Scripture and Tradition

[Darron Steele]

"Clearly"? -- I do not see it in there either explicitly or implicitly.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, then, what does Paul mean by "my teaching" (v10) and the things "which [Timothy] has learned and from whom he has learned them" (v14)? Seems pretty plain to me...

 

[DHK]

OK, then, what does Paul mean by "my teaching" (v10) and the things "which [Timothy] has learned and from whom he has learned them" (v14)? Seems pretty plain to me...

In both and in all cases he taught the Word of God. He never strayed from teaching the Word of God. The Word that he taught them was later inscripturated into our NT canon. But it was verifiable by the OT. The Bible does not contradict itself.

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting that you bring up 2 Tim 3 - vs 10-17 in particular demonstrate the complementarity of Scripture and Tradition. Most of us are familiar with vs 15-17 in support of Scripture but Paul (vs 10&14) also refers to his Apostolic teaching and the fact that Timothy has learned things from others (presumably including Paul)

No doubt. But the point is that Timothy -- like those who are blessed and approved in Acts 17:11 - hears Paul and "searches those scriptures" to see IF those things are so. No blind "Papal pronouncement" model given here.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

OK, then, what does Paul mean by "my teaching" (v10) and the things "which [Timothy] has learned and from whom he has learned them" (v14)? Seems pretty plain to me...

True you have oral teaching - but you're inserting the "without any scripture references to support the teaching" idea into the text to try and make your case here for oral teaching -- right?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

In both and in all cases he taught the Word of God. He never strayed from teaching the Word of God.

Exactly - Scripture and Tradition

The Word that he taught them was later inscripturated into our NT canon.

Where on earth do you get that notion from - show me where in the NT what he taught to Timothy is written down.

 

[Matt Black]

True you have oral teaching - but you're inserting the "without any scripture references to support the teaching" idea into the text to try and make your case here for oral teaching -- right?

in Christ,

Bob

Not really - I'm quite prepared to accept that the oral teaching was based on many occasions on Scripture - after all, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are not in conflict. But Tradition also supplements and complements Scripture

 

[Darron Steele]

Not really - I'm quite prepared to accept that the oral teaching was based on many occasions on Scripture - after all, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are not in conflict. But Tradition also supplements and complements Scripture

I find that difficult to believe.

1) Denominations who insist upon a Tradition are frequently asserting the authority of their magisteriums/leaders when debates over Scripture's authority come into play. If "Tradition" and Scripture pose no conflicts, that would be unnecessary.

2) 2 Timothy 3:17 says Scripture is given to make the Lord's servant "complete" (ASV) and "entirely instructed" (RVR 1909 translated). Such denominations claim it does not do so. That is a conflict.

 

[BobRyan]

Not really - I'm quite prepared to accept that the oral teaching was based on many occasions on Scripture - after all, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are not in conflict. But Tradition also supplements and complements Scripture

In the arguments 'that I make" for sola scriptura from Acts 17:11 "searching the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken by Paul WERE SO" I do not argue that they were searching as yet unwritten NT scripture AND I do not argue that if Paul gave any new insights or details in his teaching that this would have stopped them from testing his doctrine against the standard of scripture.

Far from it. I argue that all doctrine must be "tested sola scriptura" to see if it is in direct contradiction (violation) of what scripture teaches.

Even the RCC in its railing against "Sola Scriptura" tries to "Also make the case" that it's traditions are not in violation of scripture. Sadly that is not correct - but that is a claim they try to make.

Notice that in Mark 7 where Christ condemns the magesterium of the ONE TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai His argument is NOT of the form "Hey you included some information not known before"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Exactly - Scripture and Tradition

No, just Scripture. As Agnus admitted there was only a space between the cross and the beginning of the books of the NT writings of only 20 years. What tradition are you going to cram into there? By your own definitions tradition is oral or written customs passed down from generation to generation throughout the centuries. 20 years Matt!!!!
Be realistic! What traditions would have evolved in the church within the church over a 20 year period. By the RCC definition, none! It is impossible. The only thing that was taught was the Word, and nothing else. Paul expounded on the Word as any preacher today would. But that is what he preached, and that is what God commanded him to preach. He could not go outside of the commaned that God gave him.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Where on earth do you get that notion from - show me where in the NT what he taught to Timothy is written down.

The very verses you quote are written in the epistles to Timothy and in the epistles to Thessalonica. Obviously those Scriptures were written for their benefit, and put in the Bible for ours as well.
He wrote two epistles to Timothy. What do you suppose he was previously teaching him?

 

[Matt Black]

I find that difficult to believe.

1) Denominations who insist upon a Tradition are frequently asserting the authority of their magisteriums/leaders when debates over Scripture's authority come into play. If "Tradition" and Scripture pose no conflicts, that would be unnecessary.

No, it's more a case that if one single interpretation of Scripture self-evidently presented itself to the exclusion of all others, then that would be unnecessary

2) 2 Timothy 3:17 says Scripture is given to make the Lord's servant "complete" (ASV) and "entirely instructed" (RVR 1909 translated). Such denominations claim it does not do so. That is a conflict.

That's against the backdrop of the preceding verses, two of which as I've pointed out deal with non-written sources of doctrine.

 

[Matt Black]

In the arguments 'that I make" for sola scriptura from Acts 17:11 "searching the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken by Paul WERE SO" I do not argue that they were searching as yet unwritten NT scripture AND I do not argue that if Paul gave any new insights or details in his teaching that this would have stopped them from testing his doctrine against the standard of scripture.

No, but DHK was arguing that Paul's words were as yet unwritten NT Scripture; I can't find any evidence to back that up, can you?

 

[Matt Black]

No, just Scripture. As Agnus admitted there was only a space between the cross and the beginning of the books of the NT writings of only 20 years. What tradition are you going to cram into there?

Dunno. Ask Paul. He refers to it in reference to himself for example (and possibly other Apostles); he certainly would have said a lot more than he wrote, as to give another example did Jesus (see the ending to John's Gospel). In that respect 20 years (or even 3 years in the case of Jesus) is a pretty long time to accumulate a significant body of oral teaching...

By your own definitions tradition is oral or written customs passed down from generation to generation throughout the centuries. 20 years Matt!!!!

Or, in the beginning at least, simply oral teaching that was not written down in Scipture

Be realistic! What traditions would have evolved in the church within the church over a 20 year period.

See above

The very verses you quote are written in the epistles to Timothy and in the epistles to Thessalonica. Obviously those Scriptures were written for their benefit, and put in the Bible for ours as well.
He wrote two epistles to Timothy. What do you suppose he was previously teaching him?

That which was handed down to Timothy and his fellow Bishops and handed on by them to their successors...

 

[Agnus_Dei]

No, just Scripture. As Agnus admitted there was only a space between the cross and the beginning of the books of the NT writings of only 20 years. What tradition are you going to cram into there? By your own definitions tradition is oral or written customs passed down from generation to generation throughout the centuries. 20 years Matt!!!!

As Matt pointed out 20 years is a long period of time with no New Testament to guide the Church. Once John’s Revelation was written at the end of the first century doesn’t mean that every Church had every letter, Gospel or Epistle that made up the NT’s Cannon as we know it today.

We still have Tradition guiding the Church during those 20 years and well into the Church age and today Tradition still safeguards the Gospel from heretical views.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Eliyahu]

You're still making no sense...

Let's say 1.3 billion believe that Jesus died on Friday, celebrating Good Friday. Then Jesus shows up and says " I am the one who slept in the tomb as I had prophesied that I would be in the tomb for 3 nights and 3 days", and eventually He denies the death on Friday, nevertheless the Tradition of Good Friday is valid yet?

Can the number of Believers make the false Tradition be true if the numbers are billions?

 

[DHK]

As Matt pointed out 20 years is a long period of time with no New Testament to guide the Church. Once John’s Revelation was written at the end of the first century doesn’t mean that every Church had every letter, Gospel or Epistle that made up the NT’s Cannon as we know it today.

We still have Tradition guiding the Church during those 20 years and well into the Church age and today Tradition still safeguards the Gospel from heretical views.

1. Tradition does not guide churches; the Bible does. If Tradition guides your church I would suggest to you that the church that you are in is not a Biblical one but one that goes contrary to the Word of God.

2. Tradition (as your own definitions state) is formed from generation to generation throughout the centuries. 20 years is hardly even one generation and only one fifth of a century. It is absurd to think that any tradition could be formed in such a short period of time. If tradition did form what was it? You have yet to prove it? demonstrate it?

Just like you have yet to demonstrate what tradition a Baptist church holds to? I have challenged you on that also. What tradition do we have? The answer is none. Why? Because the Scripture is our guide. We believe in sola scriptura not tradition. We have no tradition to cling on to. The only tradition that Baptists have throughout the centuries is to be persecuted by the RCC.

3. Until the NT was complete, God gave the church spiritual gifts, prophetic and revelatory gifts to make up for the knowledge lacking in the soon-coming completed epistles. Those gifts ceased when the canon was completed.

1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

 

[Matt Black]

Let's say 1.3 billion believe that Jesus died on Friday, celebrating Good Friday. Then Jesus shows up and says " I am the one who slept in the tomb as I had prophesied that I would be in the tomb for 3 nights and 3 days", and eventually He denies the death on Friday, nevertheless the Tradition of Good Friday is valid yet?

Can the number of Believers make the false Tradition be true if the numbers are billions?

Ah, so you're referring to the Jewish idiom of "three nights and three days"? That's an old chestnut; start another thread about it if you want to.

 

[Matt Black]

1. Tradition does not guide churches; the Bible does. If Tradition guides your church I would suggest to you that the church that you are in is not a Biblical one but one that goes contrary to the Word of God.

Bzzt! Wrong! The two are not in comflict but complement each other just as Jesus intended.

2. Tradition (as your own definitions state) is formed from generation to generation throughout the centuries. 20 years is hardly even one generation and only one fifth of a century. It is absurd to think that any tradition could be formed in such a short period of time. If tradition did form what was it? You have yet to prove it? demonstrate it?

We already have...to refresh your memory, Apostolic Succession, oral Tradition itself, the Real Presence, liturgical practices etc...

Just like you have yet to demonstrate what tradition a Baptist church holds to? I have challenged you on that also. What tradition do we have? The answer is none. Why? Because the Scripture is our guide.

That is in itself a tradition outwith Scripture

We believe in sola scriptura not tradition.

As is that.

We have no tradition to cling on to. The only tradition that Baptists have throughout the centuries is to be persecuted by the RCC.

As is that

3. Until the NT was complete, God gave the church spiritual gifts, prophetic and revelatory gifts to make up for the knowledge lacking in the soon-coming completed epistles. Those gifts ceased when the canon was completed. [/quote] That's your tradition also - it cannot be proved form Scripture depsite your attempt at eisegesis of the passage below to fit in with that tradition.

1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

Regarding scripture and "Tradition", you said...

"The two are not in comflict but complement each other just as Jesus intended."

Yet Jesus says...

"6 He answered and said to them,

“Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.

7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’[a]

8 For laying aside the commandment of God,....(sola scriptura, of course).... you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God,....(sola scriptura, of course).... that you may keep your tradition.

10 For Moses said,....(sola scriptura, of course).... ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[c] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[d]

11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God),

12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother,

13 making the word of God of no effect....(forsaking sola scriptura, of course).... through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

And of course, it goes without saying that what we are referring to is indeed...clearly...the traditions of men.

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

So say you....Sacred Tradition is not the commandments of men, but the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church just as Jesus promised He would. I really don't see how you can conflate the two.