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

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas...

You said...

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."

1st of all, the 1st century was a period of transition. From the old covenant to the new, from Judaism to Christianity, from the Jewish scriptures to the specifically new covenant scriptures. The new covenant scriptures were in the process of being inscripturated, and circulated. In some cases the best they could do was to pass along instruction that the apostles considered to be sound. It would certainly be wise to consider that teaching as profitable.

However, all apostolic teaching was expected to be tested against the scriptures, as we see taking place regarding Pauls teaching in Berea....

"These were more fair minded than those at Thessalonica, in that they recieved the word with all readiness, and searched the scriptures daily, to find out if these things be so"

You again...

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."

And the Apostles all died and passed on in due time, didnt they?

The scriptures live on.

And once the apostles all passed, so did legitimate apostolic tradition. There is no such thing as "apostolic succession" up to the present. That is a fairy tale.

The scriptures live on.

"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...."

As long as it passed the test of the scriptures, as with the apostle Paul...

"These were more fair minded than those at Thessalonica, in that they recieved the word with all readiness, and searched the scriptures daily, to find out if these things be so"

(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".

Not after the last of them died 2000 years ago there isnt.

God bless,

Mike

 

[DHK]

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

Whose "Apostolic Tradition" is the correct one: the RCC, the Anglican, the Orthodox, or perhaps the Mormons who claim descendency right back to Adam (never mind Christ and the Apostles). Who is to say that you are the one with the "right" Tradition? You don't know that for sure do you?

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.

Again, whose Tradition? Who made it authoritative against all the other groups claiming that theirs is just as authoritative as yours. You have as many, if not more disputes than anyone else. Just what is "Apostolic Tradition"? You can only define theoreticaly in your own opinion. In realistic terms it doesn't work.

You are right, if I understand you properly. We appeal to the Scripture. We have soul liberty. And thus when you examine our churches--Baptist churches you will not find "tradition.
However you will find Baptist distinctives--those principles held by different groups throughout the ages which have defined them as Baptists.

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

Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.

Why is it so hard to get someone from the RCC camp, Anglican, Orthodox or otherwise to believe in Acts 17:11?

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They searched the Scriptures daily. And yet so many of you scoff at this verse when this is pointed out. You say that there were no Scriptures in that day, when it is obvious that the inspired Word says that there was. Why the unbelief? Here is Scripture stating that there was Scripture, of which the Bereans studied in order to verify the message of Paul as being correct. There is no clearer example of sola scriptura in the Bible than this. They did not search Apostolic Tradition. There was no such thing. They didn't need any such thing. There never has been any such thing among true believers in Christ.

The Scriptures alone have always been our only source of authority in matters of doctrine and faith.[/quote]

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.

And what is the Vincentian, and why is it important?
Why isn't God's Word important enough? It is God's revelation to mankind; not Vincent's revelation. Isn't there something that is so out of order here. (And I do claim ignorance about "Vincentian")

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Mike,

I had said...

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."

Then you replied...

1st of all, the 1st century was a period of transition. From the old covenant to the new, from Judaism to Christianity, from the Jewish scriptures to the specifically new covenant scriptures. The new covenant scriptures were in the process of being inscripturated, and circulated. In some cases the best they could do was to pass along instruction that the apostles considered to be sound. It would certainly be wise to consider that teaching as profitable.

But where in the Scriptures is it written that there would be a "period of transition"? Where did Paul (or any other Apostles) write that "once all our writings are inscripturated and circulated you need to disregard our oral teaching"--the "pattern of sound words" (2 Tim 1:13) and "doctrine" (Romans 6:17) that their recipients heard from them--"and just stick with what's written"? Where in the written word does Christ even say that there would be "new covenant scriptures" in the first place?" Fact is, you need to go outside of Scriptures to assert such things.

Now, I'll more than happily grant that in God's providence, that when the NT canon was finalized and "fixed" (at the end of the 4th century) that there was no important salvific doctrines that were not included therein. However, even here the same Spirit, who inspired the Apostles to write, guided the Church to accept those books that were authentically apostolic--that were actually written by apostles (or close associates) and that enshrined and conformed to the Apostolic Tradition that had been deposited in the Church and had been defended by the Church against heretics--heretics (like Arians and gnostics and modalists) who often would twist those same Scriptures.

However, all apostolic teaching was expected to be tested against the scriptures, as we see taking place regarding Pauls teaching in Berea....
"These were more fair minded than those at Thessalonica, in that they recieved the word with all readiness, and searched the scriptures daily, to find out if these things be so"

Where did Paul write in 2 Thessalonians:
"Hold fast the traditions whether by word or epistle--as long as you determine them to match up to the OT--otherwise, if in your opinion they don't match up, you may disregard them"?

I had also said...

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."

You....

And the Apostles all died and passed on in due time, didnt they?

The scriptures live on.

And the Church guided by the Holy Spirit finally arrived at a consensus on the limits of the canon at the end of the 4th century, 300 years after the Apostles "all died and passed on"--the same Church that defended the Tradition as the proper way to interpret the Scriptures against the distorted interpretations of the heretics before the canon was finalized.

And once the apostles all passed, so did legitimate apostolic tradition.

Where is that written in Scripture? Chapter and verse please.

Actually, Scriptures themselves indicate that's not the case. Paul had written to Timothy that the things he had heard from Paul to teach to faithful men who can then teach others. That's four generations of oral apostolic tradition, and Paul nowhere offered the caveat "but when I die and all the new covenant writings have been inscripturated and circulated, tell those faithful men to just stick with what I wrote."

Remember, there's no divinely inspired "table of contents" attached to or found within the NT writings. It was the Church that received these writings and circulated them that with time came to a consensus on the limits/contents of the NT canon--what actually matched up to the Apostolic Tradition received from the apostles even before any NT writings had been written.

There is no such thing as "apostolic succession" up to the present. That is a fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale at all. I had already given historical evidence for this in another post on this thread in response to a similar assertion to DHK and I notice it has gone unanswered.

Me...

"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...."

you...

As long as it passed the test of the scriptures, as with the apostle Paul

Again, where did Paul or the Apostles write to hold what they delivered as long as the recipients believed it squared with the OT? Already Peter had written that there were untaught and unstable men who twisted the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). No they had to be accurately taught (and then hold fast to)the Apostolic message ("the pattern of sound words" or "pattern of doctrine") first so they could correctly interpret the OT Scriptures (and Paul's writings--which had "hard things in them"--that had begun to be circulated). For example, even Philip had to teach the Ethiopian eunuch the meaning of Scriptures before he could undertand (Acts 8).

This brings us to oft abused proof text of the Bereans. In Acts 17, Paul had taught in the synagogue in Thessalonia that, according to the Scriptures, the Messiah had to suffer and rise again (17:2-3). This same message was preached in Berea and they were more noble minded in they received this message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures to see if this specific Scriptural claim ("these things" referring back to v2-3) was so. So the most one can gather from this is that Paul made a specific Scriptural (OT) claim about the suffering and resurrection of the prophesied Messiah and that the eager noble minded Bereans examined the Scriptures to see if Paul's specific claim was indeed in the Scriptures. This passage tells us nothing about whether Paul or the other apostles expected all their specific proclamations (that Jesus was the Christ was seen by specifcally named people after the resurrection) and new covenant institutions (baptism and communion) to be tested by "examining" the OT Scriptures before they could accepted. (In fact this assumed "expectation" is historically untenable, which is pretty easy to demonstrate if I must)



Me...

(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".

You...

Not after the last of them died 2000 years ago there isnt.

Actually, that there's a 27 book NT in your hand proves that assertion wrong--the exact 27 books (no more or less) first numbered in AD 367 by Athanasius and ratified by the Church (which you often deride) shortly thereafter at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. This was the same historic Church that had fended off heresy--whether gnosticism or adoptionism, modalism or Arianism--before the canon was finalized by having recourse to it's living Tradition and written Scriptures, both which testifed to the same Truth.

 

[BobRyan]

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!

 

[Faith alone]

Mike,

I agree. The fundamental doctrine of the protestant church is justification by faith alone.

FA

 

[DHK]

It's not a fairy tale at all. I had already given historical evidence for this in another post on this thread in response to a similar assertion to DHK and I notice it has gone unanswered.

I don't get on the BB very often these days--maybe a couple hours every second day, or so it seems. You may have to give me your answer again. But Mike is right. It is a fairy tale. See my post above where I do address the subject to Matt. If I am correct you and Matt come from different backgrounds and attend different churches and yet both believe in Apostolic Succession. If that is so, whose version of Apostolic Succession is right--yours or his? You both can't be right? This is where sola scriptura wins every time. Mike and I believe in sola scriptura and I believe though none of us have ever met that Mike and I would agree on more issues through sola scriptura then you and Matt would on using Tradition as your basis of authority. And Mike (to my knowledge, may not even be a Baptist).
Again, I reiterate that "evangelicals" have more in common with each other than do the various groups within the RCC itself, and especially if that is expanded to include the Anglican and Orthodox.

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

"Mike and I would agree on more issues through sola scriptura then you and Matt would on using Tradition as your basis of authority. And Mike (to my knowledge, may not even be a Baptist)."

Actually I refer to myself sometimes as a "Bapticostal". I have roots in both the Baptist and Pentecostal camps. I am an unwavering believer in justification through faith alone, eternal security, and the autonomy of the local church (baptist distinctives) and also the sign gifts still being for today.(pentecostal distinctive.)

You and I have cordially disagreed on things like tongues in the past(as brothers sometimes do), but you are correct that we agree on much much more than we disagree on. :godisgood:

God bless,

Mike :wavey:

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

You said...

"Why is it so hard to get someone from the RCC camp, Anglican, Orthodox or otherwise to believe in Acts 17:11?"

They cant. They simply can not. They must find some way, no matter how extreme, to disbelieve it.

The entire house of cards that they...those competing *hierarchial* denominations...have built will come crashing down in a heep if they believe the truth found in that passage.

The Bereans tested the Apostle Pauls teaching up against the scriptures, to make sure it lined up.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,



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

I'm curious: on what basis would you assert that.

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..

We have said that we do not do any of those things - it is for you who are making the allegation to demonstrate otherwise. As to your quoting Jesus at me, I fail to see what the relevance is - please also demonstrate that

 

[Matt Black]

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

Because up until 1054 you do have a consensus patri (hence my appeal to Vincent de Lerins) which provides what I will call a 'sufficiency of indefectability' re Tradition

[ETA - doubtless you believe that sola Scriptura possesses a similar 'sufficiency of indefectability' but we will have to agree to disagree on that one!]

 

[Matt Black]

Whose "Apostolic Tradition" is the correct one: the RCC, the Anglican, the Orthodox, or perhaps the Mormons who claim descendency right back to Adam (never mind Christ and the Apostles). Who is to say that you are the one with the "right" Tradition? You don't know that for sure do you?

Again, whose Tradition? Who made it authoritative against all the other groups claiming that theirs is just as authoritative as yours. You have as many, if not more disputes than anyone else. Just what is "Apostolic Tradition"? You can only define theoreticaly in your own opinion. In realistic terms it doesn't work.

See my reply to Bob above

You are right, if I understand you properly. We appeal to the Scripture. We have soul liberty. And thus when you examine our churches--Baptist churches you will not find "tradition.
However you will find Baptist distinctives--those principles held by different groups throughout the ages which have defined them as Baptists.

Yet these do not amount to a 'sufficiency of indefectability' and cannot be traced back to the Apostles

Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.

Why is it so hard to get someone from the RCC camp, Anglican, Orthodox or otherwise to believe in Acts 17:11?

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They searched the Scriptures daily. And yet so many of you scoff at this verse when this is pointed out. You say that there were no Scriptures in that day, when it is obvious that the inspired Word says that there was. Why the unbelief? Here is Scripture stating that there was Scripture, of which the Bereans studied in order to verify the message of Paul as being correct. There is no clearer example of sola scriptura in the Bible than this. They did not search Apostolic Tradition. There was no such thing. They didn't need any such thing. There never has been any such thing among true believers in Christ.

<Sigh> We've dealt with this one before: the Bereans had only the OT not 'the Bible' and they needed Paul (Apostolic Tradition) to preach to them, just as the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 needed the OT plus Philip.

The Scriptures alone have always been our only source of authority in matters of doctrine and faith
And what is the Vincentian, and why is it important?
Why isn't God's Word important enough? It is God's revelation to mankind; not Vincent's revelation. Isn't there something that is so out of order here. (And I do claim ignorance about "Vincentian")

Vincent de Lerins

 

[Matt Black]

I don't get on the BB very often these days--maybe a couple hours every second day, or so it seems. You may have to give me your answer again. But Mike is right. It is a fairy tale. See my post above where I do address the subject to Matt. If I am correct you and Matt come from different backgrounds and attend different churches and yet both believe in Apostolic Succession. If that is so, whose version of Apostolic Succession is right--yours or his? You both can't be right? This is where sola scriptura wins every time. Mike and I believe in sola scriptura and I believe though none of us have ever met that Mike and I would agree on more issues through sola scriptura then you and Matt would on using Tradition as your basis of authority. And Mike (to my knowledge, may not even be a Baptist).
Again, I reiterate that "evangelicals" have more in common with each other than do the various groups within the RCC itself, and especially if that is expanded to include the Anglican and Orthodox.

For the record I believe that both of us are former Baptists who are now Anglicans. My home church is here

[PS - DHK, as a mod, do you know how I can amend my denominational profile to reflect the above?]

 

[BobRyan]

Because up until 1054 you do have a consensus patri (hence my appeal to Vincent de Lerins) which provides what I will call a 'sufficiency of indefectability' re Tradition

[ETA - doubtless you believe that sola Scriptura possesses a similar 'sufficiency of indefectability' but we will have to agree to disagree on that one!]

Is it your argument then - that IF you could be transported in time back to the dark ages just before the Eastern Orthodox church split from Papal Rome you would then be in an era of sufficient Bible ignorance darkness and superstition that "tradition" and appeals to dogmas of the papacy would be unchallenged and "sufficient" to replace scripture as the sole authority and test of doctrine? That only THEN would you have a basis for arguing that it is "all one tradition" rather than a "competing tradition" and then and only then would these arguments found here in favor of tradition as "the solution" where scripture is declared to "have failed" have a ghost of a chance of being demonstrated in settling issues of doctrines being disputed at the time?

Because if that is your argument - I think we all agree.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

For the record I believe that both of us are former Baptists who are now Anglicans. My home church is here

[PS - DHK, as a mod, do you know how I can amend my denominational profile to reflect the above?]

BTW - I have to commend you on posting as Anglican rather than Baptist. The posts you made while claiming to be a Baptist always seemed to be Baptist-denying and Baptist-conflicted. I post as more baptist than you did.

Your positions are much more in harmony with an Anglican view of scripture and history. Much more consistent for you sir.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Is it your argument then - that IF you could be transported in time back to the dark ages just before the Eastern Orthodox church split from Papal Rome you would then be in an era of sufficient Bible ignorance darkness and superstition that "tradition" and appeals to dogmas of the papacy would be unchallenged and "sufficient" to replace scripture as the sole authority and test of doctrine? That only THEN would you have a basis for arguing that it is "all one tradition" rather than a "competing tradition" and then and only then would these arguments found here in favor of tradition as "the solution" where scripture is declared to "have failed" have a ghost of a chance of being demonstrated in settling issues of doctrines being disputed at the time?

Because if that is your argument - I think we all agree.

in Christ,

Bob

More or less, but with some corrections:

1. I wouldn't appeal to the dogmas of the Papacy but rather those of the Church Councils, particularly of course the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

2. I wouldn't see Tradition as 'replacing' Scripture but explaining, interpreting and, where necessary, supplementing and 'filling out' Scripture.

3. Nor would I see it as an age of specifically 'Biblical ignorance' (Book of Kells and other illuminated MSS, anyone?) but rather an age of general illiteracy.

4. I wouldn't just see Tradition as settling the doctrinal disputes of the referenced time but also see its decisions as being germane to today, eg: infant baptism, what baptism does, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, a bishop-priest-deacon ecclesiology etc

In summary, neither sola Scriptura, sola Traditio, nor sola Pontifex; rather Scriptura+Traditio(=consensus patri +Apostolicae/episcopae curiae/conciliae, the latter including but by no means exclusive to pontifex)

[PS - thanks for your commendation in your next post!]

 

[BobRyan]

More or less, but with some corrections:

1. I wouldn't appeal to the dogmas of the Papacy but rather those of the Church Councils, particularly of course the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

2. I wouldn't see Tradition as 'replacing' Scripture but explaining, interpreting and, where necessary, supplementing and 'filling out' Scripture.

So as the RCC of the 1020's was piling on the kindling and lighting the fire about you for daring to tradition-different-than-their-tradition. You would argue that "your tradition was better" and that if they really accepted it - then the two of you would be in perfect agreement???

So why is it that the clear difference between the two of you would not be the "sure fire proof of failure of tradition to settle differences" the way you now claim that scripture's failure to settle differences is proven by the existence of "disputes"?

Still don't see you guys getting out of that one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

3. Nor would I see it as an age of specifically 'Biblical ignorance' (Book of Kells and other illuminated MSS, anyone?) but rather an age of general illiteracy.

The Bible burning didn't come along until people were able to read - having bibles that they could actually read.

4. I wouldn't just see Tradition as settling the doctrinal disputes of the referenced time but also see its decisions as being germane to today

Fine -- in the "referenced time" even the anglican who rejected the sinless Mary and supremecy of the Pope would have been burned at the stake -- not to mention that your views on Purgatory would be considered heretical.

, eg: infant baptism, what baptism does, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, a bishop-priest-deacon ecclesiology etc

I find it hard to belive that you do not see this as "competing tradition" even as you post on the Baptist Board. Hello! This is "the Baptist Board".

Why would you argue that those competing traditions and disputes over them are being settled here "Sola traditio"??

Instead of being agreed upon sola traditio - they are flatly debunked sola-scriptura on this board.

Why do you hold them up here as an example of "success"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

I said...

"

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

And you said...

"I'm curious: on what basis would you assert that."

Because you earlier had said this...

""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." "

The reason I said what I said is because if you and others where truly following Christs teaching under the New Covenant you would be heeding Christ and His instructions regarding turning to the scriptures alone as our source of authority regarding doctrine.

You say you are heeding Christ, and yet you do opposite of what He instructs...

""For laying aside the commandment of God, (the scriptures of course) you hold the tradition of men."........"All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition......."......making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

"As to your quoting Jesus at me, I fail to see what the relevance is."

You know, in one sense I am stunned that you could make a statement like that. I mean, think of what you are saying there...

"What relevance is it to quote Jesus Christ?"

Amazing.

Yet in another way it doesnt surprise me at all. When one accepts tradition to be equal to, or even greater than, Gods scriptures...a statement like you made there is entirely possible.

The reason that it relavent to quote the Lord Jesus Christ to you is because He is teaching different than what your attempting to proclaim, and He is God.

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

So as the RCC of the 1020's was piling on the kindling and lighting the fire about you for daring to tradition-different-than-their-tradition. You would argue that "your tradition was better" and that if they really accepted it - then the two of you would be in perfect agreement???

So why is it that the clear difference between the two of you would not be the "sure fire proof of failure of tradition to settle differences" the way you now claim that scripture's failure to settle differences is proven by the existence of "disputes"?

Still don't see you guys getting out of that one.

in Christ,

Bob

Except that the RCC's Tradition (in so far as it was at that time on a par with that of the Orthodox) would be in agreement with the conciliar decisions and thus with my Tradition had I lived then.