Can the Church Survive Without man's tradition?

Daniel Martinovich · May 12, 2019

DamianWarS said:
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?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water (the Word) and of the Spirit, (the Holy Spirit) he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
1st Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Tone · May 12, 2019

Jason0047 said:
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.

I have heard people use Paul's statements to justify the drift from all (Torah included) Scripture, but they ignore his other statements, as well as the biblical (as a whole) context, which always calls us back to the Word to sanctify all things.

Example 1

Acts 17
"22Then Paul stood up before the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and examined your objects of worship, I even found an altar with the inscription: To an unknown God.Therefore what you worship as something unknown,I now proclaim to you. "

1 Corinthians 9
"19Though I am free of obligation to anyone, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became like one under the Law (though I myself am not under the Law), to win those under the Law. 21To those without the law I became like one without the law (though I am not outside the law of God but am under the law of Christ), to win those without the law."

Example 2

Acts 15
"19It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not cause trouble for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. 21For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

People take these verses and run with them as if it is not a temporal apologetic for a particular people at a particular time and place. These people were to continue being discipled, turn from their former ways, and conform to the image of Messiah

Tone · May 12, 2019

Example 3

1 Timothy 4
"4For every creation of God is good, and nothing that is received with thanksgiving should be rejected, 5because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 6By pointing out these things to the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, nourished by the words of the faith and sound instruction you have followed." (Emphasis mine)

This too, is blown out of proportion as man's tradition neglects what is actually being said here, which is that Scripture has already instructed us in what food is/isn't, for instance, pig was never even considered as food, as the Bible does not sanctify it.

DamianWarS · May 12, 2019

Jason0047 said:
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 mean you cut it out of context. So it is not misquoted, as you have done, here is the full definition from your source in context:

tradition (n.)
late 14c., "statement, belief, or practice handed down from generation to generation," especially "belief or practice based on Mosaic law," from Old French tradicion "transmission, presentation, handing over" (late 13c.) and directly from Latin traditionem (nominative traditio) "delivery, surrender, a handing down, a giving up," noun of action from past participle stem of tradere "deliver, hand over," from trans- "over" (see trans-) + dare "to give" (from PIE root *do- "to give"). The word is a doublet of treason (q.v.). Meaning "a long-established custom" is from 1590s. The notion is of customs, ways, beliefs, doctrines, etc. "handed down" from one generation to the next.

Nobody can make a tradition; it takes a century to make it. [Hawthorne, "Septimius Felton," 1872]

There are a few definitions here, some in French, some in Latin some in English. Which one should we be using? If the answer is English then use the English definition, not the French. There is nothing about this definition that supports what you're trying to say unless we speak French.

Bible Highlighter · May 12, 2019

DamianWarS said:
you mean you cut it out of context. So it is not misquoted, as you have done, here is the full definition from your source in context:

tradition (n.)
late 14c., "statement, belief, or practice handed down from generation to generation," especially "belief or practice based on Mosaic law," from Old French tradicion "transmission, presentation, handing over" (late 13c.) and directly from Latin traditionem (nominative traditio) "delivery, surrender, a handing down, a giving up," noun of action from past participle stem of tradere "deliver, hand over," from trans- "over" (see trans-) + dare "to give" (from PIE root *do- "to give"). The word is a doublet of treason (q.v.). Meaning "a long-established custom" is from 1590s. The notion is of customs, ways, beliefs, doctrines, etc. "handed down" from one generation to the next.

Nobody can make a tradition; it takes a century to make it. [Hawthorne, "Septimius Felton," 1872]

There are a few definitions here, some in French, some in Latin some in English. Which one should we be using? If the answer is English then use the English definition, not the French. There is nothing about this definition that supports what you're trying to say unless we speak French.

Why do you think there was a Dictionary on both French and English in 1593?

A dictionary French and English, 1593 [by] Claude Desainliens. (1970 edition) | Open Library.

Wikipedia states,
Although Anglo-Norman and Anglo-French were eventually eclipsed by modern English, they had been used widely enough to influence English vocabulary permanently.

Anglo-Norman language - Wikipedia

Webster's 1828 dictionary (Which is before 1872 dictionary) says,

Tradition:

1. Delivery; the act of delivering into the hands of another.
2. The delivery of opinions, doctrines, practices, rites and customs from father to son, ...."

Source:
Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.

It says delivery of doctrines, etc. from father to son. It does not state that it has to be over many generations. It can simply be from one person to another.

Paul was delivering His message from Jesus Christ (which is from one person to another), and not from many generations past. So the word "traditions" does not have to mean that is a thing that is over many generations.

Bible Highlighter · May 12, 2019

DamianWarS said:
you mean you cut it out of context. So it is not misquoted, as you have done, here is the full definition from your source in context:

tradition (n.)
late 14c., "statement, belief, or practice handed down from generation to generation," especially "belief or practice based on Mosaic law," from Old French tradicion "transmission, presentation, handing over" (late 13c.) and directly from Latin traditionem (nominative traditio) "delivery, surrender, a handing down, a giving up," noun of action from past participle stem of tradere "deliver, hand over," from trans- "over" (see trans-) + dare "to give" (from PIE root *do- "to give"). The word is a doublet of treason (q.v.). Meaning "a long-established custom" is from 1590s. The notion is of customs, ways, beliefs, doctrines, etc. "handed down" from one generation to the next.

Nobody can make a tradition; it takes a century to make it. [Hawthorne, "Septimius Felton," 1872]

There are a few definitions here, some in French, some in Latin some in English. Which one should we be using? If the answer is English then use the English definition, not the French. There is nothing about this definition that supports what you're trying to say unless we speak French.

Again, stop and think for a moment. Is the New Covenant a new teaching or an ancient one passed down from many generations? Think, my friend. Just on this fact alone should tell you that Paul was not referring to a generational tradition. Jesus was crucified in 30AD and 36AD. Paul wrote Thessalonians in 50AD. 14-20 years is not enough time to call something a tradition as many define that word today. Most Orthodox and Catholic folk think traditions are something that is passed down from many generations.

Also, why would they create a separate teaching called "traditions" in addition to Scripture? What would be the motivation in doing that? Does Scripture explain this? Can you think of any logical reason why a person would do that? I sure cannot think of any; Especially when an oral form of teaching cannot reliably and accurately preserved over many generations.

DamianWarS · May 12, 2019

Jason0047 said:
Why do you think there was a Dictionary on both French and English in 1593?

A dictionary French and English, 1593 [by] Claude Desainliens. (1970 edition) | Open Library.

Wikipedia states,
Although Anglo-Norman and Anglo-French were eventually eclipsed by modern English, they had been used widely enough to influence English vocabulary permanently.

Anglo-Norman language - Wikipedia

Webster's 1828 dictionary (Which is before 1872 dictionary) says,

Tradition:

1. Delivery; the act of delivering into the hands of another.
2. The delivery of opinions, doctrines, practices, rites and customs from father to son, ...."

Source:
Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.

It says delivery of doctrines, etc. from father to son. It does not state that it has to be over many generations. It can simply be from one person to another.

Paul was delivering His message from Jesus Christ (which is from one person to another), and not from many generations past. So the word "traditions" does not have to mean that is a thing that is over many generations.

you are approaching this irresponsibly and misusing information to support your idea and it's not even relatively but very objectively. For some reason, you cling to this idea that 17th century English speakers intended a 13 century old French meaning of a word and then cite the presence of a 16th century French and English dictionary as your proof. You may have a point with the word "tradition" but I can't accept it when you are so careless and unethical with your sources. You're going to have to have a higher standard when it comes to using other sources if you want people to take you seriously.

Bible Highlighter · May 12, 2019

DamianWarS said:
you are approaching this irresponsibly and misusing information to support your idea and it's not even relatively but very objectively. For some reason, you cling to this idea that 17th century English speakers intended a 13 century old French meaning of a word and then cite the presence of a 16th century French and English dictionary as your proof. You may have a point with the word "tradition" but I can't accept it when you are so careless and unethical with your sources. You're going to have to have a higher standard when it comes to using other sources if you want people to take you seriously.

It's not a mishandling of a source. Why do you think they quote a french word for the etymology of an English word? Think man. It's not because they are unrelated!!!

Again, one more time:

Another article of Wikipedia states:

"Early Modern English – the language used by Shakespeare – is dated from around 1500. It incorporated many Renaissance-era loans from Latin and Ancient Greek, as well as borrowings from other European languages, including French, German and Dutch."

Source:
History of English - Wikipedia

That is why Noah's Webster 1828 defines tradition as "delivery" or "the act of delivery into the hands of another" in it's first definition. This lines up with the French meaning of the word in the 13th century.

Think. The meaning of the word "tradition" has it's origins in the french word.
The root meaning of the word "tradition" basically means "teaching."

Also, how do you explain that the teachings of Jesus are relatively new and not old being from many past generations? Do you truly believe that by the time Paul had written about "traditions" for many generations AFTER Jesus? Surely not.

Bible Highlighter · May 12, 2019

DamianWarS said:
you are approaching this irresponsibly and misusing information to support your idea and it's not even relatively but very objectively. For some reason, you cling to this idea that 17th century English speakers intended a 13 century old French meaning of a word and then cite the presence of a 16th century French and English dictionary as your proof. You may have a point with the word "tradition" but I can't accept it when you are so careless and unethical with your sources. You're going to have to have a higher standard when it comes to using other sources if you want people to take you seriously.

Even the word in the Strong's confirms the truth that "tradition" is teaching.

Strong's G3862 - paradosis - παράδοσις

Definition:

Objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching.

You can see ALSO see the word "teachings" used instead of using the word "traditions" in 11 different bible translations at Biblegateway, as well. So it is not just my opinion alone.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Bible Gateway

Actually this would be 12 if you count the Weymouth New Testament at Biblehub.

Bible Highlighter · May 12, 2019

2 Thessalonians 2:15 in various Modern Translations say:

ERV
So, brothers and sisters, stand strong and continue to believe the teachings we gave you when we were there and by letter.

EHV
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold on to the teachings that were passed along to you, either by word of mouth or by a letter from us.

EXB
So, brothers and sisters, stand ·strong [firm] and ·continue to believe [hold fast to; grasp firmly] the teachings we gave you [ traditions you were taught] in our speaking and in our [whether through our word or our] letter.

ICB
So, brothers, stand strong and continue to believe the teachings we gave you. We taught you those things in our speaking and in our letter to you.

PHILLIPS
Be loyal to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or in writings.

NCV
So, brothers and sisters, stand strong and continue to believe the teachings we gave you in our speaking and in our letter.

NIRV
Brothers and sisters, remain strong in the faith. Hold on to what we taught you. We passed our teachings on to you by what we preached and wrote.

NIV
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

NIVUK
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

TPT
So then, dear family, stand firm with a masterful grip of the teachings we gave you, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

VOICE
So, brothers and sisters, all you need to do now is stand firm and hold tight to the line of teachings we have passed on to you, whether in person or in a letter.

Weymouth New Testament
So then, brethren, stand your ground, and hold fast to the teachings which you have received from us, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

ViaCrucis · May 13, 2019

Tone said:
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...

No, the Church could not survive without the teaching and faith which has been preserved throughout history.

-CryptoLutheran

Bible Highlighter · May 13, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
No, the Church could not survive without the teaching and faith which has been preserved throughout history.

-CryptoLutheran

The teaching and the faith that was preserved is God's Word, i.e. the Bible; There is nothing else besides that. In fact, in most cases the extra biblical added traditions usually contradict God's Word (i.e. the Bible). This is a repeat of history. For there is nothing new under the sun.

BNR32FAN · May 13, 2019

Tone said:
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...

Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail over His church. So whether or not the church can survive without the Bible or tradition irrelevant. Nothing that is necessary for the church’s survival will be lost because the church itself cannot be lost.

DamianWarS · May 13, 2019

Jason0047 said:
It's not a mishandling of a source. Why do you think they quote a french word for the etymology of an English word? Think man. It's not because they are unrelated!!!

Again, one more time:

Another article of Wikipedia states:

"Early Modern English – the language used by Shakespeare – is dated from around 1500. It incorporated many Renaissance-era loans from Latin and Ancient Greek, as well as borrowings from other European languages, including French, German and Dutch."

Source:
History of English - Wikipedia

That is why Noah's Webster 1828 defines tradition as "delivery" or "the act of delivery into the hands of another" in it's first definition. This lines up with the French meaning of the word in the 13th century.

Think. The meaning of the word "tradition" has it's origins in the french word.
The root meaning of the word "tradition" basically means "teaching."

French is not the context (certainly not old French), the etymology of a word is not the definition of a word, it is the history of the word. your main source was etymonline.com and by its own explanation it agrees with the modern day use of the word and there is no updated meaning since the 14c use meaning that since the 14c English speakers have been using this word in this context.

There is no reason to pull a more archaic meaning out and if your only doing so because you don't like the other meaning then this is bias and you are mishandling the information. And this is all by the way in a KJV vacuum which in itself is irresponsible.

the English tradition is influenced by the old French "tradicion" and the Latin "traditionem". this is also what etymonline.com confirms but what you leave out. Their meanings, however, are secondary to the understood English meaning which is the 14c.

Jason0047 said:
Also, how do you explain that the teachings of Jesus are relatively new and not old being from many past generations? Do you truly believe that by the time Paul had written about "traditions" for many generations AFTER Jesus? Surely not.

tradition isn't used elusively in the NT for the "new" gospel message and it has older contexts. For example the traditions of the Pharisees which is brought up many times in the gospels.

the largest issue you are arguing here is semantics and so highly relative. I recognize tradition and teaching have overlap and in context can be somewhat analogous terms and you may even have a point in some cases. But you can't say because it's this way here and it means it's that way in everywhere. those versions you identify that translate 1Th2:15 with "teachings" don't translate the word this way each time and it seems to be a Thessalonian context where the other uses are translated as "tradition". The KJV also uses the word "Tradition" and if you do value it above all else I don't know why you are trying to superimpose a 13c meaning overtop of it. You do know when the KJV was written don't you?

There is an unfairness you are applying to the text and a strong bias is being exposed. There are simply more responsible and ethical ways of coming to the same conclusions that you are choosing not to do and because of this regardless of what potential point you may be making I cannot take it seriously because it is corrupted by a strong bias that you seem to be blind to.

Bible Highlighter · May 13, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail over His church. So whether or not the church can survive without the Bible or tradition irrelevant. Nothing that is necessary for the church’s survival will be lost because the church itself cannot be lost.

I believe it is relevant that is either "Scripture Alone" vs. "Scripture + Extra Biblical Church Traditions" because either one is right and the other is wrong; Or church traditions do not present a problem to the faith (even though Jesus had a problem with the tradition of the Pharisees because they violated God's Word - Scripture). By what you said, you most likely believe that extra biblical church traditions do not present a problem. First, we know about the truth that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church because of Scripture or the Bible. Second, to not recognize the many problems in the extra biblical traditions in churches is to not to be aware of what the Bible says in many places (as a part of a warning). We are told to call no man our father, and yet a tradition violates this. We are warned not to forbid to marry, and yet a tradition of a church violates this.

Bible Highlighter · May 13, 2019

DamianWarS said:
French is not the context (certainly not old French), the etymology of a word is not the definition of a word, it is the history of the word. your main source was etymonline.com and by its own explanation it agrees with the modern day use of the word and there is no updated meaning since the 14c use meaning that since the 14c English speakers have been using this word in this context.

There is no reason to pull a more archaic meaning out and if your only doing so because you don't like the other meaning then this is bias and you are mishandling the information. And this is all by the way in a KJV vacuum which in itself is irresponsible.

the English tradition is influenced by the old French "tradicion" and the Latin "traditionem". this is also what etymonline.com confirms but what you leave out. Their meanings, however, are secondary to the understood English meaning which is the 14c.

tradition isn't used elusively in the NT for the "new" gospel message and it has older contexts. For example the traditions of the Pharisees which is brought up many times in the gospels.

the largest issue you are arguing here is semantics and so highly relative. I recognize tradition and teaching have overlap and in context can be somewhat analogous terms and you may even have a point in some cases. But you can't say because it's this way here and it means it's that way in everywhere. those versions you identify that translate 1Th2:15 with "teachings" don't translate the word this way each time and it seems to be a Thessalonian context where the other uses are translated as "tradition". The KJV also uses the word "Tradition" and if you do value it above all else I don't know why you are trying to superimpose a 13c meaning overtop of it. You do know when the KJV was written don't you?

There is an unfairness you are applying to the text and a strong bias is being exposed. There are simply more responsible and ethical ways of coming to the same conclusions that you are choosing not to do and because of this regardless of what potential point you may be making I cannot take it seriously because it is corrupted by a strong bias that you seem to be blind to.

Again, we can go back and forth with word games involving the dictionary until the cows come home (Which would probably be never), but you are ignoring the big elephant in the room. If the word "traditions" meant a teaching passed down over many generations it would simply not be true based on what we know about the dates involved. Jesus was crucified sometime between 30AD to 36AD (approximately). Paul's letter to the Thessalonian church is dated about 50 AD (approximately). So that is fourteen or twenty years of time. That is not enough time to be a "tradition" in the sense of being a generation to generation teaching (Which is the stressing of importance upon that word so as to validate a generation to generation type teaching that many Catholic and Orthodox stress). Also, nothing is said in the context that Paul said to the Thessalonian church that they had to keep two unique forms of teachings as a way of preservation. He merely wanted them to obey him in what he taught them in person and by epistle (the written Word of God, Scripture). Paul never said,

"Now when you keep my words, keep them in two unique ways. I want you to teach from generation to generation in both an auditory way only and also in written form that I have given to you."

But this is not what Paul or another part of Scripture says. Folks have merely twisted Paul's words around on seeking the obedience of the Thessalonian church so as to justify their extra biblical church traditions that violate Scripture (God's Word). No doubt this is why you have not answered this point so far.

Furthermore, the Bible also makes no mention that if we do not obey church traditions that we are condemned, either. But the Bible does say that if we do not keep the words of Jesus, those words will condemn us on the last day (See John 12:48). In fact, Jesus and the apostles never quoted "extra biblical traditions," either. There is no reference to any of the extra biblical traditions that we see in the many churches today.

yeshuaslavejeff · May 13, 2019

David Cabrera said:
A lot of Christians can think anything they want and they will be different from other Christians.

When it comes to truth,
when two different people, or 2000 different people, all believe the truth (about something),
they do not think differently about that,
but are in agreement.

yeshuaslavejeff · May 13, 2019

Featured Can the Church Survive Without man's tradition?

Yes. Of course it can.

BNR32FAN · May 13, 2019

Jason0047 said:
I believe it is relevant that is either "Scripture Alone" vs. "Scripture + Extra Biblical Church Traditions" because either one is right and the other is wrong; Or church traditions do not present a problem to the faith (even though Jesus had a problem with the tradition of the Pharisees because they violated God's Word - Scripture). By what you said, you most likely believe that extra biblical church traditions do not present a problem. First, we know about the truth that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church because of Scripture or the Bible. Second, to not recognize the many problems in the extra biblical traditions in churches is to not to be aware of what the Bible says in many places (as a part of a warning). We are told to call no man our father, and yet a tradition violates this. We are warned not to forbid to marry, and yet a tradition of a church violates this.

I agree that the church insisting on bishops and priests to be called Father is probably not a good idea but it was accepted by the entire church. As far as forbidding marriage Paul also told us

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?”
‭‭2 CORINTHIANS‬ ‭6:14‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Your quote of 1 Timothy 4:3 is out of context tho. Paul says in verse 1

“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,”
‭‭1 TIMOTHY‬ ‭4:1‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Forbidding marriage was advocated by all of the church not only some. Since we know that the gates of hell cannot prevail over the church, then anything that was taught by the entire church is not apostasy including calling priests & bishops father. Therefore any traditions that were taught by the entire church are not apostasy otherwise evil would have prevailed over the church.

yeshuaslavejeff · May 13, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
I agree that the church insisting on bishops and priests to be called Father is probably not a good idea but it was accepted by the entire church.

No.
It never was accepted by all the followers of Jesus,
and still is not.

Can the Church Survive Without man's tradition?

Friend

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Confessional Lutheran

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

He’s a Way of life

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

He’s a Way of life

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Similar threads