Albion
Facilitator
Well, I didn't avoid that. It was a major point of emphasis.You're avoiding the question altogether. First, each of us as human beings must decide for ourselves what, if anything, is of divine origin and what is not, regardless of what anyone else or any group may've decided for themselves in the past, important and helpful as that testimony is.
Believe whatever you want. I'm not especially interested in any religious doctrine just because Buddhism is big on it. And the same goes for Papal decrees. We were talking here about the authority of the Bible, and that is what I thought we were going to continue to discuss.Secondly, as far as I'm concerned the Christian religion, emanating from both the eastern and western ancient teachings, has already spoken on this, and both Scripture and Tradition, by definition, are together considered to be the ultimate.
*Going by Scripture alone I may or may not believe that baptism is necessary for regeneration, or, for instance, that Jesus was speaking of amniotic fluid in John 3:5. But with tradition aiding us we know the original intent, by the continuous practice of the church.
*Going by Scripture alone we may well decide that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, or that He's not. With the input of Tradition there's no question about what the churches originally taught and believed; we know that He is present IOW.
Naaaa. This ^ only shows me that you don't know what (Sacred) Tradition is all about. It's not about traditions. It's about an alternative to the Bible, a supplement to the Bible.
Mere traditions are altogether a different matter and, if understood properly, are not in competition with Scripture but can indeed shed light upon the meaning of Scriptural passages. But that isn't what we were discussing when we had alternative sources of authority as our topic.
Last edited:
Upvote
0