Mat. 15:3 - Do not Forsake the Commandment of God for the Tradition of Men

cmp.2009.05.02
ed.2009.07.29.01 (Edited some, smoothed out the contrary parts a tad.)

To: William Lane Craig,
Reasonable Faith
P.O. Box 72888
Marietta, Georgia 30007
Office: 404.348.6301

Organization:
1. Question
3. Traditionalism and Creation
2. Traditionalism and Evolution
4. Traditionalism and Trinity
5. Conclusion

Question
Very frequently, when Christians debate with unbelievers, its always noticeable that the Christians will make appeals to the authority of tradition. And, this trend, where we incorporate tradition into doctrine, seems to contribute a whole lot of confusion regarding what it is we actually believe in.

So, my question simply is, "Why do we hold onto untenable traditional beliefs when Scripture does not support them"?

Please know that I am not asserting that what I have stated below is the absolute "truth" regarding Creation, Evolution or even the Trinity doctrine; I simply do not know. On the other hand, these examples are intended to illustrate my argument: "if the strongholds of traditionalism are removed, then we find that Scripture and reason really do not seem to contradict."

So my question could also be considered to be: "Why do we continue to hold onto traditionalism and consider it to have so much authority?"

Do we do this just so we can fill in our gaps of knowledge? Maybe we hold onto traditional beliefs just so we can boast in the confidence of knowing, even if that knowledge isn't the truth.

Perhaps a better question is: "how do we identify what part of our faith is founded on traditionalism, and how do we know what is established on what God actually said?"

Traditionalism and Creation
It is commonly understood that pretty much every definition of the word "day" either: considers Earth's rotation in relation to the Sun, or we believe that the term is sometimes symbolic.

Two examples of definitions that are relative to the Sun include: the amount of time for the Earth to rotate around its axis in view of the Sun; and, the Biblical definition that a "day" is the combination of evening and morning.

Both of these definitions rely on the Sun, which didn't really seem to be given as a sign or even created, until the fourth day. These "days" were simply proclaimed to be so. As with all other passages of Scripture, we can infer if it is metaphorical or literal by its context. And, since the days in Genesis 1 evidently do not correspond to a literal 24 hour rotation on its axis in view of the Sun, then it is reasonable to accept that this passage is metaphorical.

We have no Biblical evidence to say that these days consisted of 24 hours, let alone a Biblical "day" which is a combination of evening and morning, (still relative to the Sun). There are some who are so adamant about notion of a 24 hour day that they claim that God was the light that was created on the first day and in this He ensured our notion of a 24 hour day. This is problematic for two obvious reasons: first, the light was created, if God was this light, how can He create Himself? Second, why would God make such a massive effort to comply to our notion of 24 hours?

But despite the obvious ambiguity in the Creation Story, we hold to the position that the Earth was created in six, twenty-four hour periods in order to uphold the tradition of men, (despite the fact that the Bible says no such thing, and is clearly vague on the issue).

Traditionalism and Evolution
Similarly, we presume to know how God made man. Certainly, both the Bible and evolutionists agree on the fact that Man was evidentially created from the dust of the Earth. Even though the theory of evolution has many flaws, it is even more problematic for a Christian to argue in favor of certain beliefs based on tradition, and not Scripture.

To be specific, Christians tend to leave Scripture behind when they allude to the commonly held notion that God stepped out of Heaven, walked along the streams, made a bunch of clay, pulled out His Potter's Wheel, peddaled it around, molded Adam, and then poked two holes making Adam's nostrils. Apparently after this, God breathed into Adam, and then some "Star Trekkian" glow appeared which turned Adam into a living and breathing Man. The truth is that Scripture says that God "breathed" and that God "formed", nothing more.

Again, Scripture does not say how God did either of these two things. Did Jesus do the breathing in Human form since God is Spirit and cannot breathe? Did God form Adam through a literal pottery process or did God use some other means to form Adam like Isaiah speaks of the forming process in the womb, and also he speaks of the forming of a nation? Again, it is reasonable to accept that Moses was either being terribly concise, or at least metaphorical.

Scripture does go as far as to use the connotation of a potter in order to describe that nature of God. This connotation very effectively illustrates God's care, mastery, materials, and several other ideas. However, the Bible does not offer any more details than this.

Scripture frequently omits details, and somehow we feel justified filling in those gaps and we declare with confidence how God did such a complex thing--usually holding to a traditional belief. There are details that are not mentioned in the Creation Story that are mentioned in other places in Scripture, specifically the dialog that God had with Wisdom, and the Christian claim that God created everything with the help of Jesus. There are many more details scattered throughout Scripture that effectively serve to remind us that the Creation Story is a very concise summary, (which seems more than reasonable).

How can anyone presume to have complete knowledge about how God did or did not do something especially in light of the fact that God did not tell us?

Traditionalism and Trinity
There are also traditional positions that we cite as Christians in order to indoctrinate others. For example, the Christian Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, the anointed King of God, the Lord of Lords, and the Son of David.

Scripture also makes it clear that "God" is not the name of the Most High. "God" is just what the Most High IS. It is His nature. The Most High is God, just like I am Human. If we have Children, the infants are Human. If the Most High has a child, what nature is that child? Jesus said whatever is born of the Spirit is Spirit. It would make sense that any child of the Most High would share His nature, and this is even written in Psalms:

Pslams 82:6-7
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."

Of course, theologians have a hard time reconciling this passage, and for no reason based on Scripture, they claim that God was being "sarcastic". Really? How in the world does this context show that God was being sarcastic? Before this passage, God was telling Israel that they should take care of the needy and afflicted; after this passage God judges that they will fall like everyone else. Was God being sarcastic about this too?

Isn't it justified to say that if a father has a child, then that child carries the nature of its father? If its father was Human, then it is Human. If its Father is God, then isn't it Spirit? Doesn't Jesus have the right to claim the nature of His Father? Even Jesus confirmed this when he said:

John 3:6-7
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

The point is, we are told to believe in the traditional belief that: "The mystery of the godhead is too great to understand". This would seem somewhat reasonable except for this fact: the Bible explicitly states the opposite, that the divine nature of God is understood and clearly seen:

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Wouldn't those who want to confess Jesus before men be justified to simply call Him the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings? Isn't this Biblical? Isn't it justified to call Him the Son of Adam and the Son of the Father? Isn't it justified to say that "God" is not the name of the "Most High". Isn't it justified to say that Jesus submitted to His Father, even to death? Isn't it justified to say that Jesus is the image of the Father, since the Father has no image? Isn't it justified to say that if you have seen Jesus, then you have seen the Father, because Jesus is the image of His Father since His Father is Spirit?

But, how can we claim it is justified to add to the covenant of salvation, "You must believe that Jesus IS the Most High and the Father, in order to be saved"? Isn't it more reasonable for believers NOT to put their faith in these traditions since they are not stated directly in Scripture?

Conclusion
Why isn't it considered reasonable faith to just believe what the Bible says without falling into traditionalism and intellectualism?

Why do we require others to put their faith in our intellectual "conclusions" and "logical inferrences"?

If we know that "trust", (what some people call faith) comes from the hearing of God's promises, (just like Abraham and Sarah), and we know that it is only by trusting in the Words of God that we have any opportunity to find favor, then why do we insist on trusting in traditionalism and intellectualism instead?

If "true faith" is trusting in the promises and words of God, then isn't it reasonable to conclude that it really is sinful to trust and depend on anything other than what God has promised and commanded?

Romans 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Isn't it reasonable to not hold dogmatically to a belief if Scripture does not directly state that belief? Wouldn't a believer be justified in not putting their faith on inference and argument by simply saying to God:

"Because you commanded me not to, I did not put trust in my own understanding, and I did not put my trust in men."

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.

Psalm 146:3
Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.

Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD.

Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"

2 Corinthians 1:9-10
Indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He Son whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us.