Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

ETide said:

So your method or tradition has nothing to do others.. although scripture is obviously important to both of us..

So your tradition matters none..

Scriptures matters to an infinite degree..

Click to expand...

Correction: tradition is important to both of us, as well. Your 'tradition' eschews the label tradition, yet clings fast to certain ideas about how scripture is to be viewed and interpreted.

I find it noteworthy that you state "so your tradition (sic) matters none." An objective statement would have been "matters none to those who are not part of it."

Still and yet you labor to dismiss that which you admit ignorance over.

It is not only scriptures that matter, but how they are read that does. Fred Phelps reads scripture and declares that God hates homosexuals. How scripture is read, lived and proclaimed is of the utmost importance.

I very much appreciate the way that many Protestants read certain portions of scripture. Take for example the missionary motive of many Evangelicals. Their interpretive tradition is, imho, sound and inspired, regarding the passion that God has for the lost.

mesue said:

Jesus was speaking to man's tradition, the additional burden the Pharisees were placing on the people in Matthew 15.
Tradition, the law and not man's, was to bring us to Christ.

We're no longer under "tradition" of any sort.

Click to expand...

Fascinating: You use one verse that uses the word "tradition" in a negative light and say, in paraphrase, 'this is what Jesus says to the Church today.' When other verses supportive of tradition, written later than the portion in Matthew you quoted, are presented to you, you say, in effect, 'those are not for the church today.'

This seems very arbitrary and capricious to me.

ETide said:

So here's the deal imo..

Your tradition has absolutely no bearing on others...

Scripture obviously does..

Therefore they're completely separable.. and not inseparable, as some have claimed.

Click to expand...

This is a logical fallacy on your part.

Allow me to use a graphic analogy:

Sex and marriage are inseparable to me. They are separable in the minds of many contemporary persons. Does their rejection of traditional morality make my morality null and void? I would say not.

On the other hand, does my traditional morality obligate them? No. God will judge between us.
Between me and the cohabitators, that is. He will also judge between your tradition and the one I participate in.

7cworldwide said:

Tradition wasn't declared equal to the Scriptures by the RCC until the Council of Trent in the 16th century... interestingly, that declaration is newer than Protestantism.

Click to expand...

IMO...


Catholics like to frame the discussion in terms of Traditon VS. Scripture - and do so in direct response to Protestantism (thus becoming an issue at the Council of Trent). Very few Protestants frame it that way - as if it's one OR the other.

Catholics and Protestants BOTH embrace BOTH. That's not the issue. Going on and on and on - as some Catholics do - about the value of Tradition is moot since Protestants also hold such in great esteem and consider it essential.

The questions are: Which is subject to which? And, far less significantly but still relevant: Which "Traditions?" These issues came up long before October 31, 1517. It was an issue from day one - and still is as Catholics and Orthodox "discuss" issues of liturgy, the Papacy, the DOGMATIC status of some Marion dogmas, etc., etc., etc., etc.


Obviously, if our own teachings ("Tradition") are the norma normans for our own teachings - as evaluated by ourselves, then self is always correct. PART of the Reformer's issues with the RCC was this self-authenticating. In reaction, the RCC elevated it's own understanding of Tradition and the Authority of it - as determined by it's own Magisterium. When self arbitrates self according to the norm of self and then self declares self to be infallible and unaccountable, well, then self just is. All issues resolved. I'm right, Protestants are wrong.


MY thoughts...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

IMO...


Catholics like to frame the discussion in terms of Traditon VS. Scripture - and do so in direct response to Protestantism (thus becoming an issue at the Council of Trent). Very few Protestants frame it that way - as if it's one OR the other.

Catholics and Protestants BOTH embrace BOTH. That's not the issue. Going on and on and on - as some Catholics do - about the value of Tradition is moot since Protestants also hold such in great esteem and consider it essential.

The questions are: Which is subject to which? And, far less significantly but still relevant: Which "Traditions?" These issues came up long before October 31, 1517. It was an issue from day one - and still is as Catholics and Orthodox "discuss" issues of liturgy, the Papacy, the DOGMATIC status of some Marion dogmas, etc., etc., etc., etc.


Obviously, if our own teachings ("Tradition") are the norma normans for our own teachings - as evaluated by ourselves, then self is always correct. PART of the Reformer's issues with the RCC was this self-authenticating. In reaction, the RCC elevated it's own understanding of Tradition and the Authority of it - as determined by it's own Magisterium. When self arbitrates self according to the norm of self and then self declares self to be infallible and unaccountable, well, then self just is. All issues resolved. I'm right, Protestants are wrong.


MY thoughts...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

Click to expand...

That's an excellent post and insight- though I might hasten to add that there are a very good many Protestants using their tradition as norma normans, in spite of claims to the contrary.

I would suggest that Orthodox do this at times and in ways also, but in a manner which differs from Catholics and Protestants, since we truly do not view scripture and tradition dichotomously.

Rdr Iakovos said:

Fascinating: You use one verse that uses the word "tradition" in a negative light and say, in paraphrase, 'this is what Jesus says to the Church today.' When other verses supportive of tradition, written later than the portion in Matthew you quoted, are presented to you, you say, in effect, 'those are not for the church today.'

This seems very arbitrary and capricious to me.

Click to expand...

Yes, man's tradition was negative to Jesus as well, as He stated in Matthew 15.

mesue said:

Here is what Jesus, God, said about tradition:

Click to expand...

That's in reference to man-made tradition.

Holy Tradition is what the apostles taught. If you want to quote Jesus, or an apostle, saying not to listen to apostolic teaching, go right ahead.

If you want to quote Jesus or an apostle saying to only to listen to what was written down by the apostles (where Tradition become Scripture), you go ahead.

The apostles preached Holy Tradition (what was inspired to them from the Holy Spirit), long before Paul ever took pen to paper. The apostles preached the Gospel long before their disciples wrote down what they taught.

The Holy Spirit was not and is not limited to teaching through men by paper and pen, nor is His ability to preserve that truth over the centuries limited to paper.

stray bullet said:

If you want to quote Jesus, or an apostle, saying not to listen to apostolic teaching, go right ahead.

Click to expand...

If you want to quote Jesus or the Apostles saying that the final Authority in matters of doctrine is the Magisterium of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church, go right ahead.


Jesus, Peter and Paul quoted authoritatively from Scripture well over 50 times - directing us to God's written Word. Never did they mention the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination, the Magisterium of any denomination or the Pope. That seems significant to ME.

The apostles preached Holy Tradition (what was inspired to them from the Holy Spirit), long before Paul ever took pen to paper. The apostles preached the Gospel long before their disciples wrote down what they taught.

Click to expand...

Of course, the entire NT was not written on Good Friday. It was all written in the First Century. All inspired by God. Authoritative. Infallible. Apostolic. Regardless of whether the book was written in 45 or 90 AD. We all agree on that.


I see nothing to suggest that the Apostles taught dogmas which they decided should not be written down but kept as a private secret and told instead to the Magisterium of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church which, when the denomination so desired, it shared or will share this dogma with believers. There is that often quoted verses where John says that Jesus DID some things not recorded in the Gospel of John, but nothing that suggests there were secret dogmas that are not recorded in any canonical book.


Of course, ANYONE can self-claim that God whispered some secret to them - and them alone, some secret God had kept out of His written Word. Read any of the works of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? And it COULD be true, I don't deny that. But just self-claiming it doesn't necessarily make it true, IMO. That's the tough thing about secrets...


MY view...



.

ETide said:

And yet there are still religious groups today.. much like the Pharisees.. who claim that they can see..

Not a whole lot has changed.. people are still asking if their traditions are equal to the word of God, which lives and abides for ever..

Click to expand...

I think you may be committing the fallacy of equivocation here. Could you explain in more detail to dispel that notion?

CaliforniaJosiah said:

I see nothing to suggest that the Apostles taught dogmas which they decided should not be written down but kept as a private secret and told instead to the Magisterium of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church which, when the denomination so desired, it shared or will share this dogma with believers. There is that often quoted verses where John says that Jesus DID some things not recorded in the Gospel of John, but nothing that suggests there were secret dogmas that are not recorded in any canonical book.
.

Click to expand...

Jesus was perfectly able to read and write.
But He never wrote a book.
That was a choice of Him.
To prevent us from forgetting His words and considering only His book.

But he took three (3 !!!) years to teach his aposteles (orally only)
Do you have an idea of how many things can be said in three years??

CaliforniaJosiah said:

If you want to quote Jesus or the Apostles saying that the final Authority in matters of doctrine is the Magisterium of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church, go right ahead.


Jesus, Peter and Paul quoted authoritatively from Scripture well over 50 times - directing us to God's written Word. Never did they mention the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination, the Magisterium of any denomination or the Pope. That seems significant to ME.

Click to expand...

See Matthew 16, although I realize you interpret that passage differently.

I see nothing to suggest that the Apostles taught dogmas which they decided should not be written down but kept as a private secret and told instead to the Magisterium of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church which, when the denomination so desired, it shared or will share this dogma with believers. There is that often quoted verses where John says that Jesus DID some things not recorded in the Gospel of John, but nothing that suggests there were secret dogmas that are not recorded in any canonical book.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what Tradition is. It is not a secret, nor something revealed only to the leaders of the Church. It is something the apostles taught to all the people.

It isn't as though the bible was the only thing given to believers and anything not in it was a secret. In fact, just the opposite is true. Anything which was not taught by the Church and mentioned only in the bible had the potential to be more secretative, given the inavailability of public access to canon due to cost, until recently.

Holy Tradition makes up everything that was taught, regardless of being found in scripture. It become Scripture when it was later written down in canon. It becomes Magisterium when the Church more rigidly defines it via doctrine.

Rdr Iakovos said:

Correction: tradition is important to both of us, as well. Your 'tradition' eschews the label tradition, yet clings fast to certain ideas about how scripture is to be viewed and interpreted.

Click to expand...

You're saying that our ideas concerning scripture and how it might be interpreted is a tradition..?

Also, I'm not interested in what your tradition may or may not be, it's simply that the word of God as it is contained in scripture, is infinitely superior to tradition.

I can't imagine how anybody would declare them to be equal, or inseparable..

I find it noteworthy that you state "so your tradition (sic) matters none." An objective statement would have been "matters none to those who are not part of it."

Click to expand...

Well, hopefully you get the point.. my Christian life is very depenent upon the word of God.. it's not dependent at all upon tradition, regardless if it is what you consider tradition, or another group or person etc..

Still and yet you labor to dismiss that which you admit ignorance over.

Click to expand...

I already told you that it's of no matter to me what your tradition may be.. although I strongly disagree that it's inseparable or at par with scripture.. perhaps you don't believe me.. that's fine too..

It is not only scriptures that matter, but how they are read that does. Fred Phelps reads scripture and declares that God hates homosexuals. How scripture is read, lived and proclaimed is of the utmost importance.

Click to expand...

Scripture is spiritually discerned, as His words are Spirit and they are life.. the carnal mind can not deal with it or see its vast wealth or living nature.. and taking the sword of the Spirit is a serious issue for a Christian.. it takes alot or care and prayer to study the word of God and to do our best in rightly divide its truth..

I very much appreciate the way that many Protestants read certain portions of scripture. Take for example the missionary motive of many Evangelicals. Their interpretive tradition is, imho, sound and inspired, regarding the passion that God has for the lost.

Click to expand...

I simply disagree that studying and taking the word of God is a traditional matter.. it's a spiritual matter which is intimately connected with our Lord Jesus Christ.. from where it all originates and emanates from..

Living waters within a spirit filled person have nothing to do with tradition.. and everything to do with living a sanctified life in love of our Lord Jesus Christ. We often fall short.. but He is ever faithful and true.. there for us whenever we struggle and fall.. for He is intimately connected with the feelings of our infirmities.. to the extent that He was made to be sin for us.. that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him..

Rdr Iakovos said:

This is a logical fallacy on your part.

Allow me to use a graphic analogy:

Sex and marriage are inseparable to me. They are separable in the minds of many contemporary persons. Does their rejection of traditional morality make my morality null and void? I would say not.

On the other hand, does my traditional morality obligate them? No. God will judge between us.
Between me and the cohabitators, that is. He will also judge between your tradition and the one I participate in.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your analogy fully.. although let me say this.. if people decide to have sex outside of marriage.. this is fornication.. they will be judged for it according to the word of God.. for He says whoever rejects Me and My words.. the same will judge him..

They're not going to be judged according to any moral tradition or lack thereof.. but by the word of God..

7cworldwide said:

My question: What led to the RCC decision to declare Tradition equal to the Scriptures?

Click to expand...

The same reason the pharisees rejected Jesus?
Mark 7

6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[b] 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions!

This is what happened

ETide said:

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your analogy fully.. although let me say this.. if people decide to have sex outside of marriage.. this is fornication.. they will be judged for it according to the word of God.. for He says whoever rejects Me and My words.. the same will judge him..

They're not going to be judged according to any moral tradition or lack thereof.. but by the word of God..

Click to expand...

The problem here is that our "moral tradition" we have come to know, was caused by the teaching of Scripture. If we only knew what the sexual morality was like before the Church age began? In lands outside of Israel? We would begin to see that our moral tradition is Scriptural, not having its origins in secularism.

Sidebar:

An interesting point that I have noticed over time, is that when RCC's wish to justify having their traditions? They resort to quoting Scripture to prove we are to have traditions.

Traditions are not simply something that began with human reasoning. Tradition is to be found in the foundation of Sola Scriptura.

Yet, tradition is not eternally binding. What may have been good tradition for one generation living in one kind of economy and culture, may not be a valid tradition for another time and place. Tradition can be flexible. Doctrinal truth must never be compromised.

The purpose for tradition is so that what is learned via Sola Scriptura can find an outlet of expression in protocol.

Tradition may have it, that there will be Church service held every other day of the week. Another church, it may be Sundays and Wednesdays. Tradition must be for the sake of Sola Scriptura. Not the other way around. Nor, should traition become the antichrist by replacing Scriptural directives with ones that contradict Scripture.

I do not think this should be an issue of Tradition versus Sola Scriptura. But, of good tradition versus bad tradition.

The Protestant church (all churches for that matter) have their own brand of traditions. The real issue is not if we should have tradition. But, rather. Is it good, or bad tradition? Does it compliment? Or, contradict? Scriptural truth!

The truth is that there are good traditions, and bad.

Tradition in itself is not a bad thing.

Now that was a tradition established by Paul for his church in Corinth. Today? We might mail mail in a check, or have a box in the back of the Church..or pass a plate.

Yet, Scripture states we are to have a collection for those in Spiritual leadership. Traditions created by different churches will determine individually how each is to accomplish this.

How are we to know we are to have traditions? Sola Scriptura! That's how! (how ironic)

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Just to keep things light, I found these:

genez said:

The problem here is that our "moral tradition" we have come to know, was caused by the teaching of Scripture. If we only knew what the sexual morality was like before the Church age began? In lands outside of Israel? We would begin to see that our moral tradition is Scriptural, not having its origins in secularism.

Sidebar:

An interesting point that I have noticed over time, is that when RCC's wish to justify having their traditions? They resort to quoting Scripture to prove we are to have traditions.

Traditions are not simply something that began with human reasoning. Tradition is to be found in the foundation of Sola Scriptura.

Yet, tradition is not eternally binding. What may have been good tradition for one generation living in one kind of economy and culture, may not be a valid tradition for another time and place. Tradition can be flexible. Doctrinal truth must never be compromised.

The purpose for tradition is so that what is learned via Sola Scriptura can find an outlet of expression in protocol.

Tradition may have it, that there will be Church service held every other day of the week. Another church, it may be Sundays and Wednesdays. Tradition must be for the sake of Sola Scriptura. Not the other way around. Nor, should traition become the antichrist by replacing Scriptural directives with ones that contradict Scripture.

I do not think this should be an issue of Tradition versus Sola Scriptura. But, of good tradition versus bad tradition.

The Protestant church (all churches for that matter) have their own brand of traditions. The real issue is not if we should have tradition. But, rather. Is it good, or bad tradition? Does it compliment? Or, contradict? Scriptural truth!

The truth is that there are good traditions, and bad.

Tradition in itself is not a bad thing.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 (New International Version)
"Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made."

​

Now that was a tradition established by Paul for his church in Corinth. Today? We might mail mail in a check, or have a box in the back of the Church..or pass a plate.

Yet, Scripture states we are to have a collection for those in Spiritual leadership. Traditions created by different churches will determine individually how each is to accomplish this.

How are we to know we are to have traditions? Sola Scriptura! That's how! (how ironic)

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts.

Would you agree or disagree with Tradition having the same authority as scripture ? OR, with the statements made concerning them being inseparable from one another..?

How about the other OP question.. is it correct that the catholic church declared that Tradition was equal in its authority to the scriptures..? anyone..? I'd be interested in hearing more along those lines if others are as well..

a_ntv said:

Jesus was perfectly able to read and write.
But He never wrote a book.

Click to expand...

The Holy Spirit did.
That's good enough for me.

Jesus, Peter, Paul and more referred to those Scriptures as authoritative and norming over 50 times. They never one mentioned the Magisterium of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination (or any other) or the Pope.

From Moses through the Prophets, revelations were written down - lest they be forgotten or twisted.

That was a choice of Him.

Click to expand...

To prevent us from forgetting His words and considering only His book.

But he took three (3 !!!) years to teach his aposteles (orally only)
Do you have an idea of how many things can be said in three years??

Click to expand...

Is there any indication that Jesus taught dogmas which the Holy Spirit chose to exclude from Holy Scripture and give instead as a private secret to the Magisterium of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination? I see nothing to suggest that. John does tell us that Jesus DID some things not recorded in the singular book of the Gospel of John, but there's no hint whatsoever that Jesus taught dogmas which the Holy Spirit caused to be kept out of Holy Scriptures.


And, of course, ANYONE can self-claim that God whispered some secret to them. Read anything from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? It could be God did share some secret with them, dogmas God chose to keep out of the Holy Scriptures. But it could be Smith and Young are wrong, too. Don't you think? I'd rather stick with what God chose to tell us rather than what someone self-claims was a secret God whispered to them.
But we'll disagree on that.



MY view...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

ETide said:

Thanks for your thoughts.

Would you agree or disagree with Tradition having the same authority as scripture ?

Click to expand...

For starters..... Traditions can change from locale to locale, age to age. The Word of God does not change. They are not on the same footing. Tradition was meant to make clear the path for those who possess knowledge of the Word which is alive in them. Tradition is the mat we wipe our feet on. The Word made alive is what gives our feet the energy to walk and run in faith. Tradition may be a footstool someone constructed to rest one's feet. Yet, Scripture has the directives by which that tradition was built upon.

OR, with the statements made concerning them being inseparable from one another..?

Click to expand...

Tradition is setting. Word is what the setting exists for. Tradition in one church may have music before the message. In another church, the music may come after. Yet, in another music may be played only on certain holidays. And, in yet another, no music at all.

Tradition serves the Word. Not the other way around. If the Word serves tradition, it is a distortion of purpose.

How about the other OP question.. is it correct that the catholic church declared that Tradition was equal in its authority to the scriptures..? anyone..?

Click to expand...

RCC has traditions that try to make the Word to submit to tradition. If they had Sola Scriptura functioning in the Church when such traditions were first erected, such traditions would have never gotten started.

Trouble is, now, its gone too far to admit error. And, must act as if it can do no wrong for those who will not think with Scripture. It weeds out he Sola Scriptura types, and leaves in those who can be led with out question.

I say, let them be. God is the judge. We simply expose what we can, and move on.

But? If the RCC came after us with an Inquisition? Then I say attack. Right now we are simply to expose. If they had the power for Inquisition, then we would need to attack.

Folks like yourself are living proof that they have no control over the minds of those who are led of the Spirit. No oppression from an Inquisition is around the corner. So expose the fallacies. But do so in a calm and detached manner. No need for attack, for they can not touch us.

What that church does (and a good number of others who live by their own traditions which upsurp the authority of the Word), is to weed out the dead wood that would have taken up space in churches that live by Sola Scriptura in accuracy.

I believe God allows for many types of churches to exist for the sake of those who desire Truth above man's desire. So that those who seek the pure Word of God, will not have to deal with all the internal conflicts that would have taken place if only churches that taught the pure Word of God were allowed to exist.

Its in many ways like different neighborhoods are set up to attract different classes of people. That if all classes were forced to integrate into one neighborhood there would be no tranquility where tranquility is able to exist. Those who are law abiding and moral would be forced to live next to a crime ridden house that would show no respect for others. And, the law abiding neighbor would not be allowed to move out and find their own location. Such it would be if there were only one church to live under. God does not want it that way. Churches are like neighborhoods. Some are crime ridden (lawless to the Word). Some abide in Spirit and in Truth.

The Word does not lie. That passage does not say we are to prevent that from happening. And, our happiness should depend on everyone agreeing with the truth. One person with truth and the Spirit is happiness. Two in the same situation is enhanced happiness by being able to share one's happiness. But? It does not depend on all agreeing. Jesus said it will not be that way. And, throughout church history, of the millions who believe? Only a few over the span of history will discover what it is that Jesus meant when he said..... "I come to give life abundantly." Many substitute self satisfaction (self reghteousness) for the happiness of God, given to those who remain faithful to grow in grace and truth.

Jesus warned right after his warning that most are going to follow a "broad and wide" array of religious choices, that will vary as wide as there are differences in natural human preference...



And, we are also warned by Jesus, that not everyone who comes in Christ's name to lead the Church are to be trusted. No matter how much they claim to be of God and the right way.I say? Where are they today? For they are to be with us. Sola Scriptura is to be our shield! Tradition can be used for their cover.

Tradition must agree with Sola Scriptura in order for it to be GOOD tradition. GOOD tradition is in submission to Sola Scriptura. Not the other way around.

If a tradition is used to upsurp the authority of Scripture, then that tradition is being used for a cover for evil, not a shield.

GOOD tradition is in harmony with Scripture, and is used to 'polish' our shield. To make it better shine in darkness when light is reflected off it.

BAD tradition places toxic lead on the shield of the Word as to pack it with soft lead, making it too heavy to utilize in spiritual combat.

That is what one kind of BAD tradition produces. It makes the one under such a burden always to feel weak and not able to overcome evil. It weighs men down (guilt) with traditions that are contrary to the Word of God.

And, then quite often, this Church will offer itself as to be their salvation. Be faithful to the Church, and God is pleased by what they do.

Yet, God is only pleased by what we know. Faith. Not works.

If we have true faith? Well then, our faith will motivate works (righteous actions) without giving it a thought at the right time. We will not have a need for someone else to set up a system of works to follow as to gain merit points with God. That way is demanded by BAD tradition.

Our works will be unique as the very life the LORD has given us to have in Him. Our works will be our own.

GOOD tradition will never assign to us works to perform for merit with God. GOOD tradition would simply organize our lives in a manner in which we can discover the good works that God planned for us to do in the Spirit's power.

We are not to attack what is false. An Inquisition attacks. But, we have been called to expose.


Grace and peace, GeneZ

CJ said:

From Moses through the Prophets, revelations were written down - lest they be forgotten or twisted.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but let us also remember...


"Do not works precede Scripture and tradition? Does not tradition precede Scripture? Were not the works of Noah, Abraham, the forefathers and representatives of the Church of the Old Testament, pleasing to God? And did not tradition exist amongst the patriarchs, beginning with Adam, the forefathers of all? Did not Christ give liberty to men and teaching by word of mouth, before the Apostles by their writings bore witness to the work of redemption and the law of liberty?" (Alexei Khomiakov)


Q