Well, in both cases, the Church says they are, as does the Scriptures themselves. So in theory, we agree that what comes from God is truth, correct?
My concern is with the reliability of oral teachings in general. From anyone.
Refer to my above statement! Remember, the Church claims that it is guided by God in presenting God's teachings. The Scriptures themselves tell us that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and that the Spirit would always lead it to truth. Thus, I conclude that it is GOD that IS verifying the oral teachings, when properly identified, as coming from Him - for example, infant baptism. We do not believe that God will allow error to creep into the Church on doctrinal issues, as then we'd have nothing to rely on in knowing God's revelation - since He doesn't give it to us individually.
Paul appears to share this same concern in the opening to Luke. In my view, the written word is more reliable, in the long term, and would always take precedence.
Sorry to correct you again, I presume you mean Luke's opinion, not Paul's... Yes, the written word is more reliable when the two are compared side-by-side. There is an issue of verifying an oral tradition. The Scriptures have ALREADY BEEN VERIFIED. Oral Traditions often are not challenged until many years later.
As a former military historian, I can tell you that much of what we know about ancient military history is based on accounts that are HUNDREDS of years old! Livy didn't follow Julius Caesar around! Yet, we (I should say, "they") absolutely rely on such accounts that have been passed down orally and by partial manuscripts. On important issues, it should come as no surprise that men would remember details of accounts from long ago. I would say that when men are accustomed to repeating something, such as the Liturgy, they would have a pretty good knowledge of what is going on without having to write it down. Have you needed to write down for posterity's sake how to use a fork? Some things don't NEED to be written.
My whole argument along these lines has been that since you do not believe that the Bible speaks for itself, but rather men speak for the Bible
The Bible can speak "for itself" to only a very limited degree. Otherwise, it requires interpretation - presumably by the community that WROTE it! That would be the Church, correct? It is from this community that the original authors came from, taught, and passed on their teachings, only later writing down some of them. I seriously doubt that Christians in Gaul had access to the entire 27 books of the NT for a number of years after the fact. But yet, St. Irenaeus comments on the Gaul's doctrinal orthodoxy. Imagine that, Christians partaking in the Word without ever reading about it!!!
And for whatever reason, the Church has decided to interpret scripture IN LIGHT OF non-scriptural tradition, rather than the reverse. That is where I'm coming from
I would say that the majority of what we call "Protestantism" is in your self-described boat, as it interprets salvation in light of a non-Scriptural tradition, in my opinion. The writings of Christians of the first 1000 years NEVER mention anything that you would consider a pillar of Protestantism, thus making YOUR interpretations novel. I find this interesting - that IF Protestant interpretations were true and what the Bible REALLY means, then why do we not find any Church Fathers subscribing to Sola Scriptura, or Sola Fide, or Positive Reprobation, or man has no free will? This is why I could never countenance Protestantism. It is a novel invention that the first Christians would have been appalled to see. THESE first Christians would never recognize what we call Protestantism today as something from the same Tradition that they were taught from.
"...the doctrine of impossibility."
With God, nothing is impossible. Didn't God Himself say that?
My view is that God's foreknowledge actually does take the pen out of man's hands, because God causes His foreknowledge to come true.
Then clearly, you believe that God ALSO causes men to commit sins. If you equate foreknowledge with foreordaining something, actively decreeing something, then you are saying that God is the author of sin. Remarkable.
I think that when God inspires, He does so 100% toward what He wants
Yes, but He doesn't do it by directly interfering with the human writer. That is Islam you're talking, brother. God works through humanity to accomplish His will and to write His Scriptures. But if the Bible was THE WORD OF GOD as in Islam, the actual voice of God transcribed onto paper as Mohemmed claimed, then you had better take literally EVERY word! And also remember, that while Islam CANNOT reform because of their Scriptural ideas of the Koran, Christianity has shown that it CAN reform PRECISELY because it is man AND God putting to paper what God desires to be written. Thus, interpretation plays a bigger part in Christian study of Scriptures. There is more than the literal sense. There is also the allegorical, moral and anagogical sense of Scriptures, often times interweaved into the same writings. Who would take the Song of Songs literally? But it is one of the most revered books in the OT by Christians!
I agree, they get nothing from it. I would add that the book does not convert people, I do not, the Church does not, only God does
That is true. And God doesn't find it necessary to circumvent His Church, we HE brought into existence. Didn't Jesus say that "a Kingdom divided against itself will surely fall"? Even in your conversion experience, the "Church" brought you into the fold - I presume you didn't baptize yourself.
I thought that it was your view that the Spirit only leads the hierarchy of the Church
Sad. You have so soon forgotten or ignored what I have said on this. I never said that the Spirit only leads the heirarchy. I said in matters of doctrinal decisions, the Church only leads the heirarchy to make a definite proclamation, based on what the Church as a whole ALREADY BELIEVES. It would be impossible otherwise - God doesn't come to man individually and give false, contradictory teachings, like you say He does to you vs. Episcopalians or Lutherans.
Regards
Yes, absolutely.
Thus, I conclude that it is GOD that IS verifying the oral teachings, when properly identified, as coming from Him - for example, infant baptism. We do not believe that God will allow error to creep into the Church on doctrinal issues, ...
You may have already answered this in a post subsequent to the one I'm answering, but if not, then how can God keep error out without violating free will?
Sorry to correct you again, I presume you mean Luke's opinion, not Paul's...
LOL!!! And I'm sorry to be wrong again. :) I must have Paul on the brain or something.
Livy didn't follow Julius Caesar around! Yet, we (I should say, "they") absolutely rely on such accounts that have been passed down orally and by partial manuscripts.
Yes, if that is the best information available, there is no choice but to rely on it, or take nothing. We are fortunate enough to have superior information.
Have you needed to write down for posterity's sake how to use a fork? Some things don't NEED to be written.
I haven't, but it is equally true that oral teaching has led to different results in even this area. In restaurants, I have literally seen grown men pick up their forks like we would a hammer. It sure isn't very often, but I have seen it. :) So, if every school child in America had been issued a "fork manual" in school, then there would be less error.
The Bible can speak "for itself" to only a very limited degree. Otherwise, it requires interpretation - presumably by the community that WROTE it! That would be the Church, correct?
Well, that's a matter of interpretation. Remember who you're talking to. :)
The writings of Christians of the first 1000 years NEVER mention anything that you would consider a pillar of Protestantism, thus making YOUR interpretations novel. I find this interesting - that IF Protestant interpretations were true and what the Bible REALLY means, then why do we not find any Church Fathers subscribing to Sola Scriptura, or Sola Fide, or Positive Reprobation, or man has no free will?
Why should I expect Catholic leaders to espouse Protestant themes? That wouldn't make any sense. If they ever had in great volume, there never would have been a need for the Reformation. The themes are there in the Bible, but cannot come through in Catholic theology in order to protect what IS NOT in the Bible.
At some point, and ever since, the circulation of the Bible exceeded the reach of Catholicism. At that point, the Bible becomes useless to all who have it, but do not have Catholicism to tell them what it means. Do you think this is an efficient means of spreading the Good News? I sure don't. In Catholicism, the Bible, by itself, is a relatively worthless book.
I do believe that the faith was accurately taught through oral tradition at least for a while after Pentecost. But, since I don't believe that such correctness can be passed down infallibly, I don't believe that those extra-scriptural, oral teachings could have remained inerrant through the ages.
With God, nothing is impossible. Didn't God Himself say that?
Yes, God said that, but you are talking about cannibalism, which is contrary to God's word. Therefore, it is impossible for Jesus to have meant it in the literal sense. Any other sense involves a symbolic interpretation. Of course, in Catholicism, maybe "eat" and "flesh" do not mean "eat" and "flesh". I don't know how that "plain meaning" would be explained.
Then clearly, you believe that God ALSO causes men to commit sins. If you equate foreknowledge with foreordaining something, actively decreeing something, then you are saying that God is the author of sin. Remarkable.
No, I have always said that God actively causes what is good, like the writing of the Bible. God is not the author of evil. God knows what evil will happen as a result of His passing over the evildoers, but He is not responsible. I have been consistent. It is God's nature to be involved with good, and not His nature to be involved with evil.
FK: "I think that when God inspires, He does so 100% toward what He wants."
Yes, but He doesn't do it by directly interfering with the human writer.
If so, then the Bible is subject to error. Or, did the writers just "choose" to be perfect?
But if the Bible was THE WORD OF GOD as in Islam, the actual voice of God transcribed onto paper as Mohemmed claimed, then you had better take literally EVERY word!
I've heard you say this before. Why do you think this? God can't use allegory if He wants to? Why not? Maybe God knows it works! Your side is the only one to bring Islam into this. I have never talked about Islam, and I could not care less about Islam, nor any comparison of myself to it. I don't think it's right for YOU to slap a label on me, and then demand that I defend that label. That's ridiculous.
You have so soon forgotten or ignored what I have said on this. I never said that the Spirit only leads the hierarchy. I said in matters of doctrinal decisions, the Church only leads the hierarchy to make a definite proclamation, based on what the Church as a whole ALREADY BELIEVES. It would be impossible otherwise - God doesn't come to man individually and give false, contradictory teachings, like you say He does to you vs. Episcopalians or Lutherans.
No, I haven't forgotten. This is what I was talking about, matters of faith and Biblical interpretation. The "big stuff". I know you would say that you have individually prayed for guidance on such and such a matter and have gotten it.
However, it is new to me for you to say that the Church as a whole leads the hierarchy based on what the Church already believes. Can you look me in the eyes and tell me that if an honest poll was taken of the whole Church, that the majority would say that contraceptives should never be used? There is no way you can tell me that the hierarchy is in agreement with "the whole Church" on that one. It's possible that such a vote on abortion might even be very close. I actually think your hierarchy is way ahead of the whole Church on that.
You well know that I have never said that God gives false or contradictory teachings to anyone. I said that man misinterprets sometimes. And sometimes, even a majority of a whole denomination gets it wrong on important matters, such as the Episcopalians. (I really don't have much in common with them. :) Included with the group of all men who can misinterpret, I also place the Catholic hierarchy. Just as with the Episcopalians, even a majority of a faith can get it wrong.