Traditions of Man

[manichunter]

Question- Have some of the traditions and doctrines of mankind been add to the Religion of Christianity.

I believe so. An example would be things that are affiliated with Christmas and Easter practices are tied directly and indirectly to pagan and heathen practices before they were incorporated into the observances of these holiday. Some Christians have added to the religion by fusing non-Scriptural practices to the religion. Have we allowed the clean and holy to be mixed with the unclean and profane? Have we allowed the enemy to introduce his lies of guile to cloud the truth?
What about any others you might have knowledge of that can be addressed and discussed.

 

[francisdesales]

Question- Have some of the traditions and doctrines of mankind been add to the Religion of Christianity.

I believe so. An example would be things that are affiliated with Christmas and Easter practices are tied directly and indirectly to pagan and heathen practices before they were incorporated into the observances of these holiday. Some Christians have added to the religion by fusing non-Scriptural practices to the religion.

I can think of two more...

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

Regards

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I can think of two more...

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

Yes, and THOSE two nullify the word of God - just what Jesus warned against.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...An example would be things that are affiliated with Christmas and Easter practices are tied directly and indirectly to pagan and heathen practices before they were incorporated into the observances of these holiday.....

So what? Do they hurt anything? We Catholics do not fear nice things from other religions as long as they do not contradict God's Divine Revelation. If the kiddies want to look for eggs Sunday morning, who cares?

And what's with the "heathen" bit? I hope you don't actually call people that to their faces. God cause the sun to shine as brightly upon them as He causes it to shine upon you.

 

[stovebolts]

CC,

Your post in the Bible Study forum has been moved to this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=32448&start=30

We distinguish divine Tradition from mere ecclesiastical tradition or custom. Divine Tradition comes from God, either through the written word of the Bible or through the oral teaching of Christ himself or his apostles. Because it is revealed by God, divine Tradition may not be altered by men.

Ecclesiastical tradition or custom, on the other hand, originates with the Church's pastoral and disciplinary authority and may change

Never did I say all traditions were wrong,however if it goes against the Word,whom shall I believe?

When you say "the Word", what you mean is "your interpretation of the Word", and so who you end up believing is YOURSELF. One of these days this concept will sink in. I've tried to say it a million times and I will keep on saying it.

Can you give me an example of oral tradition,from Christ?Please nothing from the apostles,just Christ Himself

How about the chair of Moses? He says to obey the Pharisees because they sit in the chair of Moses, but where is this "chair" in the OT? Or how about Janis and Jambres? You will not find their names in the OT, but they are mentioned by Paul - they are the two magicians who turned their rods into snakes after Moses turned his into a snake. Thats two just off the top of my head. I could research a lot more.

 

[Vic C.]

OK, I'm confused. Why are there two "Traditions" threads? :-?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Vic, Stovebolts split the thread off from the original in the Bible Study forums, and I'm guessing he added the poll.

Now, as for Sola Fide...What exactly is wrong with that doctrine? If we truly want to nitpic, we can claim that all doctrines are man made, and therefore just as skeptical. Take the doctrine of the trinity for example. Not one passage directly states that God is triune. There are clearly three persons recognized as God himself, and it is also clear that God is a plural not singular existence. However, when man reads God's holy word, the bible, It becomes clear that God is three in one, does it not? Therefore, the doctrine of the trinity would be just as man made as Luther's later notion of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. So In all honestly, to attack Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, one must put foward a better argument than man tailored them...Because all doctrine is tailored by the thought of man.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...Now, as for Sola Fide...What exactly is wrong with that doctrine?....

The problem is that it is a doctrine of men which nullifies the word of God. There is nothing wrong with Apostolic Tradition, but we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition. Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic successionâ€â€his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously. Sola Fide is not one of them: It was unheard of until the 16th century.

 

[waitinontheLamb]

I can think of two more...

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

Yes, and THOSE two nullify the word of God - just what Jesus warned against.

Another of those statements.

Are we talking about the true Word of God or the one that you all kept hidden from men and twisted and turned to support the heresies I mentioned above?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

deleted

 

[Vic C.]

9 - Please keep posts down to a respectable length and provide source and/or links for your info. We want to respect copyrighted material. Plus, you stand a better chance of getting your post read if it contains a link with an excerpt from source that's relative to your point.

Thank you.

 

[Blazin Bones]

The problem is that it is a doctrine of men which nullifies the word of God. There is nothing wrong with Apostolic Tradition, but we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition. Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic successionâ€â€his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously. Sola Fide is not one of them: It was unheard of until the 16th century.

Crusader, your line of reasoning would be just fine if any of those passage contained the word Apostolic, and then laid out the several things some of which were pointed out by Waitin. However, each passage cited contains nothing of these Apostolic Traditions you are promoting. So we then return to the fact that many of the traditions of the RCC are man made, such as papal infallibility. Paul himself in Romans 3:23 says that "All sin," and yet once the pope is elected as pope, by mere men themselves at that, he suddenly becomes infallible? Where exactly is that in Scripture?

In fact, the exact opposite is seen in scripture. If you support that Peter was the first pope, then why did Paul need to correct him in Galatians 2:11-14 when he had begun to shun the gentiles? If you support the lesser notion that Paul was a Papal figure, then why did he himself say in Phillipians 3:12 that he was not perfect? Cleary scripture does not promote any degree of Papal infallibility, yet it is a held doctrine of the RCC.

So then, if the notion of Papal infallibility cannot hold it's weight against God's word, the Bible, why then should we support some of the other "claimed" Apostolic Traditions that we can pinpoint who started?

Sola Fide does not nullify God's word, The Bible, any more than Papal Infalliblity, if it violates scripture at all.

 

[Vic C.]

Tim, your BB code was disabled and caused the post to be unformatted. I edited the post to enable BBcode.

Peace,
Vic

 

[Blazin Bones]

LOL, I just did the same when i saw that. Thanks Vic. Now, back to the discussion.

 

[Vic C.]

Can we at least try and be civil and forgo the slurs? Thanks.

 

[francisdesales]

So we then return to the fact that many of the traditions of the RCC are man made, such as papal infallibility. Paul himself in Romans 3:23 says that "All sin," and yet once the pope is elected as pope, by mere men themselves at that, he suddenly becomes infallible? Where exactly is that in Scripture?

You are confusing "infallibilty" with "indefectability". The Pope sins, goes to confession, and even makes mistakes - maybe he picked the Patriots to win the SuperBowl.

The Doctrine of Infallibility is much more limited in scope than most suspect.

In fact, the exact opposite is seen in scripture. If you support that Peter was the first pope, then why did Paul need to correct him in Galatians 2:11-14 when he had begun to shun the gentiles?

Paul was not correcting a matter of doctrine, but a matter of impropriety on Peter's part. Clearly, Peter did not believe that circumcision was necessary to be saved - it is HE whom God first revealed this to in the baptism of the Gentile Cornelius. And certainly, Paul HIMSELF could have been chastised for some of his actions, such as circumcising Timothy for the sake of the Jews...

Infallibility only applies to solemnly defining doctrine held by the faithful of the Church everywhere and for all time. Things like "Jesus is true God and true man".

If you support the lesser notion that Paul was a Papal figure, then why did he himself say in Phillipians 3:12 that he was not perfect? Cleary scripture does not promote any degree of Papal infallibility, yet it is a held doctrine of the RCC.

And what did he tell the Galatians in the first chapter? He certainly thought HIS teachings were infallible, even vs. an angel - note, angels delivered the Law to Moses. That is a pretty darn strong statement. Paul saying he was not perfect refers to his walk. We still sin, but this does not effect the infallibility of Paul's teachings of the Gospel.

Sola Fide does not nullify God's word, The Bible, any more than Papal Infalliblity, if it violates scripture at all.

Sola Fide is specifically denied in James 2. Where is the doctrine of Papal infalliblity denied outright in Scriptures? You are comparing apples and tractor trailers now...

Regards

 

[Veritas]

Question- Have some of the traditions and doctrines of mankind been add to the Religion of Christianity.

I believe so. An example would be things that are affiliated with Christmas and Easter practices are tied directly and indirectly to pagan and heathen practices before they were incorporated into the observances of these holiday. Some Christians have added to the religion by fusing non-Scriptural practices to the religion. Have we allowed the clean and holy to be mixed with the unclean and profane? Have we allowed the enemy to introduce his lies of guile to cloud the truth?
What about any others you might have knowledge of that can be addressed and discussed.

Yes, I think traditions and doctrines have been added as well. Christmas and Easter are good examples. Churches have also been built right over old pagan sites. And we do use some thought presented by Greek philosophers.

But I don't think Christmas and Easter have to be unclean or profane... its the intent and meaning that matters, not the date. Same for where the churches are. And the Greek thought - they were realizing what "Truth" meant philosophically, Christ exemplified it, lived it, and was it.

I think we CAN allow the enemy to introduce his lies of guile to cloud the truth in anything. I know "traditional" churches get the brunt of this but newer churches that have rock bands and video stuff can be at fault as well if their "traditions" cloud the real meaning. And I suspect there is a large element that lies on what the individual takes from the "tradition"

Like CC said, the Bible tells of some good traditions we must follow. The Bible also mentions bad tradition we shouldn't. I think alot of it has to do with understanding the meaning behind the tradition on not just focusing on the outward stuff of that tradition.

...but, I guess I also think there are just human traditions that are bad no matter how you look at them.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

Well, in my not-so-humble opinion, I think Jesus will make good on his promises that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it." If the traditions are not harmful, they are probably good things. When we look at the origins of the Christianizations of holidays like Easter, we see just how the early Church was able to respond to new situations. Christmas was celebrated during the time of the pagan festivals, to help keep Christians away from the temptations of the pagan feasts.

There is nothing wrong with tradition per se. Such traditions can be benign, even beneficial.It is when we try to overrule the Word of God, both written and unwritten, that the trouble begins.

 

[manichunter]

Did Jesus denounce and not follow the traditions created by the Pharisees in their commentaries?
Why?

 

[turnorburn]

Blazin Bones wrote:
So we then return to the fact that many of the traditions of the RCC are man made, such as papal infallibility. Paul himself in Romans 3:23 says that "All sin," and yet once the pope is elected as pope, by mere men themselves at that, he suddenly becomes infallible? Where exactly is that in Scripture?

The first member that can answer that gets a jelly bean :wink: