LOL! That was my first reaction.
You are right, staying on track is part of the central discipline of discussion. Even though I am being attacked for my beliefs I do enjoy the discussions. I always seem to learn something like a different perspective on my own faith.
That’s a mysterious statement. I will ponder that for awhile. I’ve never thought about it like that before. Thanks.
Ask a bible only person “where was the bible when Jesus walked the earth? Where was the bible at Pentecost? When Steven was stoned?”goout:
That’s a mysterious statement. I will ponder that for awhile. I’ve never thought about it like that before. Thanks.
You believe that Catholicism is the source of scripture? I would be interested in how you come to this viewpoint. I have to believe this is your own personal opinion as all the Catholic scholars I’m aware of attribute the authors of scripture to the prophets of old.
Certainly the NT hadn’t been written when Jesus was here but the OT was. In fact Jesus held the Jews accountable to what was written in the OT. I believe Jesus quoted from 24 different OT books.
Sola Scriptura doesn’t rule out Tradition in general. It would rule out a Tradition that conflicts with Holy Scripture. I understand of course that Catholics don’t believe any of Sacred Tradition conflicts with Holy Scripture. And there, as they say, is the rub.
What do you mean by Tradition?
In practice though, the protestants I know simply reject any sort of human authority as the basis of scripture. And if you bring this obvious problem up…the origin of the bible… they tend to get very uncomfortable.goout:
Sola Scriptura doesn’t rule out Tradition in general. It would rule out a Tradition that conflicts with Holy Scripture. I understand of course that Catholics don’t believe any of Sacred Tradition conflicts with Holy Scripture. And there, as they say, is the rub.
A suggestion for the OP - perhaps choose a particular Tradition to discuss in terms of Holy Scripture. This accomplishes 2 things. First, it educates the Protestant (and perhaps you even?!) on Tradition. Second, it educates you both on Scripture. Worst case, both parties learn from each other - and perhaps understand each other better.
And by extension, how many Jesus’ are there?Sundiver:
And how many are there?TULIPed:
What do you mean by Tradition?
Peace!!!
Sorry - I meant to say - choose a particular example of Sacred Tradition.
Thats what im thinking. I would love to know where these lines of tradition are determined. Where does the line become - “nope YOU have gone too far”.
We don’t think of Tradition as one particular teaching or another, or this custom or that. We first of all consider the incarnate Christ as one with his people. And as the fullness of revelation Christ hands on himself.goout:
Sola Scriptura doesn’t rule out Tradition in general. It would rule out a Tradition that conflicts with Holy Scripture. I understand of course that Catholics don’t believe any of Sacred Tradition conflicts with Holy Scripture. And there, as they say, is the rub.
A suggestion for the OP - perhaps choose a particular Tradition to discuss in terms of Holy Scripture. This accomplishes 2 things. First, it educates the Protestant (and perhaps you even?!) on Tradition. Second, it educates you both on Scripture. Worst case, both parties learn from each other - and perhaps understand each other better.
Got it. I was trying to set up a situation for a discussion relative to the question set forth by the OP. I always find it easier to talk about an issue when there is a bit of specificity.
Not a personal opinion, although perhaps you’re interpreting it in a way not intended.
Yes, but those books weren’t the “OT” or “part of the Bible” at that point – they were merely Jewish scripture. They aren’t part of the Bible because of the esteem that Jews hold for them; they’re part of the Bible because the Church discerned that they are. There are many, many more books of holy write in the Jewish tradition, and they’re not part of the Bible. So… just because they existed in print, it doesn’t mean that the OT existed.
Human authors, for one. They’re true authors as well!
This is the essence of the misunderstanding: you’re asserting that there’s one and only one cause of the Bible. That’s just not true.
Good response.
I’ve had this discussion with several,“Sola Scriptura,” proponents. This is a valid distinction.
That way of bifurcating scripture from Tradition is foreign to me. In the case of purgatory or anything else , scripture informs Tradition, and Tradition informs scripture. It’s all unified, because scripture is one with the Church.goout:
Got it. I was trying to set up a situation for a discussion relative to the question set forth by the OP. I always find it easier to talk about an issue when there is a bit of specificity.
For example - take the concept of Purgatory. Would that be more and example of Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture? A Protestant would probably see it as more the former since it’s not mentioned explicitly in scripture. And yet, Catholics believe that it’s supported by scripture (maybe even explicitly). What a great way for the Protestant to perhaps learn more about Catholicism, and maybe both to learn more about scripture.