Scripture and Tradition

[D28guy]

Matt,

Jesus tells us to NOT heed the tradition of men.

You keep saying that it only applies to the tradition of MEN, and does not apply to supposed "sacred" tradition.

Well.....just who, pray tell, came up with all of that *sacred* tradition that is contrary to scripture?

A bunch of GEESE and MOOSE? :laugh:

For crying out loud, Matt. This is not rocket science here. We are to heed the scriptures, and NOT the tradition of men.

ANY men. (in the "people" sense of course. Any "people")

Truck driver men. Baseball player men. Catholic theologian men. Anglican theologian men. Wicked men. "Sacred" men. ANY men.

We heed the SCRIPTURES, and not Tradition.

Period.

"""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."

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,

Jesus tells us to NOT heed the tradition of men.

You keep saying that it only applies to the tradition of MEN, and does not apply to supposed "sacred" tradition.

Well.....just who, pray tell, came up with all of that *sacred* tradition

The Holy Spirit through the Church

that is contrary to scripture?

Who says it's contrary to Scripture? Straw man alert...

A bunch of GEESE and MOOSE? :laugh:

For crying out loud, Matt. This is not rocket science here. We are to heed the scriptures, and NOT the tradition of men.

ANY men. (in the "people" sense of course. Any "people")

Truck driver men. Baseball player men. Catholic theologian men. Anglican theologian men. Wicked men. "Sacred" men. ANY men.

We heed the SCRIPTURES, and not Tradition.

Period.

And who wrote the Scriptures, Mike? A bunch of GEESE and MOOSE?

 

[BobRyan]

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.

No question about that.

But it is significant that when Peter speaks of "the rest of scripture" just as when Paul says in 2Tim 3 "ALL scripture it given by inspiration from God" they are speaking of what was later called "The Old Testament".

The NT writers never spoke of being bereft of scripture "Since the cross" and "asking everyone to wait until some scripture could be produced that actually applied to people after the cross" - rather we see NT author after NT author QUOTING the OT text and calling IT "scripture".

When Luke says "They studied the scriptures DAILY to see IF those things spoken by Paul were so" he does not mean that they compared the words of Paul against the Words of Paul - he means they compared what was in known - accepted -valid "scripture" (what we call the OT today) and used it as the rule -- the judge - the authority to evaluate the words of Paul.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

Matt,

Jesus tells us to NOT heed the tradition of men.

You keep saying that it only applies to the tradition of MEN, and does not apply to supposed "sacred" tradition.

Well.....just who, pray tell, came up with all of that *sacred* tradition that is contrary to scripture?

A bunch of GEESE and MOOSE? :laugh:

For crying out loud, Matt. This is not rocket science here. We are to heed the scriptures, and NOT the tradition of men.

ANY men. (in the "people" sense of course. Any "people")

Truck driver men. Baseball player men. Catholic theologian men. Anglican theologian men. Wicked men. "Sacred" men. ANY men.

We heed the SCRIPTURES, and not Tradition.

Period.



Mike

...

And who wrote the Scriptures, Mike? A bunch of GEESE and MOOSE?

No -- ultimately God did. 2 Timothy 3:16a "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV).

This is the exact point I made earlier: downplaying Scripture to promote "Tradition." It is not right to treat Scripture as the words of mortals. Scripture is the written Word of God.

 

[BobRyan]

No -- ultimately God did. 2 Timothy 3:16a "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV).

This is the exact point I made earlier: downplaying Scripture to promote "Tradition." It is not right to treat Scripture as the words of mortals. Scripture is the written Word of God.

This is true - it is not the "scripture of Paul or of Moses" it is "The Word of God".

That is why in the NT it is simply referred to as "scripture" not "the defunct OT written by Jews". Therefore it is a continued source of authority allowing NT saints to "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so" Act 17:11

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

No -- ultimately God did. 2 Timothy 3:16a "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV).

This is the exact point I made earlier: downplaying Scripture to promote "Tradition." It is not right to treat Scripture as the words of mortals. Scripture is the written Word of God.

So men had no role in writing the Scriptures? They just fell down from heaven on golden tablets? You honestly believe that it's "downplaying Scripture" to acknowledge that men had active roles in writing the Scriptures? (Sounds like a docetic bibliology to me...)

 

[Agnus_Dei]

This is the exact point I made earlier: downplaying Scripture to promote "Tradition." It is not right to treat Scripture as the words of mortals. Scripture is the written Word of God.

Who’s downplaying Holy Scripture? Matt’s not, I haven’t. We in the Orthodox Church reverence Holy Scripture. I’m positive Matt’s Church does as well. In the Orthodox Church anyway, we don’t pit both Holy Scripture against Holy Tradition as if both are competing with one another. Both are on equal footing, as Christ promised to remind His Apostles of all things and His promise is to be with His Church until the end of the world and even though the Apostles are now in glory, Christ’s promises continue to this day, protecting and guiding, so that the gates of Hell will never prevail.

As unfriendly as it may sound to your protestant myopic ear, the Church has always used Holy Tradition as a means to determine what is and isn’t correct doctrine. How can you claim that Holy Scripture means something which the Apostles and Early Church never proclaimed? Take Calvinism, it’s not unbiblical; the idea is in Scripture, only Calvinism is based on an interpretation that’s simply not found as Orthodoxy in Church History. The Church has battled many heresies in this manner and thus the Church has prevailed and continues to prevail today.

Scripture was indeed written by man’s hand in his own personal style, the Apostle wasn’t a possessed individual with his eyes rolled back in his head scribbling words on paper, only to wake-up and be astonished at what he wrote. Like some are confused about the Incarnation and the Trinity, looks like many are confused just as equally in regard to inspiration of Holy Scripture…but it’s not your fault, it’s your tradition you were brought up in.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[DHK]

When Luke says "They studied the scriptures DAILY to see IF those things spoken by Paul were so" he does not mean that they compared the words of Paul against the Words of Paul - he means they compared what was in known - accepted -valid "scripture" (what we call the OT today) and used it as the rule -- the judge - the authority to evaluate the words of Paul.

in Christ,
Bob

You are referencing only one Scripture---Acts 17:11
There are more verses in the Bible than just one.

When Paul wrote 2Corinthians, the Corinthians already had 1Corinthians which they knew was Scripture or "of the Lord."

1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins "I have no commandment of the Lord:" yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Up to this point, everything that Paul was to be taken as "commandment of the Lord" or inspired Scripture. Then Paul gives what seems to be his opinion on a certain subject which later also becomes inscripturated. The point is that what Paul wrote they believed was "from the Lord." It was Scripture. Paul's writing here was inspired.
They were commandments from the Lord.

 

[BobRyan]

You are referencing only one Scripture---Acts 17:11
There are more verses in the Bible than just one.

I agree. I do not mean to imply that the sola-scriptura argument is based on one scripture alone. But this one makes it very clear the NT saints did consider the OT text to be their scripture. They had no model for "just take whatever Paul says and do not subect it to a sola-scriptura test".

Paul himself argues in Gal 1 "Though we apostles OR an angel from heaven should come and give you another teaching other than what has been given -- let them be accursed". Paul never argued "believe whatever you hear for a while, then after that start subjecting the teaching to the test of sola scriptura"

Christ Himself made his arguments from scripture "beginning with Moses and the prophets" and showing that his message about the mission of the Messiah in the Gospel was correct.

When Paul wrote 2Corinthians, the Corinthians already had 1Corinthians which they knew was Scripture or "of the Lord."

1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins "I have no commandment of the Lord:" yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Up to this point, everything that Paul (ever said?) was to be taken as "commandment of the Lord" or inspired Scripture.

Everything Paul ever said in a religious context was to be assumed as "scripture"?

And of course most of it would not be written into scripture - but just assume it and toss out your actual written scripture?

Notice that in ALL cases in the NT - when the term scripture is used and then a QUOTE is given - it is ALWAYs the OT that is quoted.

That shows us that the written scripture of Christ's day CONTINUED authorotatively for the NT saints as THEY continued to call it "scripture" (they never called it OT).

And this is the primary sola-scriptura argument against the "everything via oral tradition is just to be accepted".

The fact that Paul himself (long before the letter of 1Cor ) is TESTED via scripture in Acts 17:11 makes the point perfectly.

in Christ

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

Doubting Thomas and Agnus_Dei.

I certainly believe humans had a role in writing Scripture -- but the primary author, per 2 Timothy 3:16, was God. Whatever was put down by a mortal at any given place is there because of God's direct activity. I will therefore treat it as predominantly God's Book.

It looked very clearly that Matt Black was emphasizing the human component of the origins of Scripture. The goal seemed to have been to give it no legitimacy beyond human "Tradition." That is downplaying Scripture.

The Bible is God's Book. It should be treated as such. If upholding "Tradition" calls us to do otherwise, I want no part of it.

 

[Darron Steele]

...

As unfriendly as it may sound to your protestant myopic ear, the Church has always used Holy Tradition as a means to determine what is and isn’t correct doctrine.

...looks like many are confused just as equally in regard to inspiration of Holy Scripture…but it’s not your fault, it’s your tradition you were brought up in.

Oh please. I was brought up a different tradition than where I go on Sunday mornings now. The first time I went to church regularly, it was in the Churches of Christ as an atheist, under parental compulsion.

Second, I am not Protestant. Never have been. I am a Christian and a Christian only. That is the decision I made when a youth pastor at a Baptist congregation showed me how to be saved.

Now, you betray your own `confusion' in asserting that if we believe God wrote the Bible, it meant the human author-secretaries were dazed and `out of it.' That neat little dichotomy, while convenient for debate, is non-existent. There are numerous people who just believe that God supernaturally guided the secretary-authors' writing processes.

Finally, there is no evidence that the tradition of the New Testament-era was anything like the mass of religious speculations today called "Holy Tradition" by various groups that cannot agree on what it constitutes. As I have shown using 1 Thessalonians 3:6, it seems to have been similar to what is in Scripture now. That may be why Paul told Timothy it was sufficient at 2 Timothy 3:15-7 and to go preach it at 4:1-2.

 

[Darron Steele]

Oops. Not 1 Thessalonians 3:6, but 2 Thessalonians 3:6-7.

 

[Matt Black]

Doubting Thomas and Agnus_Dei.

I certainly believe humans had a role in writing Scripture -- but the primary author, per 2 Timothy 3:16, was God. Whatever was put down by a mortal at any given place is there because of God's direct activity. I will therefore treat it as predominantly God's Book.

It looked very clearly that Matt Black was emphasizing the human component of the origins of Scripture. The goal seemed to have been to give it no legitimacy beyond human "Tradition." That is downplaying Scripture.

The Bible is God's Book. It should be treated as such. If upholding "Tradition" calls us to do otherwise, I want no part of it.

Yes I was emphasising the human component of the writing of Scripture, just as Mike was emphasising the human element in Sacred Tradition; the point I was making was not that I wished to downgrade Scripture but that both Scripture and Tradition have that human and divine element to them, Tradition in no way asks us to treat the Bible as anything other than 'God's book', have no fear.

 

[Darron Steele]

Yes I was emphasising the human component of the writing of Scripture, just as Mike was emphasising the human element in Sacred Tradition

The difference: there is nothing other than a human element in "Tradition."

I never emphasize the human element of Scripture in discussions of its authority. Doing so downplays it.

; the point I was making was not that I wished to downgrade Scripture but that both Scripture and Tradition have that human and divine element to them, Tradition in no way asks us to treat the Bible as anything other than 'God's book', have no fear.

Evidently, it does. If you are driven to emphasize the human element of Scripture's origins in order to bolster another authority, then you are driven to treat Scripture as something less than God's Book.

 

[Matt Black]

You and I disagree as to the non-human component of Tradition. Not admitting to the human element in Scripture smells to me a bit of gnosticism.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The difference: there is nothing other than a human element in "Tradition."

The Apostle Paul would beg to differ:

"Therefore, brethren, standfast and hold the traditions which you were taught whether by word or our epistle" 2 Thess 2:15

So Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, indicates that his oral tradition and written tradition (ie his epistle) that he was passing down to the Thessalonians were equally authoritative.


Also...

"For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit.." 1 Thess 1:5

Here Paul clearly states that the gospel he had previously proclaimed to them orally was not merely human words but by the power of the Holy Spirit.

And..

"For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it, not as the word of men, but as it is in truth in the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe." 1 Thess 2:13

In other words the gospel message the Thessalonians heard from Paul--before they had received ANY NT Scriptures from him or the other apostles--was reckoned to be the "word of God" and "not as the word of men"

You might, therefore, want to reconsider your statement about the Apostolic Tradition having nothing other than a human element.

 

[Darron Steele]

You and I disagree as to the non-human component of Tradition. Not admitting to the human element in Scripture smells to me a bit of gnosticism.

Matt: you are being `creative.' I have acknowledged multiple times that there is a human role in the origins of Scripture -- I have just been clear that the Divine role overshadows that.

You, on the other hand, have emphasized the human role of Scripture, because of the solely human origin of "Tradition." In so doing, you have treated Scripture as predominantly a human book.

Your false and creative accusation of having "gnosticism" leanings. Is an interesting smokescreen. I guess not only are you stuck downplaying Scripture, you are stuck making `creative' and baseless accusations. I treat God's Book as God's Book -- which is how Paul told Timothy to treat it at 2 Timothy 3:16-7.

The Apostle Paul would beg to differ:

"Therefore, brethren, standfast and hold the traditions which you were taught whether by word or our epistle" 2 Thess 2:15

So Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, indicates that his oral tradition and written tradition (ie his epistle) that he was passing down to the Thessalonians were equally authoritative.


Also...

"For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit.." 1 Thess 1:5

Here Paul clearly states that the gospel he had previously proclaimed to them orally was not merely human words but by the power of the Holy Spirit.

And..

"For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it, not as the word of men, but as t is in truth in the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe." 1 Thess 2:13

In other words the gospel message the Thessalonians heard from Paul--before they had received ANY NT Scriptures from him or the other apostles--was reckoned to be the "word of God" and "not as the word of men"

You might, therefore, want to reconsider your statement about the Apostolic Tradition having nothing other than a human element.

As noted multiple times before, there is no evidence that the "tradition" mentioned in Scripture was substantially different than Scripture. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-7 gives a detail as to what "tradition" meant then -- teachings on daily living. The contents of that "tradition" were similar to what is in Scripture.

What is called "Tradition" today by Orthodox, Catholics, and similar are differing collections of religious speculations distinct from Scripture. So yes, I am disputing that what you call "Apostolic Tradition" -- whichever group's version you mean -- has anything other than a solely human element.

 

[D28guy]

Agnus Dei,

In the Orthodox Church anyway, we don’t pit both Holy Scripture against Holy Tradition as if both are competing with one another. Both are on equal footing,..."

But in Gods church they are not on equal footing...

Our Lord Jesus Christ teaching...

""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."

Dont you think you should find a group that does things Gods way?

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

You posted...

"You and I disagree as to the non-human component of Tradition. Not admitting to the human element in Scripture smells to me a bit of gnosticism."

Uh oh!

We are being called on the carpet by the ((((HERESY SQUAD)))) again! :laugh: The last time we were ((((Nestorians!)))) (I think that was it) and now we are just a bunch of nasty ((((gnostics!))))

Ohhhhh....me...oh....my...are we having FUN or what? :godisgood:

(I'm so glad God knows who we are. Spirit born children of God sharing His scriptural truth) :thumbs:

Grace and peace to all,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Matt: you are being `creative.' I have acknowledged multiple times that there is a human role in the origins of Scripture -- I have just been clear that the Divine role overshadows that.

You, on the other hand, have emphasized the human role of Scripture, because of the solely human origin of "Tradition." In so doing, you have treated Scripture as predominantly a human book.

Your false and creative accusation of having "gnosticism" leanings. Is an interesting smokescreen. I guess not only are you stuck downplaying Scripture, you are stuck making `creative' and baseless accusations.

Hardly. OK, let's rewind: forget everything I said in my last few posts and let's start again. I regard both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as having both human and divine components. The Bible is God's book, and Tradition is God's guidance to and through the Church; it is not 'the traditions of men'. That's the only point I was trying to make.