COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

Christians, Sinner ba ako pag sa Bible lang ako nag base ng Faith?

jeric92002jeric92002 Member PEx Rookie ⭐
If Yes, Why?
If No, do you believe that the Bible is sole authority for every believer in terms of norms and practice? Why?
«1

Comments

  • iskrotumiskrotum Ako si King Kong! PExer
    Hindi!! Sin is in the eye of the beholder! Kung katoliko ka, siguro nga ituturing na kasalanan yan because they also believe in tradition.

    Sabi nga ni Fafa Fablito:

    1 Corinthians 4:6 Brothers, I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what the Scriptures say

    Ano ba ang tinuturing niyo scripture? Diva bible?

    Pero siyempre, may ibang verse ang mga katoliko dyan:


    Sabi rin ni Fafa Fabling!

    2 Thessalonians 2:15
    So then, brothers, stand firm, and cling to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

    What the fact??! Magulo!!

    Kaya totoo yung sinasabi kong, "Sin is in the eye of the beholder."
  • TotnakTotnak Theistic Apologist PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    before anything else, welcome back Jeric!!! tagal mong nawala ah.....

    back to your question, are you sinning if you base your faith on the Bible alone.....the answer is NO....there's nothing wrong in having faith with the God of the Bible, right?

    Now, do I believe that the Bible is sole authority for every believer in terms of norms and practice? the answer is another NO......you see, the Apostles were sent out by Christ to Preach and not to write, right? thus, by limiting the basis of a believer's norms and practice only to those that were written is tantamount to saying that everything that were taught by the Apostles were accurately captured in written form....AS IN EVERYTHING.....something we all know that isn't accurate at all......why? think about this....

    how many Apostles did Jesus originally had? 12 pre-Passion, 11 post-Passion (deducting Judas Iscariot)......how many of the 11 had written epistles or gospels that are included in the Bible we own today? Matthew, John, Peter, James.....who else? if everything that were preached by all the 11 apostles post-Passion and Resurrection were written down, then why do we only have 2 Gospels from 2 apostles and 2 epistles from another 2? strange isn't it?

    unless of course if you are saying that the things preached and taught by the remaining 7 apostles were not worthy of inclusion in the Canon or that their teachings basically mirrors the exact same thing in the exact same words by the first 4 whose works ended up being part of the Bible we have today........but given that the Gospels of John and Matthew differs in styles and audience already, I doubt that the remaining 7 would have exact replica of the same writings.......if that's the case, which one are they going to replicate? that of John's or the one by Matthew?

    SOLA SCRIPTURA clearly fails if submitted to the above test......:bashful:
  • With or without the bible, under Christian theology, everybody is a sinner.

    jeric92002 wrote: »
    If Yes, Why?
    If No, do you believe that the Bible is sole authority for every believer in terms of norms and practice? Why?
  • SmartDessaSmartDessa Things divide;Christ unites PExer
    jeric92002 wrote: »
    If Yes, Why?
    If No, do you believe that the Bible is sole authority for every believer in terms of norms and practice? Why?

    no, you are not a sinner because you follow Sola scriptura

    you are a sinner because of original sin.


    I believe that tradition is not an authority for every believer in terms of norms and practice, because Christ and Paul look down upon it.
  • TotnakTotnak Theistic Apologist PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    SmartDessa wrote: »
    no, you are not a sinner because you follow Sola scriptura

    you are a sinner because of original sin.


    I believe that tradition is not an authority for every believer in terms of norms and practice, because Christ and Paul look down upon it.

    Please tell us, what "traditions" did Jesus and Paul looked down?

    was it the same "tradition" mentioned below:

    "And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
  • SmartDessaSmartDessa Things divide;Christ unites PExer
    Totnak wrote: »
    Please tell us, what "traditions" did Jesus and Paul looked down?

    was it the same "tradition" mentioned below:

    "And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible

    ^oops, sorry bout that, what I mean is religious tradition
  • tontontonton Let's stop and talk awhile. PExer
    With or without the bible, under Christian theology, everybody is a sinner.

    Oo nga naman.
  • TotnakTotnak Theistic Apologist PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    SmartDessa wrote: »
    ^oops, sorry bout that, what I mean is religious tradition

    are you saying that Jesus and Paul looked down on the "Jewish religious' traditions" then?
  • SmartDessaSmartDessa Things divide;Christ unites PExer
    Totnak wrote: »
    are you saying that Jesus and Paul looked down on the "Jewish religious' traditions" then?

    not limited to the Jewish religious traditions.
  • TotnakTotnak Theistic Apologist PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    SmartDessa wrote: »
    not limited to the Jewish religious traditions.

    how do you differentiate those "traditions" from the "traditions" mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 then?
  • SmartDessaSmartDessa Things divide;Christ unites PExer
    Totnak wrote: »
    how do you differentiate those "traditions" from the "traditions" mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 then?

    the word tradition can mean 2 things, it can mean tradition as what is tradition's meaning is, but it can also mean something that was only handed down to us.

    if we look at 1 Thes. 3:6 & 1 Cor. 11:2, the key word here is imitate not tradition, what Paul wanted us to do is to imitate him who imitated the Lord. What Paul imitates is what Christ has passed down to him, and what Paul wants us to imitate is what he passed down to us that was also passed down to him. With this, there is nothing really traditional about it. traditional in a sense like having to believe and treasure artifacts, tradition like parading a graven image in streets, fiestas, christmas etc.

    Strictly speaking, the only tradition handed down to us by Christ is the Breaking of the Bread, which is the remembrance of His death.

    the 1st real problem with tradition is when a tradition cannot trace its roots to Christ.
    If Christ is imitated by Paul, and early christians imitates Paul and the apostles, and so on and on, until us today. Then we can say that the valid tradition we have today is only Christ.

    can you find most of the Roman Catholic traditions in Christ?

    the 2nd real problem is when these traditions are separated from Christ and the scriptures.
    for how can something that is passed down be different from Christ's ways and the Word? which are supposed to be the source of these traditions? More problematically, is when these traditions are given greater importance than Christ.


    if you are trying to validate the Roman Catholic traditions like the numerous fiestas they have, then sorry but I don't think Christ handed the practice down to the apostles and then to us.
  • D_ApoloD_Apolo RoT's resident lurker PExer
    SmartDessa wrote: »
    the word tradition can mean 2 things, it can mean tradition as what is tradition's meaning is, but it can also mean something that was only handed down to us.

    if we look at 1 Thes. 3:6 & 1 Cor. 11:2, the key word here is imitate not tradition, what Paul wanted us to do is to imitate him who imitated the Lord. What Paul imitates is what Christ has passed down to him, and what Paul wants us to imitate is what he passed down to us that was also passed down to him. With this, there is nothing really traditional about it. traditional in a sense like having to believe and treasure artifacts, tradition like parading a graven image in streets, fiestas, christmas etc.

    Strictly speaking, the only tradition handed down to us by Christ is the Breaking of the Bread, which is the remembrance of His death.

    the 1st real problem with tradition is when a tradition cannot trace its roots to Christ.
    If Christ is imitated by Paul, and early christians imitates Paul and the apostles, and so on and on, until us today. Then we can say that the valid tradition we have today is only Christ.

    can you find most of the Roman Catholic traditions in Christ?

    the 2nd real problem is when these traditions are separated from Christ and the scriptures.
    for how can something that is passed down be different from Christ's ways and the Word? which are supposed to be the source of these traditions? More problematically, is when these traditions are given greater importance than Christ.


    if you are trying to validate the Roman Catholic traditions like the numerous fiestas they have, then sorry but I don't think Christ handed the practice down to the apostles and then to us.

    Unfortunately, your above explanation failed in so many ways. Let me outline how each of your points failed.

    When you said that "the word tradition can mean 2 things", could you please tell us what were your basis for saying such? I would assume that it's the scripture, yes? Given that it's the scripture, could you please cite the verses or passages that makes such differentiation? The last time I checked, the Bible only mentioned two kinds of traditions: traditions of man (Mark 7:1-13, Matt. 15:1-14, Colossians 2:8, 1 Peter 1:18,19) and divine apostolic traditions (1 Corinthians 11:2, 1 Corinthians 11:23, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 1 Corinthians 11:1,2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6).

    You said that the focus of 1 Corinthians 11 is verse 1 which talks about Paul asking the Corinthians to "imitate" him the way he is imitating Christ. But does the actual epistle really meant it to be that way?

    You see, verse 2 contained a very important passage wherein Paul "praised" the Corinthians for doing something". what is that something? Let's read.

    "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

    if Paul meant to highlight just the first verse, then why did he specifically mentioned the reason for praising the Corinthians? Paul's epistle to the Corinthians clearly gives credit where it is due and it was because of their efforts to keep the ordinances, which was translated as "traditions" on other bible versions.


    Now, it is also quite wrong to limit divine traditions to just the breaking of bread that was done by Jesus during the Passover. Why? Because Jesus Himself took part in several Jewish traditions that He doesn't consider as hypocritical. Remember this one?

    "And he came to Nazareth, where he was brought up: and he went into the synagogue, according to his custom, on the sabbath day; and he rose up to read."

    Isn't the above clearly a tradition that Jesus Himself observed? How about this?

    "And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch."

    It's pretty obvious that you really have a very shallow understanding of the Scriptures. For if you do really knew it by heart, then you wouldn't have said that "the breaking of the bread" is the only tradition that Jesus handed down to us.

    The above illustration already renders the rest of your post invalid and meaningless. But let me continue to educate you.

    You argued that "early christians imitates Paul and the apostles". Now, given that you are advocating for Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone, could you please explain to us then where in the Bible could you find the passage affirming that all of the early Christians "imitated" Paul and the apostles? Outside of Pauls epistles to the Corinthians, I can't find anything that supposedly supports your contention. Now, if it's not in the bible, is it safe to say that it's unbiblical?

    Also, you argued that traditions should have been passed down from Christ to the Apostles to the early Christian communities, right? Could you please enlighten us then as to what those traditions are and where did you base your answer? Surely, the scripture doesn't have a list of it.

    And lastly, could you please answer the question by my brother in Christ, Totnak, on this very same thread? let me repost it for you.
    Totnak wrote:
    if everything that were preached by all the 11 apostles post-Passion and Resurrection were written down, then why do we only have 2 Gospels from 2 apostles and 2 epistles from another 2?
  • Walang matuwid sa lupa na gumagawa ng mabuti na hindi nagkakasala - Ecclesiastes
  • SmartDessaSmartDessa Things divide;Christ unites PExer
    D_Apolo wrote: »
    Unfortunately, your above explanation failed in so many ways. Let me outline how each of your points failed.

    When you said that "the word tradition can mean 2 things", could you please tell us what were your basis for saying such? I would assume that it's the scripture, yes? Given that it's the scripture, could you please cite the verses or passages that makes such differentiation? The last time I checked, the Bible only mentioned two kinds of traditions: traditions of man (Mark 7:1-13, Matt. 15:1-14, Colossians 2:8, 1 Peter 1:18,19) and divine apostolic traditions (1 Corinthians 11:2, 1 Corinthians 11:23, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 1 Corinthians 11:1,2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6).

    these are the verses that I am pertaining to

    if you compare the two kinds of "tradition" you defined, the tradition of men are in a form of practice, something that is being done just for the sake of following the old ways, honoring the past.

    the apostolic tradition you describe are hardly traditions, they were just things passed down to us by the apostles, in fact, the whole epistle speaks about the Body life, the church life, it simply teaches us what our lives as christians should be in the church. Dealing with the gifts, head covering, marriage, these are not traditions but the way of life we have. The way of life the Lord wanted us to have which He passed down to His apsotles.

    for me, these are not merely tradition, if you will agree, how about we identify these 2 kinds of tradition you have, one being is tradition, and the other as "things handed down to us"?
    You said that the focus of 1 Corinthians 11 is verse 1 which talks about Paul asking the Corinthians to "imitate" him the way he is imitating Christ. But does the actual epistle really meant it to be that way?

    You see, verse 2 contained a very important passage wherein Paul "praised" the Corinthians for doing something". what is that something? Let's read.

    "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

    if Paul meant to highlight just the first verse, then why did he specifically mentioned the reason for praising the Corinthians? Paul's epistle to the Corinthians clearly gives credit where it is due and it was because of their efforts to keep the ordinances, which was translated as "traditions" on other bible versions.

    the "practice" that is referred to here is to imitate Christ. if we read the passage in context.
    and since Christ is the Head, and the church is the Body, so is the husband head of the wife, in such women practice head covering, and men should not cover their head.

    I don't think that Paul passed down to us fiestas, christimas, all saints day etc.
    you can't find them in 1 Cor. or in 2 Thes. either.

    btw, Paul said, Christ, imitate Christ, meaning the things that the Lord did as a Jew are not included, only as the Christ.
    Now, it is also quite wrong to limit divine traditions to just the breaking of bread that was done by Jesus during the Passover. Why? Because Jesus Himself took part in several Jewish traditions that He doesn't consider as hypocritical. Remember this one?

    "And he came to Nazareth, where he was brought up: and he went into the synagogue, according to his custom, on the sabbath day; and he rose up to read."

    Isn't the above clearly a tradition that Jesus Himself observed?

    He did that with respect to the Jewish custom.
    It's the same principle Paul did when He did the same thing during his early ministry. (Acts 17:2)

    I wouldn't say that they are practicing or holding fast the Jewish tradition.

    I don't think the Lord wants us to raze down pagan idols when we enter into a pagan's house.

    it is the same notion that the Lord gave when He was baptized by John the baptist.
    He was merely fulfilling all righteousness.

    question is, did they continued to teach in the synagogues for the rest of their lives? they have to do that if they are indeed practicing this custom as a tradition.
    How about this?

    "And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch."

    It's pretty obvious that you really have a very shallow understanding of the Scriptures. For if you do really knew it by heart, then you wouldn't have said that "the breaking of the bread" is the only tradition that Jesus handed down to us.

    The above illustration already renders the rest of your post invalid and meaningless.

    the feast of dedication is handed down to the Lord since He was a Jew, it is just proper that He do this custom, but the Lord did not handed the practice to us during when He was living, nor when He was already asecnded.

    in fact, the Lord in His death, abolished this ordinances
    remember? "circumcision or uncircumscion"

    so no, my post are not invalid, and meaningless.
    simply, having done something doesnt make you handing it down as well.

    my lolo was a chain smoker, but he didn't handed down that to us
    But let me continue to educate you.

    wow! how convenient.
    You argued that "early christians imitates Paul and the apostles". Now, given that you are advocating for Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone, could you please explain to us then where in the Bible could you find the passage affirming that all of the early Christians "imitated" Paul and the apostles? Outside of Pauls epistles to the Corinthians, I can't find anything that supposedly supports your contention. Now, if it's not in the bible, is it safe to say that it's unbiblical?

    I don't think we have crossed our path regarding Sola Scriptura, and if we did, you should know that I do not fully adhere to it.
    Cid and Mr. T knows that.
    Also, you argued that traditions should have been passed down from Christ to the Apostles to the early Christian communities, right? Could you please enlighten us then as to what those traditions are and where did you base your answer? Surely, the scripture doesn't have a list of it.

    I would say practices, not tradition

    the most important practices are:
    1. Calling upon the Name of the Lord
    2. breaking of the bread
    3. water baptism by immersion.
    if everything that were preached by all the 11 apostles post-Passion and Resurrection were written down, then why do we only have 2 Gospels from 2 apostles and 2 epistles from another 2?.

    that's OT.

    but sure I will answer, but after this, no further.

    the real contention between pro and anti sola scriptura, is NOT about where to find the source of all present teachings, all the arguments that was done in the other threads is to find the source of each teaching, the negative forces that tradition is one of the sources of present teachings and refutes the pro that the Bible is not enough source, and this is by using 1 Thes 2:15, which says that the source of teachings can be of written and in verbal form, and it's the correct verse, indeed teachings come from both oral and written sources handed down to us, but the problem is, the anti wrongly interpreted Sola scriptura being the Bible as the sole authority as source of teachings, it is not the sole authority to contain all the teachings per se, in fact if you go to wiki, the article mentions that it does not deny other authorities.

    The authority of Sola Scriptura is taking the written Word of God as means to check the teachings we have today, no christian can deny that the written Word of God is holy and infallible, so it is just right that we can refer to the Word to correct teachings, using the Bible as a check whether a certain teaching is in-line or opposed to what was written.

    sadly, many of the traditions we have today if not all are significantly opposed to what was written in the Word of God.

    sorry, I did not answer the question because obviously, it is out of place.
  • D_ApoloD_Apolo RoT's resident lurker PExer
    SmartDessa wrote: »
    these are the verses that I am pertaining to

    if you compare the two kinds of "tradition" you defined, the tradition of men are in a form of practice, something that is being done just for the sake of following the old ways, honoring the past.

    the apostolic tradition you describe are hardly traditions, they were just things passed down to us by the apostles, in fact, the whole epistle speaks about the Body life, the church life, it simply teaches us what our lives as christians should be in the church. Dealing with the gifts, head covering, marriage, these are not traditions but the way of life we have. The way of life the Lord wanted us to have which He passed down to His apsotles.

    for me, these are not merely tradition, if you will agree, how about we identify these 2 kinds of tradition you have, one being is tradition, and the other as "things handed down to us"?

    You said "these are the verses that I am pertaining to" yet you didn't provide any verses at all. Isn't that contradictory?

    Also, I can't find any distinct differences with the way you described "traditions". You lumped them all up as practices that were handed down to us be it from Christ to the Apostles to us OR be it from the old practices. You failed to substantially differentiate them.
    the "practice" that is referred to here is to imitate Christ. if we read the passage in context.
    and since Christ is the Head, and the church is the Body, so is the husband head of the wife, in such women practice head covering, and men should not cover their head.

    I don't think that Paul passed down to us fiestas, christimas, all saints day etc.
    you can't find them in 1 Cor. or in 2 Thes. either.

    btw, Paul said, Christ, imitate Christ, meaning the things that the Lord did as a Jew are not included, only as the Christ.

    You are guilty of selective eisegesis. You see, verse 2 can't be any clearer in describing what "practice" Paul was praising the Corinthians for. It was the "keeping of the ordinance" as delivered by Paul to them. He didn't praised the Corinthians for imitating him. In fact, he was asking the Corinthians to imitate him and not praising them for imitating him. Those are two different things that you are trying hard to equate with each other. Sadly, it's not working.

    A contextual exegesis of the whole chapter would lead us to the same conclusion. As for your assertion that the succeeding verses from verse 3 onwards were the traditions that Paul has passed down to them, this is another wrong eisegesis. Verses 3 to 34 was an admonishment from Paul with regards to the seeming problems amongst the Corinthians at that time. He was instructing the Corinthians on how to carry themselves during gatherings to celebrate feasts at the Church and not to abuse those feasts. To say that Paul was praising them for doing those things is WRONG. Verses 3 to 34 shows how Paul telling the Corinthians the right things to do when gathering at the Church of God.

    This only proves how wrong your understanding of the whole 1 Corinthians 11 is.
    He did that with respect to the Jewish custom.
    It's the same principle Paul did when He did the same thing during his early ministry. (Acts 17:2)

    I wouldn't say that they are practicing or holding fast the Jewish tradition.

    I don't think the Lord wants us to raze down pagan idols when we enter into a pagan's house.

    it is the same notion that the Lord gave when He was baptized by John the baptist.
    He was merely fulfilling all righteousness.

    question is, did they continued to teach in the synagogues for the rest of their lives? they have to do that if they are indeed practicing this custom as a tradition.

    Again, another wrong assertion on your part.

    Jesus followed the Jewish customs and did not, even once, preached about abolishing them. You see, the fact the Jesus followed those Jewish customs without any whims only shows that He's not against the continuation of those traditions as long as it doesn't go against His teachings.

    It's wrong to ask whether the Apostles continued to teach in the Jewish synagogues because we all know that after the Ascension and Pentecost, the Apostles preached the Gospel of Christ and not the Mosaic laws. But if you'll consider the paralellism with the Apostles going and teaching to each early Christian Churches, then it's pretty clear that the practice was continued.
    the feast of dedication is handed down to the Lord since He was a Jew, it is just proper that He do this custom, but the Lord did not handed the practice to us during when He was living, nor when He was already asecnded.

    in fact, the Lord in His death, abolished this ordinances
    remember? "circumcision or uncircumscion"

    so no, my post are not invalid, and meaningless.
    simply, having done something doesnt make you handing it down as well.

    my lolo was a chain smoker, but he didn't handed down that to us

    The fact of the matter is, Jesus didn't abolish those customs.

    The circumcision analogy wasn't meant to abolish the Jewish custom of circumcision which is pretty exclusive. The circumcision teaching was meant to make the Christian teaching inclusive for both circumcised (Jews) and uncircumcised (Gentiles). It doesn't, in any way, invalidate circumcision as a tradition.

    Being a chain smoker isn't a tradition. It's a vice. There, you know it now.

    So again, your arguments are invalid and meaningless.
    wow! how convenient.

    It's prudent to learn silently if you don't know what you're trying to argue about.
    I don't think we have crossed our path regarding Sola Scriptura, and if we did, you should know that I do not fully adhere to it.
    Cid and Mr. T knows that.

    What do you fully adhere to then?

    If you don't fully adhere to the SOLA SCRIPTURA doctrine and you go against the Apostolic oral traditions+Scriptures doctrine of us Catholics, where do you categorize yourself then?
    I would say practices, not tradition

    the most important practices are:
    1. Calling upon the Name of the Lord
    2. breaking of the bread
    3. water baptism by immersion.

    Practices is a very vague term when discussing scriptural things. Given the list you have posted, could please tell us which verses says that those are the "most important practices"?
    that's OT.

    but sure I will answer, but after this, no further.

    the real contention between pro and anti sola scriptura, is NOT about where to find the source of all present teachings, all the arguments that was done in the other threads is to find the source of each teaching, the negative forces that tradition is one of the sources of present teachings and refutes the pro that the Bible is not enough source, and this is by using 1 Thes 2:15, which says that the source of teachings can be of written and in verbal form, and it's the correct verse, indeed teachings come from both oral and written sources handed down to us, but the problem is, the anti wrongly interpreted Sola scriptura being the Bible as the sole authority as source of teachings, it is not the sole authority to contain all the teachings per se, in fact if you go to wiki, the article mentions that it does not deny other authorities.

    The authority of Sola Scriptura is taking the written Word of God as means to check the teachings we have today, no christian can deny that the written Word of God is holy and infallible, so it is just right that we can refer to the Word to correct teachings, using the Bible as a check whether a certain teaching is in-line or opposed to what was written.

    sadly, many of the traditions we have today if not all are significantly opposed to what was written in the Word of God.

    sorry, I did not answer the question because obviously, it is out of place.

    So many words yet it doesn't make much sense.

    You contend that the Bible is "not the sole authority as source of teachings" yet you said that "the authority of Sola Scriptura is taking the written Word of God as means to check the teachings we have today". Pretty contradictory don't you think? What's the use of checking against something that is not an authority of that thing?

    Also, you argue that "no christian can deny that the written Word of God is holy and infallible" yet you don't believe that it ought to be the sole authority on matters of teachings. Again, pretty contradictory.

    To repeat what most Catholic apologists here had asked time and again, if the bible is infallible, then why do we need fallible men to interpret it for us?

    Clearly, you have not advanced anything on your reply. Rather, you have proven to us how shallow your understanding of the Scriptures is.
  • OrionPaxOrionPax Fire Bomber Lead Guitarist PExer
    Sayang ang bandwidth :lol: chubibo
  • SmartDessaSmartDessa Things divide;Christ unites PExer
    D_Apolo wrote: »
    You said "these are the verses that I am pertaining to" yet you didn't provide any verses at all. Isn't that contradictory?

    "these" are those verses you have posted.
    we have the same Bible (less DC), so I don't think I have to repeat the verses you've just posted.
    Also, I can't find any distinct differences with the way you described "traditions". You lumped them all up as practices that were handed down to us be it from Christ to the Apostles to us OR be it from the old practices. You failed to substantially differentiate them.

    brushing my teeth is something that I do, which was passed on to me by my mom.
    i don't think it is a tradition.

    a practice, yes,
    instruction, yes,
    a way of life yes.

    but tradition?
    You are guilty of selective eisegesis. You see, verse 2 can't be any clearer in describing what "practice" Paul was praising the Corinthians for. It was the "keeping of the ordinance" as delivered by Paul to them. He didn't praised the Corinthians for imitating him. In fact, he was asking the Corinthians to imitate him and not praising them for imitating him. Those are two different things that you are trying hard to equate with each other. Sadly, it's not working.

    apart from 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thes. 3:6-7 & 9 also tells us to imitate the apostles.
    This gives us a strong proof that practicing that was handed down to us, is imitating the apostles as our pattern

    what Paul praised is indeed how the Corinthians kept what was handed down to them, and keeping these is by imitating Paul, as was he when he imitates Christ.

    so yes, imitating Christ IS practicing what was handed down to us.
    A contextual exegesis of the whole chapter would lead us to the same conclusion. As for your assertion that the succeeding verses from verse 3 onwards were the traditions that Paul has passed down to them, this is another wrong eisegesis. Verses 3 to 34 was an admonishment from Paul with regards to the seeming problems amongst the Corinthians at that time. He was instructing the Corinthians on how to carry themselves during gatherings to celebrate feasts at the Church and not to abuse those feasts.

    you mentioned feasts, 1 Cor. 11 is not about any feasts except for the practice of breaking the bread, or the Lord's Supper.
    2 points are there
    1.) regarding head covering
    2.) regarding the Lord's Supper
    a.) disorder in the celebration (inc. divisions)
    b.) review of definition of the Lord's Supper
    c.) discernment of these definitions
    d.) discipline during the celebration.
    To say that Paul was praising them for doing those things is WRONG. Verses 3 to 34 shows how Paul telling the Corinthians the right things to do when gathering at the Church of God.

    This only proves how wrong your understanding of the whole 1 Corinthians 11 is.

    so why did Paul say that the disorderliness of the Corinthians is not what makes him praise them.
    don't you think what will make him praise them is by not being disorderly? when they come together for the better? (v17), is it not orderliness was passed by Paul to them?

    Again, another wrong assertion on your part.

    Jesus followed the Jewish customs and did not, even once, preached about abolishing them. You see, the fact the Jesus followed those Jewish customs without any whims only shows that He's not against the continuation of those traditions as long as it doesn't go against His teachings.

    so if it goes against His teachings then He would not follow the custom,
    are you prepared to stop following catholic traditions that are against His teachings?

    furthermore, are you prepared to stop following catholic traditions that has nothing to do or is not a requirement for salvation and for the growth of christian faith.
    It's wrong to ask whether the Apostles continued to teach in the Jewish synagogues because we all know that after the Ascension and Pentecost, the Apostles preached the Gospel of Christ and not the Mosaic laws. But if you'll consider the paralellism with the Apostles going and teaching to each early Christian Churches, then it's pretty clear that the practice was continued.

    and yet Paul, after His ascension, followed the custom of the Jewish tradition in the synagogues whenever he needs to preach to the jews.
    this is clearly a sign of respect, and has nothing to do with keeping or religiously practicing the customs.
    The fact of the matter is, Jesus didn't abolish those customs.

    The circumcision analogy wasn't meant to abolish the Jewish custom of circumcision which is pretty exclusive. The circumcision teaching was meant to make the Christian teaching inclusive for both circumcised (Jews) and uncircumcised (Gentiles). It doesn't, in any way, invalidate circumcision as a tradition.


    Eph. 2:15

    This is not the same law in Matt. 5:17-21

    abolishing the ordinances is abolishing the practice of circumcision, keeping of the Sabbath, ways and forms of worship, rituals.
    anything that shows diversity

    Being a chain smoker isn't a tradition. It's a vice. There, you know it now.

    exactly, these are just things that were handed down, or can be handed down.
    the same with what Paul handed down to us, not exactly traditions

    It's prudent to learn silently if you don't know what you're trying to argue about.

    very arrogant aren't you. :no:
    it seems Roman catholics here have a knack for arrogance.
    What do you fully adhere to then?

    If you don't fully adhere to the SOLA SCRIPTURA doctrine and you go against the Apostolic oral traditions+Scriptures doctrine of us Catholics, where do you categorize yourself then?

    I am a christian who loves the Lord Jesus Christ.

    I don't fully adhere with SS because SS demands that everything should be subordinate to the Word, meaning the Word comes first in everything, when in fact, the Word only co-exists with Christ as the One authority.

    SS may eventually render us dead in letters and would mute the Spirit in us, Logos is not enough, we also need Rhema.

    Practices is a very vague term when discussing scriptural things. Given the list you have posted, could please tell us which verses says that those are the "most important practices"?

    they are most important not because they are written as most important.

    the practice itself is the reason why it is important because calling on the Name of the Lord is the best and simplest step to open and exercise our Spirit to fellowship with God, the breaking of the bread which honors and remembers Christ person and His accomplishment, and baptism which is done only once, to identify us that we already belong to Christ.

    So many words yet it doesn't make much sense.

    You contend that the Bible is "not the sole authority as source of teachings" yet you said that "the authority of Sola Scriptura is taking the written Word of God as means to check the teachings we have today". Pretty contradictory don't you think? What's the use of checking against something that is not an authority of that thing?

    I have already highlighted the word a numerous time, please check back and then tell me if it is still contradictory, if so, then perhaps I have to spoon feed you why I need to highlight the word, to give you a hint, which was actually expected that you will not understand, hence the highlight.

    Also, you argue that "no christian can deny that the written Word of God is holy and infallible" yet you don't believe that it ought to be the sole authority on matters of teachings. Again, pretty contradictory.

    I did not say that the Word of God is the SOLE thing that is infallible, which makes it obvious that I don't believe that the Word is the SOLE authority on matters of teachings.

    pay attention pls.
    To repeat what most Catholic apologists here had asked time and again, if the bible is infallible, then why do we need fallible men to interpret it for us?

    because God works in the principle of incarnation.

    Clearly, you have not advanced anything on your reply. Rather, you have proven to us how shallow your understanding of the Scriptures is.

    we'll see
  • D_ApoloD_Apolo RoT's resident lurker PExer
    SmartDessa wrote: »
    "these" are those verses you have posted.
    we have the same Bible (less DC), so I don't think I have to repeat the verses you've just posted.

    Thank you for clarifying.
    brushing my teeth is something that I do, which was passed on to me by my mom.
    i don't think it is a tradition.

    a practice, yes,
    instruction, yes,
    a way of life yes.

    but tradition?

    The above answer clearly explains why you are at a lost on this discussion.

    Tradition came from the latin word Traditio which means the to transmit, to hand over or to give for safekeeping.

    Brushing your teeth wasn't handed over to you for safekeeping. It was taught to you by your Mom for hygienic purposes. But say for example, your Mom taught you to brush your teeth at 4am everyday because it was the way all ladies in your family did it before, then that becomes a tradition.

    apart from 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thes. 3:6-7 & 9 also tells us to imitate the apostles.
    This gives us a strong proof that practicing that was handed down to us, is imitating the apostles as our pattern

    what Paul praised is indeed how the Corinthians kept what was handed down to them, and keeping these is by imitating Paul, as was he when he imitates Christ.

    so yes, imitating Christ IS practicing what was handed down to us.

    Imitating Christ isn't tradition. It's a teaching that is expected to be followed by all Christians. It isn't a ritual that you only need to perform on specific days or time. It is something that you need to embody all the time.

    That isn't tradition. That should be the norm.
    you mentioned feasts, 1 Cor. 11 is not about any feasts except for the practice of breaking the bread, or the Lord's Supper.
    2 points are there
    1.) regarding head covering
    2.) regarding the Lord's Supper
    a.) disorder in the celebration (inc. divisions)
    b.) review of definition of the Lord's Supper
    c.) discernment of these definitions
    d.) discipline during the celebration.

    I mentioned feast in the same breathe as Jewish traditions. Please don't tweak my posts to satisfy your assertions as it clearly isn't going to work.
    so why did Paul say that the disorderliness of the Corinthians is not what makes him praise them.
    don't you think what will make him praise them is by not being disorderly? when they come together for the better? (v17), is it not orderliness was passed by Paul to them?

    Because that was the truth. Paul praised the Corinthians for keeping true to the doctrines that Paul handed over to them BUT admonished them for being disorderly inside the Church of God.

    Being orderly isn't a ritual or tradition. It's a form of conduct or behavior expected from a Christian when in the Church of God.
    so if it goes against His teachings then He would not follow the custom,
    are you prepared to stop following catholic traditions that are against His teachings?

    furthermore, are you prepared to stop following catholic traditions that has nothing to do or is not a requirement for salvation and for the growth of christian faith.

    My answer would be YES provided that you could prove to us those traditions that contradicts the teachings of Jesus. And I assure you that you won't be able to prove even a single thing.

    and yet Paul, after His ascension, followed the custom of the Jewish tradition in the synagogues whenever he needs to preach to the jews.
    this is clearly a sign of respect, and has nothing to do with keeping or religiously practicing the customs.

    Preaching at the Jewish Synagogues isn't tradition or custom. Preaching inside the Jewish Synagogues on a man's 30th birthday is tradition.

    The only thing clear so far is that you don't have a clear understanding of what a tradition is all about.
    Eph. 2:15

    This is not the same law in Matt. 5:17-21

    abolishing the ordinances is abolishing the practice of circumcision, keeping of the Sabbath, ways and forms of worship, rituals.
    anything that shows diversity

    The longer this discussion goes, the more you exposes your ignorance of the Scriptures.

    Matthew 5:17-21 tell us that Jesus Christ hasn't abolished the Mosaic Law but rather, He is the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. Ephesians 2:15 tells us that through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the division between the believers and the unbelievers had already been shattered. Why? Because Jesus was the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law which means that the old covenant has already expired in terms of binding those who were part of it. Jesus established a new covenant eclipsing the old that has already been fully fulfilled.

    It's not about tradition. It was about establishing a new part after the completion of the old part.
    exactly, these are just things that were handed down, or can be handed down.
    the same with what Paul handed down to us, not exactly traditions

    I now see why Totnak and Tonton seems to be fond of you. Your stubbornness makes you a fun target.

    Once something has been handed down to the society for safekeeping and continuity, it becomes tradition. And smoking isn't one of them.
    very arrogant aren't you. :no:
    it seems Roman catholics here have a knack for arrogance.

    I prefer sarcasm. Sarcasm suits those who are too stubborn and proud to admit their ignorance.
    I am a christian who loves the Lord Jesus Christ.

    I don't fully adhere with SS because SS demands that everything should be subordinate to the Word, meaning the Word comes first in everything, when in fact, the Word only co-exists with Christ as the One authority.

    SS may eventually render us dead in letters and would mute the Spirit in us, Logos is not enough, we also need Rhema.

    So where do you base the teachings of Christ that you follow? If you are in doubt about something that is contained in the Scripture, what do you do to understand or sort out your doubt?
    they are most important not because they are written as most important.

    the practice itself is the reason why it is important because calling on the Name of the Lord is the best and simplest step to open and exercise our Spirit to fellowship with God, the breaking of the bread which honors and remembers Christ person and His accomplishment, and baptism which is done only once, to identify us that we already belong to Christ.

    I prefer a direct answer.

    Which biblical verses tells us that those that you've listed are the "most important"? Because if you can't provide any passages to support your earlier claim, then they are all senseless.
    I have already highlighted the word a numerous time, please check back and then tell me if it is still contradictory, if so, then perhaps I have to spoon feed you why I need to highlight the word, to give you a hint, which was actually expected that you will not understand, hence the highlight.

    The above is the mark of beaten person.

    My question is straightforward. What's the use of checking against something that is not an authority of that thing? Could you please answer it straightforward as well?
    I did not say that the Word of God is the SOLE thing that is infallible, which makes it obvious that I don't believe that the Word is the SOLE authority on matters of teachings.

    pay attention pls.

    Pardon my being too assuming. Could you please enlighten me as to what other things do you consider "infallible"?

    because God works in the principle of incarnation.

    Jesus is God-incarnate. But after His ascension, nobody had been able to replicate the same mystery. Thus, by saying that "God works in the principle of incarnation", you are effectively trying to tell us the mystery of incarnation is a continuing process which we all know is not true.

    Again, you are not making any sense.
    we'll see

    Everybody had already seen.
  • tontontonton Let's stop and talk awhile. PExer
    D_Apolo wrote: »
    I prefer a direct answer.

    Could you please answer it straightforward as well?

    Sorry, those words are not part of her vocabulary.

    The above is the mark of beaten person.

    Impossible. She is the mouthpiece of the lord.
    Pardon my being too assuming. Could you please enlighten me as to what other things do you consider "infallible"?

    Herself, because the Spirit is in her.
  • sophionsophion Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    In the bible I think there are two kinds of "traditions"

    1. Religious Traditions taught by the prophets & apostles
    2 Thessalonians 2:15

    So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.


    2. Religious Traditions that of mere human origin

    Mark 7:3-9

    And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ...

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file