In our efforts to get you to prove sola scriptura from Scripture, you said, ‘the Trinity is paradoxical’ because it is not found in Scripture per se.
You have made my point. Without a doctrinal grid, or a ‘traditional’ reading of Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity goes bye bye. Yes, the Bible teaches the Trinity, but only when our reading is informed by the council of Nicea. Don’t forget from the Arians to the Jehovah’s Witnesses there have been those who have affirmed the authority of Scripture and denied the Deity of Christ.
You need Tradition to help you read the Scripture on the very nature of God, and the very nature of salvation. Good luck interpreting Scripture without it.
3 thoughts on “Why Padawan Niece is Bantha Pudu”
You said, “Yes, the Bible teaches the Trinity, but only when our reading is informed by the council of Nicea.” This begs the question, what about pre-Nicene readers of Scripture? If your statement was true, the Trinity was unknown prior to 325 AD. To hold Tradition in such a high place brings a great danger along with it. I contend that Tradition needs to be accountable to Scripture, for even popes and councils have erred (Diet of Worms, Luther on Trial, 1521). Tradition, albeit, does somewhat serve as a grid, however, we must remember Isaiah 40:8; “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever” (ESV).
I find your lack of faith disturbing. I did not say
‘the Trinity was unknown prior to 325 AD.’
I said that our reading of Scripture must be informed by Tradition, which includes the pre-nicene fathers and the Council of Nicea, which my dear did not err! If it did we are in big trouble. The loony liberals and fickle
fundies both distain the Nicene Creed–to their great loss.
Maybe Luther wouldn’t have had all of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome troubles if he didn’t have a diet of worms :}.
PS I don’t think good Martin had the Ecumenical Councils in mind when he said ‘councils err.’
I agree with you that our reading of Scripture must be informed by Tradition. But I must say, to hold Tradition on as high a plane as Scripture makes truth relative. As we speak, Tradition is “changing”. What Tradition are you holding to? When did it begin? If it still continuing, when will it end? What happens when Tradition contradicts Scripture? It seems to me, that you might say Tradition would trump Scripture. So I don’t put words in your mouth, what would you say???
On Martin Luther: you may be correct in saying he was not thinking of ecumenical councils. However, are the Traditions that came out of those ecumenical councils infallible and inerrant? Just curious.