tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post3520112055578457967..comments2023-10-30T08:00:43.585-05:00Comments on Shameless Popery: Two Types of Sola ScripturaJoe Heschmeyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-20761603982066192942011-10-11T07:37:14.636-05:002011-10-11T07:37:14.636-05:00Kens, yes.Kens, yes.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-91299208233847186472011-10-11T07:29:39.485-05:002011-10-11T07:29:39.485-05:00Mr. Heschmeyer, When you say "different ingre...Mr. Heschmeyer, When you say "different ingredients", I'm assuming you mean the Deuterocanonical books, correct? I mean, some Fathers wrote after the canon was decided and therefore had all 66 books in the Protestant canon, but of course the canon then had the Deuterocanonicals so it wasn't ONLY the 66 books of the Protestant canon? Is that what you meant?kenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05500499285590661753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-19259997232768657962010-05-04T13:17:25.652-05:002010-05-04T13:17:25.652-05:00Hello Joe and Roderick,
Though Oberman has done a...Hello Joe and Roderick,<br /><br />Though Oberman has done a fine job in delineating <i>some</i> of the historical nuances concerning the nature of tradition, IMHO, A.N.S. Lane’s contribution, <a href="http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol09/scripture_lane.pdf" rel="nofollow">SCRIPTURE, TRADITION and CHURCH</a>, identifies further distinctions that are even more helpful. <br /><br />I have built upon Dr. Lane’s essay in a number of threads that may be of some interest:<br /><br /><a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/04/which-andor-whose-sola-scriptura.html" rel="nofollow">Which and/or Whoose Sola Scriptura</a><br /><br /><a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/11/scripture-and-tradition-early-church.html" rel="nofollow">Scripture and Tradition</a><br /><br /><a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/06/scripture-and-tradition-in-early-church.html" rel="nofollow">Scripture and Tradition In The Early Church</a><br /><br /><a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/01/catholics-and-material-sufficiency-of.html" rel="nofollow">Catholics and Material Sufficiency</a><br /><br /><a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/05/052208-dividing-line-webcast-part-2.html" rel="nofollow">Dividing Line</a><br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-43042820196109130882010-04-30T14:46:32.677-05:002010-04-30T14:46:32.677-05:00Agreed, that most baptists are more Tradition 0. ...Agreed, that most baptists are more Tradition 0. As a matter of fact, both the Reformers and the Roman Catholics rejected the radical, "enthusiasts" Anabaptists who have as their ideological fathers, men like Andrea Karlstadt and Thomas Munzter.<br /><br />While without any connection to the historic Christian practice of baptism, a person may make a case for confessed adult/older child immersion baptism, the Bible AND tradition shows that paedo-baptism is more inline with circumcision as applied to the eight day old infant as a sign and seal of covenant. It speaks nothing of actual salvation, but only that the child will be reared under the auspices of the Christian community, ala 1 Cor 7:13-14.<br /><br />So, yes there is major distinction between Tradition 0 and Tradition 1 AND Papal Tradition 2.Roderick_Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02169535715630771551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-53523677530680517932010-04-30T01:09:54.240-05:002010-04-30T01:09:54.240-05:00Roderick,
The most famous and clearest proof tha...Roderick, <br /><br />The most famous and clearest proof that the Tradition-1 versus Tradition-0 distinction is without merit is the case of infant baptism. <br /><br />Protestants who baptize infants appeal to Scripture and 'tradition', while Baptists point out that while tradition has some value only the Scriptures can ultimately bind the conscience. The Baptists might even point out examples of long standing 'tradition' that are 'clearly false' such as baptismal regeneration, proving the Scripture is the safest and final authority. With this, the Baptist doesn't care how long or widespread infant baptism was, it doesn't have Biblical warrant and thus to be rejected. The other Protestants have no basis to overturn this Baptist reasoning. <br /><br />(And with this, any Protestant body can make the same argument to not heed any given tradition on any other given doctrine.)<br /><br />Thus, the tradition-1 versus tradition-0 distinction is clearly exposed as a distinction without a difference (and some would say simply a modern failed attempt to salvage sola scriptura).Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-9112521268420550672010-04-29T23:09:28.041-05:002010-04-29T23:09:28.041-05:00I want to thank Mr. Heschmeyer for his detailed in...I want to thank Mr. Heschmeyer for his detailed interaction with my original comments. In turn, I have tried to interact in detail with this article.<br /><br />Please see: <a href="http://thekingdomcome.com/types_of_sola_scriptura" rel="nofollow">thekingdomcome.com/types_of_sola_scriptura</a>Roderick_Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02169535715630771551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-32750523423263604652010-04-26T21:28:32.244-05:002010-04-26T21:28:32.244-05:00I agree with your reasoning overall and I especial...I agree with your reasoning overall and I especially liked the paragraph starting with "three ways of reconciling the conflict inherent in #3." <br /><br />The truth is, Tradition-1 is more or less an invented attempt to salvage Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura, according to the historic Protestant Confessions, means (in a nutshell) only teachings derived from Scripture are binding. Period. It doesn't matter how many people in history or the Church say X, if the Bible doesn't teach X, the Believer is not bound to it. <br /><br />This is where Tradition-1 comes apart, because "tradition" here is infinitely inferior to the authority of the Scriptures and thus can be rejected by any Protestant who considers any given "tradition" to not be biblical. <br /><br />I just wrote an apologetics article on how even Scripture doesn't teach Sola Scriptura, which is where the biggest Protestant dilemma is: <br />http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/04/sola-scriptura-is-unscriptural.htmlNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.com