How do you feel about Tradition?

[thessalonian]

????

 

[KnarfKS]

define tradition...

 

[thessalonian]

I define it as a set of understandings/teachings passed on through the ages. Scripture itself is a tradition I believe. Here is a dictionary definition:


Tradition
Main Entry: tra·di·tion

1 : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)
2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction


I don't completely agree with these definitions and would look at Psalm 78 and 2 Thess 2:15. According to 2 Thes 2:15 there is written tradition (scripture), Sacred oral tradition (in my view), and then there are disciplines or teachings of man that may or may not violate scripture.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

I love traditions and am glad to see some of them maintained in the Christian faith instead of just tossing it all out for something new.

 

[JM]

I believe: "...Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine [sola scriptura] does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine." James White

 

[thessalonian]

"...Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine [sola scriptura] does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. James White

This of course beggs the question, where does the Bible say this? :smt017 I don't see these words or anything close to them in my Bible. Or is it a tradition? :smt104

 

[JM]

a/ We agree the Bible is God breathed. http://aomin.org/inerrancy.html & http://aomin.org/THEOPNEU.html
b/ No other source of religious information is mentioned in this God breathed and inerrant book. Not once is tradition ever referred to as 'God breathed/theopneustos.'

Because WE (you and I) know the Bible is God breathed and inerrant, and doesn't mention any other source of religious information in the same manner, the Bible is the only rule in matters of faith.

Hope this helps you understand what my position is...can I ask a question? What is tradition and who's tradition is the correct or orthodox tradition?

Peace

 

[AVBunyan]

Traditioni

Just take a concordance and trace the word tradition and see what it says about it.

Later 8-)

 

[thessalonian]

Re: Traditioni

Just take a concordance and trace the word tradition and see what it says about it.

Later 8-)

My guess is that some concordances contradict Paul. 2 Thes 2:15.

AV - Did ya vote then?

 

[thessalonian]

JM,

I have your post in mind. It may be till tommorrow before I get to it.

Thess

 

[thessalonian]

a/ We agree the Bible is God breathed.

I would be nothing but a wretch, damned for all eternity if I did not agree with this. Nor would I. I thirst for God's word, daily.

No other source of religious information is mentioned in this God breathed and inerrant book.

It's not? God says in Jer 3:15 I will give you shepherds after my own heart who will give you knowledge and understanding. The Apostles are some of those shepherds but the scriptures are not the only source of religous information or the Apostles who did not write anything gave nothing. Peter and Paul both indicated that they left the faith in the hands of other shepherds, most certainly who gave knowledge and understanding.

Further if one puts himself in the context of the times before the first Gospel was written or even up to the time John died, one would have a hard time supporting this doctrine of yours. Paul spoke the word in Acts 17 to the Bereans. It was their openness to his spoken words that was noble. They of course tested what he SPOKE against the scriptures and found that much of what he was saying was reconcilable with them. But this does not mean he gave them new revelation and they did could not pass it on to others by word of mouth (2 Tim 2:2), 2 Thess 2:15. The point is that Paul could not have taught this doctrine that you are proposing because it would have violated the mode the early Church was in. Teachings were in fact being passed along that were not written down, though some level of implicitness in the Old Testament, which was the scriptures that were available, might have been available. There is no way Paul could have taught or wrote about Sola Scriptura. He would have been contradicting his practice and in fact in 2 Thes 2:15 he says to obey not only what is written (scripture is most definitely authoritative) but also what they heard, oral teaching. In 2 Tim 2:2 he indicates that teachings are to be passed down orally.

[2] and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

There is no retraction of that statement anywhere by anyone in the scriptures.

2 Thes 2:15 is the smoking gun against your claim. It says "HOLD FAST to the traditions you have recieved, whether by word of MOUTH, or in writing from us".

It therefore clearly speaks of the authority of oral tradition. We have nothing that tells us this authority was ever revoked.

Not once is tradition ever referred to as 'God breathed/theopneustos.'

True enough. But neither is scripture anywhere spoken of as the only source of the truth. Futher while the Apostles walked the earth and even long after teachings were passed on more orally than in writing. Most people could not even read. Further scriptures were not widely available especially in gentile lands. I highly doudt Paul spent all his time copying scriptures or could support the thousands of scribes it would have taken to just leave one Bible, which was not completely available, in one town. Sola Scriptura could not have been taught at that time. To write it would mean that they were contradicting it in practice. Therefore it had to be a tradition brought about AFTER the apostles died. So it violates the principal that all the faith was deposited once for all by the Apostles and violates itself in saying that all teaching is in the Bible, except of course the tradition that all teaching is in the Bible. By all means oral tradition must not contradict the written tradition of scripture and so as was done in Acts 17 with the Bereans, it should be tested against scripture (with an open mind). But there is no way no matter what logic you use about scripture being God-breathed that scripture is to be the only source of religious information for us. It just doesn't work.

Because WE (you and I) know the Bible is God breathed and inerrant, and doesn't mention any other source of religious information in the same manner, the Bible is the only rule in matters of faith.

The Bible speaks of religious authority, of teachers and of teachings that are to be passed down, that are not neccessarily explicitly written. I in no way degrade the inerrancy of scripture by saying this. The problem is that the scriptures never state that the Word of God is equivalent to scripture and with good reason. If one believes he is to be practicing baptism of dead people because a verse in corinthians speaks of such a practice. He has the scripture. But he does not have the Word of God because he has a false understanding of it. His understanding actually nullifies the Word of God, even though the Bible does in fact speak of such a practice. He does not understand the significance of it and so it has no value to him and in fact may be a detraction to his faith. Further your theology puts the scriptures at the whims of individual men with corrupt natures. Man has shown time and time again that he will gravitate toward what is easy and find excuses for the hard lessons of God's word. The Church, the pillar and support of the truth was left by Christ to guide him. Proverbs says "trust not in your own understanding, but rely on the Lord". Most certainly trusting the shepherds, sent by God, who are not just the Apostles, is trusting in the Lord as proverbs 3:5 speaks of.

Hope this helps you understand what my position is...can I ask a question?

I fully understand your position and why you hold to it. The question below is why I don't hold to it.

What is tradition and who's tradition is the correct or orthodox tradition?

Tradition is teachings passed down one to another from generation to generation. The scriptures are a tradition, as stated in 2 Thes 2:15 if you read it CAREFULLY. But whether you will admit it or not you have "traditions" that your parents taught you regarding scripture or a pastor taught you that were taught to him by his parents. Understandings that are different from the understandigs of other Christians, who have their own traditions. The reformation really brought about a multiplication of "traditions". People came up with their own theologies, contradicting one another and passed them on to their children. Sola Scriptura itself can only be a tradition. It is nowhere found in the Bible. Today open a phone book and you will see hundreds if not thousands of religious traditions in the form of denominations. And even the non-denominational denominations have their own traditions. Whose traditions are correct? That's a good question Christ said "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against his Church. The Church which is the "pillar and support of the truth". We are told the faith was delived once for all.

Jude.1
[3] Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Therefore, we know that the correct set of teaching must be historically continguous and did not have to be restored. It has been passed down. Note it doesn't say it was just delivered once for all only in writing, though he is writing them that they should contend for it. I'll let you discover where those traditions are. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers is a good place to start. I find it hard to belive that an organization that started in the 1500's or was an offshoot of that could contain all of the traditions passed down by the Apostles. A one man root source of a faith cannot have all of the traditions within his mind to pass on to his newfound religion. Invariably some of it will be lost, though he will pass on some truth/tradition/understanding of the scriptures. He will however invariably also reject parts that are in fact true but not pallitable to his individual desires and appetites. So I don't think that something started by zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Smith, White, Wesley or any other group, or offshoots from it are good candidates. My 2 Cents.

Blessings

Thess


Peace[/quote]

 

[JM]

I maintain, you cannot prove that any other source of religious information is God breathed. You’re making a leap from Jer. 3:15 right passed the apostle to the hierarchy of Rome. You cannot prove from Scripture your stance, that being the Bishops of your church are the Shepard’s spoken of in the OT or the NT.

Just as you say 'sola scriptura cannot be found in Scripture', I'll say the same for your sola tradition.

I can list doctrines of traditional churches that are not found in Scripture, sola scriptura can be traced back to Acts 17 as you pointed out. You would have to prove that what became known as Scripture was different from what was spoken by the apostles. The tradition of the Jews during the time of Christ had not been persevered from error, and like those days of old, traditions are held that contradict belief and practice captured by the NT snap shot. The fact that we have a NT capturing the apostle’s ministry should be enough to persuade you, your case is made on what tradition has to say about it self and not what the Bible has to say about tradition. As a Bible believing Christian, I believe the words of the apostles are found in the Bible. Tradition holds Scripture in high regard, yet, as AV pointed out, tradition isn’t held as high by Scripture.

The faithful held to what became known as Scripture, they ‘held fast’ to what was said and what could be proven ‘in writing.’ If anything could be said about the passages you sited, the ‘word of mouth’ is placed in direct relation to the written word, if a corrupt ‘word of mouth’ teaching crept in it could be tested by the written word as your church fathers atest to.

Your post is missing the point, what became known as Scripture was once spoken by the apostles and prophets. Who do you believe these Shepard’s and teachers to be? As I wrote before, should we follow the traditions of the Nestorian Church, which recognizes only 22 books, excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation? Maybe the traditions of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which gives the same 27 books in its "narrower" NT canon but then adds 8 books to its "broader" canon? ("four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Books of Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia.") You have a false presupposition, believing the teachings of your Church have a unity but they don’t. Much separates the ‘traditional’ churches from each other.

If I were to show you the historical continuity of my belief, would it change your mind? If I took the time to post a history of Bible believing Christians, would it prove me correct? Does the fact that something is historical make it correct?

 

[thessalonian]

I'll say the same for your sola tradition.

Who believes sola tradition?

 

[JM]

The Orthodox.

 

[thessalonian]

The Orthodox.

I don't believe they do unless of course you rightly categorize the Bible as a tradition. Then I suppose you might even say I am sola tradition. But I don't think that's what you meant. I'm not Orthodox so please don't misrepresent what I believe or tell me what I believe. More later.

blessings

 

[Orthodox Christian]

The Orthodox.

I don't believe they do unless of course you rightly categorize the Bible as a tradition. Then I suppose you might even say I am sola tradition. But I don't think that's what you meant. I'm not Orthodox so please don't misrepresent what I believe or tell me what I believe. More later.

blessings

You hit the nail on the head there, Thess: unless one considers scripture to be a foundational component of this 'sola tradition' charge, then we have only the misstating of Orthodox ethos. I don't think it was Jason's intent to "rightly categorize" scripture, but rather, to wrongly categorize orthodox belief and practice. So it would seem.

Orthodox theology is built upon the three-fold witness of worship, scripture, and holy tradition. This is true of all other groups, as well, we are simply honest about it.

There is no way to read scripture without interpreting it. There are numerous books out on the market that describe how to rightly interpret the bible. The Reformed tradition has certain interpretations of the bible.
So...
if only the manuscripts themselves are God-breathed, then therefore there is no God-breathed interpretation, and thus no man can have any lasting confidence in what he reads.

Unless one accepts the circularity of the S.S. argument:
Q:How do you know your interpretation of scripture is correct?
A: Scripture proves it

That failing, such often appeal to arguments for S.S. from patristics, failing to recognize how they've undermined their foundational argument in so doing.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Your post is missing the point, what became known as Scripture was once spoken by the apostles and prophets. Who do you believe these Shepard’s and teachers to be? As I wrote before, should we follow the traditions of the Nestorian Church, which recognizes only 22 books, excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation? Maybe the traditions of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which gives the same 27 books in its "narrower" NT canon but then adds 8 books to its "broader" canon? ("four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Books of Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia.") You have a false presupposition, believing the teachings of your Church have a unity but they don’t. Much separates the ‘traditional’ churches from each other.

If I were to show you the historical continuity of my belief, would it change your mind? If I took the time to post a history of Bible believing Christians, would it prove me correct? Does the fact that something is historical make it correct?

I look forward to the latter.
As for the former:
Your proof of the canonical irregularity of Rome and the East is the fact that a heretical sect (Nestorians) hold to a different canon? We are as related to the Nestorians as you are to the JWs and Mormons. Make of that what you will.

 

[JM]

Unless one accepts the circularity of the S.S. argument:
Q:How do you know your interpretation of scripture is correct?
A: Scripture proves it

At last!

Unless one accepts the circularity of the traditional church argument:
Q: How do you know your interpretation of tradition is correct?
A: Tradition proves it

Thx for the help OC. :wink:

The Reformed tradition has certain interpretations of the bible.

For the last time (I hope), I'm not Reformed.

So...
if only the manuscripts themselves are God-breathed, then therefore there is no God-breathed interpretation, and thus no man can have any lasting confidence in what he reads.

and latter,

Your proof of the canonical irregularity of Rome and the East is the fact that a heretical sect (Nestorians) hold to a different canon? We are as related to the Nestorians as you are to the JWs and Mormons.

Does the fact that people understand the Bible in dfferent ways diminish the nature of the Bible? No. The irregularity you speak of among traditional churches, how do you have any lasting confidence in what you are told is 'orthodox'? You have tried to show irregularity among Bible believers as a sign that sola scriptura doesn't work, well, the argument is now being used against you!

 

[JM]

I'm off for a long weekend, God bless. :-D

 

[thessalonian]

Unless one accepts the circularity of the traditional church argument:
Q: How do you know your interpretation of tradition is correct?
A: Tradition proves it

Why do you insist that we believe in sola tradition. This is getting to the point of bearing false witness. Scripture validates tradition and tradition scripture. They are not separate but intimately intertwined. Once you start viewing theology in the Catholic framework of scripture and tradition you will see so much more. Your sacred sola scriptura document, which you have done anything but prove, limits you with regard to the mysteries of God. I have been called a zombie before because I submit to the magesterium of the Catholic Church and the traditions they teach. These traditions free me up for a deeper understanding of the Bible. I don't have to go down dead end emptry tradtions of man that nullify the word of God.

Do you really think your arguements are doing anything JM. I have to tell you that I am unphased by your poor logic, straw men, and your actually thinking that you are competing in this discussion. It's sad.

Blessings