/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

"Paul commands: 'Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the Traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter.' From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the Tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a Tradition? Seek no further." ~ Saint John Chrysostom

Which traditions weren't written down? And why would the apostles teach any tradition that would go against the scripture?

>>819020

>Which traditions weren't written down?

You may find them in the didache, in the didadcalia apostolirium, and several books by the ante Nicene fathers that talks about them. But the obvious ones include drinking the blood of Christ using actual alcoholic wine, fasting 2/3rds of the year (basically going vegan) on Wednesday and Fridays, venerating the mother of God (or the theotokos) the blessed virgin Mary, eating the body of Christ, making the sign of the cross, just to name a few.

>And why would the apostles teach any tradition that would go against the scripture?

You're confusing traditions with Traditions with a capital "T". tradition in the new testament Christ was rebuking was the Pharisees tradition of being a bunch of greedy rapacious likes with no love of God on their hearts and didn't do what they preached. Traditions with a capital 'T" refers to the teachings the apostles passed down orally.

>>819021

So I'm guessing you're orthodox, right? I've always thought the optics of the orthodox church are really cool (though I wouldn't convert for that reason because it'd be larping). Just one question for you, how do you justify 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

>16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Specifically verse 17.

>>819052

Not him but I might be able to provide an answer.

The scripture you reference doesn't fly in the face of anything the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church teaches. The idea that laypeople aren't allowed to know the scriptures in the Apostolic Churches is ridiculous. We read the scriptures every Sunday during Liturgy. We simply don't think it's a good idea to let anyone and everyone interpret scripture and that scriptural interpretation should be left to experts (priests and so forth). Otherwise you get people teaching heretical things like prosperity gospel.

>>819078

That doesn't really answer my question about why you'd need outside traditions if scripture equips the man of God for every good work. Even if you're getting the scripture from a person like a pastor or priest in your case, you shouldn't need anything outside of that scripture to be saved because you are already equipped for *every* good work.

>>819185

Not when theres an ego to boost and muh epic prot btfo compilation threads that need to be bumped 24/7 on this thread

>>819235

>d

Are you saying only Scripture is needed to determine what we need to do to get saved?

>>819253

I'm saying that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that, yes.

>>819263

John 3:5 King James Version (KJV)

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

How do you determine whether this means baptism is necessary to be saved or not?

How do you determine what happens at baptism, is it a symbol? Sacrament?

I'm curious cause differences in who is interpreting what the Scripture is saying seems to matter a lot in this.

Would you agree that they can't all be right if one Church says Baptism is needed for salvation versus another that says it's just a symbol? I mean if you're a Quaker you don't even practice Baptism.

By the way, what's your view on Baptism?

>>819269

I'd be careful saying those things about a Saint who is venerated in a number of Churches (not founded 500 or 50 years ago) that can trace the lineage back to the first Apostles. To those Apostolic Churches, he is an adopted son of God in Heaven and worthy of veneration.

James 3 - The Tongue is a fire

Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

Even more so today, everything we type & submit here is saved and viewed by others for however long it is accessible.

Matthew 12:36 King James Version (KJV)

36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

>>819265

>John 3:5 King James Version (KJV)

>5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

"A man be born of water and of the spirit" is two separate "births". Jesus confused Nicodemus when He told him that one had to be born again, because Nicodemus thought he meant you had to be literally born of a woman again, like coming out of a womb. Being born of water is your physical birth - since the womb has water in it - and being born of the spirit is when you accept Christ as your lord and savior and become a new creature in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).

>How do you determine whether this means baptism is necessary to be saved or not?

Baptism is not necessary to be saved, or else the thief on the cross wouldn't have entered heaven since he wasn't baptized yet. But Jesus Himself assured the thief that he would be with Him in paradise.

>How do you determine what happens at baptism, is it a symbol? Sacrament?

It is a symbol showing that you have accepted christ as your Lord, it does not cleanse one of sins (as only the blood of Christ does that). We are called to be like Christ, and Jesus Himself was baptized. But if baptism is something that washes a person of sin, why did the perfect and sinless Jesus get baptized?

>I'm curious cause differences in who is interpreting what the Scripture is saying seems to matter a lot in this.

You're right, and catholics and orthodox who interpret the scripture incorrectly think that they must perform certain works to save themselves. But that's false teaching, Jesus alone can save us. It'd be like if a man jumped out of a plane without a parachute and tried to flap his arms to save himself. Instead, put on the parachute (believe in Jesus) and trust it entirely.

>Would you agree that they can't all be right if one Church says Baptism is needed for salvation versus another that says it's just a symbol?

They can't all be right, correct. If a church teaches that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation they teach a false gospel. They trust their own works instead of the work already done by Jesus on the cross.

>I mean if you're a Quaker you don't even practice Baptism.

And I'm not a quaker.

>By the way, what's your view on Baptism?

Stated above.

>>819278

>le indulgence meme

>sacrificing income to the Church is somehow bad

>money is more important than heaven

You don’t even know what an indulgence is or how they work.

Martin Luther gave into anger and allowed demonic forces in which tore the Church in half leading to much worse conflicts and on his death bed he asked for a priest and died before the priest ever made it. If only he had some indulgence’s to lessen his stay in purgatory.

If Luther, Calvin and Henry could see the fruits of their labor today they would condemn their own Protestant ways and reconcile with the Catholic Church.

>>819275

>"A man be born of water and of the spirit" is two separate "births". Jesus confused Nicodemus when He told him that one had to be born again, because Nicodemus thought he meant you had to be literally born of a woman again, like coming out of a womb. Being born of water is your physical birth - since the womb has water in it - and being born of the spirit is when you accept Christ as your lord and savior and become a new creature in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Where did your interpretation of Baptism and John 3:5 come from? Unless you've interpreted it yourself, someone else had to have passed that interpretation down to you in some way.

Catholics and Orthodox are only keeping and preserving the faith that has been passed down the Apostles and their disciples.If you read the Early Church and Christians' interpretation of Baptism, they are far more consistent with the Orthodox and Catholic beliefs on Baptism today.

https://www.churchfathers.org/necessity-of-baptism (this is just a small sample size)

>Baptism is not necessary to be saved, or else the thief on the cross wouldn't have entered heaven since he wasn't baptized yet. But Jesus Himself assured the thief that he would be with Him in paradise.

Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 1257: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

>It is a symbol showing that you have accepted christ as your Lord, it does not cleanse one of sins (as only the blood of Christ does that). We are called to be like Christ, and Jesus Himself was baptized. But if baptism is something that washes a person of sin, why did the perfect and sinless Jesus get baptized?

Contrary to Early Church Fathers and teachings passed for centuries. St. Ignatius of Antioch's also has a teaching on why below.

St Ignatius of Antioch was a martyr and disciple of John the Apostle. John was the beloved apostle and last apostle to die. St. Ignatius of Antioch served as Bishop of Antioch. (founded by St. Peter the Apostle).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water."

-The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians - 18

Whose interpretation are you really trusting and whose are you going to go against?

Do you also view the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper as a symbol?

>>819278

>indulgences

As opposed to OSAS, aka "you can do whatever you want and you'll go to heaven, but if you're a particularly vile individual you were never saved anyways"?

>>819289

>Unless you've interpreted it yourself, someone else had to have passed that interpretation down to you in some way.

Not him, but 1 Corinthians 2:13, 1 John 2:27, John 16:13-14 and others explain this question.

John 14:16-17

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 16:13-14

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

1 Corinthians 2:12-13

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1 John 2:27

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

>someone else had to have passed that interpretation down to you in some way.

Yeah, and it's possible to have the interpretation handed down to you from God, the Holy Spirit. In fact Jesus Christ even promised this would be so.

So that defeats the purpose of fallible interpreters such as men. It has to be directly from God, who is the true teacher of all men toward truth. And if you think He doesn't exist, only then will you start looking for manmade interpretors (whose words you can privately interpret) and become indistinguishable from a papist.

>Whose interpretation are you really trusting and whose are you going to go against?

You still haven't addressed the fact that none of what you just wrote is Scripture. It's all fallible words that you are privately interpreting. The reason why you don't like to talk about Scripture is because no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, according to 2 Peter 1:20-21. You always run back to those fallible interpretations of doubtful provenance.

>>819326

This is madness. How do you know your interpretation is inspired by the holy spirit? Don't other sects and denominations claim the same?

>inb4 they're biased

Everyone has a bias, including you. In my opinion we can only know the true inspired interpretation by an authorative source, that is the church.