Posted on 08/05/2012 5:11:06 AM PDT by GonzoII
And what does the Christian do when oral tradition conflicts with the written word of God?
There can be no conflict since both are from an unerring God.
Only if tradition gives way.
Of course the written Tradition commands otherwise
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
Ah, but that was the traditions of the time. Not the clutter that has since accumulated.
When tradition contradicts Scripture, one must give. I prefer it to be tradition.
Christ himself commanded the Apostles to offer sacrifice, (namely that of His own life), which is the office of a priest :
Luk 22:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
There is one NT High Priest, who is Jesus Christ, and who is priestly precisely because He offers His Body and Blood to the Father. He commanded his Church to extend this same, singular, completed sacrifice through time ("Do this is remembrance of Me") and those who offer this Sacrifice, as he commanded, are called priests.
This was not only commanded in the NT, but prophesized in the OT:
Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, said the LORD of hosts.
This is not the Levitical priesthood, because the sacrifice will be offered "in every place" and "among the Gentiles" --- and it is a "pure" (perfect) sacrifice. This must be the one pure Sacrifice which replaced all the imperfect sacrifices of the OT, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Your article is lengthy, but presuming you are a reasonable person, i will seek to address the main issues here.
It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic Tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the Apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of "Sola Scriptura," or "Scripture Alone," which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.
It is because of the former, that of Rome teaching for doctrines the “tradition of the elders” which do not have Scriptural warrant or are contrary to it, (Mk. 7:1-16) that you have the latter, a overreaction or misunderstanding by some that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible. And thus you have the typical Catholic strawman that Sola Scriptura excludes the use of any other source in understanding God's will, rather than Scripture being alone as the supreme and sufficient authority.
The supremacy of Scripture is supported by Scripture based upon the abundant evidence that as written, the Scripture was the transcendent standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, and which also provides for addition writings being given and recognized in attaining its sufficiency.
However, its sufficiency is not simply formal, that of providing salvific truths that are clear enough that normally a person could be saved by reading, for instance, Peter's sermon on Acts 10:36-43, but sufficiency also refers to material sufficiency (which some RCs affirm), which includes establishing the use of reason, the church and its offices, etc., and which provides for writings being recognized as Scripture (and thus for a canon), as most of them were before there was a church in Rome.
In this respect, after affirming the supremacy of Scripture and is sufficiency, Westminster (cp. 1) adds,
VI. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
CHAPTER XXXI.
III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
And as regards the use of tradition, Alister McGrath's [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] states in “The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:”
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings;” http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/deliberate-fiction.html
To which can be added,
THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION - Page 2 (Heinrich Bullinger: Calvinist confession; adopted by the Reformed Church not only throughout Switzerland but in Scotland (1566), Hungary (1567), France (1571), Poland (1578), and next to the Heidelberg Catechism is the most generally recognized Confession of the Reformed Church.)
Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.
Evangelical authorities Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie state,
The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not mean — as Catholics often assume — that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance. http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf
Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as "word of God," "doctrine," "holy commandment," "faith," and "things believed among us."
It is true that some of Scripture was first oral, nor is all that could be known written, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet the norm was that oral Divine revelation was subsequently written, and in fact, it is hard to find any place where specific oral (or in dreams, visions) revelation referred to as the “word of God/the Lord does not refer to something that was not subsequently written. Nor can it be proved that the “traditions of 1Thes. 2:15 were not, nor were they were oral stories passed through generations that could not be written, as per Rome's tradition. And it is also true that “the word of the Lord” can refer to preaching the general Scripturally-substantiated truths of the gospel, which all the church did, (Acts 8:4) and which SS-type preachers claim. While every time they have a wedding they are in some way upholding a tradition, though the cultural form is not to be made a doctrine.
St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to "hold fast" his oral teaching "heard of me," but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine.
This is true, and historically SS-type churches engaged in such, but what Paul referred to was truths which were based upon Scriptural substantiation, as "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, " (Acts 17:2)
"And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. " (Acts 28:23)
And which substantiation was not simply in text but in power, that of the supernatural attestation which Scripture reveals God giving to His word, (Mk. 16:20) especially to new revelation.
"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? " (Hebrews 2:3-4)
In contrast, Rome cannot claim to have new revelation, or the manifest credentials of apostolic authority. (Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) And while she claims to be uniquely protected from error, that her formulaic infallibility, this is not promised in Scripture to any mortal (even the inspired writers of Holy Writ), nor is it necessary, as writings were recognized as Scripture and Truth was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium.
And in reality, the veracity of her Traditions and claims are not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, (if it were, she would accede primacy to that), nor are the reasons behind an infallible pronouncements necessarily infallible, but assurance of her veracity rest upon herself, as she has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. And upon this premise the Catholic finds his assurance (though whether a pronouncement is infallible can be a matter of interpretation).
This is referred to as sola ecclesia, and which is shared by cults. And Roman Catholic apologists point to disagreements and divisions under SS as disallowing that, yet under sola ecclesia there are also disagreements divisions within Catholicism, in which Tradition, Scripture and history are interpreted differently.
However, the Lord appealed to Scripture in combating the devil's wresting of it, (Mt. 4), and His Truth and that of the church were established by Scriptural substantiation in text and in power, overcoming evil with Good. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And thus the church began in dissent from those, who, like Rome, presumed a level of veracity beyond what Scripture promises mortals, apart from its teachings, and who thus rejected the Itinerant Preacher whose claims were Scripturally established. (Mk. 11:28-33)
Ah, but that was the traditions of the time. Not the clutter that has since accumulated. When tradition contradicts Scripture, one must give. I prefer it to be tradition.
Surely you know it is impossible for there to be any contradiction between Scripture and RC Tradition, even when the Orthodox view of Tradition differs, as Rome has infallible declared that she is infallible, whenever she speaks in accordance with her scope and subject-based criteria.
Thus Tradition, Scripture and history can only mean what she authoritatively says they mean, which (among other things), that Scripture and history can only mean what she authoritatively says they mean.
Thus, when faced with challenged, she can respond as no less an authority than Manning asserted,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Thus to which can be added,
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. — John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” — Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
All believers are called to offer sacrifice, and upon that premise all would be priests, and which they are. (1Pt. 2:5)
But what is in dispute is a separate class of (normatively) celibate men called sacerdotal priests, but which title the Holy Spirit only gives to Jewish and pagan clerics, while calling those who fill the pastoral office of the church "bishops" and "elders," as denoting one pastoral office.* (Titus 1:5-7)
The terms such as priests, "reverends," "most reverend," Cardinal, etc. were a latter development of the institutionalized church. And rather than requiring and presuming they all had the gift of celibacy - though a good thing in itself, and is only "church law" - they were normatively, at least, married. (1Tim. 3:2-4;; Titus 1:6; 1Cor. 9:4)
*
Titus 1:5-7: Bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1. This does not exclude that there could have been “archbishops/elders” in the New Testament church who were head pastors over others, but there is no titular distinctions in Scripture denoting such, and which distinctions are part of the hierarchical class distinctions which came later, and foster love of titles and position which the Lord warned about. (Mk. 10:42-44; Mt. 23:8-10).
Does presbyter or elder mean priest?
In her effort to conform the Bible to her erroneous understanding of what the elements used in the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Roman Catholicism (and near kin) came to render presbuteros” as “priests” in English (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” but neither of which is the same word which is distinctly used for priests*, that being “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) Nor does presbuteros or episkopos denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.
The only priesthood (hierateuma) of the church is that of all believers as they function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but unlike presbuteros and episkopos. the two were not the same in language or in function, as one could be a elder without formally being a priest. Even the Latin word (sacerdos) which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.”
Despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” by way of functional equivalence, supposing that the bishops turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ which is then physically consumed. However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), and the sacrifice involved in this is one which all communicants are to engage in, that of unselfish love for His body, the church (as shown here in the exegesis of 1Cor. 11:17-33). Moreover, despite Rome's centralization of this act as a cardinal doctrine, little is taught on it, the description of the Lord's supper and of disciples breaking bread neither assigns nor infers that pastors engaged in transforming the elements, but simply show it to be a communal meal. Thus formally identifying a distinctive class of Christian clergy as “priests” rather than “presbyters” (elders) is not only grammatically incorrect by is functionally unwarranted and unscriptural.
In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,
No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.
Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.
To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. (http://isv.org/catacombs/elders.htm)
There’s nothing wrong with tradition, small t, as long as it doesn’t supplant Scripture as Tradition, capital T, is known to do.
...under the premise that “Church” capitalized, refers to one who infallibly declares that she alone is the OTC.
I see a lot of Pauline quotes, very few Jesus quotes.
“Their worship is in vain, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from G-d.”
Matt. 15:9
Personally, I abide by the teachings of Jesus only, much like the original disciples. This is what Catholics would label as “Primitive Christianity”.
I label it as “The Judaism of Jesus”.
The structure of the modern church and it’s traditions are based on the spurious “Pastoral Epistles”.
Those spurious epistles contradict Jesus’ teachings explicitly.
The fact that Jesus chastised the Temple Priests for accepting man-made tradition (Talmudic law) over G-d’s Law is an allegory lost on today’s christianity.
Also lost is the fact that Jesus and the 12 disciples as well as the original 40,000 believers in Jerusalem were Jews (or became Jews) who worshipped at Temple and never created a new religion.
The only Jews to ever leave and create a new religion were Stephen and the Hellenists. They were removed from the original community and eventually served as Paul’s indoctrinators into their morality-only hellenistic judaism that forsook G-d’s written Law.
The preposterous and false ideology that the gentile mission superseded the original Mission of Jesus is not lost on me, thankfully. As I understand the Mission of Jesus and it wasn’t superseded because Paul is not equal too or higher ranking that Jesus or Jesus’ Mission & teachings.
It would do many christians well to read Jesus’ words only, for once and keep an “Old Testament” handy that isn’t translated by christians from greek.
If you want to truly understand Jesus’ Mission & teachings you must do it the same way he taught his disciples....from Torah/Tanakh.
It’s like your average christian church-goer must think that Jesus and the disciples walked around ancient Israel with a gilded New Testament under each arm. They never think about the fact that it was the hebrew/aramaic Torah/Tanakh that Jesus taught, all from memorization and all oral.
Jesus’ Mission is like a SOP (standard operating procedure) that is at complete odds with what Paul’s writings teach, and since Paul doesn’t rate higher than Jesus, nor his equal, I’m going to study Jesus’ Mission.
Since both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are from the same well-spring and coequally form the deposit of Faith. If it appears that to you that they contradict one another your interpretations of one or both are in error.
Peace be with you.
Oh, and before anyone chastises me with pauline quotations, nowhere in the “Old Testament” nor in by Jesus’ words alone am I commanded to have faith in and follow the mission and teachings of anyone else besides The Messiah.
Nowhere in the “Old Testament” nor in by Jesus’ words alone am I commanded by G-d to follow any other teaching or path than that of the Son of G-d…….which is the same Path that G-d originally gave……which would be the path of Jesus also.
To say that Paul’s mission to the gentiles was mutually inclusive with Jesus’ Mission & Teachings…..well……there is a lot of historical fact (outside of ‘The Church’) that belies that ideology.
As Paul says in Hebrews, chapter nine, Christ was offered once for all time and that altar was in heaven after his death and resurrection, therefore the eating of that last meal was not a sacrifice but a remembrance, a memorial, (”Do this is remembrance of Me”) and Malachi's prophecy (3:1) sets the time at Christ's appearance.
A priesthood did not exist in the primitive Christian church. Only Christ offered his blood and flesh as a high priest and those Christians that would serve as under priests AND kings would do so after their resurrection to heaven. (Rev. 20:4)
Excellent post.
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.