Scripture and Tradition

[Agnus_Dei]

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.

That's b/c D28guy doesn't understand or is aware that their are differences between big "T" Traditions and small "t" traditions.

Unfortunately, as we are witnessing on the Mary Volume 4 thread, the myopic view of Scripture that many Protestants retain (or shall we say Eliyhu in this case in regard to the Incarnation), disallows them from testing their interpretation of certain passages against what has been considered (since the inception of the Church) to be the authoritative interpretation of Scripture: big "T" Tradition. Arius made a completely biblical argument as he argued that Jesus was a created being. His argument was not flawed due to lack of Scripture but rather due to an erroneous interpretation of Scripture.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Darron Steele]

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.

Actually, I think you asserted that they refer to "Tradition" at first. I disputed that, and you modified.

I will agree with you that probably these do make mention of non-written teachings. Agreed. I doubt that these non-written teachings were anything remotely like what is called "Tradition" today.

Also, the "backdrop of the preceding verses" does not change what 2 Timothy 3:15-7 says. It has "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV) and this is "so that the| person who serves God| may be complete, | entirely instructed for all good work"* To assert that Scripture is not enough for the "person who serves God" would still be contrary to this passage.

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
-

Well, if we are going to insist that "tradition" got the church through the days when the New Testament Scripture was still `under construction,' let us discuss what "traditions" were then.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-7 "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. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you” (NASB)​

This looks like "tradition" was a lot simpler then than what is called "Tradition" now. Looks like it was about living rightly.

Scripture's purpose of being given: 2 Timothy 3:15-7 ends as "so that the| person who serves God| may be complete, | entirely instructed for all good work"*

The "tradition" that we know of from the New Testament era does not seem to be a mass of religious speculations like what today is called "traditions" or "Tradition." The "tradition" then seems to have been substantially the same as what is in Scripture now.

2 Timothy was written as Paul awaited martyrdom. If Paul told Timothy to use Scripture, and that it was sufficient for the "person who serves God," then I think it best to use just that. It looks like Scripture was a sufficient/adequate/complete representation of all the "tradition" from that time we will ever need to know.

____
*ICB|ASV|RVR 1909 “enteramente instruído para toda buena obra” translated.

 

[BobRyan]

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?

DHK's arguments vs actual facts - have often appeared to be two entirely different things on various subjects. I can not fathom some of his tactics - so I am really no help on the question about DHK.

As for your statement - it would be "problematic" for a listener in the NT church to know "which Words" Paul is speaking that are "destined to be scripture" and which words are not. We can be "highly confident" that the NT text does not contain an exhaustive account of every word Paul ever spoke in a religious meeting or religion context -- so I would have a hard time arguing that his listeners "prophetically knew which words would be included in an as yet unwritten NT text".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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
-

Your argument is ignoring a very LARGE elephant standing in your living room.

1. The NT writers including MANY REFERENCES TO SCRIPTURE showing that THEY regarding SCRIPTURE to be what we call the OT text.

2. There is NO NT writer that EVER states ANYTHING of the form "SOME day in the future you will have valid scripture for post-cross saints until then just listen closely to what people talk about in church."

THERE IS NO such "scripture not yet given for you NT saints yet so just hang in there till we get around to writing some" arguments in ALL of the NT text!

No NOT even ONE!!

RATHER "They STUDIED THE SCRITPURES DAILY to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO" Acts 17:11.

NOT "They studied TRADITION daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so -- since they HAD NO SCRIPTURE".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

That's b/c D28guy doesn't understand or is aware that their are differences between big "T" Traditions and small "t" traditions.

Unfortunately, as we are witnessing on the Mary Volume 4 thread, the myopic view of Scripture that many Protestants retain (or shall we say Eliyhu in this case in regard to the Incarnation), disallows them from testing their interpretation of certain passages against what has been considered (since the inception of the Church) to be the authoritative interpretation of Scripture: big "T" Tradition.

There is NO text of scripture (no not even one) that says "test doctrine against Tradition since you can not really understand scripture and Tradition is a lot easier for everyone to agree on and understand than anything you will get from a Bible writer -- don't test doctrine against scripture as you see the saints doing in Acts 17:11"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

DHK's arguments vs actual facts - have often appeared to be two entirely different things on various subjects. I can not fathom some of his tactics - so I am really no help on the question about DHK.

As for your statement - it would be "problematic" for a listener in the NT church to know "which Words" Paul is speaking that are "destined to be scripture" and which words are not. We can be "highly confident" that the NT text does not contain an exhaustive account of every word Paul ever spoke in a religious meeting or religion context -- so I would have a hard time arguing that his listeners "prophetically knew which words would be included in an as yet unwritten NT text".

in Christ,

Bob

Indeed.:thumbs:

 

[Agnus_Dei]

There is NO text of scripture (no not even one) that says "test doctrine against Tradition since you can not really understand scripture and Tradition is a lot easier for everyone to agree on and understand than anything you will get from a Bible writer -- don't test doctrine against scripture as you see the saints doing in Acts 17:11"

Last night on the History Channel there was a program on Hillbillies, The True Story (I believe it was titled). Since I’m from Tennessee I watched the program with interest.

The program talked about these “snake handling” and “poison drinking” churches and how they interpreted the Gospel of Mark as their proof text. Here we can test this “tradition”, sure Mark talks of such things, but how does their interpretation of Mark line up with the Tradition of the Church?

I’m able to discredit these churches as a cult preaching a false doctrine, simply by using the formula I outlined…I use the same in regard to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[BobRyan]

That's funny because I have been able to test them using scripture alone!

Their man made traditions regarding poison and snake handling are no more scriptural than the RCC's traditions for burning heretics, purgatory, limbo, Mary Queen of heaven, Indulgences, "Extermination" decrees of Lateran IV, Mary Mother of God, Pope as Supreme Pontiff and spiritual hean of the Christian Church on earth, prayers to the dead ... etc etc

I did not have to go "ask my favorite magesterium" first.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Except that snake-handling and poison-drinking are not Tradition - they are explicitly mentioned in Mark 16 so you can't refute them on the basis of sola Scriptura (presuming you accept that ending of Mark's gospel as authentic).

 

[Agnus_Dei]

That's funny because I have been able to test them using scripture alone!

Their man made traditions regarding poison and snake handling are no more scriptural than the RCC's traditions for burning heretics, purgatory, limbo, Mary Queen of heaven, Indulgences, "Extermination" decrees of Lateran IV, Mary Mother of God, Pope as Supreme Pontiff and spiritual hean of the Christian Church on earth, prayers to the dead ... etc etc

I did not have to go "ask my favorite magesterium" first.

in Christ,

Bob

That’s too funny Bob…b/c these sake handling, poison drinking churches use Scripture only or Sola Scriptura…they admitted in the interview and said that if someone doesn’t agree with them, to go to another church down the road or start their own Church…It’s all about religious freedom to them. And it’s their right…but still, they’re heretics…pagans.

In regard to purgatory, a Catholic apologist can show scripture, but still we have to have a measuring stick to test this and other interpretations and Holy Tradition disagrees with purgatory…I know, I’m in Orthodox Catechesis and the Orthodox Church rejects purgatory, limbo, indulgences and the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[DHK]

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

Again, if Tradition guides your church you are in the wrong church. Christ condemned tradition; never condoned it. Christ commanded us to search the Scriptures and study them; never traditions. Tradition does not complement Scripture but contradicts it. Whether or not you beliefve in them it is Traditon that gives us heretial doctrines such as purgatory and the assumption of Mary--doctrines totally contrary to Scripture and unbiblical if not anti-biblical in nature. Scripture and Tradition do not complement each other but oppose each other.

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

You are not answering the response but avoiding it. Where in the 20 years after the cross and before the beginning of the canon do you find any of those things? You cannot prove that just because your church (Orhodox) practices those "traditions" that they are Scriptural. I challenged you to find those or any other such "traditions" in a Baptist church, and yet you fail to do so. Why? Because they are completely unscriptural. The Baptists have only the Bible as their guide, not Tradition, or the Book of Mormon, or any other authority. Others (like the RCC and Orthodox) put an authority such as the Book of Mormon or Tradition alongside with the Bible. We take the Bible and only the inspired words of God to be our authority. We do not need the errant words of fallible man to guide us.

That is in itself a tradition outwith Scripture As is that. As is that

This is a most pitiable answer--to say that sola scriptura is a "tradition." It is shameful, when one can demonstrate through the Scriptures that sola scriptura was practiced from the earliest days of OT periods throughout the NT, and up throughout every age until now.
The giving of the law was a practice of sola scriptura. They were to follow the law, and none other. That was their guide--the Torah.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--This verse in itself speaks of sola scriptura.
And of course, as it has been pointed out many times, Acts 17:11 is one of the best examples of sola scriptura.

"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.

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.

Scripture is not tradition. You are indeed confused. If a new thread was started on the purpose of spiritual gifts it could easily be demonstrated that one of the puposes of those gifts was to supplement the church with NT knowledge that the church did not yet have. And I agree that just one verse is not enough to convince you of that.

 

[DHK]

2. There is NO NT writer that EVER states ANYTHING of the form "SOME day in the future you will have valid scripture for post-cross saints until then just listen closely to what people talk about in church."

Bob

2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; 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.

Peter accounted the epistles of Paul as Scripture.

 

[Matt Black]

Agreed. But Peter doesn't conflate the 'commandments of the Apostles' with Scripture. Here was ample opportunity to call them Scripture - he calls Paul's letters 'Scripture' - yet he doesn't, which suggests that they are another form of authority.

 

[Matt Black]

Again, if Tradition guides your church you are in the wrong church. Christ condemned tradition; never condoned it.

He condemned the traditions of men; that's not the subject of this thread

Christ commanded us to search the Scriptures and study them; never traditions.

I guess Paul got it wrong then; excuse me a mo whilst I rip out 2 Thess from my Bible as apparently that's no longer canonical

Tradition does not complement Scripture but contradicts it.

Wrong.

Whether or not you beliefve in them it is Traditon that gives us heretial doctrines such as purgatory and the assumption of Mary--doctrines totally contrary to Scripture and unbiblical if not anti-biblical in nature.

Wrong again. Only the Roman Catholic Church believes those, and they stand outside of Sacred Tradition in so doing

Scripture and Tradition do not complement each other but oppose each other.

Wrong again!

You are not answering the response but avoiding it. Where in the 20 years after the cross and before the beginning of the canon do you find any of those things?

Er...because for example both Paul and Ignatius of Antioch refer to them, and they are clearly referenced by Eusebius (eg: Linus succeeded to the See of Rome after Peter) before some of the NT was enscripturated and certainly long before the whole NT was widely circulated

You cannot prove that just because your church (Orhodox) practices those "traditions" that they are Scriptural.

Psst! I'm Anglican not Orthodox.

I challenged you to find those or any other such "traditions" in a Baptist church, and yet you fail to do so. Why? Because they are completely unscriptural. The Baptists have only the Bible as their guide, not Tradition, or the Book of Mormon, or any other authority. Others (like the RCC and Orthodox) put an authority such as the Book of Mormon or Tradition alongside with the Bible. We take the Bible and only the inspired words of God to be our authority. We do not need the errant words of fallible man to guide us.

Oh come on, we're not idiots here - you have your own traditions as you well know.

This is a most pitiable answer--to say that sola scriptura is a "tradition." It is shameful, when one can demonstrate through the Scriptures that sola scriptura was practiced from the earliest days of OT periods throughout the NT, and up throughout every age until now.

Oh, absolute rubbish! It's neither pitiable or shameful but true, as has been demonstrated time and time again here.

The giving of the law was a practice of sola scriptura. They were to follow the law, and none other. That was their guide--the Torah.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--This verse in itself speaks of sola scriptura.

I guess Jesus got it wrong then

And of course, as it has been pointed out many times, Acts 17:11 is one of the best examples of sola scriptura.

And, of course, as it has been pointed out many times, it's one of the best examples for using the OT alone. Like I said, Jesus got it wrong, the Jews were right after all

"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.
Scripture is not tradition. You are indeed confused. If a new thread was started on the purpose of spiritual gifts it could easily be demonstrated that one of the puposes of those gifts was to supplement the church with NT knowledge that the church did not yet have. And I agree that just one verse is not enough to convince you of that.

Yep, because it's a product of dispensationalist and cessationist tradition. No confusion in my mind - how about you?

 

[DHK]

Agreed. But Peter doesn't conflate the 'commandments of the Apostles' with Scripture. Here was ample opportunity to call them Scripture - he calls Paul's letters 'Scripture' - yet he doesn't, which suggests that they are another form of authority.

I disagree. Look at the verse carefully:

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

They are to mindful of the "words" (which I believe to be Scripture), of whom?
1. The prophets--the writers of the OT.
2. The Apostles--the writers of the NT.

He puts the writings of the Apostles on the same level as the writings of the prophets. The Jews highly esteemed the prophets and their writings (that is, the OT). Now they were to accept the NT as they had it up to that point in time. Much of it had already been written. It is not that every epistle of Paul had been inspired. He probably wrote a total of four epistles to Corinth. But only two epistles were inspired. But the apostles seemed to know which ones were inspired, and which were not. This knowledge was given them by God, who promised "to lead them into all truth."

 

[Matt Black]

An inference only, and one not based on the text. Peter had ample opportunity, like I said, to call the 'commandments of the Apostles' 'Scripture'; he does so call Paul's letters, but not these 'commandments'

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

I posted...

"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 you said...

"So say you..."

Are you saying that I dreamed up those passages? Those passages of scripture are the word of God, Matt..not the word of Mike.

"Sacred Tradition is not the commandments of men,..."

If it is anything other than scripture, then it is the tradition of men. Those are the only 2 options Christ gave us in this passage, Matt. You can not just *make up* a 3rd option.

"....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."

The Holy Spirit moves and operates in more ways than we could possibly count. What we do know from these passages is how the Holy Spirit does not speak, and according to Jesus Christ He does not speak throught the traditions of men....which would be anything not found in scripture.

Those things might be interesting, they might be re-assuring in some ways, they might be comforting in some ways, but they are in no way authoritative, they are in no way inerrant, and they are in no way to be the basis for doctrine.

And if anything from tradition is contradicted by scripture, the tradition is to be completly ignored.

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Agnus Dei,

That's b/c D28guy doesn't understand or is aware that their are differences between big "T" Traditions and small "t" traditions.

How come Jesus doesnt play the little "big T" vs "little t" game that you are making up?.....

""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.""

Are you prepared to give Christ the same little grammar lesson, or do you think He pretty much knows what He is talking about there?

He's just making it so simple, Agnus...

Scripture.....yes
Tradition.....no.

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

"
Except that snake-handling and poison-drinking are not Tradition - they are explicitly mentioned in Mark 16 so you can't refute them on the basis of sola Scriptura (presuming you accept that ending of Mark's gospel as authentic)."

And thats why these people have every right to handle those snakes if they choose to. I'm not gonna do it. Most people arent going to do it. But their conviction is that they should do it...so THEY SHOULD do it.

I know some people who frequent those fellowships and they ALWAYS tell people to NOT DO IT unless you are very very VERY sure that God is prompting you to. They NEVER engage in that activity frivolously, or do it on a "whim".

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,



Are you saying that I dreamed up those passages? Those passages of scripture are the word of God, Matt..not the word of Mike.

No, I didn't say you dreamed up those passages; I said that those passages do not apply to Sacred Tradition

If it is anything other than scripture, then it is the tradition of men.

Why so?

Those are the only 2 options Christ gave us in this passage, Matt. You can not just *make up* a 3rd option.

I guess Paul got it wrong then. In fact, I guess Jesus got it wrong when He promised to send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and that the HS would lead them into all truth

The Holy Spirit moves and operates in more ways than we could possibly count. What we do know from these passages is how the Holy Spirit does not speak, and according to Jesus Christ He does not speak throught the traditions of men

Correct so far

....which would be anything not found in scripture.

And there's where you go wrong.

Those things might be interesting, they might be re-assuring in some ways, they might be comforting in some ways, but they are in no way authoritative, they are in no way inerrant, and they are in no way to be the basis for doctrine.

Then tell that to Jesus and Paul. (They're not inerrant, I'll grant you)

And if anything from tradition is contradicted by scripture, the tradition is to be completly ignored.

Oh, I agree completely. But I think we need to be very careful in distinguishing between something that's in contradiction to Scripture and something that's merely in contradiction to our interpretation of Scripture. Beware conflating the two!