Tradition Talk

[sunlover1]

My question is about tradition, as elusive as that term is to me.
And it's just something that popped into my mind today
while I was praying, because I always pray "scripture". I
would be happy to explain this if anyone is interested.

Anyhow, the question in my mind is this, "What from 'tradition'
that's not found in the Bible, is needful or helpful in equipping
me for every good work?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I believe there's lots of sacred tradition thats beneficial to us as Christians...but I'll let the EO and RC here go into more detail.

 

[Chesterton]

Anyhow, the question in my mind is this, "What from 'tradition'
that's not found in the Bible, is needful or helpful in equipping
me for every good work?

For starters, the bible. I bet you don't find the words "The Holy Bible" in the Bible.

 

[Rhamiel]

well tradition is also proper understanding of scripture
like the foot notes in the bible

 

[Rick Otto]

"What from 'tradition' that's not found in the Bible, is needful or helpful in equipping me for every good work?

Good question.

For starters, the bible. I bet you don't find the words "The Holy Bible" in the Bible.

I don't find the term "Pope", 'Cardinal", Roman Catholic, 'co-operative grace", mediatrix,...

How necessary is the word "bible" to equip us for every good work?

 

[Chesterton]

How necessary is the word "bible" to equip us for every good work?

The word's not necessary, but the idea of a Holy Bible is. And that idea is derived from Tradition.

 

[Rick Otto]

The word's not necessary, but the idea of a Holy Bible is. And that idea is derived from Tradition.

The idea of collecting wisdom in written form is an achievement of civil maturation across a variety of disparate cultures. It is not uniquely apostolic.
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings?

It's a misleading question because Sola Scriptura doesn't claim all revealed truth is in scripture, it claims as even Wikipedia manages to get right:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.
New Advent goes vainly on:

Must it be admitted that Christ instituted His Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men?

Must that Church, that brotherhood, that nation of priests & kings be divided into clergy & laity, conquered by the clergy, & that authority given to all disciples in Matthew 18, the power of the keys - binding & loosing, hoarded by the clergy, denying the cup to all but themselves ?

The Protestant principle is: The Bible and nothing but the Bible; the Bible, according to them, is the sole theological source; there are no revealed truths save the truths contained in the Bible; according to them the Bible is the sole rule of faith: by it and by it alone should all dogmatic questions be solved; it is the only binding authority

A ruler does not contain every inch in the world, but every inch can be measured by it.
Same with Sola Scriptura. Scripture doesn't contain every truth, it rules them.

 

[Rick Otto]

This from CRT:
If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true, then, as a system of theology, Roman Catholicism ought to be wholeheartedly rejected. This quick inference is not as simplistic as it may first appear. Sola Scriptura not only negates any form of authoritative tradition in Roman Catholicism, it also eviscerates any Roman Catholic doctrine or practice explicitly drawn from Scripture, since the truth of such doctrines is, according to the Council of Trent, only guaranteed by the "holy mother Church" who has the sole authority to "judge of their [the Scriptures'] true sense and interpretation."[1] Therefore, if Sola Scriptura precludes such ecclesiastical authority, Roman Catholic theology is unjustified and ought to be rejected.
Another reason to debate the issue of Sola Scriptura is that some converts from Evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism have claimed that a primary reason for their shift in theology was the absence of a Biblical case for Sola Scriptura. Such an astounding claim ought to lead the Protestant to query -- How can such a vast case be missed? I should rather think that the Biblical case for Sola Scriptura is similar to Warfield's claim concerning the basis for the infallibility of Scripture; the case overwhelms one like a waterfall.
Though the debate over Sola Scriptura is often discussed in terms of "sources" of revelation or authority, I think the issue will be clearer if we focus on whether Scripture is the sole or supreme norm for all questions of Christian thought and practice.[2] Hence, the thesis for which I will argue is the same as that found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, I:10: "The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined... can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the scripture."

 

[Rhamiel]

westminster confession?
hmm protestant councils agree with protestantism
shocking
i do agree with your premise
if Sola Scriptura is correct then the Roman Catholic Church needs to be rejected

 

[Chesterton]

The idea of collecting wisdom in written form is an achievement of civil maturation across a variety of disparate cultures. It is not uniquely apostolic.

The same is true for collecting wisdom in unwritten form.

Sola Scriptura not only negates any form of authoritative tradition in Roman Catholicism, it also eviscerates any Roman Catholic doctrine or practice explicitly drawn from Scripture, since the truth of such doctrines is, according to the Council of Trent, only guaranteed by the "holy mother Church" who has the sole authority to "judge of their [the Scriptures'] true sense and interpretation."

If SS negates any form of authoritative tradition, then it negates itself:

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Chesterton;The same is true for collecting wisdom in unwritten form.

So tell me something unwritten that is necessary to equip me for every good work.

If SS negates any form of authoritative tradition, then it negates itself:

It asserts its authority. It examples & instructs its authority.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Anyhow, the question in my mind is this, "What from 'tradition'
that's not found in the Bible, is needful or helpful in equipping
me for every good work?

From the EO side, Tradition is made of the following:
Scriptures
Seven Ecumenical Councils
Liturgy
Iconography
Canon law
Church Fathers
(there's one more thing, and it is simply escaping me at the moment)

The Scriptures are the core but the rest answer the questions that are left unanswered by the Scriptures, such as church government. All of these have to be taken as a whole.

Brian

 

[Ortho_Cat]

If SS negates any form of authoritative tradition, then it negates itself:

Wisdom! Let us attend!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

It asserts its authority. It examples & instructs its authority.

No it doesn't. I'm looking at my bible right now and it's not doing any of those things that you just mentioned.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Are you reading the KJV? If not, there's your problem.


lol

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Per the OP request: A few examples...how baptism is to be properly understood, how the lord's supper is to be properly understood.

As witnessed by my previous thread on baptism, one cannot get a clear picture of such by reading the scripture alone without the assistance of tradition. Some verses by themselves 'seem' to support one view, while others 'seem' to support another.

Let's look at the Church's who consider themselves to have apostolic origin. Off the top of my head, we have Catholics, Orthodox, and perhaps Anglican.

It is interesting that all of the above have very similar views regarding baptism and the eucharist. Coincidence? I think not. They all rely on the traditional interpretation of these insitutitions by Christ, and come up to very similar conclusions regarding the nature and meaning of them.

Now let's look at those who rely on scripture alone. Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. Many of these denominations have very different (and sometimes opposing) views regarding the nature of the "sacraments", and what these insitutions by Christ mean, what they do, what their purpose is, etc.

So what does this mean? I thought scripture was supposed to be this 'immovable source and reliable foundation' for developing doctrine? Why so much differing opinion amonst those who profess it as sole authority? And why is it that those who use this 'constanly shifting, nebulous and unstable' thing called tradition seem to agree very closely on the meaning and interpretation of those institutions made by Christ? Could tradition be more reliable (and perhaps more stable) that what we give it credit for?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Are you reading the KJV? If not, there's your problem.


lol

Gah, I knew I was missing something...

 

[Standing Up]

My question is about tradition, as elusive as that term is to me.
And it's just something that popped into my mind today
while I was praying, because I always pray "scripture". I
would be happy to explain this if anyone is interested.

Anyhow, the question in my mind is this, "What from 'tradition'
that's not found in the Bible, is needful or helpful in equipping
me for every good work?

No answer so far.

The problem, of course, is there is no verifiable, hooked to apostle Tradition. If there was, it would have been written. Hence, there is no Tradition that's necessary. I'd go even further. By definition (Tradition is oral, not written by apostlic eyewitnesses), no one can even know. They can speculate, but so can everyone else. And it's led to schism.

Now, if you're of the Roman Catholic group, the leaders force you to believe certain dogmas in order to be saved. These things aren't found in scripture, but in Tradition. Yet, we've seen that Tradition, by definition, doesn't tie to apostles, nor is it knowable. What's going on there? The only explanation is the idea that bishops are equivalent to apostles; the bishop may decide things that are binding on his group. Yet, can they find that in scripture? No, but in Tradition. It's quite a vicious circle.

What about the Eastern Orthodox group?

 

[hedrick]

For me, as a Reformed Christian, tradition includes things such as

* doctrines that are based on Scripture but not directly in it, e.g. the Trinity and the specific formulation of the Incarnation
* specific interpretations of Scripture, e.g. justification by faith alone
* applications of Scripture to specific ethical issues, e.g. many the use of "informed consent" in sexual and medical questions is in the spirit of Scripture, but many of the specific issues aren't discussed there
* Reformed church governnent, which is certainly based on Scripture, but the whole system isn't set out there
* adiaphora on which our tradition tends to take a common approach, e.g. some worship styles or dress

The most important points of our tradition are expressed in confessions.

 

[Chesterton]

So tell me something unwritten that is necessary to equip me for every good work.

Conscience.

It asserts its authority. It examples & instructs its authority.

No it doesn't. I'm looking at my bible right now and it's not doing any of those things that you just mentioned.

Lol, mine isn't either. It's just sitting there.

But when I read it, I find things like Jesus saying he's building a Church, and that we should follow the Apostles' traditions (oral included), and that we should appoint honorable overseers who are "entrusted with God's work", and they "must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that [they] can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." Titus 1:7-9.

And all kinds of organized church-y stuff like that.