2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
15 Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
Paul is wrapping up an argument about standing firm with the man of lawlessness coming. He's telling them to remain steadfast in what he taught them. This is of course important as the man of lawlessness is a deceiver. I'm not necessarily ready to buy into this pointing to dispensational eschatology, but I suspect that this is an important chapter.
What I want to discuss instead is this word παραδόσεις. This is translated "traditions." This is also what the Roman Catholic Church uses to defend its stance on "sacred tradition." You see, what the Church teaches is on par with Scripture. That was Paul's approach, so it is theirs as well.
This would be perfectly fine if the church had the apostolic authority it claims. So what you've got to decide is whether or not Matthew 16:18 really does grant them the authority that they take for themselves. If they truly are part of an apostolic succession then you've got to give them their claim.
However, if they are just another cult like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses who claim divine authority then you need to be wary of them. That's the approach I take based on their history. There simply is not enough evidence to substantiate their claim for apostolic authority based on the history, but there is plenty to challenge it.
Where you land on this is critical because it gets to the very heart of the gospel. How is one saved? Is it the Catholic way or the Protestant way? I'm betting my future on the Protestant way. How about you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Lazarus! Come forth!
There is no Catholic way of salvation, there is no Protestant way. There are only explanations and interpretations, and these are undoubtedly human. These are not what is meant by the Greek concept of parádhosis, "the handing over" of the truth of the Gospel.
The parádhosis is what was handed over verbally and practically by the apostles to the believers. Most of what is meant by this term has ended up in the New Testament. In fact, if you believe in the divine economy, all of what was handed over by the apostles is in the New Testament. The problem seems to be all about interpretation. It is this human failing, the desire to "be right," that has tried to rip asunder the seamless robe that clothes the Body of Christ.
An example.
Not on so momentous an idea as "how we are saved," but on a lesser one, the "Lord's Supper."
What do you think would happen if people just engaged in the action of celebrating the Lord's Supper, following the instructions that are found solely in the New Testament, without imposing on them any denominational, "theological" frame of reference?
Hmm, I could go to a communion service like that! Even as a Greek Orthodox. Why? Well, if we follow the plain words of scripture, we simply can't go wrong, at least not in a soul-destroying way. What if the guy next to me wanted to believe that the bread and wine is just a symbol of the Body and Blood of Christ? What if the gal on the other side of me wanted to believe that somehow the bread and wine was turned into the real Body and Blood of Christ? We all would agree to receive it, recognizing the Body, we would all agree to approach it with due reverence as a repeat performance of Christ's last, mystical supper before His passion. We all would receive it remembering what the Lord did for us. Why? Because we all would recognize that none of us would be there if we weren’t trying to follow Christ’s instructions. And we would only be doing that if we believed in Christ as our Lord and Savior as the bible plainly teaches.
And whoever it was that was "consecrating" or "praying over" the bread and wine would undoubtedly use bible verses to do that. He wouldn't stop and make sure that we all understood things from any point of view beyond the words he was praying. He would just offer the prayer. Maybe the people around that communion table would sing a psalm together, one that had allusions to the partaking of the "Bread that comes down from heaven" or of the "Blood shed once and for all for sinners". But you see, staying in the Word, reading, hearing and living it as it is, we will have returned to that place where we again put on that seamless robe. There is one faith, one Lord, one baptism, as we know. It is mankind in its argumentative and speculative vanity that has tried to tear the robe to shreds, while each thinks that they have gambled for the entire robe, and won it. The Greeks are no different. The seamless robe is intact, but only for those who really want to wear it, and who want to share it with Christ's holy and pure Body.
Romanos,
Thanks as always for your comments. My point is that faith in what the Roman Catholics propose and faith in what the Reformers propose will lead down two different paths. Either one is saved exclusively by faith or one is saved by faith plus works. This is at the heart of the gospel. I agree that there is simply the biblical view, which I would say that the Reformers got right. This is a critical issue that we must get right if we are to be saved, although an argument could be made that one can be saved despite one's doctrine. Incidentally, I believe that there are genuine Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, but it is despite the teaching of the Papists, not because of it.
Regarding the Lord's Supper, I think that most Protestants do what you say. It is the Papists who say that I cannot participate in it. When I attend mass with Catholic family I do not partake of the Lord's Supper out of respect for their stated policy.
I guess I'm a little confused by your comments. There was a Reformation for a reason and it persists to this day for a reason. My goal is simply to worship God in accordance with the Scriptures. I know that I do so imperfectly, but I believe it to be much closer to the truth than what I see at mass.
The last chunk of my comment (it was so long!) didn't make it, so first, I am going to add it here:
Like Lazarus, we are still tangled in our strips of mortuary linen like dead men. Jesus still calls out to us, "Come forth!" We don't have to remain dead, unless we want to. Like Lazarus, once you know for sure that it's the voice of Jesus calling you out, who would want to stay in that tomb?
Wake up from your sleep,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.
Ephesians 5:14
So you see, brother, there is no Catholic way of salvation, nor Protestant, nor Orthodox way. There is only one way of salvation, and it is simply but amply testified throughout the scriptures. We need to really believe that the Word of God, not our interpretations of it, are what constitutes the Truth. That is the parádhosis. That's what the apostles handed over to us. That's what makes our faith, if we believe their testimony, apostolic. As for genealogies carried forward by the ancient churches, let them believe whatever they want, as long as it is not to the detriment and division of the Body of Christ.
Now, I will try to respond to your comment. It is funny that within one week I have commented essentially the same things to two bloggers, a very bright female Orthodox Christian poetess and writer, Alana, and yourself, a very bright male bible man who happens to be Protestant.
Alana did not understand what I was getting at, and it only led to an ambiguous truce, which I hope I broke by simply overlooking it and going on to comment on one of her poetic masterpieces.
"I guess I'm a little confused by your comments." I guess so.
"I agree that there is simply the biblical view, which I would say that the Reformers got right. This is a critical issue that we must get right if we are to be saved, although an argument could be made that one can be saved despite one's doctrine."
What I am saying here is that the "critical issue" is of our own making, not the scriptures'. I abandon all arguments, even any that would support "my" view, and believe simply in the Word of Christ. Everyone who has had any "theological" training is going to call me an idiot, but that's fine with me.
"Incidentally, I believe that there are genuine Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, but it is despite the teaching of the Papists, not because of it." I used to think like this too, but now I ask you and myself, "Who are you to believe this or that? Who am I to call names 'papist' or whatever? Who cares what you or I 'believe' because nothing, but nothing is worthy of belief except the saving power of Christ." What I am trying to get at is, there is a real Christianity, and yes, even a real Church, behind the thick walls we have built to divide, conquer, collect and protect, and if it isn't the same for all of us, then yes, we have given up true faith in Christ and our membership in His Body by our insane rationalizations.
I can't be emphatic enough about this point, that when I go forward to receive the holy communion, whether it's at the altar of an Orthodox church, or at a local lunch counter in breaking bread with a brother who is in full fellowship (having one mind) with me, there I am communing with Christ and everyone whom the Father has ever drawn to Him.
"Regarding the Lord's Supper, I think that most Protestants do what you say. It is the Papists who say that I cannot participate in it. When I attend mass with Catholic family I do not partake of the Lord's Supper out of respect for their stated policy."
You are taking sides, brother, and out of respect for you because I am sure you are shocked by what I am getting at, I will not tear your words to shreds, but they deserve to be shredded and discarded. Go to communion in a Catholic church to demonstrate on the field of your own body that the victory of Christ is universal and that no one who believes in Him can be for reasons of church politics barred from communing with Him publicly. What I am saying is that civil disobedience to any authority which sets itself up in opposition to Christ is commanded as part of our testimony, if we are truly following Jesus.
This is not a radical Christian anarchy. That's just philosophy moving in to categorize again.
This is just doing what Christ commands. He is no less present with us now than He was with the original disciples, and He knows nothing of churchly structures and laws: He only knows the Church, those whom the Father gave Him.
"My goal is simply to worship God in accordance with the Scriptures. I know that I do so imperfectly, but I believe it to be much closer to the truth than what I see at mass."
And my Orthodox sister said the same regarding the whole edifice of Protestantism, which she has "escaped" from. After my gentle comments that we are to welcome all and not disparage, so as to let the Lord have His way of correcting us, rather than us trying to correct others, she removed one line from her post where she one-bettered a Baptist pastor. But I know she still doesn't get it. That's okay, and it's okay if you don't either. But I will keep harping on it in my blog and elsewhere, the Church is not and cannot be divided. From Christ's point of view there is no Orthodoxy, nor Catholicism, nor Reform. He sees only us. Why can't we see Only Christ?
Romanos,
I completely agree with you that there is just one catholic church (note the small "c"). It is composed of those who have been saved through faith. However, we need to understand what it means to be saved. We need to understand the problem we have with sin. We need to understand the holiness of God or Christ's death just seems like cosmic child abuse. And so on. There is a certain level of comprehension necessary and we get that through the proper interpretation of the Scriptures. Do you agree with that?
It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree. It isn't like I am calling you forth into a new "nameless denomination". You can stay whatever you are, and I will be Greek Orthodox, but in Christ our unity goes beyond labels or concepts like "catholic" which were never spoken by the Word Himself. And our unity isn't affected by our formal theologies, which can do nothing, nothing! Salvation is through knowing only Christ, not by what we believe about Him, all of which pales when compared to our knowing Him and His knowing us.
Let a man say Christ is not con-substantial with the Father, and "I don't believe in the Trinity." Let him even say that Jesus is a man. He is ignorant, that's all. But if he confesses Christ as Lord, believes in His resurrection as the bible plainly describes, and fulfills His commandments, is a stupid man to be denied salvation in Christ? And who would keep him out? You and me, who know so much about Him? Everything we know about Christ, think about Christ, believe about Christ is nothing compared to what He is and what He does for us, here and now, and in the world to come.
I am tearing off the costumes we wear in front of each other as we go into battle. Why? Because our battle is with each other, and not against the powers of wickedness in the heavens. If we want to fight each other, let's strip ourselves, and see, we're all the same.
Then, let's put on the only garment worth having, because He gives it to all who believe in Him, His own skin. All who have been baptized have put on Christ, as the scriptures say. And what baptism is that? Being buried with Christ in His death, so as to rise with Him in His glorious resurrection.
Sorry, if I haven't answered your question exactly.
I’m trying to move beyond thinking about God and just living in Him.
I’m trying to untie the knots of tangled lore that have kept us encamped on the devil’s playground so long, fighting each other. (I know you and I are not fighting, but I’m speaking of the overall situation in Christendom.)
What would happen, if suddenly the various Christian missions and denominations in a majority Muslim country like Indonesia or Malaysia (which still allow the existence of Christianity) suddenly were seen to absolutely and without reserve support each other in everything, and without coalescing into one uniform institution? Everything that they disagree about, they would agree to just pray and ask the Lord to intercede for our folly, and then, with that out of the way, just “go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them.” Hey, what if they can’t agree on how and whom to baptize, and when? Well, that’s just some more folly, that we have to ask the Lord to forgive and correct. meanwhile... let’s all just go in to the harvest field, and work, because night is coming when no one can work, and because “the time is close.”
Romanos,
What you are describing is quite postmodern. If you're comfortable with that then that is up to you. However, I would maintain that some level of right doctrine is important to salvation. I think it is vital that we recognize the Trinity, for example. Based on what you're saying, a Mormon who thinks that Jesus and Satan are brothers could be saved as could a Jehovah's Witness who believes that Jesus is a god and the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. Considering the consistent theme of Scripture that God takes His name very seriously, I don't understand how one could get the nature of God completely wrong and still one day be saved.
Why are you Orthodox? Does it make any difference? Does doctrine matter at all?
I don't know what post-modern means.
I have thought about groups like the Mormons, and of course, there are others who straddle a gray area. I think the elusive divide is the question as to whether one accepts the holy bible as the only divinely revealed scripture on earth. If the answer is yes, then we start from there, if we must, to peel people off the salvation list by testing them on other things. But do you see what that makes us? Judges, and corrupt judges at that, because we can only see as thru a glass darkly and have no view at all of what is happening in a person's soul, where they meet God face to face.
I am Orthodox because that is the faith that allows a man to simply follow Jesus with as little intrusion into his life by churchly monitors, and for practical and historical reasons. What you are calling postmodern in me is actually an apophatic approach, if you must label it at all.
We have to learn to trust more in God and in the Word of God, Jesus Christ, and simply follow His directions and instructions without adding to them. Look where we have ended up by adding to the parádhosis. The world drives by mega-churches and thru intersections (in Kansas and elsewhere) where there is a different church on each of the four corners. Shameful, and blasphemous, that we who say we believe in Jesus Christ trash His words and His prayer so boldly, thinking it will not bite us in the end.
Like I said, what would happen if we all supported each other (barring those groups, I suppose who deny the Word of God is the sole divine scripture on earth) and defended each other to every attack from the outside? Overnight, the non-Christian world would be astonished and possibly fall like a house of cards, because at last, they have seen what Jesus said, "They will know you are Mine because you love one another."
This is my last word on the subject, and with all due respect, I withdraw to go and follow Jesus as He walks in today's world looking for His lost sheep.
I don't know what post-modern means.
I have thought about groups like the Mormons, and of course, there are others who straddle a gray area. I think the elusive divide is the question as to whether one accepts the holy bible as the only divinely revealed scripture on earth. If the answer is yes, then we start from there, if we must, to peel people off the salvation list by testing them on other things. But do you see what that makes us? Judges, and corrupt judges at that, because we can only see as thru a glass darkly and have no view at all of what is happening in a person's soul, where they meet God face to face.
I am Orthodox because that is the faith that allows a man to simply follow Jesus with as little intrusion into his life by churchly monitors, and for practical and historical reasons. What you are calling postmodern in me is actually an apophatic approach, if you must label it at all.
We have to learn to trust more in God and in the Word of God, Jesus Christ, and simply follow His directions and instructions without adding to them. Look where we have ended up by adding to the parádhosis. The world drives by mega-churches and thru intersections (in Kansas and elsewhere) where there is a different church on each of the four corners. Shameful, and blasphemous, that we who say we believe in Jesus Christ trash His words and His prayer so boldly, thinking it will not bite us in the end.
Like I said, what would happen if we all supported each other (barring those groups, I suppose who deny the Word of God is the sole divine scripture on earth) and defended each other to every attack from the outside? Overnight, the non-Christian world would be astonished and possibly fall like a house of cards, because at last, they have seen what Jesus said, "They will know you are Mine because you love one another."
This is my last word on the subject, and with all due respect, I withdraw to go and follow Jesus as He walks in today's world looking for His lost sheep.
I looked up postmodern on Wikipedia.
"Postmodernism is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the rejection of objective truth and global cultural narrative. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial."
I can see a little why you would call what I am saying postmodern, but it is a false charge.
"rejection of objective truth"
Absolutely not. Only One is objective Truth, and that is Christ the Word of God, and that objective Truth is revealed to us in only one place, the Bible.
"it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial."
I attack classifications only where they don't really exist and are man-made.
What makes a man a Presbyterian, a Catholic or an Orthodox? It is his faith in Christ and his confession of Christ as He is protrayed in the Bible. Everything else has been added, you might say, built up after the fact, and we go thru life accepting the wall we have built instead of the land we live in as the main thing.
Man and woman, a God-made dichotomy, is to be fortified, and that is what I do.
Straight and gay, no such things, just man-made distinctions that we buy into as the easy way out instead of trying to understand the human predicament. I reject them.
White versus black, again a man-made distinction, and a source of all the vices that infect society at large and individuals. I rejct these.
Imperial versus colonial, well, this is not even important enough to me to make mention of.
This entire comment is merely an afterthought, as my essential comment was the last one I posted. Sorry, brother, if I have vexed you. I respect and love you in the Truth, but that Truth is only Christ.
My point about postmodernity is that what you are proposing sounds a lot like what has been called the Emergent Church movement. Basically, these folks were much more concerned with orthopraxy over orthodoxy. While I think they had the right idea to spur people to action, they lost sight of the fact that Scripture makes objective truth claims.
You have not vexed me in the slightest. I am simply trying to understand where you are coming from. What you have written makes it sound as if you find the whole study of theology to be mostly irrelevant.
Perhaps a good way to think of this is that there are concentric circles. At the center circle are the core doctrines that make someone a Christian. You can find a variety of opinions about what those are, but I would maintain that it is vitally important to acknowledge the Trinity (which means the divinity of Jesus), for example. One has to recognize that one has a sin problem that requires atonement and that is what Christ accomplished on the cross. The gospel is in here -- we are saved by faith in Christ plus nothing. Beyond that nothing leaps to mind, but those are critically important to be sure.
After that the next circle contains important doctrines, but they are secondary. Mode of baptism may be in here. To me, the Lord's Supper is in here (though a Roman Catholic would say that the 7 sacraments are in the inner circle). It is this circle where I can call a Presbyterian a brother even though I believe in believer's baptism by immersion.
Then you have the third circle with much less important doctrines. Eschatology would be a great example of this, though some put it in the second or first circle. These are truths that we want to learn from Scripture, but we can disagree on them because Scripture does not make them perfectly clear.
I want my innermost circle to be as tight as possible. I do not want to have any doctrines in there that belong in circles 2 or 3. However, we must acknowledge that there are some core tenets of the faith that do belong there. My questions to you are trying to determine what you put in that innermost circle.
I am not judging Roman Catholics. They make it clear what their doctrine of salvation is. It is different than mine. Logically speaking, we cannot both be right (though we can both be wrong). Therefore, it is important to understand these things so that we know to whom we need to evangelize.
Does that help?
"What you have written makes it sound as if you find the whole study of theology to be mostly irrelevant."
As a study, sometimes valuable, sometimes irrelevant. Written theology helps living theology along. We read the Bible constantly, but we also read the writings of the great theologians, so that our personal view can be enlarged, along with our life in Christ.
I don't think I need to address any of the other things you bring up in your last comment, other than to say that ultimately, I do not believe one has to understand or even know all that can be understood and known about the Godhead, even essential doctrines as the Trinity, etc., to be saved. Salvation happens when any soul turns sincerely and uniquely to Jesus as its Savior, and that is the core out of which all other experience, knowledge and understanding springs. The thief on the cross beside Jesus knew only one thing, Jesus is the Messiah, the King of Israel. He didn't even understand salvation apart from being merely remembered by Jesus. He hadn't been instructed. He hadn't been confessed of his sins. He hadn't been baptized. He hadn't received the holy eucharist. He hadn't read the bible. He knew no other fact other than the fact that the Man who hung beside Him had ultimate and perfect power to save. What astonishing faith! Knowing they were all going to be dead very soon, he asks the Man beside him who likewise would be dead, to remember him in His kingdom. For me, what is happening when a person is joined to Jesus unto the kingdom and life eternal, is exactly the same as what happened with the thief. Everything else that engulfs that moment of saving recognition can be dispensed with, when necessary. Everything can be dispensed with, except that moment.
This has been some dialog, brother. Perhaps it was not for nothing.
Thanks for your consideration.
Romanos,
Yes, the thief on the cross is the ultimate example. In fact, he is one of the best arguments against the necessity of salvation. I agree that he did not have a fully-formed theology and yet was promised salvation. He acknowledged Jesus as Lord and that was enough.
My point is that we cannot acknowledge Jesus as Lord without all the implications of doing that. We cannot say with the Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus is Lord, but demote Him to being a god rather than God. We cannot elevate ourselves as the Mormons do and thereby demote Jesus implicitly. And we cannot say that there is some sort of saving grace at infant baptism, but the need to maintain a sacramental system as the Roman Catholics do (I don't know what the Orthodox say).
That all being said, there are those who do not fall into the trap of these doctrines and must therefore be saved. I agree that ultimately it is between man and his God. Yet it is important for us to think about this as we study the Scriptures and the men and women around us so that as we preach the gospel we know what we need to do. The overchurched American southerner who does not know Jesus needs a different message than the hardened soul from New England who does not even understand the nature of the gospel. One knows the right words, but lives an unrepentant life. The other does not even know.
We are not to judge, but John 15 seems to tell us that we can be fruit inspectors. I want to help people know Jesus and that is why I'm in seminary.
The reason that our dialog cannot continue on this topic is that I agree with everything you just said in your last comment, and still you have not addressed what I am getting at.
You have a great handle on doctrine, and your second to last paragraph shows you understand that not one template fits all, but you still haven't even come close to what I am getting at.
But it is because I am in that place that I, even as a believing and practicing Greek Orthodox Christian, can stand with you in confessing Jesus Christ and a common faith, and will defend you against any attacks from the outside of the Body, all this being irrespective if I agree with you on all points of doctrine or dogma. I vcan trust you because you trust Jesus, and that's all that matters.
Post a Comment