Myth: Scripture is the only word of God.

[Scotth1960]

Myth: Scripture is the only word of God.

"Protestants - The Bible

Protestant statement

"Scripture is the only word of God.

"An Orthodox answer.

"No it isn't. Oral Holy Tradition is also called "the word of God" in the Bible; Acts 17:13 and 1 Thess. 2:13 call St. Paul's past oral Christian preaching (which occurred before any of the NT was written) "the word of God." Note that no other patr of the NT is known to have been written before 1 Thessalonians.
"Let me ask you a question. Weren't people saved in the years after Christ but before the New Testament was written? Of course they were. (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are saved and will be in heaven (according to Christ [Mt. 8:11], but in their lifetimes none of the Bible had yet been written, nor even any of the OT.) It was this oral Apostolic Tradition (in the authority of the Orthodox Church) which decided which writings are doctrinally sound and can be included in the NT. This Tradition determined which books could be called genuine new Scripture in the 2nd century A.D. The Church made this list by comparing the various Christian writings to the teachings handed down by the Holy Tradition -- in this way some books were rejected and some accepted as (NT) Scripture.

"Protestant statement
"But the Bible (Col. 2:8) warns against following "human tradition" that is "not according to Christ."

"An Orthodox answer.
"Agreed; but the Tradition of the Church is of the Holy Spirit.
This verse at left is about the false tradition (inventions of "human" minds), not the Tradition received from God. Look at the entire verse, which criticizes those who attempt to trick you "through philosophy and empty deceit." The Apostle is warning hee against useless speculation concerning unprovable things.
"St. Paul seems to be speaking against persons whom we could in some ways call Gnostics (when we consider the errors he criticizes further on in chapter 2)".

(page 40: DANCE, O ISAIAH: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EASTERN ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER FAITHS. Copyright 2000, Constantine Platis. Boston, MA: Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston.).

 

[Scotth1960]

Myth: Scripture is the only word of God.

"Protestants - The Bible

Protestant statement

"Scripture is the only word of God.

"An Orthodox answer.

"No it isn't. Oral Holy Tradition is also called "the word of God" in the Bible; Acts 17:13 and 1 Thess. 2:13 call St. Paul's past oral Christian preaching (which occurred before any of the NT was written) "the word of God." Note that no other patr of the NT is known to have been written before 1 Thessalonians.
"Let me ask you a question. Weren't people saved in the years after Christ but before the New Testament was written? Of course they were. (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are saved and will be in heaven (according to Christ [Mt. 8:11], but in their lifetimes none of the Bible had yet been written, nor even any of the OT.) It was this oral Apostolic Tradition (in the authority of the Orthodox Church) which decided which writings are doctrinally sound and can be included in the NT. This Tradition determined which books could be called genuine new Scripture in the 2nd century A.D. The Church made this list by comparing the various Christian writings to the teachings handed down by the Holy Tradition -- in this way some books were rejected and some accepted as (NT) Scripture.

"Protestant statement
"But the Bible (Col. 2:8) warns against following "human tradition" that is "not according to Christ."

"An Orthodox answer.
"Agreed; but the Tradition of the Church is of the Holy Spirit.
This verse at left is about the false tradition (inventions of "human" minds), not the Tradition received from God. Look at the entire verse, which criticizes those who attempt to trick you "through philosophy and empty deceit." The Apostle is warning hee against useless speculation concerning unprovable things.
"St. Paul seems to be speaking against persons whom we could in some ways call Gnostics (when we consider the errors he criticizes further on in chapter 2)".

(page 40: DANCE, O ISAIAH: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EASTERN ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER FAITHS. Copyright 2000, Constantine Platis. Boston, MA: Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston.).

Friends:

"Family Tradition
"What is our holy tradition? It is the "one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:5,6). It is that precious faith, "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). It is Orthodox Christianity.
"At this point you might be saying, "Okay -- I understand there's good tradition and bad tradition, the tradition of God and the tradition of men. But rather than using the "T" word, why can't we just say we believe the Bible?"
"We can. We do. But we must say more. Why? Because the Jehovah's Witness at your door also carries a Bible and says he believes it. Tradition is there not just to preserve the Bible but to interpret it. Without the Church there to interpret, to shed the light of holy tradition on those chapters and verses, you and the Jehovah's Witnesses are in a dead heat: his interpretation versus yours.
"The Church is thus our guardian of the truth. In the words of Saint Paul himself, she is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15).
"Let's say you're driving down the street going fifty in a thirty-five mile per hour zone. The city statutes have designated thirty-five as the maximum speed on city streets. But who is it that pulls you over, the book of city statutes? No, it's a traffic officer. For the same civil laws that set the speed limit also provide the city with a police force. The officer is there to enforce the laws and statutes.
"So it is with the Bible, the Church, and tradition. The Scriptures are true -- holy, just, and good. But they were never meant to stand alone. Their enforcer and interpreter -- indeed, their writer -- is the Church. The Church is also the doer of the word. And the way things are done and have been done is preserved for us in holy tradition. But even the Church did not originate her tradition.
"The tradition has one source: God Himself. To begin with, the Apostles received it from Jesus Christ and passed it one unchanged and undiminished to the Churches which tehy formed. Jesus had told the Twelve that they still had truth to learn, that the Holy Spriit would lead them into it.
"On the Day of Pentecost, God's Old Covenant people became His New Covenant people as they were baptized into Christ. As the Church developed, guided by the Spirit, the people brought with them their worship, given in them hundreds of years earlier, patterned after things in heaven (see Hebrews 9:23) but now centered in Christ Himself. The tradition of Christian worship was born as the old gave way to the new. ..."

(pages 71-72: BECOMING ORTHODOX: A JOURNEY TO THE ANCIENT CHRISTIAN FAITH. Revised and Expanded Edition. Copyright 1992, by Fr. Peter E. Gillquist. Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press. ).

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I think the problem with what you are saying is that the Church traditions you mention are seperated from the Bible. If you are talking about the Original Church in the New Testament, then of course the traditions would be those from the Apostles and Prophets that God gave. I also believe these traditions are talked about in the Bible and that they are part of the Bible. The problem is when you talk about modern Churches, without the Bible who do you know that claims to know what the diciples said without the Bible? Without written proof, who is saying they have stories from people in the New Testament? Many groups have traditions such as the Catholic Church, but they don't have Bible proof that they are traditions from God! In fact alot of churches when they give their statement are basing their belief on the Bible. This makes the traditions from the Bible, not seperate. If you know any people who claim to have stories or traditions from the New Testament time without any written Biblical proof, do they know for sure that these traditions are from that long ago and that people who were born again kept them in history from the New Testament until now?

 

[Scotth1960]

I think the problem with what you are saying is that the Church traditions you mention are seperated from the Bible. If you are talking about the Original Church in the New Testament, then of course the traditions would be those from the Apostles and Prophets that God gave. I also believe these traditions are talked about in the Bible and that they are part of the Bible. The problem is when you talk about modern Churches, without the Bible who do you know that claims to know what the diciples said without the Bible? Without written proof, who is saying they have stories from people in the New Testament? Many groups have traditions such as the Catholic Church, but they don't have Bible proof that they are traditions from God! In fact alot of churches when they give their statement are basing their belief on the Bible. This makes the traditions from the Bible, not seperate. If you know any people who claim to have stories or traditions from the New Testament time without any written Biblical proof, do they know for sure that these traditions are from that long ago and that people who were born again kept them in history from the New Testament until now?

dear jonathanbchristian,
If that is true, then, there could have been no Christians or Jews before there was a written Bible.
Before the Jews had the written Bible of the OT, they would not have been saved, if salvation depended upon having the written Bible.
Before the Christians had written the Bible of the NT, they would not have been saved, if salvation depended upon having the written Bible.
Salvation depends upon having the Holy Spirit of Christ, Who proceedeth from the Father.
In some parts of the world, Christians do not yet have the whole OT and NT.
Are they not saved?
The Bible reveals that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16).
This can happen before reading the NT.
One can hear the NT being read aloud in the Church.
One can hear preachers preaching the word of God.
Saint Paul converted, with God's Spirit, many Gentiles, years before he wrote any of his epistles.
How do we know what the NT is unless someone reveals this to us?
How do we know there are only 27 books in the NT? And 49 or 50 books in the OT?
The Church tells us that.
People disagree on what the Bible is.
Some traditions go astray from the commonly accepted Christian tradition.
The Ethiopian church is a rare exception, and they add additional books which they consider books of the NT.
And they also add a few books to the OT, too.
The rest of the Church doesn't follow Ethiopian tradition.
If we were going by what Martin Luther says the Bible is, we would not have James, 1 John, and Revelation in the NT. I believe Luther also questioned either 1 Peter and 2 Peter, maybe both.
Yet the Church has always accepted all these books, including Revelation, as problematic as Revelation remains. The book of Revelation is the one book of all the Bible that most people misunderstand. Or simply don't read because it is so hard to understand.
As for Church traditions, they cannot be separated from the Bible. The Bible is part of Church tradition. It's one of the written parts. There are also writings by the Church Fathers which are also the word of God. And the spoken words of Church Fathers and Church Apostles, the Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15).
Unless we know what the Church is, we won't know what the Bible means.
We need to listen to certain individual Christians, both of the past (Church Fathers), and people from today's times, who follow the Patristic teachings.
In Erie Scott R. Harrington

 

[Scotth1960]

dear jonathanbchristian,
If that is true, then, there could have been no Christians or Jews before there was a written Bible.
Before the Jews had the written Bible of the OT, they would not have been saved, if salvation depended upon having the written Bible.
Before the Christians had written the Bible of the NT, they would not have been saved, if salvation depended upon having the written Bible.
Salvation depends upon having the Holy Spirit of Christ, Who proceedeth from the Father.
In some parts of the world, Christians do not yet have the whole OT and NT.
Are they not saved?
The Bible reveals that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16).
This can happen before reading the NT.
One can hear the NT being read aloud in the Church.
One can hear preachers preaching the word of God.
Saint Paul converted, with God's Spirit, many Gentiles, years before he wrote any of his epistles.
How do we know what the NT is unless someone reveals this to us?
How do we know there are only 27 books in the NT? And 49 or 50 books in the OT?
The Church tells us that.
People disagree on what the Bible is.
Some traditions go astray from the commonly accepted Christian tradition.
The Ethiopian church is a rare exception, and they add additional books which they consider books of the NT.
And they also add a few books to the OT, too.
The rest of the Church doesn't follow Ethiopian tradition.
If we were going by what Martin Luther says the Bible is, we would not have James, 1 John, and Revelation in the NT. I believe Luther also questioned either 1 Peter and 2 Peter, maybe both.
Yet the Church has always accepted all these books, including Revelation, as problematic as Revelation remains. The book of Revelation is the one book of all the Bible that most people misunderstand. Or simply don't read because it is so hard to understand.
As for Church traditions, they cannot be separated from the Bible. The Bible is part of Church tradition. It's one of the written parts. There are also writings by the Church Fathers which are also the word of God. And the spoken words of Church Fathers and Church Apostles, the Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15).
Unless we know what the Church is, we won't know what the Bible means.
We need to listen to certain individual Christians, both of the past (Church Fathers), and people from today's times, who follow the Patristic teachings.
In Erie Scott R. Harrington

Dear friend, My mistake. Luther didn't dispute 1 John. He did dispute Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation. He particularly was completely and utterly wrong when he stated that he believed James was not the work of an apostle of Christ because James contradicted Saint Paul in saying a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. Luther totally failed to comprehend and rightly understand Saint Paul. Saint Paul did not teach justification by faith alone. He said the works that do not justify are the works of the law, circumcision, ceremonial laws, ritual purity laws such as dietary laws of the OT. These works do not justify. He didn't teach that we are saved by faith alone without any good works whatsoever. Faith worketh through love (Gal. 5:6). And we are not saved by faith alone, but by faith, hope, and love (1 Cor. 13:13).
Fear of justification by works was Luther's over reaction against Roman Catholicism. Rome added additional works not necessary for salvation, and the works of indulgences and the so called works of supererogation, a false teaching that Scripture knows nothing of. Catholicism emphasized works too much; Lutheranism de-emphasizes works too much; Eastern Orthodox keeps the proper balance between faith and good works.
In Erie Scott Harrington

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I think the people you are talking about are from the Protestant Reformation. They came up with 10 criteria for determining if a book was a book of the Bible. The book had to claim to be from God as one of the criteria. I also heard that Revelation was excepted later than other books but I believe it was excepted when it was written by the Church of the New Testament. Alot of what you mention would be tradition from the New Testament Church and from the Protestant Reformation. An example of book certification is LUKE 24:44, Jesus himself certified Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, when He said "...that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Jesus himself, if you recieve the book of Luke certifies the five first books of the Bible by Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, as books of the Word of God. Both Peter and Paul mention one another in the epistles as certified. God himself certifies the Apostles because the name of the Twelve Apostles is on the foundation of New Jerusalem in Revelation, (Judas' bisphoric was prophecied to be replaced; the lot feel on Mattias). I agree with what you are saying, I think it matches the New Testament Church as well as the Protestant Reformation. Most of our traditions are based on these two events.

 

[Scotth1960]

I think the people you are talking about are from the Protestant Reformation. They came up with 10 criteria for determining if a book was a book of the Bible. The book had to claim to be from God as one of the criteria. I also heard that Revelation was excepted later than other books but I believe it was excepted when it was written by the Church of the New Testament. Alot of what you mention would be tradition from the New Testament Church and from the Protestant Reformation. An example of book certification is LUKE 24:44, Jesus himself certified Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, when He said "...that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Jesus himself, if you recieve the book of Luke certifies the five first books of the Bible by Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, as books of the Word of God. Both Peter and Paul mention one another in the epistles as certified. God himself certifies the Apostles because the name of the Twelve Apostles is on the foundation of New Jerusalem in Revelation, (Judas' bisphoric was prophecied to be replaced; the lot feel on Mattias). I agree with what you are saying, I think it matches the New Testament Church as well as the Protestant Reformation. Most of our traditions are based on these two events.

ISTM a book claiming to be from God is not a sufficient guarantee that it is from God.
If I am not mistaken, the book of Esther does not even use the word God. Yet Esther is an accepted part of the Jewish canon.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

The Book of Ester aludes to God in Ester 4:14 "...who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this? Mordecai is talking to Ester it is considered that God planned the whole thing. Ester was a queen and the Jews were to be destroyed. Mordecai believed she became queen "for such a time as this."
I believe this means God was the one who planned the story and I have heard that this is excepted by the Church for this reason.

 

[Scotth1960]

I think the problem with what you are saying is that the Church traditions you mention are seperated from the Bible. If you are talking about the Original Church in the New Testament, then of course the traditions would be those from the Apostles and Prophets that God gave. I also believe these traditions are talked about in the Bible and that they are part of the Bible. The problem is when you talk about modern Churches, without the Bible who do you know that claims to know what the diciples said without the Bible? Without written proof, who is saying they have stories from people in the New Testament? Many groups have traditions such as the Catholic Church, but they don't have Bible proof that they are traditions from God! In fact alot of churches when they give their statement are basing their belief on the Bible. This makes the traditions from the Bible, not seperate. If you know any people who claim to have stories or traditions from the New Testament time without any written Biblical proof, do they know for sure that these traditions are from that long ago and that people who were born again kept them in history from the New Testament until now?

All of the traditions after the schism of 1054 AD do not have proof that they are from God.
Ever since in 1014 AD when the pope of Rome began chanting "who proceeds from the Father" and the Son (Filioque), in defiance of Jesus Christ in John 15:26, there have been many other traditions of men. Starting with John Wycliffe in England in the 13th century, Protestant traditions began as a schism from the original Great Schism of Roman Catholicism. Martin Luther further went into schism, and John Calvin into a schism based upon Luther's schism, and later Arminius in a schism based on Calvin's schism, and so on, seemingly ad infinitum, until Protestant Evangelicalism, all based "on the Bible alone", is in a series of messy schisms and divisions, great disunity, in defiance of Jesus Christ, Who prayed His followers would all be One in John17. How do we know Luther's interpretation is correct? There is no writing from the first century AD that says "justification by faith alone", or no writing that says "by Scripture alone".

 

[Scotth1960]

The Book of Ester aludes to God in Ester 4:14 "...who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this? Mordecai is talking to Ester it is considered that God planned the whole thing. Ester was a queen and the Jews were to be destroyed. Mordecai believed she became queen "for such a time as this."
I believe this means God was the one who planned the story and I have heard that this is excepted by the Church for this reason.

I believe the Song of Songs also do not mention God by name.

 

[schoolofyoungprophet]

id rather stick wid scripture n try to liv ba it then to follow da ways of men

 

[Hearer]

the fact is that everyone thinks they can interpret scripture with the holy spirit. but if that is true then all the separate denominations would agree, the HS would not tell one man one thing and another man something else. Someone has to have authority and that authority must come from God. Each protestant believes he has th authority and it just leads to disunity.

If you have a word from God then share it but its meaning has to be tested against the scriptures (OT and NT). The chances are that we will be seeing faintly and with reverence if we are faithful.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I believe the Song of Songs also do not mention God by name.

I believe that Book is called Song of Solomon. It is recieved as one of the works of Solomon. We know from the Bible that Solomon recieved a gift of wisdom from God in I Kings 3:5-15. Because it's believed to be a book from Solomon and we know God gave a gift to Solomon of wisdom, the book is recieved. We know Kings mentions God for sure and that God gave Solomon a gift of wisdom. I Kings 4:32 And he spoke three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. I Kings 4:34 And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

 

[Scotth1960]

I believe that Book is called Song of Solomon. It is recieved as one of the works of Solomon. We know from the Bible that Solomon recieved a gift of wisdom from God in I Kings 3:5-15. Because it's believed to be a book from Solomon and we know God gave a gift to Solomon of wisdom, the book is recieved. We know Kings mentions God for sure and that God gave Solomon a gift of wisdom. I Kings 4:32 And he spoke three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. I Kings 4:34 And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

Actually, same difference. The book is called both Song of Songs, and Song of Solomon. The work begins, "The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's". I believe it's called "Shir ha-Shirim" in Hebrew. There is also a valid Bible book called Wisdom of Solomon. Which is by Solomon. It's a valid part of the deuterocanon. The unbelieving Jews rejected this book along with rejecting Jesus Christ. The Protestants follow the unbelieving Jews, and not the tradition of the Greek Orthodox Church. They trust what Jews who reject Christ say about the Hebrew Bible. How would they know what's Scripture, when they don't know Christ?