Christian tradition and Protestant denial of it

[Pavel Mosko]

Protestants (meaning Evangelicals) just don't read those books.

I suspect you know the reason on this, but I will give my reasons when I followed that line of thinking myself.

1) As a Protestant I loved history and came from a Faith tradition (Lutheranism) that saw some supplemental benefit from the Church Fathers and creeds.


2) There however was the issue of "Where should I spend my time?" And in many ways the Bible is God's wisdom in super concentrate!


3) Besides that there is the issue of Rome. Rome had problems in spite of the organic historical link so the question goes is "If I spend all that effort won't the same be true with me?" Where the time investment benefits seem questionable.


4) It is only really when you see epistemological battles among Protestants over Scriptural interpretation where you can see that this might be perhaps useful.


5) But at the time you notice that you likely have some of your own "self confirming bias" at work yourself.


6) It really only has been in my own studies of interpretation (coming out of psychology) where I believe this is a nefarious problem. (Especially after I did start to study Church history etc.).


7) But overall even having a background now, I will still give nods to people like my Lutheran friend @FireDragon76 Even Orthodox and Catholics etc. can see their Faith in a bit of an oversimplified panacea way. Now I might be on that side so to speak, but there is something in human nature that sort of does this. Besides that, I also follow some of Emerson's thinking on the "foolish inconsistency" essay of Self Reliance where he strove to be "consistent with his understanding of the Truth", even though that varied at times based on his experience).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

One of the first things I got interested in that led me to want to study the Early Church is wondering what happened to all the Apostles after the New Testament ends. The story seems to just end abruptly with Paul sitting in house arrest, then some time later we see John stranded on the Isle of Patmos. And most everybody around me seemed, oddly, to be content with that. I asked questions, and the general answer I got was, "Nobody knows, the Bible doesn't say."

Adding to God's Word, by any means, including studying history, is forbidden in God's Word, by God Himself.
So it is better to say "Nobody knows, the Bible doesn't say", than to
get entangled in the ways of the world, with many deceptions (more deceptions than truths ) .

 

[Calvin_1985]

So let me preface by saying, I know not all Protestants are the same and I know they don't all deny Christian tradition in the same way. Once again, where I'm coming from is a very small corner of the American Evangelical world -- but most of what I have seen personally looks like this.

One of the first things I got interested in that led me to want to study the Early Church is wondering what happened to all the Apostles after the New Testament ends. The story seems to just end abruptly with Paul sitting in house arrest, then some time later we see John stranded on the Isle of Patmos. And most everybody around me seemed, oddly, to be content with that. I asked questions, and the general answer I got was, "Nobody knows, the Bible doesn't say."

That didn't really sit well with me. I studied history, and we knew exactly what happened to Augustus Caesar and all his family, even where they were buried. We had stories about people from the same time period as the Bible in the history of the Roman Empire... but when it comes to Jesus's disciples, they seem to have simply sailed off the map of history. When I pointed this out, somebody responded, "I guess they just weren't that important to history."

Weren't that important to history? Christianity changed the face of the whole world, and these Apostles were the men who carried it to the ends of the earth! And what happened to them wasn't important to anybody to record or remember?

And then, with a sickening feeling, I began to realize that that wasn't exactly true.

Protestants (meaning Evangelicals) just don't read those books. Not only do they not read them, they pretend they don't exist. It's probably true that most of the people I asked simply didn't know any better, but somewhere along the line, somebody consciously declared, "We know there are these traditions, and we're going to ignore them."

Why ignore them? Because they're "Catholic"? Is everything "Catholic" automatically untrue? I really don't understand this absolute severance that seems to define the Protestantism I know -- separation from everything that came before, denial of anything that isn't expressly what we believe. Scripture as the absolute and only source of knowledge -- not just about faith, but about history and science and other things too.

The line I hear again and again is "we don't need 'traditions of men'". But that isn't at all what Jesus was even saying. Tradition is the handing down of knowledge, about who we are and where we came from. It doesn't have to be an obstacle to faith, but can enhance it and even inform it.

So yes, I guess I'm complaining a lot in this post, but it had a point when I started. How does your particular group handle the early history and tradition of the Christian Church? If you embrace it -- do you verify it? If you treat it with skepticism, why and how? If you ignore it as unimportant, why?

Just follow Jesus. Church History is fine and all to know about but in the end it doesn't matter. What matters is living the Gospel so as to show the world what Christ has brought. It's about walking in and having a relationship with Father to be what we were intended to be. It's about just being a child. Forget all the hoopla and just be a child.

 

[Mary Meg]

Adding to God's Word, by any means, including studying history, is forbidden in God's Word, by God Himself.
So it is better to say "Nobody knows, the Bible doesn't say", than to
get entangled in the ways of the world, with many deceptions (more deceptions than truths ) .

So, you're saying we shouldn't study anything at all? Just go through life ignorant about the world and anything outside the Bible? I guess I should hang up my 12+ years of schooling and college plans...

Where do you think studying is forbidden by the Bible?

 

[Mary Meg]

Just follow Jesus. Church History is fine and all to know about but in the end it doesn't matter. What matters is living the Gospel so as to show the world what Christ has brought. It's about walking in and having a relationship with Father to be what we were intended to be. It's about just being a child. Forget all the hoopla and just be a child.

Forgive me, but remaining a child and never knowing anything isn't all that attractive to me...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So, you're saying we shouldn't study anything at all? Just go through life ignorant about the world and anything outside the Bible? I guess I should hang up my 12+ years of schooling and college plans...

Where do you think studying is forbidden by the Bible?

I think you already know or already have read the Bible . The key is there.
Just like the meaning of dreams, the wisdom and 'knowing' rests with God, not with men, concerning everything, right ?

One key, perhaps I think you agree with, is "test everything", like the Bereans.

they did not test what the world says - they did not bother with all that, no, not to learn from nor to study (as in the Bible , what is said of other heathen nations and their idolatry and their ways? ) ...

They tested what the APOSTLES, and any messenger of God, said(says),
to
verify it perfectly in line with Scripture already delivered "once for all"
BEFORE believing it, right ? Everything else, not verified, falls away.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Forgive me, but remaining a child and never knowing anything isn't all that attractive to me...

Jesus says we must become as a little child (and have a pure, undefiled heart) in order to ever see heaven....
and then,
being born again, we are crucified with Him, and SEATED WITH HIM in heavenly places,
and (TODAY) living daily in union with the Father and with the Son !

and like the song says "the things of the world grow strangely dim" in the LIGHT OF HIS GLORY AND GRACE ......

"Knowing" Him, and all that He reveals, including healing, fullness of joy, peace and righteousness, as written throughout the NT, with all the Ekklesia,

is VERY ATTRACTIVE to me with all Ekklesia, abiding in Jesus,
compared to all that the world has to offer.....

 

[HatGuy]

So let me preface by saying, I know not all Protestants are the same and I know they don't all deny Christian tradition in the same way. Once again, where I'm coming from is a very small corner of the American Evangelical world -- but most of what I have seen personally looks like this.

One of the first things I got interested in that led me to want to study the Early Church is wondering what happened to all the Apostles after the New Testament ends. The story seems to just end abruptly with Paul sitting in house arrest, then some time later we see John stranded on the Isle of Patmos. And most everybody around me seemed, oddly, to be content with that. I asked questions, and the general answer I got was, "Nobody knows, the Bible doesn't say."

That didn't really sit well with me. I studied history, and we knew exactly what happened to Augustus Caesar and all his family, even where they were buried. We had stories about people from the same time period as the Bible in the history of the Roman Empire... but when it comes to Jesus's disciples, they seem to have simply sailed off the map of history. When I pointed this out, somebody responded, "I guess they just weren't that important to history."

Weren't that important to history? Christianity changed the face of the whole world, and these Apostles were the men who carried it to the ends of the earth! And what happened to them wasn't important to anybody to record or remember?

And then, with a sickening feeling, I began to realize that that wasn't exactly true.

Protestants (meaning Evangelicals) just don't read those books. Not only do they not read them, they pretend they don't exist. It's probably true that most of the people I asked simply didn't know any better, but somewhere along the line, somebody consciously declared, "We know there are these traditions, and we're going to ignore them."

Why ignore them? Because they're "Catholic"? Is everything "Catholic" automatically untrue? I really don't understand this absolute severance that seems to define the Protestantism I know -- separation from everything that came before, denial of anything that isn't expressly what we believe. Scripture as the absolute and only source of knowledge -- not just about faith, but about history and science and other things too.

The line I hear again and again is "we don't need 'traditions of men'". But that isn't at all what Jesus was even saying. Tradition is the handing down of knowledge, about who we are and where we came from. It doesn't have to be an obstacle to faith, but can enhance it and even inform it.

So yes, I guess I'm complaining a lot in this post, but it had a point when I started. How does your particular group handle the early history and tradition of the Christian Church? If you embrace it -- do you verify it? If you treat it with skepticism, why and how? If you ignore it as unimportant, why?

I think it's important to remember that not everyone is called to be a teacher, and therefore not everyone cares about the details or cares about history. They just care about their ordinary, every day lives. God called some to be teachers, some to be pastors, etc. Many pastors don't care for the details either because they aren't called to be teachers - they simply want to love their people and walk with them through the storms of life. Their call is just as important as the teacher.

However, God does, of course call teachers, and teachers ought to care about this stuff and present it to the people and tell them why it's relevant. It's obvious, given your previous posts, that there is something of the teaching call on your life.

A good teacher doesn't teach history simply to give people a history lesson. Very few people care about history for history's sake. God did not make everyone geeks, but he did create geeks for a purpose. A good teacher knows that God did not make everyone interested in history, but it's the teachers job to use history as a way of teaching God's Word to the people. I've seen this done with great effect before.

God calls us to different vocations - in and out the church - and therefore gives us different interests. It's not really fair to expect everyone to have the same interests. There's a reason why you're in the place and the body you're in. Your call is perhaps different to many others, but that doesn't make your call, or theirs, invalid.

 

[Halbhh]

So let me preface by saying, I know not all Protestants are the same and I know they don't all deny Christian tradition in the same way. Once again, where I'm coming from is a very small corner of the American Evangelical world -- but most of what I have seen personally looks like this.

One of the first things I got interested in that led me to want to study the Early Church is wondering what happened to all the Apostles after the New Testament ends. The story seems to just end abruptly with Paul sitting in house arrest, then some time later we see John stranded on the Isle of Patmos. And most everybody around me seemed, oddly, to be content with that. I asked questions, and the general answer I got was, "Nobody knows, the Bible doesn't say."

That didn't really sit well with me. I studied history, and we knew exactly what happened to Augustus Caesar and all his family, even where they were buried. We had stories about people from the same time period as the Bible in the history of the Roman Empire... but when it comes to Jesus's disciples, they seem to have simply sailed off the map of history. When I pointed this out, somebody responded, "I guess they just weren't that important to history."

Weren't that important to history? Christianity changed the face of the whole world, and these Apostles were the men who carried it to the ends of the earth! And what happened to them wasn't important to anybody to record or remember?

And then, with a sickening feeling, I began to realize that that wasn't exactly true.

Protestants (meaning Evangelicals) just don't read those books. Not only do they not read them, they pretend they don't exist. It's probably true that most of the people I asked simply didn't know any better, but somewhere along the line, somebody consciously declared, "We know there are these traditions, and we're going to ignore them."

Why ignore them? Because they're "Catholic"? Is everything "Catholic" automatically untrue? I really don't understand this absolute severance that seems to define the Protestantism I know -- separation from everything that came before, denial of anything that isn't expressly what we believe. Scripture as the absolute and only source of knowledge -- not just about faith, but about history and science and other things too.

The line I hear again and again is "we don't need 'traditions of men'". But that isn't at all what Jesus was even saying. Tradition is the handing down of knowledge, about who we are and where we came from. It doesn't have to be an obstacle to faith, but can enhance it and even inform it.

So yes, I guess I'm complaining a lot in this post, but it had a point when I started. How does your particular group handle the early history and tradition of the Christian Church? If you embrace it -- do you verify it? If you treat it with skepticism, why and how? If you ignore it as unimportant, why?

The Lutheran church would be called 'protestant' but yet consider itself aligned to the earlier church and that it better follows the traditions. It's sort of the point of the Lutheran church really. Lutherans aren't...combative enough to just say that they are the 'real Catholic church' or such. And they are right to avoid such contentiousness, because it's not the true Spirit to try to assert one's own church is the Church -- no one should. We are all the Church, all who believe in Christ risen, as in the Apostles' Creed:

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting."

 

[TechyinAZ]

Being raised Protestant, and my church being a Baptist church, my pastor did teach us a LOT about Christian history, and I will say I'm super glad he did. But he never said we had to study it, rather he taught us history because it is a "good to know" so to speak. Something extra that can help us in our understanding of the word.

For example, me and dad years ago for bible study would incorporate the Book of Jasher sometimes as something extra, because we were curious about what other "non inspired" books of the bible had to say about biblical history. (FYI that book has it's flaws LOL but it is an interesting read.)

Of course, the inspired books of the bible should be our primary and basically our only source of biblical truth, but history books outside of the bible can be beneficial in non critical ways. For example, we don't have to know about the Apostles lives after the bible because it isn't that important for sanctification (which is why I believe the bible does not include this). However, it would be super cool to know what happened. I would absolutely love to read about each of the Apostles last days.

 

[Dave-W]

Adding to God's Word, by any means, including studying history, is forbidden in God's Word, by God Himself.
So it is better to say "Nobody knows, the Bible doesn't say", than to
get entangled in the ways of the world, with many deceptions (more deceptions than truths ) .

That is a very twisted way of looking at it.

 

[Mary Meg]

3) Besides that there is the issue of Rome. Rome had problems in spite of the organic historical link so the question goes is "If I spend all that effort won't the same be true with me?" Where the time investment benefits seem questionable.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you saying... if you spend a lot of time studying the history of the (Roman) Catholic Church... you'll have problems too?

4) It is only really when you see epistemological battles among Protestants over Scriptural interpretation where you can see that this might be perhaps useful.

Well yes, seeing that nobody can agree with anybody else is kind of where I'm at.

5) But at the time you notice that you likely have some of your own "self confirming bias" at work yourself.

But that presumes I'm starting from a position where there's something I'm wanting to confirm. I don't think that's really true for me.

6) It really only has been in my own studies of interpretation (coming out of psychology) where I believe this is a nefarious problem. (Especially after I did start to study Church history etc.).

I'd like to hear more about this.

7) But overall even having a background now, I will still give nods to people like my Lutheran friend @FireDragon76 Even Orthodox and Catholics etc. can see their Faith in a bit of an oversimplified panacea way. Now I might be on that side so to speak, but there is something in human nature that sort of does this.

I've enjoyed talking to @FireDragon76 also. But what do you mean, they see their faith in an oversimplified way?

 

[Albion]

Why ignore them? Because they're "Catholic"? Is everything "Catholic" automatically untrue? I really don't understand this absolute severance that seems to define the Protestantism I know -- separation from everything that came before, denial of anything that isn't expressly what we believe. Scripture as the absolute and only source of knowledge -- not just about faith, but about history and science and other things too.

The line I hear again and again is "we don't need 'traditions of men'". But that isn't at all what Jesus was even saying. Tradition is the handing down of knowledge, about who we are and where we came from. It doesn't have to be an obstacle to faith, but can enhance it and even inform it.

I guess that there are people who fit the description you have given us. There always are. I have run into a couple of them myself.

However, it should be known that the churches which almost 200 million Protestant Christians belong to make the point that the Apocrypha is to be read (from the pulpit even!) but not considered to be inspired, as Scripture.

So as long as someone can keep the books of Holy Scripture separate from other Jewish writings, I suppose that I am on your side with this.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Forgive me... but can you explain the connection to me? Wasn't the Roman state also cracking down on Gentile Christians? Why would the destruction of Judea by the Roman state lead Christians to turn against the Jewish background of Christianity rather than cling to it?

As I've pointed out before, I see fault lines between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians long before Bar Kochba -- and it had much more to do with Jewish persecution of Christianity than Gentile persecution of Judaism.

That's not to say that the loss of the Jewish context of Christianity wasn't sad and even devastating... But Paul makes it clear that Gentiles don't have to be Jews or observe Jewish laws or festivals to be Christians. He wrote his letters in Greek for the wider world, not in Hebrew for the select few who could read them. Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers goes to pains to express Hebrew concepts in Greek. The Hebrew context is surely important, but apparently, nobody thought it was essential...

The thing is, we do have the Jewish context of Christianity. That explains why the Eucharist is the continuance of the Passover, for one (so as not to make a heck-a-long post. The Early Church preserved the Jewish roots of the apostles and saw Christianity as the answer to all the prophecies.

This is not to say that there wasn't anti-Semitism (because some Christians saw the Jews as the murderers of the Messiah), and that some politics didn't creep into the church, but lots of Jewish converts to Christianity see exactly that-that Christianity answers all the prophecies of the OT.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That is a very twisted way of looking at it.

Or simply in the light.

Do you really think that adding to, or denying/taking away/ God's Word in any way is permitted ?

 

[Dave-W]

Or simply in the light.

Do you really think that adding to, or denying/taking away/ God's Word in any way is permitted ?

Understanding the cultural and religious background is NOT adding to the text.

 

[Albion]

The thing is, we do have the Jewish context of Christianity. That explains why the Eucharist is the continuance of the Passover, for one (so as not to make a heck-a-long post.

The fact that the Bible itself states that Jesus sent his men to prepare for a Passover meal, and that it also says the meal which they then celebrated included his institution of the Eucharist...

...wouldn't, by itself, give us enough information to reach the same conclusion????

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'll try keep it as brief as possible.

Church history is important for us, in that it helps us have an overview of what has happened since the Early Church, gives us an insight, their writings give us other point of views or confirmation on beliefs regarding the Bible etc...

However, it (church history and the early church fathers) is not to replace Scripture, does not hold authority over Scripture and does not affect our salvation (although it might give insight to Soteriology or whatever the case may be).

Everything we need for salvation and sanctification and life and godliness is revealed to us in Scripture and we don't need anything extra Biblical, no more revelation needed as it has been perfectly revealed in the Bible for us. I hear you say "What about..." yeah that's for another discussion, for the sake of not going on another debate, I will assume you understand why we have the Canon we have today.

Furthermore, the Apostles ceased after John died. As in there is no apostolic succession, because no-one meets the requirements to be an Apostle (and thus hold a sort of "Thus says the Lord" authority).
Hope that sheds some light on at least how we view things.

If it is true that you don't need anything extra-Biblical, why is it that every denomination has extra-Biblical texts to tell us what Scripture means? The fact is, the ECF's provide context to help us understand the plain texts of Scripture.
As an example, tell me what the following sentence means to you:
"Put the kitty on the table."

 

[Root of Jesse]

The fact that the Bible itself states that Jesus sent his men to prepare for a Passover meal, and that it also says the meal which they then celebrated included his institution of the Eucharist...

...wouldn't, by itself, give us enough information to reach the same conclusion????

Does it help you understand how? What is it about the Passover meal that gives significance to the institution of the Eucharist?

 

[Albion]

Does it help you understand how? What is it about the Passover meal that gives significance to the institution of the Eucharist?

That's not the issue. Tradition does not give us information about the Passover and the instituting of the Eucharist which would not be ours anyway thanks to the Bible.