Protestants and Tradition

[mrmagoo661]

I was curious do Protestants believe that Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History is true?.. And if so, how do they square that with the idea of Scripture only?..And if not, why?

 

[BrianH]

He is considered, from what I have read, a fairly good historian although I have read some criticisms of his “focus” if you will but i do not remember where I read it!
I do not get the second part of the question. Perhaps it would be best to state what you believe about this first. Because I have been on this board a long time and I am not sure I get it

 

[mrmagoo661]

Eusebius writes about things that happened after the Resurrection. Where the Apostles went, how they were martyred, list of Bishops, etc. is part of church Tradition. Is that something that Protestants believe also, or is it not. And why… Or do different denominations believe different things?

 

[BrianH]

Eusebius writes about things that happened after the Resurrection. Where the Apostles went, how they were martyred, list of Bishops, etc. is part of church Tradition. Is that something that Protestants believe also, or is it not. And why… Or do different denominations believe different things?

I do not know of a denomination that has an official stance on Eusebius. But absolutely it would vary. Protestantism is a catch all term that actually catches nothing. Its like saying “Americans believe this” or “Black people believe this”. Its too general to be true. Sad but true, when discussing anyone’s view of anything it takes a great deal of effort to find out what everyone thinks if indeed they have an opinion on it.
Lots of Protestants embrace tradition. Several do not. You have thousands of groups that run the gamut.

 

[mrmagoo661]

You should pick up a copy. It is a very interesting read.

 

[BrianH]

I have a copy. Read it years ago. Have it for reference as it comes in handy depending on the discussion

 

[inocente]

Sorry, never heard of him. Would he tell me anything in addition to the NT about Christ? (that’s a serious question, not rhetorical).

 

[JonNC]

I was curious do Protestants believe that Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History is true?.. And if so, how do they square that with the idea of Scripture only?..And if not, why?

The LCMS website refers to Historia Ecclesiastica, as preserving *“many quotations from early churchmen and presents a **reasonably reliable account **of the growth of the early Church…” *
I’m not sure how that assessment relates to the practice of sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[mrmagoo661]

Maybe I’m confused on the idea of Sola Scriptura. How far does it go? Are writings about the early church ignored? Is it that everything outside of the Bible that has to do with the Church, or just Faith and Morals related? I’m confused on where it ends.

 

[inocente]

Maybe I’m confused on the idea of Sola Scriptura. How far does it go? Are writings about the early church ignored? Is it that everything outside of the Bible that has to do with the Church, or just Faith and Morals related? I’m confused on where it ends.

For me, sola scriptura means that all we know about God should be traceable back to the Bible. Personal caveats about the Bible itself - no selective reading, no literalism, no shoe-horn logic, and no expectation of perfection when it was written by men. It also seems that the Church was the first to canonize the OT books, and many bible scholars think some of them were repeatedly altered BC (I read somewhere that the Church holds that position, but didn’t follow up to check).

So I’ll happily read anything the Church has to offer, but always need to it to come back to scripture. At some point I’ll gird my loins and try to understand the basis of Catholic moral law, because no one has been able to argue it very well in debate. If reading Eusebius was useful for something like that then I’d gladly read him.

 

[NHInsider]

Maybe I’m confused on the idea of Sola Scriptura. How far does it go? Are writings about the early church ignored? Is it that everything outside of the Bible that has to do with the Church, or just Faith and Morals related? I’m confused on where it ends.

To the extent that Protestants are even aware of the documents of the early church (and most lay Protestants are not), they would regard them in about the same way they would regard Josephus or Tacitus - as sources of historical information only, not as the basis of any tenet of the faith.

Of course, Catholics also do not regard, for example, Eusebius or Clement or Ireneaus as “inspired” and so also do not cite them as a basis for belief. They are frequently cited as evidence that Catholic doctrines are in fact ancient and apostolic in origin, but they are not the reason for the doctrines being taught.

 

[JonNC]

Maybe I’m confused on the idea of Sola Scriptura. How far does it go? Are writings about the early church ignored? Is it that everything outside of the Bible that has to do with the Church, or just Faith and Morals related? I’m confused on where it ends.

For Lutherans, sola scriptura is the practice of holding all teachers and teachings accountable to scripture, which is the final norm. This in no way excludes (and certainly doesn’t ignore ) creeds, councils and confessions. It merely holds them accountable to scripture.

As an example, the first section of the Book of Concord (the Lutheran confessions) contains the three ecumenical creeds. This appears even before the Augsburg Confession.

Jon

 

[MarcoPolo]

Similar to what JonNC espoused, the Westminster Confession has a similar description of sola scriptura:*IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.*Evangelical apologists Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie summarized sola scriptura as: “‘The Bible alone’ means ‘the Bible only’ is the final authority for our faith.” (quoted from the book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals)

 

[xcheid]

To the extent that Protestants are even aware of the documents of the early church (and most lay Protestants are not), they would regard them in about the same way they would regard Josephus or Tacitus - as sources of historical information only, not as the basis of any tenet of the faith.

Of course, Catholics also do not regard, for example, Eusebius or Clement or Ireneaus as “inspired” and so also do not cite them as a basis for belief. They are frequently cited as evidence that Catholic doctrines are in fact ancient and apostolic in origin, but they are not the reason for the doctrines being taught.

I’m a cradle catholic, and am just recently trying to actively learn more about my faith. So what are the reason(s) for doctrines being established and taught? To me, it seems like our doctrines are all definitely found in the Bible, it is just a matter of how you interpret it. Am I right to say that what supports our doctrines are Bible + Tradition (Tradition in the sense of how the messages that would later become part of the Bible were communicated and taught)?

 

[NHInsider]

Am I right to say that what supports our doctrines are Bible + Tradition (Tradition in the sense of how the messages that would later become part of the Bible were communicated and taught)?

Good summary!

 

[Zenas]

To the extent that Protestants are even aware of the documents of the early church (and most lay Protestants are not), they would regard them in about the same way they would regard Josephus or Tacitus - as sources of historical information only, not as the basis of any tenet of the faith.

I would say you nailed it here. However, you will find considerable hostility among Protestants toward some of the early church fathers, especially Ignatius, Justin, Iranaeus and Tertullian. That is, of course, if they are familiar with them. Somehow, Polycarp enjoys a better reputation than most of the others.