[Mark Nutter is Orthodox, and ex-Protestant - FN.]

-----------------

(F1) ...whoever believes that the Church is the most reliable
interpreter of the Bible has first to accept that the Bible
is inspired. They believe in it on the grounds of the authority
of the Church. The Church tries to prove her authority from the
Bible or from the writings of certain individuals who tried to
prove the authority of the Church from the Bible (or from the
writings of certain men who  --- induction step follows, etc. etc)

(M1) No, the authority of the Church comes from Him who built her, cf Eph. 4.

(F2) Reference to the Bible as a reliable source. You strengthened my case.

(M2) Without weakening my own.  ;-)  The Tradition does not supplant the
Scriptures, rather, the Scriptures are the "backbone" of the Tradition.

(F3) Without the Scriptures, you are left with your own speculations about
the nature of the authority of the Church. The traditions interpreting
the fact that the "Church" is built on the apostles are varying widely,
from the monarchical Roman theory about the pope down to the Orthodox
theory about the equal authority of the patriarchs. And the Bible
clearly limits and regulates the authority of the Church, not like
those humans who tend to consider it a compilation of prooftexts for
their authority.

(M1) The Church is not the product of a bunch of men getting together on their
own and saying "Let's create an organization to interpret and carry out
the writings of the Bible."

(F2) No one said that. I just said
"The Church tries to prove her authority from the Bible or from [...]"

(M2) There is, however, a difference between *documenting* the divine origin of
the Church's authority, and the Church deriving its authority *from* the
document.

(F3) Yet both of them is true.

People, when they are asked about something which they believe to be
true, often grasp for proof in written documents. In the absence of
written documents, their case would be weaker. Thus the authority
of the Christian Church fully depends on what the Bible says or
doesn't say. You cannot briefly say that "The Church has divine
origin" and "Here are some prooftexts from the Bible", and sub-
sequently derive the meaning of "authority" from these couple of
texts. Rather "Read the Bible and you'll find that the Church has
divine origin. Read it and you'll find that she has authority.
Read it in order to learn the boundaries of this authority."

The first approach considers the firstly quoted allegation an
absolute truth which cannot be questioned even in the absence
of biblical evidence. It reflects the belief that the testimony
of a present particular denomination about itself has the same
weight as God's Word in the Bible which, in turn, gets all its
authority from this denomination. But it is an awful bankruptcy
from a global point of view: thus the Mormons can claim the same
authority to their book. You can't say they don't have apostolic
succession, as they have angelic intervention. Which is a part of
their self-praising hymns, just as the tradition (actually those
patristic writings which are consonant with your opinion) is part
of Orthodoxy's self-praising hymns.

The second approach is "inductive": "We can't make sure which
denomination today is right. Let's open a book which is accepted
by all denominations and try to verify their statements from there".

In your mind, this approach is erroneous because someone who opens
the Bible can err in the interpretation. In answer to this excuse,
I offer a parallel from the Bible. We know that the Old Testament
as a written testimony was entrusted to the Jews who, in turn,
proved unfaithful to many of its written precepts and its whole
spirit (eg. "I want obedience, not sacrifices"). Yet Jesus Christ
and the apostles often argued with them from the OT, and the
Jews evidently had the book to check up on their statements.

The necessary conclusion to be drawn from here is that the books
of the OT were open even to Jews to ask things from there even in
the state of unbelief. And the second fact to bear in mind is that
neither Jesus nor the apostles said anything about their "Mosaic
succession" which was, however, the strongest argument of the
pharisees. Thus they all submitted themselves to the biblically
based criticism from outside, from the Jews.

The Bereans are praised for verifying Paul's preaching from the OT.
This fact proves that the Scriptures on account of their indisputably
divine origin, as an axiom, have a role of a judge in the matters of
faith. Even if those who speak are apostles. How much more if they
are only warring "successors" of the apostles!

The Bible, apart from documenting the divine origin and authority of
the Church, also does confine church authority. For example, in
Mt 24:43-25:30, Lk 12:35-48 forbids the Church to do evil things.
Here is the weak point of all traditionalists: they consider the
Bible a record of the authority of their denomination, while it's
much more that that. It is the constitution of the Church. It is
the divine testimony against human boastfulness. Some will say
"We worked miracles and did great things in Your name", and the
Lord will answer: "I have never known you, evildoers. Depart from me."

The restriction of these verses to literal miracle workers, demon
exorcists and prophets is very convenient but fallacious, because
in Mt 7:13-29 the Lord warns everybody to listen to His words and
obey them, or else a catastrophe will ensue. This warning is similar
to the letter to Laodicea: "You say >I am rich, I don't need anything<
and yet you are the poor, blind, naked and wretched" and "cure your
eyes with eye salve so that you could see".

A local church boasting of apostolic origin and indulging in her
own (spiritual) riches is being gravely exhorted here. And note
well, not by other churches but by God. Not by the tradition but by
divinely revealed words. So it's wholly possible that certain local
churches go astray from the truth if they don't listen to God's Word
but to their leaders who are (in this case) false teachers.

You could answer that the tradition contains guidelines about how
these errors can be avoided. But if this is so, then why didn't the
bishops of Laodicea and Thiatira apply the correct principles?
The reason is evident: because they were humans, and they couldn't
be aware of the full Christian teaching on their own. The claim
to have apostolic origin and traditions is almost equal to this
nonsense. (I was taught by the apostle Paul, says one of the parties.
I was planted by Kephas, responds another. Our teacher was Apollos,
yells the third one. I have the clue to the truth, cry all parties.)

So the tradition cannot be deduced from one apostle, and a local church
which claims herself authority on the grounds of her apostolic origin
just repeats the error of the Corinthians. This error can be avoided by
constantly studying the whole apostolic teaching. Which is preserved in
the Bible above all. Other sources are of less authority, that's why
Clement's letters and Hermas and the Didache (etc. etc.) were eventually
dropped out of the canon. The canon is something with which everything
else has to be measured, interpreted and judged. Being omitted from the
canon means that the particular writing doesn't bear that infallible and
authoritative character which is the property of those in the canon.

The distinction between canonical and other accepted writings testifies
about the conviction that on a practical level, even the orthodox
writings have to be divided into two groups: one of those which can be
called the Word of God, and the other group of the words of men.

Hesitations and temporal differences about the exact content of the canon
undoubtedly deprive the (labelless) Church of the infallible, supernatural
guidance via the allegedly apostolic tradition, which would serve the
purpose of correctly deciding on the canon. These differences cannot be
accounted for by an infallible and universal deposit of faith which was
orally entrusted to the (labelless) Church under the name "tradition."

Moreover, those who advocate the interpreting role of their traditions,
actually place it above the Word of God. The ancient Church didn't
do so. She divided the "good" writings into two: divine and human.
How can the Word of God be unable to make itself clear, and need human
interpretations to be infallible in practice? If someone doesn't believe
Moses and the Prophets, will he believe the Pharisees? Traditionalists
say yes. But then, what gain does he have from it? If the blind lead
the blind, both will fall into the pit.

(M1) The Church was built first through the oral teachings of the Apostles,

(F2) Perverting an oral tradition is much easier than perverting written
tradition.

(M2) Ah, I dispute that,

(F3) Vainly. It is a biblical fact that perverting the true teaching
is much easier when it is preserved only in an oral form than if
it's penned down. See Deut 31:26-27.

(M2) especially considering that "oral" tradition is a
misnomer:  the "oral" tradition itself is frequently written down in the
patristic literature.

(F3) Why do you need this "especially" argument? It seems to undermine
your case. You express doubt concerning my above allegation,
then you say that the tradition isn't that oral as I think.
But if orality is not a danger to the truth at all then why don't
you continue the argument on this path? Why do you sidestep with
this tangential thought about the non-orality? Is it an attempt to
cut corners in the discussion?

By the way, the fathers having written down some of their opinions
give us an opportunity to check up on the consistency of the
allegedly apostolic tradition. If they had been given the exhaustive
and infallible interpretation of the words of the Bible (what else,
if the NT revelation was given "once for all" to the saints, in the
narrative of Jude who looks back on the apostolic generation),
then no majority vote at the councils could have been permissible,
because in Acts 15 we see unanimous agreement which was achieved by
scriptural arguments.

And of course, you just assert that >the "oral" tradition itself
is frequently written down in the patristic literature.<
To verify it, and to exclude the opportunity of the so-called
purgatory becoming apostolic tradition by occurring in the patristic
literature, you have to resort to private interpretation of the
writings of the Fathers. And you get into the same situation
in which Sola Scriptura adherents are (in your opinion): you can't
find anybody more authoritative to tell you the truth than the
leaders of the Orthodox Church. It's nothing but private inter-
pretation, exercised by the high priests of a certain denomination.

(M2) May I refer you to the "churches of Christ" and the
Campbellite Restoration movement, expressly founded on the principle of
"Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent," as
one of many examples of the inadequacy of writing alone as a means of
preventing "perversion" of the Apostolic teaching.

(F3) I don't see your point. Do you consider this approach erroneous?
Or are these denominations heretical despite their principles?
I doubt that they were really loyal to these principles.

Do you agree with the Scholastics who thought that based on our
God-given ability to think, we can deduce spiritual things about
God? And where did they end up? In pharisaic debates about "how many
angels can dance on the tip of a pin simultaneously?". Whereas the
Bible says

"Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord
"comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness
"and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one's praise will
"come from God.
"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself
"and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think
"beyond what is written, and none of you may be puffed up on behalf
"of one against the other."              (1Cor 4:5-6)

How does your example show that writing down the message is not
enough to prevent corruption of the original teaching? It just shows
that humans will always distort the truth of the Bible. And you
stay by your case, saying that the tradition prevents multiple
heresies. True, I can answer, but it causes one massive heresy instead.
As in the case of the Pharisees.

(F2) That's why the gospels were written down. That's why
those who wanted to have their gospel versions accepted also penned
down what they thought. The preaching of the apostles is not something
which you seem to imply by it (those teachings of the Orthodox Church
which aren't stated in the Bible or sg like that; correct me if I
misunderstood your intention).

(M2) Well, perhaps this is not as clear as it should be.  The Tradition has to
do with the fact that the Church preserved, not just the text of the
Scriptures, but their meaning as well--that is, not just the Bible, but
also the correct interpretation of the Bible.

(F3) It is a debatable allegation. In the flamewars against Arianism
the fathers said either "it is written: ..., so you are a heretic"
or if they faced a more puzzling question like >>Jesus said: "Why
do you call me good; only God is good", so He isn't God<<, they
resorted to the "argument" that "you don't interpret the Bible
in accordance with the tradition, so you are a heretic."

The first proof was the explicit testimony of the Scripture.
If they had to defend a doctrine which is not explicit in Scripture,
they grasped for the straw of tradition.

Thus, the notion of "infallible interpretation" was a stock
argument in case there was no other way left. Irenaeus in Adversus
Haereses tried to refute heresies; later Tertullianus in "De prae-
scriptione haereticorum" simply referred to the traditional inter-
pretation and actually forbade those people whom he thought to be
heretics to use the Bible. It's a lamentable mistake, for he thus
identified the true meaning of the Bible with the opinion of the
bishops of his time, second, he declared certain people heretics
on the grounds that they brought up biblical verses and the bishops
couldn't refute them. Whereas it is required of the bishops that
they were able to refute the arguments of the heretics. And not
just by parroting "I am right, so shut up" (Tit 1:9).

(M2) Now it may be that there are
some things that were authentic Apostolic Teaching that were not captured
by the text of written Scripture, but I can't think of anything truly
significant that fits that description.

(F3) Calvin expressed this very same feeling:

"Furthermore, they [RC's - FN] ridicule themselves when they imagine that
"those deep secrets which remained veiled from the apostles for a long
"time [and thus aren't contained in Scripture - FN] "consisted of some
"Jewish or paganistic regulations already widespread respectively
"among Jews and pagans; of certain weird gestures and old-womanish
"rituals which can be performed even by simple-minded and unlettered
"priestlings very exactly...

(Institutio 1536, Translation from Hungarian)

(M2) The Tradition does not supplant
the Scripture, nor does it do a lot to even supplement the Scripture (as
far as dogma goes, anyway).  What Tradition does is to give the Scripture a
historical and hermeneutical context in which to be correctly understood.

(F3) Tradition rather testifies about the imperfectness of the Church.
At some time it wasn't a comfortable thing to argue for the revealedness
of the book of Revelations because the Montanists used its prophecies
in their theology. Have those who neglected Revelations for this reason
simply forgotten the "apostolic" tradition which had been "entrusted"
to them? Or is it permissible to put this tradition aside until the
abovementioned heretics die out? Or is the possession of the tradition
an excuse for trying to exclude a book from the Bible? Does the
tradition allow the denomination which possesses it to interpret
it privately, according to their taste? It happened several times
in the Middle Ages, especially when the pope demanded physical
obedience of all the kings and rulers.

Note well, the tradition is not a pair of crutches for the Scriptures
to lean on to be able to walk, but a burden to carry and sometimes
to have to throw away. Once it was a dogmatic tradition that the
so-called priests can have wives. Now in the West it is forbidden.
Once it was common that the so-called lay participated of the wine,
too. Now in the West it is forbidden. Once it was earnestly believed
that Mary was born in sin. Now the Romans deny it fiercely. Once it
was held that the emperor had the right to appoint bishops in his
country. In the Middle Ages the pope began to deny it. Once the belief
was that the Lord didn't forsake Israel for ever. Then it changed to
the belief that the Church replaced Israel, thus they have no right
to call themselves God's people. Resulting in massacres.

So, where did they hide their traditions in the meantime?
They erred, as you Orthodox confirm it. If they erred then
why couldn't you have erred, too? Because you are you?

(M1) and then, as the original generation of the Church passed away,
both the writings and the teachings of the Apostles were preserved
by those who received them.

(F2) A nice theory. Yet the present Catholic and Orthodox traditions
are at variance with the inspired scriptures in many cases.

(M2) At variance with the Scriptures themselves, or with a particular
interpretation of the Scriptures?

(F3) The first.

(M2) I confess that I do not literally hate
my mother and father and sister and brother and wife and children, though
you *can* take the literal words of Scripture and insist that they say I
must.  Is the "conflict" between Orthodox tradition and the Bible a genuine
conflict, or is it constructed out of one's assumptions regarding what is
to be taken as literal and what is to be taken as metaphor or hyperbole?

(F3) You speak as if it weren't evident from the Lord's own words how these
ones have to be understood. One doesn't have to hate his father, mother,
etc. for hatred's sake, as heathens do, but figuratively, compared
to his love of the Lord. Mt 10:37 says in a parallel verse: "He who
loves father or mother above me..." The Lord's intention is very clear
here. I don't understand why you gave me such an easy task. But if all
the puzzling questions that (in your opinion) cannot be solved without
the tradition are no more difficult than this one, then I really don't
see of what use the tradition is.

(F2) It's impossible that the Holy Spirit contradict Himself. The
apostles are not likely to have entrusted to their successors
anything which is contrary to their own writings.

(M2) Yes, precisely, and that is what makes these successors so important in
discerning the correct interpretation of the Apostles' Teaching.

(F3) And if a certain statement of the alleged successors is contrary to
the Bible then we can seriously doubt its apostolic origin. It's the
same what you do when you come across embrionic papal claims in Irenaeus:
you may throw it out and say: "The rest of the tradition says otherwise."
Sola Scriptura adherents do it better: they don't throw out any biblical
verse but try to reconcile its interpretation with other scriptural
passages. It's not so difficult as you think, and it's surely easier
than reconciling fire with water, that is, those fathers who explicitly
teach the so-called purgatory with your ardent denial of this thing.

(M1) It is true that the writings of the Apostles and of the early
fathers preserves a certain historical record of the establishment
of the Church, but the authority of the Church stems from the
historical fact of her establishment by Christ, and not from the
Scriptural or patristic writings recording this fact.

(F2) Proof by assertion? You speak about "historical fact", but how
can you prove that it's really historical fact? From written proof
or from the testimony of men who weren't there?

(M2) Well, technically, of course, it is not possible to actually "prove"
*anything.*  At a certain point, all of our "logical" arguments must rely
on premises that we accept simply because we choose to believe them.  I am
assuming, however, that you and I will both agree that, when the New
Testament records the fact that Jesus chose Apostles and gave them
authority, as the foundation of the Church, the Scripture is recording the
fact that this authority was given to them before ever an apostolic pen
first dipped into an inkwell.  That is, it is the record that is consequent
upon the bestowal of the authority, and not the bestowal of authority that
is the consequence of the record.

(F3)Again, you dismiss with a great relief the other instructions of the
Bible which confine this authority. I don't say that the bestowal is a
consequence of the record, but that the true nature of the authority
cannot be understood from the bare testimony of the bestowal, but by
the elaborate biblical description and biblical usage of this authority.

So, I don't want to put the cart before the horse. I just want to
have a look at the One who inspired the Bible in order to see what
the destination of the Church is. We have not just authority to
do whatever we want, but also commission, labour, duty, task, and
responsibility. Traditionalists in some way resemble the infamous
Word of Faith preachers who constantly parrot "I was given all power
over heaven and earth. Now go, and make all nations disciples..."
- interpreting it as an act of conferring full power and authority
on the Church. But we can see where this one-sided approach can lead.
They deduce the "power of the tongue" false teaching from it.

God exhorted the Church gravely not to forsake the truth.
No apostolic authority can be contrary to the truth. Truth
isn't something which is entrusted to the bishops with the
guarantee that they will never corrupt it - indeed, Paul warned
the elders of Ephesus that at some time men will rise up from
among them, speaking perverse things to draw the disciples
after themselves (Acts 20:30).

(F1) The final authority to which everyone refers is again the Bible.

(M1) Final in the sense that the Bible is guaranteed not to be incorrect,
but on a practical level we must also bear in mind that there is no
guarantee that it will never be *interpreted* incorrectly.  That is
why we need the whole Tradition, and not just the written Word of God.

(F2) The tradition doesn't solve this problem either. Several church fathers
and councild contradicted each other. Not to speak about popes.
Consider the Catholics: they hold different views from your ones,
while they refer to the same tradition. (Not counting that it's
just a hypothesis that your or their tradition is identical to
the teaching of the apostles.)

Well, if you read the Acts and the epistles, it should be apparent that not
even living Apostles were enough to guarantee that there would *never* be
interpreted incorrectly by *anyone.*  Nevertheless, he who has both the
words of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture has more than he who
has only the words and who must devise his own interpretation.  The point
is not that the Tradition is perfect, but that it is the best possible
mechanism, given the frailties of human weakness.

(F3) You suppose that tradition guards Scripture from being misinterpreted,
or at least to a certain extent, more than Sola Scriptura.
I say that the tradition is a hidden way of canonizing one's extra-
biblical doctrines meanwhile constantly referring to the difficulties
emerging in the interpretation of the Bible. And the reason for this
is also familiar from the Old Testament: people who were commissioned
with teaching the Law indulged in teaching the commandments of men.

This danger is exacerbated by the dim definition of the tradition.
In the quarrel about the date of Easter, no one could decide which
party was right, for both were maintaining that their traditions
were so and so ancient, apostolic, well-known, etc. This sort of
reasoning is being resuscitated in the present traditionalist
circles. They continually refer to their beliefs as ones identical
to those of the apostles. No proof for it, just the allegation
"I have the apostolic succession, conclusively you should accept
what I say as the Word of God."

On the other hand, even traditionalists don't deny that at certain
periods some biblical doctrines were almost forgotten in the Church.
Let me refer but to the royal priesthood of all believers, of which
Peter speaks so eloquently. And the cause of this wilful oblivion
was that the privileged group of "priests" saw a danger behind these
verses. Here is an ample evidence of placing the tradition above
scripture in the RC Church. I don't know the exact situation in
the Orthodox Church but I suppose that here "priest" means sg
similar to the Catholic notion of it.

And as for the thesis that the tradition is the best possible
mechanism to interpret the Bible correctly - it's utterly false,
because instead of seeking the truth in the Bible (where it is)
and applying it as the guide of our feet (as it was for the psalmist
long ago), traditionalists in fact force their opinions (which, as
all human opinions, ought to be checked against the Word of God,
which is living and powerful in discerning them) in the Bible.
Moreover, they deny that God can speak in intelligible words when
they maintain that the Bible is obscure, and they have to make it
clear with their traditions. Whereas what they say is just one
opinion of the myriads.

(F1) So even a Catholic or Orthodox gets back to the Scriptures.

(M1) Of course we go back to the Scriptures!  What we don't do is to
then pick the Scriptures up and carry them off, each in our own
individual directions.

(F2) I don't want to do it either. I am ready to debate Luther's or
Calvin's statements if they are contrary to the Scripture.

(M2) But again, are they really contrary to *Scripture* or are they contrary to
your *interpretation* of Scripture?  What assurance do you have that your
interpretation is any less fallible than even Luther's or Calvin's?

(F3) You traditionalists also have to interpret your traditions,
otherwise they cannot be applied to everyday life. Athanasius
knew nothing about artificial insemination. Origen had never
heard of the atomic bomb. Allusions, yes. But they still have
to be interpreted. So what you do is interpreting the inter-
pretation of Scripture. What we do is interpreting Scripture.
I'd say that our method is much safer, because we stay closer
to the Word of God, and in case of our error, we can return
to the truth more quickly and with less shame on God's name.

Scriptures weren't written exclusively for theologians. The author
of the book of Acts praises the Bereans for their zeal in studying
the OT. The mere wish to study the Word of God never makes anyone
a heretic. On the other hand, not knowing the Scriptures is definitely
a malady. And ignorance of the Scriptures was very widespread in the
medieval church. The clergy did nothing to prevent it, as their
strategy was to maintain their rule over the ignorant flock.

Luther or Calvin didn't write their books on inspiration. They gave
arguments from the Bible. Don't depict them as hardened traditionalists
who answer to every objection against their teaching: "It's true because
I say it so". Luther, as I remember, said sg like it in anger, but I don't
think he wanted this statement to be preserved for ages. He expressly
wished that some of his writings which came about at the spur of the
moment "should be buried forever." Now, I think he wouldn't mind if I
buried this one. The Reformers never set out to contradict the Scriptures,
so if you disagree with them, you must assume that they have misinterpreted.
But are you yourself not subject to the same fallibilities?

(F3) Herein lies the great misunderstanding of all traditionalists.
They all think that Luther, Calvin, etc. spoke out in order to
contribute to the Big Book of Infallible Protestant Tradition.
But it's arrantly nonsensical. Their own writings are full of
statements suggesting that if they are refuted from the Bible
then they themselves would drop that particular argument. The
Protestant confessions (Augsburg, Helvetic) also leave open
the opportunity of their further amendations in the light of
Scripture. Yes, because these people really believed that the
Scriptures shed light, and if we are faithful to what they teach
then we are faithful to God.

Our error... yes, it's wholly possible. We see dimly, as in
a mirror. And unlike traditionalists, we don't insist that
we know everything infallibly through the tradition.
We don't determine the meaning of certain verses which we don't
understand. We don't cling to our grandfathers' opinion about the
true meaning of the Scripture, knowing that they were humans -
honest but fallible humans. Present Reformed commentators also
take Calvin into pieces when it comes to the misconception of
"Christian State" which he advocated under the influence of his
actual contemporary world, and which has proven a miscarriage
since then.

(M2) How can you tell whether
you have interpreted correctly unless you can compare your interpretation
with that of someone who is known to understand it correctly?

(F3) By scripture. Scripture isn't a crossword puzzle. Neither is it
a mathematical problem the solution of which is hidden in the
mind of the traditionalists. Scripture is the Word of God.
I hark back to your question. How can YOU tell if those whose
opinions you accept weren't heretics? You just suppose that the
tradition is the clue to the Bible. But what is this tradition?
Which fathers are important? Why? Who interprets the tradition
correctly? Orthodox or Catholic Christians? It seems that the
notion of "Apostolic Tradition" doesn't resolve the problems either.
It would work with more success, by the way, if those who use it
as a cover of their inventions were unanimous in their inventions -
however, by their schism (which is twice as old as the Reformation,
which they scold for allegedly being irreformably divergent) they
give away the intrinsic weakness of the whole method they use.

And, compared to Sola Scriptura, the tradition hides another
danger: that the unalterable definitions of old begin to replace
the text of the Bible (which they are supposed to interpret
and not to replace). For example, one reads among the comments
of a Catholic dogmatic theology textbook (The Church Teaches,
TAN, 1973) that Mary's "divine maternity" is the basis of her
other prerogatives. (Immaculately conceived, taken up to heaven,
corredemptrix, mediatrix, queen of heaven.)
So not God's revelation in the Bible but people's thoughts
on it are the source from which these titles are deduced.

Truly, if someone contents himself on the mere repeating "I have
the traditions of the apostles, so shut up", he at last becomes
so self-confident that he won't even feel the need of proving his
allegations. Thanks to God, a Catholic man called Gutenberg invented
bookprinting, thus making the Word of God available to many oppressed
and exploited "laymen". And those who sneer at the Reformers, saying
"you impious heretics, see what you have done - you denied the prin-
ciple and guarantee of unity (that is, papacy), and you keep on
tearing the seamless robe of Christ from that time on, you should
realize that your method is intrinsically erroneous" - these men
did better if they sought the cause in themselves. Namely, by their
arrogant style of governance they gave rise to a certain false
interpretation of the Church, with the most necessary bounds and
ligaments being excommunication and outroaring, instead of love as
the apostle recommends, and they being the head, instead of Christ.

This approach inevitably sneaks through denominational borders,
as it has very convincing results: unanimity in doctrine, which
can usually hide the erroneousness of the whole. Traditionalistic
superiority complex has greatly affected Protestant denominations
too, but to accuse them of firstly defiling the Church with it is
just as absurd as asserting that the disease is caused by the symptoms.

Really, if Protestants had always clung to Sola Scriptura, and
not to the utterances of their first leaders, no more split would
have happened. Traditionalistic boastfulness was what made them
stiff-necked and reluctant to hear the Word of God. But the
increasing respect towards the Word of God (which can be observed
now worldwide) gave rise to a slow convergence towards truth,
which is much more promising than anchoring down at a particular
opinion which you think to be apostolic tradition, while it's
nothing but your private interpretation of a huge corpus of opinions
produced by a million other traditionalists who exercised your very
behaviour regarding revelation to a lesser extent - simply because
in their time somewhat less extra-biblical stuff was being disseminated
under the banner of "apostolic tradition".

(M2) That is what
the Tradition is for:  the apostolic fathers compared their understanding
to that of the Apostles who taught them, the ante-Nicene fathers, to that
of the apostolic fathers who taught them, and so on.  The fact that all
these fathers *also* wrote epistles gives an additional safety check
against "creeping dogma."

(F3) Now I say that you are too optimistic. In those ancient time an error
could circulate years before being discovered. There was no mass media.
Contemporary fathers didn't keep in touch constantly. Origen, with his
reincarnation theology, wasn't denounced as a heretic while he was alive.
Moreover, there aren't just the great fathers who lived then but the
less important ones. Tatianos, as I remember correctly, is famous for
his roasting attacks against the Hellenic culture and for his late
sectarianism (and for Diatessaron, of course). So, do you include
his writings in the corpus of tradition? Or you simply remark that
he was an extremist, influenced by his Syrian origin and by the
execution of his teacher Justinos by the Romans?

If this is the case then you select between the sources of
tradition. Tatianos was taught by Justinos for a while, by a
very much respected martyr. Why lower his importance? Based on
your judgment of priority, coming from private interpretation?

As we saw, Origen seems to have advocated a kind of reincarnation.
A council condemned him. But this condemnation isn't sufficient to
discard his opinion now, because the veneration of icons
was condemned by a council, too. Catholics solved this problem
in 1870, by placing the pope above all councils. You still have
to argue that "one single council is not authoritative;
a following council can make its decrees invalid." Or "if the
majority of the Fathers don't support that belief of the council
then one can go against its authority." Isn't it the "private inter-
pretation" of the tradition? How does a single individual take the
audacity to question a solemn decree of a holy assembly of bishops
when they were entrusted the correct interpretation of everything?

(M2) This may not be 100% flawless,

(F3) I appreciate this honesty of yours towards facts.
If it were flawless then you would have to explain the great
schism between the tradition-believing East and West, likewise
the age-old enmity between them. Yet I'd say that tradition,
due to this schism, can be at best 50% flawless.

This reasoning cannot be used against the principle Sola Scriptura.
We don't say that doctrinal unity is engendered by unity in church
discipline. We don't claim to have a perfect doctrine, or an
unchangeable one, rather a constantly revised doctrine.

If it's a sign of intrinsic confusion and error in your sight,
then the whole history of Israel can be useful to convince you
of the opposite. Human weakness was widely in operation, so
the initial commandments were neglected, and replaced with
man-made ones. And Jesus didn't say "Foolish Israelites,
why don't you listen to the clergy?" Instead He said that
the clergy were "blind leaders of the blind". Doing this,
He left us an example of debunking traditionalistic claims.

(M2) but this plus the
Holy Spirit (and Christ's promise) make up the best possible mechanism that
could exist.

(F3) Here is the problem. Traditions are alleged to HELP understand the
Bible. Yet we find evidence in Mark 7 that there are traditions
which nullify the Word of God. So the usage of the tradition
isn't sufficient to preserve the truth, rather they bring in
many fallible human opinions.

Turning one's back to the truth is possible even in the New Testament.
And you seem to "extract" the Holy Spirit from the Bible of which He
is the author; instead of letting Him enlighten us by the devoted
reading and fulfilling of the Word, you seem to use Him as a divine
stamp on your (plural) beliefs. Actually, you do so when you briefly
list the Holy Spirit and Christ's promise as quasi-servants of your
traditions. Tell me where exactly was the Holy Spirit bound to the
bishops who can stand up in a lineage of ordination? Or which particular
promise of Christ referred to the traditions of the medieval church?

Sola Scriptura holders act more humbly: they confess that they are
subject to the Holy Spirit and to the Word of God in interpreting
it and carrying it out. Thus they can err, but it doesn't matter
because God resists the proud, even those who claim to have the
correct interpretation. Even those who cast out demons in His name.

(M2) Apart from giving *everyone* the gift of infallible prophecy,
anyway.  ;-)

(F3) Actually, God gives gifts as He wills, and we are not to claim
to have a certain gift. But if gifts are replaced by the
tradition then the Church is who suffers loss by it.

(F2) I am limited by God's word. I am not allowed to believe and
teach anything contrary to it. Even I can be a heretic if I
don't obey God's Word.

(M2) What God's Word says, or what God's Word *means*?

(F3) What it commands. When God commands something then He does it
in order for the audience to understand it. The allegation
that the Word of God is obscure to every hearer or reader
who doesn't agree with the Fathers completely dismisses
the Holy Spirit who leads us to the truth. That is, it
replaces Him with the tradition. Or rather with your
interpretation of the patristic corpus.



(F1) Seeing this, the zealous (and often subconscious) attempts to
render the Church superior to the Bible by asking the question
"How did they decide which book belongs to the canon?" -- can
turn out to be dangerous to the one who asks it. The reason for
this is the omission of the divine authority of the Scripture.

(M1) I think you miss the point of the question.  It is not to prove the
Church superior to the Bible (which would be an apples-and-oranges
comparison anyway),

(F2) In practice, this question was indeed frequently posed to those
who questioned certain beliefs on the grounds of some scriptural
verses. These men were often "refuted" not from the Bible but
based on the interpretation of the verse "the gates of hell shall
not prevail against the church", so "obey what you are taught by
the pope/bishops/etc."

(M2) Ah well, "in practice" Peter failed to give equal fellowship to Gentile
believers (Gal. 2:11ff), but this didn't diminish his authority.

(F3) It does, however, help us understand the true nature of his authority.
Namely that even Peter (and the Fathers as well) have to remain
faithful to the truth instead of using the undefined (and often
harshly extended) idea of "authority" to decide a doctrinal debate.

(M2)  Nor, on
the other hand, did it diminish the importance of his lapse in this
instance.  Neither does the failure to apply Tradition correctly either
invalidate Tradition or validate error.

(F3) How can you determine whether the tradition was applied correctly?
Generalize from the case of Peter's above error. Paul was probably
voicing a minority opinion then, for "the rest of the Jews also
played the same dissembling part with him".

Peter could have referred to the divine promise given to him
("upon this rock" etc.) and to his authority as well ("whatever
you bind"). What Paul said was a "new" doctrine, an "invention":
that the pagans belong to the Body of Christ without becoming
Israelites first. It was a secret, of which God's Spirit had to
convince Peter several times. ("What God has cleansed, don't call it
unclean" and this occasion, by Paul's mouth: "If I re-build those
I had previously destroyed then I make myself a sinner.")

(M1) but to point out the folly of going to the Church for the text of
the Scriptures and then rejecting the Church's understanding of <-----------
those same writings.                                                       |

(F2) It's a forced counterposition. All Christian churches accept the Bible
but not all interpret it the same way.

(M2) Bingo.  That's part of the reason I'm not an evangelical Protestant any more.

(F3) Why, because they differ from the Orthodox Church? Using this logic      |
one could as well justify the conversion the other way round:            |
"Orthodoxy doesn't interpret the Bible in the same way as other          |
Christian denominations. So I refuse to be an Orthodox."                 |
                                                                         |
Your reasoning justifies the papal claims, too.--------------------------|
Why do you reject papal authority if you accept Peter's epistles?
The pope claims to be Peter's successor just as Orthodox leaders
claim something similar. Which denomination to follow? And why?
Were you Orthodox ever able to convince the other side of your
opinion in problematic matters? Were the Catholics? Oh, I remember
that at the council of Lyon (1274) the Orthodox legates accepted
the three "minor orders" of the RCC and the existence of the so-
called purgatory. Also at Florence (1439) they surrendered before
the open terror, and professed with whole heart the Filioque,
the so-called purgatory and the papal primacy.

(F2) If you were right then no objection could be made to Rome's doctrines.

(M2) Objections can be, have been, and are continuing to be made by those of
equal authority within the Church.

(F3) Do you mean patriarchs? Bishops? Fathers? Saints? Autocephal churches?
Councils? Which of them? And if they contradict one another?

(M2) Nevertheless, you *do* have a valid
point:  sometimes you *do* have to go against the "higher" authority of the
Church hierarchy, as has happened on occasion even within the Orthodox
Church.

(F3) "Sometimes"?? Exactly when? How do you know for certain that you
"have to" go against the "higher authority"? Note, the "higher
authority" has the right of interpreting the Bible and the
tradition correctly, due to apostolic succession! They were given
the authority, not a single individual called "you" or "me".
They are always right by definition. And those who disagree with
them are undermining the Lord's promise "the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it" etc. And they find themselves in hell...

To be serious: Most probably you have in mind the case when the
"rest of the Church" disagrees with a bishop or patriarch.
But what about the "rest of the Church" testifying unanimously
for the so-called purgatory, beginning with the ante-Nicene
fathers? Then you have to resort to your own interpretation
of what the "rest of the Church" is.


(F2) They also guarded the
Bible from the beginning, so why do you reject their doctrines?
Based on the tradition? They have another tradition based on which
they have condemned Orthodoxy several times. Who can decide which
party is right? Both can use your argument.

(M2) Touche.  :-)  I still hold, however, that Tradition is the best possible
mechanism for safeguarding the true Apostolic Teaching in an imperfect
Church (given that by Tradition I mean both the written and unwritten
Teaching).

(M1) How can you trust us to tell you what the Apostles said, but
not trust us to tell you what they meant?

(F2) No one of the present Orthodox bishops stood beside Paul to interpret
his words to the public. On the other hand, both Catholics and Orthodox
accept the same New Testament, as if they were forced to do so by a
supreme power.

(M2) Heh, "forced."  That's cold!  :-)

(F2) That is what the Protestants are used to call as
"accepting the divinely inspired scriptures". There is unanimous
agreement about this. About other issues - there isn't always.

(M1) We've had it the longest, lived it the longest, and gotten it
most directly (i.e. straight from the Apostles themselves,

(F2) That's why the Catholics say too.

(M2) And to the extent that they stick to it, they're right.  ;-)

(F3) Stick to "it", or stick to "what the Orthodox think it is"?
It's the same as "Catholics are right if they agree with us".
In the debate of two parties, each of whom has "apostolic"
"succession", "sacraments" etc., who is competent to be the judge?
The fathers? No. On src, Orthodox posters are always defeated with
patristic evidence for the so-called purgatory. (Excuse me this
ever-present example; this is the one to which you never respond.)
They usually admit their being defeated with the following sentence:
"We seek the opinion of the fathers of the Universal Church and not
that of some western theologians." Yet they fail to provide contrary
patristic evidence for the non-existence of the so-called purgatory.
They remain in the area of generalities, thus giving away their
unfaithfulness to their loudly proclaimed principles.


(M1) and not through any intermediate denomination).

(F2) Then the entire Christian Church is subject to the present
Jewish rabbis who are an intermediate "denomination" between
Moses and them. There are scriptural references to prove that
Israel has the fathers, the covenant, the promises etc.

(M2) The difference being that in the interim we have had the Old Testament
validated by the Son of God and His Apostles.

(F3) "Validated"? Weren't the OT books authoritative before Christ?
Or was it debatable that the Law had authority under the Law
because the Son of God hadn't ascended on earth yet? Do we,
when speaking to a non-Christian Jew, have to believe that he
doesn't consider the OT authoritative for the reason that he
doesn't confess that Jesus is the Christ?

On the other hand, I didn't speak about Jesus Christ "validating"
the Old Testament but about the rabbis handing it on. As you could
notice, I borrowed your argument (about handing the text on and on)
and placed it into the mouth of the Pharisees (it fits there well,
by the way). Indeed, without the rabbis, you wouldn't have the OT
canon and the books themselves. The rabbis guarded the text of the
Law and the Prophets from the possible errors. If they hadn't done
it there would have been nothing left for the Lord to "validate".
So the Pharisees had a key role in passing on the OT.

And the Pharisees had their own traditions which they alleged to be
Mosaic in origin. Yet the Lord rebuked them for nullifying the
commandment of God with the traditions which they had passed
on through generations. He didn't dread to quote pure Scripture
to them; by which they were perplexed and they found no argument
against Him. They surely knew the present traditionalist viewpoint,
they could have answered: "Jesus of Nazareth, you don't interpret
the Scripture in accordance with the venerable rabbis, and you deny
the ability of the God-chosen channel to fulfil its function.
Thus you deny God." Imagine that! If the Lord hadn't left us an
example how to refute traditionalist assertions then we would now
be circumcised Jews, offering bloody sacrifices and observing the
rituals of uncleanness.

(M2) No such direct intervention
of infallible authority has taken place between the Catholic Church and the
Protestant denominations.

(F3) It was impossible because the Roman Catholic Church of that time
was deeply corrupted and lacked the fundamental doctrines of truth.
The reason for the Reformation was exactly this.

(M1) It's easy for someone from outside the Church to come along
and say, "Oh well, you've got those writings, but you don't
understand them as well as I do"

(F2) First, I am not outside the Church.

(M2) Your pardon.  How about if I call it the "Traditional Church"?

(F2) Second, not only you (plural) have the writings.

(M2) Ok, I'll buy that.

(F2) Third, I just say that you (plural) have
committed several obvious errors.

(M2) By what authority do you determine them to be errors?

(F3) Not "authority". Rather "information." Biblical and historical.
You see, we do formulate our judgment based on information.
Information can be more or less reliable. It can be complete
to a greater or lesser extent. The most important thing is to
exclude all denominational preconception from debates concerning
Christianity. And even you can't do it more reliably than by
confining yourself to the Bible, which is accepted by all
denominations, and make your further steps according to it.

So our main problem is epistemological. Who is raised Catholic
considers the pope as the steward of orthodoxy. The Orthodox:
the Bible according to their traditions. The Protestant: the
Bible. Note well, it's laid down in our confessions that the
Bible is the highest authority, and that we have to regard it
as the standard. Never-ever is it said that Calvin's Institutio
is the standard. Or that the Helvetic Confession is. These are
nothing but compilations of biblical arguments, and are useful
only to the extent as they correspond with the Bible. They even
can be altered if necessity demands. Would you say the same
thing aloud about your traditions?

(M2) You need an
authoritatively correct interpretation of the Scriptures in order to
determine whether other people's interpretations are in error.  Where do
you get the necessary authoritatively correct interpretation, if not by
Tradition?

(F3) From the Bible itself. Tradition is divided, as the Church is, alas.
Everyone voices his own opinion. Even Orthodox and Catholics differ
significantly in such important issues as papacy. But the Bible is one.
Oh, you will answer "but your traditions are divergent". Yes, they are.
We have to adjust our traditions to the Bible, and not conversely.
And I never said that we get the "authoritatively correct interpretation"
from our traditions. I said and maintain that we pick them from the Bible.

According to your reasoning, one could say that the Bible is self-
contradictory, as many people deduce quite contrary things from it.
If the Bible doesn't explain and interpret itself, or it doesn't
contain the principles of its correct interpretation, then you have
to admit that God left the Church in darkness. Look around and count
the denominations that demand apostolic succession by episcopal laying
on of hands! (Anglicans, Jansenists, Old Catholics, Roman Catholics,
Copts, Jacobites, Nestorians, etc.) These claims are often contradictory,
eg. the pope denies the validity of Anglican orders because of bad
formulae and bad intention.

Well, if a piece of bad muttering can destroy a denomination's apostolic
succession (and being an aspirant to the name "Church of Christ") then
the Church is in a big trouble. She would have to provide proof that all
ordinations were valid so far, including the same formula and having the
same intention. And it's impossible. While seeking justification of our
standpoint in the Bible is not impossible. After having accepted some
sound principles of Bible interpretation (that is, biblical principles),
one possesses a reliable standard. So reliable that even others can apply
it. And if someone applies it badly then he is unveiled in the very moment,
by the Bible.

(F2) Fourth, I say that I am also
prone to making errors if I stray from the Bible.

(M2) But again, how do you know where the Bible is directing you, unless you
have the correct interpretation?

(F3) From the Bible itself. The author isn't the devil who wants me
to perish but God who wants the opposite.
Conversely, do you allege that the Crusaders had the correct
interpretation? Or those who massacred the Albigensians in Provence?
Or those who persecuted the Jews theologically and corporally
for centuries? Or those who robbed Constantinople? I doubt it.

(M1) -- but is that reasonable, especially if your new interpretations
do not match the teachings of those who were personally taught by
living apostles?

(F2) Then it's your turn (Orthodox, Catholics) to correct us with the
teaching of the teachers of those to whom you trace back your
traditions. (I mean the apostles themselves.)

(M2) Fair enough.  Shall we start with baptism for the remission of sins?  :-)

(F3) Do you have in mind the baptism of repentance for the remission
of sins, new birth and regeneration? I really doubt that you can
prove infant baptism from the Bible. So what about correcting this
piece of tradition with the Bible instead?


(F1) Someone asked "How do you know which books belong to the canon"?
I posted a Vatican I definition which says that the reason for
the authority of the Scriptures is the inspiration of the Spirit
and not the decision of the Church. Then Mark Nutter said
that it's not relevant here but that the Church received the
answer in the "Apostolic Tradition". So he put a greater stress
on the divine establishment of a denomination (RCC) than on
the authority of the Scripture which this very same church
considers the most valuable part af her tradition. The danger,
now, is that one could ask "How do you know the RCC is right"?

(M1) Well, I was referring to the Apostolic Church, not the
RCC per se (as I am not Catholic).

(F2) Excuse me. I knew that. Yet when I edited the text I forgot
about it. Quoting the Vatican statement was an answer
to Marty Helgesen (Catholic).

(M1) But I think you missed the point again.  The answer to both
questions -- "how do you know which books are true Scripture?"
and "how do you know the Apostolic Church is right?" -- is that
it depends on the Church, as founded by Christ Himself, faithfully
transmitting the traditions it received from Christ and His Apostles.

(F2) First: that the Church was founded by Christ doesn't mean that
the Orthodox Church is right. Neither does it mean that the Roman
Catholic Church is right.

(M2) This factor is important, however, in tracing the authority of the
historical Church.

(F3) The whole reasoning leads nowhere if you cannot point at a group
of living people, saying "here are the ones to tell you the truth."
But those who bind the truth to people are also divided among
themselves. (East/West.) Protestants, who don't assert that the
"historical" Church (or the Church with another label) is the pillar
of the truth, can escape from this vicious circle. They say that the
truth is contained in the Bible. The Church which is biblical in her
doctrine and conduct can aspire to the pillarship of the truth.

(F2) Second: even these "heretical" Roman
Catholics hold the true NT canon, so one cannot say that it's the
privilege of the Orthodox Chruch to have retained the canon.

(M2) Well, despite the schism between East and West, they are not separate
Churches.  That is why I often just say "the Church" when the distinctions
between East and West are irrelevant.

(F3) Most Protestants also speak about "the Church" when they think
the distinctions between the Protestant doctrines are irrelevant.
Moreover, they sometimes refer to the pre-Reformation Roman
Catholicism or to Orthodoxy as to the Church.
So, how did this argument help your case? I mean: do you forget
the Roman Filioque when you speak to Sola Scriptura believers?
Do you skip over almost one millennium of anathema when you call
Roman Catholicism for help?

Don't mistake my intention for malice. My questions are serious.
You set up the notion of "historical Church" which has the authority
of correctly interpreting the Bible. But as far as I know it, the
historical Church suffers from a great historical division.
So, how do you "divide" truth between the two conflicting parties?

I imagine it in the following way: "Orthodoxy has the fullness
of truth; Roman Catholicism has part of it, namely that part
on whose interpretation they agree with Orthodoxy."
But the Catholics say the same; and who is able to decide
which party is right? The tradition? Whose?

By the way, it's obvious by now that your "canon" argument doesn't
work. RCism could retain the true canon while being a damned
denomination through a millennium. Hypocritical rabbis and legalistic
pharisees could preserve the correct canon of the OT. And they didn't
become more authoritative than they would have been without Scripture.

(M1) If the Church did transmit the Tradition faithfully, then we can
trust both the Bible and the Church.  If not, then both are suspect.

(F2) Substitute "Catholic Church" for "Church". Your argument is too
general - it works here, too. I think you are willing to agree
that one can debate the truthfulness of the RC doctrines.
Based on this, do you question the biblical canon?
No, of course. But you still have to prove that the Orthodox
Christianity preserved the original tradition more faithfully
than the RCC.

(M2) Fair enough.  My first observation is the thesis that despite its
imperfections, the method of Tradition is both Apostolic in origin and the
best possible mechanism in function for the purpose of preserving both the
words and the meaning of Scripture.

(F3) Thank you for digging down to the very root of the problem. So, the
"best possible mechanism"? So, what you say is the very thing I doubt.
I believe that the text of the Word of God is more reliable than
people's opinions about it.

The Bible is the Word of God - the Bible itself says it, the Church
(without any denominational label) says it and my conscience
says it. It is said to be "precious like gold refined in fire"
and "a shield to them who walk in integrity". Yet traditionalist
Christians tend to consider the mere (translated) text of the Bible
obscure and even "dangerous" in some ways. And these "ways" don't
presuppose the wrong intention of those who interpret the Bible,
but only the fact that they don't agree with the traditionalists'
interpretation of the tradition.

By the way, you couldn't defend your loud argument that "both the
Church and the Bible are suspect." Mentioning the pope, I could
make you swerve into milder direction. You can expect this trick
again and again from me.


(M2) Secondly, I appeal to history:  by the
time the doctrine of papal supremacy gained ascendency in the West,
introducing the error that led to the Schism and to the numerous other
errors that led to the Reformation, the Church was already 1000 years old,
and had accumulated a vast wealth of written witness to both the "written"
and "oral" Teaching.

(F3) Ask a "real" Catholic: would he accept the statement "the doctrine of
papal supremacy gained ascendency in the West not until the end of the
first millennium"? He would doubt it fiercely. Your interpretation
of tradition is not the Roman Catholic interpretation of tradition.
I don't want to quote RC stuff here because I basically do agree
with you on your last statement. My purpose is to emphasize the
inherent uncertainty of the traditionalists' approach, while they
clamour for accepting tradition on the grounds of its enlightening
role. This role is unfulfilled in the case of the papal office:
each side has its own traditions and calls those of the other
side false.

And what do you base this date on? Why exactly the first millennium?
Because the cardinal Humbertus would soon arrive in Constantinople
to curse the schismatics? Because the Scholastics would soon arrive
to the scene to build up the system of papal tyranny? Do you want to
say that their contribution to the "deposit of the faith" is negligible
or dogmatically suspicious?

Your setting of the date is very informative about the underlying
motives. I'd call it "concocting a second canon for selfish interests".
At least the Sola Scriptura people accept the same NT canon as the
traditionalists, while among the latter there is no consensus about
the borders and emphases of the tradition!


(M2) By comparing, not just Scripture with Scripture, but
also Tradition with Tradition, I believe it is possible to derive a highly
accurate reconstruction of both aspects of the original Apostolic Teaching.

(F3) Inner contradictions of an allegedly safe method of Bible interpretation
testify about its wrongness. Catholicism uses the same method as you.
The reason of the uselessness of the tradition method is that instead
of accurately reconstructing the apostolic teaching, the fathers, bishops
and popes mingled the futile viewpoint of their age into it. They covered
the Bible with a layer of mud in order to prevent it from soaking.

On the other hand, the inductive way of "start from the Bible" is more
and more effective now, when the critical method gets more and more
accurate. Theologians can debate each other's allegations, and what
is false is dropped out. The standard is the Bible. On the contrary,
the tradition method includes the claim that the fathers were inspired,
or else how could they preserve the meaning of the Bible? By learning
from their predecessors? This did the Pharisees do, too. And did they
preserve the true meaning?

(M2) Remember, Tradition isn't just "what the leaders say today"--it's all of
the doctrine of the Church throughout history.

(F3) A hypothetical thing. You have to reconstruct both the "Church" and
its doctrines. And from here the same problems emerge as those of
the Sola Scriptura believers. With the difference that we all agree
that the Bible is the Word of God, therefore altogether valid if
there is no explicit proof against it (eg. a new covenant), while
traditionalists don't agree whether the writings of the fathers
supporting the beliefs of the opposing denomination belong to the
most valuable layer of tradition to consult. And they are allowed
to call a father more definitive or more authoritative than another
one, because these fathers aren't able to protest against such
procedures, and their writings aren't the Word of God.

On the other side, scriptural passages rarely do nullify one another.
The most important case of this is the entire difference of the two
Testaments. And even in this case I would rather say that the new one
"fulfilled" and "completed" the old one. And in the case of contradict-
ing church fathers, one can resort to generalization like "this inter-
pretation is not a majority opinion among the fathers" and one can say
"this father is right and the other is wrong". Thus the present observer
places himself above a real Church Father under the banner of the "major-
ity". That's why the tradition fails to perform its required duty, and
cannot interpret the Scriptures consistently: if someone begins to spread
heresy based on the words of a father then those who want to refute it
have to make the majority of the fathers testify against this one.
An example: Gregory of Nyssa and the so-called purgatory.
Show me some explicit patristic refutation of his teaching.

(M2) I'd say that by 1000 AD
both the written and "oral" Teaching had been established beyond reasonable
doubt.

(F3) And I'd respond that by that time so much temporal human thought
had sat on the apostolic doctrine that it couldn't have been
reconstructed but by re-examining and re-interpreting the text
of the Bible. I'd respond that the lack of biblical knowledge
among the "lay" couldn't have been cured with the tradition
but only with the Bible. And not then, in 1000 AD but constantly
through the centuries. You may say that it's a utopy, no one
could read then, etc. But there was a book in the OT which had to
be read up aloud on a regular basis.

Deut 31:9-29

"And Moses writeth this law, and giveth it unto the priests (sons of Levi,
"those bearing the ark of the covenant of Jehovah), and unto all the elders
"of Israel, and Moses commandeth them, saying, `At the end of seven years,
"in the appointed time, the year of release, in the feast of booths, in the
"coming in of all Israel to see the face of Jehovah in the place which He
"chooseth, thou dost proclaim this law before all Israel, in their ears.

"`Assemble the people, the men, and the women, and the infants, and thy
"sojourner who [is] within thy gates, so that they hear, and so that they
"learn, and have feared Jehovah your God, and observed to do all the words
"of this law; and their sons, who have not known, do hear, and have learned
"to fear Jehovah your God all the days which ye are living on the ground
"whither ye are passing over the Jordan to possess it.'

"And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `Lo, thy days have drawn near to die; call
"Joshua, and station yourselves in the tent of meeting, and I charge him;'
"and Moses goeth -- Joshua also -- and they station themselves in the tent
"of meeting, and Jehovah is seen in the tent, in a pillar of a cloud; and
"the pillar of the cloud standeth at the opening of the tent.

"And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `Lo, thou art lying down with thy fathers,
"and this people hath risen, and gone a-whoring after the gods of the
"stranger of the land into the midst of which it hath entered, and forsaken
"Me, and broken My covenant which I made with it; and Mine anger hath burned
"against it in that day, and I have forsaken them, and hidden My face from
"them, and it hath been for consumption, and many evils and distresses have
"found it, and it hath said in that day, Is it not because that my God is
"not in my midst -- these evils have found me? and I certainly hide My face
"in that day for all the evil which it hath done, for it hath turned unto
"other gods.

"`And now, write for you this song, and teach it the sons of Israel; put it
"in their mouths, so that this song is to Me for a witness against the sons
"of Israel, and I bring them in unto the ground which I have sworn to their
"fathers -- flowing with milk and honey, and they have eaten, and been
"satisfied, and been fat, and have turned unto other gods, and they have
"served them, and despised Me, and broken My covenant.

"`And it hath been, when many evils and distresses do meet it, that this
"song hath testified to its face for a witness; for it is not forgotten
"out of the mouth of its seed, for I have known its imagining which it
"is doing to-day, before I bring them in unto the land of which I have
"sworn.'

"And Moses writeth this song on that day, and doth teach it the sons of
"Israel, and He commandeth Joshua son of Nun, and saith, `Be strong and
"courageous, for thou dost bring in the sons of Israel unto the land which
"I have sworn to them, and I -- I am with thee.'

"And it cometh to pass, when Moses finisheth to write the words of this
"law on a book till their completion, that Moses commandeth the Levites
"bearing the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, saying,

"`Take this Book of the Law, and thou hast set it on the side of the ark
"of the covenant of Jehovah your God, and it hath been there against thee
"for a witness; for I -- I have known thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck;
"lo, in my being yet alive with you to-day, rebellious ye have been with
"Jehovah, and also surely after my death.

"`Assemble unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your authorities,
"and I speak in their ears these words, and cause to testify against them
"the heavens and the earth, for I have known that after my death ye do
"very corruptly, and have turned aside out of the way which I commanded
"you, and evil hath met you in the latter end of the days, because ye do
"the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, to make Him angry with the work
"of your hands.'

(M2) Now if you want to challenge me on traditions that arose after 1000
AD and that seem to contradict the earlier Tradition, then I will welcome
that as a fair challenge.

(F3) And what about other challenges? Eg. the so-called purgatory,
to which so many fathers attest that on src even Fr. Morris
couldn't manage but to say sg like "we venerate St. Augustine
but we don't take each of his words for granted." In answer to
this, Catholic posters flooded the group with patristic evidence
for the so-called purgatory. Including pre-Nicene fathers.
Including Eastern (Greek) fathers. My third letter contains these.

(F1) And, alas, biblical arguments aren't permitted because then this
malicious guy could answer "Don't quote this book; if the Church
isn't right, which I am intent to prove, then it is also possible
that she determined a canon which is wholly suitable to back up
her false claims." Quotations from church fathers who quote
from the Bible (or from fathers who quote from etc. etc.) are
forbidden too. What remains then?

(M1) Nothing.  If you can't trust the Church to faithfully transmit the
teachings of Christ across the generations, there is no other source
from which to receive them.  You do not have the originals of any
epistle.  You have only the Church's copy.

(F2) There is an implicit but very convincing proof that the Bible is
independent of the truth of any denomination -- namely, that all
those who want to call themselves the followers of Christ try to
fulfil what is written therein. So even heretics understand that the
Church is considered Church by her faithfulness to the Bible.

(M2) Mmmm, I'm not sure I can grant you this.  I've seen too many heretics that
implicitly or explicitly replace the Bible with Scriptures of their own.

(F3) Tell me some details about those who do it explicitly.
And that how many of them believe in Sola Scriptura.

(M2) And in any case, a Bible is just ink on paper unless and until it is read
and interpreted, so the real issue is what *interpretations* (if any) are
universally accepted.  I don't think many heretics will lend their support
to this particular test.

(F3) Oh, no. The Bible is God's Word, and not for the reason that the
"appointed" clergy interprets it in a certain way. Today's clergy
is very much divided on this issue. There are extensive debates
within Roman Catholicism about the true interpretation of the tradition
which everyone calls "Apostolic", for example in the "mediatory function
of the Blessed Virgin" or about the "annihilation" of Jesus Christ's
"real presence" in the "transsubstantiated" bread and wine. Yet not one
can prove that his interpretation is correct. The reason is obvious:
they made their own words their compass, while God provided a compass
in the Bible. The result is easily predictable.

(F1) Protestants and other Sola Scriptura believers elude this trap
by asserting that there is a God and He inspired the Scriptures,
just as the Scriptures themselves claim.

(M1) I think you're overly optimistic here.  How can you assert that God
would protect the Scriptures just because of their self-proclaimed
inspiration, while at the same time denying that God would keep
Christ's promise to the Church that the gates of Hell would not
prevail against it?

(F2) Did I deny Christ's promise? Show me the sentence in which I did so.
I said nothing but both the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox are wrong
in some issues because their reasoning contradicts the Bible, which,
in turn, they regard as the most precious part of their tradition.

(M2) Would you submit yourself to the authority of either branch of this Church,
or do you feel that they have "lost it" and need to be replaced by
something different?  If the Church needs to be replaced, then I would
regard that as the failure of Christ's promise.  You are welcome to
disagree, of course.  :-)

(F3) I disagree. Christ didn't promise that the pope will be infallible.      |
Neither did He say that Orthodoxy will always be orthodox. He didn't     |
identify the Church with one particular visible denomination.            |
So the error of a certain denomination doesn't render Christ's           |
promise void. Thus the Reformation has a right to have taken place.      |
It didn't replace the Church but made some of its doctrines sounder.     |
It's another matter that those being corrected didn't listen to what     |
was useful but hardened themselves and restated their false doctrines.   |

(M1) Your method of "eluding" the "trap" you describe is to simply
and dogmatically assert that God had more regard for a few
scraps of papyrus than He did for His own people.

(F2) There are quite a few papirii from various places and times.
With the means of C-14 tests and textual criticism (that is,
with objective and quite trustworthy methods), one can quite
easily prove that those writings were corrupted only at some
unimportant places. On the other hand, I didn't say that God
has little regard for the Church. The most that I said is
that a group of people now (Orthodox Christians) aren't right.

(M2) Well, what evidence do you have in support of your position?

(F3)                                                                          |
Your question actually admits your defeat in the above issue. -----------|
The issue here is not "whether or not I have evidence for what I have
said" but merely "what did I say". You accused me of denying Christ's
promise. And, being unable to justify your charge, you turn over to
another point. It's nothing but sidestepping.

And as for giving evidence - see my whole letter.

(M1) And even then, I don't think you really have dealt with
the issue of proving the Church's canon true while the
Church itself is false.

(F2) Again, let me refer to the Roman Catholics. They are not too
orthodox in several issues but the canon which they accept
is true even according to the Orthodox. What Protestants
do is make the conclusion that if one man can err then obviously
another can err, too; and they don't set up a hypothesis
asserting that they or some other group is the sole steward
of truth. They just accept what all Christians accept as
undoubtedly true, and which science itself says to be true,
namely, that the Bible is the same from the beginning.
Church history, on the other hand, testifies about not
a sudden lapse into heresy but about a gradual decay in
faith.

(M2) The myth inherent in this reasoning, however, is that one can reliably
interpret the true meaning of the Bible on one's own, and it is at this
point that I find fault with Protestant tradition.

(F3) You are typical in formulating judgment about the Protestant
tradition. Maybe, when being a Protestant, you indeed did
interpret the Bible on your own, as many Christians do now.
But that it isn't the case. Sola Scriptura doesn't allow
anyone to invent his own system of doctrines. We are all bound
to interpret the Bible biblically, the Scripture scripturally.

The canon of "the Church" (actually the canon of a group to
which several present groups claim to be the only successors) is
authoritative because God entrusted it to them, and He provided
abundant written proof for the doubters (mountains of manuscripts),
if they don't accept the authority of the channel. Which isn't the
case with the allegedly apostolic tradition. The existence of the
Bible (in appallingly great number of manuscripts and with indeed
negligible textual variations), and the fullness of the patristic
writings with doctrinal differences is enough to conclude that
the message in the Bible far supercedes the allegedly apostolic
tradition even in practical utilization.

(M2) And note in passing
that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine that the Scriptures themselves state;
thus the doctrine's very existence is its own refutation.

(F3) If the case were so simple then there were no Protestants now.
Actually, Sola Scriptura has great many confirmatory verses in
the Bible; seeing which you wouldn't be so confident in your
simplistic arguments. But now I content myself on an "in passing"
refutation of what you said. 1Cor 4:6 says "...not to think
beyond what is written..." Explicit proof of Sola Scriptura,
applied to the case of clinging to the teachers. Here you are.


(M1) You have dogmatically asserted it, and that's not the same
the kind of proof as you are requiring of the Church.
Double standard here.

(F2) The Scripture is self-consistent while the teaching of the Orthodox
etc. Church is not always that.

(M2) But the interpretation of Scripture, even among adherents of Sola
Scriptura, is even more erratic than Orthodox Tradition, by a great deal!

(F3) This is a problem only if you bind truth to unanimous agreement
of a particular group of humans. In my opinion, the Scripture
teaches even those who are in error, namely, through debates
about its true meaning. Second, you imply that having an unchanging
tradition is a better guarantee for avoiding errors than a mere book.
But the example of the pharisees ruins this illusion of safety.

Again, I see your "double standard" argument collapse. You asked why
I didn't apply the same standards to the Bible and to the tradition.
I answered "because the tradition is very inconsistent with itself"
And you, not daring to say the same about the Bible, said it about
our interpretations of the Bible. But what does it have to do with
applying the critical standard to the tradition and believing in
the Bible? My double standard wasn't applied to your traditions and
our traditions. I myself disagree with Calvin on infant baptism.
I myself denounce Luther when it comes to his opinion about James.

(M2) Again, I do not hold that Tradition is perfect, merely that it is far
superior to private interpretation.  It is certainly much more stable than
private interpretation:  there is greater variation in private
interpretation today alone than there has been in two entire millenia of
Orthodox Tradition.

(F3) I agree wholeheartedly. Private interpretation isn't allowed;
biblical interpretation is. Sola Scriptura includes the proposition
that the Bible has to be interpreted biblically. Not all who call
themselves Sola Scriptura believers are really that, just as not
everyone who alleges to be a correct tradition adherent, is really
that.

The means of deciding in the former issue is the Scripture. The one.
The means of deciding in the latter issue is the tradition. Which one?


(F2) For example, there was a time when
Peter called all the believers "priests". Today's RC and Orthodox
Churches virtually deny it by setting up a so-called clergy.

(M2) Please refer to Eph. 4:11-16, Titus 1:5-9, I Cor. 12:28, etc.  The clergy
is not something that the Church only set up today.  (See also Heb. 13:17
and I Pet. 5:1-5.)

(F3) I digested all your references. Yet I didn't find the word "priest"
anywhere in them. That's the problem. But I found "priest" as a word
referring to all believers in Rev 1:6 and in 1Pt 2:9, which allows me
to conclude that the title "priest" isn't an exclusive privilege of
those who are commonly called by it now. Saying that "these are the
priests, and the others are the lay" blatantly contradicts the
Scripture which says that all are priests.

The apologetic harking back to the OT reference "you'll be a kingdom
of priests, a holy nation", giving the name "priest" to all and yet
instituting the Levitic sacerdotal priesthood, can be made harmless
by applying to our time... by looking at the One in whom all sacerdotal
priesthood culminates: Jesus Christ. Those seeking greater priests in
the Church than the royal priests must not look at their leaders.
They have to look at Christ.

(F1) The hypothetical malicious
fellow who argued against Catholics above now asks the Protestant
"How do you know it?" Then the Protestant responds: "I know God,
mainly from the Bible, and it's up to you to verify my statements
from there"...

(M1) Again, you discard the Church on the grounds that it allegedly
fails to provide a logical proof of its own authority, but then
you offer mere dogmatic assertion in support of your own case.

(F2) No, my intention wasn't to utter dogmatic definitions but to
make a comparison in order to support the Protestant viewpoint.
Just as the Orthodox accept the "Bible and the tradition together",
one can as well be Protestant and accept the Bible and the traditions
which agree with the Bible. Or one can be Catholic and accept the
Bible with what he thinks to be the real tradition.

(M2) But none of the above are Sola Scriptura.  In asserting "I know God, mainly
from the Bible," you are asserting that which the Scriptures themselves do
not state:  that one can rely on one's own private interpretation of the
Scriptures to give an accurate and authoritative understanding of what the
Word of God was intended to mean.

(F3) No. Doing this, I assert "Everything which I know about God is
determined by the biblical source". Interpretation must not change
what is written. I submit myself to God's Word. My interpretation
is prone to errors, but I believe that those who don't say more
than what the Word of God says (of course in context and according
to the analogy of faith) are still less prone to hardening of the
heart by clinging to a certain interpretation than those who say
that their interpretation is the correct one.









(F1) Both Catholics and Protestants leave the burden of the ultimate
proof to God. The difference is not here. Protestants claim
authority for the Bible from God directly.
Catholics and other Sola Scriptura rejecters, on the other hand,
claim authority to the Bible through the channel of tradition.

(M1) Or, you might say, through the same channel from which
you receive the very text of Scripture itself.

(F2) I think you are tired by now of my constant references to Roman
Catholicism. So what about giving Israel as example here?
You probably accept that the Hebrew Masoretic text (albeit the
Septuagint, it doesn't really matter) is the most trustworthy
version of the Old Testament. Well, does it mean that you
accept the authority of the channel through which the OT
came down to the apostles - that is, of Israel?

(M2) No.  Christ and the Apostles, being divinely inspired and appointed,
need no such validation.

(F3) There was nothing in the question about Christ and the apostles
needing or not needing validation.
I paraphrase the question it for the sake of clarity:

1. We got the text of the OT from Jewish writers.
2. Without Israel, the text of the OT wouldn't have been preserved.
3. The Lord descended from Abraham. The apostles were Jews.
4. So the correct interpretation of the Holy Scriptures also came
   through Israel.
5. You assert that one has to be consistent and accept the
   authority of the channel, too, if he accepts the product.
6. Yet you don't accept the authority of Israel, the channel.

                        Why not?

And why do you still expect me to submit myself to what you
allege to be the channel to the NT, namely, Orthodox tradition?

Your reference to Christ and the apostles not needing any
validation fails to convince anyone. Christ repeatedly urged
His opponents to bring whatever charges they could against Him,
and they couldn't. He said He didn't came to abolish the Law
but to fulfil it. He said that Moses spoke about Him. He often
referred to the prophecies which He fulfilled. He said that
if someone doesn't believe Moses and the prophets then even
a resurrection of a dead relative won't convince him.

The apostles also thought that they needed scriptural validation.
They proved from the OT that Jesus is the Christ. They convinced
the Jews from their own Scriptures. They didn't want to resort
to evasions, like this: "We are divinely appointed and inspired
so we don't need any validation through Israel. We can do without
any OT prooftext. You who cling to those books just interpret
them privately. The correct interpretation has been given to us,
and if you want to refute us from those books, realize that your
standpoint is inherently erroneous."

The apostles were divinely inspired, but this fact was made manifest
by their accordance with the OT. Of course they did give a new inter-
pretation to it, but it was because they brought a new covenant.
Their new interpretation wasn't a "proof by assertion" thing.
They used the OT and couldn't be refuted.
How can this be compared to the present traditionalists'
"correct interpretation" of the NT? Traditionalists don't
claim to have brought a newer covenant than the NT, yet they
claim to be the final authority concerning the NT.


(M1) Does it do any good in God's eyes to cast doubts on this
channel's ability to transmit the Teaching accurately?

(F2) Let me give a simile. Jesus Christ is the Son of God not for the
reason that He was born of Mary. Likewise, the Bible is the
Word of God not for the reason that it was handed down by people.
Saying that Mary wasn't perfect in all her life doesn't do any
harm to Christ. Likewise, saying that the Church erred and had to
be corrected by God (Reformation) does no harm to the authority
of the Bible.

(M2) Well, it's an interesting simile, but I am more interested in comparing the
two pragmatic alternatives:  interpreting the Scriptures on your own, or
interpreting the Scriptures according to the Tradition of the historic
Church.

(F3) I address this question elsewhere. Here briefly: I have a third
pragmatic variant: interpret the Bible according to the Bible
(this is the "analogy of faith").

Back to the your last argument to which mine was an answer:
You said that in the case of the Church and the Bible, a perfect
product requires a perfect channel.
I provided an example for a case of an imperfect channel (Mary)
and a perfect product (Christ), and proved that it doesn't bear
an inherent contradiction.

I could as well mention Israel here: they gave us the OT and the
Messiah, yet without themselves being inerrant and their traditions
being necessary for the correct interpretation of the OT.

You called my simile "interesting". Now try to refute it.



(M2) The issue of "Scriptures vs Tradition" is purely an abstract and
impractical debate.  Error is not defined as a contradiction of the bare
words of the Scripture, but as a contradiction of the true *meaning* of the
Scripture.  You don't literally hate all your blood relatives, right?

(F3) You chose a wrong prooftext. The true meaning of this verse is
nicely explained in the parallel verses in Mt 10:34-39.

(M2) Thus, the issue is one of comparing fallible interpretations, not of
comparing fallible Tradition versus infallible revelation.

(F3) In theory. Yet in Mk 7 the later one turned out to be the case
while the pharisees probably hid themselves behind the first one.

(M2) Sola Scriptura
is not a defense of the Scriptures, since the Church is not attacking the
Scriptures.

(F3) Probably this did the pharisees think, too. Yet Jesus said about them
that they took the key of knowledge and misused it, themselves remaining
outside and excluding everyone else (Luk 11:52), and that they made
void the commandment of God with their traditions. (Mk 7)

(M2) Sola Scriptura is a defense of a particular methodology of
*interpreting* the Scriptures,

(F3) Based on several scriptural passages that teach Sola Scriptura.
For example Mark 7:6-7:

"Well did Esaias prophesy concerning you hypocrites, as it is written:
"This people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far away
"from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their teachings
"commandments of men.

See also Mt 5:1-20.

Traditionalists tend to restrict the scope of application of
these words to the Pharisees and to the Mosaic law. The reason
for this is obvious: they see themselves characterized therein.
But reading it again, it turns out to refer to any tradition
which nullifies the Word of God.

Or 1Cor 4:6:

"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to
"myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to
"think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up
"on behalf of one against the other.

This verse lays down a very important principle: that what is written
determines the border of our speculation. The mockery like "then you
accept only the OT" is vain, because it is a principle to learn, and
not a formal decision on the canon. Clinging to teachers and not to
God is quite characteristic of the traditionalists. And it is the very
thing against Paul warned the Corinthians.

Or Deut 4:1-2:

"And now, Israel, hearken unto the statutes and to the ordinances
"which I teach you, to do them that you may live, and go in and
"possess the land which Jehovah the God of your fathers gives you.
"You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall
"you take from it, that you may keep the commandments of Jehovah
"your God which I command you.

Another command, strictly forbidding every addition to the Law.
You, as any Orthodox, have the right to protest and ask: "Then
aren't the Prophets in the OT?" But this question would be crude
and a fairly wide shot. In the Prophets it was God who spoke, and He
didn't forbid Himself to add to His own Word. Only those suspicious
human additions were banned which are now commonly called "traditions".

Or Prov 30:5-6:

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them who put
"their trust in him. Don't add to his words, lest he reprove you,
"and you be found a liar.

A very important principle, giving a piece of advice to everyday life.
To avoid error, we must cling to God's pure Word and not add to it.

Or Luk 16:27-31:

"And he said: I beseech you, father, that you would send him to the
"house of my father, for I have five brothers, so that he may earnestly
"testify to them, that they also may not come to this place of torment.
"But Abraham says to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them
"hear them. But he said: Nay, father Abraham, but if one from the
"dead should go to them, they will repent. And he said to him: If they
"don't hear Moses and the prophets, not even if one rise from among
"the dead will they be persuaded.

A blatantly ignored passage which explicitly proves that the Scripture
contains all wisdom necessary for the proper knowledge about God.
My Catholic Bible translation, following the Jerusalem Bible, comments
this verse with the words: "God governs men with the official organization,
that is, the Church - Moses, Prophets -, and within normal circumstances
He doesn't use extraordinary means to convince them."
It is a lame misinterpretation, evidently caused by the inconvenience
felt after the first reading. Even the translators knew that the term
"Moses and the Prophets" denotes the Old Testament in the NT's usage.

Or Rev 22:18-19:

"I testify to everyone who hears the word of the prophecy of this book,
"if anyone shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues
"which are written in this book. And if anyone takes from the words of
"the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree
"of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

When traditionalists are attacked with this famous exhortation then
in defense they always interpret it as referring to the book of
Revelation and not to the whole Bible. I often feel tempted to
ask these courageous champions of their faith: "So you don't allow
anyone to add to the book of Revelation, but do you permit them to
attach their fleshly thoughts to other books of the Bible?"
That is, the issue here is rather the principle than a mere
closing formula of a book.



(M2) and it is with the fallible methodology that
the Church (rightly) takes issue.

(F3) Oh. What is wrong with the principle "Don't think beyond what is
written"? Is it right to think beyond what is written?


(M1) But if you look in the Scriptures, you will see that the authority
given to the Church was given to her by God directly, too.

(F2) I expect you to be more flexible than those Catholics who constantly
boast of the authority given to the Church (as if it were a blank
cheque), and meanwhile forget about the conditions and commands
which Christ also gave the Church. So I expect you to follow all
the guidelines given by Christ. Cf. the seven epistles in the book
of Revelations - Christ obviously doesn't have respect for the
apostolic origin of the local churches He exhorts gravely.

(M2) Well, I hope I can live up to your expectations.  :-)  The Church's
authority is limited to interpreting the Teaching given by the Apostles.

(F3) This is the thing that Sola Scriptura adherents say, too.

(M2) She does not have the authority to make up new teachings.

(F3) We say it, too.

(M2) (She can, however, derive new *applications* of existing Teaching.)

(F3) It's a way you try to explain the birth of dogmatic definitions at
the universal councils, isn't it? No new doctrines but applications
of existing teaching? Then why was the opposition to eg. "Theotokos"
so ardent from the part of Nestorius? Because he was a heretic? He
didn't possess the original apostolic teaching? Doesn't this type of
reasoning (reversing the train of thought and "proving" the premise
with the conclusion) inevitably lead to a primitive sectarian cry
"whoever disagrees with us is a heretic"?


(F1) The notion to which they refer frequently as "Apostolic Tradition"
is twofold. The first aspect is the hypothetical Apostolic Tradition
which is alleged to be older than the earliest NT manuscripts yet
cannot be verified directly because it is admittedly unwritten ,

(M1) There is, however, much testimony to it from those who received
it *and who wrote down* many of the things that they were taught.
We are not dealing here with a Tradition that passed only by word
of mouth for umpteen generations before anyone thought of putting
pen to paper.  We have writings from Ignatius and Clement and Justin
and many others.

(F2) Great! But let me ask then: what can we do when Clement speaks
about the phoenix?

(M2) We compare it with the rest of the Tradition, including of course the
Scriptures.  Clement does say that this story of the phoenix is something
he has heard rumors of, and does not attribute it to the Apostles.

(F3) It's not entirely correct. He calls it a wonderful sign what takes place
in the east, in the region of Arabia (25:1). He says that everyone
eyewitnesses the procedure of the new bird placing the bones of its
parent on the altar in Heliopolis (v. 4). He says that at this time
the priests check their writings and verify that the bird's return was
five hundred years after the previous one (v. 6). He says that God
shows the abundance of His promises through this bird (26:2).

Nothing like "rumours".


(F2) Accept it as apostolic tradition?

(M2) If Clement had claimed that the Apostles taught this, and if all the rest
of the Apostolic fathers concurred that this was, in fact, what the
Apostles did teach, then yes, we would.  Such, however, is not the case, of
course.

(F3) You admit inconvenient things told by the fathers only in the case
when an explicit testimony about the apostolicity of what was said
can be found right there - this is unfruitful. I doubt if all the
fathers you respect have put the sentence "It's an apostolic tradition
which I write now" beside all the statements you accept, while the
Bible is authoritative unless there is something explicitly
indicating the opposite. Eg. a new covenant or what Paul says
about the virgins: "I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I
give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy made trustworthy"
(1Cor 7:25).

This double standard speaks volumes about the usefulness of the
tradition. One can say that the tradition is a huge council
in which everyone shouts what he wants, but nothing is binding
and authoritative for you but only if the majority approves of it,
and even you recognize them as authority. So the final authority
in the matters of faith is your private interpretation.

You didn't refute my charges against the twofold tradition, and
couldn't prove that they are identical. The letters of Ignatius,
Clement, Polycarp, Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas and other
writings are beyond all doubt younger than the canonical epistles.
Moreover, they are not canonical. So they have no authority for
interpreting the inspired writings which are older than they are.

(F2) What to do if
Tertullian is found denying Mary's alleged perpetual virginity?

(M2) Could you by any chance give me a reference for this one?  As yet I have
been unable to find Tertullian denying the perpetual virginity of Mary.

(F3) Dr. Ludwig Ott, in >Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma<, writes:

"Mary's virginity after the birth was denied in the early Church by
"Tertullian (De monog. 8), Eunomius, Jovinian, Helvidius, Bonosus
"of Sardica and the Antidicomarianites.
                                      (p. 206)

Tertullian also considered the practice of infant baptism useless,
with the same logic that eg. I parrot: babies aren't able to understand
the reality of sin. The references are: Paed. II, 19-34; Strm. VII, 32-33;
Paed. II, 16,1; De baptismo 18.

(F2) Accept it on the basis of tradition?

(M2) Again, his claims would have to be evaluated in the light of how they
compare with the rest of the Tradition, including the Scriptures,

(F3) You being the judge. It's pure private interpretation.

(M2) just like
variant readings in the NT text are evaluated by comparing them to the
other extant papyri and other manuscripts.

(F3) First: this leads nowhere. If the {corpus which contains the fathers'
"infallible interpretation" of the Bible} is infested with contra-
dictions and has to be interpreted the "same way" as scriptural passages
(actually in a much more "private" manner) then what is the tradition
good for? You have to make yourself the final authority in the issue
of that dimly defined "rest of the tradition". It's nothing else but
private interpretation of the tradition.

Second: I'd say that scholars have to examine variant readings in a
very lowly spirit because what they study is the Word of God, and
othey should refrain from rash and conceited judgments because they
are fallible even in doing their job. OTOH, in evaluating striking
differences in the tradition one cannot harmonize {the clear reference
to the existence and the nature of the so-called purgatory in Gregory
of Nyssa's Dialogue about the Soul and the Resurrection} with his ardent
denial of the existence of the so-called purgatory. In this case you
have to be confident and place yourself above tradition and say that
in this case this particular church father erred. While in variant
readings it wasn't the apostle who erred but the one who copied the text.

(F2) Or Gregory of Nyssa believing
in a cleansing fire? Should we believe him?

(M2) ...

(F3) You  didn't answer. Maybe Gregory is too big for you to condemn.
My principle (Sola Scriptura) says: no. But there are other
(pre-Nicene) fathers believing in the "cleansing fire". In the
absence of explicit proof of the opposite, you are bound by your
own traditionalistic principles to accept this doctrine. Do you?


(F2) Or when encountering the
ritual of baptism by pouring in Didache, are we to place this
custom above the biblical custom of immersion?

(M2) How do you know the Biblical custom involved immersion, and/or allowed no
exceptions for extreme youth or old age or infirmity?

(F3)
From the wording. Each and every biblical reference where exact
conditions are listed speaks about immersion.
(eg. Mk 1:5, Mt 3:16, Acts 8:38, 1Pt 3:21, Rom 6:4)

By the way, Didache allows the ritual of pouring in the case when
there is no "living water" (according to the footnote, it means
"water from a spring") there, also no cold water neither warm water.
(Did 7:2,3) Nothing about extreme youth and the like. On the contrary,
it commands that the one baptized should fast one or two days before
the ceremony. (v. 4) Fasting excludes infants.

(F2) That is, how do you discard some church father's opinion? Do you say
that he erred? In this case you have to consider the channel imperfect.

(M2) No single father is the channel.  All of the fathers, and in fact the
Church as a whole, are the channel.

(F3) Again, interpretation problems. What is the "Church"? Who can stand
up and say "I utter these solemn definition with the authority
which God gave the Church"? A hypothetical thing, "the Church as a
whole". The majority believed in the so-called purgatory, judging
by patristic evidence. So you didn't proceed even a step towards
truth by introducing your tradition as an infallible guide.

(M2) It is just like with the Scriptures:
you don't take just a single verse (e.g. "Go and offer your firstborn as a
burnt offering") out of context from the rest of the Scriptures, nor do you
reject this or that verse just because the whole context of Scriptures
requires an interpretation different from its "apparent" meaning out of
context.  But of course, the parallel is not perfect, in that the
Scriptures are guaranteed to be infallible, whereas the fathers are not.

(F3) Thank you; you saved me from typing it. We indeed believe that
the Scripture interprets itself with the means of context and the
analogy of faith, and this means that it doesn't contradict itself.

Are we to put the debatable questions to majority vote of the Fathers?
Are we to put the Fathers in an order of priority, like most of the
Orthodox do when on s.r.c it comes to celibate "priesthood", papal
primacy, the Filioque or the so-called purgatory?

By the way, how can the fallible patristic writings infallibly interpret
infallible biblical revelation? By the assistance of an infallible pope?



(F2) Or only the unanimous agreement of the fathers is what counts?
Then you have to omit every topic on which there was ever a debate.
Otherwise you'd be found a selective tradition believer.

(M2) Unanimous agreement is, of course, the most reliable indicator, but
complete unanimity is not required.  I will be happy to discuss
less-than-unanimous traditions with you on a case-by-case basis.

(F3) Ok. My third letter contains the RC proof of the so-called purgatory.
I think you'll be defeated in this case, judging by the scarceness
of the arguments you have presented in this topic so far.

(M1) And of course the New Testament itself is the crown jewel of the
Apostolic Tradition (though not, of course, the source of it). <---------
                                                                         |
(F2) It is the most ancient part about the consistency of which there
is no doubt.

(M2) Right:  the doubt only comes in when you try and interpret it and derive an
understanding of what it *means*.

(F3) Obviously there is doubt. The unfair thing is when certain people       |
come around and say "We have the answer, we have the original           |
tradition, everybody shut up". These people are constantly butting      |
in each other's words, and this somehow ruins the whole effect.         |
                                                                        |
Sola Scriptura believers but in each other's words as well, but         |
they say that the Bible is the authority, and they are eager to         |
receive teaching from it if theirs can be proven wrong from it.         |
                                                                        |
As for this claim,----------------------------------------------------- |
it contradicts your statement about your not knowing any significant
doctrines which cannot be found in the Scripture. Did I misunderstand it?




(M1) I don't know how you can say that the Apostolic Teaching is "alleged"
to be older than the earliest NT manuscripts, as though there were some
doubt whether the Apostles taught orally before writing any Scripture.

(F2) Nothing like that. If you had examined my post more thoroughly then
you could have observed easily that I was speaking about the visible
and verifyable written extra-scriptural tradition and not to the
real teaching of the apostles.

(M2) Ok, so you are referring to the patristic writings then?  You are quite
right that I was unclear on your meaning.  Am I clearer now?

(F3) Yes. You said that "oral tradition is a misnomer" because several
fathers wrote down what they had been taught. But you try to
prove the interpretational authority of the tradition over the
Bible by mentioning the oral teaching of the apostles which preceded
the writing of the epistles.

I marvel how skilfully you are flip-flopping between the two contra-
dictory allegations: 1. the tradition is not written but is handed
on through the apostolic succession; likewise, as it isn't written,
it can be alleged older than the Bible; 2. The writings of the Fathers
contain the tradition, so it isn't oral.

But there is a problem here. You have to prove that the patristic
writings contain the original apostolic teaching faithfully.
If you don't ponder them against some standard then obviously you
make them an "axiom". So the ability of the Bible to teach us becomes
dependent on the Fathers, who, in turn, wrote their works after the
writing of the NT books, thus picking the authoritative quotations
from it. It's nonsense; the Bible is the standard. Why is the canon
called canon if not because of this?

So your double argument is self-destroying. Either the patristic
writings are of less credibility with regard to the original apostolic
message (because they were written later and thus they may contain
several mistakes, may be influenced by their age, which is sometimes
the case) or the oral teaching of the apostles cannot be reconstructed
more safely than from the Bible, which is an admittedly inerrant con-
temporary report.


(M1) Does not the Book of Acts itself describe the Apostles as preaching
and teaching well before there even *were* congregations in all those
places to which epistles were addressed?

(F2) You again forget my distinction. I doubted that what you say to
be the apostolic tradition was even known by the apostles.

(M2) Ooo, what you said!  :-)  How far back do you infer this discrepancy
between the Tradition as it was known to the Church and the Tradition known
to the Apostles?

(F3) Until you prove that these are identical. Everyone can stand
up and make this claim without his doctrine being apostolic.

(M2) Do you have any documentary evidence?

(F3) Acts 20:29-30

"For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come
"in among you, not sparing the flock. Also form among yourselves
"men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the
"disciples after themselves.

So the reliability of church leaders is not enough.
Who knows if the one speaking isn't a savage wolf?

Mt 24:10-12.

"And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will
"hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive
"many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will
"grow cold.

So the majority isn't definitive either. Many will be deceived.

(F2) I didn't say that the apostles themselves wrote down everything
in the moment that Christ departed from them. And the ground for
my saying that your tradition is not apostolic is its obvious
difference from the Bible.

(M2) Before I converted to Orthodoxy, I was an evangelical Protestant, a
beginning student of New Testament Greek, a Sunday school teacher, Bible
study leader, Christian college graduate, and even (once or twice) a paid
preacher.  Now, that doesn't make me a Ph. D. theologian, but even so, I
think I can say with some degree of personal experience that I do not find
any obvious difference between the Tradition and the
(correctly-interpreted) *meaning* of the Bible.

(F3) Circular argument. I'd fear to begin a discussion with someone who
prepares an emergency exit like this beforehand. To refer to the
Correct Interpretation as an undefined notion is no less unacceptable
to me than the Private Interpretation Strawman is to you.

(M2) Perhaps you would give
specific examples, and then I can try and document that the conflict you
see is only between the Tradition and a personal interpretation that is not
actually *written* in the Scriptures.  Care to try?

(F3) Eg. the ministerial, also known as sacerdotal priesthood of certain
people in RCism and Orthodoxy. The NT calls all believers priests
while traditionalists restrict this title to certain men.

The NT knows about only one sacrifice unto the forgiveness of sins:
that on the cross. The RC Mass is alleged to be a sacrifice with this
role while there is not a word about it in the Bible, on the
contrary, it says that Christ doesn't need to be sacrificed
again and again, which is the very thing "taking place" in the Mass.

I don't want you to defend this RC heresy only if you also accept it.


(F1) and the second one is the alleged "reflection" of this
hypothetical tradition in the early church writings.
This latter type can be verified only to the extent that

   "The present Church says so and so,
   "the earlier Church is not so unanimous in this issue,
   "several ancient fathers seemed not to have known anything about it,
   "and, last but not least,
   "there are some biblical passages which contradict this doctrine"

in the majority of the cases.

(M1) In the majority of the cases?  Like the deity of Christ?

(F2) Biblical, not tradition.

(M2) But the Bible is part of the Tradition.

(F3) And it has nothing to do with the tradition. You see, this constant
small t bears some meaning in my letters, namely, I apply it to the
unscriptural portion of the current Orthodox and Catholic beliefs.


(M2) And by the way, have you seen what
happens to the deity of Christ in the Jehovah's Witness translation of the
Bible?

(F3) Thanks to God, grammar itself refutes them. We don't need the
tradition to protect the deity of Christ from Jehovah's false
witnesses.







(M1) His death, burial, and resurrection?  His virgin birth?
The inspiration of Scripture?

(F2) Likewise.

(M1) All these things and many more are a part of the Tradition.

(F2) I had in mind eg. ministerial priesthood, praying to deceased saints,
Mary as the mother of God, icons and statues, bowing down before the
Eucharist, infant baptism, complicated liturgy, etc. The "majority of
the cases" was an intended reference to present Roman Catholic doctrine,
the majority of which is unbiblical. (Open a theology textbook.)

(M2) Well, let's see:  "ministerial priesthood" -- I believe clerical authority
can easily be documented by the verses I have given to you already.

(F3) Sorry, they don't say a word about "priests". Or "clergy". In 1Pt 5:3
I read "kleros" as referring to the whole congregation, and not to
a hypotetical privileged class of the believers who only can transsub-
stantiate the bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord.

(M2) "Praying to deceased saints" -- this probably has a lot to do with a
difference in semantics.  In Orthodoxy, "prayer" to the saints means no
more nor less than what Protestants do when they have a prayer meeting and
ask each other to pray for them.

(F3) So you shouldn't say "prayer" to saints but "request" to saints.
Our Hungarian Catholic bishops weren't so acute in this issue
(it's not too difficult to understand: there were no people
around to refute them, if not at the stake, burning), and they
used a Hungarian word which is formed from "adore" or "worship"
to render "prayer". They use it now, too.

And we ask people whom we know to be able to hear us. And not
with the high-flighted words with which Catholics hypervenerate
Mary. So traditionalists' prayer to deceased saints is unbiblical.
And the same applies to its staggering justification.

(M2) I believe this practice, and also the
understanding that Christ has conquered death such that "he who lives and
believes in Me shall never die," are also perfectly Biblical.

(F3) Quotation:
"I am the resurrection and the life: he that believes on me, though
"he have died, shall live; and every one that lives and believes
"on me shall never die.

Christ conquered death, so we shall be resurrected. But why is
resurrection needed if the deceased saints have also conquered
death in a sense that they have supernatural abilities like hearing
millions of requests at the same time?

(M2) Mary as the mother of God is again mostly a semantic issue:  in Orthodoxy,
this language signifies a belief in the Incarnation, which is a very
Biblical doctrine.

(F3) The doctrine of the Incarnation is ubiquitous in the NT even without
this title given to Mary. It's, by the way, a wide shot. Instead of
saying something about Christ, they gave an epithet to Mary.
Later evolution of Marian dogma amply illustrates the erroneousness
of this decision.

Regarding the semantic issue: the title Theotokos was "proven"
by the reasoning "Christ is God + Mary is the mother of Christ =
Mary is the mother of God." I'm not a linguist, but have some
education in mathematics and I know the rules of logical conclusion.
So, "Mary is the Mother of God" means that "God is Mary's son".
And as "the Father is God", the Father is Mary's son.
And as "the Holy Spirit is God", the Holy Spirit is Mary's son.

Don't shoot me for transgression of the borders of logic. My logic
is just as natural and simple as that of the fathers of Ephesus.

(M2) Orthodox Christians don't have statues, due to the
commandment against graven images, but our icons are not graven,

(F3) Other traditionalists go further: they openly tread upon the second
commandment by omitting it from their cathechism. And they make graven,
moulded, painted, etc. images, bow down, kneel and pray to them.

:but our icons are not graven,

Well, I found something the other day, reading my Denzinger compilation of
Catholic dogma. The date is 787, the council is the second one of Nicea.
It says:

"We, continuing in the regal path, and following the divinely inspired
"teaching of the holy Fathers, and the tradition of the Catholic Church,
"for we know that this is of the Holy Spirit who certainly dwells in it,
"define in all certitude and diligence that as the figure of the honoured
"and life-giving Cross, so the venerable and holy images, the ones from
"tinted materials and from marble as those from other material, must be
"suitably placed in the holy churches of God, both on sacred vessels
"and vestments, and on the walls and on the altars, at home and on the
"streets, namely such images of our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Saviour,
"and of our undefiled lady, or holy Mother of God, and of the honourable
"angels, and, at the same time, of all the saints and of holy men.

(Denzinger 302)

The Holy, Universal Council of the Only, Infallible Historical Church,
following the Venerable Apostolic Tradition, grants you the use of
images "from marble as those from other material"!

So you need not lose your sleep over the "commandment against
graven images". That irrational fear which withholds you from
praying before a thick graven marble statue is just a product
of your private interpretation of the second commandment.

(I realize that I'm being too sarcastic here. Excuse me.)

Another council, on the other hand, had a different opinion:

"We decreed that there shouldn't be paintings in the church,
"lest what we venerate and adore is painted on the wall.

(Elvira, 26th canon)

It wasn't a universal council, however, it preceded the Second
Council of Nicea with >400 years. The decree and the argument
following it are astoundingly biblical. And the decree was against
paintings. (Of course, they interpreted the Bible privately.)

(M2) and serve
as reminders of the "great cloud of witnesses" surrounding us.

(F3) Yes, the "cloud of witnesses". This famous farfetched reference.
The writer harks back to the "heroes of faith" that he had been
speaking about in the previous chapter. Nothing in the context
suggests that we should invoke their intercession.
On the contrary,

"SINCE WE ARE SURROUNDED BY SUCH A GREAT CLOUD OF WITNESSES, LET US
"THROW OFF EVERYTHING THAT HINDERS AND THE SIN THAT SO EASILY ENTANGLES,
"AND LET US RUN WITH PERSEVERANCE THE RACE MARKED OUT FOR US.
"<<LET US FIX OUR EYES ON JESUS>>, THE AUTHOR AND PERFECTER OF OUR FAITH
"WHO FOR THE JOY THAT WAS SET BEFORE HIM ENDURED THE CROSS, SCORNING
"ITS SHAME, AND SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE THRONE OF GOD.
"CONSIDER HIM WHO ENDURED SUCH OPPOSITION FROM SINFUL MEN, SO THAT
"YOU WILL NOT GROW WEARY AND LOSE HEART."           (Heb 12:1-3)

In this passage, like at most of its instances in the Bible,
"witness" isn't used in a sense of "one who views" but rather as
"one who testifies". It's an important difference because while
the principle is that a witness BEARS WITNESS ABOUT those things
he had SEEN, in this erroneous interpretation the witnesses
are alleged to SEE those TO whom they TESTIFY. It's a concept
which is appallingly different from the context of the chapter.

So those who argue with the above scripture in favour of
"praying to the deceased saints - dilute the basic meaning
of the verse they use, and insert between the lines a
misrelated thought based on assumption.

(M2) I will
grant you icons, Bibles printed with movable type, church-owned property
(such as buildings) and such as examples of traditions that are neither
explicitly commanded nor explicitly condemned.

(F3) Icons, together with other religious images, forms and likenesses,
before which people kneel and pray, are explicitly condemned.

(M2) By the way, instrumental
music is something else that is entirely absent in the Scriptural
references to Christian worship:  does the church you attend have an organ?
Just curious.  :-)

(F3) It does. But it is not forbidden while making images and bowing
down before them is forbidden.

(M2) I'm not familiar with bowing down before the Eucharist; perhaps this is a
purely Catholic tradition?  If so, I'm sure it is intended as an act of
worship offered to Christ, and that of course would be entirely consonant
with Scripture.

(F3) Provided that the Eucharist is Christ. But it isn't. It is the
blood and flesh of Christ which we drink and eat in order to
have communion with Him. Do you accept the transsubstantiation
doctrine? Bowing down before the species is based on that.


(M2) Infant baptism is, of course, entirely an issue of who has
the correct interpretation of Scripture.

(F3) No. It's a matter of reading scripture.

(M2) There are, however, no verses of
Scripture that explicitly say infants cannot be baptized, or that baptism
requires adulthood or an "age of understanding" or any such thing, so I
think you'll have a piece of work ahead of you if you try and prove that
the Scriptures, by themselves, are contrary to the practice of infant
baptism.

(F3) Not so difficult as you think. In Acts 8:36 the Aethiopian eunuch
asks Philip "What hinders my being baptized?" In the Textus Receptus
there is an addition here: "If you believe with all your heart, it
is lawful."

Or if you don't accept the TR then let's see 1Pt 3:21:

"...eight souls were saved through water: which figure also
"now saves you, [even] baptism, not a putting away of the
"filth of flesh but a demand [or engagement, or testimony]
"as before God of a good conscience, by the resurrection
"of Jesus Christ...

Despite the translation problems, one thing is clear: that the
baptism requires (presupposes, implies) a good conscience, which
is impossible with an infant baby. Thus infant baptism neglects
a very important biblical aspect of baptism. The wish of meeting
this requirement led to the system of godfathership. Even I had
a godfather. I was sprinkled with water in 1973 by a Catholic priest.

In Hungary it was a custom which frequently lacked all religious
conviction. My parents were atheists. My godfather was an atheist.
I was an atheist. I had no good conscience. And nothing happened
until I heard the gospel at the age of 18. Then I was baptized
in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit with good
conscience, calling on Jesus' name.

(M2) That leaves "complicated liturgy," which again I think you'll be hard put
to show as being contrary to any Scripture.

(F3) 
Heb 8:1-7

"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such
"an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the
"Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the
"true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high
"priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of
"necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

The sanctuary is in heaven. The priest is Christ. He offered Himself.

"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that
"there are priests that offer gifts according to the law; who serve
"unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished
"of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he,
"that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee
"in the mount.

The existence of the true heavenly tabernacle and Christ having
entered into it makes the earthly tabernacle useless.

"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much
"also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established
"upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless,
"then should no place have been sought for the second.

Christ having fulfilled His redemptive sacrifice, we don't have to
offer Him again and again. And the liturgy does it, as I know from
Catholic books.

(M2) You might get a surprise, in
fact, if you look up Acts 13:2 in the original Greek.  ;-)

(F3) Sorry, pointing to this proofword has the same little power of proof
as the constant references (eg on src) to the word "presbyter",
including that (1) it's in the original manuscripts and (2) the
English word "priest" descends from it, and (3) we have patristic
evidence of presbyters offering the "sacrifice" etc.

This reasoning projects the current practice back into the biblical
text. Like "Hail Mary, full of grace" - this is something which many
consider a definitive proof for praying to Mary; and they just make
the angel Gabriel pray to Mary with this line of reasoning.
So with this brief response you depict Saulus and the others
as hiding themselves behind a wall full of icons and performing
an Orthodox Mass. Which is hardly the case.

(M1) I think your sense of proportion is grossly out of line with reality
here. If there is some aspect of the Apostolic Tradition which you
think is contradicted by what the Bible actually says (as opposed to
"what some men claim the Bible means"), then you ought to detail it.

(F2) Ministerial priesthood is not needed because Christ had offered the
one and only sacrifice in the NT which is sufficient without
enacting it over and over. See the whole letter to the Hebrews.

(M2) The letter of Hebrews does not state that "ministerial priesthood" (and I'm
not quite sure what you mean by that) is unnecessary.

(F3) I mean the whole system of certain people ("clergymen", "priests",
etc.) offering "sacrifices" to God in the form of the Eucharist,
while they allege that it's only them who can do it.
The term is typically Catholic, together with it's synonym,
the so-called "sacerdotal ministry". It is often used to hedge
their bets against those Catholics who now begin to re-discover
the NT usage of the word "priest". This latter is labelled
"universal" priesthood. "Royal" priesthood, this biblical
term would probably excite rebellion, so it's avoided.

Hebrews 7:20-28

"And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest, (for those
"priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him
"that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a
"priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) by so much was
"Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

The Catholic priesthood is even more shadowlike than the Levitic one:
they have no scriptural mention, while the Aaronic priests at least
had that. Not to speak about the oath - in the absence of which the
sacerdotal priests in the RCC cannot prove their right of existence.
For they must have something better than what they do to be able to
compete with Christ's eternal priesthood, and its oath.

"And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered
"to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth
"ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

So the fact that one has to be succeeded in the priestly office
testifies about the changeability and futility of his priesthood.

"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come
"unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
"For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled,
"separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth
"not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for
"his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once,
"when he offered up himself.
"For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the
"word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is
"consecrated for evermore.

So who calls himself a (sacerdotal) priest forgets about Christ
being our High Priest and replaces His oath-confirmed, eternal,
holy, harmless, majestic, unique sacerdotal priesthood with an
oathless, futile, mortal, repetitive and shadowlike human priesthood.


(M2) What you are giving
me is an interpretation/application, not an authentic conflict between
Tradition and Scripture.

(F3) And now?

(F2) Praying to deceased saints is of no use because if it were useful
then Paul would have taught the Thessalonians to pray to them
fervently. Instead of this, he said that the deceased Christians
will be together with us at the resurrection.

(M2) Again, there is no written statement in Scripture that explicitly says that
it is useless to address prayer requests to saints living or dead.  The
conflict you present is between Tradition and your personal speculations
and conclusions.  Speculations about what Paul would or would not have said
are not Scripture.

((F3) You call them "prayer requests" while they are in fact prayers.
The Catholic rosary is explicitly addressed to Mary. It's a prayer.
Yes, there is a request in it, but the titles which people give to
Mary are characteristic of a hymn. Also, there are hymns to Mary.

Philippians 1:15-26

"Certain, indeed, even through envy and contention, and certain also
"through good-will, do preach the Christ; the one, indeed, of rivalry
"the Christ do proclaim, not purely, supposing to add affliction to
"my bonds, and the other out of love, having known that for defence of
"the good news I am set; what then? in every way, whether in pretence
"or in truth, Christ is proclaimed -- and in this I rejoice, yea, and
"shall rejoice.

"For I have known that this shall fall out to me for salvation, through
"your supplication, and the supply of the Spirit of Christ Jesus,
"according to my earnest expectation and hope, that in nothing I shall
"be ashamed, and in all freedom, as always, also now Christ shall be
"magnified in my body, whether through life or through death, for to me
"to live [is] Christ, and to die gain. And if to live in the flesh [is]
"to me a fruit of work, then what shall I choose? I know not; for I am
"pressed by the two, having the desire to depart, and to be with Christ,
"for it is far better, and to remain in the flesh is more necessary on
"your account, and of this being persuaded, I have known that I shall
"remain and continue with you all, to your advancement and joy of the
"faith, that your boasting may abound in Christ Jesus in me through
"my presence again to you.

Paul says that it's more profitable for him to remain alive for
the sake of the brothers. Thus if he departs he gains Christ but
his followers receive nothing.

(F2) Mary is not the mother of God beause God who created the world
and who gives life to everything has no mother. Christ was born
of Mary according to the flesh.

(M2) Again the lack of Scripture.  It is not the Bible that says God has no
mother,

(F3) Oh. You are right: God has a forefather, too. Namely, Abraham.

(M2) nor is it the Bible that is giving such a prejudicial slant to the
terms under which God the Son could acquire a mother.

(F3) Oh. Mary is alleged to be the "Mother of God", and not the "Mother
of the Son of God". But God is not just the Son but the Father and
the Holy Spirit as well. So with this title the Ephesian fathers
made Mary the "Mother of the Father" and the "Mother of the Holy
Spirit", too.

To say that Mary is the "Mother of God" is not the same as
"Jesus Christ who was born of Mary is fully God".

(M2) It is your writings,
not the Apostolic writings, which deny that Mary became the mother of God
the Son.

(F3) False accusations. I don't deny that "Mary became the mother
of God the Son". I deny that "Mary is the mother of God".

It's the council of Ephesus that gave Mary the title "Mother
of God", not the Bible. Elizabeth says "the mother of my Lord",
which is not so general as "mother of God" because the title
Lord usually refers to Christ in the NT.



(M2) Thus, again, the conflict is not with the Scripture, but with the
opinions you base on Scripture.

(F3) As I proved, the conflict is with Scripture. And as for opinions,
I have the right to do this. You have to show that my opinions
are wrong and not to sweep it aside saying "it's not scripture".
Your attempts at the proof are not scripture either. The traditions
you use are not scripture either. But I base my proof on the word of
God while you don't refute it altogether. To allege that the
tradition is the clue to the correct interpretation includes the
obligation to put this "correct interpretation" to work and to
refute the erroneous interpretations. But the traditionalists just
say "St. XY. writes this and this, so it's true", while it may not
be true at all.

The whole exaltation of the tradition is ridiculous if it doesn't
work, that is, if the tradition cannot refute the false teachings.
It's like the noble class' privileged state after the Middle Ages,
when they claimed power on the grounds that they were the fighters.
Actually, by that time they weren't the fighters anymore.

Refutation of a false doctrine can be compared to destroying the
enemy in a battle. If the result is positive then the field is
full of corpses of the enemy. Fallen enemies testify about the
power of the army. But the tradition is just like the late noblemen:
it claims obedience saying "we can refute heresies" but all the
tradition can do is to shout "Stupid enemy, don't you understand
that I am a better fighter than you? Run away!"

No wonder they are defeated when it comes to real battle. You
didn't refute my assertions about the defectiveness of the tradition
but just said "you make assertions". Yes, I do. It's the normal way
of explaining my point. So please say something to defend your
"country" instead of just repeating "I am right". If you are right
than evidently you can prove it. But if you don't say a word in the
defense then there may be problems with the truthfulness of the
doctrines you accept. Tradition is alleged to be able to fight.
So, use it.

(F2) Icons and statues are not to be made because God cannot be
portrayed by them.

(M2) These words are not, however, written anywhere in Scripture.

(F3) So do you exclude Acts from Scripture? (17:29)

"`Being, therefore, offspring of God, we ought not to think
"the Godhead to be like to gold, or silver, or stone, graving
"of art and device of man;

And what about Isa 40:12-18:

"Who have measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted
"out the heavens with his span, and grasped the dust of the earth
"in a measure, and weighed the mountains in a balance, and the hills
"in scales? Who hath directed the Spirit of Jehovah, and, as his
"counsellor, hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who
"gave him intelligence and shewed him the way of understanding?
"Behold, the nations are esteemed as a drop of the bucket, and as
"the fine dust on the scales; behold, he taketh up the isles as
"an atom. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts
"thereof sufficient for the burnt-offering. All the nations are
"as nothing before him; they are esteemed by him less than a cipher
"and vanity. To whom then will ye liken God? And what likeness will
"ye compare unto him?

You say "a painted icon, note well, not graven". The Bible says

Isa 46:5-7

"To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that
"we may be like? They lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh silver
"in the balance, and hire a goldsmith; and he maketh it a god:
"they fall down, yea, they worship.

So, it has to be added: "My people, I forgot to tell you that you can
liken me to painted images because it's not offensive to Me."

"They bear him upon the shoulder, they carry him, and set him in
"his place, and he standeth; from his place shall he not remove: yea,
"one shall cry unto him, yet can he not answer, nor save him out of his
"trouble.

Again, the necessary addition: "When a painted icon of Me is placed
on the wall, I am there. You can cry to the icon; although it seems
not to be able to answer, be sure that I will. The important thing
is that you should not make a graven image. You can't engrave Me into
a piece of wood, but you can paint me on it. It will reflect My majesty."

The apocryphal book of Wisdom 14:12 ff is very useful here:
(My translation from Hungarian)

"A father, grieved by early mourning, made an image of his son
"who had been suddenly snatched from life; he revered the dead
"man as a god, and he obliged his subjects to perform secret
"rituals and sacrifices. Some time later this impious custom
"was accepted and kept as law. They revered the graven image
"as a god at the commandment of the mighty ones. The form of those
"whom people couldn't revere face to face, they living far away from
"them, was imagined; they made for themselves a faithful picture
"of the king whom they respected, so that they could pay the same
"honour to the remote one as if he were present.

Be consistent and apply this reasoning to Orthodox images, too!
The reasoning which the writer puts in the mouth of idol worshippers
("so that they could pay the same honour to the remote one as if he
were present") can be heard from traditionalists who now say that
these images only help them focus on God.

(F2) Portraying Christ as a man is not too
important for Paul says in 2Cor 5:16 that "even if we had known
Christ according to flesh, we do not longer." And an icon
offers nothing more than knowledge according to the flesh,
that it, it gives a superficial and deceitful picture.

(M2) Well, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.  But that's not
Scripture.  II Cor. 5:16 *is* Scripture, but contains not one word stating
that Paul's remarks are intended to refer to icons.

(F3) You first have to prove that icons offer knowledge of Christ in some
other way than according to the flesh. If you can't prove it then
2Cor 5:16 inevitably crushes every system that offers mere fleshly
knowledge, including the system of icons.

(F2) That's why the OT condemned it, too.

(M2) Where did the OT condemn icons as well as graven images, and under what terms?

(F3) God said in the second commandment (Exod 20:4-5) the following:

"Thou shalt not make thyself any graven image, or any form of what is
"in the heavens above, or any form of what is in the waters under the
"earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;
"for I, Jehovah thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity
"of the fathers upon the sons to the third and to the fourth
"generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy upon
"thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

Prohibition was against all forms that were later subjected to
bowing down.

(M2) Here, let's save time, I'm getting tired of saying "Scripture does not
contain those words":

(F2) Bowing down before the Eucharist is useless; one has to eat and drink it.

Infant baptism is useless because if baptism were effective without
faith then Christ would have selected the strongest people as disciples
in order to easily force everybody to be baptized. The mere fact that
preaching preceded baptism means that faith and confession are
crucial for being baptized.

Complicated liturgy is useless; no one understands it and it makes
people think that without the priest God won't hear them.

(M2) Ok, for all of the above:  these are interesting arguments, but none of
them are written in the Scriptures.  The conflict is not between Tradition
and what is *written* in the Scriptures, it is between Tradition and what
you *infer* the correct *meaning* of Scripture to be.  Again, then, it
boils down to an issue of who has the authority to determine what is the
correct *interpretation* of Scripture.  If your interpretations are
correct, then indeed there would be a conflict between Tradition and the
*true meaning* of God's Word.  But upon what basis are we to assume that
*your* interpretation of Scripture is *the* correct one?

(F3) On the Bible, and on your deep silence. Refute me if you can.
Using arguments and not great names or proof by assertion.
Before quoting a Church father, provide proof that this piece of
writing is apostolic tradition. I mean not just an allegation
but proof.

(M1) I myself have a problem with the Protestant tradition of justification
by faith alone, in that the only Biblical reference to justification
by faith alone is James 2:24.  Many references to justification by faith,
but only one to justification by faith *alone*, and that reference says
quite explicitly that justification is "*not* by faith alone."

(F2) You are right when disapproving of Luther's contempt on James.
But be aware that this wording of Luther was a lamentably
one-sided answer to Roman Catholicism which virtually taught
that we have to deserve God's grace by good deeds.

The doctrine of "sola fide" doesn't deny James. It says "we don't
have anything meritorious in us" and "even our good works are
justified by faith". James speaks about dead, fruitless faith,
but if we interpret faith as something which necessarily goes
along with good deeds then I think there is no problem with sola fide.

(M2) The problem I was pointing out was that "sola fide," "faith alone" appears
in the actual words of Scripture only in the negative.  It is not,
therefore, a doctrine that is actually *written* in the Bible, which leaves
it in something of a state of limbo as regards Sola Scriptura.

(F3) Well, "sola fide" is not just these two words. One has to be careful
and explain it with the actual words of Paul: "From faith and not from
works". Even if you don't insert "alone" into the translation, the
supposition that Paul's usage of "justification" and "faith" and
"works" is identical to the usage of them by James, inevitably leads
to contradiction. Thus it's evident that the cause of the emerging
problem isn't Luther's explanatory addition. So you failed to prove
that Luther in any way contradicted Scripture with his insertion.
He just contradicted your opinion about the denotatum of "faith",
"works" and "justification" in James.

OTOH, the issue here is "Sola Scriptura" and not "Luther's Words
Are Inspired". These weasel-like Protestants didn't make Luther
their pope or god, so they can even revoke some of his thoughts.

(M2) But then
again, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is in the same state of limbo, for
the same reasons.  ;-)

(F3) No. I gave you explicit scriptural proof of Sola Scriptura.

(M1) Now, if you want to charge the Church with something of similar
calibre, then do as I have done, quoting chapter and verse, and
we'll see whether the contradiction you allege is actually in
the words written, or in your interpretation of those words.

(F2) See above.

(M2) Done.  As I expected, the conflict is not between Tradition and what is
*written in* the Scriptures.  Rather, it is between Tradition and what is
*inferred about* the Scriptures.  Unfortunately, even within Protestantism
there is no unanimity regarding which is the correct inference in any given
interpretation, so I am not too greatly disturbed by the latter conflict.
;-)

(F3) The tradition is intended to to fight for the truth. The constant
parroting "the tradition interprets the Bible correctly" is not enough.
This allegation has to be proven in debate. You even didn't try to
do that. So it seems that the tradition is not able to perform its
primary duty, that is, refuting the contrary opinions.





(F1) An argument here, sg. like "the Bible also speaks about unwritten
traditions of the apostles" doesn't work because it cannot be
proven that these traditions are indeed identical to what Sola
Scriptura deniers claim to be these very traditions (these are
different claims, eg. Orthodox Christians reject the so-called
purgatory while Catholics maintain it; etc.)

(M1) It does work, however, to the extent that it shows Sola Scriptura
itself to be a contradiction of the Scriptures.  Sola Scriptura
says "only what is written."

(F2) "Only what is written in the Bible can be considered the
authoritative Word of God."

(M2) Exactly.  This, of course, begs the question of what those words *mean*,
however.

(F3) Address my question. How does the statement "Only what is written
in the Bible can be considered the authoritative Word of God" contradict
the Scriptures? And why did you say "Exactly" if it's an error?
Or isn't it an error and does the tradition teach Sola Scriptura?

(M1) The words of Scripture themselves, however, say "whether by word of
mouth OR by epistle from us".  Here is another example of Protestant
tradition being contradicted by the Word of God. The chapter and verse
are II Thess 2:15, btw.

(F2) Of course, one cannot make sure what exactly Paul said by word of
mouth to the congregation. Even Tradition believers cannot tell it
exactly. Thus, to avoid error, we do better if we seek God's Word
in the Bible and not in today's swaying traditions of some denomination.

(M2) It seems to me that Paul is telling the Church quite clearly to hold fast
to both aspects of the Tradition,

(F3) Yet he doesn't say us to believe in whatever being said under the
banner of tradition. You force the current meaning and content of
"tradition" on Paul, yet you can't prove that he had in mind eg.
prayer to deceased saints and not the so-called purgatory. Using
your blank-cheque logic almost everything is very easy to justify.

(M2) while you are advocating that we make no
attempt to cling to anything but the written aspect of it.

(F3) Yes, because the alleged oral aspect is not reconstructable.
Or do you believe the Catholics in the matter of Mary's
immaculate conception? Or their allegations about the papacy?

(M2) Is this not a
clear substitution of your interpretation in place of the explicit
declaration of the Word?

(F3) No, because Paul says to the Thessalonians to cling to what they
heard from him orally, and he doesn't make any explicit remarks
about the allegations which different people will disseminate
in the 11+th century. One may rightly suppose that what Paul
didn't write down in his letters to the Thessalonians, he wrote
down elsewhere. Even you admitted that you can't mention anything
significant which isn't contained in Scripture. Then why do you
club me with an interpretation of 2Thess 2:15 which suggests the
opposite?

(M2) It seems to me you are making a significant
exception to Sola Scriptura here.

(F3) Of course not. Alas, I wasn't there to hear what Paul actually said
to the Thessalonians what he didn't write in his letter, so I don't
really know what I have to adhere to beside the Bible. If I ask someone
who claims to have direct information on this, then this person can
as well be a Roman Catholic who might assure me that Paul strictly
commanded that the whole "clergy" must be unmarried or that the "lay"
shouldn't partake of the wine, or that from now on he entrusts them
to the care of Pope St. Peter the I, infallible prince of the apostles.

And 2Thess 2:15 doesn't in any way contradict Sola Scriptura.
It contradicts "Sola 1 and 2 Thessalonians", but I never advocated
this doctrine.

(M1) As for determining what is and is not authentic Apostolic Tradition,
we have a mechanism for that, similar to the mechanism by which the
original text of the New Testament is culled from the innumerable
variations that exist in the early manuscripts.

(F2) These "innumerable variations" rarely touch the essence; and the
original text can be determined more easily now than it was for
the early fathers. Do you assert that they were divinely
inspired or that they knew all the manuscripts?

(M2) Not that they were divinely inspired, nor that any father, as a single
individual, knew all the manuscripts.  As a group, however, the fathers
*did* know all the manuscripts, and indeed I'd hazard a fair guess that
virtually all of these manuscripts were written by or under the supervision
of the fathers.

(F3) As far as I know, the NT writings weren't written by the Fathers.
They at best could copy them. But it means nothing. The OT Scriptures
were copied by the Jewish rabbis. Whose authority you deny ardently.

And the alleged "supervision" of those reliable and indispensable
Fathers... well, you yourself testify that they were careless guards
of the NT manuscripts, because, as you say, the "original text of the
New Testament" has to be "culled from the innumerable variations that
exist in the early manuscripts". So the painful truth which is revealed
in your own words is that the venerable Fathers are the final cause of
those innumerable variations in the original, (you say that "virtually
all the manuscripts were written by or under the supervision of the
fathers") so they are responsible for the very defects, for the healing
of which you call them for help.

But if they themselves made the "crown jewel of the apostolic
tradition", that is, the NT, flawed, then how can you call them
for help? They will corrupt it even more with their confused
and even heretical interpretations! Don't say that the majority
decides which variations are authentic. If the "correct" fathers
couldn't force their conviction on the "errant" fathers and wipe
out the errors from the manuscripts that were entrusted to them,
while they were living, how can we, in the 20th century, do so?
By interpreting the writings of the fathers privately and putting
them in a priority sequence?

(F2) False traditions, however, are always made by living persons,

(M2) Oh, sure, just like variant readings are.  But false traditions, like
variant readings, cannot be created in isolation.  There is too much out
there already, the Apostles did too good a job of training too many elders
and bishops and deacons.

(F3) These variant readings, as I noted, rarely touch the essence.
They can usually be ascribed to non-attention, rather than to
wilful malice. False traditions, on the contrary, don't alter
syllables or words but whole doctrines.

(F2) in contrast to the Bible which was written by those who died
long ago. No one could suspect the dead apostles of wilful
deception;

(M2) Any number of people, however, have been, are, and shall continue
distorting the *meaning* of those writings, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, and without a reliable standard of interpretation, there
is no way to really be sure who is right and who is wrong.

(F3) The reliable standard is the Bible itself.

2Tim 3:14-17
"And thou -- be remaining in the things which thou didst learn and wast
"entrusted with, having known from whom thou didst learn, and because
"from a babe the Holy Writings thou hast known, which are able to make
"thee wise -- to salvation, through faith that [is] in Christ Jesus;
"every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for
"conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righ-
"teousness, that the man of God may be fitted -- for every good work
"having been completed.

(M2) This has been
true since the days of the Apostles themselves:  II Pet. 3:16 explicitly
warns us that the "untaught" have a tendency to distort the Scriptures,
thus plainly showing that there is a difference between being *taught* and
merely having the Scriptures.

(F3) 2Pet 3:14-16

"Wherefore, beloved, these things waiting for, be diligent, spotless
"and unblameable, by Him to be found in peace, and the long-suffering
"of our Lord count ye salvation, according as also our beloved brother
"Paul -- according to the wisdom given to him -- did write to you,
"as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things,
"among which things are certain hard to be understood, which the untaught
"and unstable do wrest, as also the other Writings, unto their own
"destruction.

<The untaught> can hardly mean <those who don't accept the traditions
of the Orthodox Church>. Taught, yes, but by whom? Traditionalists
say that they are taught by those who were taught ... by the apostles.
So evidently the apostles taught the so-called purgatory because there
is overwhelming explicit patristic evidence for it. And you, who
deny it, contradict your own traditions and prove that you aren't
taught by the apostles.

Moreover, being "taught" isn't enough. Don't you know that there are
some false teachers and false apostles on earth? Beware of them.

So, being taught by God can be achieved by studying the Bible.
Not just "having" the Bible. Sola Scriptura, as you may know,
includes this proposition, too.

(F2) but the novelties introduced by living people
(eg. bishops, see Acts 20) were more striking.

(M2) Hmmm, I see nothing in Acts 20 about the bishops introducing any novelties.
The bishops were charged explicitly by the Apostle with making sure that
error did *not* creep into the Church (cf Titus 1:5-9).

(F3) They were charged. But it wasn't guaranteed that they always
will be perfect in their jobs. As it is written:

Acts 20:28-30

"`Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, among which
"the Holy Spirit made you overseers, to feed the assembly of God that He
"acquired through His own blood, for I have known this, that there shall
"enter in, after my departing, grievous wolves unto you, not sparing the
"flock, and of your own selves there shall arise men, speaking perverse
"things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Here are the heretical bishops! And here is the "tradition" prophesied
to be flawed. And as it is flawed according to the Word of God, you
shouldn't try to persuade me to buy it.

(F2) However,
when Constantine blunted the awareness of the Church, errors
found their way easier into the Church.

(M2) Blunted how?  What errors?  Why didn't any contemporary Christians notice
and object to errors creeping in?  Unless you mean Arianism, which *was*
noticed, objected to, fought, and defeated.

(F3)
   :Blunted how?
By making Christianity the religion of the empire.
   :What errors?
Which I condemn in my letter, and the so-called purgatory, which is
universally accepted by the Fathers, and which I "advocate" against
you.
    :Why didn't any contemporary Christians notice and object to errors
    :creeping in?
Because they too fell prey to the savage wolves. Just as they
believed those errant fathers who introduced those innumerable
textual variations into the text of the NT. Just as almost
the whole Israel wandered away from God.
     :Unless you mean Arianism, which *was* noticed, objected to, fought,
     :and defeated.
I mean the "sacrifice of the Mass", "sacerdotal priesthood", "Mary the
mother of God", "praying to dead saints", the so-called purgatory, etc.

(M1) If you can accept the theory that your New Testament today is a
reasonably accurate reproduction of the Apostles' original writing,
you ought not to harbor such doubts about our ability to discern
their other teachings as well.

(F2) The same about Roman Catholics.

(M2) The distinction between Roman Catholic and the rest of the Church is not
all that ancient.  We have 1000 years of common Tradition, and those years
are the earliest years, and hence the most reliable.  Where the RCC goes
astray, it goes against not just the Scripture, but against the 1000-year
common Tradition as well.

(F3) False. They have the tradition's support of the so-called purgatory.

(F1) So Protestants are willing to view the tradition (that is, the
verifiable kind of it which is available now) through the
eyeglasses of a verifiably more ancient layer of tradition
which they call Bible. How it came about, they don't care;
they trust God in this matter. "God gave it", and not "God gave
it through the Church", this it the Protestant approach.

(M1) And it is a thoroughly dogmatic, traditional, and unscriptural
approach, too!

(F2) No. The apostles used the OT without giving the due honour to
the rabbis.

(M2) Well, when I see an inspired Protestant Apostle, I will give him the same
right I accord to the Apostles of the Incarnate Christ.  ;-)

(F3) Do I understand you correctly? I infer from your words that you
make the allegation that the very thing which gets in the way of
our imitating the apostles in rejecting various traditions, is
not the erroneousness of the mentioned traditions but the lack of
our inspiration. Let me ask you something: did the Jewish traditions
become erroneous by the fact that their critics were "inspired"?

I hope the answer is no. These traditions annulled the Word of God;
this fact was known even to the Pharisees who couldn't say anything
in refutation, while such an implausible assertion on the part of
the apostles as "listen, we are inspired!", which today's tradition-
alists are prone to put into their mouths, would have excited nothing
but laughter. The most natural conclusion is that the Jewish traditions
were intrinsically and objectively wrong, the Word of God being the
objective standard, its reliability and discerning power being
admitted by both parties.

The second question is whether only "inspired" persons have the right
of criticizing doctrines which are objectively erroneous. (Such doctrines
existed among the Pharisees, and as you imply it, saying "sometimes you
have to go against >>higher<< authority", they can also be found within
Christendom.) If yes, then nothing hinders the devil to get hold of the
whole Church by creeping false dogma while those in charge indulge in
heresy, with God formally forbidding the "uninspired" "laity" to say
a word in protest.
If no, then why don't you recognize the Protestant Reformation as
a turning back to the foundations, as they are outlined in the Bible?

(M2) Meanwhile, it
is no less dogmatic.  Inspired Apostles have the right to pronounce dogma;
I don't believe that Protestants in general have the same right.

(F3) No one said that. I don't catch your intention in directing my
charges against the church fathers to the inspired apostles.
The same way as you have the right of not accepting the authority
of the Pharisees, I don't have to accept the authority of the Fathers.
Or the same way as I am bound to listen to the Fathers, you are
bound to listen to the rabbis. They have Mosaic succession, they
sit in Moses' seat, theirs is the Lawgiving, the Patriarchs, the
promises, etc.

You will argue that you reject the rabbis on the grounds of a greater
authority than them: that of the Lord and the apostles. To parry
this argument, let me content myself on the huge amount of the
scriptural passages that they all put to fight against the misinter-
pretations of the Pharisees! We would be ridiculous in the eyes of the
Jews if the OT Scriptures themselves didn't testify that Christ is
the Messiah! This mighty testimony of God made the apostles reliable
for all ages. The Scriptures were that spanned the interval between
the two authorities given by God, that of Moses and that of Christ.
To prove unquestionably that these ones are sent by the same God,
both the Gentiles and the Jews had to read the Old Testament which
speaks about Christ. If it spoke not, our faith would be vain.

Thus Protestants have the right, not to pronounce dogma, as you
insinuate, but to return to God according to the Scripture,
and to dismiss the perverse opinions of certain men who claim
to be the successors of Christ, while acting in an unchristlike
spirit. You see, Luther was sentenced to death formally, and those
who condemned him said that his proposition "To burn heretics is
against the Holy Spirit" was erroneous. Now dare to call them Church!

(F1) It doesn't mean that Protestants deny the authority of the
Church but that they restrict it to the limits given by the
Bible.

(M1) What they fail to do, however, is restrict themselves according to the
same standard of Scripture.  Sola Scriptura means "I can read the Bible
for myself and be sure I'm going to get it right without any help from
anybody."

(F2) No. It says: "Whoever contradicts the Bible is a heretic."

(M2) And how do you define "contradict the Bible"?  It is written that "baptism
now saves you."  Is it heretical to deny that baptism now saves you?

(F3) Context:
1Pet 3:18-22

"because also Christ once for sin did suffer -- righteous for unrighteous
"-- that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the
"flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit, in which also to the
"spirits in prison having gone he did preach, who sometime disbelieved,
"when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah -- an ark
"being preparing -- in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through
"water; also to which an antitype doth now save us -- baptism, (not a
"putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience
"in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ, who is at
"the right hand of God, having gone on to heaven -- messengers, and author-
"ities, and powers, having been subjected to him.

It's quite unquestionable that baptism includes several other aspects
than water. The one who asserts that baptism, on its own, saves the
baptized one, can be proven a heretic by the context itself.

By the way, where did you get this interpretation of Sola Scriptura
which you put into our mouth? ("I can read the Bible for myself and
be sure I'm going to get it right without any help from anybody.")
And why did you drop it so quickly when I pointed out that it means
nothing like it? Do you admit that it's wrong?

So far all your attempts at showing that Sola Scriptura contradicts
Scripture were either based on your misinterpretation of Scripture
(which I refuted, not like you, who were satisfied with declaring
regarding my arguments that "it's just your opinion"), or on a
distorted understanding of Sola Scriptura.

(M2) Can
you show a genuine contradiction just by making out a conflict with a
*possible* meaning of the Word,

(F3) Me not but Catholics can. See 1Cor 3:15 and the so-called purgatory.

(M2)  or does it have to be a conflict with the
*intended* meaning of the Word?

(F3) Yes. And this meaning can be found by exegesis.

(M2) If the latter, who is it that knows and
can speak authoritatively regarding which possible meaning is truly the
intended meaning?

(F3) The Bible. It is the standard, and not the tradition.
By the way, try to answer your question yourself. Beware, the
answer "the Church" isn't sufficient. Who is "the Church"?
You and those who agree with you?

(M1) The Bible, on the other hand, is "Understandest thou what thou
readest? -- How can I, unless someone guides me?" (Acts. 8:30-31).

(F2) This Ethiopian man, of course, wasn't Christian and had no new
birth. So it's quite understandable that he didn't understand the
messianic prophecies. You, however, are very quick in ascribing
OT characteristics to NT believers.

(M2) Well, I think we have a lot in common:  sin, fallibility, pride, etc.

(F3) Of course, this Ethiopian man had no new birth at all. He was without
Christ. He saw only shades and figures, if we suppose that he was a
prozelyte to Judaism. He had never heard about Christ. He had never
heard the gospel. He hadn't read any apostolic letters. He was a child
under the Law. The Spirit of God hadn't been poured on him.
Do you equate NT believers with him in these respects?

2Cor 3:12-18
"Having, then, such hope, we use much freedom of speech, and [are] not as
"Moses, who was putting a vail upon his own face, for the sons of Israel
"not stedfastly to look to the end of that which is being made useless,
"but their minds were hardened, for unto this day the same vail at the
"reading of the Old Covenant doth remain unwithdrawn -- which in Christ
"is being made useless -- but till to-day, when Moses is read, a vail
"upon their heart doth lie, and whenever they may turn unto the Lord,
"the vail is <taken away>.
"And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there
"[is] liberty; and we all, with unvailed face, the glory of the Lord
"beholding in a mirror, to the same image are being transformed, from
"glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Gal 3:23-4:7
"And before the coming of the faith, under law we were being kept,
"shut up to the faith about to be revealed, so that the law became
"our child-conductor -- to Christ, that by faith we may be declared
"righteous. And the faith having come, no more under a child-conductor
"are we, for ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus;
"for as many as to Christ were baptized did put on Christ. There is
"not here Jew or Greek, there is not here servant nor freeman, there
"is not here male and female, for all ye are one in Christ Jesus;
"and if ye [are] of Christ then of Abraham ye are seed, and
"according to promise -- heirs.

"And I say, so long time as the heir is a babe, he differeth nothing
"from a servant -- being lord of all, but is under tutors and stewards
"till the time appointed of the father. So also we, when we were babes,
"under the elements of the world were in servitude, and when the fulness
"of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under
"law, that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons
"we may receive. And because ye are sons, God did send forth the spirit
"of His Son into your hearts, crying, `Abba, Father!'
"So that thou art no more a servant, but a son, and if a son, also an
"heir of God through Christ.

(F2) Don't misunderstand me, I don't reject scholarship.
I don't reject exegesis. I don't reject commentaries.
But I have to protest against your attempts at virtually
denying the Holy Spirit's work by asserting that the Scripture
is hard to understand by definition.

(M2) Ah, but I do not at all deny the Holy Spirit's work.  What I assert is that
the Holy Spirit works in the Church as a whole, rather than individually
(and inconsistently) in separate and separated believers.

(F3)But the Church cannot be identified with this or that denomination.
His work cannot be restricted to the utterances and the writings of the
fathers and the bishops. I can charge Orthodoxy of fewer errors due to
the lack of my knowledge, but can you imagine that the Holy Spirit works
by the unchristlike deeds and words of a wicked medieval pope? Or that
He works by the cardinals, thus subjecting Himself to the wicked pope?
Or that He works by the bishops, also subjecting Himself to the same one?

(M2) Judge for
yourself:  are the myriad conflicting religious opinions in Protestantism
the work of one Spirit who is not the author of confusion?

(F3) No. It is the work of human fallibility. But the apparent lack of sects
in the traditionalist denominations is covered by their being wholly
heretical. One kind of heresy became dominant due to the sword of the
emperor, and the others became extinct. So no supernatural power can
be observed behind the doctrinal unity of the traditionalists.

(M2) A certain
amount of variation is inevitable, of course, but if we are going to assess
the consistency of Spiritual influence, I think it must be admitted that
the range of variation is *far* far less within the Tradition than without.

(F3) The pharisees were also unanimous in their false teaching.
So it's possible that a wrong tradition unites people very
closely while they are unable to turn back, saying "I erred".
I repeat, agreement in all issues is not a distinctive mark of
the Church but rather a desirable goal, that the world should
see the genuineness of the Way.

(F1) The reason for this approach is that Protestants saw striking
differences between the Bible (that is, between the actual text
of the Bible, not their interpretation of it) and the deeds
of certain people in charge of the official doctrine.

(M1) And so they threw out the whole kit and kaboodle, and got
together, and said, "Let's create an organization to interpret
and carry out the Scriptures as we think they were *meant* to
be interpreted and carried out."

(F2) Utterly false. They were never refuted but simply kicked out
by Roman Catholics.

(M2) And what did they do after they were kicked out?  I stand by my claim:
having no more Catholic Church to attend, they began attending a church of
their own devising.  And of course the vast majority of Protestant churches
today were not even kicked out of the Catholic Church:  the Baptists, the
Methodists, the Brethren, the Nazarenes, the Disciples of Christ, etc, all
originated with men who thought that none of the existing churches were
quite "it," and so they started a new organization that they felt would do
a better job.

(F3) If you say that God is bound to the Catholic Church in which they
had been living till then, you are welcome. If you think that being
hardened in falsehood (the popery's grasping for power, selling of
indulgences, celibate priesthood, communion under one species, etc)
is the Holy Spirit's infallible work in the visible Catholic Church,
it's up to you.

Contemporary Protestants had a more historical view than yours.
They called the pope Antichrist, recognizing its doctrines of whom God
Himself forbade them to live. The Tridentine anathemas served no good
in remaining in the Roman Church either.

And as for anathemas, why is it a strange thing to condemn the same
papal system which had been condemned by Orthodoxy in 1054? Only you
are allowed to separate yourselves from the leprosy while we have to
live in it? Why? Because we don't live far away from them? Is geo-
graphical distance the determinant factor in doctrinal matters?
If you say that God is bound to the Catholic Church in which they
had been living till then, you are welcome. If you think that being
hardened in falsehood (the popery's grasping for power, selling of
indulgences, celibate priesthood, communion under one species, etc)
is the Holy Spirit's infallible work in the visible Catholic Church,
it's up to you.

Contemporary Protestants had a more historical view than yours.
They called the pope Antichrist, recognizing its doctrines of whom God
Himself forbade them to live. The Tridentine anathemas served no good
in remaining in the Roman Church either.

And as for anathemas, why is it a strange thing to condemn the same
papal system which had been condemned by Orthodoxy in 1054? Only you
are allowed to separate yourselves from the leprosy while we have to
live in it? Why? Because we don't live far away from them? Is geo-
graphical distance the determinant factor in doctrinal matters?

(M2) I hope I am not being too offensive here.  It is not my intention to
question the sincerity or godliness of any of the people involved in this.
I merely wish to draw attention to the historical fact that, as far as
organizations go, the individual Protestant denominational organizations
are of recent origin.  These new organizations had the highest of possible
goals:  the interpretation and implementation of the commands of Scripture.
A very noble and laudable goal, with the exception of the fact that there
is nothing in Scripture authorizing people to "correct" the Church by
forming new, separate, and independant organizations.

(F3) We don't correct "the Church" but those who claim to be the Church.
There is nothing in Scripture saying that the Head of the Church
must wear a tiara, so that he could be recognized. There is nothing
in Scripture saying that the Church should own invaluable properties.
Also nothing about Christians taking part in war. Also nothing about
the right of Christians to persecute pagans and Jews. Also nothing
about the right of the Church to kill alleged heretics with the
aid of the "temporal sword". Also nothing about crusades. Also
nothing about putting the bibles "in the vernacular" on the index.
Also nothing authorizing people to sell indulgences for money.
Also nothing about the obligation of being silent when hearing
about these horrible abuses. Also nothing about accepting the
decrees of the Council of Constance which, beside condemning
John Hus, denied the wine from "the lay". Also nothing about
submitting ourselves to the pope, the vicar of Christ, in each
and every situation, even in a non-dogmatic question like the
indulgences. Also nothing about an anathema according to which
the person who killed the one under curse didn't commit crime.
Also nothing about remaining faithful to a dogmatically and morally
rotten system which, upon recovering from the first horror of the
schism, anathematizes us in the name of Christ a thousand times without
refuting any of our points. Also nothing about remaining faithful
to a religious system which uses intimidation, depriving of material
goods, wars etc. to validate its viewpoint against us. Also nothing
about replacing the Word of God with the human interpretations of
the Word of God in everyday life.

Moses said that the Law will be a testimony against those who
are appointed to guard the Law and fail in this commission.
Jesus said that in the last days there will be great persecution
of His followers for His name. He also said that who slaughters us
will think that he pleases God. It has been fulfilled.

(M1) I do not deny that there were abuses (even as the Apostle Peter
himself fell into similar abuses once, Gal. 2:11ff).  To reject
the whole Church because some of her members went astray, however,
is excessive. Where would we be today if Paul had rejected the
entire Church just because of Peter's missteps?

(F2) The great difference is made by the fact that Peter was able to
admit his errors. Papacy, in turn, refused to obey even the gravest
exhortations of the council (of Basel etc.) but anathematized
those who claimed that he straightened his ways.

(M2) We Orthodox would agree with you here.

(F3) Oh, then did the highest forum (whose authority over the whole Church
was accepted several times by the Orthodox Church) stagger away from
the truth? How can we state such an abominable thing about the very
guard of the tradition?

It seems that my distinction about the <obedience to the truth>
convinced you about our right of running out of Babylon.
Or should we risk going to hell by obeying the pope in doctrinal
matters, thus making some weak brethren stumble? "Why do you
believe what the pope says?", they could ask. In answer, "We don't
believe him but just say everything after him when we are asked".

(F2) Protestants don't reject the Church. They just make the conclusion
that an organization which is obviously overcome by the gates of hell
(see the "Renaissance" papacy) cannot be identical to the real Church.

(M2) Well, let us suppose for the sake of argument that the Catholic Church
*was* actually overcome by the gates of Hell:  what, then, do you suppose
happened to the *real* Church?

(F3) It was hidden under the surface. Just as those 7000 people who
didn't bow down to Baal. The remnant. God knows His chosen ones.

(M2) In fact, let's use the actual translation
of the word Jesus used:  What happened to the real *Assembly*, built on the
foundation of Apostles and prophets, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, guided and
protected by bishops, elders, and deacons, etc. etc.?

(F3) Oh. What kind of translation are you using? Where did Jesus Christ
bind the Church to the bishops? To YOUR bishops, who are known by
the fact that an older bishop ordained them, down to the apostles?
Where did Christ order the Church to write lengthy lists of succession?
Conversely, He ordered His Church to obey His Word.
The church which is visible, and which has to be constantly reformed,
(see Rev 2:5,16, etc) was corrupted by her own leaders. See Acts 20:30.


(M2) We cannot suppose
that the true Assembly was routed and scattered, leaving only isolated
believers here and there, because that, too, would be the Assembly being
overcome by the gates of Hell.

(F3) Out of Israel there were only seven thousand faithful remained.
Was Israel overcome by the gates of hell? Israel was driven into
exile. Did God reject them for all?

(M2) So what happened to it?  Where did it go? Or did it go anywhere?

(F3) God is building it, and humans are destroying it. When humans cover
it with visible veneer, there is a danger that visibility and a certain
kind of veneer becomes a criterion for being the true Church.
Calvin also saw this misleading of the believers and he wrote:

'I have to caution [those who want to learn the truth] not to be con-
'founded by the lying references to the church, of which these most
'dangerous chief enemies of the church are boasting now. For their
'vindications are nothing but the same excuses as those of the Jews
'when the Lord's prophets condemned their blindness, vice, and
'idolatry. Because just as they mentioned the temple, the ceremonies,
'and the priesthood as (in their opinion) the definitive attributes
'of the church, likewise, these ones also show us outward masks
'in the name of the church, while the church has little to do with
'these masks, and can do without them very easily.

'So I don't have to look for more arguments against them but that by
'which Jeremiah fought against that foolish conceitedness of the Jews:
'"Confide not in words of falsehood, saying, Jehovah's temple,
'Jehovah's temple, Jehovah's temple is this!" - because the Lord won't
'approve a place as His own but that on which His words are listened to
'and observed fearfully. (Jer 7:4-7). For the eternal mark put by the
'Lord on His ones is the following: "Who is of the truth listens to my
'voice" and "I am the good Shepherd; I know those who are mine; and mine
'also know me. My sheep hear my voice; I know them and they follow me."
'(Jn 18:37, 10:1-14,27)

(Institutio 1536, About the Christian Freedom.
My translation from Hungarian.)