true tradition, false tradition?

[Imagican]

1 Peter 1:1-25

1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

6Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:

7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:

9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

10Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

13Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

14As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

15But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

17And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

18Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

21Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

22Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

24For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.


Like I have said before, I do not like to 'pick and choose' scripture. I think that it best that we read as much as we can anyway. So, I have posted the entire first chapter of 1 Peter for I believe that the Word was 'written' in chapters for a 'reason'. So, on to the purpose of this thread..........

What we see here in the highlighted verse, is that the Jew's had been led to believe that tradition in their faith had become as important as the teachings of God. What I will attempt to question and offer answers to in this thread are: Is the 'tradition' taught by the churches the Word of God, passed down FROM the Son of God and His apostles, or 'something else'? And if something else, then what is 'wrong' with following them.

All are welcome, (you too Thess), he he he. But let's at least 'try' to keep it on topic OK?

May the Lord lead us through through the Spirit in our understanding of what will be contained within this thread. Amen?

 

[ttg]

Without oral tradition the Bible itself would not have been passed down to the early Church Fathers. But on the other hand, snake handling is a tradition of men that I think is a severe misinterpretation of a bible passage that was meant to be a metaphor for facing evil and dificult times.

My vote is cast.

 

[JM]

Just wanted to say, tradition is not a bad thing when it is in accord with Scirpture, but if it overrules Scripture, then it's a "bad thing."

Articles from the Reformed side of the fence:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... pture.html

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

JM,

I agree with your post, but not your link.

No where in Scripture does it say we must go by Scripture Alone.

 

[Imagican]

I thank you all for your contributions.

I know that this is a 'tricky' issue and that's why I offered it to be debated. I think that it is important to 'first' know whether 'tradition' is important to our Christian walk, and then, what tradition we should follow.

I agree with what has been offered so far. We are certainly to follow the tradition that has been offered by the authorities that were able to offer the 'truth'.

Now, let us discuss which of these are the 'truth' and which are NOTHING more than 'man-made' traditions.

I will open with the 'church' itself. What IS the Church and what is a church?

I believe that The Church is NOTHING more than the 'body' of Christ. Those that truly choose to 'follow Christ'. To 'pick up His cross daily and carry it as He did. Anything short of this is only a meager attempt at 'pretending' to be Christian. For we were told OPENLY and clearly that there are certain conditions that we MUST follow to receive the 'gift' that Christ came and died to offer.

We MUST LOVE God with all our hearts, mind and soul. And we MUST love our neighbor as ourselves. THESE TWO ARE UNARGUABLE to ANY that understand even the basest of Christianity.

I know, there are those among us that will insist that ALL IT TAKES is to confess Christ and they are 'saved'. i will argue this point and produce scripture after scripture that refutes this understanding without a doubt.

Satan, guys and girls, IS the father of lies. His tools are extensive and his understanding of human nature is vast. He knows what we yearn for MOST, in the flesh, and knows JUST how to tempt us with our hearts desires. Always keep this in mind. It becomes very easy to recognize his offerings once one knows WHAT to look for. With this in mind, let me continue.

Once we learn to offer love to God and our neighbors, then come the actual deeds that it takes to produce that which has been commanded. i know, once again, we run into the teachings of some that insist that to DO what we have been commanded to do is 'works', and that we CANNOT work our way into heaven. This is NOT completely true. For; 'faith without works is DEAD. You may NOT be able to WORK your way to heaven, but, you will NEVER obtain the gift WITHOUT work. So, figure that one out for yourselves.

The Church IS the body of Christ and NOTHING more. The temple is WITHIN each of those that accept Christ into their hearts. So, for the churches to teach that which is MOST important, they MUST teach the 'truth'. And the 'truth? That we, as individuals, DO NOT become a 'part of the body' without an independent relationship with the Father through His Son. Once this relationship has been developed, then and ONLY then, are we able to offer to others what it is that we were commanded to 'gather for'. And this, a mutual offering of love to those that are our brothers and sisters. A communal sharing that brings us all into a universal understanding and wealth. NO, I AM NOT, repeat NOT teaching some Universalism, so let me squash this before anyone even accuses me of it.

Now, what do the traditions of the churches teach in regards to what I have offered here so far? I await the responses.

 

[JM]

Notes I made from A.A. Hodge

The Bible doesn’t give any authority to tradition and when 2 Thess. 2:15/3:6 is used, it refers to Paul and his “instructions, oral and written communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down.†Hodge convinces me that tradition has already been condemned when we read about the Pharisees and Christ’s teaching concerning their tradition. Reasons why the Bible is NOT to be used along with tradition are simple, the Bible is “is certain, definite, complete, and perspicuous†and the nature of tradition is “indeterminate…liable to become adulterated†[as shown by the example of the Pharisees]. The idea that tradition is holy and united is false and easily seen in the records collected in the frist 300 years of history. The works of the Fathers show all kinds of opposing thoughts and beliefs. Most of the collected works at are consistent with the Bible is rejected for tradition.

Full quote, “1st. A claim vesting in mortal men a power so momentous can be established only by the most clear and certain evidence, and the failure to produce such converts the claim into a treason at once against God and the human race.
2nd. Her evidence fails, because the promises of Christ to preserve his church from extinction and from error do none of them go the length of pledging infallibility. The utmost promised is, that the true people of God shall never perish entirely from the earth, or be left to apostatize from the essentials of the faith.
3rd. Her evidence fails, because these promises of Christ were addressed not to the officers of the church as such, but to the body of true believers. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:33,47,48,49, and 1 John 2:20,27.
4th. Her evidence fails, because the church to which the precious promises of the Scriptures are pledged is not an external, visible society, the authority of which is vested in the hands of a perpetual line of apostles. For--(1.) the word church ekklhsia is a collective term, embracing the effectually called klhtoi or regenerated.--Rom. 1:7; 8:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; Jude 1:; Rev. 17:14; also Rom. 9:24; 1 Cor. 7:18-24; Gal. 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 2:9; 5:10; Eph. 1:18; 2 Pet. 1:10. (2.) The attributes ascribed to the church prove it to consist alone of the true, spiritual people of God as such.--Eph. 5:27; 1 Pet. 2:5; John 10:27; Col. 1:18,24. (3.) The epistles are addressed to the church, and in their salutations explain that phrase as equivalent to "the called,""the saints,""all true worshippers of God;" witness the salutations of 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Peter and Jude. The same attributes are ascribed to the members of the true church as such throughout the body of the Epistles.-- 1 Cor. 1:30; 3:16; 6:11,19; Eph. 2:3-8, and 19-22; 1 Thess. 5:4,5; 2 Thess. 2:13; Col. 1:21; 2:10; 1 Pet. 2:9.
5th. The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There is no evidence that they had such in the New Testament. (2.) While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the offices of presbyter and deacon (1 Tim. 3:1-13), there are no directions given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. (3.) There is perfect silence concerning the continued existence of any apostles in the church in the writings of the early centuries. Both the name and the thing ceased. (4.) No one ever claiming to be one of their successors have possessed the "signs of an apostle."--2 Cor. 12:12; 1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:1,12; Acts 1:21,22.
6th. This claim, as it rests upon the authority of the Pope, is utterly unscriptural, because the Pope is not known to Scripture. As it rests upon the authority of the whole body of the bishops, expressed in their general consent, it is unscriptural for the reasons above shown, and it is, moreover, impracticable, since their universal judgment never has been and never can be impartially collected and pronounced.
7th. There can be no infallibility where there is not self- consistency. But as a matter of fact the Papal church has not been self-consistent in her teaching. (1.) She has taught different doctrines in different sections and ages. (2.) She affirms the infallibility of the holy Scriptures, and at the same time teaches a system plainly and radically inconsistent with their manifest sense; witness the doctrines of the priesthood, the mass, penance, of works, and of Mary worship. Therefore the Church of Rome hides the Scriptures from the people.
8th. If this Romish system be true then genuine spiritual religion ought to flourish in her communion, and all the rest of the world ought to be a moral desert. The facts are notoriously the reverse. If; therefore, we admit that the Romish system is true, we subvert one of the principal evidences of Christianity itself; viz., the self-evidencing light and practical power of true religion,and the witness of the Holy Ghost.â€Â

 

[Imagican]

Wow, a man after God's own heart. JM, please do NOT think that I say this in jest. You obviously have come to the 'true' understanding of 'tradition' and what it stands for. I commend you and thank you for your interjection. Way to go, my brother. Read it my brothers and sisters and make room in your hearts for that which has been offered in 'truth'.

God Bless JM,

MEC

 

[JM]

Wow, a man after God's own heart. JM, please do NOT think that I say this in jest. You obviously have come to the 'true' understanding of 'tradition' and what it stands for. I commend you and thank you for your interjection. Way to go, my brother. Read it my brothers and sisters and make room in your hearts for that which has been offered in 'truth'.

God Bless JM,

MEC

Imagican, what I posted is what I believe BUT I couldn't say it as well as Hodge. I took notes from his works and posted them.

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

Scripture is tradition. The Bible didn't fall down from the sky with a note saying BASIC INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE LEAVING EARTH (Get it B.I.B.L.E?)

The Catholic Church is the one that composed and preserved Scripture thoughout the ages.

The bible never once claims itself as the sole authority.

 

[JM]

+JMJ+

Scripture is tradition. The Bible didn't fall down from the sky with a note saying BASIC INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE LEAVING EARTH (Get it B.I.B.L.E?)

The Catholic Church is the one that composed and preserved Scripture thoughout the ages.

The bible never once claims itself as the sole authority.

Where do the RC and EO receive authority from?

How do you know your Bishop has apostolic succession and how do you know apostolic succession is a valid form of authority? Who told you?

Your tradition tells you what to believe, everything is flitered via tradition. Considering tradition is of man, you follow the traditions of man.

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.

Q: How is Tradition the authority?

A: Tradition proves it.

Q: How do you know you have the right Tradition?

A: Tradition proves it.

Peace,

jm

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

I’m in full agreement with JM’s first reply to Imagican’s question. I’m also in full agreement with JM’s thoughts on not accept the view held by Roman Catholicism. For the record I believe the following whole heartedly:

Solus Christus: Christ alone
--Christ is the head of the Church period

Sola scriptura: Scripture alone
--Scripture, not Tradition and Scripture, is the only authority

Sola fide: Faith alone
--One is saved by Faith in Christ alone

Sola gratia: Grace alone
--Salvation is the free gift given by God alone and has nothing to do with ones works (i.e. No one deserves Salvation, no one can earn it by doing some works)

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

Where do the RC and EO receive authority from?

How do you know your Bishop has apostolic succession and how do you know apostolic succession is a valid form of authority? Who told you?

Your tradition tells you what to believe, everything is flitered via tradition. Considering tradition is of man, you follow the traditions of man.

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.

Q: How is Tradition the authority?

A: Tradition proves it.

Q: How do you know you have the right Tradition?

A: Tradition proves it.

Peace,

jm

Without tradition we wouldn't have a Bible.

Besides, can you give me one verse in Scripture thath says it is itself the sole authority?

 

[Imagican]

Fulton,

I don't know how you came to 'your' conclusion other than 'men' teaching this to you. The Bible WAS indeed composed by the Catholic Church, BUT, what is contained within it was NOT 'written' by a 'single' Catholic. Translated and compiled, but NOT 'written'.

I have yet to find ANY of the 'specific' teachings of the Catholics contained within it's words. From my understanding they don't even follow what IS contained within the book that they themselves compiled.

Now, Please, if you have some 'inside' information, that we have YET to discover, that offers insight into 'their' tradition 'outside' of The Word, enlighten us.

I am well aware of 'what' the Bible states concerning 'tradition'. One such point is made above in my opening statement. But where in the Word are the traditions that I listed in a 'previous' thread? And what would lead one to 'believe' that these traditions, though NOT contained within the Word, have been 'truly' passed down from the apostles? If the apostles had 'taught' it, don't you honestly believe that there would be SOME kind of 'written' record? I mean, we have a written record of their gospels and epistles, why not the rest of the Catholic 'tradition'?

Much like the Jews and their Talmud, the Catholics claim a 'separate' tradition from that taught by the prophets or apostles. Choosing instead to follow 'man-made' tradition, rather than that offered by God Himself. Christ WARNED the Jews and accused the 'people' of following men rather than God. He emphasized over and over that His people were NOT to follow the religious order of the time for they had created 'their OWN' laws that they held more strictly than the ones offered by God. The Catholic Church and 'their' tradtion are NO different.

 

[Imagican]

JM,

Why would you 'need' to. It seems to have been rightfully and precisely offered by him, so that I accept your pasting of his words as if they were your own. I feel very much the same way and would be hard pressed to come close to saying SO MUCH with so few words.

I thank you again for your offering. I just hope that some may find it inspiring and enlightening.

MEC

 

[Drew]

When we talk about Scripture being the sole authority, what are we talking about...the sole authority for what?

If one means that the Scriptures are to be the only source that informs our decisions about "how to live", I think such a view is naive and creates an artificial distinction between the "sacred" and the "secular".

First of all, I assume that no one is making the patently ridiculous claim that the Scriptures are the only source of valid knowledge / truth of any kind. No reasonable person would say that the scriptures tell us how to cure cancer.

However, the content of the Scriptures need to be integrated with, and interpreted in light of, the personal and collective "lessons of life" that arise from the mere fact of living in the real world. These lessons, in my view, should help us properly interpret the Scriptures. If someone suggests that the "lessons of life" have no authority to guide humans in respect to their future actions, I think they may have grown up in Disneyland.

So, I believe that I am saying that "tradition" as well as a whole whack of other stuff indeed have "authority" to guide us. And I think that an attempt to divide the domain of "truth" into strictly Biblical truth and "other" truth creates an artificial and harmful division between the "sacred" and the "secular". Everything is indeed connected.

 

[JM]

When we talk about Scripture being the sole authority, what are we talking about...the sole authority for what?

Glad you asked Drew, it seems you really don't understand what sola scriptura, as s doctrine, is.

Quoting: Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine 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. Dr. James White

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

The Bible WAS indeed composed by the Catholic Church, BUT, what is contained within it was NOT 'written' by a 'single' Catholic. Translated and compiled, but NOT 'written'.

Why not beleive all the other texts from the Apocrypha?

I have yet to find ANY of the 'specific' teachings of the Catholics contained within it's words.

I have.

From my understanding they don't even follow what IS contained within the book that they themselves compiled.

Yes, the Chruch does.

Now, Please, if you have some 'inside' information, that we have YET to discover, that offers insight into 'their' tradition 'outside' of The Word, enlighten us.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

I am well aware of 'what' the Bible states concerning 'tradition'. One such point is made above in my opening statement. But where in the Word are the traditions that I listed in a 'previous' thread?

They are their. (But if you would like to address them, it may be best to start indivudual threads)

And what would lead one to 'believe' that these traditions, though NOT contained within the Word, have been 'truly' passed down from the apostles? If the apostles had 'taught' it, don't you honestly believe that there would be SOME kind of 'written' record?

You mean like the Early Church Fathers?

I mean, we have a written record of their gospels and epistles, why not the rest of the Catholic 'tradition'?

I'll be happy to post some if you would like.

Much like the Jews and their Talmud, the Catholics claim a 'separate' tradition from that taught by the prophets or apostles

Would you give me an example?

Choosing instead to follow 'man-made' tradition, rather than that offered by God Himself.

Who decides what is from God and what is not?

Christ WARNED the Jews and accused the 'people' of following men rather than God. He emphasized over and over that His people were NOT to follow the religious order of the time for they had created 'their OWN' laws that they held more strictly than the ones offered by God.

The Church offers no laws that are opposed to the Word of God.

 

[Imagican]

When we talk about Scripture being the sole authority, what are we talking about...the sole authority for what?

If one means that the Scriptures are to be the only source that informs our decisions about "how to live", I think such a view is naive and creates an artificial distinction between the "sacred" and the "secular".

Drew, the scriptures are ONLY THE BEGINNING of knowledge. We are able to use the Bible as a 'portal, or doorway' if you will, that enables us, once read and understood, to 'pass' beyond the understanding of 'this world'. We are to be led BY THE SPIRIT. FIRSTLY though, we must have an understanding of the scriptures.

If one were capable of coming to the 'truth' without the Word, I believe that it is quite possible for one to come to the understanding without it, 'the written Word. But this takes a 'devotion' that we have veered from emensely from the beginning so is much more difficult in our time without the Bible. THAT IS WHY IT WAS WRITTEN and commanded to be 'published throughout ALL nations.


First of all, I assume that no one is making the patently ridiculous claim that the Scriptures are the only source of valid knowledge / truth of any kind. No reasonable person would say that the scriptures tell us how to cure cancer.

No, I believe that what I have offered is EVEN MORE rediculous from your perspective. I believe that there is NO valid knowledge 'without' the scriptures. For the imaginations of man are vain, without the solid, grounded words of God.

However, the content of the Scriptures need to be integrated with, and interpreted in light of, the personal and collective "lessons of life" that arise from the mere fact of living in the real world. These lessons, in my view, should help us properly interpret the Scriptures. If someone suggests that the "lessons of life" have no authority to guide humans in respect to their future actions, I think they may have grown up in Disneyland.

No one has suggested ANYTHING of the sort. The experiences that one suffers through this life are a PRIME example OF our NEED for scripture, (Word of God), to 'guide' us.

So, I believe that I am saying that "tradition" as well as a whole whack of other stuff indeed have "authority" to guide us. And I think that an attempt to divide the domain of "truth" into strictly Biblical truth and "other" truth creates an artificial and harmful division between the "sacred" and the "secular". Everything is indeed connected.

NO TRUE authority. Yes, my friend, you may allow 'your' wisdom to guide you through this life. You may become very successful, as judged by the standards of 'this world, in doing so. Yet, what is gain without 'truth'? What is the point of gaining the WORLD if it takes loosing ones 'life'?

I know from reading your offering that these words are most likely, as rediculous as those used up to this point. Yet to those that believe, they are knowledge and understanding BEYOND the understanding of 'this world'; but foolishness to them that believe not.

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+


Where is the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

 

[Drew]

The idea that the Scriptures "are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church and 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" sounds nice but does not ultimately work.

The reason lies in the rather obvious fact the Scriptures are expressed in human language, and human language necessarily makes reference to extra-scriptural sources in order to construct meaning. The very meaning of words like "faith", "love", "pre-destined", "free will", etc. are brought to the process of extracting meaning from the Scriptures. The words and expressions that make up the Biblical texts derive their meaning from "cultural" sources that lie "outside" the Bible itself.

Therefore the very act of constructing any meaning from the scriptures is necessarily "contaminated" - there simply is no Biblical message that can be identified as somehow disconnected from other extra-Biblical elements.

Now here is why this creates problems for the extract from James White paraphrased in blue in the first para of my post: It seems that White ignores the fact that the act of extracting meaning from the Biblical texts necessarily involves using words and phrases whose meanings are "culturally-relative" - one cannot talk about the "absolute" meaning of the term "love", its meaning depends on the culture in which the author lived.

So any attempt to disambiguate the meaning of "love" (in this example) necessarily introduces extra-Biblical sources and makes it effectively impossible to talk about the authority of Scriptures as standing apart from the "authority" of the extra-Biblical sources that were used in writing the Bible in the first place.