C
Cachonga
Guest
Hmm… I guess you think the Holy Spirit was acting on His own when He inspired the folks to write the NT Scriptures. Of course the Holy Spirit inspired the NT writers to do what they did, and with the full knowledge and consent of the Father and the Son. The real question is – does God grant authority to the Scriptures? We know that they are God-breathed because they tell us (2 Tim 3:16). We know that all scripture is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17 NASB). Hopefully, even though not all Scripture was written when Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, nobody thinks that Revelation is any less inspired than Genesis (God’s written Word says that ALL Scripture is God-breathed, not just what was available at the time of the writing of that particular verse). Where are traditions spoken of in the same way? To be sure, the teachings of the Apostles was oral, and a lot of things were handed on by tradition. However, God inspired eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ to write the Scriptures while they were still alive (good thing since not many people can write legibly after they die). The point being, the NT Scriptures were complete by the time John (the last Apostle) died (may not have been compiled into a single “Bible”, but there were copies throughout the Christian world of many of these writings).
This does not answer the question.
Where do you find that the teaching and the Scripture stand together?
True, but how can you tell if a tradition is from God or from man? Jesus did it by using Scripture (remember the Corban rule?).
Most definitely. I believe in Sola Scriptura. I would say (to quote James White) you believe in “Sola Ecclesia”. You might say, “Oh no, I believe in Scripture and Tradition!” but if you think about it, you actually believe in what the “infallible” magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church tells you Scripture and Tradition mean (aren’t they the only one with the “special charism” necessary to infallibly define and interpret Scripture and Tradition?).
I don’t see how either of these examples answers the question that was originally asked. However, to answer this example, your “trap” is missing something. First, I don’t believe the interpretation of the Scriptures is correct. Second, I believe the RC Church has gone beyond Scripture (a very dangerous thing to do) with it’s definition. Didn’t Jesus identify the bread with His body and the wine with His blood? Yet the church says the eucharist contains His body, blood, soul and divinity (see CCC 1374 & CCC #1413). Seems to me the “infallible” magisterium is adding to the Word of God.
Interesting you should use this example, as I am currently engaged in this very discussion on another thread. As I pointed out there, the word you are referring to does NOT refer to sin in any way. Furthermore, while it does indicate that Mary was “filled with grace” at some point in the past, there is nothing in the word or the context of the verse that would require someone to think this could ONLY mean from conception (it could just as easily have happened right before the angel started speaking to her). The Scriptural evidence used to support this dogma works ONLY if one bows the knee to the “infallible” magisterium of the RC Church (which I find no reason to do).
Not at all. Tradition has its place, but it needs to be checked against the written word to ensure it’s from God and not man. For example, the Scriptures don’t tell us how to conduct our worship service, so we have to rely on tradition. However, if the service starts getting “strange” (like someone brings out a large box filled with snakes, or an openly homosexual person is ordained as a minister), we can look at Scripture and say, “This ain’t right!”.
