Protestants DENY Tradition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jubilarian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chong said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, scripture certainly does use sources outside of written scripture, it is called tradition. Sounds like you are in line with Catholic thinking. This absolutely removes the possibility for a “bible alone” mentality.

Paul and others used rabbinic tradition that was not in the OT. Were they wrong to do this? The OT at that time was the only scripture read and just as valid as both the old and new are today. Catholics hold tradition to be as valid as scripture itself, and scripture points to the fact that this acceptable.
 
JustaServant said:
This quote is good for Catholics to see because it shows the stark difference between mainline Protestants and fundamentalists. The above comes dangerously close to “Biblioatry”, actual worship of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Yours is a good quote for people who regularly fail to grasp the point of a rebuttal and resort to poisoning the well instead of staying on topic or offering something useful to the discussion.

That quote doesn’t even come close to bibliolatry. Again, I said it was a horrible analogy after I used it, but it still made more sense than simply “reading books,” which was a weak rebuttal. I worship nothing but God Almighty. Still, the messages within the Bible were dictated by the Word of God. I used the analogy to illustrate the necessary faith in those underlying messages that the Bible illustrated via the Word of God. Thats closer to the exact opposite of worshipping a stack of paper. I might be Pentecostal, but I’m not ridiculous! (ironic exclamation lol I really hope someone brings attention to why they think it’s ironic; I’ll have a hayday with that one) :pshaw:

And for crying out loud, Protestant is so dysphemistic! I’m Pentecostal. I don’t “protest” anything; I just enjoy debate (maybe a little too much).
 
Is a protestant ever allowed to submit themselves to the understanding of another? Or must the protestant read the scripture and go with what they feel the scripture means?
 
Jubilarian said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it is relevant to the tradition that what the church says is right is equal to or is as authoritative as Sacred scripture. This is what ss denies. SS denies ORAR-“once right always right” for the church (similar thought as OSAS-once save always saved for individual).

Not sure much more could be said for every tradition we agree and disagree on have some sort of scriptural reasoning. The trouble is that there are varied reasonings on the disputed traditions. A non SS reasoning then would be that once upon a time individuals, then councils, or "church " reasoned it such a way so, therefore it must be “authoritative”. SS reasoning says not infallibly so.

Are you asking for traditions/doctrine that some feel are not correct biblical interpretations ?
 
benhur said:
I think it is relevant to the tradition that what the church says is right is equal to or is as authoritative as Sacred scripture. This is what ss denies. SS denies ORAR-“once right always right” for the church (similar thought as OSAS-once save always saved for individual).

Not sure much more could be said for every tradition we agree and disagree on have some sort of scriptural reasoning. The trouble is that there are varied reasonings on the disputed traditions. A non SS reasoning then would be that once upon a time individuals, then councils, or "church " reasoned it such a way so, therefore it must be “authoritative”. SS reasoning says not infallibly so.

Are you asking for traditions/doctrine that some feel are not correct biblical interpretations ?
Click to expand...
Forget about the “agreeing” aspect and focus in the fact that Paul used tradition that wasn’t in the OT. Other writers have done likewise. If its good enough for Paul and other NT writers it should be enough for Protestants. it clearly refutes the “bible alone” mentality of Protestants.
 
Jubilarian said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not sure but I think Randy Carson gave definitions of “Tradition” and “tradition” . I think they have different meanings. One is a "mode of operandi, or reasoning.,The other is what doctrines, practices develop from that thereafter.

SS came as a reaction to the use of "Tradition’’ to justify error in practice and principle.

SS came way after Scripture was written, councils were held, and papal decrees issued.

SS does not do away with our oral history’s authority just as oral history should not do away with Sacred scripture authority.
 
Jubilarian said:
Forget about the “agreeing” aspect and focus in the fact that Paul used tradition that wasn’t in the OT. Other writers have done likewise. If its good enough for Paul and other NT writers it should be enough for Protestants. it clearly refutes the “bible alone” mentality of Protestants.
Click to expand...
Disagree with your rationale. The NT sets new "tradition’’. We know because they later wrote it down, which is why you know that about paul and others.

Your rationale would be like Jews doing something based on tradition , not their scriptures at hand , because after all, Abraham had no scripture. Like after the 10 commandments writing on the tablets they did not say, well let us go back to the “oral” stuff we got earlier.

"Bible alone’’ is for after we have the bible , not before. You kind of are very close to "adding’’ or “taking away” to Sacred Scripture’s Revelations when declaring a new tradition/explanation thereafter. Obedience to HS is utmost,as evidenced in Jerusalem council. "Tradition’’ says "we (our faction) can’t be wrong’. SS says , “oh, yes you can”.
 
benhur said:
Not sure but I think Randy Carson gave definitions of “Tradition” and “tradition” . I think they have different meanings. One is a "mode of operandi, or reasoning.,The other is what doctrines, practices develop from that thereafter.

SS came as a reaction to the use of "Tradition’’ to justify error in practice and principle.

SS came way after Scripture was written, councils were held, and papal decrees issued.

SS does not do away with our oral history’s authority just as oral history should not do away with Sacred scripture authority.
Click to expand...
This approach only muddies the waters. Tradition is tradition. Some develop into doctrines based on importance. The main point is that NT writers relied on tradition, not OT writtings in all cases. The CC does the same. Protestants relying on the bible alone should take heed to the fact that Tradition does not need to be in scripture and Paul among others demonstrated this.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
Is a protestant ever allowed to submit themselves to the understanding of another? Or must the protestant read the scripture and go with what they feel the scripture means?
Click to expand...
of course we submit, even one to another . I even submit, agree, to the pope when he speaks the truth. When he is wrong I “feel” I should not listen to him , as you feel he can not be wrong.
 
Jubilarian said:
This approach only muddies the waters. Tradition is tradition. Some develop into doctrines based on importance. The main point is that NT writers relied on tradition, not OT writtings in all cases. The CC does the same. Protestants relying on the bible alone should take heed to the fact that Tradition does not need to be in scripture and Paul among others demonstrated this.
Click to expand...
Not sure but I thought the NT writers relied not on old tradition (what others "handed’ them) but on what they had first hand experience of. Their new “testimony” formed new “tradition” . it rested upon the foundation of Old “scripture”.

Catholic definitions do not muddy waters.
 
benhur said:
of course we submit, even one to another . I even submit, agree, to the pope when he speaks the truth. When he is wrong I “feel” I should not listen to him , as you feel he can not be wrong.
Click to expand...
So you must go with your own opinion ultimately right? Let me clarify a question, would you ever submit to someone’s teaching, even if you weren’t 100% convinced by it?
 
benhur said:
Not sure but I thought the NT writers relied not on old tradition (what others "handed’ them) but on what they had first hand experience of. Their new “testimony” formed new “tradition” . it rested upon the foundation of Old “scripture”.

Catholic definitions do not muddy waters.
Click to expand...
No. St Paul did not have first hand experience of the events covered in Exodus . Nor did the writers personally meet Jannes & Jambres (who are nowhere to be found in OT scripture).
The writers of the NT clearly show that written scripture is not the only word of God, tradition can be as well.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
]So you must go with your own opinion ultimately right?
Click to expand...
Pretty mush we all do this. We do have a God given conscience, and we make choices on it’s formation, even guidance ,but not sure anyone teaches to go against it. That is why Jesus promised a “new heart” not keep your old heart but just submit.
 
benhur said:
of course we submit, even one to another . I even submit, agree, to the pope when he speaks the truth. When he is wrong I “feel” I should not listen to him , as you feel he can not be wrong.
Click to expand...
You do not understand the concept of infallibility regarding the pope .The pope can be wrong, just not in matters of church doctrine.
 
benhur said:
Disagree with your rationale. The NT sets new "tradition’’. We know because they later wrote it down, which is why you know that about paul and others.

Your rationale would be like Jews doing something based on tradition , not their scriptures at hand , because after all, Abraham had no scripture. Like after the 10 commandments writing on the tablets they did not say, well let us go back to the “oral” stuff we got earlier.

"Bible alone’’ is for after we have the bible , not before. You kind of are very close to "adding’’ or “taking away” to Sacred Scripture’s Revelations when declaring a new tradition/explanation thereafter. Obedience to HS is utmost,as evidenced in Jerusalem council. "Tradition’’ says "we (our faction) can’t be wrong’. SS says , “oh, yes you can”.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that when the Hebrew Torah existed by itself, way before the NT, the the “bible alone” viewpoint was not equal until the NT came along? Think hard about this one.
 
Jubilarian said:
Are you saying that when the Hebrew Torah existed by itself, way before the NT, the the “bible alone” viewpoint was not equal until the NT came along? Think hard about this one.
Click to expand...
The Torah existed by itself ? The Torah was given to Moses to a people the Jews . Their interpretation of of Gods written words were not above Gods intent and meaning. Any extrapolation of the written had to be in tune with the original writer.God gives the perfect writing as he gives the perfect understanding of it to whom he chooses and whosoever is humble and broken before him. Nothing is alone
 
benhur said:
The Torah existed by itself ? The Torah was given to Moses to a people the Jews . Their interpretation of of Gods written words were not above Gods intent and meaning. Any extrapolation of the written had to be in tune with the original writer.God gives the perfect writing as he gives the perfect understanding of it to whom he chooses and whosoever is humble and broken before him. Nothing is alone
Click to expand...
The Torah existed without a NT is my point. That was “the bible” for decades. Yet even so, NT writers did not rely on scripture alone. Why do you?
 
Jubilarian said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well yes a lot of protestant beliefs are contradictory but that is because of the error of separating Jesus from His Church, the Catholic Church. All protestant error derives from that. And it’s not so much that Bible alone is damaging (it is) but worse is interpretation alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top