Tuesday, 18 August 2009

  • the role of tradition, chapter 3 of Damascus Road

    I had been taught since day one of my Christian life that tradition was a bad thing that people needed to get around it in order to live better, fuller Christian lives. It was because of these traditions, people had grown up with, they were unable to enjoy being Christians. They had an invisible list of dos and don’ts and these were holding them back. When I looked at Catholics I saw a laundry list of traditions that could be no where found in scripture that were causing them to live in fear and fallacy. I knew Catholics didn’t read their Bible, but how much more clearly did Jesus have to make it in Matthew 15 when he condemned the traditions of man? The question I now ask myself is how much more clearly did Jesus have to make it for me?

    2nd Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

    2nd Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you have received from us.

    Twice, in one epistle, Paul clearly tells the Thessalonians to follow the traditions that Paul and others handed down to them (Besides, Jesus condemned the traditions of MAN not those handed down in inspiration by God.) In fact, Paul places both the written teaching and oral teachings in the same boat of tradition. Our New Testament is written tradition. The teachings on Mary’s Immaculate Conception, her assumption into Heaven, Zacharias’ death, etc. are the oral traditions which were passed on until formally written down but not included in the New Testament canon.

    The common argument against the use of tradition in Church is that the Bible is solely authoritative and this point is demonstrated in 2nd Timothy 3:16 when Paul states that Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training so that a Christian should be complete. In fact this was the verse I quoted most often to Jordan when the debate over tradition arose. However, what I never saw in my Bible only glasses was this scripture in no way makes the claim that is the sole authority for Christians. It states scripture is profitable for the following things, but in no way the only thing you need. What one should also take into account is when Paul wrote this epistle. This wasn’t written in the 400’s or beyond when the New Testament canon had been agreed upon; this was 60-70 A.D. when parts of the New Testament hadn’t even been written yet, much less put together in anything resembling a canon. Thus, the only Scripture Paul could have been talking about was the Old Testament.

    What I find extremely funny and ironic now is looking at the multitudes of “Bible only” churches that have numerous traditions in use that are not specifically listed in the pages of the Bible. Don’t believe me, look in your Old or New Testament and find me the sinner’s prayer, youth or worship pastors, musical instruments used in New Testament worship, or accepting Jesus into your heart.

    This isn’t an either or issue, it’s a both and. You can’t just have Scripture by its self; it must be accompanied by the oral teachings passed on throughout the generations. Both were considered tradition in Paul’s eyes. Both are considered tradition in the Catholic Church’s eyes.

  • Choose Identity

  • Give eProps (?)

  • New! You can now edit your comments for 15 minutes after submitting.

Who recommended?