• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

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

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Said to Timothy whom only had the Greek Old Testament.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

2 Tim. 3:16. "All scripture".
The word for ‘Scripture’ occurs fifty-one times in N.T., always, except 2 Peter 3:16, of the recognised Old Testament Scriptures, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, or of one or more of them; in 2 Peter 3:16 the reference is to St Paul’s epistles and to ‘the other Scriptures.’ The A.V. of a.d. 1611 is therefore not wrong (though many printed copies have altered it) in rendering the word as ‘Scripture’ with a capital S; for it is by itself the recognised technical term.

We should translate Every Scripture probably, as is the proper rendering when there is no article. The word ‘Scripture’ is without the article also in John 19:37; 1 Peter 2:6; 2 Peter 1:20. Those who retain the rendering ‘All Scripture’ with A.V. would lay stress on the technical use of the word shewn above, so that it may be treated as a proper name, comparing Acts 2:36, ‘all (the) house of Israel.’ But this is unnecessary, especially as the three places where the word occurs without the article in the singular have the meaning ‘a Book or passage of Scripture’ and they are in date as late as or later than this Epistle.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Holy Scripture and its development IS part of church tradition, Major 1.

Sola Scripture, while not heretic as a teaching, is inaccurate in power in that it is a sixteenth century development long after the Bible was canonized.

In the New Testament Period Jesus whole ministry was a contention with the Pharisees traditions. They wanted him to validate and approve what they called the tradition of the elders (fathers) Mk.7:1-9 Mt.15:1-4 contention grew between Jesus and the religious leaders as they wanted his approval of their traditions to be considered equal with Scripture. Jesus was clear he was not going to approve of their traditions saying you lay aside the commandment of God and hold higher the tradition of men.”

They challenged Jesus on the cleansing rituals. Jesus responded its not cleansing from the outside, but mans heart from the inside is what needs the cleansing. The Pharisee’s set up a barrier between God and man making the commandments of no effect because they stopped people from seeing the word of God. Jesus always brought their traditions to the ultimate authority the word of God. Mk.7: “These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me and in vain they worship me teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.” By adding traditions alongside the word they watered down the truth This is why Jesus quoted Mt.11:28 “Come to ME all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you REST.”

The Pharisees laws were burdens that God never intended, it brought the people into bondage because it went beyond Scripture and was never intended to do what God inspired to be written. Nowhere is it written to continue to have traditions by word of mouth after the apostles.

Not once did Jesus speak well about traditions, Neither did Paul as he said in Colossians 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST.”

He said to” let the word of God dwell in you richly.”

It is the word of God that is living and active (Heb.4:12) to change one from the inside, traditions can never be a alternative or of equal value to what God has spoken and written down for all generations to live by.
Traditions found in the Bible

As Jesus said....


My WORDS are SPIRIT and they are LIFE


 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sola Scripture is a doctrinal invention five centuries old.

John, How old do you think the salvation of man is?

Does age or the lack there of validate the doctrine?

May I say to you and all the others, the only reason the Catholic believers do not accept Sola Scriptura is because it does not validate the UN-BIBLICAL teachings of the Catholic church.

It has nothing to do with age or traditions or anything else.

The simple fact is that the 3 dozen or so RCC UN-BIBLICAL teachings of the RCC can not be found through Sola Scriptura therefore we as Catholics reject it as it only validates the Word of God and NOT The doctrines of men/POPES.

Argue all you want and post all the reason why not but it all comes down to that simple explanation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JohnAshton

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2019
2,197
1,580
90
Logan, Utah
✟45,911.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Major1, that you believe strongly in Sola Scriptura does not mean your arguments are strong for it.

Your prima facie argument is that the Bible is literal, therefore . . . but so many many do not agree with you.

Argue all you want and post but that changes nothing: biblical literalism is not the only way to God.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

Antiochian Orthodox
Apr 6, 2018
7,393
5,278
26
USA
✟243,137.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
No it is not!

There are instances of tradition in the Bible but they are all scriptural or do not contend with the scripture teaching itself.

David, upon only 3 verses in the Bible that have the word “tradition” in the Scriptures, Catholicism’s entire practice for traditions being of equal status with scripture are founded on these. Despite the fact that the same Scripture that mentions the word tradition makes it clear from both Jesus and the apostles writings that they are to be our source of life. So lets look at this Scriptures carefully and see what they say and what they do not say.

1) 1 Cor.11:23 ……...
“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; Here Paul states he is presenting in writing what he had previously taught them in person, that which I also delivered unto you.”

This pertains to the communion and how it is to be taken. So what he had taught orally was inscripturated, so there no validation for oral tradition here. Paul learned of the communion by the other apostles as they fellowshipped and broke bread each week. However Paul learned more of this from the Lord and is the only apostle to write in detail about it.

2) 2 Thess. 2:15...…..
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

Both which were taught were the same that was written down. What traditions is Paul talking about? In v.5 Paul previously stated “ Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” This Paul says he already taught them in person but now is writing it down. Consistent with the rest of the teachings, everything said was written down that would be used to have one practice their Christian relationship.

He was giving them and us in writing what he had previously taught. Which was about the man of sin, to provide further understanding clarifying any misconceptions they had, Since the epistle starts off with the church shaken up by a false letter or word they received that the resurrection already taking place and they thought they missed out. So presently he is elaborating on the details of the tribulation and the falling away.

3) 2 Thess. 3:6...…..
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition (some translations have teaching, at any rate teaching can be passed on orally before it is committed to writing) which he received from us.”

Again if we go further we find what is being said which proves all should be read in its context.

V.10 …...
“for even when we were with you we commanded you this, If anyone does not work neither shall they eat.”

It was the same thing by personal word or by letter. They showed this teaching by example as they were with the Corinthians and he put in writing what he had taught them earlier.

This way they would not forget or corrupt it after his death. None of these scriptures have any relationship to the traditions presently taught and practiced in the Roman Catholic Church.

Further no one has ever documented any specific teaching to be accredited to Paul in their traditions. Obviously not everything the apostles “said” is written down but the doctrines are. So there is nothing spoken that was not written that we would need to know about salvation and living.

For example Paul says in 1 Cor.15:1 ...…..
“Moreover brethren I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you...” Here it is written out.

The only revelation we have today is the same committed to the apostles that was written down, this was what the church accepted and practiced after the apostles, that which was written, not what is spoken. The same Paul who is claimed to write of traditions specifically tell us in 1 Cor.4:6 “do not to go beyond what is written.” How could he do this if he approved of the apostles oral teaching alongside the writings? He couldn't. That is why what was taught was penned on paper, pointing to the Scripture as our final authority.

Every time the Pharisees the religious men brought up traditions as equal to the Scripture Jesus brought them to the word. This is why he called them the traditions of men because they did not come from God but by religious men who no longer intended to obey the word.
Traditions found in the Bible
Yes, it is.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

Antiochian Orthodox
Apr 6, 2018
7,393
5,278
26
USA
✟243,137.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
David, when we look at the examples of tradition in the Scripture we find its purpose does the very opposite of the word written. If the traditions the Catholics hold are suppose to be a body of teaching that was passed down by the apostles oral tradition, why are they written down?
Why are they not included in the bible if they are written down.
After all they are suppose to be apostolic teaching.

Catholics “Sacred Tradition” becomes invalid if in any point it contradicts the Bible.

Catholic teachings of purgatory,
penance,
indulgences,
Mass,
praying the rosary,
praying to saints
praying to Mary,
wearing scapulars,
forbidding priests to marry,
the assumption of Mary,
the Immaculate conception of Mary simply are not found in the Scripture and they contradict scriptures teachings.

Any verses found to validate these by Catholics are always subject to being redefined or pulled from its actual context. The Catholic Church has used their Traditions to make them equal to word when The fact is that God says nothing has this kind of authority except the word itself.
Not even talking about the Roman Church.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,499
11,987
Georgia
✟1,109,122.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Holy Scripture and its development IS part of church tradition, Major 1.

a tradition that could not have been used in Acts 17:11 since the tradition of their magisterium at the time was consumed with condemning the teaching of Paul "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul -- were so" Acts 17:11

Sola Scripture, while not heretic as a teaching, is inaccurate .

Until you notice it being employed in Acts 17:11 and in Mark 7:6-13
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,499
11,987
Georgia
✟1,109,122.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Sola Scriptura or the traditions and teachings of the holy and ancient fathers?

The answer is yes.

-CryptoLutheran

An "or both" answer we don't see Christ using in Mark 7:6-13
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Aug 11, 2017
25,935
8,395
Dallas
✟1,099,162.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
“He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16:15-17‬ ‭NASB‬‬

What scripture did Peter have to support his claim? Was he wrong?
 
Upvote 0

JohnAshton

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2019
2,197
1,580
90
Logan, Utah
✟45,911.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
a tradition that could not have been used in Acts 17:11 since the tradition of their magisterium at the time was consumed with condemning the teaching of Paul "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul -- were so" Acts 17:11 Until you notice it being employed in Acts 17:11 and in Mark 7:6-13
You misinterpret Paul.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,838
29,512
Pacific Northwest
✟827,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
An "or both" answer we don't see Christ using in Mark 7:6-13

Perhaps you could explain for the class where, in Mark 7:6-13, Christ mentions the fathers of the Christian Church at all.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,838
29,512
Pacific Northwest
✟827,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Same position that the Jews were taking in Mark 7 when Christ addressed them on that very point.

The "traditions" Jesus condemned were those traditions being used to subvert God's commandments and to oppress people.

If you believe Jesus had a problem with all Jewish tradition, then you might want to try and explain why Jesus was going to the synagogue (Luke 4:16), celebrating Hanukkah (John 10:22-23), or referencing the words of Hillel the Elder (Matthew 7:12).

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Aug 11, 2017
25,935
8,395
Dallas
✟1,099,162.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The "traditions" Jesus condemned were those traditions being used to subvert God's commandments and to oppress people.

If you believe Jesus had a problem with all Jewish tradition, then you might want to try and explain why Jesus was going to the synagogue (Luke 4:16), celebrating Hanukkah (John 10:22-23), or referencing the words of Hillel the Elder (Matthew 7:12).

-CryptoLutheran

In Mark 7 Jesus explained the root of the problem with the Jewish traditions which was that the Pharisees were hypocrites and their heart was far from Christ. So they lacked the proper understanding of the purpose of God’s commandments. If a person is going to use this example against the traditions of the church then they should also provide evidence that the church was also hypocritical and far from Christ.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You ar
Major1, that you believe strongly in Sola Scriptura does not mean your arguments are strong for it.

Your prima facie argument is that the Bible is literal, therefore . . . but so many many do not agree with you.

Argue all you want and post but that changes nothing: biblical literalism is not the only way to God.

You are correct. The only way to God is through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now with all respect to you mu friend, I am not going to argue with anyone on what I think. I also do not care even one little bit who does not agree with me.

It is my understanding that the literal approach to Scripture, UNLESS other specified is the best way to grasp what God has said. The assumptions that parts of the Bible aren't literal only assumes a naturalistic basis, which actually fails to take God seriously.

When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth.

Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟211,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
“He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16:15-17‬ ‭NASB‬‬

What scripture did Peter have to support his claim? Was he wrong?

NO!

Matt. 16:17...……...
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."
 
Upvote 0