Why is so much stock put in tradition

[prophecyistrue]

We know from the letters Paul wrote that warned us that fallse teachers would slip in back in his day and lead the sheep astray, why would so much stock be put into old traditions that the bible shows as being in error. wouldn't it make sense that mistakes could have been possible from even the earliest time in Christianity. Take Pauls rebuking Peter, what if he never did, all male Christians might be getting circumsized today if this subject was not addressed. how many other traditions or errors have entered into the church yet nobody said anything........Isn't that really what started the Reformation, when enough bad doctrine gets taught as truth, finally someone will stand up and say somthing, problem with Luther is he stopped short, there was obviously more false doctrine to remove

 

[Steve Petersen]

If you really want to know what the earliest church was like, you have to enter Jesus' inner circle.

 

[Tzaousios]

Eh, I am going to say that you have interpreted Scripture in such a way that you think it corroborates the preconceived dislike you have for...um...certain "traditions."

 

[Gnarwhal]

I don't think that's a real accurate understanding of what was happening in that Scripture, it's kind of apples and oranges. I think Paul was essentially telling Peter that this new thing that Jesus had started didn't require circumcision to be a part of it. I don't believe he was making a statement about traditions in general, but more about some of the Jewish ones that weren't necessary anymore.

Honestly I think traditions are one of the best instruments God could inspire in us to maintain continuity in the church throughout the centuries. Traditions like the Sacraments have been practiced for 2,000 years which connects us all with the church as it's been since the beginning. They do their part to keep all of those who partake in them within the stream of orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

If any thought, feeling, symbol, way of expressing things that becomes routine or habitual or endorsed by a community, can become traditional to some degree or other, and since we are mere fallible human beings who easily get caught up and distracted by what we are doing/thinking/saying/endorsing instead of what God is saying... the humble thing to do would be to regularly pray and consult the full counsel of Scripture, to see how what we think/feel/say/do looks in the light that the Word of God sheds upon it.

 

[MKJ]

Well, the Tradition of the Church gave us Scripture. If we don't think Tradition is reliable, that puts us in a difficult spot as Christians.

 

[LinuxUser]

We know from the letters Paul wrote that warned us that fallse teachers would slip in back in his day and lead the sheep astray, why would so much stock be put into old traditions that the bible shows as being in error. wouldn't it make sense that mistakes could have been possible from even the earliest time in Christianity. Take Pauls rebuking Peter, what if he never did, all male Christians might be getting circumsized today if this subject was not addressed. how many other traditions or errors have entered into the church yet nobody said anything........Isn't that really what started the Reformation, when enough bad doctrine gets taught as truth, finally someone will stand up and say somthing, problem with Luther is he stopped short, there was obviously more false doctrine to remove

Maybe because they are afraid and they say surely there must be something more to do and follow so they look for other things and make these sometimes more important than Scripture then when questioned they can claim that it's just as great as Scripture because not everything is in Scripture and Scripture came from there.

What they fail to understand IMHO is that Scripture is greater than how, what, or whom put it together.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Well, the Tradition of the Church gave us Scripture. If we don't think Tradition is reliable, that puts us in a difficult spot as Christians.

So what do you do with later tradition, later claims to ancient tradition?

The Bible is inspired by God, it is written down, it is ancient, it is reliable. Any oral tradition or later written tradition is not in the same category, does not trump the authority of the Bible.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

Following the spoken and written tradition handed down by the Apostles is Biblical. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

 

[ToBeInChrist]

And the spoken tradition of the Apostles is most objectively recognized, how?

What is one to do when after seeking the full counsel of Scripture on a subject, the written witness to ancient oral tradition, history, etc., which is DEFINITELY God-breathed -- one comes to feel that some particular tradition is non-essential, distracting, or contrary to the full counsel of Scripture in some way?

Is one to reject the objective written witness to ancient tradition that is indisputably the inspired word of God, for just what other people say is traditional? No. Not unless they prefer the traditions of men to what God has definitely revealed.

At issue is that God has definitely revealed what is written in sacred Scripture. Other things are less definite, so we need to keep our priorities right.

 

[from scratch]

If you really want to know what the earliest church was like, you have to enter Jesus' inner circle.

Is what you're really saying that one must take up Judaism to be a real Christian? I think so. The book of Acts clearly shows this to not be the case. Christianity isn't a new form or branch of Judaism. Christians aren't spiritual Jews or Isrealites nor do they replace them.

 

[from scratch]

So what do you do with later tradition, later claims to ancient tradition?

The Bible is inspired by God, it is written down, it is ancient, it is reliable. Any oral tradition or later written tradition is not in the same category, does not trump the authority of the Bible.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Is what you're really saying that one must take up Judaism to be a real Christian? I think so. The book of Acts clearly shows this to not be the case. Christianity isn't a new form or branch of Judaism. Christians aren't spiritual Jews or Isrealites nor do they replace them.

I was not talking to you.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

Why would Paul write in inspired scripture to hold fast to oral tradition if it could not be accurately kept over time? When did we stop following this instruction? I believe Paul knew what he was saying, and I think it's important to keep both the written and spoken tradition just like he says to do. It would be a shame to lose part of what the Apostles taught.

 

[Knee V]

How do you know that you're understanding Scripture correctly? How do you know that when you look at the "whole counsel of Scripture", that you're putting the pieces together properly?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

the reformation didn't go far enough . so the traditions that came out of it became miniature versions of what they were protesting about .

 

[Knee V]

the reformation didn't go far enough . so the traditions that came out of it became miniature versions of what they were protesting about .

In your estimation, and I ask this as an honest question and not rhetorically, how far should it have gone, and what do you think it should have accomplished?

 

[MrPolo]

And the spoken tradition of the Apostles is most objectively recognized, how?

Tradition includes but is not limited to oral teaching of the Apostles. But Tradition also includes the Church's understanding and transmission of divine truths, including what texts belong in Scripture which took a number of centuries to discern even though the Apostles left no such explicit table of contents in writing or orally that we know of.

All that being said, the answer to your question is that the Holy Spirit objectively reveals truth to the Church. The final trust is in the Spirit and Christ's promise to send the Spirit to the Church in that capacity.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In your estimation, and I ask this as an honest question and not rhetorically, how far should it have gone, and what do you think it should have accomplished?

Relating to the Canon:

Well, the reformers already removed books from the bible .. so either they shoulda ripped more out of the bible and just focussed on the ones that set us free minus the cultural BS . or just left things as is .

Relating to religious practice:

majority of the structures were still set up with a one elder structure and in romanist fashion . a suggestion to remove the roman form of hierarchy and return to the servant form of greatness Jesus talked about . to have a community like a family in which there are many elders, not just one, and that they get grown from within the family. No cherrypicking from seminaries, as this totally ruins the organic nature of the organization .

Relating to authority and cohesiveness:

No man or woman has authority over another, people are together in faith to share because they choose to be, laying down guilt trips for not appearing for weekly meetings is not the way Jesus rolled, he let people leave him .

So Overall:

Instead of following patterns of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches .. just begin with Jesus .. and anything not conforming to Jesus' way of doing things even if it contradicts the letters .. just follow Jesus instead . if the premise of the reformation was that the RCC was wrong .. then why is it when i read the catechism of the RCC, i find tons of duplication of protestant theology? it's shocking .

from my observations of the bible .. reading it as is .. without the hierarchy structure Jesus provided us with in relation to the concepts (Love is the greatest commandment, the weightier matters are justice, mercy, and faith) seems to just re-produce a set of churches with their own little mini pope claiming to not be .. what they are obviously to those who look at them from the outside .

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Why would Paul write in inspired scripture to hold fast to oral tradition if it could not be accurately kept over time?

It makes sense to me that we are to take seriously the informal or verbal guidance of others, in humility. After many centuries, however, culture, traditions, etc., can accumulate. One isn't necessarily taking seriously the informal or verbal guidance of Paul or other Apostles, so much as one is holding onto what became normative in the community one is involved with.

From time to time going back to the Scripture itself to see the light it sheds on traditions, sounds like a good way to simplify or re-focus or to discard or avoid certain things as needed.

Certainly what people CLAIM is tradition isn't as binding on the conscience as what is actually the written witness of Apostolic teaching: the Bible.

How do you know that you're understanding Scripture correctly? How do you know that when you look at the "whole counsel of Scripture", that you're putting the pieces together properly?

One indicator of a possible problem is when it comes to my attention that other Christians, particularly other Christians throughout many centuries in many times and places, disagree significantly.

It's important for Christians to stay connected with other Christians and to be aware of what other Christians have thought and done throughout the centuries, everywhere, so that if I have a hobby horse or particular principle that I'm over-emphasizing, for example, I would become aware of other Christians, perhaps many many other Christians, who put a different emphasis on things, reminding me of other Scriptures or principles from Scripture which I've neglected.

Tradition includes but is not limited to oral teaching of the Apostles. But Tradition also includes the Church's understanding and transmission of divine truths, including what texts belong in Scripture which took a number of centuries to discern even though the Apostles left no such explicit table of contents in writing or orally that we know of.

In the second century it was well known that four authentic gospels existed, that various apostolic letters were authentic, and that these were in use in churches, and it was known that various apocryphal and gnostic texts were not Scripture.

That it took some time for community leaders to gather together and discuss materials that some were less familiar or confident with, just means that after some years passed there were some questions on some cases. This does not mean that we need to accept every technical or practical interest of a particular set of Bishops as universal essential truths just because they call them traditional, especially when such decisions were made after a major Schism or when various abuses gave reason for serious concern.

By looking at how traditions and theoretical explanations or pronouncements look in the light of Scripture, things can be sorted out better, re-framed, and what was misguided or mindlessly accrued over time may be handled appropriately.

All that being said, the answer to your question is that the Holy Spirit objectively reveals truth to the Church. The final trust is in the Spirit and Christ's promise to send the Spirit to the Church in that capacity.

And what is inspired Scripture? Inspired Scripture is what God has revealed. It has objective content. It has been circulating for centuries all over the world and used by Christians.

People can and do err, whether they are Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Fundamentalist, or Pentecostal. Yes the Holy Spirit guides the church, but this is not an argument for a Christian to simply trust without question all the details on specifics among various traditionalists that don't seem essential and/or don't seem to measure up to what God has clearly revealed.

The inner witness of the Holy Spirit gives glory to Jesus Christ and guides the individual in truth, and after a Christian prayerfully considers the full counsel of Scripture and humbly desires to be teachable by other Christians, keeping one's eyes and ears receptive to what other Christians have said and thought for centuries so one may be taught by the Body of Christ collectively also, one may very well feel convicted that a particular detail or tradition is non-essential, distracting, misguided, or plain old wrong.