GreggAlvarez;7556298:
I disagree with nothing on that post.
I disagree with the way you are twisting it. That is all.
The posters here did not take it out of context.
The “prophets” already had the Truths and wrote down what they could write down. (Obviously, that could not have been everything they were taught.) If those Truths later written in Scriptures were not up for personal interpretation by the “prophet”, then how are we to assume that we could interpret Truths out of Scripture that were Truths that were not supposed to be interpreted privately from the beginning? Especially when we see that there are contradictory interpretations?
Those two questions need to be answered by those who do not believe in the Church’s Sacred Tradition (capital T).
This is just a different view from what he said. Again though, I disagree with nothing he said. I just disagree with your use of it. And the posters here are not taking it out of context. They might be trying too hard to force it, but it is not out of context. It is actually in context.
Clarity… It is a wonderful thing.
You agree then that In context, the “interpretation” which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader. Yet you say that I am twisting it somehow. How exactly am I twisting it?
You are rationalizing the context to put it in terms that allows one to create their own “eternal truths” by a private interpretation/understanding of Scriptures. A 30,000-verse book is not something one can interpret on a whim.
Going back to an earlier post of yours, you say that it’s not private judgement when you have truth yet, there are many (the vast majority of them) which have not been defind by your church. For those verses don’t you have to engage in private interpretation? I’m not sure you can say no to this. I didn’t quite get what you were saying earlier.
Ok… To answer the question, NO. Now, you are sure I CAN say “no” to it.
You misunderstand Tradition. There is a difference between an official declaration of a belief handed by the Apostles and the definition of it.
Before I start, I will say that I am NOT a historian. My knowledge of exact years and such is quite limited. But, Let us use Christ’s Divinity for an example because it is something we both agree on. For the first few centuries or so, it was believed through Tradition handed down by the Apostles that Christ was in fact, both Man and God. Most, if not all Christians, believed this. Later, when heresies emerged that contradicted what was believed, they set up a council to officially proclaim it and made it official doctrine. The DEFINITION was already there. That is the definition of Christ’s Divinity was already understood as true in the Church since the time of the Apostles. Now, during the council, they had to use Scriptures to scripturally support the belief.
Kind of like God had written the Law (Ten Commandments) in our hearts (Tradition), but later gave the Law in stone (Scriptures). This is similar to Tradition and Scriptures.
With that said, it is not private interpretation when it comes to something already believed and defined (not to be confused with something officially proclaimed). Scriptures are just seen in the light of what has been believed and defined by the Apostles and perhaps, private judgment to give support to what was believed is acceptable because it is not interpretation. It just provides more support to the definition.
Everything the Apostles taught is believed and defined in the Church. But, perhaps everything is not officially proclaimed. Well, this is our belief anyway. Whether or not it is right or wrong is irrelevant. Although I certainly believe it to be true, the point of this post was to educate you on the meaning of Tradition and that it is not private interpretation when it comes to scripturally supporting what has been known in the Church. Tradition and Scriptures are believed to be mutually complimentary. Personally, I see it.
Did this clear up your confusion?
