No, we trust in the Church PERIOD, since IT is the Body of Christ, not the Scriptures! The Scriptures themselves are only trustworthy in the sense that we trust the community they come from. Otherwise, how do you know that you have the "correct" Word of God? How do you KNOW that the Gnostic Scriptures are not REALLY from God? You know because you have been taught by the Church and the witness of others who vouch for it.
Now, naturally we are to judge whether something is true or not. Apostolic Tradition and Scripture cannot contradict. But the virginity of Mary is NOT contradicted by Scriptures. It is just not related in Scriptures because it was not a pressing issue when Paul was writing to the various communities spread throughout the Mediterranean.
What the Creeds and Councils primarily did was formally and clearly define and defend what was already accepted as orthodoxy. The supposed inherent infallibility of the church had nothing to do with determining for instance which books were and were not Scripture. The church formally recognized as Scripture those which were reasonably and commonly understood as such.
So what "ruler" did they use to judge whether the Gospel of Thomas was not from God? Apostolic Tradition. They were TAUGHT a particular way of reading the Scriptures and had already worshiped God in a particular way. Thus, when they came together to define what was Scriptures, they already had an existing paradigm that was taught by both oral and written manner.
I simply do not look to the infallibility of the Church as the source of trustworthiness.
Oh. so you judge for yourself what is Scriptures. And when if someone comes along and disagrees with you? Which one is full of it and which one is full of the "Spirit"?
There is an glaring logical flaw in your reasoning here though, because the ultimate source appealed to for the very notion of God revealing Himself infallibly through one body is Scripture.
Where exactly in this Scripture does Scripture make that claim? Protestants have invented this as if it is an axiom, but I have yet to find this written down. Thus, your logic is self-defeating. You PRESUME that this is who God reveals Himself - solely through a book. Yet, the Scriptures themselves tell us to hold onto the teachings given, BOTH ORALLY and WRITTEN. Why do you go against THAT teaching? Where does the Scripture abrogate that teaching? If anything, YOU are going AGAINST Scriptures by demanding everything must be written in the Bible before we believe something.
Until you can give me one verse from the entire Bible that says we are to ignore all future apostolic teachings because they are in the already compiled bible, I will go along with you. Otherwise, you need to analyze the logic of your own position.
Regards
When you can prove that without appealing to the Scriptures, you'll have an argument with some merit. Until then, you're just begging the question and repeating self-reinforcing arguments.
The Scriptures themselves are only trustworthy in the sense that we trust the community they come from. Otherwise, how do you know that you have the "correct" Word of God? How do you KNOW that the Gnostic Scriptures are not REALLY from God? You know because you have been taught by the Church and the witness of others who vouch for it.
IOW, Scripture derives its authority from the Church since it is the Church which defines it. Yet curiously any questioning of where the Church's authority comes from invariably leads back to the words of Scripture. Circular reasoning.
Now, naturally we are to judge whether something is true or not. Apostolic Tradition and Scripture cannot contradict. But the virginity of Mary is NOT contradicted by Scriptures. It is just not related in Scriptures because it was not a pressing issue when Paul was writing to the various communities spread throughout the Mediterranean.
And why are we to believe the Church can provide such extra-biblical revelation? Because the Scriptures say so! And how do we know that's what the Scriptures say? Because the Church says so! And how are we to know the Church is not wrong? Because the Scriptures say so! And how do we know that's what the Scriptures say? Because the Church says so!
And on and on and on...
So what "ruler" did they use to judge whether the Gospel of Thomas was not from God? Apostolic Tradition. They were TAUGHT a particular way of reading the Scriptures and had already worshiped God in a particular way. Thus, when they came together to define what was Scriptures, they already had an existing paradigm that was taught by both oral and written manner.
WRONG. There was much more to it than that. Books which were in dispute were examined doctrinally in light of those which were not, in terms of authenticity, in terms of internal consistency, and many other criteria. They weren't simply chosen as Scripture because some people before them believed them as such. You're making a very historically ignorant and self-serving argument here, friend.
Oh. so you judge for yourself what is Scriptures. And when if someone comes along and disagrees with you? Which one is full of it and which one is full of the "Spirit"?
Oh, please. You do precisely the same thing when you choose to believe the Church's self-reinforcing claims about it's own authority in light of Scripture.
The canon of Scripture is a historically settled matter. I could certainly go through the same investigative process that the early church did in reaching their conclusions about the canon, and I have to a certain extent, but at the end of the day I choose not to put my faith in the Roman Catholic Church but rather in the Scriptures themselves.
Where exactly in this Scripture does Scripture make that claim? Protestants have invented this as if it is an axiom, but I have yet to find this written down. Thus, your logic is self-defeating. You PRESUME that this is who God reveals Himself - solely through a book. Yet, the Scriptures themselves tell us to hold onto the teachings given, BOTH ORALLY and WRITTEN. Why do you go against THAT teaching? Where does the Scripture abrogate that teaching? If anything, YOU are going AGAINST Scriptures by demanding everything must be written in the Bible before we believe something.
What I am arguing and what you are attempting to refute are two different things. I do not argue against any sort of oral teachings, and indeed I fully affirm "oral" teachings that have been passed down which are not explicitly stated in Scripture, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. But such teachings are implicit in Scripture and testable by it, which is exactly the example given in Scripture of the Bereans. It doesn't say they compared what they were hearing with Scriptures and their oral traditions. Scripture presents itself as the authority.
Until you can give me one verse from the entire Bible that says we are to ignore all future apostolic teachings because they are in the already compiled bible, I will go along with you. Otherwise, you need to analyze the logic of your own position.
Speaking of analyzing the logic of your own position, you might want to examine the fact that you presume the existence of "future apostolic teachings" in making your argument for the acceptance of them.
If you're gonna engage in a battle of logic, make sure you're not firing blanks.