Quick question - immaculate conception?

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
You asked for Traditions, not doctrines.
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).

But if we "go with" the claim, I am asking what doctrines are based upon those "traditions" referred to in scripture. The liturgy is not a doctrine. We are not to required to believe "in the liturgy" as though it were the Assumption of Mary or the Real Presence.
 
Upvote 0

laternonjuror

Active Member
May 20, 2015
136
6
91
✟15,306.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
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 unto us 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!?
The Affirmation of S.Louis,say's that it is one of the ,'essential principles of evangelical Truth & Apostolic order' that we hold,'the received Tradition of the Church and its teaching as set forth by the ancient catholic bishops and doctors especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, of the Undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors ancient and modern.
Affirmation of S.Louis. "
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ~Anastasia~
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
"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!?
"

I have to say that that seems to miss the point. There are Apostolic traditions, but you can't just say "Apostolic Tradition" or words to that effect and make any invention from any time in the past into a belief that was IN FACT believed in, taught, and handed down from the Apostles.
 
Upvote 0

laternonjuror

Active Member
May 20, 2015
136
6
91
✟15,306.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
We admit genuine , universal ,Apostolical traditions ; as the Apostles Creed,the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God, Festivals of the Church , the Lenton fast, we believe Episcopacy to an ingenuous person may be proved out of scripture, without Tradition, but to such as are froward,(?) the perpetual practice and tradition of the Church, renders the interpretation of the text more authentic and the proof more convincing.
Archbishop Bramhall. 'Answer to La Militieri!' Written in the Name of of the Anglican Church.
Oxford Ed.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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'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 I furthered that by saying that the Apostles established Churches in person, and this was not the purpose of the epistles.

What I get from the Church is of immense value to me, and that is "proof" enough for my own self to continue on my path. I don't have the time at the moment, nor really the interest anymore to argue such things. I'm sure there is a place for that for some people, and I'm sure it's valuable to those who need to hear something from it, but as for me it draws me away from what I find needful to concentrate on. I'm not closing my mind - I'm still very interested in learning as the purposes for it dictate, but I have nothing to prove.

God be with you, as always. :)
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟304,048.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
.....
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..... "
I believe this is the point that is being trying to establish.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
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 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.

God be with you, as always. :)
And with thy spirit. :)[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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. :)
Thank you. :) And thank you for understanding.

And for my personal purposes, I'm happy enough with "little t" traditions if they are useful. I'm spending most of my time with the desert fathers and the Saints these days, so I'm not really worried about who established what when. If it's helpful to me, that's good enough, even if they only started doing it a few hundred years ago. :)

I will leave debates on what is properly Tradition/tradition/Apostolic/Holy Tradition to someone else. Maybe I will re-enter that one someday. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MoreCoffee
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cappadocious

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,885
860
✟30,661.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
It's not enough just to say that X belief had some adherent in the first or second century.
Especially not. Antiquity without truth is antiquated error, as St. Cyprian said.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.)

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.
 
Upvote 0

Cappadocious

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,885
860
✟30,661.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
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.
Those aren't the only two options, and it's really not so implausible, especially if what is handed down is a practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: laternonjuror
Upvote 0

laternonjuror

Active Member
May 20, 2015
136
6
91
✟15,306.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
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)
 
Upvote 0

laternonjuror

Active Member
May 20, 2015
136
6
91
✟15,306.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
We admit genuine , universal ,Apostolical traditions ; as the Apostles Creed,the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God, Festivals of the Church , the Lenton fast, we believe Episcopacy to an ingenuous person may be proved out of scripture, without Tradition, but to such as are froward,(?) the perpetual practice and tradition of the Church, renders the interpretation of the text more authentic and the proof more convincing.
Archbishop Bramhall. 'Answer to La Militieri!' Written in the Name of of the Anglican Church.
Oxford Ed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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.
Thank you for the reply.

I can understand your approach, especially if taken as a matter of caution, and I don't think such an approach puts anyone outside of salvation, of course. My experience with having changed sides of the fence, so to speak, is that it lacks a lot of the depth and richness that I have found. I can almost equate it to the difference between reading a very good and fairly thorough book about a foreign land, and actually living in that place for a time. I don't mean that to sound insulting, and indeed, I respect you greatly.

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 think Cappadocious makes a good point that it's really not so implausible.

But then it's difficult to have this discussion speaking in generalities, especially since you agree to Tradition as an interpreter of Scripture. Without knowing how far you do or do not allow that authority to go, I'm left to imagine possible points in my mind, and worse yet, allowing anyone who reads to fill in any point they may imagine and so possibly misunderstand in either direction.

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.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.

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.


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.

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.
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.

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.


 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
You’re seeing here two different principles.

First, the Reformation is skeptical about non-Scriptural information. Second, the mainline is skeptical about all information from non-critical sources, including all ancient sources and uncritical modern sources.

The reasons for both are similar. For the mainline it’s pretty easy. We see across a wide variety of topics that the ancients simply didn’t have the same kinds of intellectual controls that we do. They had only the beginning of the scientific method and critical approaches to history, and didn’t apply them consistently. You can see the results across pretty much all areas of ancient writings. No reasonable person disagrees. However Catholics believe that the Church was divinely protected from that. Traditional Protestants don’t think that’s true, but they think that Scripture was divinely protected.

(I should note that there’s no reason to go overboard. We do believe, after all, that the Roman empire existed and that we know a fair amount about its history. Even though all the documents we base that on have the usual limitations of ancient sources. Nor should you understand me to be saying that we can accept modern sources without examination.)

Why did the Reformers accept that the Church was not protected? Because of the many early forged early documents, supposed relics of saints, etc. And because they saw major changes in doctrine over time. One possible response is that not every Church tradition is protected, but only certain canonical traditions. Protestants saw enough issues that they ended up concluding that God had only protected the things in Scripture.

Mainline and other “liberal” Christians today believe that there enough issues in Scripture that even it wasn’t protected from error. Some are the obvious differences between different documents within Scripture. Some are archaeological and scientific discoveries that make it impossible to regard the OT as generally historically reliable. One could argue that the NT still is. But first, it would be odd to have a doctrine of Scripture that applies only to the NT. And second, we think there is good internal reason to doubt the inerrancy of the NT as well.

Nevertheless, the NT is close enough to the events that it describes that I would attribute a reasonable degree of reliability to it. I am, after all a Christian. But even there I wouldn’t exempt it from the kinds of issues we know occur in ancient documents, such as credulity about miracles and other legendary accretions.

I don’t completely dismiss non-Scriptural tradition either. E.g. most commentators accept many of Papias’ statements about the origins of the Gospels. But things such as Mariological beliefs differ sufficiently from the NT, and look so much like typical ancient legends that I can’t accept them as canonical.

There’s no question that it’s uncomfortable to do this kind of balancing act between modern methods and ancient documents. But with my background and intellectual commitments, the only alternative is to dismiss Christianity completely. I’m afraid that that complete dismissal is where our culture is tending to go as people become less willing to accept ancient documents and/or traditions at face value.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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.


Thank you for correcting that point. I certainly had no intention of putting words in your mouth. :)


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.

We don't have personal access to them, but we do have substantial writings. What is your take on those, in this context?

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.

I'm not sure how to respond to that. On the one hand, we can have Tradition guiding as to what might actually be legitimate. On the other hand, I'm guessing you are considering applying scholarship to determine that? But I am skeptical of such methods as well, given that we are relying on recopied documents and scribes were often employed so that some clues are obscured.

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.

Well, I agree that the purpose of the Nicene Creed was to set a fence around beliefs to determine what was orthodox and what is heretical, based on the pressures of the time. However, I must trust that those who participated in those determinations were led by the Holy Spirit. I can't reduce it to simply a particular academic interpretation of a particular passage of Scripture (especially if I was of the mind that they had not developed the ability to critically examine such things back then as you seem to be saying).

However, I know that we have basic differences in terms of our beliefs - or at least our traditions tend to. So I can expect that you would view it differently. I'm afraid I do have to hold that the faith be viewed within the terms it uses.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums