The reason you can't lose your salvation.

[Albion]

Who has promoted tradition above scripture?

All of the Catholic churches...and, at one time or another, most of their members posting here. A person doesn't tell us that "the Bible is only a book," "to make it your guide to doctrine is 'Bible idolatry'," or "The Bible was never meant to be but a starting point for God's revelation"...

...and NOT have put something else above it. That's quite obvious.

 

[Open Heart]

In theory. In practice "Sacred Tradition" is above Scripture. Let's take an example from the Catechism of the Catholic Church under "Magesterium":

The catechism is based on scripture and tradition equally.

 

[Open Heart]

All of the Catholic churches

As a Catholic I can assure you that the CC bases her doctrines upon scripture and tradition (ECF, ecumenical councils, encyclicals, etc) equally.

 

[Albion]

The catechism is based on scripture and tradition equally.

Easy to say, impossible to know (if it's true or not.)

Have you assessed every answer to every question in the Catechism in order to see whether it's Scripture or tradition being referenced and that they are equally balanced? I don't think so.

 

[Open Heart]

Easy to say, impossible to know (if it's true or not.)

Have you assessed every answer to every question in the Catechism in order to see whether it's Scripture or tradition being referenced and that they are equally balanced? I don't think so.

What I'm saying is that scripture carries as much weight as tradition. Go ask any priest. It floors me the ignorance you consistently show of the CC.

 

[Albion]

What I'm saying is that scripture carries as much weight as tradition.

I know what you're saying, but it's not true. Tradition incorporates Scripture, so it's impossible for the two to be of equal importance.

.

 

[Open Heart]

I know what you're saying, but it's not true. Tradition incorporates Scripture, so it's impossible for the two to be of equal importance.

.

If tradition encorporates scripture, then they would HAVE to be of equal importance, being the same thing.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Luther knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and could read the Bible in its original languages. Can you do that?

And…what does any of this have to do with that?

If you can't, you are just really going with somebody else's ideas about what the text says, the same as you say about me quoting Luther.

No, I'm going with what the text actually SAYS. Not what some man says about what the text means. There is a difference.

Luther did not actually believe confession required a pastor, nevertheless, he believed it was a sacrament instituted by Christ, and entrusted to the Church as a whole.

Seems a bit confused. Either confession oes require a pastor or it doesn't. I don't see anything in Scripture that made is a sacrament instituted by Christ. Which is why I don't.

The modern practice of hearing confessions varies from church to church, nonetheless, Lutherans retained it, and they saw nothing unscriptural about it.

OK. But I do.

This guy here is a Baptist but he explains why you'ld want to confess to somebody else very well, maybe you would take his word for it because he's not "one of us": http://www.desiringgod.org/intervie...sin-to-another-person-in-order-to-be-forgiven

Again, I look to what Scripture actually SAYS rather than what some men say about what Scripture says.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So you ignore James 5:14. I see.

Quite wrong. I've explained what that verse is about. It's about confessing to those who you have wronged. And we should do that. When we do that, we are seeking forgiveness from them. Even if the wronged party doesn't forgive, we've done what we should do.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's possible to see Scripture within Tradition, and yet acknowledge the primacy of Scripture. Some Eastern Orthodox do this. They simply see it as inappropriate to try to interpret the Scriptures outside of the Church.

The main thing about Protestantism is that it introduces a hermeneutic of suspicion where none existed previously. Taken to enough extremes, this hermeneutic's logical outcome is atheism.

I'd rather operate with a hermeneutic of love rather than suspicion. Which means, trying to understand everything in the best possible light before we go tossing it out as "unbiblical".

 

[FireDragon76]

No, I'm going with what the text actually SAYS. Not what some man says about what the text means. There is a difference.

There is always an extra-biblical context that we bring to the text, and always interpretation.

Seems a bit confused. Either confession oes require a pastor or it doesn't.

No, not if confession is not understood as working in the Roman Catholic sense.

I don't see anything in Scripture that made is a sacrament instituted by Christ. Which is why I don't.

Christ gave the apostles authority to forgive sins, you can read that at the end of John in the Upper Room. He breaths on them to receive the Holy Spirit in a pre-quell to Pentecost, and tells them the sins they forgive are forgiven. That's the basis of the authority right there. Christians are given a ministry of reconciliation, just as Jesus did. Didn't Jesus say we would do all the things he did? Don't you think that involves humans at some point?

Again, I look to what Scripture actually SAYS rather than what some men say about what Scripture says.

More of your "plain reading" mythology. You need to become more philosophically adept and realize that just because you assert the Bible only has one obvious meaning, doesn't make it so.

 

[Albion]

If tradition encorporates scripture, then they would HAVE to be of equal importance, being the same thing.

Not really. That which is absorbed into the other is obviously less significant.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not really. That which is absorbed into the other is obviously less significant.

That's not really true. If one were to make a diagram of this using set theory, you could have Scripture within tradition and still recognize Scriptures as more important than the rest of the tradition. It would just be recognizing that Scriptures itself is a part of tradition.

 

[Albion]

That's not really true. If one were to make a diagram of this using set theory, you could have Scripture within tradition and still recognize Scriptures as more important than the rest of the tradition. It would just be recognizing that Scriptures itself is a part of tradition.

We're talking about so-called "Holy Tradition" here, you know, not "Tradition produced the Bible, etc."

 

[FreeGrace2]

There is always an extra-biblical context that we bring to the text, and always interpretation.

Like the quip, "never say never", don't always say 'always'.

No, not if confession is not understood as working in the Roman Catholic sense.

Well, I do not understand Scripture in the RCC sense.

Christ gave the apostles authority to forgive sins, you can read that at the end of John in the Upper Room. He breaths on them to receive the Holy Spirit in a pre-quell to Pentecost, and tells them the sins they forgive are forgiven. That's the basis of the authority right there.

We we all get to have their signs and miracles as well? Of course not. Jesus gave that authority to 11 men.

Christians are given a ministry of reconciliation, just as Jesus did. Didn't Jesus say we would do all the things he did? Don't you think that involves humans at some point?

Of course humans are involved in God's plans. I never said differently. But, how many miracles have you done lately; you know, all the things He did.

More of your "plain reading" mythology.

Is this a suggestion that everything has another "hidden" meaning and we aren't to take the plain meaning of the words as written? That sure allows a lot of, shall we say…"intepretation".

You need to become more philosophically adept and realize that just because you assert the Bible only has one obvious meaning, doesn't make it so.

Sounds as if any given statement can have multiple meanings. That will lead directly to contraction, which we already have in Christendom.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, I do not understand Scripture in the RCC sense.

Neither do I.

We we all get to have their signs and miracles as well?

Yes, if it is according to God's will.

Of course humans are involved in God's plans. I never said differently. But, how many miracles have you done lately; you know, all the things He did.

First, God does the miracles.

But besides that point, I've forgiven people. That's something all Christians are called to do, to be part of God's ministry of reconciliation. The sacrament of absolution is just part of that, carried out by an appropriately ordained minister on behalf of a congregation.

Is this a suggestion that everything has another "hidden" meaning and we aren't to take the plain meaning of the words as written? That sure allows a lot of, shall we say…"intepretation".

Whether you want to admit it or not, texts are always subject to interpretation. Just look at the body of US federal law. That's why we have lawyers, to look at the texts and argue cases. The same thing is done with theology, we look at texts and make cases based on our reason and experience.

Sounds as if any given statement can have multiple meanings. That will lead directly to contraction, which we already have in Christendom.

Rubbish. What leads to "contraction" is too complicated to attribute to one thing like that. There are historical forces at play there that go beyond your love of Protestant Biblicism. In fact Biblicism and similar ideologies are part of that decline of "Christendom". The Islamic equivalent motivated people to fly airplanes into buildings, their usual ethical sensibilities were disabled by religious ideology. For hundreds of years people denied rights to African slaves because of the same sort of Biblicism.

 

[Open Heart]

Again, I look to what Scripture actually SAYS rather than what some men say about what Scripture says.

What scripture actually SAYS is "confess your sins to TO ANOTHER."

 

[Open Heart]

Quite wrong. I've explained what that verse is about. It's about confessing to those who you have wronged. And we should do that. When we do that, we are seeking forgiveness from them. Even if the wronged party doesn't forgive, we've done what we should do.

Wrong verse, sir.

AGAIN: James 5:14
Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint [him] with oil in the name of the Lord

This verse refutes your belief that if we need healing we should only go to God.

 

[Open Heart]

Not really. That which is absorbed into the other is obviously less significant.

I'm sorry. It just doesn't follow. If the Bible is tradition, then you are asking if tradition is equal to tradition. Conversation over.

 

[Albion]

I'm sorry. It just doesn't follow. If the Bible is tradition....

Then you need not worry. The Bible is not tradition