can you use the bible only without tradition?

[Nick01]

the gospel of thomas is one of the writings of the gnostic cult...which is actually condemned by name in the bible...

Just a minor correction here - the Bible does not mention Gnosticism by name, and indeed could not do so, given Gnosticism only came into being after the canon was closed. There were, however, some proto-gnostic teachings around at the time (spiritualised resurrection, eg), which parts of Thomas represent. It's a stretch to say that Thomas as a whole is a Gnostic text, though. However, there are a number of apocryphal texts that are explicitly Gnostic (e.g, Gospel of Phillip).

As for the actual topic of discussion, I think if you wish to understand the Bible in depth, you do need tradition - that is, you need to understand the historical context of the Bible (I prefer the term historical theology rather than tradition). However, not all tradition is good tradition, because not all tradition is historically or biblically defensible.

 

[Tintin]

The reformers were heretics who splintered Christ's Church into what we see today in Protestantism - 30,000+ different denominations (+ all the many "non-denominationals") , all teaching different things, none of them with any authority whatsoever to teach the word of God. False teaching/heresy runs rampant, as anyone can see any day of the week here on ChristianChat.com. What a soup sandwich it is.
The fullness of Truth exists only in one Church - The Apostolic Church, began by Christ himself. The same Church that gave you that bible you're reading (minus the books that those same heretics tore from it some 1200 years later, unfortunately).

Oh, really?

 

[Nick01]

Oh, really?

He means the Anglicans

 

[Dan_473]

say, my brother, you might want to reconsider the tone that your posts seem to have... at least they seem to me... maybe not to others...
we both agree that there is one body...yes, there are divisions in the body... as there were in early corinth... if we do things that increase the divisions... make people's feelings about the divisions more intense... imo we're heading down a not good path...
for the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness... stuff like that...

grace and peace to you, my friend!

 

[Dan_473]

Just a minor correction here - the Bible does not mention Gnosticism by name, and indeed could not do so, given Gnosticism only came into being after the canon was closed. There were, however, some proto-gnostic teachings around at the time (spiritualised resurrection, eg), which parts of Thomas represent. It's a stretch to say that Thomas as a whole is a Gnostic text, though. However, there are a number of apocryphal texts that are explicitly Gnostic (e.g, Gospel of Phillip).

As for the actual topic of discussion, I think if you wish to understand the Bible in depth, you do need tradition - that is, you need to understand the historical context of the Bible (I prefer the term historical theology rather than tradition). However, not all tradition is good tradition, because not all tradition is historically or biblically defensible.

good ideas... say... the book of wisdom... should it be in the bible? the muratorian fragment has it... Luther rejected it... council of trent accepted it... which would be defensible, in your opinion?

grace and peace to you!

 

[Dan_473]

so, my post #64 above refers to post #60... turns out that you can only edit a post up to 5 mins after it's made...

grace and peace to y'all!

 

[saved1975]

how would we know which revelations Jesus gave to the Apostles and Prophets... why would we think the reformers were inspired... in my experience, trying to answer these questions without picking a particular tradition becomes pretty circular... if one does pick a particular tradition... maybe the one that feels best to them... that's just it... they're picking a tradition... not saying there's anything wrong with that... back to the book of wisdom... a lot of christians pick the tradition that includes the book of wisdom... not saying it's right or wrong... that's what feels right to them...

grace and peace to you!

God gave the reformers the revelation that the catholic church is wrong, And God inspired them to compile the Bible as we know it today.

If you read some of those books that the catholics added, You will see that in places they contradict the Bible.
The catholics added the books to fit their doctrines.
Such as praying to Mary and the departed saints, Them praying for us.
And Purgatory

 

[saved1975]

The reformers were heretics who splintered Christ's Church into what we see today in Protestantism - 30,000+ different denominations (+ all the many "non-denominationals") , all teaching different things, none of them with any authority whatsoever to teach the word of God. False teaching/heresy runs rampant, as anyone can see any day of the week here on ChristianChat.com. What a soup sandwich it is.
The fullness of Truth exists only in one Church - The Apostolic Church, began by Christ himself. The same Church that gave you that bible you're reading (minus the books that those same heretics tore from it some 1200 years later, unfortunately).

The fullness of truth is found in the Bible, And revealed to those who have a teachable spirit and an open mind.
For any one Church to say, "We alone have the truth", They are in error.

Every born again Christian has the authority to teach the word, We are commanded to teach, or preach, Mk 16: 15--20.

 

[ThomistColin]

God gave the reformers the revelation that the catholic church is wrong, And God inspired them to compile the Bible as we know it today.

If you read some of those books that the catholics added, You will see that in places they contradict the Bible.
The catholics added the books to fit their doctrines.
Such as praying to Mary and the departed saints, Them praying for us.
And Purgatory

Read Revelation, where the saints and angels offer up the prayers of those on earth.

 

[john832]

I was afraid you would ask this question, (joking), there are several teachings I am not in full agreement with, primarily some of the teachings regarding Mary and the saints. The dogma of the assumption of Mary, which was not made dogmatic until 1950, is the teaching that Mary was lifted up to heaven (body and soul) and is seated next to Christ being only second to Christ in glory and honor. The teaching of Mary as Co-Redemptrix although not dogmatic is a teaching that Mary in her unique role as the Mother of Jesus is his closet human cooperator in the work of redemption. The veneration of saints and their relics is another teaching that I can not in good conscience accept. Also the teaching that priests and bishops are forbidden to marry and are required to be celibate I find unscriptural. The teaching that a person can only receive forgiveness of grave sin by confession to a priest and receive absolution through a priest. These would be the major teachings that I have taken liberty in not fully accepting as gospel truth. I have been given no authority to teach against these teachings and so I would not say they are untrue, I am only saying that in my own understanding I question there validity.

Christ be with you always.

I'll say it for you , these are heresies.

 

[Atwood]

Human tradition was condemned by the Lord Jesus when it was made superior to the Word of God.
Tradition endorsed by Paul, appears to be delivered prophecy.

Of course we ought not neglect teachers who have the spiritual gift of teaching nor historical affirmations made by born-again Christians.

"The Bible doesn't say how many books are in it."

But the Lord Jesus endorsed the OT as we have it and endorsed his apostles. Their prophetic messages were confirmed with signs (miracles). "My sheep hear my voice." Thus Christians have a built in "Word of God detector."

 

[faroukfarouk]

Human tradition was condemned by the Lord Jesus when it was made superior to the Word of God.
Tradition endorsed by Paul, appears to be delivered prophecy.

Of course we ought not neglect teachers who have the spiritual gift of teaching nor historical affirmations made by born-again Christians.

"The Bible doesn't say how many books are in it."

But the Lord Jesus endorsed the OT as we have it and endorsed his apostles. Their prophetic messages were confirmed with signs (miracles). "My sheep hear my voice." Thus Christians have a built in "Word of God detector."

God's Word is indeed self-authenticating: Sola Scriptura...

 

[Nick01]

good ideas... say... the book of wisdom... should it be in the bible? the muratorian fragment has it... Luther rejected it... council of trent accepted it... which would be defensible, in your opinion?

grace and peace to you!

Well, for a start I don't particularly recognise the Council of Trent as having any particular God-guaranteed authority - I especially don't see why a 16th century meeting of Catholic leaders should have any better idea about what was accepted in the first century than anyone else.

But the main problem with the deuterocanonicals is that as I recall most, if not all, were originally composed in Greek. All of them would be the youngest writings of the OT. Some of the are pseudepigraphical - that is, they are writings that explicitly or implicitly claim the authorship of an important OT figure even though it cannot have been written by those people. They were never accepted by the Jewish people as being inspired in the same way as the Torah or the prophetic writings, but were considered good to read.

Luther never 'rejected' the apocryphal writings - at least some of them he thought they were good to read, and he marked them as such in his translation. He just didn't think of them as being inspired, and so didn't put them in his collection of the OT. This was not a new idea - books like the Shepherd of Hermas weren't considered canonical by the early church, even though they are quite a good read. I think their omission was also partially down to some an overemphasis placed on some parts of the apocrypha by the Catholic Church in the areas of doctrine (purgatory being the main one) - because Luther was trying to fight back against what he saw as errant doctrine, it would make sense that he just wouldn't clearly mark those texts that were never considered divinely authoritative, but were underpinning those doctrines.

As for its presence in the Muratorian Fragment, it doesn't increase the weighting either way. The fact that a book usually attached to the OT is here in fact connected to the collection of NT writings should make us cautious (in no other extant writing is Wisdom listed with NT documents), as does the fact that we simply don't know who wrote the fragment - it is useful in terms of hearing what texts were being discussed, but is not that useful in terms of knowing what hard and fast canon, if any, was actually in place at time of writing.

All that to say, nothing really wrong with reading Wisdom, but there's no compelling reason to think it should be considered canonical, or God-breathed like the other books of the Bible.

 

[Dan_473]

God gave the reformers the revelation that the catholic church is wrong, And God inspired them to compile the Bible as we know it today.

certainly i believe that revelation is possible at any time... to any one... tho i like to have some good reasons to accept someone else's revelations as valid... if you want to believe that the reformers got revelations from God, that's cool with me...

grace and peace to you!

 

[Dan_473]

Read Revelation, where the saints and angels offer up the prayers of those on earth.

good point, i hadn't thought of that...

 

[1still_waters]

I don't know the scope of what the OP meant by "tradition".

I do know that God gave the gift of teaching to the church, and we should probably consider that before we go tossing out 1900+ years of teachers, all in the name of just picking up the Bible and reading it.

The Bible is our ultimate authority, yet reading it and knowing what it means does matter. God blessed the church with over 1900+ years of teachers who helped us expound on what it means.

Of course the devil also tossed in 1900+ years of false teachers too. Teachers who say listen to the pope, pray to Mary, Jesus guarantees financial prosperity to all.

The Bible is our authority, but the 1900+ years of teachers can be our guide into understanding what it means. Teachers are one of the gifts God gave us. Let's take their input into consideration. As in all things, test it first. If it was just a matter of each believer being individually lead by God, we wouldn't have been given the Bible in the first place, along with the gift of teachers.

 

[Dan_473]

Human tradition was condemned by the Lord Jesus when it was made superior to the Word of God.
Tradition endorsed by Paul, appears to be delivered prophecy.

Of course we ought not neglect teachers who have the spiritual gift of teaching nor historical affirmations made by born-again Christians.

"The Bible doesn't say how many books are in it."

But the Lord Jesus endorsed the OT as we have it and endorsed his apostles. Their prophetic messages were confirmed with signs (miracles). "My sheep hear my voice." Thus Christians have a built in "Word of God detector."

did Jesus endorse the ot as we have it today? my understanding was that the ot available in Jesus' day wasn't settled... if it was settled, was it with the song of daniel's three friends or was that part missing?

grace and peace to you!

 

[Dan_473]

God's Word is indeed self-authenticating: Sola Scriptura...

do you feel that you have a built-in word of God detector also? i think this is an interesting idea... i haven't gotten dependable results, myself...

grace and peace to you!

 

[Dan_473]

Well, for a start I don't particularly recognise the Council of Trent as having any particular God-guaranteed authority - I especially don't see why a 16th century meeting of Catholic leaders should have any better idea about what was accepted in the first century than anyone else.

But the main problem with the deuterocanonicals is that as I recall most, if not all, were originally composed in Greek. All of them would be the youngest writings of the OT. Some of the are pseudepigraphical - that is, they are writings that explicitly or implicitly claim the authorship of an important OT figure even though it cannot have been written by those people. They were never accepted by the Jewish people as being inspired in the same way as the Torah or the prophetic writings, but were considered good to read.

Luther never 'rejected' the apocryphal writings - at least some of them he thought they were good to read, and he marked them as such in his translation. He just didn't think of them as being inspired, and so didn't put them in his collection of the OT. This was not a new idea - books like the Shepherd of Hermas weren't considered canonical by the early church, even though they are quite a good read. I think their omission was also partially down to some an overemphasis placed on some parts of the apocrypha by the Catholic Church in the areas of doctrine (purgatory being the main one) - because Luther was trying to fight back against what he saw as errant doctrine, it would make sense that he just wouldn't clearly mark those texts that were never considered divinely authoritative, but were underpinning those doctrines.

As for its presence in the Muratorian Fragment, it doesn't increase the weighting either way. The fact that a book usually attached to the OT is here in fact connected to the collection of NT writings should make us cautious (in no other extant writing is Wisdom listed with NT documents), as does the fact that we simply don't know who wrote the fragment - it is useful in terms of hearing what texts were being discussed, but is not that useful in terms of knowing what hard and fast canon, if any, was actually in place at time of writing.

All that to say, nothing really wrong with reading Wisdom, but there's no compelling reason to think it should be considered canonical, or God-breathed like the other books of the Bible.

let's talk about that idea of a hard and fast canon, if any, in the first century... if there was one, odd, i think, that no one talks about it... that i know of... the first mention of the list of books we usually have in our nt is from, like, 385... late fourth century... if they didn't have a canon by, say, 100 a.d. ... then it sounds like it wasn't very important to the early church...

grace and peace to you!

 

[Dan_473]

I don't know the scope of what the OP meant by "tradition".

I do know that God gave the gift of teaching to the church, and we should probably consider that before we go tossing out 1900+ years of teachers, all in the name of just picking up the Bible and reading it.

The Bible is our ultimate authority, yet reading it and knowing what it means does matter. God blessed the church with over 1900+ years of teachers who helped us expound on what it means.

Of course the devil also tossed in 1900+ years of false teachers too. Teachers who say listen to the pope, pray to Mary, Jesus guarantees financial prosperity to all.

The Bible is our authority, but the 1900+ years of teachers can be our guide into understanding what it means. Teachers are one of the gifts God gave us. Let's take their input into consideration. As in all things, test it first. If it was just a matter of each believer being individually lead by God, we wouldn't have been given the Bible in the first place, along with the gift of teachers.

by tradition, i meant doing something because most christians did it in the past, or are doing it now... for example, why do we have the books in the bible that we have today? because that's what most christians used in the past... the bible doesn't have a list in it of what books should be in it or not... so if a person says they only use the bible to decide what's really true or not, then there's an odd problem when they ask whether a certain book should be in the bible... or which version of that book...

the test it out first part... how does that work? wouldn't you need to know first what was true in order to decide if the teacher you're listening to is telling you the truth or not?
let's take a concrete example... in john 8... where Jesus writes in the sand... should that be in the bible? most teachers would say yes, i think... but most textual scholars would say it wasn't part of john's original manuscript...
or at communion, does the bread and juice really become the body and blood of Jesus? most teachers would say yes... and it's a very old tradition... i grew up in a tradition that said no... how would a person test that out, unless you knew the truth of it first?

grace and peace to you!