Faith discussions: improve your walk with the Lord, build up your prayer life, grow in your faith, love others in your church, and other general faith type discussions.

Paul's traditions

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paul's traditions

    In one of the threads in this section the statement is made that Paul supported tradition, and this statement is correct. Here is what Paul said:
    So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
    (2 Thessalonians 2:15 ESV)
    But look at how he taught these traditions, by his spoken word and by letter. Paul has gone to Heaven and no longer teaches us by the spoken word but we still have the letters he wrote that are preserved in the New Testament. He wrote 13 letters; 2 Thessalonians is the third one he wrote, after Galatians and 1 Thessalonians. These letters are the only authoritative source of his teachings. Neither the Catholic Church nor any other organization has access to any teachings by Paul that are not contained in these letters.
    Clyde Herrin's Blog

  • #2
    Originally posted by theophilus View Post
    In one of the threads in this section the statement is made that Paul supported tradition, and this statement is correct. Here is what Paul said:
    So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
    (2 Thessalonians 2:15 ESV)
    But look at how he taught these traditions, by his spoken word and by letter. Paul has gone to Heaven and no longer teaches us by the spoken word but we still have the letters he wrote that are preserved in the New Testament. He wrote 13 letters; 2 Thessalonians is the third one he wrote, after Galatians and 1 Thessalonians. These letters are the only authoritative source of his teachings. Neither the Catholic Church nor any other organization has access to any teachings by Paul that are not contained in these letters.
    And you know that for certain do you?

    Paul taught for 30+ years and wrote only a few letters. All the rest of his teaching was discarded?

    Paul spent 18 months in Corinth but only wrote them 2 letters. I feel sorry for the Corinthians after Paul had written them. All that teaching that Paul had given them had to be discarded and all they had left were two letters.

    And all those places Paul visited, and founded churches, but never wrote to had no teaching at all to pass on.
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by Bede View Post
      Paul taught for 30+ years and wrote only a few letters. All the rest of his teaching was discarded?
      The letters that God chose to preserve contain all of Paul's teaching that we need today.
      Clyde Herrin's Blog
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by theophilus View Post
        The letters that God chose to preserve contain all of Paul's teaching that we need today.
        How do you know that?
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by Bede View Post
          How do you know that?
          From the fact that those are the only teaching of his which have been preserved.
          Clyde Herrin's Blog
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by theophilus View Post
            From the fact that those are the only teaching of his which have been preserved.
            They are the only teachings that Paul wrote that have been preserved. That does not mean that other teachings of Paul have not been preserved.
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by Bede View Post



              They are the only teachings that Paul wrote that have been preserved. That does not mean that other teachings of Paul have not been preserved.
              Could you offer a suggestion as to where we might find "other" teachings of Paul?


              God bless.
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by Bede View Post
                Paul spent 18 months in Corinth but only wrote them 2 letters. I feel sorry for the Corinthians after Paul had written them. All that teaching that Paul had given them had to be discarded and all they had left were two letters.
                I can appreciate the sarcasm, but let's keep in mind that much of what Paul writes to the Corinthians is in rebuke to how they responded to his actual ministry of teaching among them. I would only feel sorry for those among the Corinthians that refused to hear that rebuke. The first Epistle starts out with a rebuke of a sectarian mentality among the believers...

                ...ring any bells?

                ;)

                Don't get me wrong, I think it critical that we separate from those who embrace beliefs that we feel are in error. However, unless both sides are willing to put the effort into the discussion to thoroughly analyze the differences, then nothing can be achieved. That doesn't mean we have to condemn those of other beliefs, and I think we will be less inclined to do that if we understand why they believe what they believe. Most hold beliefs primarily because that is what they were taught. We can all understand that. But there comes a time in all of our walks when we should be able, from Scripture, to validate those beliefs. And if we cannot validate a certain belief from Scripture, then it falls into a category that should not be considered Biblical Doctrine. An example might be whether we worship on Sunday or not (as opposed to Saturday). Or eating pork. But when we discuss Biblical Doctrines pertaining to salvific issues, that is a little different.

                I think that those who did not receive letters of rebuke could be, possibly, considered to have been following the traditions taught them, lol.


                God bless.
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by S.T.Ranger View Post

                  Could you offer a suggestion as to where we might find "other" teachings of Paul?

                  God bless.
                  Hi S.T.Ranger
                  Welcome to the Catholic section.

                  I’m going on holiday tomorrow so this may be the last post in the thread that I can make for a week. There is a lot to cover so I apologise for its length but I hope you will read it all.

                  If we only had Paul’s letters (no other letters, no gospels) we would little understanding of Jesus’ teaching. Paul wrote mainly to rebuke (as you pointed out) to correct errors, to build up communities he had founded. We know therefore that he had much more to teach.

                  How did this get passed on?

                  Paul tells us. He tells Timothy (orally) what he himself received:
                  “Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14).
                  The good treasure is Paul’s sound teaching of the gospel that Timothy must guard with the help of the Holy Spirit.

                  And Paul instructs Timothy to proclaim (orally) what he has received
                  “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.” (2 Tim 4:1-2)

                  Paul instructs Timothy to pass on (orally) this sound teaching and good treasure to faithful people in his turn
                  “So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2Tim 2:1-2)
                  Entrusting it is more than just passing it on. It is making sure they these others, in their turn , guard it.

                  Paul writes to Titus that in first place among these faithful people who are to be entrusted with this teaching are the bishops:
                  “For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, ……holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.” (Ti 1:7,9).

                  We see this transmission of Sacred Tradition in that quote from 2Tim 2:1-2.
                  Paul teaches Timothy
                  Timothy teaches others (faithful people)
                  These others (faithful people) teach others in their turn.

                  This didn’t stop there. It was in turn entrusted to faithful people who would guard it faithfully. In time it was embedded in liturgies, in creeds and in the writings of the early fathers.

                  We can see this in the early Church. Note particularly the parts I have emboldened

                  Clement of Rome
                  "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier.... Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." (Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).

                  Just as Paul appointed Timothy and Titus to carry on his work and they in turn selected and appointed others in their turn.

                  Hegesippus
                  "When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs 4:22:1 [ca. A.D. 180]).

                  Irenaeus
                  "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about....Surely they wished all those and their successors, to whom they handed on their authority, to be perfect and without reproach" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [inter A.D. 180-199]).

                  Ignatius of Antioch (also called Theophorus) died probably around 107 -110 AD. The Church historian Eusebius said he was a bishop for 40 years, so although his death and major writings are in the second century, most of his episcopate is in the first. He was a contemporary of some of the apostles. Indeed Theodoret of Cyrus (5th century) says he was appointed to the see of Antioch by St. Peter himself and was the third bishop there, Peter himself being the first (before he moved to Rome). He and his friend Polycarp were reputed to be disciples of the apostles John.

                  He was martyred during the reign of the Emperor Trajan, (98-117 AD). During his long journey, by sea and land to his martyrdom in Rome, he met up with delegations from various churches and wrote letters to six churches and his friend Polycarp. These letters are a valuable source for understanding the Church in the sub-apostolic times.

                  Here are two extracts
                  -on Bishops, Priests, Deacons
                  "Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" (Letter to the Magnesians. 6:1).

                  Note that word ‘entrust’ again.

                  An early Creed
                  “Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.” (Letter to the Trallians 9)

                  Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna and was martyred in about 155 AD at the age of 85. So he was born about 70AD and is reputed to have been a disciple of the apostle John as wells as bing a friend of Ignatius of Antioch.

                  Irenaeus of Lyon wrote about Polycarp
                  "Polycarp was instructed not only by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna by the apostles in Asia. I saw him in my early youth, for he tarried a long time and when quite old departed this life in a glorious and most noble martyrdom. He always taught those things which he learned from the apostles and which the Church had handed down and which are true. To these things the churches in Asia bear witness, as do also the successors of Polycarp even to the present time" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:4 AD 180-199)

                  The Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bede View Post
                    If we only had Paul’s letters (no other letters, no gospels) we would little understanding of Jesus’ teaching. Paul wrote mainly to rebuke (as you pointed out) to correct errors, to build up communities he had founded. We know therefore that he had much more to teach.
                    But we do have more than Paul's letters. We have the complete Bible and it contains all we need. Much of Paul's teaching consisted of preaching the truths that are found in the rest of the scriptures, including the Old Testament and the gospels.
                    Clyde Herrin's Blog
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by theophilus View Post
                      But we do have more than Paul's letters. We have the complete Bible and it contains all we need. Much of Paul's teaching consisted of preaching the truths that are found in the rest of the scriptures, including the Old Testament and the gospels.
                      How do you know it's all you need?

                      You don't even have a complete Bible!

                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bede View Post
                        The Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
                        Ah, the ellipsis. When used improperly can make something appear correct which is not. So lets see.


                        [W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found?. . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . .
                        This quote appears at first to be giving Kelly's view. It is not. It is a transitional statement used to introduce and address the views of Irenaeus. This whole section is about Irenaeus and Tertullian and their views not Kelly's. The next sentence states:


                        Irenaeus believed that this was the case, stating that the Church preserved the tradition inherited from the apostles and passed it on to her children.
                        So the question is, did Irenaeus accept the oral tradition? Yet he did. Is that the end of the matter, no. Kelly points out:


                        On the other hand, Irenaeus took it for granted that the apostolic tradition had also been deposited in written documents. As he says, what the apostles at first proclaimed by word of mouth, they afterwards by God's will conveyed to us in Scriptures. Did Irenaeus then subordinate Scripture to unwritten tradition? This inference has been commonly drawn, but it issues from a somewhat misleading antithesis. Its plausibility depends on such considerations as (a) that, in controversy with the Gnostics, tradition rather than Scripture seemed to be his final court of appeal, and (b) that he apparently relied upon tradition to establish the true exegesis of Scripture. But a careful analysis of his Adversus Haereses reveals that, while the Gnostics' appeal to their supposed secret tradition forced him to stress the superiority of the Church's public tradition, his real defense of orthodoxy was founded on Scripture.
                        No one need take my word for it. Here is the whole book for anyone to check.
                        103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines.pdf (PDFy mirror) : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Origen View Post
                          Ah, the ellipsis. When used improperly can make something appear correct which is not. So lets see.



                          This quote appears at first to be giving Kelly's view. It is not. It is a transitional statement used to introduce and address the views of Irenaeus. This whole section is about Irenaeus and Tertullian and their views not Kelly's. The next sentence states:


                          So the question is, did Irenaeus accept the oral tradition? Yet he did. Is that the end of the matter, no. Kelly points out:




                          No one need take my word for it. Here is the whole book for anyone to check.
                          103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines.pdf (PDFy mirror) : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

                          If you look at page 37 then it is clear that the ellipses hide nothing. In fact they add to the point.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bede View Post
                            If you look at page 37 then it is clear that the ellipses hide nothing. In fact they add to the point.
                            Really? You state "J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes." I see no where any mention of Irenaeus with that quote from Kelly. You do not say "J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes "in regard to Irenaeus" or "according to Irenaeus." Nor is Irenaeus mentioned within the quote. That is left out. For someone who was really hung up on a question, it seem that accuracy with a citation ought to be paramount so that there is no confusion. Moreover, you left out important information given by Kelly in regard to Irenaeus and Scripture giving only one side of Irenaeus' views on the matter.

                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bede View Post
                              Hi S.T.Ranger
                              Welcome to the Catholic section.
                              Thanks Bede, glad to be here.

                              Originally posted by Bede View Post
                              I’m going on holiday tomorrow so this may be the last post in the thread that I can make for a week. There is a lot to cover so I apologise for its length but I hope you will read it all.
                              Just got back from a bit of a break, and hope you guys have a great time, and that you be safe.


                              Originally posted by Bede View Post
                              If we only had Paul’s letters (no other letters, no gospels) we would little understanding of Jesus’ teaching.
                              Having read this, I see nothing that fulfills my request. You won't find any argument from me concerning the fact that tradition is not only acceptable, but commanded.

                              What is in view are the traditions themselves. What is in view, my friend, is whether "traditions" that have no Scriptural basis or precedence are acceptable in the Body of Christ.

                              The point you make here is irrelevant to this discussion, because, after all...we don't just have Paul's Epistles. And I would suggest to you that certain "traditions" of men cannot find justification in any Book of the Bible.

                              For example, Baptismal Regeneration: only the Sacrifice of Christ brings salvation to man. No effort of man plays a role in salvation.


                              Originally posted by Bede View Post
                              Paul wrote mainly to rebuke (as you pointed out) to correct errors, to build up communities he had founded. We know therefore that he had much more to teach.

                              How did this get passed on?
                              Much of the rebuke could be said to be reiteration, and we have that knowledge because of the rebuke. Still, we are not looking at what Paul did teach which is recorded, we are looking at the creation of Doctrine and Tradition which some of us view as contrary to the Word of God.

                              An example would be Indulgences. Now, according to the Church the leadership had the authority to disannul the Gospel and...sell remission of sins while at the same time expanding the means of remission of sins.

                              My friend, if the blood of bulls and goats, which was ordained of God Himself, did not take away sins, grant remission of sins on an eternal basis, and provide the means of Eternal Redemption...

                              ...how could one possibly think that a financial exchange could do so?

                              Did not Peter say...

                              Acts 8 (KJV)

                              18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

                              19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

                              20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

                              ...?



                              Originally posted by Bede View Post
                              Paul tells us. He tells Timothy (orally) what he himself received:
                              “Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14).
                              The good treasure is Paul’s sound teaching of the gospel that Timothy must guard with the help of the Holy Spirit.
                              Agreed, but that is not the tradition in view in regards to the Catholic Church's Doctrine.


                              Originally posted by Bede View Post
                              And Paul instructs Timothy to proclaim (orally) what he has received
                              “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.” (2 Tim 4:1-2)
                              And "The Word" is not subject to the doctrines of men.

                              Only by establishing Doctrine which is Biblical can we be sure that we are carrying out this tradition...Biblically.


                              Originally posted by Bede View Post
                              Paul writes to Titus that in first place among these faithful people who are to be entrusted with this teaching are the bishops:
                              “For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, ……holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.” (Ti 1:7,9).
                              So how do we know if have a proper Doctrine? Is it not by comparing our Doctrine with that which cannot be confused as having come from God Himself? That is, the very Word itself? Wouldn't you agree that if our Doctrine agrees with that which God has clearly declared and revealed....we are on the right path?


                              Originally posted by Bede View Post
                              We see this transmission of Sacred Tradition in that quote from 2Tim 2:1-2.
                              Paul teaches Timothy
                              Timothy teaches others (faithful people)
                              These others (faithful people) teach others in their turn.
                              Agreed.

                              But where did Paul, Timothy, or any other Church leader contradict some very basic principles taught by all Bible writers? Where does Paul advocate new revelation? And certain Cathiloic Doctrines have to be put in a category of new revelation, because we cannot find any Biblical precedence or justification.


                              Originally posted by Bede View Post
                              This didn’t stop there. It was in turn entrusted to faithful people who would guard it faithfully. In time it was embedded in liturgies, in creeds and in the writings of the early fathers.

                              We can see this in the early Church. Note particularly the parts I have emboldened

                              Clement of Rome
                              "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier.... Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." (Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
                              Sorry, but Clement should not be considered Inspired. He, nor his successors, stand in a place that is clearly viewed inspired writers of Scripture.


                              Originally posted by Bede View Post
                              Just as Paul appointed Timothy and Titus to carry on his work and they in turn selected and appointed others in their turn.

                              Hegesippus
                              "When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs 4:22:1 [ca. A.D. 180]).

                              Irenaeus
                              "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about....Surely they wished all those and their successors, to whom they handed on their authority, to be perfect and without reproach" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [inter A.D. 180-199]).

                              Ignatius of Antioch (also called Theophorus) died probably around 107 -110 AD. The Church historian Eusebius said he was a bishop for 40 years, so although his death and major writings are in the second century, most of his episcopate is in the first. He was a contemporary of some of the apostles. Indeed Theodoret of Cyrus (5th century) says he was appointed to the see of Antioch by St. Peter himself and was the third bishop there, Peter himself being the first (before he moved to Rome). He and his friend Polycarp were reputed to be disciples of the apostles John.

                              He was martyred during the reign of the Emperor Trajan, (98-117 AD). During his long journey, by sea and land to his martyrdom in Rome, he met up with delegations from various churches and wrote letters to six churches and his friend Polycarp. These letters are a valuable source for understanding the Church in the sub-apostolic times.
                              Note what Hegesippuspoints to: the Law, the Prophets, and The Lord. That is, Scripture and that taught by Christ.

                              Irenaeus points to the tradition of the Apostles and a clear statement...against "men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about." He is condemning doctrine which does not correlate to that traditionally taught.

                              And while I would agree that their writings can be helpful in a number of ways, I would suggest to you that one of the greatest problems many in Church history have had is that they give far too much importance to the teachings of succeeding leadership and give less attention to that which is the only source for unquestionable Doctrine...The Word.


                              Originally posted by Bede View Post
                              Here are two extracts
                              -on Bishops, Priests, Deacons
                              "Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" (Letter to the Magnesians. 6:1).

                              Note that word ‘entrust’ again.

                              An early Creed
                              “Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.” (Letter to the Trallians 9)

                              Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna and was martyred in about 155 AD at the age of 85. So he was born about 70AD and is reputed to have been a disciple of the apostle John as wells as bing a friend of Ignatius of Antioch.

                              Irenaeus of Lyon wrote about Polycarp
                              "Polycarp was instructed not only by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna by the apostles in Asia. I saw him in my early youth, for he tarried a long time and when quite old departed this life in a glorious and most noble martyrdom. He always taught those things which he learned from the apostles and which the Church had handed down and which are true. To these things the churches in Asia bear witness, as do also the successors of Polycarp even to the present time" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:4 AD 180-199)

                              The Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

                              Again, in view is an examination of the traditions, and whether they are proper for the Body to embrace. Again, there is no argument from me that we are to maintain the traditions taught us, however, what is in question is whether the tradition is in fact Biblical and proper for the Body to engage in.

                              There will be issues that I think we have to work out according to modern cultures, but, I cannot think of one that cannot be tested according to Scripture. We have far more than enough to judge even obscure issues relevant to a modern Age...

                              ...in Scripture.

                              Thanks for the response, Bede, and again wish you and yours a safe and happy holiday. By the way, didn't we cross paths on BaptistBoard? If so, great to catch up with you, and if not, glad to have met you.


                              God bless.
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap