Replies

Wrong again. By such traditions one descends into the error of the scribes and Pharisees — “Why do ye also transgress the commandments of God by your traditions?” “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions.” That is why the Donatists, the Paulicians, the Albigensians, the Waldensians, the Anabaptists, the Baptists, the brethren out of Plymouth, kept appearing, rejected statist apostasy, were claimed to be heretics, and were persecuted and murdered (and their unadulterated Scriptures burned) by the traditionalists, when they only wished to adhere to the commandments of Christ uncorrupted.

You miss the point of Jesus's talk about the Pharisees. I might add that today's Jews are the descendants of the Pharisees. The Pharisees made observance of all 600+ Levitical commandments over the law of grace.

Orthodox Jews still do this today.

I might add that the Catholic Church applies these warnings against those who place cultural practices before the gospel, including bragging about the numbers of rosaries, fastings, etc. that people do.

The Church condemns anything that is done out of spiritual pride rather than in a spirit of humble service to our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Bible never says that everything that Jesus did or said is contained in Scripture. In fact, the Bible speaks to the contrary.

In John 20:30 attests: "30 uNow Jesus did many other signs vin the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;" And John 21:25 attests: "25 Now qthere are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that rthe world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Hence the Catholic/Orthodox veneration of extra-scriptural accounts of the lives of Jesus and Mary, and the apostles inasmuch as they do not contradict canonical scripture.

Then we find in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. "15 So then, brothers, dstand firm and hold to ethe traditions that you were taught by us, either fby our spoken word or by four letter."

And in 2 Thessalonians 3:5: Παραγγέλλομεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, στέλλεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ ἀτάκτως περιπατοῦντος καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ' ἡμῶν. "6 Now we command you, brothers, sin the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, tthat you keep away from any ubrother vwho is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." The Greek uses the word "paradosis", which means as follows according to a Protestant New Testament Greek lexicon: Paradosis giving up, giving over the act of giving up the surrender of cities a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence."

I challenge you to show how your sect's practices stack up against what we know from outside of scripture about how early Christians believed and worshiped. How are you so sure that you stack up against 2 Thessalonians 3:6?

From what I have been able to see since just before I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism 20 years ago, Protestants don't conform with the verse.

### Then we find in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. "15 So then, brothers, dstand firm and hold to ethe traditions that you were taught by us, either fby our spoken word or by four letter." ### Had to take a break by obligations on the Lord's Day, Monday, and today, so it happened that I could not reply until now. And indeed, also as I indicated before that we would only find a profitable point of departure when you find any place in the Holy Scripture ordaining infants to be baptized. So I do not intend to strive, especially since the voluminousness of your responses only prove that you have found simple positive affirmation for paedobaptism in Scripture; and therefore you have only uninspired tradition, post-dating the completion of the canon, to lean on. Now, considering your reference to the passage above, there are three points: (1) Your Greek above is identical to that found in both Scrivener's TR and Nestle's 4th 1904 ed of WH. -- no fault there. But the translation you give is not merely imprecise, it is very misleading. Three faithful interchangeable English renderings are given by AV, ASV, and Douay-Rheims of which the following is representative: "(Therefore)(So then), brethren, stand (fast)(firm) and hold (to) the traditions which (ye)(you) (were taught)(have learned)whether by word, or (by) our epistle." The RV and NASB are discounted because seek to improve by adding to the sentence, embroidering the truth, thereby destroying the integrity. Yet they are modified not quite so much as the version you have given above. To "taught" you have added "by us", and to "word" you have added "our spoken." This lends a completely different and unwarranted complexion to the interpretation, not confirmed by a precise hermeneutic. (2) Even then, the traditions taught to the Thessalonians only comprise the teaching by word of mouth (inspired only during that limited phase of the development of NT canon), or by written embodiment of known _doctrine_ (Heb. 6:1)(logos); or by OUR letter (singular), which can only be the single previous letter written by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy _together_ (who were all still then together in Corinth in 51 AD, with even the first Synoptic Gospel not yet widely distributed); and the NT ordinances to be held fast were only those derived from the OT, or directly from being discipled by The Christ, or just being written down. (Note that Paul saw The Christ, and was discipled by Him for 3 1/2 years in the Arabian desert). Now, I know that the transmission of oral precepts were permitted under the Mosaic/Davidic Covenant. In just one instance it is (now) _recorded_ that Joseph "... came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the prophets, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.' "(thus making what had been an oral tradition not found in the OT, into inspired Scripture by being written down by the Holy Ghost through Levi). But now, since the methods of mouth to mouth revelation or oral transmission from God to man are no longer taking place, your basis of these kind of post-canonical traditions is no longer relevant. The application of inspiration of the new orally-delivered precepts is limited to the time period concluded by the death of John. After that, the only new "traditions" formed were uninspired. Furthermore, if there were any supposed precepts formed in that time and holding over after the canon was closed -- if they were not clearly cited in the Holy Scripture, they were extra-Biblical, uninspired, anthropocentric, and invalid. Your citation above as you translated and used as you have done, only leads you to draw weak conclusions by referring to extrabiblical practices that are founded on false doctrine. (3) I have a bit of understanding of paradohses, such as the Ordinance of Honor, taught by Paul to the Corinthians in about 50 AD, his reminder set down by inspiration in 1 Cor 11:2-15, and which is now a flat-out order, not just to the Greeks of Corinth, but to all believers everywhere. It amazes me that the Greek bishop that you hold up as an example, regularly does (as the Pope does) directly disobey the clear precept that "... the head of _every_ man (male) is Christ; ..." v. 3, "Every man (male) praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head." What tradition of that bishop is it whereby he is able to supersede the direct command of the Holy Spirit in this matter by dishonoring The Christ??? I wouldn't lift _that_ up in defense of unscriptural tradition. I didn't miss the point of Jesus' talk to the Pharisees at all. I think perhaps that slipped right by you in your lecture on this principle. (3) One of the problems people have demonstrated in this thread is the implicit assumption that human-administered water baptism, even immersion and not merely topical, effects salvation: that man's determined wilful conduct forces The God to respond to that provocation by regenerating the person suffering the rite. This is a wholly incorrect and presumptuous doctrine. In fact, this does touch on the "Christian"/Mormon doctrinal differences, which baptism would be one topic of this thread. ***************************** So again (and this is my last attempt) find me a Scriptural ordinance for water-baptizing an infant -- yea, even a convert who has never become a disciple -- and I will be corrected. If not, you need to find someone who can disciple you into a productive maturity, whereby you may become a discipler according to Scripture. (2 Pe 3:15,16 unlearned = undiscipled) As a further note, be aware that I am not a Protestant, and am not a sectarian. I am a believer in the Scripture that alone The God uses to present His plan of redemption as executed by The Messiah The King, and His coming Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace; and his guidance for the churches in every age. I a constituent of an independent local assembly of fundamental immersionist believers. I believe that is the only manifestation of His true visible churches on earth. Also, you might check out: http://www.happyheralds.com/