The Catholic Church teaches things they can't prove that the apostles taught.
According to you. According to the Church you teach things you can't prove the apostles taught. Such as the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Get the point now?
Scripture is the only infallible source for what the apostles taught. I understand that the Catholic cult doesn't like scripture alone because it teaches things the apostles obviously didn't. That simply leaves us to understand that the Catholic Church is to be considered accursed.
I see the point still eludes you.
>>>”Scripture is the only infallible source for what the apostles taught.”
And what that means in Christian doctrine is according to you. Are you infallible?
>>”I understand that the Catholic cult doesn’t like scripture alone because it teaches things the apostles obviously didn’t. “
No, first of all because it’s not Scriptural. Second it means Christian doctrine is according to CB and every other individual. It’s results are contrary to Christ’s teaching of one Church, and Paul’s teaching of one Lord, one baptism and one faith.
The problem is not with the source. Get the point yet?
For any argument to have a chance of validity it must first not be inherently contradictory; it must pass it’s own requirements.
Sola Scriptura fails it’s own test. You can argue it’s merits over other methods all you wish, but can never overcome this error.
Oh now that's funny. Catholics don't believe something because it's not scriptural? Since when did Catholics worry about something they believe being in scripture?
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.