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

Now answer the point that was actually made.
Spare us the four pages of meaningless waffle

The faith was handed by tradition - paradosis means handing down - in the first generations. It cannot have been any other way.

Jesus did not say write this. He said "do this" and "teach this"

And if you look at what they taught see ignatius to smyrneans, (disciples of John) you see a eucharist of real flesh valid only if presided by bishop in succession. Which is what paradosis means, the faith handed down.

John knew what John 6 meant. He wrote it. And he will have passed it on to his disciples. If you think ignatius is wrong, you either think John apostasized or His disciples, and since EVERYONE after believed that meaning including the councils you must think they were wrong too. Take anathasius (of the nicene council and creed ) said: "Before the blessing is just bread and wine, after it is flesh and blood" And so on.

These same councils decided against heresies, decided the creed, decided the canon of the new testament (indeed rome rejected the first canons , take Marciions) WIthout the ECF, you do not have a creed or canon.

So what you are saying is only you are right, Jesus's appointed church got it wrong. YOu know...the one that was the "foundation of truth" given the power to "bind and lose doctrine"

So you are utterly wrong on the history of the church. It is not "either or " on tradition and scripture. Tradition gives correct meaning to scripture. Which combined with authority given to apostolic succesors, the power to "bind and loose" ensures the "gates of hell do not prevail".

There is no apostasy. As matthew said "the gospel will be preached to the end of time". He does not say "disappear for a thousand years until someone resurrected it"

And that is why churches that respect tradition are largely unchanged for 2000 years, where reformationist churches by and large blow with the winds and schism with monotonous regularity as someone like you decides they know better than others before them what scripture means. They should look back to the early fathers and coujncils and see what it actually means. The faith handed down. Paradosis. Tradition.

BobRyan said:

What "besides" scripture , what "tradition" is Jesus talking about here ... or is it just scripture?

Click to expand...

I would suggest studying, in depth, the first three hundred or so years of Christian thought, theology, prayer, and practice.

Tradition in and of itself is not a bad thing. Tradition that has been placed above what the Scriptures teach most certainly is in error. This is what Sola Scriptura addresses. The definition of Sola Scriptura is that Scripture is the only infallible rule of Faith. It does not mean there are no traditions. Tradition can be a good thing and often times is a good thing. Where tradition and Scripture collide scripture wins always according to Sola Scriptura.

Take Mark chapter 7 for example. The washing of the hands was an extension of the Mosaic law regarding ritual washings and complex dietary laws and took the ritual washings of the priests and imposed it upon the layman. The person was to take a pitcher specially made for this ceremony, and pour water over hands while reciting the prayer:
“Blessed be Thou O Lord, King of the universe, who sanctified us by thy laws and commanded us to wash the hands.” Furthermore what drew the Lord's ire was that it was considered by the Pharisees to be sinful if a person failed to perform this washing. The Lord continues by recounting the most egregious tradition the Pharisees had in the Corban rule where one could blatantly break the Fourth Commandment. Jesus in this passage clearly has disdain for these "traditions of the elders". This is what Sola Scriptura looks like.

Regarding the Early Church Fathers (ECF) Protestants do themselves a great disservice by ignoring the giants of the past. Again, not to say that everything a Church Father said is correct but rather it gives us the mind of the Early Church. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel every generation yet that's what so many even here in CF wind up doing.

Athanasius377 said:

Tradition in and of itself is not a bad thing. Tradition that has been placed above what the Scriptures teach most certainly is in error. This is what Sola Scriptura addresses. The definition of Sola Scriptura is that Scripture is the only infallible rule of Faith. It does not mean there are no traditions. Tradition can be a good thing and often times is a good thing.

Click to expand...

It's good that you stressed that point. One thing that all of us here have get straight before going into our respective 'pitches' is that traditions (or tradition in the singular) and "Holy Tradition" are NOT the same thing.

Indeed, "Holy Tradition" is a completely arbitrary and made-up term.

Church leaders could just as easily have called the idea of making the opinion of ordinary men into a second source of divine revelation (other than the Bible) by almost any other term that was handy. The church chose this one, but we, at least, need to keep them separate.

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.

Or take this case:

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.

Athanasius377 said:

Tradition in and of itself is not a bad thing. Tradition that has been placed above what the Scriptures teach most certainly is in error. This is what Sola Scriptura addresses. The definition of Sola Scriptura is that Scripture is the only infallible rule of Faith. It does not mean there are no traditions. Tradition can be a good thing and often times is a good thing. Where tradition and Scripture collide scripture wins always according to Sola Scriptura.

Take Mark chapter 7 for example. The washing of the hands was an extension of the Mosaic law regarding ritual washings and complex dietary laws and took the ritual washings of the priests and imposed it upon the layman. The person was to take a pitcher specially made for this ceremony, and pour water over hands while reciting the prayer:
“Blessed be Thou O Lord, King of the universe, who sanctified us by thy laws and commanded us to wash the hands.” Furthermore what drew the Lord's ire was that it was considered by the Pharisees to be sinful if a person failed to perform this washing. The Lord continues by recounting the most egregious tradition the Pharisees had in the Corban rule where one could blatantly break the Fourth Commandment. Jesus in this passage clearly has disdain for these "traditions of the elders". This is what Sola Scriptura looks like.

Regarding the Early Church Fathers (ECF) Protestants do themselves a great disservice by ignoring the giants of the past. Again, not to say that everything a Church Father said is correct but rather it gives us the mind of the Early Church. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel every generation yet that's what so many even here in CF wind up doing.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The Creed is simply a summary of the essentials of the faith--and the Creed itself credits Scripture as the source or authority followed by those people when they crafted the statement we call the "Creed."

The creed gives interpretation to scripture.

Click to expand...

Which, if true, makes Scripture the authority, not anything else.

The creed is of course given assent of council, by the power to "bind and lose"

Click to expand...

You choose to believe that, but it isn't part of the council or the Creed.

Or take this case:

Justin martyr ignatius and many others referring to the eucharist as the "flesh of jesus", is also tradition

Click to expand...

Obviously not, since they got the idea from the Gospels which quote Christ at the Last Supper as describing it that way.

Albion said:

No, it isn't. The Creed is simply a summary of the essentials of the faith--and the Creed itself credits Scripture as the source or authority followed by those people when they crafted the statement we call the "Creed."


Which, if true, makes Scripture the authority, not anything else.


You choose to believe that, but it isn't part of the council or the Creed.


Obviously not, since they got the idea from the Gospels which quote Christ at the Last Supper as describing it that way.

Click to expand...

Now read what I actually wrote and criticise that instead.

For those who think the word body means flesh (as you do), they clearly accept tradition "the faith handed down" as to what eucharist means from scripture. (Although there are then subarguments on what "flesh" means beyond the scope of this).

For those who think the eucharist is symbolic only citing the verse "the words I speak are spirit and truth", they say that the interpretation and tradition "real flesh" is "put above scripture" . They claim it does not say it. They would be right. It gets close using the word "gnaw" not "consume" but it doesnt use the word flesh.

Now do you see the problem? The declaration of tradition being put above scripture is entirely subjective, conditioned by an apriori view of meaning.

Tradition, the faith handed down confirms only one of them.
The corporeal view. You probably even agree with that , by saying for you "it came from scripture". You prove my point. You agree only because your tradition agrees with your view of what scripture means.


My point on the creed was a simple one. For those in the arian heresy, "tradition" in the shape of the creed is being put above scripture. For the rest of us, it simply confirms what scripture says and is somehow subservient to it. Demonstrating the phrase "put above scripture" is entirely subjective and based on what you think scripture means. Which also illustrates the second point. The meaning of scripture is therefore not unique without scripture. So to the third point, scripture is adding a separate channel of truth, resolving disputes.
Uncontestable when using the arian heresy as example.


Tradition is not put above scripture, it reinforces one interpretation of it.

And it is an additional channel of truth not just a complementary one. Scripture does not have unique meaning without it - or that is what different evangelists try to convince us! Since they have polar opposite views to each other on what it means.

Only by resorting to tradition and authority, do you have the truth.

The problem with "Tradition that has been placed above what the Scriptures teach most certainly is in error." is who is saying (1) what Scriptures teach, and (2) that Tradition is above Scriptures.

Mountainmike said:

Now read what I actually wrote and criticise that instead.

For those who think the word body means flesh (as you do), they clearly accept tradition "the faith handed down" as to what eucharist means from scripture.

Click to expand...

Not really. What they are accepting is the wording given in Scripture. If Ignatius or someone else reiterated Christ's description, that isn't what causes us to believe in the Real Presence.

For those who think the eucharist is symbolic only citing the verse "the words I speak are spirit and truth", they say that the interpretation "real flesh" is "put above scripture" . They claim it does not say it. They would be right. It gets close using the word "gnaw" not "consume" but it doesnt use the word flesh.

Click to expand...

Well, neither Sola Scriptura nor Holy Tradition guarantee that there will not be any misunderstandings. These are merely different approaches to identifying what the authority IS.

JohnAshton said: The problem with "Tradition that has been placed above what the Scriptures teach most certainly is in error." is who is saying (1) what Scriptures teach, and (2) that Tradition is above Scriptures.

BobRyan said:

Indeed - and so it is "helpful" that Christ shows how "how it is done" between groups that differ in their opinions in the case of Mark 7.

Click to expand...

Then, as Gracia Singh so wisely counsels, we should be ". . . studying, in depth, the first three hundred or so years of Christian thought, theology, prayer, and practice."

Albion said:

Not really. What they are accepting is the wording given in Scripture. If Ignatius or someone else reiterated Christ's description, that isn't what causes us to believe in the Real Presence.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify what you meant from what you said, with an insert.

Albion said:

"Not really What they are acepting is (insert: their opinion of the meaning of) the wording given in scripture. etc

Click to expand...

All view scripture through a lens of their tradition. Not just catholics.

(That is why you were adamant the only OT reference to "keys of the kingdom" had nothing to do with the NT reference)

Only another source of truth can ever resolve the differences.

For most they will not realise the corporeal presence is the source because ever since the first generation that is what was handed down as faith.

Sadly many evangelical groups have complete amnesia for the first 1500 years of the church.

As anglicans You "add" the articles to resolve disputes and give meaning to scriputre. All view through a lens of tradition, the question is whose tradition has been held from the beginning as the faith handed down.

Mountainmike said:

...All view scripture through a lens of their tradition. ...

Click to expand...

False. God defines His own word and what is scripture. Gen. 40:8; 2 Peter 1:20; Isaiah 28:10,13; John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, etc. It even has its own built in aleph-bet.

In Roman Catholicism's doctrine of "tradition", the Magisterium is above both 'scripture and tradition', and it decides which is which, and what is entailed in their definition at any given time.

I see no argument above that invalidates the counsel of following "Christian thought, theology, prayer, and practice." Never, ever trust another's teaching who will infallibly state and inform us of what God thought.

Bob
Dont bother with the party political broadcast , I have heard it all before. Step back.

The point I am making is above all that.

The idea that tradition "faith handed down" is "put above scripture" or just a distillation of it depends entirely on an apriori subjective view of what scripture means. You just aired yours.

But All view scripture through a lens of tradtion as you do.

A separate source of truth is needed to resolve the conflicts. Which ends with the question "whose tradition is right" What was the faith handed down? It also demonstrates that tradition adds a separte source of truth.




For us - we do that by reference to ECF and councils ( where the church speaks) whose beliefs were essentially unchanged from Johns disciples on, we can answer that question. Confirming "the foundation of truth is the church"

BobRyan said:

There were followers of Christ in John 6 that thought He meant they were supposed to bite him so they left. After all He did not say "some day in the future you must eat my flesh" rather in John 6 He said He already WAS the bread that already DID come down from heaven and they already were supposed to eat it.

Because He is drawing on the Deut 8 lesson of "bread that came down out of heaven"
Deut 8
3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.

John 6
61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Christ hammers his own disciples for taking that symbol too literally.
Matt 16
9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Click to expand...

The bible gives disciples the power to bind and loose, which is exactly the power to give definitive judgement on law." And what you bind will be bound in heaven"

The point I made is higher than that.
It is saying whether or not you think tradition conflicts with scripture is purely subjective. It depends on what you think scripture means. Tradtion adds meaning to scripture it does not contradict it. All believe that - and all view scripture through a lens of their own tradition.. The question is, whose tradition is right? And that by definition accepts the fact that tradition adds meaning to scripture.

Crosstian said:

False. God defines His own word and what is scripture. Gen. 40:8; 2 Peter 1:20; Isaiah 28:10,13; John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, etc. It even has its own built in aleph-bet.

In Roman Catholicism's doctrine of "tradition", the Magisterium is above both 'scripture and tradition', and it decides which is which, and what is entailed in their definition at any given time.

Click to expand...