A Necessary tradition

[Dave_Noonan]

Granting that lutherans view tradition as “helpful” “useful” and “important” how have I misunderstood sola scriptura?

The adjective most commonly used by Lutherans regarding the first seven councils of the church is that they are “authoritative.” I think that goes beyond “helpful,” “useful” and “important.” You might want to take a look at this book: Faith and Holiness - Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1959-1994. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997.

Could a lutheran say in good conscience that tradition is as necessary as the bible? Could any protestant for that matter? I don’t think so.

It depends on how you define tradition, how one wants to draw magisterial lines, and what is being discussed: Praxis? Christology? Sacramental Theology?

If I have that wrong I would like to hear the justification and explanation. However if I understand sola scriptura, i understand it thus: the view that scripture is the highest authority above any tradition. That if tradition should contradict the clear word of God, then we must prefer scripture over men, despite how many in the past and currently agree with it. Do I have it wrong?

This is correct, particularly in regards to “…if tradition should contradict…”

The question is this, is it necessary to confess something beyond scripture, ie the Homoousious doctrine concering Christ and the father.

This is where the confusion starts. I think both Lutherans and Orthodox would agree that there’s nothing about the homoousious definition that contradicts the Bible. To me, it seems as though you’re conflating “…confess[ing] something beyond scripture…” and “…if tradition should contradict…”

The automatic response is “Yes because it’s found in scripture,” and then you proceed to interpret a variety of verses which would imply and make more sense in this framework. Yet the fact remains the term isn’t used in scripture and the scripture on this point can and has been interpreted in any number of ways.

I’m not sure who’s responding, but yes, this person is reading scripture through the interpretive lens of the first Christological councils of the Church, whether they recognize that fact or not. This would be more typical of Christians in denominations that claim to follow an a-historical form of Christian–most of which sprung from the Radical Reformation–Zwingli et al. This “just the Bible” approach (which is not really “just the Bible” as you’ve correctly observed) is different from solo scriptura as taken in its original context. You might call the Radical Reformation viewpoint something like “biblical sufficiency.”

How does a sola scriptura church, require belief in this doctrine of the trinity, when the specific definition of it is not found in the scripture? Is the trinity a necessary tradition of understanding the scripture? Something while relying on scripture is nonetheless outside of the canon of scripture? Something which took time to develop (and this cannot be disputed when we look at the history)?

Again, it depends on what you mean by a “sola scriptura church.” Most Lutherans would not have a problem with it. Most Evangelicals would.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The adjective most commonly used by Lutherans regarding the first seven councils of the church is that they are “authoritative.” I think that goes beyond “helpful,” “useful” and “important.” You might want to take a look at this book: Faith and Holiness - Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1959-1994. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997.

Authoritative insofar as they agree to scripture or at the very least do not contradict it, but even then the tradition doesn’t compare to scripture and people are at liberty to go against it if required no? Indeed while I wouldn’t say that Lutherans or high church Anglicans would want to go against the tradition (I admire their fidelity to a sacramental liturgy actually), that doesn’t mean they won’t if forced to. The tradition of the church as far as I see within the context of confessional Lutheranism is only as good as it’s fidelity to the Lutheran understanding of scripture. I don’t say this to simplify or as if trying to be mean, but I say it because I hear it constantly whenever I hear a conservative Lutheran speak. So is my characterization wrong about the tradition being helpful and useful? I don’t think so. I also don’t think adding authoritative helps. If forced to, the sola scripturist individual or church generally will abandon the traditional practice if they find it conflicting with scripture.

It depends on how you define tradition, how one wants to draw magisterial lines, and what is being discussed: Praxis? Christology? Sacramental Theology?

I will admit my confusion here, are you implying there is a tradition within the realm of Protestantism which carries the same weight and force as scripture within the Lutheran church? Not just Lutheran church but other protestant churches? What doctrine, on any of the strands you brought up, would they argue from tradition is as necessary as scripture? From my perspective whenever I see Protestants argue for doctrine that must be believed in it is only on the basis of interpretation of the word that they say “You must believe it this way.” Can there be in the sola scripturist frame work with such a tradition of equal authority or have I misunderstood your point here? I beg clarification on what your question means.

This is where the confusion starts. I think both Lutherans and Orthodox would agree that there’s nothing about the homoousious definition that contradicts the Bible. To me, it seems as though you’re conflating “…confess[ing] something beyond scripture…” and "…if tradition should contradict…"

I acknowledged in my first post we all agree that this doctrine does not contradict the bible and is in fact the substance of the bible even if not explicitly stated within scripture. But what I am doing is drawing a distinction between the biblical text and the tradition of interpretation which we all agree with and asking is that tradition of interpretation necessary to confess? Is it necessary for us to acknowledge the theology of the creed and not deny it? Does this man made definition become a standard on par which we cannot disagree with? My point grants that we all interpret the bible the same way on trinity, but what I question is if we hold to the bible alone being the sole authority or highest authority, those explanations, that exegesis of the bible on this matter, it can never be of absolute need to confess. Indeed this could stretch to all sorts of doctrine and practice within Protestantism but for the sake of not expanding the conversation to that length I limit it to the most important doctrine, the trinity.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I’m not sure who’s responding, but yes, this person is reading scripture through the interpretive lens of the first Christological councils of the Church, whether they recognize that fact or not. This would be more typical of Christians in denominations that claim to follow an a-historical form of Christian–most of which sprung from the Radical Reformation–Zwingli et al. This “just the Bible” approach (which is not really “just the Bible” as you’ve correctly observed) is different from solo scriptura as taken in its original context. You might call the Radical Reformation viewpoint something like "biblical sufficiency."

This is an observation I have noted as well, that we are all products of the councils and fathers who interpreted the bible whether we admit it or not. In this way there is more of a case to be made against evangelicals and the radical reformation of whom I have had members tell me that all they read was the bible and they came to the trinity. Quite frankly I don’t believe them. They aren’t lying but they don’t consider their influences carefully, as if they didn’t read articles or watch videos, listen to lectures, listen to preaching from their pastor on this matter or some other teacher concerning this. Even if they read little, they did not only engage the bible but engaged with other Christians and accepted a culture around them which focused on words like “Father,” “Son” and “Holy spirit.” “Trinity.” “One God.” “Three persons.” None of us read the bible in a vacuum of that I am convinced.

This however I don’t think excludes high church protestants from having to answer the problem of requiring people to confess this creed every Sunday to be part of their confessional church or liturgical worship. The principle of scripture being the highest authority must be taken to its logical conclusion which is that everything else (tradition, liturgy and etc) is secondary to it. Now if those things are secondary to the scripture which is judge and arbiter of those explanations and practices, how can the secondary things ever enter into the discussion as being necessary for confession? Unless the scripture and some of those secondary things are brought to the same level, I don’t see how.

So my question isn’t who doesn’t have a problem with this theology, Its to those churches that confess this theology and make it necessary for those entering their communions and their communions they confess are where the truest expression of Christianity is found I might add. All of that interpretation of the bible, the explanation of the trinity as Father and son being Homoousious, should not be required. Unless the church has the authority to define for itself doctrines which are equal in authority to the word, but isn’t that what Sola scriptura rejects in the first place?

That’s all I have to say and ask.

Cheers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would like engagement in this topic mainly from protestants as I feel this is most challenging to them in proposing that there is a tradition which is not explicit to scripture but is nonetheless of necessity for the Christian who calls himself or herself “right believing.”

Are there extra-biblical Church traditions that Protestants will accept? Can even one be found?

In order to determine this fairly, we must evaluate each doctrine that is proposed as a candidate according to several criteria:

a) The doctrine in question is accepted by the Protestants to whom one is speaking
b) The doctrine is not stated in Scripture
c) The doctrine is not implied by Scripture
d) The doctrine has an extrabiblical history to which one can appeal as an alternative, extrascriptural basis

The following doctrines are proposed as those which meet all of the criteria above and are agreed to be binding upon the consciences of all believers:

1. The canon of the New Testament
2. Public revelation has ended
3. There are to be no more Apostles

If any one of these three doctrines meet the criteria above, then it has been proven that Protestants have accepted teaching that has come by a source other the Bible Alone; thus, sola scriptura is false.

 

[SteveVH]

Are there extra-biblical Church traditions that Protestants will accept? Can even one be found?

In order to determine this fairly, we must evaluate each doctrine that is proposed as a candidate according to several criteria:

a) The doctrine in question is accepted by the Protestants to whom one is speaking
b) The doctrine is not stated in Scripture
c) The doctrine is not implied by Scripture
d) The doctrine has an extrabiblical history to which one can appeal as an alternative, extrascriptural basis

The following doctrines are proposed as those which meet all of the criteria above and are agreed to be binding upon the consciences of all believers:

1. The canon of the New Testament
2. Public revelation has ended
3. There are to be no more Apostles

If any one of these three doctrines meet the criteria above, then it has been proven that Protestants have accepted teaching that has come by a source other the Bible Alone; thus, sola scriptura is false.

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Are there extra-biblical Church traditions that Protestants will accept? Can even one be found?

In order to determine this fairly, we must evaluate each doctrine that is proposed as a candidate according to several criteria:

a) The doctrine in question is accepted by the Protestants to whom one is speaking
b) The doctrine is not stated in Scripture
c) The doctrine is not implied by Scripture
d) The doctrine has an extrabiblical history to which one can appeal as an alternative, extrascriptural basis

The following doctrines are proposed as those which meet all of the criteria above and are agreed to be binding upon the consciences of all believers:

1. The canon of the New Testament
2. Public revelation has ended
3. There are to be no more Apostles

If any one of these three doctrines meet the criteria above, then it has been proven that Protestants have accepted teaching that has come by a source other the Bible Alone; thus, sola scriptura is false.

Did you read the entirety of my post? To summarize it (please read it if you want the full argument), the doctrine of the Father and the Son and the Spirit being of the same substance (homousious) which was developed by the fathers and the councils based on scripture should not be an enforced belief for any protestant church since it is not from the scripture explicitly. Take in mind that I am not denying that the various passages of the bible when taken as a whole and in the light of the church means that this is a totally non biblical teaching, but rather it seems to me under sola scriptura, a theological interpretation or definition like this could never be necessary doctrine. Yet for protestants, most I would say, it is necessary doctrine.

As far as the second standard goes, I don’t think implication is enough. We must question the entire enterprise of inventing doctrine and theological claims under sola scriptura, does any of that theology have any definite staying power compared to scripture? It really cannot.

 

[Kliska]

Did you read the entirety of my post? To summarize it (please read it if you want the full argument), the doctrine of the Father and the Son and the Spirit being of the same substance (homousious) which was developed by the fathers and the councils based on scripture should not be an enforced belief for any protestant church since it is not from the scripture explicitly. Take in mind that I am not denying that the various passages of the bible when taken as a whole and in the light of the church means that this is a totally non biblical teaching, but rather it seems to me under sola scriptura, a theological interpretation or definition like this could never be necessary doctrine. Yet for protestants, most I would say, it is necessary doctrine.

As far as the second standard goes, I don’t think implication is enough. We must question the entire enterprise of inventing doctrine and theological claims under sola scriptura, does any of that theology have any definite staying power compared to scripture? It really cannot.

Just wanted to add a different perspective. We can surely all agree (in fact I think it already has been agreed upon in the thread) that the idea or concept of The Father and The Son being the same substance is in scripture. Clearly scripture was used to formulate the idea. I would, I think, disagree with you that it is merely implied. It is taught, but perhaps it is not taught using the exact same words as are chosen by you (and/or the RCC) in the definition.

In short, someone does not have to use the word “Trinity” to be considered a Christian, but rather believe the meaning of that word, as revealed in scripture. I fully believe that a person who picks up the Bible, having never been taught by someone else how they must interpret it, could indeed come to a saving faith… and if I believe that, it follows that nothing outside of the Bible, such as directly saying and confessing the literal word “Trinity” is necessary for salvation. The underlying meaning to certain words are more important, from my perspective, than the words themselves.

For a different example, if someone says they believe in Jesus, we have to make sure we speaking of the same Person. One set of beliefs, that I won’t name, claims belief in Jesus, but their definition of Who and What He is does not match what you, I, or scripture would say.

 

[rcwitness]

Just wanted to add a different perspective. We can surely all agree (in fact I think it already has been agreed upon in the thread) that the idea or concept of The Father and The Son being the same substance is in scripture. Clearly scripture was used to formulate the idea. I would, I think, disagree with you that it is merely implied. It is taught, but perhaps it is not taught using the exact same words as are chosen by you (and/or the RCC) in the definition.

Though, I probably wouldnt call the knowledge of the Trinity an “idea”, but the Faith. This faith was in existence before it was written down. The Scriptures reveal the Trinity to us, yet because of heresies and false teachings, the Church defined and termed the definition as Trinity to seperate herself from “man influenced” understandings.

In short, someone does not have to use the word “Trinity” to be considered a Christian, but rather believe the meaning of that word, as revealed in scripture.

Agreed, however the fact that the Church has defined and applied a term (Trinity) to the definition, is by no means unfruitfull. In fact, it was to distinguish the orthodox faith of the Catholic Church from heretical interpretations. So you have an assisted measure taken by the Church in order to provide a more accurate understanding of the Christian God.

I fully believe that a person who picks up the Bible, having never been taught by someone else how they must interpret it, could indeed come to a saving faith… and if I believe that, it follows that nothing outside of the Bible, such as directly saying and confessing the literal word “Trinity” is necessary for salvation. The underlying meaning to certain words are more important, from my perspective, than the words themselves.

Now, I think you are trying to use the Churches assistence and affirming Confirmation, through her authority to interpret Scripture for the whole Church, against her. The Church does NOT Teach that someone without any knowledge of Church interpretation of the Sacred Scripture, is unable to be led to salvation through it.

First of all, a scenerio of a man completely in a vaccum of christian knowledge who has found a Bible without any brotherly help, is not very realistic. Second, the mere fact that the Church herself was entrusted with the Written Word of God, and Confirmed with her authority which books constituted and did not constitute the canon of Infallible Sacred Scripture, means there was always from the beginning, a certain reliance on the Church to assist the Written Word. Third, the Spirit of the christian man is not to merely attain the minimal amount of understanding to attain salvation, so as to barely escape damnation.

I believe, that the Churches interpretation only becomes more important when the sea of different interpretations grows larger and larger.

Salvation has a beginning, but also has a life in which there exists dangers and trials which can lead us out of salvation. His Eucharist was given to us to sustain our life in Him, and that we always grow in one body. After all, His body was the means of our salvation. Where His body is, there are His Teachings.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did you read the entirety of my post?

Yes, and some of the thread.

My purpose in posting had more to do with demonstrating the necessity of Tradition (which IS related to the subject line of your OP)…admittedly off-topic for the primary focus of the thread, but really critical for non-Catholic, non-Orthodox posters who need to understand the futility of sola scriptura.

Sorry for the distraction.

 

[Kliska]

Though, I probably wouldnt call the knowledge of the Trinity an “idea”, but the Faith.

Right, though my intent was to put emphasis on the concept, the truth of it, the essence of it, hopefully it didn’t read like it was a mere man-made fancy, which I obviously deny.

This faith was in existence before it was written down. The Scriptures reveal the Trinity to us, yet because of heresies and false teachings, the Church defined and termed the definition as Trinity to seperate herself from “man influenced” understandings.

I agree.

Agreed, however the fact that the Church has defined and applied a term (Trinity) to the definition, is by no means unfruitfull. In fact, it was to distinguish the orthodox faith of the Catholic Church from heretical interpretations. So you have an assisted measure taken by the Church in order to provide a more accurate understanding of the Christian God.

I think it acts, fairly well, as a “shortcut” method of talking about the fact of One God, Three Persons, and what we believe about that as shown in scripture. Labels, when used correctly and responsibly, do make it “easier” to discuss concepts. We have to work sometimes to remind ourselves that it is actually the truth represented by the label that is of utmost importance, and that we may have to take time to define the label for those not familiar with it, but if they know the truth without the label, that’s ok too.

Now, I think you are trying to use the Churches assistence and affirming Confirmation, through her authority to interpret Scripture for the whole Church, against her. The Church does NOT Teach that someone without any knowledge of Church interpretation of the Sacred Scripture, is unable to be led to salvation through it.

I didn’t mean anything negative by my explanation, rather just trying to explain the way I, as a protestant, see it in answer to the OP, and the subject under discussion. I value all the preachers, teachers, apostles, evangelists, etc… that were blessed by the Spirit to further help others to understand the word, and the faith, and I recognize their particular talent to do so. I think there is a difference between a salavational understanding and acknowledgement and a grad. level understanding and acknowledgement. I think “to whom much is given” applies to book smarts, IQ, technical understanding, etc…

 

[daddyd]

So you would maintain that we have to confess the Father, Son and Spirit are of the same substance despite the bible not explicitly saying so? My argument is not that the bible doesn’t lead to this or that it is wrong, only to suggest that this subsequent definition of theology has become the standard by which people are reckoned Christians. That is a necessary tradition of understanding which is not an option.

So how can a sola scriptura church force someone to accept that definition? Which is a product of the tradition of the church reflecting on scripture.

Luke 24
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

The Father and the Spirit are spirit Jesus is a man as it shows in this passage. He is no longer of the same substance as the Father and the Spirit. He gave that up in order to become human and save us from our sins and to my knowledge the doctrine that they are the same “substance” has never been a criteria for determining if a person is a Christian or not. Whether or not you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior is.

 

[Kliska]

Luke 24
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

The Father and the Spirit are spirit Jesus is a man as it shows in this passage. He is no longer of the same substance as the Father and the Spirit. He gave that up in order to become human and save us from our sins and to my knowledge the doctrine that they are the same “substance” has never been a criteria for determining if a person is a Christian or not. Whether or not you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior is.

This illustrates a lot of what has been said in the thread. There is a limitation on the words used. No one that believes the teaching that they are of the same substance to mean that the Father has a physical body (in orthodox Christian belief).

Is Jesus God?
Is The Holy Spirit God?
Is The Father God?
How many Gods are there?

If we all agree that the answers are “yes, yes, yes, and one” then that is commenting on the essence, or “substance” that is not referring to the physical (indeed Jesus is also human, with a real physical body). In essence, is one accepts Jesus as Lord (a reference Jewish individuals would have instantly recognized as saying “Jesus is God”) then that is accepting Him as God indeed. If we say He is God indeed, and the Father is God indeed, and the Holy Spirit is God indeed (The Father is not the Son is not the Spirit), and we say there is only One God, then they are indeed of the same substance, which is not a commentary on Jesus’ human (now glorified) body.

 

[guanophore]

The Father and the Spirit are spirit Jesus is a man as it shows in this passage. He is no longer of the same substance as the Father and the Spirit. He gave that up in order to become human and save us from our sins and to my knowledge the doctrine that they are the same "substance" has never been a criteria for determining if a person is a Christian or not..

This is a distinctly heretical view, daddyd, and the main reason the Church adopted the term “homooúsios”.

Stick around here, and your knowledge will increase markedly.

 

[rcwitness]

I think there is a difference with God “giving up the temperal gain of the Spirit” for the sake of mankind, and Jesus “giving up the substance of God”. In giving up the gain of Godliness, Jesus accepted the just suffering of the sinner. Yet, Jesus obeyed Godliness in every way. He never gave up His substance with the Father.

 

[Kliska]

I think there is a difference with God “giving up the temperal gain of the Spirit” for the sake of mankind, and Jesus “giving up the substance of God”. In giving up the gain of Godliness, Jesus accepted the just suffering of the sinner. Yet, Jesus obeyed Godliness in every way. He never gave up His substance with the Father.

:yup:

 

[TxGodfollower]

So you would maintain that we have to confess the Father, Son and Spirit are of the same substance despite the bible not explicitly saying so? My argument is not that the bible doesn’t lead to this or that it is wrong, only to suggest that this subsequent definition of theology has become the standard by which people are reckoned Christians. That is a necessary tradition of understanding which is not an option.

So how can a sola scriptura church force someone to accept that definition? Which is a product of the tradition of the church reflecting on scripture.

I accept trinity and find it plainly in the Bible. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” They are one yet three.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I accept trinity and find it plainly in the Bible. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” They are one yet three.

I apologise for a delayed responce to others in the thread. I am currently writing a responce to those who have addressed me. But Godfollower even if we grant that this verse is original to the text, what does “These three are one” mean exactly?

Could not the Sabealist use this verse and say “They are the same person?”

Could not the arian say “They are one in purpose.” As the mormon might say?

This is very vague.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The evangelical Randy Watters said, the Trinity is taught in scripture, but not defended in scripture.

But it would seem that the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit are most likely seen to be taught in scripture if one already has that notion in mind. Lacking that idea or belief, it is not so evident since the Jehovah’s Witnesses use scripture to disprove the Trinity.

Tjherefore the deity of Christ must have been taught orally to the early Christians, which enabled later Christians to read scripture so as to see the Trinity in it. The very earliest gospel was purely oral. In fact, the gospel to which all other gospels were to be compared was the one preached. Galatians 1:8,9 “But even though we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed…if any man is preaching a gospel contrary to which you received, let him be accursed.”

This means the early preached gospel which they received is the standard to which all subsequent preaching, and writing, must be compared. In other words, the memory, the tradition of this gospel was the judge and arbiter of later Christian writings. Tradition tested what was later to become Christian scripture.

Ignatius of Antioch about the year 110 AD referred to Christ as God. Now 110 is way too early for the deity of Christ to be known from simply studying the early Christian writings. Therefore Christ as God had to have been part of early Christian oral Tradition. The necessary Tradition.

 

[guanophore]

The evangelical Randy Watters said, the Trinity is taught in scripture, but not defended in scripture.

But it would seem that the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit are most likely seen to be taught in scripture if one already has that notion in mind. Lacking that idea or belief, it is not so evident since the Jehovah’s Witnesses use scripture to disprove the Trinity.

I honestly think that most people do not realize they are reading Scripture with preconceived notions. They believe that they are letting Scripture “speak for itself”.

 

[guanophore]

The Father and the Spirit are spirit Jesus is a man as it shows in this passage. He is no longer of the same substance as the Father and the Spirit. He gave that up in order to become human and save us from our sins and to my knowledge the doctrine that they are the same “substance” has never been a criteria for determining if a person is a Christian or not. Whether or not you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior is.

I hope you will take the time to study this issue, daddyd, and you will better understand why the successors of the Apostles considered your position heretical.

Jesus did not give up His divine nature when He became human. He took on Human nature, but still retained His divinity. Thus, he has two natures in one person.