Protestants have traditions

[SyCarl]

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.

I think that you mistake what Scripture Alone is. It is not that the Bible contains all truth or that it contains all that Jesus said or did. We know this is not true because the Bible tells us it isn’t.

{Quote] And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.
(John 21:25)

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
(John 20:30)

But let’s look at John 20:31.

but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:31)

Does John say we need to know everything to be saved? No, he doesn’t. He tells us that despite there being other things that what he has written is enough to allow us to believe and have life. That is Scripture Alone, that the Bible contains all that we need to know. John says this about his own Gospel, so how much more true is it of the entire Bible? Similiarly Paul tells us:

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

What does Paul say? That Timothy has known the Scriptures since childhood. Those would have been the Old Testament. And those Scriptures are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation. He says the Scriptures, not the Scriptures and Tradition. So while some Tradition may be true, it is not necessary for salvation. And if this is true of the Old Testament, how much more true is it once you add the New Testament?

Since Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation, and we know that Scripture is inerrant, we make it as our only infallible and final authority on doctrine. We can have traditions that do not violate Scripture.

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

With respect to the questions you raise, the canon was well known to Christians long before the Catholic Church ever defined it. In fact, the Old Testament canon was not set for the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent.

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

That this is true, is shown by the fact that the Othodox Church has a different Old Testament canon than the Catholic Church despite not separating untill the eleventh century. If the canon had been settled previously they should be the same.

With respect to the end of revelation, we are in fact told that the faith was given once for all.

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
(Jude 1:3)

Since it was once for all, there is no new revelation.

We also know that there can be no further Apostles because the Bible tells us the requirements to be an Apostle.

“Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22)

Since there is no person who has accompanied Jesus the whole time from his baptism to ressurection, there can be no more Apostles.

A question that I have yet to have answered is how can a Catholic know that the Church is infallible. We need to know this before we can accept its decision on canon, so under your reasoning, the Bible can’t be used to prove the propsition since we can’t know what the Bible is until we know the Church is infallible. If you say Tradition, that is merely the Church telling us that it is infallible, which proves nothing. If you say by faith, then I can just as easily say that I know the canon by faith.

 

[Randy_Carson]

IWhat does Paul say? That Timothy has known the Scriptures since childhood. Those would have been the Old Testament. And those Scriptures are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation. He says the Scriptures, not the Scriptures and Tradition. So while some Tradition may be true, it is not necessary for salvation. And if this is true of the Old Testament, how much more true is it once you add the New Testament?

Since Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation, and we know that Scripture is inerrant, we make it as our only infallible and final authority on doctrine. We can have traditions that do not violate Scripture.

(to be continued)

I would happily grant that Scripture contains everything that is necessary for salvations if you would also grant that only an infallible Church can interpret the scriptures correctly.

Otherwise, the fact that some Christians disagree most emphatically about certain doctrines is proof that the Bible is not self-interpreting.

An inerrant text without an infallible interpreter is useless.

 

[SyCarl]

I would happily grant that Scripture contains everything that is necessary for salvations if you would also grant that only an infallible Church can interpret the scriptures correctly.

Otherwise, the fact that some Christians disagree most emphatically about certain doctrines is proof that the Bible is not self-interpreting.

An inerrant text without an infallible interpreter is useless.

How can we tell that the Church is infallible except that it says it is?

 

[Curious]

An inerrant text without an infallible interpreter is useless

:banghead:

I will think about this for a long time. And then…I will think about it some more.

 

[Curious]

Okay, I thought about it.

by cracky…that’s right. If an an infallible text is constantly subjected to fallible interpretation, then it might as well not be an infallible text!! Otherwise…well…I’m going to go think about it some more.

Good grief.

 

[Truthstalker]

I
An inerrant text without an infallible interpreter is useless.

On what grounds?

And is not the Holy Spirit an infallible interpreter, if one is necessary?

 

[Randy_Carson]

With respect to the questions you raise, the canon was well known to Christians long before the Catholic Church ever defined it. In fact, the Old Testament canon was not set for the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent.

I agree that the Catholic Church established the Canon in the fourth century and declared it definitively at Trent.

With respect to the end of revelation, we are in fact told that the faith was given once for all.

“Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” (Jude 1:3)

Since it was once for all, there is no new revelation.

How unfortunate for Jude and his epistle. Since Jude claims that the faith was handed down to the saints in the past, and his own writing at the time he wrote it occurred after that point, his own epistle (and all those written by other authors of the New Testament after the date that Jude wrote) cannot be considered part of the faith. Even the point he makes in this verse cannot itself be part of the faith. It is self-refuting.

We also know that there can be no further Apostles because the Bible tells us the requirements to be an Apostle.

“Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22)

Since there is no person who has accompanied Jesus the whole time from his baptism to ressurection, there can be no more Apostles.

Since Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Apollos and the other apostles mentioned in the New Testament were not followers of Jesus prior to the resurrection, we must exclude them, I suppose. Actually, I have Paul, Barnabas, Junias, Andronicus, Epaphroditus? (Philemon 2:25), Apollos - a “super-Apostle”, Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thess. 1:1 with 2:6).

A question that I have yet to have answered is how can a Catholic know that the Church is infallible. We need to know this before we can accept its decision on canon, so under your reasoning, the Bible can’t be used to prove the propsition since we can’t know what the Bible is until we know the Church is infallible. If you say Tradition, that is merely the Church telling us that it is infallible, which proves nothing. If you say by faith, then I can just as easily say that I know the canon by faith.

You know the Canon because the Catholic Church established it and your church accepts what the Catholic Church established.

We know the Catholic Church is infallible because the men who were given authority by Jesus passed on their authority to others from one generation to the next by means of laying on of hands which we call Apostolic Succession. These men, this Church, is infallible as gift from God to protect the “faith once delivered”.

As Augustine said, “I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” (Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.)

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[homewardbound]

On what grounds?

And is not the Holy Spirit an infallible interpreter, if one is necessary?

If all one needs to interpret scripture is to call on the Holy Spirit to help them, why all the different denominations and opinions on what the scripture really means? Otherwise, I would agree.

 

[Randy_Carson]

On what grounds?

And is not the Holy Spirit an infallible interpreter, if one is necessary?

Are you confident that your interpretation of scripture is infallible? Don’t you have the Spirit? But you’re not infallible are you? The Bible warns us of personal interpretation:

2 Peter 1:20
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

We’re also told why:

2 Peter 3:15-16
15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Now, who exactly were these people who were distorting the letters of Paul? Well, they must have been Christians; otherwise, how would they have gotten hold of Paul’s private correspondence???

You think they just went down to the Lifeway Christian Bookstore and picked up a pocket New Testament complete with Hebrew-Greek Dictionary?

Christians were distorting the Word of God at the time Peter wrote.

But wait, wasn’t the Holy Spirit going to interpret the Bible for them?

I would be interested in reviewing any verses that state that the Holy Spirit will infallibly teach each individual believer the meaning of scripture.

The Spirit was promised to the CHURCH not to the individual believer.

Jesus sent the Spirit to the Church and He sent the Church to you and me.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[SyCarl]

I agree that the Catholic Church established the Canon in the fourth century and declared it definitively at Trent.

How unfortunate for Jude and his epistle. Since Jude claims that the faith was handed down to the saints in the past, and his own writing at the time he wrote it occurred after that point, his own epistle (and all those written by other authors of the New Testament after the date that Jude wrote) cannot be considered part of the faith. Even the point he makes in this verse cannot itself be part of the faith. It is self-refuting.

It is not self-refuting. Jude is passing on the faith that was handed down. There can be a difference between the date of the revelation and the writing or passing on of it. That does not mean that there can now be new revelation.

Since Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Apollos and the other apostles mentioned in the New Testament were not followers of Jesus prior to the resurrection, we must exclude them, I suppose.

Where are we told that Timothy and Appollos were apostles? Where are we told that Barnabas was not with Jesus the whole time. Paul, I will admit is more difficult. We know that he was appointed by Jesus and that he was accepted by the apostles for Peter confirms his authority in his second episitle. However I suppose there can be more than one meaning of apostle. After all we are told that there are 12 actual apostles.

And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:14)

You know the Canon because the Catholic Church established it and your church accepts what the Catholic Church established.

We know the Catholic Church is infallible because the men who were given authority by Jesus passed on their authority to others from one generation to the next by means of laying on of hands which we call Apostolic Succession. These men, this Church, is infallible as gift from God to protect the “faith once delivered”.

As Augustine said, “I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” (Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.)

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

This is still essentially saying the Church is infallible because it says it is. How do we know that Jesus passed on authority and that it included infallibility? The Bible? But we can’t rely on Bible until we already know that the Church is infallible. Can you establish infallibility other than through the Bible or the Church’s own word?

Augustine said many things. For example he wrote:

{QUOTE] “For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,–to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

He says here that all things concerning faith and manner of life are plainly laid down in Scripture. Also that the clear passages can be used to interpret the unclear. Self-interpretting it appears. How then do we know what Augustine actually thought? But then of course, he was not infallible.

 

[mozart-250]

Is there more than one? :yup:

Isn’t that in and of itself a problem for those who believe it? :yup:

Well the phrase doesn’t have a verb in it, so it is meaningless in itself.

In which case you could look to the meaning of the phrase when it was first used. I understand the meaning is the same as what SyCarl said but I could be wrong.

 

[mozart-250]

An inerrant text without an infallible interpreter is useless.

Why? It certainly is not that way in real life.

I recently assembled a gas grill that I purchased from WalMart. I know of no errors in the assembly instructions (maybe in a couple of places they could have been a tad clearer). However I know the interpreter of the assembly instructions was capable of error (and has a history of errors in these matters).

Fortunately in this case the text was clear enough for this interpreter that is certainly capable of error to successfully assemble the grill

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why? It certainly is not that way in real life.

I recently assembled a gas grill that I purchased from WalMart. I know of no errors in the assembly instructions (maybe in a couple of places they could have been a tad clearer). However I know the interpreter of the assembly instructions was capable of error (and has a history of errors in these matters).

Fortunately in this case the text was clear enough for this interpreter that is certainly capable of error to successfully assemble the grill

Perhaps you might explain then how one pastor reads the instruction manual and assembles a grill while another right down the street reads the same manual and assembles a flame thrower.

They both claim to be following the manual properly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is not self-refuting. Jude is passing on the faith that was handed down. There can be a difference between the date of the revelation and the writing or passing on of it. That does not mean that there can now be new revelation.

I disagree. As Apologist Jimmy Akin has said:

For instance, in connection with the claim that there is to be no more public revelation, some may be inclined to appeal to the verse in Jude that says that the faith has been once for all delivered to the saints or to the book of Hebrews’ appeal definitiveness of God’s revelation through Christ. While these passages do indeed show that the substance of the Christian faith was already revealed, they cannot show that there is to be no more public revelation unless one is prepared to say that Jude and Hebrews are not part of public revelation, in which case their statements are non-inspired and correspondingly lacking in authority.

Where are we told that Timothy and Appollos were apostles?

1. 
   *]2 Corinthians 11:5
   But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.”
   2 Corinthians 11:4-6 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 11 (Whole Chapter)
   *]2 Corinthians 12:11
   *Paul’s Concern for the Corinthians *] I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles,” even though I am nothing
   In these passages, scripture reveals that Apollos was considered an Apostle by the Corinthians - an exceptionally gifted or “super-apostle” at that. Paul does not deny Apollos’ status as an apostle, he mere states that he himself is not inferior to Apollos.
   
   I’ll have to revisit Timothy as it has been awhile since I worked on this. Here is the verse listing Andronicus and Junias:
   
   Romans 16:7
   Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
   

   Where are we told that Barnabas was not with Jesus the whole time.

   It’s kinda hard to imagine a Levite from Cyprus as being with Jesus in Galilee for three years…Barnabas was not put forth as a candidate to replace Judas in Acts 1, for example.
   
   Acts 4:36
   Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement),
   

   Paul, I will admit is more difficult. We know that he was appointed by Jesus and that he was accepted by the apostles for Peter confirms his authority in his second episitle. However I suppose there can be more than one meaning of apostle. After all we are told that there are 12 actual apostles.

   If we allow that Paul was made an Apostle by direct revelation from Jesus, then there is nothing in scripture to stop Him from doing the same thing again in the future. In fact, the Mormons claim to have a bunch of Apostles living in Salt Lake City right now. So, either we agree that there were no more Apostles after the end of the first century (the death of John) or we don’t. I’m assuming you agree with me, but the Bible itself is silent on this issue. It is an extra-biblical tradition acceptable to Protestants and as such, disproves sola scriptura. To avoid heresy like Mormonism, you must reject the idea of modern Apostles, but the Bible itself does not tell you to reject them. The Church does.
   
   BTW, since Matthias replaced Judas, does Paul get to be a foundation stone in Heaven or not? There are only 12 slots open…
   

   This is still essentially saying the Church is infallible because it says it is.

   Sure. Either you have faith or you don’t. An atheist might ask, “How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God? Just because it says it is? The Book of Mormon and the Koran make similar claims, so how do I know which one is true?”
   
   SyCarl, either the Holy Spirit enables you to see the role of the Church in salvation history or he doesn’t. I can give you the facts, but only God can enable you to see them with spiritual eyes.
   
   (cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

"How do we know that Jesus passed on authority and that it included infallibility? The Bible? But we can’t rely on Bible until we already know that the Church is infallible. Can you establish infallibility other than through the Bible or the Church’s own word?

But this is not how it works. Correctly, the sequence is:

1. We establish from history that the Bible is a reliable book.
2. The book tells us reliably that Jesus was God and that he founded an infallible Church.
3. The infallible Church tells us that the Bible is not merely historically accurate but inspired.

But I doubt that was the process you went through when you became a Christian. You accepted that the Bible is inspired, but you have no real reason to have done so. You accepted it on faith. But faith in what? Muslims have faith in their book…so do JW’s and Mormons. Yet, their faith is misplaced. Without an infallible Church proclaiming its true nature, you have no reason to accept it as the Word of God.

Augustine said many things. For example he wrote:

“For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,–to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

He says here that all things concerning faith and manner of life are plainly laid down in Scripture. Also that the clear passages can be used to interpret the unclear. Self-interpretting it appears. How then do we know what Augustine actually thought? But then of course, he was not infallible.

This is an outstanding explanation for the Catholic view of the development of doctrine. This is precisely how we arrive at our understanding of Purgatory, infallibility, and numerous other doctrines. Yet, I cannot help but think that if I had brought up the subject of development before you, you would have dismissed these things as Catholic “inventions” and “traditions of men”. But now you see how we do develop our understanding of theology over time as one point of clarity illumines another.

However, and this is key, Augustine does not say that every man is able to do this for himself equally well. I have no doubt that an intellect like Augustine’s could do well on his own; for the rest of us, God provided Bishops like Augustine.

Otherwise, Peter never would have commented as he did about those who were distorting Paul’s letters to their own destruction…the scriptures themselves should have prevented any misunderstandings.

Unless that’s not really how it works, of course.

 

[mozart-250]

Perhaps you might explain then how one pastor reads the instruction manual and assembles a grill while another right down the street reads the same manual and assembles a flame thrower.

They both claim to be following the manual properly.

Because they both are fallible interpreters and made mistakes in reading the instructions. But if you want to use the gas grill analogy, I think it is more like that they both end up with functioning gas grills, but they made mistakes on some of the fine details.

You claimed an inerrant text without an infallible interpreter is useless. My point is that in real life in every other sphere of life the best we can get is inerrant texts with fallible interpreters. So one question in my mind is why should Christianity be different.

There are places where the comparison between the Bible and my gas grill instructions break down. For starters Jesus both designed the church and gave the church the written word of God. We all should agree that He really did not design one without the other.

BTW I like how you use the word inerrant with the Bible instead of infallible:thumbsup: . In my mind the word infallible can only refer to a process. The Bible is not a process.

 

[mozart-250]

1. We establish from history that the Bible is a reliable book.
2. The book tells us reliably that Jesus was God and that he founded an infallible Church.
3. The infallible Church tells us that the Bible is not merely historically accurate but inspired.

The assumption here being that a person who believes the Bible is only reliable will determine from his independent study alone (without any outside guidance) from this reliable book that Jesus founded a church that is incapable of error.

Note that this sequence would also work if you substitute the word authoritative for infallible. I would think it far more probable that this hypothetical person would conclude that Jesus founded an authoritative Church instead of a church that is incapable of error.

 

[Zooey]

Just to throw a little something into the mix, we United Methodists do accept tradition. The 4 parts of the Wesley Quadrilateral (as it has come to be known, because Methodists like big words), are:
1.Scripture
2.Tradition
3.Experience
4.Logic

Okay, I thought about it.

by cracky…that’s right. If an an infallible text is constantly subjected to fallible interpretation, then it might as well not be an infallible text!! Otherwise…well…I’m going to go think about it some more.

Good grief.

:yup: Yup. That’s why I have learned not to argue on the subject of tradition. We all have them. It’s just that many people don’t think of them as being “traditions”.

 

[Subrosa]

I
What does Paul say? That Timothy has known the Scriptures since childhood. Those would have been the Old Testament. And those Scriptures are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation. He says the Scriptures, not the Scriptures and Tradition. So while some Tradition may be true, it is not necessary for salvation. And if this is true of the Old Testament, how much more true is it once you add the New Testament?

Since Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation, and we know that Scripture is inerrant, we make it as our only infallible and final authority on doctrine. We can have traditions that do not violate Scripture.

Hi Sy -

How about different understandings of the bible and what it says? Let’s have a look at two (three) protestant churches.

The Anglican Church admits to having traditions. For instance, they hold that the bread and wine once consecrated by an Anglican priest is the Body and Blood of Christ and practice infant baptism (as do the Lutherans on all points).

The Baptists, a group that originally splintered from the Anglicans, do not admit to having traditions. They hold that the bread and wine are merely symbolic and deny that the priesthood should exist at all. For infant baptism, the Baptists do not practice it and are adamantly against it to the point of stating that those who are not baptised as adults cannot be saved.

Both practice sola scriptura and derive thier belief’s from scripture. In fact they use the same version of the bible, the KJV.

Which is correct?

How do you account for such distance in thier understanding of what scripture says?

Did the holy Spirit lead them to two different places?

How can you justifiably say that each is not a tradition in light of your statement that scripture is inerrant?

Subrosa