Protestant Oral Traditions, myths, rituals.....


#1

An honest look at Scripture and a careful look at the ancient concept of Tradition should cause a pause with an understanding of Sacred History, which lead to many inconsistencies.

For instance, on the one hand Protestants refute the Catholic traditions, according to perception of what Catholic traditions are while at the same time ignoring false Protestant oral traditions, myths, and rituals.

For example, nowhere is it stated in Scripture that faith alone leads to salvation, and never in the history of Christianity had this doctrine ever existed until Martin Luther invented it 4-5 centuries ago.

Nowhere in the Bible is it said that once you are converted to Christ, then there is no way you can lose your salvation, an idea that no Ancient Jew or Early Christian had ever believed or heard from Scripture until John Calvin made it up 4-5 centuries ago.

Nowhere is it stated in Scripture that spiritually immature Christians are quickly written into the Book of Life right after conversion, nor was this doctrine ever believed in since the beginning of Christianity until Protestants invented it.

Moreover, nowhere is it stated in the Bible that making the sign of the Cross with one’s fingers should be stopped as a devotion, yet it was never viewed to be non-Apostolic until Protestants started rejecting it in the 16th century.

Nowhere is it written in Scripture that bishops and priests praying over and anointing the sick with oil should cease as a devotion, nor was it ever declared non-Apostolic until the so-called Protestant reformers in the 16th century invented the oral doctrine against it.

Why does the Protestant not say something about these man-made traditions? Why does the Protestant not see the contradictions and hypocrisy of this position? This method of convenient logic and inconsistent Biblical exegesis is the legacy and fruit of Protestantism and it is still expanding into more and more divisions today.

There are countless examples from Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity proving how God in and out of Scripture promoted Holy Tradition, and there are no obvious examples to the contrary, except among the Sadducees and some Gnostic heresies. In the Talmuds, which were a record of Ancient Jewish teachings from before, during, and after Christ’s time, as well as in all other Ancient Jewish sources, it was known that God had revealed to Moses the Written Bible and the Oral Bible, with the Oral Bible dealing with extra-biblical doctrines, as proven in the Talmuds and by Josephus’s 1st century commentaries of the Old Testament (OT), the Antiquities of the Jews, which involve a significant amount of extra-biblical teachings. For instance, in the Talmuds, Sifre Deuteronomy 351; 145a, it says, “The Roman governor Quietus asked Rabbi Gamaliel, ‘How many Torahs (Bibles) were given to Israel?’ He answered, ‘Two- one in writing and the other orally.’” Similarly, it is quite common to read in every page of Josephus’s commentaries an extra-biblical teaching.

Can you see Oral Tradition, Myths, Rituals in Protestant Thought? I shall continue to add to this…:slight_smile:


#2

Those weren't the examples that immediately came to mind - I think many of them are misconceptions of Scripture - but I can think of a few "oral traditions" that are extra-biblical that have gained some measure of common acceptance, though by no means universal, among non-Catholic Christians.

Some of these have a source in polemic works like Hislop's "The Two Babylons", which are reiterated for modern audiences by Dave Hunt and Jack Chick:
* The office of overseer became corrupted by Imperial Rome when bishops started to be paid by the Empire instead of drawing salaries from their congregations.
* Marian veneration arose to supplant worship of Demeter
* The Eucharist came from an Aztec rite to Cacahuatl
* The Eucharist came from Egyptian sun bread
* IHS is an abbreviation for "Isis Horus Seth" in Egyptian mythology
* The Trinity comes from the pagan influence of a number of "trinities" of deities (ie three faces of Shiva-Vishnu-ShivaRudra in Hinduism)

Others have nothing to do with Catholicism.
* Legends regarding John Wesley's horse (that it carried Wesley without resting for days on end). I've heard some Presbyterians make fun of Wesley's horse as being smarter than the minister himself was.
* Christians must be land-owners.
* Silver is the only Biblically-ordained currency (gold is for nobles, paper money is worthless)
* The proscription against tattoos has to do with the Mark of the Beast in Revelation (though Jews were opposed to tattooing because of pagan connotations in Levitical times, and remain opposed because Jewish prisoners during hte Holocaust were tattooed with numbers)
* Vegetarianism is preferred because Adam and Eve were vegetarians (as were all animals) before the Fall. This is probably the most Scripturally-defensible.
* Christians are called to be wealthy.
* Legends from "Foxe's Book of Martyrs", the one I hear most often is of an Anglican being chased by Catholics. One of his pursuers falls into a frozen river and the Anglican turns around, pulls him out, but is subsequently arrested anyway and executed.

Note that we have varying degress of oral tradition. There is the oral tradition of theology, which I think is rather weak considering how much we have written down (though much of it was carried by oral tradition until being written down, much like Moses writing the Pentateuch years after the events transpired). There is oral tradition of veneration and devotion to particular saints. And the largest body of oral tradition is probably regarding the deeds of various saints and visions - for example that of "Our Lady of the Snows", or the legend of Saint Christopher, the names of the three wise men (and the devotion of chalking their initials within the numbers of th eyear above your door).

Key theological items such as the Eucharist, doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, all of these were heavily-discussed in epistles between the 2nd and 3rd century bishops, so we have a written record there.


#3

=CopticChristian;10307369]An honest look at Scripture and a careful look at the ancient concept of Tradition should cause a pause with an understanding of Sacred History, which lead to many inconsistencies.

For instance, on the one hand Protestants refute the Catholic traditions, according to perception of what Catholic traditions are while at the same time ignoring false Protestant oral traditions, myths, and rituals.

Obviously, Lutherans don’t refute all of them.

For example, nowhere is it stated in Scripture that faith alone leads to salvation, and never in the history of Christianity had this doctrine ever existed until Martin Luther invented it 4-5 centuries ago.

I would refute both assertions, but be that as it may…

Nowhere in the Bible is it said that once you are converted to Christ, then there is no way you can lose your salvation, an idea that no Ancient Jew or Early Christian had ever believed or heard from Scripture until John Calvin made it up 4-5 centuries ago.

Agreed.

Nowhere is it stated in Scripture that spiritually immature Christians are quickly written into the Book of Life right after conversion, nor was this doctrine ever believed in since the beginning of Christianity until Protestants invented it.

Let’s just say that some probably are, and we don’t know who is written in the Book of Life, that that would be God’s call.

Moreover, nowhere is it stated in the Bible that making the sign of the Cross with one’s fingers should be stopped as a devotion, yet it was never viewed to be non-Apostolic until Protestants started rejecting it in the 16th century.

Not all of us.

Nowhere is it written in Scripture that bishops and priests praying over and anointing the sick with oil should cease as a devotion, nor was it ever declared non-Apostolic until the so-called Protestant reformers in the 16th century invented the oral doctrine against it.

What is a so-called protestant? As to your point, agreed.

Why does the Protestant not say something about these man-made traditions? Why does the Protestant not see the contradictions and hypocrisy of this position? This method of convenient logic and inconsistent Biblical exegesis is the legacy and fruit of Protestantism and it is still expanding into more and more divisions today.

I just did, I think.

There are countless examples from Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity proving how God in and out of Scripture promoted Holy Tradition, and there are no obvious examples to the contrary, except among the Sadducees and some Gnostic heresies. In the Talmuds, which were a record of Ancient Jewish teachings from before, during, and after Christ’s time, as well as in all other Ancient Jewish sources, it was known that God had revealed to Moses the Written Bible and the Oral Bible, with the Oral Bible dealing with extra-biblical doctrines, as proven in the Talmuds and by Josephus’s 1st century commentaries of the Old Testament (OT), the Antiquities of the Jews, which involve a significant amount of extra-biblical teachings. For instance, in the Talmuds, Sifre Deuteronomy 351; 145a, it says, “The Roman governor Quietus asked Rabbi Gamaliel, ‘How many Torahs (Bibles) were given to Israel?’ He answered, ‘Two- one in writing and the other orally.’” Similarly, it is quite common to read in every page of Josephus’s commentaries an extra-biblical teaching.

And?

Can you see Oral Tradition, Myths, Rituals in Protestant Thought? I shall continue to add to this…:slight_smile:

Well, of course, except maybe myths. Those who deny these are in denial.

Jon


#4

[quote="CopticChristian, post:1, topic:313374"]

Moreover, nowhere is it stated in the Bible that making the sign of the Cross with one's fingers should be stopped as a devotion, yet it was never viewed to be non-Apostolic until Protestants started rejecting it in the 16th century.

Nowhere is it written in Scripture that bishops and priests praying over and anointing the sick with oil should cease as a devotion, nor was it ever declared non-Apostolic until the so-called Protestant reformers in the 16th century invented the oral doctrine against it.

[/quote]

At our last service, there are about six places where we sign ourselves - there's even a helpful "+" in the church service bulletin to remind us. And about two months ago, we had the kneelers out where one could pray and receive oil during the a part of the service - I've never done it myself, but look forward to it when I become a bit older and perhaps sick. I know my pastor and associate pastor brings oil when someone is sick along with both species.

One of these day, we'll get our confessionals back. But then again, we still have our altar rails and kneelers. :p


#5

[quote="benjohnson, post:4, topic:313374"]
At our last service, there are about six places where we sign ourselves - there's even a helpful "+" in the church service bulletin to remind us. And about two months ago, we had the kneelers out where one could pray and receive oil during the a part of the service - I've never done it myself, but look forward to it when I become a bit older and perhaps sick. I know my pastor and associate pastor brings oil when someone is sick along with both species.

One of these day, we'll get our confessionals back. But then again, we still have our altar rails and kneelers. :p

[/quote]

Ben,

Then it is fair to say that Protestants is a generalization and that not all Protestants reject what you accept...:thumbsup:


#6

[quote="JonNC, post:3, topic:313374"]
Obviously, Lutherans don't refute all of them.

I would refute both assertions, but be that as it may...

Agreed.

Let's just say that some probably are, and we don't know who is written in the Book of Life, that that would be God's call.

Not all of us.

What is a so-called protestant? As to your point, agreed.

I just did, I think.

And?

Well, of course, except maybe myths. Those who deny these are in denial.

Jon

[/quote]

Jon,

Your objection is that to say Protestant includes Lutherans however to generalize Protestant does not necessarily include all of Lutheran thought.


#7

[quote="losh14, post:2, topic:313374"]
Those weren't the examples that immediately came to mind - I think many of them are misconceptions of Scripture - but I can think of a few "oral traditions" that are extra-biblical that have gained some measure of common acceptance, though by no means universal, among non-Catholic Christians.

Some of these have a source in polemic works like Hislop's "The Two Babylons", which are reiterated for modern audiences by Dave Hunt and Jack Chick:
* The office of overseer became corrupted by Imperial Rome when bishops started to be paid by the Empire instead of drawing salaries from their congregations.
* Marian veneration arose to supplant worship of Demeter
* The Eucharist came from an Aztec rite to Cacahuatl
* The Eucharist came from Egyptian sun bread
* IHS is an abbreviation for "Isis Horus Seth" in Egyptian mythology
* The Trinity comes from the pagan influence of a number of "trinities" of deities (ie three faces of Shiva-Vishnu-ShivaRudra in Hinduism)

Others have nothing to do with Catholicism.
* Legends regarding John Wesley's horse (that it carried Wesley without resting for days on end). I've heard some Presbyterians make fun of Wesley's horse as being smarter than the minister himself was.
* Christians must be land-owners.
* Silver is the only Biblically-ordained currency (gold is for nobles, paper money is worthless)
* The proscription against tattoos has to do with the Mark of the Beast in Revelation (though Jews were opposed to tattooing because of pagan connotations in Levitical times, and remain opposed because Jewish prisoners during hte Holocaust were tattooed with numbers)
* Vegetarianism is preferred because Adam and Eve were vegetarians (as were all animals) before the Fall. This is probably the most Scripturally-defensible.
* Christians are called to be wealthy.
* Legends from "Foxe's Book of Martyrs", the one I hear most often is of an Anglican being chased by Catholics. One of his pursuers falls into a frozen river and the Anglican turns around, pulls him out, but is subsequently arrested anyway and executed.

Note that we have varying degress of oral tradition. There is the oral tradition of theology, which I think is rather weak considering how much we have written down (though much of it was carried by oral tradition until being written down, much like Moses writing the Pentateuch years after the events transpired). There is oral tradition of veneration and devotion to particular saints. And the largest body of oral tradition is probably regarding the deeds of various saints and visions - for example that of "Our Lady of the Snows", or the legend of Saint Christopher, the names of the three wise men (and the devotion of chalking their initials within the numbers of th eyear above your door).

Key theological items such as the Eucharist, doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, all of these were heavily-discussed in epistles between the 2nd and 3rd century bishops, so we have a written record there.

[/quote]

Losh,

You have lots. I would imagine I was thinking along the lines of oral traidition as you suggest concerning the Eucharist, Baptism, Annointing of the sick, etc...


#8

[quote="CopticChristian, post:6, topic:313374"]
Jon,

Your objection is that to say Protestant includes Lutherans however to generalize Protestant does not necessarily include all of Lutheran thought.

[/quote]

:confused: Could you elaborate?

Jon


#9

[quote="JonNC, post:8, topic:313374"]
:confused: Could you elaborate?

Jon

[/quote]

Jon,

Calvinist Protestant thought is not Lutheran thought.


#10

[quote="CopticChristian, post:9, topic:313374"]
Jon,

Calvinist Protestant thought is not Lutheran thought.

[/quote]

Oh, ok. :doh2: That would be correct. :p

Jon


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.