Posted on 12/08/2010 8:00:29 AM PST by marshmallow
"Now we request you brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together with Him, that you not be shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come."
And over the next 12 verses Paul explains the "tradition" that he taught the Thessalonians ... and he concludes with the passage you mentioned.
Indeed. And in 1 Cor 10 and 11 (the other verse I cited), he was concerning himself with abuses around the Eucharist.
And in 2 Thes 3:6 (another use of παράδοσις), he spoke about not hanging around with disorderly people, heretics, busybodies, etc (defined as those who did not follow the παράδοσις they received of him)
That's why it makes a good Scripture study to look at the importance the apostles gave to the churches holding fast to what (the παράδοσις) the apostles παρέδωκα
And then to contrast that with the "παράδοσις of men" spoken of in Matt 15, Mark 7, and so on.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I hate to break this to you...
The Gospels were an oral TRADITION.
The inclusion of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the synoptic Gospels in the canon of scripture... a TRADITION.
Thank you.
While a Protestant, Mathison speaks surprisingly positively of the early concept of Tradition and pretty well proves that when Fathers such as Irenaus spoke of tradition, they meant those basic teachings passed down which supported, and were directly connected to scripture.
For example, the "tradition" that Jesus is God the Son--is a fact attested to in Scripture, supportive of the biblical account, AND importantly, directly connected to it. Tradition in this sense cannot be any independent authority with no scriptural connection...(such as say, the immaculate conception of Mary) rather it must be those teachings which Christians have believed all along--AND scripture teaches. Another word for such "tradition" is the regula fide or the "rule of faith."
Strict adherence of such a definition of Tradition would of precluded such medieval innovations--which became traditions INDEPENDENT of scripture--as the Aristotelian dogma (ca. 12 C.) of transubstantiation (vs. the simple, regula fide doctrine of the Real Presence) or prayers to Mary and the Saints, or the absolute supremacy of the Roman bishop....things we Protestants find so objectionable in Roman Catholicism.
The 3 great creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian) would be a good example of a summary of Christian tradition in this mutually inter-dependent understanding of regula fide or Tradition.
Mathison is coming from a Reformed theological pursuasion--and hence is firmly Protestant--however, his book--giving a hierarchical understanding of Authority (with scripture as the highest, inerrant and only final authority, but NOT the sole authority altogether)--was one of the primary theological movers bringing me into the Anglican Communion.
No tradition will save anyones’ soul.
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.