You asked for Traditions, not doctrines.The liturgy is a doctrine? How do you figure?
The point was that "Holy Tradition" is alleged to be a valid means of ascertaining doctrine because it is referred to in the Bible. Except that it is NOT referred to in the Bible. The reference is to the mere appearance of the word "traditions" which does have the same meaning (or spelling).You asked for Traditions, not doctrines.
I'm not. I knew that you couldn't answer the question, but I asked it in order to show you that the theory is mistaken.
If "traditions" don't translate into something specific, this can't be guidance. And it can't be an alternative to Scripture or a supplement to it.
Like everyone else who says "traditions" are the way to go (because they can locate the word in Scripture), you can't name a single tradition we are supposedly being told to follow or believe!
Not to worry...no one else can either, me included. So it's nothing personal and, no, it wasn't a call to debate because I know that there is nothing upon which to build a debate.
"All those things which were taught by the apostles and have been by a whole universal consent of the Church of Christ Tradition ever since that time, taught continually and taken for true, ought to be received , accepted and kept as perfect doctrine ,"Apostolic". (Institution. A Necessary Doctrine agreed on by the Bishops of England. 1537/43)
Palmer, in his "Harmony of Anglican Doctrine with the Catholic and Apostolic Church gives examples, 'Baptism,Confirmation, and the beliefs of the Three Creeds which as Anglicans
we are expected to hold, just as we read them.As well , the Christological teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, which are derived, by interpretation* from the Nice, Creed.
We do not only admit oral traditions in general as an excellent introduction to saving truth and a singular help to expound the Holy Scriptures, but also particular unwritten traditions derived from the apostles and delivered untous by the manifest testimony of the primitive church, being agreeable to the holy scriptures. The Apostles did speak by inspiration as well as write and their traditions, whether by word or writing indifferently was the word of God into which faith was resolved. S.Augustine setteth us down a certain rule,how to know a true genuine apostolical tradition, 'Whatsoever',saith he,' the universal Church doth hold, which hath not been instituted , but always received by councils, is most rightly to be believed to have been delivered by Apostles'.
"It has appeared good to the HolyGhost and to us!?
"
OK, and thanks.
Pretending that we know what the Apostles taught -- in the absence of any evidence -- is, of course, one option. My comment, however, was made in response to what you had said in that previous post.
There you attempted to find in Scripture a justification for making these assumptions. That there is none, other than the appearance of the word "traditions," I illustrated by asking you to name even one such "tradition."
It is not possible to show that Scripture approves of the use of "Holy Tradition." The terms aren't even the same, nor are the definitions. In short, stipulating what the Apostles might have taught is, indeed, the only way to justify this alternative to the Bible.
I believe this is the point that is being trying to establish......
We do not only admit oral traditions in general as an excellent introduction to saving truth and a singular help to expound the Holy Scriptures, but also particular unwritten traditions derived from the apostles and delivered untous by the manifest testimony of the primitive church, being agreeable to the holy scriptures..... "
And I am sorry that it trended towards a debate despite your desire that it not go that way. My point was only that it has to BE Apostolic Tradition in order to qualify as Apostolic or Tradition. It's not enough just to say that X belief had some adherent in the first or second century.I'm sorry, Albion. We are still not on the same page.
This is what I meant by not really having an interest in debating. I'm not pretending to know anything. My point in the beginning is that there are things not in Scripture that were recognized and practiced by the early Church, and we consider those things to be valid.
And with thy spirit. [/QUOTE]God be with you, as always.
Thank you. And thank you for understanding.And I am sorry that it trended towards a debate despite your desire that it not go that way. My point was only that it has to BE Apostolic Tradition in order to qualify as Apostolic or Tradition. It's not enough just to say that X belief had some adherent in the first or second century.
And with thy spirit.
Especially not. Antiquity without truth is antiquated error, as St. Cyprian said.It's not enough just to say that X belief had some adherent in the first or second century.
Very few Christians actually hold to the idea that "if it's not in Scripture, we can't do or believe it". And when they do, invariably they do something not in Scripture. And fail to do some things which are. (Most notably - to hold to Tradition, and to obey the teachings of the Apostles delivered by word of mouth.)
Those aren't the only two options, and it's really not so implausible, especially if what is handed down is a practice.I don’t think it’s plausible that today there are things that have continued to be handed down verbally since the 1st Cent that aren’t in Scripture.
I don’t expect to find solutions to Java programming problems in Scripture. But I do consider Scripture the only source of public revelation. So I don’t believe things about God, Jesus, or our duty to them unless they are there. I do accept the authority that Christ gave to the Church to interpret Scripture. That gives a significant role to tradition and scholarship. But that doesn’t include believing things about God, Jesus, Mary, the Apostles, etc, that aren’t in Scripture.
Apostolic Tradition.
"All those things serve either either to expounding of dark places in the word of God and to take away controversies that arise amongst men, or to the orderly stablishing of the outward governance of the Church and not to make new articles of religion !.
Dean Nowell's Chatechism. (1571)
Thank you for the reply.I don’t expect to find solutions to Java programming problems in Scripture. But I do consider Scripture the only source of public revelation. So I don’t believe things about God, Jesus, or our duty to them unless they are there. I do accept the authority that Christ gave to the Church to interpret Scripture. That gives a significant role to tradition and scholarship. But that doesn’t include believing things about God, Jesus, Mary, the Apostles, etc, that aren’t in Scripture.
Ethics and worship practices are a bit different, ethics because the situations we face are often different from those in the 1st Cent, worship because Scripture doesn’t give us a liturgy or specific private devotional practices. But still, I expect them to be based upon Scriptural principles.
I think most in the Reformed tradition would agree with me thus far. I, along with many in the mainline, would also make a distinction between Jesus, Paul, and writers claiming to be Paul. I don’t think CF rules will allow me to go further than that.
Referring to 1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thes 2:13, 3:6. In Paul’s time the things about Jesus that are now in Scripture were largely handed on verbally. I don’t think it’s plausible that today there are things that have continued to be handed down verbally since the 1st Cent that aren’t in Scripture. It is possible, of course, that Paul was thinking of the specific things he was talking about, and not making a general comment about the role of tradition. However I don’t insist upon that understanding.
The majority of references to tradition in the NT are negative, including all of those by Jesus. So it’s hard to cite Scripture as endorsing an unqualified concept of tradition.
I'm a little struck by the irony of the statement when you are essentially saying that you only believe things about Jesus, for example, that are written explicitly in Scripture, when the late Gospel according to John explicitly says at the end that if everything were written, the earth could not contain the books.
But then given human nature, I do understand you might be concerned not to accept outright fables. But ... that is what the Church is for.We have to trust - or not - the witness and care of the early Apostles, and bishops, etc. and their collective convictions, along with that of the Church as a whole.
I'm not so sure that even the points of the Nicene Creed are so basic to Scripture though, since early heresies would have appealed to those same Scriptures.
I've never said that Scripture contains every true statement about Jesus, just that it contains everything about him that I would accept as reliable information.
Again, in the 1st Cent I would certainly not have said that. When you could talk with people who had seen him, or even their immediate pupils, fine. But I we don't have access to them anymore. And I'm very skeptical about non-Biblical traditions about him.
Unfortunately parts of the Church have been way too willing to believe things they shouldn't. Just look at the vast numbers of supposed writings by Apostles. I'm skeptical about even some of what got into Scripture.
Like many Protestants I don’t consider the Nicene Creed to be revealed truth, but to be an attempt at responding to a specific set of questions in a particular cultural and philosophical context. It is valid only to the extent that it agrees with Scripture. The most controversial part is its Christology. But I think it can reasonably be viewed as simply a paraphrase of John 1, and not adding anything new, nor as requiring that we view the Incarnation primarily in the terms it uses. The primary intention seems to have been to reject Arianism, a purpose that I certainly accept. Whether it was actually used in that rather modest way historically is another question.