Christian tradition and Protestant denial of it

[chevyontheriver]

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."

You have to stop all of this or you are going to become Catholic.

 

[chevyontheriver]

And in any case, it wasn't an absolute severance. The Christian Church retained and insisted on reading and holding to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament. There were people who wanted to discard them as unimportant or even contrary to the New Covenant, but those people were soundly rejected.

Right. The absolute severance would have been to adopt Marcion's canon, which excluded everything of the Hebrew tradition.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Right. The absolute severance would have been to adopt Marcion's canon, which excluded everything of the Hebrew tradition.

It's interesting "the severance" idea, which is something of you should appreciate as a Catholic. So many people tend to forget that there is an entire "Oriental" side of the Church that is very Jewish in its ancestry and tradition and even the Mass and Divine liturgies were mostly derived and adapted from the liturgical tradition of temple and synagogue.

 

[chevyontheriver]

None of the communities I was a part of handled them at all. When I finally noticed this little bit of irrationality and started asking questions the way you are I got such intense reactions that I knew something had to be wrong. So I started reading the early Church Fathers and Josephus, and before long I found that I was Catholic.

So you fell into the trap ... and now ... you are Catholic. How did that go with friends and family? Didn't they try to warn you?

 

[prodromos]

Many will not like my answer to that.

Yeah, I don't generally like false witness.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It's interesting "the severance" idea, which is something of you should appreciate as a Catholic. So many people tend to forget that there is an entire "Oriental" side of the Church that is very Jewish in its ancestry and tradition and even the Mass and Divine liturgies were mostly derived and adapted from the liturgical tradition of temple and synagogue.

Spiritually we are Semites. Or at least so said pope Pius XI. That statement has been a productive impetus to my own spirituality.

 

[Swan7]

I wanted to know the truth when I came to God because to me, it seemed no body knew what they believed in - despite growing up in church. I've actually heard the words "ok, now back to reality." from the pastor after a sermon! That stuck with me even to this day.

When I asked God for the truth, He lead me to history outside of the Bible. Yes, it's out there. Just ask God and He will direct your path.

 

[Kaon]

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?

To me, it is a distracrion precisely because if we worship the same God, He clearly made demands of us that He did NOT take back. Christ did not come to remove or destroy that same Law and Prophetic word given to the Hebrews by the Word of God Himself. The idea of tradition is a man-made event that is categorically separate from the Most High God - otherwise it would be called LAW.

Traditions are what had the temple in shambles before the Word of God Himself came as Son of Man, and tradition of men is what keeps the Church blind today. I don't think any tradition separate from what the Most High God commanded is a good idea for carnal entities to dabble in: it leads to deception.

 

[Calvin_1985]

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

I believe that we are on two different sides of what I mean by child.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Obviously what happened after the Apostles were gone was that the men they trained and appointed as leaders (bishops) of the Church continued to teach the fullness of truth, just as they had done, and continued to appoint new leaders as time went on. And so on from generation to generation, right up to the present day. This teaching, originally given to them by Jesus Christ Himself, is known as Divine Tradition. At one point in time, about three and a half centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Pope instructed the bishops of the Church to meet together for the purpose of studying, praying about and discussing the various writings of the Church, as well as Old Testament documents, to determine which texts could be said with certainty to be divinely inspired, a process which took 4 years to complete. And so the Bible came into existence. But this did not change the teaching of the Church in any way, since it was already teaching the fullness of truth, just as Jesus promised it would.

 

[Hank77]

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?

This website may be useful to you. There are many early church writings. I was reading some by Justin Martyr this morning because of something someone said about him in another thread and I didn't remember that about him. I still didn't find it though. He was a Jewish Christian.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[chilehed]

So you fell into the trap ... and now ... you are Catholic. How did that go with friends and family? Didn't they try to warn you?

Oh yeah, they'd been warning me since kindergarten. But once I learned that every horrible thing they told me about Catholic teaching was wrong, that the distinctively Protestant teachings are irrational anti-Biblical nonsense, and that they had no rational answers for the questions I was asking... well, the decision wasn't very hard.

 

[royal priest]

I know not all Protestants are the same and I know they don't all deny Christian tradition in the same way.

I belong to a denomination that is called Reformed Baptist. We hold an historic confession called The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689.
Being "Reformed" means that our theology and practice falls in line with much of the Reformed tradition. By tradition, I am referring to an historic body of understanding which is based upon deductions drawn solely from the Bible. As far as what has been established by those who call themselves "The Church", we accept only those things which can be affirmed by the Bible. In our judgement, much of what they practice is missing sufficient endorsement from the Word of God. I've attached an article which aptly lays out our understanding of the Apostolic office and it's cessation.

Why there are no Apostles in the Church Today

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

At heart, Protestantism arose as a reaction to a corrupt Church (which even Catholicism acknowledged by the Counter-Reformation). This means that it doubts institutions and traditions of men, because that was the very thing they decided had become corrupt. So inevitably, the line had to be drawn somewhere, and many opted for Sola Scriptura - as where Scripture was defined unequivocally by the early Church (hence excluding the more ambigious canon that was still debated somewhat in mediaeval times). Consequently, all the later traditions largely fell by the wayside, though different denominations accepted or rejected some things but not others. It is where you place trust. Many traditions are obvious nonsense - like Balaam and Josephat or Catherine of Alexandria, so this leads to the Baby with the Bathwater tendency. Much that may have been of worth was jettisoned. Understandable though, and Protestantism tends to think what they lost was an acceptable loss, to make sure that the dross was thoroughly extirpated. They disagreed on the level thereof, though.

CS Lewis explains the difference here much better than I can:
The difference between Catholics and Protestants according to CS Lewis

 

[Peter J Barban]

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?

Mary Meg, I don't understand why you are so judgemental to vast Christian groups whom you do not know.

I perceive a lot of anger over this. I recommend that you forgive those who fall short of your vision and just work on yourself.

Show us (or whoever) the benefits of knowing Christian tradition. If you are working with the spirit of God, I believe that you can do this. And it will be a blessing.

 

[FenderTL5]

...I don't need to know Augustine and his writing, neither do I have read everything by Ignatius in order to be saved. I just need the Bible. Careful study and analysis of His Word is what truly gives me growth.

Yeah, I'd lose out on valuable information and knowledge and great help in making things easier to understand and I would have to do extra work in interpretation etc... that has already been done...

First of all, I'm not arguing against your point - I say that hoping you don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. The identifier under your avatar says Baptist, I also grew up baptist; Independent Baptist as a child, then later SBC before converting to Orthodoxy.
I think I understand your point.

otoh, for me; Understanding Augustine became important when I realized that Baptist doctrine/understanding is based in a western/Latin view as it applies to 'Original Sin' and that view is heavily influenced by Augustine. I then found it important to contrast that with earlier views. Does it matter? I think it does, you may or may not.

There are some areas where being 'solely Bible based' doesn't really help very much.
As example, since you are baptist you are likely familiar with debates over Eternal Security. There are baptists on both sides of that debate. Both views have a plethora of scripture verses for support, so both are Bible based.
When I tried to resolve that conflict; I wound up with a different, biblical and historical understanding of Soteriology altogether. That happened because I was able to contrast the various understandings against scripture, with scripture being the most important piece.

Lastly, recognize it or not, there's loads of 'tradition' in baptist doctrine. Eternal security (regardless of which side you adhere to) is one of them. It's based on the understanding of particular interpretations of scripture. It's not that one is scriptural and the other is not. Both views are found in scripture. There's a long list of doctrinal issues that are similar; total depravity? irresistible grace or prevenient grace? contemporary or traditional (sorry)
It may or may not matter to you but as it applies to the O.P. of this thread, tradition is present whether it is acknowledged or not. Our understandings of, and how we read scripture is often based on the views of those who came before us. That's one form of tradition.

 

[Strugglingsaint]

First of all, I'm not arguing against your point - I say that hoping you don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. The identifier under your avatar says Baptist, I also grew up baptist; Independent Baptist as a child, then later SBC before converting to Orthodoxy.
I think I understand your point.

otoh, for me; Understanding Augustine became important when I realized that Baptist doctrine/understanding is based in a western/Latin view as it applies to 'Original Sin' and that view is heavily influenced by Augustine. I then found it important to contrast that with earlier views. Does it matter? I think it does, you may or may not.

There are some areas where being 'solely Bible based' doesn't really help very much.
As example, since you are baptist you are likely familiar with debates over Eternal Security. There are baptists on both sides of that debate. Both views have a plethora of scripture verses for support, so both are Bible based.
When I tried to resolve that conflict; I wound up with a different, biblical and historical understanding of Soteriology altogether. That happened because I was able to contrast the various understandings against scripture, with scripture being the most important piece.

Lastly, recognize it or not, there's loads of 'tradition' in baptist doctrine. Eternal security (regardless of which side you adhere to) is one of them. It's based on the understanding of particular interpretations of scripture. It's not that one is scriptural and the other is not. Both views are found in scripture. There's a long list of doctrinal issues that are similar; total depravity? irresistible grace or prevenient grace? contemporary or traditional (sorry)
It may or may not matter to you but as it applies to the O.P. of this thread, tradition is present whether it is acknowledged or not. Our understandings of, and how we read scripture is often based on the views of those who came before us. That's one form of tradition.

I'm in 100% agreement with you in that tradition is inescapable, because you can't undo history, so naturally it's had an impact. We are fortunate to have access to all these historical writings.
My works won't be judged, though, according to how well I obeyed tradition, rather according to how obedient I was unto Him and His Word and what I did for His Kingdom, not tradition's.

If we had to lose either St. Augustine's writings or the Pauline Epistles, it's a no-brainer whose writings I would toss aside like yesterday's newspaper... And I mean no offense or disrespect.
For those of you who think I am anti-ECF, for what it's worth, I am not, I actually had to study a few of their writings in Latin, for Latin History and in Italian besides just reading their works. I just like to think of most of them as guys trying to stay faithful to God's Word rather than trying to form a new religion.

What matters is to come to terms and have your personal convictions that are Biblical, yes, it's important not to isolate yourself, it's good to read up on everything, but ultimately you're responsible about your own convictions, like I said God isn't going to judge you based on how you interpreted Clement

Oh and Baptists are heavily traditional yeah, lol, try questioning one why you can't use any new translations of the Bible... On that, I'm not really Baptist, I didn't see Christian as an option beforehand and so I chose Baptist as I would say it's the closest to what I believe, just so people could kinda get an understanding of where I stand. Although, I do go to a Baptist church here.

Debates and quarreling between denominations, inside denominations and between believers has always been and will always be a part of this side of eternity unfortunately, but that's another topic

 

[Albion]

Really? I never heard in any church I've been in (hundreds) in any denomination
that
the Apocrypha is to be read. Why would they say that it is to be read anyway ?

Have you ever been in a Lutheran or Anglican/Episcopal church? Well, even so, you would have to be there when a reading from the Apocrypha is appointed to be read, but the point is that that it is the case.

And that says nothing about individuals reading on their own. There is even a reference to their value in the famous (Anglican) 39 Articles of Religion. The statement is that they are to be read for instruction in morals and manners (because most of the books of the Apocrypha are morality tales, not instruction in doctrine)--but they are not divinely inspired. There is every reason for Jesus to have referred to them himself without Him ranking them as Holy Scripture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Semantics, semantics everywhere.

Perhaps, trying to be too concise, I miss-communicated.

Extra-Biblical texts can help us and are certainly useful, but they are NOT the Word of God. They do not supersede Scripture. Teachers are important because they can help convey the message of the word to someone who might not know the historical, cultural, linguistic et al context of the Bible. However, teachers are fallible, they can make mistakes and not everything they say is correct. Same goes for early church fathers. They are not inspired. They are not necessary unto salvation. I don't need to know Augustine and his writing, neither do I have read everything by Ignatius in order to be saved. I just need the Bible. Careful study and analysis of His Word is what truly gives me growth.

Yeah, I'd lose out on valuable information and knowledge and great help in making things easier to understand and I would have to do extra work in interpretation etc... that has already been done.

Again, it's beneficial, but not necessary (obligatory, imperative w/e).

I know where you're going with the 'kitty' sentence and I agree with you, but hopefully what I've explained above clears things up.

But if the Bible is self-sufficient, why so many different interpretations of key passages?

 

[SeekingServant]

You have to stop all of this or you are going to become Catholic.

Or Orthodox.