Sola Scriptura - Proof Text

[ddarko]

The part I bolded is fine. So, tell me, what part of Tradition does papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra come from? Actually, this is rhetorical. My point is simply this: when the “two lungs” of the Church, as Pope John Paul II the Great phrased it, can speak with one voice on what Tradition teaches, I will be in RCIA the next day. I will see no need for SS, no the need for division, as that unity will be such an undeniable evidence of the movement of the Holy Spirit within His Church.

Jon, first, you are not suppossed to wait till they unite to believe in the church. In fact, DON’T. Success on earth is not a sign of Holy Spirit working. Then you might as well convert to Islam tomorrow because they are doing pretty well compared to Catholics.

You must become a Catholic, based on what you learn, starting from Christ. Not starting from Scripture, not Luther.

As for the Tradition of Papal Infallibility and Ex Cathedra, that comes from further down the line back from Jewish Tradition known as the seat of Moses. If you are seeking honestly, I advice you to read the following. I presented a link before to you on Purgatory that I hope you read. But even if you didn’t read that, please take the time to read this:-

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html

(You can find the part about the Seat of Moses under the section titled “Common Objections to Papal Infallibility in that article”)

In case you are worried about the credentials of the author/speaker of that article, it is Dr. Scott Hahn, who was a former Protestant Theologian (now Roman Catholic).

I can provide for you. But you will have to do the hard work of reading if you truly want to seek the truth. Let me know if you need more resources.

But in any case, is the difference clear between how Tradition is used in the Catholic church vs. Lutheran/Reformed church?

God Bless

 

[Celticnovice]

How do we know what they said or didn’t say? How does one trace this back? Their teachings were, of course, authoritative. What did they say, and how do we know what they said?

Well, the OT had already been penned, but that’s besides the point.
That scripture is a subset of Tradition is fine by me. Sola scriptura is clearly a practice that is post-apostolic (why would one need iit if asking an Apostle were possible?).

So, let me ask this, of the doctrines established by the Catholic Church since the 7 councils, or later, since the Schism, and are not found in scripture, which ones are attributable, specifically, to the others who did not write things down? And how do we know?
When the Magisterium and the pope establish dogma - you pick one, preferrably one that the east does not agree with - what is the specific source (within Tradition) of this declaration?

Jon

ddarko answered this already, but I just wanted to add a couple of things to it.

1.) Canon of scripture comes to us from tradition. So does the doctrine of the Trinity, while it can be derived from scripture, isn’t fully defined without tradition.

2.) Remember just because the Orthodox/Eastern Catholics don’t define dogmas doesn’t necessarily mean they reject them. The East treats these as divine mysteries. For example, the Immaculate Conception. There were several Church Fathers that testified to Mary being in a state of grace. See the works of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and check out St. Ephraim’s Nisibene Hyms, hymn number 27, verse 8, for an Eastern perspective. In lieu of that one could make an argument that the East does believe in the IC, but I digress

 

[JonNC]

=ddarko;8150000]Well how? We have two groups who USE Scripture and Tradition and are doing perfectly fine apart from minor differences.

So minor differences that cause schism are ok? I don’t think you mean that. And anyway, most every Orthodox here says the differences are much more than minor.

We have from Tradition and Scripture, examples of where the Bishop of Rome has Primacy. Acts of the Apostles for an example has many examples.

Primacy in what way? Of honor? Is it a primacy that agrees with Nicea canon 6, which sets the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction as the western?

Then we also know that the Orthodox decide to split because the Bishop of Rome decided on a doctrine (Papal Primacy) and they disagreed with it. Thus, following the early church model, that is an incorrect course of action.

They say you split from them.

But again, this is hardly applicable since NONE of them follow Sola Scriptura and the truths held in both of the Church’s are almost identical.

Again, not what they say, the almost identical part, I mean.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

ddarko answered this already, but I just wanted to add a couple of things to it.

1.) Canon of scripture comes to us from tradition. So does the doctrine of the Trinity, while it can be derived from scripture, isn’t fully defined without tradition.

2.) Remember just because the Orthodox/Eastern Catholics don’t define dogmas doesn’t necessarily mean they reject them. The East treats these as divine mysteries. For example, the Immaculate Conception. There were several Church Fathers that testified to Mary being in a state of grace. See the works of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and check out St. Ephraim’s Nisibene Hyms, hymn number 27, verse 8, for an Eastern perspective. In lieu of that one could make an argument that the East does believe in the IC,

Neither do we.

but I digress

I think we all have.

Jon

 

[Celticnovice]

Thank you John! Did my last post make sense? I’m new to all of this.

What do you mean by EFCs?

 

[JonNC]

=ddarko;8150058]Jon, first, you are not suppossed to wait till they unite to believe in the church. In fact, DON’T. Success on earth is not a sign of Holy Spirit working. Then you might as well convert to Islam tomorrow because they are doing pretty well compared to Catholics.
You must become a Catholic, based on what you learn, starting from Christ. Not starting from Scripture, not Luther.

Then perhaps, that leaves me to wait until the Church Triumphant.

As for the Tradition of Papal Infallibility and Ex Cathedra, that comes from further down the line back from Jewish Tradition known as the seat of Moses. If you are seeking honestly, I advice you to read the following.

Hmmm. Then why the need to mention his western jurisdiction at Nicea?

I presented a link before to you on Purgatory that I hope you read. But even if you didn’t read that, please take the time to read this:-

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html

I have and I will.

But in any case, is the difference clear between how Tradition is used in the Catholic church vs. Lutheran/Reformed church?

It has been for quite a while, though I’m not sure how the Reformed use it.

His peace,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Thank you John! Did my last post make sense? I’m new to all of this.

What do you mean by EFCs?

ECF’s are the early Church fathers.

Yes, it makes sense. There is very little in Catholicism that doesn’t make sense for me. But then, there is enough that hasn’t been answered yet… primarily ecclesiology.

Jon

PS: Welcome to CAF.

 

[ddarko]

So minor differences that cause schism are ok? I don’t think you mean that. And anyway, most every Orthodox here says the differences are much more than minor.

I am saying Jon, that they have a more complete TRUTH than Reformers. Since they do start with Tradition and Scripture together, their truth is more similar.

I am not aware of any Orthodox who would compare the Roman Catholic church as been different on the part of the Reformed church.

And no, minor differences are not desirable. But they are things that can be fixed unlike that of 44000+ protestant denominations. Do you know what I mean?

Primacy in what way? Of honor? Is it a primacy that agrees with Nicea canon 6, which sets the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction as the western?

Primacy in the sense of how Rome defines it.

They say you split from them.

The point of the matter is, the Acts of the Apostles describes everyone listening to the Bishop of Rome i.e. Peter.

Thus, to disagree with the Bishop of Rome on matters of teaching, makes the other side the ones who strayed.

Again, not what they say, the almost identical part, I mean.

I honestly don’t know what you are trying to prove here. Even if the Orthodox were VERY MUCH different, it doesn’t prove Sola Scriptura is ok.

Reformers lost the plot when they threw away Church and Tradition. Orthodox had lost the plot when they threw away the Church and one specific Tradition that dealt with the Bishop of Rome.

I don’t see how either of this helps you.

God Bless

 

[Celticnovice]

ECF’s are the early Church fathers.

Yes, it makes sense. There is very little in Catholicism that doesn’t make sense for me. But then, there is enough that hasn’t been answered yet… primarily ecclesiology.

Jon

PS: Welcome to CAF.

Thank you sir!

 

[ddarko]

Then perhaps, that leaves me to wait until the Church Triumphant.

Bad call my friend. Think about it more. Perhaps as you read more and with more prayer, your choice will be hastened

Hmmm. Then why the need to mention his western jurisdiction at Nicea?

I don’t know, why does it matter? There were lots of things declared in Council of Nicea. Were all of them FALSE before that? Or were all of them in DOUBT before that?

I don’t think so.

I have and I will.

Ok good, let me know what questions you run in to.

It has been for quite a while, though I’m not sure how the Reformed use it.

Well the reformed use it exactly as you quoted in a post prior.

They validate Tradition using Scripture. Thus, leading to the initial interpretation they get to most likely be incomplete or erroneous.

Do this test. Go to 10 different denominations. Give them a passage and see how they interpret it. They will all have interpretations which are logically consistent with the rest of their interpretation of Scripture AND YET contradictory with each others.

God Bless

 

[Celticnovice]

ECF’s are the early Church fathers.

Yes, it makes sense. There is very little in Catholicism that doesn’t make sense for me. But then, there is enough that hasn’t been answered yet… **primarily ecclesiology.
**
Jon

PS: Welcome to CAF.

To the bolded point, we are still working that out, but through the Holy Spirit we will know.

 

[JonNC]

=ddarko;8150138]Bad call my friend. Think about it more. Perhaps as you read more and with more prayer, your choice will be hastened

Perhaps so. But I won’t be a Cafeteria Catholic, or an occasional Orthodox.

I don’t know, why does it matter? There were lots of things declared in Council of Nicea. Were all of them FALSE before that? Or were all of them in DOUBT before that?

Actually, it is more of a question of, wasn’t it already known? Why state the obvious? That wasn’t the purpose of councils - to state the obvious.

Do this test. Go to 10 different denominations. Give them a passage and see how they interpret it. They will all have interpretations which are logically consistent with the rest of their interpretation of Scripture AND YET contradictory with each others.

That’s kind of an exercise in the obvious, as if they all agreed in doctrine, they would be in communion.

Jon

 

[ddarko]

Perhaps so. But I won’t be a Cafeteria Catholic, or an occasional Orthodox.

Actually, it is more of a question of, wasn’t it already known? Why state the obvious? That wasn’t the purpose of councils - to state the obvious.

Actually once again, this is an irrelevant matter but let me address it because it seems to bother you.

The councils address matters for various reasons. It could for an example be because something has been known but many are starting to disagree or argue about it. Then the Council can come out and give a definitive word so that it’s settled for the faithful.

IT doesn’t mean that prior to it, the matter was not true or not held by others. It simply means that the church hadn’t had to step in and declare it explicitly.

So a familiar example would be importance of Faith and Works. It’s always been there that works are important. But until the reformation, there was no need to come out and state it explicitly.

Does that help?

That’s kind of an exercise in the obvious, as if they all agreed in doctrine, they would be in communion.

Yes, but what I wanted you to see was the common error among most protestants who disagree with each other. Usually they believe that disagreements arise because one person is not consistently interpreting scripture. But that is not always true. It is possible that some of them are interpreting it consistently. They get different results because they don’t build on Tradition. They verify it instead.

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

Please see my post to Celticnovice.

Let me try it this way, whose interpretation of the Council of Nicea, canon 6, which sets the jurisdictions of the patriarchates, is correct? Orthodoxy, or Rome? Both claim to be the one true Church, both Claim Tradition and scripture, both claim the succession of the Apostles, both reject sola scriptura, and yet disagree on how to interpret Tradition regarding the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Are both the Church?

Jon

Hello my friend. It all depends at what point in time one wants to apply the question. If you ask an Orthodox of today of course he or she will say papal primacy is not true. However, go back prior to Nicaea and see if the Orthodox had the same sentiments as modern Orthodoxs?

 

[Radical]

People vote,politicians decide and endorse & pass laws.

yes, so the authority starts with/comes from the people just as you say…WRT the a church claiming to speak for God…that authority could come from God or it could be a claim manufactured by the church itself

Precisely why SS is bogus because each individual is left to himself or herself to decide what scripture means.

…I believe that Christ left it to each and every individual to decide who he was…are you opposed to that sort of personal decision?

 

[ddarko]

yes, so the authority starts with/comes from the people just as you say…WRT the a church claiming to speak for God…that authority could come from God or it could be a claim manufactured by the church itself

Well authority does come from God. But the question here is how do you know its from God. The Roman Catholic position has always been that you start from Christ and work your way forward.

The Protestant position has unfortunately been that you start from Scripture and make your way backwards. But this pre-assumes authority of Scripture which is unreasonable.

Scripture without anything else is just a book like the Koran. No one can say whether it is true or whether it relates to anything to do with Jesus.

…I believe that Christ left it to each and every individual to decide who he was…are you opposed to that sort of personal decision?

Yes. This lacks any basis.

Christ didn’t come down from heaven to reveal God the father so that people have their own personal interpretation of him. In fact, there was one Christ. Not one for each perception of each individual.

God Bless

 

[Radical]

The passage saying miracles should be used as a way of knowing authority IS AGAIN from Scripture written to validate the authority of the very people writing it. So you are again in a circle
Authority of author is validated by Scripture <----> Scripture is authoritative because the authors had authority
Thus you have not proven the authority of Scripture or of the Authors. The Litmus test proposed is also from Scripture it-self by the very man trying to prove his authority.

you are missing the point:

a)when Paul was alive he could say, “Look at my miracles…they validate my authority.”

b)Paul isn’t alive any more…nor are any witnesses to his miracles alive any more…so that Litmus test isn’t available to test Paul’s authority.

c)Today, we either accept Paul’s authority by faith or not

d) however, if any one today wants to claim that they are a special successor to Paul’s authority, then perhaps they should also provide the same validation that he did: regular, astonishing and irrefutable miracles.

e)…or perhaps we could determine authority on the basis of who is clearly guided by the Holy Spirit…the best test in that regard would be to look for the fruit of the Spirit…

f) given the absence of miraculous validation, it would seem that we no longer have any one with apostolic authority. Given that the fruit of the Spirit is not exclusive to any given church, it would seem that authority by way of a special empowerment by the Holy Spirit does not lie with any one institution… that is, if we consider those two tests…you have, however, suggested a third test:

Well authority does come from God. But the question here is how do you know its from God. The Roman Catholic position has always been that you start from Christ and work your way forward.

You have simplified this test dramatically and as a result, its shortcomings are not spelt out. By “starting with Christ” what you actually do is take the NT as the best evidence we have wrt to the teachings of Christ. The CC then interprets that evidence in a fashion that is self-supporting (it is circular). You also take extra-biblical writings and treat then as good evidence and again the CC then interprets the extra-biblical writings in a fashion that is self-supporting (it is also circular). In the process we get this:

1. continuity is presumed (for example it is presumed that if something was believed in the 5th century, then it was also believed in the 4th century and if it was believed in the 4th century, then it was taught in the 3rd century and if it was taught in the 3rd century, then it was known in the 2nd century and if it was known in the 2nd century, then it was received from the apostles in the 1st century…it is presumption heaped upon presumption)
2. inconsistencies in the teachings of the ECFs are glossed over, the supporting statements are accepted and the non-supporting evidence is either rejected or bent to fit (this is part of that circular self-supporting interpretation of the ECFs)
3. the obvious development of doctrine is deemed to be guided by the Holy Spirit (as part of this, an innovation is deemed a mere development); and
4. all evidence is selected and interpreted in a self-supporting fashion (this includes that circular self-supporting interpretation of the ECFs and the scriptures)

The Protestant position has unfortunately been that you start from Scripture and make your way backwards. But this pre-assumes authority of Scripture which is unreasonable

The Protestants’ position was to start with what was placed in front of them. They were faced with a hierarchy that claimed authority for itself on the basis of 1-4, claimed authority for its Sacred Tradition on the basis of 1-4 and claimed authority for its scriptures. The problems with 1-4 made it impossible to accept, without serious qualification, the authority claimed by the CC for itself and for its Sacred Tradition. Scripture, however, does not suffer from problems 1-4 to anywhere near the same extent. Re #1, there is no need to presume that degree of continuity b/c we can be confident that the books of the NT go back to the 1st century (only a minor amount of continuity needs to be presumed between a late 1st century book and the teachings of Christ and a lot of that gap can be bridged by the other earlier NT books). Re #2, the books of the NT are all seen as inspired and so any inconsistency must me honestly dealt with. Re #3, although modern scholarship sees a development occuring between the earliest NT books and the latest NT books the development isn’t any where near the degree thatl we see in the ECFs. Re #4, by starting with scripture, we start with the Word of God itself and have eliminated the bad interpretation…with any interpretation made from scripture being subject to review. Also re #4 it must be recognized that selection occured, in that, for example, the gospel of Mark was included in scripture and the gospel of Thomas was not. Fortunately, today we now possess many of the rejected works and are therefore in a position to better reassess whether the selection was trustworthy or not. As such, when the Protestant starts with with what was placed in front of him, it is a simple thing to reject the authority claimed by the CC for itself and for its Sacred Tradition b/c of 1-4. With scripture, it doesn’t suffer from 1-4 to anywhere near the same degree and so it possesses a relaibilty that the CC and Catholic Tradition does not possess…it is the only thing possessing that level of reliability and so we get “Sola”.

 

[Radical]

Sure sure, but as I said, you have knowledge of these miracles OUTSIDE the Bible.

where? What is this tradition that you think I reference?

You don’t believe Paul did miracles because the Bible is authoritative. You believe Paul did miracles because thats what you know from Tradition. Then you believe that Paul has authority etc.

no, I believe that the Pauline epistles, together with the other books of the NT are the most reliable sources that we have for actual apostolic teachings.

Well, so you are admitting Sola Scriptura is problematic but trying to say the church authority also has the problem?

faith is faith…it isn’t something that you can establish by way of a logical proof. The question becomes whether it is a reasonable faith or a ridiculously blind faith or something in between

If so, NO. The Church authority is established from Tradition. So you take the book of Acts as a historical document. And you extract the early church model out. Have you tried it? What do you think you get?

we get a Church with prophets, one with apostles who go to the Jewish Temple to worship, one w/o priests (other than those at the Temple), one where speaking in tongues is common, one where everyone is to bring a hymn or word, one where the Eucharist is part of a full meal, one where overseers must meet certain qualifications…for starters, that is what I think we get

He wrote the book of Acts and Gospel of Luke. So you consider those two books to have no authority?

The authority that they possess isn’t derived from Luke being an apostle…the books of the NT are treated as possessing authority b/c we rely on the witness of the early Church in that regard…and that witness started with the practice of the individual churches who received those works and continued for centuries before any council ratified what the Church had already established by practice. It is a matter of faith.

This does not make sense. Not every early Christian could have had a personal experience with Paul.

agreed, but the ones Paul was addressing did …it is like the the apostles Thomas…they could could actually see the miracles, we must believe on faith.

It comes down to Tradition.

Rather, it comes down to your faith in Tradition…a faith I don’t share

 

[ddarko]

you are missing the point:

a)when Paul was alive he could say, “Look at my miracles…they validate my authority.”

b)Paul isn’t alive any more…nor are any witnesses to his miracles alive any more…so that Litmus test isn’t available to test Paul’s authority.

c)Today, we either accept Paul’s authority by faith or not

d) however, if any one today wants to claim that they are a special successor to Paul’s authority, then perhaps they should also provide the same validation that he did: regular, astonishing and irrefutable miracles.

e)…or perhaps we could determine authority on the basis of who is clearly guided by the Holy Spirit…the best test in that regard would be to look for the fruit of the Spirit…

f) given the absence of miraculous validation, it would seem that we no longer have any one with apostolic authority. Given that the fruit of the Spirit is not exclusive to any given church, it would seem that authority by way of a special empowerment by the Holy Spirit does not lie with any one institution… that is, if we consider those two tests…you have, however, suggested a third test:

I think you honestly might not be understanding me.

Do you know what circular logic means? Try to understand the following.

1. I write a book stating that my authority is validated by miracles.
2. Then I ask people to adopt it as the sole way of verifying anyone’s authority as being from God.
3. The people ask me how do I know that what I just said is authoritative
4. I say that you can use the test I wrote in Scripture

But I am the one saying everything.

Do you see the problem?

St. Paul’s authority cannot be decided by something written in scripture. In short, if you understand circular logic, you should realize that to come up with a Litmus test from Scripture for the Authority of it’s authors is illogical. Do you understand? If not we have to fix this first.

You have simplified this test dramatically and as a result, its shortcomings are not spelt out. By “starting with Christ” what you actually do is take the NT as the best evidence we have wrt to the teachings of Christ. The CC then interprets that evidence in a fashion that is self-supporting (it is circular). You also take extra-biblical writings and treat then as good evidence and again the CC then interprets the extra-biblical writings in a fashion that is self-supporting (it is also circular). In the process we get this:

What? Were you paying attention?

I said you take the NT as a mere historic document. To be specific, JUST the Acts of the Apostles. You also take what you know from Tradition (i.e. what has been passed down orally). Then you come up with the a church model. This has nothing to do with Theological interpretation but merely historical analysis. Do you understand the difference?

1. continuity is presumed (for example it is presumed that if something was believed in the 5th century, then it was also believed in the 4th century and if it was believed in the 4th century, then it was taught in the 3rd century and if it was taught in the 3rd century, then it was known in the 2nd century and if it was known in the 2nd century, then it was received from the apostles in the 1st century…it is presumption heaped upon presumption)

But that is more so the position of Reformers. They go back from Scripture which never existed at the day of Pentecost and try to go backward. You are accusing yourself here

1. inconsistencies in the teachings of the ECFs are glossed over, the supporting statements are accepted and the non-supporting evidence is either rejected or bent to fit (this is part of that circular self-supporting interpretation of the ECFs)

Yea, this is where you’ve gotten your self knotted up. The Church is the ultimate decider. That is established outside of Scripture as anything with authority. THEN, you listen to the church on all matters.

1. the obvious development of doctrine is deemed to be guided by the Holy Spirit (as part of this, an innovation is deemed a mere development); and

Again, you are paranoid of the very thing you are suppossed to give full assent to. What you are saying is similar to accusing St. Paul of twisting Jesus to fit his message to the Corinthians etc. Do you think that argument valid?

If you do, you are forgetting that by REASON that analyzed what is known by Tradition, one already gives full assent to st. Paul. Then you don’t question whether his interpretation is right or not. You just believe.

1. all evidence is selected and interpreted in a self-supporting fashion (this includes that circular self-supporting interpretation of the ECFs and the scriptures)

It’s not circular because when you first start off, you have nothing with authority. You only have mere historical analysis. You need to understand the difference.

The Protestants’ position was to start with what was placed in front of them. They were faced with a h… thing possessing that level of reliability and so we get “Sola”.

Well, I don’t need to even repeat whats wrong with the above right?

It’s like an ignorant Child who randomly picked a book. You might as well have picked the Koran by chance.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

where? What is this tradition that you think I reference?

Ok dude, please put 1 and 2 together. You can’t expect me to spoon feed you everything.

You say miracles are a litmus test. Let us for the sake of argument forget the circular logic here and think that true. BUT, there are no records of miracles of St. Luke for an example in Scripture. There aren’t even statements made about his authority. So then how do you know his books have authority?

Don’t dodge this question.

no, I believe that the Pauline epistles, together with the other books of the NT are the most reliable sources that we have for actual apostolic teachings.

WHY?

faith is faith…it isn’t something that you can establish by way of a logical proof. The question becomes whether it is a reasonable faith or a ridiculously blind faith or something in between

No, this faith is BLIND. You might as well make a donkey statue in your backyard and worship it on “faith”.

Christian Faith refers to you believing in God’s and Christ’s promises. You don’t have FAITH that this is what they probably promised. You have from REASON what was promised. By Faith, you believe they will be performed by God.

Otherwise what the heck is the point? Christianity is not a best guess.

we get a Church with prophets, one with apostles who go to the Jewish Temple to worship, one w/o priests (other than those at the Temple), one where speaking in tongues is common, one where everyone is to bring a hymn or word, one where the Eucharist is part of a full meal, one where overseers must meet certain qualifications…for starters, that is what I think we get

Well, this is of course because your are not a historian. There is more that you get. Read some of the new Protestant historians if you are paranoid of Catholic ones. You will be surprised at what they say on things like Papacy, Primacy of Peter etc thanks to Academic freedom

The authority that they possess isn’t derived from Luke being an apostle…the books of the NT are treated as possessing authority b/c we rely on the witness of the early Church in that regard…and that witness started with the practice of the individual churches who received those works and continued for centuries before any council ratified what the Church had already established by practice. It is a matter of faith.

WHAT? How do you know the early church regarded something as SCRIPTURE? You obviously can’t say it is from Scripture because it is circular.

Just tell me if you do not get this.

So no, Luke’s authority is not established as far as a Protestant is concerned. So my question is, unless one believes Tradition which states that Luke had authority, how do you justify believing in what Luke wrote?

And don’t say it’s faith. That shows you have a misunderstanding of Christianity. You can’t say I have FAITH that the Bible is the right book containing words of God. That is irrational. You can’t say I believe both by FAITH that God SAID he was going to give us salvation and therefore I also have FAITH that he will grant us salvation. That’s absurd.

Do you see what I am saying or no? To give you another example, its like you waking up one day and saying I had a dream in which God said have much sex as possible to enter in to heaven. Therefore I have FAITH in God’s promises. Now your idea here is logically consistent (just like the million protestant interpretations), BUT it is unreasonable and false. Logical consistency is not an indicator that the proposition is true though inconsistency indicates it is definitely false.

agreed, but the ones Paul was addressing did …it is like the the apostles Thomas…they could could actually see the miracles, we must believe on faith.

Rather, it comes down to your faith in Tradition…a faith I don’t share

NOOOOO. We don’t have FAITH that Tradition is TRUE. We KNOW that Tradition is TRUE and therefore we have FAITH that God will keep what he promised according to Tradition.

I suggest you understand what exactly YOU are called to have FAITH in. But honestly since all you got is your interpretation i.e, yourself, I am not sure if you will ever find this out.

Perhaps try thinking more reasonably.

God Bless