Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[GenemZ]

No, it does not- which makes one wonder why you make a habit of bringing charges against Catholics for misdeeds done among by those associated with their tradition.

You mention Catholics? Did I mention Catholics? I covered principles which describe any, and all, that fit what you see here as only being applicable to Catholics. Are they unique in what I spoke of?

That was not my intent. I did mention the Inquisitions at one point. And, its unavoidable, since at one time it was the only denomination to be found to be effecting western culture.

It was only a few points to be made for an example of a certain type of mind set. Other than that? What I said can apply to any denomination which may have in their congregations such as those I spoke of. For they are to be found in other denominations. Sorry you missed that.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter

We've been talking about Tradition and traditions.. I've been getting schooled on both actually..

Out of curiousity, what are your traditions, if you have any..?

Well, I was not always Catholic. I was Protestant for much of my adult life and didn't think much about it as I had accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. But when I begun a deeper study of the Scripture and the varied interpretations that different Protestant groups have of the same verses, I realized something was missing. I didn't know that I had traditions at the time, but I learned that many things, from the format of Praise and Worship on Sundays to the way we understand the Scriptures was part of our traditions. So I began to search to find how I might know which were the Traditions of the Apostles. After many, many years of seeking and prayer, I realized that these Traditions must date back to the time of the Apostles. So, I asked the Holy Spirit to guide me to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth which is spoken of in Scripture. I have discovered the Sound Doctrine which was passed on by the Apostles through the Church from that time straight on down to our own time. This is the means that Jesus gave us a means to know what the correct interpretation of His Written Word is. Else, how do we know which of the conflicting interpretations of the same verse is correct? Eventually I found that the Catholic Church can actually trace back to that time. I have come to believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ so long ago in Israel and that He has preserved it down through the ages from that time even to our own day. No other faith has the lineage from our time straight back to the Apostles.

May the grace of Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.

Yours in Christ.

 

[lionroar0]

You mention Catholics? Did I mention Catholics? I covered principles which describe any, and all, that fit what you see here as only being applicable to Catholics. Are they unique in what I spoke of?

That was not my intent. I did mention the Inquisitions at one point. And, its unavoidable, since at one time it was the only denomination to be found to be effecting western culture.

It was only a few points to be made for an example of a certain type of mind set. Other than that? What I said can apply to any denomination which may have in their congregations such as those I spoke of. For they are to be found in other denominations. Sorry you missed that.

*aherm*

There was one time when those who claimed to follow the Bible came to be like militant Muslims. That was the Inquisitions. The same mind set that rules over Islam had made its way into the Church at that time. Satan had infiltrated the Church with power hungry men who had no true vision of what Christ came to bring to the world.

You meant protestants, Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox??

Anyways this does not make any sence any ways.

There was one time when those who claimed to follow the Bible came to be like militant Muslims. That was the Inquisitions.

The Church has never been sola scriptura. We can also see the mindset and principle of which you were talking about with in fundamentalism, and some other protestans traditions. Which interpret the bible 100% litelarly.

The Church whether EOC or CC has never used a 100% literal approach in interpreting the Scriptures.

Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

To the question of the thread..

This is actually an extremely important question!



MY view...


IF Tradition and Scripture are equal, then we've embraced a circular, self-authenticating principle of accountability that provides no accountability whatsoever.


An illustration:

The Church of Bob teaches that Jesus had 100 children. This is part of the "Tradition" of the Church of Bob (hereafter referred to as CB). The CB self-claims that God told them that little ditty and they are now "stewards" of that Tradition, and CB notes with glee that NOTHING whatsoever in the Bible remotely suggests otherwise, so it's not "in conflict with" Scripture.

Many Christians question this teaching. But CB (embracing Sola Ecclesia and rejecting Sola Scriptura) insists that only CB can act as the arbiter for religious doctrine - they are the "sole final arbiter" so this question will be given to the Leadership of the CB who alone is entrusted with this authority. The Leadership of CB is made up entirely of clergy who have vowed (upon death) to uphold, defend and promote the Tradition of CB which, of course, includes that Jesus had 100 children. And what will the Leadership of the CB use as it's norma normans (the Rule, the Canon, the Standard) for the self-evaluation of self-teachings? The teachings of CB - the Tradition that they were given by God and so is correct, which, of course, includes the Tradition that Jesus had 100 children.

Soooooooooo, this teaching about the 100 children of Jesus will be evaluated/arbitrated by the group that teaches that, by those who have vowed upon death to uphold the teachings of the self-same group, and will use the teachings of the self-same group to norm the teachings of the self-same group.

Wanna guess what their conclusion will be????
And using their embrace principle of norming, is it justified?

BUT wait, there's more!!! Because CB will self-claim that that conclusion is infallible!
And because it's infallible, it's unaccountable.
So the whole process is moot and unnecessary.
Whatever CB says is True.
End of story.
Put your hand down.

End of illustration.


There's a teacher (person, congregation, denomination). The teachings (doctrines, claims, interpretations, etc.) which are embraced are "Tradition." The "Tradition" of that teacher (person, congregation, denomination).

Let's say that teaching (Tradition) of that teacher (person, congregation or denomination) is questioned - especially in light of the firm warnings about false teachings and antichrists and those that would lead many astray.

Under Sola Ecclesia, the teacher insists that he alone is the "sole final arbiter" for himself for he self-claims only he has such authority. So, the teacher will be the sole evaluator for the teachings of himself and he will have final "say" here.

But that still leaves the issue of the norma normans - WHAT will serve as the Rule, the Canon for this evaluation? The teacher insists that his teachings will serve as the Canon or Rule for his teachings, the Standard to which his teachings will be evaluated or normed.

Now, the teacher can certainly add WHATEVER he wants to this formula - sharing the "norma normans" spot with his own teachings, it will not (and can not) change the outcome, since his own teachings is also a norm. The conclusion will be the same, reglardless of what OTHER things might be added. The most someone could note is that some other factor doesn't specifically teach what he does - but his teachings do, so the point is moot.




A case in point:

Mormons (who embrace Sola Ecclesia too) put it this way:

God established the LDS as The Church of Jesus Christ. God have it Authority to teach and God works through His Church in a unique way.

The LDS is a teacher - it teaches many things. People inside and outside (the apostate) the Church are invited and encouraged to investigate and evaluate their teachings.

However, such can only be done Authoritatively by the Church, since it alone has that Authority. The LDS will tell you if the LDS is correct or not, for only it can say. It is the Body of Christ, it is His Church, it alone has this Authority.

Now, the LDS is very open about the fact that not all it teaches is contained within the pages of the Bible - which it regards as apostolic and authoritative BUT it does NOT contain all Truth. Nope. God has revealed much more to and through His Church. This is called "Tradition." Unlike the Catholic Church, Mormons quickly wrote this down (by revelvation) for all the world to see and to provide accountability for themselves. This can be found by all in the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants. It's written so LDS leaders cannot misrepresent it and so all can know it. The Word is not limited to the Bible and these additional Scriptures, but these are the written Word from God and serve as the 'norma normans.'

The Bible and Tradition are also joined by the official rulings and decisions of His Church - which are equally authoritative. Jesus works via His Church which alone has Authority on earth. It ALONE can interpret the Bible and Tradition with Authority. It alone can apply the Bible and Tradition with Authority. So, we have what Mormons call "A Three Legged STOOL" = Bible, Tradition, Church.

The KEY to this is that all 3 are equal and inseparable!!!!! It is only when this is understood that they dynamics of Sola Ecclesia come clearly into view.

Because none is accountable or subject to any other, logically all must be in agreement, which is what the LDS insists is so. There's no need for accountability among them because there is no conflict between them. Got it?

Because there is no conflict between them, they all MUST teach the same things, even if such is not explicit in any one of the 3. This is why all 3 must be viewed together, as a set, each supplying with the other may not clearly. Got it?

Therefore, Tradition says what the Bible says and what the Church says. The Church says what the Bible says and what Tradition says. The Bible says what Tradition says and what the Church says. They CANNOT be in conflict, they must be viewed as a set. If something in the Bible appears to be in conflict with the Tradition of the Church - such is a wrong appearance, as the Church will point out. And if the Bible says nothing specifically about something in Tradition, well - that's why we need Tradition. Not everything is contained in the Bible! And if note everything is in either the Bible or Tradition, well, that's why we need the Church! As Brigham Young said, "The Church doesn't need the bible, the bible needs the Church."


MY thoughts....
What are yours?


Pax.


- Josiah



.

 

[ETide]

To the question of the thread..

This is actually an extremely important question!



MY view...


IF Tradition and Scripture are equal, then we've embraced a circular, self-authenticating principle of accountability that provides no accountability whatsoever.


An illustration:

The Church of Bob teaches that Jesus had 100 children. This is part of the "Tradition" of the Church of Bob (hereafter referred to as CB). The CB self-claims that God told them that little ditty and they are now "stewards" of that Tradition, and CB notes with glee that NOTHING whatsoever in the Bible remotely suggests otherwise, so it's not "in conflict with" Scripture.

Many Christians question this teaching. But CB (embracing Sola Ecclesia and rejecting Sola Scriptura) insists that only CB can act as the arbiter for religious doctrine - they are the "sole final arbiter" so this question will be given to the Leadership of the CB who alone is entrusted with this authority. The Leadership of CB is made up entirely of clergy who have vowed (upon death) to uphold, defend and promote the Tradition of CB which, of course, includes that Jesus had 100 children. And what will the Leadership of the CB use as it's norma normans (the Rule, the Canon, the Standard) for the self-evaluation of self-teachings? The teachings of CB - the Tradition that they were given by God and so is correct, which, of course, includes the Tradition that Jesus had 100 children.

Soooooooooo, this teaching about the 100 children of Jesus will be evaluated/arbitrated by the group that teaches that, by those who have vowed upon death to uphold the teachings of the self-same group, and will use the teachings of the self-same group to norm the teachings of the self-same group.

Wanna guess what their conclusion will be????
And using their embrace principle of norming, is it justified?

BUT wait, there's more!!! Because CB will self-claim that that conclusion is infallible!
And because it's infallible, it's unaccountable.
So the whole process is moot and unnecessary.
Whatever CB says is True.
End of story.
Put your hand down.

End of illustration.


There's a teacher (person, congregation, denomination). The teachings (doctrines, claims, interpretations, etc.) which are embraced are "Tradition." The "Tradition" of that teacher (person, congregation, denomination).

Let's say that teaching (Tradition) of that teacher (person, congregation or denomination) is questioned - especially in light of the firm warnings about false teachings and antichrists and those that would lead many astray.

Under Sola Ecclesia, the teacher insists that he alone is the "sole final arbiter" for himself for he self-claims only he has such authority. So, the teacher will be the sole evaluator for the teachings of himself and he will have final "say" here.

But that still leaves the issue of the norma normans - WHAT will serve as the Rule, the Canon for this evaluation? The teacher insists that his teachings will serve as the Canon or Rule for his teachings, the Standard to which his teachings will be evaluated or normed.

Now, the teacher can certainly add WHATEVER he wants to this formula - sharing the "norma normans" spot with his own teachings, it will not (and can not) change the outcome, since his own teachings is also a norm. The conclusion will be the same, reglardless of what OTHER things might be added. The most someone could note is that some other factor doesn't specifically teach what he does - but his teachings do, so the point is moot.




A case in point:

Mormons (who embrace Sola Ecclesia too) put it this way:

God established the LDS as The Church of Jesus Christ. God have it Authority to teach and God works through His Church in a unique way.

The LDS is a teacher - it teaches many things. People inside and outside (the apostate) the Church are invited and encouraged to investigate and evaluate their teachings.

However, such can only be done Authoritatively by the Church, since it alone has that Authority. The LDS will tell you if the LDS is correct or not, for only it can say. It is the Body of Christ, it is His Church, it alone has this Authority.

Now, the LDS is very open about the fact that not all it teaches is contained within the pages of the Bible - which it regards as apostolic and authoritative BUT it does NOT contain all Truth. Nope. God has revealed much more to and through His Church. This is called "Tradition." Unlike the Catholic Church, Mormons quickly wrote this down (by revelvation) for all the world to see and to provide accountability for themselves. This can be found by all in the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants. It's written so LDS leaders cannot misrepresent it and so all can know it. The Word is not limited to the Bible and these additional Scriptures, but these are the written Word from God and serve as the 'norma normans.'

The Bible and Tradition are also joined by the official rulings and decisions of His Church - which are equally authoritative. Jesus works via His Church which alone has Authority on earth. It ALONE can interpret the Bible and Tradition with Authority. It alone can apply the Bible and Tradition with Authority. So, we have what Mormons call "A Three Legged STOOL" = Bible, Tradition, Church.

The KEY to this is that all 3 are equal and inseparable!!!!! It is only when this is understood that they dynamics of Sola Ecclesia come clearly into view.

Because none is accountable or subject to any other, logically all must be in agreement, which is what the LDS insists is so. There's no need for accountability among them because there is no conflict between them. Got it?

Because there is no conflict between them, they all MUST teach the same things, even if such is not explicit in any one of the 3. This is why all 3 must be viewed together, as a set, each supplying with the other may not clearly. Got it?

Therefore, Tradition says what the Bible says and what the Church says. The Church says what the Bible says and what Tradition says. The Bible says what Tradition says and what the Church says. They CANNOT be in conflict, they must be viewed as a set. If something in the Bible appears to be in conflict with the Tradition of the Church - such is a wrong appearance, as the Church will point out. And if the Bible says nothing specifically about something in Tradition, well - that's why we need Tradition. Not everything is contained in the Bible! And if note everything is in either the Bible or Tradition, well, that's why we need the Church! As Brigham Young said, "The Church doesn't need the bible, the bible needs the Church."


MY thoughts....
What are yours?


Pax.


- Josiah



.

Well, that basically sums it up..

Thanks

 

[xapis]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaliforniaJosiah again.

...with the flavor of an infomercial:

BUT wait, there's more!!!

 

[ETide]

Well, I was not always Catholic. I was Protestant for much of my adult life and didn't think much about it as I had accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

My testimony is basically the opposite of yours.. I was raised catholic and was sent to church and cathecism for most if not all of my youth.

It was all simply ritual to me.. I was never convicted of my sin nor of my need of our Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour.. we were simply taught to go to confession and then say a few our Fathers and a couple of hail Mary's, and that was it.

But when I begun a deeper study of the Scripture and the varied interpretations that different Protestant groups have of the same verses, I realized something was missing. I didn't know that I had traditions at the time, but I learned that many things, from the format of Praise and Worship on Sundays to the way we understand the Scriptures was part of our traditions. So I began to search to find how I might know which were the Traditions of the Apostles. After many, many years of seeking and prayer, I realized that these Traditions must date back to the time of the Apostles. So, I asked the Holy Spirit to guide me to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth which is spoken of in Scripture.

I believe that many folks in Christendom go way overboard when they speak of interpretations of scripture, etc.. because the scriptures are living and powerful, they're not static or lifeless.. the word of God can speak in a wonderous way to me in one circumstance and it can speak just as wonderfully and powerfully to you in another..

I'm not saying that there is no consistency in the scriptures.. because there is much that we agree on at the surface, although because the word is infinitely deep in its ability to reveal its truth through the Spirit.. there's infinitely more to it than just looking for the correct interpretation..

Those establishments which claim that they have the correct interpretation are completely missing the living and abiding nature of the scriptures..

The Christian is also in a growing mode.. there are many levels of maturity that a believer can grow into, beginning at infancy, when they're first added to the body of Christ by God.. so to claim that there's a discreet interpretation to the scriptures which you're seeking for, misses the point of them in the first place.. imo..

I have discovered the Sound Doctrine which was passed on by the Apostles through the Church from that time straight on down to our own time. This is the means that Jesus gave us a means to know what the correct interpretation of His Written Word is. Else, how do we know which of the conflicting interpretations of the same verse is correct?

Do you truly believe that they have the correct interpretation, as if to suggest that they have fully exhausted them in their entirety..? I doubt if you'd agree with that.. think about it.. if they claim the correct interpretation, then they reduce the living and abiding word of God to a static and lifeless document which meets their assessment of it..

Again, I'm not saying that the scriptures can say whatever we want them to say.. although the ones who claim that they can see are usually rhe ones who are blind.

Eventually I found that the Catholic Church can actually trace back to that time. I have come to believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ so long ago in Israel and that He has preserved it down through the ages from that time even to our own day. No other faith has the lineage from our time straight back to the Apostles.

A diligent study of the scriptures should lead you to the scriptural fact that the church of God is not contained in an earthly institution which claims to be His church, but rather that it is His body, members which He alone has set into place as it pleases Himself.. members who He alone has sealed with the Spirit of promise, even Christ within us, our hope of glory..

Sounds as though your search completely missed the scriptural reality of what the church of God actually is.. imo anyway..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

To the question of the thread..

This is actually an extremely important question!



MY view...


IF Tradition and Scripture are equal, then we've embraced a circular, self-authenticating principle of accountability that provides no accountability whatsoever.


An illustration:

The Church of Bob teaches that Jesus had 100 children. This is part of the "Tradition" of the Church of Bob (hereafter referred to as CB). The CB self-claims that God told them that little ditty and they are now "stewards" of that Tradition, and CB notes with glee that NOTHING whatsoever in the Bible remotely suggests otherwise, so it's not "in conflict with" Scripture.

Many Christians question this teaching. But CB (embracing Sola Ecclesia and rejecting Sola Scriptura) insists that only CB can act as the arbiter for religious doctrine - they are the "sole final arbiter" so this question will be given to the Leadership of the CB who alone is entrusted with this authority. The Leadership of CB is made up entirely of clergy who have vowed (upon death) to uphold, defend and promote the Tradition of CB which, of course, includes that Jesus had 100 children. And what will the Leadership of the CB use as it's norma normans (the Rule, the Canon, the Standard) for the self-evaluation of self-teachings? The teachings of CB - the Tradition that they were given by God and so is correct, which, of course, includes the Tradition that Jesus had 100 children.

Soooooooooo, this teaching about the 100 children of Jesus will be evaluated/arbitrated by the group that teaches that, by those who have vowed upon death to uphold the teachings of the self-same group, and will use the teachings of the self-same group to norm the teachings of the self-same group.

Wanna guess what their conclusion will be????
And using their embrace principle of norming, is it justified?

BUT wait, there's more!!! Because CB will self-claim that that conclusion is infallible!
And because it's infallible, it's unaccountable.
So the whole process is moot and unnecessary.
Whatever CB says is True.
End of story.
Put your hand down.

End of illustration.


There's a teacher (person, congregation, denomination). The teachings (doctrines, claims, interpretations, etc.) which are embraced are "Tradition." The "Tradition" of that teacher (person, congregation, denomination).

Let's say that teaching (Tradition) of that teacher (person, congregation or denomination) is questioned - especially in light of the firm warnings about false teachings and antichrists and those that would lead many astray.

Under Sola Ecclesia, the teacher insists that he alone is the "sole final arbiter" for himself for he self-claims only he has such authority. So, the teacher will be the sole evaluator for the teachings of himself and he will have final "say" here.

But that still leaves the issue of the norma normans - WHAT will serve as the Rule, the Canon for this evaluation? The teacher insists that his teachings will serve as the Canon or Rule for his teachings, the Standard to which his teachings will be evaluated or normed.

Now, the teacher can certainly add WHATEVER he wants to this formula - sharing the "norma normans" spot with his own teachings, it will not (and can not) change the outcome, since his own teachings is also a norm. The conclusion will be the same, reglardless of what OTHER things might be added. The most someone could note is that some other factor doesn't specifically teach what he does - but his teachings do, so the point is moot.




A case in point:

Mormons (who embrace Sola Ecclesia too) put it this way:

God established the LDS as The Church of Jesus Christ. God have it Authority to teach and God works through His Church in a unique way.

The LDS is a teacher - it teaches many things. People inside and outside (the apostate) the Church are invited and encouraged to investigate and evaluate their teachings.

However, such can only be done Authoritatively by the Church, since it alone has that Authority. The LDS will tell you if the LDS is correct or not, for only it can say. It is the Body of Christ, it is His Church, it alone has this Authority.

Now, the LDS is very open about the fact that not all it teaches is contained within the pages of the Bible - which it regards as apostolic and authoritative BUT it does NOT contain all Truth. Nope. God has revealed much more to and through His Church. This is called "Tradition." Unlike the Catholic Church, Mormons quickly wrote this down (by revelvation) for all the world to see and to provide accountability for themselves. This can be found by all in the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants. It's written so LDS leaders cannot misrepresent it and so all can know it. The Word is not limited to the Bible and these additional Scriptures, but these are the written Word from God and serve as the 'norma normans.'

The Bible and Tradition are also joined by the official rulings and decisions of His Church - which are equally authoritative. Jesus works via His Church which alone has Authority on earth. It ALONE can interpret the Bible and Tradition with Authority. It alone can apply the Bible and Tradition with Authority. So, we have what Mormons call "A Three Legged STOOL" = Bible, Tradition, Church.

The KEY to this is that all 3 are equal and inseparable!!!!! It is only when this is understood that they dynamics of Sola Ecclesia come clearly into view.

Because none is accountable or subject to any other, logically all must be in agreement, which is what the LDS insists is so. There's no need for accountability among them because there is no conflict between them. Got it?

Because there is no conflict between them, they all MUST teach the same things, even if such is not explicit in any one of the 3. This is why all 3 must be viewed together, as a set, each supplying with the other may not clearly. Got it?

Therefore, Tradition says what the Bible says and what the Church says. The Church says what the Bible says and what Tradition says. The Bible says what Tradition says and what the Church says. They CANNOT be in conflict, they must be viewed as a set. If something in the Bible appears to be in conflict with the Tradition of the Church - such is a wrong appearance, as the Church will point out. And if the Bible says nothing specifically about something in Tradition, well - that's why we need Tradition. Not everything is contained in the Bible! And if note everything is in either the Bible or Tradition, well, that's why we need the Church! As Brigham Young said, "The Church doesn't need the bible, the bible needs the Church."


MY thoughts....
What are yours?


Pax.


- Josiah

Well, that basically sums it up..

Thanks

Thank you.
It doesn't seem like rocket science to me.



.

 

[Asinner]

[/size]


Thank you.
It doesn't seem like rocket science to me.



.

The Kingdom of God cannot be explained with our minds. His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are not our own. Can we understand the incomprehensible? Is it our ability to reason that makes us Christian - I choose God; therefore I am? What about faith?

We are intellectual beings, but aren't we more than that? Where does humility come from? Purity?

Just some of my thoughts . . .

God Bless

 

[xapis]

The Kingdom of God cannot be explained with our minds. His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are not our own. Can we understand the incomprehensible?

Not everything was meant to be incomprehensible...

Rom. 16:25-26 — "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (emphasis added)

I Cor. 4:1 — "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." (emphasis added)

Eph. 1:9 — "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself" (emphasis added)

Eph. 3:3-4 — "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)"

 

[Asinner]

Not everything was meant to be incomprehensible...

Rom. 16:25-26 — "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (emphasis added)

I Cor. 4:1 — "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." (emphasis added)

Eph. 1:9 — "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself" (emphasis added)

Eph. 3:3-4 — "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)"

It is absolutely manifested today.

 

[Asinner]

Not everything was meant to be incomprehensible...

Rom. 16:25-26 — "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (emphasis added)

I Cor. 4:1 — "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." (emphasis added)

Eph. 1:9 — "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself" (emphasis added)

Eph. 3:3-4 — "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)"

His mysteries are revealed to us when we become as little children.

God Bless

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some thoughts...


1. The point of this thread is not our faith in our hearts but rather should our views (Tradition) and Scripture be equal as normative Authorities. It's difficult, IMO, for discussions to bear fruit if the topic is constantly shifting.


2. Agreeing that the issue is a "mystery" can certainly be the consensus that is reached. IMO, Orthodox and some Protestants embrace this far more readily than others who seem to declare their explainations or interpretations as dogma.


Pax.


- Josiah



.

 

[a_ntv]

To the question of the thread..

This is actually an extremely important question!



MY view...


IF Tradition and Scripture are equal, then we've embraced a circular, self-authenticating principle of accountability that provides no accountability whatsoever.
........

My answer is on the other thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t3142939-who-shall-interpret-the-scripture.html&page=2 (#28)

but:

Tradition and Scripture are for sure not equal:

no one read the canons of Nicea at Mass !!!
none venerate Church's Father books as we venerete the Gospel (see my atavar).

That is the reason why the Church (unlike Mormons) never wrote doew the Tradition.
The book of Mormons is normative. The Tradition is NOT normative
Our way to be against Sola Scriptura is not Sola Ecclesia!, but:

The Church is not an EXTERNAL authority over and above the scriptures, but the keeper and guardian of the truth deposited in the scriptures.

 

[Asinner]

Some thoughts...


1. The point of this thread is not our faith in our hearts but rather should our views (Tradition) and Scripture be equal as normative Authorities. It's difficult, IMO, for discussions to bear fruit if the topic is constantly shifting.


2. Agreeing that the issue is a "mystery" can certainly be the consensus that is reached. IMO, Orthodox and some Protestants embrace this far more readily than others who seem to declare their explainations or interpretations as dogma.


Pax.


- Josiah



.

Doesn't though what is in our hearts affect our views?

God Bless

Please forgive my repetitiveness.

 

[ZooMom]

Some thoughts...


1. The point of this thread is not our faith in our hearts but rather should our views (Tradition) and Scripture be equal as normative Authorities. It's difficult, IMO, for discussions to bear fruit if the topic is constantly shifting.

Sacred Tradition does not = 'our views'. Sacred Tradition is the faith of the Apostles handed down through the Church, together with Sacred Scripture. You may have another definition for tradition...but that is the Catholic definition.

2. Agreeing that the issue is a "mystery" can certainly be the consensus that is reached. IMO, Orthodox and some Protestants embrace this far more readily than others who seem to declare their explainations or interpretations as dogma.

Pax.


- Josiah

Gee...if you check off the Orthodox and the Protestants...who's left?

 

[calmcoolandelected]

To the question of the thread..

This is actually an extremely important question!



MY view...


IF Tradition and Scripture are equal, then we've embraced a circular, self-authenticating principle of accountability that provides no accountability whatsoever.


An illustration:

The Church of Bob teaches that Jesus had 100 children. This is part of the "Tradition" of the Church of Bob (hereafter referred to as CB). The CB self-claims that God told them that little ditty and they are now "stewards" of that Tradition, and CB notes with glee that NOTHING whatsoever in the Bible remotely suggests otherwise, so it's not "in conflict with" Scripture.

Many Christians question this teaching. But CB (embracing Sola Ecclesia and rejecting Sola Scriptura) insists that only CB can act as the arbiter for religious doctrine - they are the "sole final arbiter" so this question will be given to the Leadership of the CB who alone is entrusted with this authority. The Leadership of CB is made up entirely of clergy who have vowed (upon death) to uphold, defend and promote the Tradition of CB which, of course, includes that Jesus had 100 children. And what will the Leadership of the CB use as it's norma normans (the Rule, the Canon, the Standard) for the self-evaluation of self-teachings? The teachings of CB - the Tradition that they were given by God and so is correct, which, of course, includes the Tradition that Jesus had 100 children.

Soooooooooo, this teaching about the 100 children of Jesus will be evaluated/arbitrated by the group that teaches that, by those who have vowed upon death to uphold the teachings of the self-same group, and will use the teachings of the self-same group to norm the teachings of the self-same group.

Wanna guess what their conclusion will be????
And using their embrace principle of norming, is it justified?

BUT wait, there's more!!! Because CB will self-claim that that conclusion is infallible!
And because it's infallible, it's unaccountable.
So the whole process is moot and unnecessary.
Whatever CB says is True.
End of story.
Put your hand down.

End of illustration.


There's a teacher (person, congregation, denomination). The teachings (doctrines, claims, interpretations, etc.) which are embraced are "Tradition." The "Tradition" of that teacher (person, congregation, denomination).

Let's say that teaching (Tradition) of that teacher (person, congregation or denomination) is questioned - especially in light of the firm warnings about false teachings and antichrists and those that would lead many astray.

Under Sola Ecclesia, the teacher insists that he alone is the "sole final arbiter" for himself for he self-claims only he has such authority. So, the teacher will be the sole evaluator for the teachings of himself and he will have final "say" here.

But that still leaves the issue of the norma normans - WHAT will serve as the Rule, the Canon for this evaluation? The teacher insists that his teachings will serve as the Canon or Rule for his teachings, the Standard to which his teachings will be evaluated or normed.

Now, the teacher can certainly add WHATEVER he wants to this formula - sharing the "norma normans" spot with his own teachings, it will not (and can not) change the outcome, since his own teachings is also a norm. The conclusion will be the same, reglardless of what OTHER things might be added. The most someone could note is that some other factor doesn't specifically teach what he does - but his teachings do, so the point is moot.




A case in point:

Mormons (who embrace Sola Ecclesia too) put it this way:

God established the LDS as The Church of Jesus Christ. God have it Authority to teach and God works through His Church in a unique way.

The LDS is a teacher - it teaches many things. People inside and outside (the apostate) the Church are invited and encouraged to investigate and evaluate their teachings.

However, such can only be done Authoritatively by the Church, since it alone has that Authority. The LDS will tell you if the LDS is correct or not, for only it can say. It is the Body of Christ, it is His Church, it alone has this Authority.

Now, the LDS is very open about the fact that not all it teaches is contained within the pages of the Bible - which it regards as apostolic and authoritative BUT it does NOT contain all Truth. Nope. God has revealed much more to and through His Church. This is called "Tradition." Unlike the Catholic Church, Mormons quickly wrote this down (by revelvation) for all the world to see and to provide accountability for themselves. This can be found by all in the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants. It's written so LDS leaders cannot misrepresent it and so all can know it. The Word is not limited to the Bible and these additional Scriptures, but these are the written Word from God and serve as the 'norma normans.'

The Bible and Tradition are also joined by the official rulings and decisions of His Church - which are equally authoritative. Jesus works via His Church which alone has Authority on earth. It ALONE can interpret the Bible and Tradition with Authority. It alone can apply the Bible and Tradition with Authority. So, we have what Mormons call "A Three Legged STOOL" = Bible, Tradition, Church.

The KEY to this is that all 3 are equal and inseparable!!!!! It is only when this is understood that they dynamics of Sola Ecclesia come clearly into view.

Because none is accountable or subject to any other, logically all must be in agreement, which is what the LDS insists is so. There's no need for accountability among them because there is no conflict between them. Got it?

Because there is no conflict between them, they all MUST teach the same things, even if such is not explicit in any one of the 3. This is why all 3 must be viewed together, as a set, each supplying with the other may not clearly. Got it?

Therefore, Tradition says what the Bible says and what the Church says. The Church says what the Bible says and what Tradition says. The Bible says what Tradition says and what the Church says. They CANNOT be in conflict, they must be viewed as a set. If something in the Bible appears to be in conflict with the Tradition of the Church - such is a wrong appearance, as the Church will point out. And if the Bible says nothing specifically about something in Tradition, well - that's why we need Tradition. Not everything is contained in the Bible! And if note everything is in either the Bible or Tradition, well, that's why we need the Church! As Brigham Young said, "The Church doesn't need the bible, the bible needs the Church."


MY thoughts....
What are yours?


Pax.


- Josiah



.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving to CaliforniaJosiah again."

Are you sure you're only 18?

CC&E

 

[Lynn73]

You've got to be kidding! Only 18?

 

[stray bullet]

To the question of the thread..

This is actually an extremely important question!



MY view...


IF Tradition and Scripture are equal, then we've embraced a circular, self-authenticating principle of accountability that provides no accountability whatsoever.


An illustration:

The Church of Bob teaches that Jesus had 100 children. This is part of the "Tradition" of the Church of Bob (hereafter referred to as CB). The CB self-claims that God told them that little ditty and they are now "stewards" of that Tradition, and CB notes with glee that NOTHING whatsoever in the Bible remotely suggests otherwise, so it's not "in conflict with" Scripture.

The premise of your little lecture is based on a false premise and an inability to understand the nature of Holy Tradition and Scripture- in addition to your inability to understand Magisterium from Tradition.

Tradition is not what the Church teaches. Tradition comprises of all that was revealed to the apostles by God. Scripture consists of Holy Tradition that was written down apostolically. In Catholicism, these teachings are preserved by the Holy Spirit. In protestantism, they are only able to be preserved by the Holy Spirit through writing them into canon (although such a belief has no biblical basis).

If you want to talk about circular reasoning, you need to take a look at your own standards.

Tradition (and the part of it that is found in Tradition), is true because it was taught by God through the apostles. The teachings are preserved by the Holy Spirit.

Sound familiar? That's because in protestantism, scripture is true because it was taught by God through the apostles, with the teachings preserved by the Holy Spirit. Why do you use scripture? Because it is infallible. Why is it infallible? Because it is inspired by God. Why do you think it is inspired by God? Because the bible says so. Everything the bible says is true because the bible say so.

Without apostles to lead you, nor any set up standards other than 'if you can interpret it, go for it', protestantism is one giant glob of unaccountability, filled with circular reasoning and justification- and numerous gaps in reasoning and logic, including:" go by the bible alone, even though the bible does not say t"o and "the bible is infallible, even though no infallible person decided which is inspired and which isn't".

 

[WarriorAngel]

Tradition wasn't declared equal to the Scriptures by the RCC until the Council of Trent in the 16th century... interestingly, that declaration is newer than Protestantism.

My question: What led to the RCC decision to declare Tradition equal to the Scriptures?

The only time the Church defined an ancient belief was when it was questioned.