Scripture and Tradition

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There is no equivalence between the Catholic Church and the LDS.

The RCC and LDS denominations certainly embrace different Traditions. But they both claim such is the Apostolic Tradition (the LDS immediately published most of it, the RCC still hasn't), the both claim to be the "depository" of such (the LDS calls it being the "Steward of the Mysteries of Christ"), both claim to be the Church of Christ, both claim to have a conditionally infallible Magisterium in which alone is Authority, and both use their OWN "Tradition" as the norma normans for the self-same, thus PROVING perfectly that they are 100% correct.

I have NEVER remotely suggested that either the RCC or LDS is right or wrong, good or bad. Since both point to their OWN understanding of Tradition as their norma normans - the Norm that norms - they are BOTH 100% correct in their own minds. And since they will only accept evaluations based on their OWN understanding of what is the Apostolic Tradition and their OWN interpretion and application of such, and their OWN Magisterium, they both boldly and loudly reject any accountablity outside of themselves (they are the two foremost opponents of Sola Scriptura), then neither can be questioned at all. They are correct because they are correct. It's unquestionable, they are unaccountable - except to themselves. It's fun seeing them in the same room. I have. It's a profoundly revealing experience. Same exactly arguements and claims and norming process - only the three letters are different.

Besides, acting as if Catholics and Mormons believe in tradition and Evangelicals do not is either 1) not very honest or 2) not very perceptive or 3) both.

Catholics LOVE to frame the discussion as "Scripture VS. Tradition."
It's a strawman because no Protestant (known to me) rejects Tradition.
Read the opening post.


I've made this point (as has many other Protestants here) over and over.
I embrace Tradition and hold it in very high esteem.
I consider it ESSENTIAL in hermaneutics.
I just don't assume that YOUR "understanding" of "it" is infallible, or that your particular denomination as a monopoly on such.
And - kinda the point here - I don't use Tradition as my 'norma normans' so that views are the norm for the self-same views.

Evangelicals have their own traditions, which have been passed down and embellished and developed since the Reformation of the 16th century. Their understanding of the Bible is the product of that tradition. People who read the Bible and understand it in one of the multitude of Evangelical ways are helped to that understanding via the teachings and guidance they receive from other Evangelicals, whether through the printed word or by word-of-mouth.Don't kid yourself. That's tradition.

Yup.
As many Protestants have pointed out. Repeatedly.
But our Tradition goes back to the First Century, as does yours. Which is probably why the great majority of our Tradition is exactly the same. But, yes, we don't assume that any single, individual person, congregation or denomination's understanding of such is Infallible and the Norm for itself.
No one is rejecting Tradition - that would be stupid. We embrace it, esteem it, use it. But in hermanuetics, not norming.

Read the opening post.

A private individual can be wrong about it.

EXACTLY!!!!!
You are THAT close to embracing Sola Scriptura.

And if an individual person can be wrong, can an individual congregation or denomination? If an individual can be wrong, can an individual group be wrong? And if people can be wrong, why people as the "NORM" for truth?
Rhetorical questions, I know the RCC response. I'm just hoping you'll see the Protestant perspective here.

And AGAIN, no one - NO ONE - is denying the important, the necessity, the essential need for Tradition. The slow, thoughful, prayerful, deliberate building of consensus of God's people. We just don't subject the Bible to how OUR individual congregation or denomination has hammered that out, we do it the other way around. It's NOT a question of Scripture OR Tradition. It's a question of which norms which.

It's PROTESTANTS who are rejecting the idea that an individual person, congregation or denomination's interpretation of the Word is true cuz they say so. This is the RCC's position. We are insisting on accountability, the RCC is insisting non is needed for THEM - they are correct.

If you believe certain things about the Christian faith and you find that the Church Fathers disagreed with you, you might want to consider the possibility that you are wrong, that the Fathers knew more than you do.

You're coming to understand Sola Scriptura pretty well.
The only thing I'd add to this is that those whom an individual denomination choses to quote (LDS, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. don't necessary quote the same people or use them same quotes when they do or interpret them the same even if the same quote is used) is that they aren't right just cuz they are right. Augustine, Basil, Calvin, Billy Graham they are all accountable for what they teach.

Where does the Bible say that norm was supposed to change?

You are suggesting a far more radical thing than I am. No one is suggesting we through the baby out with the bathwater. But I would refer you to what Jesus pointed to, what the Apostles themselves pointed to. Jesus refered MANY, MANY times to the Scriptures, the writtings, the Word - over and over and over. And this BEFORE their had been any institutional "council" (Jewish OR Christian) that had developed an institution's understanding of the "Canon." To Jesus and the Apostles, they were SCRIPTURES even though no single tome existed and NO institution had so ruled. He called them "Scriptures" and use them - many, many times - as the Authority, the Norm, the Source. He did refer to tradition (7 times, if I remember right) - all but two of them negatively, as something bad. We might take that into account. And we might remember all the warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, those who would lead many astray, the danger of man's philosophy and teaches, etc. Protestants keep these things in mind.



MY view...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[lionroar0]

The RCC and LDS denominations certainly embrace different Traditions. But they both claim such is the Apostolic Tradition (the LDS immediately published most of it, the RCC still hasn't), the both claim to be the "depository" of such (the LDS calls it being the "Steward of the Mysteries of Christ"), both claim to be the Church of Christ, both claim to have a conditionally infallible Magisterium in which alone is Authority, and both use their OWN "Tradition" as the norma normans for the self-same, thus PROVING perfectly that they are 100% correct.

NOthing but obsfucation. The RCC is not the only Church that holds to Apostolic Tradition. The EOC also does also.

Where is the objective evidence that the LDS hold to Apostolic Tradition? With out any evidence this is just an opinion and any one can have an opinion.

I have NEVER remotely suggested that either the RCC or LDS is right or wrong, good or bad. Since both point to their OWN understanding of Tradition as their norma normans - the Norm that norms - they are BOTH 100% correct in their own minds. And since they will only accept evaluations based on their OWN understanding of what is the Apostolic Tradition and their OWN interpretion and application of such, and their OWN Magisterium, they both boldly and loudly reject any accountablity outside of themselves (they are the two foremost opponents of Sola Scriptura), then neither can be questioned at all. They are correct because they are correct. It's unquestionable, they are unaccountable - except to themselves. It's fun seeing them in the same room. I have. It's a profoundly revealing experience. Same exactly arguements and claims and norming process - only the three letters are different.

What can be said about this but more obsfucation.

EXACTLY!!!!!
You are THAT close to embracing Sola Scriptura.

You misunderstand Maximux position. If I understand the EOC postion correctly. It is that the Church is infallble by a colligiate counsil of bishops. Not by any individual nay they be a bishop or not.

And AGAIN, no one - NO ONE - is denying the important, the necessity, the essential need for Tradition. The slow, thoughful, prayerful, deliberate building of consensus of God's people. We just don't subject the Bible to how OUR individual congregation or denomination has hammered that out, we do it the other way around. It's NOT a question of Scripture OR Tradition. It's a question of which norms which.

Again Tradition is not something the slow deliberate consesus of people. It is what Jesus taught and passed own.

Augustine, Basil, Calvin, Billy Graham they are all accountable for what they teach.

Augistine and Basil were ac****able to the Church the Bory of Christ. Calvin and Billy Graham are accountalbe to themselves and what they thouhgt and think individually. False comparison.

Jesus refered MANY, MANY times to the Scriptures, the writtings, the Word - over and over and over. And this BEFORE their had been any institutional "council" (Jewish OR Christian) that had developed an institution's understanding of the "Canon." To Jesus and the Apostles, they were SCRIPTURES even though no single tome existed and NO institution had so ruled. He called them "Scriptures" and use them - many, many times - as the Authority, the Norm, the Source. He did refer to tradition (7 times, if I remember right) - all but two of them negatively, as something bad.

Well being that the Torah is God given through Moses as is the Jewish position and they were Jewish; it is pretty obvious that they hold it as an Authority. BTW Jesus also things that were not written in the OT. Ever wonder where they come from?

We might take that into account. And we might remember all the warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, those who would lead many astray, the danger of man's philosophy and teaches, etc. Protestants keep these things in mind.

And the Bible also tells us to hold on to those Tradition either passed on by epistles or word of mouth.


Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

NOthing but obsfucation. The RCC is not the only Church that holds to Apostolic Tradition. The EOC also does also.

Where is the objective evidence that the LDS hold to Apostolic Tradition? With out any evidence this is just an opinion and any one can have an opinion.

I think you answered your own question.


Sure, the RCC can claim that they have some undefinable, unseen "Apostolic Tradition." The LDS can claim it, too. You both "prove" that you do by pointing to the very same "Apostolic Tradition" that you claim you have. Only difference: the LDS wrote most it down within a few years of receiving it, so we can judge their interpretations and applications according to what they claim they recieved.


Yes, the RC and EO both acknowledge that the other was "there" for this mysterious "passing on" of the Apostolic Tradition. But since neither has seen or recorded such, and since neither agrees with the other on the identification, interpretation or application of such, it makes it a bit hard for others to grasp. You have much in common, I agree! But I have much in common with you both (probably more with the East than West).

Again Tradition is not something the slow deliberate consesus of people. It is what Jesus taught and passed own.

I'm looking forward to the day when you can get past this...
The RCC has a different understanding of Tradition than Protestants do.
I know that. Someday, you might.

I realize your process here, that the RCC is just right and the Tradition that your particular denomination embraces and then makes the Norm for itself proves it. I know that. But I'm not getting on board that circular process. You're asking me to just accept that the RCC is right cuz it says it is and I'm not doing that. I'm calling for accountability, you're calling for accepting something without question. I'm not saying you are wrong or false or bad; I'm not making any judgements here. I'm simply trying to understand and be understood. It's called discussion.

Well being that the Torah is God given through Moses as is the Jewish position and they were Jewish; it is pretty obvious that they hold it as an Authority.

You didn't understand me.
I was only pointing out to what JESUS referred - what norm He used.
He pointed us to Scripture over 100 times.
He pointed to tradition 7 (and 5 of them negatively!)
And Jesus quoted from far more than the Torah (no council on that either, though).
Draw your own conclusions...


And yes, the point that Scriptures aren't Scriptures until the RCC says they are seems denied by the fact that Jesus refers to, quotes and considers Authoritative the Scriptures long before any council - Jewish or Christian - declared them so and before they were altogether in one tome. So much for that arguement - a council does not Scripture make, an institution does not Scripture make.


MY view...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[lionroar0]

I think you answered your own question.


Sure, the RCC can claim that they have some undefinable, unseen "Apostolic Tradition." The LDS can claim it, too. You both "prove" that you do by pointing to the very same "Apostolic Tradition" that you claim you have. Only difference: the LDS wrote most it down within a few years of receiving it, so we can judge their interpretations and applications according to what they claim they recieved.

More obsfucation. Amazing!!!!! Where is the objective evidence THAT THE LDS HOLD TO APOSTOLIC TRADITION???? WHERE ARE THE ECF'S QUOTES THAT MENTION JOSEPH SMITH AND THE BOOK OF MORMON? WHERE ARE THE QUOTES FROM THE ECF'S ESTATING THAT JESUS CAME TO THE US?

If you are unable to provide objective evidence then say so. It's time to put up or
shut up!!!!!!

I'm looking forward to the day when you can get past this...
The RCC has a different understanding of Tradition than Protestants do.
I know that. Someday, you might.

I realize your process here, that the RCC is just right and the Tradition that your particular denomination embraces and then makes the Norm for itself proves it. I know that. But I'm not getting on board that circular process. You're asking me to just accept that the RCC is right cuz it says it is and I'm not doing that. I'm calling for accountability, you're calling for accepting something without question. I'm not saying you are wrong or false or bad; I'm not making any judgements here. I'm simply trying to understand and be understood. It's called discussion.

The Bible says that Charm is deceptive. This post is full of it. It has been repeatly asked to provide proof that the ECF'S back up the LDS Tradition. AS of yet no objective evidence has been provided then you try to confuse the argument by pretending to know me. Incredible!!!! There's defitnely axe grinding going on here.

You didn't understand me.
I was only pointing out to what JESUS referred - what norm He used.
He pointed us to Scripture over 100 times.
He pointed to tradition 7 (and 5 of them negatively!)
And Jesus quoted from far more than the Torah (no council on that either, though).
Draw your own conclusions...

No I undertood you perfectly. This is nothing but obsfucation and trying to go off topic. The comment about they knowing what was scripture and having no consil to say so is rediculous and acedemicly dishonest at best in view of the facts. The Torah both the Writen wich is being emphasized and the ORAL TORAH!!! Wich for some reason is being ignored.(probalby axe grinding) Was God given directly from God from the mouth of God.

ALso Jesus did not quote the whole OT and he stated things that were not in it. Quoting Scripture does not make "Scripture"

And yes, the point that Scriptures aren't Scriptures until the RCC says they are seems denied by the fact that Jesus refers to, quotes and considers Authoritative the Scriptures long before any council - Jewish or Christian - declared them so and before they were altogether in one tome. So much for that arguement - a council does not Scripture make, an institution does not Scripture make.

Then we should toss out those books that Jesus did not quote from and the things that Jesus said that are not in Scripture too.

Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Where is the objective evidence THAT THE LDS HOLD TO APOSTOLIC TRADITION???? WHERE ARE THE ECF'S QUOTES THAT MENTION JOSEPH SMITH AND THE BOOK OF MORMON? WHERE ARE THE QUOTES FROM THE ECF'S ESTATING THAT JESUS CAME TO THE US?

Once again, you answered your own question (this time SHOUTING it).

The "objective evidence" that the LDS points to is exactly the same "objective evidence" that the RCC points to - the "Apostolic Tradition" as you and the LDS each understand, interpret and apply it (each of you infallibly). It's "objective" because you BOTH norm your "Apostolic Tradition" on the basis of very self-same, thus insuring that it is "objective evidence." Exactly the same process - you just the "Apostolic Tradition" that you both self-claim to have received is different. Exactly the same process.

Yes, the RCC quotes from the people they like, taking the little bits of quotes here and there that they like, interpreting them as they will - all infallibly because they are The Church. And you call those people you like "Church Fathers" and the ones you don't, "Heretics." The LDS quotes from the people they like, taking the little bits of quotes here and there that they like, interpreting them as they will - all truthfully because they are The Church. And they call those people "Apostles" and/or "Prophets." Of course, all your "church fathers" you consider "catholic" (oops, "Catholic") and all the ones the LDS considers are "Mormon" (oops, LDS). Exactly the same process. Same deal.


Like I said, you answered your own question.

It has been repeatly asked to provide proof that the ECF'S back up the LDS Tradition. AS of yet no objective evidence has been provided

Actually, the LDS "Early Church Fathers" (they call them Apostles and Prophets) do an EXCELLENT job of authenticating and supporting the self-claims and teachings of the LDS. Far better than the RCC's "Early Church Fathers" do for that denomination. Not only so, but they are MUCH earlier (most within a generation of the founding of the Restored Church) and most of them are in publications - most still in print. The LDS actually does a much more solid job of self-authenticating itself. I don't argue that makes it true or false, just the same deal.

If you want to read the writings of the LDS Apostles and Prophets, there are many sites that have them - they make them all available, on the net, for free. You can go to their official site and follow the links, or go to fairlds.org - it's a very helpful site. If you are truely interested (an not just making some as yet unknown point), PM me. I'd be glad to get some links for you.


MY view...


Pax.


- Josiah



.

 

[jckstraw72]

But our Tradition goes back to the First Century, as does yours. Which is probably why the great majority of our Tradition is exactly the same.

I really dont understand how you can say this about Protesantism. There is no single belief that is agreed upon in all of Protestantism, except perhaps that Jesus lived.

 

[lionroar0]

The "objective evidence" that the LDS points to is exactly the same "objective evidence" that the RCC points to - the "Apostolic Tradition" as you and the LDS understand, interpret and apply it. It's "objective" because you BOTH norm your "Apostolic Tradition" on the basis of very self-same, thus insuring that it is "objective evidence." Exactly the same process - you just the "Apostolic Tradition" that you both self-claim to have received is different. Exactly the same process.

Yes, the RCC quotes from the people they like, taking the little bits of quotes here and there that they like, interpreting them as they will - all infallibly because they are The Church. And you call those people you like "Church Fathers" and the ones you don't, "Heretics." The LDS quotes from the people they like, taking the little bits of quotes here and there that they like, interpreting them as they will - all truthfully because they are The Church. And they call those people "Apostles" and/or "Prophets." Of course, all your "church fathers" you consider "catholic" (oops, "Catholic") and all the ones the LDS considers are "Mormon" (oops, LDS). Exactly the same process. Same deal.

Smoke and mirros.

Actually, the LDS "Early Church Fathers" (they call them Apostles and Prophets) do an EXCELLENT job of authenticating and supporting the self-claims and teachings of the LDS. Far better than the RCC's "Early Church Fathers" do for that denomination. Not only so, but they are MUCH earlier (most within a generation of the founding of the Restored Church) and most of them are in publications - most still in print. The LDS actually does a much more solid job of self-authenticating itself. I don't argue that makes it true or false, just the same deal.

Then provide some objective evidence.

If you want to read the writings of the LDS Apostles and Prophets, there are many sites that have them - they make them all available, on the net, for free. You can go to their official site and follow the links, or go to fairlds.org - it's a very helpful site. If you are truely interested (an not just making some as yet unknown point), PM me. I'd be glad to get some links for you.

Sorry but this does not cut it. This is your argument it is up to you to provide the evidence.

Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The "objective evidence" that the LDS points to is exactly the same "objective evidence" that the RCC points to - the "Apostolic Tradition" as you and the LDS individually understand, interpret and apply it. It's "objective" because you BOTH norm your "Apostolic Tradition" on the basis of very self-same, thus insuring that it is "objective evidence." Exactly the same process - you just the "Apostolic Tradition" that you both self-claim to have received is different. Exactly the same process.

Yes, the RCC quotes from the people they like, taking the little bits of quotes here and there that they like, interpreting them as they will - all infallibly because they are The Church. And you call those people you like "Church Fathers" and the ones you don't, "Heretics." The LDS quotes from the people they like, taking the little bits of quotes here and there that they like, interpreting them as they will - all truthfully because they are The Church. And they call those people "Apostles" and/or "Prophets." Of course, all your "church fathers" you consider "catholic" (oops, "Catholic") and all the ones the LDS considers are "Mormon" (oops, LDS). Exactly the same process. Same deal.

Smoke and mirros.

Your lack of discussion leaves me unaware if you just want to not discuss this (in which case, why are you posting) or if you are just playing around or if you genuinely aren't understanding me.


I think my post was pretty clear, but if you don't understand what I mean about something, I'm be glad to address your questions, as best I can. And if you have a point, I'd be glad to read and consider them, in hopes of such bein mutual.

Actually, the LDS "Early Church Fathers" (they call them Apostles and Prophets) do an EXCELLENT job of authenticating and supporting the self-claims and teachings of the LDS. Far better than the RCC's "Early Church Fathers" do for that denomination. Not only so, but they are MUCH earlier (most within a generation of the founding of the Restored Church) and most of them are in publications - most still in print. The LDS actually does a much more solid job of self-authenticating itself. I don't argue that makes it true or false, just the same deal.

Then provide some objective evidence.

Go to the LDS website, it's there.

I WONDER if it's possible you aren't getting the point here. The LDS claims that all - ALL - of her claims and teachings are normed by 3 things: The Bible, the Apostolic Tradition (as THEY understand it) and the Magisterium of the Church (which, they claim, is the LDS). The "objective evidence" they direct you to is the Apostolic Tradition which they have received, and to which they are the depository ("Steward" is the term they use). Because this Tradition is Apostolic and True, and because their interpretation of which is correct (since they are The Church as the Apostolic Tradition clearly teaches), it is the Norm for the teachings of the LDS. Since the Tradition that the LDS embraces is the Norm for the Tradition which the LDS embraces, this provides perfect evidence of the correctness of the same. Is there any part of that you don't understand? Now consider the RCC. The RCC claims that all - ALL - of her claims and teachings are normed by 3 things: The Bible, the Apostolic Tradition (as THEY understand it) and the Magisterium of the Church (which, they claim, is the RCC). The "objective evidence" they direct you to is the Apostolic Tradition which they have received, and to which they are the depository. Because this Tradition is Apostolic and True, and because their interpretation of which is correct (since they are The Church as the Apostolic Tradition clearly teaches and their Magisterium is Authentic and Authoritative), it is the Norm for the teachings of the RCC. Since the Tradition that the RCC embraces is the Norm for the Tradition which the RCC embraces, this provides perfect evidence of the correctness of the same. Is there any part of that you don't understand?

If the "Tradition" of a individual person, congregation or denomination is the Norm for the self-same Tradition of the self-same person, congregation or denomination, then the only possible function of that is that the Tradition will be determined to be correct - thus "objective evidence." The RCC and the LDS make remarkably similar self-claims and use the very same norming process to determine it correct and supply the desired "objective evidence."



Again, that doesn't make either of you wrong or right - just using the same process. And since BOTH the RCC and LDS insist that they are accountable only to themselves and that the only criteria they will accept for the evaluation of what they teach and claim is what they teach and claim, then our only possible conclusion is that they are both correct - to themselves. Protestants, however, disagree that an individual person, congregation or denomination is accountable only to themselves or that they are correct only because they teach that they are.


Again, if you want to read the "Early Chruch Fathers" that the LDS choses to embrace, the men from whom they can pick some quotes they like, their stuff is available for free on the net. Just go to www.lds.org and follow the links to Apostles and Prophets (what they call their Early Church Fathers - some of whom still exist). Their writings are very extensive - far, far, far too much for me to copy and paste to here, and this thread is not about the men you reference or the men they reference - although this NORMING use of your own understanding and interpretatin of Tradition that both of you employ is certainly related to the issue of the thread.



MY view...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[lionroar0]

Go to the LDS website, it's there.

IT IS YOUR ARGUMENT IT IS UP TO YOU TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. It IT TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!

and since you can't provide objective evidence then it is time to shut up.

Excuse me for shouting but that it seems that it's the only way you listen.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Yes, the RCC quotes from the people they like, taking the little bits of quotes here and there that they like, interpreting them as they will - all infallibly because they are The Church. And you call those people you like "Church Fathers" and the ones you don't, "Heretics." The LDS quotes from the people they like, taking the little bits of quotes here and there that they like, interpreting them as they will - all truthfully because they are The Church. And they call those people "Apostles" and/or "Prophets." Of course, all your "church fathers" you consider "catholic" (oops, "Catholic") and all the ones the LDS considers are "Mormon" (oops, LDS). Exactly the same process. Same deal.

Obviously there is a lack of comprehension as to what objective evidence is and what a claim is and how objective evidence supporst a claim and how to build an objective argument.

Claim: Yes, the RCC quotes from the people they like, taking the little bits of quotes here and there that they like, interpreting them as they will - all infallibly because they are The Church.

Objecive evidence: Nada!!

Claim: And you call those people you like "Church Fathers" and the ones you don't, "Heretics."

Objecitve evidence: Nothing.

Claim :The LDS quotes from the people they like, taking the little bits of quotes here and there that they like, interpreting them as they will - all truthfully because they are The Church.

Objective evidence: Zip

Claim: Of course, all your "church fathers" you consider "catholic" (oops, "Catholic") and all the ones the LDS considers are "Mormon" (oops, LDS). Exactly the same process. Same deal.

Objective evidence: http://www.zip.com

Let's face reality the arguments presented are juvenile. They lack historical understanding, objectivy and do not stand up to critical thinking. Critical thinking wich college students are supposed to develop. Which your arguments lack.

Peace

 

[Dragons87]

Pax?

I think both Scripture and Tradition tell us to love our Brothers.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Objecive evidence: Nada!!

Well, it's "objective evidence" IF you accept the basis of such - the "Tradition" which both denominations self-claim is Apostolic, Infallible, and given to them.

It's not if you don't.

Objecitve evidence: Nothing.

Well, it's "objective evidence" IF you accept the basis of such - the "Tradition" which both denominations self-claim is Apostolic, Infallible, and given to them.

It's not if you don't.

Objective evidence: Zip

Well, it's "objective evidence" IF you accept the basis of such - the "Tradition" which both denominations self-claim is Apostolic, Infallible, and given to them.

It's not if you don't.



Such is the problem, I think, with using one's own understanding of one's own self-claimed "Tradition" as the Norm for itself.


Critical thinking, IMO, makes such clear.

Interesting, I think, that you find it so absurd and inadequate when the LDS does it and so obvious and correct when the RCC does it.




It is my viewpoint that Tradition is an essential, important, critical part of hermaneutics - but is not appropriate for Norming.


Obviously we disagree. It is certainly NOT my intent to convert or convince you, nor I suspect yours toward me. Catholicism rests on this norming process. My only hope is that perhaps you'll come to better understand the Protestant viewpoint on all this, and I the Catholic one. It does require stepping out of our "box" long enough to examine it and to see other views. I'd sad that such a discussion seems to anger you; that's not my intent.



MY view...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Maximus]

The argument that the Protestant tradition (as if it were one thing and not a multitude of conflicting traditions) goes back to the 1st century is laughable.

There is no evidence that any early Christians believed or taught the distinctive doctrines of Protestantism. To argue that the Bible teaches those things is to read back into the Bible a tradition that only began in the 16th century and cannot be found until that time.

Read the Fathers. Really read them.

They were orthodox Catholics. They believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; baptismal regeneration; hierarchical episcopal Church government, including some form of papal primacy; and the religious life of monks and nuns, just to name a few things.

It is one of the big flaws of Protestantism, perhaps its biggest, that it lacks historical continuity with the early Christian Church.

To read the fathers and judge what they wrote based upon the Protestant traditions developed in the 16th century is the worst form of anachronism. It presumes that the Reformers were right and that where the Fathers fail to conform they were mistaken.

When one follows the history of Christian doctrine he sees the steady continuum of the orthodox Catholic Church. There is no sign of the distinctive doctrines of Protestantism until the 16th century.

Why would an honest person assume that the novelties of the 16th century are the correct ideas and that the Fathers must be read in light of them rather than the other way around?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The argument that the Protestant tradition (as if it were one thing and not a multitude of conflicting traditions) goes back to the 1st century is laughable.

Well, I can't speak for all whom you might label as "Protestant," so perhaps it's best to make it personal. Yes, I accept Christian tradition reaching back to the first Century. I certainly embrace the Trinity, the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and much, much more from the early centures of Christianity. In fact, I embrace probably 95% of what the RCC teaches (at least as Dogma). 99% of Protestants I know, do.

There are some unique aspects of your denomination's Tradition that I don't accept. The unique concept of an institutionalized/politicalized religion, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, the "accident" aspect of Transubstantiation, the last sentance of "Unam Sanctum," the infallibility of the papacy - to name some. I understand them, I realize they are supported by what the RCC embraces as "Tradition" but they are not supported by the Norma Normans that I use, and thus are "traditions" I don't accept doctrinally. I don't call them heresies or false teachings, I just don't embrace them.

There is no evidence that any early Christians believed or taught the distinctive doctrines of Protestantism. To argue that the Bible teaches those things is to read back into the Bible a tradition that only began in the 16th century and cannot be found until that time.

I'm not sure what "distinctive doctrines" you mean, but I am CERTAIN you would not accept anything since whatever the RCC says is wrong is; it is not accountable for such. I do beleive that the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace though faith in Christ, if that's what you mean.

Read the Fathers. Really read them.

YOUR denomination's "fathers?" The particular quotes YOUR denomination likes from them, not the ones they don't like? As interpreted by YOUR denomination?

I don't consider Augustine or Basil any differently than I do Luther or Calvin - single, fallible, sinful, limited men. They had their views and opinions, we all do. But, I DO look to the historic consensus of Christians over the centuries, what Protestant consider to be "Tradition." We don't limit it to any one person, congregation or denomination.

They were orthodox Catholics. They believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; baptismal regeneration; hierarchical episcopal Church government, including some form of papal primacy; and the religious life of monks and nuns, just to name a few things.

Well, they are embraced catholics, I'd agree with that. I'd put you and me in that category, too, however. In fact, I'd put everyone in this forum in that category.

I beleive in Real Presence in the Eucharist, but I don't accept as Doctrine Aristotle's philosophy of accidents that the RCC says the Apostle's taught to them (but evidently to no one else, and not until 1215). I don't see in the ECF any universal and clear support for the idea that the Pope is above all other bishops, that submission to him is necessary for salvation or that the Pope is conditionally infallible.

It is one of the big flaws of Protestantism, perhaps its biggest, that it lacks historical continuity with the early Christian Church.

Actually, my "connection" with all believers - that mystical union - is exactly the same as yours.

And while my denomination was not founded before 33 AD, it matters not (I don't buy the RCC's institutionalization and politicalization of Christianity) and there's no evidence that the RC Denomination was founded before then, either - just the RC's eventual "understanding" of their own claims "Tradition."

the Protestant traditions developed in the 16th century is the worst form of anachronism. It presumes that the Reformers were right and that where the Fathers fail to conform they were mistaken.

Actually, it's the opposite. It's the RCC that presumes it is correct and will not even entertain the possiblity that they might be incorrect or permit themselves to be accountable for what they claim and teach or embrace a Norming system that would even allow for such a possibility.

Nope. I don't presume that Luther and Calvin were right about anything. Nor Augustine or Basil or the Pope or Billy Graham. Nor me. Nor you. Nor my congregation. Nor your congregation. Nor my denomination nor yours. That's the RCC position. It's the RCC that presumes correctness.

Why would an honest person assume that the novelties of the 16th century are the correct ideas and that the Fathers must be read in light of them rather than the other way around?

Why would an honest person assume that the novelties of the RCC are correct ideas and that the Fathers must be read in the light of them rather than the other way around?

Why would an honest person assume that the interpretations and applications and self-claims of any person, congregation or denomination are correct and then evaluate them on the basis of the self-same interpretations and applications and self-claims?



Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[jckstraw72]

There are some unique aspects of your denomination's Tradition that I don't accept. The unique concept of an institutionalized/politicalized religion, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, the "accident" aspect of Transubstantiation, the last sentance of "Unam Sanctum," the infallibility of the papacy - to name some. I understand them, I realize they are supported by what the RCC embraces as "Tradition" but they are not supported by the Norma Normans that I use, and thus are "traditions" I don't accept doctrinally. I don't call them heresies or false teachings, I just don't embrace them.

Maximus is Orthodox.

 

[Maximus]

So, from what I gather of your approach to Scripture and tradition, you pick and choose what you will believe based upon your own understanding of the Bible.

Is that correct?

What of those who take a similar approach and come to different conclusions?

How do you know who is right and who is wrong?

I mean, the history of the last four centuries among those people who have adopted your method of "norming" is not exactly one that inspires confidence in it.

The Bible doesn't interpret itself. Its inspiration is a guarantee of its truth but not that it will be interpreted correctly.

Who is right, and how do you know?

How did you come to believe the Bible is inspired by God?

Did you subject all the sacred books of the world to the scrutiny of textual criticism and historical analysis to decide which books are indeed inspired and which are not?

Or did you take someone's word for it?

 

[lionroar0]

Well, it's "objective evidence" IF you accept the basis of such - the "Tradition" which both denominations self-claim is Apostolic, Infallible, and given to them.

It's not if you don't.

First the stragety is not to provide objective evidence and now the stragety of the argument is to say that how can it be objective evidence when it is not accepted as objective evidence.

Your argument fails critical thinking.
1. no objective evidence has been provided.
2. It's not objective evidence because it is not accepted as such.

Here's a defintion of objective. Since there seems to be a lack of comprehesion of that word "objective"

ob·jec·tive ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (

b-j

k

t

v)
adj.

1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
   1. <LI type=a>Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair[size=-1]1[/size].
   2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
3. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
4. Grammar.
   
   1. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
   2. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

n.

1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar.
   1. <LI type=a>The objective case.
   2. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.

Objective evidence does not depend on a person accepting it or not it exists regardless of acceptance. It is real. Looking at objective evidence is where a real dialogue can begin. Which for some reason is not something you are interested in.

Obviously we disagree. It is certainly NOT my intent to convert or convince you, nor I suspect yours toward me. Catholicism rests on this norming process. My only hope is that perhaps you'll come to better understand the Protestant viewpoint on all this, and I the Catholic one. It does require stepping out of our "box" long enough to examine it and to see other views. I'd sad that such a discussion seems to anger you; that's not my intent.

I think that you have made your intent perfectly clear by your unwillingness to dialogue.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

I think both Scripture and Tradition tell us to love our Brothers.

This is true. ANd we should be willing and able to dialogue just on that.

Peace

 

[Soon Rev 22:11-12]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20. The people of God are directed to the Scriptures as their safeguard against the influence of false teachers and the delusive power of spirits of darkness. Satan employs every possible device to prevent men from obtaining a knowledge of the Bible; for its plain utterances reveal his deceptions. At every revival of God's work the prince of evil is aroused to more intense activity; he is now putting forth his utmost efforts for a final struggle against Christ and His followers. The last great delusion is soon to open before us. Antichrist is to perform his marvelous works in our sight. So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true that it will be impossible to distinguish between them except by the Holy Scriptures. By their testimony every statement and every miracle must be tested. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Those who endeavor to obey all the commandments of God will be opposed and derided. They can stand only in God. In order to endure the trial before them, they must understand the will of God as revealed in His word; they can honor Him only as they have a right conception of His character, government, and purposes, and act in accordance with them. None but those who have fortified the mind with the truths of the Bible will stand through the last great [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]conflict. To every soul will come the searching test: Shall I obey God rather than men? The decisive hour is even now at hand. Are our feet planted on the rock of God's immutable word? Are we prepared to stand firm in defense of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus? [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Before His crucifixion the Saviour explained to His disciples that He was to be put to death and to rise again from the tomb, and angels were present to impress His words on minds and hearts. But the disciples were looking for temporal deliverance from the Roman yoke, and they could not tolerate the thought that He in whom all their hopes centered should suffer an ignominious death. The words which they needed to remember were banished from their minds; and when the time of trial came, it found them unprepared. The death of Jesus as fully destroyed their hopes as if He had not forewarned them. So in the prophecies the future is opened before us as plainly as it was opened to the disciples by the words of Christ. The events connected with the close of probation and the work of preparation for the time of trouble, are clearly presented. But multitudes have no more understanding of these important truths than if they had never been revealed. Satan watches to catch away every impression that would make them wise unto salvation, and the time of trouble will find them unready. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When God sends to men warnings so important that they are represented as proclaimed by holy angels flying in the midst of heaven, He requires every person endowed with reasoning powers to heed the message. The fearful judgments denounced against the worship of the beast and his image (Revelation 14:9-11), should lead all to a diligent study of the prophecies to learn what the mark of the beast is, and how they are to avoid receiving it. But the masses of the people turn away their ears from hearing the truth and are turned unto fables. The apostle Paul declared, looking down to the last days: "The time will come when they will not [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]endure sound doctrine." 2 Timothy 4:3. That time has fully come. The multitudes do not want Bible truth, because it interferes with the desires of the sinful, world-loving heart; and Satan supplies the deceptions which they love. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority--not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Satan is constantly endeavoring to attract attention to man in the place of God. He leads the people to look to bishops, to pastors, to professors of theology, as their guides, instead of searching the Scriptures to learn their duty for themselves. Then, by controlling the minds of these leaders, he can influence the multitudes according to his will.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When Christ came to speak the words of life, the common people heard Him gladly; and many, even of the priests and rulers, believed on Him. But the chief of the priesthood and the leading men of the nation were determined to condemn and repudiate His teachings. Though they were baffled in all their efforts to find accusations against Him, though they could not but feel the influence of the divine power and wisdom attending His words, yet they incased themselves in prejudice; they rejected the clearest evidence of His Messiahship, lest they should be forced to become His disciples. These opponents of Jesus were men whom the people had been taught from infancy to reverence, to whose authority they had been accustomed implicitly to bow. "How is it," they asked, "that our rulers and learned scribes do not believe on Jesus? Would not these pious men receive Him if He were [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the Christ?" It was the influence of such teachers that led the Jewish nation to reject their Redeemer. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The spirit which actuated those priests and rulers is still manifested by many who make a high profession of piety. They refuse to examine the testimony of the Scriptures concerning the special truths for this time. They point to their own numbers, wealth, and popularity, and look with contempt upon the advocates of truth as few, poor, and unpopular, having a faith that separates them from the world. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Christ foresaw that the undue assumption of authority indulged by the scribes and Pharisees would not cease with the dispersion of the Jews. He had a prophetic view of the work of exalting human authority to rule the conscience, which has been so terrible a curse to the church in all ages. And His fearful denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and His warnings to the people not to follow these blind leaders, were placed on record as an admonition to future generations. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Roman Church reserves to the clergy the right to interpret the Scriptures. On the ground that ecclesiastics alone are competent to explain God's word, it was withheld from the common people. Though the Reformation gave the Scriptures to all, yet the selfsame principle which was maintained by Rome prevents multitudes in Protestant churches from searching the Bible for themselves. They are taught to accept its teachings as interpreted by the church; and there are thousands who dare receive nothing, however plainly revealed in Scripture, that is contrary to their creed or the established teaching of their church. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Notwithstanding the Bible is full of warnings against false teachers, many are ready thus to commit the keeping of their souls to the clergy. There are today thousands of professors of religion who can give no other reason for points of faith which they hold than that they were so instructed by their religious leaders. They pass by the Saviour's teachings almost [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]unnoticed, and place implicit confidence in the words of the ministers. But are ministers infallible? How can we trust our souls to their guidance unless we know from God's word that they are light bearers? A lack of moral courage to step aside from the beaten track of the world leads many to follow in the steps of learned men; and by their reluctance to investigate for themselves, they are becoming hopelessly fastened in the chains of error. They see that the truth for this time is plainly brought to view in the Bible; and they feel the power of the Holy Spirit attending its proclamation; yet they allow the opposition of the clergy to turn them from the light. Though reason and conscience are convinced, these deluded souls dare not think differently from the minister; and their individual judgment, their eternal interests, are sacrificed to the unbelief, the pride and prejudice, of another. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many are the ways by which Satan works through human influence to bind his captives. He secures multitudes to himself by attaching them by the silken cords of affection to those who are enemies of the cross of Christ. Whatever this attachment may be, parental, filial, conjugal, or social, the effect is the same; the opposers of truth exert their power to control the conscience, and the souls held under their sway have not sufficient courage or independence to obey their own convictions of duty. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The truth and the glory of God are inseparable; it is impossible for us, with the Bible within our reach, to honor God by erroneous opinions. Many claim that it matters not what one believes, if his life is only right. But the life is molded by the faith. If light and truth is within our reach, and we neglect to improve the privilege of hearing and seeing it, we virtually reject it; we are choosing darkness rather than light. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25. Ignorance is no excuse for error or sin, when there is every opportunity [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]to know the will of God. A man is traveling and comes to a place where there are several roads and a guideboard indicating where each one leads. If he disregards the guideboard, and takes whichever road seems to him to be right, he may be ever so sincere, but will in all probability find himself on the wrong road. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]God has given us His word that we may become acquainted with its teachings and know for ourselves what He requires of us. When the lawyer came to Jesus with the inquiry, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" the Saviour referred him to the Scriptures, saying: "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" Ignorance will not excuse young or old, nor release them from the punishment due for the transgression of God's law; because there is in their hands a faithful presentation of that law and of its principles and claims. It is not enough to have good intentions; it is not enough to do what a man thinks is right or what the minister tells him is right. His soul's salvation is at stake, and he should search the Scriptures for himself. However strong may be his convictions, however confident he may be that the minister knows what is truth, this is not his foundation. He has a chart pointing out every waymark on the heavenward journey, and he ought not to guess at anything. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is the first and highest duty of every rational being to learn from the Scriptures what is truth, and then to walk in the light and encourage others to follow his example. We should day by day study the Bible diligently, weighing every thought and comparing scripture with scripture. With divine help we are to form our opinions for ourselves as we are to answer for ourselves before God. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]such a class that Jesus declared: "Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God." Mark 12:24. The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error. [/font]

 

[Maximus]

I don't know about everyone else, but I usually don't read big, cut-and-paste jobs that are mostly in small print, especially when I have worked all week and am already nursing a headache.

Soon Rev, where did you get your Bible?

How do you know it is inspired?