An honest question about tradition

Ray,

I ducked nothing. I exegeted the verses months before and you said Na Na boo boo not true. I think I said why bother up above. You don't understand types and symbols and forshadowings and will not until God enlightens you. You make it sound as if I never had. You know my explanation but are unable to see the plain parrellel between 2 Sam 6 and Luke 1. That's bearing false witness Ray. But then you took that lightly in the RCC kills everyone thread and you do hear also. I have NEVER on this board been scared of scripture in any way and am not scared now.

Blessings

 

"Exegesis"? More like "eigesis". When types are used in the Bible, the antitype is explained in the text of Scripture at least somewhere. Such is not the case with the Ark of the Covenant and Mary.

 

Good q? Nate and I appreciate your approach in asking them.

"So how did they communicate these Traditions? "

First of all I will say that I cannot find anything in Catholicism that is not implicitly in scripture. This would seem logical since scripture is the Word of God (though not all of the word of God) and so it is infinite in it's richness when properly understood through the traditions that go with it. You have to understand that tradition is both Oral and written. I will quote it again.

2 Thes 2:15 - Hold Fast to the TRADITIONSSSSS you have recieved. Whether by WORD OF MOUTH or in writing from us.

Scripture is a tradition. Isn't that funny, for those who think that in Matt 7 God condemns tradition. The truth is there are written traditions, scripture as a tradition, and traditions brought about by man such as celebrating Christmass on Dec 25. God does not condemn traditions of man, except when they are placed above the other two forms which make up the Word of God. Now how can we know that God's Oral tradition is accurately transferred from one generation to the next. 2 Tim 2:2 provides the answer.

2 Timothy 2:2
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Here we see that Pual speaks, the first level passes on what they have heard. The witness of the Church assures it's accuracy, those who are entrusted with it teach others who teach others. 4 transfers of Oral teaching that are assured by the witness of accuracy. This witness of the Church is truly contained in the witness of the Bishops in council, the Pope when he speaks on faith and morals, and the Bishops in unanimous consent. It is not based on an individual mans opinions even when the Pope makes declarations of an infallible nature (which are very rare). How, by the Holy Spirit.

1 John 5:6 It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

The spirit within the Church testifies to the truth.

John 16:13
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

This is not an individual promise except that the individual who recognizes the Church as the bearer of the spirit will be lead by it to all truth. If it were an individual promise for anyone out there we wouldn't have 30,000 denominations.

1 John 4:6
We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.


Blessings

 

NateT,

The Tradition that Paul spoke of is the tradition that he delivered by Word of Mouth, because there was no written New Testament or Gospel at the time Paul first delivered "The Tradition", the eye-witness reports so to speak.

Your next question, "can there be "new" traditions?" indicates that you agree that Paul was speaking of the tradition first delivered by the Apostles word of mouth. Has there been any "new revelation" Gospel message? NO, EMPHATICALLY NO! The Gospel message has been delivered to man ONCE, FOR ALL. Jesus will not come again, as a baby, to grow up with us in order to deliver his message again. His second coming will be a triumphal entry of the Conquering Hero who establishes his Throne upon the earth in Jerusalem where he will reign for a millennium.

As for Non biblical "traditions", there have been traditions started by and among men that man has traditionally accepted in the sense that even today "new traditions" abound. For example, some believe that Mary the mother of Jesus is a Co-redemptrix with Jesus. That is a man made tradition that is still handed down but it is FALSE DOCTRINE! Many believe that the POPE is the CHRIST REPRESENTATIVE, the intermediary between God and man. Again that is FALSE DOCTRINE, according to scripture! Many believe that one must be baptized in water to be "born again", another FALSE DOCTRINE! Many believe the Roman church to be the true church that Jesus founded, another FALSE DOCTRINE!

The true church that Jesus founded it the church of believers in Jesus Christ. Those BORN AGAIN "whosoever's" that believe that Jesus is the Son of God the Messiah enough to act in accordance with that belief, are members of the TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, regardless of their denominational affiliation.

Here's what it is to be BORN AGAIN: (substitute your name for every occurrence of the letter 'I' and the word 'me' in the following.)
</font>

• I must Hear the Word of God, the Gospel Message of Salvation through faith in Jesus.</font>
• I must come to the point of initially BELIEVING what Jesus said of Himself, that He is God the son who came for me.</font>
• I must have a basic understanding of what the Bible says about the condition I am in, and recognize my sinful, hopeless situation. And through that recognition,</font>
• Have a desire to be cleansed from my sinful condition, to be "saved" so to speak.</font>
• Then I must confess that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. For with the mouth Confession is made unto salvation.</font>
• Then I must confess MY sinful condition so that I can be forgiven and be cleansed from all unrighteousness. Now, this cleansing is the true Baptism associated with being born again. The Water baptism is the outward symbol that depicts what has truly happened within where no man can see.</font>
• I am now Born Again, having passed from death into life eternal with Jesus. (In my belief, I am Marked for Salvation in that day when I shall pass from this natural life into the next life. I am Sanctified so that I am separated as a sheep from the goats and not Judged as a goat)</font>
• Now I must live my new "FAITH" by repenting from sinning, turning away from that which separates me from my God.</font>
• I must confess Jesus before men, so that they can hear the Gospel, and so that Jesus will confess me before our Father in Heaven.</font>
• Finally, I must endure in my Faith in Jesus to the end, lest I return to being lost because I have lost my faith.</font>

As one who has faith in Jesus, would I be so foolish as to refuse to do whatever Jesus lays on my heart to do?

 

II Thessalonians 2:15 was and is not some kind of accompanying set of extra-biblical truth that is to be woven into Christian theology. 'The traditions taught by word {of mouth} were truth that had also been committed to written manuscripts. The Apostle Paul is saying that the truth that you have heard preached and taught, fix in your minds and hearts. But the use of the word 'our' he was telling the Thessalonians that they must not listen to any gospel, any other word or message, which did not coincide with his Gospel. They were only allowed to receive Paul's epistles as bonafide truth. Paul's preaching was always from God and out of his epistles, and he never had a separate column of truth which he called Tradition which is equal to Christ's words of truth in the Lord's and Paul's epistles. In II Thessalonians 2:15 you will find the notation 'word' which in the Greek is {logou} from the basic word which is {logos} or word. Dr. James Strong indicates the meaning behind {logou} is reasoned preaching or teaching of truth or utterance.

Revelation 22:18 'If any man shall add unto (the Word of God) Almighty God will deal harshly with that person. In the strictest sense John probably only meant this Book of Revelation, but it probably indicates that a punishment will be on all those who add on to the Word of the Living God even in the sense of add on theology. In other words, there are no extra Traditions of the church which cannot be documented between Genesis and the Book of Revelation. God never whispers in the sacred ear of a Pope and says, for example, "I want you to express new truth to my people. Number one, there is validity in the idea of Mary's assumption into Heaven." If truthful doctrines cannot be found in the copies of manuscripts, then the concept is bogas.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was Vatican II that things were changed like the Latin mass to the language of the people. This kind of tradition would be acceptable to the Lord but not major or minor add on theology coming from a human or evil, angelic agent connected with the Christian church.

God speaking through the Apostle Paul to the church at Galatia said in chapter one verse six to eight,

'I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him Who called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. Which is not another, but there be some that trouble you,and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.' The Greek word for accursed is {anathemah} to be banned, excommunicated, or cursed.

 

The infallible Ray has spoken.

"'The traditions taught by word {of mouth} were truth that had also been committed to written manuscripts."

Explicitly so Ray? Where does it say this Ray so I don't have to trust in the words of a single man (namely you). This is about the 10th interprutation of why Oral Tradition isn't really Oral Tradition in this verse that I have heard from various protestant eisegetes. The Bible doesn't really mean what it says here guys. "Hold the phone it really was all written down except for the fact that it has to be written down. That rule is carried on in 1 Oral Tradition. It's not hard to keep track of that way. ".

Is your last name really Charles?

Are you accursing me Ray? Your system of "truth" namely sola scriptura, i.e. a lie, nullifies the word of God. It subjects the scriptures to the individual (i.e. each individual becomes a Pope unto himself) and his whims as to what he wants it to mean. He may even sincerely believe that it means what he thinks it does. I can say as much for Mormons and JW's as I can for you Ray. I believe you are sincere. "trust not in your own understanding" Prov 3:5. Rely on the Lord and those whom he entrusted with his truth. Jer 3:15.

Blessings

 

Mostly through the writings of the Early Fathers, I believe. Some also perhaps through aspects of liturgy, art, devotions, and I don't know what else.

Now you will surely ask how can we trust writings that are not divinely inspired, and it's a good question. The answer is that the Church is given the gift to inerrantly discern the truth contained in all of these repositories of Tradition. This is analogous to the gift of the Church to inerrantly discern the truth (the proper interpretation) contained in Scripture.

It is these three components (Scripture, Tradition, Magesterium) that the Church uses to teach the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Take one or two (or three!) away and the result is Error, or at least undiscovered Truth.

Mike

 

he churches making up those people we call Protestants have no need to trace our spiritual lineage back through all of time to the times of the apostles. The important thing is that we represent apostolic teaching because of our proclivity to be people of the Word of God.

Our spiritual unity does not depend on a world wide organization headed up in one country at one address, as the Catholics identify with the Vatican. Our various denominations are united around one Person and He is, of course, Jesus Christ. Ephesians 4:5 offers this thought. 'There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.'

Protestants are unique as a people because we do not ingest everything that is spoke to us from religious persons. This works for Catholics but is contrary to our spirit of independence. We test everyone's views against the only standard of right and wrong theology and that is the Bible, the Word of God.

We take pride in the fact that we are militant, which means that we will confront errors within our ranks even if it is viewed as a kind of division. While militancy has been at times divisive, it also has been remedial. Even in the earliest days of the church there was division, as duly noted in I Corinthians 3:3.

'There seems to be no evidence that the Christian Church was ever organizationally one. Such unity was apparently of no concern to the early Christians. For them the oneness of the church is the oneness in faith, hope, and love. The Apostle Paul indicates that there were divisions in the church of Corinth (I Corinthians 1:10-17). No superorganization controlled the various Christian groups in the earliest centuries of church history. Soon there were Armenian, Indian, Syrian, and Coptic churches. In 867 the church of the Roman Empire was divided into an Eastern and a Western church. In 1054 A.D. Pope Leo IX excommunicated the partriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, who quite naturally returned the anathema a little later. This major division took place almost five hundred years before Luther and has never been healed. And, of course, long before the better-known Protestants, there were Protestants such as John Wycliffe and John Hus who preferred faithfulness to the Bible to organizational unity.' George W. Forell, "The Protestant Faith," Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., p. 212 & 213.

The true unity of the church is not to be found in ecclesiastical administration, but is a unity as the Lord views it, when we are all one because of our universal belief and trust in His atonement, resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God in Heaven. John 17:11 says in the words of our Lord,

'Holy Father, keep through thine own Name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as we are.'

 

Ray,

Ah Smorgasboard Christianity at its finest. Every man with his Bible picking and choosing what he wants to believe. Ain't it grand.

 

thessalonian,

I have been on occasion to a local smorgasboard.

You said, 'Ah Smorgasboard Christianity at its finest . . . '

Ray is saying, That's our job to keep you Catholics out of the pantry of fruitless error.
Spiritual food is out forte.

At least we are people of the Word and are not like our counterpart who attempt to get airborne some human constructions of your elite. You good people finish at your tables with a tall glass and generous cocktail of human traditions.

 

Ray,

This has gotten ridiculous.

Fruitless error? There is no other kind Ray. That is what you don't understand. Yet error is rampant in Protestantism with 30,000 or so denominations and millions upon millions of "popes" running around with their Bibles.



"At least we are people of the Word and are not like our counterpart who attempt to get airborne some human constructions of your elite. You good people finish at your tables with a tall glass and generous cocktail of human traditions. "

Your a funny guy ray. Go read Jer 3:15 again. How can you be people of the Word when you are so full of error's with regard to the Word. If one does not have the truth about the Bible, the whole truth he does not have the Word but a dead letter that does him more harm than good. For error is worse than neutral. It is detrimental to the soul. Yet there are 4 protestant denominations for every verse in the New Testament!!!!!!! You guys do not have the Word. Sorry Ray. You turn the word in to a lie. You NULLIFY THE WORD OF GOD by individual interprutation being raised on a pedastal in the name of individual pride.

2 Peter 1:20
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

Blessings

 

Interesting. Protestants may indeed be "millions upon millions of 'popes' running around with their Bible". Conversely, the pope, in pridefully leaving his traditional position as a first AMONG equals to proclaim himself as supreme poo-bah OVER the entire church, may have indeed become the first Protestant.

 

Covenant is relationship. It is the state of existence between the members of the Blessed Trinity. The relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is that of covenant family. They exist in the perfect covenant relationship of love and union.

According to the Nicene Creed, the Father is pre-eminent, for from the Father proceeds the Son, and from the relationship of the Father and the Son proceeds the Holy Spirit. The Son, while upon earth, always spoke of His loving union with and subjection to the Father. In Catholic theology (as little as I have read and understood regarding this particular issue), it is the Father Who has the pre-eminence in the Blessed Trinity. Carson, please correct me if I am wrong here.

The nuclear family is the reflection of the Blessed Trinity. Indeed, the very first family on earth was created in the image and likeness of the Trinity. There was a covenantal head. There was one in union with him. And there would come from their union a third.

All covenantal families are constructed this way and after this fashion. There must be a single head over the family.

This is why there is a single head over the Church here on earth. While our Lord was on earth, He was that Head, but having left this earth, He has placed in His stead as prime minister over the Church, a single covenantal head to rule in His stead. The form and function of the covenant family must be maintained.

The Church is the picture of Heaven, for in Heaven, there is but ONE Head, one helpmeet, and the children they have brought forth from their union.

Covenant Head = Father (heavenly) -- Christ (church spiritual in Heaven) -- Pope (Church on earth) -- father (nuclear family)

Covenant Helpmeet = Son (heavenly) -- Blessed Mother (church spiritual in Heaven) -- Church (Institution on earth) -- mother (nuclear family)

Result of Union = Holy Spirit (heavenly) -- believers in Heaven (church spiritual in Heaven) -- all baptized (Institutional church on earth) -- children (nuclear family)

Let me clarify something lest I be accused by my Catholic brethren of heresy. There was never a time in eternity that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit did not exist. Neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit are created by the Father. They are one in essence with the Father, one God in Three divine Persons. Yet there is a procession, mentioned by the Nicene Creed, which speaks to the procession of the Son from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. (Yes, Carson, you Latins got that one right!! )

This is the explanation I wrote to a Buddist friend of mine regarding the Trinity:

I believe that the term “father” also speaks of a hierarchal existence of things. Again we must ask why this exists , and I think that it is because action is subordinate to Will, and Will is subordinate to Existence. Without will, there cannot exist any action. And without existence, there cannot exist any will. Thus again the Nicene Creed begins by placing the Father (Existence) a priori to the Son (Will) and the Spirit (Action), for if the Father did not exist first, then He would not have begotten the Son, Who is the act of His Will. So the term “father” not only indicates a pre eminence in Heaven, it is also reflected in the societal norms which mankind works under. Fathers are family heads. The man exists first and by himself in the Creation in Eden. He is given lordship over all by his existence. Yet God says that it is “not good” that he is alone. And it is not good because by himself, Adam is an imperfect representation of the Trinity. He has
no female to love, and they cannot bring forth life. So one who is “flesh of my flesh” (Eve) is brought forth from Adam, just as the Son is brought forth “only begotten” from the Father. And by the union of Father and Son in perfect harmony of will, the Holy Spirit proceeds, just as from the union of Adam and Eve, children
proceed. But the man is the head over all, for he is first created and representative of the One Who Is.

I made one rather bad gaffe in that piece, although the concept is sound. When I state that the Father exists "a priori" to the Son and the Spirit --- ouch!!! That is simply not so. As I mentioned, there is not a time that they did not all exist at once. To state otherwise is to make the Son and the Spirit created beings.

Sorry I went so long, but sometimes one thing leads to another to try to be sure that everything is explained properly. The office of the Holy Father was never "first among equals" in the sense you state. It is and always will be that of covenantal headship which mirrors that of the Father in Heaven. And that is why I must reject the idea of more than one head over the Church. It breaks that covenant pattern.

And BTW -- these are just my own musings, especially the part in italics. Y'all Catholics here feel free to set me straight.

 

Ed,
Interesting theory, but neither the facts of history, nor the Patristic understanding of Scripture, support your assertions in regards to the papacy.

I know these folks would disagree with the alleged historical application of your theory:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_rc.htm

 

Here's a good read on the evidence which refutes papal supremecy:
http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/denials.htm

 

What a sad bunch of gibberish. Wish I had time to refute it all. Ignatius knowing that he is going to be fed to the lions recognises that he is not able to direct his diocese (of which he recognizes himself as bishop). He puts it in God's hands. Somehow Mr. Jason thinks this is a contradiction to having a Pope with authority over that dioceses. Silliness. 1 Jer 3:15 tells us that God will give us shepherds. That is not a contradiction with trusting in God rather than our own understanding now is it. (Prov 3:5). Ignatius leaves his diocese in God's hands but that does not rule out it being shephered by another or others.

Ignatius does recognize the supremacy of the Roman Church (something mister Jason ignores in his article)

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

This once again is not contrary to and actually is because of the recognition of the Bishop of Rom having authority throughout the Christian world. Yet it is a servantile authority, not a dictatorship. Thus the scriptures are rather suddtle about the matter of Peter being the chief apostle. Something Jason and Doudting Thomas don't understand and recognize.

Wish I had more time for this nonsense.

Blessings

 

Thessalonian,
Alright--go ahead and ignore the evidence to the contrary and continue with the cut-n-paste citations of the Bible and the Church Fathers. You still can't see the difference between primacy of honor and universal supremecy. I just don't have time for THAT nonsense.

 

" primacy of honor and universal supremecy"

You apparently didn't read closely, the second quote:

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but OTHERS YOU HAVE TAUGHT. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your INSTRUCTIONS MAY REMAIN IN FORCE" (ibid., 3:1).

Doesn't sound like he is just honoring them to me.

 

That's because you are reading your belief back into that statement and ignoring the other Patristic statements and facts of history which contradict your belief. When that statement is read in its historical context it doesn't necessitate the doctrine of papal supremacy (especially when there is good evidence that Rome was ruled by a multiple bishops at this point in time).