The Role of Tradition and Consensus in Discerning Truth from Error

[Guest mormonmusic]

One point upon which I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Mormons and Protestants and even Catholic religions disagree, is the role of tradition in determining truth and error.

If I understand it correctly, much doctrine, such as the nature of God, for example, is the result of consensus and tradition among Protestant and Catholic religious scholars. This consensus and tradition is considered a major source of truth on issues that have been the subject of debate among Protestant and Catholic groups in the past. For example, the Nicene Creed -- that was a result of tradition and consensus coming out of the Council of Nicea, making the concept of the Trinity clearer.

Naturally, I've chosen to believe in other sources of truth as I've walked my own journey in trying to discover God's will. However, I've never taken a hard look at the role of Tradition and Consensus from the perspective of a non-LDS Christian.

So, two questions:

1) What is the position of non-LDS Christian churches on the role of tradition and consensus in establishing truth and doctrine?

2) What are the arguments in favor of using tradition and consensus as a means of arriving at the truth?

This is another one of those posts where I don't intend to argue against anything or give counterpoint. I'd like to simply steep myself in the arguments and the perspective of the non-LDS people who are interested in this thread.

[prisonchaplain]

Most Protestants tend to knee-jerk react against the importance of tradition. However, we do rely on it. That's why we study church history. It's why we would look to the writings of Luther, Calvin, John Wesley, etc. While tradition does not rise to the level of scripture, it does guide us. If we believe God has given some to be teachers, then it ought not be left to each new generation to rediscover ancient truths.

When my church began formally teaching about spiritual gifts, the first argument against us is that they had been dormant for so long. My view is that we ultimately demonstrated that the lapse was on the part of the church, not God, in that the revival has sustained for nearly 100 years now. But, we did have to answer that charge.

To be simple, tradition raises the level of the innovator's burden of proof. The new thing may be true, but the evidence required is more substantial.

[rameumptom]

One point upon which I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Mormons and Protestants and even Catholic religions disagree, is the role of tradition in determining truth and error.

If I understand it correctly, much doctrine, such as the nature of God, for example, is the result of consensus and tradition among Protestant and Catholic religious scholars. This consensus and tradition is considered a major source of truth on issues that have been the subject of debate among Protestant and Catholic groups in the past. For example, the Nicene Creed -- that was a result of tradition and consensus coming out of the Council of Nicea, making the concept of the Trinity clearer.

Naturally, I've chosen to believe in other sources of truth as I've walked my own journey in trying to discover God's will. However, I've never taken a hard look at the role of Tradition and Consensus from the perspective of a non-LDS Christian.

So, two questions:

1) What is the position of non-LDS Christian churches on the role of tradition and consensus in establishing truth and doctrine?

2) What are the arguments in favor of using tradition and consensus as a means of arriving at the truth?

This is another one of those posts where I don't intend to argue against anything or give counterpoint. I'd like to simply steep myself in the arguments and the perspective of the non-LDS people who are interested in this thread.

I would note that the Protestants were not involved in the early discussions of Trinity, etc. They broke off from the Catholic Church almost 1000 years later, and took many of the traditions with them.

I think Catholics probably use tradition more than Protestants. It is often established by them in ecumenical councils and established as official dogma of the Church (such as the 1870 infallibility of the Pope). It helps them define concepts that are not well-defined in the scriptures themselves.

As for the Protestants, there are now so many sects (big and small) that vary on how they view tradition, and even have their own dogma traditions separate from Protestants at large.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Most Protestants tend to knee-jerk react against the importance of tradition. However, we do rely on it. That's why we study church history. It's why we would look to the writings of Luther, Calvin, John Wesley, etc. While tradition does not rise to the level of scripture, it does guide us. If we believe God has given some to be teachers, then it ought not be left to each new generation to rediscover ancient truths.

In those areas where the scriptures aren't necessarily clear, and if tradition is sort of a reluctant source of truth (if that's what you meant, correct me if I'm wrong), then what other means are used to arrive at truth in Protestant religions you're familiar with?

Also, how do you recognize someone as a teacher that God has given to be a teacher from a Protestant perspective?

[Faded]

Most Protestants tend to knee-jerk react against the importance of tradition. However, we do rely on it. That's why we study church history. It's why we would look to the writings of Luther, Calvin, John Wesley, etc. While tradition does not rise to the level of scripture, it does guide us. If we believe God has given some to be teachers, then it ought not be left to each new generation to rediscover ancient truths.

When my church began formally teaching about spiritual gifts, the first argument against us is that they had been dormant for so long. My view is that we ultimately demonstrated that the lapse was on the part of the church, not God, in that the revival has sustained for nearly 100 years now. But, we did have to answer that charge.

To be simple, tradition raises the level of the innovator's burden of proof. The new thing may be true, but the evidence required is more substantial.

Interesting point on spiritual gifts. As a rule, must tradition be proven wrong in all cases? It does seem to me that Luther threw out a number of things without overwhelming Biblical proof that he should do so, but I could be wrong.

The item that has always puzzled me has been the almost universal acceptance of the Council of Nicaea and many of it's conclusions. Protestants generally reject every other Ecumenical Council to some degree, but not Nicaea. It's always struck me as very out of character for the whole Protestant movement. Protestant reformers always sought to question and either thoroughly validate or reject everything the Catholic Church ever taught, based upon Scripture. Concepts like the Trinity and ex nihilo creation tend to get a free pass. Giving ANYTHING a free pass seems very out of character for the entire movement. Or were they ever questioned or debated?

I suppose that would be an additional item where Protestantism relies on non-Biblical tradition as a basis for truth. And there are a number of other examples.

This being said, I've got no interest in debating Trinity vs Godhead vs Whatever. Done to death and always a pointless debate.

[prisonchaplain]

In those areas where the scriptures aren't necessarily clear, and if tradition is sort of a reluctant source of truth (if that's what you meant, correct me if I'm wrong), then what other means are used to arrive at truth in Protestant religions you're familiar with?

Also, how do you recognize someone as a teacher that God has given to be a teacher from a Protestant perspective?

I'm not even so sure we are relucatant about tradition. We just don't call it that, because that's what the Catholics call it, and we think they are wrong and we are right... But, what we say is, "We've always done it like that...we've always believed that way..."

What I see as a pattern is that we are usually simply content to teach the Bible, in its context, for what it is. Over time questions arise, and sometimes there are differing opinions. If the issue is troublesome, leadership will go to prayer, and often commission our best scholars to develop a systematic teaching on the matter. A fairly recent example is two rather large, but controversial revivals that took place. One was in Brownsville, FL, back in the mid-90s. The other, more recently, involved an evangelist who looked like a biker, was nearly covered in tattoos, and who made some rather extraordinary claims. Some argued that these revivals were absolutely from God, and that we should either "get in the river" or get washed to the side. Others questioned some of the teachings and some of the seemingly unscriptural manifestations. Ultimately a paper was produced which offered guidelines and cautions, while affirming the sincere desire of God's people to believe for miraculous moves of his Spirit.

We discern truth and who teaches it prayerfully, looking to the teachings of the person, the reputation they have, and to their consistent service. Our process is a bit slow, but it is bathed in prayer, and looks far beyond mere educational achievement. And yet, we look not to ordain or call people, but rather to confirm the calling that God has already given to the person.

Although my movement is a Spirit-led one, we are also prone to say, "What does the Bible say about that?" We strongly seek the free move of the Spirit, but we are loathe to be "led astray by every wind of doctrine."

[Soninme]

The item that has always puzzled me has been the almost universal acceptance of the Council of Nicaea and many of it's conclusions. Protestants generally reject every other Ecumenical Council to some degree, but not Nicaea. It's always struck me as very out of character for the whole Protestant movement. Protestant reformers always sought to question and either thoroughly validate or reject everything the Catholic Church ever taught, based upon Scripture. Concepts like the Trinity and ex nihilo creation tend to get a free pass.

As a Protestant I accept the Nicene and also the Athanasian Creeds not because of tradition but because they are scriptural. Along with, of course, the Trinity and creation out of nothing.

In those areas where the scriptures aren't necessarily clear, and if tradition is sort of a reluctant source of truth (if that's what you meant, correct me if I'm wrong), then what other means are used to arrive at truth in Protestant religions you're familiar with?

For me if scripture (the Bible) isn't clear on a specific subject then it's not considered an essential doctrine, (one that is necessary for salvation) such as say eating or not eating meat or pre-trib rapture or post.

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

We believe Christians can debate these questions but should never divide over them, although sadly some seem to.

Tradition can be a great teacher and church fathers can be very helpful but first and foremost their teachings and beliefs MUST line up with God's word as I believe my Catholic friends would also agree.

Also, how do you recognize someone as a teacher that God has given to be a teacher from a Protestant perspective?

Their teachings will line up with scripture.

[Guest mormonmusic]

If the issue is troublesome, leadership will go to prayer, and often commission our best scholars to develop a systematic teaching on the matter.

Hope you don't mind me asking all these questions, but I have another one. Recognizing that your approach to leadership and ordinations is different than the LDS view, I'm curious, how does one become a Bible scholar? You said you look to their service, reputation, etcetera. How does one build such a reputation, and what kinds of service tend to be meaningful to the point a person is considered one of the best scholars, who is sought after during times of confusion?

[prisonchaplain]

MM, A Bible scholar is one who achieves both the approval of church leadership and academic credentials. For example, I have a graduate degree, but I am not a Bible scholar. I did not pursue the academic side of study to that level--gaining the necessary knowledge in Greek, Hebrew, perhaps Aramiac, and digging into Scripture study to the level where I am writing peer-reviewed academic material for publish. To be exact, the scholars would be our professors.

[cofchristcousin]

Interesting topic, and one that is close to my heart. Most of my work in my denomination is in sharing spiritual practices and processes that shape group discernment. I've pulled together some writings from our Doctrine and Covenants and commentary that shows some of the principles of discernment that we are striving to learn and live.

-------------

The church affirms that scripture is inspired and essential to our knowledge of God and the gospel. In addition, we believe that scripture should be interpreted responsibly through informed study, guided by the Spirit working in the church. Scripture was formed by the community to shape the community. Therefore, interpreting scripture is the constant work of the community. In other words, understanding and applying scripture is not just a matter of reading a passage and deciding on our own what it means.

Community of Christ also stresses that all scripture must be interpreted through the lens of God’s most-decisive revelation in Jesus Christ. So if portions of scripture don’t agree with our fullest understanding of the meaning of the revelation of God in Christ, as illuminated by the Holy Spirit and discerned by the faith community, the teachings and vision of Christ take precedence. This principle applies to all of our books of scripture, especially any passage used by some to assign God’s disfavor, negative characteristics, or secondary roles to others.

This is why our belief in “continuing revelation” is so important. This belief keeps us open to “yet more light and truth” so we can grow in understanding of God’s supreme will as revealed in Christ.

Doctrine and Covenants 163:7d states that “Scripture, prophetic guidance, knowledge, and discernment in the faith community must walk hand in hand to reveal the true will of God. Follow this pathway, which is the way of the Living Christ, and you will discover more than sufficient light for the journey ahead.”

------------

God, the Eternal Creator, weeps for the poor, displaced, mistreated, and diseased of the world because of their unnecessary suffering. Such conditions are not God’s will. Open your ears to hear the pleading of mothers and fathers in all nations who desperately seek a future of hope for their children. Do not turn away from them. For in their welfare resides your welfare.

--------

Do not turn away in pride, fear, or guilt from the One who seeks only the best for you and your loved ones. Come before your Eternal Creator with open minds and hearts and discover the blessings of the gospel anew. Be vulnerable to divine grace.

-----------

When your willingness to live in sacred community as Christ’s new creation exceeds your natural fear of spiritual and relational transformation, you will become who you are called to be. The rise of Zion the beautiful, the peaceful reign of Christ, awaits your wholehearted response to the call to make and steadfastly hold to God’s covenant of peace in Jesus Christ.

--------------

“Above all else, strive to be faithful to Christ’s vision of the peaceable Kingdom of God on earth.”

Edited May 20, 2010 by cofchristcousin

[prisonchaplain]

Faded, perhaps you've overestimated the "protest" in Protestant? Luther challenged very little of Catholic doctrine about the nature of God, of creation, etc. His primary concern was corruption in church practice. Many of these contentions were birthed out of tradition, not scripture. And indeed, Protestant churches do retain most Catholic doctrine.

[SeekingTruth]

One point upon which I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Mormons and Protestants and even Catholic religions disagree, is the role of tradition in determining truth and error.

If I understand it correctly, much doctrine, such as the nature of God, for example, is the result of consensus and tradition among Protestant and Catholic religious scholars. This consensus and tradition is considered a major source of truth on issues that have been the subject of debate among Protestant and Catholic groups in the past. For example, the Nicene Creed -- that was a result of tradition and consensus coming out of the Council of Nicea, making the concept of the Trinity clearer.

Naturally, I've chosen to believe in other sources of truth as I've walked my own journey in trying to discover God's will. However, I've never taken a hard look at the role of Tradition and Consensus from the perspective of a non-LDS Christian.

So, two questions:

1) What is the position of non-LDS Christian churches on the role of tradition and consensus in establishing truth and doctrine?

2) What are the arguments in favor of using tradition and consensus as a means of arriving at the truth?

This is another one of those posts where I don't intend to argue against anything or give counterpoint. I'd like to simply steep myself in the arguments and the perspective of the non-LDS people who are interested in this thread.

I think you'll find that Catholics and Mormons are closer on this question than one might initially think. (As you can probably tell, I'm going to answer with a Catholic perspective )

1) What is the position of non-LDS Christian churches on the role of tradition and consensus in establishing truth and doctrine?

Catholics hold that apostolic tradition, along with sacred scripture, constitute what we call the "deposit of faith". Unlike most of our Protestant brothers and sisters, we do not believe in "sola scriptura". Nowhere in sacred scripture is there anything that says we must hold to only what is written in scripture. In fact, St. Paul says otherwise, in his letter to the Thessalonians. "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." --2 Thessalonians 2:15

Catholics also believe that everything that was to be revealed was revealed in Jesus Christ (this, obviously, is a point of disagreement between the LDS and Catholics) and that we have access to that revelation via sacred scripture and apostolic tradition. Of course, just because revelation was fulfilled in Jesus, that doesn't mean we fully understood that revelation fully. Our understanding of the faith is continuously growing, but it is firmly grounded in the deposit of faith.

Therefore tradition, along with sacred scripture, and the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, together establish truth and doctrine.

2) What are the arguments in favor of using tradition and consensus as a means of arriving at the truth?

Well, I think that, if one believes that the Holy Spirit was sent by Christ to guide and protect the Church, the use of tradition is something that makes sense. The canon of the Bible had to be decided somehow by the Church. And St. Paul himself states that there are truths not written down, but passed on by oral tradition.

There is little that can be established from scripture alone. There needs to be a way to interpret scripture that is guided by the Holy Spirit and can be verified.