Traditions???

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Traditions???

Post by ken_sylvania »

God is not in the habit of contradicting Himself. Any purported "oral tradition" which contradicts the written Word must be disregarded.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Traditions???

Post by Valerie »

ken_sylvania wrote:God is not in the habit of contradicting Himself. Any purported "oral tradition" which contradicts the written Word must be disregarded.
Amen, and sometimes, interpretation causes a difference of understanding of what contradicts Scripture, and what oral traditions are actually supported by Scripture- whether one sees it, or not.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Traditions???

Post by Bootstrap »

ken_sylvania wrote:God is not in the habit of contradicting Himself. Any purported "oral tradition" which contradicts the written Word must be disregarded.
I agree. And in context, Paul seems to be telling the Thessalonians to obey both the things he wrote to them and the things he told them orally. He said nothing about a hidden oral tradition that had authority alongside Scripture.

And given what Jesus said about the traditions of the Pharisees, I'm very skeptical of this. Given what Paul wrote about "hidden knowledge", I'm skeptical of any doctrine not found in the Scripture that is available to all Christians.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Traditions???

Post by silentreader »

Valerie wrote:
ken_sylvania wrote:God is not in the habit of contradicting Himself. Any purported "oral tradition" which contradicts the written Word must be disregarded.
Amen, and sometimes, interpretation causes a difference of understanding of what contradicts Scripture, and what oral traditions are actually supported by Scripture- whether one sees it, or not.
Equally important, and this relates to us conservative Mennonites as well as others, we can discern which oral traditions are not supported by Scripture, if we want to.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
RZehr
Posts: 7027
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Traditions???

Post by RZehr »

Maybe Paul verbally told the Thessalonians not to baptize infants. 8-)
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Traditions???

Post by Bootstrap »

silentreader wrote:Equally important, and this relates to us conservative Mennonites as well as others, we can discern which oral traditions are not supported by Scripture, if we want to.
I think that's a good way to phrase it. It's not that there is no oral tradition, there are lots of them, each tradition has one, they grow and change over time, and each one needs to be tested against Scripture.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Traditions???

Post by Valerie »

RZehr wrote:Maybe Paul verbally told the Thessalonians not to baptize infants. 8-)
No, I believe (now) the Apostles took Jesus words about little ones, and their belief and faith very seriously- and included them- He wouldn't have wanted to consider them outside the Church, and outside of faith until they were 18, or so- Jesus never said that, but said to receive them in His name.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Traditions???

Post by Bootstrap »

Valerie wrote:
RZehr wrote:Maybe Paul verbally told the Thessalonians not to baptize infants. 8-)
No, I believe (now) the Apostles took Jesus words about little ones, and their belief and faith very seriously- and included them- He wouldn't have wanted to consider them outside the Church, and outside of faith until they were 18, or so- Jesus never said that, but said to receive them in His name.
How can we tell?

In practice, this is really the same question as the authority of the Church Fathers when they described traditions, and the debate is mostly about things they wrote that are not found in Scripture. I think there are three main ways of seeing this:
  1. The Church faithfully passed on traditions directly from the Apostles, and that's what you found in the writings of the Fathers. One problem with this view is that the fathers disagreed significantly about some things and some became heretics over the course of their lifetime, so you need some editing and filtering to come up with anything consistent. Even in the Apostolic Fathers there is significant disagreement, positions seem to change over time, and what is taught in one region is different from what is taught in another region.
  2. The Church faithfully discerned among the Fathers, and later writings from people like Augustine and Chrysostom correctly record the traditions of the Apostles, as do the Church Councils. I think this is basically the position of the Orthodox Church and probably the Catholic Church.
  3. Under Constantine, the Church and State came together to form an institution that was mostly not about the same things the New Testament is mostly about, and we need to peel that back to the original New Testament. The institution is not what is authoritative, the wineskin is not more authoritative than the wine. This is the position of Mennonites and Protestants. And we believe that writers like Augustine and Constantine were infected by that. In many ways, Augustine was Constantine's apologist.


For instance, Origen said this:
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Chrysostom said this:
You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine said this:
What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
Chrysostom and Augustine are clearly saying that there are people who disagree with them, but that this is the practice of the church at the time, and that they believe this was a practice handed down from the Apostles themselves.

But Mennonites believe this:
As to his reference to Tertullius, Cyprian, Origenes and Augustinus, I would reply: If these writers can support their assertions by the word and ordinance of God, then we will admit that they are right. If they cannot do so, then it is a doctrine of men, and condemned by the Scriptures, Gal. 1:8.
Actually, Menno Simons goes on to explore various teachings of early fathers together with more modern writers, showing differing practices, and concludes this:
Since it is plain that few children were baptized of the ancients, as the above mentioned Rhenanus, Zuingli and Bucer show; that Cyprian left infant baptism optional, and the others acknowledge that there is no express command for it; how can Gellius, then truthfully write that they received infant baptism from the apostles; that it is an incorporation into the church, and a sealing of the covenant of grace?

Yea, my reader, if infant baptism has the virtues which Gellius ascribes to it, then our ancestors grossly sinned to have baptized so few children; and also because they left optional that which (he says) the apostles practiced and taught to be an incorporation into the church, a sign of grace and a sealing of the covenant of grace.

In the third place I answer, If we consider the confession and doctrine of the learned in regard to infant baptism, we find it to be such a Babel that we are forced to acknowledge that it is not of God. For some of the ancients (not the apostles) as appears, baptized some children, but not a considerable number. Some said they had received it from the apostles; others, again, denied it. Some have, and some still baptize them to wash off hereditary sin; others because they are children of the covenant. Some baptize them for the sake of the faith of the church; others, again, for the sake of the faith of their parents. Some on the strength of the faith of the patriarchs; others on the strength of their own faith; and again, others that better care shall be taken of their education. Behold, thus the defenders of infant baptism are divided among themselves.

Inasmuch, then, as they do not teach one doctrine and are not of one mind in regard to infant baptism, therefore it is manifestly proven that they baptize them without the word of God. For if their cause had a foundation in Scripture; then they would baptize to the same purpose or end, according to the same ordinance, rule and doctrine.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Traditions???

Post by MaxPC »

Valerie wrote:
RZehr wrote:Maybe Paul verbally told the Thessalonians not to baptize infants. 8-)
No, I believe (now) the Apostles took Jesus words about little ones, and their belief and faith very seriously- and included them- He wouldn't have wanted to consider them outside the Church, and outside of faith until they were 18, or so- Jesus never said that, but said to receive them in His name.
In Catholic World, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16, and Matthew 19:14 in which Jesus said, "suffer the little children and forbid them not" are the Scripture readings for our water baptism. It doesn't end there though: what we call the "rite of baptism" is really a tripartite (3 parter) that is concluded when the older teen is confirmed in the faith and recites his profession of faith as a free will choice to continue in the faith. That said, I can see how other Christians would choose to interpret this important rite and I respect their interpretation.
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Traditions???

Post by Bootstrap »

MaxPC wrote:In Catholic World, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16, and Matthew 19:14 in which Jesus said, "suffer the little children and forbid them not" are the Scripture readings for our water baptism.
But I don't think Catholics claim that Jesus baptized those children. And I don't think the Catholic Church claims that these scriptures are their evidence for infant baptism.

In the section on infant baptism, the Catholic Catechism explicitly refers to the authority of tradition, says that the first explicit testimony to infant baptism is in the second century, and suggests the possibility that this should affect our interpretation of baptizing households:
1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.
In the Catechism, note that they don't go beyond "it is quite possible" when they talk about baptizing infants while baptizing households.

The rest of what you write is really important here:
MaxPC wrote:It doesn't end there though: what we call the "rite of baptism" is really a tripartite (3 parter) that is concluded when the older teen is confirmed in the faith and recites his profession of faith as a free will choice to continue in the faith. That said, I can see how other Christians would choose to interpret this important rite and I respect their interpretation.
You can see this in the Catechism in the section on Christian Initiation:
1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

1230 This initiation has varied greatly through the centuries according to circumstances. In the first centuries of the Church, Christian initiation saw considerable development. A long period of catechumenate included a series of preparatory rites, which were liturgical landmarks along the path of catechumenal preparation and culminated in the celebration of the sacraments of Christian initiation.

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here.

1232 The second Vatican Council restored for the Latin Church "the catechumenate for adults, comprising several distinct steps." The rites for these stages are to be found in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). The Council also gives permission that: "In mission countries, in addition to what is furnished by the Christian tradition, those elements of initiation rites may be admitted which are already in use among some peoples insofar as they can be adapted to the Christian ritual."

1233 Today in all the rites, Latin and Eastern, the Christian initiation of adults begins with their entry into the catechumenate and reaches its culmination in a single celebration of the three sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. In the Eastern rites the Christian initiation of infants also begins with Baptism followed immediately by Confirmation and the Eucharist, while in the Roman rite it is followed by years of catechesis before being completed later by Confirmation and the Eucharist, the summit of their Christian initiation.
In a lot of ways, these changes made by the second Vatican Council are what put Protestants and Catholics on speaking terms, giving us much more common ground.
MaxPC wrote:That said, I can see how other Christians would choose to interpret this important rite and I respect their interpretation.
I can also see why other Christians would understand the role of tradition very differently than I do. But our common faith in Jesus and the things clearly stated in Scripture are probably the place we find our unity.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply