From: bruceb@ctpm.uq.oz.au (Bruce Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of Scripture
Organization: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, Uni of Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Distribution: aus
Date: 11 Dec 92 02:04:21 GMT

ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:


>2/ Protestants, who claim to reject Tradition, actually still
>work within a tradition (e.g. that Jesus is God, Trinity)

>3/ strict bible-believing protestants claim (or at least seek) to reject
>tradition in favour of following what is explicit in the
>bible; though, because the Bible is not explicit on some areas, in
>practise they have to synthesize some doctrines that are implicit
>(e.g. Trinity). 

>So, maybe extreme-liberal not-so-strict bible-believing Protestants work
>outside a tradition, but the rest of Protestants actually don't. This is
>probably starts with the preaching of friends or family or evangelists, 
>and develops from that point from a denomination, books and a
>congregation. Catholicism makes this explicit, and doesn't pretend
>to be working outside a tradition, and goes so far as to say that Jesus
>actually established a sacred Tradition.

>Not all christian denominations share that heritage. Baptists and 
>Pentecostals were historically discontinuous rather than the result of
>a split, like Anglicanism. As postings to this group show, many christians
>give no credibility at all to tradition, seeking to be entirely bible-based.

>As far as secular origins of catholic developments, I think the Church
>practises the advise to "test all things, and hold fast to what is good",
>no matter what the source.

As a "strict" Bible believing protestant (at least I *think* I am :-)
I agree Rick that protestants of my persuasion *do* follow a tradition -
in my case the Wesleyan tradition which no doubt had its roots in John
Wesley's Anglican background.  Even Baptists and Pentecostals follow a
tradition, old or established by their congregation.  Really, it's not
possible to do otherwise - the Bible is a pretty big & complex book, and
life is a complicated thing.  If each of us tried to work out our own
theology we'd spend all our time doing it and nothing else.  However, the
"test all things, and hold fast to what is good" is applied in the sense
that the Bible is the final authority.  People use their knowledge of
their tradition to screen ideas and concepts, and if an apparent conflict
is found then go to the Bible, check it out thoroughly and perhaps ask
someone more knowledgable in the "tradition".  If the Bible clearly states
for or against a concept then it should be accepted or rejected in kind.
Human argument where clearly contradicted by Scripture should be rejected,
whether tradition or not.  Again, if your own tradition is being attacked,
then go to the Scriptures to see if it is a well founded attack.  If it is,
then perhaps your tradition needs adjusting.  

Many years of tradition (perhaps hundreds) deserve much respect *however*
people aren't infallible and a benchmark is absolutely necessary - the 
Bible.

Bruce
 
--
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose"
- Jim Elliot (Christian missionary killed by Auca Indians)
             
                  bruceb@ctpm.uq.oz.au