Where does scripture state that Tradition will be protected?

[cmancone]

It amazes me cmancone, that you assume that Jesus Christ…the a omniscient, omnipotent King of Kings, Lord of Lords, second person in the Holy Trinity has no understanding, knowledge or care for the needs of future generations of the church.

You completely misunderstand me, Jay. I think Jesus Christ gave us everything we need for ourselves and for all later generations. Everything important is in the Bible, and His Holy Spirit is inside each of us to keep our feet on the path He set out for us. As far as I’m concerned, you are the one setting limits on God, because you expect and require Him to use Tradition to teach the generations of today. Personally, I think God could have managed quite well without either scripture or tradition. It’s a moot point though, since scripture gives us everything we need.

 

[Conciliar]

Finally, you have actually misquoted John 21:25
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

I didn’t properly quote at all, I fused two passages that taken together make it clear from Scripture that the written word does not provide all that we need to follow Christ according to His command.

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Surely your position concerning the sufficiency of Scripture alone in light of these verses doesn’t rest on parsing a difference between the importance of what Jesus “taught” versus what Jesus “did,” does it?

 

[DJim]

Cmancone–

Two quick questions:

1. Which comes first, me reading the Bible, or the Holy Spirit dwelling within me?
2. Why does the Holy Spirit seem to be doing such a lousy job of leading all of us individually into all truth??

DJim

 

[jburgherr]

You completely misunderstand me, Jay. I think Jesus Christ gave us everything we need for ourselves and for all later generations. Everything important is in the Bible, and His Holy Spirit is inside each of us to keep our feet on the path He set out for us. As far as I’m concerned, you are the one setting limits on God, because you expect and require Him to use Tradition to teach the generations of today. Personally, I think God could have managed quite well without either scripture or tradition. It’s a moot point though, since scripture gives us everything we need.

This is what makes no sense. The pastor of your church has a certain understanding of the bible. His/her teaching of this bible understanding is different than the teaching and understanding of the bible at the church down the street…which is different than the teaching of the other 20 protestant churches in town…which is different than the teaching in the 30,000+ protestant church demominations all over the world. Somebody is teaching in error. Why? Because there is no apostolic succession of authority withing any Protestant churches. Everyone of these churches are teaching with their own imperfect, personal, fallible interpretation of the bible.

Jesus is omnipotent…seeing through all times, all at once. He knew you and I would be writing all of this when he was on the cross at Calvary. When he ascended into heaven he left his church in charge to propogate his whole message. To protect the deposit of faith. Now His church was full of imperfect beings, and would continue to be through out the end of time. The church would need leadership with teaching authority and it would need protection from teaching error. He picked Peter to be the first shepherd (pope) and charged him to build the church and pass it on with perfect fidelity for all times. With out creating a hierachry with one supreme pontif, you get 30,000 popes all teaching their own imperfect, fallable version of the Gospel. Jesus was very smart (omnipotents has this quality ) to place his own protection over the church from teaching error by sending the Holy Spirit. Jesus gave his promise “Hell shall not prevail against it!”

It is not possible for you on your own, or your pastor, to sit and read scripture and have a perfect, infallible understanding of what is written. You need a Majesterium who has a God protected and holy perfect understanding of the scriptures to guide you in your understanding. The Bible does not contain the full deposit of faith that Jesus left us with. The Catholic Church was charged by Jesus, through Peter, to protect and faithfully proclaim the entire deposit of faith. That is exactly what she has done for over 2000 years.

 

[christcnection1]

That makes plenty of sense DJim. Of course, I don’t think apostolic succession can really be supported by scripture, but that’s why you intend to prove it. By all means, start a new discussion and prove your point. I’d be more than happy to discuss it with you.

In order to establish that tradition will be protected, this is an essential piece to this issue. The issue stays or this entire thread is nonsensical.

(He is not talking about what first aid steps should be taken if you get stung by a jelly fish at the shore. )

I believe the Bible loudly (but somewhat indirectly) supports our perspective concerning your sincere inquiry. In part, the issue of apostolic authority/succession is essential to validate the Church’s position. To throw this issue out of the equation would be like taking the icing off a finished cake, which we baked.

This conversation is not going to reduced to Jenny Craig.

 

[DJim]

Great–I’m on task–should have something for everyone to chew on later this afternoon–

DJim

 

[jburgherr]

That makes plenty of sense DJim. Of course, I don’t think apostolic succession can really be supported by scripture, but that’s why you intend to prove it. By all means, start a new discussion and prove your point. I’d be more than happy to discuss it with you.

You say that apostolic succession can not be supported by scripture? Look at ACTS 1:23-26.

(Act 1:23) And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
(Act 1:24) And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen,
(Act 1:25) That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
(Act 1:26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

That is apostolic succession in action in your own bible! Yes or no?

 

[cmancone]

You say that apostolic succession can not be supported by scripture? Look at ACTS 1:23-26.

(Act 1:23) And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
(Act 1:24) And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen,
(Act 1:25) That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
(Act 1:26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

That is apostolic succession in action in your own bible! Yes or no?

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…

 

[HJProtestant]

Cmancone–

Two quick questions:

1. Which comes first, me reading the Bible, or the Holy Spirit dwelling within me?
2. Why does the Holy Spirit seem to be doing such a lousy job of leading all of us individually into all truth??

DJim

I know these questions are directed at cmancone, but allow me to put in my two cents…

1. ANSWER: The Bible (not tradition) would have to be imparted in some fashion to a person before the Holy Spirit dwells within. WHY? Because one has to *believe *before they can accept the Holy Spirit into their heart and it would be hard to believe if they hadn’t at least heard some part of the Bible in some way…even if it were from a teacher, missionary, whoever-- just paraphrasing what the Bible says or acting in a fashion that the Bible teaches (you know, Teach the gospel, use words if necessary…)
2. 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.

On a side note, it saddens me that anyone could suggest that the HS could do a “lousy job”! If that is your experience, ask yourself, “who is failing who?”.

 

[christcnection1]

I know these questions are directed at cmancone, but allow me to put in my two cents…

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.

Likwise, many Protestants are convinced they are being led by the Spirit, but may have very different interpretations that neither of us could accept. “Accepting” the Holy Spirit may or may not have something to do with leading people into truth. Sincere people who genuinely love God can be wrong on theological issues, even if they sincerely desire that the Holy Spirit guides them.

On a side note, it saddens me that anyone could suggest that the HS could do a “lousy job”! Are you suggesting that God is failing us?

No, he is not suggesting that. However, if individual interpretation is true, and everyone thinks they are rightly being led by the Holy Spirit, something is clearly wrong, because there is no end to theological disputes.

That is his point; the Holy Spirit does not do a poor job of leading people. It’s unfortunate that this actually had to be pointed out to you. If were sincerly not sure, you could have asked him.

 

[Teflon93]

You completely misunderstand me, Jay. I think Jesus Christ gave us everything we need for ourselves and for all later generations. Everything important is in the Bible, and His Holy Spirit is inside each of us to keep our feet on the path He set out for us. As far as I’m concerned, you are the one setting limits on God, because you expect and require Him to use Tradition to teach the generations of today. Personally, I think God could have managed quite well without either scripture or tradition. It’s a moot point though, since scripture gives us everything we need.

The Apostles didn’t have the Bible (at least the NT). What did Christ leave Christians for the first 3 centuries?

That is why you cannot differentiate between Scripture and Tradition, and why we keep trying to clarify terms.

Another way to think of this is:

1. Christ founded the Church.
2. The Church carried on Christ’s ministry using oral tradition (eyewitness accounts, etc) for around 300 years.
3. The first New Testament writings don’t appear till several decades after Christ’s death.
4. Eventually these were compiled into the Bible by the Church in the 4th century.

Tradition preceded Scripture. If Tradition were wrong, how would Scripture be right, Tradition being what was written down in Scripture?

 

[cmancone]

The Apostles didn’t have the Bible (at least the NT). What did Christ leave Christians for the first 3 centuries?

That is why you cannot differentiate between Scripture and Tradition, and why we keep trying to clarify terms.

Another way to think of this is:

1. Christ founded the Church.
2. The Church carried on Christ’s ministry using oral tradition (eyewitness accounts, etc) for around 300 years.
3. The first New Testament writings don’t appear till several decades after Christ’s death.
4. Eventually these were compiled into the Bible by the Church in the 4th century.

Tradition preceded Scripture. If Tradition were wrong, how would Scripture be right, Tradition being what was written down in Scripture?

I’m sorry Teflon, but I have to disagree. First of all, no, the Apostles didn’t have the Bible, and no, they didn’t need one. It is important to remember that, strictly speaking, neither Tradition nor Scripture are the word of God. It was the Apostles teachings that were the Word of God, and thefore, Scripture and Tradition are God’s Word only so long as they faithfully reproduce the teachings of the Apostles. Clearly then, the Apostles didn’t have a new testament, and they really didn’t need one.

1. Christ founded his church
2. The gospel was spread quickly through both the preaching of the apostles and through their written letters
3. The first New Testament writings appeared very quickly after Jesus’ death.
4. These writings were acknowledged as inspired very quickly, within decades, and eventually were given the “Church’s” stamp of approval about 3 centuries later. They were already accepted as canonincal, however.

Scripture preceded Tradition, since Tradition didn’t start to develop until after scripture. This is obvious since scripture was written down when the apostles were still alive. If the apostles were still alive, then there was cleraly no need for Tradition. Obviously then, scripture came first.

 

[Teflon93]

I’m sorry Teflon, but I have to disagree. First of all, no, the Apostles didn’t have the Bible, and no, they didn’t need one. It is important to remember that, strictly speaking, neither Tradition nor Scripture are the word of God. It was the Apostles teachings that were the Word of God, and thefore, Scripture and Tradition are God’s Word only so long as they faithfully reproduce the teachings of the Apostles. Clearly then, the Apostles didn’t have a new testament, and they really didn’t need one.

1. Christ founded his church
2. The gospel was spread quickly through both the preaching of the apostles and through their written letters
3. The first New Testament writings appeared very quickly after Jesus’ death.
4. These writings were acknowledged as inspired very quickly, within decades, and eventually were given the “Church’s” stamp of approval about 3 centuries later. They were already accepted as canonincal, however.

Scripture preceded Tradition, since Tradition didn’t start to develop until after scripture. This is obvious since scripture was written down when the apostles were still alive. If the apostles were still alive, then there was cleraly no need for Tradition. Obviously then, scripture came first.

Disagreement’s why we’re here, right? Thanks for laying out your objections clearly.

What do you call the oral portion of 2 above?

In 3, of course you’re not referring to the gospels themselves, right, which by nearly all accounts didn’t get written down for some years after Christ’s death? (For some reason it’s stuck in my mind that the earliest appeared about 50 AD—I’m sure someone has the facts at hand and can correct me as need be.)

There may be some difference in our terminology which compounds the problem with answering the question.

 

[cmancone]

Disagreement’s why we’re here, right? Thanks for laying out your objections clearly.

What do you call the oral portion of 2 above?

In 3, of course you’re not referring to the gospels themselves, right, which by nearly all accounts didn’t get written down for some years after Christ’s death? (For some reason it’s stuck in my mind that the earliest appeared about 50 AD—I’m sure someone has the facts at hand and can correct me as need be.)

There may be some difference in our terminology which compounds the problem with answering the question.

I guess “quickly” is relative. 50-70AD is a good estimate for most of the NT. I consider this quickly, because I’m use to people arguing for 150-200AD. The relative timescalse, however, is the lifetime of the apostles. Most importantly, the gospels were written within the lifetimes of the apsotles. This is important because that means there was no need for any Oral Tradition in writing the scriptures. Since the apostles were still alive, the authors could go talk to the apostles themselves (which is almost ceratinly what they DID do). Therefore, no Tradition was required in the writing of scripture, it all came from first hand accounts.

 

[Teflon93]

I guess “quickly” is relative. 50-70AD is a good estimate for most of the NT. I consider this quickly, because I’m use to people arguing for 150-200AD. The relative timescalse, however, is the lifetime of the apostles. Most importantly, the gospels were written within the lifetimes of the apsotles. This is important because that means there was no need for any Oral Tradition in writing the scriptures. Since the apostles were still alive, the authors could go talk to the apostles themselves (which is almost ceratinly what they DID do). Therefore, no Tradition was required in the writing of scripture, it all came from first hand accounts.

There’s where we differ. During the period betwen Christ’s death and the apostles providing their testimony to be written down I would consider oral tradition.

I similarly would consider the period between composition of The Iliad to the 1st written version to be one of oral tradition.

Do you disagree?

If so, what would you call this interregnum?

 

[cmancone]

There’s where we differ. During the period betwen Christ’s death and the apostles providing their testimony to be written down I would consider oral tradition.

I similarly would consider the period between composition of The Iliad to the 1st written version to be one of oral tradition.

Do you disagree?

If so, what would you call this interregnum?

Okay, I think I see what you are saying now. However, I think that is a completely different matter. You are talking about a limited period of roughly 20 years when the apostles were still around to verify and correct the teachings being passed around. Teachings were passed from town to town to town, from person to person, but at the same time, the original Apostles were still around to provide a check on the system. Also, the timescale was very short ~20 years. The tradition we are discussing right now is a very different beast. For starters, it has been going on for 2000 years, not 20. Also, the Apostles are no longer around to point out any corruptions that have crept in. These are really, in my opinion, two different circumstances. One doesn’t require the protection of the Holy Spirit, and one does.

 

[davidv]

One doesn’t require the protection of the Holy Spirit, and one does.

Why not? We have wayward pastors of all faith persuasions. And more often than not, it appears to take less than 20 years for them to get derailed. The HS guidance is required in both cases.

 

[Teflon93]

Okay, I think I see what you are saying now. However, I think that is a completely different matter. You are talking about a limited period of roughly 20 years when the apostles were still around to verify and correct the teachings being passed around. Teachings were passed from town to town to town, from person to person, but at the same time, the original Apostles were still around to provide a check on the system. Also, the timescale was very short ~20 years. The tradition we are discussing right now is a very different beast. For starters, it has been going on for 2000 years, not 20. Also, the Apostles are no longer around to point out any corruptions that have crept in. These are really, in my opinion, two different circumstances. One doesn’t require the protection of the Holy Spirit, and one does.

I see your point, but we must also consider how widely and how quickly the oral tradition of Christ’s ministry spread in the apostolic age and the fact that so many of the apostles were martyred so soon. It was not that easy for apostles to validate tradition. In fact, one of the arguments made for the Catholic Church and the papacy is that the Bishop of Rome in practice was not as subject to heresy as the other sees, thus making Rome an excellent arbiter of tradition. This shows up very early in our history.

And yet when we compare tradition and scripture with their historical antecedents, what is remarkable is not how much has changed in 2000 years, but how much has not. For example, Justin Martyr’s account of the Mass is very, very similar to the Mass I attend every Sunday. That Mass also is directly grounded in Scripture.

This is what makes this question a hard one for Catholics to answer—it is alien to our thinking.

It is almost like looking at a Reese’s peanut butter cup and asking whether the chocolate or the peanut butter is good.

 

[cmancone]

Why not? We have wayward pastors of all faith persuasions. And more often than not, it appears to take less than 20 years for them to get derailed. The HS guidance is required in both cases.

I don’t claim to agree with your point, but it really doesn’t matter. As I said, scripture was written down within the lifetimes of the Apostles. Therefore, no tradition was required in the writing of scripture, and it is completely trustworth as a first hand witness.

 

[mikijam]

cmancone, I am thoroughly enjoying this exchange. Thank you for starting the thread. Normally I am content to observe, but I felt compelled to ask for some points of clarification, if I may.

I’m sorry Teflon, but I have to disagree. First of all, no, the Apostles didn’t have the Bible, and no, they didn’t need one. It is important to remember that, strictly speaking, neither Tradition nor Scripture are the word of God. It was the Apostles teachings that were the Word of God, and thefore, Scripture and Tradition are God’s Word only so long as they faithfully reproduce the teachings of the Apostles. Clearly then, the Apostles didn’t have a new testament, and they really didn’t need one.

Don’t you mean Jesus Christ was the Word of God (John 1:1,14)?

1. Christ founded his church
2. The gospel was spread quickly through both the preaching of the apostles and through their written letters
3. The first New Testament writings appeared very quickly after Jesus’ death.
4. These writings were acknowledged as inspired very quickly, within decades, and eventually were given the “Church’s” stamp of approval about 3 centuries later. They were already accepted as canonincal, however.

Scripture preceded Tradition, since Tradition didn’t start to develop until after scripture. This is obvious since scripture was written down when the apostles were still alive. If the apostles were still alive, then there was cleraly no need for Tradition. Obviously then, scripture came first.

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.