Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Tradition Alone?

JM

Member
1)-Where in the bible does it say you should believe in only the authority of 'Tradition'?

2)-If 'Tradition' is the final authority on all matters and infallible, then who was the infallible man who decided which 'Traditions' to include in the faith?

3)-Going by 'Tradition alone' or 'Tradition and Scripture', how do you know what 'Traditions' to believe in and which not to. How do you know purgatory is real but toll houses are false when the early 'Traditional' Churches has elements of both?

4)-Can you define 'Tradition' so we may go and study it?

5)-How do we know which 'Tradition' is valid?

6)-Is it possible to provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral 'Tradition' that the Bible is silent about?

7)-Can you be so kind as to give us a single example of where inspired apostolic 'oral revelation/tradition' differed from Bible?

8)- How can 'Tradition' be the correct method of determining truth because when we have so many different division among churches that claim to use 'Tradition?'?
 
Changing your name doesn't get you off the hook with these questions that you ran from.

Answer these, and you might get a quid pro quo response.
 
Orthodox Christian said:
Changing your name doesn't get you off the hook with these questions that you ran from.

Answer these, and you might get a quid pro quo response.

lol, Orange County you know me better then that. I wrote a response and haven't posted it yet, and yes I even address more of your faulty logic.

You guys (the Orthodox mafia with your black robes and breads) are too funny.

As for running, you mean like the debate you ran from? Just answer the questions.

DRAW!
 
Biblical Orthodoxy said:
[quote="Orthodox Christian":6b4a2]Changing your name doesn't get you off the hook with these questions that you ran from.

Answer these, and you might get a quid pro quo response.

lol, Orange County you know me better then that. I wrote a response and haven't posted it yet, and yes I even address more of your faulty logic.

You guys (the Orthodox mafia with your black robes and breads) are too funny.

As for running, you mean like the debate you ran from? Just answer the questions.

DRAW![/quote:6b4a2]
Actually, Jason, you recused yourself from that debate- would you like me to furnish proof?
Jason said:
Sorry OC, I've lost the will to debate you. I've been busy with creating a dsicipleship study for new members of my church that has grown from 23 to 130 in the last couple of years. It's sucking up all of my free time right now and I haven't had much time to log on.

I have more on this, but it is in a PM from you, and it would be uncouth for me to post it.

I'll eagerly await your evasive answers to all and sundry questions.

Etc
Mafia is a shortened term for Mafioso, which in the dialect it came from meant 'beautiful, bold, confident.'

You are so kind.
 
Biblical Orthodoxy said:
1)-Where in the bible does it say you should believe in only the authority of 'Tradition'?

It doesn't and noone that I know of does believe in ST. :)

2)-If 'Tradition' is the final authority on all matters and infallible, then who was the infallible man who decided which 'Traditions' to include in the faith?

It's not THEE final authority. Scripture and Oral tradition are of equal authority just like Paul says "hold fast to the traditions you have recieved whether by WORD OF MOUTh or in writing from us".

3)-Going by 'Tradition alone' or 'Tradition and Scripture', how do you know what 'Traditions' to believe in and which not to. How do you know purgatory is real but toll houses are false when the early 'Traditional' Churches has elements of both?

toll houses? Haven't heard of them. The Church is the pillar and support of the truth. 1 Tim 3:15. Thus we look to the Church that Christ founded when we want to discern truth. A part of the Church is the written word which is authoritative. A part is Oral Tradition which is authoritative.

4)-Can you define 'Tradition' so we may go and study it?

It's the teachings of the Catholic Church that are the lens by which scripture is understood and vice versa.

5)-How do we know which 'Tradition' is valid?

The Church is the pillar and support of the truth. You can't go wrong following Church teaching.

6)-Is it possible to provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral 'Tradition' that the Bible is silent about?

This is your misunderstanding of scripture speaking. Scripture is not always explicit. YOu couldn't even defend sola scriptura explicitly on the other thread. I can find some indication of all Catholic Sacred Oral Traidtion in scripture, though it is at various levels of explicitness.

7)-Can you be so kind as to give us a single example of where inspired apostolic 'oral revelation/tradition' differed from Bible?


That's the thing you don't get. It doesn't. I haven't found one teaching of the Catholic Church that when I have examined it in light of scripture, it hasn't rung true.

8)- How can 'Tradition' be the correct method of determining truth because when we have so many different division among churches that claim to use 'Tradition?'?

Nice try. Their aren't that many and the differences aren't nearly as great as the diffs between Prots. Catholic and the rites within the Catholic Church and orthodox and a few other small sects such as the Coptics (I think their in communion with Rome) and the Nestorians is all that I know of. Scripture + Tradition doesn't cause nearly the division that SS causes. That's a simple fact.

Nice try but this thread isn't very good. All it proves is you don't understand your oponent. You don't even understand what you beleive t be false. I'm not even sure you understand Sola Scriptura.

Blessings.
 
As I get ready to teach the Bible study class at my church, I found this little bit you might like. It's consider a logical fallacy to appeal to tradition. Again, WHO'S YOUR DADDY! The church I belong to is bringing folks to the Lord and I'm off to do some more teaching...see you guys around.

OC, I did send you that pm but don't forget I re-started the thread...remember? http://christianforums.net/viewtopic.ph ... 7de83be73d You didn't mention that did ya.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ition.html

Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition

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

Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age

Description of Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer. Second, sticking with things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older and traditional things out of laziness. Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy.

It should not be assumed that new things must be better than old things (see the fallacy Appeal to Novelty) any more than it should be assumed that old things are better than new things. The age of something does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context). In the case of tradition, assuming that something is correct just because it is considered a tradition is poor reasoning. For example, if the belief that 1+1 = 56 were a tradition of a group of people it would hardly follow that it is true.

Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that aged wine would be better than brand new wine, he would not be committing an Appeal to Tradition. This is because, in such cases the age of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the age is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim.

One final issue that must be considered is the "test of time." In some cases people might be assuming that because something has lasted as a tradition or has been around a long time that it is true because it has "passed the test of time." If a person assumes that something must be correct or true simply because it has persisted a long time, then he has committed an Appeal to Tradition. After all, as history has shown people can persist in accepting false claims for centuries.

However, if a person argues that the claim or thing in question has successfully stood up to challenges and tests for a long period of time then they would not be committing a fallacy. In such cases the claim would be backed by evidence. As an example, the theory that matter is made of subatomic particles has survived numerous tests and challenges over the years so there is a weight of evidence in its favor. The claim is reasonable to accept because of the weight of this evidence and not because the claim is old. Thus, a claim's surviving legitimate challenges and passing valid tests for a long period of time can justify the acceptance of a claim. But mere age or persistance does not warrant accepting a claim.

Examples of Appeal to Tradition

Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it seems clear that God must exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?

Gunthar is the father of Connan. They live on a small island and in their culture women are treated as property to be exchanged at will by men.
Connan: "You know father, when I was going to school in the United States I saw that American women are not treated as property. In fact, I read a book by this person named Mill in which he argued for women's rights."
Gunthar: "So, what is your point son?"
Connan: "Well, I think that it might be wrong to trade my sisters for cattle. They are human beings and should have a right to be masters of their own fate."
Gunthar: "What a strange and new-fangled notion you picked up in America. That country must be even more barbaric then I imagined. Now think about this son. We have been trading women for cattle for as long as our people have lived on this island. It is a tradition that goes back into the mists of time. "
Connan: "But I still think there is something wrong with it."
Gunthar: "Nonsense my boy. A tradition this old must be endorsed by the gods and must be right."


Of course this mode of government is the best. We have had this government for over 200 years and no one has talked about changing it in all that time. So, it has got to be good.

A reporter is interviewing the head of a family that has been involved with a feud with another family.
Reporter: "Mr. Hatfield, why are you still fighting it out with the Mcoys?"
Hatfield: "Well you see young man, my father feuded with the Mcoys and his father feuded with them and so did my great grandfather."
Reporter: "But why? What started all this?"
Hatfield: "I don't rightly know. I'm sure it was the Mcoys who started it all, though."
Reporter: "If you don't know why you're fighting, why don't you just stop?"
Hatfield: "Stop? What are you crazy? This feud has been going on for generations so I'm sure there is a darn good reason why it started. So I aim to keep it going. It has got to be the right thing to do. Hand me my shooting iron boy, I see one of those Mcoy skunks sneaking in the cornfield."

###Sounds like the Orthodox/Catholic arguement about 'tradition' being older then the Canon and therefore it's 'better'! :D
 
I anwered this appael to tratidion silliness in your thread on the topic. You post more straw men. How are you to convince a Catholic if you don't know what we teach and only distort it? WE DO NOT PREACH SOLA TRADITION! We DO NOT SAY THAT TRAIDITION IS BETTER THAN SCRIPTURE. In fact scripture is a tradition. Read 2 Thes 2:15 CAREFULLLLY.
 
Biblical Orthodoxy said:
As I get ready to teach the Bible study class at my church, I found this little bit you might like. It's consider a logical fallacy to appeal to tradition. Again, WHO'S YOUR DADDY! The church I belong to is bringing folks to the Lord and I'm off to do some more teaching...see you guys around.
The 'logical fallacy' of the appeal to tradition would need to include, therefore, the holy scriptures. Your circular 'proofs' of their authenticity make agnostics and atheists laugh.

We who understand BY FAITH that all that is within them is true also understand that holy men of old faithfully preserved and identified that which was God-breathed. This is also tradition.



Jason said:
OC, I did send you that pm but don't forget I re-started the thread...remember? http://christianforums.net/viewtopic.ph ... 7de83be73d You didn't mention that did ya.
You didn't "re-start the thread," you simply indicated a willingness to do so. Your original reply was far from satisfactory, by your own admission.
Ergo, you owe me a response.

I hope your bible study class gets more than cheeky and abusive answers to their questions, especially ones that challenge YOUR holy tradition.



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

Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age

Description of Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.
So you don't believe that people become demon possessed, or that demons might sometimes create disease? If not, how do square that with scripture? But if you do believe in supernatural causes for some maladies, why? An appeal to scripture? How is that NOT an appeal to tradition?

Is scripture 'tradition?'
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

Maybe so. :roll:


Examples of Appeal to Tradition

Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it seems clear that God must exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?

Gunthar is the father of Connan. They live on a small island and in their culture women are treated as property to be exchanged at will by men.
Connan: "You know father, when I was going to school in the United States I saw that American women are not treated as property. In fact, I read a book by this person named Mill in which he argued for women's rights."
Gunthar: "So, what is your point son?"
Connan: "Well, I think that it might be wrong to trade my sisters for cattle. They are human beings and should have a right to be masters of their own fate."
Gunthar: "What a strange and new-fangled notion you picked up in America. That country must be even more barbaric then I imagined. Now think about this son. We have been trading women for cattle for as long as our people have lived on this island. It is a tradition that goes back into the mists of time. "
Connan: "But I still think there is something wrong with it."
Gunthar: "Nonsense my boy. A tradition this old must be endorsed by the gods and must be right."

Blissfully self-unaware said:
Sounds like the Orthodox/Catholic arguement about 'tradition' being older then the Canon and therefore it's 'better'! :D
The example given just undermined the enterprise of Christianity in a wholesale fashion.
You confirm in the zeal for the traditions of your fathers what I have suspected: That the arguments of certain Protestant groups and the arguments of skeptics and atheists are essentially parallel and related.





Example of a traditions I believe in:
Trinitarian theology, and the dual nature of Christ.

Further examples:
Jonah swallowed by whale, God sending plagues upon Egypt
 
You would think some people would grow tired of getting pwned day in and day out.
 
Back
Top