What Do Protestants Think About This Scripture?

[Nine_Two]

Actually, I consider myself to be a creedal and confessional Christian who adheres to sola scriptura. Since you are Orthodox, please tell me the difference between Catholic and Orthodox tradition, and what is to be received as truth. It is my understanding that both the Orthodox and Catholic Church claim to be the One True Church, seperate and distinct from each other.

The biggest difference is Development of Doctrine and Papal Supremacy, although that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, feel free to ask any questions you might have in another thread.

Creedal or not doesn’t really matter. The fact is your point of argument was that we toss out tradition because it has been made up by others.

While Sola Scriptura says everything must go back to the scriptures, this verse clearly states that not everything is in the scriptures.

Now I do agree that Holy Tradition should not contradict the scriptures, but that is something else entirely.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

"“There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” John 21:25

I think we’re getting side tracked…

The question is what do we think this says?

Well, I think “many” means many. Nothing unclear about that.
I think that “things” means things. What’s unclear about that?
I think that “Jesus” means Jesus - that individual. What’s unclear about that?
I think that “did” means did - certain actions. Nothin’ unclear about that.
I think that “written” means written. Like in a book.
I think that “the entire world” is probably hyperbole.

So, if we look at the whole thing, John is saying that Jesus DID things, not all of which he has recorded in the Book of John. {We know this is true because, for example, there are miracles of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics that he doesn’t record).

That’s what it says. So that’s what I think it says.

Not too much controversy, if we just read the words - and accept what is there.

Of course, if we delete the words there and substitute other words, then it says something different. For example, delete “did” and replace it with “dogmas taught” would change it. Change out “Jesus” for “Joseph Smith” and that would change it. Delete “this book” and replace it with “Bible” and that changes it. Anytime you delete words in Scripture and replace them with an entirely different one - you raise the distinct possibility of changing it. This would be no exception.

.

 

[Nine_Two]

I thought 33,000 was exaggerated.

I was making a guess at the number of Protestants in the world,
but yes, Tradition plays a role in a number of Protestant denominations, but I fear that these are sadly becoming a minority.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I was making a guess at the number of Protestants in the world,

I think its generally placed at around 350,000,000. But I don’t know what that has to do with what this verse of Scripture says.

.

 

[Nine_Two]

I believe the Catholic churches that there are traditions and Sacred Traditions. How do you determine if a source is just tradition, or Sacred Tradition as a Catholic? The Catholic Catechism does not specific to list of sources which are part of Sacred Tradition.

The distinction between Holy Tradition (or Sacred Tradition) and tradition is that Holy Tradition is what has been taught and passed down as truth. This includes the writings of the ECF, the Eccumenical Councils, declarations by Patriarchs, etc. Tradition refers to those things which are done because they have always been done.

An example: Celebrating Christmas on December 25 is part of Holy Tradition. Celebrating Christmas by putting a tree in your living room is tradition.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think its generally placed at around 350,000,000. But I don’t know what that has to do with what this verse of Scripture says.

.

I’m unaware of any Protestant sects which don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. I’m unaware of any non-Protestant sects which do.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The distinction between Holy Tradition (or Sacred Tradition) and tradition is that Holy Tradition is what has been taught and passed down as truth. This includes the writings of the ECF, the Eccumenical Councils, declarations by Patriarchs, etc. Tradition refers to those things which are done because they have always been done.

An example: Celebrating Christmas on December 25 is part of Holy Tradition. Celebrating Christmas by putting a tree in your living room is tradition.

Are you saying all of the writings of ECF are received as Sacred Tradition by the Magestrium?

 

[RomanCath379]

Augustine is pre-reformation, or 1,200 or so years before the Protestant Reformation. Personally, I believe Augustine would be one of the giants of the Protestant Reformation along-side of Luther and Calvin.

Right…that’s what an Early Church Father is **before the Reformation. **They were thoroughly Catholic in belief. The Catholic church is Apostolic, a Protestant one isn’t. They are all man-made except for the CC…once you acknowledge this, we can move on.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

this verse clearly states that not everything is in the scriptures.

I wonder if you are reading the same verse as the one in the opening post?

It says that Jesus DID some things not recorded in the Book of John.

Now, I agree with you - I find it very unlikely that everything Jesus did (or said) is recorded in the 4 Gospel books. Now, I don’t jump to the conclusion that THEREFORE, the Book of Mormon is all infallibly correct and that MUST be “the rest of the story” - I simply concluded that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John penned what God desired to be penned. We don’t know what He had for breakfast every morning of His life - and it maybe would be incorrect for us to dogmatically state what He did. John seems to be indicating in this verse that what is recorded is what we need to know. Perhaps I should not theorize (and then declare such dogma) what He ate for breakfast on the morning of His 8th birthday?

In any case, the verse simply says that Jesus DID some things not recorded in the Book of John. And we know that to be true since, for example, there are miracles recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke that John doesn’t record. THAT’S what it says. So, that’s what I think it says.

.

 

[Nine_Two]

Are you saying all of the writings of ECF are received as Sacred Tradition by the Magestrium?

If by ECF you mean the Saints, yes. However while their teachings are generally good, they were never infallible, they must therefore be looked at as a whole, and not individually.

 

[Nine_Two]

I wonder if you are reading the same verse as the one in the opening post?

It says that Jesus DID some things not recorded in the Book of John.

Now, I agree with you - I find it very unlikely that everything Jesus did (or said) is recorded in the 4 Gospel books. Now, I don’t jump to the conclusion that THEREFORE, the Book of Mormon is all infallibly correct and that MUST be “the rest of the story” - I simply concluded that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John penned what God desired to be penned. We don’t know what He had for breakfast every morning of His life - and it maybe would be incorrect for us to dogmatically state what He did. John seems to be indicating in this verse that what is recorded is what we need to know. Perhaps I should not theorize (and then declare such dogma) what He ate for breakfast on the morning of His 8th birthday?

In any case, the verse simply says that Jesus DID some things not recorded in the Book of John. And we know that to be true since, for example, there are miracles recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke that John doesn’t record. THAT’S what it says. So, that’s what I think it says.

He also said it wouldn’t fit into all the books of the bible, and I hardly think he was talking about such mundane things as you are. That’s common sense. You could say the same about anyone over a three year period.

I have a hard time believing that you actually interprete that to mean he was talking about mundane everyday things.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

He also said it wouldn’t fit into all the books of the bible, and I hardly think he was talking about such mundane things as you are. That’s common sense. You could say the same about anyone over a three year period.

… I suspect THAT part is a bit of hyperbole…

I think it says what it says. What’s so remarkable about concluding that it says what it says? It says Jesus DID some things not recorded in the Book of John. So, that’s what I think it says. I’m struggling to see what is difficult about that.

Now, you can delete the word “did” and substitute some other word for it and then it would say something different, but the issue is not how it would say something different if it said something different, the issue is what is it saying? Well, it’s saying that Jesus did things not recorded in the Book of John.

We could all purely theorize for all eternity as to what that might have been. The Mormons say this is alluding to Jesus visiting the Americas, I guess anyone would theorize ANYTHING. We don’t know what we don’t know. In any case, John goes on to say that what IS written serves God’s purpose - and that’s good enough for me. I guess we all can theorize about how long Jesus’ hair was or whatever for all eternity, but again - what the verse does NOT say is not what it DOES say. What it says is that Jesus did things not recorded in the Book of John - and so I think that’s what it says. What’s so troubling or puzzling about that?



Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmateurPianist]

"“There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” John 21:25

I for one take this as it pretty well reads.

We know that there are things that Jesus said and did that were not recorded in the Gospel of John but were recorded in other gospels.

Now the next question is what conclusions must logically follow from this verse.

 

[RomanCath379]

I for one take this as it pretty well reads.

We know that there are things that Jesus said and did that were not recorded in the Gospel of John but were recorded in other gospels.

Now the next question is what conclusions must logically follow from this verse.

The conclusion simply is this: We do not go by just what the bible says, and this Scripture is proof of this. There are people (Protestants), who go by JUST the bible and the bible alone.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The conclusion simply is this: We do not go by just what the bible says, and this Scripture is proof of this.

Actually, this verse says nothing of the sort. It says that Jesus did some things not recorded by John in his Gospel book. It says what it says, it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.

There are people (Protestants), who go by JUST the bible and the bible alone.

Maybe, although I’ve never met any of those. If you mean do some use Scripture as the canon for the evaluation of doctrines - yes, that’s called Sola Scriptura. If you mean that some use only Scirpture in hermeneutics or in arbitration, then no - I don’t know of any. If you mean that some use only Scirpture in matters of praxis or in matters outside Christian fiath and morals, then no - again, I don’t think there are any.

Again, what I think this verse says is what it says. Jesus did some things not recorded in John’s book. That’s what it says. That’s therefore what I think it says. WHAT those things might be - I don’t know. We know some of them by looking to Matthew, Mark and Luke - they all record some things Jesus did that John doesn’t. I suppose we could all theorize what He had for breakfast on His tenth birthday but that’s WELL beyond what this verse says. It jsut says Jesus did some things not recorded by John, it doesn’t tell us what those things were and doesn’t say we need to know all those things.

.

 

[Carlan]

I believe the Catholic churches that there are traditions and Sacred Traditions. How do you determine if a source is just tradition, or Sacred Tradition as a Catholic? The Catholic Catechism does not specific to list of sources which are part of Sacred Tradition.

Some Christians think all tradition is condemed in Scripture, but the Bible speaks of two kinds of tradition: human and apostolic. Bad human tradition is condemned. In Matthew Jesus clearly condemns *human tradition that sets aside the commandments of God.
Paul tells us to beware of false reasoning "acording to human tradition.’ But in condemning wrong human traditions(small ‘t’),neither Jesus or St Paul is condemning Apostolic Traditions( capital’), the deposits of divine truths that Jesus orally gave to the Apostles.
the Bible actually commands following ApostolicTraditions. St Paul commends the Corinthians for following apostolic traditions also commands *the Thessalonians to keep them: "so then, brethern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter".
Obeying St Paul , the Church bases its doctrines on Sacred Scripture *and *Apostolic Tradition. Carlan

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Some Christians think all tradition Cais condemed in Scripture, but the Bible speaks of two kinds of tradition: human and apostolic. Bad human tradition is condemned. In Matthew Jesus clearly condemns *human tradition *that sets aside the commandments of God.

I tend to agree. “Human” tradition would be tradition that comes from a human (or group thereof). I disagree with you that all that is NECESSARILY bad (I’ll leave the arbitration there for another day and therad) but yes - by definition, it comes from humans or a group thereof.

Apostolic Tradition comes from one of the 13 (or 14) Apostles; by definition, it must be from the lips or pen of one of them - and documented accordingly. I’m not sure ALL such should be accepted as true (Peter once said, “I don’t know the man!”), but again, another issue for another day and thread.

The topic before us is what does this particular verse say? To ME, it says what it says: That Jesus did some things not recorded by John in his book. That’s what it says. Nothing more, nothing less. So that’s what I think it says.

St Paul *commands *the Thessalonians to keep them: "so then, brethern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter".

Yes. The “us” of course referring to Paul, Timothy and Silas. But he makes no reference here to The Catholic Church or Catholic Tradition or the Bishop in Rome. I think this is an embrace of Apostolic Tradition, not of human tradition. I agree with you, it’s important to keep that distinction from Apostolic Tradition (from the lip or pen of one of the 13) and human traditions, that’s a good point.

But, of course, the verse we are discussing doesn’t say anything about that. It doesn’t tell us what John didn’t tell us - or anything about such. He does go on to say that he DID record what God purposed.

.

 

[JonNC]

I’m unaware of any Protestant sects which don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. I’m unaware of any non-Protestant sects which do.

Not sure, but it is my understanding that some Anglicans reject SS, and perhaps some Methodists, too. Are PNCC and other Old Catholics considered Protestant, since they protested, so to speak, against papal infallibility? Just wondering.

I was making a guess at the number of Protestants in the world,

I got the humor. I just might add that sola scriptura is not necessarily tied to personal interpretation. Lutherans genereally don’t or can’t practice it because we by definition confess the Augsburg Confession. Weel, at least confessional Lutherans do.
So, when I was young, I was catechized using Luther’s Small Catechism. I was never given a Bible and told to go interpret it for myself.

but yes, Tradition plays a role in a number of Protestant denominations, but I fear that these are sadly becoming a minority.

Maybe in numbers of groups, but worldwide I would think not in numbers of people, though I admit no documentation to support my speculation.

Jon

 

[AmateurPianist]

The conclusion simply is this: We do not go by just what the bible says, and this Scripture is proof of this. There are people (Protestants), who go by JUST the bible and the bible alone.

First of all I don’t understand what you mean “go by”.

But whatever you mean by “go by”, I also do not understand why you feel this Scripture “proves” this.

Does this Scripture address what Christians are to “go by”? If not, I don’t understand what exactly this proves…except that…Jesus said and did stuff that was not recorded in the gospel of John.

And since I also have the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke at my disposal as proof of this statement, I know this assertion is true.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes, clearly it’s a reference to mundane facts.

Depend on what you consider mundane though the verse clearly does not say so.

Even as mundane as it is, some of them are being set up for contention today by different Christian denominations. Clearly the Bible cannot stand alone as a complete dictionary for apostolic traditions; we still need the Tradition to fall back to when it is not clearly stated in it. And we need the Magestrium (the Church) to interpret it especially if the verses alluding to practices were not specifically spelt out in detail in the Bible.

There is good reason for John to write 21:25 and that was to caution Christians today not to purely depend on the Bible alone.