Authority of Tradition?

[FundamentalistJohn]

Recently another thread made me start to think about the place of Tradition amongst Fundamentalists. I know we have some Baptists here, some Anglicans, I think some Presbyterians.

I would like to ask what place does Tradition play in your Church's formation of doctrine and do you feel that the stance is correct, or incorrect and why?

In my church we strive to follow Scripture alone in the recognition and formation of doctrine we strive to understand the culture in which that Scripture was written, its purpose, its audience and the conditions under which it was inspired. Of course we realize that we are fallible and we strive to be charitable in receiving honest criticisms of our doctrinal stance.

I personally feel that this is the biblical method but I suppose if I didn't I wouldn't be there.

OK ask any questions you want and please leave your response for others to read as well.

FJ

 

[Hentenza]

Traditions based on scripture are necessary for growth and teaching. Traditions not based in scripture are the false teachings that we have been warned about.

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm fine with tradition as long as it does not superceed scripture.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JSGuitarist]

Well, our church has only two traditions that I can think of; communion and baptism.

 

[Sphinx777]

​

 

[synger]

Tradition is all well and good. It can give us a framework for our personal and corporate worship, and how our church is run (elders? deacons? pastor or minister?), and things like that.

But Scripture trumps tradition every time. Scripture gives us the meat. Tradition provides the plate from which we eat. The plate can change (does it matter if we have chairs or pews, or we have "contemporary" service or a centuries-old liturgy), but the doctrine, morals, ethics and teachings from Scripture remain unchangeable.

I think the real debate comes up on those things that to one group are considered merely tradition and to others are considered Scriptural -- like baptism and communion, order of worship, etc.

Traditions aren't just pulled from thin air. But we also have to be aware that Scripture is silent on a lot of the "how do we do things" questions. Where it is silent, we should not then insist on doing it our way as the only way.

 

[cubanito]

As a Presby, I can tell you that there are some among us that substitute the traditions of men for Scripture. They deny doing so, supposing the traditions they follow are from Scripture, but it is plainly not so.

One example: there are some who hold to "the Regulative Principle" which supposes, with NO Scriptural warrant, that if it is not mentioned as part of worship in the Bible, it should no be done in worship now. Well, some of these people then insist that the only proper singing in Church is from the book of Psalms, and that no instruments are to be used. The absurdity of this opinion, considering all the musical notations scattered throughout Psalms and the MANY instruments mentioned at the end, is plain for anyone who cares to think. And yet they persist in their man made traditions, which are contrary to Scripture. Amazing...

At least we fundys are at least willing to admit the principle that Scripture trumps tradition. As to our occasional blindness in recognizing what is purely tradition, and what is truly Biblical, well, we are a work in progress...

JR

 

[Sketcher]

Scripture records the earliest tradition, so if any tradition contradicts Scripture, which many do, then that tradition is not the right Tradition.

 

[cubanito]

Interestingly, one such is that there was a Church at Rome BEFORE either Paul or Peter ever went there. In fact, at the very first ecumenical council, held among the Apostles at Jerusalem, it was agreed that Peter was to evangelize the JEWS, and Paul the gentiles. Thus if anybody had gone to Rome, it would have been Paul. So, the last we hear of Peter, he was in Asia minor, not Rome.

Could Peter have wound up at Rome? Perhaps so, but if he ever went there (and I think he probably did), it was long after others had been bishops of Rome. Even man's tradition claims that Paul was at Rome before Peter ever went there.

Ergo, all ancient tradition is wrong, and self-contradictory to boot. Peter could NOT have been the first Bishop of Rome, else Scripture lies in many places.

How such a simple observation seems missing from every commentary and historical survey even by Protestants I have ever read astonishes me.

JR

 

[AnneSally]

I don't go to church, so I guess I don't follow "tradition."

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Well not going to Church is a Tradition to some.

FJ

 

[Sphinx777]

Well not going to Church is a Tradition to some.

FJ

​

 

[LivingWordUnity]

.

 

[OldStudent]

How did Jesus respond to tradition? Tradition has a place in the lore of a culture. It has a place in human bonding in families, regions, nations. It does a great deal in establishing order in society. But its "authority" in the Christian "tradition" always plays at most second fiddle to Scripture. Where tradition crossed Scripture (say Old Testament) Jesus left no doubt about the fate of tradition.

He had numerous altercations regarding traditions vs the Sabbath - not about day but about observance and attitudes. He got in dutch about washing hands and He corrected them about honoring their parents. He was bothered about piddly details in tithing while missing weightier matters of justice and mercy.

One of my mindsets is to adjust any tradition by Scripture where statement or principle points it out.

 

[cubanito]

Jesus had more tolerance for thieves, prostitutes and those who compromised for money (ie tax collectors) than for those who elevated human tradition above what is WRITTEN. The language used by JC for those who looked to the priestly hierarchy of His day ought give serious pause to those that today elevate other hierarchies based on oral traditions, and the non-canonical writings of various clergy.

JR

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

a lot of traditions have really beautiful, edifying roots. When done with a sincere faith and heart, can be very enriching. But unfortunately, because traditions are more easily 'seen', it is easy to get caught up in focussing only on the traditions and not the heart underneath...
Which is one reason why Scripture needs to be first, so our hearts can be turned to God.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Apostle Paul said that any tradition that was based on men and not scripture or Christ, was no tradition at all.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." -Col. 2:8 (KJV)

After all, the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, speak of no one but Jesus Christ.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cubanito]

The Apostle Paul said that any tradition that was based on men and not scripture or Christ, was no tradition at all.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." -Col. 2:8 (KJV)

After all, the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, speak of no one but Jesus Christ.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I'm sorry, I don't get what you are saying, nor remember anywhere in Scripture were Paul condemned non-Biblical traditions in and of themselves. To clarify, I am NOT referring to any human based tradition which contradicts Scripture, those are evil. Nor am I saying that traditions, allowed to grow unchecked by the pruning of Scripture won't eventually run afoul of God. I agree ANYTHING man does, and especially traditions, can be turned to evil.

However, kept in it's place, understood as a tool, which like any tool can be used for Good or evil, I do not see where human traditions are necessarily evil. I agree w the other poster, some traditions are helpful, beautiful and comforting.

Like most men, I put on my shirt right sleeve first. Most women do the opposite, and similarly their blouses button from the opposite side of mine. this is all tradition. Assuming we do not make this a Commandment of God, where is the evil in these traditions of dress?

Yes, BE CAREFUL not to be ensnared by philosophies and traditions, BUT that should not be translated to mean that all philosophies and traditions are necessarily snares. Yes, some traditions are directly evil, but others are merely tools to help us live in harmony with fellow man which are, at least for now, not yet evil.

JR

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

My church (Assemblies of God) isn't especially big on tradition for tradition's sake. But AG has Methodist roots and some theology in common with Methodism.

There's one Methodist tool in particular that I find useful, called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.


Upon examination of Wesley's work, Outler theorized that Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. The four sources are:

• Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
• Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
• Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
• Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ

In practice, at least one of the Wesleyan denominations, The United Methodist Church, asserts that “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’” (The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church-2004, p. 77).


I guess this, along with being Pentecostal (and thus accepting the possibility of direct personal revelations) makes me prima scriptura rather than sola scriptura.

Prima scriptura is a doctrine that says canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" sources of divine revelation.

Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.

 

[NorrinRadd]

In actual practice, is there a difference between "Sola Scriptura" and "Prima Scriptura"? The only version of "SS" that I've really encountered (other than the strawmen paraded by critics) says something along the lines that Scripture is the only "authoritative and infallible" revelation from God. That leaves open the possibility of other ones that are "lower," so to speak, and subject to Scripture -- which sounds a lot like PS.