Holy Tradition. Please define it.

[Erose]

Depends on how broadly and abstractly we want to define it.

Is logic itself a tradition?

I disagree completely with this assessment. The table of contents for example of your Bible is not in itself an inspired writing. Someone generated that table on contents, and that someone based that table of contents upon what canon has been accepted by the faith tradition that he/she/they are targeting. The very idea that all Protestants accept a canon of Scripture that is 66 writings, is in itself based upon the Protestant Tradition. Every time someone generates a table of contents for a Protestant Bible, that person isn't going through all the possible writings and determining for themselves which are and are not Scripture. No, they are basing it upon accepted practice and belief.

Seriously, I really don't understand why there is such a resistance to accepting the fact that is so obvious. There is a Protestant Tradition, and within that Tradition, there are many denominational traditions that define that Tradition. Quite honestly the Protestant Tradition is by far more complex than the Catholic one.

Every single church I have been to or been a member of has non-negotiable set of beliefs. Those beliefs are their "T"radition.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Erose;Due only to denominationalism.

At least you admit it.

Yeah, don't hold up though, due to the very fact that Sola Scriptura, is NOT a doctrine found in Scripture.

You not finding it doesn't mean it isn't there. And besides, relying on what is written over hearsay is just the logic of common sense.

Hum... Which books in the Bible declare themselves as what you claim them to be?

I can't presume to know what you mean by "what I claim".

I can see one making a case for that for the Torah, Revelation... What others, and where do you find these passages that make these claims?

Again, I know not of what claims you allege.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Erose;I disagree ...~ The very idea that all Protestants accept a canon of Scripture that is 66 writings, is in itself based upon the Protestant Tradition. ... they are basing it upon accepted practice and belief.

You're mistake is to assume what has been accepted goes unexamined.

~... There is a Protestant Tradition, and within that Tradition, there are many denominational traditions that define that Tradition. Quite honestly the Protestant Tradition is by far more complex than the Catholic one.

A tradition being the sum of many different traditions doesn't add up.

Every single church I have been to or been a member of has non-negotiable set of beliefs. Those beliefs are their "T"radition.

You are again trying to have it both ways and apply a "T"emplate where one doesn't apply.

 

[Rhamiel]

Every time someone generates a table of contents for a Protestant Bible, that person isn't going through all the possible writings and determining for themselves which are and are not Scripture. No, they are basing it upon accepted practice and belief.

lol this

 

[Rick Otto]

Okay then I'll narrow it down by asking isn't Sola Scriptura a Holy Tradition? (a sacred way of practicing and understanding religious doctrines within certain Christian denominations?)

I don't think so.
Holy and sacred tend to mean that they are outside of normality, but Sola Scriptura is simply a method to insure some consistency of truth, just like apostolic succession is hoped to insure apostolic approval.

Some people may wax beatific and swoon a little over it, but that doesn't make it holy. It is merely another example of written testimony being more reliable than hearsay.

 

[Rick Otto]

lol this

I know. Keep it real.

 

[Erose]

At least you admit it.

That due to the Protestant Revolt we are now stuck with denominationalism? Never denied that fact.

You not finding it doesn't mean it isn't there. And besides, relying on what is written over hearsay is just the logic of common sense.

The very fact that you can find in Scripture that which isn't there, highlights that you read Scripture through a lens outside of Scripture.

I can't presume to know what you mean by "what I claim".

ok. That comment also speaks of the fact you have a sacred tradition you follow.

Again, I know not of what claims you allege.

I was not the one who claimed that the books of Scripture claim to be Scripture.

 

[Tigger45]

I don't think so.
Holy and sacred tend to mean that they are outside of normality, but Sola Scriptura is simply a method to insure some consistency of truth, just like apostolic succession is hoped to insure apostolic approval.

Some people may wax beatific and swoon a little over it, but that doesn't make it holy. It is merely another example of written testimony being more reliable than hearsay.

Sure it is. Sola, Solo and Prima Scriptura are all different types of Traditions within Christian groups. And that it is relegated to only 66 books is a Tradition within that Tradition.

 

[Erose]

You're mistake is to assume what has been accepted goes unexamined.

So who did the examining, and by what authority did do the examining that made their decision binding on all Protestants? And wouldn't that examining in itself be establishing a Sacred Tradition that all Protestants are bound to?

A tradition being the sum of many different traditions doesn't add up.

Well it is what it is, is it not? All Protestant denominations have their own interpretation of Scripture, and their core non-negotiable set of beliefs, that they read Scripture with; but I would think it would be impossible to deny the very fact that there are certain set of beliefs that defines one as Protestant attests to the very fact that there is a larger Protestant Tradition in which the individual denomination Traditions subsist.

You are again trying to have it both ways and apply a "T"emplate where one doesn't apply.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Look Sacred Tradition can be simply defined as that which we believe. It is the deposit of Faith. Now I know that Protestants have a much more fluid understanding of their deposit of Faith; but there is no doubt that all Denominations have a set core of values and beliefs that define them as who they are, that was handed down to them by their forefathers; and because of that these denominations have their own sacred tradition

 

[Albion]

Sure it is. Sola, Solo and Prima Scriptura are all different types of Traditions within Christian groups. And that it is relegated to only 66 books is a Tradition within that Tradition.

It's not a tradition. It's a decision.

But I hope we don't miss the bigger point by returning once again to the old claim that, somehow, we can't believe anything without it being--for some unknown reason--tradition.

In this case, the "bigger point" is that there is among Christians almost universal agreement on 66 inspired books we call "The Bible." Yes, a variety of (Catholic/Orthodox) churches have some additional one or a lot of additional ones or fragments of additional ones--each church following its own list--but the 66 have been accepted as the word of God by virtually ALL (with apologies to the stray Unitarian or other person who don't think anything is inspired).

This is the closest thing to a Christian consensus that can be had.

No Tradition, no particular interpretation, no added books of Scripture, no latter-day prophesy comes close to being so widely accepted among Christians who constantly talk about wanting unity or agreement.

 

[Erose]

It's not a tradition. It's a decision.

A decision made 500 years ago, that now makes it a traditional belief. Tradition.

But I hope we don't miss the bigger point by returning once again to the old claim that, somehow, we can't believe anything without it being--for some unknown reason--tradition.

Why not? If a belief continues to move from one generation to the next, that belief becomes a traditional belief; and if that belief is a non-negotiable belief for that particular denomination then that becomes part of that denomination's deposit of faith; i.e. that denomination's sacred tradition.

In this case, the "bigger point" is that there is among Christians almost universal agreement on 66 inspired books we call "The Bible." Yes, a variety of (Catholic/Orthodox) churches have some additional one or a lot of additional ones or fragments of additional ones--each church following its own list--but the 66 have been accepted as the word of God by virtually ALL (with apologies to the stray Unitarian or other person who don't think anything is inspired).

This is the closest thing to a Christian consensus that can be had.

So with that mentality, if a denomination decides that they are only going to accept 60 books of the Bible, in your opinion all of Christianity should follow. If lets say the Baptist denomination all of a sudden decides that they are going to have only a 60 book canon in their Bibles, would you then follow this authority?

No Tradition, no particular interpretation, no added books of Scripture, no latter-day prophesy comes close to being so widely accepted among Christians who constantly talk about wanting unity or agreement.

Considering that the far majority of Christians have the 73 books in their canon, that is found in the Catholic Bible; would then holding to the original Christian Canon, over one establish by a few faith groups 500 years ago, make much more sense?

 

[Albion]

A decision made 500 years ago, that now makes it a traditional belief. Tradition.[

Not believed because of tradition, however so, although it's old, it's not tradition.

I'm coming to think that since most Catholics believe what they do because they've been convinced that the RCC is the only true church and its decisions automatically correct therefore, they surrender their own judgment to her. For them, then, any belief they accept is based upon trusting a kind of "tradition."

If that's so, it's no wonder that they cannot get their minds around that which forms the basis for doctrine among reformed Christians.

 

[Erose]

Not believed because of tradition, however so, although it's old, it's not tradition.

Hum, so every generation of Protestants goes through some sort of vetting process on Scripture to determine for that generation what is and is not Scripture? 400-500 years ago however it happened, a group of folks decided that it was going to accept these 66 books; and for some reason that decision has not come into question by Protestants, and are now defacto the canon of the Protestant movement. That is by its very definition a sacred tradition, handed down by the fathers of Protestantism.

I'm coming to think that since most Catholics believe what they do because they've been convinced that the RCC is the only true church and its decisions automatically correct therefore, they surrender their own judgment to her. For them, then, any belief they accept is based upon trusting a kind of "tradition."

Please, Albion stop the snipes. Obviously you have realized that you do not have a leg to stand on in this discussion.

Me I'm coming to think that the idea of a Sacred Tradition being something evil has been pounded into you guys for so long, you have put blinders on to the very fact that you follow a sacred tradition all your own.

If that's so, it's no wonder that they cannot get their minds around that which forms the basis for doctrine among reformed Christians.

Yeah, until your blinders drop off, I guess you will keep denying the fact that anyone outside looking in sees as so obvious.

 

[Tigger45]

Sure it is. Sola, Solo and Prima Scriptura are all different types of Traditions within Christian groups. And that it is relegated to only 66 books is a Tradition within that Tradition.

It's not a tradition. It's a decision.<snip>

I disagree. It's their decision based off of a belief that that's how the Apostles originally intended, taught and practiced Christianity and how the Apostles would or wanted it passed down (Holy Tradition).

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

"I don't think so. (That Sola Scriptura is a Holy tradition)
Holy and sacred tend to mean that they are outside of normality, but Sola Scriptura is simply a method to insure some consistency of truth, just like apostolic succession is hoped to insure apostolic approval.

Some people may wax beatific and swoon a little over it, but that doesn't make it holy. It is merely another example of written testimony being more reliable than hearsay."
​

Sure it is. Sola, Solo and Prima Scriptura are all different types of Traditions within Christian groups. And that it is relegated to only 66 books is a Tradition within that Tradition.

Hmmm,... calling a method a tradition doesn't make it one.

There may be a tradition of following the method, but it isn't considered Holy, just practical.
Same thing with cannon selection.
You may call using a selection of beliefs or methods in accomplishing something a "tradition", but the methods and beliefs themselves are not "tradition", they are methods and beliefs.

But I can see how further ambiguating the term serves affirmation bias.

 

[Albion]

I disagree. It's their decision based off of a belief that that's how the Apostles originally intended, taught and practiced Christianity and how the Apostles would or wanted it passed down (Holy Tradition).

The "their" in your post seems to refer to Catholics. I think, therefore, that you are saying that they also make a decision in the way that reformed Christians do.

If so, that would seem to mean that NO ONE follows that system that is called Tradition, Holy Tradition, Sacred Tradition, or something the Apostles are supposed to have taught.

Is that what you're saying--that everyone just chooses to believe whatever information is before them?

If that's what you mean, I'd say that the point is still being missed. Those of us who believe in the Bible as the final word on doctrine have chosen to believe that it's what it claims to be--for a number of reasons. Those who insist that doing so is some kind of "Tradition" are just saying that it's customary for our churches to agree to this. That's like saying that if you believe man walked on the moon, it's only because it's traditional or customary or commonplace to do so. That misses the point entirely, and in the case of some of the Catholic posters here, it's intentional.

 

[Rick Otto]

A decision made 500 years ago, that now makes it a traditional belief. Tradition.

Why not? If a belief continues to move from one generation to the next, that belief becomes a traditional belief; and if that belief is a non-negotiable belief for that particular denomination then that becomes part of that denomination's deposit of faith; i.e. that denomination's sacred tradition.

So with that mentality, if a denomination decides that they are only going to accept 60 books of the Bible, in your opinion all of Christianity should follow. If lets say the Baptist denomination all of a sudden decides that they are going to have only a 60 book canon in their Bibles, would you then follow this authority?

Considering that the far majority of Christians have the 73 books in their canon, that is found in the Catholic Bible; would then holding to the original Christian Canon, over one establish by a few faith groups 500 years ago, make much more sense?

I think you just comprimised your usual use of the term sacred, but regardless, it is novel and a threat to the authoritarian mentality, that men are not given dominion over each other and that the exercise of one's conscience isn't hyper individualism.

What makes sense is therefore (in a free society), is that each individual is responsible for whatever agreements and obligations he makes an informed decision about.

I admit, it is a mentality that is philosophicaly hostile to authoritarianism.

 

[Tigger45]

The "their" in your post seems to refer to Catholics. I think, therefore, that you are saying that they also make a decision in the way that reformed Christians do.

If so, that would seem to mean that NO ONE follows that system that is called Tradition, Holy Tradition, Sacred Tradition, or something the Apostles are supposed to have taught.

Is that what you're saying--that everyone just chooses to believe whatever information is before them?

If that's what you mean, I'd say that the point is still being missed. Those of us who believe in the Bible as the final word on doctrine have chosen to believe that it's what it claims to be--for a number of reasons. Those who insist that doing so is some kind of "Tradition" are just saying that it's customary for our churches to agree to this. That's like saying that if you believe man walked on the moon, it's only because it's traditional or customary or commonplace to do so. That misses the point entirely, and in the case of some of the Catholic posters here, it's intentional.

The 'their' that I was referring to was those that use sola scripture as their standard for defining their religious practices and beliefs.

I know it is currently the norm to separate out the process in which scripture plays and what any Christian group would like to categorize as their specific denoms (T)raditions but I do not think that that process is scriptural.

2 Thessalonians 2:14-16King James Version (KJV)

14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,


And I believe E.O. Christians combine the two as Holy Tradition because truthfully however a scripture interpretation is handed down is part of the Holy Tradition of that particular group.

 

[Erose]

I think you just comprimised your usual use of the term sacred,

Hum.. I like to think that I showed respect to what others view as sacred. Although you and and Albion and me disagree fairly frequently in many of these threads, I still respect your faith tradition, and your beliefs.

but regardless, it is novel and a threat to the authoritarian mentality that men are not given dominion over each other and that the exercise of one's consciense isn't hyper individualism.

Where does this occur then? Not in any Protestant Church I've been a member of. If you didn't hold to the core beliefs and values of that church, then sooner or later you begin to realize your circle of friends begin to shrink.

A little while back, I ask a simple question to my Protestant brethren, which was "What happened to the doctrine of 'Personal Interpretation of Scripture'?" Quite honestly I was surprised to discover that most haven't heard of this doctrine, nor was anything like this practiced in their churches. Granted that isn't empirical data from a massive poll, but considering that we have Christians from many denominations and locations it was still surprising.

What makes sense is therefore (in a free society), is that each individual is responsible for whatever agreements and obligations he makes an informed decision about.

Interesting point, but it still doesn't remove the very fact that the tradition of a 66 book canon is universally accepted by all Protestant denominations, and has been for quite a long period of time. That my friend is an acceptance based upon a tradition handed down by your forefathers in the faith.

I admit, it is a mentality that is philosophicaly hostile to authoritarianism.

I do think that individualism is a heresy, quite honestly; but the only authoritarianism I accept is the Authority of God, and the authority He has given to others. The Catholic Church quite honestly would be guided more by stewardshipism (nice word I think I will keep it.)

Anyway this silly concept that Catholics are mindless followers of the Catholic Church is just that silly. There are by far more mindless followers in Protestantism IMO, which explains the extreme level of hardheadedness one finds, when they are wrong about my faith, and are unwilling to accept that they are wrong, no matter how much official information one provides.

 

[MKJ]

I rather like Chesterton's explanation that Tradition is the democracy of the dead.