Church Tradition

[dreadnought]

I’ve noticed some people seem to be deeply into church tradition, theologically speaking. Is church tradition always inerrant?

 

[TuxAme]

Yes. As this article from Catholic Answers explains, Tradition is inerrant- but it takes Magisterial recognition to determine the canon of Tradition, just as the Magisterium recognized the canon of Scripture.

So, Tradition is inerrant just as Scripture is- but we first have to make the determination of what makes it up.

 

[Philip_B]

I’ve noticed some people seem to be deeply into church tradition, theologically speaking. Is church tradition always inerrant?

No. In Anglican terms Tradition and Reason inform our understanding of Scripture which is the foundation.

 

[dreadnought]

Yes. As this article from Catholic Answers explains, Tradition is inerrant- but it takes Magisterial recognition to determine the canon of Tradition, just as the Magisterium recognized the canon of Scripture.

So, Tradition is inerrant just as Scripture is- but we first have to make the determination of what makes it up.

You have that much faith in the men who have written church tradition?

 

[TuxAme]

You have that much faith in the men who have written church tradition?

That's Tradition with a capital "T". And I have that faith because of other faith that I have- namely, in Jesus. And from that faith, I have faith that Jesus left us a Church (capital "C") with teaching authority to make these determinations.

 

[LoveofTruth]

I’ve noticed some people seem to be deeply into church tradition, theologically speaking. Is church tradition always inerrant?

If it is an apostolic or biblical tradition it will be confirmed in scripture and will not contradict scripture. Paul said the order he taught or the things he taught he taught everywhere in every church. We can see this order mentioned in scripture in many places. The needful traditions are found in scripture.

The problem comes when some put men above that which is written. Paul said

1 Corinthians 4 - 6. And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”

We need the Spirit of God, the scriptures and the body of Christ to perfect the body and what we have in scripture is for the perfecting of the saints. Paul allowed himself to be judged and checked in what he said by scripture Whether they were believers or not.

“ Acts 17 - 11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

And everything the writers wrote was scripture given by God unless they said in a few cases (just a few) that they did not write specific things by commandment.

Everything else was given by God

1 Corinthians 14 - 37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant”

 

[dzheremi]

What do you mean, "inerrant"?

There are two types of teaching we are told to hold to in the scriptures, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 -- that given by word (meaning word of mouth/orally taught), and that given in writing ("by our epistle"). That given in writing is found in the Holy Bible itself, the Didache, the Didascalia, and the other works of the Church Fathers, the Desert Fathers, and so on. That given by word is that which is preached and practiced in the Church (in hymns, homilies, the theology of the icon, the rites, etc.), in conformity with and in continuation of all of the above.

So...are you asking whether all of that is inerrant? Individual fathers are of course not inerrant (e.g., St. Augustine was wrong on some things, as was St. Justin Martyr), because nobody is except Christ our God, but the view that we have of Christian history and tradition does not vivisect the saints nor any part of the unbroken tradition of the Church so as to put this part in this category where it may be ignored or rationalized away and that part in this other category where it may not be.

I realize that this is probably another issue wherein things look different depending on where you are/what your tradition is (e.g., Western vs. Eastern forms of Christianity), but I don't think that they're that different, as the approach to the faith that some things are disposable while others are not (e.g., Pietism or similar ideas that attempted to de-emphasize adherence to doctrine) is itself an even later idea coming from the west. It was from the Orthodox Latins -- westerners -- that we received that beautiful maxim Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi 'The law of prayer is the law of belief'. And if you believe that (and we in the Oriental Orthodox Church certainly do), then what exactly it is that you believe must rely on the prayers that you pray, the liturgy that you have, etc., and none of these things developed in a vacuum somehow in isolation from Christian tradition.

So it's less a question of 'inerrancy', and more about citing our sources.

 

[dreadnought]

That's Tradition with a capital "T". And I have that faith because of other faith that I have- namely, in Jesus. And from that faith, I have faith that Jesus left us a Church (capital "C") with teaching authority to make these determinations.

Are men then as wise as the Lord?

 

[dreadnought]

What do you mean, "inerrant"?

There are two types of teaching we are told to hold to in the scriptures, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 -- that given by word (meaning word of mouth/orally taught), and that given in writing ("by our epistle"). That given in writing is found in the Holy Bible itself, the Didache, the Didascalia, and the other works of the Church Fathers, the Desert Fathers, and so on. That given by word is that which is preached and practiced in the Church (in hymns, homilies, the theology of the icon, the rites, etc.), in conformity with and in continuation of all of the above.

So...are you asking whether all of that is inerrant? Individual fathers are of course not inerrant (e.g., St. Augustine was wrong on some things, as was St. Justin Martyr), because nobody is except Christ our God, but the view that we have of Christian history and tradition does not vivisect the saints nor any part of the unbroken tradition of the Church so as to put this part in this category where it may be ignored or rationalized away and that part in this other category where it may not be.

I realize that this is probably another issue wherein things look different depending on where you are/what your tradition is (e.g., Western vs. Eastern forms of Christianity), but I don't think that they're that different, as the approach to the faith that some things are disposable while others are not (e.g., Pietism or similar ideas that attempted to de-emphasize adherence to doctrine) is itself an even later idea coming from the west. It was from the Orthodox Latins -- westerners -- that we received that beautiful maxim Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi 'The law of prayer is the law of belief'. And if you believe that (and we in the Oriental Orthodox Church certainly do), then what exactly it is that you believe must rely on the prayers that you pray, the liturgy that you have, etc., and none of these things developed in a vacuum somehow in isolation from Christian tradition.

So it's less a question of 'inerrancy', and more about citing our sources.

Inerrant - truth.

 

[TuxAme]

Are men then as wise as the Lord?

The Holy Spirit guides them- they don't have to be particularly wise to be guided by Him.

 

[amariselle]

Tradition is fine, so long as it does not contradict what is written in Scripture. We have the “faith once delivered to the saints” wonderfully preserved for us in the inspired word of God. That faith is not changing or developing over time as tradition often does.

And this is why we must “test” all things by what is written in the Bible. The teachings and traditions of men are subject to the authority of the word of God.

 

[dzheremi]

Inerrant - truth.

Oh, are they true?

Yes, they are true. The liturgies of St. Basil, St. Cyril, and St. Gregory (and the other liturgies used by the other traditions within the Church) are authentic expressions of true apostolic, catholic, and orthodox theology, filled with true prayers rooted in the faith that was brought to us in the first century by the apostle of the Lord, St. Mark the Evangelist. The same can be said of our daily prayer rule (the Agpeya), the midnight praises/tasbeha, and the other things that uniquely mark us and our traditions as belonging to the Orthodox Christian faith.

 

[dreadnought]

The Holy Spirit guides them- they don't have to be particularly wise to be guided by Him.

People who are trying to follow the Lord don't make mistakes?

 

[DavidFirth]

I’ve noticed some people seem to be deeply into church tradition, theologically speaking. Is church tradition always inerrant?

No. Only God is inerrant.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Tradition is fine, so long as it does not contradict what is written in Scripture. We have the “faith once delivered to the saints” wonderfully preserved for us in the inspired word of God. That faith is not changing or developing over time as tradition often does.

And this is why we must “test” all things by what is written in the Bible. The teachings and traditions of men are subject to the authority of the word of God.

Apostolic traditions are things like, meeting in homes, having a meal together (a love feast), reading scripture and fellowship, body ministry women's roles, God's order, church order etc. Roles of men and women, elders, ministry aspects other aspects of order, the supper, etc, etc

 

[chevyontheriver]

You have that much faith in the men who have written church tradition?

You have that much faith in the men who have written the Bible?

I have faith in the Holy Spirit who guided the men who wrote the Bible and who formed the Tradition.

 

[amariselle]

Apostolic traditions are things like, meeting in homes, having a meal together (a love feast), reading scripture and fellowship, body ministry women's roles, God's order, church order etc. Roles of men and women, elders, ministry aspects other aspects of order, the supper, etc, etc

Apostolic traditions could definitely be such things, as well as others. (Depending on the denomination)

 

[Albion]

Apostolic traditions are things like, meeting in homes, having a meal together (a love feast), reading scripture and fellowship, body ministry women's roles, God's order, church order etc. Roles of men and women, elders, ministry aspects other aspects of order, the supper, etc, etc

No, those are traditions which we might otherwise call customs.

Holy Tradition in the Catholic churches refers to the belief that if most people in the church have believed, throughout history, something that is not in the Bible...then God must be inspiring that consensus just like he gave us the Bible--and it is equal in authority to the Bible.

 

[dreadnought]

You have that much faith in the men who have written the Bible?

I have faith in the Holy Spirit who guided the men who wrote the Bible and who formed the Tradition.

I have faith that the Bible is an accurate historical account.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Apostolic traditions are things like, meeting in homes, having a meal together (a love feast), reading scripture and fellowship, body ministry women's roles, God's order, church order etc. Roles of men and women, elders, ministry aspects other aspects of order, the supper, etc, etc

There may have been other aspects that the apostles spoke of. I am speaking mainly about the patterns, or traditions and church order in God's order that we see in scripture specifically.

There are many today who try to make any aspects of their church and their "traditions" that may have came about centuries after the foundations were laid and the scriptures given as equal to scripture and the apostolic order.But many man made traditions are far from the biblical traditions.

I have found that every aspect of God's order and the setting in order of the church is fund in scripture.

But for example. Lets take an older traditions, that came about way after the early church was established, like so called the so called, "church buildings". The New Testament defines the church as the body of Christ a called out assembly gathered in Christ who is the head and the church is the house of God made up of living stones, a spiritual house. But, the man made tradition that came much later calls man made religious structures made of brick and mortar "the church". This tradition is contrary to the New Testament scriptures and the apostolic order and function of the church as directed by God in every part of the body. This tradition of man makes the word of God of no effect and can distract believers from the true church and the function of the church as a body with mutual edification ( 1 Cor 14:26-28, 1 Peter 4;10,11, Col 3:15,16, Ephesians 4;11-16, 1 Thess 5;11, 1 Cor 12:7- etc etc etc etc)

Or another tradition that developed much later in history, where we see one man over a church and exalted and even given special robes and titles called "the Pastor" or "the Priest", or "the Reverend" etc. This man made tradition makes the word of God of no effect and hinders body ministry where all can share and edify each other and use the gifts as they are led by God and it is a tradition tat can quench the spirit.. The New Testament order is to have (eventually) elders (plural) in every church (singular) . Never. do we read of one man over a church called the "pastor. This fights against the apostolic tradition and order of God as seen in scripture.

There are many other man made traditions today that are contrary to scripture and the patterns and traditions handed down as seen in holy scripture. I could speak of paid ministers, tithing, song leaders, women teachers over a church, programs, Tax exemption regulations with the government, pews, sermons, altars, rituals, forms of religious order, denominations, wearing of special clothes for ministers, clergy and laity divide, etc etc etc etc.