Replies

Our traditions do not contradict Scripture in the least bit. By tradition, we are talking about the Historical understanding of Christianity, this includes the faith handed down by Jesus Christ through the Apostles, to the Church. This also includes important traditions from after the time of Christ, such as the understanding that the New Testament is is Inspired, and the understanding of which books do and do not belong in the Bible. (This is not something determined by the individual, but rather by the Church.) Also, there is a large body of written records which document what Christians believed and how they interpreted the Scriptures in the 1st,2nd, 3rd century. We have written documents from men who were taught by the Apostles over periods of decades. Those writings are called the writing's of the early Church Fathers.

How convenient. No, many of your "Traditions" cannot contradict Scripture simply because they refer to events never mentioned in Scripture nor things, to our knowledge, ever taught by the Apostles. You can then cherrypick from the writings of the early Church Fathers to support these "Traditions".

Fine, if you can get away with it.

"How convenient. No, many of your "Traditions" cannot contradict Scripture simply because they refer to events never mentioned in Scripture nor things, to our knowledge, ever taught by the Apostles. You can then cherrypick from the writings of the early Church Fathers to support these "Traditions"
Fine, if you can get away with it."

OLD REGGIE, you are being cynical. It's a big deal for a Church to not contradict Scripture on a single point. No Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian believes that their community's teachings are completely without contradiction in Scripture. Everyone I see, at least on this forum, seems to be saying that they feel the doctrines of their community are flawed with respect to Scripture on some point, but they accept it as the best they can do.

Catholicism (Roman and Orthodoxy) are not like that. They simply don't contradict Scripture.

How convenient. No, many of your "Traditions" cannot contradict Scripture simply because they refer to events never mentioned in Scripture nor things, to our knowledge, ever taught by the Apostles. You can then cherrypick from the writings of the early Church Fathers to support these "Traditions".

First, many of them can be inferred from Scripture. The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere. There is no detailed examination of Christ's nature in the Bible. This is why you had various heresies popping up, most of them about just that: Christ's nature and the nature/existence of the Trinity.

Note also that when we infer from Scriptures, we use a variety of verses in their context, not just by selecting one isolated verse, as the Sola Scriptur'ists do. *That's* cherry picking.

Second, the Bible itself is not a checklist or instruction manual. It was a teaching tool used by those authorized to teach. Remember, the Church was in existence at least one decade before the first letter of Paul was written.

How convenient. No, many of your "Traditions" cannot contradict Scripture simply because they refer to events never mentioned in Scripture nor things, to our knowledge, ever taught by the Apostles. You can then cherrypick from the writings of the early Church Fathers to support these "Traditions".

Sorry, forgot to add a third point. If God wanted the Scriptures to be a checklist for the faith that concisely answered all questions, then He would have left us a Catechism-type document that clearly covers all bases. But He didn't. His Scriptures were documents that each existed for a specific reason, but uniformly to teach. Some of it is history (the Gospels, Acts), some of it are responses to specific issues (most of the Epistles), and one is a book that talks about the end of the world (Revelation).

"How convenient. No, many of your "Traditions" cannot contradict Scripture simply because they refer to events never mentioned in Scripture nor things, to our knowledge, ever taught by the Apostles. You can then cherrypick from the writings of the early Church Fathers to support these "Traditions".

Fine, if you can get away with it.

You hit the nail square on the head!

This has always been and was offically sanction by the Traditions of Men down through the century Nicene Creed and when new sitution arised another council was was formed to smooth over the wrinkles!

Guide to Early Church Documents

My point is NOT the validity of these councils but the fact every time there seemed to be a bump in the road that did not conform their agenda it had to be over hauled!