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..

[boatbums]

You’re welcome.

[boatbums]

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?

The "church" is not an "it". The true church is a spiritual house - a building made up of every believer in Jesus Christ as each one is a "living stone" and Jesus is the cornerstone. (see I Peter 2:5). We are God's fellow workers; we are God's field, God's building (I Cor. 3:9). Each local assembly is a family of faith come together in edifying fellowship, learning, sharing, praying together and offering spiritual sacrifices of praise for what He has done for us.

Where is it? It is everywhere where genuine faith is held and the rule of faith is taught. It can be even two or three gathered together because Jesus is in the midst. Where I think people get hung up is in thinking any one denomination is "the" church. It can't be because we know that the TRUE bride of Christ, His body, is made up of all believers who will be with Him for eternity. Every local physical church has saved and unsaved within it. The faith that binds us together is the same faith that was taught from the start. Those who are looking for a faith community to join should look for those who have a statement of faith that is Biblically based, is sound in the gospel, has an outreach to the lost and endeavors to be accountable to each other so that we help each other to live Godly lives that brings glory and honor to Him.

Thanks for asking.

[ebb tide]

The "church" is not an "it".

Not according to the Bible.

[ebb tide]

Thanks for trying.

[Mark17]

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.

I think I can name a few who did that. Joe Smith, Charles T Russell, Mary Baker Eddy, Felix Manalo, Apollo C Quiboloy, to name a few. 😀

[Salvation]

John, chapter 21

Conclusion. 24It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, * and we know that his testimony is true. n 25There 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. o

3 John, chapter 1

13I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. h 14Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face. 15Peace be with you. The friends greet you; greet the friends * there each by name. i

[boatbums]

That's especially true with those groups who claim to ALONE be "the" church of Jesus Christ, asserting that He established their church. The "being built upon St. Peter" is also a ruse because we DO know from history that he was a traveling evangelist. He led people to faith in Jesus Christ, discipled leaders, helped them preach to others and form local assemblies then he was off for the next town. He was a leader, of course, because he was an Apostle, but so were the others. They went throughout the world preaching the gospel for as long as they could until they were arrested and martyred (every one of the twelve were killed for the faith - except for John who survived several attempts on his life and who spent his final days in exile).

No church is to lay burdens upon people that were never meant to be. Jesus speaking to the Pharisees told them that they had abrogated God's Word for the sake of their tradition. In Matthew Henry's Commentary on this passage in Matthew 15, he says:

15:1-9 Additions to God's laws reflect upon his wisdom, as if he had left out something which was needed, and which man could supply; in one way or other they always lead men to disobey God. How thankful ought we to be for the written word of God! Never let us think that the religion of the Bible can be improved by any human addition, either in doctrine or practice. Our blessed Lord spoke of their traditions as inventions of their own, and pointed out one instance in which this was very clear, that of their transgressing the fifth commandment. When a parent's wants called for assistance, they pleaded, that they had devoted to the temple all they could spare, even though they did not part with it, and therefore their parents must expect nothing from them. This was making the command of God of no effect. The doom of hypocrites is put in a little compass; In vain do they worship me. It will neither please God, nor profit themselves; they trust in vanity, and vanity will be their recompence.

That's what happens when man places tradition above the word of God - he adds to it as if God forgot to tell us something! If some group has a tradition concerning non-doctrinal things, fine, no problem. But when they try to make them binding upon believers under threat of excommunication and loss of salvation, a line must be drawn. They were never given the authority to do that. The binding and loosing authority Jesus laid upon the disciples as told in Matthew 16:19 is NOT permission to invent doctrines not taught in the word. Henry's commentary, again, says:

Our Lord next declared the authority with which Peter would be invested. He spoke in the name of his brethren, and this related to them as well as to him. They had no certain knowledge of the characters of men, and were liable to mistakes and sins in their own conduct; but they were kept from error in stating the way of acceptance and salvation, the rule of obedience, the believer's character and experience, and the final doom of unbelievers and hypocrites. In such matters their decision was right, and it was confirmed in heaven. But all pretensions of any man, either to absolve or retain men's sins, are blasphemous and absurd. None can forgive sins but God only. And this binding and loosing, in the common language of the Jews, signified to forbid and to allow, or to teach what is lawful or unlawful.

The Holy Spirit is who teaches us all things and He has ensured the truth is preserved in the word of God. It is our weapon - the Sword of the Spirit which is the word of God. Whatever is taught is the rule of the Christian faith will be found in Scripture. If it is not found there, it is not binding nor obligatory. Tradition is not equal to Scripture.

[boatbums]

Thanks for responding as expected.

[boatbums]

False teachers are a dime a dozen. There are as many of them as there are gullible people to follow them. I’m always surprised at how easy it is to trick people into following one. You can see how there has to be some kind of demonic pull that captures those who are weak in their faith or who HAVE to seek a sign in order to believe. All it takes is a few circus sleight of hand parlor tricks and they’re hooked. It’s sad to see the elderly taken in by it. I wouldn’t want to stand next to one at judgment day - that’s for sure!

[Mark17]

You are right. False teachers are a dime a dozen, and they are everywhere. A few others, that I forgot to mention, and there are more, but some are Mad Mo, Buddha, Confucius, Jim Jones, and others.
It seems to me, that generally speaking, with some exceptions for sure, that many claim to be the only one. In many cases, their so called plan of salvation, seems to be baptism, good works, and church membership, in their religion alone. Many engage in cult speak, and have no real assurance of salvation at all. The majority sink into the tomb, without one ray of hope for eternal life in Heaven. The Great White Throne Judgement, will not be pretty.
It's sad, but assurance of salvation is so simple, a child can understand it. The blindness is willful.
There are lots of false religionists around here too, but many of them have the Berean attitude. They just want to know the truth. 🙃

[Claud]

No they are not seen in their proper light at all. Everytime someone brings them up on here the chorus begins its tired refrain "they're not Scripture! they're not Scripture!".

When most of the time no one is bringing them up *as Scripture*, people are just bringing them up as evidence of what the early Church believed and how it was organized and acted.

Name me one Church Father whose theology is identifiably Protestant.

One.

[Claud]

So what?

Yep. That's the attitude right there.

So what. Who cares. We can just categorically assert that the early Church was "corrupted" and changed its theology without a stitch of historical proof.

Basically the idea of the pre-Catholic "Biblical Church" that you are carrying around is fake. 100% categorically fake. It never existed except in the imaginations of people like Luther.

[metmom]

Error was creeping into the early church right from the get go.

Paul addressed it in his letters even.

Proximity in time to the early church is no guarantee of being error free or having an extra special ability to *correctly* interpret Scripture or know what the apostles meant when they said something.

And especially 200-300 years later.

Meaningless.

Just look at what has happened to our Constitution and how it’s interpreted within that kind of time frame.

Men are subject to deception and Satan will be trying his hardest to destroy the work of God. Just because they are *big names* from long ago gives them no special ability over and above any other Spirit filled believer.

Because, spiritual matters are SPIRITUALLY discerned.

The man without the Spirit cannot understand them, just like those who even walked with Jesus. Those heard Him teach themselves were unable to understand spiritual matters any better than anyone else. no matter when they lived.

[HarleyD]

Hey, I was reading through Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD) last night. It's a difficult read but in the Stromata, Book VII, Chapter XVI Clement goes into great detail about the use of scripture and tradition. The chapter title is Scripture the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy Are Distinguished. He states, in part, the following:

But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scripture themselves.

...

But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin."

Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. ...

Now all men, having the same judgment, some, following the Word speaking, frame for themselves proofs; while others, giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture, in accordance with their lusts. And the lover of truth, as I think, needs force of soul. For those who make the greatest attempts must fail in things of the highest importance; unless, receiving from the truth itself the rule of the truth, they cleave to the truth. But such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path, err in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to select what is essential. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures.

...For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, "in divers manners and at sundry times," leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved.

He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things....For we may not give our adhesion to men on a bare statement by them, who might equally state the opposite. But if it is not enough to state the opinion, but if what is stated must be confirmed, we do not wait for the testimony of men, but we establish the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations, in which knowledge those who have merely tasted the Scriptures are believers...

Those who would argue that scripture was not available are at odds with what Clement has written. Apparently scripture was available enough in 200AD that common believers could have access. It doesn't seem to be an issue with Clement.

Clement has far more to say in this chapter-these are only some brief highlights. As Clement points out from the above passage; 1) people were adding to the scripture (note with Mary), 2) people would take passages of scripture and frame heretical beliefs from them, or 3) they use scripture to justify their actions rather than letting scripture expose their corruption.

Most importantly, Clement makes very clear that a truly faithful person will be guided by scripture and the Holy Spirit.

[Claud]

Error was creeping into the early church right from the get go. Paul addressed it in his letters even.

Of course error tried to creep in. But you assume it succeeded, and you don't have a stitch of historical evidence to back that claim up. What early Christian writer ever said the whole Church fell to error? What was the error? When did it happen? Who were the main figures?

I hear these vague accusations but I never see anyone back them up with historical facts.

Proximity in time to the early church is no guarantee of being error free or having an extra special ability to *correctly* interpret Scripture or know what the apostles meant when they said something.

St Clement and St. Polycarp were taught by the Apostles themselves in person. They had a privileged position which you and I will never have. They were able to listen to a teaching and say: "No, Peter never taught that" or "Yes, John taught the same."

And you betray the fundamental weakness of your argument by saying "especially 200-300 years later."

If we are going to dismiss Ambrose and Augustine and Chrysostom for being 200-300 years later, then shouldn't I dismiss you with even more prejudice, 2000 years later? You who aren't even a native Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew speaker, who didn't grow up in the Near East or the Roman Empire where all of this stuff happened?

[Claud]

Oh! People could frame heretical beliefs from Scripture can they? And does that perhaps tell us a little something about the supposed perspicacity we hear so much about?

I noticed your ellipses left out this little bit of the Stromata:

As, then, if a man should, similarly to those drugged by Circe, become a beast; so he, who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the opinions of heretical men, has ceased to be a man of God and to remain faithful to the Lord.

This is exactly what I mean about cutting and pasting select bits of the Fathers and ignoring the entirety of their arguments and lives. In that very same passage you quoted to defend the reliance on Scripture, Clement states clearly that he who departs from ecclesiastical tradition has ceased to be a man of God.

We have never objected to Scripture being a rule of faith. We object to it being made the only rule of faith, because we have always maintained that Scripture and Apostolic tradition go hand in hand. Seems to me that is exactly what Clement is saying.

At least you're reading Clement though. That's promising, and it speaks very well of your intellect.

[Elsie]

Good read that makes important points about what Protestants/Evangelicals REALLY believe about Scripture and its place in our Christian faith.

Who cares?!

They are SCREWED; big time!!

--Poorly_Catechized_Catholic_Dude(Hail Mary!!)

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."

--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)

 

[Elsie]

Most Protestants are unaware of truly intellectual Catholic authors who do indeed find scripture for almost every one of their traditions.

Oh?

---

For a low; LOW! price of ONLY $11.95...

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.catholiccompany.com/brown-scapular-brown-cord-18-inch-i104714/?sku=2026726&utm_source=google&utm_medium=products&aid=4280&product_id=2026726&creative=11070181829&device=c&matchtype=e

 

 

[Elsie]

Most Protestants are unaware of truly intellectual Catholic authors who do indeed find scripture for almost every one of their traditions.

Thank GOD that SOME of their 'traditions' are now ILLEGAL!!!

[Elsie]

I was never into dark humor. I think it’s evil.

Amen; Brother!!

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm