I was told a while back by a monk that Christians should be named after saints, and that since the Church has been doing this for some time, the canon of names is effectively closed.

I have often wondered about this tradition, which I suppose I would call "small-T" seeing as it had to evolve (otherwise where'd the first folks get their names from?).

I've never really seen anything about it until I came across this from St John Chrysostom today. When talking about raising children, he makes an aside:

Quote:

---

I have remembered opportunely, and the [story about the name Israel] suggests another notion to my mind. What is this? Let us afford our children from the first an incentive to goodness from the name that we give them. Let none of us hasten to call his child after his forebears, his father and mother and grandsire and great-grandsire, but rather after the righteous - martyrs, bishops, apostles. Let this be an incentive to the children. Let one be called Peter, another John, another bear the name of one of the saints.

And so I urge this on you too, to call your children by the names of the righteous. In early times these other customs were reasonable, and men used to call their children by the names of their forebears. It was a consolation for death that the departed should seem to live through his name. But this is so no longer. We see at least that the righteous did not name their children in this way. Abraham begat Isaac. Jacob and Moses were not called after their forebears, and we shall not find a single one of the righteous who was named so. How great is the virtue of which this is a token, this naming and calling by name, seeing that we shall find no other reason for the change of name save that it brings virtue to mind. "Thou shalt be called Cephas," says Christ (John 1:42), "which is by interpretation Peter." Why? Because thou didst acknowledge me. And thou shalt be called Abraham. Why? Because thou shalt be the father of nations (Genesis 17: 4). And Israel, because he saw God (cf. Genesis 35:9-10). And so let us begin the care and training of our children from that point.

But as I was relating: "He saw a ladder extended and reaching up to Heaven." So let the name of the saints enter our homes through the naming of our children, to train not only the child but the father, when he reflects that he is the father of John or Elijah or James; for, if the name be given with forethought to pay honor to those that have departed, and we grasp at our kinship with the righteous rather than with our forebears, this too will greatly help us and our children. Do not because it is a small thing regard it as small; its purpose is to succor us.

---

Quote:

---

20. Of parents' care to give a fit name to their child at his baptism.

A third matter of great expediency about a child's baptism, is, that Parents be careful in giving a fit name.

It belongeth to parents to give the name to their child: for so holy parents [whose pattern in Scripture is in this respect commended unto us] have done from time to time: and for their warrant to do it, it is worthy to be noted, that when God was pleased to appoint a name to a child, he gave in charge to the parent so to name him, saying to him, Thou shalt call his name thus and thus (Gen 17:19; Matt 1:21; Luke 1:13).

It is also evident, that the time of baptism is the fittest time for giving the name. Under the Law, children's names were given at their circumcision (Luke 1:59; 2:21): and so under the Gospel it hath in all ages been used: and that for these reasons.

1. That their names may be a testimony of their baptism.

2. That so oft as they hear their names, they may be put in mind of their baptism.

3. That they might know how by name they are given to Christ to be his soldiers, and therefore there must be no starting from him.
4. That they may also be assured, that being baptized with water and the Spirit, by name they are registered in heaven. Now because names are so solemnly given, and of so good use, most meet it is that fit names should be given to children.
And for proof hereof, let the names which in Scripture are recorded to be given by God himself, and by such holy men and
women as were guided by his Spirit, be observed; and we shall find them to be holy, sober, and fit names.

For direction to parents in this duty, I will set down some sorts and kinds of names as be fit, and beseeming Christians.

1. Names which have some good signification: and among them such as are warranted by the Scripture, as John [the grace of God], Jonathan [the gift of God], Andrew [manly], Clement [meek], Simeon [obedient], Hannah [gracious], Prudence [wife] and such like: that thus their name may stir them up to labour after the virtue signified thereby.

2. Names which have in times before us been given to persons of good note, whose life is worthy our imitation, as Isaac, David, Peter, Mary, Elizabeth and such like: that the names may move them to imitate those worthies.

3. Names of our own and ancestors and predecessors, to preserve a memory of the family: which appeareth to have been an ancient practice even among God's people, in that the friends would have had Zachariah's son named Zachariah (Luke 1:59); and when the mother had just cause to name him John they answer, none of thy kindred is called by his name.

4. Usual names of the country, which custom hath made familiar, as Henry, Edward, Robert, William and such like among us.

---

-William Gouge, Of Domesticall Duties

Sure, that's evidence of the extant tradition in the 1600s. St John wrote in the 300s, so this kind of idea is clearly very old.

Quote:

---

I was told a while back by a monk that Christians should be named after saints, and that since the Church has been doing this for some time, the canon of names is effectively closed.

---

Is there wisdom in naming a child a certain way? Maybe. Is there a moral imperative to name one after the saints? No.

How do we abound in the essentials of the faith and not major in the non-essentials or promote them as should's and oughts would be the heart of my question to the Monk but hopefully with much more grace.

This topic has always intrigued me as well. I gave all my children proper Christian/Saint names at their birth. My wife lucked out and didn't have to change hers.

I came late to the party and did not have a Christian name at birth. I am often conflicted about whether or not I should convert to John entirely. Which Clients, Family etc... it seems too difficult. Maybe when I retire one day

That's an easy one to answer. Even in that same work (On Vainglory) St John comments "Many may laugh at what I am saying on the ground that these things are trifles. They are not trifles but of the first importance." And in another place "It may be that some laugh at us for troubling about trifles, if we discourse about such a commonwealth. These are no trifles; nay, if we carry out our plan, our concern is with the origin and rhythmical education of the world."

We should be very careful when we start dividing or ranking parts of orthopraxis into "essentials" and "non-essentials". For starters, I'm not sure how much of a benefit there is in taking a part of the faith, however small, and discarding it as "non-essential". This seems to be the spirit of minimalism, and I'm not sure that is the proper way to view our work toward salvation.

I don't know that you can even determine what are the essentials of the faith to abound in, if you have not first abounded in it. In other words, what may seem nonessential to you may be of critical importance.

In discussing both orthodoxy and orthopraxis the fathers often cite Proverbs 22:28 "Do not move the ancient boundary Which your fathers have set." There is no commentary on whether this boundary is small or large, only whether that which is handed down is both ancient and trustworthy. Christ Jesus commands the Apostles to teach the disciples to "observe all things, whatever I commanded you." (Matthew 28:20). All here is "panta" from pas -- "each, every" means "all" in the sense of "each (every) part that applies." The emphasis of the total picture then is on "one piece at a time."


St Paul repeatedly exhorts the churches to follow him and commends the Corinthians for remembering him in all things (panta...same word again...), keeping them just as he delivered them (1 Cor 11:2). We should hold fast to these things (2 Thess 2:15).

The question here is then not for us to test each tradition by our view of its usefulness, but by its authenticity in regard to Apostolic tradition.

Now whether from ancient times Christians named their Children accordingly, I don't know. This is the first instruction I can recall seeing it, but it is admittedly fairly early.

This says nothing about the benefit of Christian humility with regard to submission to those in authority over us (Hebrews 13:17, 1 Cor 16:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:12) as well as imitate those who have lived out their lives in faith (Hebrews 13:7, Hebrews 6:12, 1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 Corinthians 4:16, Philippians 3:17, 1 Thessalonians 1:6).

Quote:

---

We should be very careful when we start dividing or ranking parts of orthopraxis into "essentials" and "non-essentials". For starters, I'm not sure how much of a benefit there is in taking a part of the faith, however small, and discarding it as "non-essential". This seems to be the spirit of minimalism, and I'm not sure that is the proper way to view our work toward salvation.

---

Consider these 3 examples

A person trusts in Jesus alone and His death and resurrection alone for the complete forgivness of their sins, will God reject them if they believe in an old earth creation model vs 6 days?

A person believes that Jesus was created by god and the brother of Satan but doesn't work on the sabbath.

A man loves Jesus so much that he takes the gospel to the most hostile place on the planet to introduce a people group to his savior but names his kid Delmer.

Again the spirit of minimalism.

For one, you're mixing and matching. The Fathers of the Church don't have a "boundary marker" about the creation narrative being interpreted literally or allegorically. Further, this isn't about orthopraxis at all - this is theologoumena.

The second is a violation of the Faith (i.e., an error in orthodoxy) in the first part, and a harmless-but-unproductive act outside of orthopraxis.

The last is the only relevant one, but the first and second parts of the sentence are not related in any way, the one doesn't cancel or enhance the other. But the easy test is - what is the better name for the child? And, perhaps more interestingly, if the tradition of the Church (small t or big T) is to name children after saints, why did they choose otherwise?

So, taking the non traditionalist view, Sola scriptura take.

A name is clearly important, as it shows some significance towards priorities. Do you think that it is a coincidence that both Boss and Champ Bailey made it to the NFL? The name clearly reflects the expectations of their parents, which I am sure was followed through with strong work ethic and discipline. Those names supported those priorities. (not saying those are the most important priorities, just giving a secular example).

Naming a child is a significant opportunity. Wasting that on other less important priorities seems to be less desirable. Some names are clearly chosen just to emphasize uniqueness, which I'm not sure is the most helpful head start.

That said, I'm not convinced that we should be limited to Saint names. The OT is full of examples of children given names with spiritual meanings unique to the situation. It's also tough to be critical of names that venerate important family members, or fruits of the spirt (like Joy).

In fact, a name like Joy seems to hold more significance than something like John, which is pretty generic in our current society.

So, even from a non traditionalist view, I agree in principle if not in degree.

No boys named Sue or Moon Unit, no girls named Unicorn or Athena. Names are important. Use them to support your priorities.

Good post, I think this is a reasonable approach. It seems that this isn't an apostolic tradition (almost by logical necessity, or we'd have almost entirely Hebrew names and those names of first-generation converts). What I don't particularly care for is the practice of people naming their kids with a secular and church name, and then they only use the church name at communion etc. That seems to defeat the purpose.

St John does address the idea of naming for departed family members as a kind of de facto paganism or remnant of ancestor worship in the OP quote. No doubt you could make a case for this using the sentiment of verses such as Luke 8:21.

I think this definitely falls into a gray area of tradition (speaking as someone who has two saint-named kids, one and both have middle names for family members). I was more interested in the patristic rationale / consensus on the topic, because it really doesn't seem to be particularly ancient or particularly mandatory.

Quote:

---

Do you think that it is a coincidence that both Boss and Champ Bailey made it to the NFL? The name clearly reflects the expectations of their parents

---

Not to pick nits here, but this probably isn't the best example. Champ's first name is actually Roland, and Boss' first name is actually Rodney. 'Champ' and 'Boss' are just nicknames.

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you think that it is a coincidence that both Boss and Champ Bailey made it to the NFL? The name clearly reflects the expectations of their parents

---

Not to pick nits here, but this probably isn't the best example. Champ's first name is actually Roland, and Boss' first name is actually Rodney. 'Champ' and 'Boss' are just nicknames.

---

Awesome. Thanks.

I'm a little disappointed, to tell you the truth.

The point is still there, though, I think.

Minimialist views?

Do you think naming babies could be included in this list?

Col 2:20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.


How does Paul react when the content of the gospel is distorted?

Content:
Gal 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

VS
How does Paul react when the content of the gospel is on point and the motiviation needs work?

Phil 1:16 the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; 17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,

Want to have a million denominations? Lose unity? Lose purpose? Just have churches major in the non-essentials and forget the essentials.

Sigh. You just enter the trap of you being the arbiter of what is and isn't "essential" which we have great evidence of being the direct path to a million denominations.

On the other hand, a strict adherence to apostolic tradition is a guard against heresy and schism.

St. John Chrysostom elaborates why naming a child after a righteous predecessor does have value against fleshly indulgence. And again, it is a matter of options - what is better? To make a child after anything? After a family member? After a Saint? We must name them something.

If you're going to argue that it isn't of any value, st least make the point why it isn't important, not hand waving it into non-essential by your own popish decree.

Quote:

---

Sigh. You just enter the trap of you being the arbiter of what is and isn't "essential" which we have great evidence of being the direct path to a million denominations.

On the other hand, a strict adherence to apostolic tradition is a guard against heresy and schism.

---

Quote:

---

St. John Chrysostom elaborates why naming a child after a righteous predecessor does have value against fleshly indulgence. And again, it is a matter of options - what is better? To make a child after anything? After a family member? After a Saint? We must name them something.

If you're going to argue that it isn't of any value, st least make the point why it isn't important, not hand waving it into non-essential by your own popish decree.

---

1. Yes or No, there are beliefs in the scriptures that are essentials for salvation, understanding the character of God?
2. Argue that naming babies is not important: Child name John, child name Delmer, both live the exact identicle lives as accepting Jesus as their savior along with following Him. All things equal. Show me in scripture where a boy named John has an advantage over a boy named Delmer.

1. Sure, not all information contained in the scriptures is of the same relative value. The names of Lamech's sons is not as important as the hymn of Philippians 2:6. But that isn't what you suggested - you said that a church had to "major in the nonessentials and lose the essentials". There's no list of essential and nonessential verses in the bible, and I doubt you'd be fine with someone taking scissors to your bible even if the portions they were removing were nonessential. So why are you ok with taking scissors to tradition? Who decides what is and isn't essential? You?

2. This makes no comment whatsoever about the benefit of a name. You're saying they had the exact same life, so... sure, the outcome is the same. But how can you say that they would have the same life with a different name?

For example, one of the reasons St John tells parents to name their sons after saints instead of family members is for the parents to constantly be reminded of their obligation to raise the son in the faith. In this way the practice benefits both the child and the family.

All things equal, is it better to name the kid Apple or John?

Man all I wanted to do was point out a kind of early marker for the practice of naming kids after saints. I'm not even advocating that everyone must do it on pain of censure.

Not even a thought about it for our two kids. Honestly surprised my catholic wife didn't push for "Christian" names. Her giant family of siblings reads like the Bible's Table of Contents.

If you're naming your kid to aspire to righteousness, shouldn't every kid just be named Jesus? Sure worked for Mexicans.

What a silly discussion.

Do you think there is nothing in a name? As in, a person's name is completely and utterly irrelevant, whether it's Tim or zinger or alfie or zoopaloop?

Quote:

---

zoopaloop

---

Leave my son out of this!

This whole conversation is fascinating to me.

I don't really have a dog in the hunt, but it's pretty obvious to see that people care about what they name their kids, and they view this as an important-ish decision. Yet some resent entirely the idea that their faith may have some advice on the best way to go about it.

It's like a total test case for minimalism vs maximalism.

Maximalism says if there is anything I can do to please God, follow more closely to God, to become His friend (as St Gregory of Nyssa says this is the only thing we should consider worthy of honor and desire for perfection of our life) I will do it.

Minimalism looks for ways to classify things into essential and non-essential.

Quote:

---

1. Sure, not all information contained in the scriptures is of the same relative value. The names of Lamech's sons is not as important as the hymn of Philippians 2:6. But that isn't what you suggested - you said that a church had to "major in the nonessentials and lose the essentials". There's no list of essential and nonessential verses in the bible, and I doubt you'd be fine with someone taking scissors to your bible even if the portions they were removing were nonessential. So why are you ok with taking scissors to tradition? Who decides what is and isn't essential? You?

2. This makes no comment whatsoever about the benefit of a name. You're saying they had the exact same life, so... sure, the outcome is the same. But how can you say that they would have the same life with a different name?

For example, one of the reasons St John tells parents to name their sons after saints instead of family members is for the parents to constantly be reminded of their obligation to raise the son in the faith. In this way the practice benefits both the child and the family.

All things equal, is it better to name the kid Apple or John?

---

1. Correction: I said, Major in the Esssentials and Minor in the Non-Essentials. Taking scissors to tradition? Depends on how in line with the scriputres the tradition is. Taking scissors to scriptures, I would not be okay with. However even within the scriptures there are essentials in which I would bet my eternity on, there are doctrines in which I would bet my truck on and then doctrines I'd be willing to bet a meal over.

2. Right, the outcome is the same. Is David a Christian name? What benefit did it serve David Koresh?

This phrase spurred my interest in the discussion:
"I was told a while back by a monk that Christians should be named after saints"

A monk telling people what they 'should' name their kids seems like someone elevating a non-essential.

Quote:

---

All things equal, is it better to name the kid Apple or John?

---

Eternal signifigance? None, no advantage either way.
Kids experience growing up? Would not be as likely to be teased about their name
Name on a Job application? John would be better

I don't think the Lord cares if a person is named, Apple, John, Little Bear, Yellow Hawk, Burt, Egor, Matilda, Kate, Ernie, etc. The Lord does care about that person's name being written in His book.

My desire for all of use that know Jesus is that we will be overcomers and be given a new name.
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it.'

Quote:

---

Right, the outcome is the same. Is David a Christian name? What benefit did it serve David Koresh?

---

I don't think he's saying that using a Christian name is some sort of guarantee of righteousness. If I understand his point correctly, he's saying that Christians using Christian names for their children can be an effective tool to remind their child of a greater calling. If I were named after, say, St Isaac the Syrian, I would likely be intrigued enough in my namesake to study up on him. That exposes me to Christ-centered teaching which is like planting a seed. Does it guarantee that the seed will be watered and grow? No. But is a seed planted better than one that's not? Of course.

Tradition and scripture are one and the same thing, they are two modes of truth from the same source.

Doctrines are not part of scripture, they are interpretation based on scripture, so your point about "within scripture" isn't relevant. Scripture was delivered by tradition, so taking scissors to scripture is taking scissors to tradition.

The only reason you reacted this to the monk's point is because you view this as a nonessential. However, even the practice of dividing things into essential or nonessential is wrong. There is only the Faith, and we should embrace it fully...not pare it down and try to reject parts as nonessential.

////

I actually think God cares a great deal about what our names are, because I think He cares a great deal about every detail and facet of our lives. He clearly has specific names in mind for certain people in the Scriptures. I don't think He cared more about St John the Baptist's name than He did about mine.

But regardless, you've accepted that some names are better or worse than others, whether we're talking about practical or spiritual considerations. So as parents we consider these things when we name a child. You probably would not name your son Apple for the reasons you listed.

Can you explain why the reasons St John Chrysostom listed, and the pious custom of the church that dates back for centuries should not be similarly considered by a Christian parent?

What benefit is there in honoring the memory of a deceased ancestor (part of our earthly, fleshly family) versus a deceased saint (part of our spiritual, heavenly family)?

The monk was offering his opinion, much as St John did above. He thinks its a good idea. Your reaction to it as nonessential shows more about your general approach to the faith (minimalism vs maximalism) than whether or not this monk and St John's opinion is good or bad.

Quote:

---

I don't think he's saying that using a Christian name is some sort of guarantee of righteousness. If I understand his point correctly, he's saying that Christians using Christian names for their children can be an effective tool to remind their child of a greater calling. If I were named after, say, St Isaac the Syrian, I would likely be intrigued enough in my namesake to study up on him. That exposes me to Christ-centered teaching which is like planting a seed. Does it guarantee that the seed will be watered and grow? No. But is a seed planted better than one that's not? Of course.

---

This would be in the realm of possibilities however when considering instructions given to parents about their interactions I do not see instruction on naming them in the pages of scriptures however no parents should interact with this children in certain ways and 'plant seeds' no matter what their name is.

Quote:

---

Can you explain why the reasons St John Chrysostom listed, and the pious custom of the church that dates back for centuries should not be similarly considered by a Christian parent?

---

1. I have no issues with parents considering Christian names for their kids, naming them after martyers, missionaries, etc. It just sounds weird to me that a monk would tell someone what they 'should' do in reference to naming their kids. Just not high on the radar of what I think parents 'should' do.
2. So let the name of the saints enter our homes through the naming of our children, to train not only the child but the father, when he reflects that he is the father of John or Elijah or James; for, if the name be given with forethought to pay honor to those that have departed, and we grasp at our kinship with the righteous rather than with our forebears, this too will greatly help us and our children.

Do I want my children to know who Paul, Matthew, James, and John are? Yes.
Do I think Fathers are trained through the process of naming their children? No.
Do I want my kids to pay honor to those who have departed? Eh may depend on what you mean. I want them to love Jesus and pay honor to Him, the name above all names.

Honoring the saints in my opinion consists of giving thanks to God for those people who invested their time to introduce me to Jesus and help me with Spiritual growth but to them I personally give thanks. I don't see the purpose or point of honoring the dead saints. I do see the benefit and remembering them, their lives, and mistakes, however I want Jesus to always be at the forefront.

Quote:

---

What benefit is there in honoring the memory of a deceased ancestor (part of our earthly, fleshly family) versus a deceased saint (part of our spiritual, heavenly family)?

---

Honoring the memory to me would be: Son, your grandfather did this and this and this, this was good, and don't do this. This is what his character was like. In reference to the saints. Son, Saul did this and persecuted Christians, Jesus saved Him, and changed His name to Paul. He suffered for the sake of the Gospel and was beheaded. Basic knowledge I suppose.

These are insignificant to how I want them to view and have a relationship with Jesus reguardless of their names.

Quote:

---

The monk was offering his opinion, much as St John did above. He thinks its a good idea. Your reaction to it as nonessential shows more about your general approach to the faith (minimalism vs maximalism) than whether or not this monk and St John's opinion is good or bad.

---

I may have misunderstood the monk's "should". If the monk's attitude was you should give your kids some ice cream because it's yummy, then you may dismiss all my posts above.

If the monk's "should" was, you should give your kid a christian name because they have an advantage, receive more favor, have a benefit over other kids with non-biblical names then I would say the monk has erred by making non-essential, non-beneficial issue, a 'should' or 'ought'. [This is how I read his initial opinion, but could have been a passing gesture in case I shouldn't have responded to this post]

Quote:

---

This would be in the realm of possibilities however when considering instructions given to parents about their interactions I do not see instruction on naming them in the pages of scriptures

---

I think k2 has shown that it's part of tradition, and the scriptures and tradition go hand-in-hand. It sounds like you're making a sola scriptura-based argument. Would that be accurate?

At this point you're just being stubborn for stubborn's sake.

Quote:

---

I may have misunderstood the monk's "should". If the monk's attitude was you should give your kids some ice cream because it's yummy, then you may dismiss all my posts above.

If the monk's "should" was, you should give your kid a christian name because they have an advantage, receive more favor, have a benefit over other kids with non-biblical names then I would say the monk has erred by making non-essential, non-beneficial issue, a 'should' or 'ought'. [This is how I read his initial opinion, but could have been a passing gesture in case I shouldn't have responded to this post]

---

He said you should name your kids after saints, because that is the tradition of the Church. We should follow the tradition of the Church, because the apostles told us to as is witnessed in the scriptures.

He didn't say, on pain of death, or pain of excommunication. He just said "should". How strong or how important this is would be up to you or him, I don't know.

And yeah, they do have an advantage over kids with other names. Of course they do. Just as a boy with the name John has certain advantages over a kid named Apple for practical reasons, a child who is named after a saint has advantages over a child named Cooper (which is a surname that means barrel maker). If you agree that John can be better than Apple, then you should also agree that John can be better than Cooper. I already described the ways that this is beneficial for both the child and those around them, and you haven't addressed it other than saying it's nonessential.

The monk advises a lot of things you may not do as should or oughts, that are good for your soul and good for your salvation - fasting, confession, almsgiving, vigils. There's no spiritual guidance for means testing things as essential or nonessential based on our own judgment. The bible simply tells us to submit to our leaders.

Quote:

---

I think k2 has shown that it's part of tradition, and the scriptures and tradition go hand-in-hand. It sounds like you're making a sola scriptura-based argument. Would that be accurate?

---

That would be accurate. My view is that the traditions of men, the traditions of the church, the practices of a church, and spiritually signifigant "should's and oughts" should be grounded in the scriptures. I believe that where the scriptures are silent as in, "naming kids" we have freedom.

I also believe there's zero benefit in God's eyes of a child named John, Apple, or Cooper. Man looks at the outward appearance, God looks at the heart. God likes giving new names despite what their parents name them.

Quote:

---

The monk advises a lot of things you may not do as should or oughts, that are good for your soul and good for your salvation - fasting, confession, almsgiving, vigils. There's no spiritual guidance for means testing things as essential or nonessential based on our own judgment. The bible simply tells us to submit to our leaders.

---

Fasting - biblical
confession - biblical (in the the Romans 10, James 5:16, 1Jn 1:9)
giving to the poor, widows, orphans, missionaries - biblical
A kid with the name John having spiritual advantages over a kid named Cooper due to the name alone? Not-Biblical.

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with giving a kid a Christian name. I believe telling someone that giving your kid a Christian name is good for your soul or has a spiritually signifigant benefit is going over the line.

"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis (or, dubiis) libertas, in utrisque (or, omnibus) caritas."
in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity

Scripture is ratified by tradition, not the other way around. Tradition (paradoseis, that which is passed down / handed over) came before scripture.

Anyway - there is a great deal of significance given to names in scripture.

Kind of funny you think that there are practical significance to names but no spiritual. I don't see how you can separate one from the other.

Also - going over the line? What line? The line to offer advice? He didn't say do or get excommunicated. He's a monk, not a bishop. It's literally just his opinion.

Quote:

---

Scripture is ratified by tradition, not the other way around. Tradition (paradoseis, that which is passed down / handed over) came before scripture.

---

This statement would probably be the source of every disagreement we may have. I believe all Scripture is ratified directly by God. Consider how Jesus viewed the OT and then how the apostles viewed each others wiritngs. When we examine the few churches that existed in the 1st century, 33AD - 90AD, which traditions would you follow? The ones of the church at Smyrna, Pergamum,Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Ephsus, or Corinth?

I'm not confident that the Holy Spirit was consulting with tradition when the gospels where written. I don't believe the Holy Spirit was getting Paul and Peter's advice or consulting with church fathers on how to write letters.

Quote:

---

Anyway - there is a great deal of significance given to names in scripture.

---

Agree

Quote:

---

Kind of funny you think that there are practical significance to names but no spiritual. I don't see how you can separate one from the other.

---

When God/Jesus gives someone a name there's great signifigance. Given the purpose of the scriptures, and that scipture is silent on the topic when the apostles take time to give important instructions to husbands, wives, and parents I do not believe there's signifigance in the way that you do.

and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

DirtDiver said:

---

Quote:

---

I think k2 has shown that it's part of tradition, and the scriptures and tradition go hand-in-hand. It sounds like you're making a sola scriptura-based argument. Would that be accurate?

---

That would be accurate. My view is that the traditions of men, the traditions of the church, the practices of a church, and spiritually signifigant "should's and oughts" should be grounded in the scriptures. I believe that where the scriptures are silent as in, "naming kids" we have freedom.

I also believe there's zero benefit in God's eyes of a child named John, Apple, or Cooper. Man looks at the outward appearance, God looks at the heart. God likes giving new names despite what their parents name them.

---

But sola scriptura isn't found in the scriptures. "Standing firm and holding to the traditions taught" by the Apostles is (2 Thes 2:15). I agree we have freedom in that there's no hard and fast requirement, but I believer k2 has shown that it is tradition. And I think the scriptures do at least point to significance of names given.

Does God look at the heart? Of course. Nobody has said otherwise. That doesn't mean names are insignificant. Looking back, I wish we had been more conscious of what we named our children. Will that hinder their relationship with Christ? No. But could it have been helpful to be named for a great example of our faith that our children could naturally be drawn to because of that connection? I believe so.

Did God tell you personally which scripture is right to use? Or do you trust tradition with that?

There was oral tradition before there was written scripture.

In that verse St Paul is 100% talking about the OT, not the NT.

The churches that existed in the 1st century followed the teachings of the Apostles, Apostolic tradition, which is what St Paul is talking about when he commends the Corinthians and Thessalonians for following all the traditions he had taught them. This Apostolic tradition is what Christ told the Apostles to teach, and is rooted in His teaching to the Apostles (which we are to obey, Matthew 28:20). This is the faith delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 1:3). The Apostles focus was teaching (Acts 4:2, Acts 5:42, Acts 11:26 Acts 15:35, etc etc). What were they teaching? Tradition, instruction; paradosis: that which is handed on delivered, instructed. As St Paul says, in all things yo have remembered me keeping the traditions that I traditioned to you (they're both he same word, paredoka and paradoseis).

So when letters, epistles, gospels began to be circulated, how did the church ratify them? Against what was publicly taught. St Irenaeus makes this explicitly clear in his Against Heresies, because there were so many spurious gnostic gospels that claimed they had the true teaching. How did they combat them? By appealing to the public teaching of the Apostles - Apostolic Tradition (cf 2 Timothy 2:2). Tradition ratifies (New Testament) scripture, because it preceded it. Indeed most of the early canonical lists describe the scriptures as "those writings fit to be read in church".

The Holy Spirit didn't write scripture. The bible doesn't say that. Men wrote scripture, inspired and filled with the Spirit. The New Testament is not word for word dictated by the Spirit, it's not like some of the OT prophesies. None of the NT scriptures make this claim - we're not Mormon or Muslim, the book didn't fall out of the sky, and it wasn't discovered complete.

As St Athanasius put so succinctly (in this case speaking of the Trinity): "Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the catholic Church from the very beginning, which the Logos gave; the Apostles preached; and the Fathers preserved. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called...And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying: 'Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' The Apostles went, and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole Church which is under heaven."

Quote:

---

But sola scriptura isn't found in the scriptures. "Standing firm and holding to the traditions taught" by the Apostles is (2 Thes 2:15). I agree we have freedom in that there's no hard and fast requirement, but I believer k2 has shown that it is tradition.

---

When we consider how Jesus viewed the truthfulness of scriptues, handled the Pharisees who went beyond the law with their traditions, etc, I believe we could make the case that every tradition of man or church should be held up to the cannon of scriptures.

13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1. What specific traditions were they taught?
2. These traditions were by word of mouth or letter directly from Paul and his team.

• by mouth - how would we know what these traditions are
• by letter - we have the letters that are scripture today.

3. If the tradition was so important, given how much Paul wrote, why would they not be contained in the scriptures?

2 "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3 And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.'

9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death'; 11 but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

How many traditions have different churches exercised throughout history?
How would one evaluate whether the tradition was from man or directly from God?
Is all scripture the word of God?

Quote:

---

Did God tell you personally which scripture is right to use? Or do you trust tradition with that?

---

No. If tradition answered the question definitively why was there so much debate? I think there was a tradition of which scriptures were used in the early church but how did they know which scriptures to use? From what I remember they had some tests that when all together paint the picture.

• Internal consistency
• written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle
• early date
• read by early church fathers

In other words, tradition didn't ratify scriptures, the early church leaders simply using tests above where able to identify what God had already ratified as scripture. Once well versed with the standard, it's pretty to easy to point out frauds, like the gnostics.

Quote:

---

There was oral tradition before there was written scripture.

---

I believe the apostles were teaching orally for long periods of time until they started to get old and write things down as they started to die off. I would find it odd that they would teach for years, then write volumes of scripture to leave out important traditions.

Quote:

---

In that verse St Paul is 100% talking about the OT, not the NT.

---

That verse is found in 2nd Timothy. Given that 2 Timothy was most likely Paul's last letter before He died and that he already viewed Luke's gospel as scripture in 1 Timothy I don't think this argument has much weight. if Paul's writing is scripture then it too is useful for teaching, training and righteousness...

Quote:

---

The Holy Spirit didn't write scripture. The bible doesn't say that. Men wrote scripture, inspired and filled with the Spirit. The New Testament is not word for word dictated by the Spirit, it's not like some of the OT prophesies. None of the NT scriptures make this claim - we're not Mormon or Muslim, the book didn't fall out of the sky, and it wasn't discovered complete.

---

So are the writing of scripture the word of God or man?
Inspired = Theopneustos = breath of God

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Observations:
1. No private interpretation
2. Never made by an act of human will
3. Men were moved by the Holy Spirit
4. the speaking found in scriptures was from God

Did God write scripture or man? Yes. Men wrote as they spoke from God but they were not words of their own initiave. The scriptures didn't 'fall from heaven' but their origin and author is God who delivered it through human instruments.