Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[stray bullet]

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.' 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

Why is it that people here seem to hear the word 'Tradition" and immediate associate it with tradition?

Holy Tradition is not a tradition.

Holy Tradition is what they call apostolic teaching, both in and outside of canon.

The question is, why would anyone reject part of apostolic teaching on the basis that it wasn't included in the current canon? Holy Tradition never contradicts scripture and is almost entirely backed up by scripture.

The idea that scripture is the complete revelation of what God wanted to reveal is an Islamic idea. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the full, infallible truth that God has revealed to mankind. No Christians adopted this theology until the 16th Century and the reformation. The bible is Holy Tradition that was preserved in scripture and survived. Who knows how much information the apostles wrote down that was inspired, but didn't survive.

The bible is not the complete word... and it makes no claim it is the full word of God. It is nearly the full word of God. Holy Tradition is the full word. It is what God revealed to the apostles, which is almost entirely found within canon.

 

[GenemZ]

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)

You forgot to give the chapter and verse for that quote?

That was simply a man's opinion that you find to your liking.

All that the man spoke of? Are in Scripture. Their works would have not been known to us, if not the Holy Spirit showed the Prophet the words to write about what he did not witness to.

Without Scripture we can not know the faith of those who preceded Scripture in writing. Without Scripture? We would know nothing but hearsay, at best.

We do not carry on the same traditions of the patriarchs. Do we? We do not carry on the same traditions as Adam did. Do we? Traditions change. The Word of God never changes.

There is a place for tradition. But, mind you. There are GOOD traditions, and BAD traditions. Just like there are GOOD nations, and EVIL nations. Having tradition is not a point to be questioned. What is GOOD, and BAD tradition, is.

When does tradition become BAD? When its contradictory to principles to be found in Scripture.


Therefore, it all comes back to Sola Scriptura. Just like laws which are created in the United States must be in harmony with its Constitution. The Constitution does not contain these specific laws that govern certain locales. But, it is the guideline that determines what laws are Constitutional, and what are not. Likewise, the Bible is the Constitution by which all tradition is to be evaluated, as being either Biblical, or evil.

If anyone passes a law that contradicts the Constitution? Is that law to be considered equal with the Constitution? No! If that happens? We have no longer have law, but lawlessness. We find man being a law unto himself, upsurping the authority of the land.

Traditions that are not in harmony with Scripture? That claim to be equal with Scripture? Mister? What do you have? You tell us. Please, do.

God gave us our Constitution to be found in Sola Scriptura. After all, Scripture mentions tradition. So, tradition is to be a part of Church life. Yet, all GOOD tradition is to be found to be in harmony with what Scripture does reveal to us. It is no excuse for having bad tradition. Bad tradition is to be exposed via Sola Scriptura. If the warning is to be ignored, then who ever follows that BAD tradition is to be considered dead wood and not abiding in the VIne.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[Qoheleth]

You forgot to give the chapter and verse for that quote?

LOL, just open up your Bible and start with Genesis.

Therefore, it all comes back to Sola Scriptura.

right. And whos interpretation do you suggest we follow?

Just like laws which are created in the United States must be in harmony with its Constitution.

Who interprets the Constitution?

the Bible is the Constitution by which all tradition is to be evaluated, as being either Biblical, or evil.

Ok, then the Bible is the Constitution and the Church is the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of the law, so the Church is the final arbiter of scripture.

I like this analogy you provided.

It is no excuse for having bad tradition. Bad tradition is to be exposed via Sola Scriptura.

Whoops, lets not forget it is the Supreme Court (i.e. the Church) decides what is in "harmony" not the words of the Constitution itself.


Q

 

[Trento]

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..



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..



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..

Perhaps these Protestant historical scholars can shed some light on how the Church always operated reguarding Tradition.

The evidence has been recognized by Philip Schaff, a major Protestant church historian from last century writes in his History of the Christian Church pre Nicaea period--

The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)

J.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines -- (after many examples)

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-4

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

They acknowlege that the early Church retained the Legacy of the Apostles (Tradition) in order to interpret the scriptures correctly which the Church still does. If it did not you would end up as you can see now in some Bible only Chuches example--Christadelphianism which denies the Trinity doctrine as well as the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Why is it that people here seem to hear the word 'Tradition" and immediate associate it with tradition?

Holy Tradition is not a tradition.

Holy Tradition is what they call apostolic teaching, both in and outside of canon.

The question is, why would anyone reject part of apostolic teaching on the basis that it wasn't included in the current canon? Holy Tradition never contradicts scripture and is almost entirely backed up by scripture.

The idea that scripture is the complete revelation of what God wanted to reveal is an Islamic idea. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the full, infallible truth that God has revealed to mankind. No Christians adopted this theology until the 16th Century and the reformation. The bible is Holy Tradition that was preserved in scripture and survived. Who knows how much information the apostles wrote down that was inspired, but didn't survive.

The bible is not the complete word... and it makes no claim it is the full word of God. It is nearly the full word of God. Holy Tradition is the full word. It is what God revealed to the apostles, which is almost entirely found within canon.

You raise a very important point here, as you have identified the confusion that some have regarding paradosis. They- those who speak of our 'traditions' plural, do not understand that paradosis is the corpus of Tradition with a capital T, which is sometimes referred to as dogmatic tradition. We- you and I, as Orthodox and Catholic, do not confuse the tradition of,for example, crossing from right to left or left to right with the apostolic paradosis.

Genez and Etide seem to think we're referring to which day we eat meat or what color we paint the church door.

Tradition, capital T, as you, and I, Qoheleth, Trento and others know well, which we might refer to as interpretive tradition, if that were sufficient (for tradition includes praxis also), is the construct of interpretation through which we read scripture and understand it. Every Christian reads scripture through constructs, it's just that some seem unconscious and blind to theirs.

By such definition, I truly disgaree that there are 28k Protestant denominations. I believe there a few dozen major Protestant traditions, with a few subtexts in each.

It strikes me as cognitively dissonant when I read those who quote so and so in the process of decrying tradition. Much moreso when they quote, for example, Mark, and speak derisively of extrabiblical tradition (being as John Mark is the traditionally assigned author, and the tradition that he was a disciple of Peter made his gospel authentic in the minds of the mothers and fathers of the faith).

 

[FullyMT]

Popping my head in to quote something a professor said to me in the Fall...
"Tradition (with a capital T, not a small "t" tradition) keeps a person's interpretation of Scripture in check and within lines of orthodoxy. Scripture helps make sure that the Traditions and traditions the Church celebrates and keep stay balanced. If a person's interpretation of Scripture gets a little - odd, then Tradition is there to help nudge them into the right direction. If people start practicing odd or incorrect things in the name of Tradition, scripture is there to say otherwise."
Eh...that may not be exact quoting (my notes are in a box 1000 + miles away), but I think that gets the idea going.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Popping my head in to quote something a professor said to me in the Fall...
"Tradition (with a capital T, not a small "t" tradition) keeps a person's interpretation of Scripture in check and within lines of orthodoxy. Scripture helps make sure that the Traditions and traditions the Church celebrates and keep stay balanced. If a person's interpretation of Scripture gets a little - odd, then Tradition is there to help nudge them into the right direction. If people start practicing odd or incorrect things in the name of Tradition, scripture is there to say otherwise."
Eh...that may not be exact quoting (my notes are in a box 1000 + miles away), but I think that gets the idea going.

Yes- this is similar to the notion of tradition as a fence to the Torah

According to Rabbi Akiva
2) Tradition is a fence to the Torah;
3) Tithes a fence to wealth,
4) Vows a fence to abstinence;
5) A fence to wisdom is silence.

One can see the parallels between ancient Christian thought and Rabbinic thought.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Actually, the Bible itself is tradition.

The Greek word for tradition (paradosiv) means "to pass on". It means receiving a teaching from someone else and passing it on. With that in mind, the apostles were involved in tradition. What they learned from Jesus they passed on to others.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

2 Thes 2:15 (Douy-Reheims)

Here Paul made a distinction between two kinds of the traditions that he has passed on, oral tradition and written tradition. Notice that he wrote that we should hold onto BOTH kinds of tradition.

So the idea the Oral Tradition is given the same weight as, if not more than, written Tradition (the Bible) goes all the way back to the first century. It is found in the letters that were eventually placed in the Bible.

Let us also remember that the Bible was non-existent the first few centuries. If you mentioned the word "Bible" to a Christian in the first few centuries, he would not know what you were talking about. He may be aware of one or two of the gospels, and maybe he was aware of a few of Paul's letters, but that was it. Remember that these gospels and letters were scattered throughout the Roman Empire. The average Christian probably never even read any of them, if any at all. Remember, there was no printing press yet. So how did Christian know about Christ? How did they know about Christian doctrine? That was done through the teaching of the local bishop. They trusted their local biship because he was a disciple of one of the apostles, or at least he was a disciple of a disciple of the apostles. This is what Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:2:


The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Notice that Paul orally passed his teaching to Timothy, Timothy passed on the teaching to faithful men, and theese faithful men to pass onto others. This is oral tradition.

The Early Church relied far more on oral tradition than on the written word of God in the first three centuries. Even in the first 15 centuries there was more of reliance on oral tradition - simply because the printing press was not yet invented. Because of no printing press, and the scarcity of any books, illiteracy was over 80% in the first 15 centuries of Christianity. Christian doctrine was mostly learned through word-of-mouth. As the Bible itself teaches, faith comes by HEARING, and HEARING the word of God. The word of God was heard more than it was read.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Actually, the Bible itself is tradition.

The Greek word for tradition (paradosiv) means "to pass on". It means receiving a teaching from someone else and passing it on. With that in mind, the apostles were involved in tradition. What they learned from Jesus they passed on to others.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

2 Thes 2:15 (Douy-Reheims)

Here Paul made a distinction between two kinds of the traditions that he has passed on, oral tradition and written tradition. Notice that he wrote that we should hold onto BOTH kinds of tradition.

So the idea the Oral Tradition is given the same weight as, if not more than, written Tradition (the Bible) goes all the way back to the first century. It is found in the letters that were eventually placed in the Bible.

Let us also remember that the Bible was non-existent the first few centuries. If you mentioned the word "Bible" to a Christian in the first few centuries, he would not know what you were talking about. He may be aware of one or two of the gospels, and maybe he was aware of a few of Paul's letters, but that was it. Remember that these gospels and letters were scattered throughout the Roman Empire. The average Christian probably never even read any of them, if any at all. Remember, there was no printing press yet. So how did Christian know about Christ? How did they know about Christian doctrine? That was done through the teaching of the local bishop. They trusted their local biship because he was a disciple of one of the apostles, or at least he was a disciple of a disciple of the apostles. This is what Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:2:


The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Notice that Paul orally passed his teaching to Timothy, Timothy passed on the teaching to faithful men, and theese faithful men to pass onto others. This is oral tradition.

The Early Church relied far more on oral tradition than on the written word of God in the first three centuries. Even in the first 15 centuries there was more of reliance on oral tradition - simply because the printing press was not yet invented. Because of no printing press, and the scarcity of any books, illiteracy was over 80% in the first 15 centuries of Christianity. Christian doctrine was mostly learned through word-of-mouth. As the Bible itself teaches, faith comes by HEARING, and HEARING the word of God. The word of God was heard more than it was read.

That's a fantastic point. We know that the narrative form of scriptures came much later than the lectionary texts, written as collections of pericopes. These pericopes were used to illustrate points from the corpus of TRADITION, otherwise known as "the apostle's doctrine."

Now in the first century, the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ's hypostatic union were not part of tradition. Those dogmatic declarations came from the reading of scripture through the paradosis, and the doctrines made manifest by giving structure to what was already present in the belief of the Church.

In other words, Christ's divinity and same substance with the Father, spoken of in the canon of New Testament, were present in tradition long before the narrative was assembled.

For us, therefore, we cannot imagine Tradition and Scripture as separate, any more than we can consider bone and flesh separate.

 

[walterquez]

Why do Protestants rely on sola scriptura? Why did they really reject tradition?

I heard Islam had some influence in the West, since they believe in sola koran. I think.

 

[stray bullet]

Why do Protestants rely on sola scriptura? Why did they really reject tradition?

I heard Islam had some influence in the West, since they believe in sola koran. I think.

Yes, Muslims believe the Qur'an is the sole rule of faith.. and that is comprises all of what God wanted to reveal to mankind infallibly.

Many Christians don't realize their attitude about the bible does not reflect traditional Christianity, but Islamic beliefs.

 

[ETide]

GeneZ, thanks again for your in depth thoughts.. I understand and agree with what you're saying.. although the other views are suggesting that their Tradition is more aligned to how they interpret the scriptures.. etc.. we'll see if they expound more upon that..

 

[ETide]

Tradition, capital T, as you, and I, Qoheleth, Trento and others know well, which we might refer to as interpretive tradition, if that were sufficient (for tradition includes praxis also), is the construct of interpretation through which we read scripture and understand it.

So obviously this would imply that your interpretation of scripture is flawless, or your Tradition would be flawed and obviously separate from the truth contained in the scripture.

How do you engage in this Tradition in a practical way so as to interpret the scriptures.. can you provide us with some examples.. ?

Every Christian reads scripture through constructs, it's just that some seem unconscious and blind to theirs.

So how would you use the constructs of your Tradition to describe..say, the church of God as it is revealed in the scriptures..?

Would your Tradition lead you to claim that the Orthodox church is "the church" of God..?

How about the scriptures themselves.. do your Traditional constructs lead you to claim that the church created the scriptures.. as I've heard some orthodox folks state in a matter of fact type of way..? Is this the interpretive Tradition you speak of, and is this where it leads you..?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

So obviously this would imply that your interpretation of scripture is flawless, or your Tradition would be flawed and obviously separate from the truth contained in the scripture.

What is "obvious" to you in this instance is to me a bizarre non sequitur, not indicated or even hinted at by either the content of my posts or my responses to those who are not Orthodox.

"Flawless," you say. No one's individual reading or corporate reading of scripture is flawless. Nor is tradition exhaustive or static. What Tradition is is manifest, and not hidden or transient.

We are all separated to some degree from Truth. Your statement seems to me irrational.

How do you engage in this Tradition in a practical way so as to interpret the scriptures.. can you provide us with some examples.. ?

Your question confuses me. Engaging in a practical way, to us, means praxis, or practice. So our reading of scripture, Tradition, leads us to fast and pray together, not only spontaneously, but in the manner that the Apostles did: We pray the hours. We reckon the day as beginning at sundown, as they did, and, as they did, we pray at twilight and at dawn.

The practical outworking of our tradition was and is the Symbol of Faith, what you call the Nicene Creed. The hypostatic union, refined at Chalcedon- this was a practical outworking of our reading of scripture. Our respect and reverence for our bodies and for the environment is a result of our reading of scripture, which lifts up Christ's Bodily Incarnation (including birth, death Resurrection)as the central event of all history, the nexus of the renewal of all things. We do not despise the flesh as some modern Christians do, for we see that Christ has redeemed it.

These elements do not distinguish us from all other Christians. In fact, these are points of agreement in many respects.

So how would you use the constructs of your Tradition to describe..say, the church of God as it is revealed in the scriptures..?

Would your Tradition lead you to claim that the Orthodox church is "the church" of God..?

Absolutely. Perhaps you will leap upon that as a pronouncement of how others are outside the Church, but that is not implied. We know that Christ is in our midst, but it is not ours to say where He is not.

One thing we will not agree with is this notion that the Church is invisible only. The Church that canonized scripture was not invisble, nor was the council at nicea invisible.

How about the scriptures themselves.. do your Traditional constructs lead you to claim that the church created the scriptures.. as I've heard some orthodox folks state in a matter of fact type of way..? Is this the interpretive Tradition you speak of, and is this where it leads you..?

Objection, your Honor, leading the witness.

In all seriousness, what exactly are you asking? Or are you asking me anything at all...it seems to me that you're trying to tell me something here, rather than ask.


The scriptures are the witness of the Church. The Church wrote them, safeguarded them, discerned them, but "created?" What exactly do you mean by that?

 

[GenemZ]

LOL, just open up your Bible and start with Genesis.

Mine starts with, "Preface."

right. And whos interpretation do you suggest we follow?

That's the key.

Some will find the truth.

Others will not.

God knows who is true.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 (New International Version)
"In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval."




​

Now if there were only one organized Church over all? To tell all under it they must conform to the same things? How could God sort out those whom he approves of, from those whom he does not?

It is God who desires there to be differences made manifest. That way, the free stay free, and those who desire error, are to reap what they sow amongst themselves. Forced together? The free are not able to be free. Or, those who desire error are not free to be wrong. God does not want both together agreeing on the same things. Each is to find his own place. Just as each one of us are to be evaluated before the LORD, alone. Not as a Church. God would prefer all were one and in agreement. But, giving man free will in the midsts of spiritual warfare will have its victors, and losers. So, God allows for different church organizations to exist. That way, each one can realize his choice. Then, at the evaluation we all answer to God. Those who were led of the Spirit? They will end up finding the good churches.

James 4:6 niv
But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."



​

That passage speaks of believers. Two types. There can not be one Church for both types.

Who interprets the Constitution?

God allows each generation to either reap what they sow, or to reap what he has sown.

Ok, then the Bible is the Constitution and the Church is the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of the law, so the Church is the final arbiter of scripture.

God has given us the freedom to dissaociate from the federal governing body if we discern it has become corrupt. That is why we have both the right to bear arms, and were supposed to have state rights. The Inquisition in effect, was a corrupt federal governmental body gone haywire.

Whoops, lets not forget it is the Supreme Court (i.e. the Church) decides what is in "harmony" not the words of the Constitution itself.

The Church in this case is a chosen body of believers given the gift to teach, and are being filled and led by the Spirit of God. In turn, religious leaders also know the Word of God. But, they are not led of the Spirit. Its intellectual prowess that allows for this knowledge. Just like some hold great knowledge in physics. Its all academic, not truly spiritual.

Same held true in Jesus day. The religious leaders had great knowledge of words to be found in the Bible. But, they did not have the life needed to see the correct application.

So... What may have been a great start in the early years of the Church later on became corrupt with compromises and influences from paganism. As a result, God at times had certain men break free. A good number were killed by what was called the Church for that reason. One man I learned about , John Huss, was a prime example of how corrupt the Church had become at that point in time.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/7.html

The leadership of the Church had become a new breed of Pharisee who now used the name of Christ instead of Moses, claiming they had the fathers of the Church, just like the religious leaders claimed Abraham to be their father. There is nothing new under the sun...

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[ETide]

What is "obvious" to you in this instance is to me a bizarre non sequitur, not indicated or even hinted at by either the content of my posts or my responses to those who are not Orthodox.

"Flawless," you say. No one's individual reading or corporate reading of scripture is flawless. Nor is tradition exhaustive or static. What Tradition is is manifest, and not hidden or transient.

We are all separated to some degree from Truth. Your statement seems to me irrational.

I guess it's because you say that Tradition is inseparable from scripture.. and that it's your interpretation yardstick so to speak.. so if your interpretation is 'flawed' to any degree, then how is that inseparable..?

I guess you're right in a way, I basically have no idea what your Tradition actually is, and how that relates to being equal in authority to, or inseparable in any way to the scripture, which is the word of God.

Your question confuses me. Engaging in a practical way, to us, means praxis, or practice. So our reading of scripture, Tradition, leads us to fast and pray together, not only spontaneously, but in the manner that the Apostles did: We pray the hours. We reckon the day as beginning at sundown, as they did, and, as they did, we pray at twilight and at dawn.

The practical outworking of our tradition was and is the Symbol of Faith, what you call the Nicene Creed. The hypostatic union, refined at Chalcedon- this was a practical outworking of our reading of scripture. Our respect and reverence for our bodies and for the environment is a result of our reading of scripture, which lifts up Christ's Bodily Incarnation (including birth, death Resurrection)as the central event of all history, the nexus of the renewal of all things. We do not despise the flesh as some modern Christians do, for we see that Christ has redeemed it.

These elements do not distinguish us from all other Christians. In fact, these are points of agreement in many respects.

So in this respect, it does seem more like 'when you eat meat, or what color you paint your door' etc.. and even though the reason that you're doing these things may be interpretive to some degree.. they have absolutely no bearing on any other assembly..

Absolutely. Perhaps you will leap upon that as a pronouncement of how others are outside the Church, but that is not implied. We know that Christ is in our midst, but it is not ours to say where He is not.

One thing we will not agree with is this notion that the Church is invisible only. The Church that canonized scripture was not invisble, nor was the council at nicea invisible.

So this is where the disconnect becomes unavoidable imo.. what visible council (whether at nicea, or elsewhere) is inclusive of the church of God in its entirety ? Some members of the body of Christ may never have heard of the council, although they could certainly be in Christ from hearing and believing on Him..

The multitudes which make up the body of Christ on this planet are in no way connected or associated with any council of nicea, nor are they dependent at all upon the orthodox church..

Objection, your Honor, leading the witness.

I've read some other threads where it's usually the catholics or the orthodox folks who say that the scriptures are a product of the church.. again, this completely ignores the church in its entirety and limits it to some council which took place at such and such a time, etc..

In all seriousness, what exactly are you asking? Or are you asking me anything at all...it seems to me that you're trying to tell me something here, rather than ask.

The scriptures are the witness of the Church. The Church wrote them, safeguarded them, discerned them, but "created?" What exactly do you mean by that?

This is a statement I heard from another orthodox person in another thread.. that the church created the scriptures.. and of course I disagree completely..

The scriptures are God's testimony concerning His Son.. in the volume of the book it is written of Him.. Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God in Romans 3.. the entire OT was written down before the church of God existed.. the NT was written primarily by the Apostles while the church of God was in its infant stages..

The word of God is for ever settled in heaven, its incorruptible nature is not settled or safeguarded by men.. for men of God were moved by the Spirit of God in writing these things down..

And when you say that the church 'discerned' them.. again, you're speaking of the church as if it only exists in the council of so and so..

The scriptures are of infinite wealth to the Christian, they'll never be exhausted in this lifetime.. and this speaks to their living and powerful, effectual nature.

 

[Asinner]

That's the key.

Some will find the truth.

Others will not.

God knows who is true.

How does one find the truth?

God Bless

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I guess it's because you say that Tradition is inseparable from scripture.. and that it's your interpretation yardstick so to speak.. so if your interpretation is 'flawed' to any degree, then how is that inseparable..?

How is your flawed interpretation in any way inseparable from the tradition/construct through which you view scripture?
I'd hazard that it is not in any way separable.

I guess you're right in a way, I basically have no idea what your Tradition actually is, and how that relates to being equal in authority to, or inseparable in any way to the scripture, which is the word of God.

Now we're getting somewhere. I prefer inseparable to equal, for again equal implies a separation that does not really exist in my mind or heart.

So in this respect, it does seem more like 'when you eat meat, or what color you paint your door' etc.. and even though the reason that you're doing these things may be interpretive to some degree.. they have absolutely no bearing on any other assembly..

We are completely unconcerned with impressing or forcing Orthodox Tradition on any one else. When we post, and share, and witness, we speak from that tradition, just as a Baptist will share and speak from their tradition.

You are incorrect about Tradition, however- you asked about a practical outworking of Tradition, and I gave as an example fasting and praying together on prescribed days and times. Great Lent then is part of Tradition, big T. What exactly is eaten is actually small t tradition, and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Likewise, color schemes within Orthodox Tmples (it is inaccurate to refer to them as churches, for the church is the people).

So no, tradition is not about what to eat or what color to paint the door. We fast together not because of concern for diet, but because we do it TOGETHER, and we emulate Christ, Elijah, and Moses in the length of the fasts.

Trust me, Tradition is not a set of rules, but is instead an entire biblical worldview concerned wioth every aspect of human life.

So this is where the disconnect becomes unavoidable imo.. what visible council (whether at nicea, or elsewhere) is inclusive of the church of God in its entirety ?

According to the forum rules, the finding of the Nicean Council is inclusive of all who would be called Christian.

Some members of the body of Christ may never have heard of the council, although they could certainly be in Christ from hearing and believing on Him..

Sure. And there may be tribes in some far-flung island who have received the gospel through a dream, though missionaries have never reached their shores.

God's economy is His business. He is not beholden to human authority- but I am. I am held accountable to what I know. I am not held accountable to that which I have never heard.

The multitudes which make up the body of Christ on this planet are in no way connected or associated with any council of nicea, nor are they dependent at all upon the orthodox church..

Your first statement is demonstrably false, and most Protestants would disagree with it fervently. The Arian heresy, which alleges that Christ is a created being, would have been the viewpoint of Christianity had not the Nicean and Constantinoplitan councils, coupled with the heroic efforts of Athanasius and the Cappodocian Fathers staved off the assault of heresy. Likewise, had not WW II went our way, we would be speaking German right now.

As for your second point, it is debatable. If in fact your view on the Body truly embraces the universality of the Christian Church, then in fact we are all interdependent, and you and others are dependent on the Orthodox Church, and we upon you. To some degree, I concur with this, at least inasmuch as we have things to learn from one another.

I've read some other threads where it's usually the catholics or the orthodox folks who say that the scriptures are a product of the church.. again, this completely ignores the church in its entirety and limits it to some council which took place at such and such a time, etc..

No, the statement is a matter of fact. Those outside the councils and synods were interested in and committed to either adding to or detracting from the full corpus of scripture. By way of example, Marcion.

This is a statement I heard from another orthodox person in another thread.. that the church created the scriptures.. and of course I disagree completely..

I disagree with the word 'create' also. But the role of the Church in writing, preserving, defending, and canonizing holy scripture was indispensable, lauded, honorable, and worthy of mention. We ALL benefit from the passion that the early Church had for this apostolic witness.

The scriptures are God's testimony concerning His Son.. in the volume of the book it is written of Him..

They are also the testimony of the Church regarding the Body of Christ.

Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God in Romans 3.. the entire OT was written down before the church of God existed..

I won't argue the pre-Incarnational existence of the Church, but instead will simply comment that the Church inherited the covenants and promises from the righteous Hebrew forebearers. When one inherits a house, one owns said house as surely as though one had built it.

the NT was written primarily by the Apostles while the church of God was in its infant stages..

Yes, that's true, this is why I have referred to it as the Apostolic witness

The word of God is for ever settled in heaven, its incorruptible nature is not settled or safeguarded by men..

I imagine that this viewpoint would be of little comfort to either those who perished in the diocletian persecutions, nor folks like Tyndale.

To put it another way, I disagree: the word of God has been both settled and safeguarded by men.

And when you say that the church 'discerned' them.. again, you're speaking of the church as if it only exists in the council of so and so..

That does not logically follow (another non sequitur). The Church discerned scripture over time and geography. Councils only pronounced what had already been discerned within the Corpus of the Church.

The scriptures are of infinite wealth to the Christian, they'll never be exhausted in this lifetime.. and this speaks to their living and powerful, effectual nature.

On this point I would not differ with you at all- in fact, I've said as much and more

 

[GenemZ]

Why do Protestants rely on sola scriptura? Why did they really reject tradition?

Protestants did not reject tradition. They rejected traditions that were found to be anti-Biblical.

Protestants have their own tradition.

Sola Scriptura does not mean Bible only, no tradition. For the Bible reveals examples of having tradition. Sola Scriptura means, no tradition will be accepted, unless it is in harmony with Scripture.

I heard Islam had some influence in the West, since they believe in sola koran. I think.

Sola Koran is a distorted attempt to reinstitute what the Jews were like under Moses. Under Moses, when they were given strict Law to live under.

Satan observed this influence of strict Law over the minds of men, and introduced his own brand of hyper legalism to gain control over unregenerate Arabs. It was to keep them from Christianity which was spreading throughout the world. Satan understood the violent tendencies in many an Arab and created a religion to give that violence a sense of direction and glorification.

One can not compare the Sola Scriptura impact of the Bible (love and justice) to what came out of the system of hyper legalism of the Koran (oppress and conquer by the sword).

Genesis 16:12 niv

(Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."
​

What you said was like comparing a loyal obedient shepherd dog, to a wild dog. Both are dogs. But, no where alike in actual behavior.

There was one time when those who claimed to follow the Bible came to be like militant Muslims. That was the Inquisitions. The same mind set that rules over Islam had made its way into the Church at that time. Satan had infiltrated the Church with power hungry men who had no true vision of what Christ came to bring to the world.

Apples and oranges, GeneZ

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Protestants did not reject tradition. They rejected traditions that were found to be anti-Biblical.

Protestants have their own tradition.

Sola Scriptura does not mean Bible only, no tradition. For the Bible reveals examples of having tradition. Sola Scriptura means, no tradition will be accepted, unless it is in harmony with Scripture.



Sola Koran is a distorted attempt to reinstitute what the Jews were like under Moses. Under Moses, when they were given strict Law to live under.

Satan observed this influence of strict Law over the minds of men, and introduced his own brand of hyper legalism to gain control over unregenerate Arabs. It was to keep them from Christianity which was spreading throughout the world. Satan understood the violent tendencies in many an Arab and created a religion to give that violence a sense of direction and glorification.

One can not compare the Sola Scriptura impact of the Bible (love and justice) to what came out of the system of hyper legalism of the Koran (oppress and conquer by the sword).

Genesis 16:12 niv

(Ishmael)
He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."

​

What you said was like comparing a loyal obedient shepherd dog, to a wild dog. Both are dogs. But, no where alike in actual behavior.

There was one time when those who claimed to follow the Bible came to be like militant Muslims. That was the Inquisitions. The same mind set that rules over Islam had made its way into the Church at that time. Satan had infiltrated the Church with power hungry men who had no true vision of what Christ came to bring to the world.

Apples and oranges, GeneZ

I agree with much of this post, with the following caveat:

There is not a Christian tradition that has entirely clean hands when it comes to the charge of legalism, oppression, and abuse.

Also, there is a fair comment to be made about the impact of Islam upon Christianity. First, the entire scholastic and rational/deductive enterprise in Western Christianity owes its existence to the desire for a response to Muslim and Jewish criticism of Christian mysticism. And, I might add, nuda scriptura is assuredly an incarnation of Islamic thought.

The fires of Iconoclasm, which are still burning red hot in certain Protestant circles, were stoked by Islam.