is teaching the same as tradition?

[Xeno.of.athens]

In your thinking is teaching the same thing as tradition?

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

In your thinking is teaching the same thing as tradition?

No, by definition 'tradition' is the inertia of what you do/believe/say/teach .. Tradition is not always normative, but can be just descriptive (e.g. it sums up what a particular community does over time). When the normative aspects are addressed it's good to pay attention to the 'why' or the arguments for those norms.

In many communities worldwide in history a common pattern can be observed where what is done repetitively over time because it was practical, eventually is regarded as the norm from which one should not deviate. But those norms should be treated with some reservations I'd say.

Where tradition represents 'solidified and tested agreement or best practices' over time it can be most useful IMHO. But when circumstances change, one should not be afraid to update that unless there is a clear faith- or Bible-based reason not to.

Just MHO.

 

[Clare73]

In your thinking is teaching the same thing as tradition?

I take it that by "teaching" you mean doctrine?

The real question is: Is the teaching/doctrine Biblical?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I take it that by "teaching" you mean doctrine?

The real question is: Is the teaching/doctrine Biblical?

nope. that isn't "the real question".

 

[PloverWing]

I'm inclined to say that tradition is broader than just teaching. For example, I would include liturgical and devotional practices under the heading of tradition. We observe the seasons of the church year on such-and-so dates, using these colors and those prayers in our worship. We kneel at this and that point in the liturgy. We have a particular procedure we follow with leftover consecrated Elements. There is doctrine that's implicit in these practices, and communicated by the practices, but in themselves they are actions rather than beliefs.

 

[Clare73]

nope. that isn't "the real question"

It is for those who believe Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It is for those who believe Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

Nope. Catholics rightly believe and teach that "all scripture is inspired by God and useful ..." without accepting "sola scriptura".

 

[Servus]

Tradition is the implementation of what is taught.

 

[The Liturgist]

In your thinking is teaching the same thing as tradition?

Yes, in that Scripture is the heart of the Apostolic kerygma, from which flows our sacramental liturgy, our hymns, our prayers, our Patristic commentaries, our iconography, our monastic and hierarchical structure and our experiences of praxis and finally such things as the ancient canons that preserve stability in the Orthodox Church, for example by precluding one bishop from celebrating the liturgy in the diocese of another without that bishop’s consent.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm inclined to say that tradition is broader than just teaching. For example, I would include liturgical and devotional practices under the heading of tradition. We observe the seasons of the church year on such-and-so dates, using these colors and those prayers in our worship. We kneel at this and that point in the liturgy. We have a particular procedure we follow with leftover consecrated Elements. There is doctrine that's implicit in these practices, and communicated by the practices, but in themselves they are actions rather than beliefs.

Indeed - while the post I just made may seem to contradict what you just said that was also a point I was trying to make. So hopefully in reading my preceding post people will understand my view as being the Orthodox idea that Tradition starts with the Gospels and then radiates outward through Sacred Scripture and into the Divine Liturgy, the hymns of the Divine Office, the Psalter, the Lectionary, the Nicene Creed, the faith of the ecumenical councils and the Patristic corpus, among other things.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is for those who believe Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

Nope. Catholics rightly believe and teach that "all scripture is inspired by God and useful ..." without accepting "sola scriptura".

Indeed - the idea that doctrine is somehow incompatible with the divine inspiration of Scripture is a Pietist idea which was alien to John Calvin and entirely alien to the early church. Indeed the 6th century Spanish theologian St. Isidore correctly declared “Scripture is not in the reading but in the interpretation.”

The reality is that certain doctrines, while scriptural, are communicated via tradition, for example, the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ our True God and the Most Holy and Uncreated Life Giving Trinity are not explicitly stated in Scripture - they are rather implicitly defined and are an emergent consequence of a reading of John ch. 1 together with Matthew 28:19 and several other texts, but the problem is some people aren’t willing to go through this exhaustive process (which really, to do it from scratch, requires a systematic theologian like Karl Barth, whose “neo-Orthodoxy” I regard as superfluous since the eight volumes of his Kirchliche Dogmatische merely restated what one could have already read with a simple work on dogmatic theology from the Patristic era such as the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith from the Fount of Wisdom of St. John of Damascus.

Since most people do not study scripture with the intensity of St. Gregory Palamas or Thomas Aquinas or Karl Barth, nor should they, for that is a specialized vocation, those who reject the idea of tradition frequently put themselves at risk for falling into various theological errors. It is troubling to consider that most Arians throughout history did not see the need to modify the Gospel According to John in order to dial down the intensity of John 1:1, which is a viable anti-Arian proof text, but someone who has been deceived by Arianism will still interpret it in an Arian dimension.

Now to be clear, I am not accusing Christians who do not appreciate the value of tradition of being crypto-Arians; god forbid that I should do that. Rather I am suggesting that Christians benefit from tradition even if they do not personally appreciate the value of the preservation of doctrines it conveys. It is for this reason that the early Protestants such as Maritn Luther, Thomas Cranmer, John Wesley and even John Calvin embraced the idea of tradition; Sola Scriptura in its original form was never intended to be a rejection of tradition as my Lutheran friends such as @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis and @Ain't Zwinglian will so eloquently express.

 

[fhansen]

In your thinking is teaching the same thing as tradition?

“Paradosis”, a Greek word in its various forms usually rendered as “tradition”, is sometimes rendered “teachings”, as in 2 Thess 2:15.

 

[The Liturgist]

“Paradosis”, a Greek word in its various forms usually rendered as “tradition”, is sometimes rendered “teachings”, as in 2 Thess 2:15.

Indeed, but this is an inaccurate and misleading translation.

Holy Tradition is expressly sanctioned not just in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 but in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and by implication in Galatians 1:8-9

Thus in my view while Sola Scriptura as used by Luther, the Anglicans and John Wesley, all of whom valued tradition, is coherent, there are serious problems with the Nuda Scriptura model we see espoused by some Restorationist churches such as one of the larger Sabbatarian denominations, and by some Fundamentalists and other very heavily low-church groups, such as non-denominaitonal churches and megachurches, in that the total rejection of tradition is contradicted by the scriptural text itself.

 

[Clare73]

Nope. Catholics rightly believe and teach that "all scripture is inspired by God and useful ..." without accepting "sola scriptura".

Does that mean you accept that which is not in Scripture?

 

[Clare73]

Nope. Catholics rightly believe and teach that "all scripture is inspired by God and useful ..." without accepting "sola scriptura".

The Greek is "God-breathed, (theopuestos).

 

[Clare73]

Indeed - the idea that doctrine is somehow incompatible with the divine inspiration of Scripture is a Pietist idea which was alien to John Calvin and entirely alien to the early church. Indeed the 6th century Spanish theologian St. Isidore correctly declared “Scripture is not in the reading but in the interpretation.”

The reality is that certain doctrines, while scriptural, are communicated via tradition, for example, the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ our True God and the Most Holy and Uncreated Life Giving Trinity are not explicitly stated in Scripture

Does not Jn 1:1, 14 explicitly state the Incarnation?

- they are rather implicitly defined and are an emergent consequence of a reading of John ch. 1 together with Matthew 28:19 and several other texts, but the problem is some people aren’t willing to go through this exhaustive process (which really, to do it from scratch, requires a systematic theologian like Karl Barth, whose “neo-Orthodoxy” I regard as superfluous since the eight volumes of his Kirchliche Dogmatische merely restated what one could have already read with a simple work on dogmatic theology from the Patristic era such as the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith from the Fount of Wisdom of St. John of Damascus.

Since most people do not study scripture with the intensity of St. Gregory Palamas or Thomas Aquinas or Karl Barth, nor should they, for that is a specialized vocation, those who reject the idea of tradition frequently put themselves at risk for falling into various theological errors. It is troubling to consider that most Arians throughout history did not see the need to modify the Gospel According to John in order to dial down the intensity of John 1:1, which is a viable anti-Arian proof text, but someone who has been deceived by Arianism will still interpret it in an Arian dimension.

Now to be clear, I am not accusing Christians who do not appreciate the value of tradition of being crypto-Arians; god forbid that I should do that. Rather I am suggesting that Christians benefit from tradition even if they do not personally appreciate the value of the preservation of doctrines it conveys. It is for this reason that the early Protestants such as Maritn Luther, Thomas Cranmer, John Wesley and even John Calvin embraced the idea of tradition; Sola Scriptura in its original form was never intended to be a rejection of tradition as my Lutheran friends such as @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis and @Ain't Zwinglian will so eloquently express.

 

[The Liturgist]

Does not Jn 1:1, 14 explicitly state the Incarnation?

It does, but the problem is Arians will deny that’s what it’s referring to. Tradition corrects errant readings.

For example there are people who claim John ch. 6 does not refer to the Holy Eucharist, when I think it very clearly does, but we have members of a major Sabbatarian denomination whose views about Church history and sacramental theology I emphatically reject, and they insist that there is no Eucharistic context, not even a Zwinglian or Memorialist context, to John ch. 6, for whatever reason (at least in my experience; perhaps some of the theologians in their church do recognize the Eucharistic context).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Does that mean you accept that which is not in Scripture?

Why do you ask questions which you have asked before and that have been answered before?

The Greek is "God-breathed, (theopuestos).

But "god-breathed" isn't really English is it? "inspired" is English.

 

[Clare73]

But "god-breathed" isn't really English is it? "inspired" is English.

No. . .theo (God) pnuestos (breathed) in English is God-breathed.