Protestant Christian dilemma

[Albion]

Wouldn't go as far and make that claim the sacraments never changed and the political ideals in the church was held at the same standard since the ordination of Linus.
Tradition are from disciples heretics cannot change wat was revealed in the scriptures!!

So,....not only does the theory of Tradition stipulate that what might have been attested to by one Early Church Father, here or there, or by one and rebutted by another, but the way to circumvent that problem is to declare all contrary evidence to be heretical and thus not counted??

The problem with that idea is that the bases of Tradition are supposed to be universality and continuity. If neither exists, how can it be justified to discard all the historical instances that show us the opposite in history?

 

[dóxatotheó]

So,....not only does the theory of Tradition stipulate that what might have been attested to by one Early Church Father, here or there, or by one and rebutted by another,

Church Fathers dialogue with one another on what is traditional and what was not in the end they accept it and make it universal.

but the way to circumvent that problem is to declare all contrary evidence to be heretical and thus not counted??

Explain?

 

[Albion]

Church Fathers dialogue with one another on what is traditional and what was not in the end they accept it and make it universal.

I'm afraid that when I referred to "Fathers," you took it to mean the church leaders of any time period while I was using it as another way of saying "Early Church Fathers." I later edited my message in hopes of preventing any misunderstandings.

In addition, no agreement among bishops, etc. which is then made the standard throughout any denomination is what produces Tradition. Tradition exists in what the whole church believes through time. It's not created at some point later in time.

Explain?

You seemed to dismiss what some church spokesmen, clergy, or even laymen believed in the first centuries by calling that heretical, and that this was done in order to keep the theory of Tradition credible. But if that has to be done, it only disproves Tradition.

 

[dóxatotheó]

I'm afraid that when I referred to "Fathers," you took it to mean the church leaders of any time period while I was using it as another way of saying "Early Church Fathers." I later edited my message in hopes of preventing any misunderstandings.

Interesting have you read the letters at Nicaea they shown and prove that anything that was trying to corrupt the traditions was expelled out through scripture and the earliest of writings.

You seemed to dismiss what some church spokesmen, clergy, or even laymen believed in the first centuries by calling that heretical, and that this was done in order to keep the theory of Tradition credible. But if that has to be done, it only disproves Tradition.

How does it disprove tradition when it is literally in letters themselves of dialogues between heretics and early fathers on traditions and scripture why you think Athanasius was dispelled but later ordained the Emperor didn't want Athanasius back in the church but the church let him back because guess what his teachings followed tradition.

 

[Albion]

The problem here concerns the meaning of "Tradition" in the theological sense. It is the continuous and universal belief of the church. It may be reasserted by a council, but it isn't something created by conciliar action. Tradition either exists or it doesn't. But if it does, it has to go back to the beginning and not be something that was in dispute. you yourself said, a few posts ago, "Tradition cant change."

 

[dóxatotheó]

The problem here concerns the meaning of "Tradition" in the theological sense. It is the continuous and universal belief of the church. It may be reasserted by a council, but it isn't something created by conciliar action. Tradition either exists or it doesn't. But if it does, it has to go back to the beginning and not be something that was in dispute. you yourself said, a few posts ago, "Tradition cant change."

I agree is why tradition was defended always

 

[Albion]

I agree is why tradition was defended always

As I said at the start of this side debate, the IDEA of Tradition has long been a topic of discussion, but what it IS has been misunderstood and misused--which, by the way, was pointed out by the early Protestant Reformers.

Unless a belief has always been the belief of the whole church and from the beginning, it's not Tradition.

But what of Scripture? That is divine revelation and, by its nature, is sufficient and cannot be equaled in authority.

 

[dóxatotheó]

But what of Scripture? That is divine revelation and, by its nature, is sufficient and cannot be equaled in authority.

Orthodoxy affirms prima scriptura

 

[Albion]

Orthodoxy affirms prima scriptura

So? That's better than what some churches do, but it still means that manmade ideas are used when it comes to defining doctrine and expecting the people to affirm it. What justification is there for that view of truth?

 

[dóxatotheó]

So?

Than why even say that if you know thats our position? Also if you wanna debate this topic make a thread in our debate forum

 

[Albion]

Than why even say that if you know thats our position? Also if you wanna debate this topic make a thread in our debate forum

Hi. I wasn't finished writing when you made your reply. Maybe you'll want to check back to get the entire thing.

 

[dóxatotheó]

That's better than what some churches do, but it still means that manmade ideas are used when it comes to defining doctrine and expecting the people to affirm it. What justification is there for that view of truth?

interpretations from saints are not seen infallible, they are only seen as worthy sources for interpretations.

 

[Albion]

interpretations from saints are not seen infallible, they are only seen as worthy sources for interpretations.

That's what you think Tradition is all about??

 

[dóxatotheó]

That's what you think Tradition is all about??

no i already said wat tradition was

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Protestant Christian affirmed the reformation, but what's their methodology of discernment on that subject? Many protestant Christian can't even tell the differences btw the denominations. I don't think they study the reformation correctly. By correctly I mean they should have read how the reformation is going back the early teaching of the church. If someone claim he's a protestant, he/she must be well educated of church history and have read the church fathers.

I've seen too many protestant Christian defend the teaching of their church, yet ignorance about the writing of the early church and ignore the teaching of other protestant denomination leaders. If that's the attidude of working out our discernment, we can easily fall into a cult or believing a new religion.

Most cradle Catholics are the same; we live in an era of poor catechesis for all but a few individuals that want to learn; most don't have time it seems.

 

[Fervent]

Protestants, at least, know their Bibles well, generally speaking.

Speaking as a protestant, this hasn't been my experience. More protestants have read Paul in depth, particularly Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians and know how to proof text.

 

[jamiec]

As I said at the start of this side debate, the IDEA of Tradition has long been a topic of discussion, but what it IS has been misunderstood and misused--which, by the way, was pointed out by the early Protestant Reformers.

Unless a belief has always been the belief of the whole church and from the beginning, it's not Tradition.

But what of Scripture? That is divine revelation and, by its nature, is sufficient and cannot be equaled in authority.

That would scupper the homoousion, for a start. The only Christian belief which can - perhaps - be regarded as having “always been the belief of the whole [C]hurch and from the beginning”, is, that there was some character, probably a Jew, called Jesus, who was regarded as important.
“Something matters”, would also pass muster - but it would make a very poor Gospel.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

This can be said about members of any church or of any tradition. Protestants, at least, know their Bibles well, generally speaking.

The vast majority of people need just some simple way to live and think and do not have desire or time to read and study everything that exists.

We have many man made doctrines friend.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

interesting, friendly discussion all friends.

 

[Fervent]

But what of Scripture? That is divine revelation and, by its nature, is sufficient and cannot be equaled in authority.

The issue with this is, how do we determine the scope and canon of Scripture?