Can the Church Survive Without man's tradition?

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Just another way to look at it. It seems that those who believe that the Church can survive without the Bible, are the very same who couldn't live without their tradition...




Our Faith is founded on a person and the events of His life that happened a long time ago.. Inherent to a faith that is handed down is tradition. Without it the faith isn't handed down. There were alot of false traditions springing up here and there and alot of them were written down. These claimed to be handed down as well. In order to distinguish the holy tradition from all the false one's the canon was formed. Now that didn't mean the faith could stop being handed down because the list of books was known. No, the list helps us keep handing it down.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The original ones didn't have "Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John", so it was added later yet you have then in your Bible and believe they were written by those individuals.

The Scriptures used to be in scroll form and,
were not generally all carried together (all 66 books) at one time.
Yet, the Scriptures are compiled into one book now and they are regarded now as one book.
Chapter and verse numbers were added later, too.
The cover that says, "Holy Bible" was also added later.
That does not make it a tradition, but merely an evolvement of God's Word for our day.
A "tradition" is a teaching.

The placement of Scripture into one book, the words "Holy Bible" on the cover, a table of contents, the book titles, page numbers, chapter numbers, and verses numbers are not an added tradition, but they are merely an evolvement of God's Word for our day. These things do not change the message of God's Word. Unless you believe the words "Holy Bible" is not a true accurate assessment of the collective form of Scripture that we have, or unless you believe the titles of the books we have are not an accurate description of those books. They are not new teachings. They are not telling a person to do some kind of religious backflips while they burn candles. It is merely describing what is in Scripture and in the case with chapter and verse numbers and page numbers, it is helping us to find our place in the Scriptures. Even the Voice Bible adds in who is speaking or talking. But again, this is telling us a fact in Scripture that most Christians would agree upon, and this is not telling a person to take a poodle and throw into the fire as a sacrifice as one take it's poop and smears it on their face. There is a difference between the traditions of a church (a church's teachings that come from men), vs. what Scripture says.

In other words, there is a huge difference between agreed upon set of basic facts mentioned in Scripture vs. a religious teaching that cannot be found in the Bible that in most cases violates God's Word.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
good to know... but what does this have to do with children finding their own Christian identity when they are dominantly taught by their parents, a point you that raised against traditional based Christian faiths?

The Spirit will guide a person into all truth if they are open to it. My point here is that it always comes back to the Bible alone and not man made traditions or teachings. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that we will be judged by church traditions. John 12:48 says that we will be judged by the words of Jesus. Paul even says that what he writes should be regarded as the Lord's commandments (1 Corinthians 14:37). The words "tradition" or "traditions" in the Bible is merely another word for "teachings." It is not some kind of carried on separate teaching that was different from Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Spirit will guide a person into all truth if they are open to it. My point here is that it always comes back to the Bible alone and not man made traditions or teachings. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that we will be judged by church traditions. John 12:48 says that we will be judged by the words of Jesus. Paul even says that what he writes should be regarded as the Lord's commandments (1 Corinthians 14:37). The words "tradition" or "traditions" in the Bible is merely another word for "teachings." It is not some kind of carried on separate teaching that was different from Scripture.

which is it, "Spirit will guide" or the "Bible alone" because you present these as two fundamental sources of truth. Also, where do you get your information that "tradition(s)" is a biblical synonym for "teaching(s)". Is this in all biblical cases? I'm curious because I thought you approached scripture with a strong prejudice to the KJV, if so, how does the KJV inform us of this?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
which is it, "Spirit will guide" or the "Bible alone" because you present these as two fundamental sources of truth.

The Spirit guides a person into all truth by the Scriptures:

The statement, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" is a part of inspired Scripture (John 16:13). We would not know about this truth unless Scripture stated it. Also, Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). Jesus says to the Father, "your word is truth." (John 17:17). Jesus spoke what the Father told Him to say and to do (John 12:49) (John 8:28) (John 8:29).

In all Jesus' teachings He referred to the divine authority of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-18; Matthew 8:17;Matthew 12:40-42; Luke 4:18-21; Luke 10:25-28; Luke 15:29-31; Luke 17:32; Luke 24:25-45; John 5:39-47). He quoted the Old Testament 78 times, the Pentateuch alone 26 times. He quoted from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, and Malachi. He referred to the Old Testament as “The Scriptures,” “the word of God,” and “the wisdom of God.” Jesus defeated the devil by using Scripture. For three words, "It is written" was said 3 times by Jesus in Matthew 4:1-11. This is confirmed by Ephesians 6 with how the Sword of the Spirit is the Word of God which is a part of putting on the armor of God so that one can stand against the wiles of the devil (Ephesians 6:11, Ephesians 6:16).

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4).

Paul said that what He had written should be regarded as the Lord's commandments (1 Corinthians 14:37). Luke sets out an order of declaration amongst the ministers of the Word to write out the events in order to Theophilus so that he might know for certain of the truth (on Christ's teachings) which he had been instructed.

Luke 1:1-4
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

Paul's writings were regarded as Scripture.

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16).

John's Gospel is sufficient alone for saving faith in Jesus Christ.

What is purpose of John's book or gospel?

John 20:30-31 says,
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Did you catch that? It essentially says these things (Within the book of John) are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ and that we might have life (eternal life) through his name. In other words, a person can receive eternal life or salvation in Jesus Christ by reading the book of John. This is the "Written of God." In other words, this shows that the "Written Word of God" alone is sufficient to bring us to saving faith in God.

For without the Bible, a person opens themselves up to deception and or another Christ. The Bible gives us ways so as to guide us spiritually and so as to obey the Lord properly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Also, where do you get your information that "tradition(s)" is a biblical synonym for "teaching(s)".

The word "gay" used to mean "happy."
But if you said that word today, people would think something else.
So if someone were to go back into the past and hear that word, and they were not educated, they would think that people in the past were speaking wrongfully.

Today, people say the word "wine" and they instantly think "alcohol" when the word was not always used that way. It's a fact! Even the word "liquor" did not always mean something alcoholic. Yet, the word has changed.

The same is true with the word "tradition."
You say that word today and people instantly think of oral traditions or church traditions past down from generations. But the word did not always mean that.

When you look at a Dictionary or Etymology of a word, there are sometimes multiple definitions for one word. According to Eytmonline.com, in the 13th century, one of it's meanings of the word "tradicion" could simply be "transmission" or "presentation," and not just exclusively a handing down (or generational) kind of form of teaching.

Tradition:

"from Old French tradicion "transmission, presentation, ..." (late 13c.)"
Source:
tradition | Origin and meaning of tradition by Online Etymology Dictionary

Also, when the word "tradition" appears in the Bible, it is usually negative and not positive. There are only two positive instances of the use of the variation on the word "tradition" 2 Thessalonians 3:6 (tradition), and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (traditions). According to the CONTEXT, the two positive appearances of the variation on this word do not describe what others today regard as traditions.

People today say that traditions are something that are oral and they were passed down from generations. Most cases these traditions are some kind of teaching that is not found in God's Word clearly. But 2 Thessalonians 2:15 points out that this word "tradition" is in both an oral form (spoken in person, kind of like a Pastor teaching), and in written form (epistle).

The New Covenant is NEW. It is not Old. So it could not be something that was passed down from generation to generation. Many times Christians would be persecuted and killed. So writing down what they have learned was the best way to preserve their teachings. The Scriptures were being formed during the time of the early church. So an oral kind of teachings (that seem different to Scripture) would not make any sense to be preserved alongside with Scripture. If they were to have some kind of church traditions, they would have been recorded in Scripture. But folks here like to think it makes sense that they started off these traditions in an oral fashion. Yet, Scripture says these traditions (teachings) are both oral and written down. Acts of the Apostles 17:11 confirms that they confirmed the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God. There was no additional teachings that would continue to exist as oral teachings alone that would be alongside Scripture forever. Nothing is ever said of this. So the oral mention of God's teachings in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 was temporary until it would be written down. This is the most logical conclusion because most people know that you cannot retain information accurately through out time by merely speaking it from one generation to the next. Words can be confused even in written form. If it was spoken form of teaching only that was to be passed down to the next generation, the confusion on such a teaching would be even more so. That is why this whole.... the church traditions (separate from Scripture) used to be oral does not make any sense. If such a thing existed, the Bible would talk about it. But it doesn't. It is dead silent on the issue. Folks merely like to hold to their man made traditions that do not appear in God's Word (and in most cases appears to conflict with the Scriptures).

For do you believe that there are no church traditions that do not conflict with God's Word?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Also, where do you get your information that "tradition(s)" is a biblical synonym for "teaching(s)".

In other words, try putting a blank space where the words "tradition" or "traditions" appear in Scripture on the positive use of that word. Then allow SCRIPTURE (or the surrounding words) to define that word for you (See 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and 2 Thessalonians 3:6). To put it to you another way, the CONTEXT does not say anything that people today say that word means. It makes more sense to read that word as TEACHINGS and not as church traditions that is outside of Scripture.

Of course the negative use of the word "traditions" is in reference to man made traditions that the Pharisees had that violated God's Word. These were teachings of men that violated the Scriptures. Jesus had a lot to say about this.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
which is it, "Spirit will guide" or the "Bible alone" because you present these as two fundamental sources of truth. Also, where do you get your information that "tradition(s)" is a biblical synonym for "teaching(s)". Is this in all biblical cases? I'm curious because I thought you approached scripture with a strong prejudice to the KJV, if so, how does the KJV inform us of this?

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 says,
13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14 "Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says that God has chosen us to salvation through TWO things.

#1. Belief of the truth (Jesus is the truth - John 14:6).
#2. Sanctification of the Spirit (Holy living by the Holy Spirit).​

"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit...". (1 Peter 1:22).

1 Thessalonians 4:3
"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:"

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." (Romans 8:13).

So the context is the gospel, and obedience to God via the teachings of the apostles by their oral presentations and by their written epistles (Scripture). Paul was not saying that there were two unique forms of teachings that the church of Thessalonica would need to preserve here in the context. He simply wanted them to follow what he was teaching (Which would have been the spoken word and the written word during that time). Nowhere is there any indication where Paul says they were to PRESERVE one set of teachings as an ONGOING set of oral teachings and another set of teachings as being written down. Oral forms of teaching would never last. No church today has accurately passed down any oral teachings. Most of all churches today provide their church traditions in written form so that they cannot be altered so easily.

If oral church traditions were a good thing, we would see Jesus and His followers quote such a thing more often and refer to it as divine tradition.

The apostles would say something like, as I had stated orally by our divine traditions outside of Scripture. But the Bible never gives us any indication of things like this. They always quoted Scripture as divine authority. Therein lies the difference.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm curious because I thought you approached scripture with a strong prejudice to the KJV, if so, how does the KJV inform us of this?

As for the KJV:

Well, I do not want to get into a KJV debate. I know you do not believe the KJV is the perfectly inerrant inspired Word of God for our day. But the word "tradition" or "traditions" back in the day used to mean "teaching" (Like the word "gay" used to mean something else). To put it to you another way, words change with the passage of time. So while the KJV is correct for saying "traditions" because it meant "teaching" during it's time, we know that certain Modern Translations are capable of helping to update things like this into our Modern English that we are familiar with. This does not mean I make Modern Translations my final word of authority, though. I look at Modern Translations sort of like a person panning for gold. You have to sift through the dirt of the bad things in Modern Translations to get to the gold of what the Bible is saying in the KJV and the original languages.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The word "gay" used to mean "happy."
So if someone were to go back into the past and hear that word, and they were not educated, they would think that they were speaking wrongfully.

Today, people say the word "wine" and they instantly think "alcohol" when the word was not always used that way. It's a fact! Even the word "liquor" did not always mean something alcoholic. Yet, the word has changed.

The same is true with the word "tradition."
You say that word today and people instantly think of oral traditions or church traditions past down from generations. But the word did not always mean that.

When you look at a Dictionary or Etymology of a word, there are sometimes multiple definitions for one word. According to Eytmonline.com, in the 13th century, one of it's meanings of the word "tradicion" could simply be "transmission" or "presentation," and not just exclusively a handing down (or generational) kind of form of teaching.

Tradition:

"from Old French tradicion "transmission, presentation, ..." (late 13c.)"
Source:
tradition | Origin and meaning of tradition by Online Etymology Dictionary

Also, when the word "tradition" appears in the Bible, it is usually negative and not positive. The only two positive instances of the use of the variation on the word "tradition" 2 Thessalonians 3:6 (tradition), and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (traditions). According to the CONTEXT, the two appearances of the variation on this word do not describe what others today regard as traditions.

People today say that traditions are something that are oral and they were passed down from generations. Most cases these traditions are some kind of teaching that is not found in God's Word clearly. But 2 Thessalonians 2:15 point out this word "tradition" is in provided in both an oral (spoken in person, kind of like a Pastor teaching), and in written form (epistle).

The New Covenant is NEW. It is not Old. So it could not be something that was passed down from generation to generation. Many times Christians would be persecuted and killed. So writing down what they have learned was the best way to preserve their teachings. The Scriptures were being formed during the time of the early church. So an oral kind of teachings (that seem different to Scripture) would not make any sense to be preserved alongside with Scripture. If they were to have some kind of church traditions, they would have been recorded in Scripture. But folks here like to think it makes sense that they started off these traditions in an oral fashion. Yet, Scripture says these traditions (teachings) are both oral and written down. Acts of the Apostles 17:11 confirms that they confirmed the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God. There was no additional teachings that would continue to exist as oral teachings alone that would be alongside Scripture forever. Nothing is ever said of this. So the oral mention of God's teachings in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 was temporary until it would be written down. This is the most logical conclusion because most people know that you cannot retain information accurately through out time by merely speaking it from one generation to the next. Words can be confused even in written form. If it was spoken form of teaching only that was to be passed down to the next generation, the confusion on such a teaching would be even more so. That is why this whole.... the church traditions (separate from Scripture) used to be oral does not make any sense. If such a thing existed, the Bible would talk about it. But it doesn't. It is dead silent on the issue. Folks merely like to hold to their man made traditions that do not appear in God's Word (and in most cases appears to conflict with the Scriptures).

For do you believe that there are no church traditions that do not conflict with God's Word?
Teachings/traditions can have overlap but I'm curious why you quote etymonline.com but only pull the meaning out that fits your perspective? You quote the 13c meaning from old French where etymonline lists a 14c English meaning as

late 14c., "statement, belief, or practice handed down from generation to generation," especially "belief or practice based on Mosaic law,"

The KJV was written in 1611 and was written in English. Which meaning do you suppose it was using when it used "tradition" an archaic 13c French word one or a 14c English word?

the Greek is "paradosis" and it carries a meaning of "giving over" such as passed from one generation to the next. This meaning is consistent with the 14c meaning of the word and the English meaning of the word when the KJV was written.

I know you reject Greek as a reliable source but even the KJV is consistent with this. Tradition and teachings of course may have analogous meanings but you are actually rejecting the passing down from generation to generation meaning in favour of the root of word that is from French and then use the French meaning of the word.

This seems a little too desperate and forceful for my liking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ace of hearts
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

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In short, the word "tradition" and "traditions" used in a positive way in the Bible cannot refer to an exclusive passing down of oral teachings from generation to generation. For when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians at about 50AD. Christ was crucified somewhere between 30AD to 36AD. 14-20 years is not a sufficient amount of time to say that a teaching was being passed down over many generations even oral form so as to be a tradition. Jesus's ministry was over 3 years. So His teachings continuing on for another 20 years (even in oral form) could not really be called a church tradition. Plus, they wrote down their experiences and their teachings from the Lord. No indication is ever given they were to ALSO preserve a generational oral set of teachings in ADDITION to Scripture. Huge assumptions are made on 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6. There is no indication in the context that they were to start preserving two different kinds of teachings for many generations and to make sure that they keep these teachings distinct (one being oral, and the other being written).
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Where do you get this information from? Your source etymonline.com doesn't say this.

Yes, it does. I copied and pasted it directly from the website. Count to the 21st word and then start reading.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Teachings/traditions can have overlap but I'm curious why you quote etymonline.com but only pull the meaning out that fits your perspective? You quote the 13c meaning from old French where etymonline lists a 14c English meaning as

late 14c., "statement, belief, or practice handed down from generation to generation," especially "belief or practice based on Mosaic law,"

The KJV was written in 1611 and was written in English. Which meaning do you suppose it was using when it used "tradition" an archaic 13c French word one or a 14c English word?

The 13th century proceeded the 14th century.
I also pull out the meaning from this dictionary that supports the view as being "teachings" because that is what makes the most sense out of the CONTEXT presented in both occurrences of the variation of the word "tradition" in the Bible. Again, Paul never says to create TWO sets of teachings that are distinct from each other with one being oral and the other being written. If so, then the churches today are actually violating this.

You said:
the Greek is "paradosis" and it carries a meaning of "giving over" such as passed from one generation to the next.

I can give over a teaching that is new and not have it to be something that is passed down from many generations. The teachings of Jesus Christ were not teachings passed down over many generations and thus that is why your argument fails. The ministry of Jesus (before He was crucified) lasted 3 years. Christ was crucified in 30AD to 36AD. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians in 50AD. So 14-20 years is not enough time for something to be called a passed down generation to generation tradition.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
If they were to have some kind of church traditions, they would have been recorded in Scripture. But folks here like to think it makes sense that they started off these traditions in an oral fashion.

This is where we have the freedom to have some distinct cultural customs, providing they do not conflict or have precedence over Scripture. Also, these customs are not to be taught as Biblical doctrine to be forced upon every church...they are just unique expressions for the individual congregations, that's all.

There was no additional teachings that would continue to exist as oral teachings alone that would be alongside Scripture forever. Nothing is ever said of this.

There may have been instructional practices, but again, these are only useful for a particular time and to a particular people group--they aren't to be forced on people of other cultures and times. Now, if the individual could identify with the custom and can see its use, they are free to enjoy it for themselves, but once the "I get to do this" becomes "I got to do this and so do you"...cut it out.

That is why this whole.... the church traditions (separate from Scripture) used to be oral does not make any sense. If such a thing existed, the Bible would talk about it. But it doesn't. It is dead silent on the issue. Folks merely like to hold to their man made traditions that do not appear in God's Word (and in most cases appears to conflict with the Scriptures).

I agree that there should be no separate documented teachings that are held as being on par with Scripture...the Bible is the only documentation we absolutely need. This doesn't mean that the writings of godly men/women are not useful and edifying so long as they are rooted in the Word. It is in these areas of individual expression that we are free to develop and enjoy uplifting and bountiful customs, but, as we have seen historically, much error can creep in if we do not constantly weigh and measure everything in these exchanges.
 
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

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is where we have the freedom to have some distinct cultural customs, providing they do not conflict or have precedence over Scripture. Also, these customs are not to be taught as Biblical doctrine to be forced upon every church...they are just unique expressions for the individual congregations, that's all.



There may have been instructional practices, but again, these are only useful for a particular time and to a particular people group--they aren't to be forced on people of other cultures and times. Now, if the individual could identify with the custom and can see its use, they are free to enjoy it for themselves, but once the "I get to do this" becomes "I got to do this and so do you"...cut it out.



I agree that there should be no separate documented teachings that are held as being on par with Scripture...the Bible is the only documentation we absolutely need. This doesn't mean that the writings of godly men/women are not useful and edifying so long as they are rooted in the Word. It is in these areas of individual expression that we are free to develop and enjoy uplifting and bountiful customs, but, as we have seen historically, much error can creep in if we do not constantly weigh and measure everything in these exchanges.

I find some Bible commentators can say some insightful things, and even many Christians who write articles today can say things by the power of the Spirit that just opens up the Word of God (Scripture) in a whole new way, but I do not see any church tradition today as being good. While God can overlook certain unspoken church traditions (like having big buildings to gather in and doing altar calls), I do not see this as being true with church traditions that are officially written down that appear to conflict with God's Word (like the confessing of sins to a priest, etc.). Usually when men write down a church tradition, I most often find that these traditions violate the Word of God (Scripture) in some way.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I find that Bible scholars can say some insightful things and even many Christians who write articles today can say things by the power of the Spirit that just opens up the Word of God (Scripture) in a whole new way, but I do not see any church tradition today as being good. While God can overlook certain unspoken church traditions (like having big buildings to gather in and doing altar calls), I do not see this as being true with church traditions that are officially written down that appear to conflict with God's Word (like the confessing of sins to a priest, etc.). Usually when men write down a church tradition, I most often find that these traditions violate the Word of God (Scripture) in some way.


I see what you're saying, which is why I used the word "custom", because I think it speaks more along the lines of practice. Maybe, some of these Catholic customs did help some local congregation at some distant time and place, but yeah, it is important that we, as a living, breathing, and current people, stay abreast of our cultural context, where many of those old customs have become hindrances rather than aides.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I see what you're saying, which is why I used the word "custom", because I think it speaks more along the lines of practice. Maybe, some of these Catholic customs did help some local congregation at some distant time and place, but yeah, it is important that we, as a living, breathing, and current people, stay abreast of our cultural context, where many of those old customs have become hindrances rather than aides.

I see a custom (that can also be called a tradition) as something religious men do (Whether bad or good) that is unwritten, and I see church tradition as something is more generally written down by some book that they add to the Bible. What's confusing is that they claim that these written traditions are from an old oral form of teachings. Of course, we only have their word on that.

I do not see any of the Catholic traditions or unwritten customs as ever being helpful to anyone because I believe many of these additional traditions (or customs) are unbiblical. Unless you don't see a problem in praying to the dead saints, bowing down to (or the kissing of) statues, Papal infallibility, Mary being a co-redeemer and that she was sinless, confessing one's sins to a priest, the necessity of partaking in the Eucharist for salvation, etc.; Personally, I have a problem with these things because the Bible makes no mention of them and they appear to conflict with the Bible big time.

I also do not agree with Orthodox, or Lutheran written church traditions, either. In fact, as I said before, I do not agree with any written down church tradition (because they usually in most cases go against what the Bible says). The Bible is our sole authority on matters of the faith. But men try to add to His Word things that are not supposed to be there, though.

Note: Now, men can come up with a statement of a certain set of beliefs that are derived clearly from the Scriptures (like a Creed), but I do not see this as a Tradition, but merely a set of beliefs stated from the Bible itself clearly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tone

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."
Supporter
Dec 24, 2018
15,128
6,906
California
✟61,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I do not see any of the Catholic traditions or unwritten customs as ever being helpful to anyone because I believe many of these additional traditions (or customs) are unbiblical. Unless you don't see a problem in praying to the dead saints, bowing down to (or the kissing of) statues, Papal infallibility, Mary being a co-redeemer and that she was sinless, confessing one's sins to a priest, the necessity of partaking in the Eucharist for salvation, etc.

They may have started out as a lot less than they are today. Maybe as small concessions to indigenous superstition. But, as they are today...full-blown error...well, this is why I am not Catholic or even protesting.
 
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

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
They may have started out as a lot less than they are today. Maybe as small concessions to indigenous superstition. But, as they are today...full-blown error...well, this is why I am not Catholic or even protesting.

I believe it is highly probable that it started out full blown in that way with Emperor Constantine uniting the Roman religions with biblical Christianity sometime in 300AD. But that is just my belief on what history may have recorded (as one possibility). While it may be true, I tend to lean more towards what the Bible says than anything else. For I strive to not make anything outside of the Bible as an authority. For me: I always seek to look at everything through the lens of Scripture and not the other way around. For man made history cannot be as trusted like the Word of God can be trusted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0