Thanks. So we can exclude Anglicans and Methodists. How about the others?You can’t. But neither Anglicanism nor Methodism has ever denied the role of tradition. Or the role of reason, for that matter.
Are you speaking about “theological training?”Speaking about reason - though essential, it can be subjective, no? Can reason be moulded and shaped by the training one is exposed to?
Thanks for agreeing. Our reason is influenced by what we are taught and so it can be subjective. I took OS Luke’s answer at face value but thought when he inserted ‘reason’, he may have more in mind other than saying no to the OP. But then it could be just my inquisity.Are you speaking about “theological training?”
If so, is the reason of a Catholic moulded and shaped by the training to which he is exposed?
And what “relevant traditions” might those be?How do you understand scripture without referring to the relevant traditions that came with it?
Do you mean the meaning of the scripture’s message changes with time?There’s a difference between “understanding” traditions and “adhering to” traditions.
Maybe it’s because the Bible is full of people who became so focused on traditions at the expense of the relationship with God. It’s written in Hosea that “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”, which is later referred to by Jesus toward the Pharisees (telling them to learn what it means).
To give a secular example, I’m a huge football fan. To me, it is vitally important to understand where the game came from, where it has gone, and where it is going while keeping a mindful eye on the traditions of the past. But it would be nonsensical to become paralyzed by action and inaction. In the days following Pentecost, look at how many “new things” came out. If God is constantly advancing His Kingdom in new ways, at what point do we walk with Him rather than lagging behind?
Hmm maybe the OP is not clear enough. What could be traditions after the Bible was canonized to be used to interpret it? The Bible was formulated to lay down what traditions had before it. Before the NT came to existence surely the teachings of the apostles were practiced according to their understanding. Then the NT. How was apostolic teachings understood then and NT now?IMO Protestants may deny Catholic Tradition but they interpret Scripture according to the tradition of their own denomination or ‘non-denomination’.
I’m not sure what you mean by the “relevant traditions that came with it.”Thanks for agreeing. Our reason is influenced by what we are taught and so it can be subjective. I took OS Luke’s answer at face value but thought when he inserted ‘reason’, he may have more in mind other than saying no to the OP. But then it could be just my inquisity.
What about you? What do you think about the OP?
How about real presence, for example? How do you understand Jn 6:53-56 or Paul’s 1 Cor 11:23-29 ? Thanks.And what “relevant traditions” might those be?
xan
jonathon
Before NT, there were already Christians practicing their faith. I would say that was tradition since they did not have any particular scripture to refer to. What actually did they do when they broke the bread as in Act? What they did was tradition but Act does not describe in detail what they actually did. So how do you understand the verse in Act where they came to fellowship, listened to the apostle teachings, breaking of bread and worship?I’m not sure what you mean by the “relevant traditions that came with it.”
What do you think are the relevant traditions, and how is it you think those traditions come with the scripture?
Scripture is a concealed and closed book for those without the Spirit. It is only by the Spirit of God through illumination that someone can progressively grow in knowledge of the Scriptures. Spiritual blindness is as real as the air that we breathed. You must be born again to understand the Scriptures.Perhaps Protestants here would like to tell us about this.
How do you understand scripture without referring to the relevant traditions that came with it?
What is born again? How do you know it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding you in understanding the scripture?Scripture is a concealed and closed book for those without the Spirit. It is only by the Spirit of God through illumination that someone can progressively grow in knowledge of the Scriptures. Spiritual blindness is as real as the air that we breathed. You must be born again to understand the Scriptures.
Once I was reading about John Wesley.Perhaps Protestants here would like to tell us about this.
How do you understand scripture without referring to the relevant traditions that came with it?
For the most part the Bible is very clear.Perhaps Protestants here would like to tell us about this.
How do you understand scripture without referring to the relevant traditions that came with it?
They had scripture, not to the extent we have it today, nevertheless, they had the OT writings, the writings of the apostles, and the oral tradition, which lines up with scripture with neither contradiction, nor, more importantly, addition, IMO.Before NT, there were already Christians practicing their faith. I would say that was tradition since they did not have any particular scripture to refer to.
ISTM, that the absence of explicit directions, or instructions with regard to gathering in worship and fellowship points to the freedom those in Christ enjoy to organize, and to structure their worship and fellowship.What actually did they do when they broke the bread as in Act? What they did was tradition but Act does not describe in detail what they actually did. So how do you understand the verse in Act where they came to fellowship, listened to the apostle teachings, breaking of bread and worship?
Please consider prayer and John chapter 3 for an answer to your question.What is born again? How do you know it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding you in understanding the scripture?
How do you understand Jn 6:53-56, 1 Cor 11:23-29 and Lk22:19-20? Have you asked the Holy Spirit to illuminate you regarding these verses and if so, what did he tell you? Thanks.