Sola Scriptura has never claimed to deny Sacred Tradition; [url]we have always accepted sacred tradition[/url]. There are at least four different views on the topic of Sacred Tradition and they can be defined as follows:
Tradition (0)- Tradition does not exist.
Tradition (1)- Tradition does exist; however, these are traditions that are complementary to the scriptures.
Tradition (2)- Tradition does exist; however, these are traditions that are not only complementary to the Scriptures, but also are supplementary.
Tradition (3)- Tradition does exist; however, these are traditions that are not only complentary and supplementary to the Scriptures, but are also revelational.
In these views, I stick to the 'tradition (1)' scheme, just like the rest of the Reformers.
I'm not strong on bibliology, or formal logic, but it seems that Parker just said that (1)"we always accepted sacred tradition", but only as "complementary to the scriptures". Thus Sacred Tradition exists.
Unfortunately for most Roman Catholics, their understanding of tradition (as posted in tradition #3) is not supported either by history or Scripture. Although Scripture and the Fathers do mention 'tradition' in their writings, whenever they do mention them, the term is not used in the same way Catholics like it to be used.
He then proceeds to tell us how Catholics understand tradition and then states that our understanding is incorrect -- that we wish tradition to mean something that it does not.
He acknowledges that both Scripture and the Fathers cite tradition, but that neither defines tradition in the Catholic sense. He relies upon his omniscience in this, I suppose -- since he does not explicate on the specific content of either Scripture or the Fathers to support his assertion.
He further states that the Catholic definition is not supported by either history or Scripture. In this he ignores the bald historical fact that Scripture, as currently aggregated, did not exist until either or all of the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa or the Councils of Carthage. And he will be able to point out, I'm sure, how Scripture clarifies and differentiates between, using his model, Traditions (1) and (3).
I can back this one up; would you like a Keith Mathison or a James White quote?
And then -- and those more versed in logic than I can comment -- he supports his assertion that Scripture confirms Tradition (1) by citing, not Scripture, but two contemporary Sola Scriptura advocates.
Honestly, without sarcasm, isn't Parker just parroting the opinions of others without providing any evidence from the Scripture he will not cite and without addressing the history he casually dismisses?
Bumble, I feel your pain.