[PeevedPatriot]

Hello again. In the verses you cited, I don't see Jesus condemning Tradition (authoritative oral teaching) or tradition (custom). He insists on a proper placement of priorities (right ordering of the heart, so to speak) so that custom doesn't supercede weightier matters or allow for skirting the commandments. If oral tradition was a risk for the transmission of Jesus' message, why did he tell his followers in Mt 23:2-3 to do as instructed but not follow bad example? Note in Mt 23:23 he said "these you ought to have done without neglecting the others." He didn't say either practice should have been avoided entirely.(Then there's the question why he didn't just give the apostles something he wrote and tell them to spread the gospel in that fashion to bypass the tradition obstacle many would face centuries later.)

In any case, I'm not out to change your mind. I object to the notion that Tradition/tradition are unscriptural or not in keeping with Jesus' example. I won't belabor things trading verses, I think you understand my point as I do yours. We simply disagree.

From the link http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#2 we learn ....

We learn that quotes taken out of context don't make Athanasius a sola scriptura Christian :) Read some of his writing in context and you'll see that he is clear that "the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers." (From Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D) Some Catholics take his next comment out of context as if anyone who doesn't believe this isn't Christian. I won't do here what the site you have referenced has done, which is to selectively quote as if one who opposes your view actually supports it.

I think we should use the same means as those did then, the Word of God with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

The Word of God tells us that the Church built on the foundation of the apostles is the pillar of truth. When we discount apostolic succession and authority, how are we not negating the promises Jesus gave to the eleven? Thanks be to God that he can work in any circumstance!! :)

Peace be with you always. I appreciated the sincerity and courtesy of your response.

[boatbums]

Glad to see you didn't give up our discussion. I think we may be talking past each other somehow. I have never said Tradition/tradition is wrong or unneeded nor do I think Jesus had no use for it or that the church (the whole body of Christ) does not benefit from the traditions and history of our great faith. No, I simply want to state that whatever the tradition that is under consideration, it MUST be proved by Scripture or, in the case of Scripture not addressing it at all, it must not be "binding" upon a Christian WRT his salvation. In other words, I do not believe some church leader hundreds or thousands of years after the Scriptures were written can come along and invent a new doctrine and call it "Tradition" and make it mandatory or required for a Christian under penalty of loss of salvation and this is what the Roman Catholic Church has done on many doctrines.

As for Athanasius, he most certainly DID believe in the sufficiency of the Scriptures and warned his followers to not even accept anything he said if it could not be proved by Scripture. This WAS the guideline the early fathers used to know what was truth from error and that is how they could know when heresy crept in - they used the same measuring stick, the Bible.

Some proponents of the Roman Catholic magesterium's infallible authority asserted that whatever the Church taught was "always and everywhere believed". Roman Catholic apologetics that came out of the Reformation had a certain character that asked (maybe in disbelief) “Where was your religion before the year 1517?” This appeal was characterized by the Roman Catholic claim, “Semper Eadem,” “always the same.” By 1688, this appeal to authority and antiquity was so etched into the public mind that bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704) had produced a work, Histoire des Variations des Églises Protestantes (1688) in which he asserted:

The Church’s doctrine is always the same….The Gospel is never different from what it was before. Hence, if at any time someone says that the faith includes something which yesterday was not said to be of the faith, it is always heterodoxy, which is any doctrine different from orthodoxy. There is no difficulty about recognizing false doctrine: there is no argument about it: it is recognized at once, whenever it appears, merely because it is new….

If by such proofs they show us the least unconstancy, or the least variation in the dogmata of the Catholic Church from her first origin down to us, that is from Christianity’s first foundation; readily will I own to them that they are in the right, and I myself will suppress this my whole history (cited by Owen Chadwick, “From Bossuet to Newman,” Second Edition, ©1987 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pgs 17, 20).

But as it turns out, Rome, however, cannot hold itself to that standard. Less than 200 years later, Newman was crafting a “theory of Development” that was necessary to explain away all of the many changes that Rome HAD incorporated. (from http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/just-trust-us-on-this-one-wink-wink.html).

It is getting WAY late, so I will sign off for now. We can pick up this dialog tomorrow if you desire. One last thing, you asked, "When we discount apostolic succession and authority, how are we not negating the promises Jesus gave to the eleven?". I have a differing view than you do about what "apostolic succession" really means and how it applies to authority within the church. We can discuss this, too.

Have a good night and a blessed day!