gibson@b11.ingr.com (Stanley) (01/16/91)
There was a posting recently by someone teaching that the Bible alone was insuffient to guide us. Based on what I have studied I believe that teaching is wrong. The poster taught that tradition and history were critical to faith. There is so much to say about that I scarcly know where to begin. Look at how mans traditions are spoken of in the Bible. Matt 15:6 Tradition had made the command of God of no effect. Col 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through .. tradition of men .. not according to Christ. I Peter 1:18 You have recieved aimless conduct by the tradition from your Fathers. In my study I have found nothing good written about man made traditions The only tradition we can follow is the example of Christ and the inspired apostles. 2 Thess 3:6 ... withdraw from every brother who walks .... not according to the tradition which he recieved from us. Where do the scripture encourage us or allow us to follow traditions of men?? The poster taught that christianity was developed by people through the ages. Christianity was not only developed by Christ, it was perfected by Him. How can anyone say they could improve on what He has done?? What was Christianity on the day of Pentecost? Before its history, befor man added his corrupt traditions? And what has 2000 years of this "christian history and tradition" produced? Nothing but division and confusion!!! 2 Tim 3:15 ... the Holy scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation. Tradition will not make you wise. It will not save you. Do not build your hopes on it.
CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) (01/25/91)
gibson@b11.ingr.com (Stanley) warns us that tradition will not make us wise, nor will they save us. He claims that the bible alone is sufficient to guide us. The bible itself is indeed our central source, and it warns us against the traditions of men. But there are two sides to this coin. On the one hand, Men have always tended to invent traditions and interpretations which, consciously or not, serve to defuse the Word of God, make it powerless and easier to live with. That's why we are warned against such traditions. On the other hand, there are dozens of sects and churches who claim to follow the Bible alone, and they all disagree. We all too often see people quoting the bible against each other. So you may say, the bible is still sufficient if it is interpreted correctly. But who is to do that? How can you *know* that your interpretation is the right one, when there are thousands of honest, intelligent, praying Christians out there who have so many different understandings? I think history proves that the bible has not been enough to set us on the One Right Track. Even if it does contain all that we need to know for salvation (as I believe it does), the Church needs its own history and experience, too. There is no need to put the Bible on one side and "the traditions of men" on the other, as if they were the only alternatives. What if there are traditions which were inspired by God, through His word and His spirit, to help us understand? What if there are things that indeed came directly from Jesus Christ himself, and have been brought down to us through tradition, even though they were never written down by the biblical authors? Ake Eldberg
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (01/27/91)
In article <Jan.25.00.51.19.1991.13399@athos.rutgers.edu>, CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) writes: >gibson@b11.ingr.com (Stanley) warns us that tradition will not make >us wise, nor will they save us. He claims that the bible alone is >sufficient to guide us. > >The bible itself is indeed our central source, and it warns us >against the traditions of men. But there are two sides to this coin. >On the one hand, Men have always tended to invent traditions and >interpretations which, consciously or not, serve to defuse the Word >of God, make it powerless and easier to live with. That's why we >are warned against such traditions. > >On the other hand, there are dozens of sects and churches who >claim to follow the Bible alone, and they all disagree. We all >too often see people quoting the bible against each other. So >you may say, the bible is still sufficient if it is interpreted >correctly. But who is to do that? How can you *know* that your >interpretation is the right one, when there are thousands of >honest, intelligent, praying Christians out there who have so >many different understandings? > >I think history proves that the bible has not been enough to >set us on the One Right Track...... I agree with you 100% that the Bible is not enough. Look at the confusion in Christiandome. Who can clear it up for us? Are traditions enough? Can tradition be trusted? There are many traditions which are in fact false. The fact is that we have very little, if any teachings at all which didn't come through many hands before they were put done on paper. Let me look at this situation vary methodically. Eye W
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Chuck Hedrick) (01/29/91)
In article <Jan.25.00.51.19.1991.13399@athos.rutgers.edu>, CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) writes: > > On the other hand, there are dozens of sects and churches who > claim to follow the Bible alone, and they all disagree. We all > too often see people quoting the bible against each other. So > you may say, the bible is still sufficient if it is interpreted > correctly. But who is to do that? How can you *know* that your > interpretation is the right one, when there are thousands of > honest, intelligent, praying Christians out there who have so > > There is no need to put the Bible on one side and "the traditions > of men" on the other, as if they were the only alternatives. What > if there are traditions which were inspired by God, through His > word and His spirit, to help us understand? What if there are > things that indeed came directly from Jesus Christ himself, and > have been brought down to us through tradition, even though they > were never written down by the biblical authors? > The reasoning here seems to be faulty. Church tradition is needed because it is possible to interpret Scripture in more than one "correct" way. Since there are conflicting traditions among churches and denominations, one would also conclude that something more is needed in order to properly distinguish between the many traditions and the "correct" one. The percieved problem has merely been shifted from an interpretation of Scripture to an interpretation of tradition. No foundation can any man lay than that which is already layed, that is Christ Jesus. All scripture is a revelation of that foundation and it is each individual christians responsibility to carefully interpret what scripture teaches us concerning Christ. Sincerely, Kenny Hunt
CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) (02/03/91)
Kenny Hunt writes: >The perceived problem has merely been shifted from an interpretation of >Scripture to an interpretation of tradition. I agree completely that there is no other foundation than Christ Jesus. However, when people tell me that the Bible alone is sufficient to set us right, I find that this only leads to various denominations hitting each other with their "correct" interpretations. That was the main point of my posting: that careful interpretation of the bible *alone* is not enough. If tradition is perceived as a specific collection of writings by a specific group of Church Fathers or Councils, then it constitutes little more than an extention of the written material, and we end up in the same situation, quite as you say. How to interpret tradition. My point is that tradition is *not* just a collection of writings, but something that lives in the Church. As soon as we are presented with written words in a book or on a paper, we can dissect these forever, from legions of different angles. It leads only to disunity. The tradition I was referring to is that which lives among the believers, the theologians and all of Christianity. It will not yield hard-fact-answers to every question. But we may hope that it might yield consensus. A religion of LAW is one that goes for Hard Facts. Give us a list of exact interpretations! Give us a big fat book of rules for what to do in every conceivable situation, so that we can be sure that as long as we follow these rules, we will do right. That is not Christianity. It is Judaism of the kind that Jesus criticized. If He had wanted to give us Hard Facts about everything, He could have done so. But He gave us the New Testament, written by His disciples and followers. And He gave us the Holy Spirit to help us understand. By Tradition I mean the common Christian experience of 2,000 years, living with the Bible and prayer and sacraments and history. Seeing how it works. And what does not work. By tradition I also mean those parts of teaching that I believe were preserved orally and by deeds rather than words. Much of the Gospel lives in this. If you try to write it down, it becomes LAW and DEATH. While it is in our hearts, it is GOSPEL and LIFE. A fundamental fact of Christianity is that we are part of a Church. Jesus didn't come here to give us a book. He came to give marching orders to an army of disciples who, driven by the Spirit and guided by the Law of God, would make all peoples into disciples. All too often we have forgotten that, and concentrated so much on the book that we missed the point, missed the people of God, the community of all those who put their hope in Christ Jesus. Please note that I am not trying to give any easy solutions. It was never my intention to put tradition in the place of the Bible. But I wanted to say that interpretations of the bible alone will never give us all that God wants to give us. Ake Eldberg