Sola scriptura or ECF-like traditions of man? Christ in Mark 7

[Albion]

Holy Tradition is not "tradition of men".

Sure it is. Even the Catholic Church, the largest of the denominations which say they believe in "Holy Tradition," agrees to that. The doctrines created through an appeal to tradition are beliefs that people came up with outside of the Bible. Again, that is what the Holy Tradition churches say themselves! Otherwise, they would simply stand on the Bible and nothing else.

 

[Not David]

In Mark 7 the teachers of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai were claiming they too taught "holy tradition".

That did not stop Christ in his hammering of that tradition "sola scriptura" in Mark 7

The Lord never mentioned "Sola Scriptura".

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible is not the Koran.

And yet -- notice how it judges Paul in Acts 17:11 and how Christ uses it to judge so-called holy tradition in Mark 7:6-13

 

[Not David]

Sure it is. Even the Catholic Church, the largest of the denominations which say they believe in "Holy Tradition," agrees to that. The doctrines created through an appeal to tradition are beliefs that people came up with outside of the Bible. Again, that is what the Holy Tradition churches say themselves! Otherwise, they would simply stand on the Bible and nothing else.

Not true.

 

[BobRyan]

The Lord never mentioned "Sola Scriptura".

then did you read Mark 7 and find him using "tradition" or "creative writing"? Or was it "scripture" that He hammered the so-called holy-tradition of the Jews with - in Mark 7?

You are acting as if I am the author of Mark 7.

Not saying you need to change your mind on this - just saying how easy it is to make this case with the objective unbiased Bible students we come across from time to time.

They never mentioned "Sola Scriptura"

you are making this too easy.

 

[Not David]

And yet -- notice how it judges Paul in Acts 17:11 and how Christ uses it to judge so-called holy tradition in Mark 7:6-13

They never mentioned "Sola Scriptura"

 

[Crosstian]

That would be limited to the OT ...

Indeed.

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I am not ignoring the NT. I am simply making a point.

 

[Albion]

The Lord never mentioned "Sola Scriptura".

He certainly mentioned, quoted from, recommended, and believed in Scripture.

If he did not say to make doctrine out of custom or legend, etc.--which he did not--he was advocating Scripture Alone as our guide to doctrine. Sola Scriptura.

 

[Albion]

They never mentioned "Sola Scriptura"

See post #28

 

[Not David]

He certainly mentioned, quoted from, recommended, and believed in Scripture.

If he did not say to make doctrine out of custom or legend, etc.--which he did not--he was advocating Scripture Alone as our guide to doctrine. Sola Scriptura.

The "Seat of Moses" is not in the Old Testament Scripture.

 

[Not David]

And your point ? We should no longer listen to the Apostle Paul? do you have any ECF arguing that we should ignore Paul in his 2 Tim 3:16 statement?

Just showing how fallible your point is.

 

[Albion]

They never mentioned "Sola Scriptura"

Scripture is mentioned all over the Bible and nothing else is said to be its equal. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.

 

[Albion]

The "Seat of Moses" is not in the Old Testament Scripture.

What is the doctrine you are referring to here?

 

[Not David]

then did you read Mark 7 and find him using "tradition" or "creative writing"? Or was it "scripture" that He hammered the so-called holy-tradition of the Jews with - in Mark 7?

You are acting as if I am the author of Mark 7.

Not saying you need to change your mind on this - just saying how easy it is to make this case with the objective unbiased Bible students we come across from time to time.



you are making this too easy.

"Mark" was never in the original documents. You say Mark wrote it because of Tradition.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

How can the Bible be a tradition? It can't.

Since the bible fits within the tradition of the Gospel itself, which is Jesus Christ himself and is formed around that context I don't see how the Bible is not part of the tradition of the faith in general.

 

[Not David]

What is the doctrine you are referring to here?

The authority of the Pharisees.

 

[Not David]

Scripture is mentioned all over the Bible and nothing else is said to be its equal. Therefore, Sola Scriptura.

Nowhere Scripture is mentioned as "supreme"

 

[Albion]

The authority of the Pharisees.

That's not a Christian doctrine .

And the seat of Moses is mentioned in Scripture anyway (Matthew 23:1-2)

 

[Albion]

Nowhere Scripture is mentioned as "supreme"

Sola does not mean supreme.

 

[Albion]

Since the bible fits within the tradition of the Gospel itself, which is Jesus Christ himself and is formed around that context I don't see how the Bible is not part of the tradition of the faith in general.

It is divine revelation as opposed to something that is considered true only because it has stood the test of time and been widely accepted (tradition). The Bible itself testifies to its nature and origin.