Protestants, How Do You Understand Scripture Without The Knowledge of Traditions?

[Reuben_J]

Once I was reading about John Wesley.

Wesley taught that you should interpret Scripture in light of history, reason, and personal experience.

My problem with tradition is that the word can mean anything you want it to mean. However if you take it to mean history, I have no problems with it.

Roughly speaking, history equals tradition except traditions are ones that were accepted by the church. Therefore tradition cannot just mean anything. On the contrary it is quite specific. I’ve given example of the verses that support Real Presence.

I understand that Protestants don’t see those verses that way. So I want to know how you derive at your conclusion. Someone said Spirit of God is the guide. Sure but there can be only one Spirit of God, so how do you explain the differences in the interpretation/understanding of the same verses?

An understanding of Scripture that is in line with how it has always historically been understood seems safer to me than new idea.

This is what I meant by tradition. Traditions that Catholic Church held run back to the apostles and the Lord himself. Of course there might be opposing ideas those days but if they were not accepted by the church then they are not traditions.

As the OP suggests, Protestants do not have these traditions except perhaps for the Anglicans and the Methodists as mentioned earlier on. So my question is simple - how do you interpret scripture without accepting traditions?

In reality, scriptures are not that easy to interpret considering there are many different interpretations for every single verse. Protestants seem to be more in depth with scripture than Catholics but how do you view your interpretations with confident that they are right?

 

[Reuben_J]

For the most part the Bible is very clear.

The vast majority of difficult things in it can usually be resolved by paying attention to the historical and specific context as well as some knowledge of the languages.

The first part is something any Bible reader can get hold of, and the latter is readily available in commentaries and so on.

For tha sake of simplicity - I agree with you there.

Those things in the Bible which remain obscure after recourse is made to context and language are, very likely, there that way for a reason and ought not be resolved in a way that requires assent.

On the other hand entirely, it is often useful to know what important scholars throughout history thought about a given passage, but again, and for any number of reasons, they were not always right. My guess is that biblical scholarship has grown up so much in the last 100 years or so that it can be said with some certainty that they just didn’t have the tools that we do today to mine Scripture of all its treasure.

Example: Augustine never knew Greek. Augustine was a masterful scholar, but he continued in the Jeronymean error of equating penance with repantance because that was the way the Vulgate had it.

Anyway, the upshot is that the Bible is not really all that hard to understand.

This is not what happens in reality. Simple Biblical verses which seem very simple can be very daunting to understand. Just open the other thread on Bible Study to see what I mean.

I would be done soonest with this thread if Protestants can help me on how you can be confident that you are right when you differ in understanding scriptural verses with other Christians.

Even moreso when we recall that we have the one Who wrote it living inside us.

Again with due respect, this is entirely subjective. Please help me. It likes me saying - I have the Holy Spirit revealing the meaning of certain verse and here it is. And lo and behold, you’d say, the Holy Spirit tells you differently and here it is. So who has the Holy Spirit since they cannot be both?

 

[Reuben_J]

Please consider prayer and John chapter 3 for an answer to your question.

A Worker Approved by God

14 Remind them of these things, and charge them before God [1] not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, [2] a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 16 But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. 19 But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” - Paul from the Scriptures

Ok, I guess both of us are workers approved by God. But we also understand things differently and in some cases contradictions that cannot be just simply bushed aside as if they are of no consequences.

For example, the thread you started about studying the Bible together. Obviously there are differences in the understanding of some scriptural verses. I know, as for you, you said the Spirit of God reveal them (understanding) to you. Other can claim the same too, so who are right? Some members here noted that history is important to help understand scripture which I agree. But without history, how do you know that you are right? Isn’t that like your word against mine?

Not to mention that there is quite a high degree of babbling and arguing by both parties.

 

[Reformed]

I don’t mean to show any disrespect to Fr. Vincent Serpa, but I had to laugh. Maybe the best way to handle the Scriptures as a Roman Catholic Christian is to avoid discussing the Scriptures with Protestants at all cost. I saw this same exact attitude 10 years ago at a Catholic men’s study I was invite to as a Protestant Christian.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4303362#post4303362?rd=

Maybe if you study the Scriptures as Christians together with us, God may make you a Protestant along-side with us? Now, I think this very same issue caused the Protestant Reformation, correct? Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ in the Scirptures.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise),

I think the bibilcal consel and answer to Rachel J is to obey her parent’s in the Lord according to the Scriptures. This is quite the dilemma for Rachel J. Should she obey the Apostle Paul or the Catholic Priest?

 

[Reformed]

Ok, I guess both of us are workers approved by God. But we also understand things differently and in some cases contradictions that cannot be just simply bushed aside as if they are of no consequences.

For example, the thread you started about studying the Bible together. Obviously there are differences in the understanding of some scriptural verses. I know, as for you, you said the Spirit of God reveal them (understanding) to you. Other can claim the same too, so who are right? Some members here noted that history is important to help understand scripture which I agree. But without history, how do you know that you are right? Isn’t that like your word against mine?

Not to mention that there is quite a high degree of babbling and arguing by both parties.

There is great history, just go back 500 years. to start with. Then when can continue back in history all the way back to the first century since we have inspired revelation during that period of church history. I trust we all agree the God protected the written account of the early church in His Holy Scirptures.

 

[I_am_Me]

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?

This is how i understand scripture Epehesians 1:7 -9 In him we we have redemption through his blood, the forgivness of sins in accordance with the riches of Gods grace 8 that he lavished on us with ALL wisdom and understanding 9 and made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure which he purposed in Christ. Deb

 

[With_Questions]

Roughly speaking, history equals tradition except traditions are ones that were accepted by the church. Therefore tradition cannot just mean anything. On the contrary it is quite specific. I’ve given example of the verses that support Real Presence.

What is the criteria for a tradition being accepted by the church and one that is not?

Don’t the Orthodox also believe in tradition? Is not one of the difference between the two denominations a different understanding of tradition.

My primary quibble with you on Tradition is the relative importance of it to the written word of God. While I agree with Wesley that it is important to interpret Scripture in the light of history, I also agree with Wesley that ultimately history is subordinate to Scripture.

I understand that Protestants don’t see those verses that way. So I want to know how you derive at your conclusion. Someone said Spirit of God is the guide. Sure but there can be only one Spirit of God, so how do you explain the differences in the interpretation/understanding of the same verses?

Actually I have sort of shifted to not believing in the Real Presence to more uncertain. Although I don’t think the Scriptures that you cite prove your case though.

The best argument you can make imho would be one where the Real Presence is defensible if not provable by Scripture. Then you could demonstrate (if it is in fact historically true) that a belief in the Real Presence can be traced to the earliest Christians, the Spiritual children and grandchildren of the apostles. Then you could ask the stupid question whether these earliest Christians who were the Spiritual children and grandchildren of the apostles were definitely wrong here.

I am not yet convinced of this line of argument, but it does seem very persuasive.

This is what I meant by tradition. Traditions that Catholic Church held run back to the apostles and the Lord himself. Of course there might be opposing ideas those days but if they were not accepted by the church then they are not traditions.

But how do you know they are tracable to the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ?

As the OP suggests, Protestants do not have these traditions except perhaps for the Anglicans and the Methodists as mentioned earlier on. So my question is simple - how do you interpret scripture without accepting traditions?

Well all Protestants have history. Some are quite ignorant of it.

In reality, scriptures are not that easy to interpret considering there are many different interpretations for every single verse. Protestants seem to be more in depth with scripture than Catholics but how do you view your interpretations with confident that they are right?

Although I think Catholics overuse this question somewhat, it remains a good question.

The fact is that on a number of issues, Spirit filled, born again, believers in the Lord Jesus Christ disagree, and all think that they have the definitive interpretation of the Bible as well as the Holy Spirit of God on their respective sides.

Maybe we don’t know as much as we think we know.

 

[Harpazo]

Once I was reading about John Wesley.

Wesley taught that you should interpret Scripture in light of history, reason, and personal experience.

My problem with tradition is that the word can mean anything you want it to mean. However if you take it to mean history, I have no problems with it.

An understanding of Scripture that is in line with how it has always historically been understood seems safer to me than new idea.

Shlom lokh,

Would you say that Tradition is a product of Christian history?

I agree with what you have in your last sentence. This is what the Apostolic Churches do and safeguard their Traditions with great zeal. That’s why you see 7 Sacraments, all-Male Priesthood, hierarchy of Deacons, Priests, Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs, and many other things which stem from the first few hundred years of the Church.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[With_Questions]

Shlom lokh,

Would you say that Tradition is a product of Christian history?

I agree with what you have in your last sentence. This is what the Apostolic Churches do and safeguard their Traditions with great zeal. That’s why you see 7 Sacraments, all-Male Priesthood, hierarchy of Deacons, Priests, Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs, and many other things which stem from the first few hundred years of the Church.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

Actually I am just trying to figure out the difference between your “Tradition” and the Wesley “Interpret Scripture through the lens of history”.

I suspect they are comparable but not identical.

The biggest difference I see so far is the importance of each relative to the written word of God.

I wonder what the criteria for a valid Tradition is in Catholicism and what the criteria is for proving that Tradition to be valid?

 

[davidv]

Actually I am just trying to figure out the difference between your “Tradition” and the Wesley “Interpret Scripture through the lens of history”.

I suspect they are comparable but not identical.

The biggest difference I see so far is the importance of each relative to the written word of God.

I wonder what the criteria for a valid Tradition is in Catholicism and what the criteria is for proving that Tradition to be valid?

I believe that if you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church beginning at article 74 you will quickly identify the differences. You will also find the answer to your validity question in that section.

 

[mackbrislawn]

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?

It is true, tradition helps a lot.

For example, both the Catholic church’s and the Protestant church’s understanding of the Trinity is greatly clarified by tradition. One evangelical Christian said that the “Trinity is taught in the Bible, but not defended in the Bible.” I think that’s a good point. Coming to the Bible cold, would one derive the truth of the Trinity? Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t. Unitarians don’t.

So the fact that the deity of Christ and the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit is clear in tradition, helps us immensely in interpreting scripture in this matter.

 

[jblake]

Reuben J;:

How about real presence, for example? How do you understand Jn 6:53-56 or Paul’s 1 Cor 11:23-29 ? Thanks.

Those are the proof texts for consubstantiation, transubstantiation, and “a simple memorial”.

The problem with proof texts, is that they rely on the reader both accepting the axioms of the proof text, and suspending all critical thinking.

xan

jonathon

 

[Reuben_J]

Reformed:

Maybe if you study the Scriptures as Christians together with us, God may make you a Protestant along-side with us? Now, I think this very same issue caused the Protestant Reformation, correct? Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ in the Scirptures.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise),

I think the bibilcal consel and answer to Rachel J is to obey her parent’s in the Lord according to the Scriptures. This is quite the dilemma for Rachel J. Should she obey the Apostle Paul or the Catholic Priest?

I do not wish to be trivvy here but you got it wrong. Rachel J obeying the Catholic Priest does not mean she disobeys Apostle Paul. Catholicism does not contradict scripture but this should be a topic for different thread.

 

[Reuben_J]

I am Me:

This is how i understand scripture Epehesians 1:7 -9 In him we we have redemption through his blood, the forgivness of sins in accordance with the riches of Gods grace 8 that he lavished on us with ALL wisdom and understanding 9 and made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure which he purposed in Christ. Deb

Hi Deb.

Beautifully said.

 

[Reuben_J]

With Questions:

What is the criteria for a tradition being accepted by the church and one that is not?

CCC is very informative on this.
With Questions:

Don’t the Orthodox also believe in tradition? Is not one of the difference between the two denominations a different understanding of tradition.

I believe we have more in common with them than we have not. Sacraments, Perpetual viginity, purgatory,.
With Questions:

My primary quibble with you on Tradition is the relative importance of it to the written word of God. While I agree with Wesley that it is important to interpret Scripture in the light of history, I also agree with Wesley that ultimately history is subordinate to Scripture.

I agree with you here so what is your quibble?
With Questions:

Actually I have sort of shifted to not believing in the Real Presence to more uncertain. Although I don’t think the Scriptures that you cite prove your case though.

The best argument you can make imho would be one where the Real Presence is defensible if not provable by Scripture. Then you could demonstrate (if it is in fact historically true) that a belief in the Real Presence can be traced to the earliest Christians, the Spiritual children and grandchildren of the apostles. Then you could ask the stupid question whether these earliest Christians who were the Spiritual children and grandchildren of the apostles were definitely wrong here.

I do not understand what you’re trying to say here. Maybe you can elaborate.

Anyway, Holy Eucharist was celebrated before any apostolic teachings were written. Early Christians practiced their faith without them being spelt in detailS in writing. John admitted as much that not all were written. He said as if the minimal was written; only that’s sufficient for us to have faith. You can have faith but what do you do with it, especially to nuture it? Sure you can throw traditions out of the window but isn’t it better to keep them because they are gifts and inheritance from our fore-fathers in the faith?
With Questions:

Well all Protestants have history. Some are quite ignorant of it.

Back to about 500 years ago. Christianity have been around much longer than that.
With Questions:

Although I think Catholics overuse this question somewhat, it remains a good question.

The fact is that on a number of issues, Spirit filled, born again, believers in the Lord Jesus Christ disagree, and all think that they have the definitive interpretation of the Bible as well as the Holy Spirit of God on their respective sides.

Maybe we don’t know as much as we think we know.

Thanks for your honesty.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

mackbrislawn:

It is true, tradition helps a lot.

For example, both the Catholic church’s and the Protestant church’s understanding of the Trinity is greatly clarified by tradition. One evangelical Christian said that the “Trinity is taught in the Bible, but not defended in the Bible.” I think that’s a good point. Coming to the Bible cold, would one derive the truth of the Trinity? Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t. Unitarians don’t.

So the fact that the deity of Christ and the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit is clear in tradition, helps us immensely in interpreting scripture in this matter.

Good assessment on traditions.

 

[Reuben_J]

jblake:

Those are the proof texts for consubstantiation, transubstantiation, and “a simple memorial”.

The problem with proof texts, is that they rely on the reader both accepting the axioms of the proof text, and suspending all critical thinking.

xan

jonathon

Thanks for telling us that for you, it’s critical thinking.

Let’s see the verses mentioned.
(Biblical quotes are from NIV translation rather than from an exclusively Catholic versions like the NAB or JB).

John 6:53-56
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

1 Cor 11:23-29
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Lk 22:19-20
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Let’s say the bread and the wine can be either symbolic or literal, depending on what your critical thinking derives at, which is quite reasonable. But they cannot be both; you can either take only one position. Either way, you are depending on your intellect and maybe you would be confident with that. But then again, there is always the possiblity that your interpretaion may not be what the author of the Gospels intended.

Tradition has it that the celebration of the Holy Eucharist was practiced by early Christians which the early Church Fathers attested to. This practice includes the belief of Real Presence (transubstantiation). Lutherans will challenge this but my point is we use tradition as guide to understand the Biblical verses. I can still use my critical thinking in understanding them but I know that if my undersatnding differs from the tradition then I have to think very hard whether I am right or not.

Tradition shows me the direction but my intellect to understand why it was understood by the ECF as such enhances my faith.

And thanks everybody for responding so far. The aim of this thread is to solicit (name removed by moderator)ut from Protestants on how you understand scripture without using tradition as guide. Not that I will eventually agree with you but it will be good for my learning process on how you all do it. I have not received that explicitly however or maybe I did not see them. I hope you continue to oblige me on this request.

 

[Cinette]

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?

Sorry - I have just come on board and am reading thru the postings and need a little clarification.

I need to ask a question. As I understand scripture emanated from Tradition did it not? In other words after Pentecost the Apostles went about their mission of spreading the good news thru Sacred Tradition which was Oral at the time.

So when you ask “how is it you think those traditions come with the scripture”?? Are you referring to oral scripture or the OT?

I wonder how many people could read and write in those days. Even the Apostles. This was the domain of scholars. So evangelization was by word of mouth guided and protected by the Holy Spirit from error. The only scripture available in those days was part of the OT which had not reached its persent form.

 

[Cinette]

Talking about tradition I have to share these passages I came across:

St Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 189) - “Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the Apostles, like a rich man (depositing his money) in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life……For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important questions among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present questions? It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church – those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But (it is also incumbent) to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (Against Heresies 4:26:2)

St Irenaeus of Lyons (AD189) - “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul – that church which has the Tradition and which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic Tradition.” (Against Heresies 3:3:2)

 

[dougfreed]

Those are the proof texts for consubstantiation, transubstantiation, and “a simple memorial”.Not a magic act. A SIMPLE MEMORIAL, Important but simple…

The problem with proof texts, is that they rely on the reader both accepting the axioms of the proof text, and suspending all critical thinking.

xan

jonathon