Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Wgw]

They observed the floating three days/nights of Passover, first day unleavened bread, first fruit. They observed Sunday because of Pentecost's giving of the Spirit. Only later, divorced from their roots, did some conflate the two.

Alas you are simply misinformed; quartodecimianism was not the universal praxis but was rather in place in a few isolated churches such as that of Smyrna. By the 2nd cenrury ir had become an obvious problem, so that St. Polycarp of Smyrna journeyed to Rome in an attempt to resolve it; by Nicea it was such a disagreeable situation that this was one of several problems the 318 assembled bishops corrected via unanimous vote (there was no jilted minority at Nicea other than Eusebius of Caesarea, who desired some form of accomodation for Arius; the question of the Paschalion was not controversial).

 

[Wgw]

And this comes from what scripture.....or is it tradition?

Galatians 1:8-9, the words of Galatians 1:8 are also a hymn sung in the Syriac Orthodox Church before the reading of the Pauline Epistle during the Eucharistic liturgy. Also "by their fruits ye shall know them", et cetera.

 

[Wgw]

Funny you should mention the Sunday dress as somehow important. Anyway, we all know they do reject scripture alone as the sufficiency of all things salvific. Their increasing communion is moot to the question of what is truth and what is not (salvific). Nonetheless, just like the Pascha issue, if one rejects scripture alone to accept tradition, one should at least observe it as Christ and the apostles did. If not, one might say the Tradition crowd talks, but fails at the walk.

Not I, but St. Paul, commands the wearing of head coverings. If it was important to him then it is important to us.

Now, on your point of "increasing communion," I am not sure I quite follow. If you are objecting to the weekly Eucharist, alas, this is a custom from the most ancient Church; we find this documented in the Didache (which predates the canonical Gospels) and Justin Martyr for example. This was the practice of the persecuted Christians of the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries.

What is more, these ancient texts like the Didache, the Apostokic Tradition of St. Hippolytus, the epistles of Ss. Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus, all from the first and second centuries, clearly show that Orthodoxy does in fact maintain the traditions of the earliest Christians going directly back to Christ and his Apostles. It is rather the Protestant attempt to reconstruct these traditions without regard to what the earliest members of the Church had to say about them which leads to a distorted interpretation of early Christianity.

 

[Standing Up]

Alas you are simply misinformed; quartodecimianism was not the universal praxis but was rather in place in a few isolated churches such as that of Smyrna. By the 2nd cenrury ir had become an obvious problem, so that St. Polycarp of Smyrna journeyed to Rome in an attempt to resolve it; by Nicea it was such a disagreeable situation that this was one of several problems the 318 assembled bishops corrected via unanimous vote (there was no jilted minority at Nicea other than Eusebius of Caesarea, who desired some form of accomodation for Arius; the question of the Paschalion was not controversial).

Alas no they originally practiced as they were taught. Only later was it changed to divorce from the root. And Constantine enforced their decision.

Polycarp tried to instruct Rome, but hey, OO know all about her, given the two divorced Traditions are not identical.

 

[Standing Up]

Not I, but St. Paul, commands the wearing of head coverings. If it was important to him then it is important to us.

Except it rings hollow, all jingle and jangle as Tradition follows the dark Easter observance (St. Columbanus). Why one, but not the other? Both (head coverings and floating Pascha) are in scripture. When did your Tradition devolve?

 

[tulipbee]

No, its rather not, because the Holy Spirit is frequently impersonated by demonic agencies. Hence some of the disturbing things one might see in some Pentecostal churches.

Holy spirit deals with Satan. The holy spirit isn't the same as Pentecostal's kundulini awakenings. Engeries and holy spirit are two different things.

 

[BobRyan]

You are resorting to eisegesis, distorting the meaning of the Gospel in order to prop up a vision of your own denomination which does nkt actually conform to reality.

Just not in real life.

The SDA is one of the least Sola Scriptura denominations on the planet;

Just not in real life.

In real life the Bible avoidance you are using on this thread is consistent with your tradition.

In real life - the sola scriptura method I am using is consistent with my denomination.

You can make factless accusation after factless accusation all day long - but it is real life that actually matters. Facts not simply "accusation"

The primary evidence that your position is erroneous is that our Lord promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, and since the Christian church was entirely governed by holy tradition, this requires you to fall back on "Great Apostasy" theology which is inherently unscriptural.

Until you read the actual Bible.

Acts 20
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Looks like "great apostasy" prediction coming directly from Paul. -- sola scriptura

2 Thess 2
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Looks like "great apostasy" prediction coming directly from Paul. -- sola scriptura.

It is real life where your false accusations have difficulty.

Acts 20:30 refers to the rise of heretical sects

We agree on that tiny point. So in some small areas -- perhaps very tiny - we do agree.

Sadly as 2Thess 2 points out - it results in great apostasy.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2 Thess 2:3 refers to the anti-Christ which some radical Protestants ascribe to the Pope

Do "some radical protestants" include - Luther, Calvin, Huss, Jerome, Wesley??

Are these what you see as "fringe protestants" that were outside the Protestant reformation?

In "real life"???

You seem to confine yourself to false accusation - over substance - and easily disproven misstatements.

 

[BobRyan]

and in modern times, the SDA. 2 Thess 2:3 refers to the anti-Christ which some radical Protestants ascribe to the Pope;.

Since you bring the subject up -

Some "historic facts" to go with countering a few misstatements made recently -

==============================
from - http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/antichrist/aih02.htm

Identification of the Papacy as the antichrist became the constant theme of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther believed that the Papacy, not an individual pope, was the antichrist. These sentiments were shared by Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and other Reformers. The following are the comments of just a few of the Reformers. The agreement of their views is striking.


1. Martin Luther:


There sits the man, of whom the apostle wrote [2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4], that will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God. That man of sin to be revealed, the son of perdition . . . He suppresses the law of God and exalts his commandments above the commandments of God. (LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, p. 281)

We here are of the conviction that the Papacy is the seat of the true and real antichrist. (Ibid., p. 256)


2. John Calvin:


I deny him to be the vicar of Christ. . . . He is antichrist—I deny him to be head of the church. (John Calvin Tracts, vol. 1, pp. 219, 220)


3. John Knox:


That tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church, the very antichrist and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks. (The Zurich Letters, p. 199)


4. Philipp Melanchthon:


It is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the Roman pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is very antichrist. . . . Likewise, in 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul clearly says the man of sin will rule in the church by exalting himself above the worship of God. (LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 296–9)


5. Sir Isaac Newton:


But it [the Papacy] was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten kingdoms [referred to in Daniel 7:7, 8]. . . . And such a seer, prophet, and king is the Church of Rome [referring to the little horn of Daniel 7]. (Sir Isaac Newton, Observations on the Prophecies, p. 75)


6. John Wesley:


Romish Papacy, he is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin. (John Wesley, Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, p. 110.)


7. Samuel Lee (a seventeenth-century Rhode Island minister):


It is agreed among all main lines of the English Church that the Roman pontiff is the antichrist. (Samuel Lee, The Cutting Off of Antichrist, p. 1)


The statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Church of England, which was later used by the Presbyterians, is significant:


There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 6, chapter 25)

A statement that is also found in the "Baptist Confession of Faith"

 

[Wgw]

Since you bring the subject up -

Some "historic facts" to go with countering a few misstatements made recently -

==============================
from - http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/antichrist/aih02.htm

Identification of the Papacy as the antichrist became the constant theme of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther believed that the Papacy, not an individual pope, was the antichrist. These sentiments were shared by Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and other Reformers. The following are the comments of just a few of the Reformers. The agreement of their views is striking.


1. Martin Luther:


There sits the man, of whom the apostle wrote [2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4], that will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God. That man of sin to be revealed, the son of perdition . . . He suppresses the law of God and exalts his commandments above the commandments of God. (LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, p. 281)

We here are of the conviction that the Papacy is the seat of the true and real antichrist. (Ibid., p. 256)


2. John Calvin:


I deny him to be the vicar of Christ. . . . He is antichrist—I deny him to be head of the church. (John Calvin Tracts, vol. 1, pp. 219, 220)


3. John Knox:


That tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church, the very antichrist and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks. (The Zurich Letters, p. 199)


4. Philipp Melanchthon:


It is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the Roman pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is very antichrist. . . . Likewise, in 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul clearly says the man of sin will rule in the church by exalting himself above the worship of God. (LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 296–9)


5. Sir Isaac Newton:


But it [the Papacy] was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten kingdoms [referred to in Daniel 7:7, 8]. . . . And such a seer, prophet, and king is the Church of Rome [referring to the little horn of Daniel 7]. (Sir Isaac Newton, Observations on the Prophecies, p. 75)


6. John Wesley:


Romish Papacy, he is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin. (John Wesley, Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, p. 110.)


7. Samuel Lee (a seventeenth-century Rhode Island minister):


It is agreed among all main lines of the English Church that the Roman pontiff is the antichrist. (Samuel Lee, The Cutting Off of Antichrist, p. 1)


The statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Church of England, which was later used by the Presbyterians, is significant:


There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 6, chapter 25)

A statement that is also found in the "Baptist Confession of Faith"

The statements here are not terribly relevant given that as an Orthodox I am not in communion with the Pope of Rome. The Pope of Alexandria, yes, but the Pope of Alexandria is just one of several autocephalous archbishops of equivalent authority; the Patriarch of Antioch Ignatius Aphrem II Karim is the leader of my church. In Oriental Orthodoxy we also lack Canon 28 of Chalcedon which has the effect in Eastern Orthodoxy of granting the Ecumenical Patriarchate certain judicial privileges as well as jurisdiction over "the lands of the Barbarians."

In any event, both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic papacy in very strong terms; in particular, the doctrine of papal infallibility and the relative weakness of RC bishops other than the Pope. In Orthodoxy, diocesan bishops are autonomous in their dioceses and cannot be removed by the Patriarch, Catholicos, or Metropolitan. Indeed, once in the Coptic church when a Pope of Alexandria did not wait for a delayed diocesan bishop before commencing a liturgy in that bishop's diocese, the bishop on arrival smashed the Pope's mitre, and was not deposed; the point was taken that the Coptic Pope had acted incorrectly.

I do not neccessarily agree with the opinions expressed above by the reformers that the Roman Popes is or was the anti-Christ; the worst Roman Popes were heresiarchs on a par with Simon Magus (who may have been referred to as the anti-Christ by St. John). So in the sense that every heresiarch is the anti-Christ one could say that about Leo X for example, but I cannot associate an office with the anti-Christ, as this seems a laughable proposition that would apply for example to St. Peter.

What is more, if Pope Leo X can be called the anti-Christ on the grounds of being a heresiarch, than so too can John Calvin, for the Synod of Dositheus branded him as such. For that matter I believe one could say the same about Ellen White, who was a heresiarch in the sense of being a false prophet who organized a denomination on certain principles of faith explicitly condemned as heretical by the ancient ecumenical councils.

Interestingly John Wesley would potentially not fall into these categories by virtue of having apparently been ordained in secret as a bishop by the Greek Orthodox bishop Erasmus of Arcadia in 1763. This does not make him a legitimate Orthodox bishop in an ordinary sense, as a proper consecration of a bishop requires three existing bishops as consecrators, although this can be waived in emergencies.

 

[Wgw]

Just not in real life.



Just not in real life.

In real life the Bible avoidance you are using on this thread is consistent with your tradition.

In real life - the sola scriptura method I am using is consistent with my denomination.

You can make factless accusation after factless accusation all day long - but it is real life that actually matters. Facts not simply "accusation"



Until you read the actual Bible.

Acts 20
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Looks like "great apostasy" prediction coming directly from Paul. -- sola scriptura

2 Thess 2
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Looks like "great apostasy" prediction coming directly from Paul. -- sola scriptura.

It is real life where your false accusations have difficulty.



We agree on that tiny point. So in some small areas -- perhaps very tiny - we do agree.

Sadly as 2Thess 2 points out - it results in great apostasy.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;



Do "some radical protestants" include - Luther, Calvin, Huss, Jerome, Wesley??

Are these what you see as "fringe protestants" that were outside the Protestant reformation?

In "real life"???

You seem to confine yourself to false accusation - over substance - and easily disproven misstatements.

The verses you quote refer to the rise of heretical sects; they cannot be said to refer to the Orthodox Church because that would contradict Matthew 16:18. Matthew 16:18 has the effect of rendering the apostolic, Catholic Church (Orthodoxy) invincible and, over the course of time, infallible on an ecumenical (churchwide) level. Individual local churches like Rome or Constantinople can drift in and out of error but the Orthodox Church as a whole always rights itself in accordance with Matthew 16:18 and the concept of a Great Apostasy is quite literally impossible.

Rather these verses can be clearly understood as referring to the rapid growth of heresy, which started in the Book of Acts with Simon Magus. Gnosticism under Magus exploded to the point where St. John certainly refers to it in his epistles, and also in Revelation we have the Lord personally denouncing the Nicolaitans, which were an early Gnostic sect founded by Nicolas the Deacon which embraced, to be very direct, wife swapping (see St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, and The Panarion vol. 1, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, also the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea). Another sect which posed a huge problem to the apostles was that Judaizing sect known as the Ebionites, which among other deviations continued to worship on Saturday.

 

[BobRyan]

The verses you quote refer to the rise of heretical sects; they cannot be said to refer to the Orthodox Church because that would contradict Matthew 16:18. Matthew 16:18 has the effect of rendering the apostolic, Catholic Church (Orthodoxy) invincible and, over the course of time, infallible on an ecumenical (churchwide) level.

As we all know - the Jews said the same thing about themselves and yet Christ hammers their supposedly sacred/holy/infallible tradition in Mark 7:6-13.

The whole point of this thread.

Rather these verses can be clearly understood as referring to the rapid growth of heresy, which started in the Book of Acts with Simon Magus.

I think we all agree with that part of your post.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

and in modern times, the SDA. 2 Thess 2:3 refers to the anti-Christ which some radical Protestants ascribe to the Pope;.

Since you bring the subject up -

Some "historic facts" to go with countering a few misstatements made recently -

==============================
from - http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/antichrist/aih02.htm

Identification of the Papacy as the antichrist became the constant theme of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther believed that the Papacy, not an individual pope, was the antichrist. These sentiments were shared by Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and other Reformers. The following are the comments of just a few of the Reformers. The agreement of their views is striking.


1. Martin Luther:


There sits the man, of whom the apostle wrote [2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4], that will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God. That man of sin to be revealed, the son of perdition . . . He suppresses the law of God and exalts his commandments above the commandments of God. (LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, p. 281)

We here are of the conviction that the Papacy is the seat of the true and real antichrist. (Ibid., p. 256)


2. John Calvin:


I deny him to be the vicar of Christ. . . . He is antichrist—I deny him to be head of the church. (John Calvin Tracts, vol. 1, pp. 219, 220)


3. John Knox:


That tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church, the very antichrist and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks. (The Zurich Letters, p. 199)


4. Philipp Melanchthon:


It is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the Roman pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is very antichrist. . . . Likewise, in 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul clearly says the man of sin will rule in the church by exalting himself above the worship of God. (LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 296–9)


5. Sir Isaac Newton:


But it [the Papacy] was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten kingdoms [referred to in Daniel 7:7, 8]. . . . And such a seer, prophet, and king is the Church of Rome [referring to the little horn of Daniel 7]. (Sir Isaac Newton, Observations on the Prophecies, p. 75)


6. John Wesley:


Romish Papacy, he is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin. (John Wesley, Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, p. 110.)


7. Samuel Lee (a seventeenth-century Rhode Island minister):


It is agreed among all main lines of the English Church that the Roman pontiff is the antichrist. (Samuel Lee, The Cutting Off of Antichrist, p. 1)


The statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Church of England, which was later used by the Presbyterians, is significant:


There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 6, chapter 25)

A statement that is also found in the "Baptist Confession of Faith"

The statements here are not terribly relevant given that as an Orthodox I am not in communion with the Pope of Rome.

You are the one who brought up the subject of the Papacy and the antichrist - and you suggested that this was not a teaching in mainline protestantism - I was simply asking if you had somehow come to the decision that Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Huss, Jerome etc did not fit the description "Mainline protestant".

I do not neccessarily agree with the opinions expressed above by the reformers that the Roman Popes is or was the anti-Christ;

Ok - but I did not accuse you of believing that nor did I accuse the Orthodox churches of teaching it. I am just curious that you would claim that the views of these protestant reformers are not actually protestant.

BTW - I am not at all drawn in by your name-calling gambit ... you will need facts.

 

[BobRyan]

In the dark ages - the resort to name-calling was supposedly the solution to everything.

The noun heresiarch (also hæresiarch, according to the Oxford English Dictionary; from Greek: αἱρεσιάρχης, hairesiárkhēs via the late Latin haeresiarcha[1]) is used to refer both to the originator of heretical doctrine, and to the founder of a sect that sustains such a doctrine.[1] For example, according to Catholic doctrine, the founders of Protestantism, such as Martin Luther[2] and John Calvin, were classed as heresiarchs as well as schismatics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresiarch

I think everyone is getting past that now - giving how that solution failed so spectacularly.

 

[Wgw]

St. Jerome was obviously not a mainline Protestant but was rather a fourth century hermit, translator and opponent of Origenism; there was some what of a bitter row between Orogen and the unfortunately named Lucifer of Cagliari, the bishop of Sardinia.

 

[Wgw]

In the dark ages - the resort to name-calling was supposedly the solution to everything.

I think everyone is getting past that now - giving how that solution failed so spectacularly.

The Orthodox Church continues to regard as heresiarchs those condemned as such, and will most likely anathematize more heresiarchs in the future. At present though there is such a proliferation of heretical sects that anathematizing by name the huge number of extant and recently departed heresiarchs would take considerable time.

 

[thecolorsblend]

If Sola Scriptura was true, you'd expect it to be mentioned explicitly somewhere in Sacred Scripture; it isn't.

If Sola Scriptura was true, it would by definition depend upon people all through history being literate and having their own personal copies of the Bible; they weren't and they didn't. To the extent universal literacy exists today, it's a fairly recent thing.

If Sola Scriptura was true, you'd think it would foster unity among Protestants; it hasn't. The various Protestant sects can't agree with each other about what the Bible says. There's probably no single point of doctrine that all Protestants agree with. Heck, they can't even agree on how to make Kool-Aid.

In fact, there's really no way for anybody to know that the recognized canon of Sacred Scripture is even God's word outside of apostolic tradition. The only way to accept Sacred Scripture as the sole rule of faith is if you use tradition as an additional rule of faith.

Sola Scriptura is a logical dead end.

 

[Albion]

If Sola Scriptura was true, you'd expect it to be mentioned explicitly somewhere in Sacred Scripture; it isn't.

But look, if something that all churches agree is of God describes itself--repeatedly--as the best, what sense does it make to insist that there's significance in the fact that it doesn't also include a superfluous disclaimer to the effect that something else isn't as good as the best?

If Sola Scriptura was true, it would by definition depend upon people all through history being literate and having their own personal copies of the Bible

Ah, then that would be the cause of your misunderstanding.

Sola Scriptura doesn't say that everyone is equally capable of understanding it, just that it is the truth. I don't understand the US Constitution like a lawyer does, but I still think it's the law of the land. I don't understand half of what my doctor says when describing my illnesses, but I don't conclude, therefore, that medical science isn't any better than alchemy.

If Sola Scriptura was true, you'd think it would foster unity among Protestants; it hasn't.

Now we're back on the same point--misunderstanding Sola Scriptura to be a guarantee that all men will read it the same way.

And if it's not the truth, how do we determine what else is the truth...if we apply this same test? We cannot. And why not? Because there is no other methodology that is free from the same criticism that is laid at the door of Sola Scriptura. If we were to trust "Holy Tradition," which each Catholic (non Sola Scriptura) church claims to follow, we'd be faced with the reality that each one has its own version of what Tradition supposedly is saying! And if we were to go by ongoing prophesy, as some churches do, they also have a welter of contrasting "revelations" that differ from denomination to denomination.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Sola Scriptura doesn't say that everyone is equally capable of understanding it, just that it is the truth. I don't understand the US Constitution like a lawyer does, but I still think it's the law of the land. I don't understand half of what my doctor says when describing my illnesses, but I don't conclude, therefore, that medical science isn't any better than alchemy.

So there's a need for an external authority to interpret and teach Scripture? Interesting...

 

[Albion]

So there's a need for an external authority to interpret and teach Scripture? Interesting...

What gave you THAT impression???

 

[Wgw]

So there's a need for an external authority to interpret and teach Scripture? Interesting...

I would prefer myself to not regard Tradition as external to Scripture but rather to regard Scripture as internal to Tradition.