Scripture & Tradition of God Vs Tradition of Men Over Scripture

Truth On The Web Ministries ^ | Kenneth Hoeck

[daniel1212]

In other news daniell1212 has not "steadfastly refused" to go down that road, either. Just because it cannot be summed up in a few paragraphs does not mean the road cannot be traveled.

Indeed, rather than steadfastly refusing to address how Christians in the first century, second century, third century on interpret/understand the Scripture we are fighting over, I showed how the only wholly inspired and true church fathers understood the faith as regards the Catholic distinctives, based upon the only wholly inspired substantive record of what the NT church believed.

And which reveals Catholicism to be a foreign church, and the NT church to be essentially Protestant. Indeed, the NT even began contrary to the Catholic model, in which the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture are to be followed as protected from teaching salvific error. And thus whom it rejects are to be rejected, versus following some itinerant preachers who establish their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, with Scripture being the supreme standard which oral preaching was subject to testing by, and not vice versa. (Acts 17:11).

And the rest follows from examining what the NT church manifestly believed, versus interpreting texts in isolation as per Catholics, showing that "this is my body" is not according to Catholic ignorance, nor that Church being the pillar and ground of the truth means that it is the supreme source and standard for Truth, or that the act itself of baptism effects regeneration, nor that being saved means one must actually become good enough in character to be with God via purgatory, versus justification by such heart - purifying faith as is shown in baptism, with the next realization after this life for true believers being with the Lord, and with prayer only being addressed to the Lord in Heaven, never created beings, and more.

The problem is that, faced with a decidedly non-Catholic church in Acts onward, the "fathers" which Catholics invoke are those of the second century and beyond, to which they subject Scripture to, rather than Scripture revealing the progressive accretion of traditions of men in the post-Biblical apostolic age.

Other than that, Caths can simply assert that we cannot be right if contrary to Mother Church, seeing she gave us the Scriptures. Which logic effectively nukes the church.

The real and serious challenge therefore is to name one Church Father in Scripture whose theology is identifiably Catholic, teaching prayer to created beings in Heaven, etc.

However, if need to response to more pointedly respond to the challenge, But it should be easy to cut me off at the knees with one stroke. Find me any early Christian writer who holds all or at least most of the Protestant distinctives. , then this is relatively easy. Seeing as the church began and grew under the apostles, then they are the true ECFs, and the only wholly inspired writers, especially Paul who penned most of the record of the NT church (Acts onward, which writings show us how the NT church understood the gospels). .

Thus looking therein, we see

1. The primacy of Scripture:

Contrary to Rome, the basis for the veracity of their Truth claims was not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (thus "Keating, founder of Catholic Answers: "...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true," - Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275), but that of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Writing being God's chosen means of sure preservation and Scripture being the supreme substantive transcendent authority, (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:11), thus when dealing with the people of God,

Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures. (Acts 17:2)

And the veracity of even His preaching was subject to testing by Scripture, not vice versa. (Acts 17:11):

Miracles also attested to their authenticity, (Rm. 15:19) but which are not the supreme standard,

And as is abundantly evidenced, the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

It can be argued that this is not sola scriptura, since while the primacy of Scripture can be substantiated, the full sufficiency was not. Yet full sufficiency should be understood as referring to the formal sense (such as a clear gospel message, as Acts 10:36-43) as well as the material sense, in which Scripture provides for, by way of sanction etc., everything from reason to additional revelation being given.

The argument is also made that obedience to oral teaching was enjoined, and from which support for required submission to whatever Rome has or will solemnly define is extrapolated.

However, SS preachers can also enjoin obedience to oral teaching under the premise that it be Scriptural, as was the case with apostolic preaching. Yet men such as the apostles could also speak as wholly inspired of God, and provide new revelation, which neither SS preachers nor pope claim to do.

Requiring submission to wholly inspired preaching which is even subject to testing by Scripture is simply not the same thing as ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility whereby something like the Assumption must be believed, even though it was so lacking in even early historical testimony that (Ratzingers attested) Roman scholars disallowed it as being apostolic tradition .

2. Peter as the street-level leader among the apostles, and first pastor, versus the as the rock of Mt. 16:18 and first of a line of infallible popes.

The belief that Peter was the rock of Mt. 16:18, and thus that the church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church (esp. from Rome) is not what we see manifest in the record of the NT church (and which even Catholic researchers, among others, provide testimony against , and is contrary to it. In contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

And rather than the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church, we see no exalted reverence of Peter as in Roman Catholicism, with not even one exhortation in any of the letters to the churches to look to or submit to Peter as their supreme head. For good (the norm) or for bad, Peter is street-level leader among the 11, and lead pastor of the first church, and the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, that being the evangelical gospel. (Acts 2; 10; 15:7-9; Col. 1:13) As such, unlike Paul, (Acts 20:17) he does not call any council and charge preachers, but exhorts the assembled elders to treat the Gentiles consistent with the gospel of grace, God having "purifying their heart by faith," (Acts 15:9) while consistent with this, it is James who issues the concluding Scripturally substantiated judgment as to what should be done. (Acts 15)

Peter is also listed after James in Gal. 2 as one of those who appeared to be pillars, and who (contrary to his overall holy character) lead souls astray by his example, resulting in him being publicly rebuked by Paul, who stated "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing," (2 Corinthians 12:11) but who of his own accord sought to make manifest his sanction by those who seemed to be pillars.

After in contrast to the focus and centrality ascribed to the pope in Catholicism,Acts 15 Peter is left out of any mention in the last 13 chapters of Acts, the narrative focusing on the labors of Paul, who only mentions Peter (sometimes as Cephas) in two of his 13 letters of instruction, nor is Peter mentioned in Hebrews, James, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. And while Peters own 2 letters convey a general pastoral sense, what is lacking is any reference to him as a supreme head ("a servant," "an apostle," "an elder") or anything distinctively Catholic. Instead, Peter refers to Scripture as "a more sure word of prophecy," distinctively attesting to its Divine inspiration. (Note also that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" is not referring to interpretation of Scripture, which Catholics wrongly interpret it as forbidding, but of how prophecy was given by Divine inspiration, so that the prophets did not know "what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." - 1 Peter 1:11)

3. Presbyteros succeeding apostles.

Except for Matthias being chosen for Judas (which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles: cf. Rv. 21:14, and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots: cf. Prov. 16:33)), there are no manifest successors to any apostles, even though James was martyred. (Acts 12:1,2) And the Spirit of Christ, who records things of much lesser importance, would not fail to record the election of a successor to James, or preparation for a successor to Peter.

But what we do clearly see is ordained of God is that of appointing presbyters/elders, who, like Timothy, were charged with taken the "oversight" of the churches. (1Pt. 5:2; Acts 20:28)

Thus the record of the NT church simply does not manifest Peter as being the RC pope, nor any successors to any apostles after Judas, while the elders are given oversight of the churches, and which are not Catholic priests.

4. No distinction in office btwn bishops and elders, but which are not celibate Catholic priests.

Bishops and elders refer to those in one office: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1.

And in referring to which the Spirit of Christ never uses the distinctive words for a separate sacerdotal class of clergy (“hiereus” and “archiereus", over 280 times in the NT, denoting for Old Testament kohen or their pagan equivlents) known in English as "priests."

While the English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," the problem is that Catholicism translates both hiereus and presbuteros as "priest." thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distinctive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, and Catholicism attempts to justify using the same distinctive word for both OT "ko^he^n" and NT presbuteros via an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbuteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function. Which brings us to,

In addition, the normative state of NT pastors was that of being married, as almost all the apostles were as well, and with celibacy/continence being a gift not all have. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;..One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 Timothy 3:1-2,4-5) Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. (1 Corinthians 7:7)

5. The primary active function of pastors is that of preaching, not uniquely being ordained to conduct the Lord's supper, nor is it a sacrifice for sin as the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ, to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, with this being the paramount central practice of the NT church.

Rather than dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, instead the primary active function of pastors is preaching, (1 Timothy 4:2) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7) In contrast, nowhere in the record of the NT church is the Lord's supper described as spiritual food, and the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself.

Rather than being manifest as the paramount life-giving priestly practice of the NT church, apart from reference to the "feast of charity," (Jude 1:12) the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one letter to the churches (statements such as "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart" (Acts 2:46; cf. Acts 2:42; 20:7,11 are not clearly referring to the Lord's supper), and in which communion of the body and blood of Christ refers to the church as "one bread" having fellowship with Christ, whose sacrificially death they are remembering and showing, like as pagans have fellowship with the object of their dedicatory feasts. Which believers are thus warned against, but in both cases this fellowship was not by actually consuming the physical body and blood of their respective objects of worship.

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. (1 Corinthians 10:16-20)

And in the next chapter the church is the body of Christ which is not being recognized as such due to Corinthians selfishly eating separately and to the full, while ignoring others, and thus "shame them which have not," completely contrary to the sacrificial love of Christ shown by His death by which He purchased the, and which is what they were supposed to be remembering and thus showing.

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not...For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come...he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22,26,29)

This hypocritical treatment of believers for whom Christ died being the problem, the solution was,

Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

6. Salvation by effectual faith, versus actually being made good enough to be with God.

Scripture both promises,

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38) And (by the same Peter) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43) And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)

Likewise, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

Seeing we know that souls were told and realized purification of the heart by faith and received the Holy Spirit before baptism because God, "knoweth the hearts" which "believeth unto righteousness," (Rm. 10:10) and that "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," (Romans 4:5) then it is apparent that it is effectual faith, the faith which effects obedience, that appropriates justification, with the works that will follow justifying one as being a saved believer, having complete, saving faith. Otherwise, if God does not justify the ungodly, by his faith being counted for righteousness, but must await a certain act, then James contradicts both Moses (Gn. 15:6) and Paul who testify, "what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Romans 4:3) which was long before Abraham offered up Issac, (Gn. 22) which is what James points to as justifying Abraham, fulfilling Gn. 15:16). However, it is hardly tenable that Abraham was not saved before Gn. 22, yet the issue in James 2 is the kind of faith that saves, and that is the kind that effects works, justifying one as being saved.

7. Believer's baptism, versus infant baptism and baptism itself effecting regeneration.

The NT knows no baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38) while it is the faith that baptism requires and expresses which appropriates justification (and may be the occasion for conversion), versus the act itself of baptism effecting regeneration, even for morally incognizant souls.

8. All f believers are called “saints, with the next realization after this life for true believers is being with the Lord, not RC purgatory.

True believers are accepted in the Beloved, and positionally seated together with Him in Heaven, and have boldness to enter into the holy of holies, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6; Heb. 10:19; cf. Phil. 3:21) and will go to be with the Lord at death or at His return. . (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul, who expressed he would go to be with the Lord at death, yet was not already perfect. (Phil. 3:10f)

And with the only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life being that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

9. Prayers to Heaven are only addressed to the Lord.

Nowhere in Scripture to anyone else is Heaven - except by pagans - despite the approx. 200 prayers in Heaven in all of Scripture. Faced with trying to justify why the Holy Spirit would not include even one prayer by a believer to anyone else is Heaven when He so abundantly records prayers, yet does record pagans praying to created beings, Caths must resorting to extrapolating this from praying for each other in the earthly realm, but which ignores the manifest divisions.

10. No prostration, knelling or bowing down in supplication before graven images.

Nowhere do we see the NT church in prostration, knelling or bowing down before a statue, let alone praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, with adulation, attributes, glory and titles being ascribed which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them. Which would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine by playing word games they avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

More can be listed of what NT church "fathers" believed as seen by their writings, and reveals they were not Catholic, and thus (based on how Catholics divide them) were Protestant, though false beliefs are also found under that non-monolithic umbrella. It is salvific Truth that is essential, and enough has been and is still present in Catholicism for some souls to be saved, for "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18) However, overall she has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, as has liberal Protestantism, while the only one church is that which was purchased with the sinless blood of Christ, and is His body and His bride, which alone always only consists 100% of believers (there are even a few RCs in it). Thus it cannot refer to any one particular organic church(es), which inevitably become amalgams of wheat and tares.