Methinks that you are using such a broad term (‘Protestants’) that you won’t find anyone who fits it.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.
Any Christian PROTESTING the Catholic Church is a PROTEST-TANT. Don’t run from it.Methinks that you are using such a broad term (‘Protestants’) that you won’t find anyone who fits it.
There is a HUGE difference between, say, Lutherans and Calvinists. And even a bigger one between Lutherans and Zwinglians.
Because the fullness of the gospel was revealed two thousand years ago and I was not there but have writings of those who were there.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?
He wasn’t. Yes, it’s fine to call all of us Protestant, but not fine to refer to a Lutheran as if he were a Baptist; or a Calvinist as if he were a Methodist. Nicht wahr?Any Christian PROTESTING the Catholic Church is a PROTEST-TANT. Don’t run from it.
I think I do understand a little bit . I certainly was not talking about believing his prediction on the Super Bowl (if he made any). My word “truth” includes "church doctrine’’.You do not understand the concept of infallibility regarding the pope .The pope can be wrong, just not in matters of church doctrine.
Nothing ? Exodus 17 :6 “I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel."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.
I like your observation but not your conclusion. Rely is a big word . Use is a better word . The Holy Spirit can use anything to put forth a point. Even Paul says I become all things to all men so that some should be saved…Following your logic Paul legitimizes Greek mythology when at Mars hill.Can you see from this that scripture** relied **on tradition, because this event does not appear anywhere in the bible.
Yes, absolutely nothing about the movement of the rock that Moses struck.Nothing ? Exodus 17 :6 “I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel."
This is certainly "something’'
That there was a tradition that Paul alludes to in no way authorizes it by mentioning it. In fact the tradition of a literal rock following them was thought by many rabbis to be more of a metaphor. Paul speaks of a “spiritual rock” and not a literal rock following them.
I like your observation but not your conclusion. Rely is a big word . Use is a better word . The Holy Spirit can use anything to put forth a point. Even Paul says I become all things to all men so that some should be saved…Following your logic Paul legitimizes Greek mythology when at Mars hill.
Revelations is full of current events in the letters to the seven churches. Did John and the Lord rely on “news headlines” , therefore the “news” is authoritative ? (eg Laodecia refused Rome’s government relief after an earthquake because “she was rich and in need of nothing” Rev 3:17
So even if the HS "uses’’ a tradition or a mythology or "all things’ or headlines’ in scripture, does not mean the tradition/mythology/all things by itself are authoritative.
Even Chrysostomos says scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and not by tradition in regards to your other example (the two "J’'S-Jans and Jambres …?). The Holy Spirit could have inspired Paul in that writing without any knowledge of the tradition.
The thread is directed at Protestants in general because they ALL oppose CC doctrine. It wouldn’t make sense to address only Lutherans for example on a topic such as this. The bottom line is that Protestants DO NOT hold tradition to be equal with scripture as the CC does.He wasn’t. Yes, it’s fine to call all of us Protestant, but not fine to refer to a Lutheran as if he were a Baptist; or a Calvinist as if he were a Methodist. Nicht wahr?
On what specifically do you base your assertion that you were allowed to go outside of the OT scriptures ( when it was THE ONLY authoritative scripture)?Because the fullness of the gospel was revealed two thousand years ago and I was not there but have writings of those who were there.
Again oral transmission today is fine and can even save as it did way back when. Just that I am pretty sure the oral transmission would be identical to the written.
No but there is a rock again years later in Kadesh 250 km away producing water again ! Something not nothing.Yes, absolutely nothing about the movement of the rock that Moses struck.
Again I prefer “use” not “rely” for he relies on the Holy Spirit.RELIES on Rabbinic tradition to show how this rock followed them on their journey through the wilderness.
Again, there is still some powerful oral transmission today, that wonderfully saves.Remember Jesus’ words, " you have HEARD it said…" Not you have “read”.
But then the question…who of this oral transmitters bears the truth of the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles?Again, there is still some powerful oral transmission today, that wonderfully saves.
Do you mean how did writers know the OT canon was finished or not, or that the NT required “writing” as ordained by God, as did the other testaments ?On what specifically do you base your assertion that you were allowed to go outside of the OT scriptures ( when it was THE ONLY authoritative scripture)?
Well again, I am not sure Luther’s bible alone means what you suggest. Further, the CC view on all of this was not magically there from day one. it developed over centuries even milenniaSuddenly the Reformation comes along and magically it must be “scriptures alone?”
I do not think Luther thought he was being un-apostolic. Athanasius would have been proud of Him.I guess what was good enough for Paul and others just isn’t a model for you to ascribe to
I suppose cry out to the name of the Lord, for the divine inspiration from the Father that helped Peter the man sift thru not just oral but scriptural, magisterial, traditional, staus quo transmitters.But then the question…who of this oral transmitters bears the truth of the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles?
What would you do, Benhur…to sift through all the oral transmitters?
When we cry out to the Lord for inspiration, we are asking for Christ.I suppose cry out to the name of the Lord, for the divine inspiration from the Father that helped Peter the man sift thru not just oral but scriptural, magisterial, traditional, staus quo transmitters.
seems to be,What would you do,…to sift through all the oral transmitters?
You want scripture alone to be your model along with the rest that oppose mother church. St Paul and the prophets do not. It’s quite simple.Do you mean how did writers know the OT canon was finished or not, or that the NT required “writing” as ordained by God, as did the other testaments ?
Well again, I am not sure Luther’s bible alone means what you suggest. Further, the CC view on all of this was not magically there from day one. it developed over centuries even milenniaI do not think Luther thought he was being un-apostolic. Athanasius would have been proud of Him.
Peter was specifically called out…and his name changed.I suppose cry out to the name of the Lord, for the divine inspiration from the Father that helped Peter the man sift thru not just oral but scriptural, magisterial, traditional, staus quo transmitters.
D
it developed over centuries even milenniaI do not think Luther thought he was being un-apostolic.
Do
Well again, I am not sure Luther’s bible alone means what you suggest. Further, the CC view on all of this was not magically there from day one. it developed over centuries even milennia
Amen.When we cry out to the Lord for inspiration, we are asking for Christ.
Christ is the full and final revelation and gift of God. God offers himself completely to us. He is inspired into flesh, born of a woman, truly and substantially living in time and space. He is God, living breathing teaching dying rising, all with full human nature…all in full community with humanity. He did not come to us in a book, he came to us in the flesh, as one with us. The Inspiration of God is breathed into a community, through Christ, with Christ, and in Christ, in the unity of the Holy Spirit.
Christ lived among people and established his community. His proposes for us to be one with the whole of his community. Christ offers us unity. Peter’s inspiration cannot be separated from this “whole”. Inspiration can never be exclusively personal separated from the Church. Inspiration is for the good of, and exercised with, the whole of the Body.
So, it seems the answer to
seems to be,
pray and act, with and for the good of Christ and his Church, which are one and inseparable.
Well I thought he named you before you were born and you might get a new name in heave per revelations. Anyways, if we use name change as benchmark we are all in trouble. Last name I heard God changed was Saul.Peter was specifically called out…and his name changed.
But as for you…have you done so, called out to the Lord for Divine inspiration? And what is the result…how have you been answered?