Protestants have traditions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mannyfit75

Guest
Protestants shouldn’t condemned us of our so called “traditions.” They too have traditions.
  1. Alter Calls.
  2. Public Confessions.
  3. Sola Scriptura.
  4. Faith Alone.
  5. Baptism.
If they do attack of our traditions, they should look into their own.
 
Are there extra-biblical Church traditions that Protestants will accept? Can even one be found?

In order to determine this fairly, we must evaluate each doctrine that is proposed as a candidate according to several criteria:

a) The doctrine in question is accepted by the Protestants to whom one is speaking
b) The doctrine is not stated in Scripture
c) The doctrine is not implied by Scripture
d) The doctrine has an extrabiblical history to which one can appeal as an alternative, extrascriptural basis

The following doctrines are proposed as those which meet all of the criteria above and are agreed to be binding upon the consciences of all believers:
  1. The canon of the New Testament
  2. Public revelation has ended
  3. There are to be no more Apostles
If any one of these three doctrines meet the criteria above, then it has been proven that Protestants have accepted teaching that has come by a source other the Bible Alone; thus, sola scriptura is false.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Protestants shouldn’t condemned us of our so called “traditions.” They too have traditions.
  1. Alter Calls.
  2. Public Confessions.
  3. Sola Scriptura.
  4. Faith Alone.
  5. Baptism.
If they do attack of our traditions, they should look into their own.
Click to expand...
Well let’s see…

#1. Altar Calls

Not a ‘tradition’. It isn’t necessary. An Altar Call is just ONE path on the road to salvation. It’s a starting point for some. Those that need that ‘Ah Ha’ moment really take to the Altar Call. But is it necessary to your salvation? No. It plays a teen tiny part in it only as a jumping off point. A tradition? No. It’s not even a practice held by all protestants so you argument on this one does not hold up.

#2 Public Confessions

Seeing as this on is plainly in the bible I really don’t see that IF this IS a tradition how it would be a problem. We are told:

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:10
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

So why do you have issue with this Manny?

#3 Sola Scriptura

Seeing as not ALL protestants adhere to this Sola Scriptura I can’t see how you could call this a tradition.

#4 Faith Alone

This is one that bothers me. It is by out FAITH that we are saved. Through our Faith we do good things for God to show Him our Love and Adoration. Without this ‘fruit’ our faith is a fake one because when you love someone you do all in your power to show them this love. What kind of fruit would someone show by attacking fellow brothers and sisters in Christ? Rotten fruit.

#5 Baptism

This is a tradition? I thought it was an intrinsic point on the path to salvation…

Maybe my interpretation of what tradition is and what the catholic church views it as is different. I don’t know. But I haven’t seen ONE ‘tradition’ held in ALL protestant faiths to uphold your rant above… 🤷
 
Singinbeauty said:
Well let’s see…
Maybe my interpretation of what tradition is and what the catholic church views it as is different. I don’t know. But I haven’t seen ONE ‘tradition’ held in ALL protestant faiths to uphold your rant above… 🤷
Click to expand...
I’m hoping you might consider and respond to the three traditions that I proposed in post #2.
 
Here’s some more:
  1. “Holy Trinity”
  2. Names of the 4 gospel writers
  3. Chapter and verse numbering
  4. “Christmas”
 
Blinky said:
Here’s some more:
  1. “Holy Trinity”
Click to expand...
Don’t catholics adhere to this one too? So why list this?
Blinky said:
  1. Names of the 4 gospel writers
Click to expand...
I am reading an awesome book right now called ‘A Case For Christ’ by Lee Strobel. It actually talks about how the bible came about and how to know that scripture is Scripture and not myth. So until I have formed opinions because this is a new area for me, I will have to decline on comment for this one.
Blinky said:
  1. Chapter and verse numbering
Click to expand...
This is considered tradition?
Blinky said:
  1. “Christmas”
Click to expand...
How is this a tradition?
 
Randy_Carson said:
If any one of these three doctrines meet the criteria above, then it has been proven that Protestants have accepted teaching that has come by a source other the Bible Alone; thus, sola scriptura is false.
Click to expand...
…dependant of course upon what your definition of “sola scriptura” is…
 
I think you’re on the right track, but even Catholic traditions are implied in scripture. They are not explicit, but they were accepted as consistent with the message of Christ.

The reason sola-scriptura protestants don’t have traditions is because they take everything literal from the Bible. That being said, the question of tradition is this: is it valid in the Catholic Church to rely on tradition?

Catholic tradition is all biblically based. It’s just not based on literal interpretation.

The traditions that protestants typically have a problem with are those that:
  1. seem, if out of context, as a sin (e.g. what they call “praying to the saints”)
  2. seem extra-biblical (e.g. dogma)
  3. seem out of order (e.g. the order of the introduction to sacraments)
These are easily refuted respectively:
  1. we don’t pray to saints. we ask them to pray for us
  2. dogma is all a defense of the Spirit of the gospel against those that took it out of context
  3. Christ laid down no specific order for the sacraments; and even if one could extrapolate that he did, we do them in order. They just don’t understand that confirmation is a rememberance of the Pentacost because they think that’s what baptism is.
God bless
Aaron
 
aaronjmagnan said:
The reason sola-scriptura protestants don’t have traditions is because they take everything literal from the Bible.
Click to expand...
That’s still impossible. Without “extra-biblical traditions”, for one thing, there would be no basis for stating which books belonged in the Bible to begin with! The only way around this would be if the Bible had some type of divinely-inspired table of contents, which it does not…
 
aaronjmagnan said:
  1. seem, if out of context, as a sin (e.g. what they call “praying to the saints”)
…
  1. we don’t pray to saints. we ask them to pray for us
Click to expand...
This is a common mistake, but actually we DO pray to saints. The catch is that a lot Protestants hold on to this baseless assumption that “praying” somehow implies worship, when really it just means asking a favor of someone. This was more easily understood in old English when it was common to say “I pray thee” when asking a favor. Nowadays the meaning seems to have been distorted with the general public.
 
We Catholics have a divine table of contents…tradition. Haha. Okay. This is circular. But if you look at Spanish books (I don’t know about other books) the table of contents is at the end.

I pray :tiphat: you seek the Spirit not the semiotic noogie. But seriously, language develops similarly to Tradition, and if the Middle English has become outdated…we’re not in Canterbury anymore.

Maybe all this could have been rendered less sloppy on my part:
  1. They obviously can’t possibly take everything literal from the Bible. But they claim to.
  2. They do say we pray to saints. That’s exactly what they say. And while you’re deduction from the semiotics is correct…their intention is not to say “Catholics pray to saints as in asking for favors, they pray to saints as in worship which is what Jesus said was wrong, etc…”
Well if you want to get down to grammatical correctness, we pray to them that they pray for us. But I do not pray in the protestant sense to a saint.

We don’t ask them to make anything happen in the sense of divine will…praying-to someone is exactly that, praying because they control what we ask for. All that a saint controls is when we ask them to pray for us, they can do so. Protestants think that we pray to them as gods. Which obviously is not the case.

You see, semiotics of Catholicism cannot defend as well against the Protestant claims as well as a Spirit that recognizes the spirit of what they say.

God bless
Aaron
 
aaronjmagnan said:
We don’t ask them to make anything happen in the sense of divine will…praying-to someone is exactly that, praying because they control what we ask for. All that a saint controls is when we ask them to pray for us, they can do so. Protestants think that we pray to them as gods. Which obviously is not the case.
Click to expand...
If Protestants think that “praying” must always mean “talking to God” this is just an issue they’re going to have to sort out for themselves. We need to clarify what “praying” is, rather than denying the claim outright - to say we DO NOT pray to saints period would simply be false. There’s no reason to have to walk on eggshells just to accommodate other people’s ignorance.
 
I do agree that you should get to the root of what is being said, though… just make sure to frame the accusation in accurate terms. e.g., if Protestants think Catholics worship saints as other “Gods”. (to take the most ridiculous example I could think of… it’s amazing to think some people seriously believe this?! 🤷 )
 
Singinbeauty said:
Forgive me but I do not understand your question in post #2.
Click to expand...
Do you agree that Protestants accept the following as true doctrines which are binding upon the consciences of all Christians?
  1. The canon of the New Testament
  2. Public revelation has ended
  3. There are to be no more Apostles
Would you further agree that none of these three are explicitly or implicitly taught in the Bible?

If any one of these three doctrines meet the criteria above, then it has been proven that Protestants have accepted teaching that has come by a source other the Bible Alone; thus, sola scriptura is false.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
exoflare said:
This is a common mistake, but actually we DO pray to saints. The catch is that a lot Protestants hold on to this baseless assumption that “praying” somehow implies worship, when really it just means asking a favor of someone. This was more easily understood in old English when it was common to say “I pray thee” when asking a favor. Nowadays the meaning seems to have been distorted with the general public.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Oops, I mean, “Well, said.”

I wouldn’t want anyone to confuse Bingo with another Catholic tradition. 😛
 
Randy_Carson said:
Do you agree that Protestants accept the following as true doctrines which are binding upon the consciences of all Christians?
  1. The canon of the New Testament
  2. Public revelation has ended
  3. There are to be no more Apostles
Would you further agree that none of these three are explicitly or implicitly taught in the Bible?

If any one of these three doctrines meet the criteria above, then it has been proven that Protestants have accepted teaching that has come by a source other the Bible Alone; thus, sola scriptura is false.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
For one, I want to make it clear that I don’t follow the whole sola scriptura thang…

On that note, I do however want to make the point that if you look at what the new testament in made up of, then yes, the canon of the new testament was set way before the bible was put together as it is now.

Public revelation? I am not sure what this is. Please elaborate. 🙂

No more apostles? Ok, but MANY more disciples. We have the writings of the apostles who were close to Jesus. But even they weren’t perfect. Just look at Judas.
 
Alter Calls.
Click to expand...
Good point!
Public Confessions.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by public confessions?
Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Click to expand...
Romans 10:10
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Click to expand...
Is this what you mean?
Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, Sola Scriptura IS a Tradition!
Faith Alone.
Click to expand...
Sola Fide is, as well.
Baptism.
Click to expand...
This is a rite, sacrament, ordinance, etc., commanded by our Lord, not a mere tradition.
If any one of these three doctrines meet the criteria above, then it has been proven that Protestants have accepted teaching that has come by a source other the Bible Alone; thus, sola scriptura is false.
Click to expand...
We also accept the reality of World War II, and this does not come from the Bible alone. This isn’t a contradiction. “Scripture Alone” means accepting the Bible as the sole rule of faith and final Authority in regards to all matters of faith. The Catholic conception of this doctrine is almost on a catholic scale (pun intended ^_^) a misinterpretation.
“Holy Trinity”
Names of the 4 gospel writers
Chapter and verse numbering
“Christmas”
Click to expand...
Good ones! I do know some who don’t celebrate “Christmas,” per se, though. An educated Christian should know also that the gospel writers’ names are but tradition, as only John did anything to identify himself, and even then we can only speculate. It wouldn’t really bother me if others wrote the gospels, but considering the prerequisites for being included in the Holy Canon used to require apolistic authority (Matthew and Luke get this from Paul, Mark from Peter) or personal knowledge of the Messiah, it’s no wonder these books were attributed accordingly, and Hebrews to Paul, even though many are now of the persuasion that it was Apollos.

I don’t think I’d call chapter and verse numbering “tradition,” as it is merely a study method.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top