Can traditions contradict God's completed Word?

The Mountain Retreat ^ | 1998 | Tony Warren

[GarySpFc]

Correction, radiocarbon dating of the Gospel of Judas fragments are between 220 and 340 AD.

[dangus]

Wow, that's just plain weak.

Consider this passage: "because our fathers have not harkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us."

First, nothing in the passage actually states what it is claimed to state. ~((~A->~B)->(A->B))!

Besides "This book" refers to the Covenant of Moses, to which Christians added 88 books.

Again, 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 states that scripture is sufficient, which is the Catholic view. It hardly states that any doctrine not in scripture is false.

The use of the passage about the tempting in the desert (Matthew 4:4-11) is downright incredible. By chopping the passage into bits, the article recasts the story as if citing scripture were superior than using tradition. But what it shows is that the devil and Jesus both cite scripture. Where Jesus defeats the devil rhetorically is his refusal to act pridefully, even though he alone is glorious. Likewise the passage from Matthew 21 merely show that Jesus cites scripture.

Not one of the passage actually states that a doctrine not found in scripture is inherently incorrect.

Of course, the interesting thing about all this, is that the entire argument is based on a straw man against the Catholic Church, because while the Church recognizes the fact that sola scriptura is a self-contradicting argument, the Catholic church bases all but two doctrines solely on deduction from scripture. The church never concedes to the false accusations that it's doctrines are non-scriptural, but merely rejects the assertion that what it binds on Earth is not bound in Heaven, and what it looses on Earth is not loosed in Heaven. (Two doctrines are discerned through induction.)

Now, let's look at the passage from Augustine. Is he really establishing sola scriptura? If I argue strictly from the evidence presented in this article, what Augustine says is this:

"This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves."

What Augustine is proposing is not sola scriptura! Augustine presents scripture, herein, not as the sole source of truth, but that which should be defered to in all matters which are unknowable. (I believe, if I recall this passage correctly correctly, he is discussing creationism. H is argument is, essentially, that, lacking any other means to discern creation, we must default to what scripture says.)

I'll stick to this main point, and ignore the ad-straw-hominem of the passage entitled, "Can traditions contradict God's completed Word?"

[AMHN]

"Wrong! The Gospel of Thomas Greek manuscript fragments have been dated to 200AD and the Coptic version to 340AD. The Gospel of Judas has been dated 130 to 170AD. These are much later than the original New Testament books."

Paul was battling the writings and teachings of the Gnostics long before the manuscripts you speak of. But your point is a fine line between what was taught and when the manuscripts were composed.

But that is a good point to consider...does the fact that St John did not write Revelation or the Gospel of John until around 95AD invalidate all that was being taught by word and tradition since 33AD?

Even the Gospel of Matthew wasn't written until after 50AD. Again, to the early Christians, it was not the books but the teaching, the Holy Spirit alive and working in the Apostles, and the traditions being handed down by word of mouth.

[DouglasKC]

The truth is in God's Word, not in the words of Pontiff J., or Pastor Brown, or Church tradition 88, or Tony Warren. The Truth is in God's Word. And if we don't read it in God's Word, then it's not God's Word. In determining which word has the authority, let God be true, and every man a Liar.

It would be great if Christianity really took this heart. But don't get me started about the 4th commandment or God's Holy days.

[Salvation]

SOLA SCRIPTURA

Jn 21:25 ... not everything is in the Bible.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 ... Paul speaks of oral tradition. Acts 2:42 ... early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 ... Bible hard to understand, get distorted.
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 ... more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 ... against personal interpretation.
Acts 8:30-31 ... guidance needed to interpret scriptures.
Heb 5:12 ... need to be taught.

[Salvation]

John 21:25

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

[GarySpFc]

Paul was battling the writings and teachings of the Gnostics long before the manuscripts you speak of. But your point is a fine line between what was taught and when the manuscripts were composed.

Both John and Paul were fighting the gnostics.

But that is a good point to consider...does the fact that St John did not write Revelation or the Gospel of John until around 95AD invalidate all that was being taught by word and tradition since 33AD?

Who said anyone was teaching what John wrote in Revelation prior to when he penned it?
,br> Even the Gospel of Matthew wasn't written until after 50AD. Again, to the early Christians, it was not the books but the teaching, the Holy Spirit alive and working in the Apostles, and the traditions being handed down by word of mouth.

Most scholars accept that Mark was written long before Matthew. A tiny fragment of Mark was discovered in cave 7 at Quram, and has been dated to 41 AD, which is much earlier than anything we have for the other Gospels. Luke was the second Gosepl, then Matthew, and much latter John. I think it is very wrong to place authority in tradition.

[Conservative til I die]

I think what he's saying is that the canon of Scripture is written in code, i.e. unintelligible in and of itself.

I think what needs to be said is that Scripture leaves itself open to interpretation which can vary widely among fallible men.

[conservatative strategery]

Pretty much sums it up!!

[ladyinred]

Oh my.....!

[Diego1618]

By the way, St Polycarp also speaks of other matters that Christ confirms that might be of similar interest to someone really seeking Truth (and not just trying to justify themselves with many words).

Polycrates This was written about 185/195 A.D. and shows that Polycarp celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth of the month as taught to him by the Apostles. He was a disciple of John, but also knew Phillip and his daughters. These all celebrated Passover as Our Savior and Lord did....on the fourteenth of the month. They did not celebrate "Easter".

Do you......as Polycarp did, celebrate the Passover on the fourteenth? He was of course martyred later for maintaining similar observances.

[AMHN]

"I think it is very wrong to place authority in tradition."

But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." 2 Thess 3:6

Disorderly - Not in unity

received from "us" - not referring to the OT

If I must choose between a modern interpretation, that suits my desires, and an interpretation blessed by the Lord during St John's Revelation, specifically, that of the messenger of the Church of Smyrna (St Polycarp) I would have to choose the Lord's blessing.

For many have asked "What is truth", and today we have 25,000 different interpretations, many contradictions, all Sola Scriptura (implying that all are lead by the Holy Spirit).

But only one tie breakers..."I am Truth" from which there is no lie. If He put His stamp of approval on the 2nd Generation of Disciples (very similar to the needed visible tongues of fire placed on the heads of the 1st Generation) then like it or not I believe Christ. Not just lip service or by what is convienent but by deed.

Christ brings order not another tower of babel.

[AMHN]

I would suggest spending more than a couple of minutes learning about St Polycarp.

There are many commentaries on St Polycarp and not all Orthodox or RC. But like a gold coin you must dig deeper than an inch to uncover the real treasure.

[Uri’el-2012]

ut we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." 2 Thess 3:6

Disorderly - Not in unity

received from "us" - not referring to the OT

I believe Paul is warning against idleness or laziness !

b'shem Yahu'shua

[Corin Stormhands]

I'm a bit behind in my posts. Please ping me if there's an opportunity to be snarky.

[P-Marlowe]

Please ping me if there's an opportunity to be snarky.

There was, but you missed it.

[Corin Stormhands]

Rats.

[kerryusama04]

The faithful would no longer forsake the laws of God's book in favor of tradition, and would return to the Biblical precepts of not leaning unto their own understanding or that of their Church leaders, but upon the Scriptures alone (Sola Scriptura) as their ultimate authority.

They forgot one:

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Actually, calling it 'Sola Scriptura' might be contrued as a bit of a misnomer, because it is not a doctrine which teaches that we believe that there are not other authorities, nor that they have no value or place. Rather, it means that all other authorities must be subordinate to the Word of God.

Couldn't agree more. We are warned of false prophets, thus there will probably continue to be true prophets. How do you tell the difference?

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

[freedumb2003]

I sense another "Bondage of the Will" thread here... ;)

[kerryusama04]

Comparing these traditions with God's Word, sadly we also understand that this practice of unrighteousness continues today. You simply cannot have tradition and scripture contradicting each other, while claiming both are the infallible teachings of God. It is blatant confusion. Any oral traditions passed down in the church is subject to the written Word of God, as it has always been. As it was for the Scribes and Pharisees. To deny this is tortuous of scripture and of authority.

Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: