Christian tradition and Protestant denial of it

[hedrick]

That's not to say that the loss of the Jewish context of Christianity wasn't sad and even devastating... But Paul makes it clear that Gentiles don't have to be Jews or observe Jewish laws or festivals to be Christians. He wrote his letters in Greek for the wider world, not in Hebrew for the select few who could read them. Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers goes to pains to express Hebrew concepts in Greek. The Hebrew context is surely important, but apparently, nobody thought it was essential...

That’s precisely why I don’t place a very high value on early church tradition.

It took Jesus, for whom our relationship with God and how we treat others was central, and turned it into a religion where believing in nearly inscrutable abstract theology was central, and ethics focused more on the Pharisees’ ideal of purity rather than Jesus’ ideal of getting our motivations right and showing it by bearing fruit.

Sure, lots of Jesus’ message remained. Christianity attracted as many people as it did because monotheism made sense, and Christians treated others a lot better than pagans. But it had still lost essential elements of the original.

----------------

Incidentally, I like theology. I've spent a lot of time trying to under what it means and how it developed. I just don't think the overall trajectory reflects Jesus' intent.

 

[Not David]

Daily reminder that Catholicism is not the only non-Protestant Traditional Church.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Or Orthodox.

In any event, she needs to stop it now before it's too late.

I thought of saying 'You have to stop all of this or you are going to become Catholic or Orthodox' but that was clunkier. And a lot of evangelical types hardly know there is such a thing as Orthodox. If they did they would be equally horrified as they are of Catholics.

 

[Not David]

In any event, she needs to stop it now before it's too late.

I thought of saying 'You have to stop all of this or you are going to become Catholic or Orthodox' but that was clunkier. And a lot of evangelical types hardly know there is such a thing as Orthodox. If they did they would be equally horrified as they are of Catholics.

It would be hilarious, to be honest.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You have to stop all of this or you are going to become Catholic.

And that's a problem why?

 

[prodromos]

And that's a problem why?

Obviously because they won't have gone far enough

 

[chevyontheriver]

And that's a problem why?

Uh ... er ... um ... you do know hyperbole when you see it? I was trying to ... a ... you do get it don't you?

Sure she should become Catholic. So should all of the other readers of this thread. And each one of them could if they were as curious and studious and honest as she is. I just wanted to say basically that but with more humor.

But she has already been told in an un-hyperbolic and quite serious way by a few people that she should stick to the Bible alone. In other words, to be careful and not stray.

 

[Sketcher]

So yes, I guess I'm complaining a lot in this post, but it had a point when I started. How does your particular group handle the early history and tradition of the Christian Church? If you embrace it -- do you verify it? If you treat it with skepticism, why and how? If you ignore it as unimportant, why?

We acknowledge it. We don't elevate it to the same level as Scripture, but we do use history to help interpret Scripture. Where there is a tradition that contradicts Scripture, we go with the Scripture - after all, Scripture records the earliest tradition. It should serve as a corrective to theological drift which naturally happens. Some of the Catholics (on here and otherwise) that I have had to correct with Scripture were teaching wacky stuff that is in contradiction to their own official teachings.

 

[Concord1968]

"Put the kitty on the table."

Does Tim Staples know you're using his material?

 

[Concord1968]

Lord have mercy.

Kyrie Eleison

 

[LovesOurLord]

I am Eastern Orthodox now, and we have a very high view of history and tradition. However, I used to be Lutheran - I believe Lutherans are very unique in the protestant world in that they accept tradition, they read the writings of the "church fathers" (people after the apostles), and they follow similar worship practices to the ancient church. My introduction to Christian tradition as a Lutheran is actually what eventually brought me to Eastern Orthodoxy

How does Orthodoxy discern valid tradition from bad? Lots of unbiblical, bad tradition out there. Further, why mix it with the infallible scriptures? Jews have done this and consequently, Rabbinical Judaism is riddled with paganistic add-ons from the nations which God forbade them do. Jesus condemned them when he spoke of "following the traditions of men."

 

[Pavel Mosko]

How does Orthodoxy discern valid tradition from bad? Lots of unbiblical, bad tradition out there. Further, why mix it with the infallible scriptures? Jews have done this and consequently, Rabbinical Judaism is riddled with paganistic add-ons from the nations which God forbade them do. Jesus condemned them when he spoke of "following the traditions of men."

The Canon of Saint Vincent of Lerins is the rule of thumb. That calls for 1) Antiquity (usually a scriptural mention or passage), 2) Universality (believed generally by Christians) and 3) Consensus (What most people believe about the teaching) in regards to judging and accepting tradition.

Commonitory - Wikipedia



1 TIMOTHY 3:15
but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


Acts 15
Bible Gateway passage: Acts 15 - New International Version

 

[AMM]

How does Orthodoxy discern valid tradition from bad? Lots of unbiblical, bad tradition out there. Further, why mix it with the infallible scriptures? Jews have done this and consequently, Rabbinical Judaism is riddled with paganistic add-ons from the nations which God forbade them do. Jesus condemned them when he spoke of "following the traditions of men."

Yeah, it's like Pavel said. I don't see tradition and scripture as two separate things. There's Scripture, which is the highest source of faith. Referencing "Tradition" is just a short-hand way of saying "how did Christians interpret these passages throughout history?" And if an interpretation is completely new and unheard of, for example, it tends to be rejected. Tradition is like a fence or guard-rail that helps us stay on the straight and narrow path

 

[Eloy Craft]

It's good to distinguish Tradition from tradition. Baptism is a Tradition. At first it was considered necessary for the water to be 'living' water. Flowing water. But in the city situations arise where it's just not available. So people could be baptized in a pool of water. Full body immersion in a pool is ok. Then a Christian community rose up in arid desert where water is so precious that a pool of it could be a threat to the common good. The Church finds that sprinkling would be valid.

Baptism with water is Tradition. The various ways are the traditions of men that helped the people fulfill their obligations to God.

Tradition with a small t are meant to help, if they become more trouble than they're worth they can be changed to fit current needs or ended.

 

[Tone]

why mix it with the infallible scriptures

BINGO!

 

[Root of Jesse]

Uh ... er ... um ... you do know hyperbole when you see it? I was trying to ... a ... you do get it don't you?

Sure she should become Catholic. So should all of the other readers of this thread. And each one of them could if they were as curious and studious and honest as she is. I just wanted to say basically that but with more humor.

But she has already been told in an un-hyperbolic and quite serious way by a few people that she should stick to the Bible alone. In other words, to be careful and not stray.

I know, I was playing along.

 

[Root of Jesse]

We acknowledge it. We don't elevate it to the same level as Scripture, but we do use history to help interpret Scripture. Where there is a tradition that contradicts Scripture, we go with the Scripture - after all, Scripture records the earliest tradition. It should serve as a corrective to theological drift which naturally happens. Some of the Catholics (on here and otherwise) that I have had to correct with Scripture were teaching wacky stuff that is in contradiction to their own official teachings.

Very Catholic approach.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Does Tim Staples know you're using his material?

I think he would be proud. But it's not like it's copyrighted.

 

[Sketcher]

Very Catholic approach.

I'd say we do better than that.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

None of the communities I was a part of handled them at all. When I finally noticed this little bit of irrationality and started asking questions the way you are I got such intense reactions that I knew something had to be wrong. So I started reading the early Church Fathers and Josephus, and before long I found that I was Catholic.

"the communities" knew something.

What you read, you admit here, convinced you of something else.

That's history at work. That's what it was meant to do.

Not necessarily accurate , though, nor, historically, right with the Bible.