Tradition

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.

 

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).

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

This is true.

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.

 

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.

 

Romans 16:22b.