[The Reformers’] conflict with the papacy was not a choice between Scripture and tradition, but a conflict between their view of tradition and the papacy’s view of tradition.
I am confident that the John 16 passage is explaining how the New Testament was written through the apostles and other first generation writers. For one thing, Jesus is talking to the 12 apostles only in that passage. The description does not broadly apply to believers through the years. The Apostle John states that the Holy Spirit does have a role in teaching every believer though in 1 John 2:20-21,27. So He does the same work to teach us the Scripture that He did to inspire the writing of Scripture. That means that throughout time we have a record of faithful interpretation of the Bible that today we can use as a guide. That could be what true tradition is. But that doesn't mean we have infallible interpreters nor interpretations to go back to. That means it is important for each believer to engage the Holy Spirit and learn the Scripture from Him. It is only through this process that we can understand where the Fathers were correct and where they were incorrect. When we see someone from long ago teaching the meaning of the Bible correctly it is a great encouragement and it solidifies our faith. But there are times when even the big name theologians from history were wrong on things and we shouldn't be afraid of saying that if we have an interpretation that better explains what the Bible says.
Also, we have 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that says sola Scriptura is needed to be equipped for any and every Christian work. We also have to be aware that Jesus Himself criticized the Pharisees for valuing their tradition over Scripture. Following tradition had actually lead them to violate Biblical commands. Jesus words to them were very harsh.
RMB, as you know I am in strong agreement on the topic of Scripture as the only infallible source. However, I find the following problematic:
"That means it is important for each believer to engage the Holy Spirit and learn the Scripture from Him."
This really is impossible, for each individual to gain, in his lifetime, the richness of the Scripture. Too much work was done by too many faithful men that helped develop and refine the doctrines of the faith.
Certainly, where doctrines or dogmas are clearly contrary to what is found in Scripture, these must be dismissed. But developed tradition, where it does not contradict Scripture, is necessary. However, where it isn't clear in Scripture but doesn't contradict Scripture, I find acceptable.
I recently saw a video by Carl Trueman on this topic, Protestants properly engaging with tradition and the early Church fathers. Might be worth a watch:
As I said in my original comment "true" tradition is a guide to us today, and should be learned and followed.
But how will anyone know what is true or not if they don't first engage the Scripture directly? I don't mean that every person can research every issue for themselves. But what I am saying is that believers need a foundation of Biblical understanding so that they can recognize what is true and what isn't. Of course pastors and elders help with that too. But we have seen how institutions and experts can lead people astray. The escape mechanism for that problem is for individuals to do their own study with the Holy Spirit as their guide.
Perhaps we are saying the same thing; let me try it this way. As I have noted often, I attend both a Protestant Church and, not as often, but regularly, an Orthodox Church. The pastor at the Protestant church is tremendously well grounded in Scripture, therefore I trust him tremendously when he speaks on Biblical topics. Now, on some things, I may disagree, but I view the burden rests on me, not him.
Of course, given that in this country (and much of the western world), we are free to find a pastor about which we can all say the same thing I said. So, in this regard, in a manner, I have done my own research - a research into a pastor who teaches according to how I understand Scripture, but he has much more knowledge and depth.
For the priest at the Orthodox church, I have attended Bible studies with him. He is quite knowledgeable and educated, so I do respect his expository teaching. But not as much as I do the Protestant pastor's expository teaching.
Going a step further, with the patristics, I respect those that the Church recognizes as faithful saints. But it doesn't mean I agree with all of it. Yet, here again, as with my Protestant pastor, I feel the burden rests on me, not on the recognized patristic father.
I think we are on the same page. We shouldn't be quick to assume that we have figured something out that other smart, faithful Christians haven't for hundreds of years. That doesn't rule the possibility out but like you said the burden of proof is on the me or the person who claims to have discovered something new or teaches an innovation.
I am confident that the John 16 passage is explaining how the New Testament was written through the apostles and other first generation writers. For one thing, Jesus is talking to the 12 apostles only in that passage. The description does not broadly apply to believers through the years. The Apostle John states that the Holy Spirit does have a role in teaching every believer though in 1 John 2:20-21,27. So He does the same work to teach us the Scripture that He did to inspire the writing of Scripture. That means that throughout time we have a record of faithful interpretation of the Bible that today we can use as a guide. That could be what true tradition is. But that doesn't mean we have infallible interpreters nor interpretations to go back to. That means it is important for each believer to engage the Holy Spirit and learn the Scripture from Him. It is only through this process that we can understand where the Fathers were correct and where they were incorrect. When we see someone from long ago teaching the meaning of the Bible correctly it is a great encouragement and it solidifies our faith. But there are times when even the big name theologians from history were wrong on things and we shouldn't be afraid of saying that if we have an interpretation that better explains what the Bible says.
Also, we have 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that says sola Scriptura is needed to be equipped for any and every Christian work. We also have to be aware that Jesus Himself criticized the Pharisees for valuing their tradition over Scripture. Following tradition had actually lead them to violate Biblical commands. Jesus words to them were very harsh.
thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com
RMB, as you know I am in strong agreement on the topic of Scripture as the only infallible source. However, I find the following problematic:
"That means it is important for each believer to engage the Holy Spirit and learn the Scripture from Him."
This really is impossible, for each individual to gain, in his lifetime, the richness of the Scripture. Too much work was done by too many faithful men that helped develop and refine the doctrines of the faith.
Certainly, where doctrines or dogmas are clearly contrary to what is found in Scripture, these must be dismissed. But developed tradition, where it does not contradict Scripture, is necessary. However, where it isn't clear in Scripture but doesn't contradict Scripture, I find acceptable.
I recently saw a video by Carl Trueman on this topic, Protestants properly engaging with tradition and the early Church fathers. Might be worth a watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GubwG5aU-ss
As I said in my original comment "true" tradition is a guide to us today, and should be learned and followed.
But how will anyone know what is true or not if they don't first engage the Scripture directly? I don't mean that every person can research every issue for themselves. But what I am saying is that believers need a foundation of Biblical understanding so that they can recognize what is true and what isn't. Of course pastors and elders help with that too. But we have seen how institutions and experts can lead people astray. The escape mechanism for that problem is for individuals to do their own study with the Holy Spirit as their guide.
Perhaps we are saying the same thing; let me try it this way. As I have noted often, I attend both a Protestant Church and, not as often, but regularly, an Orthodox Church. The pastor at the Protestant church is tremendously well grounded in Scripture, therefore I trust him tremendously when he speaks on Biblical topics. Now, on some things, I may disagree, but I view the burden rests on me, not him.
Of course, given that in this country (and much of the western world), we are free to find a pastor about which we can all say the same thing I said. So, in this regard, in a manner, I have done my own research - a research into a pastor who teaches according to how I understand Scripture, but he has much more knowledge and depth.
For the priest at the Orthodox church, I have attended Bible studies with him. He is quite knowledgeable and educated, so I do respect his expository teaching. But not as much as I do the Protestant pastor's expository teaching.
Going a step further, with the patristics, I respect those that the Church recognizes as faithful saints. But it doesn't mean I agree with all of it. Yet, here again, as with my Protestant pastor, I feel the burden rests on me, not on the recognized patristic father.
I think we are on the same page. We shouldn't be quick to assume that we have figured something out that other smart, faithful Christians haven't for hundreds of years. That doesn't rule the possibility out but like you said the burden of proof is on the me or the person who claims to have discovered something new or teaches an innovation.
thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com