Can the Church Survive Without man's tradition?

Gracia Singh said:

Well I think, honestly, even if you gave five random men Bibles and told them to form their own congregations around what they thought the NT was saying or meaning, their own traditions would develop.

Click to expand...

And all five would create their own thing

Michael Collum said:

I think the church can, it just needs to disband every generation to ensure people born into it don't assume things that cannot be known in a yes box.

Click to expand...

Yes, while scripture is the standard, man's traditions and interpretations of scripture should be subject to scrutiny in light of scripture. Such is the honorable thing to do. "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11 However over the last 2000 years there have been scarcely any churches or denominations which have allowed their traditions, their interpretations to be scrutinized. And those of a Berean spirit are largely suppressed and driven out of churches. Even the typical format and regulations of churches don't allow such scrutiny.

Also better term than "man's traditions" would be "man's application of one's interpretation of scripture.", the debate surrounding issues of whether the interpretation is correct and the application appropriate for such an interpretation.

Gracia Singh said:

And inevitably, those traditions would interpret Scripture.

Click to expand...

Sort the cart before the horse. Kind of reading interpretations into scripture that agree with one's chosen lifestyle, rather than reading out of scripture and scrutinizing traditions in light of scripture.

The problem is that most traditions I have seen today violate God's Word, i.e. the Bible (in some way). This is not a maybe or a possibility but simply the truth for those who want to see it. The traditions (teachings) Paul is talking about could either be an oral form of record keeping or Scripture (the apostles had written) and it would not be something known as what folks think are traditions today (i.e. like church traditions). How do we know this? Just read the context for 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6. The context does not say anything about how they need to pass down or preserve two distinct types of teachings (one being oral and the other being written). For example: In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul is merely saying to hold to his teachings that he taught in person and by written letters (Scripture). This means in the present moment. This does not mean to create two distinct forms of teachings with one labeled as "traditions" and the other labeled as "Scripture." For Paul calls these traditions (teachings) as being communicated in an oral form and in a written form. Yet, today, many refer to Scripture and tradition as two different things.

In other words, in order for church traditions to be trust worthy or true, they need to be clearly spoke about in the Bible as being distinct from Scripture. Yet, we know that church tradition is nowhere near on the same level of the holy nature of Scripture; It's not even close.

Jason0047 said:

It is hard to keep track of everyone. I only go off what a person says. Your previous conversations with me implied an Easy Believism type Gospel to me and that believers can commit unrepentant grievous sin (on some level) and still be saved. For why would you say that Jesus called sinners and not mention the other important part that says He calls them to repentance? This type of talk can clearly lead a person to think that holiness (or holy living) is not required to see God.

Click to expand...

I believe you have both me and Jesus confused brother. I do agree that we must refrain from sin but inevitably we will all fail no matter how hard we try. I don’t believe we will achieve glorification in this life. Despite our best efforts we will still continue to stumble in sin from time to time thus we are still sinners. I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t sin or even claim to not sin except 1 or 2 people here on CF which I still don’t believe. Jesus’ reference to repentance pertains to turning to God. Now I’m not saying that we can just excuse our sins by using excuses like oh well I can’t stop sinning so it’s ok to go to a strip club and get drunk because Jesus will forgive me later. That’s not repentance, that’s the type of sin mentioned in Hebrews 6. It’s willfully, knowingly, and intentionally sinning and I’ve seen so many who claim to be Christians stumble like this. They use Christ’s atonement as an excuse to do whatever they want. I believe this is the type of Christians mentioned in Matthew 7:21-23.

Dave-W said:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us


2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us

Click to expand...

But i didnt receive any tradition from Paul, all i have are his written commands. Also mans tradition today cant be proved to be the same as Pauls, so why should i follow it?

W2L said:

But i didnt receive any tradition from Paul, all i have are his written commands. Also mans tradition today cant be proved to be the same as Pauls, so why should i follow it?

Click to expand...

Not wanting to research this, the church in the next century REJECTED the very Jewish based traditions Paul brought with him.

Dave-W said:

Not wanting to research this, the church in the next century REJECTED the very Jewish based traditions Paul brought with him.

Click to expand...

What traditions? Are you saying we should reject Pauls doctrine?

W2L said:

What traditions? Are you saying we should reject Pauls doctrine?

Click to expand...

Not at all. First century Jewish tradition and Paul’s doctrines are not as incompatible as you may think.

BNR32FAN said:

I believe you have both me and Jesus confused brother. I do agree that we must refrain from sin but inevitably we will all fail no matter how hard we try. I don’t believe we will achieve glorification in this life. Despite our best efforts we will still continue to stumble in sin from time to time thus we are still sinners. I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t sin or even claim to not sin except 1 or 2 people here on CF which I still don’t believe. Jesus’ reference to repentance pertains to turning to God. Now I’m not saying that we can just excuse our sins by using excuses like oh well I can’t stop sinning so it’s ok to go to a strip club and get drunk because Jesus will forgive me later. That’s not repentance, that’s the type of sin mentioned in Hebrews 6. It’s willfully, knowingly, and intentionally sinning and I’ve seen so many who claim to be Christians stumble like this. They use Christ’s atonement as an excuse to do whatever they want. I believe this is the type of Christians mentioned in Matthew 7:21-23.

Click to expand...

Well, I am not referring to faults of character or minor transgressions like going over the speed limit a little or not taking the trash out the other night when you knew you should have (i.e. to be perfect, or Sinless Perfection). A believer must put away grievous sin (or serious sin that the Bible says can lead to spiritual death or a loss of salvation) in this life. Grievous sins are murder, hate, lust, adultery, theft, Yes, it can be a continual process or battle for many believers. Believers need to fight to overcome grievous sin, and they should not say that they must refrain from sin (grievous sin) but they will never succeed. That is a like a drunk who says they must resist drinking alcohol, and yet they say they will never overcome or recover from their alcoholism. Such a person would simply still be a drunk still on the road to their own destruction. It would be like an axe murderer who says they should refrain from murdering others, but yet they contradict themselves by saying they will never stop. Such are positions of defeat to sin and the devil. For if one strives to overcome and knows they will never succeed, they are already defeated before they start. God is not into us justifying grievous sin. God wants us to overcome our serious sin (even despite if we may think it may be impossible or seems really really hard to do so). In the Old Testament, God was able to help men of God overcome great odds in battle. God helped them to do what should have been impossible under normal circumstances without the involvement of God's power.

Anyways, to see verses on overcoming sin, and God calling us to be perfect, check out this thread here:

The Scriptures Teaching on Sinless Perfection.

Note: I will not talk about the topic of "Sinless Perfection" or "To be perfect" (even though the Bible says this) because it is not allowed in this section of the forums. Please keep in mind I do not believe that not having reached a state of "Sinless Perfection" relates to whether or not someone is saved. But I do believe it is important to know because it relates somewhat to overcoming grievous sin in this life (Which does relate to salvation). There is a bare minimum level of holiness (or holy living) that every believer must meet to be saved. For we are called to overcome and we are not called to be a defeated people.

Dave-W said:

Not at all. First century Jewish tradition and Paul’s doctrines are not as incompatible as you may think.

Click to expand...

I see.

Jason0047 said:

The problem is that most traditions I have seen today violate God's Word, i.e. the Bible (in some way).

Click to expand...

I'd go so far as to say all of them, to one extent or another.

in order for church traditions to be trust worthy or true, they need to be clearly spoke about in the Bible as being distinct from Scripture. Yet, we know that church tradition is nowhere near on the same level of the holy nature of Scripture; It's not even close.

Click to expand...

Most church traditions now are effectively overlays over Scripture to keep the Scripture from damaging a favorite doctrine. The people who subscribe to those traditions generally see them as inseparable from the Scripture itself. The Scripture is assigned the meaning that is is necessary for it to appear to support the tradition.

Jipsah said:

I'd go so far as to say all of them, to one extent or another.

Most church traditions now are effectively overlays over Scripture to keep the Scripture from damaging a favorite doctrine. The people who subscribe to those traditions generally see them as inseparable from the Scripture itself. The Scripture is assigned the meaning that is is necessary for it to appear to support the tradition.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I just don't see that way. I have yet to find a church tradition that does not conflict with Scripture.

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...

Click to expand...

Given that the Church existed for centuries without a universally recognized NT canon, people who believe the Church can "survive without the Bible" sort of have a leg to stand on.

I wouldn’t want to survive without the bible. After all the doctrinal learning about mankind’s place in the big picture, whether using the scripture or tradition to determine the position, only after all these years of eating the meat and casting away the bones, only now is the trust of God revealing the thoughts of God about Himself, and if the scripture were unavailable so would be the revealing.

Tone said:

Well, the Bible is more than just the NT canon...

Click to expand...

Quite true but "the Bible" consists of the complete canon. And, as I say, the Church existed (thrived, even) without a recognized NT canon for centuries.

Humanly speaking, the NT was created by the Church. The Church was not established by the NT.

thecolorsblend said:

Humanly speaking,

Click to expand...

uh huh

.

thecolorsblend said:

Quite true but "the Bible" consists of the complete canon. And, as I say, the Church existed (thrived, even) without a recognized NT canon for centuries.

Humanly speaking, the NT was created by the Church. The Church was not established by the NT.

Click to expand...

The church had NT scripture in the beginning.