The problem is that if you lived 2,000 years ago, & all I had today was an Inspired book about you that said, “Gorgias never eats hamburgers while he/she sleeps.” Although it may be “inferred” that you eat hamburgers while you’re awake, there is no real way to know for sure that you indeed eat hamburgers.
Agreed. Yet, you’re not saying “traditions of men may be true” – you’re making the opposite unfounded assertion: “traditions of men are bad”. By your own logic, you cannot in good faith make the claim you’re making.
it would be incorrect for me to make that assumption, without Scriptural evidence
Precisely. And, I’ve shown examples of Scriptural evidence that show that Jesus accepted various traditions of men – the two easiest examples to demonstrate, of course, being that Jesus accepted the tradition to have a wedding ceremony and party (which He attended) and the tradition of having synagogue services on the Sabbath. Neither are commanded by Scripture, and Jesus participated in both. Now… neither of these traditions “nullify the word of God”, which is what Jesus was railing about, and so this is the reason He participated in them. But, if you want to make the assertion that you do – against all ‘traditions of men’ – you cannot make that claim, given the witness of Scripture. In other words, Sola Scriptura itself refutes Sola Scriptura…
Attending a wedding ceremony doesn’t “ADD” to Scripture in the same way “ADDING” a man-made tradition that’s not found in Inspired Scipture does, which is what we’re discussing - extra-biblical “traditions” being just as “Inspired” as God-breathed Scripture.
Hmm… that seems to be a departure from your earlier assertion – that is, it seemed to me that you were saying that the traditions of men were to be eschewed because they were non-Scriptural. Now, you seem to be backing away from that statement and saying that ‘traditions of men’ are ok unless they’re held at the level of ‘inspired Scripture’. Did I, perhaps, misunderstand you originally?
In any case, I think I need to point you again to Matthew 28: Jesus commanded the apostles to “teach them to observe all I commanded you.” There’s no assertion anywhere that “all I commanded you” is written down, in its entirety, in the Gospels. In fact, in the Gospel of John, he twice notes that Jesus said and did much more than what was recorded in Scripture. In other words, a logical conclusion follows: if Jesus did and said more than what was recorded, and Jesus commanded the apostles to teach all he said, then the belief that Christians may only teach what was recorded
necessarily disobeys the command of Christ.
Remember, that is what the Pharisees were rebuking Jesus’ disciples of in Matthew Ch.15. The “Sacred Traditions” of the Pharisees that were not found in the OT - in their mind - were no different than Inspired Scripture.
No, that’s not at all what is going on. Please find a citation for me, from the Gospels, in which the Pharisees make the assertion that their traditions “were no different than inspired Scripture”. (It just isn’t in there.)
Rather, the Pharisees were saying that their traditions were binding, just as any authority says their rules are binding. Jesus, in fact,
affirms this in Matthew chapter 23: “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you.” Jesus’ problem isn’t with their authority, but with the ways that they broke the Commandments that they were supposed to uphold. Jesus’ apostles broke tradition – but the Pharisees transgressed the Fourth Commandment, and Jesus held them to account for that transgression!
This isn’t a proof of SS – it’s a call to accountability for religious leaders!
The “Sacred Tradition” of ritualistic washing of hands before meals wasn’t something that was commanded in OT Scripture for Jews to do - but the Pharisees still commanded it. If you notice, Jesus command [sic] to His disciples, “you know, even though it’s not in the OT Scriptures, we really should do it, because it’s the ‘Sacred Tradition’ of the Pharisees.” Rather, He rebuked the Pharisees by saying, “Why do you transgress the commandments of God for the sake of your traditions?”
You’re missing the point there… do you recognize this? You wanted to say, I think, that Jesus
didn’t command them ‘we should do it’ … but that’s
precisely what he did command (again, Mt 23:2). The rebuke doesn’t address the question of hand-washing…
So, by ADDING their “Sacred Traditions” that weren’t found in Inspired Scripture, Jesus not only didn’t Jesus elevate their “Sacred Traditions” to the level of OT Scripture, but He also equated ADDING their “tradition” with “transgressing the commandments of God.”
Ouch. No, you really need to re-read Mt 15. Hand-washing is abandoned, immediately, as an item of concern. In its place, Jesus picks
one tradition – a tradition that is problematic – and rails against it. You’ve extrapolated to include all traditions, and that’s a glaring logical error – especially when Jesus participates in Jewish traditions and affirms the Pharisees’ authority to direct the actions of Jews. I’m sorry, but your assertions fail, massively… :sad_yes:
The problem is that there is no way of knowing for sure that these extra-scriptural “Sacred Traditions” were actually “commanded” by Christ & His disciples to be taught to the Church.
I see. So, you trust that, although Jesus didn’t say “write a book”, his apostles are trustworthy in writing down some things He said; meantime, even though He
did say “teach all the things I taught”, his apostles aren’t trustworthy in teaching them? Jesus’ protection extended to what He
didn’t say, but doesn’t extend to what He
did command? Wow.
