Beliefs of the Early Church

[kepha1]

TRADITION IS NOT A DIRTY WORD

Evangelical Protestantism holds, by and large, the view that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., Faith vs. Works, Matter vs. Spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes Tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic Tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the Apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of “Sola Scriptura,” or “Scripture Alone,” which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or “rule of faith” for evangelical Protestants today. “Sola Scriptura” by its very nature tends to pit Tradition against the Bible, and it is this unbiblical notion which we will presently examine.

First of all, one might also loosely define Tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian History of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history, in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the Incarnation, Miracles, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church’s authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

 

[kepha1]

Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus’ conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is not true. A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7: 8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like “your tradition,” “commandments of men,” “tradition of men,” as opposed to “the commandment of God.” St. Paul draws precisely the same contrast in Colossians 2:8: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions). Corrupt Pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus - see, e.g., Matt 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian Tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the Apostles.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is “paradosis.” It occurs four times in the Bible: in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages:

1. 1 Corinthians 11:2: “. . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you.” (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all translate KJV “ordinances” as “tradition{s}”).
2. 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “. . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
3. 2 Thessalonians 3:6: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. There exists no dichotomy in the Apostle’s mind which regards oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”

 

[kepha1]

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed orally. Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30, 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition which turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn’t read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible, as Protestants casually assume. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, the related Greek words “paradidomi” and “paralambano” are usually rendered “delivered” and “received” respectively. St. Paul in particular repeatedly refers to this handing over of the Christian tradition:

1. 1 Corinthians 15:1-3: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; (2) By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.”
2. 1 Thessalonians 2:13: “. . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received {it} not {as} the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
3. Jude 3: “. . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as “word of God,” “doctrine,” “holy commandment,” “faith,” and “things believed among us.” All are “delivered” and “received”:

1. Traditions “delivered” (1 Cor 11:2), “taught by word or epistle” (2 Thes 2:15), and “received” (2 Thes 3:6).
2. The Gospel “preached” and “received” (1 Cor 15:1-2, Gal 1:9,12, 1 Thes 2:9).
3. Word of God “heard” and “received” (Acts 8:14, 1 Thes 2:13).
4. Doctrine “delivered” (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).
5. Holy Commandment “delivered” (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9, Mk 7:8-13).
6. The Faith “delivered” (Jude 3).
7. “Things believed among us” “delivered” (Lk 1:1-2).

Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul’s writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, “gospel,” “word of God,” and “tradition” are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that “tradition” is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then “gospel” and “word of God” are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion - the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.

 

[ahimsaman72]

ahimsaman72 I said no such thing. That is why you didn’t quote me in any specific manner. I even declared you yourself have the Holy Spirit, so this amounts to a ridiculous conclusion. Jesus is the Church on earth. The Holy Spirit guides the Church in her teachings, and Jesus promised He would be with her always, or He is a liar. It always comes down to authority, doesn’t it? And I see you didn’t touch my questions. Your just here to argue, right?

kepha1

You said “Jesus is speaking to His Apostles and only His Apostles in John 14, the whole chapter, and in John 13, the whole chapter. It is at the Last Supper, yet you want to believe that Jesus is talking to each individual believer?”

The whole chapter includes verse 17 which states that “you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you”. We know he is not specifically talking of them because of the other verses I have quoted.

---

**You did declare I had the Holy Spirit, but I saw a contradiction between what I quoted above from you and what you below that, **

**"**I am not saying you don’t have the Holy Spirit, I am saying you are not an Apostle," (Your quote)

You seemed to deny the fact of the indwelling of the believer by your first quote.

Your questions are many and I have a prior promise to keep with Mutant as I have stated in another post. It would take me forever to reply to his original posts from pg 10 onward and your recent posts, so I am going to focus on his original posts, unless you can post smaller messages. I’m only one person, after all -

You assume much, my friend. I’m not simply here to argue. I want to share and see others share their thoughts and opinions and if we disagree, then we disagree. If we agree, then we have accomplished something. My intention is not what you may think. You may look at posts of mine from the beginning on and see my thoughts, intentions and demeanor in posting. I have not always been civil, but I have apologized when that has been the case.

Peace…

 

[kepha1]

several paragraphs skipped, see
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ528.HTM

In Catholicism, Scripture and Tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as “twin fonts of the one divine well-spring” (i.e., Revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird. A theology which attempts to sunder this organic bond is ultimately logically self-defeating, unbiblical, and divorced from the actual course of early Christian history.

 

[ahimsaman72]

TRADITION IS NOT A DIRTY WORD

Evangelical Protestantism holds, by and large, the view that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., Faith vs. Works, Matter vs. Spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes Tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic Tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the Apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of “Sola Scriptura,” or “Scripture Alone,” which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or “rule of faith” for evangelical Protestants today. “Sola Scriptura” by its very nature tends to pit Tradition against the Bible, and it is this unbiblical notion which we will presently examine.

First of all, one might also loosely define Tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian History of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history, in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the Incarnation, Miracles, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church’s authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

If I wanted to look at Catholic articles and such I would go to them independently of this forum. I seek to interact with people, not a multitude of articles you can copy and paste into a post. Unless you have something valuable to add and can post smaller messages, I will not respond to any of this.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

You misunderstand what Tradition is. Tradition is not a set of beliefs that are not written down. It is not like the Apostles said, “Ok, we will write this down but not that. We will simply call that Tradition.” Tradition was the explanation of the faith as taught by the Apostles. Tradition can not stand alone because it is what focuses the writings of the scriptures and explains them. Without the scriptures, Tradition is insufficient. In the same way, scripture can not stand alone because for it to be properly understood as the Apostles taught requires Tradition to explain it. Tradition and Scripture are inseparable. Even in protestant interpretation there is Tradition. Protestants understand the scriptures in the tradition of those who taught them whether it be Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Cranmer. Do you see what I am getting at?

The fundamental difference is that I don’t need Calvin’s explanation of the faith. I can get that from Scripture alone. Proper understanding of Scripture is to be attained by personal Bible study, group Bible study and listening to the valuable insight of other believers and those who have gone before us.

There is a difference between Catholic tradition and protestant tradition which I understand very well. Catholic tradition is binding, protestant tradition is not.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

FOREIGN?

By the way, how are your RCIA classes coming?

I think you already know the answer to that question .

I leave the possibility open for the future. I would have to overcome some real hurdles in my life and thinking for that to happen. As I have said before, I won’t start something that I won’t finish - especially in something like converting.

If I choose to convert, I will do so in full faith and determination and in submission to church authority without wavering. Until I am able to do so I will remain what I have always been. Conversion is a monumental decision not to be taken lightly or with hesitation, especially when there are others besides yourself to consider.

Peace…

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

There is a difference between Catholic tradition and protestant tradition which I understand very well. Catholic tradition is binding, protestant tradition is not.

Excellent point, however, I still say that most protestants receive their understanding in the light of one of the major reformers. They don’t usually just pick up the bible and start reading and interpreting. Surely you yourself have come to some passages that were rather difficult to understand and gone to a concordance or commentary to help you understand what was written. If you did, then you were using a tradition. I respect that you reject that it is binding to you, but I will respect the Tradition of the Church as being infinitely wiser than anything I could come up with on my own.

ahimsaman72:

If I choose to convert, I will do so in full faith and determination and in submission to church authority without wavering. Until I am able to do so I will remain what I have always been. Conversion is a monumental decision not to be taken lightly or with hesitation, especially when there are others besides yourself to consider.

You are very wise to do that, and obviously God’s grace has led you to not make a monumental decision in haste. I am myself a convert to the Catholic faith, and I would never have done so if I had even a smidgen of a doubt that what the Catholic Church taught was Truth.

Thanks for responding to me. I wish you much luck.

 

[mayra_hart]

Do Catholics Add to God’s Word?

As a Catholic, you have probably heard this claim: “The Bible says nothing may be added to it. Yet you have so many doctrines that are extra-biblical. You are sinning!”

In response, just ask this person to show you where the Bible says that nothing may be added to it. You will receive a couple of passages, probably, among them the one Michael Scheifler uses:

Apocalypse 22:18
For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book.

The presumption here, of course, is that the book that St. John is referring to is the Bible. However, that’s not true. The Bible did not get put together under one set of covers until very recent times. Even Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, had to publish the Bible in two volumes, because he was not able to print small enough to get it all into one.

So what does “this book” refer to? The book of the Apocalypse (aka Revelation) only. We are not to add to this book, meaning, we must not add anything to that book and claim it is also part of Scripture. We cannot add or subtract anything to and from the Apocalypse and claim, “This is what God wrote through St. John.”

But the Catholic Church doesn’t do that. True, we also believe in Sacred Tradition (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15), just as we believe in Sacred Scripture, and we believe both is from God and is therefore His Word, but we do not add things into the Written Word of God and then claim it is part of Scripture.

There are other passages that say, “Do not add to God’s Word.” However, the presumption is that the phrase “God’s Word” refers to the Bible (alone). Actually, hardly ever does this phrase when used in the Bible refer to the Written Word of God. For instance, the phrase “Word of God” refers to Jesus in the flesh (John 1:1-14), to God’s sovereign blessings (Isaias 55:10-11), and to the oral proclamation of His teaching (1 Thessalonians 2:13). It is not justified, therefore, to think that whenever the Scriptures mention the “Word of God,” that this means “the Bible.” Thus, ask the anti-Catholic to show you a Scripture passage that says, in effect, “Do not add God’s Oral Word to the Written Word, claiming both is God’s Word.” But that, of course, would be nonsense. Let us instead listen to the words of St. Paul the Apostle, who admonished the Thessalonians telling them that as long as the teaching is from Christ, it does not matter whether it was written down or preached orally: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:14[15]). MARIO DERKSEN

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

See #247. Scripture does indeed clearly reveal the church that belongs to Christ. Let me quote some Scripture to give you an idea of who belongs to Christ who is the head of the church.

1. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
2. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
3. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
4. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

If your tradition disagrees with this Scripture, then your tradition is false.

Catholic Tradition does not disagree with anything in Scripture. What it disagrees with is your interpretation of it. Which brings me back to what I proposed in post #155 (which you probably haven’t had the time to get to). It is clear to me that we can quote Scripture back and forth. We can both offer support for our respective position directly from Scripture. It is the difference in our interpretations that is the blocking point. If, however, our purpose here is to discuss the beliefs of the Early Church, then we cannot simply state our own interpretations of Scripture and assert (without any evidence) that our interpretation is the same as was held in the Early Church. Let me know what you think about my proposal in post #155 so that we can move forward with this discussion.

 

[kepha1]

How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John? (What verse claims the name of the author?)

A) it’s written on the top of the page
B) oral Tradition, reflected in the Early Church Fathers writings
C) bible scholars can prove it

The names of the authors of these books is NOT in the Bible. Protestants follow a Catholic tradition, and don’t know why, generally speaking. Catholics follow this Catholic tradition because we do know why. Therefore, is it “extra-biblical” to assign these men as authors of the said books based on the Bible alone?

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

Catholic Tradition does not disagree with anything in Scripture. What it disagrees with is your interpretation of it. Which brings me back to what I proposed in post #155 (which you probably haven’t had the time to get to). It is clear to me that we can quote Scripture back and forth. We can both offer support for our respective position directly from Scripture. It is the difference in our interpretations that is the blocking point. If, however, our purpose here is to discuss the beliefs of the Early Church, then we cannot simply state our own interpretations of Scripture and assert (without any evidence) that our interpretation is the same as was held in the Early Church. Let me know what you think about my proposal in post #155 so that we can move forward with this discussion.

Actually, I know very little of the church writings outside of sacred Scripture. So, if we confine our discussion to early church in Scripture to early church AD 150, then I’m afraid there is little I could add to such discussion. I have read some of the CA articles which have quotes from the early church fathers but that isn’t quite often to speak about it.

Even given historical documents from the “early church period” you still can’t say their thoughts and beliefs were right. The Pharisees and Sadduccees thought they had it right and interpreted Scripture perfectly and they had the Savior right in front of them. So, in my mind it makes no difference. Interpretation is interpretation, whether it is 100 AD or 2000 AD. We all view our world around us in our own ways.

What I have always found interesting is that the gospel writers wrote with different perspectives which can be clearly seen. For example, Matthew includes genealogy and speaks of kingdoms. He shows Christ as “King”. The others have their own variations of their portrayal of the life of Christ.

I will re-assert what I posted to someone else about blindness. Spiritual blindness is a reality. This is where interpretations go awry. At the end, we will all be surprised at what we believed to be true and what actually is true. People will quote the church is truth and they have the deposit of truth and that it was given to Peter, etc, etc. Even if those things are true, Scripture and reality show us that spiritual blindness is the cause of confusion, along with a hardened heart.

 

[ahimsaman72]

kepha1:

How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John? (What verse claims the name of the author?)

A) it’s written on the top of the page
B) oral Tradition, reflected in the Early Church Fathers writings
C) bible scholars can prove it

The names of the authors of these books is NOT in the Bible. Protestants follow a Catholic tradition, and don’t know why, generally speaking. Catholics follow this Catholic tradition because we do know why. Therefore, is it “extra-biblical” to assign these men as authors of the said books based on the Bible alone?

I think I’ll go with answer, “A”, since that is the easiest.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

Excellent point, however, I still say that most protestants receive their understanding in the light of one of the major reformers. They don’t usually just pick up the bible and start reading and interpreting. Surely you yourself have come to some passages that were rather difficult to understand and gone to a concordance or commentary to help you understand what was written. If you did, then you were using a tradition. I respect that you reject that it is binding to you, but I will respect the Tradition of the Church as being infinitely wiser than anything I could come up with on my own.

You are very wise to do that, and obviously God’s grace has led you to not make a monumental decision in haste. I am myself a convert to the Catholic faith, and I would never have done so if I had even a smidgen of a doubt that what the Catholic Church taught was Truth.

Thanks for responding to me. I wish you much luck.

I wish you peace and blessings from God our Father…

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

No, the Church teaches that the Pope is a bishop as are all of the bishops of the Church. He can exhort all of his brother bishops as an equal in the episcopal college. However that fact does not negate his ability to make an authoritatively binding declaration as Peter did in the council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts.

The pope is considered the “Bishop of bishops” with authority over them, is he not? He is the “vicar of Christ” in Catholic theology. He alone has infallibility, does he not? If PJP2 says, “Bishop Sheen, you must do this or that”, then doesn’t Bishop Sheen have to do “this” or “that”?

 

[mtr01]

ahimsaman72:

Even given historical documents from the “early church period” you still can’t say their thoughts and beliefs were right. The Pharisees and Sadduccees thought they had it right and interpreted Scripture perfectly and they had the Savior right in front of them. So, in my mind it makes no difference. Interpretation is interpretation, whether it is 100 AD or 2000 AD. We all view our world around us in our own ways.

I would say that there is one difference that would make your analogy inappropriate. Concerning the New Testament and the ECF’s, remember that these people were alive while the NT was being written. Many of them were taught by the Apostles, or students of the Apostles. John himself may have lived until around 100 AD. The sayings of Christ were either remembered by eyewitnesses or at the very least were fresh in everyone’s minds. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that these people had a better understanding of what Christ actually said, and what he meant, than we would some 2000 years later.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

Even given historical documents from the “early church period” you still can’t say their thoughts and beliefs were right. The Pharisees and Sadduccees thought they had it right and interpreted Scripture perfectly and they had the Savior right in front of them. So, in my mind it makes no difference. Interpretation is interpretation, whether it is 100 AD or 2000 AD.

So, then, when it comes right down to it, we’re not really talking about what “the beliefs of the Early Church” were. Instead, it comes right back down to our own interpretations. In that case, I think that it is clear that we will not convince each other of anything since I view the Church as authoritative along with Scripture and you, clearly, view your interpretation as authoritative along with Scripture. I have enjoyed our discussion. Peace to you.

 

[ahimsaman72]

RBushlow:

I think that we have sown the seed of Truth for ahimsaman72 to receive. It is now up to the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of his heart so that he may receive the Truth. Remember, it is not up to us to convert anyone, our job is only to sow the seed. Those who have eyes, let them see.

Let us Give thanks to the Lord. It is right always and everywhere to give Him thanks.

Thank you R for your kind words, but you have to realize the “open the eyes of his heart so that he may receive the Truth” is on the surface condescending and conjectural. The Truth is Jesus Christ as He clearly claims in John 14:6. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Him. I have received the truth and trusted in Christ as there is salvation found in no other but Him. As Scripture plainly states in Acts 4:12, “for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”. Not the Catholic name, presbyterian or baptist name. The name of Jesus Christ.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

So, then, when it comes right down to it, we’re not really talking about what “the beliefs of the Early Church” were. Instead, it comes right back down to our own interpretations. In that case, I think that it is clear that we will not convince each other of anything since I view the Church as authoritative along with Scripture and you, clearly, view your interpretation as authoritative along with Scripture. I have enjoyed our discussion. Peace to you.

I don’t consider interpretation to be conclusive or authoritative. I believe Scripture alone is God-breathed as it claims and is the only authority by which we can be sure is accurate in its original text.

Peace…