The Final Skirmish of the Final Battle?

Fatima Perspectives ^ | June 28, 2019 | Chris Ferrara

[ealgeone]

True.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Good morning! I just got back from my balloon endoscopy, so I'm ready to go!

I am going to decline, for the moment, your request that I list what "Apostolic Tradition" consists of. Google and Bing have apparently rejiggered their algorithms so they won't bring up my past posts with the keywords which always worked in the past.

I'm left scrolling through past threads of 600 - 1,000 responses or more, -- you know, the Mega FReepin' Freekin Squealin' Religion Forum Marathons --- looking for search words that recur in nearly every item (i.e., the search has no screening or sorting value.)

However, I know I answered this repeatedly -- say, four or five times ---in the past months, and at at least once directly to you, ealgeone.

As soon as I find it I will send it again. Maybe DuckDuchGo will do better for me.

[ealgeone]

I don't recall a list of the alleged "traditions" ever being posted.

BTW...glad to hear the procedure went well. Hope all is ok.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks. For me, it’s back to the salt mines -— er, the search engines.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Uh-huh! After scrolling, scrolling, scrolling through my own posts, I see I did send this to you, almost exact;y one month ago.

On Tradition

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3753023/posts?page=570#570 If you missed it, that's OK. I am often sent things that quickly slip so far down the queue, I never knew they existed.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oops, dear ealgeone, this was supposed to be to you.

#65

[ealgeone]

You may recall by rebuttal to the assertion of "tradition".

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3753023/posts?page=586#586

So we still do not have the "traditions" Rome claims were passed on.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What? What do you mean "we" (you, me?) do not have the Traditions Rome claims to have passed on.

The chief one, of course, is the Canon of Scripture.

It was not conveyed in the text. The text has no Table of contents. The Gospels were not even signed.

The NT Canon was initially conveyed through the preaching and teaching, the practice and example, the common usage of the churches -- that is, by Tradition.

You don't have that?

[ealgeone]

What? What do you mean "we" (you, me?) do not have the Traditions Rome claims to have passed on. The chief one, of course, is the Canon of Scripture.

It was not conveyed in the text. The text has no Table of contents. The Gospels were not even signed.

The NT Canon was initially conveyed through the preaching and teaching, the practice and example, the common usage of the churches -- that is, by Tradition.

You don't have that?

Roman Catholicism didn't decide its canon until the Council of Trent....so no. You cannot appeal to "tradition" for this.

Besides, the church had already decided a great deal of the canon by 66 AD.

Are you seriously suggesting an appeal to "tradition" for the table of contents? Maybe the publishing company as well?

I will say however, you are making a very good case for Sola Scriptura.

When Roman Catholicism did finalize their canon at Trent what did they not include?

NONE of the writings from ANY of the ECFs. Not one.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are wrong about not "deciding" the Canon until the Council of Trent. That was simply a confirmation of what had been decided long, long before, and reiterated at many points since.

Indeed the Church had much of the canon at 66 AD --- that's what we mean by Tradition. Something we had from the teaching and preaching and example of the Apostles-- originating in the Apostolic Age --- preserved in common practice in the churches they planted.

[ealgeone]

You are wrong about not "deciding" the Canon until the Council of Trent. That was simply a confirmation of what had been decided long, long before, and reiterated at many points since.

No....as daniel1212 has detailed in one of his excellent posts, Rome's canon was still not decided until Trend.

Indeed the Church had much of the canon at 66 AD --- that's what we mean by Tradition. Something we had from the teaching and preaching and example of the Apostles-- originating in the Apostolic Age --- preserved in common practice in the churches they planted.

And none of that included the Marian dogmas, the need to attend "Mass" on certain days, being subject to the Roman Pontiff, etc, etc, etc.

As I have said, along with others, much of Roman Catholicism is not found in those Scriptures. Which, if you read the ECFs they constantly point back to the Scriptures as the source of their "tradition."

I'll try to post the exact quote from Irenaeus later tonight when I have access to my files...and I'm done cutting the grass.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh goodness! He is by no means an authority on Catholicism. The canon was developed by the common usage of the churches --- some of it as early as 66 AD, as you note. That's what makes it "Tradition" --- the fact that it was handed down.

It's tendentious to say it didn't exist or wasn't decided until Trent, and ignores the fact that Trent (like other Councils) was sourced by the actual practice of the churches. The Council Fathers did not invent or impose this: they confirmed it.

Take Jerome as an example, 1100 years previous. In his own perspective and estimation, he had a variety of strong opinions about what the Canon ought to look like. In time, though, his attitude changed. He came to a different perspective on the status of his opinions: he saw that Holy Writ could not be judged by any one scholar, no matter how gifted he might be.

Thus when challenged by his colleague Rufinus about some of the passages he accepted as Scripture and translated, he said,

"We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?"

In other words, he perceived that the church at large would not have been misled, and so (even if grudgingly, per his scholarly opinions) he went with the judgment of the churches. The common practice of what they already believed and taught.

The Tradition.

[ealgeone]

Oh goodness! He is by no means an authority on Catholicism.

He is a former Roman Catholic and has a very extensive website with a ton of documentation. It rivals pretty much anything I've seen from any Roman catholic on these threads.

IF you want to go that way you'd have to say Scott Hahn is no authority on Baptist churches.

It's not like Men in Black with the memory wipe thingy.

The canon was developed by the common usage of the churches --- some of it as early as 66 AD, as you note. That's what makes it "Tradition" --- the fact that it was handed down.

I don't think you really want to go down the road too far with this argument.

If you do, you're making the case for sola scriptura as that is what the early church preserved. Nothing from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, etc. Nothing.

To me that is very telling. As I've said on numerous occasions, Rome had the chance to add these at Trent. They did not.

F.F.Bruce has an excellent book on this. It notes the canon was in discussion right up until Trent.

Take Jerome as an example, 1100 years previous. In his own perspective and estimation, he had a variety of strong opinions about what the Canon ought to look like. In time, though, his attitude changed. He came to a different perspective on the status of his opinions: he saw that Holy Writ could not be judged by any one scholar, no matter how gifted he might be.

The OT canon had already been decided by Christ Himself. Rome added to it.,

I've also found it interesting how the vote went at Trent for the canon.

24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain

Of the 55 possible votes, less than half (43.6%) voted for the canon. In other words, there were 56.4% who did not affirm the canon for one reason or another.

That's not exactly what I'd call a strong vote of confidence. You'd think, if the delegates present were so sure, they'd voted 100% on something that had been "handed down."

That's some organization you have there mrs.d.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You can, no doubt, produce any number of people who have extensive websites and tons of documentation, who differ from Catholicism. And any number of people with extensive websites and tons of documentation, who differ from Christianity, or from theism. Or who have aberrant views thereof. "Gay" "Christian" websites are a good example. But I don't consider any of them "authorities on Catholicism." Sorry.

(FWIW, nor would I call Scott Hahn an authority on Baptist Churches.)

"If you do, you're making the case for sola scriptura as that is what the early church preserved. Nothing from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, etc. Nothing."

I'm certainly not making a case for Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural --- especially if one is misusing it to imply, "Scripture is fully authoritative except for when it tells us to cling to Tradition."

It doesn't make sense to me that all the following Scriptures can be bracketed as no longer relevant:

1 Cor 11:2
I praise you, as you hold hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

1 Cor 4:16
Therefore I urge you to imitate me.

Philippians 3:17
Join one another in following my example, brothers, and carefully observe those who walk according to the pattern we set for you.

1 Thess. 1:6
And you became imitators of us and of the Lord when you welcomed the message with the joy of the Holy Spirit, in spite of your great suffering.

2 Thess. 3:6
Therefore stand fast and hold the traditions you were taught, by word or by our epistle.

But here's something that interests me. I respect you enough to think that, like any good Christian, you DO want to "stand fast" and "hold firmly to the Traditions." Even those which came down to us or were passed on to us by "word" and "example."

Please give me a list of the Traditions *you* firmly hold.

[PeterPrinciple]

Mat 15:3 Jesus replied, “And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God?

---

Lets deal with the above. What is higher authority? Traditions or Gods direct word through his Holy Bible?

Traditions are to be tested against God’s word. If they don’t pass the test, out they go.........................

Traditions are not of them selves good or bad. BUT THEY ARE NOT EQUAL TO GODS WORD!

Traditions change over time. God’s word does not.

[ealgeone]

The first question to ask in relation to the four passages you're appealing to for tradition is what is the context?

First, let's review how the word "tradition" is used in the NT.

The word "tradition" is used 13 times in the NT.

IIFC 8 of which are times when Jesus is condemning the traditions of man and once by Paul for the same.

One is a reference by Paul to his ancestral traditions.

That leaves us with three.

I changed your verses to the NASB as some you posted did not line up with the verses in the Bible.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thess. 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

2 Thess. 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

******************

An honest study, in context of these passages, will not affirm what the Roman Catholic wants them to be.

The "tradition" Paul is usually sharing with his audience is that of the Gospel.

2 Thess 3:6 is dealing with the behavior of the believer.

I post the verse in question in CONTEXT.

6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; 9not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. 10For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. 11For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. 12Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. 13But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.

The Roman Catholic is taking great liberties to say that from these two remaining verses, one actually in Corinthians, that ALL of Roman Catholic dogma was being taught....just not written down.

It's the same abuse heaped upon John 20:30...but IF read in CONTEXT, the meaning is clear.

30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

********

The NT, if read in CONTEXT just does not support what the Roman Catholic wants it to.

.

If I as a non-Catholic only rely upon Scripture I know I am on solid ground as Scripture is inspired and without error.

There is nothing in "Sacred Tradition" that is needed to understand salvation and how to obtain it.

However, the position of the Roman Catholic who equates "Sacred Tradition" with Scripture is on shaky ground as they are relying upon the opinion of the various ECFs.

As has been demonstrated in these threads the ECFs are in disagreement with each other on many of the issues near and dear to Rome. The Immaculate Conception as an example.

The current issues many Roman Catholics have with the current pope illustrate the reliance upon teachings other than found in Scripture.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I note your refutation, but what I was looking for was positive content: what, exactly, are the traditions we ought to "keep" or "hold" or "cling to."

I remain attentive for a list or an outline of categories, such as would show how this applies in your own life and practice, or the life of your church.

[ealgeone]

Please give me a list of the Traditions *you* firmly hold.

They're found in Scripture.

Some of the basics though.

God created everything. Genesis 1

Man sinned and was removed from the Garden of Eden. Genesis 3

Jesus was born of a virgin. Luke 1:26-37

Jesus was crucified for my sins. Luke 23:33-49

When He died there was no more offering needed for our sins. John 20:30

Jesus overcame death. John 20:1-18

Jesus told us to go out into all the world, making disciples and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19-20

He gave us His commandments to follow. Matthew 22:36-40

We are to pray to God. Phil 4:6-8

He will answer our prayers, but according to His will.1 John 5:13-15

We have the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide us. John 14:16-17

All, everyone, have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rms 3:23) and because of this the penalty is death (Rms 6:23). He offers eternal life to those who will believe in Him. Romans 10:5-13

When we sin, we can confess our sins to Him and He will forgive us.1 John 1:9

For the one who believes in Him, he has eternal life and will not lose it (John 10:25-30) as he is sealed by the Spirit. Eph 1:13-14

He will not leave us as orphans. John 14:18

Jesus called the original disciples and He also called Paul. They did appoint others to serve. This does not preclude God from calling people into the ministry as He did with Paul.

He gave two ordinances...baptism (see Matthew above) and the Lord's Supper. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

We do the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him. 1 Cor 11:23-26

He will return again and judge those who do not believe in Him. Revelation

He will reign forever and ever and we will be with Him forever and forever. Revelation

******

There's way more but those are some of the basics.

******

All found in Scripture and supported by Scripture.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are referencing Scripture, which is fine; but what I was talking about was the other elements of tradition insisted upon by Paul: who said "whether by word of mouth or in writing," who spoke of imitating his practices.

If he had meant "only" Scripture, he would have said "only" Scripture --- such a phrase is not found in his writings. What he did refer to was the preaching and the imitation of his practices.

1 Cor 11:2...hold firmly to the traditions,

1 Cor 4:16 ... imitate me.

Philippians 3:17 ......carefully observe those who walk according to the pattern we set for you.

1 Thess. 1:6 ...imitators of us...

2 Thess. 3:6...the traditions you were taught, by word or by our epistle ...

I'm surprised you don't mention that we have the Canon of Scripture from Tradition. That is, the Canon was initially conveyed through the preaching and teaching, the practice and example, the common usage of the churches.

NT Canon we recognize --- the 27 books ---- would certainly be authenticated by Vincent of Lerins' criteria: that the 27 books were "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est". They were the 27 books believed in everywhere, always, and by everyone. Isn't that so?

[ealgeone]

You are referencing Scripture, which is fine; but what I was talking about was the other elements of tradition insisted upon by Paul: who said "whether by word of mouth or in writing," who spoke of imitating his practices.

We don't have those.

I wish Paul had set up a podcast for all of his sermons. That'd be awesome.

However, he did leave us some fantastic writings that do give up some pretty good ideas of what he was telling the various churches and people he wrote to.

From these writings we can glean a couple of things.

He prayed only to God.

He believed God would answer him.

He trusted only in God to forgive him.

He was confident of his salvation.

He aimed to keep His commandments.

Yet we know he struggled with something and he wasn't perfect.

He wanted his life to be lead by the Spirit.

He worked to support himself.

He was passionate about sharing the Gospel and defending the Gospel.

He believed in Scripture as the source of truth as he referenced the OT.

As to the canon of Scripture.

The first question to ask is why do we have the canon?

The church began to realize as the original Apostles died away a written record of their beliefs was needed to combat some heresies that were arising.

The mere fact we have the collection of writings we do and the reason for their collection argues for sola scriptura.

IF all of the other writers RCs cite for "tradition" were recognized by the entire church....these would have been included in the canon.

That they were not is very telling.

Now, are there some things we can learn from these other writers in the early church?

Sure. But these have to be measured against Scripture. If not, you might come away with believing Jesus lived to be 50 years old as postulated by one writer.

But we know that's not the case.

Why?

We can compare the fallible comment to infallible Scripture.

In my class on early church history, which was very interesting btw, we read a lot of the ECFs, the Councils, etc.

I find it interesting that Roman Catholicism, which claims these are all equal to Scripture, does not always follow what these Councils, ECFs, said to do.