Christian Non-Negotialbles?

No. Biblical commentary is an aid in understand the text. The commentary is neither inspired nor binding, but it can be useful. The sufficiency of scripture does not mean that we do not need help in understanding it but that scripture alone is binding and contains all that is sufficent for the Christian life. It does not guarantee proper interpretation.

One could use the same argument to say that translation of the Bible is unnecessary because the scripture is sufficient in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

 

Sola scripture is non-negotiable. Pardon me for quoting myself, but earlier I said:

The Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets; Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. In the scriptures and specifically in the New Testament, we have preserved for us the teaching of the apostles which they received directly from the Lord. This record of their teaching is the foundation for the church. If a group adds to that foundation or rejects the foundation they are not Christian.

 

Matt, the church was founded by Jesus and then by his apostles as the verse I quoted indicates. When the apostles began to leave this earth through death or martyrdom, the church began to collect their writings so that they, and we, would have a record of what they taught. That collection of writings is the New Testament. The New Testament is the authority of the Church for faith and practice because, to follow it, is to follow the teaching of the apostles and, thereby, of Christ. Any group or church that has an authority for faith and practice other than or alongside what the apostles wrote is elevating error to the level of authority. By doing so, they will or they already have departed from the body of truth which the church has been given.

 

What about the Old Testament? Is that not also Scripture??

 

The Bible is more than tradition. The Bible is given by inspiration of God. Tradition is not inspired. My church congregation stands and sings The Doxology after the offering each Sunday morning. That is a tradition. It is fine, but it is not an essential of the faith and it is not binding on any other church. Also, the NT writings concerning Christ are eyewitness accounts and the result of research among eyewitnesses. By calling the scriptures "tradition", you seem to be...and I may be misreading you here...forgive me if I am and I certainly welcome a clarification...regarding the scriptures as less than they actually are.

FOSpurgeon, yes, the OT is scripture.

 

Ahhh...very good points, ones with which I heartily agree. Though before someone strenuously objects to your point about "the Church preceded the Bible", I'd clarify that the Church existed before the NEW TESTAMENT Scriptures, and that it's the OLD TESTAMENT preached as being fulfilled--and properly interpreted--in the Person and work of Jesus Christ that is the heart of the original Apostolic Tradition.

I could say more on this relationship between Church, Tradition, and Scripture (which you've correctly alluded), but I've already recently said much in a previous thread.

However, your original question on this thread, along with your observations about the correct historical relationship between Church, Tradition, and Scripture, raises another question: Who decides (and How) when different groups of "Christians" can't even agree on the "non-negotiables"? (Because I think Oneness folks, and even Mormons, would object and declare that indeed they are Christians, and who are we to tell them otherwise??? :smilewinkgrin: )

 

I notice that you say that the Bible is a the product of tradition with a small "t" then you speak of "our understanding of Tradition and Scripture" with a big "T" Is there a reason for this?

You have stated that you believe that the Bible is inspired. Do you believe that it is inerrantl? Also, do you see tradition as inerrant?

 

Matt --- I still think you have to go back to the Apostle's Creed, which is the universal creed of all orthodox (small o) Christians. Otherwise, you get into what we have here -- one person says x, another says y, and so forth.

 

In Acts 17:11 NON Church members were able to use the "scriptures" to TEST the church-member teachings of Paul.

In Gal 1:6-11 the church-member Paul tells other church members NOT to listen to EITHER Apostles OR even an oral tradition/teaching coming from "an Angel from Heaven" if it was found to be in contradiction to established doctrine.

And of course - "No scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation - but Holy Men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - Spoke from GOD".

in Christ,

Bob

 

beside the death of christ, i believe that we also have to belive that HE was raised on the 3rd day...

Read: Rom. 10:8-10

 

The Bible was NOT the product of Tradition, nor did the Church exist prior to the Bible. How could the Church exist prior to the Bible.... Jesus quoted Scriptures, didn't He? The O.T. was Scriptures before the N.T. was complete. It was the Lord Jesus Christ Who stated what was canonical and what was not. He certainly didn't quote "Tradition".

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The Bible has about 40 human authors who wrote over a period of time spanning 1600 years. The Bible has one divine Author-God.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Questioning the divine inspiration of the Bible (like saying that the Church existed before the Bible and was the product of traditon) is non-negotiable.

 

I think we can see a thematic thread throughout the Letters: The Trinity, The Word, The Gospel, The Resurrection, the Second coming, The Judgment.

Eph 4:4-6 is good too, as shown by Skypair above.

 

CowboyMatt, here is part of what you said to Bob

And here is part of your last reply to me:

So the rule of faith is tradition and yet some tradition does not "meet up" to the rule of faith. The problem with your argumentation is that it is impossible to know what the early church's "tradition" was and it is impossible to know what their "rule of faith" is because neither of these is written down for us to examine. Neither has been passed on to us in complete form. If we had either one in written form then we would have no problem defining what a real Christian organization is.

Which is precisely where my terms for defining a true Christian comes in. For it is in the inspired New Testament that the early church has preserved the valid tradition and the rule of faith. That is what has been preserved for us and it is our authority. If a person rejects this standard, I don't know what means you have to determine who is Christian or not.

Having said this, it is quite obvious that, even among groups who agree with my terms; that the New Testament is the rule of faith, there is disagreement in many doctrinal areas including soteriology, use of gifts, eschatology, and much more. However, generally, even those who disagree in such areas, regard one another to be brothers in Christ. And yet, though they regard one another as brothers, their disagreements limit their ability to work with one another. It is a conundrum!

 

First of all, tradition has never been inspired as the Scriptures. Your previous statement (the one which I quoted) said that the Church existed before the Bible--and that is clearly false. You have changed your statements 3 or 4 times as I have been reading through this thread.

I never said that the Bible magically appeared from heaven. What I did say, using your original quotation, was that Jesus quoted from the Old Testament (not tradition) Scriptures, so therefore, the Scriptures existed before the Church.

Upon which "tradition" are we dependent? Where does God and His Word fall into this "tradition"? My perception of "tradition"? I reject it. Theological discomfort? You got to be kidding!!!

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The Pharisees loved their "traditions" and rejected the commandment
of God. (Scriptures) and made the commandment of God of none effect (useless).