What is more Trusrworthy, the Bible or Tradition? (60)

[horseman528]

If you take God's Word as established in the bible and ask yourself, "Is there enough information in the new testament to save one and live a Christian life?" The answer is yes. Any additional information to the new testament is not necessary and anything taken away from God's Word makes it incomplete. Traditions of men change with the times, but God's Word endures forever.

[TheButtascotchbro1]

Not only were they keenly believing what the apostle Paul taught them but they were also “carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”—Acts 17:11.

[TheButtascotchbro1]

*** w10 9/1 pp. 12-13 Guard Against Being Deceived ***

Rather than being deceived by what is “falsely called ‘knowledge,’” use God’s Word to establish the truth. (1 Timothy 6:20, 21) Be like the noble-minded men and women whom the apostle Paul preached to in Beroea. They “received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind.”

[TheButtascotchbro1]

*** w10 9/1 p. 12 Guard Against Being Deceived ***

Of course, some may say that anyone who believes in God and accepts the Bible as His inspired Word is misguided. In reality, though, the misguided ones are those who stubbornly ignore all the evidence that proves the existence of a Creator and that the Bible is truly God’s inspired Word.—Romans 1:18-25; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

[bereanbaconettes]

richard. the bible IS tradition you idiot. 2 thess 2 :15 hold fast to the traditions which we have handed down to you both by word of mouth or WRITTEN EPISTLE. both the oral and written tradition is Gods word and equal in Truth.

[jime68]

Great video Amen and thanks.

[martlut]

gee you wouldn't even have your bible if it wasn't for tradition

[garciamanolet]

how many times has your church broken down, numerous times you cannot agree by yourselves. how can you preach when you cannot even agree with one another to the point of breaking up, anger, pride involved !!!! the catholic church has stood the test of time. this can only be GODS work. no matter what you say its tainted by jealousy and envy , is that the only way you know to attract people to your church, by faulting others!! this is not from GOD, what a shame!!

[vaccutter]

Read Revelations. The Roman Catholic church is referenced numerous times as a tool of the Anti Christ. Please, research before you talk crap. It lasted so long because the Devil, Lucifer, helps it along. Catholics have NO argument when it comes to the Bible versus their twisted beliefs.

[vaccutter]

In Revelations, it says that the true church will be divided and persecuted numerous times. Research is a beautiful tool.

[crazy650c]

You are correct but you need some learning too. It's Revelation.....no "s". Perhaps you should listen to less sermons and read more bible.

[bereanbaconettes]

@vaccutter Really? tell me, which passage of revelation says "roman Catholic Church" ?

[willsworthy]

Thanks for the piercing tone right at the beginning fucknut!! What's the point of that?

I'm not watching it just for that you fuckin puke!

[vaccutter]

Wow, calm down, skid row. Just click on the slider and skip it. Not a big deal.

[godscuttingyoudown]

relaxed the tone is designed to purge demons before viewing

[mataquiso2008]

most trustworthy is the bible.

[sprtslvr1973]

"To the original question:

You can not have Tradition without Scripture and vice versa. Scripture is Tradition

[cajunhornet60]

God alone knows what should have been included in the Bible; CERTAINLY not a bunch of 4th Century Bishops and a corrupt Pope. People NEED to know the truth; the old dogmas of church teachings have so many contradicitions; they are being ignored.

[imromancatholic]

This is funny. He pits tradition against scripture. Read 2 Thes 2:15 CAREFULLY. scripture is a tradition! Hold fast to the TRADITIONSSSSS you have recieved, whether BY WORD OF MOUTH OR IN WRITING FROM Us.

[Studier101]

You are asumming that the traditions of Rome which contradict the Scripture written by the Apostles must be handed down by the Apostles - and that without proof. That is what is "funny", or rather, unfounded absurdity.

[imromancatholic]

Actually I assume nothing. I can see the teachings of Catholicism in 100, 200, 400, 800, 1000, 1500 and today, in all ages. They were in fact passed down. No they do not contradict scripture except in your own misunderstanding of them and of scripture.

[Studier101]

Interestingly enough, even Rome's infallible dogmas (e.g.,Council of Trent) have to be interpreted, and even official interpretations of these dogmas must be interpreted.

It comes down to this; it is either:

1. "Thus saith the Lord" (God as the authority)

or

2. "Thus saith Rome" (The Bishop of Rome and clergy as the authority)

Either you must be subject with docility to the Pontiff of Rome OR you must be subject to God. Only one of them can be the FINAL authority.

[imromancatholic]

That God has Final authority does not mean others do not have authority. 1 and 2 are a false dichotomy. God gives men authority "obey and submit to your leaders who have concern for your souls" Heb 13:17. Who do you submit to as your leader. Ya I know God, but Heb 13:17 isn't referring to God primarily.

[Studier101]

Elders of the local church are to lead not only by teaching but also by example. They are to be those; who, like Peter, have faith through the "righteousness of God", Jesus Christ.

[imromancatholic]

Amen.

[Studier101]

I am speaking of the pastors or leaders of each fellowship, chosen on the basis of:

1. Personal faith.

2. Desire to lead.

3. Meeting of Paul's eldership qualifications written in the Scripture.

Not priests, for all are priests and kings unto God who are members of Christ's body. Ordination, as such, is unecessary for NT leadership (i.e., the leaders are chosen on the basis of the Bible; they do not have to be confirmed by an independent hiearchy).

[imromancatholic]

The preisthood of believers does not mean their cannot be any ministerial preisthood. The preisthood of believers was an OT doctrine. Check out Ex 19. All the Jews were preists as well but there were three or four types of preists.

[Studier101]

You are bound to accept Rome's own misunderstanding of the text (private interpretation) so you really cannot tell me that I misunderstand it, except you have been told that.

[imromancatholic]

So your infallible in your understandings? Who is the pillar and support of the truth? The individiual? Trust not in your own understanding/

[dan0898]

Can someone please tell me who wrote the Gospel of Matthew? And remember to rely ONLY on the Bible for your answer.

[8zx99]

Matthew....(the four evangelists were-matthew, mark, luke, and John- they wrote the

new testament Gospel.

[dan0898]

8z, remember that the gospels did not come with titles. We know that Paul wrote his letters because he says he did (check Gal. 1:1, 1 Cor. 1:1, etc.) Where in the Gospel of Matthew does it say that Matthew wrote the book?

[bulyabalive]

Did John title his letters? Does he mention in those letters that he is the writer? Do you refute that he is not the writer as you do with Matthew? Who wrote the book of Hebrews?

[dan0898]

I KNOW for a fact that Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name, BUT the Bible DOES NOT tell us that. I also know that Paul wrote Hebrews and that John wrote his Gospel. I know these FACTS because of Sacred Tradition. How do you know that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

[bulyabalive]

You are the one who asked the question about the book of Matthew. I just was pointing out more books in the Scriptures which bore no names at the introduction. Now my turn to ask you; who writes the "Sacred tradition"?  How do you determine that they are God breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17)? And, where do you draw the line in regard to God's word in those "traditions" and the teachings of men Jesus warns about in Mat 15:9.

[dan0898]

Let me make this simple. We would not have a Bible without Sacred Tradition. It was oral tradition that made it clear which books belonged in the Bible and which didn't. As you know, there was a huge debate about whether Revelation belonged in the Bible. It was oral tradition, not scripture, which decided in favor of including Revelation and not other books. (Continued)

[dan0898]

2 Thes. 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught, whether by WORD OF MOUTH or by letter from us."

2 Thes. 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the TRADITION which you received from us."

[chichi2joe]

Fine. These verses talk about the traditions which are within the Scriptures themselves, not outside them. But even then, you may go astray and miss salvation if you do not adhere to the Holy Spirit and be a "doer of the word". This was the problem of the Pharisees - waiting for the Christ so much but when He appeared they killed Him instead! Mat 15:3 "Why do you also transgress the commandmnet of God by your tradition"?

[dan0898]

You don't understand the difference between the traditions of men condemned by Jesus and Sacred Tradition, endorse by Paul and the Catholic Church (2 Thes 2:15).

[Studier101]

Rome church tradition is contrary to Paul

[chichi2joe]

So what is your problem? You now have the Bible! Why do you need the "Sacred Tradition" so much? If there was a huge debate about the Book of Revelation that does not concern me. God included it in His word that is what matters and in my simple understanding it is very much in commnion with other books of the Bible. Those who will be judged by it including Satan are the ones who hate it so much.

[dan0898]

YOU now have the Bible thanks to the tradition of the Catholic Church which compiled the books and declared them canonical in 382 AD in Rome, 393 AD in Hippo and 397 AD in Carthage. We need tradition because not everything was revealed in Scripture. For example, why did the Church include Philemon, but not the Shepherd of Hermas in the Bible?

[Studier101]

Why should Rome be the holder of such tradition?

I postulate that your traditions and claims are both completely unfounded and unprovable.

[dan0898]

Could you be a little more specific? Which claims are unprovable? While you're at it, can you let us in on how the books of the Bible were compiled?

[Studier101]

The claims that men should submit to the authority of Rome, and that extrabiblical tradition resident in Rome is to be made equal with the Word of God.

As to the cannon, there is evidence that many of the books of Scripture were in circulation and were recognized even as the Apostles still lived. God is able to preserve the NT cannon just as the old Testament Cannon (without Rome). By the way, I do not believe that Rome is infallible if it couldn't settle the cannon for another 1,100 years!!!!

[dan0898]

"claims that men should submit to the authority of Rome" - see Matt 16:18-19

"extrabiblical tradition" - see 2 Thes 2:15

By the way, who wrote the Gospel of Matt? How do you know?

Yes many books of the canon were recognized, but some books that were not canonical were recognized as well (Shepherd of Hermas, Didache). It was the Catholic Church which separated the canonical from the non-canonical. NOT 1100 years later, but in 382 at Rome and again in 397 in Carthage.

[Studier101]

I refer to the apocrypha added in 1548 during the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation...

1548 - 382 = 1166 years = more than 1,100 years

Will answer the first part in a little bit...

[dan0898]

Council of Carthage III. "...The canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees." That would be the Old Testament, settled in 397AD.

[dan0898]

Council of Hippo 393AD: "...the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books."

[dan0898]

The exact same canon used by the Catholic Church today was the same one listed during synods in Rome in 382AD. Hippo in 393AD. Carthage in 397AD. Carthage in 419AD. Florence in 1442. Catholics didn't ADD any books at Trent. Luther REMOVED books! The listing of biblical books at Trent was just a reconfirmation of what the Church had deemed canonical for the past 1150 years.

[dan0898]

1 Cor. 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

2 Tim. 2:2 "The things which you have HEARD from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

[Conquer2day]

thanks agasin for posting this video. It always amazes me to see the difference in a man when he meets the real Jesus. This man is being used by Christ to expose the deeper discrepancies in Catholicism and the word of God. Thank you Lord for sending this man!

Take care!

[jernjane]

Amen, brother. Our God is truly Love.

[pugiofidei]

What is more trustworthy, Matthew, or Luke?

[jernjane]

They're equally trustworthy. There are no contradictions between them. The Scripture interprets itself.

[pugiofidei]

A book cannot interpret anything; its a book. Interpretation, by definition, has to be done by a thinking individual.

[pugiofidei]

My point was to draw a parallel; the Word of God is equally trustworthy--equally inspired--regardless of its source. This is true regardless of whether it be from Matthew, Genesis, or Oral Tradition (or even if God just tells you something directly). The Word of God cannot conflict with itself.

[Studier101]

True, insofar as its source is really of God. If something is claimed to be of God and it is not, then it is not the Word of God, is it?

And as to interpretation, the Bible is sufficiently clear that it can be interpreted without a clergyman. Moreover, the right of interpreting Scripture is given to the Holy Spirit, not to a church. The TRUE church is subject to the Word of God and not the other way around, this is plain.

[pugiofidei]

Well, not; if something is not the Word of God, then it isn't (the Law of Identity requires us to say that a thing is the same as itself). Nevertheless, St. Peter speaks of St. Paul's letters, "in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2nd Peter 3:16)

[pugiofidei]

Sorry about the typo.

Anyway, continuing the above thought, I should bring up the common objection that St. Peter only specifies "some things" as being hard to understand. Implied in this objection is that important things--things vital to salvation--are easy to understand. However, this objection fails to speak to St. Peter's argument; if the things "wrested" are vital enough to lead to the "wresters" destruction, then those things hard to understand must be right at the Gospel's heart.

[pugiofidei]

The question is, "Who is to teach the unlearned?" It goes without saying that this teacher would need to be subject to the Word of God--but he himself would have need education from someone in order to avoid "wresting" the difficult-to-understand scriptures himself. This is true today more than ever, now that even the youngest book of the Bible is obscured by two thousand years.

[pugiofidei]

The question is, "Who is to teach the unlearned?" It goes without saying that this teacher would need to be subject to the Word of God--but he himself would have need education from someone in order to avoid "wresting" the difficult-to-understand scriptures himself. This is true today more than ever, now that even the youngest book of the Bible is obscured by two thousand years.

[Studier101]

"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you."

(John 16:13-15, NKJV)

How is that for a Teacher?!

One who would back teaching authority must prove it.

[imromancatholic]

The spirit works through Christ's Church which is the pillar and support of the truth. Part of that leading is Christ' Church teaching and the spirit affirming what is taught.

[pugiofidei]

In conclusion, I might point out that interpretation is not a "right" per say, even if making doctrinal pronouncements is. A man has not choice but to interpret all stimuli that he is presented with, even if this is to interpret a particular stimulus as being uninterpretable; the mind always tried to place what it experiences through the senses in to a context that fits with the rest of its knowledge.

[tentmaker2]

There is a good article on Catholic tradition. In your browser, type the 3 Ws and the dot, then type christian truth, then type a dot and com, then backslash and type bahnsen. At the end type another dot and the letters (html).

[tentmaker2]

Tradition? Pt 1

It is impossible to trace oral tradition back to its source or to be certain of its accuracy. Oral teaching must inevitably be corrupted in the process of transmission from one generation to the next.

Even Vatican 2 admitted that tradition has gone through many changes: "Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress...there is a growth and insight into the realities and words that are being passed on." ("Dogmatic Constitution on Devine Revelation")

[tentmaker2]

Tradition? Pt 2

Rome says that the Word of God is not sufficient and must be interpreted and supplemented with its traditions. But the traditions of Rome are of ill repute, and lack the life and power of the Word of God. Take for example the fraudulent, Isidorian Decretals , revised and elaborated upon century after century, which formulated Roman Catholicism as it is today. Regarding these JH Ignaz von Dollinger says:

[tentmaker2]

Tradition? Pt 3

"Towards the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth centuries, the act of forgeries and fictions in the interest of Rome was actively carried on there. Then began the compilation of spurious acts of Roman martyrs, which was continued for some centuries, and at which modern criticism, even at Rome, has been obliged to give up..."

"While this tendency to forging documents was so strong in Rome, it is

[tentmaker2]

Tradition pt4

...remarkable that for a thousand years no attempt was made there to form a collection of canons...more than twenty Synods had been held in Rome since 313, but there were no records of them to be found."

"Gregory VII...regarded himself not merely as the reformer of the Church, but as the divinely commissioned founder of a wholly new order...

Gregory collected about him by degrees the right men for elaborating his system of Church law...

[tentmaker2]

Tradition? Pt5

...Anselm may be called the founder of the Gregorian system of Church law, first, by extracting and putting into convenient working shape everything in the Isidorian forgeries serviceable for Papal absolutism; next, by altering the law of the Church, through a tissue of fresh inventions and interpolations...

Clearly and cautiously as the Gregorian party went to work, they lived in a world of dreams and illusions about the past and about remote countries.

[tentmaker2]

Tradition? Pt6

They could not escape the imperative necessity of demonstrating their new system to have been the constant practice of the Church, it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish where involuntary delusion merged into conscious deceit. Whatever present exigencies required was selected from the mythical stores at their command hastily and recklessly. Then fresh inventions were added, and soon every claim of Rome could be shown to have a legitimate...

[tentmaker2]

Tradition? Pt 7

... foundation in existing records and decrees." (The Pope and the Council, von Dollinger, 1869)

This small glimpse into the history of Romanism's 'Oral Traditions" should hardly inspire confidence!