Sola Scriptura...

[Nicea325]

I never stated that Tradition did not precede Scripture.

I simply stated in the post you quoted is that Tradition cannot stand alone with Scripture to back it up. Scripture cannot stand alone without Tradition to back it up.



Abraham talked with God. How is that a Tradition? It is stated in Scripture. I do not see how that relates to Tradition preceded Scripture argument. Please explain.

How did the Jews teach about God before the Torah? Orally…hence a Tradition.It is a Tradition which obviously was passed on and later penned on parchment. Words/thoughts come first or out one’s mouth and letter penned.

Scripture IS Tradition written down,not vice versa. Scripture is interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition and the Church. This whole belief of the Bible-first and everything has to jive with the Bible first is historically baseless and illogical.

 

[aidanbradypop]

How did the Jews teach about God before the Torah? Orally…hence a Tradition.It is a Tradition which obviously was passed on and later penned on parchment. Words/thoughts come first or out one’s mouth and letter penned.

Scripture IS Tradition written down,not vice versa. Scripture is interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition and the Church. This whole belief of the Bible-first and everything has to jive with the Bible first is historically baseless and illogical.

We have to have something to back up Tradition or it becomes something that anyone could make up. Ever do the story thing in school where the teacher tells the first person a story and by the time it gets to the person at the end, the story has changed. Tradition is much like that story.

We need to back up Tradition with Scripture. As an Episcopalian, I am for Tradition. I believe Tradition, Scripture and Reason must stand together and balance one another.

 

[SteveVH]

How did the Jews teach about God before the Torah? Orally…hence a Tradition.It is a Tradition which obviously was passed on and later penned on parchment. Words/thoughts come first or out one’s mouth and letter penned.

Scripture IS Tradition written down,not vice versa. Scripture is interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition and the Church. This whole belief of the Bible-first and everything has to jive with the Bible first is historically baseless and illogical.

Exactly. Did the Apostles need the New Testament in order to teach the truth received from Christ? Did the students of the Apostles need the New Testament in order to teach the truth received from the Apostles? The New Testament was lived before it was committed to writing, as was the Old Testament. The Bible relies on Sacred Tradition to back it up, not the other way around.

 

[SteveVH]

We have to have something to back up Tradition or it becomes something that anyone could make up. Ever do the story thing in school where the teacher tells the first person a story and by the time it gets to the person at the end, the story has changed. Tradition is much like that story.

We need to back up Tradition with Scripture. As an Episcopalian, I am for Tradition. I believe Tradition, Scripture and Reason must stand together and balance one another.

But, Aidan, the children playing the phone game are not guided and protected by the Holy Spirit in conveying truth. This seems to be something that everyone forgets. This is Christ’s Church. He is the founder, not man. He is the one who promised the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. He is the Head. He said HE would build his Church. And, lest we forget, He is God.

It is the divine protection upon which we rely, not man’s ability to accurately convey truth through the centuries of his own accord.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Nicea325]

aidanbradypop:

We have to have something to back up Tradition or it becomes something that anyone could make up. Ever do the story thing in school where the teacher tells the first person a story and by the time it gets to the person at the end, the story has changed. Tradition is much like that story.

Okay,but we are talking about God’s Absolute Truth here-big difference. Did the Apostles take written notes when Jesus taught? Nope! They wrote much later and who guided them? The Holy Spirit.

We need to back up Tradition with Scripture. As an Episcopalian, I am for Tradition. I believe Tradition, Scripture and Reason must stand together and balance one another.

Again,faulty premise and historically false. Your belief places Scripture before Tradition;hence Tradition is only valid if supported by Scripture. Again…people taught orally first and letter penned.

 

[aidanbradypop]

But, Aidan, the children playing the phone game are not guided and protected by the Holy Spirit in conveying truth. This seems to be something that everyone forgets. This is Christ’s Church. He is the founder, not man. He is the one who promised the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. He is the Head. He said HE would build his Church.

It is the divine protection upon which we rely, not man’s ability to accurately convey truth of his own accord.

Peace.

Steve

You can call me Dustin. Aidan is my blessing from God!

Steve, As an Episcopalian, I am in no way against Tradition. I believe everything you just wrote. I also believe that Tradition must be backed up by Scripture. Scripture holds us accountable so that we may not create such Traditions that go against the teachings of the Church. It is that balance of “power” the 3 legged stool.

 

[Nicea325]

You can call me Dustin. Aidan is my blessing from God!

Steve, As an Episcopalian, I am in no way against Tradition. I believe everything you just wrote. I also believe that Tradition must be backed up by Scripture. **Scripture holds us accountable **so that we may not create such Traditions that go against the teachings of the Church. It is that balance of “power” the 3 legged stool.

Okay,but here is where the whole belief of Tradition and people are held accountable to Scripture is a novelty and man-made tradition. Where does the NT teach once everything was written we are held accountable to Scripture-alone?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Okay,but we are talking about God’s Absolute Truth here-big difference. Did the Apostles take written notes when Jesus taught? Nope! The wrote much later and who guided them? The Holy Spirit.

Some say the Gospel of Thomas but you are correct. No notes were taken that we know of.

Again,faulty premise and historically false. Your belief places Scripture before Tradition;hence Tradition is only valid if supported by Scripture. Again…people taught orally first and letter penned.

You are doing it again. I never place Scripture before Tradition. If we are to have a balance, one must support the other.

 

[Nicea325]

Some say the Gospel of Thomas but you are correct. No notes were taken that we know of.

You are doing it again. I never place Scripture before Tradition. If we are to have a balance, one must support the other.

But you are. You clearly stated:

*I also **believe that Tradition *must be backed up by Scripture

You are coveying a message which Tradition is only valid if backed-up by Scripture. Again…a false belief and never taught by the early church.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Okay,but here is where the whole belief of Tradition and people are held accountable to Scripture is a novelty and man-made tradition. Where does the NT teach once everything was written we are held accountable to Scripture-alone?

I would state that EVERY Tradition, big T or t, is man-made. The Scriptures are man-made although inspired by God. The Church is man-made. Christ established, yet created by man.

Is it not written nor do I find that we are held accountable to the Church alone either. The balance makes for a good foundation.

 

[Nicea325]

I would state that EVERY Tradition, big T or t, is man-made. The Scriptures are man-made although inspired by God. The Church is man-made. Christ established, yet created by man.

Is it not written nor do I find that we are held accountable to the Church alone either. The balance makes for a good foundation.

But my friend,there is a difference between [T]raditions and [t]raditions. Upper case T equates in Apostolic while lower case refers to a common practice varied on culture,rite,etc.

Sorry,but you are wrong. Oh but we are accountable to the church…and why? Because Jesus founded an authoritative church not a loose-knit church as so many non-Catholics believe.

 

[aidanbradypop]

But my friend,there is a difference between [T]raditions and [t]raditions. Upper case T equates in Apostolic while lower case refers to a common practice varied on culture,rite,etc.

Sorry,but you are wrong. Oh but we are accountable to the church…and why? Because Jesus founded an authoritative church not a loose-knit church as so many non-Catholics believe.

I am a believer in the 39 articles of Faith. Wonderful teachings! I am sorry you feel I am wrong. I respect that as I do you. I am not accountable to a Church but rather God. I believe in One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Nicea325]

I am a believer in the 39 articles of Faith. Wonderful teachings! I am sorry you feel I am wrong. I respect that as I do you. I am not accountable to a Church but rather God. I believe in One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church.

Exactly! Not “a” but “THE” Church founded by Christ. You also forget that the Church is Christ mystical body (Eph 1:22-23) an extension of His Incarnation. Sorry,but it is bogus to separate the Church from God-both are a part of Him,not two distinct identities were one picks one over the other.

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;11487613]Ah, but they say you are in Schism.
They rejected papal supremacy because they cannot find it in scripture or Tradition

.

Jon, my friend is this a DUH:shrug:

Sacred Tradition I THOUGHT meant “through the apostles”

So Schism was caused by them not deciding that One Person is in charge [GOD]?
Weren’t they all their when Jesus CHOSE Peter?

What am I missing here?

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[aidanbradypop]

Exactly! Not “a” but “THE” Church founded by Christ. You also forget that the Church is Christ mystical body (Eph 1:22-23) an extension of His Incarnation. Sorry,but it is bogus to separate the Church from God-both are a part of Him,not two distinct identities were one picks one over the other.

Yes THE Church. Do not believe the Roman Church is the Church but part of the Church.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes THE Church. Do not believe the Roman Church is the Church but part of the Church.

Arians did not believe Jesus was fully God-and? The Gnostics believed only a few had the knowledge to be saved-and? Tell me how that waivers or alters God’s Truth?

 

[SteveVH]

You can call me Dustin. Aidan is my blessing from God!

Steve, As an Episcopalian, I am in no way against Tradition. I believe everything you just wrote. I also believe that Tradition must be backed up by Scripture. Scripture holds us accountable so that we may not create such Traditions that go against the teachings of the Church. It is that balance of “power” the 3 legged stool.

Sorry about that, Dustin.

You misunderstand the Catholic meaning of Tradition. Sacred Tradition is under the same divine protection as is Sacred Scripture. It is the deposit of faith given to us from the Apostles, lived out in the very life of the Church. To be correctly interpreted it is absolutely necessary that Sacred Scripture be viewed through the lens of Sacred Tradition.

Do you understand that before something can be considered Scripture it must first have occurred in the absence of Scripture? The New Testament is just part of the life of the early Church that was committed to writing.

There was much more going on then is recorded in the New Testament. We know that Christ went through the entire Old Testament with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and opened their eyes to its true meaning in light of his coming. But we find not one thing mentioned in the Bible of what they were taught. We know, from Scripture, that Paul preached continually in the Temple for many, many days. But not one word of any of those teachings is recorded. Does this then mean that what Jesus taught the two disciples and what Paul taught in the Temple was unimportant?

That is why I say that it is the Bible which is dependent upon Sacred Tradition, not the other way around. And this Tradition is a Sacred Tradition which, with divine protection, protects and teaches that which it received from the Apostles.

Bottom line is this: If every Bible in the world was destroyed, the Catholic Church would still retain the fullness of truth. Those who depend upon the Bible as their sole source of truth would be lost.

God bless.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Sorry about that, Dustin.

You misunderstand the Catholic meaning of Tradition. Sacred Tradition is under the same divine protection as is Sacred Scripture. It is the deposit of faith given to us from the Apostles, lived out in the very life of the Church. To be correctly interpreted it is absolutely necessary that Sacred Scripture be viewed through the lens of Sacred Tradition.

Do you understand that before something can be considered Scripture it must first have occurred in the absence of Scripture? The New Testament is just part of the life of the early Church that was committed to writing.

There was much more going on then is recorded in the New Testament. We know that Christ went through the entire Old Testament with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and opened their eyes to its true meaning in light of his coming. But we find not one thing mentioned in the Bible of what they were taught. We know, from Scripture, that Paul preached continually in the Temple for many, many days. But not one word of any of those teachings is recorded. Does this then mean that what Jesus taught the two disciples and what Paul taught in the Temple was unimportant?

That is why I say that it is the Bible which is dependent upon Sacred Tradition, not the other way around. And this Tradition is a Sacred Tradition which, with divine protection, protects and teaches that which it received from the Apostles.

God bless.

According to the Catholic Church… just messing with ya. I must go move snow now but I would love to post later.

 

[pablope]

You can call me Dustin. Aidan is my blessing from God!

Steve, As an Episcopalian, I am in no way against Tradition. I believe everything you just wrote. I also believe that Tradition must be backed up by Scripture. .

Dustin…how can Scripture back Tradition, if Tradition came first?

Scripture holds us accountable so that we may not create such Traditions that go against the teachings of the Church.

How can Tradition go against the teaching of the Church?

It is that balance of “power” the 3 legged stool

That is the job of the Holy Spirit.

And a question: How does the Holy Spirit accomplish this balancing you speak of/

 

[Nicea325]

Dustin…how can Scripture back Tradition, if Tradition came first?

How can Tradition go against the teaching of the Church?

That is the job of the Holy Spirit.

And a question: How does the Holy Spirit accomplish this balancing you speak of/

For the life of me I have no idea why so many hold to belief** everything is accountable **to Scripture? Just read early church history and it is no where taught. Scripture was and is important,but I read no where early Christians expressing the same view as today.