Holy Tradition. Please define it.

[Hieros Gamos]

That's just a fancy way of saying Ps and RCs are different. Can't argue with that. But I'm using your own definition: the solas define doctrine. No P is going to come along one day and say that she's "discovered a better practise for worship" or some such that is better than the solas. This is because the solas are axiomatic doctrines of the Protestant church. They are not "options". They cannot be changed. If a church confesses a belief that is unalterable, that belief defines the doctrine (again, using your own words) of that church.

 

[Erose]

You may keep saying that and refusing to understand, but you're still wrong.

"Holy Tradition" is not tradition.

It's a name given to a method by which the various Catholic churches determine and define doctrine. You are trying to say that if Protestants give assent to Biblical teaching--and have done so consistently for a long time--they are doing so in the same way as Catholics create doctrine from an alleged "consensus of historic opinion."

We don't do that. The two methods are different. How you could call "We don't do that (and never have)" disingenuous seems to me to be, well, disingenuous.

And here we go around and around and around...

Basically you are saying we use Scripture to define doctrine, and then we use that doctrine to interpret Scripture. The five Solas are a perfect example of this point. Your forefathers may have used their interpretation of Scripture to get the Protestant traditional beliefs; but modern Protestants still use that interpretation to interpret Scripture. Whether you like it or not there is a Protestant Tradition, or set of beliefs that Protestants hold to, which when reading Scripture is used by Protestants to interpret Scripture. And around and around and around we go... where we stop no body knows...

 

[Erose]

That's just a fancy way of saying Ps and RCs are different. Can't argue with that. But I'm using your own definition: the solas define doctrine. No P is going to come along one day and say that she's "discovered a better practise for worship" or some such that is better than the solas. This is because the solas are axiomatic doctrines of the Protestant church. They are not "options". They cannot be changed. If a church confesses a belief that is unalterable, that belief defines the doctrine (again, using your own words) of that church.

Very good points.

 

[MKJ]

You may keep saying that and refusing to understand, but you're still wrong.

"Holy Tradition" is not tradition.

It's a name given to a method by which the various Catholic churches determine and define doctrine. You are trying to say that if Protestants give assent to Biblical teaching--and have done so consistently for a long time--they are doing so in the same way as Catholics create doctrine from an alleged "consensus of historic opinion."

We don't do that. The two methods are different. How you could call "We don't do that (and never have)" disingenuous seems to me to be, well, disingenuous.

No - he is saying that the idea that Christians should simply assent to Scripture to get correct teachings is Tradition.

How does any person who believes that is how Christians know truth come to believe that? It isn't in the Bible itself, but if it were, it wouldn't be helpful unless you like circular arguments. It isn't thundered out by cavernous disembodied voices at prayer meetings. It is the decision and consensus of the community, and it typically defines those communities.

As a Tradition it is generated in two ways: the claim that this was of assenting to the Bible is the authentic practice of the early Church (Tradition,) and by the consensus of the community doing the teaching in the present (also Tradition, because in the Church Tradition extends over time.)

When those two things don't match up, the past and present Tradition, at least in the more fundamental sense, you get a break in Tradition, and often two separate communities, which is why we sometimes refer to communities as traditions

And in practice it is actually much more complex than that. Firstly because how we decide what Biblical teaching is isn't obvious and needs to be defined by the community. And secondly, once you have done so, you get a variety of interpretations of what the Bible actually teaches, and then that interpretation itself becomes part of the communities Tradition of Biblical understanding.

So you could have a Lutheran whose Tradition says he must interpret Scripture for truth, that he is meant to go about that in very particular ways, and then it makes particular interpretations based on what comes out of that method. Someone who on the other hand has a sort of simple tradition of interpretation based on literalism and fundamentalism will have very different teachings in his group.

This is why the Protestant reformers all claimed to be more closely adhering to the practice of the early Church, and that the Roman practices were corruptions. Their method they say as essentially preserving or reviving (perhaps with developments to keep it from straying again) the original Tradition which the Roman Church had strayed from. In claiming their practices were in line with the authentic primitive Church, they were making an argument from Tradition.

 

[MKJ]

That's just a fancy way of saying Ps and RCs are different. Can't argue with that. But I'm using your own definition: the solas define doctrine. No P is going to come along one day and say that she's "discovered a better practise for worship" or some such that is better than the solas. This is because the solas are axiomatic doctrines of the Protestant church. They are not "options". They cannot be changed. If a church confesses a belief that is unalterable, that belief defines the doctrine (again, using your own words) of that church.

I think you are probably wrong to so closely associate the five solas with the essence of Protestantism. There is really no reason that a Protestant religious community could not reject some or all of them, replace them, or reword them. They would still be Protestant communities though - that is to a large degree a historical designation. You might say they had made a break with their Tradition of interpretation at that point, but they might argue like the earlier Protestants they were actually looking to return to or strengthen the early Church Tradition, or that their changes were more of a development than a break.

 

[Erose]

No - he is saying that the idea that Christians should simply assent to Scripture to get correct teachings is Tradition.

How does any person who believes that is how Christians know truth come to believe that? It isn't in the Bible itself, but if it were, it wouldn't be helpful unless you like circular arguments. It isn't thundered out by cavernous disembodied voices at prayer meetings. It is the decision and consensus of the community, and it typically defines those communities.

As a Tradition it is generated in two ways: the claim that this was of assenting to the Bible is the authentic practice of the early Church (Tradition,) and by the consensus of the community doing the teaching in the present (also Tradition, because in the Church Tradition extends over time.)

When those two things don't match up, the past and present Tradition, at least in the more fundamental sense, you get a break in Tradition, and often two separate communities, which is why we sometimes refer to communities as traditions

And in practice it is actually much more complex than that. Firstly because how we decide what Biblical teaching is isn't obvious and needs to be defined by the community. And secondly, once you have done so, you get a variety of interpretations of what the Bible actually teaches, and then that interpretation itself becomes part of the communities Tradition of Biblical understanding.

So you could have a Lutheran whose Tradition says he must interpret Scripture for truth, that he is meant to go about that in very particular ways, and then it makes particular interpretations based on what comes out of that method. Someone who on the other hand has a sort of simple tradition of interpretation based on literalism and fundamentalism will have very different teachings in his group.

This is why the Protestant reformers all claimed to be more closely adhering to the practice of the early Church, and that the Roman practices were corruptions. Their method they say as essentially preserving or reviving (perhaps with developments to keep it from straying again) the original Tradition which the Roman Church had strayed from. In claiming their practices were in line with the authentic primitive Church, they were making an argument from Tradition.

MKJ, very good post. I was beginning to wonder if all Protestants were walking around with blinders on.

 

[MKJ]

MKJ, very good post. I was beginning to wonder if all Protestants were walking around with blinders on.

In my experience, people who say that Protestantism has no Tradition are usually out of American Baptist, or non-denominational or fundamentalist backgrounds.

People who are Anglican and Lutheran and Reformed understand the concept and where they fit into it. Which isn't to say they might not quibble about details, or have differences in the way they use the language at times.

I have an intuition that it relates to their understanding of the Church as community, but probably in individuals it is in part about having some sense of how much our community and experiences, even our secular community, defines the way we read a text.

 

[Erose]

In my experience, people who say that Protestantism has no Tradition are usually out of American Baptist, or non-denominational or fundamentalist backgrounds.

People who are Anglican and Lutheran and Reformed understand the concept and where they fit into it. Which isn't to say they might not quibble about details, or have differences in the way they use the language at times.

I have an intuition that it relates to their understanding of the Church as community, but probably in individuals it is in part about having some sense of how much our community and experiences, even our secular community, defines the way we read a text.

I think it has more to do with the fact that the concept of Tradition has become an evil word in their faith traditions; as it is used as a negative when comparing and contrasting my faith with theirs.

 

[Tigger45]

I think it has more to do with the fact that the concept of Tradition has become an evil word in their faith traditions; as it is used as a negative when comparing and contrasting my faith with theirs.

I think this is true too.

Just wondering if say a Baptist would consider how they partake of communion as part of their Holy Tradition?

 

[Tzaousios]

In my experience, people who say that Protestantism has no Tradition are usually out of American Baptist, or non-denominational or fundamentalist backgrounds.

People who are Anglican and Lutheran and Reformed understand the concept and where they fit into it. Which isn't to say they might not quibble about details, or have differences in the way they use the language at times.

I have an intuition that it relates to their understanding of the Church as community, but probably in individuals it is in part about having some sense of how much our community and experiences, even our secular community, defines the way we read a text.

Yes, I agree. Good luck obtaining any acknowledgment!

 

[Hieros Gamos]

I'm sure we've all heard this one before, but it seemed apropos:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

 

[Albion]

I think this is true too.

Just wondering if say a Baptist would consider how they partake of communion as part of their Holy Tradition?

What would it take for you to recognize that "Tradition" doesn't mean "traditions" or any particular "tradition," and that the word "Holy" attached to it doesn't mean that, for example, having the pulpit on the right side of the Altar is "holy" just because we're talking about a religious custom?

 

[Tzaousios]

And if you're not open to that, why do you suppose that the Catholics here like to accuse us of being stupid enough to 1) take the word of God (the Bible) as our guide to doctrine and also 2) accuse us of unconsciously using their system at the same time?

"Stupid enough" seems to be a bit of inflated rhetoric. However, what is often NOT acknowledged along with the rosy picture of "taking the word of God (the Bible) as our guide to doctrine" is that a certain amount of interpretation of the word of God comes along with it and is even confused with it.

 

[Albion]

That's just a fancy way of saying Ps and RCs are different. Can't argue with that.

What are you arguing then when you mistaken insist that Protestants define their doctrines in the same way as Catholics do?

 

[Hieros Gamos]

What would it take ...

For me, it would take the majority of those under the Protestant tent agreeing that the solas were a "religious custom".

 

[Hieros Gamos]

What are you arguing then when you mistaken insist that Protestants define their doctrines in the same way as Catholics do?

I'm arguing that the solas aren't the same thing as red or blue.

 

[Albion]

For me, it would take the majority of those under the Protestant tent agreeing that the solas were a "religious custom".

Fair enough. You're saying that nothing is likely to stop you from using a line against us, even if you know it to be untrue. Well, that's nothing new on CF, but I can appreciate the candor.

 

[Hieros Gamos]

They're your lines.

 

[Tzaousios]

Fair enough. You're saying that nothing is likely to stop you from using a line against us, even if you know it to be untrue. Well, that's nothing new on CF, but I can appreciate the candor.

Albion, please see my reply to you in post #93. I would hate for it to get lost in the "shuffle."

 

[Tigger45]

What would it take for you to recognize that "Tradition" doesn't mean "traditions" or any particular "tradition," and that the word "Holy" attached to it doesn't mean that, for example, having the pulpit on the right side of the Altar is "holy" just because we're talking about a religious custom?

What part of communion isn't "Holy"?