• 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.

Sola Scriptura and 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What do the last three words say? "...or our epistle."

How many letters did Paul actually write to the church at Corinth?

How many letters did Paul write to the church in Thessalonica?

Jesus taught us of the authority of scripture alone. Three times He said: "It is written...It is written...It is written." (Mt. 4:4,7,10)

If Jesus revered the written word as authortative, how can we do any different?

A.A. Hodge wrote this concerning Sola Scriptura:

"The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Having Been Given By Inspiration of God, Are the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies.

1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?
Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.

5. What is necessary to constitute a sole and infallible rule of faith?
Plenary inspiration, completeness, perspicuity or clarity, and accessibility.

6. What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?
1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.
2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.--Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.
3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.--Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.
4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.--Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

7. In what sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of faith asserted?
It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever made to man, but that their contents are the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions.

8. How may this completeness be proved, from the design of scripture?
The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is necessary to that end they must teach us. If any supplementary rule, as tradition, is necessary to that end, they must refer us to it.
"Incompleteness here would be falsehood." But while one sacred writer constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of them ever intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of any other rule.--John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:15-17.

9. By what other arguments may this principle be proved?
As the Scriptures profess to be a rule complete for its end, so they have always been practically found to be such by the true spiritual people of God in all ages. They teach a complete and harmonious system of doctrine. They furnish all necessary principles for the government of the private lives of Christians, in every relation, for the public worship of God, and for the administration of the affairs of his kingdom; and they repel all pretended -traditions and priestly innovations.

15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the judge as well as the rule in questions of faith?
"A rule is a standard of judgment; a judge is the expounder and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases." The Protestant doctrine is--
1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
2nd. (1.) negatively. That there is no body of men who are either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or apply their principles to the decision of particular questions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their fellow Christians.
(2.) Positively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in the church, and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with the gracious help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian (1 John 2:20-27), by each individual for himself; with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind only those who voluntarily profess them, and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach.


This is but a small portion of the discussion A.A. Hodge wrote, but I think it is sufficent to show our belief in Sola Scriptura. Of course I ask that you remember that I can't speak for all Baptists.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here is another good article:

Sola Scriptura and the Early Church By William Webster



The Reformation restored the principle of Sola Scriptura
The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the church the principle of Sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age. Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature, as being inspired by God, the ultimate authority for the church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God.

The Council of Trent denied the sufficiency of Scripture
The Council of Trent in the 16th century, on the other hand, declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient. This was the universal view of Roman Catholic theologians for centuries after the Council of Trent. (It is interesting to note, however, that in Roman Catholic circles today there is an ongoing debate among theologians on the nature of Tradition. There is no clear understanding of what Tradition is in Roman Catholicism today. Some agree with Trent and some do not). It must be noted that the view espoused by Trent is contradictory to and is a repudiation of the belief and practice of the church of the patristic age. The early church held to the principle of Sola Scriptura in that it believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.

The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists held to Sola Scriptura
From the very beginning of the post apostolic age with the writings of what are known as the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) there is an exclusive appeal to the Scriptures for the positive teaching of doctrine and for its defense against heresy. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.

Irenaeus and Tertullian held to Sola Scriptura
It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition that is handed down in the Church in oral form. The word ‘tradition’ simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures. Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches, and it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture. In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Church’s faith. His exact statement is as follows:
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."1




Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a tradition on issues of doctrine that is not found in Scripture. Rather, these men had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact:
For Tertullian Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content...For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought...If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is.2​
The Bible was the ultimate authority for the Church of the patristic age. It was materially sufficient, and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out:
The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.3​
Heiko Oberman comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the early church:
Scripture and tradition were for the early church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition.4





Cyril of Jerusalem held to Sola Scriptura
The fact that the Church of the patristic age was faithful to the principle of Sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid 4th century). He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures. This work is an extensive series of lectures given to new believers expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. It is a complete explanation of the faith of the church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. There is in fact not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture. He states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. This fact confirms that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. The following excerpts are some of his statements on the final authority of Scripture from these lectures.
This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.5 But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith...And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts.6​
Notice in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition and he exhorts them to hold to the traditions, which they are now receiving. From what source is this tradition derived? Obviously it is derived from the Scriptures, the teaching or tradition or revelation of God, which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the church, and which is now accessible in Scripture alone. It is significant that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to these new believers, did not make a single appeal to an oral tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.





Gregory of Nyssa held to Sola Scriptura
Gregory of Nyssa also enunciated this principle. He stated:
The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.7​
The Early Church operated on basis of Sola Scriptura
These quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of Sola Scriptura in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The early church operated on the basis of the principle of Sola Scriptura, and it was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the church. The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone. Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.​
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.​
Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.​
By the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the church fathers.7​
Continued...​
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Customs and Practices as Apostolic Oral Tradition.
It is true that the early church also held to the concept of tradition as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices. It was often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles, even though they could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. These practices, however, did not involve the doctrines of the faith, and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church. An example of this is found early on in the 2nd century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a different day from those in the West, but each claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the apostles. This actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do, firmly believing that they were adhering to apostolic Tradition. Which one is correct? There is no way to determine which, if either, was truly of apostolic origin. It is interesting; however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. There are other examples of this sort of claim in church history. Just because a certain church father claims that a particular practice is of apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily was. All it meant was that he believes that it was. But there was no way to verify if in fact it was a tradition from the Apostles. There are numerous practices in which the early church engaged which it believed were of apostolic origin which are listed by Basil the Great, but which no one practices today. Clearly therefore, such appeals to oral apostolic Tradition that refer to customs and practices are meaningless.

The Roman Catholic Church’s appeal to Tradition as an authority not valid
The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture, and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul’s statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle". Rome asserts that, based on Paul’s teaching in this passage, the teaching of Sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an assertion is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines to which Paul is referring which they claim they possess, and which they say are binding upon men. From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring. Sungenis edited a work recently on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura. His book is 627 pages in length. Not once in the entire book does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men! Yet we are told is that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound, therefore, to submit to this church which alone possesses the fullness of God’s revelation from the Apostles. What Sungenis and other Roman Catholic authors fail to define, is the contents and precise doctrines of the claimed "apostolic Tradition". The simple reason that they do not do so is because it does not exist. If such traditions existed and were of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures? We defy anyone to list the doctrines to which Paul is referring in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians. The only special revelation man possesses today from God that was committed to the Apostles is the written Scriptures. This was the belief and practice of the church of the patristic age. This principle was adhered to by the Reformers, which they sought to restore to the church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door of tradition. The teaching of a separate body of apostolic revelation known as tradition that is oral in nature originated not with the Christian church but rather with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the Gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the Apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and additionally, the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation. Just as the early church fathers repudiated that teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" John 10:27.
Endnotes
  1. Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 3.1.1, p. 414.
  2. Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953) pp. 184, 133, 144.
  3. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 42, 46.
  4. Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963), p. 366.
  5. A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), "The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril" Lecture 4.17.
  6. Ibid., Lecture 5.12.
  7. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Second Series: Volume V, Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, "On the Soul and the Resurrection", p. 439.
God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

MatthewDiscipleofGod

Senior Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
2,992
267
48
Minnesota
Visit site
✟28,302.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[bible]2 Thessalonians 2:15[/bible]

I know that Baptists believe in sola scriptura. Therefore I ask, how do you interpret this Bible verse? :confused:

Mark 7:1-13 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men --the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother'; and, "He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, "If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"--' (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."
 
  • Like
Reactions: edie19
Upvote 0

Ave Maria

Ave Maria Gratia Plena
May 31, 2004
41,126
2,010
43
Diocese of Evansville, IN
✟129,125.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Catholics make to no effect the word of God through their traditions, just like the pharisees!
Just one of the many reasons why I am looking into the Baptist Church.
 
Upvote 0

mlqurgw

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2005
5,828
540
70
kain tuck ee
✟8,844.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Paul is speaking as an inspired Apostle and is simply telling them to hold to his instruction. Paul certinly taught them more than we have written in his letters, as we can see from how he sometimes refers to what he has already taught. That by no means make the Scripture less than sufficient for us. Paul isn't saying that we need more than Scripture but just teling them to remember what he had taught them. I have no doubt that he never taught them anything that is contrary to what the Scriptures teach. Nor was the majority of his teaching in written form. We do have preserved for us, by the Lord, that which is essential to us.
 
Upvote 0

Matthan

Veteran
Aug 21, 2004
1,450
214
Upstate New York
✟2,689.00
Faith
Baptist
This poses an akward position or question - since that is true, why do , apparently, bptsts and lthrns(which i was raised), claiming sola scriptura, still keep some of the traditions of man (or worse?)
that are contrary to the apostles teaching and/or also to Moses (of whom Jesus said, if you believed Moses, you would believe Me) ?
With respect to Baptists, would you mind pointing up some of the traditions of men you are referring to? But please, stick to matters of salvation and eternal security. Please do not fall back on the old standbys of celebrating Christmas or Easter. We have already beat those to death and then buried them where they belong.

Matthan
 
Upvote 0

JPPT1974

August Back to School
Mar 18, 2004
290,864
11,557
50
Small Town, USA
✟609,127.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
With respect to Baptists, would you mind pointing up some of the traditions of men you are referring to? But please, stick to matters of salvation and eternal security. Please do not fall back on the old standbys of celebrating Christmas or Easter. We have already beat those to death and then buried them where they belong.

Matthan

We have beaten those to death
As we need to concentrate on
Eternal security and salvation
Of how we get to heaven and through
God only through faith and belief as well
As a relationship with Jesus Christ as
Savior & Lord.
 
Upvote 0

daveleau

In all you do, do it for Christ and w/ Him in mind
Apr 12, 2004
8,984
703
50
Bossier City, LA (removed from his native South C
✟30,474.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
[BIBLE]2 Thessalonians 2:15[/BIBLE]

I know that Baptists believe in sola scriptura. Therefore I ask, how do you interpret this Bible verse? :confused:


There were no written Gospel accounts, nor any circulating writings of Paul at the time of this writing (52AD). The tradition Paul speaks of is the teaching that was written down in Scripture by him, James, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Jude, etc. Until Scripture was put to paper, the only thing people had were the teaching of Jesus and His teachings through the Apostles. Paul also wrote, do not exceed what is written in 1 Cor. Do these contradict? No. Corinthians was written after several books of the Bible had been written and were circulating. The tradition at that time is not what tradition is today. Today, tradition routinely contradicts itself and makes grand claims well above the writings of Scripture. So, if 2 Thess 2:15 means tradition as we see it today, then how does one reconcile 1 Cor 4:6? The timeline of authorship reconciles this much better.

And, I would add that many Baptist don't believe in sola Scriptura. There are so many variations that really the only thing that can be said about Baptists in general is that we believe in the Gospel as described in 1 Cor 15. Aside from that, there are too many different theologies within Baptist theology to make blanket claims, unfortunately.

In Him,
Dave
 
Upvote 0

Andyman_1970

Trying to walk in His dust...............
Feb 2, 2004
4,069
209
55
The Natural State
Visit site
✟27,850.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Mark 7:1-13 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men --the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother'; and, "He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, "If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"--' (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

You realize that Jesus is specifically referring to specific "traditions of man" (the Oral Torah) and not some blanket statement about all traditions we hold?

We Baptist hold almost as many "traditions" to be authoritative as Catholics, ours just aren't as old and aren't all codified like the Catholics are.........just sit in some older saints pew some Sunday morning and you'll see what I mean...........;)
 
Upvote 0

Ian68

Member
Nov 15, 2006
12
4
✟22,652.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
[bible]2 Thessalonians 2:15[/bible]

I know that Baptists believe in sola scriptura. Therefore I ask, how do you interpret this Bible verse? :confused:

What Paul meant by "traditions which ye have been taught" is defined in the very next chapter, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-14. I've noticed that Catholic apologists will always quote 2:15, but never 3:6.

2Th 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 which he received of us.

He sets "tradition" in opposition to "brother that walketh disorderly". So "tradition" must mean "walking orderly". The next verses offer foundational support for this:

2Th 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
2Th 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
2Th 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
2Th 3:13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.

Good behavior, self-sufficiency...this is all he means by "traditions we have taught you". Nothing about church fathers or oral traditions, etc. And note the next verse:

2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

Just "epistle" this time, without "traditions which we have taught you". What happened to them? They're now in the epistle.

Sola scriptura. :)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.