In praise of tradition

[Gary]

In Praise Of Tradition

Question: Protestants are not being totally honest when they say they don't have traditions that are not biblically based, like they accuse the Roman Catholic Church of having. Take for example some denominations that do not drink alcohol or dance. The bible is full of dancing (King David) and Christ's first miracle was turning water into wine at Cana. And it was wine he used, not grape juice, at the last supper. So those are just two man-made traditions of some Protestant churches.

Answer: You are right. Those Protestants who claim to have no traditions (biblical or not) are misguided. We have received from our forefathers the evangelical teachings and practices we cherish. That heritage forms our traditions!

Protestants often view tradition with a jaundiced eye, undoubtedly because they are aware of the disastrous effect of human tradition on the Gospel message. Yet the concept of “tradition†per se is perfectly acceptable. Tradition simply means teachings and practices transmitted by example, verbal and written means. That is the way we share our faith (through sermons, books, personal witness and other means) with one another, and with the next generation of Christians. Now of course, traditions may be true or false; traditions may have their origin in God or in the human mind. The Bible uses the word tradition to describe both false teachings (Mark 7:9; Colossians 2:8; 1 Peter 1:18) and true teaching (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6). So, the issue is not whether we have traditions or not - we all have - but whether those traditions are in accordance to God’s Word or not.

Yes, we have traditions - most are biblical, while others have no real biblical support. We do not pretend that we have arrived yet. By God’s grace we believe the essential doctrines of Christianity and worship God with a clear conscience; yet we are conscious of our weaknesses and immaturity, and we strive to renew and reform ourselves in the light of the Word of God.

Here lies the fundamental difference between the Roman and the Protestant attitude to tradition. We do not consider a particular doctrine as divinely revealed simply because it was transmitted from antiquity. Error, as well as truth, is passed on from generation to the next. There must be a more reliable standard to evaluate and confirm the truthfulness of our beliefs.

Protestants follow the example of Christ and His apostles, who constantly appealed to the written Scriptures to prove their teaching. Moreover, Jesus also challenged the traditions of His day by appealing to Scripture. For example, in Mark 7, Jesus contrasted the Scriptures (“For Moses saidâ€Â) with the Jewish teaching (“but ye sayâ€Â) which they had received from their forefathers. And having shown that these traditions were contrary to the Scriptures, He rejected and dismissed them as “doctrines of men.â€Â

You mentioned two traditions in some Protestant churches - complete abstinence from alcohol and dance. It’s worth assessing these two regulations by the infallible and ultimate rule. While the Bible warns about the abuse of excessive wine - who knows how many lives and families are ruined by alcohol? - yet, we should ask whether the Bible allows for a legitimate use of wine (Psalm 104:15, John 2:9). Similarly, dance and songs with filthy lyrics are used in clubs to promote lust and sexual immorality - and this is what Christian pastors are concerned about for the young Christians - yet, again, does the Bible absolutely forbid dancing on every occasion? (Psalm 150:4; Ecclesiastes 3:4: Luke 15:25).

Evangelical churches should constantly examine their teaching and practices - i.e. their traditions - in the light of the Word, and should be courageous enough to change where necessary.

• Roman Catholic “Sacred Tradition†cannot be checked by the Scriptures, because it is considered to be of equal value to the written Word of God. “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence†(Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 9). In the Roman religion, “Tradition†is uncorrectable and unaccountable. It is raised to the level of Holy Scripture, thus opening wide the door to all sorts of errors.

We place the Bible on top. We value tradition, but it is subordinate to the Bible. We believe and practice those traditions which are taught in God’s Word, and we pass them on to the next generation. But we reject those traditions which find their origin in human teaching rather than the Word of God.

Source: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a177.htm

 

[Gary]

Tradition, The Magician's Hat

Question: In your Q&A section you answered a question about Sacred Tradition. The person who asked the question cited 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to establish the reason for believing in Sacred Tradition. You provided an answer that I found helpful, however, I have a question to ask. You cited Trent and Vatican II to show how the Roman Catholic Church defines the concept of Sacred Tradition. After that you stated that, "Tradition is a body of undefined teachings..." My question is how did your citations of Trent and Vatican II lead you to restate the Catholic position using the word “undefined�

Answer: Tradition is a body of undefined teaching; the contents and limits of this teaching are not available for inspection or study. This is in contrast to the Holy Scriptures, which anyone can read and examine for himself. If I claim that a particular teaching is biblical, you can verify or refute my claim by checking out the Bible.

But when the Catholic magisterium claims that such doctrines as the papal supremacy, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are found in Tradition, no one can prove or disprove that claim. How can you?

Take a second look at those two references:

• "The Council (of Trent) clearly perceives that this truth and rule are contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, having been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand."
  
  "Sacred Tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its integrity."

Notice, first of all that traditions are “unwrittenâ€Â. You cannot go to a library and read them for yourself. (By the way, the writings of the church Fathers are NOT Tradition; they are called “witnesses†to Tradition - and I may add, very ‘fallible’ witnesses, for the Fathers often make mistakes and contradict one another and the teaching of the modern church). So where can you go to discover the contents of Tradition? Well, you can only go to the magisterium, i.e. the Catholic bishops (who claim to be the successors of the apostles and to whom the apostolic traditions were supposedly transmitted ‘from hand to hand’). But notice that the same bishops, who appeal to Tradition as their divine source of their teaching, are themselves that same Tradition since they had supposedly received the unwritten teachings from their predecessors.

I hope you can see that this concept of Tradition is only a proud and empty claim. Ask a Roman Catholic a simple question - Is Tradition equal or more extensive than the teaching of the Holy Scriptures? Are there some vital Christian doctrines that are taught in Tradition and not in the Bible? The different answers you get - some say yes, others say no (see note 1) - reveal that Catholics don’t know what they’re talking about when they speak of Tradition.

The concept of Tradition is a convenient excuse for the Roman Catholic magisterium to teach whatever they desire as if it is the Word of God, and without any accountability whatsoever. It is useless to protest that such teachings as papal infallibility and the Marian dogmas are absent from the pages of Scripture and even the writings of the early church. Tradition is their carte blanche. Tradition is the magician’s hat, out of which the Roman magisterium can pull any new theological rabbit and call it the Word of God!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1. Contrary to the position of many modern Catholic apologists who assert the material sufficiency of Scripture, many conservative Catholics maintain the opposite. For example, St Alphonsus wrote: "These traditions, which are the unwritten word of God, have the same authority as the written word of God . . . Traditions are necessary that belief may be given to many articles of faith . . . about which nothing at all exists in scriptures, so that these truths have come to us only from the font of tradition" [S. Alphonsus, De fidei veritate. Cap. VI, n. 30. S. Alphonsi Opera dogmatica (Rome, 1903), 292]. Or consider this, "Tradition is a source of revelation distinct from Scripture, and goes beyond the data of Scripture. This is a dogma of faith from the Council of Trent and from the Vatican Council" [ G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. III, The Sources of Revelation (Tr. J. Castelot, S.S., and W. Murphy, S.S., Westminster, Md., 1960), 146].

Source: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a169.htm

:wink:

 

[Gary]

Sacred Tradition

Question: As a Catholic I was always taught that God's Word is in Scripture and apostolic Tradition. Tradition is God's Word that has been handed down orally. The apostle Paul says: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15, KJV).

Answer: This issue is one of the fundamental differences between Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity. For Christians, from among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life. Whereas in Catholicism, in addition to Scripture, Tradition is also regarded as the Word of God.

The word "tradition" has several meanings, so it is important to define what the Catholic Church means by Tradition. "The Council (of Trent) clearly perceives that this truth and rule are contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, having been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand." Further, the Second Vatican Council adds, "Sacred Tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its integrity."

In other words, Tradition is a body of undefined teachings, apart from the Holy Scriptures, that is passed on perfectly from generation to generation through the Pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church.

You quoted 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to give support to this concept of "Tradition" but a closer look reveals that the apostle Paul has something different in mind. Writing to the Christians in Thessalonica, among whom he had personally laboured, he says:

• But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-15).

The apostle Paul had preached the Gospel to the Thessalonians, and they believed the truth for their salvation. Now that he was not present with them anymore, Paul exhorts them to hold on to the "traditions" he had passed on to them. These traditions or teachings are simply the truths of the Gospel which the apostle Paul had taught them by two means: by preaching ("by word") and by writing ("our epistle"). There is nothing here about the perfect transmission of an undefined body of teaching through a succession of bishops.

Our situation is radically different from that of the Thessalonian Christians. They had the privilege of welcoming a living apostle among them. They heard the apostle speak to them; we cannot do the same, simply because there are no apostles today.

How then can we learn the Word of God since we are living so many centuries after the apostles? The Lord has preserved and transmitted the apostolic message in the New Testament. In the same manner, the prophets of old preached God's Word to the Jewish people in their generation. Later generations had access to their message only in the books of the Old Testament Scriptures - and nothing else. The Jews were not supposed to find the Word of God in the Holy Scriptures and some form of oral tradition. In fact the Lord Jesus warned them about this very thing in Mark 7. Similarly, we receive the teachings of the prophets and apostles in the inspired writings of the Old and New Testament Scriptures.

Irenaeus said it this way: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed them down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1).

Source: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a77.htm

 

[Gary]

See also:

The Sufficiency of the Written Word
Answering the Modern Roman Catholic Apologists

by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr

This article is from chapter 5 of Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible

Article: http://www.mbrem.com/bible/sufficn.htm

Book: http://www.graceandtruthbooks.com/listd ... eology.asp

;-)

 

[Relic]

.

Thank you.

.