Aren't protestants following tradition too?

[Tomster]

If I asked for the church…I would have asked. But that is not what I am asking.

This is what I am asking:

Originally Posted by pablope
Whether you interject it or not…the question remains…how do you think the truth, the teaching of the Church…will be delivered correctly, if not through a magisterium?

Who delivers the message of the Church to you every week?

How is it delivered to you?

What is the purpose of requiring training for your pastors? Why don’t they just go read the Bible and start teaching?

Either you have answers or you don’t. These are simple questions easily answered…but you keep evading…why?

Searching the Scriptures?

 

[aidanbradypop]

:twocents:

I agree. The non-Catholic magisteriums that you have identified all have one thing in common, they reject the word infallible and substitute the words private judgment.

It is the “Catholic Intellect” that, under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, directs the Church in an infallible manner. When we affirm with St. Irenaeus that the Church is in possession of what may be called a “Depository of Truth”; when we assert that the Church is the infallible custodian of the Deposit of the Faith, we do not certainly limit her possession and guardianship to its material part. It must be extended to what is therein contained for the preservation and transmission of the “discipline, by which we are made Christians.”

This is the reason why the Fathers speak so brilliantly of “Catholic Intellect,” “Conscience of Faith,” “Catholic Sense.” The real and principal Tradition is the conservation and propagation of that genuine intelligence of the revealed truths through the common assent of the Apostolic Succession under the special assistance of the Holy Spirit. This is Divine Tradition.

Many will say “I believe in the bible and give it the authority.” That is only half correct. They believe in the interpretation of a Reformer or their pastor, which means they give that individual(s) the authority to do so. That is their tradition to do so.

 

[Tomster]

Many will say “I believe in the bible and give it the authority.” That is only half correct. They believe in the interpretation of a Reformer or their pastor, which means they give that individual(s) the authority to do so. That is their tradition to do so.

Which leads me to ask how do they know that the Bible is authoritative?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Which leads me to ask how do they know that the Bible is authoritative?

Becauses they gave authority to someone who said so

 

[benjohnson]

Becauses they gave authority to someone who said so

If you’re curious, when I was drifting away from being agnostic, I came to believe that the Bible as literature was dissect from others in that is was both ultimatly expansive and yet consistent beyond mankind’s own ability.

 

[CJECulver]

If one of the congregants happens to interpret the passages differently from the pastor, who decides, authoritatively, who is right and who is not?

Several possible scenarios as I see them, based on reflection on my personal experience of some fifteen years as an indepedent evangelical:

1. Peer pressure from the community causes the individual to recant his “errant” interpretation. This is likely the most common outcome. I could list personal examples from my own experiences. In this case, it’s simply assumed the pastor with his greater training and larger experience in Bible study has rightly divided the Word, whereas the congregant, being somewhat an “amateur” in biblical interpretation, has not. The congregant will accept the correction of the community.
2. If the “errant” congregant continues to defy the pastor’s teaching and the matter is of sufficient seriousness – not a disagreement, say, over pre- vs. mid-trib rapture – the congregant may leave the church in search of a place that is more accepting of his view. If the congregant is in any sort of teaching position, say, a Bible study leader or Sunday School teacher, and openly defies the pastor in his position by asserting publicly that the pastor is wrong, he will receive a stern private rebuke for underming the pastor’s authority and ultimately be removed from his position. At that point, he would possibly choose to leave the church anyway.
3. If the pastor begins teaching things that are clearly a serious departure from the normative positions of the particular tradition or the church’s statement of faith – say, in my case in a non-denominational charismatic church, he begins to teach anything akin to a real presence – other pastors and/or the church board will meet with him privately. If the pastor persists, even if he presents a cogent and powerful argument in favor of his position, he might be asked to refrain from teaching such things again, or worst case he might be asked by the board to resign.

Any other independent evangelicals have anything to add?

 

[CJECulver]

I believe a lot of the anti Magisterium is often just anti Catholic teaching.

That is undoubtedly true.

However, though Protestants do practice some sort of de facto magisterium, even when they recognize the fact, they insist the magisterium is subjected to the teachings of Scripture.

One of the major differences in the Catholic understanding of the Magisterium is not just that Catholic teaching explicitly recognizes it, but that it assigns authoritative weight to it, in essence elevating it over the Bible. That is, in Protestant terms, the Catholic Church puts tradition above the Bible. That’s what draws Protestant antogonism.

We don’t, of course. But to Protestants, it’s a distinction without a difference.

 

[JonNC]

Becauses they gave authority to someone who said so

I know you’ll disagree with this, pop, but that’s not what Lutherans believe.

The Augsburg Confession’s conclusion says:
*Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches. *

It is also a fact that even Luther’s writings are held accountable, as there are lots of things he said that are not in any way considered doctrine.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

I know you’ll disagree with this, pop, but that’s not what Lutherans believe.

The Augsburg Confession’s conclusion says:
*Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches. *

It is also a fact that even Luther’s writings are held accountable, as there are lots of things he said that are not in any way considered doctrine.

Jon

Will a non Catholic ever admit that they give/gave authority to someone?

The AC was written by Melanchthon with the help of documents from Luther and others, which I am sure you know that. the AC is probably the most important document in the Lutheran faith. SO Lutherans gave and still give those reformers the authority to decide. Would you agree or disagree? Every non Catholic Christian denomination gives a denomination or pastor a certain authority.

I am not saying that its wrong, because I give the Church the authority as well. The AC is a tradition of Lutheranism in a sense as it is the view of certain individuals and a Lutheran accepts that as a matter of faith. Correct?

 

[JonNC]

Will a non Catholic ever admit that they give/gave authority to someone?

The AC was written by Melanchthon with the help of documents from Luther and others, which I am sure you know that. the AC is probably the most important document in the Lutheran faith. SO Lutherans gave and still give those reformers the authority to decide. Would you agree or disagree? Every non Catholic Christian denomination gives a denomination or pastor a certain authority.

I am not saying that its wrong, because I give the Church the authority as well. The AC is a tradition of Lutheranism in a sense as it is the view of certain individuals and a Lutheran accepts that as a matter of faith. Correct?

pop,

The AC was a response given to speak about the concerns the Lutheran reformers had regarding certain activities within the Church at the time, which they believed were outside the historic teachings of the historic Church. That was the intent. It wasn’t an intent to set up a new doctrine, or place into the hands of Melanchthon or Luther or any of the others authority of some sort.

That we use it today as a confessional statement shouldn’t be surprising, but it, too, is subject to accountability, not only to scripture, but, as they said, to the historic teachings of the Church Catholic. That we convey a level of authority to our synodical leaders should also not be surprising, as we recognize the necessity of Church leadership in the teaching role, and to providing to the faithful word and sacrament.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Will a non Catholic ever admit that they give/gave authority to someone?

The AC was written by Melanchthon with the help of documents from Luther and others, which I am sure you know that. the AC is probably the most important document in the Lutheran faith. SO Lutherans gave and still give those reformers the authority to decide. Would you agree or disagree? Every non Catholic Christian denomination gives a denomination or pastor a certain authority.

I am not saying that its wrong, because I give the Church the authority as well. The AC is a tradition of Lutheranism in a sense as it is the view of certain individuals and a Lutheran accepts that as a matter of faith. Correct?

I have never known a non Catholic to ever admit they give/gave authority to someone
in my life. It seems blatanly obvious if you have a Concord Book that you have an authoritative interpretation of scripture.

 

[JonNC]

I have never known a non Catholic to ever admit they give/gave authority to someone
in my life. It seems blatanly obvious if you have a Concord Book that you have an authoritative interpretation of scripture.

Authoritative in what sense? Equal to scripture? No. Of course we see the Book of Concord as a right reflection of the truth of the faith.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Not looking for actual appearance of the word, Tom. Rather, the concept of magisterium being equivalent to the word “church” in Scripture

But the word book does show up plenty of times.

Indeed…and none of them refer to the office of the papacy.

Explain how one can separate the office of the papacy from the rest of the church? The papacy is part of the universal church.

Why is it always an either/or dichotomy with Protestants?

 

[Nicea325]

That’s not what I mean, pablope. I am referring to whether I conceptually interject “my pastor and the elders” or “magisterium” into the word “church” when I read Scripture.

Then what constitutes or defines church-Gaelic? A loose-knit church of only believers?

 

[benjohnson]

I have never known a non Catholic to ever admit they give/gave authority to someone
in my life.

There’s always a first: I give authority to my pastor and to the synod as much as I am able to - my life is way too short to begin to second-guess their teaching. If there are failings in my understanding of the Gospel, or in my spiritual life, or even in my worldly life, it is because I’ve rebelled against them.

 

[JonNC]

Explain how one can separate the office of the papacy from the rest of the church? The papacy is part of the universal church.

Why is it always an either/or dichotomy with Protestants?

Hi Nicea, my friend.

It isn’t that the pope is not a part of the universal Church. He is, and a central part of it. He is the Bishop of Rome, and the western patriarch, and I would say he even has a level of primacy, and you have often make not of to me regarding how often other bishops would seek out his advice and council on issues.
So, at least for this Lutheran, it isn’t an either/or, but a matter of what that primacy really is.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea, my friend.

It isn’t that the pope is not a part of the universal Church. He is, and a central part of it. He is the Bishop of Rome, and the western patriarch, and I would say he even has a level of primacy, and you have often make not of to me regarding how often other bishops would seek out his advice and council on issues.
So, at least for this Lutheran, it isn’t an either/or, but a matter of what that primacy really is.

Jon

Blessings my brother in Christ! Indeed…indeed. Let us both pray on it and hopefully God would re-unite us all in due time.

 

[MaryT777]

Authoritative in what sense? Equal to scripture? No. Of course we see the Book of Concord as a right reflection of the truth of the faith.

Jon

It begs the question as to why one “needs” a Concord Book when one has the Bible.

 

[MaryT777]

There’s always a first: I give authority to my pastor and to the synod as much as I am able to - my life is way too short to begin to second-guess their teaching. If there are failings in my understanding of the Gospel, or in my spiritual life, or even in my worldly life, it is because I’ve rebelled against them.

Why can’t you simply read the Scriptures and interpret it yourself? What if your Pastor is wrong?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Explain how one can separate the office of the papacy from the rest of the church? The papacy is part of the universal church.

Why is it always an either/or dichotomy with Protestants?

Not creating a dichotomy, Nicea. Simply pointing out that it isn’t there.