Posted: 4/10/2008 9:21:29 AM EDT
|
I was reading last night and one passage jumped out at me because of discussions I read here (in the "how do you know the bible is the word of God" thread). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%202%20;&version=49; What do you make of this:
What are these traditions that weren't taught in the letters? |
If you don't know ask the "us". However I believe they died about 1900 years ago. So I am left with the letters. If you believe that the papacy (or any other religious organization) is the continuation of the "us", then ask them. [that was not to be taken as a dig, just an observation] The second debate would be "Which letters?" as there are more letters than are cannonized in the Bible. [That is going to be the discussion. In the end, you have to pay your money and take your chances.] |
|
And that first generation taught by the apostles in turn taught traditions and wrote letters about what they learned.... and so forth. It ought to be noted that any interpretation of the bible handed from one generation to another is instantly and unavoidably "a tradition". So, for example, if you consider yourself influenced by Calvin or Luther, you are following traditions of men who were not apostles. If there's a set way for a sunday service to go down - a set protocol for the pastor to give sermons, any regular way of doing things.... you have a liturgical tradition. I once sat through an anti-Catholic diatribe at a non-denominational church that just got done going through a routine liturgy (opening song, praise, testimonies, more song, sermon, and then closing prayer). He didn't CALL it a "liturgy" but it was one nonetheless. Just as most protestants don't consider themselves to be following traditions of men, even though that is precisely what they do - unavoidably - when they hold on to particular interpretations of scripture that suits them. So the question really isn't whether Christians ought to follow traditions, but WHICH traditions are the ones handed down by the apostles and which ones were created by just repetition or novel invention not having Christ's mandate and teaching authority behind it. Jesus founded a Church - a definable group of people. He didn't found a cafeteria of ideas, or a lose-knit "self-serve" ideology/book club whereby each man reads the manual, decides what it means for himself and then self-directs throughout life completely unconnected to every other follower both during his life time and those who came before.  No, he called it a kingdom. That means organized, hierarchical, composed of people who are all part of the organization together. Paul calls the church "a body" - again, meaning we're all in this together - and he specifies that there are different parts doing different functions, but that all are still members. The foot can't divorce the eye, etc. Further more, Jesus did specifically tell his apostles to go make disciples of all the nations, promising to be with them always...now, since these 12 got nowhere near reaching "all nations" by 100 AD, their immediate disciples (like Titus, Timothy, Apollos, etc) understood the great commission as continuing with their own ministry as the terms of the commission had not yet been met. But as we saw in the other thread, this takes faith and humility and a coherent read of the whole scripture (Old and New) and not cut and paste proof texting from Hebrews, Romans, and Galatians while ignoring Matthew, Luke, John, and the epistles of Peter, James, and John. I get though the logical problem of most protestants and the sheer need of market differentation that demands them explain away the problem of historical continuity between their particular modern ideas and what Christianity was like in the beginning. It makes sense that modern non-Catholic Christians would need to posit a great apostasy lasting 1500 years - just helps clear the deck so to speak. But the irony of it of course is that they begin to act precisely as they accuse Catholics of acting. But once people chance upon the actual documents of the early Christian leaders, it becomes obvious that those folk were far more similar in their prayer life, theology, and ecclesiology to Catholics than they were to modern day evangelicals or other protestants. St Augustine's City of God (written in the 4th century) is full of details that point to a Catholic understanding of things. Going back further to St Irenaeus in the 2nd century we find already a long standing understanding of bishops governing local churches and that the bishop of Rome was the one all turned to for guidance. I predict that within our lifetimes there will increasingly be a split in non-Catholic Christianity between those who lose their faith entirely and those who become more and more "Catholic" in their theology and liturgy. Alexis de Tocqueville predicted the same thing in 1832.... |
|
So the question really isn't whether Christians ought to follow traditions, but WHICH traditions are the ones handed down by the apostles and which ones were created by just repetition or novel invention not having Christ's mandate and teaching authority behind it. Seems the traditions handed down by the Apostles, are /were in fact GOD BREATHED. As such, they were not from men, but from God himself through the Holy Spirit's intervention, and revelation to the Apostles. Traditions of men, are of man, Traditions of GOD, are from scripture. Again, GOD breathed. As far as Catholisicm, the term simply means Universal church. No matter the denom, or lack therof...........if you are IN Christ, you are a part of the Catholic church.(Universal church of God, Christ). Scripture, is as you are obviously well aware, is interpretted by scripture. So, from a protestant view, as one who believes God's WORD is inerrant.........the only traditions to me, are man made. Like the baptist denom(most) believe no alcohol...........( I am Baptist, but they teach things that are not backed up, by scripture), so that's their issue.......not mine, not God's. That's not Biblical, it's their tradition...........if it cannot be backed up, by scripture.......then do with it as you wish. As for me and my house, we shall follow the Lord. Not the traditions of Men, and Denominations.......... Sola Scriptura............................... |
You assume that Traditions of God are from scripture, but you have it backwards. Scripture grew out of the traditions and teachings handed down by the Apostles, but not everything that was taught was written down. Scripture is from the Traditions of God, not vice versa.
The Catholic Church has been saying this over and over and over... too bad so many Protestants don't grant us the same courtesy.
 Scripture is interpreted by Scripture? No it's not! It's interpreted by people. Scripture cannot interpret itself. The men that Jesus put in charge of His Church taught and handed on His teachings. They passed on their authority to interpret Scripture (at the time meaning OT) to their successors, who continued to interpret Scripture (soon meaning OT & writings of the Apostles) and then met to decide (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) which writings and books belonged in the Bible. These same men are the ones who have the authority to interpret Scripture. It doesn't interpret itself. It can't.
And yet Sola Scriptura is just that -- a tradition of men that is not backed up by Scripture. If sola scriptura is true, then all those people who lived before the Bible was compiled had no way of attaining salvation. All those people in centuries past who were illiterate and could not read the Scriptures had no way of attaining salvation. The Church is necessary, and that is why Christ gave Peter authority. Since you are a Baptist, do you hold fast to the pillar and foundation of truth?
|
Depends on which scripture you're talking about. The letters from Paul, an Apostle who had seen Christ, are certainly directly inspired, as well as the letters of John, including Revelation. |
Of course what they wrote was divinely inspired. The point I am making is that not everything they taught was written down. John even says so in his Gospel. Paul traveled to these places and taught them orally. Later, when issues arose, he wrote letters addressing those issues. He didn't write the letters to be an exhaustive discourse on every single thing he taught. That's why he wrote (divinely inspired, mind you) "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15 He wrote to address problems. The Church has done it that way ever since. Just because a doctrine isn't mentioned by name until the 4th century when someone denies it doesn't mean the Church suddenly came up with said doctrine. It means there was no need to write reams of letters or hold councils on something that was understood and believed by everyone. |
|
FROM - HOMILY OF CARD. JOSEPH RATZINGER DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS: How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth. Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4: 14) comes true. Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires. www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. --Saint Augustine INDEED! -3D |
I make a distinction between doctrine based on sound interpretation of Scripture and tradition. Especially when the sources of the traditions are extrabiblical.
For example, God set the 7th day as the Sabbath. Sunday worship is a tradition from 4th century Rome. Just as most protestants don't consider themselves to be following traditions of men, even though that is precisely what they do - unavoidably - when they hold on to particular interpretations of scripture that suits them. Again, that's a loose definition of "tradition." Most doctrines of Protestantism are firmly rooted in Scripture. Yes, there are some false teachers out there, and discernment must be used in evaluating them. By what measure? By Scripture, of course! In contrast, the Roman church has practices and doctrines that are not supported by Scripture, so they must look to tradition for support. But does anybody ask what are the sources of the traditions? I believe the Reformation is yet an unfinished work. There are too many remnants of Romanism throught Protestant Christianity. Everything from Sunday worship to celebrating repackaged pagan holidays (which God specifically warned against). There are still weeds to be pulled from the garden. But as we saw in the other thread, this takes faith and humility and a coherent read of the whole scripture (Old and New) and not cut and paste proof texting from Hebrews, Romans, and Galatians while ignoring Matthew, Luke, John, and the epistles of Peter, James, and John. I can agree with this. I get though the logical problem of most protestants and the sheer need of market differentation that demands them explain away the problem of historical continuity between their particular modern ideas and what Christianity was like in the beginning. By weeding away things added from the 4th century on, one can get back to a First Century kind of faith (or as close as we can get with the resources [Scripture] available today). It makes sense that modern non-Catholic Christians would need to posit a great apostasy lasting 1500 years - just helps clear the deck so to speak. That's a convenient way to trivialize the excesses and wrongs of the Roman church. But once people chance upon the actual documents of the early Christian leaders, it becomes obvious that those folk were far more similar in their prayer life, theology, and ecclesiology to Catholics than they were to modern day evangelicals or other protestants. St Augustine's City of God (written in the 4th century) is full of details that point to a Catholic understanding of things. Going back further to St Irenaeus in the 2nd century we find already a long standing understanding of bishops governing local churches and that the bishop of Rome was the one all turned to for guidance. By early Christian leaders I look to the writings of Paul, John, Peter, etc., and most of all, the recorded words of Yeshua of Nazareth. I predict that within our lifetimes there will increasingly be a split in non-Catholic Christianity between those who lose their faith entirely and those who become more and more "Catholic" in their theology and liturgy. I predict a split between those who follow "popular theology" and those who are not so willing to compromise sound doctrine for a feel good experience. |
|
I am currently reading over church history and have reached point where the great schism divided the east and west. It was over several issues - the filioque started it when added to the Nicene creed about 589(?) and the rift continued, sometimes healing over, sometimes errupting again. The claim of papal supremacy was the final straw from what I understand, at this point. The Eastern churches held Bishops in authority and the council of Bishops as the supreme guide to interpreting truth, but they did not vest all supremecy in one position. Thru the ensuing years, the sheer corruption of the papacy at varous times seemed to bear them out. There have been attempts to reconcile, but not successful. The Protestant Reformation sought not so much to start a new branch of the church, but it started as an attempt by priests to pull the Catholic church back to the Holy Scriptures as the guide and as the measure of truth, not fallible men or councils of men. Rejection and violence on the part of the Papacy drove the opposing sides further apart, as the people had more and more access to the Scriptures and teachers of the Holy Scriptures. Traditions are important insomuch as they reinforce Scripture and direct believers to God in their worship. Tradition should never become the end all for believers - the danger of practicing a series of rote exercises is what Paul, for one, warns against and what the Pharisees had fallen into. Also, the supposition of a man between God and man is expressly warned against in the Scriptures. The Levitical Priesthood was done away with and each believer has access to God the Father directly thru Yeshua now. So each one is a priest now - God appoints pastors as shepherds, but not as priests in the classical, levitical sense. Edited to add: This is not a dig at the title or position of Priest as it relates in the body of Christ to those called to pastor or shepherd the flock. Its not a dig at the Pope - only at traditions of men or at people that are set up between God and man. |
|
Quoted: <snip> Learn to use the quotes. Then maybe someone can make a cogent reply. But just to register...4th century, indeed: From the Catechism: The Mass of all ages 1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did: On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . . and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.' When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent. |
Apparently I put something in the wrong place which messed up the rest of the quotes. If making a condescending comment makes you feel better about yourself, go for it. As for me, I'll not be participating in the errors of Rome. There can be no thought of ecumenism while the anathemas of the Council of Trent remain in place. Y'all have a nice day. |
That's ridiculous. Your post, or at least the portions of it that I think you penned, are a study in condescention. There can be no thought of ecumenism when the exclusion and damnation of your Christian brethren is preached from your pulpit. Just keep studying that other 4th century invention of the Catholic Church, you know, 'The Bible,' That book, that canon, that you believe can interpret itself? That book that no where contains the phrases 'faith alone' or 'scripture alone.' That book that defines the church as one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic! You will be surprised by truth yet. But more likely you'll just continue to absorb the Chick inspired vitreol eminating from the pulpit. Its much easier to dismiss history and scripture in favor of a 1600 year apostacy in order to explain your belief structure. Its a shame. |
Hmmm... I don't have time at the moment for a thorough study on the doctrine of grace, but here are a few to start with. Are you sure these aren't in your Bible? They should be.  "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:22-24, NIV) "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." (Romans 3:28, NIV) "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand." (Romans 5:1-2, NIV) "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) [Note: Wages are earned through work; gifts are free - if you did something to earn or merit it, it is no longer a gift). "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9) The Truth is out there for those who earnestly seek it. |
Then are you earnestly seeking it, or are you just trying to avoid reading the obvious? In all of your quotes that you just posted, please find the phrase "faith alone." You are relying on your interpretation of those verses (or rather Luther's interpretation) to come up with "faith alone." The works Paul is speaking of are works of the Mosaic Law (sacrificing certain animals for sin offerings, following ritual cleanliness laws, not walking a certain distance on the Sabbath, etc.), not such things as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, avoiding sin (such as fornication, contraception, drunkenness, hate, malice, etc.,), sheltering the homeless, etc. TWIRE is not completely correct, however. "Faith alone" does appear in the Bible: James 2:24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. |
There's about 7 books worth in my Bible that you kicked out of yours, so yeah, I'm sure its in there.
I don't think I have a bone to pick with any of that. In fact, contrary to what you have heard and what you seem to imply about Catholic belief here, the RCC does NOT believe that 'works earn salvation.' Whoever told you that was WRONG.
The truth will surprise you.
My bad. I like to keep that little nugget in reserve. |
Better yet, read James 2:14-26. Quite a bit there on faith & works (good deeds). Ending with "faith without works is dead." Or Psalm 11:7: "The LORD is just and loves just deeds; the upright shall see his face." By just deeds, it means good works. According to the first letter of Peter, we are told to be "holy in every aspect of your conduct, for it is written, "Be holy because I (am) holy." " (1 Pt 1:15-16) Mt 16:27 "For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct." See Mt 25:31-46. Looks to me like Jesus wants us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the ill, etc. He said: 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' He's telling us how we're going to be judged when He returns. So scripture is full of examples of God telling us we need to do good works (deeds, whatever you want to call it) to gain his favor. ETA: I was in a rush when I posted and in retrospect relaize I did not choose the right words at the end. Replace the last three words with "participate fully in His grace." |
The works James is talking about is the fruit of putting faith in action, the product of a genuine faith. There are those who will verbally profess faith, but their lifestyles and actions show their true beliefs to be something else. These works do not produce salvation. The verse I quoted from Eph 2:8-9, speaking of being saved, says, "through faith... not by works..." How am I twisting that? If works are a part of salvation, how can you know you've done enough? How much do you have to do to win God's approval? Where is any peace or assurance when you're wondering each day how far short you've fallen? The righteousness I have is most definitely not of myself, not by any works I have accdomplished. This righteousness is imparted to me from God by faith (that's in the Bible, too ).Understanding that I can do nothing to earn His approval took the perfomance anxiety from my shoulders and freed me to serve Him out of love and gratitude. Grace is free, but it is not cheap. It cost God dearly. Thus, it is not a doormat to wipe your feet on when you come in from the world. There is a song that goes "I owed a debt I could not pay, He paid a debt He did not owe..." All I can do is humbly accept the gift He has offered and live my life to please Him. Obedience is not optional. A genuine faith will produce fruit. I try to do my best to follow and obey, and I freely admit that I often fall short of my intentions. However, I do not live in fear of my Heavenly Father rejecting me. The word grace as used here means unmerited favor. Grace is an awesome, humbling thing. |
We would be in agreement then. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. However, according to the Lord's words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"- reflection on God's blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty. Initially, I was not sure what the phrase 'grace escapes our experience' meant. But in reflection, it seems to imply that we (humans) cannot produce or manufacture 'grace,' we can only receive it. |
When I first started to grasp that point I was humbled. I can't earn it. He chose to love me. Wow. |
Because you left off verse 10: "For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them." "Works are the fruit of faith and as much a part of God's predestined plan for our salvations as faith." -Peter Kreeft, You Can Understand the Bible, Ignatius Press
I wonder every single day if I'm doing enough. Am I being Christ-like in my words and deeds? Could I do better? I pray every day for the Lord to help me with this. It's between me & Him. That's part of what keeps me on track.
I agree with wholeheartedly! By living your life to please him - you're doing exactly what you should!! Your accepting his gift because of your faith in him, and you conduct yourself to try to be more like him (that's your works).
Me neither. I worry about whether or not I could be doing more to expereince His grace and become closer to Him.
Yes it is. |