Words for Roman Catholics to define

DHK,

Once again we are at a misunderstanding. Your analogy is not accurate. Hamurabbi's Code and Hindu scripture is not relevant to the people of Israel or the early Christians because it is not inspired by God. I am not arguing that the Bible is not inspired. What I am arguing is that the Bible is the final authority.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

I know what you are arguing. My point went right over your head. If the Bible wasn't their final authority then why did they use it all? What was the point of using the Scriptures?

 

DHK,

They use it because it is an authority. It is used in conjunction with Holy Tradition. It cannot be ignored...the word of God is too precious for that...but we were given other means by which to judge interpretations of Holy Scipture. I am not saying that we need to get rid of it, not at all! It is very important, it is just not the FINAL authority.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Your assumption is unfounded and ridiculous if you think about it. What tradition??
In Corinth for example, Paul's letter was written about 57 A.D., one of his earliest. Christ had died 29 A.D. The period of time that had elapsed is less then 30 years. I have read the definition of "tradition" in the Catholic Encyclopedia--knowledge that is passed down either orally or written through passage of time over a period of centuries. 30 years does not equal centuries! There is no way that you can get centuries of tradition into a period of less than 30 years. This kind of logic is absurd. There was no tradition so to speak of. All that they had was the Scriptures. Christianity was in its infancy. What traditions are speaking of? Sitting in the pews, passing the plate, reciting the "Apostles' Creed"? or what? What tradition? All they had was the Word of God. There was no tradition. Your assumption is absurd. They searched the Scriptures because it was their authority, the only one that they had. You cannot come to any other conclusion. If you can, I haven't heard it yet.
DHK

 

DHK,

Tradition NOW is passing down of centuries, but somewhere along the line that tradition had to be started. Think about it, something does not just come along centuries old...it must be generated somewhere. The traditions we follow ARE centuries old, but they were not always as they are subject to chronology and time.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

So start a tradition. Today start one. How long will it take before it becomes a tradition? Your own encyclopedia says centuries. It is obviouos that they weren't going by tradition. In fact Acts 17:11 clearly says that they searched the Scriptures daily. It says nothing of Tradition. Wake up here! The only authority that they referred to was the Scriptures. There was no Tradition, and there was no other authority but the Bible. You have been pulling at straws.
DHK

 

One might also ask "what Scripture?", if one is sola scriptura, since none of the NT had been written until the Pauline letter to which you refer.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

DHK,

If the Holy Spirit convicted me and moved me to begin a holy one, then I could. But as I have not been convicted as such, I have no need, nor would it be accepted by my church unless it was so inspired.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

"Tradition" is from the Greek "paradosis" which means "that which is handed down". Notice there is no specific (definite) time element in the definition. It makes no difference whether this "handing down" takes place in a day, year, generation, or century. It refers to that which is "handed down" not how much time it takes to do so.

Paul commands the Thessalonians (2 Thess 2:15) to hold to the traditions whether they came orally or in an epistle. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that everything the Apostles taught orally could be "inscripturated" when they died. The epistles were not meant to be self-contained exhaustive catechisms or worship manuals, but were written to encourage preexisting churches (who were already taught by the apostles and worshipping as they enjoined) and to correct them at certain points. In other words, NT Scriptures were given in the historical context of established worshipping Churches, and that context was the Apostolic Tradition.

 

"That which is handed down" What was handed down to Timothy was the teaching that Paul gave him, whether orally or written. Either way it was the truth of Scripture. That is the meaning of the verse. There is no other meaning. Paul handed down the truth, or taught Timothy the truth. The same is true of any preacher teaching his congregation. He hands down the truth from the pulpit. A Christian ought to disciple other Christians from the Bible. This is nothing to do with tradition of any kind. It is a Biblical mandate better expressed in 2Tim.2:2

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Paul told Timothy to take those things (the Bible not tradition) that he had taught to him, and in turn teach other faithful men, who in turn would continue to teach other faithful men. It is a principle of spiritual reproduction. It has nothing to do with Tradition. The principle is again replicated in the Great Commission which tells us to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. That is not Tradition. The gospel comes from the Bible. Disciples are discipled through the Word of God.
DHK

 

Anybody can start a tradition. A family tradition can be established withing two or three years, because the unit is small. You can establish a tradition in your family not to open Christmas gifts until New Years Day if you wish. That would be a tradition unique to your house, and different from all else. But how long would it take for it to spread throughout the U.S.
Take something more realistic. The African festival of Kwanzaa (meaning first fruits) was established as a tradition in 1966. That is just less then 40 years ago. It is being celebrated as a tradition by Afro-Americans and others all throughout America on Dec.26, as well as in Canada and in other places. In just less than 40 years it became a tradition. It took nearly 40 years for it to become a tradition. Today is the first time I am hearing about it (from my wife).
But compare. Today with the advent of the internet, fast flying planes, telephones, tele-communications of various types, the TV and telephone, etc. Our technology is vast. Compare that to Paul's day. How long did it take for thing's to travel then? A tradition such as Kwanzaa whold have taken over a century to develop just because of the barriers of transportation and communication in that day and age. Today we live in a global community. The people of Paul's age couldn't even imagine such a concept. Traditions did take centuries to develop. Not until the advent of the printing press did things start to speed up. There is no way tradition (in the way that the Catholic Church defines it) could have existed in the 30 years between the death of Christ and the writing of Paul's epistles. Impossible! What they had was the Word of God. That was their authority. The Bible goes out of its way and states it is. Why do you resist to believe what the Bible clearly says when it says the Bereans searched the SCRIPTTURES daily, and not tradtion.
DHK

 

I think your confusing this with the verse I was citing.

Where does it say that in these verses--either the 2 Thess or 2 Tim passages? That's your assumption, but it is not the stated meaning of the verse (in either case).

Again, I don't recall writing the word "tradition" being in 2Tim 2:2. And how does one disciple another from the "Bible" when the NT wasn't even finished, let alone collected and fixed in its final form? I'm not minimizing Scripture, but it is unwarranted to insert "Sola Scriptura" into either 2 Thess 2:15 or 2 Tim 2:2 because it's begging the question.

And where does it say in this verse--or anywhere else for that matter--that everything Paul taught Timothy (or anyone else) was going to eventually be written down ("inscripturated")?

Again, nowhere in that verse does Paul restrict the teachings he wants Timothy to pass on to only whathad been written down. You are once again begging the question.

Sure it is Tradition. It's "handing down" the Apostolic message, the Gospel of Christ, orally. There was no New Testament in existence the time Christ spoke these words in AD 33. In fact there was no final, complete, fixed NT until the end of the 4th century. In fact, it was the Tradition that enabled the Church guided by the Spirit to determine which books to ultimately include or exclude from the Canon.

I think you are the one that has a problem with Scripture, particularly its commandes to hold the "traditions" (paradosis) 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15. Trying to explain it away won't work since it's there in the Bible in black and white.

 

One might also ask "what Scripture?", if one is sola scriptura, since none of the NT had been written until the Pauline letter to which you refer.

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]They searched the Old Testament Scriptures. That was their authority at that time. The gospel message was in the Old Testament as well. Remember the Ethiopian eunuch riding in his chariot, and Philip went and preached Christ unto him, beginning with the passage in Isaiah which the Eunuch had been reading.
DHK

 

[QB]

I am afraid (for your sake) that it is. These truths are self evident. Search the Scriptures. Over and over again Paul admonishes Timothy to "take heed to the doctrine" which he has taught him, "to preach the word," to be a teacher..." etc. His whole life was centered around the Word of God. Paul even thanks God that the Word of God was instilled in Timothy's life from his childhood by his mother and grandmother. There is no assumption here. Compare Scripture with Scripture. The things that Paul taught Timothy were later inscripturated, written down in the Word of God. Some of those things may have been more expounded upon orally, but nevertheless based on the bible. This is not Tradition in any sense of the word. It is the Word of God. How could you say otherwise? What do you think Paul was teaaching Timothy? Aesop's fairy tales, perhaps??

The principle of sola scriptura was demonstrated with other scriptures like Acts 17:11. It was LDB others that brought 2Thes.2:15 into the discusssion, as a red herring, thinking that because the verse has the word "tradition" in it, then it must needs refer to the Catholic Tradtion or Tradition of a Catholic nature. This is their verse to justify such tradition. The verse simply means that Paul handed down to Timothy the truth that was taught to him. The truth that was taught to him was the Word of God, not fairy tales. This truth is self evident. There was no "accepted tradition" that accumulated over a period of less than 30 years. Let's use a little common sense here. He "handed down" truth, the truth of the Word of God. He commanded Timothy to teach other faithful men the same way that he had taught Timothy--through the Word of God. Timothy had been with him on his missionary journeys. He had heard him preach, been taught the Word of God by him, was discipled by him.

Much of what Paul taught Timothy was inscripturated (see 1and 2Timothy), but not all. Timothy was his disciple that traveled with him on his third missionary journey. He was taught by Paul.

I am not begging the question at all. I am not saying that it was ALL inscripturated or canonical, but that it was all Biblically based. I used the example of a preacher preaching to his congregation. Not every word he says comes straight out of the Bible. His duty is to explain and expound the Bible. This is what Paul did with Timothy. Paul was not in the business of teaching poetry and fairy tales. He taught Timothy doctrine from the Word of God, just as the Apostles did in Acts 2. "And they continued in the Apostles doctrine..."

You have an exagerrated and misunderstood definition of tradition. When I obey the command of the Lord (the Great Commission) and go and tell others about the Lord, that is NOT tradition. It is obedience to the Word of God. There is nothing traditional about it. It is my obligation to Christ. Go, into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. That is a command, not a tradition. In Acts 8 a great persecution fell upon the Christians, and so the message of the gospel was spread abroad, the Scriptures record. That is not tradition. That is the witness of the believers being forced by the hand of God to get out of Jerusalem and carry out the command of the Great Commission. There is nothing traditional about it.

Yes it is there in black and white. Context means everything. What does the word mean. Truth handed down either written or orally. Paul handed down the truth of the Word of God both orally and in written form to Timothy. It did not take him centuries to do so. To believe that would do violence to the Scriptures. The meaning is very simple and obvious.
BTW, the canonization had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. The Apostles knew which books were inspired as they were written. As soon as the last book was finished, the Book of Revelation in 98 A.D., the Bible was completed. They didn't need the Catholic Church to have it's say in it. Read 2Peter 3. Peter refers to Paul's epistles as Scripture, and apparently knew which ones were inspired and which ones were not. He also refers in the same passage to the writings of the Apostles, as being inspired, and just as important as the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament. The Apostles and early believers, contrary to modern day thinking, had the intelligence to know what God had given them as Scripture. There were false prophets around, to be sure. God had also given them the Spirit of discernment. They knew what was Scripure and what was not. The one thing they did not need was the heretical Catholic church.
DHK

 

DHK,

You are equivocating terms here. The term of tradition used in the familial sense is different that the Catholic sense. Catholic tradition does have a foundation in God, that is the Holy Spirit, so it is actually ageless, but when put into our temporal realm, it does have a beginning. The Holy Spirit is the key. If the tradition is obviously of the Holy Spirit, then all is well. Your point is moot.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Catholic Tradition does not have a foundation with God or the Holy Spirit. Your traditions, as Jesus told the Pharisees, are those traditions which damn mens souls. They are damnable heresies.
The worship of Mary--mariolotry, and all of the heresies associated with her: the assumption, the perpetual virginity, the immaculate conception, etc.
Purgatory,
The sacrifice of the Mass,
Indulgences,
Confession of sins to a priest,
Praying to saints,
transubstantiation,
baptismal regeneration

The Bible says about Jesus: He is the same: yesterday, today, and forever. He never changes. His Word never changes.
But the Catholic Church is always changes. Her doctrine always changes. It wasn't until 1950 (not long ago) that the assumption was declared an official doctrine of the church. These are all man-made doctrines. They are not Biblical. They are outside the realm of the Bible, and cannot be proved by the Bible. They are heresy. Your Tradition has nothing to do with God; nothing to do with the Bible, nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit never leads into heresy.
DHK

 

Some are no more than 50 years old. Do some searches into the RCC history.

Many many things never existed until the lasat few hundred years. Indulgences was one of the things Luther was against. You do know a lot of money from indulgences went to pay for the basilica. Look up when the confessional came into being.

Jesus spoke about the traditions of the Jews in the gospels. How is the RCC any different?

 

Time-out--

This diatrib is seemingly fruitless. However, the seed has been sown. Let us see what comes up. Let the Holy Spirit do the convincing.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Ahhh c'mon DHK,

You just don't like 'em because they drink real wine like Jesus did.

 

Now I did think about that.