Protestants DENY Tradition?

[AbideWithMe]

Perhaps, at least I hope so. I did say it comes close to it. The only place I have seen it very clearly, is with KJV-only fundamental Baptists.

Yes, I should have reiterated that you said “comes close”. I have seen “Bibliolatry” too, but I think it’s quite a different beast that what Y was describing by his/her comparison. I don’t see anything wrong with cherishing a letter from our Father, as it’s to Him that the devotion is going, any more than I see anything wrong with a Catholic kissing a cross since I know that usually they are sending the devotion on a journey to Christ, not worshipping the physical cross.

 

[AbideWithMe]

No prob my friend. You have to simmer down before you lock horns with the mod.
Watch some of the older posters on this board, many of them are reverts too.

Yep.

 

[JonNC]

The “generalization” question was posed early in the thread. At that point, I showed that my thread title was a question, with a question mark, not a generalization of Protestants. My point was, where is the generalization if its a question?

And yes, it appears you also have difficulty with the difference between “intent” and making a blanket statement. Questions are often used to “get at something”.

I think apologies for confusion, if you feel you have caused them as I did are quite common place though, don’t you? Remember, intent is different than a making a statement. Of course later on I had to just about spell out that I feel Protestants deny traditions in relation to sola Scriptura.

Well, I don’t think I’ve caused any confusion here, as I was simply responding to what you stated in the OP and title. Getting beyond that, however, is the second part of what I posted in keeping with the intent of the thread? that being:

My response to this would be, regarding Lutherans, it is not unwittingly. We know we engage, not only in traditions, but also Tradition. Sola scriptura is not a rejection of Tradition or traditions. It is a practice of using scripture as the final norm. We regularly use traditions and Tradition, and point to Tradition as a witness to the truth of scripture and the faith.

Does this respond to your question?

Jon

 

[Jubilarian]

Well, I don’t think I’ve caused any confusion here, as I was simply responding to what you stated in the OP and title. Getting beyond that, however, is the second part of what I posted in keeping with the intent of the thread? that being:

My response to this would be, regarding Lutherans, it is not unwittingly. We know we engage, not only in traditions, but also Tradition. Sola scriptura is not a rejection of Tradition or traditions. It is a practice of using scripture as the final norm. We regularly use traditions and Tradition, and point to Tradition as a witness to the truth of scripture and the faith.

Does this respond to your question?

Jon

I will ask you this question; must scripture only quote scripture ? In others words, could scripture teach using events not recorded in the bible?

 

[JonNC]

I will ask you this question; must scripture only quote scripture ? In others words, could scripture teach using events not recorded in the bible?

Give me an example.

Jon

 

[Jubilarian]

Give me an example.

Jon

Ok. I’ll start with one verse of scripture for an example first. In 1 Cor 10:14, Paul refers to a rock that followed the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The OT says nothjng about this miraculous rock, BUT rabbinic tradition does.

Can you see from this that scripture relied on tradition, because this event does not appear anywhere in the bible. The CC many times relies on word of mouth traditions being just as authoritative as a written event found in scripture. Paul used rabbinic tradition, nothing from the OT . He did not rely on scripture alone.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You are an unusual Protestant if sola scriptural doesn’t flow off your lips regularly . Also, check the title of this thread. It reads, " Protestants DENY Tradition?" Notice the question mark in particular. It’s a question.

I think your experience with Protestants has been extremely limited.

 

[Jubilarian]

I think your experience with Protestants has been extremely limited.

I’m sorry to hear you say such foolish words. I lived it for 15 + years, so no, that’s not the case.

 

[JonNC]

Ok. I’ll start with one verse of scripture for an example first. In 1 Cor 10:14, Paul refers to a rock that followed the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The OT says nothjng about this miraculous rock, BUT rabbinic tradition does.

Can you see from this that scripture relied on tradition, because this event does not appear anywhere in the bible. The CC many times relies on word of mouth traditions being just as authoritative as a written event found in scripture. Paul used rabbinic tradition, nothing from the OT . He did not rely on scripture alone.

Sure, but don’t forget where you read it - in scripture.

The Didache is not scripture - Lutherans and Catholics agree on that - but both of our traditions reference what it says to support the our stance on, for example, Baptism. Yet, we (Lutherans) wouldn’t use the Didache to determine doctrine.

Where Tradition is a witness to scripture, we uphold it, and even rely on it. A good example of our practice is found in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession regarding the doctrine of the real presence:

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Here we see Melanchthon establish that the doctrine is from scripture. He then goes on to support and defend the doctrine by citing the historic church, both East and West, and the Church Fathers.

Jon

 

[Jubilarian]

Sure, but don’t forget where you read it - in scripture.

The Didache is not scripture - Lutherans and Catholics agree on that - but both of our traditions reference what it says to support the our stance on, for example, Baptism. Yet, we (Lutherans) wouldn’t use the Didache to determine doctrine.

Where Tradition is a witness to scripture, we uphold it, and even rely on it. A good example of our practice is found in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession regarding the doctrine of the real presence:

Here we see Melanchthon establish that the doctrine is from scripture. He then goes on to support and defend the doctrine by citing the historic church, both East and West, and the Church Fathers.

Jon

I was pretty sure that you were going to say that " it’s in scripture". Paul didn’t hold to tradition when it was only in scripture. Keep in mind he wrote two thirds of the NT, therefore he is in a position set a precedent. You need to see the bigger picure here, and that is that scripture endorses tradition.

Of course the verse I presented about tradition is “in scripture”, because I used an authoritative source . I showed you that scripture can use tradition . Events that are not written in the bible. Be careful with circular reasoning .

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’m sorry to hear you say such foolish words. I lived it for 15 + years, so no, that’s not the case.

I mean with different types of Protestants. I think you’re equating “Protestant” with “Evangelical/Fundamentalist,” when in fact Protestantism (if there even is such a thing) is pretty diverse, particularly on this issue. It’s helpful to just avoid the term Protestant altogether. If you mean “Baptist” or “Evangelical” these posts will go more smoothly and likely get closer to the heart of what you’re trying to talk about if you just use those terms. Then everyone will be on the same page.

 

[JonNC]

I was pretty sure that you were going to say that " it’s in scripture". Paul didn’t hold to tradition when it was only in scripture. Keep in mind he wrote two thirds of the NT, therefore he is in a position set a precedent. You need to see the bigger picure here, and that is that scripture endorses tradition.

Of course the verse I presented about tradition is “in scripture”, because I used an authoritative source . I showed you that scripture can use tradition . Events that are not written in the bible. Be careful with circular reasoning .

And I showed you that, we, too, use Tradition, particularly when it supports that authoritative source you mentioned.
But just as importantly, we recognize the need and value of Tradition. Every week, for example, we confess one of the three ancient creeds. Our confessions say we “pledge ourselves” to them.

Jon

 

[JustaServant]

Yes, I should have reiterated that you said “comes close”. I have seen “Bibliolatry” too, but I think it’s quite a different beast that what Y was describing by his/her comparison. I don’t see anything wrong with cherishing a letter from our Father, as it’s to Him that the devotion is going, any more than I see anything wrong with a Catholic kissing a cross since I know that usually they are sending the devotion on a journey to Christ, not worshipping the physical cross.

What I mean is using the Bible as if were a kind of ‘magic book’ or crystal ball. The first rule of Biblical study knowing this. Understanding there are portions of Scripture that speak to me. On the other hand their are portions of Scripture that have nothing to do with me. I knew this as a Baptist preacher. I was always irritated when I would hear the line “what’s this verse mean to you?” Well, it might not mean a thing to me, or for me.
That’s where authority comes in.

 

[Jubilarian]

And I showed you that, we, too, use Tradition, particularly when it supports that authoritative source you mentioned.
But just as importantly, we recognize the need and value of Tradition. Every week, for example, we confess one of the three ancient creeds. Our confessions say we “pledge ourselves” to them.

Jon

What you showed me was that you accept tradition when scripture supports it. If you follow the bible alone, you should endorse Paul . He didn’t need to accept tradition ONLY when scripture supported it. Can you see this?
There are many more verses to support this.

 

[jlhargus]

Well Catholic in today’s terms means the Church of Rome; the one with that Pope. Although, the Orthodox consider themselves Catholic and almost all denominations recite the Nicene Creed with “Catholic” in it. So to say the first Church was Catholic in its original sense is true. I don’t think an educated person would argue this.

Yes the Orthodox consider themselves Catholic as the Church considers herself as well as the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox along with most Protestants do not dispute Rome as the see of Peter and the bishop of Rome as his successor. Look for the keys, Christ gave the keys to one apostle alone. That was Peter.

 

[Chong]

Sola scriptura does not mean that Protestants deny tradition. Rather it means that tradition is subjected to the authority of Scripture alone.

I agree 100%. The Scriptures are the original actual events or word; Traditions are subsequent events or words.
In Acts 15, Apostle Paul & Barnabas had to go back to Jerusalem (the center) where a doctrinal issue had to be determined. The decision was subject to the Scriptures.

Jesus too put everything under the subjection of the Scripture.
To the devil, he told him “it is written man shall not live by bread alone…”; to those doing business in the temple, “it is written my house shall be called a house of prayer…”; while on the cross, the soldiers dived his cloths as per the scripture; lastly, he rose again as per the scripture.

 

[Chong]

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 .

Sure, Scripture uses sources outside the written Scripture, though they are limited and their reference is of subordinate nature. If the presence of events that are not recorded in Scripture thus authenticates the authority of Traditions, then it would be taking things too far. The traditions should not overshadow the Scriptures in importance.

 

[Chong]

I’m not sure Dronald what you mean. Are you thinking of ecclesia (spelling?) which I think means assembly. The assembly has been called the Way, Christians, and by 107AD Catholic or Universal Assembly. What that assembly has been called is not what matters. What matters most is continuity from the apostles to the end.

The word catholic is from the Latin word ‘catholicus’. Jesus said he’d build his Church. The word church, in Greek is ecclesia. The NT was primarily written in Greek, and possibly the wider part of the Eastern side of the Roman Empire spoke Greek. We see the Greek language being fast replaced by the Roman language. The Romans had persecuted the Christians so much that I just wonder why they borrowed so much from them at that time.
In fact, the original Jewish tradition went into oblivion. Jerusalem’s lustre as the origin of Christianity faded gradually.

 

[Jubilarian]

And I showed you that, we, too, use Tradition, particularly when it supports that authoritative source you mentioned.
But just as importantly, we recognize the need and value of Tradition. Every week, for example, we confess one of the three ancient creeds. Our confessions say we “pledge ourselves” to them.

Jon

You have your Protestant glasses on as I did one time. Catholics do exactly what Paul did, and that is to use tradition even though it is not in scripture. When St Paul was writting the NT, he didn’t rely on the OT ALONE. Again, there are other examples of this besides the one I cited.

Strangely, Protestants will not do as Paul did.

 

[adf417]

Greetings Chong and welcome to CAF.

Sure, Scripture uses sources outside the written Scripture,

another way of saying this is the Word of God is not limited to the written Word only. Never was and never will be.

…though they are limited and their reference is of subordinate nature.

Can you provide a reference to this? Even a circular reference would be sufficient for now.

If the presence of events that are not recorded in Scripture thus authenticates the authority of Traditions, then it would be taking things too far.

Lets see, would that be scripture itself, thus nullifying this point? If everything you say were true then the OT would have to be sufficient for salvation and the NT would be subordinate to it, something the Jews would agree with you on.

Now if you want to confess that all of scripture only became scripture after Christianity began, then I could see your point, but I don’t think you want to agree to that, right?

The traditions should not overshadow the Scriptures in importance.

Peace!!!