Orthodox Practices Origin

[Jean-Serge]

Hello Jean,

I understand what you are saying but my problem is this: If we rely on tradition that is not supported directly by the bible, it is very easy for false practices to be introduced into our beliefs. I believe that this is part of what Col 2:8 is warning against. Some of these practices can be just mere distractions while others can be huge stumbling blocks to growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus. How do we know that the traditions passed down are truly accurate to how the early church of Acts worshipped? As evidenced by the New Testament Letters, we see that false doctrine was already becoming an issue even in the early church. This is why Paul and the rest of the writers wrote to correct them in many of the New Testament letters and had them circulated among the churches. They needed correction and direction and a written document was the best way to make sure that correct doctrine would be followed and not distorted. The same is true today.

In regards to my original post, is passed down oral tradition the main or only evidence for the priesthood and liturgy that is seen in the GOC?

Thank You for your response,

Tim

Hello Tim,

The epistle were indeed written to correct people and give them instructions. However, not all the instructions were written. For instance II John 1-12 : Saint John says he has many things to write but that he will come and say them orally. There is another extract from an epistle (I will have to search) saying : "keep the instructions that had be given to you by letter or ORALLY" or something like this. Indeed, do not forget that many cultures are oral and not writen... For instance, Jesus-Christ wrote no book... He simply spoke and taught...Now I could ask you... Since Jesus wrote nothing, prove me that his words were correctly written in the Gospel since at the beginningg of the church, bad people were already actin.

Indeed, many books with the name of gospel or epistle were written. The one who compose our Bible, but many others that are apocryphs... Who decided to say, "these are the good books and others are fakes..." The Church did! Actually the Church is anterior to the Bible; the church preserves all the Traditions and the Bible is part of it. It is a mistery because the church is based on the Hyly Spirit that is not a tangible thing...

Moreover, you state a very important thing. A written document was necessary to correct people... But do not forget that if there was no issue, it was not necessary to write en epistle about this; therefore, these points are not dealt with in the Bible. For instance, as Saint Basil, says this, there is no ancient document talking about making the sign of the cross... Why? Because it was not an issue at all; so nobody taught about this but the church kept this tradition...

There is another thing. The Bible states nowhere that it is the only source of authority. This source of authority is the Church : I Timothy 3:15.

[Jean-Serge]

1. I don't believe that head covering is necessary. I believe what Paul was referring to in 1 Cor was a cultural issue in that at that time the women in corinth who went around with uncovered heads were prostitutes and so he did not want the women in the church to disgrace themselves.
   Tim

The topic here is not about head covering, but tell me where can you see in the Bible that the head covering was a cultural issue. If you read this text, nowhere in this text Saint Paul talks about prostitutes. If it was really the question, he would have use the word "prostitute" or something like this. You have a typical protestant explanation that above all is not justified by the words of the apostle. It is a spiritual issue : Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman... There is no relation with prostitution there!! This is not a cultural issue but a spiritual one : Saint Paul teaches to cover the head "due to the angels". Are the angels a cultural issue? Or a spiritual one.

Moreover he clearly writes that covering the head is the practice in "all the church of God". This proves that it is not a cultural issue specific to the city of Corinth.

This extract about covering had been commented by Saint John Chryosotomus and Saint Paulin of Nola and indeed, the issue is psiritual, not cultural.

[sojourner_tim]

hello again Jean,

I agree with you that there were of course things passed on to the churches by the apostles orally. Where I disagree is in that I believe God chose to preserve His Word as the ultimate authority in the church. When we read the Gospels we see multiple times where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees and Saducees because of their putting tradition at the same level as scripture (for example all their regulations regarding the sabbath that was not in the scriptures, in matt 15:1 where he rebukes them for their traditions concerning ceremonial cleansing). In fact when he rebukes them for these traditions what does He rebuke them with? The word of God. In Acts 17:11 the bereans are admonished for their searching of the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. Please don't think I am saying all traditions are bad. If a tradition lines up with the word of God then it should be continued of course but if it is not justified by the Word then it needs to be questioned and maybe done away with.

In regards to the scriptures you quoted whatever it was that John or the other apostle taught orally in addition to the letters, we have no way of guaranteeing what it was. God did not choose to preserve it for us. Remember also that even the apostles were not always correct in their beliefs. Peter and Paul disagreed at the council of Jerusalem about circumcision of the Gentiles. On the other hand, the bible says that all scripture is god breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness 2 tim 3:15-16 so we know for sure that His written Word is accurate.

It is interesting that in the verse in 1 tim 3:14-15 that he says that he writes to them so that they know how to conduct themselves. Also, it is not that the church is the foundation for the truth but that it is to uphold the truth which I believe is in His Word. And we see that the church has suceeded there as we have an accurate copy of His Word to this very day that is like 99% the same as it was 2000 years ago.

In regards to the accuracy of the Gospels, we have many many copies of the gospels and the NT. I have seen quotes of as many as 5200. As far as the accuracy of the words contained within, the author of 1 of the gospels i believe claims eyewitness testimony and another claims to have researched it (luke) and wants us to know the exact truth. If what the Gospels claimed was not true then that would contradict 2 tim and we would have no foundation for our faith. Of course I know you believe this as well im just mentioning it cause you did as well.

Although the canon was not formalized until the 4th century, it is quite clear that there was an accepted list of books that the early church recognized as scripture by around 100ad. For example, we have the writing of Clement, Polycarp, Ignatios, etc. From these we have quotations of every NT book in the canon. Then we also have the List of Eusebius much later that once again confirm our NT books. In addition to that we have paul claiming inspiration 1 thess 2:13, john in rev 1:2, paul quoting as scripture either Matt or Luke in 1 tim 5:18, peter classifies paul's writings as scripture in 2 pet 3:15-16. The extra biblical books were clearly not considered scripture by them so we should not either.

We have that and we must also have faith that God Himself watched over His Word so that we would have exactly what He wanted us to have. I just have much more faith in His Word that he tells us is so important time and again than in traditions since God warned us about following incorrect ones often. Especially in light of what happened with the Pharisees. Hope that all makes sense.

Tim

[Jean-Serge]

On the other hand, the bible says that all scripture is god breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness 2 tim 3:15-16 so we know for sure that His written Word is accurate.

Indeed , all the scripture but not ONLY the scripture... What the apostle taught orally was then transmitted orally until nowadays... and preserved through this way. I think you have a really modern vision where al things should be preserved with a text. But many culture are oral and there is also a collective memory within any social group. For instance in oral culture, people can who were their ancestors centuries ago. And they do not question this because it was not written!

In the orthodox conception, the tradition includes the verbal teaching plus the scriptures and other things. First, in order to determine which gospels were reliable, this was taught through oral tradition in the Church and nothing looked from old copies from the centuries before... They simply trust the church tradition that said that such texts were inspired... We also do the same saying that such practice comes from the apostolical times. It is said that the gates of hell won't prevail on church... So I think God knows how how to deal with the question of preserving the true traditions in his church... and barring the way to bad ones.

[sojourner_tim]

The topic here is not about head covering, but tell me where can you see in the Bible that the head covering was a cultural issue. If you read this text, nowhere in this text Saint Paul talks about prostitutes. If it was really the question, he would have use the word "prostitute" or something like this. You have a typical protestant explanation that above all is not justified by the words of the apostle. It is a spiritual issue : Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman... There is no relation with prostitution there!! This is not a cultural issue but a spiritual one : Saint Paul teaches to cover the head "due to the angels". Are the angels a cultural issue? Or a spiritual one.

Moreover he clearly writes that covering the head is the practice in "all the church of God". This proves that it is not a cultural issue specific to the city of Corinth.

It had been awhile since I studied this verse so here is a little clarification on my view. In regards to the order in the Church that obviously still applies directly today. In regards to the covering of heads, that is just an example of a broader spiritual application. The principles are eternal, but the out-working of the principles may differ according to culture. For example, in many cultures today this is still an issue. If a woman does not cover her head in public or church, it is extremely disgraceful and disrepectful. In such a culture a christian woman should do just as they do so as not to ruin her witness for Christ. In that particular culture and the culture of the whole Mediterranean area in general, head covering was practiced and if a woman did not cover her head it was a sign of being a prostitute. This is addressed in 1 cor because they were having an issue with their women saying that since they were christians now they no longer needed to show that kind of submission to their husbands. Their coverings showed that they were protected by another (their husband). So Paul tells them no they should not do that because of the disrespect that showed their husbands and although he does not directly say it, I'm sure he did not want them to be associated with the prostitutes of the area. That would disgrace them, their husbands, and ruin their witness for Christ. They would also, by dishonoring their husbands, go against the order God intended for the Home and for the Church. Hope this clarifies a little.

I am learning a lot about your beliefs through our discussions, thank you very much for sharing with me like you are.

Tim

[sojourner_tim]

So I think God knows how how to deal with the question of preserving the true traditions in his church... and barring the way to bad ones.

i agree that he could preserve traditions but I believe that instead he chose to preserve His Word. As I said before the Jewish people created many false traditions and Jesus rebuked them for it but Jesus never once corrected any scriptures of the OT. He did not preserve their traditions but He did preserve His Word. I believe the same to be true today as his Word stands forever.

And yes there are different means by which people transmitted information throughout the centuries but God has chosen His Word to be the steadfast means by which he reaches us. It is by His Word that we determine truth. Whether that be the truth of a tradition, a man, or even an angel it all must be in line with His Word.

In the orthodox conception, the tradition includes the verbal teaching plus the scriptures and other things. First, in order to determine which gospels were reliable, this was taught through oral tradition in the Church and nothing looked from old copies from the centuries before... They simply trust the church tradition that said that such texts were inspired...

They did not look at copies from centuries before but these gospels were written pretty early, I think i read somewhere maybe as early as 55ad possibly and by actual apostles or under the auspices of an apostle. It seems that pretty early on they knew which gospels and epistles to trust and which not to trust. As i said i believe god preserves his word. It was not the traditions he was seeking to preserve it was his word because traditions can be corrupted, ex:pharisees.

Tim[/quote]

[Jean-Serge]

I could share your opinion if you could show me somewhere in the Bible that the Bible states it is the ONLY source of authority.

God chose his Word, but his Word is Jesus Christ who wrote nothing at all!! If the writings were so important, he should have written himself... So even Jesus's speeches in fact were transmitted by oral tradition before they were written in the Gospels... Why should then suddenly the oral transmission stop.

As regards women headcovering, your opinion is supported neither by biblical sources nor by the words of Saint Paul nor by the comentaries of Saint Paulinus of Nola and Saint John Chrysostomus who never mentionned the question of prostitution whereas for sure they knew better than us the society of this time. But there is already a thread about head covering on this forum.