I found the proof that a Christian needs tradition to understand scripture properly

[Daniel Peres]

In the genealogy of Jesus found in Luke 3:23-38 ends with "Adam, the son of God." Now I know all Christians on this forum would agree that son of God does not mean the same here as when it is applied to Jesus. However, the fact is that, if we only use scripture, we cannot prove the case with certainty in either way. It is only because of Chrisian Tradition that we know for certain that Adam was not divine. Because since the beginning Christianity, the teaching about Adam was that he was in no way the son of God like Jesus is.

I see too many Protestants interpreting scripture with the belief that tradition offers no guidance in the interpretation of scripture. My criticism is not aimed at all Protestants, mamy would agree with me that tradition is very useful when it comes to interpreting scripture. Martin Luther and John Calvin certainly would agree with me on this issue. Why do you think Martin Luther insisted on the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary? Why do you think John Calvin believed baptism, even infant baptism saved? Many modern Protestants refuse to let tradition assist them in biblical interpretation and as a result they end up having novel beliefs like Mary did not remain a virgin, infant baptism is not an acceptable practice.

I have actually conversed with Protestants who say things like, "Just because Christians always had a certain Biblical interpretation is no proof their interpretation was biblical." Or they will insist that it wasn't until modern times that Christians began to interpret scripture correctly on those issues. Their logic is the reason that so many modern Christians and Jews will insist that the ancient Christians and Jews engaged in poor biblical interpretation when they taught that homosexual activity was sinful.

This is the type of logic that causes Americans to believe the US Constitution grants women the right to procure abortions. The people believe that American Jurisprudence was so backwards in the early part of the country's history that they didn't know how to interpret the constitution correctly.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

There is a lot of stuff to this general topic. I actually like this article by a Calvinist that responds to the antitradition bent of many Protestants I have met in life.

A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura


I personally like to talk about "Phronema" aka mindset an Eastern Orthodox term but is actually used in the New Testament. Basically, just because we refer to a scripture does not mean you have the same mindset of the ancient writers that wrote it, had the prophecy etc. so you need to learn the context of the Bible and other stuff around it to get it, because their people often like to interpret things based on their own cultural milieu.


Besides this there is other kinds of ancient church history stuff that also goes with that as well. Even all the specific context of things like the rituals and customs of ancient Israel etc. which have a lot to say about things like the context of Holiness and this includes Sacraments, and Sacramentals, The rule of Faith and so on.


And of course a biggie is often the written text is simply recording stuff that existed earlier as oral tradition. That kind of a thing is not just important with the start of the Tanach, but the first centuries of Christianity (before the NT canon was formed), and people forget those first few years penning Gospels was not the first thing the apostles had in mind, they preached for years before penning the Gospels. The fact persecution was forcing them out of areas was the prime motivator for doing so according to Hippolytus, so they would have a continued witness in the area when they left the region.

 

[Hammster]

It is only because of Chrisian Tradition that we know for certain that Adam was not divine.

Actually, we know from scripture.

 

[d taylor]

Actually it is hard for someone who is a member of a church who believes this (importance of tradition). To not see the danger of tradition when it contradicts The Bible.

But from me coming from a belief theology (free grace), that does not use tradition, tradition is of no importance.

Making the Word of God of No Effect by Our Traditions (Mark 7:1-16) – Grace Evangelical Society

How Bad Is the Tradition of Salvation by Works? Evaluating Tradition in Light of Scripture – Grace Evangelical Society

 

[Sheila Davis]

Tradition is important - traditions of the Hebrews - their usage of words - what the authors intent was.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Actually, we know from scripture.

No, you can make your case from scripture, but you can’t prove. If you could prove from Scripture that Jesus was God then there wouldn’t be so many confused Mormons and Jehova’s Witnesses. But they make there own arguments while ignoring tradition which proves that trinitarian Christians are correct.

 

[Hammster]

No, you can make your case from scripture, but you can’t prove. If you could prove from Scripture that Jesus was God then there wouldn’t be so many confused Mormons and Jehova’s Witnesses. But they make there own arguments while ignoring tradition which proves that trinitarian Christians are correct.

You can’t actually prove anything. You can give evidence.

Let’s say, in the first century, Peter and a Greek philosopher. Prior to the crucifixion, Peter is trying to show that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The Greek philosopher is having nothing to do with it. Then the crucifixion happens, and the philosopher is a witness. He knows Christ died. Then, He sees the resurrected Christ, and even happens to be there during the ascension. So Peter goes to him and says “there’s your proof that He is the Son of God”. The philosopher says that’s not the case. Jesus just showed that a man can rise from the dead, and now he needs to do research to find out how he can do that, too.

Evidence is good. We should give evidence. But one will only be convinced if the Holy Spirit changes a heart.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Another example about people can disagree on textual interpretation is related to a nineteenth century legal case that went all the way to the US Supreme Court. At issue was a law that placed a tariff on all vegetables imported into the United States. There was a certain importer of Tomatoes who was being charged the tariff under the law in question. The importer refused to be the tariff insisting that the law did not apply to him because scientifically, a tomato is a fruit and the tariff only applies to vegetables. We the US government argued that even if a tomato is scientifically classified as a fruit, culturally the American people use it like a vegetable. Both sides both strongly believed their interpretation was correct. In the end, the Supreme Court sided with the government saying that even though a tomato is scientifically classified as a tomato, the legislators that passed the legislation probably considered tomatoes to be vegetables when they drafted the legislation since the American people use tomatoes as if they were vegetables. So, there you have it, tradition was used to decided the meaning of the text in the statute.

 

[Hammster]

Another example about people can disagree on textual interpretation is related to a nineteenth century legal case that went all the way to the US Supreme Court. At issue was a law that placed a tariff on all vegetables imported into the United States. There was a certain importer of Tomatoes who was being charged the tariff under the law in question. The importer refused to be the tariff insisting that the law did not apply to him because scientifically, a tomato is a fruit and the tariff only applies to vegetables. We the US government argued that even if a tomato is scientifically classified as a fruit, culturally the American people use it like a vegetable. Both sides both strongly believed their interpretation was correct. In the end, the Supreme Court sided with the government saying that even though a tomato is scientifically classified as a tomato, the legislators that passed the legislation probably considered tomatoes to be vegetables when they drafted the legislation since the American people use tomatoes as if they were vegetables. So, there you have it, tradition was used to decided the meaning of the text in the statute.

And where is the proof that tradition proves the Trinity?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

In the genealogy of Jesus found in Luke 3:23-38 ends with "Adam, the son of God." Now I know all Christians on this forum would agree that son of God does not mean the same here as when it is applied to Jesus. However, the fact is that, if we only use scripture, we cannot prove the case with certainty in either way. It is only because of Chrisian Tradition that we know for certain that Adam was not divine. Because since the beginning Christianity, the teaching about Adam was that he was in no way the son of God like Jesus is.

I see too many Protestants interpreting scripture with the belief that tradition offers no guidance in the interpretation of scripture. My criticism is not aimed at all Protestants, mamy would agree with me that tradition is very useful when it comes to interpreting scripture. Martin Luther and John Calvin certainly would agree with me on this issue. Why do you think Martin Luther insisted on the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary? Why do you think John Calvin believed baptism, even infant baptism saved? Many modern Protestants refuse to let tradition assist them in biblical interpretation and as a result they end up having novel beliefs like Mary did not remain a virgin, infant baptism is not an acceptable practice.

I have actually conversed with Protestants who say things like, "Just because Christians always had a certain Biblical interpretation is no proof their interpretation was biblical." Or they will insist that it wasn't until modern times that Christians began to interpret scripture correctly on those issues. Their logic is the reason that so many modern Christians and Jews will insist that the ancient Christians and Jews engaged in poor biblical interpretation when they taught that homosexual activity was sinful.

This is the type of logic that causes Americans to believe the US Constitution grants women the right to procure abortions. The people believe that American Jurisprudence was so backwards in the early part of the country's history that they didn't know how to interpret the constitution correctly.

The Bible is abundantly clear that there is only one God. And everyone who has ever read the Bible knows that Adam is not God.
I don't see how we need tradition to say that Adam is not divine.

Jesus on the other hand is directly called "God" in the Bible. It couldn't be more clear than that.

 

[Daniel Peres]

And where is the proof that tradition proves the Trinity?

The proof is that when Arias tried to argue against Jesus divinity, a council was convened and tradition was used to prove Arias was wrong and the trinity was true. In fact, the council came up with the word trinity during the council specifically as a result of tradition. No Christian used the non-biblical word “Trinity” until the council of Nicaea. That’s just a historical fact. So the word Trinity is based on tradition and also became a tradition that even Protestants remain loyal to.

 

[Daniel Peres]

The Bible is abundantly clear that there is only one God. And everyone who has ever read the Bible knows that Adam is not God.
I don't see how we need tradition to say that Adam is not divine.

Jesus on the other hand is directly called "God" in the Bible. It couldn't be more clear than that.

People are being more and more creative in their biblical interpretation. If things continue the way they are, then it’s only a matter of time before someone says Adam was divine.

As for Jesus divinity…while my biblical interpretation certainly supports Jesus’ divinity, I cannot ignore the fact that we have been fighting false teachings against Jesus’ divinity since the second century. Therefore, it is clearly not apparent to everyone. Even brilliant people like Thomas Jefferson were unable to see the truth of Jesus’ divinity.

 

[St_Worm2]

In the genealogy of Jesus found in Luke 3:23-38 ends with "Adam, the son of God." Now I know all Christians on this forum would agree that son of God does not mean the same here as when it is applied to Jesus.

Hello Daniel, I'm confused (so perhaps I am misunderstanding your meaning somehow?), because the passage that you mentioned in your OP (from Luke 3) is the Lord Jesus' personal genealogy, a genealogy that tracks all the way back through the years/generations from His human father, Joseph, to His true Father in Heaven. IOW, the Lord Jesus is literally the "son/Son" of everyone who is listed in that genealogy, including, of course, God the Father (so "son of God", at the end of v38, can be applied to one Person alone in this case, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself).

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - again though, perhaps I'm still missing something here. If so, please point it out to me. Thanks

Genealogy of Jesus​

Luke 3
23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai,
26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah,
36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
.​

 

[Lost4words]

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture go hand in hand with one another.

 

[atpollard]

However, the fact is that, if we only use scripture, we cannot prove the case with certainty in either way.

Let’s test that hypothesis.

Birth of Adam (from scripture):

Genesis 2:5-7 [ESV] When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground-- then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.​

Birth of Jesus (from scripture):

Matthew 1:18-25 [ESV] Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.​

Q. Is God responsible for the birth of Adam and Jesus in a manner that God is not responsible for the birth of other people?
A. Yes.

Q. Is the “birth” of Adam different from the birth of Jesus?
A. Yes, very different.

Q. Has the hypothesis “if we only use scripture, we cannot prove the case with certainty” (that Adam and Jesus are not identical in their “sonship”) been proven or disproven?
A. The scripture provided demonstrate a clear DIFFERENCE between God’s “fathership” of Adam and his “fathership” of Jesus. Thus the hypothesis is disproven.

 

[Hammster]

The proof is that when Arias tried to argue against Jesus divinity, a council was convened and tradition was used to prove Arias was wrong and the trinity was true. In fact, the council came up with the word trinity during the council specifically as a result of tradition. No Christian used the non-biblical word “Trinity” until the council of Nicaea. That’s just a historical fact. So the word Trinity is based on tradition and also became a tradition that even Protestants remain loyal to.

That’s evidence. That’s not proof. What else do you have?

 

[Halbhh]

In the genealogy of Jesus found in Luke 3:23-38 ends with "Adam, the son of God." Now I know all Christians on this forum would agree that son of God does not mean the same here as when it is applied to Jesus. However, the fact is that, if we only use scripture, we cannot prove the case with certainty in either way. It is only because of Chrisian Tradition that we know for certain that Adam was not divine. Because since the beginning Christianity, the teaching about Adam was that he was in no way the son of God like Jesus is.

I see too many Protestants interpreting scripture with the belief that tradition offers no guidance in the interpretation of scripture. My criticism is not aimed at all Protestants, mamy would agree with me that tradition is very useful when it comes to interpreting scripture. Martin Luther and John Calvin certainly would agree with me on this issue. Why do you think Martin Luther insisted on the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary? Why do you think John Calvin believed baptism, even infant baptism saved? Many modern Protestants refuse to let tradition assist them in biblical interpretation and as a result they end up having novel beliefs like Mary did not remain a virgin, infant baptism is not an acceptable practice.

I have actually conversed with Protestants who say things like, "Just because Christians always had a certain Biblical interpretation is no proof their interpretation was biblical." Or they will insist that it wasn't until modern times that Christians began to interpret scripture correctly on those issues. Their logic is the reason that so many modern Christians and Jews will insist that the ancient Christians and Jews engaged in poor biblical interpretation when they taught that homosexual activity was sinful.

This is the type of logic that causes Americans to believe the US Constitution grants women the right to procure abortions. The people believe that American Jurisprudence was so backwards in the early part of the country's history that they didn't know how to interpret the constitution correctly.

The real problem with 'understanding' key scripture that we must follow -- things that actually matter for your eternal Life or Death like "Love your neighbor as yourself" -- isn't that we can't understand it.

But that an individual person might chose not to understand.

Such as by finding some rationale that it doesn't apply.

That's individual. Tradition won't help the individual determined to ignore God's commands to love everyone.

Scripture is the most powerful tradition... and more. It's living.

But a person needs faith. And faith comes from hearing the Word of Christ.
Romans 10:17

 

[Der Alte]

The proof is that when Arias tried to argue against Jesus divinity, a council was convened and tradition was used to prove Arias was wrong and the trinity was true. In fact, the council came up with the word trinity during the council specifically as a result of tradition. No Christian used the non-biblical word “Trinity” until the council of Nicaea. That’s just a historical fact. So the word Trinity is based on tradition and also became a tradition that even Protestants remain loyal to.

The Trinity was never mentioned in any Nicaea records.

Clement [A.D. 30-100] The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book V. Chap. XIV. - So that when he says, “Around the king of all, all things are, and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause of all good things; and around the second are the things second in order; and around the third, the third,” I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.68​

 

[Fervent]

The central issue is not tradition vs no tradition, so there is no issue for interpreters to bring in tradition as a hermeneutical tool. The issue is a question of some divine knowledge separate from the Scriptures that is bestowed upon the episcopate known as "sacred tradition" which serves as a judge of Scripture. This was written against in book 3 of Against Heresies by Irenaeus, where he writes that those who were known to be in contact with the apostles would be the ones to know of such a tradition but they were in unanimous agreement that none existed apart from the public letters(New Testament).

 

[disciple Clint]

In the genealogy of Jesus found in Luke 3:23-38 ends with "Adam, the son of God." Now I know all Christians on this forum would agree that son of God does not mean the same here as when it is applied to Jesus. However, the fact is that, if we only use scripture, we cannot prove the case with certainty in either way. It is only because of Chrisian Tradition that we know for certain that Adam was not divine. Because since the beginning Christianity, the teaching about Adam was that he was in no way the son of God like Jesus is.

I see too many Protestants interpreting scripture with the belief that tradition offers no guidance in the interpretation of scripture. My criticism is not aimed at all Protestants, mamy would agree with me that tradition is very useful when it comes to interpreting scripture. Martin Luther and John Calvin certainly would agree with me on this issue. Why do you think Martin Luther insisted on the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary? Why do you think John Calvin believed baptism, even infant baptism saved? Many modern Protestants refuse to let tradition assist them in biblical interpretation and as a result they end up having novel beliefs like Mary did not remain a virgin, infant baptism is not an acceptable practice.

I have actually conversed with Protestants who say things like, "Just because Christians always had a certain Biblical interpretation is no proof their interpretation was biblical." Or they will insist that it wasn't until modern times that Christians began to interpret scripture correctly on those issues. Their logic is the reason that so many modern Christians and Jews will insist that the ancient Christians and Jews engaged in poor biblical interpretation when they taught that homosexual activity was sinful.

This is the type of logic that causes Americans to believe the US Constitution grants women the right to procure abortions. The people believe that American Jurisprudence was so backwards in the early part of the country's history that they didn't know how to interpret the constitution correctly.

Adam was created, this disqualifies him from being divine.