Showing posts with label Traditions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Traditions. Show all posts

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Returning to Apostolic Traditions

[Note from Stan: The following essay was written before Alex Jones came into the Catholic Church with dozens of members from his former independent charismatic church. He later earned two masters degree and was ordained as a deacon in the Catholic Church. The "Rev." in this title refers to his Protestant status at the time. 

Two DVDs are available by Deacon Jones.  Alex Jones: Journey of Faith (includes "No Price Too High,"  "Dinner with Alex Jones, "and bonus documentary footage), which tell the story of his conversion to Catholicism,  and Wisdom From Above, the 13 part Bible Study on The Epistle of James that played in many Catholic television networks for years. Pictures and additional links for these two products can be found in the right-hand column, if you scroll down. 

RETURNING TO APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS
by Rev. Alex Jones
Pastor of the Maranatha Christian Church
Detroit, Michigan
Copyright, 2000, Alex Jones.

How great and marvelous are the works of our God; how deep and unsearchable are His purposes and plans. Paul said it well:


Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out.(Romans 11:33)The greatest discovery in my life occurred on a hot, summery August night in 1958 when the Holy Spirit opened the doors of God's life and knowledge to my heart. From this religious experience in 1958 until now an unrelenting hunger has gripped my heart to know more and learn more about this wonderful God and His glorious church. Who is He? What is He like? What does He want? What pleases Him or displeases Him? Where do I fit into His grand plan? What has He done for others? All of these questions flooded my heart on that August evening and has never ceased to make their presence felt.

For the past forty years I have been on a pilgrimage to know as accurately as possible the purposes and plans of this marvelous God. Aside from my college studies and resulting degree and post graduate work in Education, I have read books, attended various church services, dialogued with Christians from differing backgrounds, argued with different sects, briefly attended a bible college, and experimented with several variations of the Protestant background I grew to love. I have courted both Arminian and Calvinistic theology, embraced and then discarded Premillennial eschatology, practiced various forms of religious worship, preached holiness and sanctification, and generally enjoyed the spiritual experiences of my Pentecostal heritage. Yet underneath all of these searchings, practices, and activities was the gnawing desire to "dig deeper," ask questions, and find the will and wisdom of God.

I found that wisdom quite by accident. It was during a lesson preparation for a Wednesday evening bible study on the second chapter of 1 Timothy that I stumble across this treasure buried in a field. Pursuing information to reenact a first century worship service, I read the letters of the Apostolic Fathers, and it was there, in the writings of the early Christian writers, I unearthed a clearer truth of Christ and His Church.

Finally, after years of searching I found the truth of Christ and His Church: His Church was liturgical, it was hierarchical, and it was catholic. I learned that as the Church grew it kept a written record of lines of descent from the Apostles themselves. Protestant claims of small bible study groups scattered through out the ancient world were pure fantasy. They simply didn't exist. The Christian church was and has always been united, apostolic, and catholic. The rise of heresies forced the Church to cling tenaciously to what they had received from the Apostles. All of the churches from Gaul to India had a core belief and method of worship that all agreed could be traced directly to the Apostles.

The second century Church had an organized liturgy that included scripture readings, psalms, litanies, responses, and an orderly, systematic eucharistic service. The center of Christian worship was not the operations of the gifts of the Spirit, which were in great abundance, nor was it the histrionics of great preachers. The center of Christian worship was and has always been the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Eucharist. To the early church the Eucharist was not a spiritual symbol of Christ, it was Christ Himself being re-presented to the Father at every gathering.

Not only was the Church's hierarchical structure and Eucharistic-centered worship different than I expected, so was its teachings. Men were not saved by accepting Christ as their personal Savior, but by immersion in the regenerational waters of baptism. Men were not saved by faith alone, but by the obedience of faith -- a faith demonstrated in good works and holy living. Christians did not seek "blessings," but, to the contrary, willingly sacrificed their lives for their Lord. It was there, in the face of the Apostolic Fathers, that I saw the true essence of Christian spirituality. It was not today's Americanized faith of prosperity or materialistic blessing, nor was it the pentecostal faith of endless exhilaration and emotional excitement. It was a deep, devotional faith of the heart that called forth self-sacrifice, penance, suffering, and righteous living.

With this enlarged understanding of the development of Christian belief came a clearer understanding of the Bible and our most treasured tradition, sola scriptura. This theology teaches–that all we need to know about the revelation of Christ and His Church is contained within the pages of the Bible. Hence, the Bible is the authority for all questions on faith and morals. We have shortened this teaching into, "if its not in the Bible I don't believe it." On the surface this sounds admirable and correct -- "if we cannot read it in the Bible, then discard it, it isn't true." But the problem with this approach is that each of the 28,000 churches and denominations all claim support from the one Bible! Each and everyone one of them claim the "truthful and correct" interpretation of the Scriptures. From Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, and Pentecostal churches to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses every last one of them interpret the Bible differently. We've grown so accustomed to these variety of interpretations that we call the Bible "unclear" in many passages that so that we can allow for differing opinions and interpretations.

Take, for example. Jesus' statement to Nicodemus that he must be "born of the water and of the spirit" (St. John 3:5). Three interpretations have been offered by Christians:

1. Amniotic birth fluid (the first birth) and the Holy Spirit's indwelling (the second birth),
2. The word of God and the Holy Spirit's baptism,
3. The waters of baptism and the Holy Spirit's indwelling
Jesus statement certainly had one meaning! Although it isn't stated in John's gospel account, I'm sure Jesus explained what He meant to Nicodemus. But how does that help us? Which of the interpretations listed above is true? All three cannot be true! Yet Christians build their faith on one or the other interpretations listed above.

It doesn't seem to matter how scholarly or erudite bible students are; even scholars who wear all of the trappings of academia, differ significantly on many important doctrinal matters! Much study and research do not seem to be able to bring agreement or consensus on what the Bible says.

Another problem with "the bible only" tradition is the belief that, along with diligent study, the illumination of the Holy Spirit (St. John 14:25; 16:13) will unlock the truths of the Bible for all who listen to Him. Certainly study of the Scriptures and the illumination of the Holy Spirit are essential to personal spiritual growth and unlocking the spiritual content of the Bible, but try telling 28,000 differing, bickering churches that their 28,000 differing views on the Bible are indication of their either being scripturally inaccurate or not Spirit-lead. Surely the Holy Spirit does not have–28,000 interpretations of God's word.

Unfortunately, this noble but unsubstantiated tradition has limited us to an extremely narrow perspective of the Christian Church. It not only limits the Christian's world-view of the development of the church, its doctrines, its saints, and its history, but it does not tell the full story of the Christian Church and its practices.

For example, precisely how did the early disciples conduct worship services? How did Christian worship evolve? What did Jesus teach His disciples on the road to Emmaus? (St. Luke 24:45) What did He teach the apostles about the kingdom during His forty days before His ascension? (Acts 1:3) How did the apostles baptize new converts? In what part of the world did each Apostle plant the gospel? What happened to Peter after Acts 12:17 and Paul after Acts 28:31? What happened to Mary, the Lord's mother? The Bible does not say. How did the Church evolve after the death of the last Apostle? Since the Holy Spirit was given to the Church to guide it into the truth, how was He evident in the centuries after Acts? What directions did He lead the Church in the application of Christian revelation? What great men and women did He raise up to shepherd the Church? How did the councils of the Church deal with the practical applications of Christian revelation to the needs of the day?

The Church had a vibrant, rich spiritual life that was not totally captured by the New Testament. There were martyrs, great saints, great evangelism, and great examples of self-denial and sacrifice in the early church that we do not read about in the Bible. The culturally-diverse church at Antioch went on to become the driving force in Christianity. Great saints such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Anthony, Basil, and the two Gregorys are unknown by most Protestant readers. The great thinkers of the Church: Origin, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, to name a few, are totally ignored by the mass of Protestant Christians. Yet it was these men that withstood heresies and heretics, hammered out Christian thought, and formulated the very New Testament doctrines and theology we believe as Protestants today. One must remember the New Testament contains many letters (epistles) that were limited in their scope to indigenous problems in local churches. Unfortunately, we only get a glimpse of church life through the pages of the New Testament.

Think about this. Limiting ourselves to what's contained in the Bible is similar to us limiting ourselves to "mastering" the Constitution of the United States but ignoring the Fathers that created it, the history of the Thirteen Colonies that occasioned it, and the history of the country it brought into existence. We would indeed be knowledgeable about the basic rules of American government, but would totally ignorant of:
1. The Bill of Rights
2. The Fathers of this country,–
3. The great Supreme Court decisions that interpreted it,
4. The amendments to the Constitution,
5. The slavery issue leading up to the Civil War, etc.
Do not misunderstand me. The New Testament is the inspired word of God. It does contain God's will of us. We must live by its principles and commands. It does accurately and faithfully relate the life of Jesus, His teachings, and the teachings of the Apostles. But it must be receive with the total revelation of the Church. The Bible is not the "pillar and foundation of truth." The Church is! (1 Timothy 3:15) What the Bible gives is an "accurate" but not a "complete" picture of God's working through Christ in the Church. Mark ends his gospel with,
Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it (Mark 16:20).But he does not tell us where they went or what they did! Acts reveals the beginning of the Church with tremendous power, but leaves us wondering the outcome of Paul's trial in the twenty-eighth chapter. Nothing is said of the other eight Apostles. Did they work miracles? Did they die for their faith? If so, how and where? Consequently, viewing Christianity through the eyes of the New Testament is like trying to view New York city through a first floor window at the World Trade Center.

We must also consider that the Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Bible, it is built upon the Apostles and Prophets. Christ did not leave a written book to guide His Church, He left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit! The New Testament, as we have received it, was not finally canonized until 393 A.D. Until then, what gave the church its cohesion between the Apostles and the canonization of the New Testament? What determined orthodoxy of faith in the face of heresies and heretics? Except for a few minor variations, why did the Church worship God the same throughout the world? How could writer after writer call the Church "catholic" (universal) without the unifying element of the New Testament? What kept the Church afloat until the New Testament could be canonized? In fact, what was the "rule" scholars used to admit certain books, and exclude others from the New Testament canon?

The answers to these questions is found in the Traditions of the Apostles handed down to the Early Church Fathers. This sounds strange to Protestant ears. We have been taught the Word has preeminence over everything! Yet we have ignored the very Church that has gathered, preserved, and produced the Word. Does the Tradition of the Apostles and Church Fathers have precedence over the Bible? By no means! The Bible with the Traditions of the Apostles and Church Fathers give us the total picture of God's work in and through the Church.

The Jews well understand the place of tradition in their faith. The Torah was given by God to Israel at Sinai, but there was also an "oral tradition" called, the Talmud, on how the Torah should be applied. For example, the Torah stipulated the times and types of sacrifices the priest should offer, but did not always tell how the animal was to be slaughtered, dismembered, or presented on the altar. Judges were to administer justice, but the Torah did not tell how court was to be held. Engagements and marriages were to be held, but the Torah did not detail how or where the marriages were to be performed. The details and applications were handed down through oral, priestly traditions.
Of course oral traditions did not have the authority of divinely inspired literature, and many times Jewish traditions conflicted with revelation knowledge. These were the traditions Jesus condemned (Matthew 12:2, 10; 16:12; Mark 7:1-23). Yet He followed certain traditions:
1. He accepted the title of Rabbi
2. He gathered about Him disciples
3. He wore a beard
4. He recognized the tradition of feet-washing for guests
5. He rarely ventured outside of Israel to have contact with Gentiles
6. He went to the synagogue on the Sabbath
7. He recognized the "seat of Moses" as the legitimately ordained teaching office of the Jewish religion (Mat.23:1).
Apostolic Tradition, however, differs significantly from Jewish traditions in that Apostolic Tradition contains ALL that the Apostles handed on to their successors, both written and oral. It is the total revelation of Jesus Christ entrusted to the Church, not accumulative practices and interpretations that many wrongly assert today. This sacred tradition (Gk. Paradosis = "that which is handed down") IS divine revelation transmitted from one generation to another as a sacred body of knowledge. It is the "faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). In 2 Thessalonians Paul admonished the Thessalonians:
Stand firm and hold to the traditions (paradosis) passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.(2 Thessalonians 2:15)He wrote to the Corinthians:
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, (paradosis) just as I passed them on to you . (1 Corinthians 11:2)To some who refused his authority, Paul appealed to the universally practiced but unwritten traditions of the church:
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice (custom)-- nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:16)These statements made by Paul show that practices and traditions recognized by the Apostles had begun to develop within his lifetime. In fact, he quotes teachings attributed to Jesus that cannot be found in the gospels:...remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should– receive their living from the gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:14)Hence, the Christian faith began to grow well beyond the pages of the New Testament. Customs, practices, traditions, all practiced and recognized by the Apostles, guided the first century church through its formative years. Without knowledge and familiarity with ALL of the Church' s teachings, our grasp of the Christian message may be good, but certainly it is not complete.
So, let us return to the beginnings of the Church and rediscover the precious treasure of Apostolic Tradition. Let us take another look at the long history of the Church of Jesus Christ and enjoy the fullness of the Christian faith.

Sunday, November 28, 2004

Response to Barb

A response to Barb's comment found in the comments here:
https://ninevehscrossing.blogspot.com/2004/11/the-bible-interprets-itself.html
It was too long to post in the comments section of that post.

Hi Barb. No offense, either. 

Let me clarify.

The foundation of the Catholic Church in the New Testament is legendary. Church doctrine, of course began BEFORE there was a NT. Over the first 300 years of the Church the Scriptures of the NT were written, passed around and finally collected together. There was NOT a NT at first. So, Christianity is not based on the NT, but on the oral teachings of the Apostles. And that has lasted about 2000 years without change except in how to interpret passages in the face of modern apostasies.

Protestantism, however, came about after 1500 years. You see, Protestantism makes the assumption that the Holy Spirit was wrong for the first 1500 years of Christianity. How can that be?  (This also applies to the Deuterocanon books in the O.T.... If the Bible is the inspired word of God, so the argument goes, and there are 7 books in the O.T. that shouldn't be there (as Protestants claim), then how did the Holy Spirit get it wrong for so long?) The only way that Protestant argument holds water is if they assume the Bible for the first 1500 years was NOT completely inspired by the Holy Spirit. --- The priesthood is mostly celibate (some Catholic priests are married, and if you count the 20 other Catholic Rites other than the Roman Rite) there are many married Catholic priests. (Christ was male and celibate if you recall...thus the model). I don't see how that is a weakness in any way, for it requires strength and discipline of purpose. and clearly a calling by God. (see this post based on thoughts from a Protestant theologian, John Piper: Evangelical Sing and Celibate Benefits.)

I'm glad you included the word "seeming" as a qualifier to "guaranty of salvation via ritual and confession" for that is a perversion of Catholic doctrine that only the uninformed and prejudiced believe. There is no guaranty of salvation in Catholic doctrine. Ritual (if you're referring to the sacraments, is clearly a way to pass on God's grace and mercy....but only to the person who has a right disposition of heart. (That is what the Church teaches.) The PHYSICAL act is important in the same way the GOD BECAME PHYSICAL.) But if there is any guaranty of salvation, even if you're Protestant, confession and turning from sin is part of it...and that is the purpose of the Rite of Reconciliation (Confession to a Priest), ashes on Ash Wednesday, and parts of the Eucharistic liturgy including taking communion ("I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53.)

As to forgiving the mafia I'm not sure how you know the hearts and minds of people you have never met. Do you suppose that a gangster going through the motions with no intent of changing his life is forgiven in the eyes of the Church? That's ridiculous...and the only truth to it is in the perverted and imaginary minds of anti-Catholics who want to hold onto their false understandings of Catholic doctrine for fear of becoming Catholic if they actually understood the truth of it. Fulton Sheen famous said, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”  God's mercy and forgiveness is available to all with a contrite heart who seek and obey him...regardless of their past life. Your concept of the Catholic rite of confession is probably grotesquely perverted if you think that going through the motions without the contrite disposition of heart (true repentance) is part of Catholic teaching. It is not, and never has been.

Now, what you refer to as "social practices incompatible with Biblical holiness" I have no idea, unless you expect Catholics in their individual lives to be without sin (which is the goal for all Christians). I know more than a few Protestants who participate in social practices incompatible with Biblical holiness. But if you're referring to church teaching, I'm be curious what that could be?

You mention Church "tradition." Let's not equivocate. There are two kinds of "tradition." Tradition (with a capital "T") refers to Sacred Tradition that is part of the church's teachings. Thus, the Bible (esp. NT) is a Tradition of the Church. Lower case "tradition" are things all Christians do that are NOT part of doctrine, but more in keeping with devotional practices. The Sacramental Liturgies of the Church are "T"raditions that have been passed down by both Biblical and Early Church practices. Ironically, Protestants have many of these Traditions that they call doctrines that cannot be found in in their history or in the Bible (e.g. Sola Scriptura)

It is true, as you say, that the Catholic Church, in terms of its communication tools, can and have learned much from their Evangelical and other fellowships.  But those are not doctrines. Catholicism makes a distinction in the hierarchy of believes that does not formally exist in Evangelicalism. There is at the highest level (1) DOGMA, (2) DOCTRINE, (3) CANON LAW, (4) WORSHIP PRACTICES, and finally (5) PRIVATE DEVOTIONS. Only dogmas must be believed to be a Christian. Doctrine is what can be publicly taught, Canon Law are the administrative rules that govern Dogma and Doctrine, Local Parish Worship Practices are geographically diverse based on a country's culture, and Devotions are what's allow privately but not publicly. Since Evangelicalism isn't structured like that, it only takes a single Evangelical pastor to elevate his private devotion to the level of a dogma— thus tens of thousands of different denominations...there's no central authority to interpret what is true.  Not so in Catholicism. No so.

I'm not sure how you can classify music (per se) as "Catholic" or "Protestant" unless the hymn was written by a Protestant. But the Church does not make such distinctions. "A Mighty Fortress is our God" (by Martin Luther) is in all Catholic hymnals...but then Luther wrote that while he was still Catholic (but that's just an aside and not a issue for inclusion).

This need to better study the Bible is finally taking root in the Catholic Church in America. You have to remember, however, that the Catholic Church has a very large presence in countries that are illiterate and such is history. It has not been but for the last several hundred years that "reading" and "literacy" has even been widely available in the Western World.  You don't have to be literate to be Catholic, but most Protestants and Evangelicals believe you can't be a Christian unless you can quote Bible verses and study the Bible (clearly a l.c. tradition of Sola Scriptura Evangelicals). That is why older Catholic Churches were filled with statues and stained glass and mosaics of Biblical and famous Christians, and of course, paintings....almost all that exist in famous galleries around the world are by Catholic painters.

Yes, there are Wesley hymns in Catholic hymnals. Catholic. But then most Protestants don't realize that when John and Charles Wesley were writing hymns they both believed in the real sacramental presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (see https://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Hymns-John-Charles-Wesley/dp/1878009559) as the Church of England still believes, along with Orthodox and Lutherans (although Lutherans have a minor difference in understanding about it). This is all very Biblical based in the Gospels (esp. John 6) and throughout Paul's writings. It has been that way since the first century and the last Supper. It's only been in the last 200 years that Protestants changed that doctrine, essentially ripping it out of the Bible because it was too Catholic.  It was studying John 6 that finally removed the scales from my eyes and thrust me into Catholicism.  Here's the story: https://ninevehscrossing.blogspot.com/2016/08/corpus-christi-commentary-on-john-6.html