Protestants DENY Tradition?

[benhur]

You can’t get off the ground without the primary stage. That is why the primary must be equal to the final stage.

 

[Jubilarian]

Luke was one of us, a gentile convert, and saw nothing of the gospel firsthand save firsthand testimony, yet it is more “complete” than any of the other gospels. Again he relied on the Holy Spirit to use firsthand testimony.

Then the Holy Spirit MUST be in tradition and oral practices.

I think so .’'Tradition" capital ‘T’ is a paradigm and within it are many traditions small “t” even practices. I will have to find that Catholic’s post that i saw on all of this.

Hopefully it’s not similar to the JWs concept of “god” in John 1.

No but the writing of it down sure helped discern from possible fable such as ST.James Protoevangelium birth story, condemned by CC.

There can be errors in writing as well as oral preservation. The hOly Spirit knows what to preserve, as He did with what Luke (any may others) attained orally from eyewitnesses.

 

[benhur]

I understand your analogy.
The problem with applying it is we are dealing with God and human beings. The primary stage is Christ. Christ is a living person. Still he lives, now. The initial stage, the living breathing teaching dying rising Christ, living in community, cannot be discarded. What he established among humanity in a living manner endures, just as he lives.

There are dispensations just as there are testaments. There is oral/tradiiotnal and written Word thru out.
My analogy does not deal with Christ or His body but with how He chooses to reveal and transmit His living Word to His body. That is all.

Your analogy proposes Scripture as a destination or a final product.

Umm it is.
I am setting out to reply to you . What I write will be a final post/product, will it not ? It is certainly my intention.

You think God did not intend to begin John with, “In the beginning” and end it with “Amen” ? A beautiful “product” the Written Word. A living “product”, to be effectual to me, though I understand that is not quite Catholic, though you stress a living community a living Christ

You misapply the analogy. The rocket has a destination as does His “Word”. To go where no man has gone before, to penetrate and revive the inner man, to cut to the marrow. etc.

We all agree that spaceship ,The Word will accomplish what it set out to do. Perfectly.

But Christ must be the destination. He is God’s full and final revelation. He is the Word embodied. Scripture serves Christ, not the other way around. The end of our journey is to be one with him,** not to have a great book**.

Amen except for my emboldened. Not sure why you deaden the book, make the book “unliving”.

 

[Jubilarian]

Jubilarian;12712291:

Only when gravity is still a force,but not in space the whole purpose of the rocket.All i know is that all CC doctrine, even most practices, are scripturally justified by her . That is “tradition”.

The purpose of the rocket is to reach space, and gravity whether no longer required , is the living catylist making it possible.

Yes, the two, scripture and tradition form one single deposit of faith.

 

[clem456]

I am setting out to reply to you . What I write will be a final post/product, will it not ? It is certainly my intention.

When you reveal your product to me, I receive it as a human being, from another human being.
How do I even know what it means to human? I know what it means to be human because I live with other human beings. I come from a family, live in a community. Your revelation to me is not a purely personal matter, received in a vacuum. It is conditioned by *the whole *, or the community that I live in. Others help me learn to read, to interpret, and to live your reply. Your letter is not the end, it is an integral part of the end, and serves whatever good purpose it is. Truly, your reply is meaningless outside the context of others.

 

[KjetilK]

Are you incapable of looking this up?

Looking what up?

To satisfy you though, I will apply my original “definition” and add, “but Eastern Orodox is not Protestant.”

An useless ad hoc definition, in other words. And I like the fact that you (unconsciously?) admit to never having given a definition (in that you put it in square quotes).

That depends on what traditions we are referring to, doesn’t it, number one. Anglican ministers can marry, this rejects Catholic tradition . Catholic tradition is for men to be bishops, not so with Anglicans. “Never” is not correct.

So the Orthodox don’t follow Tradition, then? Remember that Tradition is not a confessional term. Married or unmarried clergy aren’t part of Tradition. It is part of tradition, though. And there are a number of Anglican and Lutheran churches that do not ordain women. And the Lutheran confessions are opposed to it.

You must understand that this is a Catholic forum, so when I say" Protestants reject tradition", I mean as opposed to Catholic traditions in most cases.

And you must understand that I spot quite easily when someone changes their tactics mid sentence. The thing discussed was Tradition, not traditions. The date of Christmas is part of Tradition. That a priest may not marry or that you must used unleavened bread for the Eucharist is part of tradition. To name a few examples.

The reason Luther broke away is because he saw practices (many traditions such as celibacy, the intermediary role of priests, the Latin bible) he believed did not line up with scripture. So, for it to be said that Lutherans don’t reject Catholic traditions is odd.

And you are conflating Tradition with traditions. And in doing so you are contradicting your own Church’s teaching on the subject.

Yes, it’s quite easy. christianityinview.com/comparison.html

Thank you. It is much, much easier to refute you when you actually provides examples. One major problem with this list is that it tries to compare one single Church – the Roman Catholic Church – with a gazillion ‘Protestant’ traditions that it tosses together under the same label. That is just a dishonest tactic. This list betrays nill understanding. Let me take a few examples:
(1) The Lutheran Churches of Scandinavia continued in apostolic succession. The same goes for the Anglican Communion. For some past discussions on this, use the search function. You can search for ‘apostolic succession’ and my name.

(2) Most Lutheran Churches have never rejected the Deuterocanonicals. They are in fact referred to insome early Norwegian Lutheran documents and treated there as Scripture. The same goes for the Church of England. The fact is that it was removed from the King James Bible not by the Church but by the Bible Society so that they could save money on paper, yet charge the same amount. And anticipating your ‘Luther said’ argument: In Lutheranism the authoritative parts are the Bible and the Confessions, not the opinion of any one theologian.

(3) The Traditional Lutheran view is that only men can be priests (and this is reflected in the confessions).

(4) You won’t find any Lutheran or Anglican Church who believes that “the Eucharist, like Baptism is only a symbol of grace.” To even state this, and present it as the ‘Protestant’ view both betrays the authors complete ignorance and it shows us why Protestant has now become a meaningless term. If being Protestant means believing that the sacraments are merely symbolic then about zero of the Churches coming out of the Reformation were ‘Protestant.’

(11/12) In the Smalcald Articles, Luther refers to Mary as pure and ever virgin. Both Luther and Calvin held deeply to this, and it found its way into the Confessions.

(15) Purgatory isn’t mention at all in the Augsburg Confession.

(17) No Lutheran worth his salt would say that the sacraments are “symbols or reminders of Grace already given.”

(18) In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, and in the Smalcald Articles (IIRC), the prayer of the departed saints are mentioned favourably.

The problem is that this list compares one Church with a gazillion, then goes on talking as if all that is said of one of the gazillion Churches can be applied to all of them.

I gave it above.

Where? You haven’t provided us with a definition at all. A definition needs to be applicable, and it needs to be of such a nature that it includes what it ought to include, and excludes what it ought to exclude. ‘Connected to the Reformation’ is no such definition. First, it includes most of the major Catholic theologians at the time of the Reformation, as they were all, on way or another, ‘connected to the Reformation.’ The most prominent one would be Pope Leo X, and next to him perhaps Cardinal Cajetan. But the problem is that it doesn’t include most of the modern ‘Protestant’ Churches. Take Pentacostalism, for instance. How is that ‘connected to the Reformation’? What about all the non-denominational churches? How are they ‘connected to the Reformation’?

If your answer is that they often came out of ‘Protestant’ Churches (i.e. ‘churches connected to the Reformation’), then what does that make of the Churches of the Reformation? They all came out of the Roman Catholic Church. Does that mean that they are really Roman Catholic?

The bottom line is that ‘Protestant’ is so broad that it doesn’t tell us anything.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The bottom line is that ‘Protestant’ is so broad that it doesn’t tell us anything.

And that fact itself tells us a lot.

It tells us that “Protestantism”, which is based upon sola scriptura and its equally evil twin, the absolute right to private judgment, does not work.

It tells us that “Protestants” are so diverse in their contradictory and conflicting beliefs that they cannot be described by a single term, Protestant, any longer.

 

[benhur]

]It tells us that “Protestants” are so diverse in their contradictory and conflicting beliefs that they cannot be described by a single term, Protestant, any longer

Actually I kind of like this and has me laughing a bit.

A bit true and humorous also is that P’s are united in this one original thing - they are all not Catholic (full communion).

 

[benhur]

When you reveal your product to me, I receive it as a human being, from another human being.

Why thank you. I resemble that remark.:thankyou:

How do I even know what it means to human? I know what it means to be human because I live with other human beings. I come from a family, live in a community. Your revelation to me is not a purely personal matter, received in a vacuum. It is conditioned by *the whole , or the community that I live in. Others help *me learn to read, to interpret, and to live your reply.

Amen to the fleshly part of that, even the spiritual application with this one addition:the final “help” that brings all that other help to focus is the unction from the Holy One.

Your letter is not the end,

Amen. never said it was for that would be bibliolotry .The “community” is not the end either for that would be “churcholatry”. We agree that glory and good pleasure to the Groom is ultimate end as you have stated with other words.

 

[KjetilK]

And that fact itself tells us a lot.

It tells us that “Protestantism”, which is based upon sola scriptura and its equally evil twin, the absolute right to private judgment, does not work.

It tells us that “Protestants” are so diverse in their contradictory and conflicting beliefs that they cannot be described by a single term, Protestant, any longer.

They never have been united, and has never claimed to be. What needs to be done is to take each Church for itself. And that would be honest. Then one would be comparing one Church - the Roman Catholic Church - with one Church (say, the Church of England).

 

[Jubilarian]

Looking what up?

The definition of Protestant.

An useless ad hoc definition, in other words. And I like the fact that you (unconsciously?) admit to never having given a definition (in that you put it in square quotes)

. I was very conscious. I put it in quotes because I did not expect someone to be confused with what a Protestant is.

So the Orthodox don’t follow Tradition, then? Remember that Tradition is not a confessional term. Married or unmarried clergy aren’t part of Tradition. It is part of tradition, though. And there are a number of Anglican and Lutheran churches that do not ordain women. And the Lutheran confessions are opposed to it.

And you must understand that I spot quite easily when someone changes their tactics mid sentence. The thing discussed was Tradition, not traditions. The date of Christmas is part of Tradition. That a priest may not marry or that you must used unleavened bread for the Eucharist is part of tradition. To name a few examples.

And you are conflating Tradition with traditions. And in doing so you are contradicting your own Church’s teaching on the subject.

Yes, but the examples you gave show that both Tradition and traditions are often rejected .

Thank you. It is much, much easier to refute you when you actually provides examples. One major problem with this list is that it tries to compare one single Church – the Roman Catholic Church – with a gazillion ‘Protestant’ traditions that it tosses together under the same label. That is just a dishonest tactic. This list betrays nill understanding. Let me take a few examples:

I did not supply some unique web site that is trying to fool people from the differences between Protestantism and Orthodox , just search the web, they all show what I posted.

(1) The Lutheran Churches of Scandinavia continued in apostolic succession. The same goes for the Anglican Communion. For some past discussions on this, use the search function. You can search for ‘apostolic succession’ and my name.

(2) Most Lutheran Churches have never rejected the Deuterocanonicals. They are in fact referred to insome early Norwegian Lutheran documents and treated there as Scripture. The same goes for the Church of England. The fact is that it was removed from the King James Bible not by the Church but by the Bible Society so that they could save money on paper, yet charge the same amount. And anticipating your ‘Luther said’ argument: In Lutheranism the authoritative parts are the Bible and the Confessions, not the opinion of any one theologian.

(3) The Traditional Lutheran view is that only men can be priests (and this is reflected in the confessions).

(4) You won’t find any Lutheran or Anglican Church who believes that “the Eucharist, like Baptism is only a symbol of grace.” To even state this, and present it as the ‘Protestant’ view both betrays the authors complete ignorance and it shows us why Protestant has now become a meaningless term. If being Protestant means believing that the sacraments are merely symbolic then about zero of the Churches coming out of the Reformation were ‘Protestant.’

(11/12) In the Smalcald Articles, Luther refers to Mary as pure and ever virgin. Both Luther and Calvin held deeply to this, and it found its way into the Confessions.

(15) Purgatory isn’t mention at all in the Augsburg Confession.

(17) No Lutheran worth his salt would say that the sacraments are “symbols or reminders of Grace already given.”

(18) In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, and in the Smalcald Articles (IIRC), the prayer of the departed saints are mentioned favourably.

You want to show where there is agreement , that is well and good. This does not negate the differences or that Tradition is held to the same standard as the CC.

The problem is that this list compares one Church with a gazillion, then goes on talking as if all that is said of one of the gazillion Churches can be applied to all of them.

So, find a list that your happy with , we all know that Protestant denominations vary.

Where? You haven’t provided us with a definition at all. A definition needs to be applicable, and it needs to be of such a nature that it includes what it ought to include, and excludes what it ought to exclude. ‘Connected to the Reformation’ is no such definition. First, it includes most of the major Catholic theologians at the time of the Reformation, as they were all, on way or another, ‘connected to the Reformation.’ The most prominent one would be Pope Leo X, and next to him perhaps Cardinal Cajetan. But the problem is that it doesn’t include most of the modern ‘Protestant’ Churches. Take Pentacostalism, for instance. How is that ‘connected to the Reformation’? What about all the non-denominational churches? How are they ‘connected to the Reformation’?

If your answer is that they often came out of ‘Protestant’ Churches (i.e. ‘churches connected to the Reformation’), then what does that make of the Churches of the Reformation? They all came out of the Roman Catholic Church. Does that mean that they are really Roman Catholic?

The bottom line is that ‘Protestant’ is so broad that it doesn’t tell us anything.

If you want to believe the Eastern Orthodox are Protestant, I can’t stop you. You are a Protest-tant , and for some reason this term irks you. I maintain that Chritians that protest the teachings of the CC are fittingly called Protestants. It’s possible that many don’t classify Orthodox as Protestant because the schism occured at a different period . Look into it if you must.

 

[KjetilK]

The fact is that you haven’t engaged with my points at all. A sure sign that you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Jubilarian]

The fact is that you haven’t engaged with my points at all. A sure sign that you have no clue what you are talking about.

This response appears to be the best you have. Why don’t you tell me your defintion of Protestant . Do you have a good one?

 

[KjetilK]

This response appears to be the best you have. Why don’t you tell me your defintion of Protestant . Do you have a good one?

I’m not the one who use it. If YOU want to use a term, YOU ought to be able to actually explain what it means in a way that actually distinguishes it from other things. A definition needs to be applicable, and it needs to be of such a nature that it includes what it ought to include, and excludes what it ought to exclude.

If you say that ‘Protestants believe that the sacraments are just symbols’ or that ‘Protestants do not believe in baptismal regeneration’ (both claims deduced from the link you posted), you cannot also claim that ‘Protestans are those who are connected to the Reformation’ unless you deny the law of non-contradiction. Because the traditional Churches of the Reformation do NOT believe the sacraments are only symbolic, and DO believe in baptismal regeneration.

 

[Jubilarian]

I’m not the one who use it. If YOU want to use a term, YOU ought to be able to actually explain what it means in a way that actually distinguishes it from other things. A definition needs to be applicable, and it needs to be of such a nature that it includes what it ought to include, and excludes what it ought to exclude.

If you say that ‘Protestants believe that the sacraments are just symbols’ or that ‘Protestants do not believe in baptismal regeneration’ (both claims deduced from the link you posted), you cannot also claim that ‘Protestans are those who are connected to the Reformation’ unless you deny the law of non-contradiction. Because the traditional Churches of the Reformation do NOT believe the sacraments are only symbolic, and DO believe in baptismal regeneration.

I explained it but you don’t like it. Dont be afraid, give me your definition of Protestant.

 

[KjetilK]

I explained it but you don’t like it. Dont be afraid, give me your definition of Protestant.

This is like talking to a brick wall.

 

[Jubilarian]

This is like talking to a brick wall.

More like a convenient avoidance response of my request on your part.

 

[KjetilK]

More like a convenient avoidance response of my request on your part.

I have said what I mean. ‘Protestant’ has become so broad that it is useless. It simply means ‘Christiam person who is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.’ But that doesn’t tell you a thing about that person.

 

[pablope]

Actually I kind of like this and has me laughing a bit.

A bit true and humorous also is that P’s are united in this one original thing - they are all not Catholic (full communion).

Donot forget one common thing too…a dislike for the papacy.

 

[KjetilK]

Donot forget one common thing too…a dislike for the papacy.

So if an Anglican don’t dislike the papacy he is not Protestant? And what about the Orthodox? They really ‘dislike’ the papacy.