The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

[fhansen]

and that's because of its author, God himself. So it is the ultimate authority for doctrine.

God's the author of Tradition too. And Tradition is carried down by the Church, whose members also wrote NT Scripture which she likewise carried down-and later assembled into canon.

 

[fhansen]

Therefore that is Sola Ecclesia.

Sure. In the same way that your understanding is actually Sola releghunter.

 

[redleghunter]

God's the author of Tradition too. And Tradition is carried down by the Church, whose members also wrote NT Scripture which she likewise carried down-and later assembled into canon.

Can you give me a list of those non written down traditions and what year they were finally put you pen?

 

[redleghunter]

Sure. In the same way that your understanding is actually Sola releghunter.

Still getting that one wrong are you?

 

[Swag365]

Can you give me a list of those non written down traditions and what year they were finally put you pen?

That would take some time. I will be happy to do it for you for a fee of $10,000, paid in advance.

 

[fhansen]

I guess you have the answer.

How much of Sacred Scriptures has the magisterium actually infallibly interpreted?

There isn't much of Scripture that she's officially interpreted as far as I know-there's no need. So in her catechetical teachings or concilliar decrees, for examples, she uses Scripture among other sources to support her positions, just as anyone else does. Additionally, her Traditional position on the Real Presence, as an example, interprets John chap 6 by virtue of that understanding. Both in the east and west, the RP has always and everywhere been the belief since time immemorial, as they say.

 

[fhansen]

Still getting that one wrong are you?

Not at all. A human vessel or vessels are necessarily, unavoidably, required in order to apply the rule. And they just plain don't all end up with the same results.

So if we were to get honest with ourselves about this we'd all say that such and such is/are the sources of my revelation and I infallibly interpret them to mean this or that such that any conflicting interpretation is wrong. With that acknowledgment and admission, we might finally be able to begin to take a hard look at just who might have the best claim to having the right to do the interpreting.

 

[redleghunter]

There isn't much of Scripture that she's officially interpreted as far as I know-there's no need.

No need. Interesting. I keep hearing Scripture is too difficult to understand.

 

[redleghunter]

Not at all. A human vessel or vessels are necessarily, unavoidably, required in order to apply the rule. And they just plain don't all end up with the same results.

So if we were to get honest with ourselves about this we'd all say that such and such is/are the sources of my revelation and I infallibly interpret them to mean this or that such that any conflicting interpretation is wrong. With that acknowledgment and admission, we might finally be able to begin to take a hard look at just who might have the best claim to having the right to do the interpreting.

You just told me not much of Scriptures has to be explained.

Here you go again. Know I posted this a few times.

Understanding Sola Scriptura

 

[redleghunter]

That would take some time. I will be happy to do it for you for a fee of $10,000, paid in advance.

Maybe for 10,000 Iraqi Dinar

 

[fhansen]

No need. Interesting. I keep hearing Scripture is too difficult to understand.

You just told me not much of Scriptures has to be explained.

Here you go again. Know I posted this a few times.

Understanding Sola Scriptura

No, people ask for some verse by verse official compilation of interpretations for some reason. And the Church doesn't have that while there are plenty of instances where Scripture is referenced in support of her positions. So interpretations are evident where we find particular teachings being discussed.

So, again, no one disagrees about Scripture being right, only about whether or not those applying it to some particular belief or teaching are right in their understanding to begin with. So, as an example, I can ask you whether or not Scripture, as the rule of faith, affirms or denies the requirement for Baptism for regeneration. And then you, as others have done before you, can freely pontificate on the subject to your hearts content, confident that you have God's exclusive take on the matter.

 

[Albion]

No, there is no basis to believe that everything our Lord taught is contained in Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture itself does not make this claim.

Then it's up to you to explain to us where it is to be found by us disciples.

No, God and Sacred Scripture are not the same.

Obviously, they are not. But no one has said that they are.

 

[Albion]

They are contained within the traditions referred to at 2 Thess. 2:15, for example.

You mean the traditions that we find mentioned in the material you say is not adequate??

And, by the way, what ARE those traditions? Tell us what we should believe or do...thanks to having been told by Scripture Alone to hold fast to some traditions. Which traditions are these? Are they doctrinal or merely wholesome customs? Are they things that were routine with the early Christians--and perhaps us as well? What exactly are the traditions we must hold onto according to your line of thought?

 

[Albion]

According to your own standards, it would have to be a source or authority about which there was no disagreement, no diversity of interpretations, no division of opinion about what it was revealing. As I have shown before, that cannot be Sacred Tradition...and it cannot be the "authority" of any particular church or church leaders.

Why not?

Because, as I just told you (above) and have told you many times before, you have said Sola Scriptura cannot be the guide since the churches which claim to follow it are in disagreement about the meaning of parts of it (Scripture), but THIS ALSO IS THE CASE WITH YOUR REPLACEMENT FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA.

You've laid out your reason for dismissing Sola Scriptura but then you advocate for an alternative that fails equally to meet your standard.

 

[redleghunter]

So, again, no one disagrees about Scripture being right, only about whether or not those applying it to some particular belief or teaching are right in their understanding to begin with. So, as an example, I can ask you whether or not Scripture, as the rule of faith, affirms or denies the requirement for Baptism for regeneration. And then you, as others have done before you, can freely pontificate on the subject to your hearts content, confident that you have God's exclusive take on the matter.

That is a good point. And I will always answer "What does the Bible teach?"

In every case in Acts of the Apostles there were people who heard the Gospel message, some reacted to it (were pricked in the heart) and believed and then in faith got in the water to be baptized. You cannot separate the full 'process' as evidenced from Holy Scriptures. Then we have St Paul say he was called to preach the Gospel and not to baptize. Which is a 'duty' description as Paul preached the Gospel and the church baptizes.

The problem comes in when some try to separate a process that cannot be separated. This goes with the whole "faith and works" debates. You cannot separate the two as you cannot separate heat and the flame from a fire. Ephesians 2:8-10 makes this clear.

That is drawing out the truth from the Scriptures and not reading into the Scriptures.

 

[Swag365]

Then it's up to you to explain to us where it is to be found by us disciples.

No, it is not.

 

[Swag365]

You mean the traditions that we find mentioned in the material you say is not adequate??

I have not said anything about adequacy in this thread. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

And, by the way, what ARE those traditions?

I gave one example above.

Tell us what we should believe or do.

You should believe what is written in the Nicene Creed. You should be baptized, follow the commandments to the best of your ability, and repent when you sin. Beyond that you may do whatever you please.

Which traditions are these?

I gave you one example above. Here is another example, which you may believe being an Anglican. When our blessed Lord Jesus said "This is my body" he was not merely speaking symbolically.

Are they doctrinal or merely wholesome customs? Are they things that were routine with the early Christians--and perhaps us as well? What exactly are the traditions we must hold onto according to your line of thought?

That's a good question. I think you would agree that some are more important than others. For example, you would probably agree that our tradition that the book of James is the inspired word of God, is more important than the particular day on which our Lord's birthday is celebrated (December 25, or other dates in some churches).

None of this subsequent line of inquiry that you and @redleghunter have engaged in changes the fact that the assertion that "The Scriptures are the only infallible authority" is "easily proven false because our Lord Jesus is also an infalliable authority". Do either of you have any substantive refutation of this point? It seems that both of you hope to refute it by engaging in the line of inquiry that both of you have done of the past few pages of this thread, but I am not particularly interested in subjecting myself to a long inquisition.

If you have a refutation I would be happy to hear it but the Q & A time is coming to an end.

 

[Swag365]

Because, as I just told you (above) and have told you many times before, you have said Sola Scriptura cannot be the guide since the churches which claim to follow it are in disagreement about the meaning of parts of it (Scripture), but THIS ALSO IS THE CASE WITH YOUR REPLACEMENT FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA.

You've laid out your reason for dismissing Sola Scriptura but then you advocate for an alternative that fails equally to meet your standard.

I think you make a good point here. Tradition and even an "infallible statement" by a pope or another church leader would still suffer the same fate as Sacred Scripture. Someone has to interpret what is valid tradition, and one would also need to interpret the meaning and significance of infalliable statements. You can go to Catholic websites and find Catholics debating about these topics in just the same manner that Protestants debate Sacred Scripture. So I do not think it is a valid argument to say that Sacred Scripture alone cannot be a valid (or the sole) rule of faith merely because there are diverging interpretations of it.

Personally I think that Sacred Scripture is adequate at least insofar as the essentials of the faith. If a person had a copy of the New Testament and no other resources I think it would be sufficient for him to get saved.

But while I think that Sacred Scripture is adequate for that purpose, I don't think it logically concludes that it is the only infalliable authority. Oral tradition passed down by word of mouth, is also adequate. People were getting saved before the first book of the New Testament was ever written, and for hundreds of years before the printing press and widespread literacy.

I don't think you would disagree that things that our blessed Lord and the apostles communicated, but which are not recorded in Sacred Scripture, are valid rules that Christians should follow. Both you and @redleghunter seem to doubt that they could or have been effectively transmitted by means other than writing. I think that is why you ask questions like "Please provide a list of the traditions" and so forth. Your objection seems to be that you think that the oral traditions mentioned in 2 Thess could not have have been preserved or passed down through the ages without considerable corruption.

But ultimately these things come down to a matter of faith. I have faith that the traditions have been preserved and not corrupted over time, just as you have faith that the Sacred Scripture has been preserved and not corrupted over time. It is not as if we have the original manuscripts, and it is not as if written documents are incapable of corruption.

It cannot be proved as a matter of scientific fact that Sacred Scripture and/or Sacred Tradition have not been corrputed. You believe that God has preserved Sacred Scripture, and I believe that God has acted within the Catholic Church over time to preserve the tradition as well.

 

[Albion]

I think you make a good point here. Tradition and even an "infallible statement" by a pope or another church leader would still suffer the same fate as Sacred Scripture.

Okay. So we seem to be in agreement that the often heard argument that the problem with Sola Scriptura is that everybody is on his own to interpret the meaning...is a false charge. Just as is the case with churches that are NOT Sola Scriptura, whatever is the authority, it has to be interpreted AND IS interpreted for the people.

Someone has to interpret what is valid tradition, and one would also need to interpret the meaning and significance of infalliable statements. You can go to Catholic websites and find Catholics debating about these topics in just the same manner that Protestants debate Sacred Scripture.

Then this is NOT a difference between the churches. That's what I have explained many times to opponents of Sola Scriptura.

So I do not think it is a valid argument to say that Sacred Scripture alone cannot be a valid (or the sole) rule of faith merely because there are diverging interpretations of it.

Wonderful!

Personally I think that Sacred Scripture is adequate at least insofar as the essentials of the faith. If a person had a copy of the New Testament and no other resources I think it would be sufficient for him to get saved.

Absolutely.

But while I think that Sacred Scripture is adequate for that purpose, I don't think it logically concludes that it is the only infalliable authority.

Well, then, what are the other ones and how do we know them to be infallible?

Oral tradition passed down by word of mouth, is also adequate.

So long as we know what it was. By and large we do not. We know that there was oral transmission, but not most of what was transmitted. But to the extent that there are records of what Church Fathers said, we have something to go on. The problem is that there is no reason to say that whatever they said or wrote is in step with the "oral transmission" from the Apostles. Indeed, most of the time, with most of the doctrinal issues, the Early Church Fathers are in disagreement with each other, proving that we cannot determine what of it, if any of it, can be considered the final and accurate word.

People were getting saved before the first book of the New Testament was ever written, and for hundreds of years before the printing press and widespread literacy.

Of course, but how does that shed any light on what we have been discussing?

I don't think you would disagree that things that our blessed Lord and the apostles communicated, but which are not recorded in Sacred Scripture, are valid rules that Christians should follow.

In principle, no. So just present them to us and we'll take a look.

 

[redleghunter]

None of this subsequent line of inquiry that you and @redleghunter have engaged in changes the fact that the assertion that "The Scriptures are the only infallible authority" is "easily proven false because our Lord Jesus is also an infalliable authority".

Yes our Lord is obviously the Infallible Authority. Now where do we find His teachings, commands and exhortations? Answer: Holy Scriptures.

Unless of course you or others are getting direct communications from Heaven?

Do either of you have any substantive refutation of this point?

See above as what you claim is a false premise.

It seems that both of you hope to refute it by engaging in the line of inquiry that both of you have done of the past few pages of this thread, but I am not particularly interested in subjecting myself to a long inquisition.

It is the claim of the Roman Catholic church that her magisterium is the ultimate ruling on what is infallible. Apparently this is based on Tradition and Sacred Scriptures. It is the Sacred Scriptures "plus" agencies of men. Don't get me wrong. Jesus left us with the apostles to establish His Church. And humans minister within His Church. Those human beings are fallible. The Holy Scriptures are infallible as we have the words, commands and teachings of God present. What other than is from God to be used to test traditions and truth claims? You say the magisterium made up of fallible men. Would not we test what these men think is infallible with the only infallible source, which is God's revelation to mankind the Holy Scriptures?

I don't think you would disagree that things that our blessed Lord and the apostles communicated, but which are not recorded in Sacred Scripture, are valid rules that Christians should follow. Both you and @redleghunter seem to doubt that they could or have been effectively transmitted by means other than writing. I think that is why you ask questions like "Please provide a list of the traditions and so forth."

Is it not interesting that after the apostles died and went to Glory with our Lord that those who followed them preserved the Sacred Scriptures but somehow never got around to writing down the alleged traditions you claim. That is why when asked, a Catholic cannot produce even some major doctrines that were handed down by mouth instead of by written means. Only the Gnostics claimed secret knowledge on their leaders knew about and only passed down to small groups.

So that is why I ask "what are the traditions not passed down in writing?" And since we have two "One True Churches" East and West the water gets a bit muddy. For example, I go to an Eastern Orthodox baptism and they dunk the catechumen three times. I go to an adult RCIA baptism and they are splashed with water. Which tradition was handed down straight from the Apostles?

All I am asking for is one or two major Catholic Traditions not mentioned in the Bible but was passed down unwritten.