Is it a difference of understanding or interpretation???

[Scuba Pete]

NP. It's a broad term, and it can (and will) be used to include virtually any method of interpretation that rejects the authority of Tradition.

So then, would you include Jesus as a "solo scripturist"? I am in good company then indeed!

Mark 7:5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"

6 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
9 And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "
17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") 20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' " NIV

Jesus reduced our "laws" to just two: Love God and Love Everyone Else. Most everything else is merely a tradition. As we begin to fully understand these principles, our lives are completely transformed because our HEARTS are transformed. Once the heart is right, there is no need for any other law or tradition.

 

[No*s]

Conversely, though, Jesus also commanded the obedience to tradition. For instance, when referring to obeying the Pharisees, He commanded the audience "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and they do not do." in Mt. 23.2. There is no reference in Scripture to "Moses' seat," but Christ commanded obedience to this tradition, despite their unrighteousness.

He also never wrote a book. Had He desired for us to take it just between us and God, wouldn't He have done so rather than teach orally and pass down a tradition? Further, the prophecy about Christ in Mt. 2.23 is not found in the OT; it is either a misquotation or an allusion to an extra-biblical source. I could likewise show references in the epistles where an oral tradition was used to properly interpret the Scripture (and which we would not be able to understand like the authors without it).

"Tradition" isn't a bad word, then, and we shouldn't only look at how Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for abusing the people with it. The NT also includes affirmations, which are much less popular these days. The Bible itself is a product of tradition, and had it not been for oral tradition, the Gnostics would have extinguished Christianity long ago. Tradition is a very good thing in some cases, and it is a bad thing in other cases (a tradition of anti-traditionalism is a good example of the latter).

Jesus reduced our "laws" to just two: Love God and Love Everyone Else. Most everything else is merely a tradition. As we begin to fully understand these principles, our lives are completely transformed because our HEARTS are transformed. Once the heart is right, there is no need for any other law or tradition.

If you take this as making Tradition optional, then you will also find that it does the same thing to Scripture. We don't "need" it, and all we need is love of God and love of men. If, however, the study of Scripture is a mark of loving God, then the acceptance of Godly tradition may also be an act of loving God.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Conversely, though, Jesus also commanded the obedience to tradition.

Jesus did not tell us to obey the Pharisees... he was merely pointing out the status quo. In fact, he tells us quite often to NOT act or do as the Phaisees.

He also never wrote a book.

Sure he did, but not with words on paper. Paul did the same, though he also wrote epistles.

II Corinthians 3:3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
4 Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. NIV

Notice that he never said that "traditions give life". Much the opposite.

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that we don't believe that the Spirit can do the job Jesus gave him to do. Many have thus replaced the "counselor" with a bunch of traditions.

So is one "understanding" superior to the other? Not really. The man who thinks he has all the answers really has none of them. The test of our Christianity is not what we believe as much as it is how we love others.