Scripture & Tradition of God Vs Tradition of Men Over Scripture

Truth On The Web Ministries ^ | Kenneth Hoeck

[boatbums]

The Catholic church and the various Protestant churches attempt to lure each other into a strange circular argument regarding the doctrinal debate over "Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura" (the bible alone). The Catholic faction gets Protestants arguing against all traditions rather than just the inventions of men; and more specifically, the inventions of the Catholic Church. The argument is really against traditions of men that are not supported by the written word of God.  The Catholics will not regard scripture because they are pushing so hard on the point of traditions that they attempt to prove traditions by traditions, or extrabiblical writings, rather than with scripture. The Protestants won't consider the oral transmission of God's word because they push the written text only. The circle is a dizzying spiral that leads to nowhere fast. Who do you believe?   We should always believe God's own testimony.   Why? because He is infallible and True. [Numbers 23:19 ] "God is not a man, that he should lie...."   [Heb 6:18] "... it was impossible for God to lie..."   The apostle Peter had learned this and his words recorded in the book of Acts 5:29 "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."

The Bible and tradition both teach that our convictions are not to be based upon human wisdom but upon the power of God and His spirit which He gives to those who obey Him! The problem is not that human (carnal) wisdom is always wrong but that human wisdom is clearly fallible and is not a sufficient foundation for believing anything about God. Hence our doctrinal convictions should not be based upon human wisdom. The apostle Paul warned against such and we see that he knew this because of the written word..

[BlueDragon]

The argument is really against traditions of men that are not supported by the written word of God.

Bingo.

When ALSO not found among early church transmissions of faith teaching, and when going against aspects of Scripture and theological considerations of long standing (monotheism ---anyone?) resembling paganistic types of imaginings of 'how the heavens go' rather than focusing upon "hear Oh Israel, our God is One"

...smuggling in "saints" and "Mary" through side-doors that swing both ways (from out of Purgatory, too?) into Heaven ---and from there back out to earth again when they will it to be--- if they are asked nice enough, and enough times over(?) as in the rote & repetitive rosary prayers, directed in focus not chiefly most ---to the Lord God Almighty, but to;

... Mary who sits The Queen of Heaven, functioning as governess of the Holy Spirit even --- according to some of the more breathless descriptions of the imagined, still on-going and allegedly absolutely necessary continuing, now from Heaven role she now serves in ---

---- singular papacy for bishop of Rome -- which none among the early Church saw as how the Lord had instituted governance among the Church, and is in fact contrary to how things are portrayed in Scripture to have been arranged more horizontally in gifts of the spirit ---of administration.

On, and on for a ways like that it goes, in the "tradition[s] of men not supported by the written word of God" -- where it'll stop, nobody knows?

God knows, and He's not "nobody" so I guess I answered that last question, any-hows.

[ealgeone]

One would never know that from your posts, LL

[Mark17]

+1

🙃😊😁😆

[HarleyD]

Just a point of clarification: Protestants accept creeds and confessions where they help clarify doctrinal truths described in scripture. Thus we accept things such as the Nicene Creed, the Apostle Creed, or the Westminster Confession of Faith (London Baptist Confession if your a Baptist). Normally these creeds and confessions are rock solid doctrinal understanding passed down through the ages to fight against heretical doctrine. Sadly, few Protestants understand the remarkable work put together by our forefathers in understanding scriptural truths through the creeds and confessions. A good confession will have its basis in clear understanding of scriptural truths.

What Protestants reject are new truths which are contrary to sound teaching already established. Thus if the scriptures state, “All have sinned...”, then we cannot teach that certain people were sinless. Not only does it go against the creeds and confessions established, but it also goes against scripture. A well founded creed will be based on rock solid scripture.

[Salvation]

**What does “the oral transmission of God’s word” mean?**

This is what Holy Tradition is all about.

There were no books or Bibles at that time and people had a great talent for memorizing.

Thus, we have the end of John’s Gospel, where he states that not everything said by Jesus can be written down — consider the lack of Papyrus to make scrolls, for example.

[ravenwolf]

I believe many people or maybe most people are indoctrinated in religion before they read much of scripture so any scripture can be twisted around and they can still claim to believe in sola scripture.

I believe in the written word only.

[boatbums]

What does “the oral transmission of God’s word” mean? You say this: “there was a long time where oral transmission of God’s word was there but eventually it was written down”. I am not sure how that relates to this topic.

When we talk about the New Testament Scripture, for example, we know that there was at least a decade or two between when Jesus ascended up to heaven and the first "gospel" books were written down. The teachings that Jesus relayed while He was here were passed down verbally/orally through believers to those who wanted to know what Jesus said. Gradually, the entire New Testament was completed with the writings of the Apostles and their disciples who wrote as they were led along by the Holy Spirit.

The same thing happened in the time before Christ. The history of creation, the establishment of the Jewish nation through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - all was passed along by oral tradition (tradition is "teachings") until the time Moses was tasked with writing it down in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT). There were writings from the prophets of the Lord as He directed them, as well.

Catholicism, as well as some others, teach that there was much revealed truth that was passed down orally that never did get written down. They call this "Sacred Tradition". The problem is that they don't really have any proof that what they say was orally passed down from the Apostles ever actually came FROM an Apostle. I hold to the contention that the Holy Spirit ensured that everything we needed to know for our salvation, our walk in the faith, our responsibilities towards God and each other, and His plans for our world WAS written down in Sacred Scripture. Because it is the Divinely-inspired word of God, it stands as THE authority over anything man has devised. The church is not an authority over Scripture but is its servant expected to be obedient to what God tells us.

[ifinnegan]

Excellently written and presented.

Thank you.

[boatbums]

Cute that this author writes off the most crucial era of Christian history with the dismissive term "extrabiblical writings"....as if that nullified what they had to say. Let's state plainly what exactly these "writings" are. They refer to the earliest generations of Christians after the Apostles, some of whom actually knew the Apostles personally. Clement, appointed by St. Peter. Polycarp, who sat at the feet of St. John. They are the only historical record we have of a newly formed Christian Church and its defining controversies, interests, and practices. They are the writings closest in place, time, and culture to the New Testament and show us how the New Testament was interpreted and lived out while it was written, and for several centuries afterward. They are *irreplaceable* historically, doctrinally, and theologically. But of course we know the answer as to why they are ignored, don't we? They are ignored because they prove quite clearly that the early Church was not Protestant.

No, I don't think you DO know the answer. They aren't "ignored" just seen in their proper light. If even the Apostle Peter erred in his teaching and behavior with the problems it caused requiring Paul's Holy Spirit filled correction, then proximity or acquaintance with the Apostles is no SURE guarantee that everything they spoke was the God's honest truth. And if you go back and read the writings of the early church fathers, you will notice that many disagreed with each other on many things, they were not Divinely-inspired to write down the truths God revealed to them - else we would have more books in the canon, many went on to preach heresy and were rejected, and last but not least, the doctrines that were brought forth by the Reformers WERE Biblical and they can be traced back to show their acceptance from the start because, after all, they were based on Scripture.

What you will find quite clearly is that the early Church was not Roman Catholic - at least not what goes by that name today.

[ebb tide]

What you will find quite clearly is that the early Church was not Roman Catholic - at least not what goes by that name today.

Then what "church" was it? And where is it today?

[boatbums]

Is it your contention then that we can know nothing about the truth from studying the Bible?

How did the early Christian leaders defend the tenets of the rule of faith against the false teachers of their day? By asserting that the "church" believed it, therefore it was the truth or was it because they could show that Divine revelation clearly taught it? I say it's the latter but that does not rule out the real place and purpose of Tradition. The Christian assembly is tasked with upholding and supporting the truth as God has revealed it. That does not give the church license to invent (develop?) doctrines that were not taught by God's word and make them binding upon all Christians under threat of excommunication - that's how cults operate.

[boatbums]

Hey, if anyone knows how to post an entire article with all its coded HTML tags outside of having to take the time to redo them here, please let me know. Thanks.

[boatbums]

Well, considering some Catholics seem to believe that simply speaking something translates into “tradition”, it does relate. oral transmission is not by default automatically tradition.

Somehow I don't think Athanasius would have had much luck using that argument against the Gnostics when he defended the Deity of Jesus Christ. While showing that a certain tenet was believed always, everywhere and by all is a strong argument for truth, we know that it's not the ONLY criteria.

[boatbums]

I agree. Not all traditions are bad. When Paul said:

With all these things in mind, dear brothers and sisters, stand firm and keep a strong grip on the teaching we passed on to you both in person and by letter. (II Thess. 2:15)

Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)

He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it was taught, so that by sound teaching he will be able to encourage others and refute those who contradict this message. (Titus 1:9)

He was obviously talking about the traditions/teachings that they had learned from him. Paul then ensured ALL believers were knowledgeable of those teachings by writing them down. Copies were made and distributed so that eventually all the local assemblies possessed the writings. He also admonished believers, "Do not go beyond what is written." (I Cor. 4:6) Take all that (plus more) and put it together and it sure sounds to me like we should always measure what we teach and believe by what God's word teaches and not go beyond it and end up like the Pharisees of whom Jesus told "thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down". (Mark 7:13)

[metmom]

They are the writings closest in place, time, and culture to the New Testament and show us how the New Testament was interpreted and lived out while it was written, and for several centuries afterward.

So what?

[metmom]

What Protestants reject are new truths which are contrary to sound teaching already established.

Actually, what CHRISTIANS reject is new claims of truth or claims of NEW truth, that are contrary to both revealed Scripture and sound teaching based on Scripture that is already established.

[metmom]

Thus, we have the end of John’s Gospel, where he states that not everything said by Jesus can be written down — consider the lack of Papyrus to make scrolls, for example.

That's not the reason. The reason is what he gives in the next verse where he says that the thing she wrote down were so that "you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

Nor does the fact that John admitted that not everything Jesus said or did was written down give people license to make stuff up and pass it off as Truth.

If it were important enough for us to know for salvation, then it would have been included in Scripture.

God would not leave us or His word wanting.

[metmom]

Preach it, sister!!!!!

[boatbums]

Thus, we have the end of John’s Gospel, where he states that not everything said by Jesus can be written down — consider the lack of Papyrus to make scrolls, for example.

No, that isn't what John said at all. I wish you would understand this point. John said:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)

Before he said that, John also wrote:

Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30,31)

What Jesus DID, the signs He PERFORMED were not all written down (because there wasn't enough paper/papyrus/animal skins, etc. in all the world and it would take up the whole world to do that it was so vast and eternal). BUT, John said, these things WERE written so that we would believe that Jesus is the Messiah and that by believing we would have eternal life. Doesn't sound to me like John thought he left anything out of what God told him to tell everyone. I also doubt very seriously that ANY of the Apostles/Disciples would have forgotten to ensure we knew the truth God has revealed to us through WRITING it down. That's what they did back then. Being a scribe was a busy job. Eventually, the local churches had copies of the manuscripts of the gospels and epistles. They were precious and cherished. Long before then, the Jewish people kept scrolls of all the Old Testament writings and every synagogue had their treasured copies which they read every Sabbath.

The written word is powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword. The word of God is the Sword of the Spirit - the only offensive part of the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:17). Nothing that man comes up with can stand against it.

[boatbums]

I believe many people or maybe most people are indoctrinated in religion before they read much of scripture so any scripture can be twisted around and they can still claim to believe in sola scripture.

I believe in the written word only.

The doctrine of sola Scriptura is not SOLO Scriptura. The main point is that as God's divinely-inspired word, Scripture is the authority over any traditions of men. It doesn't rule out all traditions (traditions are, after all, teachings), just that they should be found within Scripture if they are to be binding upon believers as part of the rule of faith.