The Doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, Volume 2...

[Matt Black]

I follow the Biblical commands of the Scriptures, not the unbiblical traditions of mankind

And so do I - as interpreted by the Church Jesus Christ founded.

This is entirely against what the Bible speaks of. It goes against the very principles set forth in the Great Commission and exemplified in the life of Paul.

On the contrary, it is fully faithful to the Bible, the Great Commission, and Paul's specific charge to Timothy.

 

[BobRyan]

PS Bob, if you're talking about the various brands of gnosticism, then I would agree that these were indeed the 'raging heresies' and 'wolves'. But the point is that they were vanquished, in part due to the episcopal structure of the Church and the same ECFs whom you deride.

It is hard to imagine the heresies of Augustine and then the RCC in the dark ages (torturing the saints over issues like praying to the dead) as "the vanquishing of error" following the time of Paul.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[D28guy]

These last several exchanges between Matt and DHK are a classic example of how sad and tragic it is when individuals and groups opt to choose for the false wasy (heeding the unscriptural traditions of men) rather than doing as God has instructed and turning...every one of us...to Gods unchanging truth standard, the sciptures.

Fortunetly, yet sadly, God has adressed this problem...

From Mark chapter 7...

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

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.’

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, 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, that you may keep your tradition.

10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’

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.”

Praise God for giving us His unchanging truth standard..His scriptures..to turn to, to bring clarity when in the midst of such great error.

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Indeed, that would be true and tragic if we did indeed follow the traditions of men. But we don't - Christ superceded the Old Covenant with its traditions by the New Covenant with its Tradition.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Indeed, that would be true and tragic if we did indeed follow the traditions of men. But we don't - Christ superceded the Old Covenant with its traditions by the New Covenant with its Tradition.

Well said! :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

However when we look at this thread we see something very curious.

1. A SOLA SCRIPTURA argument that fully debunks OSAS by the standards of scripture alone -- convincingly given by those who are now arguing AGAINST sola scriptura!

2. The outlandish suggestion that follows that when (as in this case) a sola scriptura argument is not sufficient to convince "others" then a an appeal to the RCC or the ECFs WILL succeed where sola scriptura fails EVEN though this is an appeal to a FALLIBLE disputed source as opposed to the infallible ACCEPTED source of scripture.

And of course that suggestion has been a collossal failure to this point on this thread.

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

I posted...

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

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.’

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, 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, that you may keep your tradition.

10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’

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 you reponded...

"Indeed, that would be true and tragic if we did indeed follow the traditions of men. But we don't - Christ superceded the Old Covenant with its traditions by the New Covenant with its Tradition."

If that were true you would be argueing for sola scriptura instead of against it.

The fact is that you, along with the Romish church and the Eastern Orthodox, do indeed heed the tradition of men to the disregard of the word of God.

You, Agnus Dei, and others....

Teach as doctrines the commandments of men.

You lay aside the commandment of God (the scriptures) in order to keep your traditions.

You make the word of God (the scriptures) of no effect through your tradition which has been handed down.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and it profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work"

"To the Law and to the testimony (the scriptures). If they do not speak according to this word, there is no light in them"

May God have mercy,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Bob,

You said...

"1. A SOLA SCRIPTURA argument that fully debunks OSAS by the standards of scripture alone -- convincingly given by those who are now arguing AGAINST sola scriptura!

2. The outlandish suggestion that follows that when (as in this case) a sola scriptura argument is not sufficient to convince "others" then a an appeal to the RCC or the ECFs WILL succeed where sola scriptura fails EVEN though this is an appeal to a FALLIBLE disputed source as opposed to the infallible ACCEPTED source of scripture.

And of course that suggestion has been a collossal failure to this point on this thread."

Well, I believe you are partially correct.

"2. The outlandish suggestion that follows that when (as in this case) a sola scriptura argument is not sufficient to convince "others" then a an appeal to the RCC or the ECFs WILL succeed where sola scriptura fails EVEN though this is an appeal to a FALLIBLE disputed source as opposed to the infallible ACCEPTED source of scripture.

And of course that suggestion has been a collossal failure to this point on this thread."

I agree 100% with your observation there.

"1. A SOLA SCRIPTURA argument that fully debunks OSAS by the standards of scripture alone -- convincingly given by those who are now arguing AGAINST sola scriptura!"

Needless to say, their is a virtual flood of scriptures that support the position of eternal security regarding the one whom Christ said that "no one can snatch out of" His hand...the Spirit indwelt and "sealed for the day of redemption" child of God.

God bless,

Mike

 

[BobRyan]

The point is that D.T was making a sola scriptura argument and in that case was relying on an infallible source for his argument. An infallible source that BOTH sides accepted.

How in the world would his argument have been "better served" by simply quoting ECFs instead??

 

[D28guy]

Bob,

You said...

"The point is that D.T was making a sola scriptura argument and in that case was relying on an infallible source for his argument. An infallible source that BOTH sides accepted.

How in the world would his argument have been "better served" by simply quoting ECFs instead??"

To turn to the tradition of men or the early church fathers for doctrine or authority is ALWAYS AWAYS ALWAYS the wrong thing to do. To go to the infallible source...the scriptures...is ALWAYS the correct thing to do.

You missed to point of my post completly it appears.

I was responding to the bolded part of this statement of yours...

""1. A SOLA SCRIPTURA argument that fully debunks OSAS by the standards of scripture alone -- convincingly given by those who are now arguing AGAINST sola scriptura!""

Hence, I said...

"Needless to say, their is a virtual flood of scriptures that support the position of eternal security regarding the one whom Christ said that "no one can snatch out of" His hand...the Spirit indwelt and "sealed for the day of redemption" child of God."

Now do you understand?

God bless,

Mike

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The point is that D.T was making a sola scriptura argument and in that case was relying on an infallible source for his argument. An infallible source that BOTH sides accepted.

How in the world would his argument have been "better served" by simply quoting ECFs instead??

I never said my argument would have "been better served" simply by quoting the ECFs instead. If that's the impression you got from my argument then you misunderstood my point.

 

[BobRyan]

you will both take what you both see as an INFALLIBLE source that both AGREE to and dispute it's interpretation.

My point is "how much MORE THEN will you take a FALLIBLE source and dispute both it's level of failings AS WELL as your interpretation of it"!!?

In other words going down the "more fallible and more disputed path" does not lead to "greater common ground" or greater resolution -- it's going "the other way"!

In appealing to tradition -

You can not have an arbiter whose role is disputed by even one of the two sides, whose accuracy is disputed by even one of the two sides.

You are inventing this idea that BOTH sides have AGREED to some 3rd party that has the infallible status to settle the matter where Scripture "alone" can not -- but no such agreement exists!!

Scripture -- "sola scriptura" then remains as your MOST solid ground for proving doctrine. And as noted in this thread - it is even used to correct the heresies of the ECF's.

D.T said -
I'm not inventing that at all. I'm quite certain, in fact, that one side has not agreed to the "3rd party"--ie the consensus of the Church, within the Church. Whether they agree to it or not, the historical fact is that Christians in the early Church did appeal to the "standard of tradition" or "rule of faith" of the Church, or "universality, antiquity, and consent" within the Church in solving the impasse of mutually contradictory interpretations. Case in point is the Arian heresy: both sides threw Scriptures back and forth at each other, but it was the Church that decided, based on it's consensual tradition (rule of faith/liturgical life/catechesis/etc) from the beginning, that the Arians were the ones misinterpreting the Scriptures regarding the Deity of Christ. The Arians, of course, disagreed, but they ultimately found themselves outside the Church.

This only works inside a given denomination. If members of my own church had a dispute that could not be resolved sola scriptura they certainly could ALSO appeal to the tradition of my church in looking at the same disputed topic in decades past and who knows they might agree to such an arbiter.

But i would hardly expect a baptist and a Presbyterian to seek out an Anglican church tradition to settle a dispute over the mode of Baptism in scripture. Your model here has been to claim that "the existence of the dispute" disproves the sufficiency of scripture. If that was true then EVEN MORE so does the dispute on this thread over traditions and sources disprove the sufficiency of tradition.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,

The fact is that you, along with the Romish church and the Eastern Orthodox, do indeed heed the tradition of men to the disregard of the word of God.

Incorrect

You, Agnus Dei, and others....

Teach as doctrines the commandments of men.

No, we teach the Apostolic Tradition in accordance with the Scriptures

You lay aside the commandment of God (the scriptures) in order to keep your traditions.

No, on the contrary we keep Apostolic Tradition in accordance with the Scriptures. The other point I would make (since this is a Baptist Board) is that it is a fairly sterile exercise asking a Baptist to appeal to 'Baptist tradition' since, apart from the 'Baptist distinctives', the concept of soul liberty means that there is in effect no such thing.

You make the word of God (the scriptures) of no effect through your tradition which has been handed down.

On the contrary we fulfil the Scriptures through what has been handed down to us by the Apostles.

Bob, re your good point about competing traditions, the test for me would be whether the particular tradition can be traced back to that which has been handed down from the Apostles and which passes the Vincentian test.

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

You say...

"No, we teach the Apostolic Tradition in accordance with the Scriptures"

Yet Jesus Christ says...

"For laying aside the commandment of God, (the scriptures of course) you hold the tradition of men."

You say...

"No, we teach the Apostolic Tradition in accordance with the Scriptures"

Yet Jesus Christ says...

“All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

You say...

"No, we teach the Apostolic Tradition in accordance with the Scriptures"

Yet Jesus Christ says...

"...making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”"

Sadly,

Mike

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Mike,

The Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught whether by word [ie, oral] or our epistle [ie, written]." 2 Thess 2:15

That's Apostolic Tradition.

Paul also wrote:
"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you." 1 Cor 11:2

That's Apostolic Tradition.

I certainly can elaborate and offer more examples later, but I need to scoot. However, this should be enough for now to show that the Apostolic Tradition:
(1) is something the Apostles expected Christians to keep and hold fast.
(2) is therefore not the same thing Christ was condemning in the Pharisees (or Paul was warning against in Colossians 2:8)

In otherwords, there's a fundamental difference between Apostolic Tradition and "the traditions of men".

Happily,

DT

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, re your good point about competing traditions, the test for me would be whether the particular tradition can be traced back to that which has been handed down from the Apostles and which passes the Vincentian test.

The problem is that all RCC tradition and Anglican, etc tradition is regarded by all denominations but themselves as "competing traditions" with no legitimate tie to pure authentic Apostolic teaching in areas where they have gone into error.

Given that clear picture - how could one ever expect to swap out a sola scriptura base for appealing for pure doctrine and insert in it's place an RCC or Anglican or (put your favorite brand-x here) tradition?!

So given that clear utter failure of the appeal to tradition to resolve the issues in that case - how in the world can one look at that same division and say that "it proves sola scriptura is insufficient and tradition would have worked better to resolve the differences"?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sola Scriptura in Scripture -

Matt 21:42Jesus said* to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’? 43“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. Notice what Jesus said to members of the MAGESTERIUM

Matt 22:29But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Notice His appeal EVEN in His CRISIS hour.

Matt 26:53“Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve £legions of angels? 54“How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?” 55At that time Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. 56“But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled.

Mark 14:49“Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me; but this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures.”
Even after His resurrection - the PERFECT time to say "hey you guys I am alive again - just believe whatever I tell you" - He AGAIN appeals to His OWN infallible SCRIPTURE as PROOF –

Luke 24:
27Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. ...
31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight. 32They said to one another, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”
33And they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them,
34saying, “The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon.” ... He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
39“See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; ...
44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day

Acts 17

10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.

 

[BobRyan]

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, [b]for a different gospel;
7 which is really not another;[/b] only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you [b]a gospel contrary[/b] to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!


Hmmm --- I think I know what goes with that!


Acts 17
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The problem is that all RCC tradition and Anglican, etc tradition is regarded by all denominations but themselves as "competing traditions" with no legitimate tie to pure authentic Apostolic teaching in areas where they have gone into error.

Yep, that's the perceived problem. Of course, "all denominations", based on sola Scriptura, would disagree about which areas the Tradition has allegedly gone into error.

For instance, some like Lutherans, based on sola Scriptura, would agree with RCs, EOs, and classical Anglicans--and indeed the Tradition of the Undivided Church--that the body and blood of Christ is really present in the forms of bread and wine in the Eucharist. Baptists and many others who have a Zwinglian view of the sacraments would say that the bread and wine are only visual aids involved in merely a mental recollection of Christ's death. (Calvinists and others with a dynamic receptionist view fall somewhere in between.) So Lutherans and Zwinglians, both touting "sola Scriptura" would disagree with each other about whether or not the Traditional teaching of the Eucharist has gone into error.

Regarding Baptism, Lutherans and Church of Christ members would agree that the Undivided Tradition has the correct "sola scriptural teaching"--that regeneration normally occurs in water baptism. (But these two groups would disagree with each other regarding infants). OTOH, modern Baptists and many others like them would say the Tradition went into error in teaching baptismal regeneration. But Baptists et al, Churches of Christ, and Lutherans all alike cry out "sola Scriptura!" nonetheless.

Likewise, the vast majority of Christians--including "sola Scripturists"--worship on Sundays as the Apostolic Church did. OTOH, some based on "sola Scriptura" claim that the majority has gone into error on this point in following an alleged "tradition of men".

Also, modern Oneness Pentecostals (and other unitarians of various shades), based on "sola Scriptura" would accuse the vast majority of Christians (including many other "sola Scripturists") of following the allegedly corrupt Tradition in accepting the allegedly false doctrine of the Trinity.

Those who support OSAS would claim that the majority of the world's Christians (throughout history) have departed the true Biblical teaching in following the Tradition's erroneous teaching that one can lose one's salvation.

Examples can be multiplied. (Of course, this is where Mike chimes in with WTTE "this is how it should be...fellow laborers in the harvest, working side by side and keeping each other honest with checks and balances...as long as they are convinced in their own minds (and aren't RC or EO pagans) it's a beautiful thing...")

Given that clear picture - how could one ever expect to swap out a sola scriptura base for appealing for pure doctrine and insert in it's place an RCC or Anglican or (put your favorite brand-x here) tradition?!

Who's suggesting one insert "one's favorite brand" of tradition "in place" of Scriptures? I'm suggesting that everyone (whether RCCs, EOs, Anglicans, Lutherans, Wesleyans, Baptists, etc) should appeal to the Apostolic Tradition--that which is seen in "universality, antiquity, and consent" (Vincent of Lerins)-- within the pre-denominational Church as the best guide to insuring one has the correct Scriptural interpretation on key issues of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, and Salvation.

So given that clear utter failure of the appeal to tradition to resolve the issues in that case - how in the world can one look at that same division and say that "it proves sola scriptura is insufficient and tradition would have worked better to resolve the differences"?

It can't be a clear and utter failure because the other groups don't even bother to see whether their particular doctrines can actually be traced back and found consistently and continuously in the early Church. You see, sectarian sola-Scripturists start with their own interpretation, assuming it is the correct one, and if no one can be found who taught that particular interpretation in the early Chuch, then that means the ECFs must have obviously all been wrong as soon as the apostles left the scene! (Plus or minus the corollary that there must have been some imaginary, undocumented "true believer" groups which allegedly maintained the obviously correct interpretations yet without leaving any evidence of their existence). They thus refuse to even accept the appeal to "universality, antiquity, and consent" within the historic Undivided Church, and would rather remain in the doctrinal relativism which results from "solo Scriptura". Instead of submitting to the historic consensus of the Undivided Church--across time and space going back historically to the Apostles--as a means of settling disputes, they'd rather sit in judgment of the consensus, with their own varied private or sectartian interpretations as the basis for such a judgment. In doing so, they can't even agree with other solo Scripturists about where the consensual Tradition has erred. Furthermore , solo Scripturists don't realize they're sawing off the branches they are sitting on, as it was this same consensus in the Church which finalized the Scriptural canon they are arguing from in the first place.:tonofbricks:

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
The problem is that all RCC tradition and Anglican, etc tradition is regarded by all denominations but themselves as "competing traditions" with no legitimate tie to pure authentic Apostolic teaching in areas where they have gone into error.

D.T.
Yep, that's the perceived problem. Of course, "all denominations", based on sola Scriptura, would disagree about which areas the Tradition has allegedly gone into error.

But EVEN if they AGREED that Anglicans and RCC are all wrong on these-X-Doctrines they still would consider them to be "competing traditions" - as "outside denominations" and there would be no appeal to "outsiders" to solve a dispute between existing denominations.

The point remains -- an appeal to such an "outsider" can not even succeed WITHOUT a specific doctrine in mind - on principle ALONE it fails!

At least "in principle" the Sola Scriptura solution WORKS! People in almost EVERY denomination agree that if they discovered a sound Bible position that differred from their previous position -- they would embrace it. "The detail" is that they would not be very likely to do so -- but the argument "in principle" succeeds where appeal to third-party tradition fails even in principle!

in Christ,

Bob