Sola scriptura does not mean that Protestants deny tradition. Rather it means that tradition is subjected to the authority of Scripture alone.Of course Sola Scriptura is the Protestant mantra and they deny that tradition is as equally authoritative as the bible . What traditions are they following inside that are required to maintain their view of the “bible alone”. Contradictory?
Were not the fundamentals of the Word of God tradition first?Only fundamentalists reject tradition.
My question is what traditions do Protestants deny that are not compatible with their view of scripture alone. Just saying you don’t deny tradition in general avoids the question.Sola scriptura does not mean that Protestants deny tradition. Rather it means that tradition is subjected to the authority of Scripture alone.
Please, think before giving such a response. I asked a question about Protestants. I did not make a generalization. This forum is designed for questions. Think.Ya gotta stop generalizing Jubilarian. Only fundamentalists reject tradition. Mainline Lutherans and Anglicans do not.
Jubilarian is correct, the Protestants have their own traditions, which are subject to differ between denominations. As for the ones Protestants reject, I’d imagine there are many—Buddhist, Catholic, Islamic, Sikh, Rastafari . . .My question is what traditions do Protestants deny that are not compatible with their view of scripture alone. Just saying you don’t deny tradition in general avoids the question.
If that is indeed your question (it did not appear to be, for it was not asked in the original post):My question is what traditions do Protestants deny that are not compatible with their view of scripture alone. Just saying you don’t deny tradition in general avoids the question.
No. You just had a of conceived notion in your mind. You follow traditions that are not in the bible. In addition , scripture uses sources outside of scripture .If that is indeed your question (it did not appear to be, for it was not asked in the original post):
We reject a whole lot of traditions:
- Islam
- Buddhism
- the Book of Mormon
- the Hindu practice of burning widows on their dead husband’s funeral pyre
and so on.
You’re not bursting my bubble, Justa. I know that there was no standardized Scripture back them, but it was still there in whatever disarray it was in, whether oral or written. There was Scripture during Jesus’ ministry else he would have skipped all of the allusions to it during his teachings.I hate to burst your bubble Yateanieys, but there simply was no “Bible” as we know it, in the ancient world prior to the coming of the printing press.
Because oral communication ruled the day over written.
LOL . . . It’s been some time since I’ve heard such a precarious over-generalization :choocho:Protestants assume if it is not in written form (a concept that did not arise until the post-printing press days of the Enlightenment) it must be discarded.
I would say the most important an obvious tradition, not found in the bible, they are following would be the tradition of the canon of the bible. There is no inspired list of books in the bible. They follow the Jewish tradition for the OT and the Church’s tradition of the NT.Of course Sola Scriptura is the Protestant mantra and they deny that tradition is as equally authoritative as the bible . What traditions are they following that are required to maintain their view of the “bible alone?” Contradictory?
We share the the traditional NT with the Catholic denomination. Catholics didn’t write the NT, they helped compile it and decree it as canonical.They follow the Jewish tradition for the OT and the Church’s tradition of the NT.
Would you care to make some argument, rather than just stating your position without defending it, as if your view is inherently authoritative? This is a debate-forum, not a sounding-board.No. You just had a of conceived notion in your mind. You follow traditions that are not in the bible. In addition , scripture uses sources outside of scripture .
I can think of very few people who are not constantly demonstrating their good mind, fair dealing, and Christian love like JustaServant.-]/-]Please, think before giving such a response. I asked a question about Protestants. I did not make a generalization. This forum is designed for questions. Think.
The point is, as you admit, the Catholic Church compiled and decreed which books are canonical and that Catholic tradition you follow.We share the the traditional NT with the Catholic denomination. Catholics didn’t write the NT, they helped compile it and decree it as canonical.
This is correct, as not even Lutherans and Anglicans will give authority to a Tradition that cannot be found explicitly in Scripture. Sadly, Jubilarian begins going all over the place in subsequent posts.Of course Sola Scriptura is the Protestant mantra and they deny that tradition is as equally authoritative as the bible .
The nonexistent “tradition” of sola scriptura.What traditions are they following that are required to maintain their view of the “bible alone?” Contradictory?
Really? I thought the Church was called something in Greek that sounds like “Catholic”. Or am I wrong?The point is, as you admit, the Catholic Church compiled and decreed which books are canonical and that Catholic tradition you follow.
No matter what the Church was called, whether the Way or latter Christian. By 107AD it was called Catholic. So Catholics did write, preserve and decree the canon of the bible.