One Response

  1. bfhu, as agreed on I have moved to this posting for our discussion on ” sola scriptura”

    Yes, Jesus spoke against the traditions of men. In my understanding, this means whatever oral teaching or tradition that could not be verified by the written word: the law and the prophets. He himself lived according to this word, and even in the last minute of his life he, for the purpose that the scriptures should be fulfilled, said ” I thirst “. There can be no doubt that he revered the scriptures above anything as truly the oracles of God, and attached every minor deviation from them, even the traditions from the fathers.
    You are perhaps right that by his statement ” what is written ” in 1 Cor 4:6 , Paul refers to the OT mainly . And you are right that not all his letters and perhaps the gospels were not written at the time. But the main point in this is to underline and advocate a certain attitude: nothing should be adhered to unless it could be clearly proved from writings, OT or genuinely apostolic. Even though just minor parts of NT circulated, his statement still is valid, and does not contradict ” sola scriptura”
    In my opinion there must be full harmony between what the apostles taught and what they wrote. Even though all their speeches and theological reasoning certainly is not preserved( is that right? ) I think we – as I said – must assume that we have the essence.
    The scriptures O/NT are a compilation of diverse types of writings, yes, and certainly no systematic theology. But I do not think you can substantiate your assertion that we shall find a tradition coming along later that gives so to speak ” new revelation”.
    In 2 thess 2:15 they are exhorted to keep on to traditions ( that is ” the substance of the teaching”cf Strong ) that they had received, either by speech or by writing. It seem you try to infer that there was any difference between the two. But that can not be proved or or made probable. What he wrote must be the same in essence as he taught! If not they would have to chose between different teachings that mutually opposed each other? Evidence to this is supported in 1 Tim 3:14-15 where Paul is writing in spite of the fact that he has planned to visit him so that he in the meantime ” could be able to know how to behave in the house of God “. So he gave him the essence of that teaching ” by mail ” in case his travel was postponed.

    To prove that the apostles supported an oral tradition different from the written, you take the dogma of the trinity. Supposedly, the apostles left behind an oral tradition not included in the scriptures that at a later time ” ripened ” and came to fruition 300 years later! And at the same time you are quite clear that there is no such dogma in the Bible and give JW credit in their contention on that. Then you also have given support to a notion that even Paul didn´t teach the trinity in writing because it cannot be found anywhere. Which is correct. Paul was actually a unitarian as the rest of the apostles and Christ himself.Take as an example 1 Tim. 2:5:” for there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” and 1. Cor 8:6 ” to us there is but one God , the Father, of whom are all things , and we in him ,and one Lord Jesus Christ ….”
    But then we have the following inconsistency: Paul taught the trinity orally, but not in writing, actually it can be argued that he was against it!? So he apparently he held to different opposing views?
    That is in fact the implication I get from your statements. Either this is true, or this ” tradition of the trinity ” is a later , erroneous tradition. No other possibility exists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: