[De Maria]

Ok, so what about those Christians do not come to that same conclusion.

First we must be faithful to our own conscience. If in fact one can't comprehend or believe the Trinity then there is little anyone can do but present the evidence for the Trinity. In the end, all we do is plant and water, God provides the growth.

They too provide "tradition" as proof that a Trinity is not a concept found in the bible and that God is in fact one God, not a Trinity. So who is right? Those who stick to the bible or those who add to it?
2 John vs 9 "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God."
God does not take kindly to those who add or take away from his words. Prov 30:6 "Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar."
I personally see this concept (Trinity) simply as a man made tradition, not divine. Why? Because it doesn't match with the what the bible teaches and history shows that triune Gods began in Babel as did most other false religions. Just my own thoughts on the subject.

In order not to derail this thread, why not open another thread on the question of the Trinity and we can all give our reasons we do or why we don't believe in that doctrine?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Moparbyfar]

Thanks De Maria but I was merely pointing out that the example of this type of "tradition" as mentioned by Akoue, can and is taken and understood in different ways. (and the OP did ask to give our reasons for our comments). I was basically saying I do not believe in "truths" if they are not revealed in the bible.
It wasn't my intention to start a debate. Darn it, did I misunderstand the OP yet AGAIN? Hate it when I do that. :rolleyes:

[JoeT777]

Why suppose that we need Tradition to mediate our understanding of Scripture?

Professor:

Why would you ask the hardest question of the dimmest bulb?

God revealed his plan of salvation to all of us in the person of Christ. He ministered to poor and sick, taught the meaning of the prophets, gave of Himself in a new covenant. Commissioning the apostles to inspire in the name of the Holy Spirit with His message of salvation, He appointed one to lead. In the living memory of those who walked in the shadow of Christ listening to his oral wisdom, they committed part of this Gospel to writing. This inspiring written word will be preserved through the sea of time. The Apostles were enjoined to teach and defend His Traditions through all generations of man; this is a faith that ascends to holiness by the written word and by word of mouth, Scripture and Tradition. As a result, the Church sees a symbiotic relationship between Word and Tradition. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” The written word, scripture, news of eternal life animated in Christ through Tradition. “For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. " Pope Paul VI, Dei Verbum. Without Tradition, an essential element of illumination is lost.

I like to conceptualize "Scripture and Tradition" as a bridge over which the living Word can travel across a vast sea of time. On the far side the bridge abutment is anchored in the Living Christ at the dawn of Christendom . The girders of tradition span though the misty past to the near abutment rooted in today, connecting a Scriptural Gospel of time past with today's living. In this way, the living Word of God can live in us.

Thus, when viewed from the far bank, terminating the Church's Traditions in the 1500's would be a bridge ending in death. When viewed from the near bank and terminating the Church's Traditions in the 1500's would be a bridge to nowhere. So you see why it seems a foreign concept, there is no Catholic faith without a Living Tradition.

JoeT

[arcura]

De Maria.
I tend to believe as you do and I believe what The Church officially says.
That means that I do not FULLY believe what some individuals in the Church say.
Over the years we have had officials in The Church make statement that were very wrong.
A recent one was made by The Church's head astronomer.
He was admonished and replaced.
At the moment I can not remember what the issue was.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

Thanks De Maria but I was merely pointing out that the example of this type of "tradition" as mentioned by Akoue, can and is taken and understood in different ways. (and the OP did ask to give our reasons for our comments). I was basically saying I do not believe in "truths" if they are not revealed in the bible.
It wasn't my intention to start a debate. Darn it, did I misunderstand the OP yet AGAIN?! Hate it when I do that. :rolleyes:

No, you misunderstood nothing, and your posts have, I think, been quite useful. If I understand correctly, I believe De Maria meant only to extend an invitation to explore the question of the Trinity more fully--and another thread would afford us this opportunity. And on this thread, I'm happy to see exploration of a question (or set of closely related questions) from all angles. Please, continue to challenge or query whatever strikes you as in need of further consideration. I really do find it helpful to hear from a number of different voices on this.

[Akoue]

Professor:

Why would you ask the hardest question of the dimmest bulb?

God revealed his plan of salvation to all of us in the person of Christ. He ministered to poor and sick, taught the meaning of the prophets, gave of Himself in a new covenant. Commissioning the apostles to inspire in the name of the Holy Spirit with His message of salvation, He appointed one to lead. In the living memory of those who walked in the shadow of Christ listening to his oral wisdom, they committed part of this Gospel to writing. This inspiring written word will be preserved through the sea of time. The Apostles were enjoined to teach and defend His Traditions through all generations of man; this is a faith that ascends to holiness by the written word and by word of mouth, Scripture and Tradition. As a result, the Church sees a symbiotic relationship between Word and Tradition. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” The written word, scripture, news of eternal life animated in Christ through Tradition. “For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. " Pope Paul VI, Dei Verbum. Without Tradition, an essential element of illumination is lost.

I like to conceptualize "Scripture and Tradition" as a bridge over which the living Word can travel across a vast sea of time. On the far side the bridge abutment is anchored in the Living Christ at the dawn of Christendom . The girders of tradition span though the misty past to the near abutment rooted in today, connecting a Scriptural Gospel of time past with today’s living. In this way, the living Word of God can live in us.

Thus, when viewed from the far bank, terminating the Church’s Traditions in the 1500’s would be a bridge ending in death. When viewed from the near bank and terminating the Church’s Traditions in the 1500’s would be a bridge to nowhere. So you see why it seems a foreign concept, there is no Catholic faith without a Living Tradition.

JoeT

It would appear the dimmest bulb has managed to express his view quite eloquently!

[Akoue]

Aloue,
What about those who claim to read scripture faithfull but come up with various wrong beliefs such as there is no trinity, Jesus Christ is not God the Son, The rapture, Mary is not the mother of God, Peter was not appointed first leader of The Church by Jesus, Sola Scriptora, Sola Fide, and others????
All of those mentioned are NOT biblical but many who claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit abide by them.
Is that proof the they are NOT guided by the Holy Spirit, or is it that their personal interpretation of Scripture over rides what the Holy Spirit is tying to guide them or something else?

These are questions I share. If I am guided by the Holy Spirit in my reading of Scripture, does this mean that I cannot misunderstand it? There have been so many conflicting interpretations of Scripture through the years, and it is difficult for me to believe that the disagreements result from a lack of faith by one or more of the parties. So how DO we explain error? And how do we detect it? Let's say you and I read that same verses and arrive at a different understanding of them. How do we determine which of us is right (or, what's worse, if both of us are wrong)?

One answer, offered by Joe and De Maria, is that we look to the Church (i.e. the bishops and the Tradition they preserve). But, of course, there are plenty of people who don't take this view--i.e. who don't adhere to Catholic views about the teaching authority of the Church--who certainly believe that there is something that counts as getting Scripture wrong. Let's now suppose that you and I are in that camp. Suppose, for the purposes of discussion, that neither of us is Catholic. And yet we have this disagreement, we don't see eye to eye on the meaning of some passage of Scripture.

What then? I mean, how could the two of us sort this out? (Assuming that we are both faith-filled, intellectually honest, and diligent.) I'd be interested to get anybody's take on this.

[arcura]

Akoue
Yes it would be VERY interesting to get their take on this.
Particularly considering that there are over 30,000 different Christian denominations who in some way (some many ways) do not agree with each other yet (those who believe in the Holy Spirit) claim they are guided or inspired by them.
I personally pray for His guidance and believe that I have received some of it.
I know this because later I found that The Church did teach as I was inspired to believe.
I was raised a protestant and a Catholic basher for 30 years.
After much study I took the road to Rome and am extremely happy that I did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

Particularly considering that there are over 30,000 different Christian denominations who in some way (some many ways) do not agree with each other yet (those who believe in the Holy Spirit) claim they are guided or inspired by them.

Yes, Fred, there are a lot of denominations. But I didn't intend with my question to throw down the gauntlet. While it's true that fault lines have emerged, and hardened, over the years with regard to the two positions outlined in the OP, I take it for granted that neither view is just obviously wrong--or wrong-headed. Reasonable people can disagree. So when I say that I'd like to hear people's answer to the question, as much as anything I'm interested to learn how people *approach* that question. There are genuine disagreements with respect to how people read Scripture. We can either all agree to disagree, and potentially risk still more fragmentation (which doesn't seem like an entirely good thing), or we can try to figure out a way to adjudicate between competing interpretations. One approach to this is to appeal to Tradition. But, as I say, not everyone recognizes the authority of that appeal. So, in its absence, what do we turn to to resolve disagreements over the meaning of Scripture?

[Wondergirl]

what do we turn to to resolve disagreements over the meaning of Scripture?

We could allow Scripture to support and interpret itself?

[Akoue]

We could allow Scripture to support and interpret itself?

This is good, it speaks to the second view of the OP. So, if I may, I'd like to ask you to say a little bit about how you might apprach the question I asked Fred:

You and I are intellectually honest, faith-filled, diligent people who sit down together and talk about a passage of Scripture. And we find ourselves in disagreement over what it says. Each of us understands it differently. We talk it through, each of us explains why we understand it the way we do, and still we find ourselves understanding it differently. What, if anything, do we do then to sort out the disagreement? Since it is the word of God we know that it can't be saying two conflicting things. And yet here we are with two conflicting understandings of what it says. What resource do you and I have--assuming that neither of us is inclined to appeal to Tradition in the sense of the first view--for figuring out whether one of us is right and the other wrong, or whether we're both mistaken?

I'd appreciate any thoughts you care to offer on this.

[arcura]

Wondergirl,
BUT that have been proven to not unite but to fragment Christianity.
How can Scripture support and interpret itself with 30,000 denominations doing it differently FROM AND WITH THE BIBLE but each claiming they are right?
No, that is why Jesus set up an authority as to how and what should be taught. It is The Church Jesus said is "MY CHURCH" and he appointed Peter to be the head of it.
As far as I'm (and the Bible is) concerned it is the only church that has God's authority to teach.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Wondergirl]

Wondergirl,
BUT that have been proven to not unite but to fragment Christianity.
How can Scripture support and interpret itself with 30,000 denominations doing it differently FROM AND WITH THE BIBLE but each claiming they are right?

The fragmentation is because it is not done in a good and proper order but subjectively, willy-nilly.

[Wondergirl]

it is the only church that has God's authority to teach.

Then why do I so often hear people say, "I was raised Catholic, but later became a Christian"?

[JoeT777]

The fragmentation is because it is not done in a good and proper order but subjectively, willy-nilly.

Who's decides what willy and whose nilly. What authority do we go by? And shouldn't there be objectivity in Truth? If there is no authority there is no Rule of Faith.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Then why do I so often hear people say, "I was raised Catholic, but later became a Christian"?

For the same reason people sin.

JoeT

[Akoue]

Wondergirl,

I wonder if you have any thoughts about my question. Not an answer, necessarily, just some thoughts. No hurry, I would just find it helpful to hear more about how you think through the issues regarding disagreement that I raised in my question of, first, Fred, and then you. I ask because it seems to me that a lot turns on how different people approach this.

[arcura]

This I firmly believe.
Anyone who was raised or becomes a member of the Catholic Church, if they truly understand it well will never leave it.
Why are so many Protestant ministers becoming Catholic?
Because they have come to understand Catholic teaching.
What is interesting is that some have done so so well that they have become outstanding theologians.
Like me many did not go to the Ford dealer to learn the truth about Dodge cars.
That is go to the Protestants to learn about Catholicism.
Only the Catholic Church can accurately teach what Catholicism is all about.
Protestants do not understand Catholicism otherwise they would become Catholic.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[De Maria]

We could allow Scripture to support and interpret itself?

How? Scripture, the Bible, is a book. How does a book interpret itself?

[De Maria]

The fragmentation is because it is not done in a good and proper order but subjectively, willy-nilly.

Who would enforce the order?