Protestant Explanation

[JonNC]

I find it odd that man claims the bible as “supreme authority” when neither our Lord, nor the bible itself makes any such claim. Our Lord, in the bible, clearly states that the Church is the final authority over all things. Yet, by using one’s own ego to interpret, very comfortable and satisfying doctrines may be made. Yet, as in the case of those testifying against our Lord after His arrest, their testimony does not agree.

However, Po, sola scriptura isn’t a claim that the Bible isn’t the supreme authority excluding the Church. As a Lutheran, I look to the Church - yes, for me, the Lutheran part of the OHCAC - for teaching and doctrine. And as such, I am bound to its teachings, which includes the ancient Creeds, the early councils, and the Lutheran confessions. I read scripture through that lens.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

30,000 + Denominations and growing attest to the validity of that concept :doh2:

So, how many different communion is too many? More than one, obviously. Yet the concept of Tradtion and Scripture has left us a variety of communions as well. The issue is not the mode of hermeunetics.

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Most protestants I’ve asked when it comes to authority in the first century say that one needed the apostles, to be in communion with them. But then for some unknown reason it all changed when John died. Suddenly one did not have to be in communion with those the apostles established.

 

[JonNC]

Which Catholic doctrines and dogmas are not found (at least implicitly) in the bible?

Hi Mark. Good to “see” you again.

I speak for myself, not for my communion in this response.

The issue for me is not which Catholic doctrine or dogmas are not found in scripture. Most are. The issue for me, however, is why some of them are only Catholic doctrine or dogma. Why are Purgatory, the IC, and the biggie for me, universal jurisdiction (along with others) not found in those communions that claim the very same Sacred Tradition. And if they are not confessed by the pre-Reformation patriarchs save one, how does one determine which is true?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Cicero54;10084645]One of the claims that the Protestants make when setting us Catholics down to show us how our Church is adjudged by the Bible is it’s inerrancy. The Protestants over look one simple fact, they have no basis in declaring inerrancy since they can’t appeal to any authority for the claim other than the Catholic Church who declared it first. Fr Ronald Knox makes the observation in his book “The Belief of Catholics” circ. 1927 that: “…for a religious connection which claims no infallibility for itself can hardly be justified in investing the Bible with inerrancy!”

JMJ,
Why can’t I (Lutherans) appeal to the authority of the unified Church? Of course we appeal to it. In fact, we carefully review the historic nature of the discussions about which books were universally attested, which were disputed, and which were rejected.
I guess maybe its because Lutherans take a different approach. We are not denominationalists, as evidenced by the fact that we confess One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We view ourselves as a catholic continuation of that apostolic Church in the west, not separate from it.
One poster recently made the ridiculous claim that Luther thought, “the Bible fell out of thin air”. Such polemical nonsense.

Jon

 

[fred_conty]

This is definitely worth reading the link to understand the Protestant perspective. It is a fair and honest assessment to answer the thread topic from a Reformed perspective.

:bible1:

Jrtrent and Christian Unity,
I did read some of the website that you reffered to and I found it interesting. So after reading some, but not all, of it, I thought I might help you understand it from a catholic perspective.
I only took the first objection to Hodge’s catholic tradition because it would be too lengthly to answer it all. So I hope you will overlook that I didn’t answer more of it. But if there is something in it you would like answered, I would only be to happy to be your slave.

Objection to tradition by Hodge.

“1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6), signifies all his instructions, oral and written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt. 15:3,6; Mark 7:7.” (end of quote)​

2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6 (1st quote)
So then brethern, stand firm, and hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours.

Mr. Hodge says what was “communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down.”

I think he would have to agree that Paul said something not contained in the bible that he doesn’t want them to forget and to put into practise. And people being what they are, they would talk to each other and others about what Paul said. And what do you say about christian teaching and faith that is not found in the bible that people tell one another?
…tradition.

And another consideration is what the OP in this post has mentioned. Namely that there was a time when there was no New Testiment. That is the years between the ascension of Jesus and when the New Testament was started to be written. What did the people use then for the knowledge of their faith before the New Testament? …Tradition.​

Matt. 15:3,4 (2nd quote)
So you have made void the commandment of God by your tradition.

Here is what this statement by Jesus had reference to and it covers vs.4 thru 6, not just & only 6.

Matt. 15:3,4-6
Why do you transgress God because of your tradition? For God said, “honor your Father and your nother; and let him who curses father or mother be put to death.” But you say, "whoever say to his father or mother, “any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” and does not have to honor his father or his mother. So you have made void the commandment of God by your tradition.

This teaching of the Jewish leaders went directly against God’s command. Non of the Catholic tradition is against what God commands. This is something completetly of a different nature.

This is what is known as cherry picking, taking things out of their context and arriving at an incorrect conclusion. Both Protestant and Catholic scholars know this.

Just some thoughts.

 

[St_Stephen_1]

Which Catholic doctrines and dogmas are not found (at least implicitly) in the bible?

None that I know about but don’t we have a wider tradition that exists in addition to scripture.

 

[St_Stephen_1]

Time compels me just drop a link and run for now, but the section linked to from A. A. Hodge’s Outlines of Theology is a short yet reasonably comprehensive answer to your question from a Reformed perspective.

reformedreader.org/ss01.htm

I’m not convinced that’s states clearly the protestant position. It’s more aimed at knocking down what the Catholic church believes. I suppose they’re knocking the Catholic church because it’s part of western Christendom. Why don’t they correct the Orthodox churches for example. I’m just reading a book about the Orthodox churches. their position on tradition is similar. As far a things go I don’t have a problem with the scriptures being the primary source of revelation. The provided link more or less tells me why protestants see the scriptures as the sole source of doctrine. It doesn’t answer where did Christians look prior to the putting together of the NT?

 

[mark_a]

all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone

Jon

Hi Jon, Could you maybe point out the how the above is different from the Catholic view of tradition?

 

[mangy_dog]

Have you ever tried to stand a tripod on just one leg?

 

[jrtrent]

The provided link more or less tells me why protestants see the scriptures as the sole source of doctrine. It doesn’t answer where did Christians look prior to the putting together of the NT?

Good point, as were your original questions, “The church came first not the Bible. Without a Bible how did the first christians know what to believe? I believe the church came about on the first Pentecost. Do protestants think that the church’s start was delayed until the Bible was produced? If they do what do they believe happened in the hiatus between Christ’s Ascension and the production of the Bible?”

Most Protestants would agree that the church started on the first Pentecost. The church already had, of course, the Old Testament. As to the New Testament, what I’ve heard on the topic is that the early church had living apostles to learn from, that some of the various Christian churches fell into error, and that those errors were one reason for the writing of at least part of the New Testament. Those letters/books were copied and circulated among the various churches in different cities/locations. By the account of some, all of the New Testament writings were written by 70 A.D.; others would place some of John’s writings as late as 96 A.D. In any event, the early church wasn’t left without either apostolic authority or their inspired writings to guide them.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon, Could you maybe point out the how the above is different from the Catholic view of tradition?

I think, Mark, and I’m not an expert on the Catholic position, the key word is “alone”. While the Lutheran view is as sated, the Catholic view is that Sacred Tradition is an equal source in holding teachings and dogmas accountable. IOW, while we view scripture as the final, and therefore sole norm, Catholics would view Tradition as an equal norm.

Yes?

Jon

 

[mark_a]

IOW, while we view scripture as the final, and therefore sole norm, Catholics would view Tradition as an equal norm.

Yes?

Jon

It seems to me that it would still be necessary for Lutherans to have a "tradition"al Lutheran interpretation of scripture for Lutheran non-negotiables.

 

[JonNC]

It seems to me that it would still be necessary for Lutherans to have a "tradition"al Lutheran interpretation of scripture for Lutheran non-negotiables.

Agreed, and we do, as found in the Lutheran Confessions.

Jon

 

[St_Stephen_1]

… Catholics would view Tradition as an equal norm.

Yes?

Jon

I think Tradition includes the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures are part of Tradition; the two aren’t separate. The Holy Scriptures are the most important source in Tradition. We also believe that it is the Church which interprets Scripture and other parts of Tradition; it is not individuals who make their own interpretation.

 

[JonNC]

I think Tradition includes the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures are part of Tradition; the two aren’t separate. The Holy Scriptures are the most important source in Tradition. We also believe that it is the Church which interprets Scripture and other parts of Tradition; it is not individuals who make their own interpretation.

Thanks,
In the first part, I expect you probably expressed the Catholic position better than I did. Hence, the “Yes?” on my part.

In the second, when it comes to doctrine, I would agree. I have no business interpreting for myself what scripture teaches. That’s the job of the Church.

Jon

 

[billt9]

Hello, I’m new on CAF and this is the first time I’ve posted in this forum. I’ve wanted to find the answer to this question for a long time.

Some protestants belief that we should only believe what’s found in the Bible. They don’t accept Sacred Tradition. If we should only believe what’s in the Bible how did the first christians know what to believe? The church came first not the Bible. Without a Bible how did the first christians know what to believe? I believe the church came about on the first Pentecost. Do protestants think that the church’s start was delayed until the Bible was produced? If they do what do they believe happened in the hiatus between Christ’s Ascension and the production of the Bible?

What I’m saying is that what christians believe must have come from the oral tradition from the time of the apsotles. How can protestants say everything we need to believe can only be found in the Bible and reject Sacred Tradition?

I am not here to debate or convince you (the forum rules say no proselytizing) But if you really want to know what I think —

of course the first Christians had only oral teachings OF THE APOSTLES. All the essential teachings were written down by those apostles (or their companions; e.g., Mark, Luke) before they died under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just like all the essential Old Testament teachings were written down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If it was not written down by the Apostles in the Bible, it was not essential. You are free to believe it if you wish without me thinking you are a non-Christian, but “it is not to be required as an article of belief or necessary to the salvation of any man.” (a poor quote from memory from John Wesley, who I assume got it from the Anglicans)

the difference apparently is that the Catholic Church teaches that there were essential beliefs from the Apostles that did not get written down

And all the Apostles died by 90/95 AD, and there are none since then so there can be no more essential teachings (another difference in belief)

these are the two biggest differences in belief on this subject, at least it seems to me

 

[St_Stephen_1]

I am not here to debate or convince you (the forum rules say no proselytizing) But if you really want to know what I think —

of course the first Christians had only oral teachings OF THE APOSTLES. All the essential teachings were written down by those apostles (or their companions; e.g., Mark, Luke) before they died under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just like all the essential Old Testament teachings were written down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If it was not written down by the Apostles in the Bible, it was not essential. You are free to believe it if you wish without me thinking you are a non-Christian, but “it is not to be required as an article of belief or necessary to the salvation of any man.” (a poor quote from memory from John Wesley, who I assume got it from the Anglicans)

the difference apparently is that the Catholic Church teaches that there were essential beliefs from the Apostles that did not get written down

And all the Apostles died by 90/95 AD, and there are none since then so there can be no more essential teachings (another difference in belief)

these are the two biggest differences in belief on this subject, at least it seems to me

Would you not accept the first seven ecumenical councils or the patristic writings?

 

[billt9]

Would you not accept the first seven ecumenical councils or the patristic writings?

not the patristic writings; I value them highly as the well thought out opinions of sincere Christian men (much more by the way than the pablum from some “modern” theologians), but i do not consider them infallible Scripture like the Holy Scriptures.(Orign, got ex-communicated didn’t he?) Christ considered the OT to be Holy Scripture so i believe the same of the NT.

I like Eusebius a lot but i believe he got into controversies from time to time (but I’m no expert)

The first 4 church councils, yes. In fact, if i really had to say, the Nicene-Constantiple Creed is the absolute minimum definition of Christian beliefs

I can anticipate your next question. Not because the councils were infallible but because they correctly by men, under the guidance if the Holy Spirit no doubt, summarized the Bible.

I don’t remember what the the last three councils you mentioned said, so I can’t comment, other than i think i have read that all Christians (i know there are a few very small churches in the middle east to the contrary) accept the first 7, at least in principle, even those who profess “no creed bu the bible” PS. I am Methodist we affirm the Nicene creed – ok, its actually the Apostles Creed – every week, but at least the Nicene Creed is in our hymnal!)

PS. yes, i know that no “official” church council recognized the already established by consensus cannon until after Nicea. You know, I’m sure, that the Muratorian Fragment got the cannon just about completely correct in 170 and my buddy Eusebius got it pretty accurately well before Anathasia in 367 and the later “official” church council.

PPS. I spell and type abominably, and don’t feel like looking it up – this forum needs a better religion spell checker!! — so don’t hold that against me

 

[St_Stephen_1]

not the patristic writings; I value them highly as the well thought out opinions of sincere Christian men (much more by the way than the pablum from some “modern” theologians), but i do not consider them infallible Scripture like the Holy Scriptures.(Orign, got ex-communicated didn’t he?) Christ considered the OT to be Holy Scripture so i believe the same of the NT.

I like Eusebius a lot but i believe he got into controversies from time to time (but I’m no expert)

The first 4 church councils, yes. In fact, if i really had to say, the Nicene-Constantiple Creed is the absolute minimum definition of Christian beliefs

I can anticipate your next question. Not because the councils were infallible but because they correctly by men, under the guidance if the Holy Spirit no doubt, summarized the Bible.

I don’t remember what the the last three councils you mentioned said, so I can’t comment, other than i think i have read that all Christians (i know there are a few very small churches in the middle east to the contrary) accept the first 7, at least in principle, even those who profess “no creed bu the bible” PS. I am Methodist we affirm the Nicene creed – ok, its actually the Apostles Creed – every week, but at least the Nicene Creed is in our hymnal!)

PS. yes, i know that no “official” church council recognized the already established by consensus cannon until after Nicea. You know, I’m sure, that the Muratorian Fragment got the cannon just about completely correct in 170 and my buddy Eusebius got it pretty accurately well before Anathasia in 367 and the later “official” church council.

PPS. I spell and type abominably, and don’t feel like looking it up – this forum needs a better religion spell checker!! — so don’t hold that against me

You anticipated incorrectly I wasn’t going to ask that! One point I will pick upon you mention you don’t see the patristic writers as being infallible, unless I’m wrong neither do Catholics. I’ll have to start calling you non-Chalcedonian. I think it’s the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East who don’t accept any but the first four councils and because, if my memory serves me well, they rejected the teachings of the council at Chalcedon. Therefore, they’re called non-Chalcedonians (I’m hope that’s not an offensive term - that’s not my intention.)