First, thank you for reiterating the timing element of when tradition was called what. I did need that reminder. :) ... Sure, they would be given the same weight, IF both were absolutely true. My concern is with the reliability of oral teachings in general. From anyone. As I very recently posted, 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.
In no case, however, do we say that the oral Apostolic Tradition is "above" the Bible.
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, that men decide what the Bible means IN ORDER THAT it matches what tradition says. It is perfectly reasonable to want or require that the two match. 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.
You look to the words of the text, and if they don't fit your own eigesis, you change the meaning.
I don't think so. I look to whether the literal meaning of the text denotes something either physically impossible, or which appears to contradict other scripture. If the answer is "yes", then I know that an interpretation is needed. With "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you shall not have eternal life", I know that there must be a symbolic meaning here for two reasons. The first is the doctrine of impossibility. The second is that even when He was here, the Apostles did not literally do this when it was potentially physically possible. So, we both take it symbolically, just in different ways.
As to God gambling, have you forgotten God's foresight??? You don't think that He has control of man's writing without taking the pen out of his hand?
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. My impression is that you do not see it that way, and that God just saw what men would write, and, lucky for Him, it was good. That's the "gambling" aspect.
If I asked you if the Bible was God's inspired word, you would say "yes". I just wonder if we have very different ideas of what "inspired" means. I think that when God inspires, He does so 100% toward what He wants. The result is never in doubt. I'm not sure you would come out that far with me. :) My current impression is that your side sees inspiration perhaps as like a writer might view a great piece of art and feel "inspired" to write something great. The inspiration from the painting only serves to heighten the writer's creative abilities, etc., but it is still the author's original work. Is that close?
Consider atheists. They read it - and get nothing from it. Thus, the BOOK does not convert people, it is the Spirit that leads the faithful, the Church, to garner the meaning and proper sense of the Scriptures.
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. ... I thought that it was your view that the Spirit only leads the hierarchy of the Church. That leaves many faithful Catholics, along with the rest of us, who are not led by the Spirit. I know I've been hammered for suggesting that the Spirit would even give me the correct time. :)
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