Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: metmom

Jesus did not condemn tradition. He condemned “traditions of men.”. If you’re going to rely on Scripture, wouldn’t it be best to rely on the carefully read text?

Not one of those texts says “alone.”.

It seems circular to insist that the Scriptures provide warrant to Sacred Tradition on the grounds that surely something so important would have to be in the Bible. I received 6 Bibles in my life (and bought several more). I received 3 from either my parish or my bishop, 2 from god parents, and 1 from my wife. People with whom I was united in Christ brought me the Bible. They “handed it on” to me. It is a tradition and tradition certifies that it is what it is. The scriptures come to us with and in a context. The context testifies to them, and they to their context.


11,596 posted on 10/15/2010 2:13:22 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11589 | View Replies ]


To: Mad Dawg; metmom
Jesus did not condemn tradition. He condemned “traditions of men.”. If you’re going to rely on Scripture, wouldn’t it be best to rely on the carefully read text?

How does one know if a tradition is from God or men?

11,681 posted on 10/15/2010 1:24:38 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11596 | View Replies ]

To: Mad Dawg; metmom
Jesus did not condemn tradition. He condemned “traditions of men.”. If you’re going to rely on Scripture, wouldn’t it be best to rely on the carefully read text?

Not one of those texts says “alone.”.

And not one of them says to rely on "tradition" to be developed in the future.

11,691 posted on 10/15/2010 1:48:47 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11596 | View Replies ]

To: Mad Dawg; RnMomof7; OLD REGGIE; Quix; Dr. Eckleburg; caww; 1000 silverlings; boatbums; bkaycee; ...

Nowhere in Scripture are men instructed to claim that Scripture isn’t enough and to add their own traditions to it.

If Catholics want to disallow Scripture alone because it isn’t specifically spelled out in a manner in which Catholics would like to have it spelled out, then Catholics need to be consistent and disallow a lot of Catholic doctrine.

The word *trinity* isn’t found in Scripture and yet Catholics are sure quick enough to claim Scriptural backing for it and expect others to recognized and accept it as valid.

The word *pope* isn’t found in Scripture and yet Catholics are sure quick enough to claim Scriptural backing for it and expect others to recognized and accept it as valid.

The word *transubstantiation* isn’t found in Scripture and yet Catholics are sure quick enough to claim Scriptural backing for it and expect others to recognized and accept it as valid.

The words *immaculate conception* aren’t found in Scripture and yet Catholics are sure quick enough to claim Scriptural backing for it and expect others to recognized and accept it as valid.

For that matter, there are lots of Catholic teachings that aren’t directly and specifically spelled out which Catholics expect others to accept as true and valid.

To not apply the same criteria to *sola Scriptura* is hypocritical.

Jesus never commanded us to add tradition to Scripture and He never, by example, used tradition in addition to Scripture as a point of authority.

Just because God didn’t word something the way Catholics think He should have, doesn’t mean that He didn’t get the message across in Scripture, that Scripture alone is adequate for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

“Do as I say, not as I do” is not a Scriptural principle.


11,756 posted on 10/15/2010 9:10:14 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11596 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson