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

[Reuben_J]

Hi All! I’m a newbie

Here’s a question:

If all the Bibles in the world were to suddenly disappear, what would Protestants do?

They would go directly to the Holy See and ask to make a withdrawal from the Deposit of Faith.

yeah baby!

Hi. Welcome to the forum.

God bless you.

 

[Reuben_J]

You omitted the fundamental part: “Acceptance of the axioms”.

If you aren’t aware of the underlying axioms, then it does not matter how good your critical thinking skills are, you will arrive at the wrong answer.

That depends upon the axioms that are used, not the critical thinking skills that are used.

Only after the axioms are identified, and examined, can critical thinking skills be applied.

BTW, it is quite possible for one to have a set of axioms that requires it to be a Simple Memorial and Transubstantiation, and Consubstantiation.

xan

jonathon

Good. Now would you like to tell us how you understand/interpret the three passages I’ve given you? I like to see how your mechanism works by the demonstration of its application there.

Thanks.

 

[Reuben_J]

A very basic teaching from the Old Testament is tossed out by Paul, but with a huge caveat. This is what I’ve referred to a few times by not having everything dogmatically defined and the Spirit leading two people to different conclusions on a non-essential idea.

Look bro, I’m essentially on a fact finding mission. What you told me I’d accept as your position with regards to the question of the OP. I’ll debate but that would not be the main focus here.

I’ve heard you guys mentioned about the non-essential - is it essential for salvation, for example. I thought Christianity is much more than that; it’s a package actually. You have to accept the package to experience the fullness of it.

From a Catholic point of view, by not defining the dogma would be dangerous indeed which may lead to confusion. Some of the issues which have been defined are quite essential for a full Christian life. You can say that you already have a full Christian life but that because you do not know what you been missing.

Someone mentioned about relying on the Holy Spirit which I utterly agree with. And yet the consequence of private interpretation of the scripture on matter of doctrines can lead to a plethora of results. How can that be from the Holy Spirit? Especially since he is not a spirit of confusion.

 

[Yeshualuver]

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?

Care to elaborate on what you consider to be “relevant traditions” that come with Scripture? I’m curious.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Look bro, I’m essentially on a fact finding mission. What you told me I’d accept as your position with regards to the question of the OP. I’ll debate but that would not be the main focus here.

I’ve heard you guys mentioned about the non-essential - is it essential for salvation, for example. I thought Christianity is much more than that; it’s a package actually. You have to accept the package to experience the fullness of it.

From a Catholic point of view, by not defining the dogma would be dangerous indeed which may lead to confusion. Some of the issues which have been defined are quite essential for a full Christian life. You can say that you already have a full Christian life but that because you do not know what you been missing.

Someone mentioned about relying on the Holy Spirit which I utterly agree with. And yet the consequence of private interpretation of the scripture on matter of doctrines can lead to a plethora of results. How can that be from the Holy Spirit? Especially since he is not a spirit of confusion.

How big of a package are we talking here? Biblical teaching is that we are saved and justified by faith; obviously true faith goes hand-in-hand with a life of devotion and service. How much further do we need to go than that? Maybe it’s just me, but I have a difficult time imagining, after death, being handed a huge ream of paper filled with doctrinal questions and situations as a requisite for admittance into Heaven.

But you said it yourself. “SOME of the issues which have been defined are quite essential for a full Christian life.” Would it be reasonable to infer that what falls outside of that “some” could be regarded as “superfluous” or “non-essential”?

 

[pauliris]

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.

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.

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

for who is the bible not that dificult to understand. if the bible is so clear for protestants why are there over 33000 sects. which sect is right. where is the authority.

 

[pauliris]

How big of a package are we talking here? Biblical teaching is that we are saved and justified by faith; obviously true faith goes hand-in-hand with a life of devotion and service. How much further do we need to go than that? Maybe it’s just me, but I have a difficult time imagining, after death, being handed a huge ream of paper filled with doctrinal questions and situations as a requisite for admittance into Heaven.

But you said it yourself. “SOME of the issues which have been defined are quite essential for a full Christian life.” Would it be reasonable to infer that what falls outside of that “some” could be regarded as “superfluous” or “non-essential”?

that is not what protestants believe. they believe you are saved just by faith alone. they do not believe in the works bit at all. answer the trinity?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by Reuben J
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?

Yeshualuver;
Care to elaborate on what you consider to be “relevant traditions” that come with Scripture? I’m curious.

Excellent question and one that i have also been asking catholics for a long time and not making much progress. Hopefully you will be more successful than i have been.

 

[Reuben_J]

Excellent question and one that i have also been asking catholics for a long time and not making much progress. Hopefully you will be more successful than i have been.

It has been said in the earlier page.

The Bible, Sacraments, the Magestrium, Apostolic succession and to a lesser extend, Apostolic Teachings like pepertual virginity and purgatory.

I have given examples of Biblical verses that can be understood in a number of ways. We do not have problem understanding their intend as we have the early Church Fathers who had been handed by the apostles the understanding of these verses. But as you can see, Protestants understand these differently, and this is the reason of this thread. How do you derive at your conclusion without regards to tradition, i.e. how the early Church Fathers understood and internalized them.

 

[Reuben_J]

How big of a package are we talking here? Biblical teaching is that we are saved and justified by faith; obviously true faith goes hand-in-hand with a life of devotion and service. How much further do we need to go than that? Maybe it’s just me, but I have a difficult time imagining, after death, being handed a huge ream of paper filled with doctrinal questions and situations as a requisite for admittance into Heaven.

But you said it yourself. “SOME of the issues which have been defined are quite essential for a full Christian life.” Would it be reasonable to infer that what falls outside of that “some” could be regarded as “superfluous” or “non-essential”?

I agree with you on the highlighted part. But then again, salvation is what you get at the end of it not at the beginning. Hence we need to guard it from loss otherwise why would Paul said that we have to run the race till finish.

Guarding our salvation is more than lip service because as we can see, even at the time of Paul himself, many of his companions ‘left and deserted him for the love of this world’. Tools ( I’d rather use the word gifts / grace) to maintain this are what being practiced by the early Christians. If they recieved the Sacraments, believed in Apostlic Succession, then why wouldn’t we do that now? The Holy Spirit gives us power but some of the power is already incorporated in the practices. All that is left for us is to open and use them.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Care to elaborate on what you consider to be “relevant traditions” that come with Scripture? I’m curious.

An example of a relevant traditon would be the traditional Christian teaching of the deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity. The Trinity is clear in tradition but not so clear in scripture itself. Sure, we who have the benefit of the relevant tradition do believe scripture teaches the Trinity, but JW’s and Unitarians believe scripture does not teach the Trintiy at all, and they are very good at convincing millions of people of that.

Another relevant tradition is that of Sunday worship.

Did Jesus die on a cross? Tradition teaches that He did, but scripture does not.

Is hell real or metaphorical? Is Christ’s resurrection physical or spiritual? What is baptism? What does it do? These are questions that are answered in tradition, but of are of sufficent ambiquity in scripture that there is controversy among Christians over these topics. And these certainly are not trivial questions.

 

[happilycatholic]

Hi Reuben J!

Thanks!

 

[reccanboy]

Protestants don’t deny Tradition, we just deny Infallible tradition.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

An example of a relevant traditon would be the traditional Christian teaching of the deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity. The Trinity is clear in tradition but not so clear in scripture itself. Sure, we who have the benefit of the relevant tradition do believe scripture teaches the Trinity, but JW’s and Unitarians believe scripture does not teach the Trintiy at all, and they are very good at convincing millions of people of that.

Another relevant tradition is that of Sunday worship.

Did Jesus die on a cross? Tradition teaches that He did, but scripture does not.

Is hell real or metaphorical? Is Christ’s resurrection physical or spiritual? What is baptism? What does it do? These are questions that are answered in tradition, but of are of sufficent ambiquity in scripture that there is controversy among Christians over these topics. And these certainly are not trivial questions.

Uhhhh…what?

 

[Reuben_J]

Protestants don’t deny Tradition, we just deny Infallible tradition.

I believe, you, as a good Protestant, will not deny Infallible tradition, if you understand correctly what it means. The Pope is infallible ONLY on matter of faith and moral. And those are things which Protestants already believe in except for JW and Mormons. For example we believe that the Second Person of the Trinity is both God and man. Not so say JW.

I can’t blame you though because you are terrified at the thought of one man who can be infallible. Actually the Pope as a person is like any of us, that is fallible. He is actually a priest, well, a Bishop. He sins, makes mistakes and goes for confession regularly to his brother priests. Only when he speaks from the papal throne on faith and moral he is infallible. This is very seldom exercised but nevertheless required to rebuff heresy. Well someone have to do that, no?

But for people who are supposed to be Biblical, you should know, don’t you? Jesus authorised his apostles to loose and to bind and that His church will not be defeated by the force (and of cousre the heresies spewed) of and by Satan.

 

[With_Questions]

CCC is very informative on this.

I actually went back to read the CCC. It seems to me that ultimately valid tradition is what the Catholic Church says is valid tradition.

I honestly think I can understand why you believe this. At the same time, anyone who is not Catholic needs something more than “because we say so”.

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

But you do have disagreements with the Orthodox also (filioque, different understanding of the Bishop of Rome, different understanding of the Immaculate Conception). Aren’t these differences based on a different understanding of tradition.

I agree with you here so what is your quibble?

Well that is interesting because you are the first Catholic to state this. From everything I have read thus far, I have the distinct impression that the written Word of God, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium have equal footing within Catholicism.

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

What I was saying is that I have never believed in the “Real Presence”, but this is one example where I might be persuaded if I find convincing evidence this belief can truly be traced back to the apostles and if I do not find convincing evidence this belief is really not Scriptural. Then the issue would be whose “Real Presence”.

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

I think the first 1500 years would be considered common history.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Uhhhh…what?

This is a subtle one.

What instrument did Jesus die on? I don’t think this is an important issue for salvation, but if a Christian says he goes only by the bible, and the bible does not say that Jesus died on a cross, then the Christian will have to throw away his crosses and remove them from his churches.

It is true that we find the word cross in all our bibles, but that is simply the traditional, repeat, traditional, way of translating the Greek word stauros, which does not necessarily mean cross at all, but simply an upright stake.

It is tradition only that tells us Jesus died on a cross.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

This is a subtle one.

What instrument did Jesus die on? I don’t think this is an important issue for salvation, but if a Christian says he goes only by the bible, and the bible does not say that Jesus died on a cross, then the Christian will have to throw away his crosses and remove them from his churches.

It is true that we find the word cross in all our bibles, but that is simply the traditional, repeat, traditional, way of translating the Greek word stauros, which does not necessarily mean cross at all, but simply an upright stake.

It is tradition only that tells us Jesus died on a cross.

Ah, but how many crucifixions took place on a vertical stake? The primary pieces of wood for crucifixion were either a Y or a T; the T may have featured a placard above it displaying what the criminal was accused of, which is noted in the Gospels. Over time, this morphed into the t rather than the T (shape, not letter).

Of course, the vertical beam was most likely fixed at the site of execution, meaning the criminal would carry just the horizontal beam. Looks like all the stations of the cross need changed too!

 

[mackbrislawn]

Ah, but how many crucifixions took place on a vertical stake? The primary pieces of wood for crucifixion were either a Y or a T; the T may have featured a placard above it displaying what the criminal was accused of, which is noted in the Gospels. Over time, this morphed into the t rather than the T (shape, not letter).

Of course, the vertical beam was most likely fixed at the site of execution, meaning the criminal would carry just the horizontal beam. Looks like all the stations of the cross need changed too!

Actually, yes, I did omit that there are historical and archeological evidences for the cross as well as tradition. That Jesus died on a cross is I believe well documented, but simply not documented in scripture.

You might also say there is scriptural evidence for crucifixion, such as the nails, plural, that scripture says were used in Jesus’ hands. A single upright stake would require only one nail. This is a scriptural argument Christians use to support the crucifixion, as opposed to JW’s.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Looks like all the stations of the cross need changed too!

Catholics, however, would not need to change the stations of the cross, because they admit the testimony of history and of tradition.