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

FenderTL5 · Oct 9, 2019

redleghunter said:
I'm Protestant and fully see the logic of the title theotokos. That being that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly human but One Person and cannot be divided.

Then you understand why some would take issue at the denial of the same.

Presbyterian Continuist · Oct 9, 2019

GingerBeer said:
Is the advice of Mr Spiritual Charlatan better?

I wouldn't follow his advice either.

There's a few whose advice is more reliable: Mr Greatheart, Mr Faithful, Mr Hopeful, Miss Charity. They would give sound advice.

Presbyterian Continuist · Oct 9, 2019

The central principle of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is God's inspired communication to mankind. Because God cannot lie, then what He inspired the authors to write is the truth. Therefore because what God communicates is the truth, then it is absolutely reliable and quite appropriate for moderating everything else that is put forward, including church tradition, which is thought up by man's reasoning.

Therefore, where there is doubt about some aspect of church tradition or teaching, one must consider what God has to say about it, and the only source where we can find that out is the Bible:

"For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:21).

BobRyan · Oct 9, 2019

Woke said:
There are individuals in many different Christian denominations that claim they only teach what the Bible actually says. And yet they have different beliefs about major Bible subjects.

True. So shall we have an objective standard like scripture or shall each of us just say "the magisterium in my church always says we are right - so we must be right"?

Which of those two methods do you see Christ use in Mark 7:6-13?

It is impossible for you to prove to these believers their views are wrong and yours are correct, by claiming you use only the Bible

that is not true. There is evangelism going on all the time (about 1 million a year in the case of one group) and not all who are being evangelized are atheists or Buddhist.

God condemned people for establishing traditions when those tradition led them away from following him.

And how does Jesus indicate that those traditions are in error when dealing with those who "differ" in Mark 7:6-13?

BobRyan · Oct 9, 2019

GingerBeer said:
Is the advice of Mr Spiritual Charlatan better?

Indeed to everyone the other guy appears to be in error. No news there.

I am more interested in Christ's solution in Mark 7 rather than tossing hands up with "all is lost"

redleghunter · Oct 9, 2019

FenderTL5 said:
Then you understand why some would take issue at the denial of the same.

Right because the title was given to ensure the heretics were refuted that Jesus Christ was truly God and truly human from the time “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;"
Some could not come to this conclusion as they could not accept a human mother carrying the Person Jesus Christ God the Son. We see it on some of the boards around here where some embrace the ancient heresies where Jesus was just a man "until some point after his birth." Not to mention the most popular these days which has God the Son wearing a "skin suit" called Jesus, thus denying Him fully human with a human soul and mind and will.

All I would do is explain why you see it as blasphemy. Because the casual bystander may think you were referring to the honor of Blessed Mary instead of the Divine Logos Jesus Christ God the Son.

BobRyan · Oct 9, 2019

Oscarr said:
The central principle of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is God's inspired communication to mankind. Because God cannot lie, then what He inspired the authors to write is the truth. Therefore because what God communicates is the truth, then it is absolutely reliable and quite appropriate for moderating everything else that is put forward, including church tradition, which is thought up by man's reasoning.

Therefore, where there is doubt about some aspect of church tradition or teaching, one must consider what God has to say about it, and the only source where we can find that out is the Bible:

"For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:21).

How "instructive" that this is exactly the method Christ used in Mark 7 - as the OP shows

BobRyan · Oct 9, 2019

redleghunter said:
I'm Protestant and fully see the logic of the title theotokos. That being that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly human but One Person and cannot be divided. I don't think the council was setting up a title for Blessed Mary to be worshiped or venerated by.

The question is -- why did no one use that title in the NT for Mary? is it because that title speaks more about procreation and incarnation and that would surely mislead the reader/hearer?

BobRyan · Oct 9, 2019

FenderTL5 said:
The blasphemy is not against Mary, it's against the Divinity of Christ.

It is difficult to make that case that insisting on the "incarnation" fact of scripture instead of a muddy-water-procreation statement is "against the divinity of Christ"

BobRyan · Oct 9, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
The early church fathers’ writings are beneficial to determining the correct interpretation of the scriptures. They are not in contradiction of one another. At least not in the first 3 centuries.

So then you think that those who profess to endorse ECF traditions "welcome" with wide open arms the Sola-Scriptura method of Christ in Mark 7? That they see this as a golden opportunity to demonstrate the claim you just posted?

Is that what we are seeing here?

Or is what is being demonstrated on this thread - in some cases... more like this?

GingerBeer said:
Is the advice of Mr Spiritual Charlatan better?

redleghunter · Oct 9, 2019

BobRyan said:
The question is -- why did no one use that title in the NT for Mary? is it because that title speaks more about procreation and incarnation and that would surely mislead the reader/hearer?

Well the subject came up because the church catholic were engaging heresies which challenged the Deity of Jesus Christ, or that He was not a human at all. The spectrum was pretty diverse and we see the same errors today. I'm sure pastors/bishops back then were teaching that Jesus Christ is the Son of man, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and doing so in the present tense given the Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven seated at the Right Hand of Power.

From this very simple teaching I'm sure the ploughmen was able to conclude: "Jesus Christ is God, and He on Earth was a man like me; and now He is in Heaven Glorified and will come again." His ploughmen theological statement would be true and based on Holy Scriptures. Plus a ploughman would not in anyway probably venture into wondering about two natures and One Person, because they behold Christ and He is One with the Father and Holy Spirit as the early Rule of Faith and early creeds conclude.

It was the heretics who tried to 'dissect' the Person of Christ into material understandings without the Divine/Supernatural. And these folks were scholars in their age. It was when you had theologians like Arius start writing what he did that other bishops far and wide starting scratching their heads and saying "this is a strange doctrine I have not heard of." So we started getting councils after that to resolve these issues.

BobRyan · Oct 9, 2019

What method did Christ use in Mark 7 as quoted in the OP?

FenderTL5 said:
As I see it, in a strict rendering as presented, using Christ quoting OT as example; we either accept sola-Old Testament OR we'd need to find example(s) of Christ quoting New Testament writer(s) (not the other way around).

So even when Christ does the very thing that the Sola-Scriptura POV would have predicted... it surely must not be it until he also "quoted someone writing in the future" ?? Seriously? That is an objective rule to use?

In Isaiah 8:20 -- the sola scriptura testing model exists
20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light

Scripture shows them using it all through time -- the same principle.

The whole premise is a cart before the horse scenario. Paul's letters were to Churches, who were already preaching, teaching, keeping the prayers, baptizing etc, all prior to there being an assembled NT.
Even the Bereans are an example of Apostolic Tradition (Paul's preaching) being used and confirmed along side (not in contrast to) the OT.

non-Christian Bereans "study the scriptures to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul were SO" all the while their own magesterium was screaming to the hilltops to reject Paul? Is an example of Bereans "believing whatever they are told by someone outside their religion because after all Paul is apostolic"?

seriously?

BobRyan · Oct 9, 2019

Al Masihi said:
The term doesn’t indicate any type of procreation unless you define Mary as a co-member of the trinity or as co-creator, .

Turns out ... "Mother" and "Father" are the element for procreation... the parents of the child procreate the child.

So not too surprising that Mary is never called "the mother of God" in the actual Bible.

Also not too surprising that those who freely admit that they believe that using that procreation term "mother of..." - are more than happy to use the phrase "Mary mother of God", no matter that it appears to have mislead some folks into supposing there are 4 members of the godhead.

GingerBeer · Oct 9, 2019

Oscarr said:
I wouldn't follow his advice either.
There's a few whose advice is more reliable: Mr Greatheart, Mr Faithful, Mr Hopeful, Miss Charity. They would give sound advice.

Perhaps the saints and angels too give good advice?

GingerBeer · Oct 9, 2019

BobRyan said:
I am more interested in Christ's solution in Mark 7 rather than tossing hands up with "all is lost"

Mark's gospel doesn't teach sola scriptura nor does it use the words "sola scriptura". The verses you pointed to teach that Pharisee traditions that nullify the Law given through Moses are wicked because they abrogate the Law while pretending to uphold it. They are hypocritical people teaching hypocritical doctrines invented by their "elders".

And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honour your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Mark 7:5-13
These verses do not teach "sola scriptura" they teach the hypocrisy of pretended adherence to scripture while abrogating it by one's deeds. The Pharisees said they were teachers of the Law but their actions were disobedience of the Law.

BobRyan · Oct 9, 2019

GingerBeer said:
Mark's gospel doesn't teach sola scriptura

What then - beside scripture - do you claim to see Christ stating in the text as he hammers the magisterium of the one true nation-church started by God at Sinai in Mark 7??

BobRyan said:
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.”

Paul himself "tested" sola scriptura
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

Gal 1:6-9
"6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

Acts 20
28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be on the alert,
.

GingerBeer said:
The verses you pointed to teach that Pharisee traditions that nullify the Law given through Moses are wicked because the abrogate the Law

The "law" comes in the form of quoting scripture in Mark 7.

Nothing else.

GingerBeer said:
Mark 7:5-13
These verses do not teach "sola scriptura"

You have yet to show Christ appealing to anything other than scripture in Mark 7.

The point remains.

GingerBeer · Oct 9, 2019

BobRyan said:
The "law" comes in the form of quoting scripture in Mark 7.

Nothing else.

Yes, the Law of Moses is in the old testament and some of it is referenced in Mark 7 along with the tradition of the elders which was hypocritical because it nullified the Law. None of which says a thing in support of "the bible alone". But you have yet to state what definition of "sola scriptura" you intended in the topic title. How about you share it, tell us what you mean by "sola scriptura", is it "bible onlyism"?

Albion · Oct 9, 2019

I'm interested to know what is meant by "Bible onlyism." Sola Scriptura is a well-established concept but what's this "Bible onlyism" that is being compared to it??

Woke · Oct 9, 2019

BobRyan said:
True. So shall we have an objective standard like scripture or shall each of us just say "the magisterium in my church always says we are right - so we must be right"?

Which of those two methods do you see Christ use in Mark 7:6-13?

that is not true. There is evangelism going on all the time (about 1 million a year in the case of one group) and not all who are being evangelized are atheists or Buddhist.

And how does Jesus indicate that those traditions are in error when dealing with those who "differ" in Mark 7:6-13?

Hello BobRyan.

My statement did not say all biblical views are correct, or that Christians should accept all views as correct because their views are taught by a church (any church). My statement was that more is needed than only scriptures to help Christians with incorrect views realize they are incorrect in their interpretation of Bible statements. I also said, every teaching group I am aware of that claims to only teach the Bible doesn't only teach the Bible. They instead teach their interpretations of scripture. And that's one of the reasons more is needed than just scripture for anyone following those people to understand the Truth. See 1Corinthians 3:7 and Colossians 2:19.

True, God uses his Christians to spread his word, but without God letting blind ones understand it, they never will. My statement did not imply God's church should not make an attempt to correct false beliefs. If I thought that I wouldn't be here, because my only reason for being here is to teach God's word. My previous statement also implied claiming you only teach the Bible can be a trap in itself, because it is not true. Since people who claim that don't only teach the Bible that claim can mislead biblically ignorant ones into believing they have found a mentor who can, in contradiction to what others teach about scripture, lead them to God. Interpretations of the Bible is what is taught. Within these interpretations God allows Christ's true church to understand, at least the doctrines necessary for salvation, and compels them to spread those teachings to others.

While God allows some false beliefs, even among his church members, he disallows other false beliefs among his chosen church members. And those type of false beliefs God disallows are ones that lead people away from God. Those are the type Christ was speaking of in Mark chapter 7. If Christ did mean God disallows all false notions on how to apply scripture among his church, then Christ would be contradicting Paul's words in Romans, now wouldn't he? The scriptures I previously cited, and that are again quoted at the end of this post, from the words of Paul, prove Christ would be contradicting Paul if Christ applied that idea to all scriptural applications. Christ was not doing that. Romans chapter 14 deals with Christians who apply scriptures to their own behaviors differently, because they have different beliefs about scriptures.

Romans chapter 14 reads:

1Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

11For it is written,
“AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”

12So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.

Barney2.0 · Oct 9, 2019

BobRyan said:
Turns out ... "Mother" and "Father" are the element for procreation... the parents of the child procreate the child.

So not too surprising that Mary is never called "the mother of God" in the actual Bible.

Also not too surprising that those who freely admit that they believe that using that procreation term "mother of..." - are more than happy to use the phrase "Mary mother of God", no matter that it appears to have mislead some folks into supposing there are 4 members of the godhead.

So did the Father procreate the Son? Obviously he didn’t as the Son is uncreated and was begotten of the Father without any sort of procreation, the terms father and mother don’t indicate pro-creation depending on how you use them. I just proved that Mary is called mother my my Lord in the Gospel of Luke, pretty much no Christian I’ve met or in the world mistakes the term Theotokos for Mary being a fourth member of the Godhead, except Collyridianism an extinct pagan heresy and Nestorius another heretic. In the Church no one ever mixed up the term to indicate procreation, neither historically nor in our days. And even if someone did, you'd only need to read on the canons of the Council of Ephesus to get the correct understanding of Theotokos as defined by the Church.

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

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Junior Member

Thank You Jesus!

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Thank You Jesus!

Junior Member

Junior Member

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Junior Member

Cool and refreshing with a kick!

Facilitator

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads