Sola Scriptura vs Man-made Traditions - ?

[BobRyan]

Everyone knows that the Jewish faith and the RCC are rife with man-made traditions.

On the other hand you hear a lot about "sola scriptura" outside of those particular religious faith groups.

So "What say you"?

In Acts 17:11 we see that EVEN the Apostle has HIS Words TESTED by the hearers (in that case EVEN non-Christian hearers are able to apply the test) "STUDYING the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken by the APOSTLE were so".

So what say you?

Should man-made traditions be subjected to a "sola scriptura" rule and those that do not measure up -- tossed out??

Or should the Bible be subjected to man-made-traditions and whatever scripture does not match - tossed out? After all there is a lot of "selective reading of scripture" in favor of man-made-tradition.

What say you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Helen]

I depends on what sort of traditions you are talking about, Bob. Traditions which change/replace doctrine are absolutely out. However traditions which are the result of years of teaching doctrine can be great.

For example, I love Advent season, even though we don't officially celebrate it. By paying attention to that side of things, I was able to keep my children more focused on Christ and less on gifts and decorations and such.

The celebration of Hannukah is traditional -- and also the reminder of a miracle.

I think we are free to pick and choose and even establish our own, which many families do through time.

 

[Claudia_T]

It seems to me that most people here do not really view themselves as "tossing out scriptures". Even though they might actually be doing that without realizing it.

And so they dont think they are going by man made traditions.

You would have to establish a genuine way to study the Bible.

1Cor:2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

You cant just ignore certain Scriptures, they all have to have their proper weight.

But then of course there are those who think that if their church leaders all agree on something that doesnt even go along with the Bible, that its ok to change it.

 

[BobRyan]

I depends on what sort of traditions you are talking about, Bob. Traditions which change/replace doctrine are absolutely out. However traditions which are the result of years of teaching doctrine can be great.

For example, I love Advent season, even though we don't officially celebrate it. By paying attention to that side of things, I was able to keep my children more focused on Christ and less on gifts and decorations and such.

So you don't consider "sola scriptura" to mean "no man-made-tradition" at all - but on the other hand you don't take the man-made tradition regarding "Advent season" and "assign sin" to the violation of that tradition - correct?

I also take it from your post that you would not consider a man-made-tradition like "Purgatory and Indulgences" to past the test of sola scriptura.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It seems to me that most people here do not really view themselves as "tossing out scriptures". Even though they might actually be doing that without realizing it.

And so they dont think they are going by man made traditions.

You would have to establish a genuine way to study the Bible.

This is a good point -

There are cases where a church like the Jews or the RCC might admit boldly that some doctrine is based purely on man-made-tradition with some "hint" of an excuse for it in scripture but clearly not the "actual teaching" in scripture.

Indulgences, purgatory and prayers to the dead for the dead for example.

But then there are those who do have man-made-traditions that do not match scripture - however they don't think of them as traditions at all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Helen]

So you don't consider "sola scriptura" to mean "no man-made-tradition" at all - but on the other hand you don't take the man-made tradition regarding "Advent season" and "assign sin" to the violation of that tradition - correct?

I also take it from your post that you would not consider a man-made-tradition like "Purgatory and Indulgences" to past the test of sola scriptura.

In Christ,

Bob

Huh!????!!!

First of all, purgatory and indulgences are anti-biblical, not just non-biblical! They change doctrine completely.

And I guess I am just an ignoramus, but I have no idea about what you mean by "assign sin".

Advent for us, in our home, was marked by a few things to remind the kids about the 'reason for the season.' I had a little 'empty manger' I made and put a lot of pieces of yarn around it. The kids were allowed to put one piece of yarn in the manger when they did something for someone else that was secret. The idea was to make it 'comfortable' for the little doll, representing the Baby Jesus, I would put in Christmas Eve.

There is nothing in the Bible about making Jesus comfortable, but the lesson was not lost on the kids regarding kindly acts toward others that are not trumpeted to the world.

We did the candles, only not with the skinny little ones -- they burned down too quickly and we liked to have them lit EVERY evening. First one, then two, then three, etc. We used the pillar candles. We chose whatever colors we liked for that year.

Nothing about candles like that in the Bible, but it was a lot of fun to mark the Sundays off between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

We made our own Advent Calendar with little pockets in it for each day until Christmas. I wrote a note for each pocket. They could be anything from "see me for a piece of candy" to "dinner dishes belong to the kids tonight" to "let's make cookies for the neighbors".

These were our traditions. We had a wonderful time with them. If someone considers them to be unbiblical, I'm sorry. When I think of 'traditions' I don't think of things the Roman Catholic church has imposed under its own supposed authority, but simply those things a family or a culture choose to do which are special for them.

 

[BobRyan]

"assign sin" as in the case of some of the traditions that the RCC makes up - it also assigns "sin" to the violation of those traditions. Attending mass each sunday for example -- if you choose to simply skip out on a service you are guilty of a mortal sin.

But your statement does not take the tradition of "advent" to the point of saying it becomes a "sin" not to observe it.

So in clarification - you seem to be saying that you allow traditions in while still promoting sola scriptura - but do not allow those man-made-tradition to be at the level of moral law -- defining sin.

the point is not to accuse you of being "unbiblical" - just clarification.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

This is a good point -

There are cases where a church like the Jews or the RCC might admit boldly that some doctrine is based purely on man-made-tradition with some "hint" of an excuse for it in scripture but clearly not the "actual teaching" in scripture.

Indulgences, purgatory and prayers to the dead for the dead for example.

But then there are those who do have man-made-traditions that do not match scripture - however they don't think of them as traditions at all.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob,

When I said this second part: "But then of course there are those who think that if their church leaders all agree on something that doesnt even go along with the Bible, that its ok to change it."

I was thinking of how they usually use this verse as the reason to do that:

Mt:16:19: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

So they just flat out dont care if what they do on that "tradition" doesnt match with Scriptures or not because they (the church leaders) think they have permission from God to just change things..

 

[Helen]

"assign sin" as in the case of some of the traditions that the RCC makes up - it also assigns "sin" to the violation of those traditions. Attending mass each sunday for example -- if you choose to simply skip out on a service you are guilty of a mortal sin.

But your statement does not take the tradition of "advent" to the point of saying it becomes a "sin" not to observe it.

So in clarification - you seem to be saying that you allow traditions in while still promoting sola scriptura - but do not allow those man-made-tradition to be at the level of moral law -- defining sin.

the point is not to accuse you of being "unbiblical" - just clarification.

In Christ,

Bob

Traditions don't define sin, God's law does. So the RC church is WAY out of line trying to define sin via its own 'traditions' and 'laws.'

As for us, in our family, there is no sin in not doing what we did before! In fact, now the kids are grown and gone, all is different! I'd love to assign the dinner dishes to them again, but the commute would be a killer!

 

[Deacon]

Everyone knows that the Jewish faith and the RCC are rife with man-made traditions.

On the other hand you hear a lot about "sola scriptura" outside of those particular religious faith groups.

So "What say you"?

Say I that us Baptists are doing very well forming our own group of traditions and man-made rules too.

I'd bet even your special group has a few of their own bunch of traditions that make one holy.

>dresses, not pants on women.
>no hair over the ears on men
>no movies (in theaters at least)
>no blue jeans in church on Sunday morning
>no alcoholic beverages of any type, any time, any where
>Sunday school for the kids

What say ye, Bob? :laugh:

The term "Sola Scriptura" deals with our grounds for the faith, not necessarily the various traditions that accompany a church cultural.

Rob

 

[billwald]

How about the tradition of "inviting Jesus into one's heart?" No one in the Bible ever did that.

 

[Helen]

How about the tradition of "inviting Jesus into one's heart?" No one in the Bible ever did that.

Bill, I think that is an offshoot of "Behold, I stand at the door and knock..."

It is a request for Jesus to take over one's life. At least, that is what it should be.

 

[BobRyan]

Good point -- and then there is Rom 10 --

Rom 10
9 that [b]if you confess[/b] with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and [b]with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/b]



Combined with Rev 3 it does look like inviting Jesus into your heart.

 

[BobRyan]

Say I that us Baptists are doing very well forming our own group of traditions and man-made rules too.

I'd bet even your special group has a few of their own bunch of traditions that make one holy.

>dresses, not pants on women.
>no hair over the ears on men
>no movies (in theaters at least)
>no blue jeans in church on Sunday morning
>no alcoholic beverages of any type, any time, any where
>Sunday school for the kids

What say ye, Bob? :laugh:

The term "Sola Scriptura" deals with our grounds for the faith, not necessarily the various traditions that accompany a church cultural.

Rob

Well I do agree that even my group has man-made traditions about wearing ties and suit coats, Sabbath School and Church that last for about 2.5 hours on Sabbath morning (not Sabbath afternoon nor the Friday evening part of Sabbath). Children's Sabbath school vs Adult Sabbbath school.

Communion once a quarter - not every Sabbath.

etc etc.

But as for not drinking Alcholol - nor "doing other drugs" -- that is the Bible.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Chemnitz]

All traditions are subject to the rule of sola scriptura. The question is what about adiaphora -things which are neither proscribed nor prohibited. Helen's example of the season of Advent is a perfect example there is no proscription or prohibition on the establishment of liturgical seasons. The prohibition is the insistance that salvation is contingent on the acceptance or avoidance of such a system. The use of a liturgical calendar system which focuses the church on specific issues and events of the ministry of Christ and the early church is a wonderful tool for the teaching of important doctrines. Advent, for instance, the focus is on a twofold preparation one the preparation for the first advent (the Birth) and the second advent (Christ's triumphant return). Another example, is the season of Epiphany where the focus is upon the revelation of Christ's divinity. As a pastor I find it very useful because I don't have to spend alot of time figuring out scripture passages for my sermon, because the Liturgical church year has assigned readings which highlight the specific topic. There are usually readings drawn from the Psalms, the Old Testament, the Epistles or Acts, and a Gospel reading. With in the Lutheran Liturgical calendar we have a three year cycle which revolves around the three synoptic Gospels with John being interspersed through out the year. Depending on the congregation one may find one or all four readings being read in the service. In our particular congregation we have OT, Epistle/Acts, Gospel. This is an example of a good tradition because it focuses and expands peoples knowledge of the Scripture.

An example, of a bad tradition is the Corpus Cristi processions of the middle ages. The Bible never directly speaks about the processions but the procession precedes out of an abuse of the Sacrament of the Altar by taking the presence of Christ's body out of the context of Holy Communion.

On the other end of the spectrum is the altar call. The altar call is an example of bad tradition because it violates the scriptural tenant that it is God alone who acts toward our salvation. The altar call is based on the faulty idea that we some how decided to follow Christ and it gives the appearance that we are doing something to receive God's grace.

 

[Claudia_T]

All traditions are subject to the rule of sola scriptura. The question is what about adiaphora -things which are neither proscribed nor prohibited. Helen's example of the season of Advent is a perfect example there is no proscription or prohibition on the establishment of liturgical seasons. The prohibition is the insistance that salvation is contingent on the acceptance or avoidance of such a system. The use of a liturgical calendar system which focuses the church on specific issues and events of the ministry of Christ and the early church is a wonderful tool for the teaching of important doctrines. Advent, for instance, the focus is on a twofold preparation one the preparation for the first advent (the Birth) and the second advent (Christ's triumphant return). Another example, is the season of Epiphany where the focus is upon the revelation of Christ's divinity. As a pastor I find it very useful because I don't have to spend alot of time figuring out scripture passages for my sermon, because the Liturgical church year has assigned readings which highlight the specific topic. There are usually readings drawn from the Psalms, the Old Testament, the Epistles or Acts, and a Gospel reading. With in the Lutheran Liturgical calendar we have a three year cycle which revolves around the three synoptic Gospels with John being interspersed through out the year. Depending on the congregation one may find one or all four readings being read in the service. In our particular congregation we have OT, Epistle/Acts, Gospel. This is an example of a good tradition because it focuses and expands peoples knowledge of the Scripture.

An example, of a bad tradition is the Corpus Cristi processions of the middle ages. The Bible never directly speaks about the processions but the procession precedes out of an abuse of the Sacrament of the Altar by taking the presence of Christ's body out of the context of Holy Communion.

On the other end of the spectrum is the altar call. The altar call is an example of bad tradition because it violates the scriptural tenant that it is God alone who acts toward our salvation. The altar call is based on the faulty idea that we some how decided to follow Christ and it gives the appearance that we are doing something to receive God's grace.

well of course we decided to follow Christ, thats why the Bible says Mt:16:24: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

God doesnt hold a gun to your head, you make the decision to follow Christ.



Mt:19:21: Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

he decided not to follow Christ

 

[Dustin]

well of course we decided to follow Christ, thats why the Bible says Mt:16:24: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

God doesnt hold a gun to your head, you make the decision to follow Christ.



Mt:19:21: Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

he decided not to follow Christ

I wish I had more time to elaborate, sister, but I just don't. Jesus was teaching a lesson with the rich man, He already knew the man would go away discouraged. Then Jesus stated that it'd be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man see the kingdom of God. Then the the disciples asked Him who could be saved then. Jesus said with God all things are possible. The rich man already "made a desicion" to follow Christ, but when he found out he had to sell all his riches, he just walked away. What he "decided" didn't matter, and I'm just outta time, I'll pick up on this tonight.

Grace and Peace be with you,
Dustin

 

[BobRyan]

On the other end of the spectrum is the altar call. The altar call is an example of bad tradition because it violates the scriptural tenant that it is God alone who acts toward our salvation. The altar call is based on the faulty idea that we some how decided to follow Christ

The altar call is based on 2Cor 5 "WE BEG YOU on behalf of Christ BE RECONCILED to God".

The altar Call is based on Rev 3 "I stand at the door and knock -- if ANYONE opens the door I WILL come in and fellowship".

The Altar call is based on John 12:32 "I will DRAW all mankind unto Me".

The Altar call is based on the DRAWING of ALL, the CONVICTING of all (john 16) and the example of the Apostles "BEGGING THE LOST" to be reconciled to God.

Seems pretty clear to me. The only problem that this Bible based practice has - is that it is not also Calvinist.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The rich man already "made a desicion" to follow Christ, but when he found out he had to sell all his riches, he just walked away. What he "decided" didn't matter, and I'm just outta time, I'll pick up on this tonight.

He "decided to follow" Christ THEN when he saw the cost "he decided not to" HIS decisions determined his actions at each step.

When you DECIDE to buy a family member a gold watch then when you see how much it costs - you DECIDE not to pay that kind of watch -- it is STILL YOU making the DECISIONS.

God knew ahead of time every choice that Christ would make -- Christ STILL had free will.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

My favorite quote on this is from my friend Steve Brown --

"If you will take the first step, God will take the second step. And by the time you get to the third step, you will see that is was God who took the first step."