Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

IF Tradition and Scripture are equal, then we've embraced a circular, self-authenticating principle of accountability that provides no accountability whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Sola is unaccountable.

Tradition and Scripture are accountable to one another.
As said many times, you cannot have one without the other.

NOT everything was written in scripture...ask St John.

WarriorAngel said:

Sola is unaccountable.

Tradition and Scripture are accountable to one another.
As said many times, you cannot have one without the other.

NOT everything was written in scripture...ask St John.

Click to expand...

You are contemplating the Word of God?

And, we add an ?

I don't get it. Are we playing a cutesy game with God's Word?

I am afraid to say... Some just do not see the seriousness of what they are dealing with.


Now......

Do you read what that says?

That does not sound like a what I would call a few things that were to be passed down.

Something else took place. Something that we are not now supposed to know.

Here, this is what I mean.


What went on that John spoke of? That it would take books that would fill the whole world?

If he could have? He would have certainly told us just a few of them. For there were many upon many things he saw!

But, for reasons known between himself and God? He was not permitted to write about any of them. God knows what we need to know. No more. No less.

Anything we are to have knowledge about pertaining to our spiritual life in Christ is now contained in the pages of Scripture.

Anything not there? Its none of our business until we get to Heaven. God could have added a few more pages if He wanted to.

Trouble is?

If we all could just knew the riches to be found in a proper teaching of the Word of God? We would not be seeking substitutes to try and fill up that emptiness that the ignorance of Truth produces in a believer's soul.


It can be done. It has been done.

Good tradition is only like a lamp and table we sit at to learn from the Word. It can not impart knowledge and understanding beyond that which is a very basic and on a superficial level of understanding in itself.

Tradition is like a sign above the doorway to knowledge that says... "Entrance." It can not impart much knowledge. If its good tradition? It simply points and opens a way to greater and greater knowledge and understanding of God's Word.

And? May I ask? I really can not understand how this can be!

Where did the tradition of praying to Mary come from?

It could not have come from the Jewish Apostles. They knew Mary. They knew truth much greater than she did. The Apostles would have never taught such a thing. It was not a teaching passed down by them. jews were forbidden by God to contact the dead.

So, where did that tradition come from?

Can you give chapter and verse to show us how its a Biblical principle?

That is why we need to stick with Sola Scriptura!

You must spread reputation around before giving to genez again. Once again, you've nailed it better than I ever could. Tradition is accountable to Scripture. Period. Scripture isn't accountable to tradition. Is God accountable to anyone except His own self and His own holy nature? If not, then His word isn't accountable to any human being or their traditions.

Thanks Genez, I basically agree with you and I have a question for you on that John 21:24-26 passage.

You said.

What went on that John spoke of? That it would take books that would fill the whole world?

Click to expand...

I think it's important to note what John was referring to. In the passage John says "And there are also many other things which Jesus did". I think it important to point out that John is only referring to things that Jesus did.

Many of the traditions of the church have little to do with an action that Jesus took but was not recorded in scripture. So I'm wondering on your take of how some people can take this verse and use it to defend some of their traditions. I mean, what John said wasn't recorded was all the things Jesus did.

nephilimiyr said:

I think it's important to note what John was referring to. In the passage John says "And there are also many other things which Jesus did". I think it important to point out that John is only referring to things that Jesus did.

Click to expand...

Neph, I do understand they're wrong in what they claim it to mean. I understand how they see it. By using their own distortion of Scripture as the premise, I showed how that can not be true.

Its much easier to disprove their point by using what they are willing to see. Its much harder when working with what they do not want to see. It would take two big hurdles, instead of one to correct the misinterpretation. And, then needing to bring it back to where it had wandered off from. It would added many a post to this thread, with many a

Why argue for accuracy and invite all the drawn out points that their apologists teach them to present? Why not simply deal with what they do believe? For, as they believe it to be? It can easily be shown to be illogical. Plain and simple. Why complicate what can be kept simple?

Grace and truth, GeneZ

stray bullet said:

The Catholic Church, just as the Orthodox and Coptic churches... believes that Tradition is inspired by God and thus, equal in authority to Scripture.

Click to expand...

Yet, when asked to identify these elusive "T"raditions, it seems that no one of either faith can quite put a finger on them . . . . .

Asinner said:

The Word of God transcends scripture. You cannot contain God in written words. He was in the beginning, He was with God, He is God. The truth of Him is everywhere and fills all things; therefore, that which was taught and spoken by Christ, yet not put to paper, is still His Word. Is His Word not also written upon our hearts? His Word lives in us today and has been kept alive for 2000 years, living in those who came before us. Gal 2:20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

God Bless

Click to expand...

Scripture just tells us how to seek Him, where to find Him, and how to worship Him . . . . . .

cathmomof3 said:

He was referring to the traditions of the Jews. Not the Traditions from the apostles. There is a huge difference.

Click to expand...

Really? Exactly, where is this distinction made? Where will we find Jesus making this clarification? If it is in Holy Tradition, what is the source, where do we go to see Jesus' exact words on this?

7cworldwide said:

That's absolutely right and 2 Timothy 3:15-17 proves it.

Click to expand...

Which is?


It says, not simply "equipped."

We have more than we need to become victorious and tranquil in our hearts, in Christ, to be discovered and unburied in Scripture.

There will be no need for tradition in Heaven.

Eternity is timeless and without fault. Tradition is what we need to give us a sense of structure which simply will not be needed in Heaven. The Treasure we are now to have is the Word of God hidden in our hearts!

Tradition when used as a substitution for securing Truth from the Word, becomes much like the concept of the repetitive Hindu mantra of "OHM" as to momentarily escape consciousness of fear and stress.

Yet, after the meditation? The reason for fear and stress remains alive.

In the same manner, tradition itself can not overcome fear and stress. It must be repeated religiously. With traditions as substitutes for growing in knowledge in grace, we just divert our minds away from the source of fear by concentrarting on an object or concept. Its not overcoming the cause. Its escapism, only. Religion. The, opiate of the people.

When tradition is used in religious repetitiveness it does not overcome fear and stress by causing one to see what causes it, making it become exposed by means of Truth in grace. It does not show how its to be defeated. Missaplication of traditionalism becomes a form of escapism.

Tradition if improperly implimented, becomes a form of adult, believing in Santa Claus thinking. Comforting (to an extent) some who momentarily concentrate upon the pleasant fantasy they have been told to believe on with tradition.

In a sense, revealing sound doctrine is like telling those who cling to what substitute they want to believe, that there is no Santa Claus. This can cause outrage. Or, self righteous stone walling.

I remember one friend I told there was no Santa (as a child) and was amazed at how strongly he resisted and cried. One would have thought I told him his parents just died. I was confounded. I felt bad for him.

We all have in our human nature a part of us that was designed to fantasize in wonder and awe, at one time, even about things like Santa Claus.

God wants it transformed and to be dealt with. He wants only certain things for us to dream upon as to enter this compartment of our soul.

Such things enter when we stand in awe of what is to come. Concerning what we have been shown we have become in Christ, but can not see with our limited vision in our present state of being. For, we see as only through a glass darkly at this time.

For Heaven and how we shall be, are beyond what we can dream and imagine. But, with what we used to use to believe in Santa Claus in our soul? We now can utilize as to prepare our hearts in great anticipation.
For, what will this time, be reality!


Grace and peace, GeneZ

racer said:

Yet, when asked to identify these elusive "T"raditions, it seems that no one of either faith can quite put a finger on them . . . . .

Click to expand...

That'a because there is no one written body of Tradition. Tradition encompasses the works of the Church Father's, the councils, and the Bible.

Peace

ETide said:

Heaven and earth shall pass away.. along with your traditions..

Isn't it ironic.. what we do have in the word of God, as contained within the scriptures.. that it can not be exhausted.. that it is living and powerful.. that it truly lives and abides for ever..

Is your tradition up to par with that..?

For the record.. What are your traditions..?

Click to expand...

This brought to mind a passage from St. Augustine:

Augustine’s Confessions, Book XIII

Chapter XV.—Allegorical Explanation of the Firmament and Upper Works, Ver. 6.

16. Or who but Thou, our God, made for us that firmament1 of authority over us in Thy divine Scripture?2 As it is said, For heaven shall be folded up like a scroll;3 and now it is extended over us like a skin.4 For Thy divine Scripture is of more sublime authority, since those mortals through whom Thou didst dispense it unto us underwent mortality. And Thou knowest, O Lord, Thou knowest, how Thou with skins didst clothe men5 when by sin they became mortal. Whence as a skin hast Thou stretched out the firmament of Thy Book;6 that is to say, Thy harmonious words, which by the ministry of mortals Thou hast spread over us. For by their very death is that solid firmament of authority in Thy discourses set forth by them more sublimely extended above all things that are under it, the which, while they were living here, was not so eminently extended.7 Thou hadst not as yet spread abroad the heaven like a skin; Thou hadst not as yet noised everywhere the report of their deaths.
17. Let us look, O Lord, “upon the heavens, the work of Thy fingers;”8 clear from our eyes that mist with which Thou hast covered them. There is that testimony of Thine which giveth wisdom unto the little ones.9 Perfect, O my God, Thy praise out of the mouth of babes and sucklings.10 Nor have we known any other books so destructive to pride, so destructive to the enemy and the defender,11 who resisteth Thy reconciliation in defence of his own sins.12 I know not, O Lord, I know not other such “pure”13 words which so persuade me to confession, and make my neck submissive to Thy yoke, and invite me to serve Thee for nought. Let me understand these things, good Father. Grant this to me, placed under them; because Thou hast established these things for those placed under them.


18. Other “waters” there be “above” this “firmament,” I believe immortal, and removed from earthly corruption. Let them praise Thy Name,—those super-celestial people, Thine angels, who have no need to look up at this firmament, or by reading to attain the knowledge of Thy Word,—let them praise Thee. For they always behold Thy face,14 and therein read without any syllables in time what Thy eternal will willeth. They read, they choose, they love.15 They are always reading; and that which they read never passeth away. For, by choosing and by loving, they read the very unchangeableness of Thy counsel. Their book is not closed, nor is the scroll folded up,16 because Thou Thyself art this to them, yea, and art so eternally; because Thou hast appointed them above this firmament, which Thou hast made firm over the weakness of the lower people, where they might look up and learn Thy mercy, announcing in time Thee who hast made times. “For Thy mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens, and Thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds.”17 The clouds pass away, but the heaven remaineth. The preachers of Thy Word pass away from this life into another; but Thy Scripture is spread abroad over the people, even to the end of the world. Yea, both heaven and earth shall pass away, but Thy Words shall not pass away.18 Because the scroll shall be rolled together,19 and the grass over which it was spread shall with its goodliness pass away; but Thy Word remaineth for ever,20 which now appeareth unto us in the dark image of the clouds, and through the glass of the heavens, not as it is;21 because we also, although we be the well-beloved of Thy Son, yet it hath not yet appeared what we shall be.22 He looketh through the lattice23 of our flesh, and He is fair-speaking, and hath inflamed us, and we run after His odours.24 But “when He shall appear, then shall we be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.”25 As He is, O Lord, shall we see Him, although the time be not yet.

lionroar0 said:

That'a because there is no one written body of Tradition. Tradition encompasses the works of the Church Father's, the councils, and the Bible.

Peace

Click to expand...

Regardless, if you continue to assert that Scripture is only a portion of Holy Tradition, then you must be able to name or list the parts of Holy Tradition that are not contained in Scripture. Surely, these or "this" tradition(s) can be identified . . . .

genez said:

... By using their own distortion of Scripture as the premise, I showed how that can not be true. .....

Click to expand...

This is almost funny. Our distortion of scripture. Let's see. We kept the words of the church alive for 300 years until the Bible was assembled. Then for another 1000 years we used the Bible and the oral knowledge (tradition) to expand the Church. Along come someone who rips entire books from the Bible and edits out anything he doesn't like. After mutilating and totally changing the message of the Bible he declares that only sola scripture is acceptable.

And you say we use a distorted version.

Ha!

nephilimiyr said:

Thanks Genez, I basically agree with you and I have a question for you on that John 21:24-26 passage.

You said.

I think it's important to note what John was referring to. In the passage John says "And there are also many other things which Jesus did". I think it important to point out that John is only referring to things that Jesus did.

Many of the traditions of the church have little to do with an action that Jesus took but was not recorded in scripture. So I'm wondering on your take of how some people can take this verse and use it to defend some of their traditions. I mean, what John said wasn't recorded was all the things Jesus did.

Click to expand...

Neph,

It's more like John was saying there was no way to record all that Jesus did. Therefore, what is written is what Jesus taught and commanded. The things that were pertinent to our salvation, that we would need to know for ages, that needed to be preserved and passed on, etc . . . .

NiteClerk said:

This is almost funny. Our distortion of scripture. Let's see. We kept the words of the church alive for 300 years until the Bible was assembled.

Click to expand...

As you stated, the "Bible" was not assembled, but that does not negate the fact that the teachings were circulated in some type of written form before being compiled into one text book.

NiteClerk said:

Then for another 1000 years we used the Bible and the oral knowledge (tradition) to expand the Church.

Click to expand...

Then, what is that oral knowledge that was used for 1000 years? What did it teach in addition to what Scripture reveals.

Along come someone who rips entire books from the Bible and edits out anything he doesn't like. After mutilating and totally changing the message of the Bible he declares that only sola scripture is acceptable.

And you say we use a distorted version.

Click to expand...

Actually, I wouldn't say that you necessarily use a distorted version. More like, your assertion of what the version is and says is distorted.

Ha!

Click to expand...

Hmmmmm . . . . . .

racer said:

Regardless, if you continue to assert that Scripture is only a portion of Holy Tradition, then you must be able to name or list the parts of Holy Tradition that are not contained in Scripture. Surely, these or "this" tradition(s) can be identified . . . .

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand. I can list authors.

Do you mean teachings and practices not explicit in scripture??

Peace

Once again, we arrive back at the fact that the united Church (now the RCC and EOC) declared at a council in the late 4th century what books were inspired and which were not. As such this enters into the realm that if you accept the canon of Scripture you accept a Church Tradition. It is illogical, and basiclly beyond silly, to say that while you accept this one Church council you don't accept the others. If you don't accept that the Councils were guided by the Spirit in their decisions then you DON"T HAVE A BIBLE. Scripture alone cannot support itself because their is nothing in Scripture that contains a canon list.
All the early Christians had was Holy Tradition taught to them by the Apostles and early Church fathers. Once again, no canon of Scripture until the late 4th century. St. Paul calls this Tradition the "rule of faith."
So, would a protestant please tell me why, if we are free to disagree with other Church councils, we cannot disagree with any book, chapter, or verse, in the bible we chose? The only thing that says those books are inspired is a Church council, and as you're all so fond of telling us, it's just a "tradition of men." As such I'm going to follow the protestant beliefs to their logical conclusion and decide that I will be removing the following books from Scripture:
Mark (four gospels is too many, three seem good enough to me)
Titus (it's so short anyway, who'll miss it)
2nd Peter (one is good enough from him)
2nd John (ibid)
3rd John (ibid)
After all, the only thing that says these books are inspired is a Church council, and in my new found protestantism I'm free to disregard them. Also, I've decided that since Peter's first council had no Scriptural backing to meet and decide that Gentile believers didn't need to worry about Jewish dietary laws we'll be keeping Kosher from now on.

lionroar0 said:

I'm not sure I understand. I can list authors.

Do you mean teachings and practices not explicit in scripture??

Peace

Click to expand...

If Scripture is only a part of the "whole" know as by the RCC "Holy Tradition," then surely the remaining "parts" of Holy Tradition can be identified.

For instance, if I state a particular belief such as "baptism," (just an example) to someone who doesn't know much about Christianity, and they ask me to substaniate my assertion or what is my source, I can direct them to Scripture.

So, I guess my question would be, "if Scripture is only part of the teachings Holy Tradition, what are the other teachings not contained in Scripture, and where would I locate them?

OnTheWay said:

Once again, we arrive back at the fact that the united Church (now the RCC and EOC) declared at a council in the late 4th century what books were inspired and which were not. As such this enters into the realm that if you accept the canon of Scripture you accept a Church Tradition. It is illogical, and basiclly beyond silly, to say that while you accept this one Church council you don't accept the others.

Click to expand...

Please explain your logic? Why is this silly? I may concede to a certain degree that if one particular council made two declarations and one was accepted and the other not, there would have to be an acceptable reason. But, the soundness of a doctrine is not determined by councils, it is determined by what the Gospel, Scripture teaches. If it is not in line with Scripture, then its not a legitimate doctrine.

The legitimacy of a particular doctrine is not based upon "who" declared it, but the authenticity of the doctrine. Is it sound? Is it in line with Scripture? Is it Biblical? Can it be substantiated? The question is not, "Did a council declare it so? Yes? Well, then it's doctrine and part of Holy Tradition."

If you don't accept that the Councils were guided by the Spirit in their decisions then you DON"T HAVE A BIBLE. Scripture alone cannot support itself because their is nothing in Scripture that contains a canon list.

Click to expand...

This logic is baseless and unfounded, not to mention beyond silly. One reason being that just because one Council may have been led by the Holy Spirit does not by necessity mean that every council convened was led by the Holy Spirit.

So, now you're going to ask how do we know whether or not the contents of the Bible is in line with Scripture. Well, the compilation of the Bible was more than just being led by the Holy Spirit. It was also a process of elimination. The texts had to be consistent with one another to be considered Gospel. The process was not determined solely based upon guidance of the Holy Spirit, but also upon knowledge of what was constantly and consistently taught since Jesus.

All the early Christians had was Holy Tradition taught to them by the Apostles and early Church fathers.

Click to expand...

All they had was what was delivered to them by the Apostles. Whether or not that was Scripture as we have it now in writing or what you assert is Holy Tradition, Scripture and more, is the question. The burden is upon you to prove that it was more than Scripture.

Once again, no canon of Scripture until the late 4th century.

Click to expand...

That does not mean that Scripture was not circulated in writing individually, only that it was not combined into one book. I just don't know what people who use this argument think it proves. . . .

St. Paul calls this Tradition the "rule of faith."

Click to expand...

Where does St. Paul refer to this Tradition?

So, would a protestant please tell me why, if we are free to disagree with other Church councils, we cannot disagree with any book, chapter, or verse, in the bible we chose?

Click to expand...

Because Scripture was given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit--we have that in writing. When something is preserved in writing, it can be proven throughout ages. We have the Bible now, yes some bibles have some books and others don't. But, still we know what all of these books are and exactly what they teach, and that they have not changed throughout the ages. Scripture, the Gospel in written form, can not be change by whim or weakening of teachings passed on in oral form only. There is not way to accurately trace anything passed on by word of mouth alone.

Now, when you show me where it is ever said that traditon is God breathed and given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit even implicitly, we'll work from there.

The only thing that says those books are inspired is a Church council, and as you're all so fond of telling us, it's just a "tradition of men."

Click to expand...

St. Paul was a "church council?" Remember, II Tim 3:14-17?

As such I'm going to follow the protestant beliefs to their logical conclusion and decide that I will be removing the following books from Scripture:
Mark (four gospels is too many, three seem good enough to me)
Titus (it's so short anyway, who'll miss it)
2nd Peter (one is good enough from him)
2nd John (ibid)
3rd John (ibid)
After all, the only thing that says these books are inspired is a Church council, and in my new found protestantism I'm free to disregard them. Also, I've decided that since Peter's first council had no Scriptural backing to meet and decide that Gentile believers didn't need to worry about Jewish dietary laws we'll be keeping Kosher from now on.

Click to expand...

This rant addresses what issue?