Tradition

[Martin Marprelate]

Mark 7:8. "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men."
Colossians 2:8. 'Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.'

On the other hand:

2 Thessalonians 2:15: 'Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or epistle.'
2 Thessalonians 3:6. 'But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.'

So not all traditions are bad. The question is whether they come from men or from Christ. The word translated 'tradition' is paradosis, meaning something passed on or handed down.

I believe it is a wonderful privilege to have been brought up in a Bible-believing church. I wish with all my heart that I had had that advantage. To have been taught Christian doctrine from a young age is such a help. So I would say to those who have been so taught, don't be easily swayed from your traditions. The book of Proverbs speaks of 'scoffers' or 'mockers' who make fun of those who follow in the way of truth and are always seeking novelty; we should not be easily moved. 'Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls." But they said, "We will not walk in it"' (Jeremiah 6:16). It is sheer pride that supposes that one is wiser or more clever than those who have gone before.

On the other hand, we should always be looking at our beliefs and the practices of our churches to see if they conform to Scripture. Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda: The Reformed church is always in need of reformation. But we must be very careful what we receive for truth. Paul tells us, 'Test all things; hold fast that which is good.' Many people and churches have changed their beliefs and practices from good to bad rather than the other way around. Denominations like the PCUSA and the Church of Scotland have departed from the tradition of holding to the Westminster Confession of Faith and have gone clean away from Christ.

Now I want to come to my main point: there is a certain arrogance that supposes that others are holding to their pathetic tradition, while oneself of course, has a greater understanding, the master touch and is free from all tradition. This is a discussion forum; we should debate robustly, but let us stop this obnoxious oneupmanship that dismisses the views of others as mere tradition, usually as a way of avoiding debate. To my shame, I have indulged in this from time to time; I apologize to anyone I may have belittled in this way and I shall do so no more. I hope others will repent likewise.

 

[rlvaughn]

So not all traditions are bad. The question is whether they come from men or from Christ.

Sounds like your post may have some background of which I am not aware, but...

I agree. This is an incontrovertible point. The question is not whether it is passed down, but whether it comes from God or men.

 

[37818]

The tradition of men is what is passed down by men. The apostalic tradition is what is now found only in the written inerrant word of God of the New Covenant documents (we call the 27 book New Testament).

 

[Yeshua1]

Mark 7:8. "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men."
Colossians 2:8. 'Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.'

On the other hand:

2 Thessalonians 2:15: 'Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or epistle.'
2 Thessalonians 3:6. 'But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.'

So not all traditions are bad. The question is whether they come from men or from Christ. The word translated 'tradition' is paradosis, meaning something passed on or handed down.

I believe it is a wonderful privilege to have been brought up in a Bible-believing church. I wish with all my heart that I had had that advantage. To have been taught Christian doctrine from a young age is such a help. So I would say to those who have been so taught, don't be easily swayed from your traditions. The book of Proverbs speaks of 'scoffers' or 'mockers' who make fun of those who follow in the way of truth and are always seeking novelty; we should not be easily moved. 'Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls." But they said, "We will not walk in it"' (Jeremiah 6:16). It is sheer pride that supposes that one is wiser or more clever than those who have gone before.

On the other hand, we should always be looking at our beliefs and the practices of our churches to see if they conform to Scripture. Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda: The Reformed church is always in need of reformation. But we must be very careful what we receive for truth. Paul tells us, 'Test all things; hold fast that which is good.' Many people and churches have changed their beliefs and practices from good to bad rather than the other way around. Denominations like the PCUSA and the Church of Scotland have departed from the tradition of holding to the Westminster Confession of Faith and have gone clean away from Christ.

Now I want to come to my main point: there is a certain arrogance that supposes that others are holding to their pathetic tradition, while oneself of course, has a greater understanding, the master touch and is free from all tradition. This is a discussion forum; we should debate robustly, but let us stop this obnoxious oneupmanship that dismisses the views of others as mere tradition, usually as a way of avoiding debate. To my shame, I have indulged in this from time to time; I apologize to anyone I may have belittled in this way and I shall do so no more. I hope others will repent likewise.

What the Bible tells us is traditions that are valid ones are the ones based upon and derived from the scriptures themselves, and not the man made ones of the Pharisees and modern day church of Rome and others!

 

[asterisktom]

Mark 7:8. "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men."
Colossians 2:8. 'Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.'

On the other hand:

2 Thessalonians 2:15: 'Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or epistle.'
2 Thessalonians 3:6. 'But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.'

So not all traditions are bad. The question is whether they come from men or from Christ. The word translated 'tradition' is paradosis, meaning something passed on or handed down.

I believe it is a wonderful privilege to have been brought up in a Bible-believing church. I wish with all my heart that I had had that advantage. To have been taught Christian doctrine from a young age is such a help. So I would say to those who have been so taught, don't be easily swayed from your traditions. The book of Proverbs speaks of 'scoffers' or 'mockers' who make fun of those who follow in the way of truth and are always seeking novelty; we should not be easily moved. 'Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls." But they said, "We will not walk in it"' (Jeremiah 6:16). It is sheer pride that supposes that one is wiser or more clever than those who have gone before.

On the other hand, we should always be looking at our beliefs and the practices of our churches to see if they conform to Scripture. Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda: The Reformed church is always in need of reformation. But we must be very careful what we receive for truth. Paul tells us, 'Test all things; hold fast that which is good.' Many people and churches have changed their beliefs and practices from good to bad rather than the other way around. Denominations like the PCUSA and the Church of Scotland have departed from the tradition of holding to the Westminster Confession of Faith and have gone clean away from Christ.

Now I want to come to my main point: there is a certain arrogance that supposes that others are holding to their pathetic tradition, while oneself of course, has a greater understanding, the master touch and is free from all tradition. This is a discussion forum; we should debate robustly, but let us stop this obnoxious oneupmanship that dismisses the views of others as mere tradition, usually as a way of avoiding debate. To my shame, I have indulged in this from time to time; I apologize to anyone I may have belittled in this way and I shall do so no more. I hope others will repent likewise.

Instead of admitting that on your other thread (How no creed but the Bible subverts the Bible) you made a mistake in using Jeremiah 6:16 as a justification for creeds and confessions you start this whole new thread.. You never answered my response that Jeremiah clearly showed in context that the "old paths" were the Word of God - nothing else.

This is ungentlemanly on your part. Here you are calling me "arrogant" for disagreeing with you on your position of creeds. I will let others read the other thread and decide for themselves.

 

[rlvaughn]

Instead of admitting that on your other thread (How no creed but the Bible subverts the Bible) you made a mistake in using Jeremiah 6:16 as a justification for creeds and confessions you start this whole new thread...

Not likely, since the "No Creed But the Bible" thread was started Saturday, February 16, and this "Tradition" thread harks back to January 28, 2019.

 

[asterisktom]

Not likely, since the "No Creed But the Bible" thread was started Saturday, February 16, and this "Tradition" thread harks back to January 28, 2019.

Pardon me. I was wrong. But the point remains about true about MM's actual post.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[Reformed]

Other movements have done it, but in the last 20 years the Emergent movement pushed non-canonical apostolic tradition. They spewed things like there is an ongoing narrative that transcends the 66 books of the Bible. Any "tradition" that moves the goal posts of the Word of God is not from God. The tradition of the apostles is the New Testament, just like the tradition of the prophets is the Old Testament.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Instead of admitting that on your other thread (How no creed but the Bible subverts the Bible) you made a mistake in using Jeremiah 6:16 as a justification for creeds and confessions you start this whole new thread.. You never answered my response that Jeremiah clearly showed in context that the "old paths" were the Word of God - nothing else.

Jeremiah 6:16 says what it says. The 'old paths' are those paths created by our godly forebears. In this respect you might like to consider Genesis 26:18 and Proverbs 22:28. As for not replying to you on another thread, I didn't see what you wrote.

This is ungentlemanly on your part. Here you are calling me "arrogant" for disagreeing with you on your position of creeds. I will let others read the other thread and decide for themselves.

I wasn't actually thinking of you in my O.P., but if the cap fits.......

 

[asterisktom]

Jeremiah 6:16 says what it says. The 'old paths' are those paths created by our godly forebears. In this respect you might like to consider Genesis 26:18 and Proverbs 22:28

Well, I can't put my eyes in your head. If you can't see that Jer. 6:16 is only about the Word of God - as shown by two verses in that same chapter, vs. 10 and 19 - then there is nothing more I can say. You dearly love your creeds and confessions and have no qualms about twisting Scripture to authenticate your traditions.

Like I said, I also think that works like WCF are well worth reading. But they are also peppered with error and need to be read with discernment. Not placed on a par with Scripture.

 

[Reformed1689]

Like I said, I also think that works like WCF are well worth reading. But they are also peppered with error and need to be read with discernment. Not placed on a par with Scripture.

I agree that we must be discerning with confessions. But I also think confessions are necessary. It's fine to say "I believe the Bible" but that doesn't tell anyone anything. A confession tells what you believe about the Bible and what you believe the Bible says.

 

[asterisktom]

I agree that we must be discerning with confessions. But I also think confessions are necessary. It's fine to say "I believe the Bible" but that doesn't tell anyone anything. A confession tells what you believe about the Bible and what you believe the Bible says.

But actually, David, it does tell you something about a person when they say they believe the Bible. Yes, it is a broad, possibly vague affirmation. Yet it sets the basis for patient probing on the part of the other person. It also weeds out the many who do not believe the Bible.

OTOH there are some who say they believe X Confession or Y Creed but when you press them on a particular they betray a private glossary of interpretation when it comes to certain sticking points. Of course, the same is true of those who say they just believe the Bible.

But the problem with creeds and confessions, as I wrote earlier, is that they tend to lord it over congregations and consciences. While people often quickly admit that these are fallible, susceptible to error, they do not know just where the error is. Here is a quote from RC Sproul, emphases mine:

"Protestants do not believe that creeds, confessions, and catechisms are infallible — that can only be said of Scripture. But confessional Protestants do believe that creeds, confessions, and catechisms are authoritative insofar as they accurately summarize the teaching of Scripture, which is their primary purpose."
Why Do We Recite the Apostle's Creed?

There is a problem here. How can authority be given to a part of a creed or confession if it is not known for sure that part is free from error? But the Bible is free from error.

I didn't use to think this way about creeds and confessions. But after becoming a Preterist I found out what it was like to be at the receiving end of the creeds (rather, the not receiving end). After an initial period of self-doubt I came to the conclusion that all three C's (creeds, confessions, and catechisms) can and do establish and crystalize ancient errors, eschatology being just one of them.

I also began to realize, like I never did before, the magisterial use of Creeds - to the belittlement and detriment of Scripture. Those who have an inordinate reliance on them often misuse Scripture (Jeremiah 6:14 being the most recent example) to justify their unscriptural stance.

I believe that creeds and confessions can be useful as tools (ministerial, not magisterial). They all too often go beyond that level. I believe that when that happens the uniqueness and all-importance of the Bible is impugned. A person who has raised creeds and confessions to such a level is like the ones who would try to "improve" the altar of God by human efforts, Exodus 20:25.

 

[Reformed1689]

But actually, David, it does tell you something about a person when they say they believe the Bible. Yes, it is a broad, possibly vague affirmation. Yet it sets the basis for patient probing on the part of the other person. It also weeds out the many who do not believe the Bible.

This is true.

But the problem with creeds and confessions, as I wrote earlier, is that they tend to lord it over congregations and consciences.

Yes, this certainly can be (and is) a problem in some circles. The creeds and confessions should never be elevated to the level of Scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There is a problem here. How can authority be given to a part of a creed or confession if it is not known for sure that it is free from error? But the Bible is free from error.

Loads of people believe that the Bible is free from error: J.W.s, Mormons, Roman Catholics, Unitarians........... The question is, what do you believe the Bible teaches? Jude 4 speaks of those who 'creep in' to churches unnoticed, and then proceed to undermine the church they have joined, all the time proclaiming "I believe the Bible!" The great virtue of a confession is that it stands as a guard against those who would undermine basic teachings of the Church like the personal return of Christ in glory at the end of time.

My church is a member of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches www.fiec.org.uk and one of the great things about it is that the leadership of each church confirms every year that it still upholds the Basis of Faith. If the leadership of any church doesn't want to do so, it's a voluntary fellowship, and the way out's over there. But the congregation will know where their leaders stand.

 

[asterisktom]

The great virtue of a confession is that it stands as a guard against those who would undermine basic teachings of the Church like the personal return of Christ in glory at the end of time.

That is the basic teaching of many churches but the teaching of the Bible is the personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory at the end of the age. That is, the Jewish age. And that happened in that generation, just as the Lord promised many times and in many ways.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is the basic teaching of many churches but the teaching of the Bible is the personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory at the end of the age. That is, the Jewish age. And that happened in that generation, just as the Lord promised many times and in many ways.

Apart from the facts that in AD 70 it wasn't personal, it wasn't glorious, it wasn't a return and it wasn't the end of the age, you have it pretty much right.

This is why creeds and confessions are so important; to protect the churches against specious teachings that purport to be Biblical but which are in fact devoid of Bible truth. '......That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men and the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things to Him who is the Head-- Christ' (Ephesians 4:14-15).

I do not accuse you of being one of the tricksters and plotters; I think you are one of the children and the victim of them.

 

[asterisktom]

Apart from the facts that in AD 70 it wasn't personal, it wasn't glorious, it wasn't a return and it wasn't the end of the age, you have it pretty much right.

This is why creeds and confessions are so important; to protect the churches against specious teachings that purport to be Biblical but which are in fact devoid of Bible truth. '......That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men and the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things to Him who is the Head-- Christ' (Ephesians 4:14-15).

I do not accuse you of being one of the tricksters and plotters; I think you are one of the children and the victim of them.

Romans 16:22b.