W
Wesley7
Guest
I’ve read the book The Orthodox Church by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov.
Questions for Orthodox and Protestants concerning Tradition
- Status
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Speaking of that perhaps the OP will find this helpful. Fr Bulgakov’s chapters on Tradition and the Hierarchy are some of the best ever written on the subject. They had a profound effect on me early on as I journeyed to Orthodoxy. Here is a link. I strongly suggest the OP read those two chapters.I’ve read the book The Orthodox Church by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov.
In Christ
Joe
S
scottm
Guest
(grin) Try the homepage in my profile. It has a nice history of my church.
Yep, once in awhile I amaze even myself.
But thanks, really.
G
gtrenewed
Guest
From my perspective, you are trying to justify the position of tradition and scripture being on an equal footing and thus that your way or tradition is the true way. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit as our aid in fulfilling His will. The Holy Spirit guided early christians in writing down the necessary Words of God to help us follow Him in the new covenant. With the Word of God and the Holy Spirit given to each believer, we have what we need and are part of the church of Jesus Christ. A person that follows a particular way of worship or tradition is not saved because of that way or tradition but is saved by grace through the gift of faith.
S
scottm
Guest
Hmmm. I missed the post where someone spoke of being saved by adherence to a tradition. 
But as one of the posts said, the Holy Spirit guides the collective body of believers into and in Tradition.
I’m absolutely certain of these two things: (1) the Bible’s canon was decided on the basis of Tradition (gasp!), and (2) the very words of the NT epistles speak of tradition being the guiding rod (gasp again!).
But as one of the posts said, the Holy Spirit guides the collective body of believers into and in Tradition.I’m absolutely certain of these two things: (1) the Bible’s canon was decided on the basis of Tradition (gasp!), and (2) the very words of the NT epistles speak of tradition being the guiding rod (gasp again!).
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
AP,
Here are a few passages of Scripture that may help you feel less shy about the word tradition.
**1 Corinthians 11: **1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2: 13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. 16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.
2 Thessalonians 3: 1 Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored, as happened among you, 2 and that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For not all have faith. 3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one. 4 And we have confidence in the Lord about you, that you are doing and will do the things that we command. 5 May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ. 6 Now we command you, brothers, **in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the *tradition ***that you received from us.
Will write more later. Gotta run.
Anna
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Hello:
I have bookmarked that link. One of my objectives is to learn about Orthodoxy.
From reading that link I see that the Orthodox believe that the church of Jesus Christ consists exclusively of your organization. I also observe that the Catholics believe that the church of Jesus Christ consists exclusively of their organization. I have also read that the Catholics believe that you are a schismatic rite of Catholicism while you vehemently disagree with that assessment.
Now I don’t see why the church of Jesus Christs has to consist solely of one organization and I find that is my major disagreement with both of you. However at this time this is sort of a dead horse that I would rather not beat.
So…
If I interpret “church” in this document as “all of God’s family”…then as I read the second chapter I am wondering how exactly Orthodoxy disagrees with some of the more nuanced Protestant interpretations of the relationship between tradition and the Bible. I am thinking specifically of (1) the Wesleyan Quadrangle where the Bible is to be interpreted amongst others in the light of history (which to me is just another way of saying tradition) (2) Keith Matthison and “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” where the Bible is to be interpreted through the church (as I recall) (3) the Lutheran Interpretation of Sola Scriptura (which I don’t understand very well…but when Jon explains it then it makes sense).
(Now I realize the title Sola Scriptura is a loaded term around these parts so I try not to use it (I prefer the title Prima Scriptura myself to avoid confusion). I prefer to deal with what is under the title instead of getting hung up on (possibly) a bad title. And all of this excludes the “brute force” Sola Scriptura (or “Solo Scriptura”) where “if it ain’t in the Bible it ain’t true”.
Anyway, that is what I am trying to get my head around.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Anna:
I personally am not shy about tradition.
I realize that it is a matter of historical record that the first books of the New Testament were not penned until sometime after the start of the church age. I also realize that all the apostolic church had was the Old Testament (if they had access to it) and the oral teachings of the apostles (at least until the first letters were penned).
This is just a matter of the historical record and is what the apostles were referring to when they used the word tradition. There should be no debate here.
The more interesting questions are how this apostolic tradition is preserved from the apostolic age to the present time.
What I am referring to is that I also perceive that the word “tradition” tends to be a loaded and misunderstood word (much like “Sola Scriptura”). Some folks will rail against both of these terms while at the same time not understanding their usage at all (or making up a loaded understanding). This makes no sense to me.
I for one will admit that I do not understand “tradition” all that well. So much like my “Sola Scriptura” thread of a few months back, I decided to start some “tradition” threads so that I could get through my head what the various understandings of this term are.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
I don’t understand what you are saying, to be honest.
Are you saying there is no such thing as tradition? Then you need to have a good answer to the Scriptures quoted by Anna here which specifically mention “tradition” and why there is no such thing as something the Bible specifically mentions.
H
Harpazo
Guest
I’m not picking on you or anything like that, but I just wanted to point out that you can learn very little about Orthodoxy on your own. It must be experienced in order for you to gain any knowledge of it. I have heard it said by many Orthodox priests and laymen that if you were to attend every service in an Orthodox temple for a year, you would have a small understanding of the Faith, although much more of one than before.
St. John Chrysostom said something along the lines that being an Orthodox Christian keeps you humble because you can never know everything about the Faith. There will never be a point where you know it all; and neither will I know it all!
Last year, a Baptist minister blogger wrote about an experience he had in visiting an Orthodox temple. It’s very well written from someone outside the Church looking in on us.Yes, we believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is the Orthodox Church and all of those not united to her are outside of the Church. However, God can save whomever He wills and will judge their souls accordingly.
In Orthodoxy, the tradition handed to us from Christ to His Apostles and to their successors and down through the centuries to our present times is what governs us. Scripture is a product of that tradition. This is not the greatest analogy, but it works somewhat in the sense that the Supreme Court in the USA operates: interpreting the Constitution in light of previous rulings.
I hope that helps.
In Christ,
Andrew
G
gtrenewed
Guest
Sorry, I was drawing on the bigger picture of the debate between tradition and scripture. Of course there is tradition, every church group has some. The end game to this debate is that if one does not follow a certain tradition they are lost or at least lacking in fullness.
The key to the above scriptures is that the people knew who was giving them the tradition personally. Scripture is the oral tradition from God through certain men to make certain all generations know the fundamental facts and importance of the new covenant in Jesus Christ.
Jesus says “the traditions of men make the Word of God of no effect”. So you see we only have scripture aided by the Holy Spirit to compare against what is Gods’ tradition and mens’ tradition.
Some will say their church leaders are the authority on tradition and if that is what you want to believe so be it. But quite a few church groups throughout history has oppressed by tradition at one time or another - either their own or others. This is what brought about the reformation. This is what motivates many church splits.
Mens’ tradition brings about bondage like the judaizers requiring new believers to follow the customs of Moses. Gods’ tradition brings about the peaceable fruit of righteousness.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
OK. Better. Now my policy is to ask silly questions on all sides. So here goes.
Now I have a personal rule of interpretation of the Bible that says something like “If somebody wants to claim something I specifically read in the Bible is not applicable today, the burden of proof rests on those making the claim that it no longer applies”. Does this rule make sense. I have specifically used this rule to counter the cessationalists (those who say the gifts of the Holy Spirit are no longer for today) because their Scriptural argument is shall I say…weak.
So if I were to be consistent in this rule…when I read about “tradition” in the Bible, it makes sense to me that I assume off the bat that it is applicable today (at least in some sense) unless proved otherwise.
I personally have a high burden of proof for “proven unscriptural”. A simple case might be the Assumption of Mary. Of course (claims to the contrary notwithstanding) it is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Does that mean it didn’t happen? If so, do all miracles have to be recorded in the Bible or else it didn’t happen.
A more complex case might be the Immaculate Conception. Of course the standard prooftext here is Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But wait a minute…does “all” include newborn infants? Does it include aborted foetuses?
It seems to me the minute my prooftext has one exception that it has lost the '“proof” function.
Note: this is not to imply I believe these to be true…it is just to highlight a problem with proving something as false.
Anyway, I digress.
And if you are smart you won’t go there because again you will not be able to prove it. Instead you will respond and ask “What else should I use to verify God’s tradition versus men’s tradition that is more reliable than the Bible” (see the verse in my sig)? I have not gotten a good answer to this question yet.
So until I receive a good answer to that question, I would suggest that the primary method of separating the two be the Bible, and only turn to other sources if the Bible is subject to different credible interpretations on a given issue.
Since nobody here is claiming damnation for those outside of their organization, I would suggest you drop the word 'lost" (I do realize there are a minority of Catholics who make that claim though).
OK. That would have worked till say 70AD. How would tradition work after 70AD? Or are you saying the scope of these Scriptures is only to the death of the apostles?
Now I have a personal rule of interpretation of the Bible that says something like “If somebody wants to claim something I specifically read in the Bible is not applicable today, the burden of proof rests on those making the claim that it no longer applies”. Does this rule make sense. I have specifically used this rule to counter the cessationalists (those who say the gifts of the Holy Spirit are no longer for today) because their Scriptural argument is shall I say…weak.
So if I were to be consistent in this rule…when I read about “tradition” in the Bible, it makes sense to me that I assume off the bat that it is applicable today (at least in some sense) unless proved otherwise.
Of course Scripture nowhere makes the claim for itself that it “is the oral tradition from God”…at least I have not encountered that verse yet. Sorry…but I nail on the Catholics frequently for expressing opinions as facts…so I have to be consistent here.
Of course the Orthodox and Catholics here claim that none of their traditions can be proven to be unscriptural. And that is the basis of much of the banter here where one side claims something as unscriptural and the other side says no it is not.
I personally have a high burden of proof for “proven unscriptural”. A simple case might be the Assumption of Mary. Of course (claims to the contrary notwithstanding) it is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Does that mean it didn’t happen? If so, do all miracles have to be recorded in the Bible or else it didn’t happen.
A more complex case might be the Immaculate Conception. Of course the standard prooftext here is Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But wait a minute…does “all” include newborn infants? Does it include aborted foetuses?
It seems to me the minute my prooftext has one exception that it has lost the '“proof” function.
Note: this is not to imply I believe these to be true…it is just to highlight a problem with proving something as false.
Anyway, I digress.
Of course the response to this one is “Where is that in the bible?”
And if you are smart you won’t go there because again you will not be able to prove it. Instead you will respond and ask “What else should I use to verify God’s tradition versus men’s tradition that is more reliable than the Bible” (see the verse in my sig)? I have not gotten a good answer to this question yet.
So until I receive a good answer to that question, I would suggest that the primary method of separating the two be the Bible, and only turn to other sources if the Bible is subject to different credible interpretations on a given issue.
I would strongly suggest you limit the scope of this discussion and not bring the Protestant reformation into it.
OK. But since there are no judaizers on this thread as far as I know…
C
Contarini
Guest
But how do you know that Scripture was really written by the people whose names are on the books? You know this only by tradition. So your argument eats itself.
It’s not true that trusting the Biblical canon requires us to trust the RCC. But trusting the Biblical canon does require us to trust the early Church–primarily the second-century Church, though of course some canonical disputes weren’t settled till much later. And if the Holy Spirit continued to guide the Church in so trustworthy a manner even after the death of the apostles, shouldn’t we at least give some credence to the idea that the Holy Spirit has continued to do so?
Actually no: he said that a particular tradition (which does not in fact show up in the later collections of rabbinic traditions) was being used to make the Word of God of no effect.
That’s one way to read it, but probably not the best way to describe the mainstream “Magisterial” Reformation. Read Peter Blickle’s Communal Reformation for an account of the folks who really did see the Reformation as a reaction to oppression.
Edwin
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
AP,
I’ve had a lot going on the last few days, so have only been responding to your posts a little at a time.
How the Apostolic Tradition is preserved from the time of the Apostles to the present is indeed an interesting question. It is answered so differently among different Christian Churches, and overlaps with the issue of Sola Scriptura. What do we believe? Why do we believe it? Who has the authority to guide our interpretation from the early Church to the present and beyond?
Catholics will say the Catholic Church holds sole authority; and the CC answers each of these questions for Catholics.
One would think we could just go back and read the works of the ECF’s and find the tradition of the Christian Church clearly defined. But. . . .the ECF’s didn’t agree on every issue. In fact they disagreed on some major issues.
It would be so much simpler to convert to Catholicism. Then I wouldn’t have to work so hard trying to understand all these things. Yet, I need to do the work. I need to study Christian history. I need to check the claims made about interpretation and tradition.
So, AP, tradition is a tough issue. There is plenty to be found. It’s the sifting process that is so difficult. We must start with the earliest writings of the Apostolic Church and work our way forward (well, really we need to start with the O.T.)
I know there are a gazillion Protestant Churches, claiming interpretation through the Holy Spirit. However, we can’t just throw out the idea that the Holy Spirit guides our interpretation.
Once again, I will quote the well known (and often quoted) passage in Hebrews, which does reveal the work of the Holy Spirit. The passage doesn’t exclude the individual, though Catholics may claim such exclusion–yielding to the Magisterium.
Keep in mind, I am not quoting this to exclude “tradition,” only to say that the Holy Spirit definitely plays a role in interpretation. I would call upon the Holy Spirit in discerning faithful “tradition” of the Gospel, regardless of how the tradition of the Gospel is transmitted.
Hebrews 4:
1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. 2 For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,
Code:
"As I swore in my wrath,'They shall not enter my rest,'"
Code:
"They shall not enter my rest."
Code:
"Today, if you hear his voice,do not harden your hearts."** 11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.**
14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Anna
G
Greg27
Guest
I guess to me tradition is the church’s understanding of the scriptures and of itself over time. There are a lot of things in the church like the structures of governance, the liturgy and the way sacraments are administered, which derive more from tradition than from a literal reading of the Bible. While I believe the Bible contains what we need to know in order to be saved, the Bible is complex, fragmented and often confusing. I don’t think any individual really has the resources to derive an infallible and perfect understanding of the text. Another important thing to remember is no church community is born in a vacuum. Any Christian church is basically basing itself on trying to follow the life and teachings of a man who died (and who Christians believe rose from the dead) 2000 years ago. It is impossible to understand anything about Jesus and what he means for Christians unless you pay attention to how the church has understood Jesus through the ages. Intelligent theological reflection is impossible without paying attention to tradition.
There is a danger though in too much reverence for tradition. Some ‘traditions’ which developed over time can be dangerous innovations and even heresies which threaten the church gravely (i.e. gnosticism), while others can be warped practices which need to be purged from the church because they obscure the clarity and simplicity of the message of the Gospel to believers (as the Reformers understood when they recovered the Gospel from the corruptions of the medieval Catholic Church). Today reverence for ‘tradition’ is also leading to some nasty trends, like the fundamentalist attempts in many churches to ‘wind back the clock’ on many issues and build repressive and narrow communities with strict gender roles, blind and submissive obedience to a religious authority, and a hostile attitude to the outside world or different beliefs.
I don’t think tradition can be a separate and equal source of doctrine on the same par as the Bible, as the Roman church believes. But it is an important source of insight and a guide on how to interpret the Bible and apply it to modern times.
There is a danger though in too much reverence for tradition. Some ‘traditions’ which developed over time can be dangerous innovations and even heresies which threaten the church gravely (i.e. gnosticism), while others can be warped practices which need to be purged from the church because they obscure the clarity and simplicity of the message of the Gospel to believers (as the Reformers understood when they recovered the Gospel from the corruptions of the medieval Catholic Church). Today reverence for ‘tradition’ is also leading to some nasty trends, like the fundamentalist attempts in many churches to ‘wind back the clock’ on many issues and build repressive and narrow communities with strict gender roles, blind and submissive obedience to a religious authority, and a hostile attitude to the outside world or different beliefs.
I don’t think tradition can be a separate and equal source of doctrine on the same par as the Bible, as the Roman church believes. But it is an important source of insight and a guide on how to interpret the Bible and apply it to modern times.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
OK. This is clear.
Let me ask you a question. First of all I have appreciation when churches try to do things out of faithfulness to the earliest Christians. I have learned that is the motivation behind liturgical worship, and not a desire to make church as boring as possible.
But there is a thread here that implies the rest of us are wrong if we choose to do church differently. Do you believe the rest of us are wrong if we do not follow the patterns of the earliest Christians in respect to worship as long as the Bible is silent on the subject?
So you don’t buy into this whole “clarity of Scripture” and “you must use Scripture to interpret Scripture (and nothing else)” thing. Well it seems that John Wesley didn’t either.
Ah…that again sounds like John Wesley and interpreting Scripture through the lens of history.
And that last paragraph does seem to be what distinguishes the Protestant perspective on tradition (except for those who believe it all is a bunch of hooey) and the Catholic and maybe the Orthodox (except the Orthodox have a different definition of tradition per this thread that I am trying to get my head around so maybe I should withhold speaking for them for a while).
In fact (getting on my soapbox here) if Christians could just ask the silly question on whether this is in line with what Christians always believed as opposed to a new 50 year old invention, you wouldn’t have Christians falling for the novel idea that God is A OK with homosexual marriage (getting off soapbox).
G
gtrenewed
Guest
Please avoid the silliness.
How about AG tradition that non-tongue speakers are not saved? Or how about the holiness pentacostals that say you must dress a certain way or not smoke in order to be saved? Just ask the old timers; as well as, old time RC’s held to that. It may not have been spoken here but it is here nonetheless.
My point was that Scripture aided by the Holy Spirit is the only tradition to be trusted.
Of course it makes sense because Jesus is the Word of God and He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
We are not debating whether or not there is tradition, the point should be is a particular tradition consistant with Scripture and if not is it binding.
Scripture says that all Scripture is God-breathed, that is not opinion but Scriptural fact. Is it not then fair to say that God spoke His Word, His oral tradition to prophets?
You need to read my post with more diligence.
It is more than just banter. The RCC claims much of its authority and much of its “fullness” as “the true church” is based on tradition. An RC feels sorry for those who are not RC. To the RCC the weight of tradition is equal to scripture. To use Scripture to prove tradition inside the RCC is not necessary…RC tradition in itself is sufficient.
We have examples cited in Scripture of assumptions so we know that God does this. It is safe to say that a precedent will be found in Scripture of the type of miracle in question. This keeps us out of error. Mary very well could have been assumed bodily into heaven. To believe this is one matter but worshipping this is another.
Mary did not need to be born immaculate in order to bear the Messiah. The angel speaking the Word of God declared her “full of grace” which is to say cleansed of sin according to Scripture.
And yes “all” means all. That is why there is grace. Scripture says that by one man sin came upon all men. We consider a newborn and a fetus as human.
I don’t have to be smart just able to hear the Holy Spirit. This is the answer…All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness
Tradition is at the heart of the reformation.
G
gtrenewed
Guest
My arguement stands for it is not important whose names are on the books for God chose them to receive His Word. It is not about the men but about the Word of God.
That is precisely my point…Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit…Trust the Word of God as aided by the Holy Spirit!
Actually yes…Jesus was speaking more broadly than just this one tradition. In fact, thousands of traditions were added to the Mosaic law over time and still exist.
- Status