Can the Church Survive Without man's tradition?

[com7fy8]

What does qualify as a legit and godly tradition?

Families have traditions, like everyone getting together for a reunion during the summer. They are looking forward to seeing each other, after a year of being away from one another. They want to see how the children have become, in relating with one another. They are looking forward to having nice things prepared to eat, by the wives. And go out to eat and to the beach. But it is mainly about being with each other.

A love tradition. Not only things to do or how you have to do things by a certain outward procedure. They desire to do it, because they don't want to miss out on the love. They benefit from it, so they want to keep doing it.

So, if a tradition mainly has me keeping track of myself, to make sure I do a certain thing . . . while others are around me but we aren't even paying any attention to each other . . . while maybe I am bending over or looking at a statue or someone I don't even know . . . may be this is not a love tradition.

But what about Colossians 3:15?

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

I can turn this into a self-righteous thing, of me trying to get myself to have some feeling of being submissive to God in His peace. And then I can get myself to feel like I am being personally moved by God to do what He wants . . . supposedly in His peace, but really only in some nicer smoother feeling. And I can feel like I am so super-spritual and have such status because I am doing this and no one else is.

But being ruled by God's peace is "in one body" > loving one another. So, when I wake up in the morning, possibly I do well to look forward to being in reunion with God and my brothers and sisters in God's peace, so we are praying with each other, not only by myself > in His peace guiding us to be praying and so sharing "in one body", in union with one another wherever we all are, God guiding us all together in this peace ruling how we are and all He has us doing though we do not see each other . . . like how we love our Groom Jesus, "though now you do not see Him" (in 1 Peter 1:8). And we are discovering how now we are becoming today, as His children, and looking forward to how He will have us loving each other, all through the day, and reaching with care and hope to ones who still do not so share with Him and us.

So, this is so good, that this is what we would first want to do, in the morning . . . like how a family so desires to get back with each other for a reunion.

So, possibly being ruled by God's peace in our hearts needs to be a tradition > a family love and reunion tradition, what we are looking forward to doing, all day long, each day, by how You have us being submissive to You, Lord, all the time

 

[-Sasha-]

Also, ask if your motive is 100% pure in following traditions. Many times it is family that influences one to follow an Orthodox or Catholic Faith. For they are not known for evangelism. So it was not ever really something about seeking the truth but following a path laid out by your family because love them. But Jesus essentially says we have to love Him more than our family.

In my experience in the US, many Orthodox Christians are in fact converts. The evangelism style is different, but still present. It seems more along the lines of "taste and see." In any case, I can't imagine you're actually advocating against parents teaching their children about God, or that you believe a person who has come to God thanks to their parents instruction rather than through self-discovery is somehow less a Christian than others? According to people I've talked to who were raised in the Church, they still do their personal searching and learning once they've gotten a bit older.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I doubt it. The last days have been declared since the beginning of the new covenant by the apostles. The perilous times spoken of indicate people forbid marrying and forbid eating certain types of food. This kind of indicates in one way, dietary laws make a come back, and marriage of some sort is forbidden somehow.

Since this is something "the Holy Spirit expressly says" Solo scripture isn't recommended.

I was referring to 2 Timothy 3:1-9. If you were to read 2 Timothy 3:1-9 (please actually read it - preferably in the King James), you will see that it says in the last days perilous times will come and men will have a form of godliness but they will deny the power thereof. They will be lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. A basic comparison of the early church today and the regular church we see today shows the contrast that the early church lived godly and they helped the poor and they preached the gospel along with the training the brethren to live holy and righteous (overall). Yes, some churches like the Corinthian church had their problems (1 Corinthians 3-6), but it is not so widespread like it is today. Today, we are living in a spiritual wasteland. Nobody seems to understand basic truths like repentance (Which is the Sinner's Prayer), and nobody is interested in teaching others in how to live holy today. People are interested in doing their own thing or some church tradition. But what about the Word of God? It sits on the shelf collecting dust and is cracked open once every Sunday only to hear the preacher say a few words from it with the congregation saying... "Amen." There is no true study of the Scriptures today from an unbiased or objective viewpoint. All teachings are seen by the light of other men. They follow the names of other men and call themselves after these men (Even though Scripture condemns this - 1 Corinthians 3). Most I talk with are justifying sin on some kind of level (Whether it be traditions that violate God's Word, or whether it be a sin and still be saved doctrine of some kind). I believe there are very few today who are truly seeking to follow Jesus. Following Jesus seems more like an afterthought or wishful thinking today and or it is turned into "their version" of following Jesus instead of how it is described in God's Word (the Bible).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In my experience in the US, many Orthodox Christians are in fact converts. The evangelism style is different, but still present. It seems more along the lines of "taste and see." In any case, I can't imagine you're actually advocating against parents teaching their children about God, or that you believe a person who has come to God thanks to their parents instruction rather than through self-discovery is somehow less a Christian than others? According to people I've talked to who were raised in the Church, they still do their personal searching and learning once they've gotten a bit older.

I think the question every believer needs to ask themselves when they read the Bible is.... "Does my church look like that?" Jesus told the disciples to go out to all nations and to preach the gospel to every creature. Yet, if you were to look at the Orthodox or Catholic church, they are not really doing this.

Here is what one Orthodox Christian said on a social network.

"I agree with the people who've talked to you about this: I don't think we evangelize and I'm glad we don't. Our job is to keep the faith intact and pass it down without change. Since it will last until the end of time, what's the rush?"​

What's the rush? What about lost souls that need saving? For are we not to spread the good news to all nations? If we are not spreading the good news, we are ignoring the great commission of Jesus Christ. We are not really loving the lost. Granted, while parents should train their child up in the things of God that it is not the great commission. Also, training one's child should be with the Scriptures and not a church with their traditions. The Bible talks about training your child up in the way of the Scriptures and not some passed down tradition outside of Scripture.

 

[GingerBeer]

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...

Isn't everything in every Church man's tradition?

 

[-Sasha-]

I think the question every believer needs to ask themselves when they read the Bible is.... "Does my church look like that?" Jesus told the disciples to go out to all nations and to preach the gospel to every creature. Yet, if you were to look at the Orthodox or Catholic church, they are not really doing this.

Here is what one Orthodox Christian said on a social network.

"I agree with the people who've talked to you about this: I don't think we evangelize and I'm glad we don't. Our job is to keep the faith intact and pass it down without change. Since it will last until the end of time, what's the rush?"​

What's the rush? What about lost souls that need saving? For are we not to spread the good news to all nations? If we are not spreading the good news, we are ignoring the great commission of Jesus Christ. We are not really loving the lost. Granted, while parents should train their child up in the things of God that it is not the great commission. Also, training one's child should be with the Scriptures and not a church with their traditions. The Bible talks about training your child up in the way of the Scriptures and not some passed down tradition outside of Scripture.

I can't claim to be any sort of expert on what the RCC does or doesn't do, but are there not Orthodox and Catholic churches in nations all over the world? The fact that the evangelism may not be the style you engage in (or prefer be engaged in) doesn't negate the fact that they have spread far off from where they began. I wouldn't take the word of "one Orthodox Christian on social media", but rather look at the actual real world presence. In any case, keeping the faith intact is an important prerequisite for conveying it to people, is it not?

I'm not sure why you think that because a parent takes their children to a particular Church, they are not also training them in the Scriptures? In all my experience interacting with parents who have children in the Church, they read and study the Scripture with them also. Both at home, and in Bible study classes. It is not either/or. Many of the traditional expressions within the Orthodox Church also have basis in Scripture. The Creed has Scriptural sources. The Liturgy is comprised mainly of references from Scripture. So I am not sure what exactly you're getting at.

For the record, my position on the question which prompted this thread (could the Church survive without Scripture), is that if somehow all Bibles and theological writings were to disappear, the people who practice what they teach - the people who love God - could recreate them...perhaps not word for word, but in the same Spirit. I believe the same is true of the vast majority of the Church Traditions - if something catastrophic happened and they were somehow all lost, they too could be recreated. However perhaps one large difference between us, is that I don't place Scripture as being outside of Tradition. Rather it is the most complete articulation of it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I can't claim to be any sort of expert on what the RCC does or doesn't do, but are there not Orthodox and Catholic churches in nations all over the world? The fact that the evangelism may not be the style you engage in (or prefer be engaged in) doesn't negate the fact that they have spread far off from where they began. I wouldn't take the word of "one Orthodox Christian on social media", but rather look at the actual real world presence. In any case, keeping the faith intact is an important prerequisite for conveying it to people, is it not?

I'm not sure why you think that because a parent takes their children to a particular Church, they are not also training them in the Scriptures? In all my experience interacting with parents who have children in the Church, they read and study the Scripture with them also. Both at home, and in Bible study classes. It is not either/or. Many of the traditional expressions within the Orthodox Church also have basis in Scripture. The Creed has Scriptural sources. The Liturgy is comprised mainly of references from Scripture. So I am not sure what exactly you're getting at.

For the record, my position on the question which prompted this thread (could the Church survive without Scripture), is that if somehow all Bibles and theological writings were to disappear, the people who practice what they teach - the people who love God - could recreate them...perhaps not word for word, but in the same Spirit. I believe the same is true of the vast majority of the Church Traditions - if something catastrophic happened and they were somehow all lost, they too could be recreated. However perhaps one large difference between us, is that I don't place Scripture as being outside of Tradition. Rather it is the most complete articulation of it.

There are actual clear commands to preach the gospel. The fact that a church is not doing that should be a red flag that they are not doing something right.

Again, if you were to read the Bible, you will find no evidence of any described traditions of your church. None. They don't exist. They have to be inserted into the Bible. Also, there are many who can quote Scripture for believing in something, but that does not mean that there belief on those verses are correct. Jesus had a problem with traditions a lot because they violated the Word of God. How exactly is that true today for you? Scripture says there is nothing new under the sun. If people violated God's Word in the past by their traditions, then the same thing is happening today. So we should examine and investigate this and not try to blindly defend a church we feel comfortable with. We are all going to have to give an account to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself one day. Did we truly follow Jesus according to His Word or did we simply follow what some church says? What if a church we are following is in error or doing something that is contrary to God's Word? Jesus said narrow is the way that leads unto life, and FEW be there that finds it. This tells me that the majority of churches are not doing it right. 2 Timothy 3:1-9 says that in the last days perilous times will come and men will have a form of godliness but they deny the power thereof. Is your church truly loving the lost, and helping the poor and training others to live holy? Or are they just putting on a show of holiness?

 

[-Sasha-]

There are actual clear commands to preach the gospel. The fact that a church is not doing that should be a red flag that they are not doing something right.

Again, if you were to read the Bible, you will find no evidence of any described traditions of your church. None. They don't exist. They have to be inserted into the Bible. Also, there are many who can quote Scripture for believing in something, but that does not mean that there belief on those verses are correct. Jesus had a problem with traditions a lot because they violated the Word of God. How exactly is that true today for you? Scripture says there is nothing new under the sun. If people violated God's Word in the past by their traditions, then the same thing is happening today. So we should examine and investigate this and not try to blindly defend a church we feel comfortable with. We are all going to have to give an account to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself one day. Did we truly follow Jesus according to His Word or did we simply follow what some church says? What if a church we are following is in error or doing something that is contrary to God's Word? Jesus said narrow is the way that leads unto life, and FEW be there that finds it. This tells me that the majority of churches are not doing it right. 2 Timothy 3:1-9 says that in the last days perilous times will come and men will have a form of godliness but they deny the power thereof. Is your church truly loving the lost, and helping the poor and training others to live holy? Or are they just putting on a show of holiness?

You don't appear to be interested in considering what it is I'm saying, so I will leave it be.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You don't appear to be interested in considering what it is I'm saying, so I will leave it be.

I can say the same.

May God bless you (even if we disagree strongly).

 

[Tone]

Yeah, because we still preserve Divine traditions

So, "Divine traditions" are more essential than the Bible?

 

[Tone]

But are traditions really divine? Is there evidence that proves they are divine like the Bible?

This is really the key question. What extra-biblical tradition is there that we can know, with certainty, is from above? I mean, can you really make a solid case for it with no reference to Scripture...would you want to?

 

[Tone]

Without man's tradition, certainly. But without the teaching of Jesus Christ, which is divine tradition, not possible.

By "the teaching of Jesus Christ", you mean as found in Scripture?

 

[Tone]

this is a bit of a loaded question. all it does is pit those who are fundamentally sola scriptura against those who value tradition and scripture to which their answers will always be the same. I'm not a traditional faith-based believer but I know a strawman when I see one.

There are other threads that deal with similar matter--this thread, is itself, a spin off of @Tree of Life's Can the Church Survive Without God's Word?.

My intent is to kind of sift through the different viewpoints, from both sides...a hashing out, if you will--to better understand my own stance on it. I hope that others will also be open to an honest look at their positions to solidify them or make adjustments if deemed necessary.

 

[Tone]

Isn't everything in every Church man's tradition?

Depends on your view of what "Church" actually is.

 

[fhansen]

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...

The ancient churches just acknowledge that the church basically wrote the bible, and received and preached the word of God-the gospel- before a word of the New Testament was written. Tradition can inform us, BTW, on many teachings that divide Protestants among themselves going by Scripture alone.

 

[GingerBeer]

Depends on your view of what "Church" actually is.

Church is people gathered to worship Jesus Christ.

 

[Tone]

if somehow all Bibles and theological writings were to disappear, the people who practice what they teach - the people who love God - could recreate them...perhaps not word for word, but in the same Spirit. I believe the same is true of the vast majority of the Church Traditions - if something catastrophic happened and they were somehow all lost, they too could be recreated. However perhaps one large difference between us, is that I don't place Scripture as being outside of Tradition. Rather it is the most complete articulation of it.

I think I lean towards your view of the people being able to recreate, because, if they are His people they will have His Spirit and He will (and does) preserve the Word in our hearts and minds even now. I guess what we are really trying to get to is the difference between "man's traditions" and "Church Traditions". I don't believe that anybody here believes that those two types of traditions are the same...the former being common and the latter being Holy. So, it must boil down to our choice of criterion in determining what is common and what is Holy.

I ask everybody here to seriously consider this three-part question: How do you personally determine what is holy/unholy, How do you determine this for those under you, and how does your "church" (local assembly) determine this for each other?

 

[DamianWarS]

There are other threads that deal with similar matter--this thread, is itself, a spin off of @Tree of Life's Can the Church Survive Without God's Word?.

My intent is to kind of sift through the different viewpoints, from both sides...a hashing out, if you will--to better understand my own stance on it. I hope that others will also be open to an honest look at their positions to solidify them or make adjustments if deemed necessary.

the OP's question is:

"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"

this is facetiously asked making assumptions that those who value tradition do not value the bible... and that's the hidden strawman. It starts the conversation with an attack which is going to result in a defence and then it will just be tit-for-tat after that and not productive because the attacking environment has already been established.

Basically, the OP identifies 2 groups, implicitly picks a side and draws first blood, but you say it's done so sincerely. Well, those who feel victimized by the OP are not going to see it that way.

 

[Tone]

the OP's question is:

"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"

this is facetiously asked making assumptions that those who value tradition do not value the bible... and that's the hidden strawman. It starts the conversation with an attack which is going to result in a defence and then it will just be tit-for-tat after that and not productive because the attacking environment has already been established.

Basically, the OP identifies 2 groups, implicitly picks a side and draws first blood, but you say it's done so sincerely. Well, those who feel victimized by the OP are not going to see it that way.

So far, you are the only one who has brought up "victimization". Well "sifting" and "hashing out" may involve some intellectual provocation...welcome to the forums friend!

*Oh, you're already a seasoned battle-hardened veteran...

 

[-Sasha-]

I ask everybody here to seriously consider this three-part question: How do you personally determine what is holy/unholy, How do you determine this for those under you, and how does your "church" (local assembly) determine this for each other?

One is Holy.