From: MX%"manutter@grove.iup.edu" 26-SEP-1996 Subj: Re: Sola Scriptura #1 >Without the Scriptures, you are left with your own speculations about >the nature of the authority of the Church. :Who says I'm without Scripture? I'm not rejecting the Scripture, :I'm saying you can't reliably take it in isolation and outside of :the context in which it was formed. And you assume that the context in which the NT was written is the same as the one you imagine based on the present Orthodox interpre- tation of church history. That is an approach "without Scripture" anyway, because you don't let the Scripture determine your beliefs but make the Scripture say what you want to hear, under the pretext of "infallible interpretation". We Protestants may have our inter- pretations as well but we don't want to attribute divine origin to them. The other problem is that you try to prove the assertion that Orthodoxy interprets the Bible correctly with the assertion that it is faithful to the apostolic teaching. But it is unproven, the apostolic teaching itself looming somewhere behind the sea of patristic writings. :To quote the Bible out of the context of the Church is to quote the :Bible out of context, period. True, if you don't say that the Church referred to here is your present Orthodox Church, which is faithful to the apostolic doctrine by definition. This shortcut way is convenient, I admit, but exposes those using it to hardening in their beliefs, and forbids them to call errors errors. :Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course. You are correct that :the Roman Catholics have developed a different view of papal succession :than is shared by Orthodox Christians. The important point, however, is :that the view of Apostolic Succession held by the Orthodox Church today :is the same view that it has held throughout the history of the Christian :Church--you can even read Saint Paul's exposition of it in 2 Tim. 2:2. It isn't the description of today's RC or Orthodox traditions but a method of training teachers. One can walk around and say "I have the proper traditions, because Paul tells Timothy to train faithful teach- ers". But it proves nothing. He has to prove that his traditions are identical to the apostolic teaching. And this latter one is to be found in the Bible. And you seem to forget that papal succession is not just a difference in discipline. I suggest that you digested the dogmatic constitution "Pastor Aeternus" from the First Vatican Council, 1869, and revised the anathemas attached to it. You may as well have a look at the bull Unam Sanctam from 1302, which says: ! Therefore, of the one and only Church [there is] one body, one head, ! not two heads as a monster, namely, Christ and Peter, the Vicar of ! Christ and the successor of Peter, the Lord Himself saying to Peter: ! "Feed my sheep" [John 21:17]. He said "My," and generally, not indi- ! vidually these or those, through which it is understood that He ! entrusted all to him. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \ "If therefore the Greeks or others say that they are not committed / / to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are \ \ not the sheep of Christ, as the Lord says in John that there is one / / fold and one shepherd." (see Jn 10:16) \ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ You Orthodox are meant by "Greeks". And this bull can be found in the definitive compilation of RC dogmas: Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. The Second Vatican Council, as I heard from a catechist, said nothing contrary to this. >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. :If I may make a small-but-important distinction, it is not the Bible :that defines the authority of the Church: Jesus Christ did that, and :established it through the ministry of His holy Apostles. All the :Bible does is to record for us the written manifestation of this :historical fact. And to provide the context in which this authority can be properly understood, in order to curb the unbridled licence of certain men who rashly try to have themselves accepted as true teachers before anyone cound ask them "what is the true teaching?" The Bible is not just a dead record of the authority of the living Church. It is the living and effective Word of the Lord of the Church. :As for humans using the Bible as prooftexts for their alleged authority, :this only underscores the importance of keeping the Bible in its proper :historical and liturgical context. Men get away with prooftexting because, :when you all agree that there is no "official" interpretation, and that :every man is his own authority for interpreting Scripture, then there is :no way I can disprove your proof text--you will interpret it according to :however you see it, Thus, in your opinion, in order to interpret the Bible correctly, one has to conform to the doctrines of Orthodoxy first. To do away with the "heresies", he has to accept a particular interpretation first. I see the motives: it's much easier to define the proper interpretation as "the one we teach" than to find it in the Bible. :and there is no one with any authority to declare your interpretation :to be wrong. There is. The Bible. Text, context, analogy of faith. :Oh, sure, people can and do *claim* that each other's interpretations :are wrong, but the only standard you have for judging who's right is :to compare it to your own interpretation, assuming that your inter- :pretation is correct. And of course that's what everyone else is :doing too: assuming their interpretation is correct. When you rely on your traditions, you interpret them as you see them. Every human does it. To rule out the dangers of our subjective nature, we have to find an absolute standard. And this is the canon. And you don't have any grounds for disproving papal claims than by quoting the tradition, assuming that your interpretation is correct. The epistemological problem is still present even of you attach the tradition to the Bible. Yes, the material upon which you make your decision is a huger one than the Bible. But not so pure as the Bible, so no gain is achieved by making a second canon from those writings of the Fathers whom you think to be worthy to consult. Other tradi- tionalists who disagree with you will question even your second canon. >:There is, however, a difference between *documenting* the divine >:origin of the Church's authority, and the Church deriving its >:authority *from* the document. > >Yet both of them is true. :Which came first, the authority of the Church, or the written New :Testament? :-) I would say that the Apostles had authority before :the New Testament was written, and they were, of course, the first :leaders of the Church. Yet the safest method of checking up on everybody's allegations who claim to be the successors of the apostles, is to verify their state- ments in the light of the apostolic writings. Otherwise everyone could safely evade all doctrinal questions, saying "I have the authority of the apostles, so shut up." I know about some examples for it, eg. when Luther was questioning the abominable practice of the so-called indulgences, which was then an unofficial doctrine, his opponents couldn't refute him even from the Early Fathers. The most ancient proof they could bring forth was the bull Unigenitus, from 1343. Thus they thought it better to go over to the issue of papal primacy, as the "real" thing which was attacked. The most ridiculous is that some RCs are willing to ascribe the Reformation to Luther's misunderstanding a "non-dogmatic issue" (indulgences), and to his stubbornness in rejecting it. They hypocritically moan, "if Luther hadn't been so headstrong but had bothered to look at the real teaching of the Church..." - these mourners depict Luther as someone who obstinately strove to overthrow the Papacy, and could't find anything to grasp than "indulgences", and even not the doctrine, but the distorted application of it by some over-zealous preachers. Likewise, they imagine Luther's opponents as honest champions of unity, who made all possible attempts to convince the heretic of the truth, but in vain. In fact, Luther wanted to remain in the "bosom of the Church", but those who couldn't refute him chased him on and on, until he reached the border of the papal church. This "shut up" method is very convenient, but as you see, it can exclude positive intentions from the community. >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. :That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is to use the :example of interviewing the author, or someone who was intimately :acquainted with the author (a family member, say, or a close friend). And this close one has to prove that he is really close. Otherwise it may turn out that he is a liar. :If there is a question about what a particular passage in the book means, :the opinion of the author's friend is of more weight than the opinion of :someone from a different background and culture whose only acquaintance :with the author is that they read the author's book. Again, this friend proves to be friend not by his assertion, but by more objective means. As the author is not to be consulted from the first hand, we have to read the whole book and decide on this basis who the "close friend" is. :The Tradition of the Christian Church comprises 2,000 years of :preserving, not just the Book, but also the person-to-person living :memory of how that Book has been properly understood since the days :of the writers. Of course, all the traditions make this testimony about themselves. And these are conflicting testimonies. You don't accept the Nestorian heresy, do you? It was condemned by a council. Yet the custom of praying and kneel- ing before icons was likewise condemned, and you still cling to it, for you have another council to rely on. It's the fortissimo of private interpretation: you do the same as some Protestants, but say that your opinion is apostolic doctrine. :Bear in mind that the Bible is not the only thing that has been written: :the Tradition of the Church is also preserved in writing, as well as in :the person-to-person living memory of Apostolic Succession. Yet this written tradition starts when the NT ends, unless you say that the gnostic false gospels are part of the tradition. Thus the earliest witnesses of the tradition are younger than the NT epistles. You couldn't prove that the patristic writings tell the story faithfully, and are identical to the oral apostolic teaching which preceded the penning down of the NT. So no ground is left for arguing that the tradition is older than the NT. >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." :"But don't read it out of context. Read the Bible, and also read the :other written testimonies preserved through the ages in the Tradition. These are basically later testimonies, so probably more corrupted than the text of the NT. And obviously infested with many contradictions, which somehow ruins your idealized view. To blot out these contradic- tions, you have to interpret these patristic writings privately, in order to arrive at the desired result: present Orthodox (RC) traditions. :Read how it was understood by those who heard the Word preached from :living Apostles. Read with an open mind and a willingness to learn :from the saints who have lived this Way before you." And to learn from their errors as well, judging them by the Bible. :The authority of the Church is most definitely not "derive[d]...from [a] :couple of texts." Authority is not given by ink and paper, it is given by ;a Person, and it was given to living Apostles, before ever a word was :written. If it were enough then there would be no need of a written Scripture. In fact, if we didn't have them, much more controversies would arise, than now. So the Word of God has the definitive role in judging various allegations, among them those claiming authority. :These Apostles exercised this authority, and passed it on, and it :exists in the Church today, not because it was *derived* by human effort :from some ancient text, but because the Church was endowed with this :authority by her Creator from the moment she came into existence. I may :point you to a Scripture here and there where you may see a reflection of :this authority, but I am not thereby attempting to *create* any authority :for the Church out of those passages. Not to create it but to see it properly. In order not to be deceived by assertions of the alleged sucessors. You say "reflection of the authority", while it is the norm prescribed for those who lead the Church. Vast difference. >The first approach considers the firstly quoted allegation an >absolute truth which cannot be questioned even in the absence >of biblical evidence. :Well, there's a difference between refusing to accept the Scriptural :evidence and proving that the evidence is not there. :-) I am not guilty of the former. You never pointed me to any verse to prove that the Church was given the same authority and traditions as the Orthodox Church claims for herself. >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. :Well, this particular "denomination" (i.e. the Orthodox Church) :has, as its head and its founder, the Lord Jesus Christ. According to her own testimony. The same applies to the RCC. Only the Bible can decide whose testimony is right. :Since Christ is a member of His own Body, the Church, and since the :Church's authority does come from Christ, I guess it is fair to say :that the Church, as headed by Christ, is the source for both its :own authority and that of the written Word. But this is authority :coming down from above, not authority generated from within. No. God is the source of the authority, and not the Church. Otherwise you could say as well that "for salvation comes from the Lord and the Lord is a member of His Body, consequently, the source of salvation is the Church". Also "expiation for sins", "judging everyone according to his deeds", "ruling the Gentiles with iron rod"... I do agree with you that the authority of the Church comes from above. I contend, however, that it cannot be safely applied without guidelines coming from above. And I believe that these guidelines are to be found in the Bible, and as they are guidelines (and not guided blinds), they are understandable, too. >But it is an awful bankruptcy from a global point of view: >thus the Mormons can claim the same authority to their book. :Exactly, but their actual authority is dependent upon the authority of the :man who founded their church. Joseph Smith declared the Mormon Church to :be "restored Christianity," and the authority of the Mormon Church stands :or falls according to whether or not Joseph Smith was genuinely sent by God :to do what he did. Which latter question can be decided by comparing his book with God's Book. :In the same way, Jesus Christ personally declared His Church to be the :fulfillment of messianic prophecies, and the authority of the Church :He founded stands or falls according to whether or not He was genuinely :the Son of God. Well said! However, in practice, you have to be sure where this Church is. >You can't say they don't have apostolic succession, as they have >angelic intervention. Which is a part of their self-praising hymns, :Exactly, again. To judge the authenticity of the Mormon church, you don't :look at whether or not they have a written Scripture, and you don't look at :whether or not they claim that their theology is consistent with the :writings of the Christian Bible--Mormonism easily meets both criteria. No. They claim to have new revelations from God, inspired and inerrant, which contradicts Sola Scriptura, which is a biblical doctrine. Rather the case is the following: as you don't have this method of testing them, you have to accept their theology, for they can say "we have the infallible tradition to interpret the Bible with it". :Nor can you discredit Mormonism just by claiming you have a different :interpretation of Scripture that contradicts the Mormon interpretation, :because there are any number of people out there waiting with their own :interpretations to contradict _you_! The only objective way to evaluate :Mormon claims is to follow them back to their source. As for the source, they say that John Smith was inspired. How can you disprove it? Saying that he is a liar? That he doesn't agree with your interpretation of the tradition? He doesn't accept the Fathers! But he at least accepts Scripture. So the Bible is superior to the tradition at least in this respect: most heretics accept it, so refuting arguments can rely on its text. :And that's what the Tradition is: following Christian teaching back :to its source. If the sources are valid, then what springs from the :sources and stays true to the sources is also valid. If not, if the :source is bad, or if what springs from the sources departs from the :sources, then to the degree that they differ from historical Chris- :tianity, they are not authentic Christianity. Provided I accept that "historical Christianity" is exactly the same as what you denote by it, and that it's right. Provided your traditions spring from the source of God. Provided you interpret the written testimonies at your disposal correctly. And as it very frequently contradicts itself, you have a difficult task to interpret it into a self-consistent teaching. Further, you can't trace back the Christian Church to the source if you don't recognize that the Bible contains the only infallible written testimony about the beginnings. >just as the tradition (actually those patristic writings which are >consonant with your opinion) is part of Orthodoxy's self-praising hymns. :Orthodoxy's praises are for God and for those who have lived godly lives. :Who better to praise? Orthodoxy's praises are for these ones, of course, but there is nobody else but Orthodoxy to determine who exactly have lived "godly lives". >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". :A very perilous approach. Imagine not being sure which kind of brain :surgery is best, and deciding to resolve the issue by reading the medical :textbooks--apart from any kind of medical school, or any interaction with :trained surgeons--and attempting to do the operation yourself! Of course, the case is different. By the time you face the operation, you have read the whole book. And the identity of "trained surgeons" can't be determined with eyesight. There is no denomination now which wears white gown so that its erudition should be obvious. We can place this simile onto an otherwise uninhabited island, and there it will fit our case. :When you sit down with the Bible and compare its words with the :teachings of the different denominations, you are not exploring :which denomination is *right*, you are exploring which interpret- :ations are the most consistent with your own personal experiences, :understanding, desires, and perceptions. No. Some part has to be played by the written text of Scripture. Your above imagination of my method doesn't include Scripture. It can be done with the Quran, too. On the other hand, when I try to understand the Bible I am inevitably influenced by my very obligation not to contradict Scripture, so even if I invent a heresy, I also have to invent the interpretation of those passages which are difficult to integrate into my interpretation. While you can very easily dismiss this painful aspect of Bible study: you pick some of the patristic writings (of course from those you accept) and make them the rule, meanwhile throwing out the rest. So you heap up for yourself teachers who teach what is tinkling to your ear, reject many parts of the truth and expose yourself to deception. Note, you can't assure me that the very Father you quote is infall- ible, you only assume that what he says is Apostolic Tradition. Others, who read Gregory of Nyssa's Dialogue with Makrina as the reflection of the Tradition, will oppose you in the issue of the so-called purgatory. And you have to deny the authenticity of the text he uses. While I, when debating with an alleged witness of Jehovah, do have an opportunity to really catch him, as he is bound by his very creed not to reject any Scripture. So while my dialogue with him can be continued on the scriptural basis, yours with a so-called-purgatory believer ends at the very moment of arriving at a point where you disagree on the authenticity of a quotation. :If this inductive approach actually worked, then Bible-reading would :result in people being pulled together into a common, unified, single :"correct" understanding of theology. Exegesis becomes more and more acute. Why do you think the pope kept forbidding critical methods until Divino Afflante Spiritu (1942)? Because he feared that they make Catholic exegetes desert the RCC to join Protestantism. :In fact, the exact opposite has :happened: instead of people being drawn in to a single common under- :standing, the Protestant denominations have fractured and fragmented :into tens of thousands of incompatible theologies-- They are more likely to be united under a new confession or Concordia than RCs and Orthodox become one fold under that "one shepherd". :just as you would expect when diverse individuals are told to use :nothing but their own personal experiences and perceptions as the :final and ultimate authority on the meaning of the Bible. They were told to use the Bible as such. True, they will mingle some of their own in it, but they are still less prone to misinterpret it than those who actually do the same but disguise it by sticking the label "apostolic tradition" on their opinions, and throw away other people's patristic proof not as a mere opinion on the Tradition but as entirely being out of Tradition. >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. :Great analogy! Applying inductive reasoning to the above, three :conclusions are obvious: :a) God preserves His Word throughout the generations, regardless of : opposition Even the opposition of the historical Church. :b) Most people, given God's written Word, do not handle it correctly Including many leaders of the historical Church. :c) Those who are appointed by God to positions of spiritual authority : DO handle the written Word correctly. Who exactly are they? How can I identify them? :It seems almost painfully obvious to me, from the example you've :given, that it's a big mistake to entrust the average layman with :the responsibility for determining what is the correct interpretation :of God's written Word. I didn't do so. I confined these private interpretations within the limits of the Bible. >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. :Exactly: the books were available to "ask," but the "answers" that :the typical Israelite found were not at all consistent with the actual :intended meaning of the Scriptures. And very often those who were appointed to guard the proper meaning, actually trod it under feet and misinterpreted it. And the whole they exercised in the name of God, referring to the temple, the priesthood and other external masks. :The only time the Jews seriously listened to the true meaning of the :Bible was when God sent some living teacher/prophet/king to impart :the meaning to them person-to-person, instead of letting each man :follow the interpretation that was right in his own eyes. This king etc. rarely met the requirements of "historical Judaism", whose champions, in turn, often persecuted the prophets with sword. And of course, those who strayed from truth also strayed from the OT. >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. :I think you have that backwards: the Pharisees did not claim to :have inherited Moses' *office*, they claimed to have the correct :interpretation of Moses' *writings*. No. They claimed to have Moses' seat. :The Sadducees were even more extreme: they were so "sola scriptura" that :they did not accept as Scripture anything but the five books of Moses. Sola Scriptura, for your most kind attention, includes "full Scripture". The emphasis on Sola Scriptura cannot be increased by omitting more and more books - conversely, it testifies about the contempt on the Word. It's all right if you fight against this doctrine; even I am willing to corroborate you here; but please, call it "Truncated Scripture" instead. And of course, if you were taught this falsehood under the banner "Sola Scriptura" when you were a Protestant, then let me make clear that my version of Sola Scriptura isn't this one, in order to avoid unnecessary accusations. :What the Pharisees and Sadducees did was to base their preaching :on the written Word *as interpreted by themselves*-- False. They claimed to interpret it according to the traditions of the ancients. They had their traditions which they had passed on through generations. And this tradition nullified the Word of God. :same as all Protestant denominations do today. I am afraid that what is written above is rather characteristic of the traditionalist denominations. Some Scriptures to prove it: Mt 3:9 "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to "[our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these "stones to raise up children unto Abraham. They emphasized their fleshly lineage, as if it were binding God even if the seed of Abraham went astray. They could pick all the promises made to Abraham to justify their point, just as tradition- alists pick the verses containing promises to the Apostles (Whose sins you forgive etc, Upon this rock etc, The Spirit of the Father will teach you etc, Whoever despises you despises Me etc, Let any man consider us as the stewards of the mysteries of God etc, The Church is the pillar of the truth etc, and so on) to establish their privileged status. Mt 15:1-3 "Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, "saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? "For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered "and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God "by your tradition? They were referring to traditions which were entrusted to them by their predecessors, not recognizing that they transgressed the Word of God. Just as those who planned a plot against Jeremiah with the words: "the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor words from the prophet" (Jer 18:18), they showed empty masks in order to justify their falsehood. It's no point in arguing that "Jeremiah was inspired but Ferenc Nemeth isn't". Jeremiah was right against his compatriots not because he was inspired, just as those 7000 people who didn't bow down to Baal didn't need to be inspired in order to prove faithful to the original commandments. Mt 23:1-3 "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore "whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do "not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. From other places it is clear that the Lord couldn't have had in mind here the Jewish traditions in their entirety, for He said they were also teaching commandments of men which annulled God's Word. It's more probably that He wanted them to observe the com- mandments which originated in the Law (and it's not surprising, taking into consideration that His audience then consisted of Jews. The exception which I take here is not taken to Sola Scriptura, but to Sola Mt 23). Mentioning Moses, He unveiled the miserable excuses of the Pharisees who, instead of being faithful to what they them- selves were teaching, sought pretexts to free themselves from this obligation on the grounds of their office inherited from Moses. Mt 23:29-32 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the "tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, "And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have "been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be "witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed "the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. By calling the prophet-murdering official (religious or secular) leaders of old their fathers, thus retaining them in the line of succession down to Moses and further (which they desperately needed in order to preserve their privileges), they betrayed that they esteemed fleshly succession higher that that of obedience to the Law. Jesus skilfully retorted that their attempts at getting rid of the responsibility originated from selfish interests, and He unmasked their final goal, namely being ac- quitted from the sins of the ancient leaders, yet inheriting their (self-claimed) authority. John 7:45-52 "Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they "said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, "Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, "Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees "believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. "Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being "one of them,) Doth our law judge [any] man, before it hear him, and "know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also "of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. I will discuss the Galilean problem elsewhere (it is just as interes- ting as this one). The Pharisees made themselves the final criterion on any doctrine, asking "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" They advocated a kind of triumphant religion, in which the majority was what counted - a method applied frequently at councils of the "historical Church". Acts 22:3 "I am verily a man [which am] a Jew, born in Tarsus, [a city] in "Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, "[and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the "fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. The manner in which the Pharisees taught the Law was alleged to be perfect. The mention of the "law of the fathers" indicates that this sect of the Pharisees demanded the fathers' authority in determining the perfect interpretation of the Law. Acts 26:4-5 "My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine "own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; Which knew me from "the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest "sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. Again Paul declares that the outward appearance isn't what counts but the truth. Pharisees placed an enormous emphasis on outward attributes of being just, orthodox and self-confident. Gal 1:13-14 "For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' "religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, "and wasted it: and profited in the Jews' religion above many my "equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the "traditions of my fathers. I needn't add anything to the last clause. Yet I do it in order to emphasize the person of the one who speaks. Paul said it with the experience of the man who was given the grace of learning the truth. And he applied the phrase "the traditions of my fathers" to denote something which had hindered him from seeing the light of the Lord. The only difference between him and Sola Scriptura believers is that as we don't have special enlightenment from heaven directly, we have to imitate him with the general God-given torch in our hands, namely, with the Word of God, in the thick darkness of man-made traditions which vaunt of explaining the Word of God correctly, while they just make it void. :And, like the Protestant denominations, No. See below. :the sect of the Pharisees and the sect of the Sadducees were :founded by ordinary theologians--not by inspired Apostles. Yes, it was the truth, but they asserted the contrary: that they sat in the chair of Moses. To the extent that they really taught the Law and not their inventions, Jesus also confirmed this. But they tried to make every- one believe that they inherited the true interpretation from Moses, too. In answer the Lord debunked them with Scripture. And if you glance at history, Luther didn't want to break the unity of the Church - he rather intended to reform it from inside. And that he was brutally kicked out by impious men who categorically refused to straighten their ways - is not his fault. So it wasn't Luther to have founded Protestantism but the pope was. :As for "Mosaic succession," Moses did not establish a Spirit-indwelt Body :of Christ, he established a more limited priesthood, and that priesthood :was most definitely an office of succession: it was passed from generation :to generation of the sons of Aaron, just as temple work in general was :passed from generation to generation of the sons of Levi. Religious :authority in the Old Testament was of two types: either you were directly :appointed by God to be a prophet, or else you were a priest. Priestly :authority was passed on by succession: you didn't have non-Levites sitting :down reading their Pentateuch and becoming priests just because they :thought they understood what they read! But you had several traitors of the true doctrine among those priests who didn't want to obey God's commands in the Law about their duties, yet constantly insisted on the passages that spoke about their authority. And finally even the Lord couldn't find more effective means to lead them onto the right path than to drive them into exile by the hand of his servant Nebuchadnezzar. This man was a judgment on the whole religious system of Judaism without ever having read a word from the Law! Also, there was a remarkable custom of reading the Law on a weekly basis in synagogues, to which a passage from other Scriptures used to be attached. And any adult Israelite man could stand up and teach there. Here are some instances: Luke 4:16-17 "And he came to Nazareth, where he hath been brought up, and he went in, "according to his custom, on the sabbath-day, to the synagogue, and stood "up to read; and there was given over to him a roll of Isaiah the "prophet, and having unfolded the roll, he found the place where "it hath been written: `The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, etc. Acts 13:14-15 "and they having gone through from Perga, came to Antioch of Pisidia, "and having gone into the synagogue on the sabbath-day, they sat down, "and after the reading of the law and of the prophets, the chief men of "the synagogue sent unto them, saying, `Men, brethren, if there be a "word in you of exhortation unto the people -- say on.' Of course, you can object that my examples are those of correct inter- pretation. But the issue here is not that of correctness but that of opportunity to stand up and teach. Jesus and Paul were allowed to do so not due to the implausible assumption of the traditionalists, viz. that they were inspired. Judging by the consequences, the hearers don't seem to have presupposed the inerrancy or the infallible teaching authority of Jesus or Paul. They gave them the pulpit because that was the custom. As for the difference between the nature of the People of God in the Old and the New Testaments, I don't believe that being entrusted more authorizes anyone to be more careless than the OT priests, and to say that the obedience to the Word of God doesn't have to be stressed any- more on this account. Those who claim more power and more licence to themselves on the grounds of their greater deposit, are like those who say "Let's sin because we are under grace and not under law", and "Let's remain in sin so that grace shall abound". These are among the things which even Paul had to explain over and over, in order to avoid misunder- standings, yet there always will be unstable and untaught persons who will misinterpret them to their own destruction, and will maintain stubbornly that their reverend succession according to the new, spiritual kingdom of God acquits them from the obligation of fulfilling the necessary conditions of continuing in Christ, among which are John 15:6 and Heb 6:8. Paul, having in mind his great commission, said that lest he should be puffed up, he got a thorn into his body from God. Also that he holds his body captive, so that when preaching to others, he himself shouldn't be unworthy. And from the time of Reformation we hear the excuses of traditionalists who liken themselves to the pharisees, whose teaching is to be observed, and not their deeds imitated (Calvin: Inst. IV.x.26). As it is written: a tree is known by its fruit. >Thus they all submitted themselves to the biblically >based criticism from outside, from the Jews. :Jesus and the Apostles, like all Orthodox authorities, integrated the :Scriptures into their teaching, of course. But their authority did not :stem from the mere fact that they had an interpretation of the Bible-- But from the fact that they had the correct interpretation. And this fact could be verified from the Bible. Note, Jesus and the apostles spoke with such power that no one could refute them! Thus it was the Bible that bore witness about the genuineness of their mission. Paul, when he went into the synagogues, convinced them that Jesus is the Christ. And even if you examine the concept of the narrative of Matthew, it is at least as stuffed with OT prooftexts ("this happened so in order that the Scripture may be fulfilled") as a Fundamentalist pamphlet. Matthew thus expressed that the very thing which gave authority to this "new sect" was its accordance with the inspired Scriptures. Note, there was no "apostolic tradition" then, to which boastful and unwarranted refer- ences could have been made, in the likeness of traditionalists' claims abounding now. :the Pharisees and Sadducees had plenty of interpretations too! :It was not their interpretation that lent weight to their authority, :it was their authority that lent weight to their interpretation. No. Their references to the traditions of the fathers were the ultimate argument in the mouth of Pharisees - and fulfilment of the OT was the strongest argument of Matthew. :Jesus had authority because He was (and is) God the Son; the Apostles :had authority because they received it from Jesus. This transmission :of authority, from Jesus to the Apostles and from the Apostles to their :successors, is what gave authority to their interpretation. The authority of the apostles was, however, a hidden one. They couldn't enter a synagogue, saying "You must believe us because we have authority". The apostles had signs to confirm the validity of the gospel (Heb 2:4). Another proof was accordance with the Scripture (1Cor 15:3, Acts 26:22). The testimony of witnesses soon gave its place over to some kind of "empty tomb" proof (Acts 26:26), especially in places far from Palestina. And what could prove Jesus Messiah to the Jews if not the Scripture? (Acts 2:16, 3:22, 4:11, 13:13, etc.) Note, I didn't say that they were all obedient to the word (Acts 6:13, 2Cor 3:14 etc). But in such cases even the apostles, being divinely inspired and appointed, couldn't do anything but to shake down the dust from their shoes (Acts 13:46, 18:6, 28:28) Even in the Church, the living body of Christ, not all claims for authority had to be acknowledged blindly. Even Peter, the Rock, on whom the Church was built, and who got the keys, had to admit his doctrinal error. Thus the interpretation of those commissioned with the apostleship had to be weighed against truth. Truth in this case was Paul's doctrine who based it on the Bible (Salvation for the Gentiles...The just lives by his faith...Abraham is the precedent of justification by faith...Law is intended to set up rules, obeying which one lives...Yet it is weak, and we are freed from it...Thus Peter's act brings back to bondage those who were liberated). I can't see more powerful manifestation of the truth than in the Bible. I am curious if anyone who is not obedient to the Bible can believe what the Fathers say - and it's evident why. The Fathers considered themselves interpreters of the parts of Scripture they possessed, and not some supreme court which decides infallibly on its meaning. :Interpretation alone cannot give authority to itself. But the interpretation's faithfulness to the text interpreted can. And while the deposit of faith was not clearly outlined and written down, many confirmatory miracles happened. >The Bereans are praised for verifying Paul's preaching from the OT. :The Bereans were praised for choosing to consider Paul's claims rather than :just arbitrarily rejecting him. Check out Acts 17:11 in context: the :praise given to the Bereans was that they were "more noble than those of :Thessalonica," not because the Thessalonicans had believed Paul *without* :searching the Scriptures, but because the Thessalonicans had rioted and :attempted to do bodily harm to Paul. After they had realized from Scripture that Paul taught something which they couldn't refute. Thus they were disobedient to the OT. :The passage does not say that Paul's authority came from the verses :the Bereans read, it just says that the Bereans treated Paul's :presentation in a more civilized manner. This passage proves that the only difference between the motives of the Jews of the two cities was that one group accepted the testimony of the Scriptures, while the others acted against their consciences, which through the words of the OT advised them to obey. (Acts 17:2-4) Being overcome by Paul in the scriptural argument, they didn't believe but hardened their hearts. The Bereans, in turn, obeyed the Scriptures, and concluded that the apostle was right. Therefore are they praised by the author. :And remember, they were considering the Scriptures in the context :of the verbal teaching of Paul, who happened to be an Apostle... :-) Not exactly. They pondered Paul's words (the new information) in the light of the unquestionably authoritative criterion, that is, the OT. Of course, the Holy Spirit opened their eyes to see the whole in an organic unity, but Sola Scriptura never denied the role of the Spirit. If the case were the opposite, as you state, then they must have been praised for accepting the Old Testament as the Word of God on the ground of a stranger's testimony who called himself an apostle. A strange idea. >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. :The Scriptures *do* have a role in matters of the faith; personal :*interpretations* of the Scriptures do not. The Bereans happened to have :done well in their search of the Scriptures; in John 7:52, however, the :Pharisees did equally poorly, using the "Search the Scriptures!" argument :to "prove" that Jesus was not a legitimate prophet, because He came from :Galilee. Mark, please don't hire a blind leader. Attempting to refute me, you willingly give credit to the Pharisees - it would be culpable, as they were die-hard traditionalists after all - if they hadn't lied then! They lied miserably! Out of Galilee there indeed had risen a prophet: Jonah. See 2Kings 14:25, and try to locate Gat-Hefer somewhere to the west from the See of Genezaret. It is in the middle of Galilee. The Pharisees didn't know the Scripture. Beware of them, even if they are strong adherents of the tradition; you see, there can be false traditions too, which nullify the Word of God. This example proves sufficiently that Scripture has to be interpreted Scripturally and not privately. The grievous thing is that you your- self are bent to accept private interpretation even of the Pharisees, when you see it fit to contradict me. Seeing this, I don't wonder that you opt for private interpretation of uninspired writings to determine the meaning of the Word of God. You see, this method has its biases and drawbacks, but never mind. No one will ever be able to refute you while you are the one who select your authorities. :So I'm not denying that it can *happen* that Bible reading can :lead to true enlightment, I'm just saying you can't presume one is :*necessarily* infallibly and/or authoritatively enlightened *just* :by reading the Bible. We agree here. I have read the Bible extensively when I was an atheist, and <18 years old. And I didn't see much. Yet I learnt more than from Catholic sermons, which began to appear on the radio two years before I was converted (1992). And even the pope came around in 1990! >Even if those who speak are apostles. How much more if they >are only warring "successors" of the apostles! :The problem is, of course, that the whole reason there are so :many different "warring" factions is *because* people are claim- :ing the-Bible-and-only-the-Bible (as interpreted by themselves, :of course) as their sole source of authority, in isolation of :the historic living Tradition of the Church. Appealing to the :Bible apart from the Tradition has not established who is "right," :it has merely created more divisions, animosity, and intolerance. It's not true. There have been quite numerous heresies within the historical Church despite the denial of Sola Scriptura. Also many divisions which were "cured" by sword. Biblical doctrine could not have prevailed visibly until the power of those who murdered all the reformers dwindled drastically. And I suppose that in the absence of external pressure (Trent anathemas, persecution by sword and fire) the reform could have been effective within RCism. >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. :I find it interesting that you would apply these passages to the Church :rather than to individual Christians, especially in the absence of any :explicit mention of the Church in those verses. Naturally, of course, the :Church as a whole is no more free than an individual believer to abuse :those entrusted to their care. But it strikes me as a strange passage to :use to try and elevate the individual's authority or weaken the Church's. Mt 24:45, Lk 12:42 proves that the speech goes about leaders, to whom, by the way, you are willing to ascribe the ability of speaking out in the name of the Church authoritatively. Your leaders are individuals as well - here they are exhorted to behave properly. >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. :Well of course it's much more than that. Just because we don't try :and derive our authority from the Bible, that does not mean we denig- :rate the Bible. If anything, Orthodox Christians treat the Bible with :*greater* reverance than Protestants do. It is the divine Word of God, :and it's precisely because it IS so holy that we insist on giving it :special respect and care, not casting it out onto the highways, alone, :like so many pearls before the swine, but carefully giving it its proper :place in the life of the Church. In a golden cage, one may say. Certain biblical teachings are not too popular within traditionalist circles. Eg. the royal priesthood. :You may not be aware of this, but there is a certain chauvinism in :implying that, just because we do not accept certain Protestant inter- :pretations of the Bible, that we therefore don't respect the Bible :itself. It this were the case, you would be right. But the fact is that like Tertullian in De Praescriptione Haereticorum, you try to dismiss my interpretation saying "it's just an interpretation", and refuse to convince me of your truth by offering a better interpretation from the allegedly infallible apostolic tradition. :I was born :and raised a Protestant, taught Protestant Sunday school classes to both :children and adults, and even preached in a few Protestant churches, and I :can tell you as someone with a background in a lot of different Protestant :denominations, I never saw anything in Protestantism that even approached :the reverence and adoration with which the Bible is regarded in Orthodox :Christianity. It depends on your viewpoint, what do you consider "reverence" and "adoration". However, I suggest you to add "obedience" to the list. >It is the constitution of the Church. :No it's not. I'm sorry, but the Church existed *years*--*decades*--before :the New Testament was written. Existed, acted, functioned, grew, and :exercised full ecclestiastical authority, long before pen was ever set to :paper. And it was bound by the very same principles which are laid down now in the NT, even then. Writing things down was necessary exactly because of self-made apostles and errant bishops (Acts 20:30) who distorted the oral message, and would continue this after the death of the apostles. :The Church is not an organization created by the intellects of fallible :and limited mortals. Yet it is entrusted to such persons. And as humans may be deceived easily when they aren't provided with authentic instructions, they needed the written NT to know what to esteem as the Word of God. :It is an organism created and given life and power by the Divine Creator :Himself. Life becomes death if we don't obey God. God sustains life in us by proper teaching. The Bible secures this teaching. :Social organizations created by sinners need written constitutions in :order to exist; living organisms do not. Living organisms need food and instructions how to cook it. This is the reason for a written Bible. :Hey, friend, I would love to stay and do this all day--you're giving me all :kinds of openings :-) and really helping me to exercise my understanding of :Orthodoxy--but the reality is that I'm the Assistant Director of Academic :Computing Services now here at IUP, and I just don't have the free time I :used to. There was a day when I could have chewed up a 5-part dissertation :and spit it back whole, with point-by-point comments, but now I would be :cheating my employer and my family of time that rightfully belongs to them. :If you would like to send me short little messages that I can reply to in a :page or two, I'll be happy to continue corresponding with you for as long :as you like, but this is as far as I can afford to go on this one. :Take care and God bless you. From: MX%"manutter@linklore.com" 6-OCT-199 To: MX%"nemo@ludens.elte.hu" >...This warning is similar to the letter to Laodicea... > >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. :It's interesting the difference one's perspective can make. Your :example deals with direct verbal revelation from Jesus, in person, :to a leader in the Church, concerning the conduct of a local :congregation. Jesus did not speak directly to the offending :congregation, He told the Apostle to speak to them in His place-- :in other words, the message from the Lord to the Apostle was :*verbal*, and the message from the Apostle was written. This example proves that even John the apostle wasn't circumspect enough to discover all errors in the Church, which occurred by the negligence and the apostasy of the bishops. Although he had been given authority, he needed God's revelation (which hadn't been complete at that time) to correct the errors. Had his person been enough to set the matters at rest, God would have told him "John, go down to Laodicea etc. and arrange things there. You know what to do. Or if not, consult Ignatius." :You see this as support for Sola Scriptura, the notion that God's :true Word is limited to that which is written, or that it has to :be written down before it has any authority. Nothing like it. Just that after the "authorization" of the "clergy" serious errors could creep in, and God had to correct the Church by direct revelation. :I look at the same :story, and see very plainly that the word was verbal before it :was written--verbal when it came from the Lord, and written only :when the Apostle wrote it down. Again, no "apostolic succession" but direct revelation was needed. :Besides, Jesus knows how to :write: if He wanted to establish the unique authority of the :written word, there would be no need to involve any of the Church :leaders. Not just "if He wanted". He did want to have His Word written down, thus He commanded John to write it down. He didn't leave to John's discretion a matter of such grave importance. So it's evident that He considered the knowledge of the "clergy" insufficient in solving the particular question, and He corrected them directly. No room is left for arguing that the Church as a whole was then infallible. :Even if He didn't want to write it personally, He could :have bypassed the authority of the Church leadership by having :just any old believer write it down for him. In other words, it :looks to me like this Scripture plainly supports the authority :of the Church leadership. I looked it up in my letter, and there is nothing like it at this place. You are struggling against strawman arguments. I said the Lord confined Church authority with His warnings, so that we shouldn't become puffed up. My quotation showed that the authority given to the Church is subject to the Word of God and cannot act independently of it. And I provided an example of a real, authentic error of the Church which the Lord of the Church had to correct. :It would seem that, in looking at the same Scripture, :you and I see diametrically-opposed messages from God. Not that we don't; but if you make me say what I never said, I am helpless. Re-read my garbage. :That's the problem with Sola Scriptura: Scriptura is never :sola--we always bring to it our preconceptions, our :experiences, our goals, and all our other perceptual baggage. :We go to Revelation looking for a particular thing, and lo :and behold we find just what we are looking for. How much of :that was in the Bible, and how much did we bring with us? That's why opponents are for: to seize scriptures which cannot be integrated into our system, and hurl them at our head. In Protest- antism it's a common phenomenon; but even the RCC had to make moves towards biblical theology in this century at the urgence of her opponents. >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. :Sola Scriptura is no defense against this problem. In two :thousand years, those loyal to Holy Tradition have suffered one :major division (Eastern vs. Western), and a relatively small :number of lesser divisions, some of which have been resolved. They also hardened their necks in their numerous heresies, so that no man could accuse them of changing their doctrines. Thus the loyalty to the truth gave over its place to loyalty to leaders. Moreover, I didn't say that Sola Scriptura is a remedy for heresy. It doesn't claim to be of such role. The Bible prophesies about the event of apostasy en masse. Yet the leaders of the traditionalist denominations allege that their very persons are the guarantee of the Church's persisting in the truth: they claim to be the infallible interpreters of the infallible traditions. I proved that such a claim is a vain and empty act of audacity, as they aren't enough to prevent heresy. Nestorians weren't refuted in Ephesus; they were but condemned and outvoted. Iconoclasts weren't refuted in 2 Nicaea, just anathematized and obliged to repent. The Word of God, on the other hand, is sharp as a two-edged sword, and it judges our intentions. Instead of this, the "historical" Church used to resort to the sword of the emperor to liquidate her opponents. :Those loyal to Sola Scriptura, by contrast, have split into tens :of thousands of different denominations in only three or four :centuries. If Sola Scriptura were really God's answer to the :problem of local churches going astray, wouldn't you expect :those statistics to be the other way around? I would! They split into denominations just as it had been happening before 1517. Only the assistance of the worldly sword was lacking to annul them, as it frequently would happen before that time. And despite the great number of denominations, I would assert that your major schism is rooted in different (and allegedly unchanging) traditions, or in the different interpretations of the same tradition, which are, however, deemed infallible and unchanging both,thus your schism is unsoluble dy definition. Our disagreement is caused by our different interpretations which aren't deemed infallible or apostolic, so we can come to consensus if one party convinces the other. You constantly feed me with the number of Protestant denominations; what if I flung at you the number of those who were misled by the system of papacy that they should believe the nefarious heresy of Filioque and in the horrendous dream of the so-called purgatory? :And if you're going to argue that the whole Church went astray, :you have to say that they did so while not only possessing the :Scriptures, but preserving them. The Church has always had wrinkles and spots. I just observe that for some periods the plague made her similar to Israel as described in Isaiah 1. You see, Israel also had everlasting promises, divinely appointed leaders, everything of which traditionalists boast now, and yet it could take place... I really don't know how. By the way, you are reading their Scriptures from Genesis to Malachi. :If that can happen, then I don't see that the Scriptures, all by :themselves, are much insurance against error in real congregations. You needn't bother yourself on this question. Scripture is the standard, no matter how many people misinterpret or disobey it. The unfaithfulness of some doesn't make God's faithfulness void. God will judge us according to His Word. He will judge even the "clergy" who claim to have the clue of knowledge, yet sometimes they exclude others from the Kingdom of God without serious reason: for the trespassing of their stringent observances which they deem so important as the Pharisees the washing of cups, vessels and beds. :Your example is of a congregation that went astray, not just from :a failure to heed the written Scriptures, but also from a failure :to follow the divinely-established authority and leadership :within the Church (the Apostle John was still living, remember), No, my point was that even the person of a living apostle wasn't enough to engender the doctrinal orthodoxy, on the contrary; the names of dead apostles could allow individual congregations to demand obedience to their man-made traditions. So God thought it fitting to intervene in the matter personally, without the mediation of the "authority" of the "clergy". :and from a failure to stay sensitive to the leading of the Holy :Spirit. Error and heresy are and always have been a problem in :the Church, but you can't say this problem is exclusively the :result of early Christians generally failing to give the Bible :the respect it deserves. Again, I didn't say that the Laodiceans didn't give due honour to those couple of epistles they had. But that they went astray, despite their apostolically appointed and trained bishop. >You could answer that the tradition contains guidelines about how >these errors can be avoided. :Just as you must necessarily answer that the Scriptures also :contain similar guidelines. I do. But I don't say that these will always be effective in practice. Just that we have to adhere to it and not to the traditions of some denomination which begins every discussion with the insistence that it is the authoritative expounder of the divine Word. :By the time John wrote Revelation, of course, the rest of the New :Testament had already been written (even though the Church had not :yet officially set the canon of Scripture yet). "Set"? Could she have "set" it otherwise? I hope not. I'd prefer "acknowledge" or "recognize" instead. >But if this is so, then why didn't the bishops of >Laodicea and Thiatira apply the correct principles? :Or the correct Scriptures? Evasion. The bishops lapsing into heresy doesn't harm the Scripture. It defuses, on the other hand, the argument that the bishops etc. secure the proper understanding of the Bible. >The reason is evident: because they were humans, and they >couldn't be aware of the full Christian teaching on their own. :Not even with the written Scriptures they had? :-) They might have had very few. Therefore was direct divine revelation necessary for them. God gave letters to John exactly because He thought that even John on his own wasn't capable of handling the problem: travelling to and fro, examining church life, convoking councils, denouncing heresies, etc. >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.) :The flaw in your reasoning is that they also had the gospels and :epistles that were later to be canonized as the New Testament--the :Scriptures are a *part* of the Holy Tradition given to the Church. Hardly could they have all the NT writings. Eg. when they were divided into factions they couldn't have 1 and 2 Corinthians. :You seem to have the fixed idea that the Tradition is nothing :more than a more-or-less open conspiracy to replace the Bible :with human doctrines--that Scripture and Tradition are mutually :exclusive and antagonistic possibilities. You say "not by the :tradition but by divinely revealed words"--as though the Holy :Tradition (including the Bible) was not divinely revealed! The distinction between canonical tradition and non-canonical tradition must have been somewhat greater that you imply. It seems that some unknown factor compelled the Church to divide the writings into two groups. You, in turn, delete the strict border of the canonical collection by saying that non-canonicals are essential to interpret the canonicals properly. The Bible is inspired. Are Clement, Hermas, Didache, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp etc. inspired writings? How can you cull the inspired parts? To refer to NT variant readings is a weak evasion. They rarely do contradict one another so blatantly and conspicuously as Arius with Athanasius. Yet both had their supporters among the clergy, that it, among the appointed stewards of the faith. :The Bible *is* the Holy Tradition. From my perspective, you are :trying to build an argument that begins by attacking Tradition :and then says the answer is to prefer Tradition instead (that's :Tradition with a capital "T" of course). No. I argue that inspired writings have to be consulted first, and then we may turn to some uninspired ones. The identity of the inspired writings was not determined by the Church; it was only recognized. Determining should involve equal or greater inspiration than that of the Bible, just as having a torch in the hand to discern it from other dusty papyri lying in the attic; recognizing puts up with having eyes (even one eye, albeit half-blind) in order to see something of the light that shines forth from the inspired writings. This theory is backed up by multiple canons. Half-blind people are allowed to err sometimes, but those bishops who are allegedly provided with the infallible interpretation are not. The final victory of the true canon also proves it. Half-blind people can see more if they switch on the lamp, while those bishops who betrayed collective ignorance and unreliability very frequently regarding a matter in which they demanded obedience due to their self-claimed authority, that is, in deciding on the canon, can no longer be trusted in matters of the same weight. >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. :Who said anything about all authority resting in any single local :church (small "c")? At least as far as Tradition is concerned, :the authority is in the Church, the Body of Christ, and the :leadership and authority with which she was equipped by her Lord. The visible Church had many heresies within. How could they decide who was right? Both parties had clerics, bishops, or even patriarchs (eg. Nestorius). By majority vote? Then now the Roman Catholics are right. :Mind you, as an evangelical, I was involved in a number of :congregational groups, which *do* regard all authority as :residing in the individual local congregation. They don't claim :direct apostolic origin--they claim indirect apostolic origin, :through the Scriptures. It's still the Corinthian error, it's :just given a false air of legitimacy through the doctrine of :Sola Scriptura. We don't commit the Corinthian error: our Scripture contains the whole available teaching of the apostles. Or do you believe those apocryphal fables about the adventures of Thomas or Barnabas? If you look into church history, you will find that the "apostolic" sees were claiming authority to themselves on the grounds of their having been founded by this or that apostle. This is the Corinthian error: instead of studying the whole apostolic doctrine, which is contained in the Bible (where else, maybe in the conflicting councils or in the contradicting patristic corpus?), they clung to persons. From: MX%"manutter@linklore.com" 13-OCT-1996 To: MX%"nemo@ludens.elte.hu" >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. :Now here you are speaking like a true Orthodox. Non-canonical :means that the writings are of different (and lesser) :authority than those in the canon. This is not, of course, to :assert that non-canonical works are thereby necessarily untrue or :devoid of any authority whatsoever. But they are lesser. Go on. Can these uninspired, less authoritative writings safely interpret the Word of God? Do they determine its meaning? Can you rely on their conflicting testimony on the true meaning of the Word of God? >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. :This, too, is perfectly Orthodox, provided we also take into :consideration the authority of the men whose writings fall into :the second group. Totally subject to the authority of those who wrote the Bible. As we have canonical writings from the beginning, we can judge the later course of happenings by the guidelines contained therein. >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." :The only possible source for a continuing infallible and :universal deposit of faith would be continuing direct personal :revelation from God Himself. Sola Scriptura is not enough. Did I claim it? I said that it contains pure divine doctrine, unlike the traditions. I don't claim to be infallible. :If you are going to say the Church has gone astray, despite :having the written Word, because even godly, trained, and :dedicated theologians interpreted it incorrectly, then you :can hardly make a case that the situation is going to be :improved by taking the same Scriptures and leaving the :interpretation up to untrained people the vast majority :of whom can't even read the languages the Bible was :originally written in! So we see the picture. In the red corner stand the trained, godly and dedicated theologians who speak Hebrew and Greek fluently; in the other one the untrained populace which is hardly able to understand even a translation. By the age of Jerome, Hebrew scholarship grew so rare that a new Latin translation became indispensable. And the RCC was so content with the Vulgate that she put up with it until recently. They them- selves weren't so keen on original languages either. Thus it was the "clergy" itself who took the key to knowledge for themselves, but alas, sometimes even they lost it, so no one could enter. :You cannot solve the problem of the papacy by effectively making :every man his own Pope. If the Bible is ineffective as a guide :for the clergy, it can hardly do better in the hands of the laity. Effectively I make every man subject to the Scripture. I wouldn't say that the Pope would ever admit plainly that he is limited by what is written in Scripture. If he transgresses the limits of Scripture then he says "Roma locuta, causa finita". A Sola Scriptura believer is bound by the Word of God to say "Prove my error from Scripture". Oh, and I don't know who the "clergy" are! Strangely enough, I find "kleros" in 1Pt 5:3 as a synonym of what you probably mean by "laity". And I find "priests" in my NT as referring to all believers. :If this is to be your approach, you would do better to :abandon *sola* Scriptura in favor of a more charismatic, "God :puts the Truth directly into my brain!" approach to the subject. I won't, of course. :Such an approach would, to my thinking, be blasphemous, but it :would at least provide a logical explanation of why the :Scripture, all by itself, would work reliably only when not in :the hands of the early Church Fathers and others who have devoted :their lives to God's Word. You are seeing phantom opponents. I never said such monstrous things. It's quite an inquisitorial method to put words into the mouth of the victim and judge him of this ground. So, it was never my argument that no church father was ever right. I said that not necessarily are those ones right who constantly claim for themselves the name "right-faithed". :Of course, this approach would still have problems explaining :why God would deny this blessing to generations of Church leaders :who were faithful to the point of martyrdom, and then would :decide to give it to everyday Protestants! Sorry, to Middle Europe the Protestant churches didn't come on ships. We also have our martyrs, although they considered them- selves everyday Christians and not supernatual heroes who are right by definition. And we believe with them that God gives His blessing to those faithful to His precepts and promises and not necessarily to tiara'd successors of Peter. :But I digress. To return to your point, the Holy Tradition, :including the written Word, does suffer from some "haziness" :regarding its precise identification. You do not, however, :discard the entire Bible just because there exist "hesitations :and temporal differences about the exact content" of the text of :the New Testament. Neither do I discard the entire Tradition :just because there are variant "readings" in the Tradition. You should know that variant readings rarely do contradict each other so vehemently as opposing bishops in a synod. :You raise some good points regarding the need to approach the :Tradition with care and attention, but you do not justify :discarding the Tradition in favor of every man "reading" whatever :is right in his own eyes, any more than variant Scriptural texts :justify discarding the entire Bible. I don't discard patristic writings. Some of them are really biblical. Others aren't. And I don't argue for private interpretation either. My point is that biblical interpretation of the tradition is prefer- able to the traditional interpretation of the Bible. It's logical, after all, to judge the mixed with the pure, to measure the uncertain with the certain, to enlighten the obscure with the bright. :By the way, if you are looking for a good "label" to use in :referring to the Church as it was originally organized and :constituted, the term "Orthodox" would be linguistically and :historically appropriate. :-) Linguistically maybe, as it means "of proper faith". Historically it isn't necessarily true, as there is a certain denomination claiming it for itself, and I don't want to cause misunderstanding by double usage. Just the same is the situation with "Catholic". >Moreover, those who advocate the interpreting role of their >traditions, actually place it above the Word of God. :I have found this to be more true in Protestant circles than in :Orthodox theology. The traditional interpretations of the :Orthodox Christian church are at least the historic Christian :faith, originating with the inspired apostles. It's what they say. But it can be tested only with the Bible, unless you want to get caught up in a much worse situation: the Fathers decide which interpretation of the Bible is right. Which Fathers of the contradicting hundreds are right, can be decided only by present Orthodox theologians, privately. :They may be more elaborate in their modern manifestation, :but they are the same in their essence as the original oral :and written teaching of the Lord and His Apostles, and their :authority is judged within the Church by how well they uphold :the interpretations that have always been upheld in the Church, :from apostolic times to the present. So you would test the present Church with something which is 1. not clearly outlined (as there are many Fathers), and 2. not necessarily infallible (as they aren't inspired). :The Protestant groups I have been involved with have been prone :to take a particular *interpretation* and declare that their :interpretation is what the Bible *says*--even when the words of :the doctrine and the words written in the Bible flatly :contradicted each other. Thus have I seen first-hand many :different "sola Scriptura" Protestants effectively place their :tradition (small "t") above the Word of God. I have never, :however, seen an Orthodox tradition *contradict* the words :written in Scripture and be given greater authority than the :Scriptures they contradict. Of course, Sola Scriptura isn't Sola Protestantism. We can err. But we admit it, unlike some who indulge in defining themselves as the pillars of the truth. :There are some Orthodox teachings that conflict with traditional :Protestant interpretations of the Bible, and those who regard :their interpretations as being "what the Bible says" are prone to :accuse Orthodox of rejecting Scripture just because they do not :accept a relatively recent Protestant interpretation. This, :however, is not the same as the Orthodox actually giving their :Tradition supremacy over the Bible. If this is the case then your interpretations have to be better than our ones. Let's check it in a debate! If you don't place the traditions above Scriptures then you will be glad to discuss matters of Scriptural importance without stating beforehand "I have the proper interpretation". If your interpretation is really better than mine then you can refute me without such an unequal start. Of course, I read your letter about the so-called purgatory, although, I don't know how, the citations from Fathers on your side may have been lost somewhere on the net. >The ancient Church didn't do so. She divided the "good" >writings into two: divine and human. :The *ancient* Church did not begin with writings at all, apart :from the Septuagint. As I recall from the New Testament class I :took at the evangelical Christian College I attended, the Church :was at least ten years old before the first of the New Testament :epistles was even written, let alone being accepted by the Church :as Scripture. Again, re-reading my stuff, I don't find "begin" anywhere here. Address the question. Canon is what measures, not what is measured. The ........ Church "decided" to "set it up". Why? In order to have something to interpret infallibly? Or to be faithful to it, which is manifest by thew custom of applying it to discern wheat from chaff? :When you mention the division of the writings into canonical and :non-canonical, you are talking about something that was performed :by the (later) Church councils. Are you holding up the councils :as the way things ought to be in the Christian church? I hope :so! :-) It was "decreed" then but the division of the above writings didn't wait until Carthage. It was in process since the beginning, after the first forgeries and heretical treatises appeared. And councils didn't determine the canon; they only recognized it. Thus when they didn't have a torch they indeed erred, for example when the dogma was issued that statues are to be venerated. Of course you state the contrary: that the other council, decreeing the opposite, erred. Then even you can find an errant council, so how do you expect me to find none? >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. :Oh, please. This is an insult! When did any Orthodox leader or :theologian ever say that anyone could best understand God's will :by ignoring Moses and the Prophets and listening to the Pharisees? :You need to make a very clear distinction here between Orthodox :Christians and whoever it is you are referring to as "traditionalists" :here! By traditionalists I usually mean "Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian believers". And no distinction is needed, as the Roman Catholics forbade Bible reading by sword when they could. In Toulouse (1222) they said that translating the Bible into "vernacular" is to be punished. Thus they didn't make any difference between heretical versions, which are usually referred to as the cause of the ruling, and other non-Catholic versions, which became forbidden by this decree on the mere ground of their having been written in the "vernacular". Although Jerome said "Not knowing the Scripture is equal to not knowing Christ", pope Clement XI condemned the propositions: ~It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for ~every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety ~and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture. ~The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all. ~The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is not reason for the laity ~to dispense themselves from reading it. ~The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings ~of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful ~for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading. ~It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries ~of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of ~Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the ~proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of Scripture, and have ~heresies been born. ~To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to ~hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of ~understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ. ~To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, ~is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them ~to suffer a kind of excommunication. (From the errors of Paschasius Quesnel, condemned in the dogmatic Constitution Unigenitus, Sept. 8, 1713, #79-#86, Denzinger 1429-36.) After these anathemas, I don't find my words any more insulting than that of Abraham to Lazarus. For those very scribes who vaunt of their Mosaic succession, are the ones who claim attention and reverence, with the exclusion of Scripture. :Let's not forget that Moses and the prophets were men who were :given their authority from God. They did not derive their :authority from any writings (as the Pharisees tried to do). No, the Pharisees sought their authority in the Mosaic succession. :On the contrary, the authority of Moses' writings was derived from :the fact that God gave authority to Moses as a living prophet. :And the same for all the other prophets. The authority of Moses was confirmed by miracles. The authority of the prophets was evident by their faithfulness to the law (Deut 13: 1-5). Many prophets were persecuted, killed and their message discredited by those in high positions. So if no miracles are seen, it is not mere claims that decide but loyalty to Scripture. And even in the presence of miracles, the same was determinant. :In the same way, God did not give to the Church *only* the Bible :(Latin: sola Scriptura). Sola Scriptura asserts that we find God's pure, inspired Word in the written Bible, and what is outside of it has to be judged by it. Not that "God didn't give anything but the Bible". Yes, He gave, but He didn't intend them to be above Scripture. You should revise your late Protestant theology, abandoned on your conversion to Orthodoxy. It seems that you are fighting against the nightmares you imagine based on your new religion instead of questioning Sola Scriptura. :As the Tradition says, the Lord gave to the Church "some, apostles; :and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and :TEACHERS" (Eph. 4:11, emph. mine). He didn't just give them the :"textbook," He gave them divinely-appointed teachers to explain :to them the correct interpretation of the writings. These teachers :learned their interpretations from the Apostles, who in turn learned :them from the Lord Himself. He gave apostles who were known by longsuffering and miracles (2Cor 12:12). True teachers are known by their faithfulness to the apostolic message. If the mere assertion that "I am a teacher, so I am right" were enough for the preservation of sound doctrine then the apostles would never have written down the gospels. :Some teachers did come in who were false teachers, and some :Pharisees did try to make their twisted interpretation of the Old :Testament worth more than the Old Testament itself, but this does :not disprove the fact that God *did* give true teachers and :leaders to the Church. He gave; this urges us to ask the question: who are these true teachers? Those who say that they were taught by those who were ... taught by Moses? These are called Pharisees. >But then, what gain does he have from it? If the blind leads >the blind, both will fall into the pit. :And that's just the point. Even a blind man can find his way in :familiar surroundings, but the Bible is not familiar territory :to the untaught--neither the sinner nor the new believer is :automatically endowed with a clear vision of the "true" meaning :of the Bible. Saint Peter went so far as to say that the :ignorant (literally "untaught") take the Scriptures and distort :them, to their own destruction. There is a difference between being taught by the Apostles and being taught by someone who makes himself the ultimate authority without any apostolic sign (2Cor 12:12), and admitting that the words of the apostles in the Bible are superior to their own oracles. :Those of us who dare admit that our natural condition is one of :blindness, even as new Christians, are less resistant to the :idea that we need to be guided in our explorations of the vast :territory which is the revealed Word of God. Indeed, this is :not a uniquely Orthodox perspective. Protestants routinely meet :new converts with "counselors" and "new believers' class" to make :sure they don't develop any non-Protestant interpretations as :they read the Bible. The problem is that everyone who explores the Bible with lying guides, remains unaware of some of its parts, or the opposite, he strayes beyond its borders. The Bible has definite borders of revelation, independent of our knowledge or ignorance thereof. We try to apply biblical guidelines to teach the new-born babes. You apply your own inventions to this goal, while you go on terming this method "apostolic tradition". :From a practical perspective, both Orthodox and Protestants :recognize the need for living teachers to "guide" new :converts--and even more experienced Christians--in learning how :to interpret Scripture. Protestants have just as many sermons, :just as many Sunday School classes, just as many tracts, and just :as many seminaries as the Orthodox. The *fact* of tradition is :no less dominant in Protestantism. Protestant tradition just :doesn't go back as far. Protestant tradition (non-Biblical expressions, confessions, sermons, Sunday School classes etc.) declare themselves to be founded on the Scripture, and that they can be amended and corrected from Scripture. Nothing like being "the only proper context for the written Word" or "the rest of apostolic teaching which was omitted from the Bible". Orthodox tradition is alleged to be both of the above. So there is no ground for likening your traditions to ours. From: MX%"manutter@linklore.com" 21-OCT-1996 Subj: Re: Sola Scriptura >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. :A "biblical fact," eh? Do you mean you know of a Scripture :somewhere that says "It is much easier to pervert the true :teaching when it is preserved only in an oral form"? (Not of :course that the Holy Tradition is preserved only in an oral :form!) Or are you going beyond "Sola Scriptura" for this? :Not that it's necessarily a bad idea to do that, of course. :-) It's apparent you are getting tired of my style and stubbornness. What I stated to be a biblical doctrine is that not because of my assertion, so you can't accuse me of going beyond Scripture just because of this. Moses had to write down the law in order that no one could have an excuse in its piercing light. The law is promised to last forever, and the leaders are commanded to obey it, and are prophesied to abandon it some time later. :By the way, Deut. 31:26-27 doesn't say that oral tradition is :easier to pervert than written tradition, it says that the :rebellious Israelites weren't going to get any better just by :being given a written Law. Which sounds to me like more of a :contradiction of the sufficiency of sola Scriptura. Yet despite this foreseen wandering from the truth, God decided to teach them by the written Law, and not by the unwritten Mosaic traditions. Do you assert that with some additional traditions their dissention could have been avoided? Address God with this charge. Do you say that they in fact were given traditions beside the Law, but they were deceived all the same? Then give me these additional precepts, and show me why they are more effective than the Law. Warning: the Prophets and the other Writings are not good examples, as they aren't unwritten Mosaic traditions. Again, you subconsciously put into my mouth what I have never said: that Sola Scriptura means that by mere Scripture heresies can be avoided. Heretics will emerge anyway, whether under the Scripture or under the tradition. It is prophesied as a sure future event. Deut 31:26 ff proves that God gave the Law in order to testify against the wickedness of the nation, unveil their machinations, deter them from wrongdoing, threaten them with punishment. All subsequent generations are being threatened and exhorted, and exposed to the just divine judgment by the record of these words into the books of Moses. This is Sola Scriptura: God uses an incorruptible and unbiassed means to govern his people, and He bids the leaders, even the mightiest ones, to follow the precepts of the written Law (Joshua 1,7-8). A divinely appointed king also had to realize in Scripture that his whole "clergy", to whom the "infallible interpretation" of the Word of God had been entrusted, despite the mere fact of the commission, sacrilegiously went astray (2Kgs 22:8ff). Paul says "What the Law says, it says to those under law, so that all mouths be shut and the world fell under the judgment of God." (Rom 3:19) >:especially considering that "oral" tradition is a misnomer: >:the "oral" tradition itself is frequently written down in the >:patristic literature. >Why do you need this "especially" argument? It seems to >undermine your case. :Actually, it serves to clarify the precise nature of my :disputation. If you will forgive me a little rhetorical :license, I was not merely responding to your claim that an oral :tradition is easier to modify than a written one--I was also :responding to your implicit assertion that Holy Tradition is :purely and exclusively oral. Indeed many parts of it had to be purely oral for a long time, considering that the first explicit patristic mention of infant baptism is that of Irenaeus and Tertullian (the latter in the negative); the first occurrence of the Eucharist as a sacrifice is in Didache; the first Theotokos was written down by Origen. Priestly celibacy was decreed first in Elvira (cca. 300). Mary's alleged perpetual virginity is first mentioned by Tertullian - in the negative (De monog. 8.). Origen was the first to accept it, if we don't count the apocryphal and fabulous proto-"evangelium" of "James". :As for oral teaching being easier to pervert, this depends on the :circumstances. If we're talking about primitive tribesmen :telling stories around the tribal campfire, and having that :story change over the course of a few hundred years because it is :never written down, then it is fair to say that oral tradition :can be less "fixed" than a written manuscript. :This is not the situation we have in the apostolic Church, :however. Let's compare the apostolic Church to sola Scriptura: :the apostolic Church had living teachers who had graduated from :a "seminary" program which consisted of following Jesus and being :taught by Him all day long, seven days a week, for three years. :Not only did they learn from His oral teaching, but they also :received special inspiration from the Holy Spirit to help them in :their teaching (both oral and written). These apostles spent :the next few decades travelling the Roman Empire, orally :preaching and teaching authoritatively and specifically. That apostolic Church also had to suffer the pestilence of those who claimed to be apostles, yet they were wicked workers, worshippers of their bellies, enemies of Christ's cross, indulging in evil, boasting of their authority, terrorizing the congregations, demanding obedience on the grounds of their self-asserted apostleship (2Cor 11: 12-15). True apostles left behind some epistles and gospels so that everyone could check if some assertion was of sound doctrine (Luke 1:4). :Left over from that era of almost exclusively oral teaching, we :have a couple dozen letters--a handful of documents which can be :comfortably read aloud, in their entirety, in a few hours. Out of the prophetic messages in the OT, we have but tiny little compilations of oracles. Moses, after having received the divine commands, wrote them into a book (Deut 31:9). To avoid superfluous accusations, I didn't say that this book was either one of the 5 books of Moses. Yet it was a book. The priests could read it out aloud within seven days (Deut 16:13, 31:11, Neh 8:18). So your evasion about the length of the canonical corpus compared to the possible amount of apostolic speech, has to be dropped. No one has preserved these hypothetical traditions in their alleged original purity. The Fathers, if you insist on them, could have learned some bits and pieces from it, but have not maintained the original character of infallibility. You admitted that no church father is infallible on his own. Indeed, they often contradicted each other. When they came together, they often erred, eg. the council which condemned Athanasius and favoured Arius. If you try to make all fathers assemble together under the banner of "historical Church", then you are opposed by other traditionalists who claim that some of your chosen fathers are heretics (eg. Eusebius of Caesarea, who was semi-Arian, or Tertullian, who became Montanist), and you didn't call some worthy ones (eg. Thomas Aquinas or the pope Leo the Great who wanted to subjugate the council of Chalcedon). :Those who have read these letters have produced religious :groups ranging from the Lutherans to the Presbyterians to the :Anabaptists to the charismatics to the Quakers to the Mormons. :In fact, take almost any sect or denomination in Western :civilisation, and odds are very good that they will appeal to :the written Bible as support for their particular doctrines. They will appeal to it, but it won't justify their claims. They will isolate scriptures for their purposes, but they can't escape from being labelled liars by this same Scripture. :Now, if you want to argue that it was easier to pervert Christian :doctrine in the presence of living Apostles that it is to get :heretical interpretations by taking the written Word in isolation :from anyone else's teaching, I'd like to hear your line of :reasoning. We know that "in the presence of living apostles" many poisonous heresies arose, and we know it from Scripture. That a great variety of heresies sprung from Sola Scriptura, is just your claim. Actually these later heresies came about through the rejection of Sola Scriptura, that is, through inventing private traditions, and studying the Bible in the "light" of the traditions of the former generations. :It seems to me that iSOLAted SCRIPTURA is the primary :methodology of every cult that tries to make its teaching the :"true understanding" of the Bible, and in this sense the :*written* tradition is much easier to pervert than if you tried :to alter the centuries-old curriculum of the many many seminaries :in which the Orthodox Tradition is carried on. It is obvious to me that APOSTATIC ADDITION is the basic weapon of those denominations which strive to make their beliefs the only suitable context in which the written Word of God can be "properly understood". In this sense the notion of *oral* tradition is the necessary prerequisite of the straying from the infallible teaching which is contained in the inspired written Word of God. >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? :I'm not pursuing "non-orality." You said that oral teaching was :easier to pervert than written teaching. Under some circumstances, :this might be true. Under other circumstances, though, written :teaching is easier to pervert than the living (oral) teaching of a :living, authoritative teacher. You left out "infallible" and "inspired" from before "teacher". A "living" teacher who claims "authority" but who is not infallible and inspired in his teaching cannot infallibly interpret the inspired Scriptures. Protestants choose the better part: they admit their fallibility and proneness to errors, so that God could correct them with His infallible Word. (Heb 4:12-13) The divine appointment of the real apostles was manifest through longsuffering and miracles (2Cor 6:4-10, 12:12). The allegedly authoritative successors cannot come up with such attributes, thus they have to preach themselves (2Cor 4:5). :The best means of preserving the :truth of the Gospel, however, is not to choose oral-only or written- :only, but a combination of the two--the pure apostolic teaching :recorded in the written Tradition, and protected against misinter- :pretation by a living Tradition, an ongoing "seminary" of living :teachers who learn both the Bible and its historic Christian :interpretation from their forebears, in direct historical succession :all the way back to the Apostles who originally wrote it. Theoretically. By the way, this line of reasoning interestingly resembles that of the Pharisees. (Mk 7:3,4,13) >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. :And to measure how well they follow--or diverge from--the :Apostolic Tradition. Oh, to measure! How can we dare to "measure" those diligent seminary students of the apostles? How do we take the licence to give some of them bad marks, as if we were the apostles who taught them? Remember, they are the stewards of the apostolic tradition, and we are the learners! We must say that some of them were ignorant pupils and are unreliable teachers! But exactly who are the trustworthy Fathers? Or isn't there such a category, but only smaller boxes as "reliable interpreters of Filioque"; "authoritative expounders of papacy"; "faithful stewards of the treasury of the Church" (it refers to the so- called indulgences, which are the means to liberate the so- called poor souls from the so-called purgatory)? Who designs the labels of the boxes, that is, the emphatic points of the faith (or heresy)? You? Me? The pope? The fathers? Those very fathers who become authoritative by their entrance into one or more of the boxes? Do they themselves decide on the issue which of them is authoritative? Or are they all authoritative? A complete chaos is the result of the gigantic council of the Fathers. >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), :There is nothing in Jude about "NT revelation" being given "once :for all" to the saints. Unless of course by "NT revelation" you :mean the oral teaching. Jude says "the FAITH" is what was once :for all delivered to the saints. Now unless you want to say that :the apostles had not been given "the Faith" until *after* they :wrote the Scriptures (in which case the New Testament would have :to have been written by apostles who had not yet been given the :Faith), I think you'll have to admit that Jude's reference is in :fact a reference to a non-written Faith being given once-for-all :to the saints. A wide shot. I didn't intend my reference to decide whether the primary form of faith was oral or not. Rather to hedge my bets against traditionalistic claims like "councils had the collective mind of the Church, they are the bearers of the faith which had been once for all entrusted to the saints, thus they have to be paid heed to as divine oracles." If they were so wise, then why weren't all the conciliar decisions unanimous? This is clear in the following lines of mine which you happened to separate from the previous ones, and treat as independent of them. Sure, you managed to avoid the obligation to answer the question posed, but if you are right then it's not the best way to prove it. >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. :Acts 15 does not say that the decision was unanimous. As we see :from the first few verses of Acts 15, the circumcision party was :at the council, And that they were overcome by arguments. The decree itself says that it was unanimously accepted (Acts 15:22,25). You are making the apostles liars. :and the rest of Acts bears abundant witness to the fact that the :circumcision party opposed and continued to oppose the decision :of the rest of the Council at Jerusalem. Just as Peter acted, even after having contributed to the decree of the council. The difference is that he didn't resist the just rebuke of Paul who, in turn, referred to the event by which some- thing, probably the dividing wall, was destroyed (Gal 2:18). And the circumcision party later, when they began to insist on the Law again, acted against the revealed will of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28), which they acknowledged to be true when they ceased to raise objections. And they returned to their vomit when they revoked their true conviction, sinking back into the law, and trying to bind those whom the Lord had made free (Gal 5:1). My question is still without answer: your councils are alleged to have assembled in the Holy Spirit, just as in Acts 15. They claim the power of pronouncing new doctrines, although in Acts 15 nothing like this happened, rather the apostles lowered the amount of oblig- ations imposed on the Gentile Christians. And you couldn't refute my argument that the decision was unanimous. So my argument still stands: if you have the same operation of the Holy Spirit, then why doesn't He enforce the same unanimosity in your councils? :The Council's decision was unanimous in that all contrary doctrines :were, by that decision, rendered non-orthodox, and thus the Council's :decision was unanimous among all _orthodox_ Christians. It was unanimous among all participants (Acts 15:22,25). Refute this. :It doesn't seem too difficult to me to prove that all the other :Church Councils were at least as "unanimous" as the Jerusalem Council. It is. Not always did all the participants agree on the final decision. And sometimes even the "Church Councils" erred, eg. the Arian synods. ------ :By the way, I must confess, I'm having some trouble responding to :your arguments because of the way you seem to be defining :"tradition." It is not the nature of Holy Tradition that every :Christian is automatically and instantly given a complete and :infallible understanding of every issue related to the meaning :and application of the Scriptures. So you have to cull the truth from the divergent opinions of men. That's what I call private interpretation of the patristic writings. :The nature of Holy Tradition is exactly parallel to the nature of :the written part of the Tradition, i.e. the Bible itself. Not at all. Differences in manuscripts came about through lack of attention or events of this weight. Contradictions within the tradition have been existing since the ink having dried on the original patristic writings, one by one. :Do you feel that it is impossible for the Bible to be the Word of :God, because of the fact that some of the early NT manuscripts-- :indeed most of them--contain variant readings? None of the :ancient manuscripts contains 100% of the generally-accepted :readings behind our modern translations. I can't believe that textual variants reach that level of contradiction as that of the Fathers. :You seem to feel you have "discredited" the Tradition, to your :own satisfaction, by showing variations within the tradition. Not variations. Serious internal contradictions. Tatian turned encratite. He was an early Church Father. Origen - reincarnationist. Tertullian - Montanist. Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyprian, Caesar of Arles et al. - so-called-purgatory-ists. Etc. :Those same variations exist within the history of the transmission :of the text of Scripture, Not the same variations. Much milder ones. And despite your efforts, patristic literature will continue to be laden with confusion, for it is sullied from the beginning (that is, since the writing down). On the other hand, the Bible miraculously becomes self-consistent when you compare the manuscripts and the various parts. :however, yet I daresay you do not regard the Bible to be as thoroughly :disproven as you seem to think the rest of the Tradition is. No, I don't. Textual variations extend to some words or prepositions in the vast majority of the cases, and the difference between the parts of the tradition includes whole doctrines. ------ >And of course, you just assert that >the "oral" tradition itself >is frequently written down in the patristic literature.< :For what it's worth, I also assert that the oral tradition of the :Apostles is written down in the Bible. ...more clearly. After all, it is the Word of God, isn't it? And you want me to interpret the pure with the mixed. No, thanks. >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. :Great heavens! Next you'll be saying Jesus was female. Oh, no. Don't be afraid :) Mt 1:25 suggests the opposite. :How can you come to conclusions that are such direct :contradictions of what things *mean*? Say what? Enlighten my poor mind with regard to this contradiction, please. So far I am unable to locate where my error lies. :I hardly know where to begin with this statement. Let's start :with "apostolic tradition." Apostolic tradition is that which :was taught by the apostles. Nothing can *become* apostolic :tradition by any means other than by being taught by the :Apostles. "Purgatory" cannot *become* apostolic tradition :except by having the Apostles teach it. You apply your preconceived notions to the things which are fiercely debated. "Apostolic tradition", in my previous sarcastic lines, meant "compulsory doctrine for the Orthodox Christians". As I am accustomed to put it, it stands for "present Orthodox dogmas". Until I see them congruent with the real teaching of the apostles, I will go on viewing "Apostolic Tradition" as an empty label on one's doctrines. In this sense, there is a serious danger of the so-called purgatory becoming compulsory teaching for you, as it occurs in many pieces of patristic literature, and its refutation never. :Private interpretation is what Protestants advocate. No. We advocate biblical interpretation. :Orthodox do not do it, or at least do not claim it as legitimate :spiritual authority over Apostolic teaching. Holy Tradition is, :by definition, something that happens publicly, not privately, in :the life of the living Church as a whole. An unidentifiable concept, "the living Church as a whole". Didn't the writings of Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa and others fit the requirements of this understanding of tradition when they invented the so-called purgatory? These fathers, as you may know, were quite authoritative persons of their age. And you cannot produce any contemporary patristic refutation of this pestilential patristic heresy. Thus it becomes apostolic tradition (=compulsory doctrine for the Orthodox and other traditionalists), or if you don't like the word "become", it proves to have always been apostolic doctrine (=doctrine which you are obliged to revere as apostolic) by the unanimous testimony of the Fathers. :Individual Christians :do not have the right to make their private interpretations part :of the Holy Tradition. Not even the Pope has this right. Holy :Tradition can be understood better, can be explained in more :detail, but it cannot be changed by later generations. That exactly is the reason why the nefarious heresy of the so-called purgatory has to be apostolic tradition. Augustine, Caesar of Arles, Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory and others didn't invent it, neither did they distort some sound doctrine in order to achieve this impious dogma, but they "understood the formerly undeveloped and implicit references better, and explained them in more detail". Isn't this speech familiar? :Holy Tradition is that which is preserved, not added to. Over :the years, it has "flowered" and brought forth many fruits that :were inherent within it all along, but it is an error to try and :add to it. In fact, the doctrinal basis for the split between :the Eastern and Western branches of the Church stems from the :West's attempt to add the "filioque" clause to the Tradition. The so-called purgatory is a "flower on the tree of the tradition", and not an addition to it. The so-called indulgences are the "fruit which it brought forth", and not a new doctrine. Refute it from the Fathers. :For anyone to speak of some doctrine "becoming" apostolic :tradition only makes them appear not to understand what the :Holy Tradition, by definition, is. The Holy Tradition, as you use it, is a theoretical thing. You have to squeeze it from many conflicting patristic writings, then throw the rest out. This is the process which I meant above. >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 interpretation, exercised by the high priests >of a certain denomination. :The leaders of the Orthodox Church, however, are the Apostles and :their successors, It's questionable. That the apostles are your leaders is just an allegation which turns out to be false when comparing their dogmas with the writings of the apostles. And that your leaders are the successors of the apostles is another allegation, etc. :a factor that I see as the crucial "tie-breaker" :in this supposed stalemate. Protestantism's difficulty is that :they try to derive authority for their doctrines from the Bible, :while denying the possibility that a true understanding of this :Bible could be preserved within the authoritative succession :established by the Apostles who wrote the New Testament. If we found this "true understanding" and "authoritative succession" speech in the Bible, we adhered to it. Yes, "true understanding" is mentioned, yet no "authoritative succession" but only "faithful succession." No blank cheque for those of whom just the name is bishop. :At least the "high priests" of Orthodoxy have a direct, unbroken, :historical and doctrinal succession back to the writers of the :Scriptures. Doctrinal? I doubt it. Historical? You probably have in mind Acts 20:30, where the historical character isn't denied, but the other one is. I myself am willing to accept that some leaders now are the successors of those stubbornly persisting in error, that is, those savage wolves in Acts 20:30 who, after their apostasy, insisted upon their authority in order to have their heresies accepted as apostolic tradition. :The "high priests" of Protestantism not only lack this succession, :they lack consistent doctrinal unity with the historical Christian :faith, We lack it with your denomination, but have it with the apostles. The proof is the Bible. :and with each other. We lack the visible bond of unity, alas. We lack some external masks which you describe as indispensable, yet not found in the Bible. However, our compulsory doctrines are closer to each other than between Orthodoxy and RCism. You will never accept the Vatican decree on the papal supremacy, will you? Roman Catholics will never revoke it. We, conversely, can agree on the Eucharist, on predestination, on spiritual gifts, on church discipline, etc. :To the extent that they conform to the historic Christian under- :standing of the Bible, they become unified, and Orthodox. To the extent that we conform to the biblical understanding of the Bible, we become unified, and orthodox. :But it is hardly worth all the trouble of trying to tear down :Orthodoxy if you are only going to end up becoming Orthodox :yourself. We don't strive to harm orthodoxy. We just look behind the name with which you cover your denomination. It makes the difference. >: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. > >I don't see your point. Do you consider this approach erroneous? :I consider this approach to be a direct application of "sola :Scriptura." It is. >Or are these denominations heretical despite their principles? >I doubt that they were really loyal to these principles. :That's what Protestants ALWAYS say about each other. That's the :point. Everybody claims to believe in sola Scriptura, and :everybody explains their lack of doctrinal unity by accusing the :others of not being really loyal to the principles of sola :Scriptura. "The problem isn't sola Scriptura, it's just that all :those *other* guys aren't really applying it right." And each of :the 20,000 different denominations has a different concept of :what the "right" way is. That's what traditionalists ALWAYS say about each other. That's the point. Everybody claims to believe in Apostolic Tradition, and everybody explains their lack of doctrinal unity by accusing the others of not being really loyal to the principles of Apostolic Tradition. "The problem isn't Apostolic Tradition, it's just that all those *other* guys aren't really applying it right." And each of the two denominations separated since 1054 has a different concept of what the "right" way is. And try to count all the heresies before 1517. They were just as divided as today's Protestant denominations. And the reason for their disappearance is not doctrinal but political. Further on all your arguments apply to them with "tradition" instead of "Sola Scriptura". :The churches of Christ, since you seem to be unfamiliar with :them, have a number of doctrines which they claim to be the :result of faithfully speaking where the Bible speaks and being :silent where Scripture is silent. Let's verify them. :These doctrines include the idea that you have to be baptized :to be saved, The RCC holds this as well. Unbaptized can enter heaven by the "baptism of desire", as they say. Never mind that the desire is lacking: they need a formula by which they can maintain their dogma about the absolute necessity of baptism. :you have to take communion every Sunday, Even those who are forbidden to do so because of a sin? These guys contradict 1Cor 11:27-30. :but will lose your salvation if you take communion any other day, So the apostles lost it. They feasted on Thursday. :instrumental music in worship is sinful, Then Ps 150 is not Scripture. :missionary societies are evil, and so are church-sponsored :orphan homes. Potatoes aren't mentioned in the Bible. Are they evil? This is where biblical principles have to be sought. Eg. Mt 28:19ff and Job 31:16-21. :I have heard individual members of the churches of Christ :--leaders, even!--go so far as to deny the bodily resurrection :of Christ, and the physical reality of His future return, :all in the name of sola Scriptura. Their reasoning? :You may say that they are not applying sola Scriptura correctly, :but guess what? they will say the same thing of you, and will :even deny that you are actually saved. Come on, give their arguments, either I or they should be wrong! >Do you agree with the Scholastics who thought that based on our >God-given ability to think, we can deduce spiritual things about >God? :Certainly not. One of the primary differences between :Protestantism is that Protestants believe they can just read the :words of Scripture and think about them and deduce the truth :about spiritual things--even things not explicitly written-- Not to "deduce the truth". We cannot, as we aren't infallible. Rather to obtain guiding. We may miss the guiding, of course, but we don't go ahead stiffnecked and say "we are right". :whereas Orthodoxy insists that an understanding of the truth :can only be imparted by direct personal contact with God We too. :and with living teachers who have gotten their understanding in :direct succession from teacher to teacher all the way back to :the Apostles. Whom you select according to your taste, so that the so-called purgatory shouldn't be compulsory to believe. >And where did they end up? In pharisaic debates about "how >many angels can dance on the tip of a pin simultaneously?". :Just as modern Protestants are locked in endless debates about :the mode and meaning of baptism, infant baptism, mode and meaning :of communion, prophecy, spiritual gifts, and innumerable other :interpretational issues, enough to split up into 20,000 different :churches over. This is the inevitable result of the the :Scholastic roots of Protestant theology. Just as the Fathers with their manifold opinions. You, indeed, have to pour their writings through a sieve, but we can look up things in the Bible instead. And the main difference between Protestants and the Scholastic sophists is that we begin with the Word of God, and they begin with their traditions and their opinions. >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) :Ah yes, one of my favorite verses. You know what the worst :problem with sola Scriptura is? People claim to build their :belief on sola Scriptura, but they don't limit themselves to only :what is written. Instead they read a verse, and then state an :idea that is not actually written, and then claim that their idea :is what the Bible "says." Try to refute it or give a different explanation. Text, context and the analogy of faith can decide if any of them is right. :Here's a simple test you can use to tell whether or not you are :really being faithful to sola Scriptura: take any doctrine you :are interested in, and try to express that idea using only :verbatim quotations from Scripture. Mark, I never used this "Sola Scriptura" of your devising. Actually, no one can use it who doesn't know Hebrew and Greek. He is unable to be literal in the quotation; he must pick a translation. Next time include this among your arguments. :This is not a 100% reliable test, because it is possible to :use quotations out of context to say things that aren't :Scriptural doctrine. True. You are gradually discovering the basic principles of Sola Scriptura (the real one). Now you recognized the importance of context. :It _is_ 100% effective, however, in detecting doctrines that claim :to be Scriptural, but which are not actually written in the Bible. :Any doctrine that you cannot express by reading only verbatim :quotations from the Bible is not a doctrine written in Scripture, :and therefore "sola Scriptura" requires you to reject it as :authoritative doctrine. Of course. That is what I said as "we can err". Just as the Fathers can. :Passing this test does not prove that a doctrine *is* authoritative, :but failing it proves conclusively that it is not. Excellent. Extra-Scriptural doctrines never can become authoritative norms. They can be right, however, objectively. But as we are fallible and biassed humans, we can't make them equal in authority with Scripture. This is the way how the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error. :The actual in-context meaning of I Cor. 4:5-6 is left as an :exercise for the reader... :-) I see. You became a fan and advocate of private interpretation. And you accuse Protestants of the very thing that you actively do and suggest to them, while Protestants refuse it and cling to the biblical interpretation. So you judge your very errors when you point at us, voicing false accusations. >How does your example show that writing down the message is not >enough to prevent corruption of the original teaching? :Well, I'll admit that writing down a message is enough to provide :a reasonably pure record of an incomplete and useless form of the :message. If the message could even be *contained* by a written :message, however, then the Word would never have needed to be :made flesh--God could have just sent a letter. A pompous but empty argument. The Word became flesh in order to die. Heb 10:5-10. By the way, Moses and the prophets got a fairly complete message from God when the Word was not yet made flesh. :I don't think there is any serious debate about the fact that a :written message, in the absence of living teachers, is inadequate :to reliably *communicate* the original teaching across different :locations, times, cultures, and languages. Even Protestants know :that they have to use trained teachers, ministers, and missionaries :in order to communicate the meaning they intend to communicate. :What else are commentaries, tracts, sermons, and Sunday School :classes for? Written message is for checking the doctrines which are taught. >It just >shows that humans will always distort the truth of the Bible. :In the absence of living, authoritative teachers, yes. That's :why both Orthodox and Protestants have seminaries to preserve :their understanding of God's Word. That's why was the Word of God written down, to be available to everyone, so that no one could have an excuse of not having read it, or heard it being read aloud. >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. :Well, since you mention the Pharisees, I think it only fair to :remind you that the scribes and Pharisees are those who, having :no divinely appointed authority, attempted to exercise a derived :authority based on their study of God's Word. No, they were referring to their Mosaic succession. :The reason Jesus :condemned their tradition was because it was a derived :tradition, Every tradition is a "derived" one. However, the Pharisees derived it not from the OT (where it isn't written) but from the opinions of the ancients which they learnt from them in an ongoing seminary. :based on the idea that men with no special divine :inspiration can study God's Word and thereby establish spiritual :truth. No, they said that they could tell the truth because they sat in Moses' seat. :The origin of the Pharisaic interpretation, like the :origin of Protestant interpretations, is uninspired men sitting :down with God's written Word and trying to understand it without :any guide but their own intellect and experiences. Where do you know it from? Yes, the Pharisees weren't appointed by God, but neither are your bishops. Yes, Jesus condemned them, but not because they used the Scripture to justify their claims but because they annulled it with their traditions which they have passed on. And no matter what you think the origin of the Phari- saic heresy was, the important thing is that they stated they were sitting in the Chair of Moses, thus they claimed to have a similar way of succession to the one you claim to have. You indeed can't do anything but attempt to reverse the weapon with which I threaten you, but it's just you who says that the Pharisees were condemned for deriving their authority from the Scripture, while it's Jesus Christ testifying that they are condemned because they annulled the Word of God with their extra-OT traditions, while they claimed to be the successors of Moses, and to under- stand everything properly due to this. :And as for the "one massive heresy" charge, I can only respond :that if there is conflict between a 400-year-old Protestant :interpretation and a 2000-year-old historic Christian :interpretation, that says something about which side the heresy :would have to be on, eh? As Blaise Pascal wrote: "We respect the ancients as well, but revere truth high above them, no matter how "new" it is, for it's actually older than every opinon. And we would gravely misunder- stand the nature of truth if we said that it was born when people recognized it." By the way, the pagans, who have worshipped idols from the beginning, seem to have been the most inerrant ones in history. If they use their proof of antiquity, they will easily surpass the "historic Church". :Anyway, how could such a global heresy happen? Are you saying the :whole Christian church abruptly and without warning or debate :suddenly apostasized? Would Christ let that happen to His Body :without a fight? It decayed gradually, just as Israel. And it was prophesied in many places, so we don't wonder at all that the Reformation was needed. :When did this apostasy occur? Which of the Fathers do you judge :to be heretical apostates? Those who contradict the Bible. Eg. Irenaeus with his Eve-Mary parallel, by which he makes Mary the redeemer. He might have written several truthful things, but this one of him was erroneous. An excerpt from my post on src: |:Thus he has drawn out the parallel between Eve and Mary, urging that, |:"as the former was led astray by an angel's discourse to fly from God |:after transgressing His word, so the latter by an angel's discourse |:had the Gospel preached unto her that she might bear God, obeying His |:word. And if the former had disobeyed God, yet the other was persuaded |:to obey God: that the Virgin Mary might become an advocate for the |:virgin Eve. And as mankind was bound unto death through a virgin, |:it is saved through a virgin; by the obedience of a virgin the dis- |:obedience of a virgin is compensated" (Irenaeus, V, 19). | |The parallel is of no worth. I could apply it to Abraham too. He also |let God convince him of becoming the ancestor of Christ. And of him |we see written "In YOU shall all generations of the earth be blessed". |So if the ancestrial link to Christ is what matters then Abraham, the |"forefather of God", undoubtedly deserves the same veneration as Mary, |moreover, he is to be given more, as he is a necessary precursor to |Mary. Without him, Mary couldn't have been born. | |And Irenaeus shamelessly distorts Paul's words in Rom 5:18-19: | |"Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to |"condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] |"upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedi- |"ence many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be |"made righteous. | |For the sake of an ill parallel (whose aim is just to complete the |words of Paul, but vainly, as Mary wasn't the wife of Christ, and |Eve wasn't semper virgo), Irenaeus attributes our salvation to Mary. | |Paul says that the disobedience of Adam caused our sin. Doing this, he |doesn's exclude Eve from the responsibility, just stresses the primary |role of Adam as the husband. This is necessary for him to draw an anti- |parallel with Christ. And if we accept that "mankind was bound unto death |through a virgin" then it mustn't be argued that Eve only assisted Adam |in the fall. She, according to Irenaeus, brought sin into the world. |Thus Irenaeus proposes that Mary is the redeemer: "by the obedience |of a virgin the disobedience of a virgin is compensated." Again, even you can find fault with Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory of Nyssa, Caesar of Arles, Augustine and Leo the Great, as I see it from your response to my letter about the so-called purgatory. It's a weird attitude, therefore, to rebuke me for the same thing which you do. :Any of the ones who picked which :books to call Scripture? I would have thought that if the :leaders of the Church were apostates trying to subvert the :genuine teaching of the Gospel, you wouldn't want them deciding :which books were and were not to be considered authoritative! They didn't decide on it. They expressed their opinion about it. Sometimes incorrectly, see the multiple and conflicting canons. :On the other hand, if the Church were still faithful to the :apostolic teaching at the time they decided which books they :wanted to call canonical, then we have a considerable body of :Tradition that is not heretical after all, n'est-ce pas? Oui. The biblical part of it. >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). :I can't say whether you've understood or not. The teaching of :the Apostles is whatever the Apostles taught, written or oral :(2 Th 2:15). This passage speaks about the Apostle's two way of communicating with the Thessalonians: in writing and by word of mouth. Sola Scriptura is not Sola 1 and 2 Thessalonians, so if you can't precisely tell me what Paul taught orally to them, then I'll suppose that it's basically written down elsewhere in the NT. :The Apostles were not men who were inspired by God :whenever they wrote and inspired by Satan whenever they spoke. Yet their writings are the Word of God, and their unwritten words have to be mined from under mountains of patristic stuff, even allowing that they aren't contained elsewhere in the NT. :They were the authoritative leaders of the Church, and the vast :majority of their teaching was oral (just as *all* of Jesus' :teaching was oral), but some of it was written. With the purpose of later becoming the official canon. Do you accuse your Church of oblivion when she recognized only a "part" of the "Apostolic Tradition" as the authoritative Word of God? She had time to cull it from chaff! That she didn't, proves that additional apostolic tradition is just a bluff, it never existed. :You seem to be trying to frame the issue as a choice between the :oral teaching of the Apostles or their written teaching, as :though the two were hostile to each other. From my perspective, :it is an error to divide up the Apostles' teaching and then :discard the greater part of it, especially if you claim to do it :on the basis of sola Scriptura: nowhere in the Bible does it :tell us to pick parts of the Apostles' teaching to reject! You are mistaken gravely. I do not accuse the apostles of contra- dicting themselves, but I find the present traditionalist denomi- nations unfaithful to the apostolic teaching. Traditionalists usually refer to their dogmas as "apostolic", but it doesn't become a proven truth just by their assertion. Actually they make ill use of the fact that the apostles taught orally: under this pretext they dream to have all their imaginations accepted as holy, unquestionable truth. This is against which I strive, not the apostolic doctrine. This makes a great difference. I see that the easiest way for you to overcome my arguments is to assert that I am attacking the "oral teaching of the apostles". Now you have to realize that your attempts are unveiled. Pick other arguments.