This is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.
Ahhh. No. Protestants believe the 1st century Church founded by the Apostles established the foundational truth, Christ being the cornerstone. We as the church today must build upon that foundation. Please don’t try to represent us.
It may seem like a lot of “mumbo jumbo” to you, tgG, but it is the Truth. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholics have received the faith through paradosis, and therefore read scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition. Those who have received their doctrines from the Reformers are characterized by which parts, and how much of Sacred Tradition they reject. Because of the rejection of the paradosis, when we read the Scripture “we read it differently”. We understand the meaning differently than you because we read it through the lens of the paradosis.
No need to try to represent you, tgG. You have already stated that you reject the Sacred Tradition, and that you hold Scripture to be your pillar and foundation of the Truth. Understanding an alternative point of view does not equate to “representation”.
Well,… I’ve asked this question before, to which I never get a real answer, but I’ll ask it again: On what scriptural bases is tradition sacred? and what bible writer recorded such a perspective? How do I not know that somebody just made it up?
para what?.. was reading scripture through the lens of so-called sacred tradition, Paul’s instruction?.. ahhh… no, not at all. Apparently this tradition to do so got scrambled somewhere. Surprised?
Here’s what the Spirit of the Lord said through the Apostle Paul’s letter, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” Rom. 10:17.
Faith is not build through the lens of tradition and there is no foundational N.T. author or founding Apostle who says it does. If you can think of one please quote it here.
I’ve seen you ask this question before but I wasn’t sure how to answer it.
I’m not sure what you mean by sacred?
Sacred to me means connected to God or Holy or considered worthy of spiritual respect.
Is this your definition or does this word mean something different to you?
The reason I ask is because it seems you will only accept Sacred Tradition if it is spelled out in scripture. But on those same grounds I’m not finding anywhere in Scripture that claims the NT is sacred scripture. Thus the reason I am confused by you question.
This is all I could find…
2 Timothy 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
This says sacred writings which I have no objections saying could mean scripture however this can’t mean the NT because St. Paul outright says from childhood which would be the OT.
Based on the definition given above the word sacred meaning connected to God or Holy or considered worthy of spiritual respect. I think the only way we can call the NT or Oral Tradition Sacred would be because both were given to us from the Apostles who were connected to God.
The way I see it either they both are Sacred or neither is Sacred, depending on which of the above two ways you want to define how one determines what is and isn’t sacred.
I think St. Paul says so in the verse you just quoted. St. Paul hear writes to the Romans that their faith comes from hearing the preaching of the Apostles and their successors.
This verse doesn’t say faith comes from READING sacred scripture. St. Paul says comes from hearing the oral traditions.
When St. Paul wrote this letter none of the Gospels were written yet. The only thing they had was the oral traditions of the Apostles and the preachers the Apostles handed down these traditions to, so they could preach the Good News.
Sacred Scripture didn’t even exist when St. Paul wrote these words, the only thing he could possibly be speaking of hear is hearing the sacred oral traditions.
What evidence do we have, from scripture, that at the time St. Paul wrote this letter he knew he was referring to the completed NT? Especially the Gospels which wouldn’t be completed for another 30 years.
No, I think we agree on the word sacred. It is set apart and holy. The word infallible has come up in connection with sacred tradition saying that tradition is without error and that the Church is without error.
Yet, I cannot find this view when I read the N.T. record. The 1st Century Church certainly was not without error or the possibility of falling into error. And certainly there was no one saying that their tradition is infallible.
So, I thought since you use the word sacred with tradition implying holy and even infallible, I want to see how that is justified.
I partially agree. St. Paul was talking about the word of God. He himself was unaware that his letters would later be considered to be the word of God even though they were. We can only assume He was referring to everything we now call the O.T.
But as an apostle of the faith he did speak with authority by the Spirit of God when He said, “According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I HAVE LAID THE FOUNDATION, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.” 1st. Cor. 3:10.
If you notice here there is no mention of a successor to lay the foundation again or repetitively. (Nor do you find that in the Romans 10 passage either) You added it as if it was already there.
Other teachers may come and build upon the solid foundation, but they must take heed how they build.
This implies that the foundation is flawless and infallible, (not Paul) but everything else to be built must be done carefully with the understanding that mistakes can be made and heresy can enter the house of God.
The concept of a successor equal to Paul or Peter or any of the other Apostles, was outside of their thinking. It doesn’t exist in the inspired record.
I’m not sure how someone else is using this term but from my understanding infallibility means divine assistance to be preserved from error when teaching on the matters of faith and morals.
To me this is a no brainer. If we are going to admit that God did not give humans a way of knowing that something regarding to our faith is divinely taught, to be without error, then we have no way of knowing if anything is true.
On what they taught or what they did?
I don’t know who is saying the foundation gets rebuilt. Did someone say something that made you think Catholics believe we keep rebuilding the foundation.
I would like to make a couple of points though. I agree that nothing gets rebuilt however I disagree with you claiming their is no successor. St, Paul says He laid the foundation. Which I would argue is a foundation based on ORAL tradition, since the Gospels still aren’t written yet. He goes onto to tell us another BUILDS on it. He doesn’t say the foundation is complete nor does he say YOU build on it. The word ANOTHER tells me he is not speaking to you and me, we aren’t given the tools because St. Paul already handed those tools to someone else, his successor.
Sorry I’m not following you, what foundation did I add to Romans 10. I simple stated the NT wasn’t written yet so the only logical conclusion is that St. Paul is talking about his oral teachings, not his writings.
I disagree, as stated St. Paul states another this is the Greek word
állos (a primitive word) – another of the same kind; another of a similar type.
St. Paul is telling us that another of the same kind as him, to me would mean his successor, will build on the foundation he has laid, he isn’t allowing just anyone who thinks they are a teacher to build on his foundation.
AMEN. How is this even remotely possible unless someone is preserved from error the same way the Holy Spirit preserved St. Paul?
St. Paul’s use of the Greek word állos (a primitive word) – another of the same kind; another of a similar type) tells us a different story.
no but I have heard that the Catholic Church IS THE FOUNDATION today. It was put to me by someone on this site that the CC is the big brother while the protestant Church is the weaker lesser brother. really?
This supports the idea that the successors play the same role as those who build the foundation. If Peter had a successor to his office, this assumes that his successor functioned in the same way as Peter. So that today in a chain of successors, the current Pope functions in the same capacity as Peter. Am I wrong?
Hence an infallible church with infallible successors.
Paul and the others were the living Epistles while still alive and I will agree that in that sense they were orally indoctrinating these Churches.
I don’t see how you can say that the foundation was not complete when Paul said, "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid. (The Holman Christian Standard bible has it in the past tense.)
But this is crucial because if the basic foundational truths are still in a process of being laid, then the sky is the limit for anyone who wants to add to the foundation and thus alter it.
The reason why it is a finished foundation is because Jesus Christ is the Chief cornerstone. The implication is that “in Christ” you are made complete. (Col 2:10) He completes the foundation. The Apostles and prophets are apart of that foundation with Jesus Christ being the one element that holds it all together as a foundation. see. Eph. 2:20.
The successors in the context of the Corinthian Church are all those in that local body who can build upon those foundational truths.
(I did a little word study on the whole concept of oral tradition or tradition itself. There was not much to be said from the word of God.)
Paul admits he’s not first in Rome. That doesn’t mean that when he got to Rome he didn’t build the Church of Rome.
You’re assuming Peter arrived in Rome after that… For sake of argument, one could say, so what? Peter is still the head of the Church, no matter where Peter is at any moment of time.
Yeah, like Peter?
Who then is Paul writing to? To pagan Rome? No. They could give a rip who Paul is. And they for sure wouldn’t keep his letter. Paul wrote to the Church that is already there. But as you quote, Paul just said he doesn’t build on another man’s work. Yet he is writing to the Church that is already there. Does that mean he just broke his own rule?
no no, I’m looking at verse 10, "According to God’s grace that was given to me, I have laid a foundation as a skilled master builder and ANOTHER BUILDS ON IT. on what? on the foundation he just built.
It is here that Paul gives the warning. "But each one must be careful how he builds (on it.)
Each leader (Bishop, Elder, Pastor whatever) who builds must be careful how they build. Why? because “each one’s work will become obvious, for the DAY will disclose it.” v13
This suggest that the Church living beyond the Apostle’s and the written N.T. record, should be careful how they build in each local Church. Paul was speaking locally here not universally. But I think the principle applies universally.
"If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this age, he must become foolish so that he can become wife. (v18)
"no one should boast in human leaders, for everything is yours, v22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come everything is yours (Corinthians!)
Paul returned to the larger context where he was rebuking the Corinthians because they were choosing and exalting certain leaders over others,… “I am of Paul” or… I am of Apollos or… I am of Cephas, (Peter). 1:12. the rest of the chapter is a rebuke for their pride.
Yes in a human sense. We all have the same Spirit of God who raised Jesus from the dead living in us. We all can enter the kingdom of God and one day inherit it. We all can speak the Name of Christ and command demons if necessary.
But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the very narrow and specific office of Apostle where only 12 of them will judge the twelve tribes of Israel on the Lord’s day. This special class of Apostle were the only ones who were eye witness to the resurrection. Their is no successor of that caliber or who meets those conditions after their death. go and read it in Acts 1
Yet all of us, in a sense can be a successor to the Apostles when it comes to seeking first the kingdom of God and all of His righteousness.
You are correct I misstated. Totally agree Jesus is the foundation. What I was getting at was the building is not complete.
Totally agree, but like you point out only the BASICS were laid. Like you point out here not all truths were yet laid when St. Paul tells us that another will take over. This is where I was going with this how can another lay any truth if not being protected by the Holy Spirit?
Agreed the foundation is finished, but the foundation doesn’t contain all truth the rest of the truth is built on top of the foundation.
I Agree they are the ones that St. Paul would have laid hands on to give them the authority to teach. However, I’m not to sure if just anyone can build on the foundation.
Here’s my reasoning, as you pointed out there is only one foundation. Well only one foundation would also mean only one building per foundation. So the idea that each " local" church built their truth ontop of the foundation would mean Local churches with their own truth has to mean multiple foundations.
Not sure if that makes sense or not, but in my opinion one foundation means one church,
I’m not following you here. Why does someone have to be of the “caliber” of the Apostles?
I think you are misunderstanding what Apostolic succession means. In one sense it means that each bishop can name who laid hands on them in line all the way back to an Apostle. But it also means that the Truths built on the foundation were also handed down through this unbroken chain of succession. You don’t need to be of the same caliber as the Apostles to hand on what they handed you, but you do need to have it handed to you before you can hand it down yourself.
The truth that comes from infallibility doesn’t have anything to do with the caliber of the Apostles, it’s all because of Jesus promise that the gates of hell would not prevail and that he would be with them until the end of the age.
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
Two things I realized from this passage is Jesus couldn’t just be talking to the 11. His words only make sense when we realize He is also talking to their successors.
He told them to Baptize all nations, well we know this didn’t happen in their lifetime.
They also died before the end of the age. I believe when it came time for the Apostles to hand on the torch they told their successor our Lord commissioned us to Baptize all nations, He will guide you to all truths because He promised to be with us til the end of the age.
I can understand that Sacred Tradition got “scrambled” when the paradosis was lost. Paul instructed us, as did the other Apostles, to preserve the paradosis.
Indeed yes! This is why the Word of God is contained in every Divine Liturgy, and in the daily prayer of the Church, called the Liturgy of the Hours.
But the Word of God that was preached, about which Paul wrote to the Romans, was the kerygma, which contained the paradosis.
This is an interesting statement. The Sacred Tradition produced the New Testament, and we both agree that faith comes by hearing the Word. So the two are intertwined with one another.
I understand that you must reject the Apostolic Succession, and the Sacred Tradition that is preserved within it. If you did not reject this, you would probably have to become Catholic! (oh horrors!)
“the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.” 2 Tim 10
This statement represents four generations of apostolic tradition. Paul committed it to Timothy, and Timothy committed it to reliable people, who taught others. This is how the paradosis is preserved.
It is understandable that you would have to default to a “made up” position. If you were to accept that the paradosis was infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Church, your whole world view would fall into chaos.
You cannot retain your rebellion if you accept what the Apostle has written:
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. " 2 Thess. 2:15
Clearly the Apostle equates what was delivered to them by word of mouth with what was written in the epistle. He refers to the paradosis, in which we are commanded to stand firm and hold fast.
He enjoins the young Bishop Timothy the same way; “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you…” I Tim. 6:20
He is to guard the paradosis.
" And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. 1 Thessalonians 2;13
The Apostle taught that the Word of God was delivered to the Church, and is at work in the believers. This is the paradosis.
Yes, Sacred Tradition, from the teaching of Jesus through the Apostles, is protected from error by the HS. How else could what was delivered to the Church be the Word of God?