Tradition and the Bible

[Josiah]

.


Tradition:


Catholic Definition:


1. It's the RCC alone that determines what Tradition is:


"It is the Authoritative Voice of the Catholic Church which determines what is to be accepted and rejected as Tradition." The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151



2. It's the RCC itself alone that determines the meaning of this Tradition it itself alone chose.

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome." Catholic Catechism # 85



3. This "Tradition" as the RCC has chosen and as the RCC itself has interpreted, is not accountable to God's Scriptures but is EQUAL to it.

"The [Catholic] Church does not derive its certainty about truth from the holy Scriptures alone. But both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments." Catholic Catechism # 82

"Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the other. Working together, they all contribute...." Catholic Catechims # 95

"Scripture is written principally in the heart of the [Catholic] Church rather than in documents or records, for the [Catholic] Church carries in its Tradition the living memory... Catholic Catechism # 113




Classic Protestant Definition:


Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist and Reformed Protestants speak of "tradition" in several ways:


1. It refers to the historic, ecumenical, consensus of God's people, especially regarding the interpretation and application of Scriptures. This if often held in very high esteem, but at least a tad under God's Word (as indeed Protestants tend to regard the words of men as under the Word of God). Examples would be the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. While this is typically a matter of the correct interpretation of Scripture, it is not exclusively that. For example, how do we know what Books ARE and are NOT Scripture, since no verse in the Bible states this? It is Tradition in this sense. There are other things, too. For example, every Christian holds that Jesus never married. No verse actually says that, but it has been the universal, historic consensus of God's people. So while MOST of this is a matter of what the verbatim written words of Holy Scripture means, it's not entirely limited to such.


2. The historic, consensus and generally official teachings of the specific theological community. In Lutheranism, we call this type of Tradition, "Confession." This is not ecumenical since it may be distinctive to a denomination (or family of them). For example, the "Lutheran Confessions" (the Book of Concord), the Reformed Confessions, The Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglicanism, etc. This is "OUR tradition." Protestants understand what Catholics call "Tradition" in this sense; often it is THEIR tradition.


3. The historic and broadly accepted customs and practices of God's people - which may be ecumenical or perhaps more limited in terms of time or community. We celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25. We usually publicly worship on Sundays.





Notes...


You will find SOME Protestants who TRY to disregard (even condemn) "Tradition." They may say something like, "I accept nothing that's not stated in the Bible." But ask them for the verse that tells us the content of the Bible and you'll get crickets; their whole rubric depends on Tradition telling them what is and is not Scripture. And they'll shout, "This verse MEANS...." and echo the interpretation of their denomination/faith community, imposing tradition (in the second sense). Actually, every Christian embraces Tradition in some sense, it's just some are honest about this and this "Tradition" isn't always ecumenical/historical.


Christianity is one of two large world religions that was born in one culture/milieu but was developed in an entirely different one (Buddhism, the other). Christianity has Jewish and Near East roots but all its theology developed in the Roman world. Roman culture and thinking was EXTREMELY individualistic (and obsessed with the issue of power/control/authority). In the original culture, the church was seen as COMMUNITY ("the one, holy, catholic community of saints") - that the church is US and that God gave the Bible to US; interpretation was a matter of consensus, the church needed to speak as one. But in the Roman world, the issue was only "what do I think/feel/believe....." and "can I force my opinion on others." IMO, we can see some of this in the RCC, growing with time. This attitude was multiplied greatly during the Enlightenment. So the whole issue of history.... consensus...... community..... has largely gotten lost, replaced with a strong "Jesus and ME" approach to Christianity and a flood of relativism ("what this means to ME today is...."). This has largely displaced the sense of Tradition that was significant until modern times.


There's a balance and tension here.... and a distinction: God's words (in Scripture) are inerrant (and cannot be challenged), man's words are accountable; that alone makes Tradition under Scripture and not equal to it. Luther quoted a LOT from the Early Church Fathers and from the Ecumenical Councils; he was enormously interested in the history of Christianity, the Ecumenical Creeds and in the consensus of Christians. He insisted that God's promise to lead and teach US is a promise to US, not to any individual (or individual denomination). BUT he argued that men can be wrong.... he noted that even the Councils at times erred and corrected themselves. Luther and Calvin did not throw out Tradition, they had no intention of reinventing the wheel, in starting something new, in revolution... they were reformers. There's a tension.... a balance.... an order... NOT easy to rightly attained.



Blessings!


- Josiah





.

 

[Arsenios]

Thank-you for not mentioning the Orthodox understanding...

Of the Holy Tradition of the Church...

Of Oecumenical Councils...

Of local traditions of the Churches...

Catholic-vs-Protestant is your bailiwick...

This polarity is rather self-sustaining...

At least for the Protestants...

For the Latins, it is a reminder...

One they would rather forget...

That you are THEIR daughter...

And not birthed in Joy...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

So let's get this straight. The argument is that since the early church chose certain letters/books as given by inspiration of God, that means that all traditions generated by the early church must therefore be equal to the Canon of Scripture.
Is this correct?
The ESV shows the word "scripture" being used 53 times in the Bible. Paul tells us all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Peter tells us that Paul's writing is Scripture.
It seems that either Paul is lying or he isn't when he says all scripture is given by inspiration of God. If it is actually from God, does the Bible not supercede stories made up by men who have no direct connection to Jesus who lived decades and centuries later?
When we read the letters do we not use textual criticism to determine what text may have been added later (Mark 16 ring any bells)? Do we not question?
Yet, here we are with people dogmatically claiming their church traditions are of equal or greater value than the written text that we can trace to people who actually lived with and saw Jesus...whose writings are called scripture.
Are we to accept that some ignorant monk who made up a story about some relics and bones while living in a cave is equal to or greater than the words of the Apostles who were writing by inspiration of God? Come now people, let us diligently look at those stories and test them as others test the scriptures. Let us see if they have any merit.

 

[Josiah]

So let's get this straight. The argument is that since the early church chose certain letters/books as given by inspiration of God, that means that all traditions generated by the early church must therefore be equal to the Canon of Scripture.Is this correct?

That's absurd. It would mean all the Zwinglian, Anabaptist, uber-Calvinist traditions you parrot would be true simply because you accurately parrot tradition.

What it reveals is that your claim that we are to go by the words of Scripture alone is absurd; you don't know what Scripture is without Tradition. The issue is not Tradition VS Scripture, the issue is the nature of Tradition and its relationship to Scripture. read the opening post.

You seem to have a very odd (but common among modern American "Evangelical" laity) idea of "Sola Scriptura." Such is NOT (in any sense) a repudiation of Tradition (it must embrace such), it simply means that the PRINTED WORDS ON THE PAGE of Scripture (not your substitution - what you think SHOULD be the words on the page, what you think was MEANT rather than said) is the "norma normans" in the arbitration of disputed doctrines among us; it is NOT "We ignore Tradition and substitute each individual's feelings in lieu of that". You have a mantra of insisting WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY? But you previously parrot a Tradition (typically latter-day uber-Calvinist or Zwinglian) and then PROVE that Scripture does not state it - while CLAIMING to reject Tradition and going by the words in the Bible. You could benefit from reading the opening post.

The ESV shows the word "scripture" being used 53 times in the Bible. Paul tells us all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Peter tells us that Paul's writing is Scripture.

Of course, And yup, there is no verse that lists the books of the Bible, the exact books inspired by God. The closest we get to this is an allusion to "Paul's writings" as being inspired, but it doesn't tell us works those are (Paul probably wrote thousands of letters in his lifetime, and we can't prove he wrote the ones we hold he did). So..... how do you hold that the 66 Books John Calvin declared to be Scripture are such? Well..... not because the words of Scripture state that.

When you parrot a Tradition (as you do constantly; often very accurately and verbatim).... and PROVE over and over and over that Scripture never states that Tradition.... you prove that you embrace Tradition (MUCH more than the words of Scripture). I don't claim that this is an easy thing (see the opening post) but I'm accurate and honest enough to admit that Scripture and Tradition both play a role, or at least did before the uber relativism and individualism infected the church like a cancer, replaced by "the words of the Bible mean NOTHING, all that matters is what I personally feel the Bible SHOULD say so that it agrees with ME personally, indiividually, today; yeah, the words of the Bible don't exactly agree with ME but that's the Bible's problem." You know, read your posts. You could benefit from reading and considering the opening post.

Yet, here we are with people dogmatically claiming their church traditions are of equal or greater value than the written text

Well, you do that. But that's not what ANY suggested (Catholic or Protestant) until radical Calvinists and Zwinglians and Anabaptists came alone... In any case, I'm not suggesting that; I stressed the rejection of that. As when you claim that because Mary is the mother of Jesus, ergo the Tradition of a few liberal Protestants in the 18th Century is true and the Bible SHOULD say that Mary bore James and Joseph, it just goofed in not saying that.

I'm NOT saying you are wrong to embrace Tradition..... you just choose new, errant, tiny minority traditions that are clearly not what Scripture says and flat out contradiction many, many centuries of universal consensus - the same thing that embraced the Bible as such, the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ.

test them as others test the scriptures. Let us see if they have any merit.

I agree. Which is why I think it important when you so clearly, so persistently PROVE that youtr new, rare, uber-Calvinist, Anabaptist, Zwinglian Traditions are not taught in Scripture. But yes, the words of Scripture "trump" the doctrines man develops, which is why I disagree with uber-Calvinist, Anabaptist, Zwinglian inventions you prove are not taught in Scripture. I find it curious that you go to such lengths to prove Scripture shows them to have no merit, but I agree with your rubric and conclusion: correct, they have no merit as you prove. Tradition can be errant, as you show so many of yours are.

Read the opening post. I never say that Tradition trumps Scripture (that's your rubric) or even that they are equals. I think the words of Scripture "trump" the doctrines created by man - which is why I think it important and relevant when you go to such great lengths to prove Scripture does not support some of the Traditions you parrot.




.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[MennoSota]

Josiah, I speak about what the Bible says. No parroting needed. You are the person who feels the need to place my comments into something outside of scripture. It's your problem, not mine.

Now, do you lift up all tradition as equal to the word of God or not?

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, I speak about what the Bible says.

I know. And so you consistently PROVE (verbatim, with black-and-white words) that Scripture doesn't say the new human traditions that you parrot. OBVIOUSLY, you cherish Tradition (but only new, rare ones from radical, later-day Calvinists and from Anabaptists and Zwinglians) and, I admit, you parrot them very accurately (including the apologetic). Okay, you cherish a few Traditions. The irony is you go to lengths to PROVE - undeniably PROVE - Scripture doesn't state them. Ironic. For someone who so often quotes and cherishes your traditions.... and who proves Scripture doesn't say them.... while CLAIMING you reject Tradition and only go by the words in the Bible. You don't see this, I realize. And you never will, I realize. I didn't put up this thread with you in mind (I gave up trying to help you see what you do, help you recognize the flaw in your apologetics) but ....

Now, do you lift up all tradition as equal to the word of God or not?

IF you read the opening post, you would not ask such. It may be a bit too long for you, but try reading it. I didn't post it with you particularly in mind, but yes - you are a classic example of this in some modern "Evangelical" laity. What springs to my mind when I consider you is not how much you cherish and parrot your traditions, but the stunning point of how you so consistenly PROVE they are not what Scripture says. You keep shouting "Bible alone! No Tradition!" but all you do is parrot your chosen traditions and prove Scripture doesn't say them. I once TRIED to help you see that, but gave up long ago. I didn't start this thread with you in mind, but yeah....

 

[MennoSota]

What I pick up from Josiah is that since God didn't provide a table of contents for his inspired word, it is merely tradition. Therefore all church tradition is equal to or greater than the Bible. For Josiah, if only a table of contents had been given by God, it would be more valuable than the words of other people in the church that created traditions, but since he didn't then it's not that big of a deal.

 

[Josiah]

What I pick up from Josiah is that since God didn't provide a table of contents for his inspired word, it is merely tradition. Therefore all church tradition is equal to or greater than the Bible.

Try actually reading the opening post. Pay attention to the WORDS (those black-and-white things formed by letters) - delete none, add none. I will help you.

No, I reject your rubric that your chosen traditions are true in spite of you so consistently PROVING the Bible says no such thing; I disagree with your rubric that YOUR traditons are true even though you prove the Bible doesn't say them. I'm DISAGREEING with that, not supporting it. READ the opening post. Don't "pick up" (deleting what is stated, subsituting the opposite) just read the words. Try it!

I can understand why the opening post (and my responses to you here) disturb you, but.... again, I didn't post this specifically with you in mind. But if you feel the shoe fits....

 

[MennoSota]

So Jesus called what he read, Scripture, and He is God. Therefore, according to Josiah, Jesus viewed the tradition of scripture as equal with the tradition of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He apparently had no problem with their traditions and teachings because both scripture and the Jewish traditions were equal.
However, we know that Jesus held scripture above tradition. We know he taught from scripture and eradicated tradition when it attempted to change scripture. Why then would any church, today, place its tradition as of greater value than scripture? Yet, we see people on CH attempting that same fateful thing...just like the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

[Josiah]

So Jesus called what he read, Scripture, and He is God. Therefore, according to Josiah, Jesus viewed the tradition of scripture as equal with the tradition of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Quote me saying that. This is a typical ploy of yours: to insist something stated something absurd (and showing you KNOW they did not because you refuse to quote them), then slam it for what it is. There's a word for this....


Jesus never listed the Books that are Scripture. IF we even accept as such Books from which He SEEMS to be quoting (and that would be a very weak approach),that would only be about 10 of the 66 books that Calvin declared is Scripture. MY point (which you evade) is that even when you say "Scriipture is the only authority" you actually are employing Tradition because Tradition says what is Scripture. The Bible never gives us that list, nor did Jesus.

He apparently had no problem with their traditions and teachings because both scripture and the Jewish traditions were equal.

This too is a popular ploy of yours. I actually STATED that Tradition should be held as UNDER Scripture but you claim I said they are EQUAL (again, a good reason why you don't quote me).

Why then would any church, today, place its tradition as of greater value than scripture? Yet, we see people on CH attempting that same fateful thing...just like the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Ask yourself that question....


Now, if you look at your posts, we see you echo Tradition (often verbatim, usually very well). But typically not historic or ecumenical Tradition but rather new, rare, largely rejected Tradition of your denomination (sometimes Calvinist Tradition but usually Anabaptist Tradition).... and that's okay although you claim it's not tradition when it's undeniably that's EXACTLY what it is. Then you go to amazing lengths (I sincerely do applaud the effort you give to this) to PROVE the Tradition you just parroted is not found in the Bible. Okay. Tradition, by definition, is typically not specifically stated in the Bible (including the one of what is Scripture). You just are hypocritical about it. Profoundly so. You use Tradition more than anyone at this website (including our now mostly absent Catholic brother) and PROVE Scripture does NOT say what you do... but then you RANT on and on about how terrible, how wrong, what YOU DO MOST OF ALL is. Jesus' log/speck thing is confirmed with nearly every one of your posts.



Friend, I didn't have you specifically in mind as I posted the OP and uploaded this thread. But how that you bring up you, yup, you are a good example of how some Christians mess this up.





.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Quote me saying that. This is a typical ploy of yours: to insist something stated something absurd (and showing you KNOW they did not because you refuse to quote them), then slam it for what it is. There's a word for this....


Jesus never listed the Books that are Scripture. IF we even accept as such Books from which He SEEMS to be quoting (and that would be a very weak approach),that would only be about 10 of the 66 books that Calvin declared is Scripture. MY point (which you evade) is that even when you say "Scriipture is the only authority" you actually are employing Tradition because Tradition says what is Scripture. The Bible never gives us that list, nor did Jesus.







This too is a popular ploy of yours. I actually STATED that Tradition should be held as UNDER Scripture but you claim I said they are EQUAL (again, a good reason why you don't quote me).








Ask yourself that question....


Now, if you look at your posts, we see you echo Tradition (often verbatim, usually very well). But typically not historic or ecumenical Tradition but rather new, rare, largely rejected Tradition of your denomination (sometimes Calvinist Tradition but usually Anabaptist Tradition).... and that's okay although you claim it's not tradition when it's undeniably that's EXACTLY what it is. Then you go to amazing lengths (I sincerely do applaud the effort you give to this) to PROVE the Tradition you just parroted is not found in the Bible. Okay. Tradition, by definition, is typically not specifically stated in the Bible (including the one of what is Scripture). You just are hypocritical about it. Profoundly so. You use Tradition more than anyone at this website (including our now mostly absent Catholic brother) and PROVE Scripture does NOT say what you do... but then you RANT on and on about how terrible, how wrong, what YOU DO MOST OF ALL is. Jesus' log/speck thing is confirmed with nearly every one of your posts.



Friend, I didn't have you specifically in mind as I posted the OP and uploaded this thread. But how that you bring up you, yup, you are a good example of how some Christians mess this up.





.





.

No need.
You show your Pharisaical tendencies when you promote church tradition over scripture. Jesus severely corrected the Pharisees for doing the same thing. Use that as your guide to placing scripture over church tradition, Josiah.

 

[Lamb]

No need.
You show your Pharisaical tendencies when you promote church tradition over scripture. Jesus severely corrected the Pharisees for doing the same thing. Use that as your guide to placing scripture over church tradition, Josiah.

You are incorrect to insist that Lutherans promote church tradition over scripture. Lutherans believe what the scriptures say and look to history to see if they've strayed from what the early church believed. If infant baptism was practiced (It WAS!!) then why would we turn away from it because some guy insisted that infants didn't need to be baptized later on in church history. So you see, it is YOU who holds to tradition over scripture.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=11]Lämmchen[/MENTION]

You are incorrect to insist that Lutherans promote church tradition over scripture. Lutherans believe what the scriptures say and look to history to see if they've strayed from what the early church believed. If infant baptism was practiced (It WAS!!) then why would we turn away from it because some guy insisted that infants didn't need to be baptized later on in church history. So you see, it is YOU who holds to tradition over scripture.

Sincerely, I did not have our Anabaptist friend in mind as I uploaded this thread..... but yeah, he could be a case study. MY desire would be to keep the discussion more general and not personal, if he'd allow that (as you know, I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to our discussions).


ONE point of the opening post is that all this is DIFFICULT, not as easy as some radical Evangelicals, Catholics and Mormon fundamentalists like to CLAIM (and then PROVE it is not). I'd go so far as to say NEVER - by a Christian individual or church or denomination) is Tradition ever eliminated - although some CLAIM to while PROVING they do not. And yes, if we READ MennoSota's post, yes he would be a stunning case study (but again, I'd rather keep this non=personal).


I'm not opposed to Tradition per se. I hold it is impossible to eliminate it (even if just with one's OWN Tradition as SELF invents). I do think it's wise to be aware of the Tradition we are embracing.... and just honest to admit it. When someone VERBATIM echos Arius, they ARE parroting a Tradition. Yeah, it COULD be they aren't aware they are echoing the Tradition that universally was condemned as heresy, but if that's what they are doing then sorry that's what they are doing and it's GOOD for that to be pointed out.


And I hold that Tradition is accountable. By its vary nature, it may not be possible to PROVE with the WORDS of the Bible that such is or is not true, but as a Lutheran, I hold that the words of Scripture (WORDS ON THE PAGE, not invisible feelings that only self can see cuz self is special) "trumps" Tradition. Arbitration here is difficult, I admitted. IMO, ancient, universal, historic, ecumenical consensus "trumps" some often heretical dude centuries later who comes up with the opposite view, but that's because I hold the church as COMMUNITY rather than ME and MYSELF; I hol d God gave the Bible to ALL OF US, not just Arius or some Anabaptist or Luther or Mary Baker Eddy or MennoSota or me or Lammchen. God promised the Holy Spriit would lead US - He never promised He would only or especially lead the Pope or some Anabaptist or some Pentecostal preacher in Springfield, MO. So, Tradition that is historic and ecumenical and in no way problemmatic via the words in the Bible give more credibility to me than some "revelation" given to Brother Bob down at the New Apostle Bob Tabernacle. BUT.... can even solid, historic, ecumenical Tradition be wrong? Yup. THEREIN lies the difficulty, of which the OP is partly about.


Lämmchen, this was a KEY issue in my own personal spiritual struggle. It's NOT a simple issue that can be settled with a nice, short sound bit (the things discussion forums thrive on), it's complicated (and thus beyond the scope of websites typically). It was an issue I STRUGGLED with when I was like 11 and 12 (!!!!!). How do we know if a Tradition is true? I wish I came up with a nice, simple, little indisputable sound bite; I sincerely wish I did. But sometimes things aren't so simple. I KNOW this thread will likely not be engaged.... just as I knew my threads on Sola Scripture and Infant Baptism and some others would never get much engagement. BUT I think it IS important. And I think ONE of the reasons our discussions here rarely get anywhere is this very issue, ESPECIALLY for Evangelical Protestants (but certainly not exclusively).


Blessings....


- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

You are incorrect to insist that Lutherans promote church tradition over scripture. Lutherans believe what the scriptures say and look to history to see if they've strayed from what the early church believed. If infant baptism was practiced (It WAS!!) then why would we turn away from it because some guy insisted that infants didn't need to be baptized later on in church history. So you see, it is YOU who holds to tradition over scripture.

I have pointed out a number of instances where Lutheran's uphold tradition over scripture. Infant baptism is the obvious elephant in the room.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=11]Lämmchen[/MENTION]






Sincerely, I did not have our Anabaptist friend in mind as I uploaded this thread..... but yeah, he could be a case study. MY desire would be to keep the discussion more general and not personal, if he'd allow that (as you know, I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to our discussions).


ONE point of the opening post is that all this is DIFFICULT, not as easy as some radical Evangelicals, Catholics and Mormon fundamentalists like to CLAIM (and then PROVE it is not). I'd go so far as to say NEVER - by a Christian individual or church or denomination) is Tradition ever eliminated - although some CLAIM to while PROVING they do not. And yes, if we READ MennoSota's post, yes he would be a stunning case study (but again, I'd rather keep this non=personal).


I'm not opposed to Tradition per se. I hold it is impossible to eliminate it (even if just with one's OWN Tradition as SELF invents). I do think it's wise to be aware of the Tradition we are embracing.... and just honest to admit it. When someone VERBATIM echos Arius, they ARE parroting a Tradition. Yeah, it COULD be they aren't aware they are echoing the Tradition that universally was condemned as heresy, but if that's what they are doing then sorry that's what they are doing and it's GOOD for that to be pointed out.


And I hold that Tradition is accountable. By its vary nature, it may not be possible to PROVE with the WORDS of the Bible that such is or is not true, but as a Lutheran, I hold that the words of Scripture (WORDS ON THE PAGE, not invisible feelings that only self can see cuz self is special) "trumps" Tradition. Arbitration here is difficult, I admitted. IMO, ancient, universal, historic, ecumenical consensus "trumps" some often heretical dude centuries later who comes up with the opposite view, but that's because I hold the church as COMMUNITY rather than ME and MYSELF; I hol d God gave the Bible to ALL OF US, not just Arius or some Anabaptist or Luther or Mary Baker Eddy or MennoSota or me or Lammchen. God promised the Holy Spriit would lead US - He never promised He would only or especially lead the Pope or some Anabaptist or some Pentecostal preacher in Springfield, MO. So, Tradition that is historic and ecumenical and in no way problemmatic via the words in the Bible give more credibility to me than some "revelation" given to Brother Bob down at the New Apostle Bob Tabernacle. BUT.... can even solid, historic, ecumenical Tradition be wrong? Yup. THEREIN lies the difficulty, of which the OP is partly about.


Lämmchen, this was a KEY issue in my own personal spiritual struggle. It's NOT a simple issue that can be settled with a nice, short sound bit (the things discussion forums thrive on), it's complicated (and thus beyond the scope of websites typically). It was an issue I STRUGGLED with when I was like 11 and 12 (!!!!!). How do we know if a Tradition is true? I wish I came up with a nice, simple, little indisputable sound bite; I sincerely wish I did. But sometimes things aren't so simple. I KNOW this thread will likely not be engaged.... just as I knew my threads on Sola Scripture and Infant Baptism and some others would never get much engagement. BUT I think it IS important. And I think ONE of the reasons our discussions here rarely get anywhere is this very issue, ESPECIALLY for Evangelical Protestants (but certainly not exclusively).


Blessings....


- Josiah



.

LOL, I am less anabaptist than you in that I am a monergist while you are a semi-pelagian.

 

[Josiah]

I have pointed out a number of instances where Lutheran's uphold tradition over scripture. Infant baptism is the obvious elephant in the room.

1. You echo one Tradition about children and baptism....... most another.


2. You have consistently gone to GREAT lenghs to prove that your Tradition on this is absent from the Bible (appreciate your hard work on this, you've saved me a lot of time). You simply have a late, largely-rejected Tradition that is not found in the bible and that you hold is unaccountable (thus your proof to the contrary is dismissed). The MOST you could say is most are nearly as guilty of the same thing you are (they just have a MUCH older and more ecumenical tradition). That's the MOST you could claim.


3. In response to your demand, I put up a whole thread about the historic, orthodox, ecumenical view on this; you pretty much ignored the whole thing (Perhaps you didn't read it..... it's not a tiny sound bite that some seem to demand). MANY here have shown the absurdity of your presentation of your new prohibitions and mandates: that you yourself prove Scirpture never says any such thng and that you yourself reject, repudiate and do not apply your own apologetic on this. You don't seem to care. Actually, on this point too, you are a CLASSIC EXAMPLE of misusing Tradition - not even admitting that what you are parroting IS Tradition, not regarding it as accountable. But this thread is not about your Anabaptist Traditions you parrot.... it could apply to the radical TULIP Traditions of some latter-day radical Calvinists that you also parrot with no permitted accountablity and with proof Scripture does not state them. BUT I'm not saying you are unique. I think your approach is rather common. It's just you are dishonest about it, hypocritical about it, blind. You make a good case study BUT I'd rather not proceed that way because you are hardly alone AND this is not nearly as simple as you pretend (and then prove otherwise).




.

 

[MennoSota]

1. You echo one Tradition about children and baptism....... most another.


2. You have consistently gone to GREAT lenghs to prove that your Tradition on this is absent from the Bible (appreciate your hard work on this, you've saved me a lot of time). You simply have a late, largely-rejected Tradition that is not found in the bible and that you hold is unaccountable (thus your proof to the contrary is dismissed). The MOST you could say is most are nearly as guilty of the same thing you are (they just have a MUCH older and more ecumenical tradition). That's the MOST you could claim.


3. In response to your demand, I put up a whole thread about the historic, orthodox, ecumenical view on this; you pretty much ignored the whole thing (Perhaps you didn't read it..... it's not a tiny sound bite that some seem to demand). MANY here have shown the absurdity of your presentation of your new prohibitions and mandates: that you yourself prove Scirpture never says any such thng and that you yourself reject, repudiate and do not apply your own apologetic on this. You don't seem to care. Actually, on this point too, you are a CLASSIC EXAMPLE of misusing Tradition - not even admitting that what you are parroting IS Tradition, not regarding it as accountable. But this thread is not about your Anabaptist Traditions you parrot.... it could apply to the radical TULIP Traditions of some latter-day radical Calvinists that you also parrot with no permitted accountablity and with proof Scripture does not state them. BUT I'm not saying you are unique. I think your approach is rather common. It's just you are dishonest about it, hypocritical about it, blind. You make a good case study BUT I'd rather not proceed that way because you are hardly alone AND this is not nearly as simple as you pretend (and then prove otherwise).




.

I echo scripture. It is you who sees Christianity through tradition and then attempts to fit everyone into a tradition rather than let scripture determine truth.
Not once have I ever brought up tradition or Calvinism as my argument. I have always brought up scripture. You ignore scripture and go straight to your tradition for guidance. This is where we differ.

 

[Josiah]

I echo scripture.

That's the stunning thing; yes you do! And thus PROVE (undeniably, indisputably... in black-and-white) that Scripture does not state the Anabaptist Traditions you parrot so well. It IS one of the amazing things about you, you are willing to PROVE you are not saying what Scripture does. WHY you do that, well, I don't have a clue, but you do.

So the topic here is one you should consider. There's no one else here at CH who embraces their chosen Tradition as passionately (and consistently) as you do. And no one who feels this compulsion to so prove that Tradition is not what Scripture says. I don't have any problems with you echoing your chosen Tradition (especially since you do it very accurately) ONLY by your silly claim that you aren't doing that, and your hypocrisy in forbidding others to do what you do more than anyone else. AND the irony of you constantly claiming how important Scripture is yet going to considerable work to prove your Tradition is not found in Scripture (that's really peculiar).





.

 

[MennoSota]

That's the stunning thing; yes you do! And thus PROVE (undeniably, indisputably... in black-and-white) that Scripture does not state the Anabaptist Traditions you parrot so well. It IS one of the amazing things about you, you are willing to PROVE you are not saying what Scripture does. WHY you do that, well, I don't have a clue, but you do.

So the topic here is one you should consider. There's no one else here at CH who embraces their chosen Tradition as passionately (and consistently) as you do. And no one who feels this compulsion to so prove that Tradition is not what Scripture says. I don't have any problems with you echoing your chosen Tradition (especially since you do it very accurately) ONLY by your silly claim that you aren't doing that, and your hypocrisy in forbidding others to do what you do more than anyone else. AND the irony of you constantly claiming how important Scripture is yet going to considerable work to prove your Tradition is not found in Scripture (that's really peculiar).





.

Always tradition with you. Do you spend your time fiddling on a roof?
What we know is that paedobaptism, your tradition, does not exist in the Bible. What we know is that believers being baptized exists in the Bible. No traditions are needed to observe this fact.