Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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 Thessalonians 2:15)
Hold on to the teachings given by the apostles that have been handed down. These are not human traditions but the traditions of God. God’s word being passed on and handed down is what we are to hold on to.
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 Thessalonians 2:15)
Hold on to the teachings given by the apostles that have been handed down. These are not human traditions but the traditions of God. God’s word being passed on and handed down is what we are to hold on to.
Yes; and the traditions of God, i.e. the word of God, is not only contained and transmitted in written form but also by the "spoken word" of the apostles and their successors.
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 Thessalonians 2:15)
Hold on to the teachings given by the apostles that have been handed down. These are not human traditions but the traditions of God. God’s word being passed on and handed down is what we are to hold on to.
Sounds to me like a pretty good argument against sola scriptura.
Yes; and the traditions of God, i.e. the word of God, is not only contained and transmitted in written form but also by the "spoken word" of the apostles and their successors.
How do you know what those traditions are, if they are not in Scripture?
And what if one of the (supposed) traditions you choose to follow contradicts Scripture?
Yes; and the traditions of God, i.e. the word of God, is not only contained and transmitted in written form but also by the "spoken word" of the apostles and their successors.
”our spoken word or letter” seems to refer to Paul and the other apostles. Nothing is mentioned about successors here or elsewhere. I’m aware of Judas being replaced by Matthias, but I know of no other replacements, not even for the apostle James who was killed by the sword.
Sounds to me like a pretty good argument against sola scriptura.
Hi Katzpur. I’m wondering if you think this verse is translated correctly? I know the Mormon church views the Bible as the word of God in so much as it’s translated correctly. I think I read that on their website. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Hi Katzpur. I’m wondering if you think this verse is translated correctly? I know the Mormon church views the Bible as the word of God in so much as it’s translated correctly. I think I read that on their website. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Yes, as far as we know, it is translated correctly, and yes, we believe the Bible to be the word of God inasmuch as it is translated correctly.
How do you know what those traditions are, if they are not in Scripture?
The same way that you know which writings ought to be considered Scripture and which ought not be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
And what if one of the (supposed) traditions you choose to follow contradicts Scripture?
If a tradition is from God, then it will not contradict Scripture since Scripture is also a tradition that comes from God -- and God cannot contradict Himself.
The same way that you know which writings ought to be considered Scripture and which ought not be.
The Canon is established.
Quote:
If a tradition is from God, then it will not contradict Scripture since Scripture is also a tradition that comes from God -- and God cannot contradict Himself.
So explain why you believe priests have to re-present a bloodless sacrifice when Hebrews clearly says Jesus did it once and for all, no more is needed.
”our spoken word or letter” seems to refer to Paul and the other apostles. Nothing is mentioned about successors here or elsewhere. I’m aware of Judas being replaced by Matthias, but I know of no other replacements, not even for the apostle James who was killed by the sword.
If you know of no other replacements, it's because you haven't looked! It's all there to be found. Many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century believers wrote about successors to the Apostles.
Clement, who was himself a successor to Peter, wrote the following in 80AD in his Epistle to the Corinthians: “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”
There's tons more if you just look for it.
You may not believe in apostolic succession; but it's clear that it was very much a legitimate concept in the early Church.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
