Posted on 08/16/2007 5:12:39 PM PDT by annalex
There's no way of escaping tradition, at two levels: sociologically and theologically. Sociologically, why does the church exist? Once you're inside a community of people, you begin doing things a certain way. You fall into certain traditions. They do develop. There's no avoiding them. And the traditions usually exist for fairly good reasons. Within the church, questions come up: how are you going to have communion? How are we gonna baptize? What are you gonna teach the new convert? Questions have to be answered. And so you begin a tradition. It's the social glue that brings cohesiveness to a clan or a tribe. In order for any group to retain its identity for more than one generation, they have to articulate their reason for existence to the next generation. And no group can do that effectively by merely saying, "we're Christians. Mere Christians," because there are thousands upon thousands of such groups, and the questions always remains: "well, what's your group's reason for existing, and not joining up with another?" And so I kept asking that question at Shalom: "why don't we go down to the first church down the street?" And eventually about half of 'em did [laughter]. It was after I resigned that they ended up doing it.
Tradition forms the backdrop of particular doctrines, and if you lose the tradition, you end up losing the doctrine. If you lose the tradition that led up to this statement that "Jesus was God in human flesh" (and part of the tradition was the battle which was fought), then you lose the meaningfulness of the doctrine. It ceases to be significant. You have to be self-confident about your roots, otherwise you'll be tossed to and fro by the winds of modernity. So as a pastor, then, I had to come to grips with this question of tradition, both sociologically and theologically. It was clear to me from reading the Apostle Paul's letters, that he believed in an unwritten tradition that he was passing along to his people. He referred to what he had passed on that he had heard from other witnesses. And he expected that to be binding. So the question wasn't whether there would be tradition or not. There would be. The question was: by what authority do you determine right tradition from wrong tradition?
I guess the coup de gras for me on this issue of tradition was the realization that evangelical Protestantism has tradition right at its core. The canon of Scripture is itself a tradition nowhere established in the Bible. It's a church tradition. Francis Schaeffer was very good in that he taught me that one's presuppositions and first principles must be able to be lived and not just thought. And yet Protestantism cannot live out faithfully its commitment to the Bible alone, because on that basis there'd be no canon of Scripture. There'd be no Bible! So Protestants are in the terrible position of having its primary authority not being able to justify its own existence. They have to justify a collection of books, which are secondary to the Word. The Word is prior to the community. The Word calls forth the community, and the community gathers around that Word. The process of inscripturation is subsequent. It comes as the community reflects upon the Word, and is used to crystallize and condense that Word for posterity. Jesus Himself functioned as the Word, which drew a community together, which then produced certain documents and collected them.
Another thing that hit me as a pastor was the nature of the Church and Church government. Francis Schaeffer had taught me back in 1974, in his book, The Mark of a Christian, that in John 13 and 17, Jesus talks about a real, visible oneness, a practicing, practical oneness, across all denominational lines, among all Christians. We cannot expect the world to believe that the Father sent the Son, and to believe that Jesus's claims are true, and that Christianity is true, unless the world sees some reality of the oneness of true Christians. He kept talking about oneness in terms of people getting along with one another. He did not like the Roman Catholic Church at all. He thought it was an enforced uniformity and he complained about conservatives and progressives squabbling miserably in the Roman Catholic Church. But what he did do for me was focus on "visible." It had to be visible. This unity had to be observable by the unbelieving world.
[recalls the story of an erring, unrepentant, sinning brother in his congregation, who left when confronted] How can you exercise restorative church discipline, if all they do is bump off to another church? So all of a sudden institutions became not a bad thing, but a good thing. If we were part of a denomination we probably could do something. But then again he could just go to another denomination. So I began thinking about issues of excommunication, by what authority do you excommunicate; what are the guidelines for it? And it dawned on me that the New Tesdtament never expected a situation where, if you were barred from the fellowship, that you could just go over to some other fellowship! The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, says "I'm gonna turn this fellow over to Satan for the salvation of his soul," and in 2 Corinthians, he has to say, "listen, back off this guy! You've disciplined him enough; he's at the point of despair. Welcome him back as a brother."
That was a major turning point, because my pastoral work was jeopardized by the existence of competing fellowships. This really disturbed me, in a way that's hard to describe to people who haven't been in that [situation], but my pastoral effort was now cheapened. How can you discipline if there's no unity of the body? Even in the New Testament, with all the disagreements among believers about law and grace and circumcision and eating of meat offered to idols, and qualifications for leadership, splintering into independent groups is never advocated. In fact, one of the few offenses that give us reason to separate from a brother is the offense of disunity (Romans 16): "I urge you brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions. Keep away from them." So I was big on this church unity thing, but it was all invisible, spiritual, all out here. And it wasn't working very well.
I'd also taught on 1 Timothy 3:15: "the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth." It was one of those sermons where I would say, "and that's us!" And I'd look out there and I'd say, "like hell it is!" This is a joke! Here we are, 125 of us: "the pillar and foundation of the truth." And Paul wasn't referring to some invisible reality.
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part I: Darkness
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part II: Doubts
Part III, for your reading and comment.
Even the Church recognizes the difference between "inspired" writings and "uninspired" writings; the first being written by God through men. So please tell me how there would be no "inspired" writings.
Conversion Story - David Finkelstein (former Jew)
Conversion Story - John Weidner (former Evangelical)
12 Reasons I Joined the Catholic Church
Conversion Story - Tom Hunt
The Tide Is Turning Toward Catholicism: The Converts
John Calvin Made Me Catholic
Journey Home - May 21 - Neil Babcox (former Presbyterian) - A minister encounters Mary
Going Catholic - Six journeys to Rome
My (Imminent) Reception into the Roman Catholic Church
From Calvinist to Catholic
A Convert's Pilgrimage [Christopher Cuddy]
From Pastor to Parishioner: My Love for Christ Led Me Home (to the Catholic Church) [Drake McCalister]
Lutheran professor of philosophy prepares to enter Catholic Church
Patty Bonds (former Baptist and sister of Dr. James White) to appear on The Journey Home - May 7
Pastor and Flock Become Catholics
The journey back - Dr. Beckwith explains his reasons for returning to the Catholic Church
Famous Homosexual Italian Author Returned to the Church Before Dying of AIDS
Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church
Catholic Converts - Stephen K. Ray (former Evangelical)
Catholic Converts - Malcolm Muggeridge
Catholic Converts - Richard John Neuhaus
Catholic Converts - Avery Cardinal Dulles
Catholic Converts - Israel (Eugenio) Zolli - Chief Rabbi of Rome
Catholic Converts - Robert H. Bork , American Jurist (Catholic Caucus)
Catholic Converts - Marcus Grodi
Why Converts Choose Catholicism
The Scott Hahn Conversion Story
FORMER PENTECOSTAL RELATES MIRACLE THAT OCCURRED WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD
John Calvin Made Me Catholic
Journey Home - May 21 - Neil Babcox (former Presbyterian) - A minister encounters Mary
Going Catholic - Six journeys to Rome
My (Imminent) Reception into the Roman Catholic Church
From Calvinist to Catholic
A Convert's Pilgrimage [Christopher Cuddy]
From Pastor to Parishioner: My Love for Christ Led Me Home (to the Catholic Church) [Drake McCalister]
Lutheran professor of philosophy prepares to enter Catholic Church
Patty Bonds (former Baptist and sister of Dr. James White) to appear on The Journey Home - May 7
Pastor and Flock Become Catholics
The journey back - Dr. Beckwith explains his reasons for returning to the Catholic Church
Famous Homosexual Italian Author Returned to the Church Before Dying of AIDS
Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church
Catholic Converts - Stephen K. Ray (former Evangelical)
Catholic Converts - Malcolm Muggeridge
Catholic Converts - Richard John Neuhaus
Catholic Converts - Avery Cardinal Dulles
Catholic Converts - Israel (Eugenio) Zolli - Chief Rabbi of Rome
Catholic Converts - Robert H. Bork , American Jurist (Catholic Caucus)
Catholic Converts - Marcus Grodi
Why Converts Choose Catholicism
How I led Catholics Out of the Church [Steve Wood]
The Scott Hahn Conversion Story
FORMER PENTECOSTAL RELATES MIRACLE THAT OCCURRED WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD
Al says, there will be no canon: the books that are inspired will not be known as such.
One way to visualize it is to imagine a Religion section as Borders that would contain books like this:
Second Letter of John
Tea Leaves, Ouiji, And Other Inspired Stuff
Tao of Hydroponic Tomato
Hymns by Luther
Exodus and Joshua, commentary by Moshe Dayan
Jeremiah
Gospel of Thomas
City of God
Gospel of Judas
The Holy Koran
St. Paul For Dummies
Gospel of Mark and Letters of Peter, annotated by Jack Chick
...
LOL! Great analogy.
This thinking reveals why he converted, obviously he believes his new church was the deciding factor in what was Scripture. If he studied history at all he would know they were very late in recognizing the Canon.
Luke 24:44 "Then he said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."
2Peter 3:15-16 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles,......as they do also the rest of Scriptures.
2 Timothy 4:11-13 Only Luke is with me....Bring the cloak that I left with with Carpus at Troas when you come-and the books, especially the parchments.
IOW, Scripture itself gives us a good idea of what should be in the Canon.
Also, the only books that were not written by Apostles in the New Testament are Mark, Luke, Acts, James and Jude. Mark was a coworker with Peter and traveled with Paul. Luke was a friend of Paul. The writers of James and Jude were Christ's brothers. The late recognition by the RCC was after the fact.
Exactly when did the RCC declare what was the Canon Annalex?
Can I get that from Amazon.com? Did General Dayan do a commentary on 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings? If not, can we get Bibi Netanyahu to do it?
Just for a little balance here, my church has about 3,000 members.
Over half of them are converted Catholics.
“He referred to what he had passed on that he had heard from other witnesses. And he expected that to be binding.”
... and that oral tradition is what we find contained the the Gospels.
A post that is in poor taste is never justified.
Recovering the Catholic Moral Tradition: The notion of happiness
APOSTOLIC TRADITION: Consistency or Contradiction?
Can Vatican II be interpreted in the light of Tradition?
The New Mass: A Return to Tradition???
Pope praises Ukrainian-Catholic Church for upholding Sacred Tradition, communion with Seat of Peter
The Shadow Tradition - Magisterium vs Murk
[Catholic] Tradition catching on with Baptists [Ecumenical Ash Wed. Service]
Pope will preside at Ash Wednesday Mass, procession; act will renew ancient tradition
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
Papal Supremacy Is Against Tradition
"In Light Of Tradition"... The Society Of St. Pius X And Vatican II
“A post that is in poor taste is never justified.”
I consider a culture of pedophilia within a priesthood to be in poor taste. Particularly when it is never punished by the Church.
I don’t know what he said but he isn’t a Freeper anymore.
Absolutely. It should be also noted that the Church's position on the matter is that the inspired writings were always recognized-at least the early Church. They knew what was inspired and what wasn't. It wasn't a matter of them picking and choosing them from a Border's aisle. It was as if the inspired ones had white, leather covers with gold leaf while the others were paperback. They weren't hard to tell.
It really was later in the Church that the leaders concocted the idea that they put together the scriptures. This is completely contrary to the early Church's view and, with all due respect, is rather laughable when talking about tradition. Had this author studied this he would not have made this careless mistake.
They weren’t “always recognized.” There were many apocryphal writings that had great currency in their day and in fact if you look at early art of that period, you will see depictions of some figures who are never mentioned in the Gospels but featured prominently in apocryphal writings.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that these figures never existed or that the apocryphal writings didn’t have some truth or reality to them. In some cases, the writings may have been based on oral tradition about figures and events, and they were often cited by perfectly orthodox Christian writers and preachers during the first couple of centuries of Christianity. However, their overall theological message was determined not to be in line with the truth. The Muratorian Canon (first known listing of the canonical books) may date to the 2nd century; even at the latest dating, it would be 4th century, and by the early 5th century, two Councils had decided on the matter and a definitive canon was issued by the Pope.
Protestants like to think that truth spontaneously wells out of an assembly, but the sad fact is that heresy can just as easily infect that assembly and the thing produced is not truth. There has to be a defining authority; the bishops and the Pope are that authority.
Even Luther knew this, but he decided that he was the authority, and he dropped a number of canonical books because they conflicted with his doctrine of sola fides. This was the first attempt to change the canon, and it was because he set himself up as the authority, not because a mysterious buried truth somehow seeped up from the ground somewhere.
Oh thanks, it’s just a wonderful journey.
Amen Brother!
There were all kinds of discussions, among early Christians and pronouncements by leaders of churches, before any synod/council convened to add their opinion. It is interesting that when councils did start to convene their opinions fell in line with what had already been recognized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.