Why is it Scripture AND Traidition for Catholics and Orthodox, but not you Protestants?

Question

The Protestant movement arose due to the seen "need" for Christianity to return to the Primitive Church, and part of this was Scripture Only movement instead of Scripture AND Tradition.

My question is, how can anyone justify NOT including Tradition when it WAS the basis of the Primitive Church? One has to remember that no New Testament Scripture was written down until AT LEAST 30 years after Jesus died (and these were only Paul's Epistles... the Gospels were written starting some 60-100 years after Jesus died). New Testament Scripture wasn't even recorded to start with!

Tradition is JUST as important, for it was this Tradition which built the Primitive Church right after Jesus Christ died. Tradition is the direct revelation of God and Jesus Christ to the Apostles! Also remember, Tradition are the direct hidden teachings of the Mysteries of Christ and God and the Kingdom of Heaven, direct revelation coming from Jesus Christ to Apostle, and Apostles to disciples. The Mysteries as said by Jesus Christ, those words that the 12 yearned to but were not ready: John 16: 11-13 “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” As Paul said, most Christians are carnal, and cannot bear the truth of the Mysteries, as they are babes in Christ. There are levels of Christianity, this is a truth that no one seems to want to recognize! Some Christians are more highly developed spiritually than others. Thus, we have the Apostolic Tradition that Catholic and Orthodox modern churches are based on, which is the direct Gnosis of God and Jesus Christ. Once you have direct Gnosis, once you have found the Mystery of the Kingdom of God, you are instantly and forever changed. The Catholic and Orthodox churches are the OLDEST, and hence, the REMAINDER of the Primitive Catholic (Universal) Church, the only true Church. Hence, Tradition IS truth as much as Scripture is!

Why do Protestants not recognize or accept this as Truth, which it is?

The end result of the Mystery is... God within YOU, for ye are the Temple of God. God is in us, as He was in Jesus Christ. The only difference is, we only share the nature of God, while Jesus Christ had His essence. Truly, we are created in the image of God, and we become partakers in the Divine nature through Jesus Christ, as God descended to Man through Jesus Christ, so Man could ascend to God and become partakers of the Divine nature and thus gods (small g), reconcile us to the Image of God which everyone is born with. He sheds Light on that realization, so that when you realize, you cannot do anything but the will of God, since His will becomes your will, when you realize God is within you, and always has been. It is ignorance of this fact that leads to sin, and turning away from God.

CJ, how very judgemental and ignorant for you to judge anyone and whether they are saved or not, much less 1 billion people around the world! Who are YOU to judge? The Bible stands alone, yet the New Testament was not written for 30-100 years AFTER He died! How would you say the Bible was written THAT long after Jesus Christ died, where did the teachings go in between the time He died and they were written down, out the window? That's where Tradition comes in, since Tradition existed BEFORE the New Testament was written, or considered Scripture, for that matter!

Judge not, lest ye be judged!

Blondiebaptist, yet another judgemental Christian who appears as yet, carnal, most Protestants are, since they cannot accept the spiritual food that Tradition offers. To say that people are going to burn in Hell, is in effect blaspheming the Holy Spirit, the only true eternal sin, since you have no idea who is blessed with the Holy Spirit, and thus saved, and who is not.

Truly spiritual Christians, Catholics included, who walk in the way of the Spirit of God, are saved in Jesus Christ. Those that are babes in Christ (carnal believers), are also saved, but not as yet perfect, which spiritual Christians strive for, and its a constant struggle. We have to die to Christ daily. Do you die to Christ daily? Is it not you that live, but Christ in you? Do you have the Mind of Christ (Christ consciousness)? If not, then again, judge not!

As a FORMER Catholic, now a neo-Gnostic Christian, I appreciate these truths and the direct Gnosis of God. Blessings to you!

Pastor Billy, I have to question you about the separating water baptism and Spirit baptism as unique to Protestantism. Personally, I have to agree with that. I was baptised into the Roman Catholic Church as a baby, but was spiritually dead until I was saved on March 13 this year through Jesus Christ. 18 hours later I was graced with direct Gnosis of God, He reached down to me, enwrapped me in His presence, and filled me with His love and grace. This Baptism of the Holy Spirit WAS in fact a separate, spontaneous, involuntary, supernatural occurance by grace from God, which was entirely separate from my water baptism as a baby.

Answer 1

Pastor Billy says: actually Protestantism or non-Catholic Christians tend to be very contradictory. They talk the talk but fail to walk the walk if you know what I mean, to say they don't accept tradition is actually a fallacy. They may reject certain ancient Christian tradition or Holy Tradition held as Godly revelation by Catholics but they often will have and follow their own sometimes fairly modern traditions. For example alter-call, sinners prayer, prosperity gospel, the prayer cloth, or peter popoff water are all newly created traditions. How about the tradition of KJV only readers (they reject biblical text with a lineage 1600 years older than the KJV) or what about the tradition of separating spiritual baptism from water baptism also a recent tradition practiced by Protestants.

I'm short on time will return with more.

Those who teach bible alone are never bible alone.

addendum: Christine we will have to agree to disagree, you were already born again as a baptised enfant. What you've experienced recently is a conversion which obviously has been very emotional. The recent revisionism of born again or what I like to call the Billy Graham way is also a novel tradition of Protestant (fundamentalist) Evangelicalism.

When Jesus explains to Nicodemus how one is born again he does not separate baptism into two separate experiences and he does not restrict it to only adults. As you are interested in gnostic knowledge (secret knowledge) try doing a search on the Didache which is neither gnostic or secret but not well know by most Protestants or Catholics and yet accepted by both Protestant and Catholic scholars as authentic. The Didache, also known as the teachings of the Apostles is an ancient Syrian text written I believe in the first century hence it is as old as much of the New Testament.


I suggest you spend time reading the Early Church Fathers.
Glad to see that even as a fallen away Catholic you have used your faith and reason in determining the existence of tradition in the Christian faith. To be a remnant Church we must belong to what is the remainder.

The following is for all the bible thumpers:

Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Answer 2

What was written was not by memory or tradition but was divinely inspired.

Jesus spoke against tradition:

Mark 7: Geneva Bible
13 Making the word of God of none authority, by your tradition which ye have ordained: and ye do many such like things.

What He is saying is, that traditions nullify the Word of God. Traditions will water down the Bible, make it less potent. Jesus turned water into wine, and some religious people want to take God's Word and water it down to zero potency. Paul spoke of these folks when he said:

2 Timothy 3:5: Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Traditions can be okay with balance, but don't let any tradition become a standard. If you find a method to reach God which is based upon tradition but is not scriptural you cannot trust it's from God. I go into greater detail why tradition cannot be the greatest method of finding God, nor even a reliable source:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/churchfail.html

Unless the tradition is Biblical, do not follow it for any dogmatic absolute doctrine. If it is biblical, then do not become legalistic. The following is a Biblical example of tradition. In some churches women are required to wear a head covering, yet the very texts about head coverings say's this:

1 Cor:11:16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

We live not by law but in liberty in Christ. Be careful though, don't let your liberty (or legalism) cause you or someone else to fall.

Answer 3

I beg to differ. If you speak of "tradition based on the primitive church", then it begs to ask the question: Shouldn't there have been more epistles and/or gospels written by the actual witnesses themselves --i.e., the Apostles James, the Righteous; Peter; Thomas; Philip; etc.-- rather than mostly Paul's letters that are singlehandedly included in the Bible as we know it now? Why is that so?

And just exactly when did the Marian devotion come to the fore if not after the 10th century only? Was that part of tradition by the primitive church too? Yet it has taken a significant, if not, even a predominant role among the laity today who say the rosary much more often than not. And that is a major part of the church's traditions that the protestations began five centuries ago...

The recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has added even more controversy, albeit quelled from public scrutiny, as to some of its contents that contradict with scriptural texts found in the Bible.

Curious minds need to know...

Peace be with you.

Answer 4

becasue it's a "Catholic thing" and sadly many have been taught that nothing "Catholic" can have any truth.

all Rcc beliefs can be found in the bible, some plainly others indirectly indicated. Scripture itself points out an authoritative church & tradition. St Paul points out in his second letter to the Thess – stand firm & hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or letter. Here are some scriptures to check out 2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 3:6, 2 Tim 1:13-14 & 2:2. When the first Christians had disagreements they didn’t open their bibles – they didn’t exist – they held councils and held binding decrees – these councils were those who knew more then the others and they came to an agreement/understanding and thus made a binding decree (acts 15:1-29). The very books of the bible were determined by the Church (Rcc) and didn’t even happen until the 4th century – centuries of oral tradition. Without their determination and will to listen to the Holy Spirit, sent by God to inspire them there would be no bible.
If the traditions and leaders of the Rcc did not hold to the scriptures (while some held violently or savagely) the majority shared and taught. Had the hierarchy of the Rcc not established the foundations where would Christianity be today? Would there even be a bible in print – I really don’t think so. Because people would not have shared their traditions. Most people century’s back never owned a bible like we do, gracious they couldn’t even read.

Answer 5

Not all of us so called Protestant Christians despise tradition.

I am a Confessional Lutheran, following after Huss, (I don't know why Jan Huss is not commemorated in our calender) we are the Sola Scriptura Church, yet we do not reject tradition. Our Lutheran Divine Service (the Mass) is THE historic Mass of the Western Church. Depending on the rite used we also borrow from the East. Likewise our other liturgical traditions go back centuries, and millenniae even to the temple worship of the Israelites. Much of the art and iconography in our Church pre-dates the reformation also. We also confess that we are part of the "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", and participate in the "Communion of Saints".

I guess, depending on definition, maybe we aren't so protestant.

Mark

Answer 6

actually, despite what so many people have been taught, it seems to me that the very first thing that caused dr martin luther to begin thinking of a reformation was the 16th century catholic practice of selling indulgences and spread from there. here is the document from which i draw that conclusion;

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/ninetyfive.txt

you'll notice that the then reverend father luther does not make any harsh statements against the church. instead, he exalts the righteousness of the pope.

later on, however, after being excommunicated and threatened with death, luther made clear the apostacy of the 16th century church (and yes, i know there have been changes made since then, so i'm not condemning anyone).

http://www.bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.html#preface

let me be clear in saying that i do not hate the catholic church. as a conservative lutheran, i probably have more in common with catholics than i do with most other protestants. but i also know that for the most part, the church in those days left people in the dark and was essentially practicing extortion through the selling of papal pardons, and that martin luther did not wish to split the church, but rather to reform it. in fact, we never left rome; rome left us.

edit- i beg to differ with doma. while it is true that the synoptic gospels were divinely inspired, they were handed down in oral tradition. they were written from memory. some research will prove me right. however, this does nothing but ADD to the validity of the gospels. the custom of the rabbis of the day was to keep oral law so accurately (find out about midrash if you have no understanding of oral torah. judaism teachess both written and oral law, and both are meticulously preserved.) that they were often not even permitted to teach until they had memorized the entire torah!

Answer 7

You are absolutely incorrect in your dating of the New Testament. Most of it was written by AD70. Look at the writings of the early Christians and you will see that it was scripture that they appealed to when a question needed to be answered. References to tradition by these men, when taken in there context, invariably speak of apostolic teaching which was by then enscripturated.

Answer 8

Outstanding question.....some people can't handle the Truth..

"Through Our Lord Jesus Christ our Apostles knew that there would be strife over the office of episcopacy. Accordingly, since they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those men already mentioned. And they afterwards gave instructions that when those men would fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. Therefore, we are of the opinion that those appointed by the Apostles, or afterwards by other acclaimed men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry." St. Clement Of Rome ("The Epistle Of Clement To The Corinthians," c. 96 A.D.)

Answer 9

I think that many people do not understand that the Bible and most of what Christianity is today comes from tradition.

Also, the translators of the NIV version(which I love) carefully refused to use the word tradition in positive passages only in negative ones. For instance Paul talks about all the things that were "passed on" to us IE tradition.

There is no explantion in the bible of the marriage ceremony, or when or how to celebrate Christmas, or, exactly how to have communion.

Jesus Himself kept lots of traditions, He had a bar mitzvah, he celebrated passover etc.

FYI lady below me here, It IS in scripture that Jesus HImself appointed Peter the head of the church

Answer 10

IMHO both Catholicism & Protestantism are nonsense, but Catholicism does at least have a history that traces all the way back to the times and characters it claims to base its beliefs on, whereas the Protestant Church was invented a mere 500 years ago by the apparently oft-angry & irritable ex-lawyer Martin Luther, a renowned anti-Semite.