Did you read the OP? A very specific question was asked. This is not a general SSvs.Tradition thread. If that is what you wish to discuss, feel free to start your own thread on it.
Upvote
0
Tradition vs. Sola Scriptura
- Thread starter Sidheil
- Start date
- Status
sunlover1
Beloved, Let us love one another
- Nov 10, 2006
- 26,146
- 5,348
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
The church, led by the Spirit of God, is the support of the truth
The SOURCE of truth is GOD.. and of course any words that
proceed from Him, including His Word.
In my opinion
Upvote
0
ivebeenshown
Expert invisible poster and thread killer
I did not mean to say that the Church produced the Old Testament, though it did produce the New Testament. The fact that RCC has a unique canon does not in itself mean the canon is incorrect, either. It is entirely fallacious to appeal to popularity as a means of verifying truth.
When Christ founded the Church, there were no schismatic groups at the beginning. As schismatic groups formed, it became necessary for each group -- yes, including the One True non-schismatic Church -- to have a name which identifies it apart from the other groups. And again, even if 100,000,000 denominations agreed on a canon of Scripture, that would not in itself make that canon correct -- appeals to popularity are fallacious.
Why am I 'required' to suggest something 'more reliable, more inspired, more objectively knowable, more popular, and more antique' than Scriptures?
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
You see? The Church does not teach that Tradition is to be honored or accepted MORE than Scriptures, only that Scriptures are not to be accepted and honored WITHOUT Tradition (and vice versa.) In other words, I believe God's Word is transmitted through both of these mediums, and to deny either one of them is to deny the Word of God. God's Word is not separable from itself, and we cannot value some parts of God's Word more than other parts.
Well then we're back to this: how can we believe anything as truth if it is supported by a foundation which is a mess of contradictions? Because that's what 'the invisible Church' is -- a mess of contradicting beliefs.The church, led by the Spirit of God, is the support of the truth
The SOURCE of truth is GOD.. and of course any words that
proceed from Him, including His Word.
In my opinion
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hentenza
I will fear no evil for You are with me
- Mar 27, 2007
- 34,437
- 3,872
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
1. The scriptures are not a product of "T"radition but the sole product of God. The folks attending the councils of Carthage and Hippo merely affirmed what was already a norm in the majority of the churches.
2. "T"radition is subjective to a denomination while the scriptures are objective to most (there are some regional churches with a different canon but not by much).
3. "T"radition can not be infallible since there are multiple, contradicting "T"raditions.
Upvote
0
.
1. The topic here is Sola SCRIPTURA - not Solum Novum Testimentum. The OT is just as much the topic here as is the NT.
2. I know of NO evidence that indicates that the singular, exclusive, particular RC denomination even existed in the First Century. Or that it can write anything. I agree with the RCC that GOD is the source and author of the Bible (including the NT) - that HE chose PEOPLE as His penmen, that HE guided those PEOPLE to write as those PEOPLE did. The RC denomination had nothing to do with it, it's extremely likely it didn't even exist (and would not for centuries).
3. Of course, the fact that the RC denomination agrees with NONE - with NO OTHER on the planet - about what is and is not Scripture doesn't mean ergo IT is wrong. It also doesn't mean that ergo IT exclusively is right. But neither was my point, obviously. I was responding to the claim that the RCC determined what is and is not Scripture: IF SO, why do NONE of the other 49,999 denominations have the same Scriptures? The very reality that NONE agree with the RCC seems to suggest that NONE regard IT as the determinator of such. Do you disagree?
Okay. Sorry, but I'm at a complete loss to know what that has to do with what I posted and you quoted....
IMO, the RCC is correct: GOD is the Author of His Scriptures (all of them, not just the NT) - not any denominational institution. And yes - GOD chose HIS people as His penmen - but obviously no denomination.
As you note, there are disputed dogmas among us. You have two options:
1) Self can give self an absolute, complete "pass" on whether what self says/claims is true.
2) We can embrace accountability and norming - and thus a common rule for norming.
Which is it?
A "faithful" Catholic must embrace the first. Read your Catechism # 87 for example (I can supply other verbatim quotes - even stronger).
But you seem to be suggesting that accountability matters by rejecting Scripture as the rule. So, what's your alternative?
1. A bit over-dramatic, lol - but if that IS what you think, then IMO - that suggests accountability rather than rejects it. The RCC agrees with NONE - N.O.N.E. - but itself. It's not better than the LDS or ANY other denomination you could name; it may be worse but it's not BETTER in that regard. Why does that suggest that ergo it doesn' matter who is right? Lost me....
2. But if one surrenders the issue of truth and "INSTEAD" just embraces "WHATEVER" one is told by a single denomination "WITH QUIET DOCILITY" and with "SUBMISSION" to self as demanded by self, how is that related to that one being correct? The whole issue of correctness has been by-passed by the issue of POWER - all this enormous, unmitigated, virtually divine POWER that self alone claims for self alone, POWER to "trump" the issue of correctness with "docilic SUBMISSION" to self as unto God.
Thank you. May your Easter be filled with every blessing....
Pax
- Josiah
.
1. The topic here is Sola SCRIPTURA - not Solum Novum Testimentum. The OT is just as much the topic here as is the NT.
2. I know of NO evidence that indicates that the singular, exclusive, particular RC denomination even existed in the First Century. Or that it can write anything. I agree with the RCC that GOD is the source and author of the Bible (including the NT) - that HE chose PEOPLE as His penmen, that HE guided those PEOPLE to write as those PEOPLE did. The RC denomination had nothing to do with it, it's extremely likely it didn't even exist (and would not for centuries).
3. Of course, the fact that the RC denomination agrees with NONE - with NO OTHER on the planet - about what is and is not Scripture doesn't mean ergo IT is wrong. It also doesn't mean that ergo IT exclusively is right. But neither was my point, obviously. I was responding to the claim that the RCC determined what is and is not Scripture: IF SO, why do NONE of the other 49,999 denominations have the same Scriptures? The very reality that NONE agree with the RCC seems to suggest that NONE regard IT as the determinator of such. Do you disagree?
Okay. Sorry, but I'm at a complete loss to know what that has to do with what I posted and you quoted....
IMO, the RCC is correct: GOD is the Author of His Scriptures (all of them, not just the NT) - not any denominational institution. And yes - GOD chose HIS people as His penmen - but obviously no denomination.
As you note, there are disputed dogmas among us. You have two options:
1) Self can give self an absolute, complete "pass" on whether what self says/claims is true.
2) We can embrace accountability and norming - and thus a common rule for norming.
Which is it?
A "faithful" Catholic must embrace the first. Read your Catechism # 87 for example (I can supply other verbatim quotes - even stronger).
But you seem to be suggesting that accountability matters by rejecting Scripture as the rule. So, what's your alternative?
1. A bit over-dramatic, lol - but if that IS what you think, then IMO - that suggests accountability rather than rejects it. The RCC agrees with NONE - N.O.N.E. - but itself. It's not better than the LDS or ANY other denomination you could name; it may be worse but it's not BETTER in that regard. Why does that suggest that ergo it doesn' matter who is right? Lost me....
2. But if one surrenders the issue of truth and "INSTEAD" just embraces "WHATEVER" one is told by a single denomination "WITH QUIET DOCILITY" and with "SUBMISSION" to self as demanded by self, how is that related to that one being correct? The whole issue of correctness has been by-passed by the issue of POWER - all this enormous, unmitigated, virtually divine POWER that self alone claims for self alone, POWER to "trump" the issue of correctness with "docilic SUBMISSION" to self as unto God.
Thank you. May your Easter be filled with every blessing....
Pax
- Josiah
.
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
The church, led by the Spirit of God, is the support of the truth
The SOURCE of truth is GOD.. and of course any words that
proceed from Him, including His Word.
In my opinion
1 Tim. 3:15 and if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth [thee] to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God -- a pillar and foundation of the truth,
The church supports the truth. Some mistakenly think it is the truth.
Irenaeus:
1. We have learned from none others [apostles] the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html?highlight=scripture,pillar,truth#highlightScriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html
Scripture is the ground and pillar of our faith (but our faith, like truth, is in the Son of God). Not Tradition or teaching magesteriums or Councils ---- though we hope they get it right, but we carry the word of God to be sure.
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
It's interesting that those who stand by Tradition are the ones who accept the deuteros, even though we know why they were not considered scripture.
4. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact succession of prophets.
Josephus
IOW, it is the same attitude/belief structure at work. There's no valid line of prophets, so we should understand why a book is not scripture. But that is dismissed as irrelevant by some. As such, even though there is no valid or provable succession of bishops or Tradition, it doesn't matter!
Upvote
0
ivebeenshown
Expert invisible poster and thread killer
Josaiah, you can throw keywords like 'accountability' around all you want. It boils down to this: either the Church is a roaring sea of clashing waves of contradicting doctrines (i.e., Adventists and Catholics are both mere parts of one 'Church' which does not agree with itself) or the Church is one body of believers who profess one in the same faith as being the truth.
I am inclined to believe that there is no point in being part of a 'Church' which does not agree with itself. Why does 'self agreeing with self' INVALIDATE anything? If the Bible didn't agree with itself, it would be untrustworthy. Yet, 'self agreeing with self' is not what makes the Bible true.
I am inclined to believe that there is no point in being part of a 'Church' which does not agree with itself. Why does 'self agreeing with self' INVALIDATE anything? If the Bible didn't agree with itself, it would be untrustworthy. Yet, 'self agreeing with self' is not what makes the Bible true.
Upvote
0
The problem exists in Protestantism as well. Sola Scriptura posits scripture as the ultimate epistemological source, but that doesn't mean it's free from interpretation problems. The different interpretations of Protestants often conflict with one another, just as the different interpretations of Tradition conflict with one another.
Catholics and Orthodox work off the same history, so that's not subjective at all. Subjectivity arises during the interpretation. So, it's the exact same problem Protestantism has, except manifest in a different way.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. There are multiple interpretations of Scripture and multiple canons of Scripture, but I don't think you would also say that because of that Scripture cannot be infallible. Just because there are many conflicting ideas does not mean none of them are right.
Upvote
0
ivebeenshown
Expert invisible poster and thread killer
The Church is the Church, which supports the truth, indeed.
Again, you cannot use Irenaeus to support Sola Scriptura when he himself did not support it.
2. Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Churchthose who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, IV.26 (St. Irenaeus)
Irenaeus states that it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who not only have received the certain gift of truth but ALSO have received that gift of truth WITH the succession of the office of bishop.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Hentenza
I will fear no evil for You are with me
- Mar 27, 2007
- 34,437
- 3,872
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I am not talking about interpretations. Varying interpretations of scripture do not invalidate the objective truth of scripture while varying and conflicting "T"raditions do invalidate the objective truth of "T"raditions.
Upvote
0
Hentenza
I will fear no evil for You are with me
- Mar 27, 2007
- 34,437
- 3,872
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I thought it was clear but I guess not. lol
Lets take an example from "T"radition, apostolic succession. There are multiple, contradicting "lists" put forth by individual churches while all agree in for example, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Pauls epistles, etc. Interpretation is a man's construct therefore prong to error while the scriptures are infallible and inerrant, consequently, varied interpretations do not invalidate the objective truth of scripture.
Upvote
0
From the human perspective, there are two pieces of the whole:
1. The source of information.
2. The meaning gained by interpreting the source of the information.
Transcendentally, above the human perspective, there also exists the objective truth: the absolute, correct meaning of the source of information. Ontologically, this is not an interpretation, but it is a set of information that has meaning. We create a set of information from meaning, but ontologically this set of information is an interpretation since we must process the source of information. Humans can never know the objective truth directly, because we are not ontologically designed to perceive it. We can, at best, come up with an interpretation that exactly matches the objective truth. This is important to keep in mind for this argument: humanity can never possess objective truth. At best they will only possess an interpretation of the objective truth that exactly matches the objective truth. Two or more sets of information will always exist.
Under Sola Scriptura, there is a single source of the objective truth: Scripture. Just to simplify things (for the moment), we'll assume there is a single valid canon that is known to be correct. Because of what is stated above, we can't know the objective truth. We must interpret the words written in the book.
Under Sacred Tradition (we will include Scripture in Tradition), the source of objective truth is the teachings that were transmitted orally and in writing (Scripture). Just as God can preserve his written word, we have no reason to assume that he can't preserve his spoken word as well. But since we can never know the objective truth, we must interpret both the spoken and written word.
In both situations, problems arise because of interpretation. Tradition is not invalidated simply because another interpretation of Tradition exists. Divergence of Sacred Tradition is not the creation of another separate objective source of information. They are separate interpretations of the same objective source of information. I think that is where your misunderstanding arises.
You say you are not talking about interpretations, but you necessarily are talking about interpretations because of the way humans process information. It is simply not our nature to absorb information directly. Anything and everything must be filtered through our interpretive lenses. This includes reading of the Bible. It includes the keeping of Sacred Tradition. It even includes the reception of direct divine revelation.
Neither is free from problems of subjectivity, and neither is invalidated simply because different ideas exist.
Upvote
0
Your dismissal of such is understandable.
And yes - it IS being a faithful Catholic (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.)
And YES - it IS the reason why the RCC, LDS, as wellas all the cults known to me reject the Rule of Scripture (and any other objective rule that is not self).
Now, OBVIOUSLY, you may surrender "in quiet docility" to the denomination that so mandates - and I BY NO MEANS desire or intent to debate that (and never have) - that's entirely for YOU. But the issue here is accountability - embracing that TRUTH is the issue, not the power that one claims for self. I realize that in Catholicism, submission and power are the issues, and we can all respond as we think/believe/feel best there. But the issue for many is a different one: truth.
1. IMO, the church IS one, holy, catholic, communion of saints. One. Communion. Is. Always has been, still is, always will be. Does that mean that the BILLIONS of such all are in absolute agreement in all and every issue? No. Never have been. Still aren't. I'm not sure we EVER will be - even in heaven. I have two parents and two siblings. We ARE one family. Do we agree on EVERYTHING in absolute PERFECTION? No. Just say the word "Obama" and step back..... way back! Does THAT mean we aren't one family? But if truth doesn't matter, then who cares?
2. Yes, the RCC ONLY agrees with ITSELF. Just like the LDS denomination. I'm just have never been able to determine WHY that makes the RCC and LDS correct? Doesn't self usually agree with self? But you curiously keep asking Protestant questions; odd.
And you do. Officially, formally, institutionally and currently anyway - in what it alone determines is good for itself to agree with itself about. Mormons also are a part of a church that agrees with itself - and no other. Some of us are better off than that, but okay.
It doesn't. As any cult leader would point out.
But I think you're asking the wrong question. I'd ask, "why does self alone agreeing with self alone prove that self alone is correct?" (or more to the point: exempt from the whole issue of whether self is correct)
May every Easter blessing be yours....
- Josiah
.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
T
Thekla
Guest
That doesn't mean that there isn't one, nor that there is no apostolic succession ...
Upvote
0
The desire for an infallible interpreter or need to believe that such an interpreter exists does not validate the argument that it does exist. The desire for assurance does not mean it exists. We simply must have faith that God, through the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth to us.
Whether or not there is an infallible interpreter, ie: the Church, is not of importance since either way you are basically basing your beliefs on your personal understanding. Either you trust in your faith in God and that truth wil be/is being revealed to you through God or your understanding of what your Church teaches is infallible or correct. Your understanding is still subject to incorrect or biased understandings you possess--personally.
Upvote
0
Hentenza
I will fear no evil for You are with me
- Mar 27, 2007
- 34,437
- 3,872
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
How does that not invalidate it? If "T"radition is claimed to be the oral transmission of the apostles then how can the varied, and contradicting views be objective?
Upvote
0
Hentenza
I will fear no evil for You are with me
- Mar 27, 2007
- 34,437
- 3,872
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
There is only one, for example, book of Matthew (objective) while there are multiple, contradicting individual "T"raditions (subjective) in a variety of churches. How can this not invalidate the objectiveness of such "T"raditions?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
