Doctrine that Adds to Scripture

[bbbbbbb]

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,

If this is true, as you assert, which Tradition is true and which is false? And how does one know with any certainty which is which? As I am certain you are aware, there are several denominations including your own which claim to have Tradition.

 

[Dale]

And as I repeatedly point out to you, you try to use the a contemporary meaning of tradition, so you go off at a tangent. You cannot interpret scripture how it suits you: which is the reformationist disease.

The faith was handed down by word of mouth and letter.
That is the meaning of paradosis.
There wasn't a New Testament. Protestants are amnesic. So clearly the ONLY way the faith was handed was paradosis, tradition. Even the liturgy of mass predates the New Testament!

There was a letter from ignatius to smyrneans. Read it.
Find out what John the apostle taught and handed down. That is the meaning of tradition.

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?

Both of you seem to be intent on putting limits on the authority of the written Word of God.

Take a look at this verse from the NT.

6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
--1 Corinthians 4: 6 NIV

Paul clearly tells the Corinthians, "Do not go beyond what is written."
This is a serious warning.

 

[Mountainmike]

Paul said : " stay true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter" - precisely because history shows there was no New Testament for centuries,and even if there had been, very few could read or afford it, the printing press was a millennium into the future.

Indeed the first canons were deemed heretical, and many contained books we no longer even accept as apocryphal.

It was inspired councils centuries on that pronounced the canon with authority, and one of the criteria for selection was ensuring scripture did not contradict tradition - the faith handed down.

Indeed It is only very recently ( last century) the average person could afford and read a bible.

So Our Lord did not give us a book, he gave us apostles and succession to hand down the faith , primarily by word of mouth, which is the meaning of " paradosis" translated as tradition.

That is also why scripture says " the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" , NOT scripture!

So You quote entirely out of context of history of scripture. That's the problem with evangelical proof texting.

I suggest you study the early fathers, see what the apostles handed to them! I suspect you are in for a surprise, when you see a liturgical sacramental church including Eucharist of the real presence, sacraments valid only if performed by succession bishops or their appointees, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
The acorn that grew into the oak that is the Catholic Church.

Those fathers who decided your canon, also believed in intercession of saints and Mary! Even much mass liturgy predates the official New Testament!

Sola scriptura, is not only easily proven logically false, it is amnesic!

Both of you seem to be intent on putting limits on the authority of the written Word of God.

Take a look at this verse from the NT.

6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
--1 Corinthians 4: 6 NIV

Paul clearly tells the Corinthians, "Do not go beyond what is written."
This is a serious warning.

 

[kepha31]

If this is true, as you assert, which Tradition is true and which is false? And how does one know with any certainty which is which? As I am certain you are aware, there are several denominations including your own which claim to have Tradition.

All Sacred Tradition is true, the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general, is re-defining Tradition into something that it isn't.
Briefly, Tradition is the authentic history of belief and practice. This definition is compatible with the definition in my signature. It's in red.

​

 

[kepha31]

Both of you seem to be intent on putting limits on the authority of the written Word of God.

Take a look at this verse from the NT.

6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
--1 Corinthians 4: 6 NIV

Paul clearly tells the Corinthians, "Do not go beyond what is written."
This is a serious warning.

The context of 1 Corinthians 4:6 is clearly one of ethics. We cannot transgress (go beyond) the precepts of Scripture concerning relationships. This doesn’t forbid the discussion of ethics outside of Scripture (which itself cannot possibly treat every conceivable ethical dispute and dilemma).

If what is written refers to Scripture, it certainly points to the Old Testament alone (obviously not the Protestant “rule of faith”). Thus, this verse proves too much and too little simultaneously.
Read more at Bible & Tradition Issues: Reply to a "Bible Christian" Inquirer
Go to any Bible search engine in any translation and key in "word of God". You will get 180-200 results. I haven't found a single verse where "word of God" is in the context of the written Word alone. Maybe you can find one.

 

[kepha31]

3

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?

Backtrack please. Hypostatic Union, a theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human.
The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian upostasin) . They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united.

Anyone can simplify all this with dozens of verses supporting the Incarnation, so the Hypostatic Union is a fancy way of saying the same thing. It is DERIVED from Scripture, which originated from oral Tradition. The term came about at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, in response to the "Bible alone" heretics who were using "Bible alone" to support their heresies. Eutyches had a distorted view of the God/man Jesus Christ.

Hypostatic Union is both oral and scriptural, and the problem with either/or thinking is that certain things cannot be both/and, they must be either/or. I see this error all over this forum. Calvin was the worst for false dichotomies. (either/or).
This is partly why pitting Scripture against Tradition is so redundant.

Hypostatic Union | Catholic Answers

 

[kepha31]

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

They were excommunicated, but ecumenical talks have made more progress since 1970 than the last 1600 years.

 

[bbbbbbb]

All Sacred Tradition is true, the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general, is re-defining Tradition into something that it isn't.
Briefly, Tradition is the authentic history of belief and practice. This definition is compatible with the definition in my signature. It's in red.

​

Very well. Do you agree that the Sacred Tradition of the Coptic Church is true if, indeed, ALL Sacred Tradition is true? If not, then how do you know it is not true? If so, what do you do when their Sacred Tradition conflicts with your Sacred Tradition?

 

[bbbbbbb]

They were excommunicated, but ecumenical talks have made more progress since 1970 than the last 1600 years.

That is rather handy, I think. When another branch of Christianity doesn't bend the knee and submit to the authority of your branch, you excommunicate them, and then, after several centuries you offer them admittance to your denomination under the same terms which they previously rejected. Have you ever considered the possibility that your branch was also excommunicated and, therefore, is in a state of heresy according to another branch? Whose excommunication is actually valid, if any, and why?

 

[bbbbbbb]

3

Backtrack please. Hypostatic Union, a theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human.
The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian upostasin) . They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united.

Anyone can simplify all this with dozens of verses supporting the Incarnation, so the Hypostatic Union is a fancy way of saying the same thing. It is DERIVED from Scripture, which originated from oral Tradition. The term came about at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, in response to the "Bible alone" heretics who were using "Bible alone" to support their heresies. Eutyches had a distorted view of the God/man Jesus Christ.

Hypostatic Union is both oral and scriptural, and the problem with either/or thinking is that certain things cannot be both/and, they must be either/or. I see this error all over this forum. Calvin was the worst for false dichotomies. (either/or).
This is partly why pitting Scripture against Tradition is so redundant.

Hypostatic Union | Catholic Answers

Exactly, the reason Protestants believe in the hypostatic union is that it is written and not merely Oral Tradition. On the other hand, there are many Catholic traditions which are not written, but are fully Oral Traditions and, hence, of little concern to Protestant theology.

 

[Phil 1:21]

That is rather handy, I think. When another branch of Christianity doesn't bend the knee and submit to the authority of your branch, you excommunicate them, and then, after several centuries you offer them admittance to your denomination under the same terms which they previously rejected. Have you ever considered the possibility that your branch was also excommunicated and, therefore, is in a state of heresy according to another branch? Whose excommunication is actually valid, if any, and why?

Yeah, but we're talking about the excommunication of people who already left. That would be like the girl I broke up with 25 years ago, and haven't seen since, suddenly posting on Facebook that we're through. It really doesn't mean anything.

 

[Albion]

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.

You have missed all of the big points there, unfortunately.

First, traditions are not "Holy Tradition."

Second, whatever the Apostles transmitted orally cannot simply be declared to be in opposition to or in addition to what God revealed in Scripture, and

Third, whether or not we subscribe to the theory of Holy Tradition as equal to Scripture (for which there is no warrant), it has to be actual tradition. You cannot simply cite something said by some saint in AD 400, for example, and then proclaim it to be a tradition handed on from the Apostles. There would have to be continuity and universal acceptance.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yeah, but we're talking about the excommunication of people who already left. That would be like the girl I broke up with 25 years ago, and haven't seen since, suddenly posting on Facebook that we're through. It really doesn't mean anything.

Exactly. It only pumps up the pride of the party which decided, post-partum, to brand the other party as heretics.

 

[kepha31]

You have missed all of the big points there, unfortunately.

First, traditions are not "Holy Tradition."

"Holy" is just another word for Sacred or Apostolic Tradition, which conflicts with Protestant re-definitions.

Second

, whatever the Apostles transmitted orally cannot simply be declared to be in opposition to or in addition to what God revealed in Scripture, and

A different mode of transmission of divine revelation does not necessitate opposition, unless you change the meaning of oral Tradition, which sola scriptura always entails.

Third

, whether or not we subscribe to the theory of Holy Tradition as equal to Scripture (for which there is no warrant), it has to be actual tradition. You cannot simply cite something said by some saint in AD 400, for example, and then proclaim it to be a tradition handed on from the Apostles.

Nobody is doing that, but again, you are re-defining Tradition into something that it isn't. The full doctrine Trinity was developed from Scripture AND Apostolic Tradition. The Councils of Nicae, Ephesus and Chalcedon did not use scripture alone, not "some saint in 400". Sacred or oral Tradition is not a carbon copy of Scripture, but a COMPLEMENT to Scripture. Without Tradition, you have no Scripture in the first place, so the only way the Protestant can resolve this is to change its meaning.

There would have to be continuity and universal acceptance.

Precisely.

Q: In Matthew 15:1-9 (the "you make void the word of God by your tradition" passage), didn't Jesus indicate that any tradition which contradicts Scripture is false, meaning that we must test traditions by Scripture, meaning that tradition is inferior to Scripture?

A: It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion's edited version of Luke and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing."

So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.​

INFO: The sources of theology

 

[concretecamper]

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

I never mentioned something happening to the Church after about 1,000 years. Still reading what is not there I see

 

[bbbbbbb]

I never mentioned something happening to the Church after about 1,000 years. Still reading what is not there I see

You wrote in post #36 -

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

So, which denomination, other than your own, came into existence after over 1,000 years.

 

[kepha31]

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

camper said:

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

bbbb said" So, which denomination, other than your own, came into existence after over 1,000 years.

Which has nothing to do with the settling of disputes. The Council of Ephesus coined the phrase "hypo-static union" in response to the Nestorian heresy. The term is not in scripture, but the meaning is accepted by every Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox church on the planet. You said:
the reason Protestants believe in the hypostatic union is that it is written and not merely Oral Tradition.
Then show me the term "hypostatic union" in scripture, since you guys reject any Catholic theological term that is not explicit in Scripture, which the Bible doesn't demand in the first place.
Pitting Tradition against Scripture is a false man made tradition in itself. The Council of Ephesus of 451 used BOTH Scripture AND Tradition because they are inter-related, and not a false dichotomy of Protestant invention. There is no such thing as a "fully oral tradition", so you are forced to escape its truth by changing its meaning.
1517 - 451 is exactly 1066 years between the clarification of "hypostatic union" and the beginning of the Reformation.

"So, which denomination, other than your own, came into existence after over 1,000 years."

You have plenty to choose from.

 

[Albion]

"Holy" is just another word for Sacred or Apostolic Tradition....

Yes, but that isn't the issue. Whatever name the church decided to give to that particular theory which says that men's opinions are equal to divine revelation under certain circumstances, it is not what the word "traditions" as found in the Bible verse you cited means.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Which has nothing to do with the settling of disputes. The Council of Ephesus coined the phrase "hypo-static union" in response to the Nestorian heresy. The term is not in scripture, but the meaning is accepted by every Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox church on the planet. You said:
the reason Protestants believe in the hypostatic union is that it is written and not merely Oral Tradition.
Then show me the term "hypostatic union" in scripture, since you guys reject any Catholic theological term that is not explicit in Scripture, which the Bible doesn't demand in the first place.
Pitting Tradition against Scripture is a false man made tradition in itself. The Council of Ephesus of 451 used BOTH Scripture AND Tradition because they are inter-related, and not a false dichotomy of Protestant invention. There is no such thing as a "fully oral tradition", so you are forced to escape its truth by changing its meaning.
1517 - 451 is exactly 1066 years between the clarification of "hypostatic union" and the beginning of the Reformation.

"So, which denomination, other than your own, came into existence after over 1,000 years."

You have plenty to choose from.

Was my post addressed to you? I am quite surprised that you decided to butt into the conversation I am having with Concretecamper and inject a topic that is quite irrelevant to the conversation.

There are better ways of bringing up this topic with me, as I am sure you know.

As for your last comment, I agree that there are plenty of denominations, including your own, which have appeared after the first 1,000 years or so of Christianity.

 

[kepha31]

Yes, but that isn't the issue. Whatever name the church decided to give to that particular theory which says that men's opinions are equal to divine revelation under certain circumstances, it is not what the word "traditions" as found in the Bible verse you cited means.

Then quote what verses I used. Quote which "mens opinions" I have used for "a particular theory" and cite which theory you are talking about, and prove it is an actual Tradition of the Church. Maybe I should change the font color of my signature that's only been there for 3 weeks, because bright red doesn't seem to have any effect.
"men's opinions are equal to divine revelation" just proves what I have been saying repeatedly: you cannot accept the truth of Tradition so you are forced to change its meaning to make it fit your preconceptions.