Where does scripture state that Tradition will be protected?

[jburgherr]

No Jay, you missed the most important requirement:

" ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

They were finding a replacement not for the “office” of apostle, but, essentially, a replacement witness who had witness the ressurection and life of Jesus. Since the last witness died about 1900 years ago, this office they were refering to came to and end 1900 years ago. This has nothing to do with apostolic succession.

I understand that apostolic succession is relevant to the question at hand. I’d just rather not get this post confused with two different discussions. It would be easier to follow if the two topics were discussed separately. That’s all I was requesting. If you guys would rather do it all in the same place, then let’s start discussing. The first verse for apostolic succession has already been debunked…

Sorry, I have to disagree with your appraisal.

It very clearly says about Mathias “and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” One could be a disciple of Jesus, but not be an apostle. Therefore it is a type of office. An office of Bishop (see Acts 1:20 which quotes Psalms)

That Peter stated that the current selection of this office “…must be one of the men who were in our group during the whole time that the Lord Jesus traveled about with us, beginning from the time John preached his message of baptism until the day Jesus was taken up from us to heaven.”

Why would that be a requirement?

Could it be that there were no theological colleges that taught Christianity at that time? It was expeditious of Peter and the other Apostles to pick one whom had experienced what they, the apostles, had experienced. They needed someone who did not have to be catechized and could teach immediately. Please don’t see Acts 1:21 as Peter’s requirement for all future Bishops.

Acts 1:21 obviously does not mean what you think it means. Your interpretation is a personal and fallible opinion only.
Apostolic succession is not debunked and is still valid dogma for all Christians, even if you do not agree.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Anyway, I’ve analyzed a bunch of verses, and sadly I don’t have time to go into all of them. My point is simple though, and my message was pretty much consistent throughout. Nowhere in the Scripture does any verse clearly state that an infallible tradition will develop, which will be protected by the Church. In every case so far, there has in fact been NO mention of oral tradition in the slightest, but the existence of oral tradition has been, in fact, read into scripture. Nowhere in the Bible does anyone say: “You will tell your followers what I told you, and they will tell their followers, and so on and so forth, divinely protected by the Holy Spirit.” That is neither stated nor implied, and any suggestions otherwise are completely the result of reading too much into scripture.

I am rather confused. You are using scripture as your only source of authority–and requesting that we prove oral tradition will be protected from those Scriptures–obviously some here read texts as doing just that - but you read those same texts differently–so we are at a standstill. However–when asked to prove from scripture that it itself says what is Scripture and that its authoritative you say “stick to the point”. I think that is the point–if you can’t prove what is Scripture and that this Scripture is authoritative–under the same terms you want us to prove oral Tradition is authoritative–then your question is moot. We shouldn’t have to prove oral Tradition is authoritative from Scripture if you can’t prove what is Scripture and that that same Scripture is authoritative from Scripture. You’re holding us to a different standard than you are holding yourself too. That’s the point.
If Scripture tell us to hold fast to the oral Traditions as Paul does–how can we do that if they are not passed down to us incorrupt?

Peace,
Mark

 

[christcnection1]

Where does scripture state that Tradition will be a failure?

 

[HJProtestant]

1. ANSWER: The Holy Spirit is leading me just fine, thank you. Maybe the Spirit is not dwelling in people that feel it is not leading them to the truth…because they have never made a conscious decision to accept the Holy Spirit. This ties into baptism, I know, so I will leave it there…don’t want to hijack the thread.

Well, my sibling in Christ, there is a problem. We also believe the Holy Spirit is leading us into truth, but (obviously) this cannot be the case where there is contradiction.

I fail to see the contradiction you speak of…pardon me if I’m just being dumb…perhaps we have different definitions of “truth”? I am finding that many times on these threads debates go back and forth so long is because we have “different dictionaries”. Also, one can “feel” the Holy Spirit before being inhabited by the HS. This is how God knocks on the door of our heart letting us know that He’s real and we need to humble ourselves to His calling.

BTW-this thread has been awesome! Sorry, if I don’t get to all of the replies to my posts, but this thread is moving so fast, I can’t keep up!!

I just want to interject one scripture I found yesterday during my research that seems appropriate here:

"**6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."**
Col 2:6-8
I apologize if this passage has already been discussed.

After reading this my question is: If tradition (specifically Jewish in this passage) was condemned and we are told not to be fooled by it because we have “received Christ Jesus as Lord” then why was it OK to “reinvent” tradition a few hundred years later? I don’t get the logic…

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26.

The Holy Spirit acts as the living memory of the Church, always assuring the integrity of Sacred Tradition.

Right. A small percentage of what Jesus said and did is recorded in the New Testament. The rest is handed down through Sacred Tradition

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

After reading this my question is: If tradition (specifically Jewish in this passage) was condemned and we are told not to be fooled by it because we have “received Christ Jesus as Lord” then why was it OK to “reinvent” tradition a few hundred years later? I don’t get the logic…

Tradition wasn’t “reinvented” a few hundred years later. It existed as the Apostles were walking and talking with the Lord, they were the living tradition. Then Christ Jesus passed this authority onto the bishops which is called the living magisterium when the twelve apostles ordained bishops to succeed them. The Bible wasn’t canonized till a few hundred years after Jesus’ death (by the Catholic Church), but there had been a Church with a living Tradition preaching the word and battling schismatics and heretics long beforehand to preserve Christian orthodoxy.

 

[Teflon93]

I fail to see the contradiction you speak of…pardon me if I’m just being dumb…perhaps we have different definitions of “truth”? I am finding that many times on these threads debates go back and forth so long is because we have “different dictionaries”. Also, one can “feel” the Holy Spirit before being inhabited by the HS. This is how God knocks on the door of our heart letting us know that He’s real and we need to humble ourselves to His calling.

BTW-this thread has been awesome! Sorry, if I don’t get to all of the replies to my posts, but this thread is moving so fast, I can’t keep up!!

I just want to interject one scripture I found yesterday during my research that seems appropriate here:

"**6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."**
Col 2:6-8
I apologize if this passage has already been discussed.

After reading this my question is: If tradition (specifically Jewish in this passage) was condemned and we are told not to be fooled by it because we have “received Christ Jesus as Lord” then why was it OK to “reinvent” tradition a few hundred years later? I don’t get the logic…

Because it wasn’t tradition which was bad, but specific traditions.

A similar case is Christ’s treatment of the Law. It wasn’t that the Law was bad; it was that the Pharisees fulfilled its letter to a ridiculous degree while ignoring its spirit utterly.

Christ didn’t come to overthrow the Law, but the Pharisaic interpretation of it.

Think of the situation with the Ptolemaic and Copernican models of the solar system. Both were “true” in the sense that one could navigate by them, but the Copernican proved the much simpler (and thus superior) model. Arguing against the Ptolemaic model did not mean that one saw no use in a solar system model, but simply that the Copernican was simpler and therefore better (more true).

 

[HJProtestant]

Tradition wasn’t “reinvented” a few hundred years later. It existed as the Apostles were walking and talking with the Lord, they were the living tradition. Then Christ Jesus passed this authority onto the bishops which is called the living magisterium when the twelve apostles ordained bishops to succeed them. The Bible wasn’t canonized till a few hundred years after Jesus’ death (by the Catholic Church), but there had been a Church with a living Tradition preaching the word and battling schismatics and heretics long beforehand to preserve Christian orthodoxy.

You circumvented my point. Regardless of when the tradition started (that could be a thread of its own), this passage CLEARLY states that we are not to be taken captive by it because it is “deceptive philosophy”.

 

[bankerdavid]

From our own catholic.com:

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

**The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach. **
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).

 

[HJProtestant]

From our own catholic.com:For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’”

How then do you explain the instances some Popes have overridden previous ex cathedra statements (not sure what you call them)?

This brings to mind the “telephone” game we used to play as kids…what was said by the first person was extremely altered by the time it reached the last person so much so that it was usually a quite comical.

 

[Scottgun]

How then do you explain the instances some Popes have overridden previous ex cathedra statements (not sure what you call them)?

Substantiate please. Good gravvy it’s absurd I even have to say that.

This brings to mind the “telephone” game we used to play as kids…what was said by the first person was extremely altered by the time it reached the last person so much so that it was usually a quite comical.

Yes. And guess what? Non-believers love to use the telephone game and apply it from the time of the events described in the Gospels to their actual writing decades later. You have to come up with an argument that doesn’t explode when applied to your own position.

 

[bankerdavid]

Substantiate please. Good gravvy it’s absurd I even have to say that.
My thoughts exactly!

Yes. And guess what? Non-believers love to use the telephone game and apply it from the time of the events described in the Gospels to their actual writing decades later. You have to come up with an argument that doesn’t explode when applied to your own position.

The answer to this is that the Church Fathers were serious enough, and knew the seriousness of what they were hearing, to listen carefully. The way we know the Church Fathers were right in their thinking is their overwhelming concurrence. You need to also understand that we don’t believe the Church Fathers were infallible. Some even eventually fell into heresy. But if a Church Father said it, we research, poll, in effect, the other Church Fathers to see what they had to say.
Not a “Church Fathers” anecdote, but a valid one-the early Church disagreed whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved. This was settled at the first Council-in Jerusalem. You can read about that in Acts.

 

[BobCatholic]

Please note that we have no original manuscripts of any of the New Testament books. Zero. They are nowhere to be found on the planet. The best we got are copies of copies of copies of … of copies, and those are the earliest manyscripts outstanding.
Based on these earliest manuscripts, everyone have their Bibles.
Now, between the Apostles’ pens and that early manuscript, how did it get there?

They were copied, distributed and protected by the Catholic Church. It was the only Church on the planet during this time, that’s a historical fact.

That written message was not corrupted, and it was in the hands of the Catholic Church. DESPITE being copied and handwritten by members of the Catholic Church! Somehow, the Bible is considered INERRANT despite having the fingerprints of the Catholic Church all over it.

Somehow, the Holy Spirit protected the scriptures from being utterly destroyed by the Pagan Roman authorities - Diocletian ordered all copies of our scriptures to be destroyed! So did other emperors.

Somehow, the Holy Spirit managed to protect the Bible from us messing up the message.

If one can still make an accusation at this point against the Catholic Church about the Bible in the time period between the Apostles and the estimated date of the earliest manuscripts, one attacks the inerrancy of scriptures themselves.

Now, what about the Apostolic interpretation of scripture? It was passed down orally through the same centuries, through the very same Catholic Church, under the exact same circumstances.

Somehow that message was screwed up but the Bible wasn’t?

Oral Apostolic tradition = screwed up
Written Apostolic tradition = preserved inerrantly

According to those who doubt Tradition’s veracity, the Holy Spirit was inconsistent. I vehemently disagree.

 

[upbeatjonm]

Please note that we have no original manuscripts of any of the New Testament books. Zero. They are nowhere to be found on the planet. The best we got are copies of copies of copies of … of copies, and those are the earliest manyscripts outstanding.
Based on these earliest manuscripts, everyone have their Bibles.
Now, between the Apostles’ pens and that early manuscript, how did it get there?

They were copied, distributed and protected by the Catholic Church. It was the only Church on the planet during this time, that’s a historical fact.

That written message was not corrupted, and it was in the hands of the Catholic Church. DESPITE being copied and handwritten by members of the Catholic Church! Somehow, the Bible is considered INERRANT despite having the fingerprints of the Catholic Church all over it.

Somehow, the Holy Spirit protected the scriptures from being utterly destroyed by the Pagan Roman authorities - Diocletian ordered all copies of our scriptures to be destroyed! So did other emperors.

Somehow, the Holy Spirit managed to protect the Bible from us messing up the message.

If one can still make an accusation at this point against the Catholic Church about the Bible in the time period between the Apostles and the estimated date of the earliest manuscripts, one attacks the inerrancy of scriptures themselves.

Now, what about the Apostolic interpretation of scripture? It was passed down orally through the same centuries, through the very same Catholic Church, under the exact same circumstances.

Somehow that message was screwed up but the Bible wasn’t?

Oral Apostolic tradition = screwed up
Written Apostolic tradition = preserved inerrantly

According to those who doubt Tradition’s veracity, the Holy Spirit was inconsistent. I vehemently disagree.

Well said! After reading this fascinating discussion from the start, it is apparent that the two sides are talking past each other. I don’t think minds will be changed. I think a strong case has been made to substantiate tradition. Jesus himself said that He would be with us always, and gave the Holy Spirit to protect the Church, “the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. Let’s take Jesus’ words as the truth, and move on.

 

[cmancone]

What is your basis for this statement? I had understood that MANY “gospels” were floating around once people started writing about Jesus. These included the gospels of Peter, Thomas and Mary Magdalene (I think). How is it you know “they were already accepted as canonical?”

Thanks, please continue.

The four gospels we know were written (with the exception of John) between roughly 50 and 70 ad. John was written by about 90 ad. The other “gospels”, Mary, Peter, and Thomas, were in fact written by the gnostics from about 150-200 ad, substantially later. There were never considered inspired, nor was there ever any serious consideration of them being inspired.

 

[DJim]

OK–I’m not quite on task with a more comprehensive tackling of the apostolic succession issue, which I will probably do in a separate thread, from the ground up, Scripturally.

But, I want to throw this potential “shortcut” on the issue into the mix to see how/whether it’s been dealt with before:

Acts 8–tells the story of Philip preaching in Samaria, and says, "Now, when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
"When Simon (Magus) saw that the Spirit was conferred by the laying on of the apostle’s hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me this power too, so that anyone upon whom I lay my hands may receive the holy Spirit.” But Peter said to him, “May your money perish with you, because you thought that you could buy the gift of God with money…” Acts 8:14-20

Okay–apparently this is Philip the Deacon in Samaria, preaching, and he’s not an apostle. So Samaria is converted, the apostles learn about it, send the customary two down to “complete” the process by providing them with the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.

Context makes it crystal clear that in the Church the Spirit is conferred through the laying on of the apostles’ hands. The apostles have this “power” and this “power” is the way in which the Holy Spirit was imparted.

Obviously this requires the power of an apostle to accomplish, and is the way in which the Holy Spirit is “received” by the faithful–this is, as Peter says, the “gift of God” that can’t be bought with money.

Thoughts:

Isn’t this Scriptural evidence that indicates that, for the early Church to maintain fidelity to the example and model of the Apostles, they need to continue to receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands of someone with apostolic authority to exercise this “gift of God”???

Without apostolic succession, there can be no “hands” which provide this “gift of God” to the Church.

So…those of you who don’t believe in apostolic succession–can you please cite evidence as to when and why the early Church would have departed from the example of the Apostles and how this apostolic laying on of hands for the faithful to receive the Holy Spirit was accomplished in the Church without “apostolic hands” to make it happen?

Those of us who do believe in apostolic succession can simply look at this passage and say–“duh–the Sacrament of Confirmation conferred by the apostolic authority of the Bishop”–we still do the same thing today!

I think Acts 8 provides clear Scriptural proof that the authority of the apostles is necessary to maintain this “gift of God” in the life of the Church, and thus is Scriptural evidence of the necessity of apostolic succession.

And if so, then this also provides the evidence needed to assert that apostolic authority continues in the Church such that the concept of “Living Tradition” makes perfect sense…

Thoughts and comments? Perhaps this is nothing new to some of you, but it seems extremely compelling to me–Scripture asserting plainly that “the Spirit was conferred by the laying on of the apostles’ hands” and that, unless and until those with apostolic authority went to Samaria (a deacon like Philip didn’t have the “fullness” of apostolic authority), the converted Samaritans would not “get” the Holy Spirit.

DJim

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why is this a problem? It’s a problem because if scripture doesn’t guarantee that Oral Tradition will be protected from error, then the only thing left to make the claim that Tradition is protected from error is, of course, Tradition.

The flaw is the presupposition beginning with “if scripture doesn’t guarantee…”

Where does the Bible tell us that everything is contained in scripture?

So, I challenge the Catholics here to prove that an infallible Tradition is promised in scripture…So please, show me a single verse that implies that an Oral Tradition will develop that is protected by the Holy Spirit. If you can’t, then clearly the only thing supporting the notion of an infallible Tradition would be Tradition itself.

Okay. Scriptures that support infallibility.

Matthew 28:18-19
Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’

Luke 10:16
He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

John 14:16-17
If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

John 20:21
Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’

The Father sent Jesus with ALL AUTHORITY; Jesus sent the Apostles in the same way - with authority.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

Paul says he was speaking the Word of God.

1 John 4:6
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

“We are from God.” God does not send people to preach error.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[cmancone]

Isn’t this Scriptural evidence that indicates that, for the early Church to maintain fidelity to the example and model of the Apostles, they need to continue to receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands of someone with apostolic authority to exercise this “gift of God”???

Without apostolic succession, there can be no “hands” which provide this “gift of God” to the Church.

So…those of you who don’t believe in apostolic succession–can you please cite evidence as to when and why the early Church would have departed from the example of the Apostles and how this apostolic laying on of hands for the faithful to receive the Holy Spirit was accomplished in the Church without “apostolic hands” to make it happen?

You may not be aware of this, but almost every christian denomination I know still practices this. We still pass on the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Honestly, I’ve never once connected this with apostolic succession. Considering that almost every christian denomination practices this, including all the ones that don’t believe in apostolic succession, I can only conclude that this doesn’t imply apostolic succession. I’ve really just never thought of it in that context, and don’t see why it requires apostolic succession to work. You don’t have to have the authority of an apostle to lay hands and baptize with the Holy Spirit (that’s what this is referring to), you just have to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

You circumvented my point. Regardless of when the tradition started (that could be a thread of its own), this passage CLEARLY states that we are not to be taken captive by it because it is “deceptive philosophy”.

You totally miss my point. Tradition was before Scripture. Jesus founded a Church not a book. He didn’t tell His Apostles to write anything, but He did tell them to go forth and preach to make disciples of all nations. What Catholic Sacred Traditions contradict the Bible?

The Church Jesus founded was a fullfilment of Scripture, not the other way around…

 

[thistle]

You may not be aware of this, but almost every christian denomination I know still practices this. We still pass on the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Honestly, I’ve never once connected this with apostolic succession. Considering that almost every christian denomination practices this, including all the ones that don’t believe in apostolic succession, I can only conclude that this doesn’t imply apostolic succession. I’ve really just never thought of it in that context, and don’t see why it requires apostolic succession to work. You don’t have to have the authority of an apostle to lay hands and baptize with the Holy Spirit (that’s what this is referring to), you just have to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you.

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html