Thessalonian said:
Solo said:
Umm. Paul said "hold fast to the TRADITIONNNNSSSSSS you have received, whether by WORD of MOUTH OOOOORRRR in WRITING FROM US.".
He Solo, you just called the Bible bunk because it's a tradition. Further your arguing with Paul who clearly does not say all tradition, even work of mouth tradition, to use your term, is BUNK. Your post is unbiblical.
Paul said:
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. 2 THESSALONIANS 2:15 (NIV)
MISINTERPRETATION: Paul told the Thessalonian Christians to “stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.†Roman Catholics argue that this supports their view of the authority of oral apostolic traditions as well as the Bible.
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The Bible does teach that the apostles affirmed that their oral teaching was authoritative, being on the same level as the written Word of God. However, this was because there were living apostles who spoke with the authority of Christ through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; John 16:13). Several things are important to note here.
Their oral teachings are the content that would become Scripture. Since they had not yet committed all their teaching to writing and since they had not yet died, it was necessary to depend on their oral teaching. However, once the apostles committed their teachings to writing and died, so that they could no longer exercise their living authority, then the Bible alone became our authority for faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
The revelatory traditions (teachings) of the apostles were written down and are inspired and infallible. They comprise the New Testament. Since God deemed it essential for the faith and morals of the faithful to inspire the writing of twenty-seven books of apostolic teaching, it is not reasonable to suppose that he left out some important revelation in this book. So, however authoritative the apostles were by virtue of their office, only their words in Scripture are inspired and infallible (2 Timothy 3:16-17; cf. John 10:35).
There are good reasons to believe that the Bible alone is the full and final authority for faith and practice for all believers.
First, the Bible makes it clear that God, from the very beginning, desired that his normative revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations. “Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord†(Exodus 24:4 nasb). Indeed, Moses said in Deuteronomy, “these are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the sons of Israel†(Deuteronomy 29:1 nasb). And Moses’s book was preserved in the Ark (Deuteronomy 31:26). “So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God†(Joshua 24:25-26 nasb) along with Moses’s (cf. Joshua 1:7).
Likewise, “Samuel told the people the ordinances of the kingdom, and wrote them in the book, and placed it before the Lord†(1 Samuel 10:25 nasb). Isaiah was commanded by the Lord, “Take for yourself a large tablet and write on it in ordinary letters†(Isaiah 8:1) and to “inscribe it on a scroll, That it may serve in the time to come as a witness forever†(Isaiah 30:8). Daniel had a collection of “the books†of Moses and the prophets right down to his contemporary Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2).
Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “Scripture has it†or “It is written†(cf. Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:10) more than ninety times, stressing the importance of the written Word of God. When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures†(Matthew 22:29). The apostles were told by Jesus that the Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth (John 16:13). But Jesus said in the very next chapter, “Your word is truth†(John 17:17) and the apostles claimed that their writings to the churches were Scripture inspired of God (2 Peter 3:15-16; cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Clearly, God intended from the very beginning that his revelation be preserved in Scripture. No similar intent is demonstrated to preserve religious traditions.
Second, the Bible states that inspired Scripture is competent to equip a believer for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). If the Bible is sufficient to do this, then nothing else is needed. The fact that Scripture, without mention of tradition, is said to be “God-breathed†(theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work†(2 Timothy 3:16-17), supports the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura.
Third, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Old Testament (which was all the Bible written to their time) as the final court of appeal. Jesus appealed to Scripture as the final authority in his dispute with Satan (Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:10). Of course, since God was still giving new revelation, Jesus (Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:31; Matthew 28:18) and the apostles (1 Corinthians 5:3; 1 Corinthians 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority. But since even roman Catholics agree that new revelation ceased with the death of the last apostles, there is no reason to believe there is any revelation outside the Bible. No oral revelation in New Testament times can be cited as evidence that nonbiblical infallible authority exists today.
Fourth, Jesus made it clear that the existing Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? . . . You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition†(Matthew 15:3, Matthew 15:6 niv). Jesus applied his statement specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their traditions to misinterpret the Scriptures.
Fifth, Solomon affirmed that “every word of God is tested. . . . Do not add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you will be proved a liar†(Proverbs 30:5-6 nasb). And John closed the last chapter of the Apocalypse with the same exhortation: “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book†(Revelation 22:18-19 nasb). While John referred specifically to his revelation, the principle and its warning logically fit the situation of the other books of the Bible. It is clear that God does not wish anything that claims divine authority to be added to his inspired words, whether oral or written.
Sixth, the Bible teaches sola Scriptura by stressing its own status as revelation from God (Galatians 1:12; cf. 1 Corinthians 2:11-13), as over the mere words of human beings. A revelation from God is a divine unveiling or disclosure. The apostle Paul put the contrast vividly when he wrote, “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ†(Galatians 1:11-12 niv). Note that “man†includes the other apostles, of whom Paul adds, “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was†(Galatians 1:17 niv). So even the preaching of an apostle was not on the same level as direct revelation from God. Neither the words of an apostle nor of an angel (Galatians 1:8). This vividly expresses sola Scriptura.
Seventh, although written revelation was progressive, Roman Catholics and Protestants agree that normative revelation ended by the time of the completion of the New Testament. Indeed, Jesus told the apostles that he would lead them into “all truth†(John 14:26; John 16:13). And to be an apostle one must have lived in the first century in order to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (cf. Acts 1:22; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:4-8). But the only infallible record we have of apostolic teaching is in the New Testament. Therefore, it follows that Jesus predicted the Bible alone would be the summation of “all truth.†This being the case, then, since canonical revelation ceased at the end of the first century, sola Scriptura means nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else has infallible authority.
Eighth, apostolic “traditions†or oral teachings were authoritative in their days, but the apostles are dead and all of their essential teaching is the Bible. The New Testament speaks of following the traditions or teachings of the apostles, whether oral or written because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matthew 18:18; Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:20). However, when they died there was no longer a living apostolic authority since, as already noted, only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Corinthians 9:1). For to have apostolic authority one must be able to perform apostolic signs (2 Corinthians 12:12). Since these special apostolic signs have admittedly ceased (Hebrews 2:3-4), there is no longer apostolic authority, except in the inspired writings the apostles left us. And since the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that, since the death of the apostles, the only apostolic authority we have today is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. This does not necessarily mean that everything the apostles ever taught is in the New Testament, anymore than everything Jesus said is there (cf. John 20:30; John 21:25). Jesus did promise that “all the truth†(John 14:26; John 16:13) he had taught them would be brought to their remembrance, but he no doubt said the same truth in different ways at different times. The context of Jesus’ statement refers to all truth necessary for faith and morals (cf. 2 Timothy 3:15-17).
Ninth, oral traditions are notoriously unreliable. They are the stuff of which legends and myths are made. What is written is more easily preserved in its original form. Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper notes four advantages of a written revelation: (1) It has durability whereby errors of memory or accidental corruptions, deliberate or not, are minimized; (2) It can be universally disseminated through translation and reproduction; (3) It is fixed and can be kept pure; (4) It is given a finality and normativeness which other forms of communication cannot attain. By contrast, what is not written is more easily polluted. There is an example of that in the New Testament. There was an unwritten “apostolic tradition†(i.e., one coming from the apostles) based on a misunderstanding of what Jesus said. They wrongly assumed that Jesus said that the apostle John would not die. John, however, debunked this false tradition in his authoritative written record (John 21:22-23).
Source: Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R. (1997). When cultists ask:
A popular handbook on cultic misinterpretations (Page 270).
:D
:D
