Protestants DENY Tradition?

[CommonWeal]

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

That can’t possibly be true; it’s not logical. Just think about it honestly and ask yourself, “What came first?” The authority our Blessed Lord gave to His church was present and active before the New Testament existed.

 

[JRKH]

Were not the fundamentals of the Word of God tradition first?

You are quite right. The Scriptures started out as oral teachings and were only written down later (Some but not all).

Peace
James

 

[jlhargus]

Really? I thought the Church was called something in Greek that sounds like “Catholic”. Or am I wrong?

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.

 

[dronald]

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.

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.

 

[CommonWeal]

I think dronald is referring to the Greek word katholikos, which is roughly translated as “universal.”

The word ekklesia is also Greek and basically means the society founded by Jesus Christ, i.e., the New Jerusalem, the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, etc.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, see the article on catholic and church.

 

[yateanieys]

Catholics did write, preserve and decree the canon of the bible.

Okay, since when were Catholics infallible?

 

[Jubilarian]

I can think of very few people who are not constantly demonstrating their good mind, fair dealing, and Christian love like JustaServant.

Implying that JustaServant isn’t ‘thinking’ says more about the accuser, frankly.

If you can show where the “generalization” is in my question, please do.
Otherwise you have demonstrated you are capable of chimming it without substance. Yes, think.

 

[CommonWeal]

Okay, since when were Catholics infallible?

My Dear Friend,

I am a convert to the Catholic Faith. I see in you much confusion, as your question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. I suggest you read a book by Cardinal James Gibbons titled The Faith of Our Fathers.

The entire book is available as a FREE PDF on Project Gutenberg.

Chapter 7 deals with the “Infallible Authority of the Church.” It is an excellent explanation of the nature of infallibility and why it is absolutely necessary and integral to the act of faith.

I strongly urge you to please read this book.

At any rate, I would answer your question basically like this. “Catholics” plural are not infallible, and that really has nothing to do with it. God is infallible, thus Jesus is infallible, thus the true church Jesus founded must be infallible. Without the awesome privilege of infallibility, no Christian could ever be sure that what any one church teaches is true; and without the truth, faith is simply not possible and excluded altogether.

For example, if you asked your pastor, “Pastor, do you believe you are infallible?” how would he answer? Would he say he is a fallible man just like any other man? Of course he would. But, as Cardinal Gibbons points out,
“If your church and her ministers are fallible in their doctrinal teachings, as they admit, they may be preaching falsehood to you, instead of truth. If so, you are in doubt whether you are listening to truth or falsehood. If you are in doubt you can have no faith, for faith excludes doubt, and in that state you displease God, for “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Faith and infallibility must go hand in hand. The one cannot exist without the other. There can be no faith in the hearer unless there is unerring authority in the speaker—an authority founded upon such certain knowledge as precludes the possibility of falling into error on his part, and including such unquestioned veracity as to prevent his deceiving him who accepts his word.”

 

[captainrick]

Ya gotta stop generalizing Jubilarian. Only fundamentalists reject tradition. Mainline Lutherans and Anglicans do not.

Thank you. Add Methodists, too. I’m so tired of hearing “Protestants” do this or that!

 

[JonNC]

If you can show where the “generalization” is in my question, please do.
.

The very use of the term “protestant” in the OP and thread title, ISTM, is a generalization.

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?

Not all communions that are generally characterized as “protestant” even acknowledge sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[yateanieys]

I suggest you read a book by Cardinal James Gibbons

I will try to find the time to read it, of course, but let me pose something. Why should I value anything other than the Bible when seeking my salvation? I can understand counsel, but why go here and there to numerous non-biblical sources other than to seek the opinion of other like-minded or even (subjectively) those more wise than myself. Why move beyond the Book that God essentially wrote Himself for any reason other than personal and spiritual growth? When it comes to salvation and fundamental understanding, it makes sense to me that no one need look further than the Bible, because the Bible is the written Word of God.

As far as infallibility, of course, I would expect any man to affirm their fallibility, but how is understanding the word by its dictionary definition a fundamental misunderstanding? Infallible, by mere definition, means incapable of making mistakes—inerrant and perfect. God is infallible, He is perfect and incapable of sinning or otherwise making bad judgment. He gave use the written Word, which is also inerrant and perfect. So, if every Catholic believer all the way up to the Pope goes to confession, then who among the Church is infallible? A sin is bad judgment, is it not? or does the CC have a different definition of “infallible” the same way they do the word “denomination?”

 

[Jubilarian]

In addition, St Paul tells us that Jesus said, “it is better to give than to receive”. This statement by Jesus is not recorded in the gospels. Paul relied on oral communication, not the written word.

 

[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.

In addition, Lutherans and Anglicans celebrate Christmas on December 25th. That date is not in scripture. They celebrate on the 25th because of tradition.

Hey dude, just trying to give you some friendly advice from a fellow revert. If you insist on learning the hard way, feel free.

 

[Jubilarian]

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.

The nonexistent “tradition” of sola scriptura.

But what exactly are you asking, Jubilarian? Are you asking for the one Tradition out of thousands that actually matters? Are you poking fun at the customs that aren’t really Traditions that they inherited from us? Please, Jube, clarify your question. It’s very confusing.

My intent was to uncover the fact that (1) tradition is necessary for scripture to exist and (2), that Protestants unwittingly engage in traditions even though some are not in the bible. If my question was poorly executed, I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Jubilarian]

Hey dude, just trying to give you some friendly advice from a fellow revert. If you insist on learning the hard way, feel free.

There are other ways to approach people . You still haven’t shown the generalization that you claim I made. I have a right to defend against your statement, no? Incidentally, I received an infraction. And that was because I asked two people to “think” before making certain comments. There’s enough learning to go around.

 

[JRKH]

I will try to find the time to read it, of course, but let me pose something. Why should I value anything other than the Bible when seeking my salvation? I can understand counsel, but why go here and there to numerous non-biblical sources other than to seek the opinion of other like-minded or even (subjectively) those more wise than myself. Why move beyond the Book that God essentially wrote Himself for any reason other than personal and spiritual growth? When it comes to salvation and fundamental understanding, it makes sense to me that no one need look further than the Bible, because the Bible is the written Word of God.

As far as infallibility, of course, I would expect any man to affirm their fallibility, but how is understanding the word by its dictionary definition a fundamental misunderstanding? Infallible, by mere definition, means incapable of making mistakes—inerrant and perfect. God is infallible, He is perfect and incapable of sinning or otherwise making bad judgment. He gave use the written Word, which is also inerrant and perfect. So, if every Catholic believer all the way up to the Pope goes to confession, then who among the Church is infallible? A sin is bad judgment, is it not? or does the CC have a different definition of “infallible” the same way they do the word “denomination?”

Others will be able to give you a better answer than I, but I would just like to offer my 2 cents…

Yours is a very common misunderstanding of the matter. It is not that any one individual in the Church is infallible, it is that the Church in her DOCTRINES is infallible. That is, the Church’s teachings have been protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

Yes we all still sin and we need confession - which helps us to remain humble and to grow in holiness.

As I say - there are others much more knowledgeable than I who can answer this better and more fully.

Peace
James

 

[CommonWeal]

I will try to find the time to read it, of course, but let me pose something. Why should I value anything other than the Bible when seeking my salvation? I can understand counsel, but why go here and there to numerous non-biblical sources other than to seek the opinion of other like-minded or even (subjectively) those more wise than myself. Why move beyond the Book that God essentially wrote Himself for any reason other than personal and spiritual growth? When it comes to salvation and fundamental understanding, it makes sense to me that no one need look further than the Bible, because the Bible is the written Word of God.

God didn’t give us a Bible to rule over us and guide us into all truth, He gave us a Church. That’s like a five year old saying, “Why should I listen to my mother’s counsel? Instead, I’m just going to read books and come to my own conclusions.” My friend, the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky and land in your lap. Faith comes by hearing. If all you need is the Bible, then why even be on these forums?

As far as infallibility, of course, I would expect any man to affirm their fallibility, but how is understanding the word by its dictionary definition a fundamental misunderstanding? Infallible, by mere definition, means incapable of making mistakes—inerrant and perfect. God is infallible, He is perfect and incapable of sinning or otherwise making bad judgment. He gave use the written Word, which is also inerrant and perfect. So, if every Catholic believer all the way up to the Pope goes to confession, then who among the Church is infallible? A sin is bad judgment, is it not? or does the CC have a different definition of “infallible” the same way they do the word “denomination?”

Infallibility is not the same as impeccability; the former pertains to truth, the latter pertains to personal holiness. When the Church teaches that the Pope enjoys a certain privilege of infallibility (under limited circumstances and limited subjects), we are not saying the Pope is without sin or incapable of sinning. Furthermore, infallibility, properly speaking, is a privilege that is exercised by virtue of an office.

 

[JRKH]

God didn’t give us a Bible to rule over us and guide us into all truth, He gave us a Church. That’s like a five year old saying, “Why should I listen to my mother’s counsel? Instead, I’m just going to read books and come to my own conclusions.” My friend, the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky and land in your lap. Faith comes by hearing. If all you need is the Bible, then why even be on these forums?

amen - and the bible itself speaks to the authority of the Church.

Infallibility is not the same as impeccability; the former pertains to truth, the latter pertains to personal holiness. When the Church teaches that the Pope enjoys a certain privilege of infallibility (under limited circumstances and limited subjects), we are not saying the Pope is without sin or incapable of sinning. Furthermore, infallibility, properly speaking, is a privilege that is exercised by virtue of an office.

 

[Jubilarian]

The very use of the term “protestant” in the OP and thread title, ISTM, is a generalization.

Not all communions that are generally characterized as “protestant” even acknowledge sola scriptura.

Jon

And all followed by a question mark . Typically, that symbol implies a question, not a statement of fact. How sensitive are we getting on this forum?

 

[benjohnson]

And all followed by a question mark . Typically, that symbol implies a question, not a statement of fact. How sensitive are we getting on this forum?

You’re the one claiming that Sola Scriptura is our “mantra” and that we deny tradition - could show me where this is the case. Because if you can, I’ll stop being Lutheran.

As far as I know, we preach Christ and Him crucified, and as far as tradition goes it is only corrected by scripture.