Protestants DENY Tradition?

Of course Sola Scriptura is the Protestant mantra and they deny that tradition is as equally authoritative as the bible . What traditions are they following that are required to maintain their view of the “bible alone?” Contradictory?

Sola scriptura does not mean that Protestants deny tradition. Rather it means that tradition is subjected to the authority of Scripture alone.

Ya gotta stop generalizing Jubilarian. Only fundamentalists reject tradition. Mainline Lutherans and Anglicans do not.

Were not the fundamentals of the Word of God tradition first?

The Nicene Creed, for example, is a “tradition” insofar as it is formulated by a church council, and is not itself the Word of God. Nevertheless, Protestants adhere to it and confess it precisely because this “traditional” interpretation of Scripture is a faithful summary of biblical doctrine.

My question is what traditions do Protestants deny that are not compatible with their view of scripture alone. Just saying you don’t deny tradition in general avoids the question.

My question is what traditions do Protestants deny that are not compatible with their view of scripture alone. Just saying you don’t deny tradition in general avoids the question.

-]/-]

Please, think before giving such a response. I asked a question about Protestants. I did not make a generalization. This forum is designed for questions. Think.

In addition, Lutherans and Anglicans celebrate Christmas on December 25th. That date is not in scripture. They celebrate on the 25th because of tradition.

Jubilarian is correct, the Protestants have their own traditions, which are subject to differ between denominations. As for the ones Protestants reject, I’d imagine there are many—Buddhist, Catholic, Islamic, Sikh, Rastafari . . .

If that is indeed your question (it did not appear to be, for it was not asked in the original post):

We reject a whole lot of traditions:

  • Islam
  • Buddhism
  • the Book of Mormon
  • the Hindu practice of burning widows on their dead husband’s funeral pyre
    and so on.

I hate to burst your bubble Yateanieys, but there simply was no “Bible” as we know it, in the ancient world prior to the coming of the printing press.
Because oral communication ruled the day over written. Protestants think in terms of post-Enlightentment. Reading and writing were not commonplace in those days, and there were very few books (scrolls). When things were written down, they were done for public consumption (hearers). They had great auditory skills in those days. Communication was by listening. Even when something was put on paper. it was read ALOUD. Reading to oneself was unknown. That did not mean they were unintelligent. Literacy and intelligence are not the same.
So Protestants assume if it is not in written form (a concept that did not arise until the post-printing press days of the Enlightenment) it must be discarded. Our anscestors would have laughed themselves silly at such a thought. Civilizations have existed for years on oral history alone. Many African nations have no written history, all they have is oral. So…should we discard what they say because no one tribe decided to sit down and write a book? Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would bring all things to our remembrance. He did, and** in due time**, the Apostles wrote it down.

No. You just had a of conceived notion in your mind. You follow traditions that are not in the bible. In addition , scripture uses sources outside of scripture .

You’re not bursting my bubble, Justa. I know that there was no standardized Scripture back them, but it was still there in whatever disarray it was in, whether oral or written. There was Scripture during Jesus’ ministry else he would have skipped all of the allusions to it during his teachings.

However, I wasn’t talking about the Bible, my friend; I said “the Word of God.”

LOL . . . It’s been some time since I’ve heard such a precarious over-generalization :choocho:

I would say the most important an obvious tradition, not found in the bible, they are following would be the tradition of the canon of the bible. There is no inspired list of books in the bible. They follow the Jewish tradition for the OT and the Church’s tradition of the NT.

We share the the traditional NT with the Catholic denomination. Catholics didn’t write the NT, they helped compile it and decree it as canonical.

Would you care to make some argument, rather than just stating your position without defending it, as if your view is inherently authoritative? This is a debate-forum, not a sounding-board.

I can think of very few people who are not constantly demonstrating their good mind, fair dealing, and Christian love like JustaServant.

Implying that JustaServant isn’t ‘thinking’ says more about the accuser, frankly.

The point is, as you admit, the Catholic Church compiled and decreed which books are canonical and that Catholic tradition you follow.

No matter what the Church was called, whether the Way or latter Christian. By 107AD it was called Catholic. So Catholics did write, preserve and decree the canon of the bible.

This is correct, as not even Lutherans and Anglicans will give authority to a Tradition that cannot be found explicitly in Scripture. Sadly, Jubilarian begins going all over the place in subsequent posts.

What traditions are they following that are required to maintain their view of the “bible alone?” Contradictory?

The nonexistent “tradition” of sola scriptura.

But what exactly are you asking, Jubilarian? Are you asking for the one Tradition out of thousands that actually matters? Are you poking fun at the customs that aren’t really Traditions that they inherited from us? Please, Jube, clarify your question. It’s very confusing.

Really? I thought the Church was called something in Greek that sounds like “Catholic”. Or am I wrong?

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.