Is Tradition still necessary?

DHK, you are confused on what apostolic succession is. Apostolic succession guarantees a line of teaching authority, not a line of inspired apostles. This authority guards and teaches the faith, clarifies doctrine and resolves issues. We see this authority clearly demonstrated in scripture, Paul's words to Titus and Timonthy, the church as the pillar of truth, and the church's role in settling disputes.

 

Yes I realize that. There are different types of succession held by different groups. In one Baptist group (not mine) you have to be baptized by a baptist who was baptized by a baptist who was baptized by a baptist who was... Well you get the idea. Catholics have their own idea of successionism. It is just one of many types, but by no means the only type of successionism, and certainly not Biblical.

The only authority that we have is the Word of God, preserved in the original languages, not in the magesterium.
DHK

 

Without the Magesterium you would not know which writings, from all the writings of that time, are Scripture.

You know, yet choose to ignore, that there were other writings considered as possibly being Scripture in the first centuries besides the ones which are now contained in the Bible.

The recognition as to which writings are Scripture was made in Council in the late 300's.

Without the Magesterium you would not have a Bible.

Without the Magesterium the writings would not have been preserved in the original languages.

God established the Magestetrium (the teaching authority of His Church) to preserve and protect His teachings.

 

Without the Magesterium you would not know which writings, from all the writings of that time, are Scripture.

You know, yet choose to ignore, that there were other writings considered as possibly being Scripture in the first centuries besides the ones which are now contained in the Bible.

The recognition as to which writings are Scripture was made in Council in the late 300's.

Without the Magesterium you would not have a Bible.

Without the Magesterium the writings would not have been preserved in the original languages.

God established the Magestetrium (the teaching authority of His Church) to preserve and protect His teachings. </font>[/QUOTE]Magesteriums had nothing to do with the preservation of God's Word. That is even funny to think of any such concept. The Apostles themselves knew which books were Scripture and which were not. They passed that knowledge on to the early believers. The early churches had the preserved Word of God. It did not take a Catholic Council to decide which books were inspired and which were not. The involvement of any such magesterium is purley fictional.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "It did not take a Catholic Council to decide which books were inspired and which were not."

Then why do you accept 2 Peter, James, Jude, 2 & 3 John, Revelation, and Hebrews to be inspired while numerous Christian churches today do not?

 

I did not say anything about the 'title'. There is evidence in Scripture that supports that Luke wrote the gospel bearing his name.

I am glad that works for you.

Huh? Let's see, we know the Scripture because of the authority of the church, which we know about because of the Scripture. You don't see that as circular, like you try to accuse me of? And history? That is not exactly an objective science.

As long as it is read using those glasses of tradition.

Yes, I do. I know what I see before me. And for me, it would be a leap.

The Church. Christians. Not the RCC.

First off, I don't appreciate you acting like you know my life. Yes, there has been influence, but no, I am not dumb. Do you know my religious background? Can you tell me please? Also, the RCC likes to claim things as its 'own'. Just because they have some of the truth doesn't mean it is theirs to dispense as they will.

No, I do not see it as that.

And without the Scripture, God's breathed out Word, you would have this idea of the church. God's truth stands on its own. It does not need to be recognized to become truth.

I am aware what you would go to. It still does not change my position.

It would be nice if that was required and if history was an exact science.

Why should I trust the Scriptures? You say that it is by the church's authority, but then you appeal to Scripture as authoritative. If that is not circular then don't accuse me of being circular. And again, history is not an exact science.

God Bless,
Neal

 

Yes, you did. I assume that we believe and accept Scripture. You are talking about something else. If you use 2 Tim. 3:16 to just say the OT is inspired, you have to accept the NT books as well that were called Scripture at the time it was written.

Well, if you resurrect the apostles and those first Christians, I guess we could hear it as well. Have you ever played the game where someone whispers something and you pass it around a big circle of people? In the end, the message is nothing like what it started of as. Could you imagine the problems of passing down the word of God through fallible human men by word of mouth for 2,000 years?

And how is that referring to the RCC today?

My friend, it is the only thing that is explicitly said to be breathed out by God (source of truth). Do you deny this? If you say tradition is, that is an inference.

I agree. I see many of the RCC teachings *against* Scripture.

No. I see the church as the body of believers in Christ, not the RCC organization. I believe that there is authority in the church, i.e. the body of believers in Christ. But I do not see it as just the RCC.

God Bless You,
Neal

 

Hi neal,

There is evidence in Scripture that supports that Luke wrote the gospel bearing his name."

But how do you know that it is inspired Scripture, that the Gospel isn't apocrypha? How do you know that it is an apostolic letter written by Luke the physician, St. Paul's disciple?

Let's see, we know the Scripture because of the authority of the church, which we know about because of the Scripture.

Yes, Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium all stand together. Each needs one another. The Magisterium is the guardian and expositor of Scripture and Tradition. Tradition tells us what is the Word of God as well as what is Scripture and what is Apocrypha, and Scripture attests to the reality of Tradition and the Magisterium.

As long as [the Marian passages are] read using those glasses of tradition.

You got it.

You see, it isn't a matter of whether the Marian dogmas are Scriptural; it's a matter of which tradition you're reading Scripture through the lens of. With regard to the Trinity (Nicea; 325 A.D.) and the Christological Definition of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., you're reading Scripture with a Catholic lens, as evinced by our friends here who are spreading Theological and Christological errors from the premise of Sola Scriptura.

What do you see in the second century then? The Church. Christians. Not the RCC.

Have you read the ecclesial passages by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in his Adversus Haereses?

First off, I don't appreciate you acting like you know my life.

Relax, brother. This is just casual dialogue - nothing to get worked up over.

And without the Scripture, God's breathed out Word, you would have this idea of the church. God's truth stands on its own. It does not need to be recognized to become truth.

The Church would exist had not a word of the New Testament been penned, for it did exist without a word of the New Testament having been penned for the first twenty years of its existence.

Why should I trust the Scriptures?

Because they are witnessed to by the historical, apostolic Church.

"I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." (Saint Augustine of Hippo, Against the Letter of Mani, 5:6)

 

We know from history that the Councils met and debated which writings were inspired and thus Scripture. It happened in the late 300's.

What is your evidence that the Apostles knew which writings were Scripture and what is your evidence that they passed that knowledge on to early believers?

 

But see, this is 'tradition' that is in no way verifiable at all as coming from the apostles. It came about long after the apostles.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. Yes, I am high strung right now and taking things the wrong way. I apologize.

 

Sure, I have no real problem with that, although 2 Tim doesn't explicitly say that, it just says that whatever is scripture is God-breathed. But how do you know 2 Tim, and the other books NOT called scripture, are scripture in the first place?

But there is one difference: Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide and remind. In Matt 28:19-20, Jesus told the Apostles to go into all nations, baptizing and teaching them all he had commanded, and he promised he'd be with them *always*, not just until they got things written down. It's how the canon was developed, it's how the Trinity was expounded on, both of which happened about 300 years after Christ. In the game of Telephone, the God doesn't actively participate in preserving the message as it is transmitted. In church history, did God participate for 300 years or less and then bow out? If he did, I can accept your game-of-telephone analogy. If not, I can't.

And how is that referring to the RCC today?
</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure, I'm still meditating on that. But it is nonetheless an instance in scripture of where "God breathed", in the context of authority, which is what you were asking for. It is clear, at least to me, that the early Christians had *two* authorities: scripture, and the church (i.e. doctrines as given by the Apostles). Both were authoritative because "God breathed", are they not?

Again, I'd still like you to consider and comment John 20:22-23. But yes, I understand what you are saying that scripture is the only thing explicitly said to be breathed out by God - my point is that it doesn't say it's the ONLY authority, or the ONLY thing breathed out by God. Something being the only thing that get's explicit mention of something does not logically mean it ONLY can have that something applied to it. Only John was explicitly called "the disciple whom Jesus loved" - does that mean Jesus loved ONLY John? No. We can see from other scripture that Jesus loved his other disciples too, just as we can see from scripture that there was another authority for the early church.

Which ones? And what if someone can explain how they aren't against scripture, but that only your misunderstanding of those teachings are against scripture?

What kind of authority? How can they exercise this authority, how can we appeal to this authority? Heck (are Baptists allowed to say 'heck'? ), this very board is proof that if you put 20 Baptists in a room, you'll have 40 debates. How do I, as a Baptist, appeal to the church, the body of believers in Christ, as an authority? Yes, we Baptists have the scripture as the only authority, but each of add a layer to it, called our interpretation. We simply can't even get at our own authority without going through our personal interpretation first. How do we, as Baptists, settle a debate, when both sides of the debate are both using the same authoritative scripture?

Brian

 

We don't 'know'. It is taken by faith, ultimately. But there is good reason to believe that they are. By the witness of early Christians and the uniqueness of the Scriptures. However, again, like I have said and what seems to be ignored over and over. I am not anti-all tradition and the Word of God is the Word of God because it is God-breathed, not because of someone's choice to recognize it. No man made it become the Word of God. Just because I accept some tradition, if that is what you want to call it, that does not mean that I acknowledge the RCC as it is today as the keeper of the truth.

I never claimed that. If you can show me where I did, I will gladly recant.

Again, show me where I said such a thing, please. The Scriptures were all written within 70 years after the founding of the church. All by the same generation of people with unique credentials. If God was with the church in the way you insinuate, why is there no more written Scripture? Just because they 'recognized' the canon, that does not make them authority over the canon. God's Word is God's Word. No recognition made it such.

I agree the church has authority. But that authority is checked by the Word of God, at least at this time. If not, again, why not allow more 'Scripture'? Seems the early Christians were on to something when they canonized it. And I still fail to see how the RCC lays hold of this authority. All believers in Christ make up the church. What exactly is the church? Just some structured organization that makes rules? I think not.

I will have to look into it more, I don't have time now.

Never said such. I am just not willing to infer and elevate something that clearly did not get the same mention, at least when it comes to authorities.

I agree that the early church operated under different circumstances. But is there more that needs to be done or revealed? Did God forget about all the Mary doctrines in the first century. If it really was that important surely there would be more mention of it.

Mary for starters. Ah yes, I have to be wrong, right? I just misunderstand. If it makes it easier for you to deal with, I guess you can think of it that way. But I have read some of their own writings on the topics. Much of it appears to me to be very emotional and the product of an active imagination.

Don't be fooled, Catholics don't all see eye-to-eye either. I can't help you too much here. Many differences, as I have stated elsewhere before, result from men's pride and sinfulness. If we all were sincere and truly seeking the truth I feel there would be a lot less division.

Brian, if you want something that you can just appeal to to make you feel better in your mind, the RCC is all for you. However, I see that we are each responsible for ourselves. It will not be me and everyone who taught me standing before God together one day. I have to answer for me. Like it or not, the RCs make a choice just like I do. Thier authorities are just as 'circular' as mine. Where does the church get authority? Carson said from Scripture and history. Where did Scripture come to be recognized for its authority? The church. So the church gets its authority from something it recognized and said was an authority. And history is hardly objective science.

In the Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ,
Neal

 

Hi Neal,

But see, this is 'tradition' that is in no way verifiable at all as coming from the apostles. It came about long after the apostles.

The same argument would be used (and has been used, and is currently used) against the Christological Definition of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and the Trinitarian formulas of Nicea & Constantinople.

The Tradition is verifiable because it is clarified by the Apostolic teaching office, those bishops who succeed the bishops who succeed the apostles in ministry - who have received the "laying on of the hands" through the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Have you seen the statistics pertaining to the faith of the laity and the bishops regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Bodily Assumption of Mary before their respective definitions in 1854 and 1950 (Well, I suppose this is more rhetorical than anything.. you most probably haven't)?

Both popes Pius IX and Pius XII, in their respective solemn definitions of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, referred to the petitions from the faithful throughout the world as a major factor leading them to conclusions of appropriateness and timeliness for these Marian papal definitions.

Yes, I am high strung right now and taking things the wrong way. I apologize.

There's no need to apologize.

 

Some people accept the Bible as the preserved Word of God, and some don't. I do.

Some people believe the earth is a sphere and some still belong to flat earth society? In which camp are you?

 

Consider:
2Peter 1:16-21
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Peter first testifies of his experience with James and John when he saw Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, transfigured before them. This was the highlight of his ministry—to actually see the glory of God, and two of the Old Testament saints as well. No other experience could surpass what Peter saw on that Mount—the transfigured and glorified Christ. What a tremendous sight it was. He assures his readers here:
“for we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

This is not a story I am making up, he tells them. I am an eyewitness of the power, the majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ. He goes on to describe how Christ received from the Father honour and glory, and the voice from Heaven that they heard which said:
“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
He emphasizes again how all this took place in the holy mount when they were with Christ.

Now look at the next verse, verse 19.
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed.”
He says compared to that experience on the Mount the Word of God that I am giving to you is more trustworthy. We have a more sure word of prophecy that YOU do well to take heed. And that word that he is speaking of here is the words of the Apostles that he puts on par with the words of the Old Testament prophets. They are of equal value, and of greater value than his greatest experiences with Christ. These words came not by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. These were God’s words that were being written down.

Now skip down to chapter three of the same book.
3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Look what Peter says here. Be mindful of the words spoken before by the holy prophets and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour. The prophets and the apostles mentioned in the same verse are on equal footing with each other. Peter says to take heed to them both. The words and commandments of both prophets and apostles were important to obey. This would be for all generations. The commandments of the apostles that we must obey are the commandments written in the Word of God, preserved for us down throughout the centuries by Bible believing churches that existed in every era since the time of the Apostles.

Look a little further into Peter’s epistle (the same chapter):
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter knew what epistles of Paul were inspired. He refers to them as Scripture, and refers to “as they do also the other Scriptures,” inferring that he knew that other New Testament Scripture had already been inscripturated by that time as well.
It is evident that the Apostles knew which books were inspired.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

"Some people accept the Bible as the preserved Word of God, and some don't. I do."

That's wonderful. Good for you. Me too.

My question remains:

Why do you accept 2 Peter, James, Jude, 2 & 3 John, Revelation, and Hebrews to be inspired while numerous Christian churches today do not?

Many Christian Churches, which have apostolic succession going back to the apostles, hold that the above epistles are not authentic and are not from the apostles.. are spurious as apocrypha, yet you accept them as authentic. Why? On whose authority?

"Some people believe the earth is a sphere and some still belong to flat earth society? In which camp are you?"

I hold that the earth is a sphere.

 

I never claimed that. If you can show me where I did, I will gladly recant.
</font>[/QUOTE]I never said you claimed it. I'm just sort of thinking out loud.

Again, show me where I said such a thing, please.
</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not saying you claimed it. I'm simply asking a question. The point is, the church at that time was authoritative because it was being guided by God. God has not left, therefore the church must still be authoritative now to some degree. But where? Us Baptists don't seem to want it, we are all to busy shouting "sola-scriptura" every chance we get, and disagreeing with each other on the interpretation of that very scripture.

I don't know.

No one is claiming that they were authoritative "over" scripture.

I agree. But without the churches authority to specifically identify and collect them together, we'd be left today with a hundred independent writings, with none of us having the personal authority to claim which are and which aren't scripture.

Is it not also true today? I don't think anyone is claiming the Church has authority in *opposition* to scripture.

Well, I see how they lay hold of it (because of history), althought I understand what you're saying.

I think not as well. However, if the "church" (whatever that is) has authority, and we reject that authority, are we not at least missing out on something?

Again, think some more about John 20:22-23 (as will I)

Two thoughts: 1. again consider the ancient Jews, comparing the religion at the time of Moses to the religion at the time of Christ. It grew and developed, and Christ had no problem with that, except where it directly went against scripture. 2. other doctrines, often "protestant" ones weren't clearly mentioned or spelled out in the first century either. Yet we have no problem holding on to those. Like the Catholics, we see "hints" of these doctrines in the scripture, and centuries later these hints had developed into full-fledged doctrines. Our church is not allowed to have an AWANA group for the kids, because we generally aren't a "pretrib rapture" church (although some individuals members are). Up until a couple months ago, I would have defended sola-scriptura to the Pope himself. Yet neither of these (nor a myriad of other doctrines, like Calvinism and Arminianism, etc.) are clearly laid out in scripture nor were clearly expounded in the first century. I'm thinking that the doctrines of the Catholic Church, *if* the RCC has the authority it claims, *have* to be true doctrines because of that authority (the authority of the "church" rather than personal interpretation), regardless of when on the timeline they are expounded, as long as they don't directly contradict scripture.

Mary for starters. Ah yes, I have to be wrong, right? I just misunderstand. If it makes it easier for you to deal with, I guess you can think of it that way.
</font>[/QUOTE]Maybe you forget I am still Baptist. I'm just saying that if there are two authorities, scripture and the church, and the true church (whatever that may be) exercises its authority (under God's guidance) and establishes a doctrine, it must be true because of that authority. If that authority is true but we personally disagree with it or don't understand it, it would be no different than if we disagreed with, or didn't understand, scripture. Like you, I'm not anywhere near to accepting their doctrines on Mary, but I can see that if I come to the point where I get what they're saying about authority, I will be more willing to look at the Mary issues from a different perspective.

Maybe, maybe. If their claim to authority is not justified, then it would be. But if their claim to authority is justified, rejecting something because it seems like the product of an active imagination is not really any different than someone rejecting scriptures for the same reason.

Don't be fooled, Catholics don't all see eye-to-eye either. I can't help you too much here. Many differences, as I have stated elsewhere before, result from men's pride and sinfulness.
</font>[/QUOTE]Of course, I agree. I'm not talking about petty issues or issues that have not been authoritatively expounded on. Before the canon was solidified, I think Christians were somewhat free to debate and disagree about which books should be considered "scripture". But once the authoritative decision was made, disagreeing becomes much more serious.

Probably true.

That is one of the exact reasons I so strongly *oppose* KJV-onlyism. Don't worry, I'm not the type to accept something just because it will make me feel better in my mind. Years ago when I left the pretrib camp and eventually settled on post-trib/amill (interestingly which is basically what the RCC is, if I read the Catechism correctly), I felt *worse* in my mind because I had to give up my get-out-of-jail-free rapture card to conform to what I believed scripture really was saying. But, eventually, I did feel better in my mind because I believed I had the truth, even though it meant it might mean I'll have a rougher go in life.

Drop in from time to time.

Brian

 

You say "inferring".

Letting that one go, where is an Apostles list of Scriptures for you to verify the current canon?