Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
The transcript argues that traditions/ordinances delivered by the apostles (including the example of women’s head covering) were meant to be held without change (“stand firm and hold to the traditions…”); what practices in the New Testament do you suspect your tradition has quietly reclassified as “cultural” to avoid obedience, and what criteria would you use—based on the transcript’s reasoning—to decide whether that reclassification is legitimate?
Another way to ask: The transcript says the apostles’ traditions were meant to be kept without changing them (like women’s head covering). What New Testament practices do you think your church has called “just cultural” to avoid obeying them, and what rules from the transcript would you use to decide if that’s a fair move?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript doesn’t list many specific “reclassified as cultural” practices besides head covering and non-resistance, but it suggests Christians often avoid obedience by treating apostolic instructions as optional. Using the speaker’s criteria, a practice should not be dismissed as “cultural” if it is clearly commanded by Jesus or taught as an apostolic “tradition” meant to be held firm.
- He cites 1 Corinthians: “maintain the traditions…even as I delivered them to you,” and names women’s head covering as an apostolic tradition.
- He cites 2 Thessalonians: “stand firm and hold to the traditions…by our spoken word or by our letter,” saying this implies they “could not be changed.”
- He argues doctrine/practice are “defined by the apostolic teachings found in the New Testament” and “these teachings can't be changed.”
- He uses the Great Commission: teach disciples to observe “all things that I have commanded you,” applying it to non-resistance.
- He warns that if a church teaches beyond the apostles, it “can't be infallible,” and implies removing apostolic practices is also a move away from the original faith.