Group Number 63

[0 1]  [0 2]   [0 3]  [0 4]  [0 5]  [0 6]  [0 7]  [0 8]  [0 9]  [ 10]  [ 11]  [ 12]  [ 13]  [ 14]  [ 15]  [16]  [ 17]  [ 18]  [ 19]  [ 20]
  [ 21]  [ 22]  [ 23]  [ 24]  [ 25]  [ 26]  [ 27]  [ 28]  [ 29]  [ 30]  [ 31[ 32]  [ 33]  [ 34]  [ 35]  [ 36]  [ 37]  [ 38]  [ 39]  [ 40]
  [ 41[ 42]   [ 43]   [ 44]  [ 45]  [ 46] [ 47]  [ 48]  [ 49]  [ 50]  [ 51]  [ 52]  [ 53]  [ 54]  [ 55]  [ 56]  [ 57]  [ 58]  [ 59]  [60]
[61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]

globe.gif (9362 bytes)       

Is Oral tradition affirmed by scripture ?? Deut 32:7 - "Remember the days of old, Consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you, Your elders, and they will tell you. 2Th 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. I can give several examples of Jesus and the apostles using oral tradition "quotes" that are no were written in scripture. My favorite" He shall be called a Nazarene" is not written in scripture (old testament).

I take quite seriously the matter of not disputing about words (2 Timothy 2:14), such as how "traditions" is used in Scripture. If Scripture is given in order that the man of God "may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17), it is my persuasion that all compulsory tradition was eventually contained in Scripture. So far as I know, nothing in Scripture suggests that valid "tradition" was never written in Scripture, or was intended to remain only oral.

Further, it is generally understood that the word "traditions" refers more to the way of doing things (as in 2 Thess 3:6) than to pivotal doctrines. Most of the time, it is used to describe the traditions of men, which were in conflict with the Scriptures (i.e., Matt 15:2,3,6). In that case, tradition was always tested by the written Word.

In His temptation, Jesus did not use "tradition" to repel the Devil, but Scripture. In the delivering of fundamental doctrines, I know of no clear reference to "traditions." When it comes to the core of our salvation, and the means through which men are brought from the world to the glory, there is no clear teaching that calls upon us to rely upon "tradition," or the laws of the church.

As to Timothy and Luke (and you can include Jude and James), they were given understanding from God, as well as receiving the valid doctrine from the Apostles. When Jesus prayed for His Apostles, He prayed for those who would believe on Him through their word (John 17:2). In a special way, they were guided into all truth (John 16:13), and given to miraculously recall what was to be declared (John 14:26). They were set "first" in the church (1 Cor 12:28), and had no equals.

I have great difficulty with the postulate that a significant part of "the Apostles" doctrine" (Acts 2:42) was left out of the Scripture, being passed along by word of mouth alone. If the occurrences of history that bore upon our salvation were carefully "written" in Scripture (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11), I find it inconceivable that doctrines bearing upon the salvation of the soul remained unwritten.

I am familiar with the various arguments on this matter, and do not see any spiritual profit in extending a discussion of the subject. If, after nearly 1,600 years, men are still disputing about "traditions" and their validity, we are not apt to resolve the matter. Suffice it to say, I will test every tradition affirming to have been given by God with the Apostle's doctrine, or teaching, as recorded in Scripture. I know you will do the same, for we are obliged by the Spirit of God to "test the spirits, whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1). I cannot accept as essential teaching something that is affirmed by tradition alone, and know of no word of Scripture that encourages me to do so.

I will be glad to pray for you. Included in that prayer will the words Paul related to Timothy: "may the Lord give you understanding in all things" (2 Tim 2:7). I consider you my friend, and respect your desire to know and abide by the truth.

Is this verse's message TIMELESS? If it is then Our Lord gives the church the words to speak, Oral tradition guided by the holy spirit in truth forever ???? Luke 21:15 "for I will give you the right words and such wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to reply!"

Luke 21:15
First, you must take care how you handle the Word of God. Do not be so zealous to establish the validity of oral church tradition that you wrest the words of the Savior. First, this had nothing whatsoever to do with passing redemptive truth from generation to generation. Rather, it was our Lord's promise to guide His disciples when they were summoned to speak before officials who sought to persecute them. They would be empowered to speak appropriately, bringing honor to God. To say Jesus meant by these words that the Holy Spirit would establish truth forever by means of oral tradition simply cannot be justified, either by reason or revelation. If Jesus had intended to say that, He would have spoken it with clarity. Further, there would be some record of someone teaching oral tradition as the appointed means of maintaining truth.

It is true that John said there were many things Jesus did that were not written in his book (John 20:30). However, John told us the reason for this condition. First, there were too many things done by our blessed Lord to be written. Second, what was written was in order that we might believe and have life through Christ's name (John 20:31). To infer from this that we can equally have life through words that were NOT written is to go beyond what is written a practice we are admonished to avoid (1 Cor 4:6). 

<< Eph 2:8 - "For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the 
gift of God." The catholic church teaches OF Mary's immaculate conception , Does this verse illustrate to us that Mary was saved by Grace before Jesus actually died on the cross? >>

This verse says what it means. The grace of God is experienced when we believe, or have faith. That is the appointed means of obtaining grace. Elsewhere we are even said to have "believed through grace" (Acts 18:27). I know of no clear word that separates the salvation of Mary from other people, or any word that excludes her from the fact that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), or that "there is not righteous, no not one" (Rom 3:10).

As to the veneration of Mary as our example, precisely what inspired man was given this oral tradition, and why is there no reference to such a teaching anywhere in Scripture? The angel of the Lord said all generations would call her "Blessed." Where is the source that says she was to be our example or model.

What redemptive teaching is there that is rooted in oral tradition. What doctrine is there that is related to the justification of sinners, the remission of sins, the sanctification of the soul, or the hope of glory, that is not founded on Scripture? What essential doctrine pertaining to Christ, (His vicarious death, His resurrection, His exaltation to the right hand of God, or His constant intercession for us), is not declared in Scripture?

Why does Peter, who is of unusual significance in Catholic doctrine, say our formerly aimless lives were received by "tradition," but never says that is how profitable lives are stimulated?

Is Jesus the new Adam and Mary the new EVE?

Jesus is not said to be the "new Adam." Rather, He is the "LAST Adam," and the "Second Man," or second kind of man. He brought an end to Adam's generation, and began a new one that would be eternal "His generation." Jesus nor the Apostles made any correlation between Eve and Mary. Whatever private views you may have on the matter, you do well not to make an attempt to stuff it into Scripture. Jerusalem, which is above, is the mother of us all, not Mary (Gal 4:26).

You seem determined to establish something of which Moses, the Prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus Himself, nor the Apostles ever endeavored to establish. If the matter of oral tradition was, as you seem to infer, a critical matter, then much would be made of it in the Scriptures. When the Pharisees sought to entangle the Lord with some of their oral tradition, the Savior said they did not know the Scriptures nor the power of God (Matt 22:29). When Jesus confronted the Tempter, he overcame him by quoting the Scripture, not oral tradition (Matt 4:4,6,10). Why didn't Jesus quote some oral tradition? To my knowledge no reference is ever made to oral tradition being fulfilled. Reference is made to the Scriptures being fulfilled (Matt 1:17; 27:9; Mk 15:28; James 2:23 . . . etc.). When Jesus illuminated the two on the road to Emmaus, He opened up the Scriptures concerning Himself (Lk 24:47). Jesus challenged His critics by saying the Scriptures testified of Him (John 5:39). The Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). Holy men proved "from the Scriptures" that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 18:28). Things that were written before are for our learning that we though the patience and comfort of "the Scriptures" might have hope (Rom 15:4). 

The Gospel of Christ is said to have been promised by the Prophets in the Scriptures (Rom 1:2), and is now being made known by the Scriptures of the Prophets (Rom 16:26). Christ's death, burial, and resurrection are said to be "according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3-4). Paul told Timothy the Holy Scriptures made him wise to salivation (2 Tim 3:15). Never is it said that any of these vital realities were according to oral tradition.

When Jesus was raised from the dead, the disciples "believed the Scripture" (John 2:22). Jesus said the coming of the spirit was according to the Scripture (John 7:38). Scripture is said to foresee (Gal 3:8) and conclude (Gal 3:22) -- something never said of tradition.

Apollos was mighty in the Scriptures (Acts 18:24). We have no record of any one being commended for being mighty or proficient in tradition. 

At east seventy-two times the New Testament says "It is written," thereby buttressing the truth. Four times the words "it has been said" are used. All of them are by the Lord Himself. Not a single one of them was bound upon people, but were shown to refer to statements inferior to His own (Matt 5:31,33,38,43). 

One "saying" that went abroad among the disciples was that John would not die (John 21:23). The saying represented a misconception of what the Lord had said of him. Another saying that was commonly reported among the Jews was that Jesus' disciples came by night sand stole his body from the tomb (Matt 28:15). Both of these, I support, might be called oral tradition.

As to the word, "He shall be called a Nazarene," the passage has been the subject of discussion for hundreds of years. There is by no means unanimity among those who have sought to know its meaning -- but I know of no recognized student of Scripture that uses it to confirm that oral tradition is equated with Scripture. The word "Nazareth" does mean shoot or branch. In such a case the word would be fulfilled by Jeremiah's reference to a branch of righteousness (Jer 23:5; 33:15), as well as that of Isaiah (Isa 11:1). If used to denote a Nazarite, it means "separated," as outlined under the Law (Numbers 6:2-21). In that case, the word would have fulfilled what was said of Samson, who was a sort of precursor of Jesus in the matter of deliverance (Judges 13:5). This type of fulfillment also occurred in reference to Hosea 11:1, which spoke of Israel's deliverance from Egypt, yet was applied to Jesus being brought out of Egypt when but an infant (Matt 2:15). 

Matthew declares this was a word spoken by "the prophets," in the plural. This does not necessarily mean it was a word-for-word prophecy. This can also mean this was the spirit of the words of the prophets, which spoke of the uniqueness and separateness of the Savior. This is similar to Paul saying the one who loves his neighbor fulfills the whole law (Rom 13:8). Peter refers to the prophets in the same manner, saying they prophesied of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow (1 Pet 1:11). Even though none of them spoke those precise words, they represented the spirit, or life, of their message. This not a usual way for the Spirit to speak.

I have taken far too much time discussing these things, and do not consider them to rank high on the scale of spiritual profit. You may be able to cite references that, in your judgment, refer to oral tradition. To confirm the point you are attempting to make, however, you must provide some extended teaching of Scripture that refers to oral tradition some doctrine that has its source in oral tradition. In my judgment, it is time to move on to a subject that is more conducive to edification, and has more exclamation marks than question marks.

How is a Christian supposed to take care of their bodies? I know of several Christian that fast a lot and are in poor health. They say that God wants them to fast, to strengthen the inter man (spirit). They say that we are to fast when every we feel the need. Romans 12:1 say that we are to present our bodies as living sacrifice, holy acceptable. How can we give an acceptable sacrifice, if our bodies are sick and frail? How can the Holy spirit live in a sick and frail body? Do you know what the Bible says how we are to treat our bodies?

Our bodies are the weakest part of our constitution. They are called "vile bodies," and the source of humiliation (Phil 3:20-21). They are our outward man, and are perishing daily (2 Cor 4:16). Because they are the seat of sinful lusts, we are to buffet our bodies, bringing them into subjection to our quest for glory, and not allowing them to dictate how we live (1 Cor 9:27).

Not withstanding this condition, our bodies are also said to be "the members of Christ" (1 Cor 6:15). As such, they do not belong to us, and are to be devoted to moral purity (1 Cor 6:16-20). The body, we are told, is "not for fornication, but for the Lord" (1 Cor 6:13).

As to how the Spirit can live in a sick and frail body, the Scriptures never approach the subject in that way. Timothy is said to have had frequent infirmities (1 Tim 5:23). Paul carried about some handicap -- a "thorn in the flesh." After hearing from Jesus concerning His grace being sufficient, Paul said he would "glory" in his infirmities, for they provided a reason for Jesus to give him strength (2 Cor 12:5-10).

As to fasting, David confessed "My knees are weak through fasting, and my flesh is feeble from lack of fatness" (Psa 109:24). Jesus began His ministry by fasting from food, eating "nothing" for forty days and forty nights (Matt 4:2; Luke 4:2). You must not allow yourself to entertain a view of fasting that would require you to criticism David or our blessed Lord.

When speaking of the body, the Bible emphasizes keeping it pure and separate from sin. Special diets are never mentioned, and fasting is never criticized unless it is not sincere, or is thought to compensate for a lack of godliness. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:15,19), and the place where the treasure of salvation is contained (2 Cor 4:7). It is to be presented to God as a living sacrifice, that is, to be used for His glory (Rom 12:2). It is not the main part of us, and is not to be treated as though it was. If some part of us has to suffer, let it be the body, not the soul or the spirit.

I Cor. 14:40. Do you have a lesson on this? Emotionalism in worship seems to be taking over. Any opinions???

"Let all things be done decently and in order." This text is not speaking of worship, but of edifying the members of the body. (1 Cor 14:12,26). The current emphasis on "worship" is not found in Scripture. It is a sort of human fabrication that has created job opportunities for religious professionals, and educational and career opportunities for those who are closer to this world than the world to come.

You are correct in your assessment of emotionalism in what is called "worship." Emotionalism is soulish, not spiritual. It is anchored to the soul, which is to be managed with patience, and is capable of descending into the depths as well as rising into the heights. Real worship occurs "in the Spirit" and is accompanied by perception, comprehension, and understanding.

Things that are done "decently" do not draw undue attention to the flesh, or other external matters. Things that are "orderly" are sequential -- one at a time, so that everyone can be edified, or learn and be comforted (1 Cor 14:31). It is the business of every congregation to see to it that its assembly is decent and orderly. If this is not the case, the people will not be blessed, regardless of what they may imagine. God cannot be honored when men ignore what He has directed them to do.

When you get saved the Holy Spirit lives in your heart? You don't need to speak in tongues for the Holy Spirit to leave in your heart is that right?

The Word of God speaks on this matter, so there is no reason for any confusion concerning it. The Holy Spirit is sent into our hearts because we are God's children -- not because we prayed, not because someone else prayed, and not because someone else laid hands upon us. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ" (Gal 4:6-7). 

The Spirit is given to us to pour the love of God out into our hearts, enabling us to see how great it is, and how devoted the Lord is to saving us (Rom 5:5). He assists us in subduing the flesh (Rom 8:13), and produces Divine fruit within us (Gal 5:22-24). All of that, of course, has precious little to do with speaking in tongues or falling unconscious on the floor.

Nowhere do the Scriptures say it is necessary for us to speak in tongues -- under any condition, much less to confirm we have been given the Holy Spirit. We are categorically told that everyone does not speak in tongues (1 Cor 12:30), and that the person who prophesies, edifying, exhorting, and comforting God's people, is greater than the one who speaks in tongues (1 Cor 14:3-5). We are also admonished to seek the best gifts, of which tongues is included (1 Cor 12:31; 14:1).

Those who emphasize an imagined requirement to speak in tongues are not speaking for God. They are spouting their own opinions. God makes no such requirement, and He will call them into account on the day of judgment for their erroneous teaching. It has been the source of confusion, division, and contention within the body of Christ.

What do you think of the vineyard stuff? The music etc.? Is this of God?

It is a sort of religious fad. For many it has broken the monotony of dead religion, but it is more on the surface of life than at its depths. Some of their teachings -- like laughing in the Holy Spirit and animal sounds -- are purely the creation of men. They have demeaned Christ by associating His salvation with unintelligent and unprofitable actions that are more related to Eastern mysticism than to faith. They have no root in God's word.

It is my persuasion that there are, however, some godly brothers and sisters within the Vineyard movement. In my opinion, their acceptance by God is in spite of their Vineyard associations, and not because of them. The good things that are taught and occur among their number only display the mercy of God, not the validity of their teaching.

Do you believe we're living in the last days?

I do believe these are the last days -- particularly the ones the Spirit says are "perilous" (2 Tim 3:10-5). Such times, as that text declares, allow for a "form of religion that denies the power thereof" (verse 5). This is a time when a deplorable lack of acquaintance with God and His Word exists. The religious market has been flooded with supposedly Christian books that are mostly opinion and imagination. Sin has crept into the church at alarming levels. Things are winding down. It is the time to come boldly to the throne of all grace to obtain mercy, and find grace to help in the time of need (Heb 4:16; 20:22).

Concerning eating His fesh, Jesus' disciples took his word literally' If his disciples misunderstood what he was saying, why would Jesus let his disciples leave him? Surely Jesus would realize if they misunderstood him and explain himself so they would understand so they could then make there decision, otherwise he would be a poor teacher and let them leave him on a misunderstanding.

It was in this very discourse that the Lord Jesus affirmed, "The flesh profits nothing" (verse 63). That would not be true if your assessment of the passage is correct. In that case, flesh would profit everything. He said this to the disciples who were offended at His word concerning eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He preceded this response by referring to the removal of His body from this world: "Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?" (verse 61-62). That is, in the sense understood by the offended disciples, Christ's flesh would not even be available to them. That, of course, is the precise reason for the development of a doctrine that has God changing bread and the fruit of the vine into flesh and blood.

The disciples who left did not comprehend what Jesus had said, because their hearts were not right. Rather than being nourished by his words, they were offended by them. That revealed the state of their hearts, and thus Jesus let them go away with an improper understanding of what He had said. 

Jesus' failure to explain what He said to them was not indication that He was a poor teacher. He also did not explain other matters to such people, actually speaking in such a manner as to hide the truth, not reveal it. "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive'" (Matt 13:13-14).

Jesus was not speaking of His followers eating His flesh and blood in a carnal sense, any more than the Rock from which Israel drank in the wilderness was the literal Jesus (1 Cor 10:4). Christ was speaking in terms of the Old Covenant service, in which the priests ate the sacrifice offered to God (1 Cor 10:18). They ate it in the flesh, for their covenant was a fleshly one.

The flesh and blood of Jesus are ingested spiritually, by faith. They do not bring benefits to our flesh, but to our spirits. If this was not the case, our bodies would not die if we took the Lord's supper. Jesus said, "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:54). Eternal life is not in our bodies, else they would not need to be raised from the dead in "the last day." Only after the resurrection will our bodies be incorruptible. Eternal is nowhere clearly identified with an activity of the body.

Jesus also said, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him" (John 6:56). The ingestion of Christ's body and blood, therefore, cannot refer to a mere bodily activity. Abiding in Christ, and Christ abiding in us, is nowhere associated with mere routine.

The ability of God to change bread into flesh and the fruit of the vine into blood cannot be questioned. Moses turned water into blood. However, nowhere does the Spirit ever affirm that God changes the bread and fruit of the vine in the Lord's table to the flesh and blood of the incarnate Christ. It remained for men to develop that doctrine.

When we partake of the Lord's table, we are to do so with the words of Jesus in mind. "The is My body . . . this is My blood." However, to make those words an explanation of the physiological makeup of the bread and the cup is to go beyond what is written. Care must be taken not to be so aggressive to maintain the doctrines of the church that we miss the intent of its Head, Jesus Christ. Christ does not dwell in our hearts by means of an external routine. Rather, He does so by faith (Eph 3:16-17).

Let me preface my question with these two verses of scripture: Mt 18:19 - "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. John 16:23 - "In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you." In the catholic church & orthodox churches they believe in Christ's true presence in the Eucharist (the bread). When their fellowships pray with faith for the holy spirit to come upon these gifts so that they will become for us the body & blood of our lord as he said it was "This is my body" "This is my blood", so that we may receive him body, blood, soul, and divinity in the bread & the wine along with his word in the sacred liturgy at the Mass. Does God not answer this prayer?

It is not wise to attempt to superimpose a church tradition upon the Word of God. First, the following terms do not have their origin with God, and are nowhere used in Scripture. "Christ's true presence in the Eucharist," "the Holy Spirit to come upon these gifts," "they become for us the body and blood of the Lord," "so that we may receive Him body, blood, and Divinity," and "the sacred liturgy at the Mass."

A prayer for the Holy Spirit to come upon the bread and cup so that they become the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus to us, is nowhere directed by God. It is the product of human understanding, not of Divine revelation. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Lk 22:19). He made no reference to some form of physiological change that would take place in the bread and the fruit of the vine -- much less of the necessity of the change taking place, or the need of a prayer to accomplish that change. 

Jesus Himself did not pray in that manner for the bread and cup He distributed to His disciples. Rather, it is written, "He took the bread and gave thanks," and "he took the cup and gave thanks" (Lk 22:19; Matt 26:27). It was in this way that the bread was "blessed."

It is perfectly in order for such simplicity to characterize our involvement in the Lord's supper. If Jesus did not direct us to pray in the manner you described, it certainly cannot be bound upon us. Nor, indeed, ought we to expect that God is under any obligation to answer it.

What do the Scriptures say about what one is to do if they stole and then lied about stealing from someone?

First, the Bible forbids stealing at all. "Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need" (Ephesians 4:28). Rather than stealing, therefore, we are to work, earn wages, and give rather than steal from others.

Second, the bible forbids lying. "Do not lie to one another" (Colossians 3:9). Rather, we are to "speak the truth" (Ephesians 4;15).

A person who has stolen, then lies about it, has committed two sins. Both of them are forbidden. Such a person must first repent of both sins, seeking the forgiveness of God (1 John 1:9). Second, he should restore what was stolen, if possible, seeking the forgiveness of the one from whom he/she stole (Luke 19:8-9). God will not receive a person who has wronged another, and yet does not seek to make it right (Matt 23-24).

What does the Bible say about bankruptcy? Is it wrong.

Bankruptcy, as we know of it, is not dealt with in Scripture. The Bible does speak of those who had lost all of their resources. The woman who was healed of an issue of blood had spent "all her living upon the physicians" (Lk 8:43). Jesus and His disciples witnessed a poor lady who gave "all her living" to the Lord (Matt 12:44). In the prophet Elisha's day, there was also a widow whose husband was one of the sons of the prophets. When he died, a large debt was left behind that required her sons to become slaves, thus paying off the debt. Elisha provided a miraculous remedy for her situation (2 Kings 4:1-7).

Debtors who had no resources were often put into debtor's prisons, where the debt could be worked off (Matt 5:26; 18:30). But all of that was quite different from the bankruptcy of our time.

There are, in my judgment, occasions when bankruptcy, as allowed by the law of the land and the conscience of the believer, is permissible. There may be unusual circumstances that have led to such occasions -- circumstances that did not involve the foolishness of the debtor, or a covetous spirit. In such a case, the law allows for the liquidation of debts. While such times are not, in my judgment, sin, the child of God must not make this a first or favorable position. Every effort must be made to honor the Lord in our financial obligations in faith that He will enable us to do what is right.

Why are non believers or hypocrites blessed??

Non-believers and hypocrites are not blessed. God mercifully sends the rain unto them, and causes the sun to shine upon them (Matthew 5:45), but that is not blessing. The blessing of God involves turning people away from sin. As it is written, "To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities" (Acts 3:26). To be blessed is to have the favor and love of God upon us.

A person who has not been turned from their sin has not been blessed. The curse of God has been held back, and He has been merciful toward them, by not destroying them--but they are not blessed. After all, such people are "condemned already" (John 3:18), and the wrath of God is abiding upon them (John 3:36). God is "angry with the wicked every day" (Psalm 7:11). They must be careful not to consider His patience and forbearance of them as blessing. It is not, as the day of judgment will confirm.

I am sure you are referring to the prosperity of the wicked and hypocrite -- but that is not a blessing. Actually, it is sort of a snare, to confirm how truly wicked they are. The Psalmist said it this way, "For I was envious of the boastful, When I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no pangs in their death, But their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men, Nor are they plagued like other men. Therefore pride serves as their necklace; Violence covers them like a garment. Their eyes bulge with abundance; They have more than heart could wish. They scoff and speak wickedly concerning oppression; They speak loftily. They set their mouth against the heavens, And their tongue walks through the earth. Therefore his people return here, And waters of a full cup are drained by them. And they say, "How does God know? And is there knowledge in the Most High?" Behold, these are the ungodly, Who are always at ease; They increase in riches. Surely I have cleansed my heart in vain, And washed my hands in innocence. For all day long I have been plagued, And chastened every morning. If I had said, "I will speak thus," Behold, I would have been untrue to the generation of Your children. When I thought how to understand this, It was too painful for me; Until I went into the sanctuary of God; Then I understood their end. Surely You set them in slippery places; You cast them down to destruction" (Psalm 73:3-18).

Believe me, they are not in an enviable position. They are on a slippery slope down which they can slide into hell at any moment.

Apart from the book of revelation were in scripture does God command the apostles or the church to Write anything (scripture) ? 

In view of how much is said of "Scripture," and how little is said of tradition, your question is a most interesting one. Tell me what doctrine the Apostles founded upon tradition. Why did Peter equate Scripture with prophets speaking (2 Pet 1:20)? Why did He relate a "more sure word of prophecy" to what was written? (2 Pet 1:19-20)? If "All Scripture was given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim 3:16), what is the purpose of your question. Why are the Scriptures said to be given to make the man of God complete? Why was not oral tradition included in that statement -- or did that text from God? Are you suggesting that Scripture was inspired by the request of men? 

I will also ask you a question. Where did Jesus command the apostles to maintain oral tradition?



Go to next page 01_04_B.gif (10479 bytes)  HOME.jpg (6133 bytes)