the people's party posts:

In honesty, I have not responded to your comments about "replacement/supersession" theology becasue that would involve my bringing up the Church and KFC is intolerant and keeps deleting my comments.  

Which is Catholicism and you keep deleting anything I say about it. 5 deletes so far from my count.

nope.  I never saw the reply Lula. 

I only deleted you four times and I told you when I did so. 

Because I don't want this to be about proselytizing of  the RCC.  Keep it scriptural and you will be fine.  Back up your statements with scripture not with RCC tradition.   When you start giving us Catechism and RCC theology I don't want to hear that and I've asked you not to expand on it.    A small comment here and there would be fine, but you know Lula you can't do that. 

kfc posts:

Oh c'mon! I don't have an aversion to v. 24 or any passage in Scripture for that matter. As you, I    all of Scripture.

What you are doing is isolating one verse and forcing it to support the ideas of Dispensational/Messianic/Political Zionism.  That Old Testament Scriptural prophecy refers to the modern state of Isreal that was created by the godless UN in 1948-67 is just a fanciful idea.

And as long as you remain thinking it's physical land, you'll not understand the correct meaning of v. 24. That's because the verses that follow it cannot be dismissed.

25 And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. 26 And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit in the midst of you: and I will cause you to walk in my commandments and to keep my judgments and do them.

Regarding what happened to those Jews that gathered from every country in Jerusalem as per Acts 2....All those Jews were baptized into the New Isreal; they are INTO THEIR OWN LAND...only it's not physical land...it's the spritual kingdom of God..the New Isreal. They were baptized into the New and Eternal Covenant.

Verses 42-46 tells us as a result of their Baptism in Christ, they were adopted into His new and everlasting kingdom. The OT prophets prophecied that God of Heaven would set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed...one that would absorb all the other kingdoms and itself last forever. It happened and these Jews were baptized into it and persevered in the doctrine of the Apostles.  

41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. 44 And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. 45 Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.

46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart; 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.

Acts 2:  not about the physical land that they went back to ..It's a spiritual kingdom into which the Jews of Acts 2 were gathtered into ...and are presently being gathered into....  the remant will also gather into the kingdom in the endtimes. It won't be all the Jews in the modern state of Isreal....Jews won't be saved by circumcision, by their DNA or by the physical land in which they gather together.

When you told of the deletions...it was two. Following those, you deleted one in which I responded to Whisper2 and you on infant baptism and now, this one in which I addressed your list of the Chruch doctors and asked if you know what Chiliaism is.

And so that explains why you deleted my post describing Protestant oral tradition! ??

So you can flower your comments with slams, digs, accusations and calumnies against the CC, but refuse me the opportunity to defend against those. Mighty big-hearted of you, KFC. ....not.

lula posts:

kfc posts:

OK..here is what St.Paul said about oral Tradition, (did you get that? Tradition with a capital "T" as opposed to traditions of men with a small "t",  which Christ was opposed to.

First, we know that Jesus taught His teachings to the Apostles and they in turn, were sent out to teach all that Jesus had taught them to all nations until the end of the world St.Matt. 28:19. The Apostles went out and taught others Divine teachings by speaking to them ...that's where the oral comes in.

Second, since the Holy Bible wasn't composed at the time of Jesus and His sending out the Apostles and disciples to teach all nations, as per St.Matt. 28:19, we know the Bible, God's written Word, was not/could not be the only source of teaching faith.

Secondly, if a Divine teaching is passed on orally to others, then the listener has to "hear" the Divine teaching, right?

Now to prove my point of Apostolic oral tradition, I'll do as you said...go to the Gospels...

St.Paul expressly teaches that Christians must believe not only what he wrote, but also what he preached (since he was preaching Divine teachings...those are known as Apostolic oral Tradition).

 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word (oral), or by our epistle." (written). 2Thess. 2:14.

"Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast HEARD of me in faith, and in the love which is in Jesus Christ. keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost." 2Tim. 1: 13-14.

And this next one shows that Christians were to learn Christ's Divine teachings not from their private interpretation of the Holy Bible, but from a permanent Apostolate, which is clear from the fact (see Acts) that the APostles appointed successors to themselves, and ordered them in turn to appoint others to carry on their work in the mission given by CHrist. StMatt. 28:19.  

"The things which thou hast HEARD of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also."  2Tim2:2.

These Divine teachings orally handed down by the Apostles (Apostolic oral Traditions) have been preserved in the CC by a continuous succession from St.Peter down.

Rolling my eyes....

Scripture itself explains The difference between Divine Tradition handed down by the oral teachings of the Apostles and the traditions of men which Jesus was rebuking.

lula posts:

From Scripture, it's easy to see that God revealed 2 sources of Christian teachings and faith....His oral Word and His written Word.

Why oh why did the Protestant forefather's reject God's oral Word....Sacred Apostolic Tradition?  The reason is they had to... in order to promote and hand down by Protestant oral tradition their own teachings, namely, the Bible alone, "Sola Scriptura" as the only rule of faith. Neither one is found or supported in God's written Word. KFc, Sola Scriptura and Sola Scriptura were invented and orally taught by the Protestant forefathers and handed down over the centuries to other Protestant teachers by Protestant oral tradition.

First, are you saying that Scriptures are not enough?

Do you know what Psalm 119 concerns itself with? It concerns itself with an individual heeding to the word of G-D. Scriptures says that G-D's word is a lamp to all the heed it. Psalm 119:105 'Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.'  Every 'young man' is exxpected to heed to G-D's word: Psalm 119:9 'How can a young man keep his way pure?  By keeping Your word.

Jesus said 'If you continue in MY WORD, then you are my disciples and shall know the truth' John 8:31-32.  He didn't say that we should get it from an organizaton but from HIS word.  G-D gave us Scripture and every word of it proceeds form the mouth of G-D (Deut 8:3)

"Sanctify them through your truth for your word is truth." John 17:17.

The CC talks about 'tradition' standing equal along side the word of G-D.  Your are correct that Scripture says much about 'tradition.  In the New Testament, the words 'traditions' and 'tradition' occur 14 times.  There are eight references (Matthew 15:2-3,6 Mark 7:3,5,8,9,13) in which Jesus makes statements about traditions, which are derogatory. In Colossians 2:8 and Galatians 1:14, Paul makes 5 references, which are derogatory.  Peter also has one reference (1 Peter 1:18) which is derogatory.  There are only three favorable references left concerning tradition.

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees concerning their traditions: Mark 7:7-8 'They worship ME in vain, teaching as doctrines the cmmands of men (Isaiah 29:13).'  What the Pharisees did was elevate their tradition above Scripture.  Jesus reason for condemning the Pharisees was due to the fact that their traditions were leding people down a path of destruction.  You can see this discourse in Matthew 23:15,33. You can see in Matthew 15:3 Pharisees were questioning Jesus pertaining to the fact HIS disciples were trangressing their traditions but Jesus answered them with question (which is actually a very Jewish thing to do 'Why do you break G-D's commandment because of your tradition?'

Colossians 2:8 is very clear about this 'Be warned that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world and based on Jesus.'

Pharisees were perverting the word of G-D and rendering it ineffective through their tradition. You can see this in Matthew 15:1-9.  The 3 favorable Scriptures about tradition are 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6.

In closing, whatever was taught orally was eventually written down. Paul indicates this by presenting to them what he taught orally in 1 Corinthians 11:23 'For I have received of the L-RD that which also I delivered to you,' this can be seen in 1 Thess 2:5 'You remember, that, when I was with you, I told you these things?'

In 2 Thess 3:6 Paul is WRITING and elaborating on what he had told them previously.  This was written down from what they were previously told.

Acts 17:11 'These people were more noble and open minded than those in Thessalonica, since they welcomed the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.'

I want to do the noble thing. Jesus also said that 'If a man loves me, HE will keep my words: and my Father will love him...'  G-D's word shall not pass away.  It doesn't talk about oral teaching or tradition not passing away BUT G-D's word shall not pass.

If Scripture isn't the final authority then how does it stop by just putting a few things next to it.  The Qu'ran is a revelation of god so is the book of Mormon.  We should put them up their and the list I'm sure could go on.

no I don't think so because I answered you remember?  I said hear me clear there is NO such thing as Oral Protestant Tradition and I commented on how you say that in one breath but in another accuse the Protestants as being very fractured; all over the place so how can we have Oral Tradition?  You're just spouting words when you say such a thing. 

You just quoted it above in #756.  So how could I delete it?  Or was there ANOTHER one?  You do have a tendency to repeat yourself quite a bit. 

I remember doing three at once, not two and then I did one more.  One had alot to do with the RCC's seven sacraments (not biblical but tradition)  and another bash at Luther.  That's all I can tell you.  That last one was long winded,pro RCC and anti Protestant.  So I deleted it.  But I'm telling you not more than 4.  So don't know what the 5th one was. 

Obviously you've written a ton here so that's a very small percentage.  Some others were borderline.  I detest deleting comments Lula but I have clearly outlined more than once to you not to do this so leaves me no choice. 

TO People's Party

AWESOME REPLY.  Thanks for taking the time to outline like that. 

tHE pEOPLE'SpARTY POSTS:

What I said is that Scripture is clearly not the only source of Christian faith.

and explained how I know that this way:

Almighty God revealed 2 deposits of faith, His written Word, Sacred Scripture and His oral Word, Apostolic Tradition.

Yes, exactly. And I couldn't agree more the teachings of the Psalm. God's Word is Divine truth and the fullness of Divine truth was given by God in His Oral and Written Word. 

In order to understand the importance of Divine oral tradition you should go back to Deut. 18:15-19 and give it a good read. Verse 19 certainly proves the written Word isn't all there is in teaching God's Divine truths.

 "The Lord God will raise to thee a PROPHET of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me: Him thou shalt hear: 16 As thou desirest of the Lord thy God in Horeb, when the assembly was gathered together, and saidst: Let me not hear anymore the voice of the Lord My God,....17 And the Lord said to me: They have spoken all things well. 18 I will raise them up a prophet out of their midst of their brethren like to thee: and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all taht I have command him. 19 And he that will not hear his words, which he shall speak in my name, I will be the revenger."

thepeople'sparty posts:

This passage of St.John 8 doesn't make your point. Since Jesus did not write one word, He couldn't have meant "if you continue in my (written) Word.

What Jesus was telling them is if you persevere in the true faith, and in the observance of my words, you shall be my disciples indeed. The object of this lesson was that it's not sufficient to believe, that they must also do what His words command them to do....He spoke to the Apostles and disciples and they in turn spoke to others what Christ spoke to them...the Divine truth was handed down by oral Tradition.

As to your second sentence, Christ did not leave us as orphans. Yes, Christ established a living organization upon St.Peter and the Apostles and gave a certain primacy to the teaching authority of His Chruch and its proclamation in His name. (It's all there in Scripture KFC.) For example, in St.Matt. 28:19 we see Our Lord commissioning the Apostles the express mission to baptize and teach in His name making disciples of all nations until the end of the world...Now that's quite a mission! We read in Scripture that Christ appointed His Apostles and it stands to reason that since His apostles wouldn't live until the end of the world, they had to appoint their successors to continue Christ's mission.  Read the Book of Acts.

We read in St.Mark 16:15, that the Apostles are commanded to go and preach to all the world. And in St.Luke 10:16, we see that whoever hears the 72, hears our Lord.

These facts are most telling...as no where do we see our Lord commissioning His apostles to teach His Divine Truth and evangelize the world by writing in His name. The emphasis is always on His oral Word, on preaching the Gospel, not on printing and distributing it.

Besides that, the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura grossly avoids the fact that the Chruch came way, way before the Bible and not the other way around. It was the Chruch in effect who wrote the Bible...it was the Chruch's Apostolic oral Tradition from which the canons of the Holy Bible were decided.   

Divine Truth was by preaching the Word. Furthermore, the Bible calls the Chruch and not the Holy Bible, "the pillar and Ground of Truth." 1Tim. 3:15.

The People's party posts:

So we are discovering that the Holy Bible itself indicates that in addition to the written Word, We are to accept Oral Tradition and note that I write Tradition with a captial "T" because there is a difference.

St.Paul both commends and commands the keeping of oral tradition. And once one properly and correctly understands what Apostolic oral tradition is, then one can understand why the CC holds Sacred (Divine oral Word) Tradition standing equal along Sacred (Divine written Word) Scripture. In 1Cor. 11:1-2, we read, "Be ye followers of me, as I am also of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my teachings as I have delivered them to you. (Here St.Paul has obviously commending the keeping of oral Tradition here ....orally handing down Christ's teachings is Aposotlic oral Tradition.)

furthermore, here St.Paul extols the believers for having done so, ("I praise you..."). Explicit in this passage is also the fact that the integrity of this Apostolic oral Tradition has been clearly maintained, just as Our Lord promised it would be, through safeguarding of the Holy Spirit. St.John 16:13.

The Bible itself can't get any clearer for supporting Sacred Oral Tradition in 2Thess. 2:14-15 where Christians are actually commanded to "stand fast and hold the traditions which you have learned"...THe Greek word is krateite, translated means "hold" "to be strong", mighty and prevail". This language is emphatic and demonstrates the importance of holding these Apostolic oral Traditions.

These passages are significant becasue they show the existence of living traditions within the Apostolic teaching as well as tells us unequivically that Christians are firmly grounded in the one Faith of Christ by adhering to Apostolic oral Traditions, and it clearly states that these Traditions that are to be kept are both oral and written.  

So, as far as I'm concerned Catholics, in holding to Sacred Tradition, are following Scripture to a "T". Which brings me to ask that since the Holy Bible distinctly state that oral Traditions --authentic and Apostolic in origin, are to be "held" as a (one o f two) valid component of keeping the one true Faith of Christ, by what reasoning or excuse do Protestants dismiss them?

Perhaps someone can tell us by what authority do they reject a clear-cut injunction of St.Paul?

No so...Read the last passage of the last Gospel.... St.John 21:25 sums it up quite nicely...

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain books that should be written."   

lula posts: [quote]You say that the modern physical state of Isreal is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 36:24-28 while I say Ezekiel has already been fulfilled...that was done immediately following the First Christian Pentecost and gave Scripture as proof-text.

You say salvation is about the modern state of Isreal encompassing all Jews and I say salvation is about a remnant of Jews. Then (as per Acts 2, today and in the future, a "remnant" of Jews shall receive Christ and be saved.

KFC POSTS:

ok, *sigh* let me go in another direction with this. You're trying to make pieces fit that don't fit. It's because you don't understand the Jew. To understand the Jew is to understand what's going on. To understand the Jew is to understand History.[/quote]

Re: the highlighted....since you are unfairly intolerant of my views, I have decided to respond to this by writing my own forum.

I haven't decided yet whether or not I'll delete some of your comments should you choose to give any.

no, This is taking much liberty Lula.  In fact it's an outright wrangling of the scriptures.  Very important...what is the subject matter?  Notice it's concerning public worship of women right?  Notice the very next word that links your V 1-2?  It's the word.."but."  This has NOTHING to do with what you're saying and all to do with a written letter the Corinthians wrote to him (see 7:1). 

The basic problem in this church did not concern doctrine but morals, not theology but life-style.  They believed the cardinal truths about God's nature and owrk but they did not live godly lives.  And so Paul praises them for their strengths before he begins to highlight their weaknesses-in this case their misunderstanding of male-female roles. 

There's nothing wrong with traditions as long as they don't contradict scripture.   Traditions (paradosis) is used in a negative way in the NT when it refers to man made ideas or practices that try and supercede the word of God. 

there is NO such thing in scripture as Sacred Oral Tradition.  These traditions here are all the teachings Paul had shared with the Thessalonians and they would NOT contradict the written word. 

One, for example can be found in the verse directly above these two you just quoted.  Check out v13...."...God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth." 

You say predestination or election is untrue because of your tradition but here once again we see God does indeed elect. 

now that's just nasty... but that's a good idea if you want to expand on your RCC theology.  What does that have to do with knowing the history of the Jews?   I am not intolerant of your views.  I just set a mandate to you quite a while back and you refuse to abide by it.  I let alot go Lula but you have a tendency to push and you've done alot of pushing here.  I only took, like I said liberty to delete you on 4 occasions because it was just too much RCC dogma.  One was quite lengthy and there was NO new material in there.  Just more of the same RCC stuff you keep saying over and over. 

you keep bringing this up. This HAS NOTHING to do with your oral tradition.  This is just saying what we have written is all we need.  Notice it says "other things Jesus did."   It doesn't say "other things Jesus said."   This has nothing to do with the Oral Traditions that the RCC puts forward. 

BINGO!

ooh, I'm gleeful knowing we are getting closer on our understanding the difference between Sacred Tradition and traditions of men that Christ rebuked.  Keep in mind the difference is the same thing as the Holy Bible (a book) is God's Word in human language and any other book is man's word in human language.

Scripture itself reveals that it is not the only or sole source of Truth.  The two sources of faith and authentic Christian doctrine are found in the authentic unwritten Word and in the written Word. Catholics intend, as a source of Christian truth, that Sacred or Divine Tradition, which is the collection of doctrines taught by Christ and the Apostles, but which were not explicitly written in the NT.

lula posts:

kfc posts:

St.Paul said to Timothy, "The things you have heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who will be fit to teach others also." 2 Tim.2:2. This is Apostolic oral Tradition, the handing down of the teachings of the Christian Faith, morals, doctrines, etc. The early ecclesiastical writers recorded the teachings of these "faithful men" and those teachings are an authentic source of the revelation of Christ to be transmitted to posterity to the end of time. These Traditions have been especially safeguarded by the Holy Spirit just as Christ said they would be.

"Traditions of men" what sometimes Christ called "their law" or "your law" have nothing to do with this Divine Traditon.

kfc posts:

These teachings of St.Paul ARE Sacred Tradition, KFC. Some of them were written down and some weren't (unwritten) but that doesn't make those unwritten teachings any less the truth than those that were written in the Books that would later become the canon of Scripture.

GOD NEVER INTENDED THAT SACRED SCRIPTURE BE THE SOLE SOURCE AND GUIDE OF HIS FAITH AND DOCTRINES, KFC.

think about it....from the getgo, God primarily intended to have a body of men appointed to teach in His name. In the Old Law, He says, "The lips of the priest shal keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth." As long as the Old Law obliged, Christ referred the people to that authority. In St.Matt. 23:2, He says, "The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do."    

In the New Law, He substituted the Apostolic body and their successors as teachers in His name. Some years after the early Catholic Church had commenced her work of teaching mankind, a secondary record of some of the events in Christ's life and of some of His teachings and of those of the Apostles were made. That secondary record is contained in the New Testament.

From what I've been able to find, the Protestant idea that Scripture is the only source and guide of Christian faith comes from the 6th of Anglican Articles of Religion. It says, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary, so htat whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man."

That Article itself is unScriptural. Again, the last verse of St. John's Gospel tells us that not all concerning our Lord;s work is contained in Scripture. And we've already seen that St.Paul tells us that much of Christian teaching is contained in oral Traditions that must be kept and passed down by "faithful men who will be fit to teach others".

Most of your points are dubious and moot.  It doesn't refute most of my statements. You bring up Deuteronomy 18:5 as if it is going to come to me as shock, me being a jew? You're going to have a rough time agruing that this is the Apostolic Oral Tradition because most Orthodox Jews (aka Religious Jews) will say this is the Oral Law a la the Talmud.  Which you should read sometime and you'll understand why I'm saying this.  Unless you're saying that RCC Church has taken up there this which is laughable after our discourse on the heresey of Supercessession/Replacement Theology.

You seem to use certain Scripture out of convenience even when it doesn't line up with you over all theology.  1 Corinthians 14:33 " G-D is not the author of confusion."  The problem here is not with G-D, but with us finite people.  People have taken great liberty in interpreting what the bible says.  G-D did not give us HIS written word to be a source of contention or confusion.  G-D gave us HIS word in written form, so that it would be available in order for everyone to know HIS truth and have the opportunity to. HE wrote it in such a manner as to try to prevent it from being complicated nor misleading.  In 2 Peter 1:20 "prophecy of Scripture is not of any private interpretation."  Scripture can be understood by all.  No one group or person or church has a lock up on G-D's word.  This is would just be Gnostism.

The problem comes with sinful and fallible men have ignored what the bible literally says and stated what they 'think' it says, their opinion, or what it means to them.  This is not acceptable hermeneutics.  Scripture is not what we think it says or what it means to us, but rather what G-D plainly states.

The other problem is English. The average English speak person's vocabulary is roughly between 25,000 to 30,000 English words (especially if they've gone to University if not its a little lower than this) out of over a half a million words.  English is a functional language, since we use less than 10% of the words it can become difficult to accurately translate other languages into English, especially when it comes to ancient text languages.  If I couldn't read Greek/Hebrew (fairly well which I can) I would rather read Scripture in another language other than English (German, I've heard is a good language to read it in, Leauki, your thoughts?)

Now, by no means am I saying that Scriptures in English are inaccurate.  I guess at times I feel that translators poorly chose a word or maybe they did because of their theology.  An example of this is Romans 10:4.  Most translations say something to this extent 'Jesus was the end of the law.'  When something ends it means ceases to exist.  If you take what Paul is saying in context and look at 9:30 leading up 10:4 you see in the Greek and in the English words like pursue, obstacle, stumbled.  Those Greek words have an Olympic flavor as in running a race.  Then you come to 10:4.  So you're running the race there are going to obstacles that you need to overcome and not stumble upon and then it ends (telos is the Greek word there).  A better word instead of end would be goal.  You can also see telos in 1 Timothy 1:5 and 1 Peter 1:9.  Most translation are mixed between end and goal for those 2 Scriptures.

I am saying all that to say this if you're going to try to use a word (pun intended) to back your point up you've got to be only fooling yourself for I'm not laughing here.

What is this Protestant Oral Tradition you keep talking about? I would love to read it, because I'm a scholar and reader would love to increase my knowledge in that area.

Well, first Apostolic Oral Tradition isn't oral law, so there is absolutely, no, nada, none what so ever comparison to the Talmud. Aye. No way Jose to the Talmud! The Torah is Divine truth, the Talmud is well, is just fallible man's opinion. Nuff said as far as the Talmud is concerned!

Apostolic oral Tradition is Divine Tradition in that it is divinely safeguarded from error concerning Faith and morals. The Chruch expresses from time to time the exact sense of some doctrine contained either in Scripture or Tradition. As Divine Tradition can never be opposed to Scripture, and Catholic dogma can never be opposed to either Divine Tradition or Scripture, there can never be any question of placing more reliance on one than of the other.

What happens so often in these discussions between KFC and I is that she tries to sell the Protestant doctrines arrived at by private interpretation of Scripture of the Protestant forefathers. The main ones are Sola Scriptura, that the Bible is the only source and guide of Christian teachings and doctrines;  Sola Fides, that we are justified by Faith Alone and  "Once Saved, Always Saved", being born again by belief (faith alone) in Jesus as their personal Savior, believers can know for sure they are saved.  All of which are not found or supported in Scripture, but rather handed down over the centuries by Protestant teachers through Protestant oral tradition. I defend against those with Church teachings becasue I would most certainly place more reliance on the Church than upon the private interpretation of Scripture of some Protestant forefather's that's been handed down through Protestant oral tradition.  

the people's party posts:

lula posts:

The 6th of ANglican Articles of Religion is an example of Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura or "Scripture alone" which is neither Christ's nor Apostolic teaching. Sola Scriptura alleges that the Bible as interpreteted by the individual is the only source of religious authority and is the sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. From the 15th century on,  Sola Scriptura has been taught by Protestant oral tradition. How? Sola Scriptura was originated and taught first by Luther and from him, passed down to other Protestant forefathers.

By Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura which is one of the foundational beliefs across all Protestantism, a Protestant denies that there is any other source of religious authority (as Apostolic Tradition).

The Catholic on the other hand, holds the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Chruch in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation...both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture and the oral or unwritten Word called Sacred or Apostolic Tradition. Catholics believe Scripture and Tradition are the 2 sources of Christian teachings in faith and morals.

Other points specific to your question what is Protestant oral tradition.....

here are a few posts that set up my explanation of what Protestant oral traditon (POT) is;

whisper2 posts 670

whisper2 posts; 672

kfc posts;

Regarding the highlighted and KFC's denial of adhering to Protestant oral tradition.

As to the first part of whisper2's statement, there is absolutely nothing found in Scripture that backs, supports or teaches KFC's dogmatic assertion that she can absolutely know for sure she's going to heaven. She believes that becasue she's been handed down that teaching, now doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved" from Protestant oral tradition hereafter designated as POT.

Here's another example Lula of you asserting the RCC over everyone else yet again, even tho I've deleted such articles over and over.  You keep doing it.  I've asked you time and time to stick with scripture but everytime you run to debating Protestants vs the RCC.   When you do so, you're in effect telling me you have lost the argument.  No matter how much you scream the RCC is the "right church" or "God's Holy Church"  it rings hollow without the backing of scripture. 

You are acting exactly like the Pharisees that Christ admonished.  Christ debated them and showed them time and time again using  the scriptures, their error.  They were so incenced they had him killed.   Again read Matt 23.  The whole chapter. 

I've told you over and over there is NO such thing as POT yet you keep saying there is with one breath and then speak of the thousands of totally diff Protestant churches in another.  What else can I say? You believe it to be true even tho you contradict your own self.  I can't help you if you can't be corrected.    You do the same to Leauki when it comes to the Jewish faith.  You act as if you're the authority on our own faith. 

Everything in your above post has nothing to do with scripture seen by the fact that you can't back any of it up outside of your traditions. 

The RCC traditions are NO different than the traditions of the Pharisees of Jesus' times.  They are traditions of men.  Yes, men.  The Pharisees (leaders as well as the RCC leaders)  were mere men. even tho they strutted their stuff as well.   There is absolutely NO difference between the two groups.   The RCC leaders lord it over the people just as did the Pharisees of old.  They put burdens, laws, creeds on the people that are not supposed to be there wrapping them up as traditions. 

Like baptism is necessary for salvation (instead of circumcision which the Jews demanded).  No meat on Fridays?  Remember that?  How about you can't eat before communion?  Still doing that?   Most of the RCC traditions are passed down from one man to another and has NOTHING to do with what Jesus commanded or what was written. 

It's also clear (as was the Pharisees) that there's one set of rules/laws/creeds for the "little people" and another for the influential (like today's politicians, world leaders and fellow  crooked or perverse church Popes, Priests and Bishops). 

Heck they even have white elephant sales in their churches doing business in the same place they (supposedly) worship just like the Jews did in the synagogues.  Business as usual.  At least the RCC has the benefit of reading the scriptures which the Jews did not back then.  So who will be held more accountable? 

There is NO difference.  They even have their "outside" beliefs to go along with the scriptures...addiing to the scriptures.  The Jews have the Talmud and Mishnah and the Catholics have their Oral Traditions and Catechism.  NO DIFF!  

I don't have ANY of this.  I don't have an Oral Tradition or a Catechism to go by.   ONLY the scriptures.  You even admitted as much when you said the Jews and the RCC are alike in that they have Oral Traditions. 

On one hand you say: 

and on anther you say: 

Which is it?  Sola Scriptura or POT?  Can't be both.  Can't you see  YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY AND CONSTANTLY CONTRADICTING YOURSELF. 

Written in both the OT and the NT

"For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add to these things God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book.  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in the book."    Rev 22:18-19  

You shall NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminsh anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."  Deut 4:2

KFC,

Let's LOOK AT IT STEP BY STEP.

Tradition, whether Catholic or Protestant, is the passing down of teachings. Oral Tradition is the passing down of these teachings by mouth.

Here is Tradition Scripturally....

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word (oral), or by our epistle." (written). 2Thess. 2:14.

"Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast HEARD of me in faith, and in the love which is in Jesus Christ. keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost." 2Tim. 1: 13-14.

"The things which thou hast HEARD of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also." 2Tim2:2

Sola Scriptura IS Protestant oral tradition. "Sola Fides" IS POT and so is "Once Saved, Always Saved", POT.

Sola Scriptura aka "the Bible only" is the Protestant doctrine (belief) that the Bible is the sole or only rule, source and guide of faith.

Sola Scriptura is widely taught throughout the various different sects and denominations within Protestantism.....this is passing down the teaching...a la Protestant oral tradition.

Now,  let's apply 2tHESS. 2:14 to Protestant oral tradition of Sola Scriptura.....

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word (oral), or by our epistle." (written). 2Thess. 2:14.

How many times have you taught on these pages of JU that we all should stand fast and hold on to the POT of "the Bible only"? You enforce  Proteastant oral tradition of Sola Scriptura to the point of deleting all citations I make if they do not come from Sola Scriptura, the Bible only.

Your message ad nauseum to me is.... Forget CC teachings, forget papal and Chruch teaching authority, forget Apostolic Tradition, don't come here with any of these for .....it's the Bible alone.....Sola Scriptura .....it's you preaching  and teaching Protestant oral tradition.   

Sola Scriptura is POT.

What's more there are sub teachings that come under Sola Scripture. 

When you teach, "the Bible interprets itself" or "the Church is all believers", then the hearer has just collided with Protestant oral tradition.

And if it is as you say, then I'd love to have you debate that with St.Paul.

Do you really believe that St.Paul would tell us to "stand fast and hold the traditions which we have learned, if they were the same as those of the Pharisee's of Jesus' times?

Yes, Sacred Tradition is Christ teaching men...those men are called Christ's Apostles and Tradition taught by the Apostles to their legitimate successors. Apostolic Tradition and their legitimate successors is through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that Christ promised to His Chruch until the end of time. It's all there in Scripture.  

no, you can't say I'm preaching sola scripture and then POT in the same breath.  Sola scriptura is sola scriptura.  Nothing else is needed.  There is NO SUCH THING as Apostolic Successors.  There is NO SUCH THING as replacement theology.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING that the RCC is God's church on earth.  There are only three things involved in one's salvation..

1.  The Holy Spirit.

2.  The Soul Winner

3.  The Word of God

God speaks yet again.  It's NOT 2:14 but 15-17...???? 

The whole point here is NOT traditions but the fact that he didn't want the Thessalonians to be weak or vacillating but to hold their spiritual ground and to keep their grip on the truth.  That's the point.  Not the traditions!  Either written or oral.  This is a conclusion to a discussion with many exhortations to the Thessalonians. 

The concept of tradition has been loaded down with a lot of cultural and ecclesiastical baggage over the centuries.  Paul did NOT have in mind a body of extrabiblical tradition (like the Judiazers and the RCC) that is equal to God's revelation in Scripture.  in Fact, the Bible condemns such human tradition.  The Greek word for traditions literally means "things handed down" and refers here to divine revelation.  The Thessalonians were to hold fast to what God had handed down both orally and in writing through Paul or from the other Apostles but it would not go past what was written.  In other words he's not going to give them something orally that contradicts the written word. 

What you're doing is transferring the authority of what was written here to the RCC and you can't do that.  There are NO successors.  To be an Apostle certain criteria had to be made and no one can meet that criteria after the first century.  Many of the traditions of the RCC directly either contradict scripture or have no origins in scripture.  They are no diff than the Pharisees of the first century all over again. 

lula posts:

KFC POSTS:

i WROTE:

POT is a manufactured, unBiblical body of teaching that has been passed on by Protestant teachers from one generation to the next.

Now, in that sentence, replace POT with Sola Scriptura, is a manufactured, unBIblical body of teaching that has been passed on by Protestant teachers from one generation to the next.

Now it is time for you to put up....

Where is "Sola Scriptura" found in Scripture? Where are the passages that teach  that the Holy Bible is the sole rule, guide and source of Christian faith?

You act some how that Paul would some how agree with you.  Which I find highly laughable!  1 Corithians 2:2 'For I am determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and HIM crucified.'

Paul wouldn't accept your heretical doctorine of replacement theology.  Here is Paul's thoughts Romans 11:14-15 'If somehow I might move to jealousy my country men and save them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world , what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?'  Paul also says 'The blessings that has come upon the Gentiles, what a greater blessings will come when the Jews come in the fulliness.'  What was Paul willing to give up for his fellow Israelites? Romans 9:1-5 'I am telling the truth in Jesus Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.  For I COULD WISH THAT I MYSELF WERE ACCURSED, SEPARATED FROM THE MESSIAH FOR THE SAKE OF MY BROTHERS, MY KINSMEN, according to the flesh , who are Israelities....' For Paul would know that the covenant with Israel will never end (Jeremiah31:36-37).  Does the sun still give light? Yes! Is there still a fixed order of mooon and stars for light by night? Yes!  Well I guess its still on.  Hence why Paul's intent was to make them jealous.

That erroneous teaching would go down the drain. Paul doesn't smoke 'POT' either so your right about that.  You keep saying that 'once save always saved' is 'POT'.  There is something that the RCC tried to pull called indulgences which when wealthy men would buy these indulgences this would ensure their salvation.  Those poor poppers were all screwed becaue their salvation wasn't secure.  This predates your 'POT' theory on that. 

Now onto your the pope, monks, and nuns.  Does the living G-D's religion have any of these? Negative.  This all have pagan origin.  Oh really? Yes, let's look at some quick examples: Dalai Lama means what: most high monk.  Nuns were Pagan temple prostitutes, covering themselves to keep from being recognized, who kept watch over the sacred fires.  In Zoroastrian ritual the men would wear black robes which got ashes all over them to keep the fire burning.  Monks wore read ceremonial robes symbolic of the fire fo the sun.  Pagans would burn their dead and the ashes and smoke would blacken their clothes.  Ashes becaome a symbol of mourning.  No, I'm not saying any of those people are bad or evil.  If you look at roaries they came about in 1090.  This started with a girl name 'Fatima' who saw an imagine of Mary and Mary gave the beads to her.  Mary worship came about around 400s.  Muslims and Buddhist have beads as well. 

The Original Roman Empire Flag had on it Mithras, the sun god.  Hold that thought.  Missa, is latin for departed and was spoken at the end of Catholic mass so it seems that the liturgical procedure stems from that.  Mass existed before RCC for it was what the pagan priests of Mithraism called their mass of the dead.  This was a 'sacra-mental' ritual of animal and human sacrifices on an indoor altar with the pagan worshippers assembled in 2 rows of benches with a center aisle (wow looks familiar).  Head pagan priest would lead this on the other end.  The word abracadabra was used during the Mithraic Mass wehn they changed a sun-shaped disc of bread into the sun and ate it (wow sounds familiar).  The Catholic priest does the same thing except he says 'hoc est corpus meum' which came about the phrase hocus-pocus which was used for any sleight of hand. The Mandaeans (Augustine was one before he converted.  These are sun worshippers.) also had something similar to the 7 sacraments.  They had baptism because they felt that baptism was necessary to fend off impurity.  They had communion sacrements with a disc representing the sun which was offered in the rememberance of the dead (this sounds familiar).  Man and Woman would take an unbreakable vow.  Priest had a holy order.

I could go on but my whole point is this why don't you pull out the plank of paganism in your own eye out first.

Lula, 

The P.P. is absolutely right.  The RCC is a mixture of paganism and Christianity mixed in that's why tradition is so important to the RCC. 

While making much of tradition the RC are never really able to define tradition.  What do Roman apologists mean when they assert the authority of tradition?  Historically they have not agreed among themselves about the nature and content of tradition. 

For example some Roman apologists have said that tradition does not add anything to Scripture.  But almost all RCC apologists after the Council of Trent argued that tradition does add to the Scriptures.  Some RCC apologists believe that all binding tradition was taught by the Apostles while others believe that tradition evolves and develops thru the centuries of the church.  it is impossible to know what the real RCC position is on this matter.  The Reformers discovered that tradition contradicted tradition.

Vatican II said :  "It is clear, therefore that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church in accord with God's most wise design are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." 

Basically if you listen well you will notice that the real authority for Rome is neither Scripture nor tradition but the church.  Because only the church can tell you what is Scripture and what it teaches. 

The Catechism teaches that the faithful must "read the Scripture within 'the living tradition of the whole Church'" (CCC113).  The Catechism at this point quotes " a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word."  (CCC113)

So basically tradiiton is not only made equal to Scripture but it becomes the TRUE Scripture, written not in documents but mystically within the Church herself.  When the Church speaks it is as if it were the voice of God giving the only true meaning to the words of the "documents and records."  Therefore traiditon utterly supplants and supercedes Scripture. 

The RCC not only believes in the replacement theory in that they are taking the position of the Jews, they have even take the place of Christ himself. 

Roman theologian John Eck said "The Scriptures are not authentic, except by the authority of the church." 

Really?  How odd because I don't get that from the easiest plainest reading of the scriptures.  In fact right in the first chapter of Revelation is a promise given to any who reads the contents of this book.  Just Psalm 119 alone contradicts that statement.

Pope Pius IX said at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870 "I am tradition."  What arrogance! He said what the rest of them were thinking like Wilson did when he  said "you lie" during Obama's speech the other day.     

For the RCC the only real authority is the church; sola ecclesia.  The reformers started to figure this out when they carefully studied the bible.  They began to discover that tradition contradicted the Bible.  For example just a few:

1.  The Bible teaches that all have sinned except Jesus (Rom 3:10-12, Heb 4:15) but RCC tradition says that Mary was sinless.

2.  The Bible teaches that Christ's sacrifice of himself was once and for all (Heb 7:27,9:28, 10:10) but tradition says that the priest sacrifices Chrst on the altar at mass.

3.  The Bible says that all Christians are saints and priests but tradition says they are only special castes within the RCC.

4.  The Bible says that Jesus is the ONLY Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5) but tradition says Mary is also a mediator.

5.  The Bible says that all Christians should know they have eternal life (1 John 5:13) but tradition says that all Christians cannot know they have eternal life. 

The Pharisees also placed tradition on an equal footing with Scripture.  In effect they made tradition superior to Scripture because Scripture was interpreted by tradition and therefore made subject to it.  Same as the RCC is doing today and has been for centuries. 

Whenever tradition is elevated to a high level of authority it evenutally becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture.  Jesus made this point when he confronted the Jewish leaders.  He showed that in many cases their traditons actually nullifed Scripture.  He rebuked them in very harsh terms.  Mark 7:6-13

Romes argument boils down to this:  we must believe Rome because Rome says so.