Christian Non-Negotialbles?

[cowboymatt]

The church utilitzed the rule of faith (i.e., what the apostles taught) to determine what books were to be part of the canon and which weren't. Thus, wouldn't you agree that the standard used to determine the canonicity of the documents in the NT is reliable, authoritative, and even inspired? It is the authentic teachings of the apostles!

The only thing that I have changed in this is clarifying what I meant by Bible and then adding that a group must view the Bible as authoritative as a non-negotiable. I have, however, clarified and expounded on points when asked to or when someone has misunderstood me.

Again, thank you for helping me clarify my point with your previous post. However, you still can't tell me that the Church didn't exist prior to the NT since the Church is who took part in deciding which books were to be included in the NT! Did the first converts at Pentecost have the NT? No! Thus, clearly, the Church existed prior to the full Christian canon.

Not only that, but the church utilized tradition in determining what was to be included in the canon. To use the encyclopedia that you quoted: "the books of the Bible were tested, or measured, before being accepted as God's Word." By what were they tested? The rule of faith, which is the authentic tradition from the apostles, what they taught and preached about Jesus. The last part of the quote you provided (and which you bolded) is obviously talking about a time period after canonization, that is, that the books of the Bible are the measure of what is true now. Otherwise, how would the books of the NT be the measuring stick of what was to be included in the NT!? That doesn't make any sense.

Also, talking about tradition makes all of us in the free church tradition uncomfortable. Your responses to my use of the term clearly indicate your level of discomfort with the idea. However, none of us who claim to be Christian can escape tradition. The best example is the Trinity. If you believe in the Trinity then you believe in tradition, because the doctrine of the Trinity is never explicitly laid out in the Bible. It wasn't until the fourth century that the Church came to an understanding of the Trinity that we all accept as truth today. That's tradition and you and I both believe it! Also, us Protestants often make use of tradition by looking to the teachings of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Simons, Wesley, and others. That's tradition. How we go about doing worship services is tradition. Our understandings of the Lord's Supper are based on both the Bible and tradition. I could go on and on.

As far as tradition subsequent to the Christian canon, it must be tested by the Bible (which is the bolded part of your quote from the encyclopedia is getting at). For instance, the doctirne of the Trinity, which came to fruition nearly three hundred years after Jesus died, meshes well with what we have in the Bible, so we accept it. The idea that the Papal bulls (official documents) are infallible does not square so well with Scripture, so we reject it. The tradition of the altar call seems to fit just fine with Scripture, so we use it in preacing and services. Etc. Tradition that is subsequent to the formation of the Christian canon is to be tested by Scripture, which I think was your point by including the verses from Mark 7...the Pharisees were doing things that went beyond Scripture, so they were wrong and their traditions prevented them from appropriately worshipping God, so they were wrong.

I'm not saying that we should all blindly accept every stitch of tradition that we find! But I am saying that we in the free church should be honest and admit that we are not free from tradition!

Lastly, Linda, are you saying that if a group accepts anything that is based on tradition that they are not Christian? If so, we are all in trouble!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Thanks swaimj! You pointed out something that I need to think about!

I think that you are right: the Early Church used the rule of faith to canonize the NT, thus what we have in the NT must fall within that rule of faith. So perhaps this pre-NT rule of faith is trustworthy and binding, but the tradition after the NT is not.

I think it's good to continue to point out the (inter)dependent relationship between Scripture and Tradition within the Church. It is also useful to point out that before there was a "Canon" of NT Scripture there was a "canon of faith" or "rule of faith" (or any similar type names used by different church fathers describing the same thing) which was basically a 'summary' of the faith as handed down by the apostles. Specific examples of this can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian (I don't have the works in front of me) which were basically the same in content if somewhat flexible in wording. It was this "rule of faith" that was regarded as the key to properly interpreting the Scriptures as opposed to the distortions of the heretics. As Cowboymatt pointed out, the "rule" was also a major determining factor in deciding which books were authentically apostolic and thus "canonical"--and which were spurious and heretical.

One could see precursors to the "rule of faith" in the Apostolic kerygma as expounded in the early 'sermon summaries' recorded in Acts of the Apostles, as exhibited in creed-like fragments and statements such as in 1 Cor 15:1-9, 1 Cor 8:6, and Romans 1:3-4, and expressed in early hymns such as evidently referenced in Philippians (2:5-11) and 1 Timothy 3:16. Also the idea of a "rule of faith" can be seen in the idea of Paul's "pattern of sound words" (2 Timothy 1:13) which Timothy had heard (orally) from Paul and to which he was instructed to hold fast. (See also Romans 6:17 in which Paul mentions obeying a specific "form of doctrine" that had been delivered). It was this "pattern of sound words" or "form of doctrine" that was initially taught by the Apostles to the Christians orally that enabled them to get the correct sense of Scriptures (OT) and thus avoid "twisting Scriptures to their own destruction" as was the case with "untaught" (and "unstable") men (see 2 Peter 3:15-16). And it was also this "pattern" or "form of doctrine" that enabled the early Church to recognize which writings were actually Apostolic and canonical--ie the writings that conformed to the "pattern": Paul's corpus, the four-fold Gospel, Acts, and (gradually) the general epistles and Revelation.

I could say more, for this topic is fascinating and important, but that's all for now (I do have to work I suppose. :smilewinkgrin

So perhaps I now have three non negotiables: the Trinity, the efficacy of Jesus' death alone for salvation, and viewing the Bible as authoritative.

I would also at least at the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ. And, as others have mentioned, the points mentioned in the three great creeds: the Apostles', the Nicene(-Constantinopolitan) and the "Athanasian".
I would particularly emphasize the Nicene as that is held commonly by even those "Oriental" churches (eg. Assyrian, Coptic, Ethipian, Armenian, Jacobite Syrian) which separated over Ephesus and Chalcedon, whose separation I submit had at least as much to do with imperial/nationalistic politics and linguistic differences (probably more) as it did with real substantial differences of faith as expressed in those councils.

The main idea is that these Creeds were believed to enshrine the correct teaching of Scripture and historically can be shown to have an organic continuity--while allowing for the clarification of key points--with the Apostolic kerygma as summarized in the "rule of faith", confessed in baptism, expressed in the liturgy (prayers/hymns), and defended by the orthodox fathers against early heretics in the ante-Nicene period.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Upon which "tradition" are we dependent? Where does God and His Word fall into this "tradition"? My perception of "tradition"? I reject it. Theological discomfort? You got to be kidding!!!

The Tradition of the Apostles.

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word (orally) or our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

The word for "tradition" is the Greek word "paradosis" which means "that which is handed over or delivered". Interestingly, this is the same Greek word that is translated "tradition" in the Mark 7 passage which you site. In other words, the word/concept itself is neutral--whether it is to be held or condmened depends on the source of the "tradition" ("paradosis").

Another quick example is 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul uses the language of "tradition"--delivering something (orally) which he had previously received (orally) (v.3). Suffice it to say, this "delivering of the tradition" took place orally before the penning of (let alone the collection or canonization of) the NT writings.

 

[TCGreek]

Thanks for the addition.

I guess, though TCGreek, my next question would be do groups have to have a particular understanding of those ideas to be Christian (especially inerrancy [however defined] and narrow views of the eschaton)?

Well,

1. Trinity: the equal divinity of each must be affirmed.

2. The Word: Its inspiration and authority must be affirmed.

3. The Gospel: Christ died for our sins to appease the wrath of an angry God must be affirmed.

4. The Eschaton: Christ is coming again must be affirmed at the minimum.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

......

Not only that, but the church utilized tradition in determining what was to be included in the canon. To use the encyclopedia that you quoted: "the books of the Bible were tested, or measured, before being accepted as God's Word." By what were they tested? The rule of faith, which is the authentic tradition from the apostles, what they taught and preached about Jesus. The last part of the quote you provided (and which you bolded) is obviously talking about a time period after canonization, that is, that the books of the Bible are the measure of what is true now. Otherwise, how would the books of the NT be the measuring stick of what was to be included in the NT!? That doesn't make any sense.

Also, talking about tradition makes all of us in the free church tradition uncomfortable. Your responses to my use of the term clearly indicate your level of discomfort with the idea. However, none of us who claim to be Christian can escape tradition. The best example is the Trinity. If you believe in the Trinity then you believe in tradition, because the doctrine of the Trinity is never explicitly laid out in the Bible. It wasn't until the fourth century that the Church came to an understanding of the Trinity that we all accept as truth today. That's tradition and you and I both believe it! Also, us Protestants often make use of tradition by looking to the teachings of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Simons, Wesley, and others. That's tradition. How we go about doing worship services is tradition. Our understandings of the Lord's Supper are based on both the Bible and tradition. I could go on and on.

As far as tradition subsequent to the Christian canon, it must be tested by the Bible (which is the bolded part of your quote from the encyclopedia is getting at). For instance, the doctirne of the Trinity, which came to fruition nearly three hundred years after Jesus died, meshes well with what we have in the Bible, so we accept it. The idea that the Papal bulls (official documents) are infallible does not square so well with Scripture, so we reject it. .....


I'm not saying that we should all blindly accept every stitch of tradition that we find! But I am saying that we in the free church should be honest and admit that we are not free from tradition!

Lastly, Linda, are you saying that if a group accepts anything that is based on tradition that they are not Christian? If so, we are all in trouble!

Some more very good points.

I'd only differ with you here: "As far as tradition subsequent to the Christian canon, it must be tested by the Bible "...

...by saying it like this: "As far as tradition subsequent to the Christian canon, it must be tested by the Bible as interpreted by the consensus of the Church during the period in which the Scripture was collected and canonized."

(*For the Scriptures are just as capable as being "twisted" by untaught and unstable men after the Canon has been completed as they were before--see 2 Peter 3:15-16)

 

[cowboymatt]

DT: I agree about the Nicene Creed being very useful. However, isn't the conception of Jesus being truly (of fully) huaman and divine included in the orthodox view of the Trinity? Thus, my exclusion of it in my three non-negotiables.

TCGreek: I would have a problem with your #3, not personally necessarily but there are Christians who argue from the Bible a different sort of atonement theory than that of satisfaction. While I think that some of the texts of the NT argue for satisfaction, others argue for substitution, others argue for moral influence, and others still argue for Christus Victor. That is why I stated my second non-negotiable the way that I did. I suppose that the eschaton could be included, but it doesn't seem to be as central as the Trinity, the cross, and the Bible.

Back to DT: You said "As far as tradition subsequent to the Christian canon, it must be tested by the Bible as interpreted by the consensus of the Church during the period in which the Scripture was collected and canonized." Is that not putting too much emphasis on the Church Fathers and not enough on the continued work of the Holy Spirit throughout the rest of the Church's history?

 

[TCGreek]

TCGreek: I would have a problem with your #3, not personally necessarily but there are Christians who argue from the Bible a different sort of atonement theory than that of satisfaction. While I think that some of the texts of the NT argue for satisfaction, others argue for substitution, others argue for moral influence, and others still argue for Christus Victor. That is why I stated my second non-negotiable the way that I did. I suppose that the eschaton could be included, but it doesn't seem to be as central as the Trinity, the cross, and the Bible.

1. The Eschaton is central the NT. Every book of the NT speaks of the eschaton.

2. Peter actually wrote against the mockers of his day:

"knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.

They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation."

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God." (2 Pet 3).

3. Listen to Paul:

"But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,

and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,

who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some." (2 Tim 2).

4. I will put the Eschaton right up there with the rest. We cannot minimize it.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

DT: I agree about the Nicene Creed being very useful. However, isn't the conception of Jesus being truly (of fully) huaman and divine included in the orthodox view of the Trinity? Thus, my exclusion of it in my three non-negotiables.

Except that Apolliarius (for instance) would implicitly deny the full humanity of Christ, while affirming His full divinity (included in the orthodox view of the Trinity)

Back to DT: You said "As far as tradition subsequent to the Christian canon, it must be tested by the Bible as interpreted by the consensus of the Church during the period in which the Scripture was collected and canonized." Is that not putting too much emphasis on the Church Fathers and not enough on the continued work of the Holy Spirit throughout the rest of the Church's history?

Perhaps if one leaves it at that. I don't think the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself so that whatever the is consensus of the Church during subsequent periods should be consistent with the consensus during her formative period (ie the same in which the canon is formed and 'fixed'). I'm more than happy to acknowledge the continued work of the Spirit in the Church after the canon is closed, as for example in the Christological teachings of the subsequent five ecumenical councils--Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II and III, and Nicea II--once the political and linguistic caveats surrounding those councils are taken into account. However, the key is that it's the Spirit guiding the Church collectively, not necessarily in the idiosyncratic views of an individual reformer.

 

[TCGreek]

With respect to the death of Christ and what it means, we must let all of Scripture speak and not just a portion of it to buttress one strand of thought.

1. Christ is seen as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World (John 1:29).

2. He gave His life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28).

3. He suffered, "the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us back to God" (1 Pet 3:18).

4. "God made Christ who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21).

5. And how can we forget Rom 3:24-26, where Christ is set forth to demonstrate the righteousness of God.

6. Rom 5 says that Christ death was to remove the wrath of God (v. 9).

 

[cowboymatt]

With respect to the death of Christ and what it means, we must let all of Scripture speak and not just a portion of it to buttress one strand of thought.

1. Christ is seen as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World (John 1:29).

2. He gave His life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28).

3. He suffered, "the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us back to God" (1 Pet 3:18).

4. "God made Christ who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21).

5. And how can we forget Rom 3:24-26, where Christ is set forth to demonstrate the righteousness of God.

6. Rom 5 says that Christ death was to remove the wrath of God (v. 9).

1. What theory does this support? Passover was not about appeasing God, and the Passover lamb was not a substitute for Israel. It appears that the Passover lamb idea is better connected with the Lord's Supper since each are about commemorating (Exod 12.14) an important act of God.

2. Ransom is clearly not satisfaction language. The question though is who was holding us in bondage? Most theologians of the Church have argued for Satan, though others have said that it was God, or sin, or death, etc. No matter who was holding us in bondage, the image in this passage is not satisfaction or substitution but being granted freedom.

3. 1 Peter 3.18 does appear to be about substitution, not satisfaction.

4. Many different theologians and biblical scholars have understood this passage in different ways. Some see satisfaction here (which does seem most plausible), some see substitution, others simply see forensic (court) language here, still others read exchange language here. Satisfaction is certainly a real possibility though.

5. Satisfaction is in view if "atoning sacrifice" is to be understood as "propitiation" (sacrifice to appease wrath) and not "expiation" (sacrifice to amend wrongs more generally). I tend to go with the latter, though the former is certainly possible.

6. Could it be that "God's wrath" there could be eternal damnation, which is averted through Christ's reconciliatory work of the cross? I guess the point that I am making is that this passage is not saying that Jesus suffered the wrath of God on the cross, but that one of the results of his death is that we won't face the wrath of God, which could be seen as hell.

There are other passages that we could add that would only cloud the image. Instead of trying to push all the passages about the effects of the cross into one atonement theory (as many of my fellow Evangelicals have done), wouldn't it be better to say that in the NT we have many images that are all attempts to explain the great thing that Jesus did for us?

I like Rom 5.8 on this point: "But God demonstrated his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Jesus' death was "for us." All of the images (reconciliation, satisfaction, substitution, moral influence, Christus Victor, etc, etc) are all seeing this simple truth of Jesus dying "for us" from different perspectives. I say we hold them all as important since the NT includes them all.




EDIT~~TCGreek, your point about the eschaton is well-founded and I will have to consider carefully whether or not to include it in my non-negotiables.

 

[TCGreek]

1. What theory does this support? Passover was not about appeasing God, and the Passover lamb was not a substitute for Israel. It appears that the Passover lamb idea is better connected with the Lord's Supper since each are about commemorating (Exod 12.14) an important act of God.

1. Scripture says, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

Sin was the problem and the Son of God, the Lamb of God, came to take away the sin of the World, which stood between the world and God.

This sin had to be removed by someone. Since no one among man was righteous to take this sin, the Lamb had to (Rom 3:9, 10).

What do we call that?

2. Ransom is clearly not satisfaction language. The question though is who was holding us in bondage? Most theologians of the Church have argued for Satan, though others have said that it was God, or sin, or death, etc. No matter who was holding us in bondage, the image in this passage is not satisfaction or substitution but being granted freedom.

2. Scripture says,

"but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation." (Rom 5:8-11)

3. The death of Christ does not just have eschatological significance, but historical and now significance.

4. We were enemies of God, but having trusted Christ for salvation, we have been reconciled to God. This is historical language, then and now, not just eschatological.

5. Someone had to reconcile us to God. And historically, Jesus did that by becoming our Substitute, satisfying the wrath of God.

6. No one else was fit to mediate between enemies, us and God. But Christ was.

3. 1 Peter 3.18 does appear to be about substitution, not satisfaction.

7. 1Peter 3:18 certainly involves satisfaction language. Something was keeping us away from God. Christ died to remove it and so bring us to God.

4. Many different theologians and biblical scholars have understood this passage in different ways. Some see satisfaction here (which does seem most plausible), some see substitution, others simply see forensic (court) language here, still others read exchange language here. Satisfaction is certainly a real possibility though.

8. Forensic language is part of it, but it points also to satisfaction language. It's a package.

5. Satisfaction is in view if "atoning sacrifice" is to be understood as "propitiation" (sacrifice to appease wrath) and not "expiation" (sacrifice to amend wrongs more generally). I tend to go with the latter, though the former is certainly possible.

9. I believe both are involved: propitiation and expiation--that which brought about the wrath of God had to be removed--a beautiful marriage between propitiation and expiation.

6. Could it be that "God's wrath" there could be eternal damnation, which is averted through Christ's reconciliatory work of the cross? I guess the point that I am making is that this passage is not saying that Jesus suffered the wrath of God on the cross, but that one of the results of his death is that we won't face the wrath of God, which could be seen as hell.

10. Isaiah says that the Father was pleased to crush His Son on the cross. Read Isa 53:10:

"But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand." (NASB)

11. A guilt offering was for the sin of the people (Lev 5).

There are other passages that we could add that would only cloud the image. Instead of trying to push all the passages about the effects of the cross into one atonement theory (as many of my fellow Evangelicals have done), wouldn't it be better to say that in the NT we have many images that are all attempts to explain the great thing that Jesus did for us?

12. I agree that many images are seen in the cross of Christ, but this was not the problem with older theologians. Older theologians were rejecting the Atonement for the moral theory and so on.

 

[swaimj]

Wow! This is one of the better threads I've read on BB in a while. Thanks for the interaction, all.

 

[cowboymatt]

<snip>
12. I agree that many images are seen in the cross of Christ, but this was not the problem with older theologians. Older theologians were rejecting the Atonement for the moral theory and so on.

Thanks for your great post!

Joel Green, in a chapter of The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, calls his "theory" of atonement the "kaleidescopic view," even though he's not fond on the name he's given it. The picture he paints with the word kaleidescope I think captures the way that the NT pictures atonement quite well.

I agree with you about the moral influence theory being deficient on its own. There are plenty of examples in the NT of us being called to follow Jesus' example, and the cross is the climax of that (Philippians 2, of course, comes to mind). But that is only one image in the kaleidescope. All the images together give us a better picture of the atonement!

 

[Linda64]

The Tradition of the Apostles.


"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word (orally) or our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

The word for "tradition" is the Greek word "paradosis" which means "that which is handed over or delivered". Interestingly, this is the same Greek word that is translated "tradition" in the Mark 7 passage which you site. In other words, the word/concept itself is neutral--whether it is to be held or condmened depends on the source of the "tradition" ("paradosis").

Another quick example is 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul uses the language of "tradition"--delivering something (orally) which he had previously received (orally) (v.3). Suffice it to say, this "delivering of the tradition" took place orally before the penning of (let alone the collection or canonization of) the NT writings.

The word “tradition” which is used in 2 Thess. 2:15 is referring to that which has been handed down from Lord’s Apostles by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…NOT to the uninspired teaching of man which has been placed on the same level equal with Holy Scripture, as is taught by the Roman Catholic Church. This word “tradition” is used in two distinctly different ways in the N.T. The verses which I quoted in Mark are the vain traditions of false religion.. and is NOT the same way in which the word “tradition” is used in 2 Thess. 2:15. It is simply amazing that the Roman Catholic Church uses this ONE verse (2 Thess. 2:15) to exalt its man-made, uninspired traditions to a level equal with Holy Scripture, and therefore repudiate “Sola Scriptura”!

 

[TCGreek]

The word “tradition” which is used in 2 Thess. 2:15 is referring to that which has been handed down from Lord’s Apostles by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…NOT to the uninspired teaching of man which has been placed on the same level equal with Holy Scripture, as is taught by the Roman Catholic Church. This word “tradition” is used in two distinctly different ways in the N.T. The verses which I quoted in Mark are the vain traditions of false religion.. and is NOT the same way in which the word “tradition” is used in 2 Thess. 2:15. It is simply amazing that the Roman Catholic Church uses this ONE verse (2 Thess. 2:15) to exalt its man-made, uninspired traditions to a level equal with Holy Scripture, and therefore repudiate “Sola Scriptura”!

Linda,

This is great stuff. From all possible angels, you got it right. :thumbs:

 

[TCGreek]

Thanks for your great post!

Joel Green, in a chapter of The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, calls his "theory" of atonement the "kaleidescopic view," even though he's not fond on the name he's given it. The picture he paints with the word kaleidescope I think captures the way that the NT pictures atonement quite well.

I agree with you about the moral influence theory being deficient on its own. There are plenty of examples in the NT of us being called to follow Jesus' example, and the cross is the climax of that (Philippians 2, of course, comes to mind). But that is only one image in the kaleidescope. All the images together give us a better picture of the atonement!

Joel Green is a solid scholar, and I think he's got it right with the "kaleidescopic view."

 

[cowboymatt]

The word “tradition” which is used in 2 Thess. 2:15 is referring to that which has been handed down from Lord’s Apostles by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…NOT to the uninspired teaching of man which has been placed on the same level equal with Holy Scripture, as is taught by the Roman Catholic Church. This word “tradition” is used in two distinctly different ways in the N.T. The verses which I quoted in Mark are the vain traditions of false religion.. and is NOT the same way in which the word “tradition” is used in 2 Thess. 2:15. It is simply amazing that the Roman Catholic Church uses this ONE verse (2 Thess. 2:15) to exalt its man-made, uninspired traditions to a level equal with Holy Scripture, and therefore repudiate “Sola Scriptura”!

I agree with you. I just think that we should not simply through the baby (good tradition) out with the bath water (bad tradition) because the RCC has a messed up view.

TCGreek: I just got another book by Green that I'll be reviewing on my blog soon (w/i 3-4 weeks). Its called Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Scripture.

 

[Linda64]

I agree with you. I just think that we should not simply through the baby (good tradition) out with the bath water (bad tradition) because the RCC has a messed up view.

After we strain the bath water (bad tradition), there's NO baby (good tradition) in the bath water!! We have the complete Word of God---therefore, what is the purpose of tradition? We don't get saved through tradition. Salvation is in a Person, Jesus Christ.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

This doesn't mean that you aren't a Christian if you believe in tradition, but the only way you are going to grow spiritually is to:

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

This is why I reject tradition. We need preachers who will not compromise the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-5) and preach the Truth no matter who it offends.

 

[cowboymatt]

There is much to learn from tradition though. Saying that we should simply reject it is basically saying that we don't want to learn from the examples of other Christians. There have been many Holy Spirit filled, bible believing, Jesus following Christians throughout Christian history who can teach us much about how to live lives of worship.

Some examples that come to mind immediately are Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Augustine, Origen, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Chrysostom, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Menno Simons, John Wesley, A.H. Franke, Jonathan Edward, Roger Williams, George Truett, J. Vernon McGee, Mother Theresa, Billy Graham, Kallistos Ware, etc, etc.

Now I'm not at all saying that the words, thought, and actions of these men and women are above Scripture or on par with Scripture. But I am saying that by looking to these people for help can't be a bad thing as long as we weigh all of their contributions by Scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Cowboy Matt: But I am saying that by looking to these people for help can't be a bad thing as long as we weigh all of their contributions by Scripture.

HP: When I do that some on your list are the very source of either the development of ideas clearly contrary to Scripture and or the perpetuators of those false notions. Certainly great caution is in order.