We're making big changes. Please try out the beta site at beta.ccel.org and send us feedback. Thank you!

Scripture and Tradition? Where does Tradition stand?

Loutzenhiser's picture

We will continue the 2 Tim and 1 Thess here. I will bring the last posts from each thread here.

Let me define the thread subject here. We all agree that Scripture is foundational to the church, but where does tradition stand and what tradition.

Some questions -

Is a tradition considered to be apostolical even though it is announced and defined at a later date?

Must a tradition have some other supporting evidence or is the church's "word" good enough for it to be considered canonical?

Is Dogma tradition or just a church's view?

What support must a tradition have to be canonical? (such as multi-church support?)

Are views and teachings about a tradition also tradition or just a church's opinion?

JeffLogan's picture

It does, however...

Michael wrote - How does the lack of loyalty of anyone ever call into question the rightful position of any person in a lineage? That argument (such as it is) makes no sense and has not basis. If all of the kingdom of any leader turns disloyal that does not make him any less the legitimate leader. This is not a popularity contest.

jqlogan writes -
Michael, you must remember that these men were not born into their positions, as were kings, but were elected. The "legitimacy" was bestowed upon them by election. Those who were "disloyal" were casting their vote as well. Thus, the lack of loyalty does demonstrate that there was great confusion regarding which direction the legitimate lineage took.

And, perhaps it is a popularity contest after all with the most popular becoming the victor. But that is a principle of evolution and not scripture. In scripture we learn that while the gospel excelled those who promoted it are hated, condemned, rejected, cursed, burned, stoned, dispersed, boiled, jailed, and killed. And, yes, even crucified. The blood of the believers was the seed of the gospel. The principle that only the strong survive is a secular notion born of evolution. Scripture teaches that the meek will inherit the earth and the proud will be brought low to the dust.

You have chosen to cast your vote for the most popular of the two paths. But you do so based on historical information which may be tainted to favor one over the other. You cannot say which is correct without some reservation. You may be convinced but you cannot prove it.

If we had to decide truth regarding the genesis of life on planet earth based solely on the weight of scientific evidence we would have little choice but to side with the Theory of Evolution. But that theory is in direct conflict with the Genesis account in scripture. But their case has been bolstered by propaganda, favorable characterizations and influential relationships. Would it be so surprising if we were to find that another institution well respected by the world was in direct conflict with scripture?

Would we be brave enough to stand for truth against the multitudes? Yet, that has been the path of the Christian throughout history with Christ, the Perfect One, being most hated of all. You see, when it comes to secular themes it is a popularity contest after all. It is human nature to want to belong and that tendency often causes us to reject the least popular view based solely on numbers rather than truth. And, when the choice has consequences, such as was the case when the Papacy gained control over the kings, it becomes a no-brainer for the weak and unprincipled. Only those of great conviction would even dare stand against such a power with which no man could make war. I am not saying that men of conviction did not choose to side with Her, just that it would take a man of strong conviction to stand against Her.

"Iniquitas mentita est sibi"

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. -Proverbs 18:2 NIV