Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt that any Christian would embrace other writings as being of the same level of significance as the Bible.
Indeed, and I would criticize them if they did. However, I do believe that we must be clear about Who and What the Word is.
OO/EO and RC embrace other writings as equal to the bible. They can't even agree to what the bible is. P uses scripture alone to determine things salvific (as you know).Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt that any Christian would embrace other writings as being of the same level of significance as the Bible.
Actually, what the Christian Church did was decide what could be used in worship liturgy. That's what constitutes the Bible. There are other things which are part of Sacred Tradition, which are also inspired, God's Word. The Church also determines that. Sacred Tradition never contradicts Sacred Scripture, and vice versa.A good question, indeed. It seems that the Christian Church has made that determination for us, has it not? When the canon of scripture was stipulated (which is another discussion entirely) it excluded all but the Bible as being the Word of God. However, there always have been those who have chosen to incorporate other writings such as the Book of Mormon, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, the Gospel of Thomas, etc., etc., etc. with the Bible as being the Word of God. I doubt you are in that category, but I could be mistaken.
We actually do place other writings, which were actually speakings set to paper, on par with the Bible.Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt that any Christian would embrace other writings as being of the same level of significance as the Bible.
No, it's not. Sacred Tradition, which provides context for the Bible, is also a source of Truth.It's the only source of truths to test the untruths. Why would I want to use unbiblical traditions to test unbiblical traditions?
No, it's not. Sacred Tradition, which provides context for the Bible, is also a source of Truth.
I don't belong to a denomination. Denominations are anti-Biblical. Maybe you can believe such an argument for modern science, but when you look at the disparity regarding Evolution and Climate Change, you have to take modern science with a grain of salt. We know what Sacred Tradition is, the Magisterium has the authority to declare what it is. And there is totally a consensus-read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Given that fact that there is absolutely no consensus regarding the content of Sacred Tradition among Christians (unless you limit the definition of Christian to members of your particular denomination) it is absurd to contend that ST is also a source of Truth. There is a much stronger argument that modern science is also a source of Truth than there is for ST.
I agree, Protestants cannot agree on what is and is not Sacred Scripture or even what the Scriptures mean.Given that fact that there is absolutely no consensus regarding the content of Sacred Tradition among Christians (unless you limit the definition of Christian to members of your particular denomination) it is absurd to contend that ST is also a source of Truth. There is a much stronger argument that modern science is also a source of Truth than there is for ST.
toucha lolI agree, Protestants cannot agree on what is and is not Sacred Scripture or even what the Scriptures mean.
I agree, Protestants cannot agree on what is and is not Sacred Scripture or even what the Scriptures mean.
OO/EO and RC embrace other writings as equal to the bible. They can't even agree to what the bible is. P uses scripture alone to determine things salvific (as you know).
I agree, Protestants cannot agree on what is and is not Sacred Scripture or even what the Scriptures mean.
The Catholic idea of "Tradition" does not require there to be any Biblical support, let along proof. The presumed authority of the church itself to define doctrine, along with an absence of Biblical opposition to whatever the doctrine might be is considered to be sufficient.What are the differences between a Protestant tradition and a RCC tradition when they both are backed up with quote proofs.
I beg your pardon! Protestants of every denomination agree on the 66 books that constitute the Bible.I agree, Protestants cannot agree on what is and is not Sacred Scripture
Sure we do and sure we can. We Catholics all use the same canon. The Church has provided interpretations for several passages. Not all of them. Not even most of them. But several. We must agree with the Church on the interpretation of those passages; but for everything else we're welcome to read sacred scripture and reach our own insights and interpretations. We're unified where we need to be and we have liberty on everything else.Neither do Catholics.
Not so. It's not challenging to find Protestant bodies who barely regard sacred scripture at all. Protestants are hardly unified on this.But the Protestants agree on what the Bible is
Putting aside the accuracy of that interpretation, logically they would have to take that view. Protestants have no historical basis for most of their beliefs so their only way to justify many things they believe in is to eschew sacred tradition entirely and "just do what the Bible says"... an approach which has not fostered unity but rather has resulted in tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations, who can't even agree with each other about how to make Kool-Aid, much less what sacred scripture teaches.and they agree that Christ was using the "sola scriptura" test of tradition and doctrine - in Mark 7:6-13 to hammer the church traditions of Jewish Magesterium.
No, that's actually not true. Some national churches include books that others do not have.Sure we do and sure we can. We Catholics all use the same canon.
Don't keep us in suspense. Which churches "barely regard sacred scripture at all?" And BTW, "barely regard" it as what?Not so. It's not challenging to find Protestant bodies who barely regard sacred scripture at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?