I’m sure, much like with Protestantism, one can find a Jewish sect that believes just about anything, but the ORTHODOX Jewish belief is that Moses was given both a Written AND an Oral Torah. So to most Jews, I suspect the Protestant tradition of Sola-Scriptura is a very foreign concept.
Ripleys’ – Post as many teachings with which you disagree from the Talmud as you like. It has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of Sacred Tradition within the Church. Jesus Christ made many promises to His Bride that were not made by God under the Old Covenant. The Holy Spirit was breathed on the Church at Pentecost, Jesus promised to be with his Church until the end of time, he promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it, etc…. The Apostles believed so strongly in these promises that Paul identified the Church, not scripture, as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1Tim3:15).
Krisi – you are absolutely right! Paul, an Apostle and commissioned leader of the Church, was sent to other Churches to correct their doctrine. He did not hand them N.T. scripture and tell them to correct themselves. The early Church had authoritative leadership via apostolic succession. You can see in scripture that Jesus gives his apostles authority and they in turn pass it on to those appointed to lead the various local churches. This comes from the Jewish practice of “Semicha”. I’ve written about this in other threads (search for “semicha”). It is also supported by writings from the church as early as 110 A.D..
Quote: “They were walking talking scripture”.
Yes, but more importantly, they were “Semicha’d” by the Great Rabbi Yeshua. They followed him for ~3 years and were given authority to teach in his name, not only to go out and read scripture in his name. Thousands accepted the Good News they passed on ORALLY before a single stroke of the N.T. was written. “Second generation” apostles were “semicha’d”, and thousands more learned of the Good News through authoritative succession. The Church grew rapidly, under the power of the Holy Spirit, before a single teaching of Rabbi Yeshua was committed to parchment.
(cont …)
(… cont)
Quote: “And our ultimate example is Jesus Himself, who ALWAYS rebuked those who placed greater emphasis on tradition than God's word.”
Amen!!! Now let’s take a look at baptism ….. Where have I put tradition over God’s word? We’ve both used scripture to support our claims about baptism right??? But still you believe one thing and I believe another. Instead of agreement, there is division. Instead of resolving this, baptism becomes “secondary” and not “an essential”. Sacred Tradition does not supersede Sacred Scripture, it is complementary (1Cor 11:2, 2Thes 2:15, 2 Thes 3:6). Tradition as recorded in early church writings complements the scriptural evidence showing baptism as regenerative. A “symbolic” view of baptism has absolutely no pre-reformation support from tradition.
Quote: “Here's the deal as I see it: we don't have EXHAUSTIVE writings of ALL church fathers from ALL the churches, so we DO NOT KNOW what was taught in the different communities.”
No, we don’t have every single letter ever written. But be honest with yourself and look at the historical evidence. Great leaders of the Church describing baptism as regenerative…. Not one single letter opposing their teachings…. Absolutely nothing prior to the Reformation describing baptism as “symbolic” rather than regenerative… This should give the open-minded, discerning person pause. Yet, instead of giving consideration to what these great leaders taught, you say “they come along and pervert the Good News with Bad News”. Baptism is a free gift of God’s grace. It is a small subset of Protestants that are perverting the Good News by calling baptism a “work” and denying the “little ones” the graces of baptism.
Ripleys’ – Post as many teachings with which you disagree from the Talmud as you like. It has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of Sacred Tradition within the Church. Jesus Christ made many promises to His Bride that were not made by God under the Old Covenant. The Holy Spirit was breathed on the Church at Pentecost, Jesus promised to be with his Church until the end of time, he promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it, etc…. The Apostles believed so strongly in these promises that Paul identified the Church, not scripture, as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1Tim3:15).
WK The bride is not a physical church or even the bride is only catholics etc... it all people from all differents sects who are true in the Lord.
call out ones is not refering to a sect of Christianty but all of Christianty thsoe who truly love The Lord.
Quote: “And our ultimate example is Jesus Himself, who ALWAYS rebuked those who placed greater emphasis on tradition than God's word.”
Amen!!! Now let’s take a look at baptism ….. Where have I put tradition over God’s word? We’ve both used scripture to support our claims about baptism right??? But still you believe one thing and I believe another. Instead of agreement, there is division. Instead of resolving this, baptism becomes “secondary” and not “an essential”. Sacred Tradition does not supersede Sacred Scripture, it is complementary (1Cor 11:2, 2Thes 2:15, 2 Thes 3:6). Tradition as recorded in early church writings complements the scriptural evidence showing baptism as regenerative. A “symbolic” view of baptism has absolutely no pre-reformation support from tradition.
The church fathers tradition do not match from what the apostle taught in scripture. we do not need church fathers or tradition to know if baptism is for or not essential for salvation.
The apostles always taught Believe repent confess then baptism.
you should note that peter said just believe and you and your household shall be saved.
But here the thing they were baptism the very same day infact the same hour right? why did not he say Believe and be baptism and you shall be saved?
Quote: “Here's the deal as I see it: we don't have EXHAUSTIVE writings of ALL church fathers from ALL the churches, so we DO NOT KNOW what was taught in the different communities.”
No, we don’t have every single letter ever written. But be honest with yourself and look at the historical evidence. Great leaders of the Church describing baptism as regenerative…. Not one single letter opposing their teachings…. Absolutely nothing prior to the Reformation describing baptism as “symbolic” rather than regenerative… This should give the open-minded, discerning person pause. Yet, instead of giving consideration to what these great leaders taught, you say “they come along and pervert the Good News with Bad News”. Baptism is a free gift of God’s grace. It is a small subset of Protestants that are perverting the Good News by calling baptism a “work” and denying the “little ones” the graces of baptism.
WK again your basing your final Authority on The fathers and what they said.
Do me a favor look at baptism ask me is it label a noun or verb?
if a verb then your case would be solid because a verb is The action not what reflects the action.
But baptism is label a Noun so it reflects on the one who REALLY does the saving The HG.
The Thing is if The HG work through water to save People it would not be a noun but verb.
it would mean that The Holy spirit and Water is needed for the literal saving of a soul.
that means that water would be just as important as the HG that you can not separate them which if SO baptism would be label a verb.
But since it a noun the water is The reflecting of the HG from which does the literal saving.
noun is a content word that can be used to refer to a person, place, thing, quality, or action
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...s=NNr&
since the HG is the verb because The Hg is what bring forth the action it self baptism would be label a verb also because catholic believe water is also is used from the Hg to bring forth the action.
But baptism is a noun so is it The action or part of the action or what refers to the action?
as for evidence that pre-dates the reforms I pretty well say Words and what they mean and how they are used in context is evidence against water needed to save us.
Sola-Scriptura is a very foreign concept.
Yes, so
"very foreign" from Hebrew thought that Torah is METICULOUSLY COPIED LETTER BY LETTER, STROKE BY STROKE, CONFIRMED BY OTHERS AFTER THE TRANSCRIPTION, TO VERIFY THAT NOT EVEN ONE LITTLE YOD IS MISPLACED OR LEFT OUT.
And even the two competing "authorities" attempt to FIND/JUSTIFY THIER AUTHORITY IN
SCRIPTURE...as
you have by (mis)applying Paul, and Orthodox by (mis)applying Moses.
Even YOU appeal to the Superior Unique Authority of scripture,
while claiming there is none.
wk~
Jesus Christ made many promises to His Bride
And THAT is the crux of the matter. He is the Bridegroom, we are the Bride. The husband is in dominion
over the wife.
Adam got in trouble deferring to his wife (instead of God's word).
Eve: "Well, it SEEMS good."
Abraham deferred to his wife (instead of God's word).
Sarah: "I know God said
this, but He must have meant
that."
And here we have the Bride saying, "I share your dominion." Well, NO, YOU DON'T. The Husband's WORD is final, and the Bride needs to
submit to it. She is part of His dominion, He is
not part of hers. (cf: Gen 3:16)
Hmmm... here's a search, and the results speak for themselves:
tradition-
RSV results
ASV results
KJV results
NASV results
CJB results
scriptures-
RSV results
ASV results
KJV results
NASV results
CJB results "scriptures"
CJB results "Tanakh"
Read those passages and then try to tell me that God regards ANY traditions (
Orthodox, Hebrew or otherwise) as EQUAL in authority to His word.
-cont-
Here is a warning from Peter: 2 Peter 3:16 CJB
Indeed, he [Paul]
speaks about these things in all his letters. They contain some things that are hard to understand, things which the uninstructed and unstable distort, to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
-emphasis mine-
1) He is classifying Paul's writings AS SCRIPTURE by using the word "other".
2) Warning us that there are things that are hard to understand, but not to
distort SCRIPTURE. (Nothing said of "traditions".)
Paul says 1 Cor 4:6 CJB
Now in what I have said here, brothers, I have used myself and Apollos as examples to teach you not to go beyond what the Tanakh says, proudly taking the side of one leader against another.
-emphasis mine-
(Again, nothing about tradition.)
Seems to me that the Apostles' "tradition"
was SOLA SCRIPTURA! (Like the Messiah they were taught by!!)
Baptism is a free gift of God’s grace.
No Salvation is God's free gift to mankind, demonstrating His grace.
For what one earns from sin is death; but eternal life is what one receives as a free gift from God, in union with the Messiah Yeshua, our Lord. Rom 6:23 CJB
(I searched "gift" and didn't find a reference to baptism.)
He does not "dispense/sprinkle" grace a little here and a little there, via baptism, communion, marriage, etc.
It's an all or nothing deal. We are IN His grace, or outside of it, by trusting the blood of the Savior
alone.