Christian Non-Negotialbles?

I think it's good to continue to point out the (inter)dependent relationship between Scripture and Tradition within the Church. It is also useful to point out that before there was a "Canon" of NT Scripture there was a "canon of faith" or "rule of faith" (or any similar type names used by different church fathers describing the same thing) which was basically a 'summary' of the faith as handed down by the apostles. Specific examples of this can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian (I don't have the works in front of me) which were basically the same in content if somewhat flexible in wording. It was this "rule of faith" that was regarded as the key to properly interpreting the Scriptures as opposed to the distortions of the heretics. As Cowboymatt pointed out, the "rule" was also a major determining factor in deciding which books were authentically apostolic and thus "canonical"--and which were spurious and heretical.

One could see precursors to the "rule of faith" in the Apostolic kerygma as expounded in the early 'sermon summaries' recorded in Acts of the Apostles, as exhibited in creed-like fragments and statements such as in 1 Cor 15:1-9, 1 Cor 8:6, and Romans 1:3-4, and expressed in early hymns such as evidently referenced in Philippians (2:5-11) and 1 Timothy 3:16. Also the idea of a "rule of faith" can be seen in the idea of Paul's "pattern of sound words" (2 Timothy 1:13) which Timothy had heard (orally) from Paul and to which he was instructed to hold fast. (See also Romans 6:17 in which Paul mentions obeying a specific "form of doctrine" that had been delivered). It was this "pattern of sound words" or "form of doctrine" that was initially taught by the Apostles to the Christians orally that enabled them to get the correct sense of Scriptures (OT) and thus avoid "twisting Scriptures to their own destruction" as was the case with "untaught" (and "unstable") men (see 2 Peter 3:15-16). And it was also this "pattern" or "form of doctrine" that enabled the early Church to recognize which writings were actually Apostolic and canonical--ie the writings that conformed to the "pattern": Paul's corpus, the four-fold Gospel, Acts, and (gradually) the general epistles and Revelation.

I could say more, for this topic is fascinating and important, but that's all for now (I do have to work I suppose. :smilewinkgrin

I would also at least at the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ. And, as others have mentioned, the points mentioned in the three great creeds: the Apostles', the Nicene(-Constantinopolitan) and the "Athanasian".
I would particularly emphasize the Nicene as that is held commonly by even those "Oriental" churches (eg. Assyrian, Coptic, Ethipian, Armenian, Jacobite Syrian) which separated over Ephesus and Chalcedon, whose separation I submit had at least as much to do with imperial/nationalistic politics and linguistic differences (probably more) as it did with real substantial differences of faith as expressed in those councils.

The main idea is that these Creeds were believed to enshrine the correct teaching of Scripture and historically can be shown to have an organic continuity--while allowing for the clarification of key points--with the Apostolic kerygma as summarized in the "rule of faith", confessed in baptism, expressed in the liturgy (prayers/hymns), and defended by the orthodox fathers against early heretics in the ante-Nicene period.

 

The Tradition of the Apostles.

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word (orally) or our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

The word for "tradition" is the Greek word "paradosis" which means "that which is handed over or delivered". Interestingly, this is the same Greek word that is translated "tradition" in the Mark 7 passage which you site. In other words, the word/concept itself is neutral--whether it is to be held or condmened depends on the source of the "tradition" ("paradosis").

Another quick example is 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul uses the language of "tradition"--delivering something (orally) which he had previously received (orally) (v.3). Suffice it to say, this "delivering of the tradition" took place orally before the penning of (let alone the collection or canonization of) the NT writings.

 

Well,

1. Trinity: the equal divinity of each must be affirmed.

2. The Word: Its inspiration and authority must be affirmed.

3. The Gospel: Christ died for our sins to appease the wrath of an angry God must be affirmed.

4. The Eschaton: Christ is coming again must be affirmed at the minimum.

 

Some more very good points.

I'd only differ with you here: "As far as tradition subsequent to the Christian canon, it must be tested by the Bible "...

...by saying it like this: "As far as tradition subsequent to the Christian canon, it must be tested by the Bible as interpreted by the consensus of the Church during the period in which the Scripture was collected and canonized."

(*For the Scriptures are just as capable as being "twisted" by untaught and unstable men after the Canon has been completed as they were before--see 2 Peter 3:15-16)

 

1. The Eschaton is central the NT. Every book of the NT speaks of the eschaton.

2. Peter actually wrote against the mockers of his day:

"knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.

They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation."

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God." (2 Pet 3).

3. Listen to Paul:

"But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,

and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,

who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some." (2 Tim 2).

4. I will put the Eschaton right up there with the rest. We cannot minimize it.

 

Except that Apolliarius (for instance) would implicitly deny the full humanity of Christ, while affirming His full divinity (included in the orthodox view of the Trinity)

Perhaps if one leaves it at that. I don't think the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself so that whatever the is consensus of the Church during subsequent periods should be consistent with the consensus during her formative period (ie the same in which the canon is formed and 'fixed'). I'm more than happy to acknowledge the continued work of the Spirit in the Church after the canon is closed, as for example in the Christological teachings of the subsequent five ecumenical councils--Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II and III, and Nicea II--once the political and linguistic caveats surrounding those councils are taken into account. However, the key is that it's the Spirit guiding the Church collectively, not necessarily in the idiosyncratic views of an individual reformer.

 

With respect to the death of Christ and what it means, we must let all of Scripture speak and not just a portion of it to buttress one strand of thought.

1. Christ is seen as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World (John 1:29).

2. He gave His life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28).

3. He suffered, "the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us back to God" (1 Pet 3:18).

4. "God made Christ who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21).

5. And how can we forget Rom 3:24-26, where Christ is set forth to demonstrate the righteousness of God.

6. Rom 5 says that Christ death was to remove the wrath of God (v. 9).

 

1. Scripture says, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

Sin was the problem and the Son of God, the Lamb of God, came to take away the sin of the World, which stood between the world and God.

This sin had to be removed by someone. Since no one among man was righteous to take this sin, the Lamb had to (Rom 3:9, 10).

What do we call that?

2. Scripture says,

"but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation." (Rom 5:8-11)

3. The death of Christ does not just have eschatological significance, but historical and now significance.

4. We were enemies of God, but having trusted Christ for salvation, we have been reconciled to God. This is historical language, then and now, not just eschatological.

5. Someone had to reconcile us to God. And historically, Jesus did that by becoming our Substitute, satisfying the wrath of God.

6. No one else was fit to mediate between enemies, us and God. But Christ was.

7. 1Peter 3:18 certainly involves satisfaction language. Something was keeping us away from God. Christ died to remove it and so bring us to God.

8. Forensic language is part of it, but it points also to satisfaction language. It's a package.

9. I believe both are involved: propitiation and expiation--that which brought about the wrath of God had to be removed--a beautiful marriage between propitiation and expiation.

10. Isaiah says that the Father was pleased to crush His Son on the cross. Read Isa 53:10:

"But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand." (NASB)

11. A guilt offering was for the sin of the people (Lev 5).

12. I agree that many images are seen in the cross of Christ, but this was not the problem with older theologians. Older theologians were rejecting the Atonement for the moral theory and so on.

 

Wow! This is one of the better threads I've read on BB in a while. Thanks for the interaction, all.

 

The word “tradition” which is used in 2 Thess. 2:15 is referring to that which has been handed down from Lord’s Apostles by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…NOT to the uninspired teaching of man which has been placed on the same level equal with Holy Scripture, as is taught by the Roman Catholic Church. This word “tradition” is used in two distinctly different ways in the N.T. The verses which I quoted in Mark are the vain traditions of false religion.. and is NOT the same way in which the word “tradition” is used in 2 Thess. 2:15. It is simply amazing that the Roman Catholic Church uses this ONE verse (2 Thess. 2:15) to exalt its man-made, uninspired traditions to a level equal with Holy Scripture, and therefore repudiate “Sola Scriptura”!

 

Linda,

This is great stuff. From all possible angels, you got it right. :thumbs:

 

Joel Green is a solid scholar, and I think he's got it right with the "kaleidescopic view."

 

After we strain the bath water (bad tradition), there's NO baby (good tradition) in the bath water!! We have the complete Word of God---therefore, what is the purpose of tradition? We don't get saved through tradition. Salvation is in a Person, Jesus Christ.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

This doesn't mean that you aren't a Christian if you believe in tradition, but the only way you are going to grow spiritually is to:

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

This is why I reject tradition. We need preachers who will not compromise the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-5) and preach the Truth no matter who it offends.

 

HP: When I do that some on your list are the very source of either the development of ideas clearly contrary to Scripture and or the perpetuators of those false notions. Certainly great caution is in order.