Why is Tradition reliable?

[patricius79]

That's kinda silly to say. The churchmen of the 4th century didn't write the Bible; and everyone knows that most of the books were in existence even before the Incarnation.

Not the N.T. books. The Old Testament Canon is not given in Scripture. It was given by the oral Tradition of the Jews.

Likewise the N.T. Canon is not given in Scripture. Nor is the closing of the N.T. Canon stated in Scripture. It was declared by the Catholic Tradition. In fact, as far as I know, none of the N.T. books even claim to be canonical.

 

[Albion]

Not the N.T. books. The Old Testament Canon is not given in Scripture. It was given by the oral Tradition of the Jews.

All of that kind of talk is beside the point. The Christian churches recognized which writings were inspired. They didn't write them personally! So that's the point...having decided which books are the word of God (and almost every church in the world accepts the same 66) WHY NOT TREAT THEM AS OUR GUIDE AND THE DETERMINER OF DOCTRINE?

 

[patricius79]

All of that kind of talk is beside the point. The Christian churches recognized which writings were inspired. They didn't write them personally! So that's the point...having decided which books are the word of God (and almost every church in the world accepts the same 66) WHY NOT TREAT THEM AS OUR GUIDE AND THE DETERMINER OF DOCTRINE?

The main issue here is that the oral Tradition--not the Bible--gives the O.T. and N.T. Canons.

From the book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation, the Scriptures never once state that the Bible is the sole absolute authority, or that it alone is the word of God.

Rather the O.T. and N.T. Christians followed both forms of Tradition (2 Thes 2:15, 1 Thes 3:10)

Moreover, Protestants absolutely insist on oral traditions, some of which are Catholic, and some of which contradict the Scriptures.

So the issue is not whether we follow oral traditions, but whether we follow the historical ones or the ones which came in the 1500s.

 

[Albion]

The main issue here is that the oral Tradition--not the Bible--gives the O.T. and N.T. Canons.

No, that isn't the main issue. That's the dodge. The main issue is this: Now that the whole church has decided which writings are indeed the word of God, WHY 'DISS' THEM AND FOLLOW SOMETHING ELSE?

 

[patricius79]

No, that isn't the main issue. That's the dodge.

well, the Bible doesn't say that

is it a dodge if someone doesn't acknowledge that the O.T. and N.T. Canons were given through the Catholic Church's Tradition?

or if they don't acknowledge that that the Bible never teaches that it alone is the absolute authority or Word of God?

 

[Albion]

well, the Bible doesn't say that

Doesn't say what?

is it a dodge...

I'd say so, but maybe it's better described as an attempt to change subject?? Either way, it's an evasion of the issue.

 

[patricius79]

Doesn't say what?


I'd say so, but maybe it's better described as an attempt to change subject?? Either way, it's an evasion of the issue.

where does the Bible say that?

also, why do you think the Bible never teaches Sola Scriptura or gives the N.T. Canon?

 

[Albion]

where does the Bible say that?

Say what?

also, why do you think the Bible never teaches Sola Scriptura or gives the N.T. Canon?

I think that the Bible makes a strong case for the reliability and completeness of Scripture. It does this in many places. By comparison, it doesn't even make a single reference to your "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition" anywhere.

The question really amounts to this: "What do you find unacceptable, unreliable, or incomplete with the word of God such that some substitute is used instead?" If we could get down to a clear explanation of that, we'd be able to make a better judgment about whether custom and legend, etc. are really all that dependable when it comes to setting dogmas binding upon the people of God.

 

[patricius79]

Say what?


I think that the Bible makes a strong case for the reliability and completeness of Scripture. It does this in many places. .

Where, exactly, does the Bible teach that the Scriptures alone are the Word of God?

2 Thes 2:15 says that we should hold fast to what was handed on, whether orally or by letter. there are many others references to the authority of oral tradition, such as 1 Thes 2:13

again, why do you think the Bible never gives the N.T. Canon?

 

[Albion]

Where, exactly, does the Bible teach that the Scriptures alone are the Word of God?

I earlier listed 19 (I believe it was) verses that teach that the Scriptures are God-given, reliable, and of the highest worth. Why that wouldn't recommend them, I don't know. Why don't you tell us what the reason is for choosing something that comes to us from mere humans instead and is not recommended anywhere in Scripture?

 

[patricius79]

I earlier listed 19 (I believe it was) verses that teach that the Scriptures are God-given, reliable, and of the highest worth. Why that wouldn't recommend them, I don't know. Why don't you tell us what the reason is for choosing something that comes to us from mere humans instead and is not recommended anywhere in Scripture?

Maybe you could quote the Scripture which you believes comes closest to saying that the Bible Alone is the Word of God.

As for your question, I don't believing in choosing something that comes to us from mere humans.

 

[Albion]

As for your question, I don't believing in choosing something that comes to us from mere humans.

Do you agree that if it's deemed to have been inspired by God (although there's nothing in it that says so), you are 'good to go,' then? Is that all it takes to turn a manmade idea into "divine revelation?"

 

[patricius79]

Do you agree that if it's deemed to have been inspired by God (although there's nothing in it that says so), you are 'good to go,' then? Is that all it takes to turn a manmade idea into "divine revelation?"

no. that's why I don't accept some of the Protestant oral traditions.

Apparently, we have established, however, that the Bible doesn't teach that it alone is the Word of God.

 

[Albion]

no. that's why I don't accept some of the Protestant oral traditions.

We don't make doctrine out of our traditions. The Catholic churches make theirs a substitute for Scripture. That's the difference, regardless of what you personally decide to accept.

Apparently, we have established, however, that the Bible doesn't teach that it alone is the Word of God.

I don't know where you'd get that idea.

 

[patricius79]

We don't make doctrine out of our traditions. The Catholic churches make theirs a substitute for Scripture. That's the difference, regardless of what you personally decide to accept.


I don't know where you'd get that idea.

From the fact that when I asked you to, you didn't provide even one Scripture which says that the Bible alone is the Word of God.

 

[Albion]

From the fact that when I asked you to, you didn't provide even one Scripture which says that the Bible alone is the Word of God.

So, not replying is, in your mind, the equivalent to agreeing to a proposition I've already rejected in very explicit terms?

 

[patricius79]

So, not replying is, in your mind, the equivalent to agreeing to a proposition I've already rejected in very explicit terms?

No. I know you don't agree. But it's been established because nobody has ever quoted a Scripture which says that the Bible Alone is the Word of God.

 

[Albion]

No. I know you don't agree. But it's been established because nobody has ever quoted a Scripture which says that the Bible Alone is the Word of God.

That doesn't establish anything except that we haven't established anything.

 

[patricius79]

That doesn't establish anything except that we haven't established anything.

Do you agree that the Bible never says that the Bible Alone is the Word of God?

 

[Albion]

Do you agree that the Bible never says that the Bible Alone is the Word of God?

It also never says that the bishop of Rome is a Pope. You do nevertheless believe him to be so, don't you? And it never says that any Apostle or bishop is to have universal jurisdiction over Christ's Church. You do nevertheless believe that to be Christ's intent, do you not? The Bible never mentions Purgatory or Indulgences or the Assumption of Mary.

The answer is that you choose to believe a theory that is outside the contents of the Bible. I, however, believe the Bible when it says that it is God's word and when it says that it can be trusted and is true. All you're doing here is trying to make a case on the use of two words that YOU have chosen.

But I do believe the Bible when it says that it is God's word, is of highest worth, and can be trusted. If that is correct, there can be NO OTHER source that supersedes it.