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

[Reuben_J]

Whoa now. I’m not the one who lumped them together; the original text says “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”, and “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

It’s okay. Actually I don’t regards this subject as very vital. The numbering of the commandments don’t make much of a difference if we understand the entire passage as a whole. What consist that are transgressions are understood and we abide by them. When Christian denominations number the commandments or split them, my take is they are only making an emphasis on what’s important or more important that it becomes a commandment by itself.

Personnally I don’t see the reason to split the commandments of worshipping different Gods and idols. They are the same things unless of course if you don’t think that we should not make any statue out of any personalities. But I think it’s not the prohibition of making statues as in art but making them for the purpose of worship that’s God forbid.

Both uses refer to “anything that belongs to your neighbor”. Paul refers to a married couple having dominion over the body of the other, which is (most likely) what’s being referred to here. Somehow I doubt that someone looks at his neighbor’s wife and goes, “Man, I’d love to let her clean my house!”

I know that. Maybe that’s why we should look at scripture perhaps more than what meets the eyes but rather in context. In this case, in context of a believer’s life. Greed is bad and broken family is bad. There is untold consequences of what broken familes do to the faith of believers. You see that in the OT and in the NT how the entire dynasty was destroyed because of family intrigues. We know too that not all unfaithfulness in marriages are due to lust and vice versa.

So how do you emphasise the commandments so that they are made prominent to the faithfuls? I think this is most probably the reason for numbering the commandments as they are now respectively in different denominations.

As I don’t see the fatality of how you number the commandments, my ineterest in discussing this is in so far it reflects the emphasis that the denominations want to express. I thought by making the idol as commandment no. 2, the consequence among Protestants is that you are terrified of statues, especially when you see the statues in Catholism. I think this is rather foolish because there is nowhere in the Bible that making of statues and carvings is prohibited.

Since it’s Catholicism that came first with the numbering of the commandments, any changes in this reflects the shift what Protestants deem important in their doctrines.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

We could always focus on the greatest commandments too. After all, everything else is a derivative of that.

 

[Frost]

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 important to distinguish two types of “tradition”:

1. Tradition as single-source theory of doctrine: doctrine is based on Scripture, and ‘tradition’ refers to ‘a traditional way of interpreting Scripture’.
2. Tradition as dual-source theory of doctrine: doctrine is based upon two quite distinct sources, Scripture and unwritten tradition.

The reformers primarily directed their critisism against 2), not 1).

(You can find out more by reading Reformation Thought by Alister E. McGrath.)

 

[jblake]

Cinette;:

That is a deep philosophical question my friend and I will have to do some research and analysis!

Since the tenth commandment clearly states that they shalt not cook a kid in its mother’s milk, what is there to research?

xan

jonathon

 

[KingAlfred]

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

One of the many effects of Luther’s revolt was its radical denial of the importance of all prior Christian history and achievement. The Reformation, in that sense, was a true revolution. Based on a brand-new version of Christianity, it alleged that everything that had come before it was useless, corrupt and deserving of complete dismissal in the consciousness of the ‘New Christian Man’. Had it not been for the work of the Jesuits and other Catholic humanists, especially those working in the field of Western education, Luther’s revolution would have split Europe into two totally different, permanently irreconcilable national and regional communities.

 

[Reuben_J]

We could always focus on the greatest commandments too. After all, everything else is a derivative of that.

Yes, I agree with you on that. The Ten Commandents are still relevant though and by following them in the spirit of love we are actually fullfilling the greatest commandments as stated by Jesus.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is important to distinguish two types of “tradition”:

1. Tradition as single-source theory of doctrine: doctrine is based on Scripture, and ‘tradition’ refers to ‘a traditional way of interpreting Scripture’.
2. Tradition as dual-source theory of doctrine: doctrine is based upon two quite distinct sources, Scripture and unwritten tradition.

The reformers primarily directed their critisism against 2), not 1).

(You can find out more by reading Reformation Thought by Alister E. McGrath.)

Hi, thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I think Catholicism see (1) and (2) as one and the same as tradition does not contradict scripture.

 

[Reuben_J]

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

One of the many effects of Luther’s revolt was its radical denial of the importance of all prior Christian history and achievement. The Reformation, in that sense, was a true revolution. Based on a brand-new version of Christianity, it alleged that everything that had come before it was useless, corrupt and deserving of complete dismissal in the consciousness of the ‘New Christian Man’. Had it not been for the work of the Jesuits and other Catholic humanists, especially those working in the field of Western education, Luther’s revolution would have split Europe into two totally different, permanently irreconcilable national and regional communities.

Wow, you have hit the nail on the head. It says everything and by it concludes the thread. I have been mulling this idea and that’s the reason for the question of this thread. I really wanted to find out whether that is true or not. So far the (name removed by moderator)ut here has not shown otherwise. I am still open to other ideas but I guess that about saying it all.