It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This sounds "Pro-Tradition" to me. And this:
Look, I'm not railing against tradition. . . . So yes the epistle writers spoke of "tradition" that they passed along, which is great. We have several pastoral epistles talking about those teachings and traditions.
And this sounds "Anti-Tradition."
I'm railing against traditions that wither are not rooted in an exegetical systsmatic reading of the text. . . .
My problem is with traditions that are here today that are never mentioned in the Bible.
I don't understand the idea that only the things written in the Bible are our guides. Where does the Bible make that claim? (And in three verses.)
Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end.
For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.
Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.
I'm still pretty new at the whole history of "absorption," but I have to ask, if Mary was elevated to draw in the Goddess worshipers, why didn't the Church devalue her when Goddess worship virtually disappeared? There's been a huge cultural shift to "male" gods in every culture in the world, and yet Mary has just as much status as she ever did. She ought to be quietly retired, since she's not needed anymore, and yet she remains.
You must then realize I'm having trouble finding biblical support for baptizing unbelievers.
Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville
reply to post by NOTurTypical
NuT, I think the link I've provided in my last post regarding infant baptism should answer your question.
Were Only Adults Baptized?
Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.
Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
This is very important, to my way of thinking. Some Protestants (Thanks, NOTurTypical, for telling me it's not "all.") believe that something must be shown in the Bible to be true. If you are right, and I suspect you are, that there are no verses supporting that idea, then the people who believe in it are getting their authority from some place other than the Bible. (Does that make sense?)
There are no scripture verses that directly say that we can only use scripture. Just as there are no verses that specifically say infants were baptized or that they absolutely did not baptize infants, or that it is permissible to pray to Mary or that the scripture reference concerning Mary is, in fact even a prayer.
This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.
6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. 7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not? (Emphasis added)
I agree, again. If there is no clear evidence or teaching on the subject it becomes optional, and possibly dangerous.
I personally believe that if the tradition is too murky, it is better to avoid it than to participate in it. That's just me.
Absolutely agree, although they wouldn't have been of much use to the Gentiles.
Also, I believe the writings that were available during Paul's letter to the Corinthians would have been Old Testament manuscripts.
Sometimes I wish for telepathy so everyone can understand completely, but we're stuck with words. If we're talking about priorities in the sense of "Where do we go first?" I agree that Scripture is the first place to look, then check in with Tradition. Finally, if it's in neither place, it should be a matter of private practice as long as it's helpful to that individual's spiritual life, but not something demanded by the Church. An example? Giving up chocolate as a way to humble and control the body's passions.
I can live with all that you have responded with in your post. I think we are on the same page in our priorities; scripture first, tradition next, and any non-scriptural tradition- abstain from. Am I correct in my assumptions?
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Sometimes I write in such an indirect way that it is confusing and wastes the reader's time. I'll try to avoid that here.
Please identify at least three verses which support the doctrine that only what is written in the Bible is true, valid, and God's word. In other words, please support sola scriptura with at least three Bible verses.