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

[Albion]

They are in the Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers.

But you cannot name a single one?

By the way, they cannot be what the ECFs might have theorized since they came after Paul.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Tell me which ones you have in mind?

I can't really, without breaking the forum rules. You can use google to link into churches of your own choice, view their traditions, and compare them with New Testament Scripture and make your own judgement. If I gave a catalogue of what I think they are, I would be reported by members of those churches without hesitation. So, I won't be rising to the bait!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Like...Be sure to use only the best wine in Holy Communion or Don't fail to wear clean clothes when preaching because you are representing the Lord on those occasions (?)

I don't think those examples would make any difference to one's salvation.

 

[GingerBeer]

I can't really, without breaking the forum rules. You can use google to link into churches of your own choice, view their traditions, and compare them with New Testament Scripture and make your own judgement. If I gave a catalogue of what I think they are, I would be reported by members of those churches without hesitation. So, I won't be rising to the bait!

What you say isn't true. It is okay to point to traditions that break scripture - which was your claim - and even if you want to stay away from listing denominations who teach those traditions you would not be breaking any rule. For example I can say it is an Adventist tradition to calculate the year for the return of Christ using numbers contained in Daniel and revelation and that tradition has uniformly failed to calculate the correct date for the return of Christ. It is in fact a bad tradition that damages the credibility of scripture and Christians. There are plenty of stories of people - true stories I say - of people dressing in white ascension gowns on the evening of the supposed day and waiting for the return to happen only to be disappointed. Millerites were said to have done that, Jehovah's witnesses in 1914 were said to have many doing that sort of thing, and there are without doubt others who have done it too.

Now, on the matter of traditions that overthrow scripture for the sake of the teachings of men I'd point to substituting red juice for wine in communion, sola scriptura as a fundamental rule of faith, and believing in "the church invisible" as an excuse for one's own church being a recent invention or recent split away from some other denomination.

 

[Albion]

I don't think those examples would make any difference to one's salvation.

Nor do I. And that is the point.

Did Paul warn his people that they would be in danger of losing salvation if they departed from these unspecified "traditions?"

No, he just said to keep them.

And none of us reading the Bible even knows what those traditions were.

Despite that, there are Christians who think the institutional church can invent doctrines, point to this verse, and say that it is justified in imposing those doctrines upon Christ's people.

 

[Mathetes66]

"Did Paul warn his people that they would be in danger of losing salvation if they departed from these unspecified "traditions?" No, he just said to keep them. And none of us reading the Bible even knows what those traditions were."

On the contrary, these are NOT UNSPECIFIED traditions. All of us reading the Bible CAN KNOW what they are, if we read the whole context!

See my post on page 13 for a detailed analysis of the context of 2 Thess 2:15 and also my two posts prior on page 12.

 

[Albion]

On the contrary, these are NOT UNSPECIFIED traditions. All of us reading the Bible CAN KNOW what they are, if we read the whole context!

See my post on page 13 for a detailed analysis of the context of 2 Thess 2:15 and also my two posts prior on page 12.

Well, that was a fizzle. I thought for a moment that I might have breezed by an important post, but all you have there is 1) an admission that my point is correct...

Excellent question, Albion. We are NOT told by the traditionalists specifically what traditions we are to obey & follow, to which Paul is SPECIFICALLY referring.

followed by 2) your own theory. We all can do that, can't we? And yet we have church bodies actually making up new doctrines on such speculation by their bishops or saints...and then insisting that this process is the equal of the word of God in Scripture.

 

[Mathetes66]

I am not making up any new doctrines just reading the whole context of Scripture & making it plain as to meaning. If you think that is a 'fizzle' then thanks for sharing your opinion. We all have them. But no one has refuted what I have written from what the Scripture actually says in context, as I have done. So much for a fizzled refutation, using several logical fallacies in your statement.

Logical fallacies are like landmines; easy to overlook until you find them the hard way.

"Well, that was a fizzle. I thought for a moment that I might have breezed by an important post, but all you have there is 1) an admission that my point is correct..."

You said my post was a fizzle & simply discarded it as unimportant without ever addressing what I actually said & logically showed how I am in error & why it is an 'unimportant' post. Acts 17:11 should apply but wasn't.

Second, it is a very important post because it challenges those traditionalists (EO, Anglican, Catholic, etc.) which say we cannot know what in the world Paul is talking about or that those traditions apply to something totally foreign to the text of Scripture or some that the ECF's decided that these traditions were much later in time.

It fits in well with Scripture being the truth that we are to be sanctified in & follow.

Your statement above on point #1 is committing the logical fallacies of 'ad hominem', 'strawman argument', 'appeal to ignorance', 'equivocation', 'appeal to authority' to name just a few.

Ad hominem is an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion.

In the strawman argument, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended upon defending anyway.

The strawman argument is a cheap and easy way to make one’s position look stronger than it is. Using this fallacy, opposing views are characterized as “non-starters,” lifeless, truthless, and wholly unreliable. By comparison, one’s own position will look better for it. You can imagine how strawman arguments and ad hominem fallacies can occur together, demonizing opponents and discrediting their views.

This fallacy can be unethical if it’s done on purpose, deliberately mischaracterizing the opponent’s position for the sake of deceiving others.

You have said that I AGREE with your point that we cannot know what those traditions are when in REALITY I said just the opposite, as anyone reading my post can plainly see. You are an intelligent man & I am surprised you would say this.

You also make the logical fallacy of 'an appeal to ignorance.' An appeal to ignorance isn’t proof of anything except that you don’t know something.

You state:

"None of us reading the Bible even knows what those traditions were."

You appeal to ignorance--that none of US reading the Bible knows what those traditions are.

I am saying just the opposite, going step by step through the context showing what those traditions Paul is referring to, which he had already taught them, first by word of mouth, then by two epistles, repeating the same things and reminding them of them SPECIFICALLY.

And in stating that 'none of US' reading the Bible can know what they are. You AGAIN commit another logical fallacy of 'appealing to authority.' This fallacy happens when we misuse an authority. This misuse of authority can occur in a number of ways.

Here you make yourself the authority and speak for the rest of us, as if your authority to say that NONE OF US knows what they are, IS TRUE & because you said so. You cannot speak for the rest of us, only yourself. This is what you believe; I believe differently, based on examining the Scriptures, in context & showing step by step how I arrived at my conclusion. You have refuted none of these.

Again you surprise me that in a few fallacious sentences you dismiss as unimportant & a fizzle what I wrote in opposition to your fallacious arguments.

You yet again commit another logical fallacy, 'equivocation.' Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying one thing but actually saying something else. Equivocation comes from the roots “equal” and “voice” and refers to two-voices; a single word can “say” two different things. Another word for this is ambiguity.

You state I am saying the same thing as you when in reality I am saying just the opposite. You try & make what I have said the same as what you are saying & that is simply not true at all, for anyone honestly examining wehat you wrote & what I wrote. I showed in some detail that we can indeed know what these traditions are because it is plainly shown in the very context of the Scripture, in both epistles to the Thessalonians & in Paul's ministry to them in Acts 17.

You might want to apply Acts 17:11 to the Scripture that I went through & show me where I have errored.

"Followed by 2) your own theory. We all can do that, can't we? And yet we have church bodies actually making up new doctrines on such speculation by their bishops or saints...and then insisting that this process is the equal of the word of God in Scripture."

Here again you make logical fallacies in your statement & again use ad hominems that mine is just a theory & that it is simply speculation. You then lump me in with those making new speculative doctrines.

And then you state: 'then INSIST that this process is equal to the word of God in Scripture.'

There you are bearing false witness. I never INSISTED that what I stated IN EXAMINING THE SCRIPTURES (as in Acts 17:11) was equal to the word of God in Scripture.

What I did was simply through prayer & study of the Scriptures, examining what Paul stated concerning what those traditions were, to show in my understanding what those traditions were. The Thessalonican believers KNEW what they were. It was no mystery to them. Paul taught them first by word, then repeating them in both epistles.

These believers not only knew them, but were reminded of them in both epistles AND were to 'continue to hold them', the ones that Paul taught them by word & then repeated in his epistles to them--in opposition of false teachers who counterfeited what Paul taught & wrote about them, writing false epistles.

And again, these traditions were not something passed down to Paul from others, but were given by direct revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, which again I have earlier posts outlining this as well.

This is what Jesus taught. This is what Paul taught. This is what the other apostles taught.

One of those traditions, as I mentioned that was shown in the text, was the resurrection of Christ & the dead.

I Cor 15:1-3 Now I would REMIND you, brothers, of the gospel I PREACHED to you, which you RECEIVED, in which you STAND & by which you are being saved, if you HOLD FAST TO THE WORD I PREACHED TO YOU—unless you believed in vain. 3For I DELIVERED TO YOU AS OF FIRST IMPORTANCE WHAT I ALSO RECEIVED: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that He WAS RAISED ON THE THIRD DAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCRIPTURES.

This gospel message Paul received directly from the Lord. He is stating almost the exact same words he used with the Thessalonica believers, but here he is also teaching the same thing to the Corinthian believers! This whole chapter is on the gospel & the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the believers!

This IS the most important tradition all of Christianity has: the gospel message of the death, burial & resurrection of Christ and that we believers will be resurrected by Christ and be with Him.

Again as I have repeatedly said, Paul taught these same things, these same traditions, which were written as Scripture, in every church everywhere that he went. This is the revelation given to Paul by Christ Himself & was called to share everywhere he went. Woe to him if he didn't preach it.

Acts 4:1,2,18-20 And as they were speaking to the people, the priests & the captain of the temple & the Sadducees came upon them, greatly annoyed because they were TEACHING the people & PROCLAIMING in Jesus THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD.

So they called them & charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter & John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak OF WHAT WE HAVE SEEN & HEARD.”

Again the other apostles were teaching & proclaiming the same thing Paul was! They were charged by God & the Lord to speak of what they had seen & heard.

The Lord gave the same message concerning the apostle Paul & his preaching the gospel:

Acts 22:14,15 The God of our fathers appointed you to know His will, to see the Righteous One & to hear a voice from His mouth; for you will be a WITNESS FOR HIM TO EVERYONE OF WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN AND HEARD.

If you would like to examine the Scriptures & show where I have errored, please do so but if you continue with logical fallacies without dealing with the Scriptures I have shown, then we will have no more discussion on these things. Hopefully you can eagerly examine the Scripture itself to show me whether these things are so or not. Thank you.

 

[Albion]

I am not making up any new doctrines just reading the whole context of Scripture & making it plain as to meaning.

No, no. There are two different thoughts there.

One, that your explanation is simply your conjecture; it is not evident from the Scripture. And then the other one--that the churches have simply made up doctrines and called them "tradition," then making it worse by claiming that that particular verse authorizes them to do such a thing.

If you think that is a 'fizzle' then thanks for sharing your opinion.

I apologize if that word seemed snippy. Probably 'disappointing' would have been a better choice.

I actually thought that I'd overlooked your earlier post and it was going to give me the answers. But when I checked, it turned out to be speculation.

It fits in well with Scripture being the truth that we are to be sanctified in & follow.

Okay. That's what speculation is. It's logical but not necessarily the answer.

 

[Mathetes66]

Mathetes66 said: ↑
I am not making up any new doctrines just reading the whole context of Scripture & making it plain as to meaning.

"No, no. There are two different thoughts there. One, that your explanation is simply your conjecture; it is not evident from the Scripture."

This first one is again your opinion, based on your thinking that it is not evident from Scripture. You need to own your opinion, that that is what YOU BELIEVE. Yet you haven't shown one shred of evidence that it is not evident from Scripture! You are not addressing what I have written in some detail.

I am not the only one who makes this so called 'conjecture.' Again your use of this word, as your former word of fizzled is vague. Thanks for seeing that on the use of fizzled. Now you own it, not pointing at me in 'ad hominem' but saying you were disappointed. That is accurate & truthful. Thank you.

Definition of conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence. b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork.

I have not done any of this in my posts. I have given much information, I have given textual proofs with sufficient evidence. I have not simply surmised, like you are doing (without examining or mentioning even one thing I have said concerning the Scriptures on this topic) or making some guesswork. (like trying to guess how many marbles are in a large container)

There are a number of others who have EXAMINED the actual Scripture IN DETAIL & IN CONTEXT & IN CORRELATION with other Scriptures and have arrived at the same conclusion.

Tradition in the New Testament and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 | CARM.org

Ellicott's Commentary:

What were these “traditions” which it was so essential to keep? The CONTEXT SHOWS that the particular traditions which were most consciously in St. Paul’s mind at the moment, were his eschatological teachings, given to them while he was among them—the lore of which he has been briefly reminding them in this chapter (2Thess 2:5-6): for the exhortation is practically a resumption of that given in 2Thess 2:2-3.

Benson Commentary:

"In your adherence to the truth and possession of the grace of the gospel; & hold — Without adding to or diminishing from them; the traditions which ye have been taught — The instructions which have been delivered to you; whether by word — When we were present with you; or our former epistle —

He preached to them before he wrote & he had written concerning the things which he wished them to hold fast in his former epistle. The name traditions is here given by the apostle “to the doctrines & precepts of the gospel, on a double account; FIRST, because they were delivered BY Christ & BY the Spirit to the apostles, merely on the authority of REVELATION.

And secondly, because the apostles delivered them to the world on the same authority, without attempting to prove them by any other argument. And this precept, hold the traditions, applies to no instructions or directions but those which the apostles & other inspired teachers delivered to the world as revelations from God.

And though the inspired teachers, to whom these doctrines were revealed, communicated them to the world first of all by word of mouth, they cannot now be known to be theirs, but by their holding a place in those writings which are allowed to be the genuine productions of these inspired teachers."

Jamieson, Faussett & Brown Bible Commentary:

"Stand fast—so as not to be "shaken or troubled" (2Th 2:2).

hold—so as not to let go. Adding nothing, subtracting nothing [Bengel]. The Thessalonians had not held fast his oral instructions but had suffered themselves to be imposed upon by pretended spirit-revelations, and words and letters pretending to be from Paul (2Th 2:2), to the effect that "the day of the Lord was instantly imminent."

Bengel's Gnomen:

"2 Thess 2:15. Ἄρα οὖν, therefore then) The conclusion.—κρατεῖτε, hold) adding nothing, subtracting nothing.—τὰς παραδόσεις, the traditions) I wish that those who are most urgent on the subject of Traditions, had also from this passage held & would hold, the traditions WHICH PAUL HAS FURNISHED IN THIS CHAPTER."

I could give multitudes of examples of respected Bible scholars & theologians who have come to the same conclusions I have: based on studying the Scripture & the context & the corroborating verses. But these are sufficient to show I am not the only one who supposedly is making conjecture or simply speculating.

You haven't even examined one point I made from the contextual Scripture, just trying to brush me off as simply offering conjecture or mere speculation.

Definition of speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence; the act of formulating an opinion or theory without fully researching or investigating.

Again, that is not what I am doing. I have given abundant evidence, after researching it & investigating it in the Scriptures, the actual context that traditions is found. You have provided none or sought to 'investigate & research' the Scriptures to see if these things are so.

"And then the other one--that the churches have simply made up doctrines & called them "tradition," then making it worse by claiming that that particular verse authorizes them to do such a thing."

You are saying this. I didn't say that. You are trying to make it look like I said that. I didn't. Again look back and quote me if I did.

Second, you believe we don't know what Paul is talking about in 2 Thess 2:15. Others such as the Catholic church say they do know what Paul meant there & actually give various Catholic taught traditions & say these are that which Paul is referring.

And on another note, there are MANY church traditions that were made up doctrines of men contrary to Scripture, just like the Jews did.

The selling of indulgences was one that triggered the whole Protestant reformation.

An Indulgence, in Roman Catholic theology, is the full or partial remission of punishment for sins. The indulgence is granted by the Church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution and involves certain actions by the recipient, most often the recitation of prayers. Indulgences may also be obtained on behalf of a deceased loved one.

Prior to the modern period, indulgences could be obtained by offering a certain amount of money as alms to the Church & in some cases were offered for forgiveness for sins not yet committed. This "selling" of indulgences was first practiced in the late 13th century & was changed after the Protestant Reformation, which was sparked in 1517 by Martin Luther's objections.

It took UNTIL 1567, following the Council of Trent, before Pope Pius V outlawed financial giving in relation to indulgences.

Absolution certificates used by the Eastern Orthodox Church, first seen in Jerusalem in the 16th century, ceased entirely by the beginning of the 20th century.

The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sins, not paying money to the church to seek forgiveness of sins & less punishment, which again Christ took away. 'There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus' and 'we are saved from the wrath of God.'

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by His blood, shall
we be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

This is but ONE example of many concerning NT churches. There are many just as Jesus pointed out MANY traditions the Jews did that were the commandments & traditions of men & some of them either were contrary to Scripture & nullified it or placed burdens on others not specified in Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Mathetes66 said: ↑
I am not making up any new doctrines just reading the whole context of Scripture & making it plain as to meaning.

Yes, I get that that was your slant on the subject. That's fine. You're entitled.

 

[Mathetes66]

"Yes, I get that that was your slant on the subject. That's fine. You're entitled."

You are very welcome. And MANY others have that same 'slant', which I briefly showed some of them.

 

[Athanasius377]

Those arguing the case of a symbolic only eucharist would swear blind that the the verses means other things , and therefore our tradtion "goes beyond scripture" and therefore breaches sola scriptura.

Which proves that the ideas that "tradition is OK, provided it does not go beyond scripture" is a subjective (and depends on a priori assumption on what scripture means)

Just because someone misreads the text doesn't make the text wrong. That would be like someone who reads IKEA instructions upside down and mangles a cabinet then blaming the instructions.

You say "At no point does this power allow for any of the Disciples to go beyond what the Master has laid down"
which whilst we agree, and is true it has the same logical flaw. It rather depends on what people apriori believe was laid down, as to whether they consider any went beyond it.

It demonstrates sola scriptura is a #fail because scripture needs another source of truth to resolve the conflicts.

The question that actually separates us is where is authority? And as you know our answer lies in the power to bind and loose, which gives power to councils and the church both to pronounce on doctrinal disputes, and also pass down the faith with veracity, we call sacred tradition.

Actually we know what was laid down by the master because of the allusion of Isaiah 22:20 and the greater context of the original post. Mark 7:1-13 is a perfect illustration of what going beyond scripture looks like. Having a view of Scripture that differs from that of Jesus (The Master) is a dangerous view. We agree that the church has the authority to settle disputes with scripture being the highest only infallible source of doctrine not apart from it. Other decisions that councils make such as administrative changes that scripture is silent on can be said to be for the οἰκονομία or economy of the church.


Which brings me to your next point about "another source of truth". I have asked before and will do so again. Where can I find this Tradition you speak of? The Jews have he Mishnah and even have a commentary in the Talmud. The Jews managed to put all of their traditions to paper all while in exile and under persecution. By now (almost 2000 years) I would expect from Rome 15 editions of Tradition complete with a critical apparatus! All of your writing about this tradition sounds splendid until we try and figure out what constitutes Tradition what does not.

We believe the verse "those sins you would forgive/ retain " underpins sacramental confession. I have yet to see other credible explanation for that verse (certainly the retain), others are happy to say what it doesnt mean, never what it does mean, in any way that stands even basic logical testing.

We actually agree here. While we disagree that it is a Sacrament your reading is the plain meaning of the text. In Confessional Lutheran Churches auricular confession is still practiced to this day (no pun intended).

On the surface it sounds like we agree and in these areas as described we largely do. However you and I both know there are Roman Catholic distinctives that go far beyond the pale of scripture such as the Treasury of Merit, Indulgences and so forth. And when tradition has to be used to shoe horn these doctrines into the Faith that's not putting tradition on equal footing with scripture that putting Tradition above scripture.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Nor do I. And that is the point.

Did Paul warn his people that they would be in danger of losing salvation if they departed from these unspecified "traditions?"

No, he just said to keep them.

And none of us reading the Bible even knows what those traditions were.

Despite that, there are Christians who think the institutional church can invent doctrines, point to this verse, and say that it is justified in imposing those doctrines upon Christ's people.

Which traditions of the Catholic Church are taught as being mandatory for salvation that you disagree with? From what I’ve seen it’s the traditions that are not taught as being necessary for salvation that most non Catholics refute. Prayers to the Saints, Mary’s perpetual virginity, Mary mother of God, infant baptism, etc.

 

[Albion]

Which traditions of the Catholic Church are taught as being mandatory for salvation that you disagree with?

Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy, Transubstantiation, etc.

From what I’ve seen it’s the traditions that are not taught as being necessary for salvation that most non Catholics refute. Prayers to the Saints, Mary’s perpetual virginity, Mary mother of God, infant baptism, etc.

Maybe so, but that's them, not all "non-Catholics."

Still, if there is no Scriptural warrant for teaching some beliefs, they should not be taught, even if salvation is not said to be dependent upon them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy, Transubstantiation, etc.


Maybe so, but that's them, not all "non-Catholics."

Still, if there is no Scriptural warrant for teaching some beliefs, they should not be taught, even if salvation is not said to be dependent upon them.

None of those are taught as being necessary for salvation.

 

[Albion]

None of those are taught as being necessary for salvation.

I am afraid you are mistaken. To be sure, the church offers an asterisk saying that of course only God knows and, also, that unbelievers MAY, we hope, have a chance at salvation despite everything. However, when it declares disbelief in some of these doctrines to be a matter of heresy, it is also saying that heretics are not in the state of grace which is essential for salvation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am afraid you are mistaken. To be sure, the church offers an asterisk saying that of course only God knows and, also, that unbelievers MAY, we hope, have a chance at salvation despite everything. However, when it declares disbelief in some of these doctrines to be a matter of heresy, it is also saying that heretics are not in the state of grace which is essential for salvation.

Where did you get this information? This is not true at all because the Catholic Church does not teach that a person must accept all doctrines of the church to be saved.

 

[Albion]

Where did you get this information? This is not true at all because the Catholic Church does not teach that a person must accept all doctrines of the church to be saved.

Now wait a minute. I specifically addressed that point in order for you not to take that mistaken position.

 

[Albion]

Where did you get this information? This is not true at all because the Catholic Church does not teach that a person must accept all doctrines of the church to be saved.

From New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia--

The guiding principles in the Church's treatment of heretics are the following: Distinguishing between formal and material heretics, she applies to the former the canon, "Most firmly hold and in no way doubt that every heretic or schismatic is to have part with the Devil and his angels in the flames of eternal fire, unless before the end of his life he be incorporated with, and restored to the Catholic Church."