Doctrine that Adds to Scripture

[bbbbbbb]

Tradition is what has combated heresy throughout the history of the Church. The Church Fathers continually refer to what has been handed down from the Apostles.

The Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, The Virgin Mary, The Church are all Traditions passed down from the Apostles. It is just that protestants believe some of the Oral Traditions and not others. Are you really surprised by this?

In particular, what oral Traditions do Protestants believe?

 

[concretecamper]

Why would God, the Holy Spirit, provide extra-biblical Tradition which contradicts the explicit, written Bible which all Christians believe to be the Word of God?

If you could show me where Jesus promised us a book, the I'll take your question seriously. I'll even extend my challenge to the Apostles. Which Apostle promised us a book.

Now, I can show you where He promised an authoritative and teaching Church. So you believe some of what the Church teaches and you don't believe some of what it teaches. Are we supposed to fall off our chairs because you reject something

 

[concretecamper]

In particular, what oral Traditions do Protestants believe?

Most protestants believe

In the hypostatic union each of the two natures of Christ continues unimpaired, untransformed, and unmixed with each other.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Most protestants believe

In the hypostatic union each of the two natures of Christ continues unimpaired, untransformed, and unmixed with each other.

Thank you. Is this a provable Oral Tradition or an interpretation of scripture? I believe it to be the latter, of course.

 

[concretecamper]

Thank you. Is this a provable Oral Tradition or an interpretation of scripture? I believe it to be the latter, of course.

Go for it....popcorn ready

 

[bbbbbbb]

If you could show me where Jesus promised us a book, the I'll take your question seriously. I'll even extend my challenge to the Apostles. Which Apostle promised us a book.

Now, I can show you where He promised an authoritative and teaching Church. So you believe some of what the Church teaches and you don't believe some of what it teaches. Are we supposed to fall off our chairs because you reject something

What you cannot prove, of course, is the promise of a religious bureaucracy administered from a headquarters in Rome, Italy.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Go for it....popcorn ready

Thank you for your prompt response. I see, as anticipated, that you cannot defend your allegation that the hypostatic union is an Oral Tradition.

 

[concretecamper]

Thank you for your prompt response. I see, as anticipated, that you cannot defend your allegation that the hypostatic union is an Oral Tradition.

Wait, are you telling me there is nothing in scripture that explains the Dogma I stated. Really, nothing....too funny

 

[concretecamper]

What you cannot prove, of course, is the promise of a religious bureaucracy administered from a headquarters in Rome, Italy.

Hmmm, Authoritative and teaching without a hierarchy?....please ask a serious question.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Wait, are you telling me there is nothing in scripture that explains the Dogma I stated. Really, nothing....too funny

Nice dodge, but it won't cut it. Still not a shred of evidence on your part that the hypostatic union is an Oral Tradition.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hmmm, Authoritative and teaching without a hierarchy?....please ask a serious question.

I did. How do you know that Christ promised a religious bureaucracy administered from Rome, Italy and not, say, Jerusalem or Constantinople, or Moscow?

 

[concretecamper]

I did. How do you know that Christ promised a religious bureaucracy administered from Rome, Italy and not, say, Jerusalem or Constantinople, or Moscow?

Our Lord didn't specify, unless you are adding to His Word

 

[concretecamper]

Nice dodge, but it won't cut it. Still not a shred of evidence on your part that the hypostatic union is an Oral Tradition.

You said "I believe the latter. I'm just asking you to back it up. You can't, I already know this.

Now, if you want to read Ephasus in 431 there is lots of reference to what the Fathers taught.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Our Lord didn't specify, unless you are adding to His Word

Thank you for agreeing with me

Our Lord didn't specify, unless you are adding to His Word

Thank you for agreeing with me. Thus, your denomination has no more, or less, validity than any other denomination making claims of Oral Tradition.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You said "I believe the latter. I'm just asking you to back it up. You can't, I already know this.

Now, if you want to read Ephasus in 431 there is lots of reference to what the Fathers taught.

Well, as you know perfectly, all of the became Written Tradition which remains with us along with all of the other writings of the ECF's. However, in that written tradition there is no statement to the effect that the hypostatic union, not ever having been written, is a pure,unadulterated part of Oral Tradition.

 

[concretecamper]

Thank you for agreeing with me


Thank you for agreeing with me. Thus, your denomination has no more, or less, validity than any other denomination making claims of Oral Tradition.

Sure the Church does. She settled these disputes over 1,000 years before any denomination came into existence

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sure the Church does. She settled these disputes over 1,000 years before any denomination came into existence

And then what happened? Did the Nestorians go their own way then? Did the Oriental Orthodox go their own way then?

 

[concretecamper]

And then what happened? Did the Nestorians go their own way then? Did the Oriental Orthodox go their own way then?

You can check Wikipedia. I've noticed you've been getting your theology and history from there lately.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You can check Wikipedia. I've noticed you've been getting your theology and history from there lately.

I am flattered that you honor me with so much attention.

Back to my question. You mentioned something happening to the Church after about 1,000 years. What, pray tell, was that momentous event?

 

[Mountainmike]

You have the usual cart in front of the usual horse. As history proves, Tradition came first. New Testament later, and only then by the authority of a council.

Mine is not just my own opinion. It is supported by the vast majority of theologians of history, catholic and orthodox. Yours is born of the faulty assumption that any can interpret scripture how they want, and ( this case) make up any meaning you like for "tradition" , born of current colloquial meaning, not what it meant way back then.

Meanwhile the faith handed down ( i.e. Paradosis, Tradition ) is to be found in the writings of early fathers, as is proven by history , regardless of what you think is " believable" which is irrelevant.

And as a case in point, ignatius to smyrneans proves, most churches are proven heretical right there. Because ignatius and polycarp disciples of John the apostle, stated a eucharist of the real presence only valid if performed by a bishop of true succession. Or his appointee. Nowhere does that contradict scripture - it gives the true meaning to it - but it also proves most denominations and all non denoms believe in falsehood.

And as the divergence of opinion on every single doctrinal issue by reformationists proves, you can't interpret scripture without tradition, because all diverge in doctrine when they do. As Luther said:" it is the greatest scandal" "there are now as many doctrines as heads,"

You still miss the obvious issue. Tradition carries the meaning of scripture. Reformationists tried to separate the two with disastrous results,

Well, it seems to me that that is what you do, not I. However, the other points stand in any case. The verse you cited doesn't tell us what traditions were being referred to and there is no evidence for the vague claim that whatever the church invents was what the Apostles handed down. The most believable concept is that they handed down orally what was to be found, either then or later, in Sacred Scripture.