Tradition - why not?

Crazy Liz said:

I'm not talking about traditions obtained from holy scripture, but traditions about holy scripture. It is a tradition that scripture alone is sufficient.

Click to expand...

Thats complicated to understand. Can you write it more traditionally for me (el dummy) please?


James

The idea that the scriptures alone are all we need does not come from scripture. Sola scriptura is a tradition.

I guess we could discuss the "tradition" of Scripture alone, but I find that unnecessary. You see, when Paul tells us that Scripture is "complete", I take that description literally, and believe him. Therefore, Scripture is completely sufficient for the discovery of the simplicity that is Christ. You can argue to the contrary, but this old codger won't listen (read?)

Matthan

Crazy Liz said:

The idea that the scriptures alone are all we need does not come from scripture. Sola scriptura is a tradition.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion Liz.

Crazy Liz said:

I'm not talking about traditions obtained from holy scripture, but traditions about holy scripture. It is a tradition that scripture alone is sufficient.

Click to expand...

We know what the Bible has to say about itself, that's it's God breathed...tradition can't make that claim. I'm against tradition that contradicts the teaching of the Bible, celebrating the brith of Christ is in the Bible, I don't have a problem with that.

sp

This is beginning to smack of the ''if a tree falls in the woods...'' debate.

* God says no images, but "inspired" tradition of men says images are all right
* Jesus tells us to worship only God, but "inspired" tradition says we can also worship Mary, other "saints", and even a wheat cracker, (only we won't call it "worship" but something else like dulia or hyperdulia, so it becomes acceptable to God)
* Jesus tells us He is the ONLY mediator between man and God, but "inspired" tradition says we should also pray to saints for their intercession on ourbehalf.
* Jesus tells us faith alone is all that is required for our salvation, but "inspired" traditions tells us that "sacraments" are means for us "earning" or receiving God's grace.
* Jesus clearly tells us not to permit Nicolatanism (clericalism), and yet the "inspired" tradition of some denominations clearly practices this forbidden activity.

Click to expand...

Mathan I agree with the sentiment of your post, but many of the above are not traditions - they are actual edicts which have been handed down from church leaders, and as such are core docrtines for the churches concerned.

Man cannot escape tradition - we like the comfort of ritual and routine - the issue IMHO is when a tradition impinges on obedience to the simple truth of God's Word. Issues such as baptism, communion, intercession etc have all been compromised at certain times in history of the church by tradition, and when one looks for example at how in some churches the anoinitng of the Holy Spirit is frowned upon, because ''we don't do that sort of thing here'', then tradition is a problem.

Bottom line for me, if it requires a compromise on the word of God, or true submission to His Holy Spirit, then it's gotta go, no matter who put it there in the first place, or why.

God is a God of order, not restriction.

Great post Thorn!!!

Diakoneo said:

First, I would like to note that the idea that we (Baptists) have "no traditions" is a bit silly. Of course we have traditions, defining ourselves by the "Baptist distinctives" is a tradition. etc.

.

Click to expand...

Yes, Isnt meeting in church buildings on sunday mornings a tradition? Or having reverends? Having a cup of tea of the end? Praying with eyes shut? sitting in pews? having committee meetings?

Sometimes the Ortho and catholics are more honest- owning up to the fact that they have traditions where as protestants have them and pretend they dont

Uncle Bud said:

Great post Thorn!!!

Click to expand...

Mmpff thankfff Uncle Bud - (he says around mouth stuffed with Caramel Twinkies....)

I think the word "tradition" as it pertains to routine church practices can be potentially dangerous. For example, in my former Baptist Church, we had the Lord's Supper/Communion once every six weeks. It was almost ceremonial and always at the same time, every six weeks. Well, I am of the opinion that there should be communion when the pastor feels led by God for the congregation to partake. When it's on a schedule, it becomes more of a routine, an idol if you will. Just like huge Christmas cantatas that takes months to rehearse or a certain hymn that is sung every Sunday morning after the benediction. It becomes an idol. When you start going to church for the pomp and ceremony of it all, you lose sight of why you're really there. You can also make an idol out of your ministry as well. We shouldn't go to church to please God or other people. We should go to church to be fed, so to speak. If we go to church merely to please God or to appease others or for the "tradition" of it all, it's a filthy rag in God's sight.

fluffy_rainbow said:

I think the word "tradition" as it pertains to routine church practices can be potentially dangerous. ... It becomes an idol. When you start going to church for the pomp and ceremony of it all, you lose sight of why you're really there. ... If we go to church merely to please God or to appease others or for the "tradition" of it all, it's a filthy rag in God's sight.

Click to expand...

Excellent Fluffy - well put

Thorn

Thank you

Diakoneo said:

Recently someone posed the question to me, "What's wrong with tradition?" We were talking about the differences between some denominations and faiths. I being a Baptist, use the Bible as my sole source for doctrine and practice, but there are others who use the Bible+tradition, or Bible+tradition+outside+teaching (outside teaching referring to non-canonical writings) as their source.

So this prompted me to start thinking about tradition and why tradition isn't part of the belief system that I follow.

The difference, as I see it, comes back to doctrine. I have no big problem with traditions. If you want to wear head-coverings because that is a tradition of your family or whatever, then more power to ya. If you want to wear only black suits, white shirts, and black ties to church then by all means help yourselves. The difference is when tradition becomes dogma, when tradition becomes ingrained belief. It's not even a matter of whether or not the tradition is "extra-biblical" or (in some opinions) "anti-biblical". Tradition has a place, but it's place is not in doctrine and it's place is not in dogma.

...To me personally, I believe that the Word of God is the complete revelation and that it is beyond sufficient for my life while on this Earth. I'm not a bit concerned with what John Calvin ate for breakfast, or what prayer Moody said before he went to sleep. I'm not concerned with doing what these folks did because I have the exact same book that they had and I'm able to interpret it through the same Spirit of Truth (John 14:17) that dwelt in them. Now I'll look at what they did and I won't fault anyone for doing what they did if that's what they want, but if someone were to press me and say that "this is the right thing to do because these men did it and so we have to do it as well.." There will be a strong disagreement... and now having thought about it.. I understand why.

Just some stray thoughts.

Click to expand...

The trouble with tradition is who's tradition would you follow? I just finished reading a book about catholic philosophy century by century through the ages and it changed so much from the earliest Christians to the present day Catholics that it is amazing! In parts of the catholic world in the fifteenth through sixteenth centuries, the priests and even bishops were saying this blessing over the communion cup, "Bread you are and bread you shall remain; wine you are and wine you shall remain," because the idea of transubstantiation had fallen out of favor. Now it's back in favor. If something so basic as the so-called "real presence of Christ" has come in and out of tradition, how would one know which tradition to follow? The first century? The tenth century? The sixteenth century? Yet the world of God never changes. It doesn't rely on what is popular thought, what some bishop thinks is right, or what some philosopher it thinking this week. Christ never said that we should follow tradition, instead he said we should follow Him. What's left to say, then?

Man with Thorn said:

Mathan I agree with the sentiment of your post, but many of the above are not traditions - they are actual edicts which have been handed down from church leaders, and as such are core docrtines for the churches concerned.

Click to expand...

Thorn, I'm afraid you have lost me. Since when are "actual edicts which have been handed down from church leaders", if they go against anything in Scripture, not traditions of men? And why are they needed if they do not go against Scripture, but instead support it completely? Isn't Scripture itself better than any edict by any church leader?

Man cannot escape tradition - we like the comfort of ritual and routine - the issue IMHO is when a tradition impinges on obedience to the simple truth of God's Word. Issues such as baptism, communion, intercession etc have all been compromised at certain times in history of the church by tradition, and when one looks for example at how in some churches the anoinitng of the Holy Spirit is frowned upon, because ''we don't do that sort of thing here'', then tradition is a problem.

Click to expand...

I think man must escape the traditions of men if he ever hopes to please God. That is absolutely paramont to any true Christian. Personally, I find no comfort whatever in any spiritual-based ritual if it does not come directly from Scripture. If I am visiting another church and they recite any of the "creeds", I remain silent, often in my own personal prayer. The "creeds" are a ritual that does not come from Scripture, even though they may restate what is found within Scripture. If I have a choice, and I do, I will say what is found in Scripture, and nothing that is a tradition of men, even if it is "similar" to Scripture.

Bottom line for me, if it requires a compromise on the word of God, or true submission to His Holy Spirit, then it's gotta go, no matter who put it there in the first place, or why.

Click to expand...

Now that is some good stuff! I can agree with it!

Matthan

lismore said:

Yes, Isnt meeting in church buildings on sunday mornings a tradition? Or having reverends? Having a cup of tea of the end? Praying with eyes shut? sitting in pews? having committee meetings?

Click to expand...

They give you tea? I want to go to your church! Our church doesn't feed us at all!

Sometimes the Ortho and catholics are more honest- owning up to the fact that they have traditions where as protestants have them and pretend they dont

Click to expand...

I think there is a difference between the catholic idea of tradition and the protestant idea of tradition, though. The catholic idea is that tradition is an immutable, God-ordained part of the faith, but protestants recognize that our traditions are OUR traditions, not demands from God or conditions of salvation. So we meet on sunday, okay, that's a tradition to us. We know there isn't any Biblical reason to meet on sunday as opposed to any other day of the week, and a lot of us recognize that the true sabbath belongs on saturday. But catholicism has a REASON they meet on sundays and not any other day, and it's part of their catechism which they hold in equal esteem to the Bible as an authority. It's part of their religion to meet on sundays, but to us, it's just time we've all set aside to get together.

Matthan said:

Thorn, I'm afraid you have lost me. Since when are "actual edicts which have been handed down from church leaders", if they go against anything in Scripture, not traditions of men? And why are they needed if they do not go against Scripture, but instead support it completely? Isn't Scripture itself better than any edict by any church leader?

Click to expand...

Mathan
Sorry, I guess I didn't express myself very well, let's try again:

tradition noun [C or U]
a belief, principle or way of acting which people in a particular society or group have continued to follow for a long time, or all of these in a particular society or group

edict noun [C] FORMAL
an official order, especially one which is given in a forceful and unfair way:

doctrine noun [C or U]
a belief or set of beliefs, especially political or religious, taught and accepted by a particular group

My point was that most of the items you listed as 'traditions' (eg: sacraments, praying to Mary, etc) did not evolve as a tradition - the Pope in his role as 'God's ultimate authority on earth' issued an edict on these things and as a result they became part of the Catholic liturgy/doctrine.

I am not saying I agree with them - as it happens, I don't -there is not one single shred of Biblical evidence to support the notion of praying to Mary, and the concept of Mary's physical ascension to heaven is IMHO totally unscriptural. Both of these concepts blatantly fly in the face of many things that Jesus unequivocally stated in the Scriptures, and they are substantiated by vision's and apparition's. No amount of theological debate will ever convince me that God will contradict His Only Son, and His Living Word by giving a vision to any human, no matter how 'holy and righteous' they may be. We are not to add or take away from scripture, even by 'creative interpretation'. Dreams, visions etc are used by the Holy Spirit to guide, edify and minister to us, but if they don't tie up with the Scriptures, then, I am sorry,but I do not see how it can be of God.

This in essence is the reason for the birth of the 'protestant' churches -Luther et al took issue with these unscriptural theologies and doctrines.

I feel it is important to make this distinction, as a tradition is something which is there, but is not a material part of our faith, but a doctrine is - for example, in the protestant church, infant baptism & adolescent confirmation is a tradition - it's something that was done firstly because of logistics (shortage of ministers to conduct baptisms in the early days of the protestant churches), and secondly because, well, it's always been done that way. In the Catholic church, infant baptism is tied in with the Catholic doctrine of Limbo and original sin which is an 'edict' stating that if an unbaptised infant dies, it cannot get into heaven, as it is still under 'original sin', yet it has not committed any 'venial sin ' (being an innocent baby), therefor it cannot go to Hades, so it goes to 'Limbo', a sort of 'halfway house', not Hades, but not Heaven.

We can choose to be in a church and disagree with a tradition, but IMHO, we cannot be truly obedient to God's instruction that we submit in discipleship to our church leaders if we have an issue with a doctrine of that very leadership we are called to submit to!

I think man must escape the traditions of men if he ever hopes to please God. That is absolutely paramont to any true Christian. Personally, I find no comfort whatever in any spiritual-based ritual if it does not come directly from Scripture.

Click to expand...

I agree,but we need to be wise. There are certain traditions which do cause compromise on obedience to the Word of God - an obvious example being infant baptism & teenage confirmation - this is very easy to change, but many churches cling steadfastly to this practise, with a result that the whole power, purpose and dynamic of true believer's baptism is denied to its members, and they are deprived of one of the great aspects of Christian rebirth as a result, with all the comcommitant limits that places on their spiritual growth and wellbeing. Not to mention that it is actualy unscriptural.

However, there are certain traditions which are edifying, and not in conflict with the Scriptures, such as the way that many Methodist churches take communion - by going in small groups to the front of the church and kneeling together at a rail. The church I am worshiping at now doesn't do this - we sit in our chairs, and I really miss the intimacy and sense of reverence I really enjoyed with the other way. But this is not something I am going to leave this church over. Let our minister stand up next Sunday and tell us that God told him in a vision that Mother Theresa was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven however, and that's a different story...

Oh, and just a casual observation, but I have found that some of the modern, 'Pentecostal' churches are more tradition bound than the older 'Traditional' churches - you know, every service has to have an 'anointing' of the praise and worship, at least ten people 'slain in the Spirit', a vision, a 'tongue from God', an interpretation, and a minimum of one miraculous healing......what, you don't have all these things in your church, well my friend, I'm afraid then your church just isn't spirit-filled......

Some of the early church fathers were no more perfect than we are now. I think that the reason why I do not follow traditions that do not follow close to the Bible is that they are mostly based on guessing, or discerning. When I read through the sixth chapter of John I do not get the feeling that this is an actual feast on the actual body of Jesus, nor do I think it refelcts anyway towards the passover meal.

This does not come from years of protestant thinking as I have only been a Christian for almost two years. This does not come from listening to my pastor, because he has never really gotten into the subject. This has come from what I feel the Lord has pressed upon my heart as the truth. Obviously we cannot both be right, so i for my part am weighing the evidence to see for myself.

Back to the fathers. Origen was a flake at times. He said some pretty off the wall stuff and I think at more than one time he was considered a heretic. He is just one example. If you look at the ECF, you will see more than one glaring error, but why not they were after all just human beings. So today as I read through what they said, along with relvelations from God I have recieved, I can say that I do not agree with many of the conclusions that they came to.

But in order to know why they believed what they believed I had to study what they believed. I encourage all of you to do that with an open mind. If we have gotten something wrong, we should be able to accept fixing it within our denomination, right? Anyway, just my thoughts.

Uncle Bud said:

I think that the reason why I do not follow traditions that do not follow close to the Bible is that they are mostly based on guessing, or discerning.

Click to expand...

..unfortunately,there was often something more sinister, political agendas, power-plays, and sheer brain-washing behind some of the 'traditions' and doctrines of the early church.

I don't know about the brain washing aspect, but there were political endeavors and power plays for sure behind some teachings of the church back then. But anyway this is going to lead us into a we are better than they are discussion, and I want to avoid that.

Man with Thorn said:

..unfortunately,there was often something more sinister, political agendas, power-plays, and sheer brain-washing behind some of the 'traditions' and doctrines of the early church.

Click to expand...

Just as politics and power-plays are a factor in the teachings of todays churches and church leaders, even Baptist ones.