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

[fwGod]

Still not Sola Scriptura.

I notice that you say things without supporting what you say. Therefore what you say has no authority.

 

[Crosstian]

I notice that you say things without supporting what you say. Therefore what you say has no authority.

The word says of those that seek to establish things by their own authority:

Rom_10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

 

[fwGod]

The word says of those that seek to establish things by their own authority:

Rom_10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Additionally. Everything that Jesus said was a direct quote or based on the old testament teachings as given by the leading of the Holy Spirit. He spoke God's word, the source of authority.

The apostles continued that method.
1 Thessalonians 2:13, "When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God."

We have clear examples for what we should do.

 

[Athanasius377]

The problem is illustrated by the question , what then is the status of such as the creed?

The creed is faith handed down, so a prima facie case of tradition.

The creed gives interpretation to scripture.
So whether or not it is "placed above" or "disagrees" with scripture is largely down to a persons interpretation of scripture.
If you are in the arian heresey, the creed is placed above scripture! If you are mainstream, it is simply distilled from scripture.

The creed is of course given assent of council, by the power to "bind and lose" but none the less it is tradition in the proper meaning of the word.

Hey Mike. I was wondering if you were going to respond. Anyway, there are two cases being made here. I make the case for Sola Scriptura while if you read closely you are making the case for Sola Ecclessia. By Creed I am going to assume you mean the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as formulated in 381. The Creed is correct not because a church council said it was rather it is correct because it reflects what Scripture clearly teaches. The Arian has the opposite problem in that he begins with presupposition that Jesus is not God instead of what scripture teaches and then interprets scripture according to said presupposition. So when confronted with the orthodox position he is then forced to strip mine the scripture for proof texts while ignoring on the whole what Scriptures actually says. This is not the fault of Sola Scriptura but rather the abuse thereof. So the question then becomes is the Creed correct because it reflects the truths of Scripture or is it true based one the authority of the church council? Our position is the church council no matter how esteemed receives its authority based on Scripture not the other way around. @Albion said basically the same thing but I wanted to tease out some nuance.

The creed is of course given assent of council, by the power to "bind and lose" but none the less it is tradition in the proper meaning of the word.

I think we need to unpack this a bit. You were using the same argument in another thread about Peter being the Rock in Matt 16:18. We actually agree here. Where we diverge is over the office of the Keys. Allow me to explain.
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Mt 16:19). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

So what's going on here. The Lord is using the imagery of Isaiah 22:20-22 by declaring Peter to be the Steward of the Kingdom of David like Eliakim in Isaiah 22:15. The steward is not the owner. He has both authority over the household and responsibility to his master to administer the affairs of the house properly. The keys are those of the storehouses, to enable him to make appropriate provision (think grain) for the household and not those of the outer gate to control admission. Contrast this with Shebna who misused the office of Steward for personal gain that included building a grand tomb for himself (Isaiah 22:16). To Bind and to Loose is also an administrative authority first given to Peter and then later to all the Disciples in Matt 18:18. It means what is permissible and what is not in the Kingdom. At no point does this power allow for any of the Disciples to go beyond what the Master has laid down.

Justin martyr ignatius and many others referring to the eucharist as the "flesh of jesus", is also tradition, For most who accept corporeal presence it does not contradict scripture, it gives meaning to the word "body".

For some it overrides what they think scripture means, so for them they would say it is "Put above scripture" in order to allow them to decide what scripture means for themselves. In that case those who think symbolic eucharist.

The problem is that very attitude results in endless schism. Without tradition, or authority, the boat has lost its anchor and drifts, so on every major aspect of doctrine with scripture alone they drift apart.

The point I make is that "put above scripture" is subjective not objective

Unless you accept that tradition itself, the faith handed down was indeed a source of truth in itself, that along with authority clarifies scripture it does not disagree with it. In which case you are bound to accept the "flesh of jesus". And the symbolic views collapse because they contradict tradition and authority.

I am glad that Ignatius and Justin Martyr agree with Scripture on this point. I will thank the chaps when I get to heaven. We agree on this point though disagree on how it happens. The point I would make is if you raise anything up to the authority of scripture in inevitably usurps scripture as the authority. I realize Rome teaches the Revelation is from both Scripture and Tradition however when the church gets to decide what is scripture and what is tradition that position is Sola Ecclessia.




.

 

[Dave-W]

it was still just the Old Testament.

JUST the Old Testament. Ok.

Do you know how bad that sounds?

 

[Dave-W]

Well, neither Sola Scriptura nor Holy Tradition guarantee that there will not be any misunderstandings.

Agreed

 

[Not David]

I notice that you say things without supporting what you say. Therefore what you say has no authority.

The Church which was founded by Christ Pantokrator is the authority.

 

[fwGod]

The Church which was founded by Christ Pantokrator is the authority.

Still, you don't quote from them to support what you say.

 

[Not David]

I don't usually care about "Sola Scriptura" threads but if I got triggered by "tradition of men" fallacy

 

[Not David]

Still, you don't quote from them to support what you say.

Because you don't view them as authority. I would not quote an atheist the Bible to convince them.

 

[BobRyan]

Theotokos or theoNOTokos

Notice how many times in scripture Mary is addressed as "Mother of God"??

That term smacks of procreation ... not incarnation. Maybe that is why you find it not being used.

 

[Barney2.0]

The New Testament along with the rest of the Bible is a product of sacred tradition, the Old Testament being a product of Israelite tradition and the New Testament being a product of Apostolic tradition. The Church gave us the Bible and not the other way around. The tradition of the Pharisees were their own tradition not even the one past down by Moses so Christ condemned them for it, he didn’t say believe in a New Testament (that was yet to be written along) with an Old Testament (that was also not formerly put together yet) only.

 

[Dave-W]

Well, he was Greek.

His father was Greek. His mother and grandmother were Jewish and passed on their faith to him. That likely would have included learning either Hebrew of Aramaic.

 

[Barney2.0]

Notice how many times in scripture Mary is addressed as "Mother of God"??

She is actually indirectly called the mother of God in scripture:

And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?

Luke 1:43

If you reject that Mary is the mother of God it means you reject the divinity of Christ or separate his two natures.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Ps 1:1 "In the seat of scoffers" -- in the place of, in the role of.
Matt 23:2 "in the seat of Moses" - in the place of, in the role of.

But we "see" how Jesus taught "in action" as he hammers the so-called holy tradition of the one true nation-church started by God at Sinai -- sola scriptura

What did Christ say?

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

to which we get this response

Not related to the Seat of Moses

Am now getting curious about how many times we will get to post

Matt 23:2 "in the seat of Moses" - in the place of, in the role of.

And get the response

Not related to the Seat of Moses

 

[chevyontheriver]

A number of new threads on this forum started with the idea that showing doctrine from the Bible means nothing - it must be shown only from the ECFs

Really? I find that totally strange, and that with me looking at your claim as a Catholic. A Catholic would never say doctrine from the Bible means nothing or that it must be shown only from the early Church Fathers. I don't even think an Orthodox would say that.

 

[fwGod]

Because you don't view them as authority. I would not quote an atheist the Bible to convince them.

Apparently you would not quote from the Catholic Bible either.

 

[BobRyan]

Theotokos or theoNOTokos

Notice how many times in scripture Mary is addressed as "Mother of God"??

That term smacks of procreation ... not incarnation. Maybe that is why you find it not being used.

She is actually indirectly called the mother of God in scripture:

"actually" or "indirect inference by the reader -- only"?

hmm so -- "My lord the King" -- means " king Saul was God"? 1 Samuel 24:8

Or would that be a case of bad inference by the reader?

If you reject that Mary is the mother of God it means you reject the divinity of Christ

Or it means you agree with Hebrew 7 that God has no mother or father... and that the issue in the case of Mary is "incarnation" and not "procreation".

There is as it turns out - a big difference.

Which is probably why we don't see that term used in the Bible.

 

[Not David]

Ps 1:1 "In the seat of scoffers" -- in the place of, in the role of.
Matt 23:2 "in the seat of Moses" - in the place of, in the role of.

But we "see" how Jesus taught "in action" as he hammers the so-called holy tradition of the one true nation-church started by God at Sinai -- sola scriptura



to which we get this response



Am now getting curious about how many times we will get to post

Matt 23:2 "in the seat of Moses" - in the place of, in the role of.

And get the response

Because it is a false comparison.

 

[Concord1968]

And now we get Nestorianism