Why are Paul's Traditions not followed?

[PaulAckermann]

Men will forbid marriage and abstaining from foods in the later times 1 Tim 4:3 (priests celibate and lent) (some say celibate to avoid temptation and lent as not required)

This in no way refects the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone to marry. A group that actually did that were the Abengansiens (I probably misspelled it). They actually taught that marriage was a sin. They were comdemned by the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church holds the highest view of marriage. No one is forbidden to marry. To become a priest and celibate is entirely your choice. The Church teaches that marriage is good, but celibacy is better, which is exactly the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor 7. He taught that marriage is good, but he thought it is better to be celibate as he is, and yet if one is not able to be celibate he should go ahead and marry, he is not sinning. Jesus Himself was a celibate, and He encouraged others to be celibate. He said there are eunichs for the sake of the kingdom of God.

Paul taught that celibacy is a virtue, so did Jesus. There is nothing wrong with living a celibate life. As Paul said in 1Cor 7, a person who is married has divided interests. Part of him wants to please the Lord. Part of him wants to please his wife. But a person who is committed to living a celebate life has only one interest - that is to please the Lord.

Why is there no Protestant that takes 1 Cor 7 seriously? I have never met a Protestant who is so committed to the Lord that he is willing to be celibate for him. I have never a Protestant woman who was so in love with Jesus that she chooses not to have any other man in her life. Protestants like to preach to us Catholics that it is Jesus only, but I see no Protestant actually living that way. It is Jesus and his wife. Jesus and his children. Jesus and his house. Jesus and his career. God wants you to have a successful marriage, and a successful career. It is the health and prosperity gospel. Not only is no one willing to give up everything for Jesus, but they just use Jesus in order to get more stuff in their lives.


And to top it off, they look down upon Christians who actually live with Jesus only in their lives, and literally give up everything for Jesus - as if they somehow are sinning! I myself admire anyone who is able to accept the call of celibacy. These people are for the most part totally sold out for Christ. Their whole life is consumed with Jesus. They have given up all for Christ. They have given up a wife. They have given up children. They have given up things that we often take for granted. The Church never told them they were sinning if they did not give these things up. They did it because, at least most of them, because they wanted to. And what do they get for this? They certainly do not get the admiration of the world. Instead, the world misquotes scripture and condemns them for it.

Jesus said that there will eunichs for the sake of kingdom of God.

 

[Smileyill]

This in no way refects the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone to marry. A group that actually did that were the Abengansiens (I probably misspelled it). They actually taught that marriage was a sin. They were comdemned by the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church holds the highest view of marriage. No one is forbidden to marry. To become a priest and celibate is entirely your choice. The Church teaches that marriage is good, but celibacy is better, which is exactly the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor 7. He taught that marriage is good, but he thought it is better to be celibate as he is, and yet if one is not able to be celibate he should go ahead and marry, he is not sinning. Jesus Himself was a celibate, and He encouraged others to be celibate. He said there are eunichs for the sake of the kingdom of God.

Paul taught that celibacy is a virtue, so did Jesus. There is nothing wrong with living a celibate life. As Paul said in 1Cor 7, a person who is married has divided interests. Part of him wants to please the Lord. Part of him wants to please his wife. But a person who is committed to living a celebate life has only one interest - that is to please the Lord.

Why is there no Protestant that takes 1 Cor 7 seriously? I have never met a Protestant who is so committed to the Lord that he is willing to be celibate for him. I have never a Protestant woman who was so in love with Jesus that she chooses not to have any other man in her life. Protestants like to preach to us Catholics that it is Jesus only, but I see no Protestant actually living that way. It is Jesus and his wife. Jesus and his children. Jesus and his house. Jesus and his career. God wants you to have a successful marriage, and a successful career. It is the health and prosperity gospel. Not only is no one willing to give up everything for Jesus, but they just use Jesus in order to get more stuff in their lives.


And to top it off, they look down upon Christians who actually live with Jesus only in their lives, and literally give up everything for Jesus - as if they somehow are sinning! I myself admire anyone who is able to accept the call of celibacy. These people are for the most part totally sold out for Christ. Their whole life is consumed with Jesus. They have given up all for Christ. They have given up a wife. They have given up children. They have given up things that we often take for granted. The Church never told them they were sinning if they did not give these things up. They did it because, at least most of them, because they wanted to. And what do they get for this? They certainly do not get the admiration of the world. Instead, the world misquotes scripture and condemns them for it.

Jesus said that there will eunichs for the sake of kingdom of God.

One elder in my assembly is celibate, at least as far as I can tell and he's protestant. I agree with almost everything you wrote, except for the implication that this is specifically directed at catholics. Also, I have a question, I understand EO permits married priests, do catholics?

I appreciate your thoughts, but that's only one issue.

 

[seanHayden]

Lust, as the term was used by our Lord Jesus actually means idolatry--don't make anyone an object of obsession to the point you almost worship them, especially another man / womans spouse.

Just thought I would add that. It begs the question of covering hair, perhaps it has little to do with lust?

 

[lionroar0]

Why small t? Now it appears church tradition outweighs scripture. That's hard to swallow. Equality is one thing. Subservience is another altogether.

Paul also suggest that those that become priest and Bihops (overssers) should become celibate like himself, so that they may not be distracted away from their duties in building the kingdom of God.

But yet this tradition is not kept with in some christian traditions in favor for a married clergy.


Also some of the tradtions that Pual spoke of have nothing to do with Tradition but with cultures of their times such as.

Men must have their heads uncovered, and women covered, while praying or prophesying 1 Cor 11:4-15

Women are to keep silent and ask their husbands 1 Cor 14:34-5, 1 Tim 2:12

Men will forbid marriage and abstaining from foods in the later times 1 Tim 4:3 (priests celibate and lent) (some say celibate to avoid temptation and lent as not required)

And yet Paul is in favor of celibacy for priests and bishops but yet people choose to go with a married clergy.

Peace

 

[Adoniram]

Jesus said that the Pharisees and Sadducees were so caught up in following the letter of the traditions and the law that they were lost to or forgot the heart or meaning of the matter (Mk. 7:6). Paul teaches in Rom. 14 that many things come up for debate among Christians but that we should not be judgemental when ones traditions do not match our own. The important thing is one's individual relationship with God, not whether he holds to this set of traditions or that. Granted, Paul does caution us not to do things that will be a stumblingblock to others, which I would take to mean that if I choose to visit a church that observes the practice of men wearing hats during the service, I would wear one also, even though to me personally, not wearing one is not a sin.

I think Paul would be the last one to judge us for not following every letter of his guidelines, as long as our hearts are in correct relationship with God.

 

[ROGER459]

HOW IS IT, that one would call Holy Scriputure = TRADITIONS?

(2Timothy 3:14-to-17) But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
(2Ti 3:15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Thanks, Roger459

 

[WarriorAngel]

Paul was not giving a Tradition of doctrine, but disciplines.

Discipline provides us closer to God.... because this was the intent of Paul. To show us ways to humility that opens us to piety.

I will go more in depth...BRB.

 

[PaulAckermann]

One elder in my assembly is celibate, at least as far as I can tell and he's protestant. I agree with almost everything you wrote, except for the implication that this is specifically directed at catholics. Also, I have a question, I understand EO permits married priests, do catholics?

I appreciate your thoughts, but that's only one issue.

I find itn interesting that you know a Protestant who is a celibate. Did he make a vow of celibacy? Can he ever in the future change his mind if someone comes along?

Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctine on faith and moral. As such, the Catholic Church could change this ruling in the future. although I personally think this is a great ruling. It also means that there can be expections to the rule.


Usually the exception is if a Protestant minister converts to Catholicsm. If he is already married and wants to become a Catholic priest, he can do so and still be married. Celibacy is mostly a rule in the Roman rite. The Eastern Rites does not have this rule. Eastern Rite used to be a group that was part of the EO, but became part of the Catholic Church again. They were able to retain the customs they had in the EO, which included married priests.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Men must have their heads uncovered, and women covered, while praying or prophesying 1 Cor 11:4-15

THEN he goes on to say...

16 But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.
This is a discipline. Not a doctrine that necessitates salvation.

[3-16] Women have been participating in worship at Corinth without the head-covering normal in Greek society of the period.

There must be factions so those approved become apparent 1 Cor 11:19

[19] That . . . those who are approved among you may become known: Paul situates their divisions within the context of the eschatological separation of the authentic from the inauthentic and the final revelation of the difference. Recurs in the injunction to self-examination in view of present and future judgment (1 Cor 11:28-32).

All the gifts should be in the Church 1 Cor 14 (including Tongues and interpretation, which I rarely see)

1 [1-5] 1 Cor 14:1b returns to the thought of 1 Cor 12:31a and reveals Paul's primary concern. The series of contrasts in 1 Cor 14:2-5 discloses the problem at Corinth: a disproportionate interest in tongues, with a corresponding failure to appreciate the worth of prophecy. Paul attempts to clarify the relative values of those gifts by indicating the kind of communication achieved in each and the kind of effect each produces.
They produce two kinds of effect. One who speaks in tongues builds himself up; it is a matter of individual experience and personal perfection, which inevitably recalls Paul's previous remarks about being inflated, seeking one's own good, pleasing oneself. But a prophet builds up the church: the theme of "building up" or "edifying" others, the main theme of the letter, comes to clearest expression in this chapter (1 Cor 14:3, 4, 5, 12, 17). It has been anticipated at 1 Cor 8:1 and 1 Cor 10:23, and by the related concept of "the beneficial" in 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23; 12:7

When assemblying, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. 1 Cor 14:26 (not one or two in the assembly, but each one)

My spirit: Paul emphasizes the exclusively ecstatic, nonrational quality of tongues. The tongues at Pentecost are also described as an ecstatic experience (Acts 2:4, 12-13),
My mind: the ecstatic element, dominant in earliest Old Testament prophecy as depicted in 1 Sam 10:5-13; 19:20-24, seems entirely absent from Paul's notion of prophecy and completely relegated to tongues. He emphasizes the role of reason when he specifies instruction as a function of prophecy (1 Cor 14:6, 19, 31). But he does not exclude intuition and emotion; (1 Cor 14:3, 31) and the scene describing the ideal exercise of prophecy (1 Cor 14:24-25).

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment 1 Cor 14:29

If a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent 1 Cor 14:30

Paul concludes with specific directives regarding exercise of the gifts in their assemblies. Verse 26 enunciates the basic criterion in the use of any gift: it must contribute to "building up."

For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted 1 Cor 14:31

Women are to keep silent and ask their husbands 1 Cor 14:34-5, 1 Tim 2:12

The Catholic Church does not allow women to be priests.
These two verses have the theme of submission in common with 1 Cor 14:11 despite differences in vocabulary, and a concern with what is or is not becoming; which appears to take it for granted that women do pray and prophesy aloud in the assembly.

If any one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual let him recognize these 1 Cor 14:37

39 So, (my) brothers, strive eagerly to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues, 40 but everything must be done properly and in order.

On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come 1 Cor 16:1-2 (i.e. no tithing, just the principal)

Catholics do not tithe, they donate what is readily available.
Our earliest evidence for a project that became a major undertaking of Paul's ministry. The collection for the church at Jerusalem was a symbol in his mind for the unity of Jewish and Gentile Christianity. Cf Gal 2:10; Romans 15:25-29; 2 Cor 8-9 and the notes to this last passage.
In regard to the collection: it has already begun in Galatia and Macedonia (cf 2 Cor 8), and presumably he has already instructed the Corinthians about its purpose.
That I should go also: presumably Paul delivered the collection on his final visit to Jerusalem; Romans 15:25-32; Acts 24:14.

They sold their possessions as anyone might have need Ac 2:45

Don't sue other Christians 1 Cor 6:6-7

Christians at Corinth are suing one another before pagan judges in Roman courts. A barrage of rhetorical questions (1 Cor 6:1-9) betrays Paul's indignation over this practice, which he sees as an infringement upon the holiness of the Christian community.
6, 2-3: The principle to which Paul appeals is an eschatological prerogative promised to Christians: they are to share with Christ the judgment of the world (cf Daniel 7:22, 27). Hence they ought to be able to settle minor disputes within the community.

Men will forbid marriage and abstaining from foods in the later times 1 Tim 4:3 (priests celibate and lent) (some say celibate to avoid temptation and lent as not required)

The letter warns against a false asceticism that prohibits marriage and regards certain foods as forbidden, though they are part of God's good creation (1 Tim 4:3). At that time there was a heresy that forbid marriage, but not fornications. And they also abstained from foods which they considered unclean. The Encratites, Montanists, and Manichees, who spoke against marriage.

Provide for your own household 1 Tim 5:8 (i.e. don't rely on Gov.)

The first responsibility for their care belongs to the family circle, not to the Christian community as such (1 Tim 5:3-4, 16). The widow left without the aid of relatives may benefit the community by her prayer, and the community should consider her material sustenance its responsibility.

Overseer (Bishop) must have but 1 wife and be, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not adidcted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free form the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. 1 Tim 3:2-4

And for approximately 1100 yrs the Church allowed married clergy.
It became a discipline of the Church to institute chastity.
Due to the problems of having married clergy.
1 Corinthians 7 32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.


Who says they are not followed?? And who says they are clear teachings??


2 Peter 3 [Reference to Paul]
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Jesus said that the Pharisees and Sadducees were so caught up in following the letter of the traditions and the law that they were lost to or forgot the heart or meaning of the matter (Mk. 7:6).

This is not true. The Pharisees believed in tradition, the Saducees did not believe in tradition, only the Torah (which is Genesis to Deuteronomy). So Jesus comdemned both groups, one group that had tradition and one did not have any tradition. He condemned the Pharisees for embracing tradition that did not come God. But He was against the Saducees for not embracing true tradition. For instance, it was part of Pharisaic tradition that there was life after death. Jesus agreed with this Pharisaic tradition.

Paul teaches in Rom. 14 that many things come up for debate among Christians but that we should not be judgemental when ones traditions do not match our own.

I think Paul would be the last one to judge us for not following every letter of his guidelines, as long as our hearts are in correct relationship with God.

How does one know he has a correct relationship with God. Is it some sort of blessing in your bosom or quver in your liver? Is it some gushy-gushy feeling we have for God? Is it because we somehow sense His presence?

How do we know what we feel is from God? How we know we know what we feel is not more a result of eating the right food, or exercising, or getting enough sleep? And if what we feel or sense does have a spiritual origin, how do we know that this is feeling is not from a demoinc spirit? After all, the Bible says that the Devil can comes to us as an Angel of Light.

So how do we know we have a relationship with God. Jesus said in John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments". Love is not a gushy-gushy feeling we have. Love is an action. God showed us He loved us by an action - by dying on the cross. Now God says to us that we show we love Him by keeping His commands.

If Paul's is giving us the word of God, and we have this loving relationship with God, we will then keep everything that Paul had to say and write.


For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

1 Thess 2:13

Here Paul is saying that his guidelines are not just his wordd, they are the word of God, they are God's commands. And since they are God's commands, if we really have this loving relationship with God, we will want to keep them.

You are making a false dichotomy by saying that we can love God without keeping His guidelines. This then waters down love to be nothing but a gushy-gushy feeling.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Also some of the tradtions that Pual spoke of have nothing to do with Tradition but with cultures of their times such as.

Men must have their heads uncovered, and women covered, while praying or prophesying 1 Cor 11:4-15

Women are to keep silent and ask their husbands 1 Cor 14:34-5, 1 Tim 2:12

I don't think that these verses can be explained away by saying they are cultural.

In the first one, Paul explains that this is because Eve was deceived before Adam. His explanation trascends the culture of his time and goes back to the beginning of creation.


In the second one, Paul explains this discipline "because of the angels". Again the explanation transcends a particular culture. Angels are not bound to a particular culture.

So I do not think that the cultural argument is a good rationale of why we no longer keep these disciplines. As a Protestant, I was bothered by this.

But as a Catholic, I am not. The Successor of Peter has the keys to the kingdom, he has the authority to bind and loose. Women wearing a head covering and keeping silent in church were valid rules in the first century. To break those rules to the first century would be a sin. But somewhere along the line, the Successor of Peter loosed these rules, so that they are no longer sins.

The Pope has to authority to loose something that was a rule beforehand. For instance, it used to be sin to eat meat on Fridays. Now it is only a sin if it is Lent. Protestants mock this, saying that it ridiculus that something can be sin in one era and not another. But women wearing covers on their heads and being silent in Church are examples of a rule being binding in one era but not in another. Protestant have no explanation, other than to appeal to the cultural argument. But that is a weak argument, because once you explain some verses away by saying we can ignore them because there are culturally influenced, where do you draw the line? Anything in the Bible that challenge us can be then easily explained away as being culturally influenced.

 

[Adoniram]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adoniram
Jesus said that the Pharisees and Sadducees were so caught up in following the letter of the traditions and the law that they were lost to or forgot the heart or meaning of the matter (Mk. 7:6).


This is not true. The Pharisees believed in tradition, the Saducees did not believe in tradition, only the Torah (which is Genesis to Deuteronomy). So Jesus comdemned both groups, one group that had tradition and one did not have any tradition. He condemned the Pharisees for embracing tradition that did not come God. But He was against the Saducees for not embracing true tradition. For instance, it was part of Pharisaic tradition that there was life after death. Jesus agreed with this Pharisaic tradition.

First, I was wrong to include the Sadducees in the passage that I referenced from Mark 7. They are not mentioned. My apologies. Secondly, the reason Jesus agreed with the Pharisees concerning life after death is not because it was tradition, but because it is scriptural.

However, Jesus' teaching concerning traditions remains clear. It is wrong to equate the traditions of men to the commandments of God.

Mk. 7:-13
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

If Paul's is giving us the word of God, and we have this loving relationship with God, we will then keep everything that Paul had to say and write.
For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.
1 Thess 2:13

Here Paul is saying that his guidelines are not just his wordd, they are the word of God, they are God's commands. And since they are God's commands, if we really have this loving relationship with God, we will want to keep them.

I think you are stretching a bit to imply this verse means Paul's guidelines equate to God's commands. In the context, the "word of God" references back to verse 8 where it is the "gospel of God" or message of salvation which was delivered to the Thessalonians.

So how do we know we have a relationship with God. Jesus said in John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments". Love is not a gushy-gushy feeling we have. Love is an action. God showed us He loved us by an action - by dying on the cross. Now God says to us that we show we love Him by keeping His commands.

I completely agree that if we love God we will strive to keep his commandments. However, keeping those commandments (or traditions) does not necessarily mean we love or have the right relationship with God. After all, if merely keeping the commandments was enough to save us, why did Christ come to die for us? Many people live outwardly moral lives, attend church, treat others with respect, live according to the traditions they have been taught, and yet, their immortal souls are in peril. All these things are mere outward appearances and are not actual indicators of their true relationship to God. And this is the danger of placing too much importance on such traditions. People fall into the trap of thinking that because they observe them, they will be saved. But "man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." (1 Sam. 16:7) The point of my previous post was that Paul recognized that different churches held different practises and he was not hung up on those differences, but rather reasoned that ones individual relationship to God is more important than the traditions one observes.

So then, how does one know that he has the right relationship with God? By faith in his promises "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) and "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12)

 

[GenemZ]

[condensed version]

Don't sue other Christians 1 Cor 6:6-7

Men will forbid marriage and abstaining from foods in the later times 1 Tim 4:3 (priests celibate and lent) (some say celibate to avoid temptation and lent as not required)

Provide for your own household 1 Tim 5:8 (i.e. don't rely on Gov.)

Overseer (Bishop) must have but 1 wife and be, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not adidcted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free form the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. 1 Tim 3:2-4

Not a new convert 1 Tim 3:6

Good reputation with those outside the Church 1 Tim 3:7

Deacons likewise 1 Tim 3:8

Elders are worthy of their wages 1 4:Tim 17-18

2-3 witnesses required against an Elder 1 Tim 4:19

Know the sacred writings from childhood which are able to give you wisdom which leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus 2 Tim 3:15-16

[I paraphrased throughout]


Clear teaching, yet not followed. Why?

In a nutshell:

2 Timothy 4:3 niv
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

​

In a nutshell. There you have it. It is inevitable that what we see today would happen. For, Satan has had many years to figure out ways to split up the Church so that only those only seeking Truth in the Spirit will be able to find it. Many will seek what they wish it were, not as it is. As how they want to see Christ... As how they want to see Christianity.

Jesus also made such a prediction. The choices for itching ears will be "broad and wide." Denominations offer broad and wide choices as a means to please the many varying natural preferences of believers and their tendencies.

Matthew 7:13-14 (New King James Version)
"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

​

What will be that destruction?

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 (New International Version)
"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."

​

All denominations begin with the same foundation. Belief in Christ. Then, from there, they all venture off in a thousand different conflicting directions. Ways which are leading to destruction. Destruction of rewards to be had in Eternity.

Few will desire the genuine teaching. Many will find what only pleases what they want to hear. They will not want put up with what is required for desiring sound doctrine. They will hide sound doctrine under the bushel basket of denominational tradition. They will defend their denominational dogmas and traditions, and will ignore sound doctrine when exposed to it.

Why? It enters them into a spiritual warfare they are not willing to endure and overcome. They have their own selfish desires that come first. They seek security of what is offered in tradition. They fear having to pioneer for themselves the discovery of making their thinking conform to sound doctrine, as to allow Christ to sit on the throne of their soul. Few find it. Jesus said so.

Grace and truth, GeneZ

​

 

[Smileyill]

In a nutshell:

2 Timothy 4:3 niv​

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."​

In a nutshell. There you have it. It is inevitable that what we see today would happen. For, Satan has had many years to figure out ways to split up the Church so that only those only seeking Truth in the Spirit will be able to find it. Many will seek what they wish it were, not as it is. As how they want to see Christ... As how they want to see Christianity.

Jesus also made such a prediction. The choices for itching ears will be "broad and wide." Denominations offer broad and wide choices as a means to please the many varying natural preferences of believers and their tendencies.

Matthew 7:13-14 (New King James Version)​

"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." ​

What will be that destruction?

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 (New International Version)​

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."​

All denominations begin with the same foundation. Belief in Christ. Then, from there, they all venture off in a thousand different conflicting directions. Ways which are leading to destruction. Destruction of rewards to be had in Eternity.

Few will desire the genuine teaching. Many will find what only pleases what they want to hear. They will not want put up with what is required for desiring sound doctrine. They will hide sound doctrine under the bushel basket of denominational tradition. They will defend their denominational dogmas and traditions, and will ignore sound doctrine when exposed to it.

Why? It enters them into a spiritual warfare they are not willing to endure and overcome. They have their own selfish desires that come first. They seek security of what is offered in tradition. They fear having to pioneer for themselves the discovery of making their thinking conform to sound doctrine, as to allow Christ to sit on the throne of their soul. Few find it. Jesus said so.

Grace and truth, GeneZ

At first I thought to address the issues I saw raised, but I believe they've been addressed and the above final post answers my question best.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 (New International Version)​

"If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."

 

[PaulAckermann]

However, Jesus' teaching concerning traditions remains clear. It is wrong to equate the traditions of men to the commandments of God.
1:12)

The Greek word for tradition means "to pass on". It means to receive information from someone and pass it on to others. Jesus came down from heaven and poassed on the words of the Father. He especially passed it on to his disciples. Those disciples then passed it onto others. See 2 Tim 2:2, where Paul instructs Timothy to pass on what he learned from Paul for other faithful men, who will then pass it onto to others. And so on and so on. This is tradition.

And unless God appeared to you in your room and just dropped all His commandments on your lap, the way these commandment have come to yopu was through tradition. What Jesus taught the apostles they wrote down, along with other were not apostles. We do not have any of the original writings. Instead, they were copied from one generation to another by members in the Church. So the writings were passed on by one scribe to another. In other words, the Bible was itself retained through tradition. This is why we Catholics believe in two types of genuine traditions - oral tradition and written tradition, which is the Bible.

Without tradition, we would not have the Bible. The Biblew was retained through tradition. So obviously that is a difference between tradition of men and tradition of God. Tradition of men started with me - just like the Reformation started by men. Justification by faith alone start by Martin Luther. Calvinism started by John Calvin. Arminianism start with Arminius. But in spite of all the Protestants' efrfor they cannot pinpoint when any of the Catholic doctrine started, and by whom. John Henry Newman when as a Protestant, tried to find when all these catholics doctrines. He could not find the exact time and person these doctrines originated. every time he though he fought when these doctrines could have started, he searched earlier, and he found out that the Church taught these doctrines before that. He foubd found out that Catholic doctrines could be traced all the way back to the time of Jesus and the apostles. This is why we Catholic call this tradition the apostolic tradition.


So your are right that there is bad tradition. That is tradition that has started by men. But tradition, apostolic tradition, is the tradition that can be contiguously traced all the way back to the apostles. This is the good tradition, the apostolic tradition, the Catholic tradition.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The Greek word for tradition means "to pass on". It means to receive information from someone and pass it on to others. Jesus came down from heaven and poassed on the words of the Father. He especially passed it on to his disciples. Those disciples then passed it onto others. See 2 Tim 2:2, where Paul instructs Timothy to pass on what he learned from Paul for other faithful men, who will then pass it onto to others. And so on and so on. This is tradition.

And unless God appeared to you in your room and just dropped all His commandments on your lap, the way these commandment have come to yopu was through tradition. What Jesus taught the apostles they wrote down, along with other were not apostles. We do not have any of the original writings. Instead, they were copied from one generation to another by members in the Church. So the writings were passed on by one scribe to another. In other words, the Bible was itself retained through tradition. This is why we Catholics believe in two types of genuine traditions - oral tradition and written tradition, which is the Bible.

Without tradition, we would not have the Bible. The Biblew was retained through tradition. So obviously that is a difference between tradition of men and tradition of God. Tradition of men started with me - just like the Reformation started by men. Justification by faith alone start by Martin Luther. Calvinism started by John Calvin. Arminianism start with Arminius. But in spite of all the Protestants' efrfor they cannot pinpoint when any of the Catholic doctrine started, and by whom. John Henry Newman when as a Protestant, tried to find when all these catholics doctrines. He could not find the exact time and person these doctrines originated. every time he though he fought when these doctrines could have started, he searched earlier, and he found out that the Church taught these doctrines before that. He foubd found out that Catholic doctrines could be traced all the way back to the time of Jesus and the apostles. This is why we Catholic call this tradition the apostolic tradition.


So your are right that there is bad tradition. That is tradition that has started by men. But tradition, apostolic tradition, is the tradition that can be contiguously traced all the way back to the apostles. This is the good tradition, the apostolic tradition, the Catholic tradition.

 

[Adoniram]

Acknowledging the scriptures you quoted, I think there is a clear place for tradition in the church, and there is a clear place for adherence to the Scripture. Where the two overlap, there is no conflict; but where they do not, reliance on the Scripture should IMO take precedence.

I believe the Bible was not, as you say, the mere result of tradition, but rather, the work of the Holy Spirit. Every word was inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." The Spirit of God moved men to include in his Word that we need to know to be "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." If God had deemed these "oral traditions" to be necessary for salvation or completeness, would he not have included them in the Scriptures? Would he have said to the men he inspired to write and those who through inspiration compiled the scriptures: "This is important, but don't bother writing it down?" Personally, I don't believe that God is that lax. I do not believe he would have left clear and necessary instructions out of his Holy Book. He did, for example, include the sacraments of baptism and holy communion.

Too often, when talking to some of my many Catholic friends, I hear statements such as: "Yes, I'm a Christian, I was baptized as an infant," yet otherwise they exhibit no Christian characteristics. This is a case of relying too much on tradition and not enough on what is written in the Word of God. Of course, I acknowledge that such is not the case with everyone in the Catholic church. I have some Catholic friends that I am sure are Christian, by their testimony and their walk. And things like that happen on the Protestant side also: "Yes, I'm a Christian, I go to church." So much "lip service" and not enough "heart," as Jesus said.

This harkens back to Jesus statement: "And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Mt. 15:6

Whatever might be said about this passage, at least one thing must be observed: The tradition of the religious leaders was subject to the Word of God. Are the religious leaders of the Catholic Church exempt from subjection to the Word of God? And likewise, is their Sacred Tradition also exempt? I think not.
Where the Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite. Consider the following, "The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. 1. Be especially attentive ‘to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.'. . . 2. Read the Scripture within ‘the living Tradition of the whole Church.' . . . 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith."
It is number 2 that is the main concern here. What does it mean to read Scripture "within the living Tradition of the whole Church?" If Scripture is "within the living Tradition," then Tradition encompasses Scripture. In other words, it is the tradition of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of God spoken by Jesus in Matt. 15:1-6.
Some object and say that the Pharisees didn't have apostolic authority and succession that was ordained by the apostles as does the Catholic Church and, therefore, Matt. 15:1-6 cannot be used to nullify Sacred Tradition.
But the issue in Matt. 15:1-6 is not succession of authority but the traditions of men being used in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. Essentially, the Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition. Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles, likewise, continuously admonished their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11), thereby substantiating the position that even what they taught was subject to God's Word. After all, no doctrinal teaching should contradict biblical revelation and the Sacred Word of God was and is the final authority in all things spiritual. The Catholic Church's position and teaching which are based on Sacred Tradition are no different. They must be compared to Scripture.
My desire in writing this is not to alienate Catholics nor belittle their beliefs. I believe that there are some Catholics who love the Lord and are saved. But I would like to add that I believe it is in spite of official Roman Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Catholic church has added teachings that are not consistent with biblical revelation.

The above is an excerpt from an article entitled "Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition" written by Matthew Slick. I have quoted Mr. Slick here because he pretty much reflects my own thoughts and research into the matter.

Please understand me, although I do not agree with some of them, or find Biblical support for some of them, I am not denouncing the traditions of your church out of hand. I think it's fine that your church holds to tradition and ceremony. My concern is that the main focus of the gospel, i.e., the need of personal acceptance of and relationship with Christ the Savior, is not lost in it.

 

[GenemZ]

At first I thought to address the issues I saw raised, but I believe they've been addressed and the above final post answers my question best.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 (New International Version)​

"If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."

I forgot to mention. Pail set a precedent for traditions. Yes. But, not all his traditions would apply today. For, Paul also mentions in his writings that certain spiritual gifts which he gave protocol for, would cease to be operational. I.e., tongues and prophecy.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[DanJudge]

Men must have their heads uncovered, and women covered, while praying or prophesying 1 Cor 11:4-15

There must be factions so those approved become apparent 1 Cor 11:19

All the gifts should be in the Church 1 Cor 14 (including Tongues and interpretation, which I rarely see)

When assemblying, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. 1 Cor 14:26 (not one or two in the assembly, but each one)

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment 1 Cor 14:29

If a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent 1 Cor 14:30

For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted 1 Cor 14:31

Women are to keep silent and ask their husbands 1 Cor 14:34-5, 1 Tim 2:12

If any one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual let him recognize these 1 Cor 14:37

On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come 1 Cor 16:1-2 (i.e. no tithing, just the principal)

They sold their possessions as anyone might have need Ac 2:45

Don't sue other Christians 1 Cor 6:6-7

Men will forbid marriage and abstaining from foods in the later times 1 Tim 4:3 (priests celibate and lent) (some say celibate to avoid temptation and lent as not required)

Provide for your own household 1 Tim 5:8 (i.e. don't rely on Gov.)

Overseer (Bishop) must have but 1 wife and be, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not adidcted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free form the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. 1 Tim 3:2-4

Not a new convert 1 Tim 3:6

Good reputation with those outside the Church 1 Tim 3:7

Deacons likewise 1 Tim 3:8

Elders are worthy of their wages 1 4:Tim 17-18

2-3 witnesses required against an Elder 1 Tim 4:19

Know the sacred writings from childhood which are able to give you wisdom which leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus 2 Tim 3:15-16

[I paraphrased throughout]


Clear teaching, yet not followed. Why?

Smileyill/Brothers/Sisters, To All Who Seek The Truth, This is part of a chapter from the "Little Book" of Revelation chapter 10.

BUT THEY HAD ALL THINGS COMMON


The ancient peasant social order, the system of the fathers of all mankind, which, being innately conformed to the mind-set of the whole of the lower class of the planet, children of the Kingdom, arose spontaneously in all regions of human settlement and was the only form of social organization for untold tens of thousands of years before the appearance of the children of the evil one, Nimrod and those like him in all lands, was characterized by three elements, those being: all ideology grounded in religion and a supernaturalistic world view, all property held in common and shared equally, and government by class-wide plebiscites rather than by an elite of whatever character or composition; to which, in accordance with the counsel of the Holy Gospel and the innumerable crimes of the rulers of the lands, must now be added a fourth element, the tearing down of the universal Babylon by the hands of the elect, called in the speech of the moderns class war.

Now we see plainly that the deceit of the three elitist elements who have imposed their will upon the poor, namely, the noblemen, the businessmen, and the commissars, has consisted of emphasizing and of course distorting as well one element of the peasant order while suppressing the other two. Thus we see the noblemen ruling in the name of religion and instituting shrines and an order of priests to cause the people to be "held in subjection all their lives through the fear of death" (Hebrews 2:15), while utterly suppressing the communalistic and democratic elements. And the businessmen legitimize their rule through an appeal to a highly distorted form of democracy, so heavily weighted in their favor that the lower class has in fact only the most superficial influence upon their system, and is, if perceived as any kind of potential threat, presented with gifts of minimal worth surrounded by a swarm of fruit flies of propaganda to the effect that the rulers have us in heart and that things are slowly improving, and this approach is called in the jargon of the businessmen liberalism; and, when considered sufficiently weakened and disordered, simply disembursed of the gifts provided through the liberal approach and shown a view of the rulers openly gorging themselves like swine at a trough, as if to say, "We know there’s not a thing you can do about it," and this is called in their jargon conservatism, as if they wish when of this disposition to inch their way back to the system of the nobles. These tolerate religion, as if nostalgic for the monarchic order, but bypass it as a fount of ideology, and suppress the communalistic element as best they can. Now the system of the noblemen continued for thousands of years, but that of the businessmen, though only two centuries old, is already in a death struggle with that of a yet newer element, the Marxist commissars. These latter emphasize the principle of communalism, but distort it beyond all recognition, while utterly suppressing the supernaturalistic and democratic elements of the ancient order. Their system is not yet one century old, and is already faced with internal opposition bordering on and about to break out as open insurgency, but that not in the name of either of the earlier elitist orders.

Surely the continual shifting of the ground of their rule after it was so firmly implanted for millennia coupled with their evident and worldwide foreboding is the true harbinger of the final uprooting and overthrow of the children of the evil one altogether, for the poor people have already internalized the belief in the feasibility of revolution after so many at least superficially successful revolutions as have already occurred during the course of these past two centuries, to the extent that a veritable tradition of successful revolution has been established; and to this has now been added both widespread literacy and greatly improved communication between the poor people of all lands. And this for Babylon, that "her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged" (Isaiah 13:22). But in the overthrowing of so many regimes and groups of the wealthy as have already been overthrown, my Lord has left a sign: for each uprising until now has entailed the imposition of a new elite upon the people that time has shown to be ruling very much in its own self-interest and to which the thought of relinquishing its wealth and power is anathema; for the elitist elements of all societies and of whatever orientation form collectively nothing but an alien and malignant superimposition upon the life of the entire class of the elect. And they are truly compared to thornbushes corrupting and polluting the land and the world revolution of these last days to a whirlwind proceeding forth from the presence of the Lord to uproot them in the 58th Psalm where, after saying in verses 1-2, "Is it true that you speak in righteousness, O brood of rulers, or that you judge the children of men uprightly? Certainly you work out in your hearts iniquitous acts to be performed in the earth and measure out the violence that your hands are to commit," the prophet then says in verse 9, "Before your thorns can even understand it, O thornbushes, whether young or old He shall cause a whirlwind to remove them all." Thus we have come to perceive that just as revolution is truly feasible and, speaking in world terms, an absolute precondition to the restoration of our liberty, so are revolutions predicated on a secular world view, as that world view is alien to the mind-set of the poor, though innate to that of the rich, rejecting the religionist concept of transcendence, of referral to realities beyond those of the natural order, and therefore teaching the necessity of rulers and of an elitist superstructure (and truly it is the rejection of the belief in the desirability of rulers characterizing the ancient system that has alone provoked the horror expressed by the Marxists, themselves manifestly elitist, toward all religion), always and innately abortive in that they are subject to "capture" by and must entail the reimposition of an oppressive elite upon the lower class. Nor do we have the least interest in being driven by the cunning of our self-proclaimed betters into a frenzied race toward death such as engulfed Cambodia, Somalia, and latterly all Marxist Africa.

In reference to the order to be restored now in these last days, keeping in mind the general principle that any obstacle arising in life is always to be countered by direct action when at all feasible, calling on the Name of the Lord, but that in a case where no response is sufficient to overcome the problem, one must then look beyond this world and remember that this whole life is short, and that the final victory is never far off — and recognizing that the ancient ministers, bishops and so on were appointed by the laying on of the hands of the apostles and through the gift of prophecy, and that with the taking up of the church from the earth in the year 98 A.D. with the martyrdom of the last apostle, John, and the subsequent universal spread of the rule of the composite antichrist over the Christian world, the chain of legitimate ecclesiastical authority was broken and cannot now or ever be restored, and so there can be no human fount or repository of authority in the restored church of the last days, but only the authority of the Scripture for itself but not delegated to human intermediaries, and the revelation of the mind of the Holy Spirit through the expressed will of the mass of the poor people of a commune, a region, or the world — we must affirm as self- evident that the ideal form of social and economic organization is that ancient communalism of the fathers, though we now apply it to the cities as well, and though we now incorporate assimilable elements of the modern technology into it to which we fall heir, and as in accordance with Matthew 5:5 (and there is no such thing as a meek and humble rich man) which, being psychologically an extension of the family, incorporates into itself the ways of peace, humility and love and automatically involves the overthrow of greed, pride, isolation and depression in the hearts of the people, and in a word provides the environment in which the elements of the Sermon on the Mount will become instinctively and as second nature the ethic and life style of the elect. A key instance of the incorporation of elements of the modern technology (in addition, obviously, to weapons technology and the entire field of military science) would be our ability to vote as a class, even the whole of the lower class of the planet together, on any issue and as often as we might want and, as with the American presidential elections, know the consensus of the will of the class the following day. Necessary functionaries, however, are to be chosen on a purely random basis and are to serve for, shall we say, a six-month period, after which their decisions will be subject to review; but they are not to be appointed on the basis of merit, however defined, neither are they to be elected. Another instance would be those projects of use only to the poor and which would never be undertaken by any elitist element, such as farming and settling the interior of Australia, or the Sahara desert, or, as is known to be practicable, farming the sea.

—Barry I. Hyman
CHRISTIAN REVOLUTIONARY BROTHERHOOD

Peace be with You All
DanJudge

 

[LoverOfGod]

Men must have their heads uncovered, and women covered, while praying or prophesying 1 Cor 11:4-15

There must be factions so those approved become apparent 1 Cor 11:19

All the gifts should be in the Church 1 Cor 14 (including Tongues and interpretation, which I rarely see)

When assemblying, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. 1 Cor 14:26 (not one or two in the assembly, but each one)

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment 1 Cor 14:29

If a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent 1 Cor 14:30

For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted 1 Cor 14:31

Women are to keep silent and ask their husbands 1 Cor 14:34-5, 1 Tim 2:12

If any one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual let him recognize these 1 Cor 14:37

On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come 1 Cor 16:1-2 (i.e. no tithing, just the principal)

They sold their possessions as anyone might have need Ac 2:45

Don't sue other Christians 1 Cor 6:6-7

Men will forbid marriage and abstaining from foods in the later times 1 Tim 4:3 (priests celibate and lent) (some say celibate to avoid temptation and lent as not required)

Provide for your own household 1 Tim 5:8 (i.e. don't rely on Gov.)

Overseer (Bishop) must have but 1 wife and be, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not adidcted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free form the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. 1 Tim 3:2-4

Not a new convert 1 Tim 3:6

Good reputation with those outside the Church 1 Tim 3:7

Deacons likewise 1 Tim 3:8

Elders are worthy of their wages 1 4:Tim 17-18

2-3 witnesses required against an Elder 1 Tim 4:19

Know the sacred writings from childhood which are able to give you wisdom which leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus 2 Tim 3:15-16

[I paraphrased throughout]


Clear teaching, yet not followed. Why?

Many of Paul's "traditions" were meant to address a specific problem or issue, at a specific time, in a specific place, dealing with a specific people. Also, many were metaphorical in nature.