Scripture and Tradition

[Matt Black]

Matt,


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!))))


Mike

It depends what you say, Mike. If you're saying Christ had two Persons, then you're a Nestorian. If you're saying He only appeared to be human but wasn't fully human, then you're docetic. If you're saying that the Bible was purely of divine creation, then you're on a par with some of the gnostic beliefs or possibly Mormonism (Scripture just fell out of the sky as gold tablets and was buried by an angel). I just call what I see.

[NB: "you" is generic and doesn't necessarily specifically mean you, Mike]

 

[Darron Steele]

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.

That is fine. I am perfectly fine with just dropping all that other stuff. Let us move on.

From where I sit, I have no trouble believing that the Bible is God's Book. While human secretary-authors had their role in writing Scripture, everything they wrote was in accord with the actions of God. This is why 2 Timothy 3:16-7 teaches that Scripture was "breathed out by God" -- He is the ultimate author, and in 2 Timothy 3:15-4:2, Paul told Timothy that this was the basis for using it.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:6-7, we see that "tradition" referred to teachings over daily living. That "tradition" does not seem to be anything different than what is already in Scripture. It seems to be of an entirely different nature from what gets called "Tradition" by various groups.

Titus 3:8-9 has "I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good |deeds|. These things are good and profitable unto men: but shun foolish questionings" (ASV|NLT 1996, RSV 1952|ASV). The "foolish questionings" are inquiries into matters distinct from "good deeds." What is called "Tradition" by Orthodox, by Catholics, and similar is mostly irrelevant to "good deeds" in regular living. Such varying "Tradition" is the result of such inquiries = "foolish questionings" -- it seems unlikely to me that the Lord rewarded these by `guiding' them into the `right opinions' over these inquiries.

Therefore, I do not see any evidence that Orthodox "Tradition," Catholic "Tradition," or similar, has any divine origin. I see every indication to the contrary.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Darron,

I had listed some Scriptures in which Paul expressed (1) both the equal authority of his oral message (gospel) with his written epistles; and (2) the supernatural character of his oral message (ie "word of God", "in the Holy Spirit"). You responded...

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.

I guess this argument could cut both ways. Although Scripture itself seems to provide evidence that in some cases the "Tradition" to which Paul refers is at least "similar (as you say) to what is in Scripture" (ie particularly regarding "teachings of daily living" and the core kerygma), there is no "sola Scriptura" evidence that everything that Paul (and the other apostles) had ever taught orally was or would be ultimately written down in Scripture. In other words, there is no specific verse in Scriptures stating that all of Paul's teachings would be contained in the combined corpus of his canonical epistles, let alone that there was to be such a fixed canon of NT Scripture in the first place. Neither, therefore, is there a verse in the NT Scriptures indicating that there was to be a time limit for the Christians' obligation to hold fast the Apostles' oral teachings. On the contrary, Paul indicated in his Second Epistle to Timothy that oral tradition was to be passed on and held to for at least two more "generations" of transmission to believers (see 2 Timothy 2:2).

Now I'll be happy to acknowledge, along with the Church fathers, that in fact all essential doctines (ie necessary for salvation) are found in the Canon of Scripture. However this judgement and determination regarding the Canon came from outside of the Scriptural writings themselves. For one thing, the Scriptures themselves contain no divinely inspired 'table of contents' within it's own pages, and the consensus on the final limits of the Canon were not determined by the Church until the late 4th century (at the earliest). It was the Apostolic Tradition within the Church that helped guide the Church (under the direction of the same Spirit who inspired the Scriptures) to eventually arrive at the correct listing of books to the exclusion of the others. At any rate, though I ultimately agree with your belief that the oral Tradition and Scripture testify to the same truth, my point remains that the Scriptures themselves (the ones I listed in my previous post) seem to contradict your accusation that oral Tradition has nothing other than the human element. Which brings us to the point where we need to describe more specifically what this Tradition is....

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.

Having by now read what I mentioned regarding the Tradition in the paragraph above, you may be realizing that, in your over-generalization of what "Orthodox, Catholics, and simliar" supposedly consider to be "Tradition", you may have been in fact creating a strawman regarding what I (an Anglican) and many others (including some Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics) actually consider to be the "Tradition". I don't suppose that it refers to an additional body of teaching independent of that contained in Scriptures, nor did the earliest Church Fathers suppose that to be the case either. A good summary of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, as supposed by the Fathers, can be found in JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines:

"Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complimentary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content" (Early Christian Doctrines pp 47-48--emphasis mine--with the preceding pages giving specific citations in the writings of the Fathers as evidence of this perceived relationship).

In other words, the content of the body of doctrine/morals is basically the same (or coincident) though expressed in different forms--written epistles or narratives on the one hand, baptismal confessions, 'rules of faith', hymns, catechesis, and (later) creeds, etc on the other. All the above was considered to have it's source in the Apostolic teaching or Tradition of orally proclaiming the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures and thus the Principle for correctly interpreting the same. As this Tradition--whether ultimately written down in the Scriptures or expressed in the hymns, confessions, 'rules of faith'--came from a common source (the Apostles) and expressed a common Truth (the Gospel kerygma), the early Christians considered it's various forms equally authoritative and thus complimentary. Thus Kelly continues...

"To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which were embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness." (ibid. p 48).

So while the early Christians took it for granted that all of the Church's essential doctrines were contained in the Canon (once completed), they also recognized that these other media (ie "organs of her institutional life") conveyed the same Truth, albeit in different forms, and that these were thus helpful at arriving that the correct interpretation of the Scriptures against the distortions of the heretics. As I'm sure you're aware, the heretics often would appeal to the same Scriptures to arrive at their false teachings, which was evident as far back as the Apostolic age (see 2 Peter 3:16), and it was often by an appeal to its devotional life (prayers/hymns), 'rules of faith', and common teaching that the Church authoritatively declared the true meaning of Scripture in opposition to heresy. This idea can be summed up in the statement that the Scriptures were believed to be materially sufficient (ie contained all the necessary "stuff") but formally insufficient (ie prone to misinterpretation if read outside of the context of the Church and the Apostolic Tradition.)

If you want to find a good book on the subject that's written by a BAPTIST, then check out Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalsim by D.H.Williams. This work, more than any other, is what convinced me that Apostolic Tradition, rather than being a 'bad word', is crucial to understanding the history of Christianity and the development and defense of Christian orthodoxy in the Church down through the ages.

 

[DHK]

I guess this argument could cut both ways. Although Scripture itself seems to provide evidence that in some cases the "Tradition" to which Paul refers is at least "similar (as you say) to what is in Scripture" (ie particularly regarding "teachings of daily living" and the core kerygma), there is no "sola Scriptura" evidence that everything that Paul (and the other apostles) had ever taught orally was or would be ultimately written down in Scripture. In other words, there is no specific verse in Scriptures stating that all of Paul's teachings would be contained in the combined corpus of his canonical epistles, let alone that there was to be such a fixed canon of NT Scripture in the first place. Neither, therefore, is there a verse in the NT Scriptures indicating that there was to be a time limit for the Christians' obligation to hold fast the Apostles' oral teachings. On the contrary, Paul indicated in his Second Epistle to Timothy that oral tradition was to be passed on and held to for at least two more "generations" of transmission to believers (see 2 Timothy 2:2).

1. Is there NT tradition spoken of in the Bible? No. The time space between the death of Christ and the beginning of the Canon (29 A.D to 50 A.D. doesn't allow for what is defined as tradition). Don't do such a travesty to the definitions of these words (tradition) when defined by Greek, English, and even the RCC's own encyclopedia. You are wrong on all accounts. Words have meanings.

2. Are all of the Apostles' writings contained in the Scripture? No. Paul wrote at least 4 epistles to the Corinthians alone. Only two of them made it into our Canon of Scripture.

3. If the above be the case then how did the early church (at the time of the Apostles) know which of Paul's epistles (and the other Apostles') were inspired?
The Apostles' had a promise: "And the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth" That directly applied to Scripture, the writing down of it or recording of it, and knowing what exact words were inspired. They knew the exact words of God that were inspired of God. God lead them into all truth. (John 16:13.)

4. The Canon was finished by the end of the first century when the Book of Revelation was completed. One doesn't need to access to every book of the Bible to have a completed canon. Only every book of the Bible needs to be completed and extant. And that it was at the end of the first century. They may have been somewhat scattered, but different believers had copies of what they knew to be the inspired Word of God, authenticated by the Apostles, not by the Councils of the RCC. The RCC never had anything to do with the Bible, except in their attempts to destroy it (read up on your history of William Tyndale).

5. Sola Scriptura doesn't need the NT, necessarily. A NT message can be proved to this day through the OT. We still prove a literal creation with the OT, even though it, at times, is mentioned in the NT. Philip "began at the same Scripture (Isaiah), and preached unto him (the Ethiopian Eunuch), Jesus. He preached unto him Jesus from Isaiah, a perfect example of sola scrptura.

6. No one has brought forth a single verse of Scripture that upholds traditon in the Bible, except those verses that bring forth the condemnation by Jesus. We all know that the verses in Timothy and Thessalonians refer to the teaching of the truth of the Word of God whether orally or written down, was indeed the Word of God. When I preach or teach the Word of God without notes, do you accuse me of teaching tradition. If you do, it is slander. For I teach and preach God's Word. Because it is done orally has nothing to do with Tradition. Paul preached God's Word. I can give you dozens of Scripture which attest to that fact. But not one Scripture that refers to the preaching of tradition. Thus what you are advocating is Scripturally untenable and wrong.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

1. Is there NT tradition spoken of in the Bible? No. The time space between the death of Christ and the beginning of the Canon (29 A.D to 50 A.D. doesn't allow for what is defined as tradition). Don't do such a travesty to the definitions of these words (tradition) when defined by Greek, English, and even the RCC's own encyclopedia. You are wrong on all accounts. Words have meanings.

Words do have meanings. "Tradition" comes from the Greek word "paradosis" which merely means that "which is handed over". Paul specifically commands the Thessalonians to hold fast to the "traditions" (that which was handed over) they were taught by him. It has nothing to do with the amount of time, so your objection is irrelevent.

2. Are all of the Apostles' writings contained in the Scripture? No. Paul wrote at least 4 epistles to the Corinthians alone. Only two of them made it into our Canon of Scripture.

True. And Paul expected the Churches to receive his oral teaching as the word of God...whether it was ultimately written down and included in the Canon or not.

3. If the above be the case then how did the early church (at the time of the Apostles) know which of Paul's epistles (and the other Apostles') were inspired?
The Apostles' had a promise: "And the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth" That directly applied to Scripture, the writing down of it or recording of it, and knowing what exact words were inspired. They knew the exact words of God that were inspired of God. God lead them into all truth. (John 16:13.)

This is true enough, especially in the case of the earliest immediate recipients. Paul's letters circulated together by the end of the first century, and along with the four-fold gospel became the core of the NT. Other books which were initially less widely circulated were disputed in various places for quite some time.

(In the case of Paul's other epistles to the Corinthians, God in His Providence apparently didn't see fit for these to be preserved and thus circulated along with the rest of the Pauline corpus)

4. The Canon was finished by the end of the first century when the Book of Revelation was completed. One doesn't need to access to every book of the Bible to have a completed canon. Only every book of the Bible needs to be completed and extant. And that it was at the end of the first century. They may have been somewhat scattered, but different believers had copies of what they knew to be the inspired Word of God, authenticated by the Apostles, not by the Councils of the RCC. The RCC never had anything to do with the Bible, except in their attempts to destroy it (read up on your history of William Tyndale).

It's a historical fact that the first listing of the NT canon for which we have documentation that exactly matches our 27 book NT was written in a letter by Athanasius in AD 367. Up until that time the following books were not universally accepted in the Church (though each had a certain measure of local canonicity):
Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation

So although all 27 books were indeed written the first century, the final limits of the canon were not determined until late 4th and early 5th century. Like it or not, the 27 book NT you are holding in your hand is due as much to the original inspiration of the writings as to the Spirit leading the Church by councils to authoritatively pronounce the limits of the Canon. (Read up on your Church history)

5. Sola Scriptura doesn't need the NT, necessarily.

Maybe not if you practice Judaism.

A NT message can be proved to this day through the OT. We still prove a literal creation with the OT, even though it, at times, is mentioned in the NT. Philip "began at the same Scripture (Isaiah), and preached unto him (the Ethiopian Eunuch), Jesus. He preached unto him Jesus from Isaiah, a perfect example of sola scrptura.

On the contrary, it was Philip who taught the eunuch the true meaning of the OT Scripture as fulfilled in the historical Jesus of Nazareth. (The eunuch admitted he couldn't understand without a teacher--particularly he was unaware that this prophecy had now been fulfilled recently in the PERSON, Jesus of Nazareth). The OT book is incomplete without the fulfillment in the PERSON.

6. No one has brought forth a single verse of Scripture that upholds traditon in the Bible,

That's just ridiculous....I listed one above.

except those verses that bring forth the condemnation by Jesus.

You err, since it's the same Greek word (paradosis) in 2 Thess 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:2--that Paul commends--that's also in those Gospel passages (ie in which Christ condemns). The word paradosis itself is neutral. What determines the difference--whether good and to be held, or bad and to be condemned--is the source!

We all know that the verses in Timothy and Thessalonians refer to the teaching of the truth of the Word of God whether orally or written down, was indeed the Word of God.

Which was exactly my point...

When I preach or teach the Word of God without notes, do you accuse me of teaching tradition.

If you happen to teach the Word of God correctly without notes, then you are in fact teaching the Tradition...and that's something I would commend you for. :thumbs:

If you do, it is slander. For I teach and preach God's Word. Because it is done orally has nothing to do with Tradition.

Actually if you are accurately teaching and preaching the word of God--as understood in the Church accross time and space going back to the Apostles--then you too are handing over the Tradition. However, if you are teaching and preaching based on your own private opinion, you might not in fact be handing over the Tradition...you might be handing over something else.

Paul preached God's Word. I can give you dozens of Scripture which attest to that fact. But not one Scripture that refers to the preaching of tradition.

Ummm...hello...2 Thessalonians 2:15.

At this point I recommend you go back and re-read what I wrote about Tradition in my last response to Darron, particularly JND Kelly's quotes.

 

[Matt Black]

A belated 'Amen!' to all of that:thumbs:

 

[Doubting Thomas]

A belated 'Amen!' to all of that:thumbs:

Thanks, my friend. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Words do have meanings. "Tradition" comes from the Greek word "paradosis" which merely means that "which is handed over". Paul specifically commands the Thessalonians to hold fast to the "traditions" (that which was handed over) they were taught by him. It has nothing to do with the amount of time, so your objection is irrelevent.

Since you and Matt find it necessary to congratulate each other on this post, I find it necessary to point out the contradictions and weaknesses of it. You say "that it has nothing to do with the amount of time so my objection is irrelevant." I object! And it is relevant. You ignore the very definition of Tradtion, as defined by the Catholic Church: written or oral teaching passed down through generation to generation over the centuries.
Not even one generation had elapsed much less generations. That nullifies the very definition of the definition of "tradition" as used by the RCC and its various affiliates. One cannot accumulate tradition within 29 years. Even in our society it is difficult to use the word in the context of 29 years. People speak of tradition in their house passed down from their great grandparents and before that. They speak of the tradition of having a Christmas tree in their house. These are passed down throughout centuries, not 29 years. You have contradicted yourself using a word within a framework of time that makes no sense.
The word simply means "a body of truth" and nothing more.

This is true enough, especially in the case of the earliest immediate recipients. Paul's letters circulated together by the end of the first century, and along with the four-fold gospel became the core of the NT. Other books which were initially less widely circulated were disputed in various places for quite some time.

Early Christians were able to spot forgeries. The Holy Spirit led them, by the teaching of the Apostles how to spot forgeries. That was one of the purposes of the first Epistle of John.

1 John 2:20-21 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

The were not omniscient in that they knew all things. John writes that they knew all things in respect to the revelation of God's Word. They knew who was a false prophet trying to pawn off on them forgeries, speaking lies, "that no lie is of the truth." They knew the truth and were able to spot a false prophet, a false writing.

(In the case of Paul's other epistles to the Corinthians, God in His Providence apparently didn't see fit for these to be preserved and thus circulated along with the rest of the Pauline corpus)

There was nothing false in Paul's writings. However they were all written in the time of the Apostles. And the Apostles knew which ones were inspired and which were not. Of course Paul himself knew. The Holy Spirit told him which were inspired, and that knowledge was passed on to the early church.
Again:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

It's a historical fact that the first listing of the NT canon for which we have documentation that exactly matches our 27 book NT was written in a letter by Athanasius in AD 367. Up until that time the following books were not universally accepted in the Church (though each had a certain measure of local canonicity):
Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation

1. It is not a historical fact that all the 27 books were extant before that time.
2. It is a historical fact that all these books were together in other versions such as the Itala and the Syriac.
3. There was no printing press. Even while Paul was in prison he writes to Timothy and requests him to bring the books and the parchments. Just because they circulated among the churches and were not all present at one place at one time does not mean that they were not extant and that the early Christians did not know which books made up the canon.

So although all 27 books were indeed written the first century, the final limits of the canon were not determined until late 4th and early 5th century. Like it or not, the 27 book NT you are holding in your hand is due as much to the original inspiration of the writings as to the Spirit leading the Church by councils to authoritatively pronounce the limits of the Canon. (Read up on your Church history)

I have read up on my church history and I see how much the historians you depend upon ignore earlier versions. I see how much you don't take into account how these epistles were circulatory in nature. I see how you don't take into account the authority of the Apostles. I see how you don't take into account the intelligence of the early Christians but infer that they are all ignoramuses just in order that the RCC councils can take the credit for "producing our Bible" which is ludicrous.

Maybe not if you practice Judaism.

The Jews of the OT practices sola scriptura.
The Christians of Berea used the OT and practiced sola scriptura.
Philip began at Isaiah, and using only Isaiah, practiced sola scriptura.
Your allegation is false.

On the contrary, it was Philip who taught the eunuch the true meaning of the OT Scripture as fulfilled in the historical Jesus of Nazareth. (The eunuch admitted he couldn't understand without a teacher--particularly he was unaware that this prophecy had now been fulfilled recently in the PERSON, Jesus of Nazareth). The OT book is incomplete without the fulfillment in the PERSON.

The fact is that Philip, using only the OT, taught the Eunuch about Christ. That is sola scriptura whether you like it or not. Teachers are needed. They were needed in the OT as well as in the NT. We never denied that. It has nothing to do with sola scriptura.

That's just ridiculous...I listed one above.

If you brought forth a single verse that upholds tradition I didn't see it. You quoted a Scripture out of context, but you didn't bring forth any Scripture that upholds Tradition.

You err, since it's the same Greek word (paradosis) in 2 Thess 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:2--that Paul commends--that's also in those Gospel passages (ie in which Christ condemns). The word paradosis itself is neutral. What determines the difference--whether good and to be held, or bad and to be condemned--is the source!

Yes, and the Tradition used in the Catholic sense is to be condemned. The word "tradition" used in the Biblical sense simply means "body of truth" referring to the Biblical truth that Paul had already taught from the Bible.

Which was exactly my point...

Your point was defeated because your defintion doesn't meet the criteria for the definiton of "tradition." You can't fit the modern day definition of tradition into the NT definition of tradition. Therein lies your mistake.

If you happen to teach the Word of God correctly without notes, then you are in fact teaching the Tradition...and that's something I would commend you for.

Wrong. If I preach the Word of God; I preach the Word of God--end of story. The Word of God is not tradition; it is the Word of God. Don't redefine words.

Actually if you are accurately teaching and preaching the word of God--as understood in the Church accross time and space going back to the Apostles--then you too are handing over the Tradition. However, if you are teaching and preaching based on your own private opinion, you might not in fact be handing over the Tradition...you might be handing over something else.

Again, accurately preaching the Word of God has nothing to do with tradition. It is carrying out the Great Commission a command of Christ given to every believer (Mat.28:19,20). I don't consider prayer a tradition either. It is a command of Christ, just like preaching the Word is.

Ummm...hello...2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Out of context, and the word "tradition" simply means the truth of God's Word.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, whether God's word be written (Scripture) or oral (Tradition)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

DHK,
If I get a chance I'll answer your post tomorrow.
DT

 

[Matt Black]

DHK, I think you are confusing the concept of Tradition with the perceived need for it to be (necessarily) multi-generational. That's not the case, particularly when we look at the Apostolic Age of the Church, where Tradition is the Word of God spoken (Scripture being the Word of God written). Now, take the Apostle Paul as an example. He wrote a large portion of the New Testament (Scripture). But he also travelled widely in the eastern Mediterranean proclaiming God's word and teaching orally (Tradition). Common sense would dictate that what he said was a significant amount more than what he wrote. So, even by the time he wrote his first epistles, there would have accumulated a substantial body of oral teaching (Tradition) from him.

 

[Darron Steele]

...
In 2 Thessalonians 3:6-7, we see that "tradition" referred to teachings over daily living. That "tradition" does not seem to be anything different than what is already in Scripture. It seems to be of an entirely different nature from what gets called "Tradition" by various groups.

Titus 3:8-9 has "I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good |deeds|. These things are good and profitable unto men: but shun foolish questionings" (ASV|NLT 1996, RSV 1952|ASV). The "foolish questionings" are inquiries into matters distinct from "good deeds." What is called "Tradition" by Orthodox, by Catholics, and similar is mostly irrelevant to "good deeds" in regular living. Such varying "Tradition" is the result of such inquiries = "foolish questionings" -- it seems unlikely to me that the Lord rewarded these by `guiding' them into the `right opinions' over these inquiries.

Therefore, I do not see any evidence that Orthodox "Tradition," Catholic "Tradition," or similar, has any divine origin. I see every indication to the contrary.

Darron,

I had listed some Scriptures in which Paul expressed (1) both the equal authority of his oral message (gospel) with his written epistles; and (2) the supernatural character of his oral message (ie "word of God", "in the Holy Spirit"). You responded...


I guess this argument could cut both ways. Although Scripture itself seems to provide evidence that in some cases the "Tradition" to which Paul refers is at least "similar (as you say) to what is in Scripture" (ie particularly regarding "teachings of daily living" and the core kerygma), there is no "sola Scriptura" evidence that everything that Paul (and the other apostles) had ever taught orally was or would be ultimately written down in Scripture...

...
At this point I recommend you go back and re-read what I wrote about Tradition in my last response to Darron, particularly JND Kelly's quotes.

I was going to let you `off the hook' for that "last response," but since you bragged on it, I guess I will not.

I showed that all indications in Scripture are that approved "tradition" -- including oral -- refer to teachings about overall living, which is the same type of teachings found in Scripture. There is no evidence that this "tradition" referred a mass of extrabiblical distinctly-religious tenets, like among the Orthodox, Catholics, and similar.

You then assert "I guess this argument could cut both ways." It does not. To assert that approved "tradition" in Scripture was predominantly teachings on daily living found also in Scripture is an assertion backed by evidence. To assert that approved "tradition" in Scripture refers to the masses of distinctly-religious foreign to Scripture would be sheer speculation, and contrary to evidence.

The indications from Titus 3:8-9 quoted indicate that we are to shun "foolish questionings" irrelevant to "good deeds." The masses of extrabiblical distinctly-religious tenets called "Tradition" among the Orthodox, Catholics, and similar are fruits of just what Titus 3:8-9 opposed. The evidence therefore is actually against any such speculation.

Now, as to what else you wrote. 2 Timothy 3:16-7 says that Scripture was given by God "so that the| person who serves God| may be complete, | entirely instructed for all good work."* Paul is clear that whatever he and the other apostles taught, Scripture is sufficient for us to know fully what God wants from us.
___
*ICB|ASV|RVR 1909 “enteramente instruído para toda buena obra” translated.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I was going to let you `off the hook' for that "last response," but since you bragged on it, I guess I will not.

Really? I "bragged on it"? In what way was my comment to DHK "bragging"?

At any rate...

I showed that all indications in Scripture are that approved "tradition" -- including oral -- refer to teachings about overall living, which is the same type of teachings found in Scripture. There is no evidence that this "tradition" referred a mass of extrabiblical distinctly-religious tenets, like among the Orthodox, Catholics, and similar.

So perhaps at this point I should re-post some relevent portions of my last response to you, because it seems as if you didn't read it to closely (at best) or simply prefer to persist in arguing with a straw man (at worse)...

Although Scripture itself seems to provide evidence that in some cases the "Tradition" to which Paul refers is at least "similar (as you say) to what is in Scripture" (ie particularly regarding "teachings of daily living" and the core kerygma), there is no "sola Scriptura" evidence that EVERYTHING that Paul (and the other apostles) had ever taught orally was or would be ultimately written down in Scripture. In other words, there is no specific verse in Scriptures stating that ALL of Paul's teachings would be contained in the combined corpus of his canonical epistles, let alone that there was to be such a fixed canon of NT Scripture in the first place.

Did you catch that? I bolded and underlined and capitalized the points I was particularly making and won't comment on them any furthur as they are self-explanatory.

Neither, therefore, is there a verse in the NT Scriptures indicating that there was to be a time limit for the Christians' obligation to hold fast the Apostles' oral teachings. On the contrary, Paul indicated in his Second Epistle to Timothy that oral tradition was to be passed on and held to for at least two more "generations" of transmission to believers (see 2 Timothy 2:2).

That point, also, should be self-explanatory. And did you catch the following acknowledgement I made?...

Now I'll be happy to acknowledge, along with the Church fathers, that in fact all essential doctines (ie necessary for salvation) are found in the Canon of Scripture.

I proceeded to say....

However this judgement and determination regarding the Canon came from outside of the Scriptural writings themselves. For one thing, the Scriptures themselves contain no divinely inspired 'table of contents' within it's own pages, and the consensus on the final limits of the Canon were not determined by the Church until the late 4th century (at the earliest). It was the Apostolic Tradition within the Church that helped guide the Church (under the direction of the same Spirit who inspired the Scriptures) to eventually arrive at the correct listing of books to the exclusion of the others. At any rate, though I ultimately agree with your belief that the oral Tradition and Scripture testify to the same truth, my point remains that the Scriptures themselves (the ones I listed in my previous post) seem to contradict your accusation that oral Tradition has nothing other than the human element. Which brings us to the point where we need to describe more specifically what this Tradition is....

So here I basically stated that I ultimately agreed with you conclusion that Tradition and Scripture testify to the same Truth, particularly that there's no essential doctrines outside of the completed Canon--I just made the point that it was the Church guided by the Spirit made that judgement in finally fixing the contents of the Canon.

Having by now read what I mentioned regarding the Tradition in the paragraph above, you may be realizing that, in your over-generalization of what "Orthodox, Catholics, and simliar" supposedly consider to be "Tradition", you may have been in fact creating a strawman regarding what I (an Anglican) and many others (including some Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics) actually consider to be the "Tradition". I don't suppose that it refers to an additional body of teaching independent of that contained in Scriptures, nor did the earliest Church Fathers suppose that to be the case either.

The underlined part is key and should be self-explanatory.

A good summary of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, as supposed by the Fathers, can be found in JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines:

"Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complimentary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content" (Early Christian Doctrines pp 47-48--emphasis mine--with the preceding pages giving specific citations in the writings of the Fathers as evidence of this perceived relationship).

In other words, the content of the body of doctrine/morals is basically the same (or coincident) though expressed in different forms--written epistles or narratives on the one hand, baptismal confessions, 'rules of faith', hymns, catechesis, and (later) creeds, etc on the other. All the above was considered to have it's source in the Apostolic teaching or Tradition of orally proclaiming the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures and thus the Principle for correctly interpreting the same. As this Tradition--whether ultimately written down in the Scriptures or expressed in the hymns, confessions, 'rules of faith'--came from a common source (the Apostles) and expressed a common Truth (the Gospel kerygma), the early Christians considered it's various forms equally authoritative and thus complimentary. Thus Kelly continues...

"To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which were embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness." (ibid. p 48).

So while the early Christians took it for granted that all of the Church's essential doctrines were contained in the Canon (once completed), they also recognized that these other media (ie "organs of her institutional life") conveyed the same Truth, albeit in different forms, and that these were thus helpful at arriving that the correct interpretation of the Scriptures against the distortions of the heretics. As I'm sure you're aware, the heretics often would appeal to the same Scriptures to arrive at their false teachings, which was evident as far back as the Apostolic age (see 2 Peter 3:16), and it was often by an appeal to its devotional life (prayers/hymns), 'rules of faith', and common teaching that the Church authoritatively declared the true meaning of Scripture in opposition to heresy. This idea can be summed up in the statement that the Scriptures were believed to be materially sufficient (ie contained all the necessary "stuff") but formally insufficient (ie prone to misinterpretation if read outside of the context of the Church and the Apostolic Tradition.)

(Again, I have nothing further to add except I'd urge you to read that, particularly Kelly's quote and my underlined points.)

So it looks like I re-posted most of what I said to you earlier. However, based on your most recent reply to me I don't see any indication that you actually dealt with most of what I had written, since you are making some of the same mischaracterizations of my position and keep bringing up points that I already answered. Perhaps that's what you mean by "letting me off the hook"?

(Continued...)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(Continuing...)

So continuing with your current post...

You then assert "I guess this argument could cut both ways." It does not. To assert that approved "tradition" in Scripture was predominantly teachings on daily living found also in Scripture is an assertion backed by evidence. To assert that approved "tradition" in Scripture refers to the masses of distinctly-religious foreign to Scripture would be sheer speculation, and contrary to evidence.

Again, hopefully you've by now re-read (or read for the first time) much of what I had written to you the first time. If so, you should know that I don't see "tradition" as the "masses of distinctly-religious foreign to Scripture". (READ especially the JND Kelly quotes and my comments on it). I would like to point out however that the NT Church preceded chronologically the NT Scriptures and they were already worshipping Christ and receiving doctrinal and moral instructions from the Apostles. It should have to be pointed out that the NT is neither a detailed worship manual or a systematic catechism. The NT writings are inspired and certainly authoritative, but can't be yanked out of their historical and ecclesial context.

The indications from Titus 3:8-9 quoted indicate that we are to shun "foolish questionings" irrelevant to "good deeds." The masses of extrabiblical distinctly-religious tenets called "Tradition" among the Orthodox, Catholics, and similar are fruits of just what Titus 3:8-9 opposed. The evidence therefore is actually against any such speculation.

Perhaps you are the one who is "speculating" on what Paul had in mind in describing "foolish questionings". And what "extrabiblically distincly-religous tenets" are you actually referring to--the Apostles' or Nicence Creed? The Chalcedonian Definition? Would you consider these to be the fruits of "foolish questionings" and "speculation"

At any rate, again, I don't subscribe to the straw man version of "tradition" which you seem to keep describing--ie a body of necessary doctrinal or moral truths completely independent of and distinct from the Bible

Now, as to what else you wrote. 2 Timothy 3:16-7 says that Scripture was given by God "so that the| person who serves God| may be complete, | entirely instructed for all good work."* Paul is clear that whatever he and the other apostles taught, Scripture is sufficient for us to know fully what God wants from us.

Ahhh...but this brings us yet again to two important points. One is the issue of the formation of the canon. I'll be happy to agree with you that the completed Scripture Canon contains all the "stuff" necessary for salvation, but it should be pointed out again that the Scriptures themselves do not list their own divinely inspired table of contents. The Canon was not finally fixed until the late 4th, early 5th century. Yes, the bulk/core of the NT (ie the four gospels and Paul's writings) was pretty much agreed upon as far back as the early to mid 2nd century, but seven books in particular (Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Revelation) were disputed in various places for a couple more centuries. It was a decision by the CHURCH from outside the words of the NT writings themselves which closed the canon and deemed that these 27 books were divinely inspired, congruent with the Apostolic Tradtion and enshrined all the necessary doctrines thereof.

The second point is the issue of interpretation. Granted the centrality and importance of Scriptures, how does one know he is interpreting them correctly? For the Apostle Peter mentioned (2 Peter 3:15-16) that some folks were already twisting Scriptures to their own destruction. The Church Fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, argued that the heretics were twisting Scriptures, while the adoptionists, modalists, Arians etc in turn insisted that they were the ones interpreting Scriptures correctly. As I mentioned in my earlier post (which I re-posted above) it was by having recourse to the Tradition that the Apostles had handed down in the Church that the orthodox Christians could claim that they were the ones who were interpreting the Scriptures correctly, as the (oral)Tradition and the (written) Scriptures equally testified to the same Truth and came from the same source.

In summary, the Apostolic Church was able by her recourse to the Apostolic Tradition to both correctly identify the proper Canon of Apostolic Scripture and to accurately defend the true meaning of the Scriptures against the distortion of heretics.

I'll close by recommending once again you read the book by DH Williams (and the relevent chapter in the book by JND Kelly) that I already mentioned, if you a desire to understand the true historical concept of Apostolic Tradition as opposed to the straw man variations thereof.
(Perhaps I just might "let you off the hook" until then. :smilewinkgrin: )

 

[DHK]

DHK, I think you are confusing the concept of Tradition with the perceived need for it to be (necessarily) multi-generational. That's not the case, particularly when we look at the Apostolic Age of the Church, where Tradition is the Word of God spoken (Scripture being the Word of God written). Now, take the Apostle Paul as an example. He wrote a large portion of the New Testament (Scripture). But he also travelled widely in the eastern Mediterranean proclaiming God's word and teaching orally (Tradition). Common sense would dictate that what he said was a significant amount more than what he wrote. So, even by the time he wrote his first epistles, there would have accumulated a substantial body of oral teaching (Tradition) from him.

Your definition does not square with the way in which the RCC or even the Orthodox uses tradition. In fact you go on to use their definition of Tradition further on in your post, further confusing the issue when I challenge you to show me even one instance of any tradition in the NT. You can't.
Of a necessity, it is multi-generational. It is so by its very definition. Whenever Paul preached, he preached the Word; that is not tradition in any sense of the Word. I don't preach tradition; neither did Paul. It was the Word of God as is evidenced by both Philip and Paul preaching to the Bereans (Acts 17:11). No tradition was involved.

 

[Darron Steele]

Doubting Thomas: I read your post the first time, and I knowingly misrepresented none of it. I dare say you are calling the wrong person a liar.

I replied to what was most noteworthy. I prefer to budget my time on discussion boards. The "church fathers" assert "all essential doctines (ie necessary for salvation) are found in the Canon of Scripture." The belief is that that Scripture is enough for matters of salvation. I believe this is not far enough, and had you been reading closely, you would have seen me assert that. I pointed out, as 2 Timothy 3:16-7 shows, Scripture is sufficient in telling us everything God wants us to do.

Further, if what is called by Orthodox, Catholics, and similar as "Tradition" is not "a body of necessary doctrinal or moral truths completely independent of and distinct from the Bible" then this is a pointless discussion. Why not just go with the Bible? The fact that this debate exists shows that "Tradition" is just what it is: masses of distinctly-religious tenets foreign to Scripture.

You wrote

Perhaps you are the one who is "speculating" on what Paul had in mind in describing "foolish questionings".

I am doing no such thing. Paul is very clear as to what he means by "foolish questionings" right there at Titus 3:8-9. They are intellectual pursuits off-focus from "good deeds."

It should have to be pointed out that the NT is neither a detailed worship manual or a systematic catechism.

Agreed. Because Scripture is no such thing, and yet is sufficient for us to know everything we need to do what God wants, I assert we need no such thing.

As for your suggested reading, I have read enough works by Orthodox and Catholic polemicists about this subject. I am not interested in reading similar content from a person who attends a Baptist congregation. Also, I `let you off the hook' the first time for the reasons I said I did, and would have continued to do so had you not showcased that post.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Doubting Thomas: I read your post the first time, and I knowingly misrepresented none of it. I dare say you are calling the wrong person a liar.

I replied to what was most noteworthy. I prefer to budget my time on discussion boards.

I don't recall saying you were a "liar". However, if you are going to "budget" your time in responding to my posts, I'd hope you wouldn't disregard the bulk of what I said in a post as this provided important explanatory context to the small part that you did respond to. This gives the impression that you didn't bother to interact with the rest of my post at all, particularly when you kept bringing up the same points that I answered already, particularly as found in the parts of the post which you didn't respond to.

The "church fathers" assert "all essential doctines (ie necessary for salvation) are found in the Canon of Scripture." The belief is that that Scripture is enough for matters of salvation. I believe this is not far enough, and had you been reading closely, you would have seen me assert that. I pointed out, as 2 Timothy 3:16-7 shows, Scripture is sufficient in telling us everything God wants us to do.

We both agree, with the church fathers, that all the essential doctrines for salvation are found in the Canon of Scripture. However, the fathers (and I, and Matt Black, and many others) would disagree that it is formally sufficient, as it is certainly capable of misinterpretation in various ways. (I believe I made that point a few times in my last couple of posts)

Further, if what is called by Orthodox, Catholics, and similar as "Tradition" is not "a body of necessary doctrinal or moral truths completely independent of and distinct from the Bible" then this is a pointless discussion.

It is not pointless to me, since I'm trying to disabuse you of the notion that what I mean by Tradition is not the same as that you seem to keep ascribing to "Orthodox, Catholics, and similar". If you are willing to concede that this is not my view, then we can indeed agree to end this aspect of the discussion.

Why not just go with the Bible?

The fact that it can be easily misinterpreted particularly on some key issues such as the nature of God, Christ, and salvation.

The fact that this debate exists shows that "Tradition" is just what it is: masses of distinctly-religious tenets foreign to Scripture.

The fact that you persist in characterizing "Tradition" in this way shows you fail to grasp the point I've been making.

In response to my comment that Scripture was not a detailed worship manual nor a systematic catechism you responded...

Agreed. Because Scripture is no such thing, and yet is sufficient for us to know everything we need to do what God wants, I assert we need no such thing.

Except different individuals and groups of Christians, all saying that Scripture is all that they need, come away from the Scriptures with contradictory conclusions about what the Scripture actually mean on some key issues.

As for your suggested reading, I have read enough works by Orthodox and Catholic polemicists about this subject. I am not interested in reading similar content from a person who attends a Baptist congregation.

Except I'm not an "Orthodox or Catholic polemicist". Neither is JND Kelly. Nor is DH Williams. The fact that you keep wrongly assuming my view, which is the same concept you would find in DH Williams or JND Kelly and many others, is identical to the position you keep trashing shows me that you haven't really grasped my argument

Also, I `let you off the hook' the first time for the reasons I said I did, and would have continued to do so had you not showcased that post.

I don't see how simply refering DHK to a quote of JND Kelly I had made in my response to you was "showcasing" my post, but, whatever...

 

[Matt Black]

Your definition does not square with the way in which the RCC or even the Orthodox uses tradition. In fact you go on to use their definition of Tradition further on in your post, further confusing the issue when I challenge you to show me even one instance of any tradition in the NT. You can't.
Of a necessity, it is multi-generational. It is so by its very definition. Whenever Paul preached, he preached the Word; that is not tradition in any sense of the Word. I don't preach tradition; neither did Paul. It was the Word of God as is evidenced by both Philip and Paul preaching to the Bereans (Acts 17:11). No tradition was involved.

You're conflating the transmission of Tradition (multi-generational) with Tradition itself (the word of God initially proclaimed orally outwith the Scriptures). The following quote from Dei Verbum indicates that the Catholic Church does indeed agree with my definition:

9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

The italics are mine: from them we can see that there are two 'legs' to Tradition:

1. It is initially entrusted to the Apostles, for which no 'generations' are necessary; it is purely non-Scriptural (ie: initially oral) teaching, to which Paul refers in the passages quoted

2. It is then handed down to their successors (for which generations are required).

 

[Pastor Gem]

Which tradition?

In 1565 the Pope mandated the begining of a new tradition of monogamy which took over 100 years to get a footing in the church. Do we follow the tradition of larger families (with thirty children among seven wives) from before this corrupt Pope or the new tradition that he forced as a method of consolidating political power in the papacy?

Or is it necessary to go to sola-scriptura to find the answer?

 

[D28guy]

We have a problem here.

The Catholic Church says...and many liberal protestant groups feel the same way...

"9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence."

Unfortunetly however, God 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, you hold the tradition of men[b]—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, that you may keep your tradition.

10 For Moses said, ‘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 through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

And make no mistake...what is being advocated in the 1st quote is the tradition of men, and it is certainly making the word of God of no effect.

One look at the Catholic Church, and liberal protestant organisations, makes that glaringly obvious.

Sadly,

Mike