>:Yet Sola Scriptura requires us to treat our understanding of >:Scripture as though it, too, were infallible. Does it not? > >No, it doesn't. It requires of us that we treated the Scripture >as infallible, and obeyed it. Why would obedience deem the slave >greater than his master? :And how can you obey the Scriptures without human understanding :intervening between you and the Scriptures you claim to obey? :Is it not fallible human understanding that is relaying to you :what it represents the commands of Scripture to be? If the :master has a slave in a distant city, and he sends a second :slave to tell the distant slave what to do, and if the messenger :delivers a different message than the one the master sent, :how shall the remote slave obey the commands of the master? :How will he know what those commands even are, except the :messenger slave transmit them correctly? And if the messenger :transmits garbled versions of the master's commands, which :version will the distant slave receive, the original commands :or the garbled version? This allegorical "proof" is immediately disposed of when I bring - for the thousandth time - Israel as a counter-example. Every interpretation of the Law was entrusted to Moses and the Prophets who, in turn, handed these precious traditions over to those indeed faithful slaves, the Pharisees. Why don't you obey them? :That is why it is so important not to mistake the messenger for the :master: if the messenger is known to garble messages, obeying the :commands delivered by the messenger does not guarantee that you :are obeying the commands originally issued by the master. Quite clear. But on what grounds do you declare a message garbled? Based on your own authority? Or on some reliable written record of the original message? :So you tell me: how is it possible to obey the infallible :Scriptures directly, without transmitting Scriptural commands :through the fallible and often distorting medium of human :understanding? No wise. Even your traditions are wont to distort much of the original message. The weightiest obstacle before our correct understanding arises in the very moment when a group of individuals declare themselves the heir to infallibility. If something guarantees error, then this does. ========================================================================== >...I could easily evade the question by demanding that the two >major traditionalist denominations first decided by whatever means which >one of them the Real Church is. But this I had been doing with no success >in our former correspondence, as you never parried it. :Well, it seemed like a trivial undertaking, so I had little interest :in it. Compare the Nicene Creed as agreed upon by both the Eastern :and Western branches of the Church at the Council of Nicea with the :Nicene Creed as preserved in the Western (Roman Catholic) Church and :the Eastern (Orthodox) Church today. The Eastern version has been :preserved; the Western version has been modified. More correctly: "explained more fully". You don't have any single Church Father to have expressly denied the Filioque. So your charge about "modification" is invalidated by the fact that you cannot explicitly refute it from your traditions. What is left for you is just a recourse to your interpretational faculties. You method is in no way better than ours. :The schism between East and West is not about which Church has "evolved" :doctrinally over the years: there's little room for denying the fact that :the Roman Catholic Church has generated new dogmas not [??] over the years, A proof by assertion. Although you assume that there is no ground to deny it, Roman Catholics all the same deny it. They cloak themselves with the usual traditionalistic shield-speech, viz. that they do not devise anything new or alien from the Apostolic Tradition, but only make explicit which had thus far been implicitly contained in the unchanging deposit of faith. Confute them if you can. They will retort that you don't offer positive proof but rely on patristic silence. :whereas the Orthodox Church has been defined by preserving, without :innovation, the Teaching of the Holy Apostles as preserved in Holy :Tradition. Another proof by assertion, being based on your own testimony. :The principal difference between East and West is that the Western :branch of the Church accepted the notion that it was possible to :derive new doctrines, not originally present in and preserved by :Holy Tradition, whereas the East rejected this idea. Have you never read the treatise of "St" Vincent of Lerins about the unchangeability of Catholic faith ("Commonitory")? Therein he laid down as a principle that only that doctrine can be deemed part of the Tradition which was "always, everywhere, unanimously" held by the faithful. He was a characteristically Western writer, and this saying of his was the most frequently obtruded upon the Reformers by Papalist advocates. (Despite he wrote this pamphlet of his against Augustine's predestination theories. It would be worthwhile to examine the East's disinterest, nay, negligence of predestination, which occasionally resulted in Eastern bishops acquitting the chief wolf, Pelagius.) Now you are trying to make them openly profess the opposite! Despite the fact that they practise the opposite (in this we agree), they will by no means yield in this question, as far as it concerns official declarations. :Over the course of centuries, this ideal led first to the schism :between East and West, and later on to the internal schisms of :Protestantism. Interestingly enough, it's you who go on depicting me as an itching- eared, simplistic fellow, while here you betray a much grosser ignorance regarding church history. The great schism was a result of a great number of historical, cultural, political, and of course theological differences. Protestantism, on the other hand, was divided into fractions because the notion of visibly united Church was buried among us as something smacking of Romanism. So our lamentable division is ascribable to a rigid anti-Romanist conviction. :Thus, the dispute between East and West is over the validity of :relying on methods other than Holy Tradition for dogma and practice. More precisely: the debate goes on what exactly the tradition is. Both parties vociferate the empty mask of "Apostolic Tradition", while they differ as to its content. But what else could one expect of men who have made their own caprice their only law and compass? :Protestants and Catholics are alike in accepting the validity of :doctrines that diverge from Holy Tradition--indeed, this notion :is at the root of pretty much all of the schisms from the East/West :split to the Catholic/Protestant split to the endless divisions :between Protestant groups. Mere assertion. Of course, you tend to identify "Tradition" with what Orthodoxy now believes, and exclude from it everything which you think to be Romish addition. Here you meet the opposition of the dissenting traditionalist party who maintain stubbornly that the correct understanding of Tradition is to be found with them. :I think I would be more justified in asking you to produce an agreement :between the various Protestant groups and the Roman Catholic Church as :to what these valid extra-traditional doctrines are than you are in :asking me to heal the schisms between East and West. For these "common" "extra-traditional" doctrines are just the products of your argumentation, I can hardly live up to your expectation here. First, we profess to follow Scripture, and not any hypothetical Tradition. Second, the Romanists, in their own opinion, have nothing apart from Tradition. Then come you triumphantly, and slap into our face your understanding about Tradition, to which we both have to conform first in order to be able to give an answer to your inquiry. I rephrase it for the sake of clarity: we and Roman Catholics don't maintain the same doctrines about the Bible and the tradition, whereas you and they do. It's just your "calumny" (of course well-founded, but not provable) against them that they violate Tradition by adding to it, so concerning official standpoints you are on the same platform with them. Of course I will never deny that the Orthodox are much closer to the original apostolic message (ie. the Bible) than Romanists. But the issue isn't whether I know it - rather that whether you can prove it to a Roman arguer. :The root of the East/West schism is precisely the same as the root :of the "sola scriptura" position you are defending: cut yourself :loose from the requirement of needing to agree doctrinally with the :understanding orthodox Christians have always had, and schism is :inevitable. Again a pathetic blunder. Romanists "have always stuck to the Apostolic Tradition", so your accusations missed them. And of course you gave us a wide shot too, as many of us declare orthodox exactly those who agree with us. So your requirement is met in both cases. :The number of new denominations will be limited only by the number :of people who have differing interpretations of Scripture, and the :will and charisma to establish a following. As history shows, that :is not much of a limit. Vain attempts to trample us under foot. Those ones who comprised the majority of the traditionalist denominations scarcely ever dealt actively and consciously with their own faith. They just followed the leaders. So your external unity is due to nothing but supine obedience to the "clergy" - a stolen name, as I have repeatedly proven. This theft, on the other hand, speaks volumes about the whole ground of your unity: when individuals begin to examine their faith, very seldom do they agree with what is prescribed for them. Ecclesiasticel subjects, at the very moment they start to treat themselves as Christians, and not mere members of their denomination, are usually frightened by their own temerity. =========================================================================== >A glaring example of this could be the books of Kings in the Bible: the >author criticizes the kings and the people based on the precepts of the >Law. Hence you have to judge the prophets with the same standard with >which you measure Sola Scriptura adherents, namely that they, when opposing >their religious governors with their "obey the Law" speech, were just >voicing their mere private interpretation of the Law. Yet it was faithful- >ness to the Law that authenticated true prophets, and not their own words. :My standard is that "sola Scriptura" implies the infallibility of the :interpreter. Where the interpreter is an inspired prophet, this is not :a problem. You seem to consider "inspiration" an indelible mark on one's forehead, upon recognizing which even kings must humble and bow down themselves. Instead, the most frequent answer was persecution. Apart from this, it is just you who polemically throws upon us the task of proving our infallibility. But we repeatedly refused to attribute such thing to ourselves, so you are chasing wind with your constant insistence that we provided proof of else yielded you the victory. :Where the interpreter is a fallible, uninspired mortal like you and :me, claims of "sola Scriptura" are misleading at best, most likely :presumptuous, and possibly downright idolatrous in identifying the :human interpretations of a mortal with the infallible teachings of God. These claims are not misleading to the least extent, as they refer to the Word of God as something to rely on (even traditionalists shy away from terming various pieces of extra-scriptural "Tradition" the Word of God) as compass. Further, as the Word of God is the Bible in our opinion, they are not even presumptuous, but wholly humble. As for confusing interpretation with the text, I refer you to Protestant textual commentaries. :The scribes and Pharisees were also faithful to the Law, at least as they :understood it. Can Protestants claim that they are not being faithful to :the word AS THEY UNDERSTAND IT? It is very easy to prove to one's own :satisfaction that one is being faithful to one's own understanding of :Scripture. Proving unity between one's own understanding and the :infallible teaching of God, however, is not something that can be :done in the absence of one's own infallibility. Your whole train of thought is hollow. Sola Scriptura says nothing about the "infallibility" of our understanding, but asserts that our understanding will be the least prone to error if it clings to the Word of God. Again, you don't call your patristic texts the Word of God. So we cannot be accused of idolatry on account of our identifying the Word of God with the Bible. On the other hand, the Pharisees professed a pointedly articulate variant of traditionalism. They explicitly relied on the traditions of the ancients. Thus your disingenuous attempts to rank us with them has repeatedly and spectacularly failed. They are your predecessors, not ours. =========================================================================== >:...Our approach has not >:been to "discover" and then argue for new doctrines, but rather to preserve >:"the faith delivered once for all to the saints." > >We do the same. What do you think: why do we read the Bible if not because >God speaks through it? In the meantime, we examine the understanding of >the primitive Church. Do you know a better source to draw water from? :Ah, so you examine the understanding of "the primitive Church"? That is :good. Do you also conform to it? Do you see any need to conform to such :an understanding? Do you reject the parts that seem "unscriptural" to you, :such as, for example, holding fast to the teaching of the Holy Apostles :"whether by word of mouth or by epistle"? Do you maintain understandings :that were not present in the primitive Church, such as the doctrine of :*sola* Scriptura? My intention with the phrase "primitive Church" was to offer another equivalent of "the Chruch as described in the Bible." So your above flood of questions are not relevant. Of course, due to my Biblical commitment, I look at patristic testimonies through the original and inspired messages. :No offense, but there's much more to Holy Tradition than just giving the :"primitive" Church a nod and a wave. If you're going to judge the early :Church's doctrine and practice on the basis of your own personal :understanding of Scripture, then your interest in the Church founded and :led by the Lord and His Apostles is not likely to be anything more than :academic. If your study of the original Church does not at least lead you :to an understanding and acceptance of the authority given to the Church and :to Holy Tradition, then whatever else you may discover is only going to be :so much cafeteria food for you to pick and choose according to your own :personal tastes. Again, see my explanation above. Further, you betray an excessive proneness to obfuscation by glossing over the simple fact that it is not just my taste that determines my decision, but the express written precepts of the Bible. =========================================================================== >:... if it's a doctrine that the Church has >:not heard before, it's not part of the Apostolic Teaching. > >This is no better than Sola Scriptura, as the method is the same. :Except that it encompasses the entire Apostolic Teaching referred to in :II Thess. 2:15. Sola Scriptura arbitrarily limits things to handful of :epistles that are explicitly declared to be "hard to understand," and that, :in isolation from Holy Tradition, are very often dangerously ambiguous. You pretend to seek the apostolic doctrine in the patristic corpus, under the weak pretext that not everything was contained in the letters to the Thessalonians. Moreover, not the epistles as a whole, but certain parts of them are labelled "hard to understand", so your vaunting collapsed again. By the way, I have several times referred to Paul commenting his own writing with questions clarifying his point, like "shall we sin so that grace may abound?" etc. - so if you still treat Paul's letters as obscure literature, I don't know what grounds you pretend to have for it. >But you traditionalists, having more material at your disposal, ie. more >stumbling blocks, more contradiction, more errors - have to wriggle more >intensely to disentangle yourselves from the bounds you wrapped yourselves >into. And this all is the result of an overly curious spirit which didn't >cease to seek knowledge even there where God's lips are closed. :As one who was born and raised a Protestant, educated in a conservative, :evangelical, Bible-believing college, and who has been an enthusiastic :evangelist, Sunday school teacher, and occasional author and preacher, for :almost 40 years, I have to say the irony in the above statement just about :kills me :-D Ascribe this feeling to your present denominational creed, not to your past. :Wriggling, twisting, contradictions--you really think the fruits of Holy :Tradition are worse than the fruits of sola Scriptura???? Where are the :20,000 sects of Orthodoxy, to equal the divisiveness, mutual contradiction, :and sometimes outright heresy that have resulted from making every man his :own authority for interpreting Scripture? Orthodox Christianity does have :its schisms, of course, just as it always has since the time St. Paul wrote :I Corinthians, but nothing to equal the uncontrollable chaos of :Protestantism! This "chaos" is still better than an irreformable hardening in one's heresy, to which opportunity is amply provided, nay, impelled by traditionalistic approach. :Your argument is like saying the text of the New Testament is made *less* :reliable by the large number of variant readings in existence. Though :there may exist tens of thousands of NT manuscripts, with all manner of :"contradictions," "stumbling blocks," and "errors," only someone who was :largely ignorant of the science of textual (lower) criticism, or who had an :overwhelming desire to scoff, would seriously claim that the reliability of :the New Testament text was diminished by the sheer abundance of available :material. This forced parallel I had already defeated by pointing out to the much more divergent nature of internal contradictions between patristic testimonies, nay, heresies on the part of those who meanwhile demanded authority based on their "apostolic succession." Again, it's the pope himself who has been breeding vile heresies for centuries, and you don't have any acceptable basis to doubt his "valid apostolic succession." It's curious enough that you go on emphasizing your succession when debating with Protestants, and drop this speech when the Romans are encountered. You try to make us surrender using that very weapon which proves ineffective against other traditionalists. :I think if you approached Holy Tradition with a sincere interest :in learning from it rather than just destroying it, you might be less :likely to dump out the baby and the tub along with the bathwater. I want nothing like that. What I desire is to keep the Fathers at their proper place, ie. fallible individual expounders of the infallible Word of God. Shall it conciliate you if I state here that I revere Basil or Augustine higher than eg. Kenneth Hagin or Paul Yonggi Cho (contemporary charismatic writers)? :As for your charge of "an overly curious spirit which didn't cease to seek :knowledge even there where God's lips are closed," you have written better :than you knew. This is precisely the attitude that led the Western Church :to depart from the faith preserved in the East, and which led the Reformers :to found their own sects rather than reverting to the original Tradition. No. This investigative spirit ruled the ancient councils that defined Christ's two wills and eg. Theotokos. As the later anathematized pope Honorius put it, the former was but croaking of frogs. I admit that Protestantism inherited much from this Scholastic animus, yet it was not part and parcel of Sola Scriptura. :There was contact between some of the Reformers and the Eastern Church, you :know, but they had their own ideas what God's Church "ought" to be like, :and off they went. Plenty of doctrinal innovations, such as the idea of a :mysterious, invisible, all-encompassing Church, and justification by faith :alone, and sola Scriptura--things not actually *written* in the Bible, but :claimed to be Bible teaching nonetheless. The "invisible" church is professed even by you in the creed: "I believe ... Church" - what is seen needs no faith to acknowledge. All-encompassing is included in the phrase "catholic." Justification by faith alone is the brief reiteration of Paul's "by faith and not by works." Hasty and crude references to James happened to contradict Paul, not just us. Sola Scriptura is a divine precept, as shown us by the Lord: "If they don't believe Moses and the Prophets then even a resurrection won't convince them." :They needed to know how to establish churches that were independent :of the Church founded by the Lord Jesus and His Apostles, an eventuality :that the writers of the New Testament made no provision for, and hence :all this new "knowledge" sprang up to satisfy their curiosity. I have an easy retort to this kind of speech. The Bible doesn't speak about the vast majority of the historical Church lapsing into such nefarious heresies as papalism, Filioque, the so-called purgatory, and transsubstantiation. Yet it happened, and you who term yourselves "orthodox", are in minority. Have indeed the gates of hell prevailed? :The result is obvious in the tens of thousands of bickering Protestant :sects and schisms that are the Reformers' grandchildren today. Far better :if, instead of seeking to become Reformers, they had set their hearts on :being Returners, and gone back to the original Church instead. False alternative. They actually tried to return to the apostolic instructions as written in the New Testament. You traditionalists, in turn, long ago committed yourselves to an approach which deems unnecessary all kinds of return, by the rash and irreverent proposition that you are still at the origin. =========================================================================== >:Anyone who can >:marshall a reasonable list of verses and passages can "prove" their point >:of view to be Scriptural, regardless of how well or how poorly it fits with >:what Christianity has been since the days of the Holy Apostles. > >And the debate can flare! One of the parties has to deny the principle >Sola Scriptura. :That's like saying "One of the parties has to admit that they are wrong." :Why should this ever happen? The churches of Christ have the motto "Speak :where the Scriptures speak, be silent where the Scriptures are silent." In :the churches of Christ, everything must be validated by Scripture--as far :as sola Scriptura is concerned, they are the adherent's adherent. They :would just as soon deny Christ as deny sola Scriptura. Yet they will :"prove" from Scripture that instrumental music in worship is a :soul-destroying heresy, as are missionary societies, having more than one :communion cup, and naming your church after a man (e.g. "Lutheran") or an :idea ("Reformed") rather than after Christ. Instrumental music is but a continuation of Ps 150. Missionary societies are the same as Paul's apostolic colleges. More than one communion cup is allowed by the original cup being lost somewhere. As for the last proposition, it is wholly true, see the Cephas and other parties at Corinth. "Reformed" is an abbreviation for "Reformed Christian". :Do you agree with all of the above ideas? Are *you* going to deny the :principle of Sola Scriptura? *They* certainly won't! They have to, as I proved some of their ideas faulty. :I know what you're thinking: at some point they're going to have an :interpretation of Scripture that does not jibe with your understanding :of God's Word. When that happens, you will tell them that they are :contradicting the Bible. Let's see. Instrumental music is expressly found in Ps 150. Mission was commanded by our Lord. Many cups are necessary because there are millions of Christians all over the globe. Naming churches after a man is, however, expressly prohibited by the Bible. :If they deny it, if they refuse to interpret the Bible the way you :think they should, you will claim that they have denied the principle :of sola Scriptura. But they haven't, of course. The principle of :sola Scriptura is that they must rely upon the Bible, and nothing else, :NOT EVEN YOU. I gave explicit scriptural references. :When you each reject the other's interpretation, you each are rejecting :"tradition"--the transmission of an interpretation of Scripture from one :human to another. Of course not. They reject biblical quotations. :The only way they can deny the principle of sola Scriptura is to decide :to accept your interpretation of the Bible in preference to their own, :even though they don't see the Bible that way. The only way they can :deny sola Scriptura is to agree with your interpretation despite their :own views. No, they deny Sola Scriptura by refusing to accept my biblical proof. >But you, unable to silence heretics, resort to the easiest >method: you declare that you are right by definition, regardless of how >well your beliefs are in line with Scripture. :But the Church, which is and has ever been able to silence heretics by :demonstrating their departure from "the faith once for all delivered to :the saints," This latter being assumed to be the same as their theology. Circular argument. :does so by declaring that those beliefs are correct which have been :received by the Church from the Holy Apostles, and have been preserved :by her at all times and in all locations by all Orthodox believers. A rigid lerinsian concept, never applicable consistently. Before conciliar decisions only bishops were asked, not "all Orthodox believers." And the Fathers of the Councils contradicted one another. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Ibas were declared orthodox in all respects at Chalcedon. The Council of Constantinople in 533, however, anathematized them. Pope Vigilius had pointed out to this discrepancy on time, and refused to give his assent to the synodical anathemas. For this, he was - not refuted from the Tradition, as the tradition in this case was on his side, by the authority of the previous universal council, but plainly - sent into exile by the emperor. When he changed his mind on constraint, the whole West forsook him. Theodore of Mopsuestia is still considered orthodox in many respects in the West, Roman Catholics carefully bearing in mind that the Second Council of Constantinople was held under the threat of the Emperor. This case will suffice about "all times and all locations." :You know that the Church, indwelt by the Spirit of God, exercises this :ability, since it is by this ability that the texts of our New Testament :were selected and accepted as authentic (if partial) representations of :the original Apostolic Teaching, while spurious texts (some claiming :apostolic origins) were rejected. Next time you will persuade me into giving ardent thanks to your high priests for approving the Old Testament, too! By the way, "selection" was for a long period uncertain, which rules out your vaunted scenario about your denomination, armed with the torch of the Holy Spirit, seeking, finding, and ritually enthroning the Gospels which had formerly been gathering dust in desolate places. But this I have addressed many times. :Holy Tradition, in theory and in history, works to preserve the the :Apostolic Teaching. Sola Scriptura, in theory and in history, distorts :and fragments this teaching into as many different versions as there are :influential figures to conceive and propagate them. The allegedly apostolic tradition, in theory and in history, proved insufficient to guard the original teaching, as it operated based on circular argument, viz. "we have the original apostolic teaching, as we are faithful to it." A good precedent could be the Pharisees who expressly declared themselves the criterion of orthodoxy. They cast out the man born blind because none of the Pharisees and the leaders believed in Him (Jn 7:47ff). They used your very method. They were so puffed up that to the defense of Nicodemus they rebuffed simply that the multitude didn't know the Law, and that out of Galilea no prophet had risen. Which was an arrant falsehood, see 2Kgs 14:25. You may observe that they carnally restricted the authority to places whence prophets had risen - in exact parallel with your apostolic succession speech. :I was raised on sola Scriptura, and it's just not enough to do the :job, and never has been. Why should I go back, when I now have :something better that has been demonstrated to work both in theory :and in practice? Alas, the very method of traditionalism relies on a solipsism: you assume as the very first axiom: "I am right." This having in mind, I don't wonder that you can't see the errors of your denomination. =========================================================================== >:Focus on >:"how *we* understand the Scripture," rather than on "how *the Church* >:has always understood the Scripture," and you get tens of thousands of >:incompatible denominations, from the Baptists to the Jehovah's Witnesses >:to the lesbian priestess, ultra-liberal "mainline" denominations. > >If you want to blame it on Sola Scriptura, let me blame the Inquisition >and crusades on traditionalism. It would be a at least as justified a >charge as yours. :Go ahead! There is as big a difference between "traditionalism" and Holy :Tradition as there is between "religion" and Christianity. Traditionalism, :as the acceptance of things taught on the basis of human authority, is :indeed something to be wary of. It's just as prevalent in Protestantism :as in any other religious body, by the way: very few groups will give you :credentials or authority as a church leader just because you've read the :Bible. Even the most radical of charismatic groups have their particular :set of pet interpretations to which you must subscribe in order to be :recognized as a legitimate member and/or leader of the group. I here agree with you. Very few people now are Sola Scriptura adherents. :Protestant seminaries, of course, are a much more formalized application of :the process of tradition. It's not enough just to have *an* interpretation :of the Bible, regardless of how sincerely held. If you want your M. Div, :you need to have at least a minimal subset of "correct" interpretations (as :defined by the denomination, the seminary leadership, or whoever). Any :denomination that maintains its denominational distinctives across more :than one generation is necessarily employing tradition (the transmission :of "correct" interpretations from one generation to the next). And any :denominations that do not preserve their own distinctives--who cares? :Who knows what their grandchildren are going to believe, or even their :children? They may interpret the Bible the way the Episcopalians do, or :the Catholics, or the Mormons, or the Branch Davidians. Lack of tradition :equals lack of continuity. Again, I agree. Those who pursue outward unity badly need some marks to distinguish them from others. But this is not meant to be infallible. :(Why do you think the Old Testament puts so much emphasis on tradition? It places even more emphasis on the written precepts of the Law. :--not to mention, of course, the emphasis on tradition in such NT :passages as II Thess. 2:15!) The existence of extra-1+2Thess teachings doesn't make anything extra- biblical of divine authority. :The Inquisition, Protestant sectarianism and divisiveness--all these are :the products of following human traditions (even Protestant traditions) :instead of clinging only to that which has always been present in the :Church. Inquisitions and witch trials (oops, that one was Protestant, :wasn't it! ;) can arise from traditionalism, but they cannot arise from :Holy Tradition unless the Holy Apostles put them there--which of course :they did not do. Witch belief is of Romish origin. (Or were Sprenger and Kramer Protestants?) Protestant adherence to it is lamentable, however. But as far as it can be excused, it must be said that we feel sorrow for the miserable victims and regret what we did. Romanism, on the other hand, couldn't do without extinguishing all opposition, which is a traditionalistic method. :However difficult it may be to define, Holy Tradition is a far better :shield against such egregious errors than can ever be obtained by :declaring the validity of myriad conflicting individual interpretations :of Scripture. Sola Scriptura says nothing about the authority of our interpretations. It does but recognize the source of divine revelation - and this it does with elegant simplicity, without being entangled in circular proofs like "We follow tradition. Tradition is what we hold together with those whom we accept as orthodox expounders." >The very principle which maintained external unity in >traditionalism was meticulous pharisaism in dogmas, treating conciliar >definitions as Scripture, various cultural reasons, and last but not >least, the sword of the Emperor. :This kind of propaganda may be very soothing to ears itching for a :vindication of Protestantism, but it seriously distorts the relative :importance and roles of Holy Tradition, the Church, the Holy Spirit, :the ecumenical councils, and the state. The principle that maintained :unity was not some pagan, autocratic dictatorship, as the Church is so :often charicatured to have been. The unity of the Church springs from :the fact that Christ Jesus, the Church's Architect, designed her to be :unified. He's a good worker. He "don't make no junk." Part of the :design of the Church was that she would cling to the whole Tradition :given to her by the Holy Apostles. That was Christ's idea. It's a :*good* idea. It works. External unity at the expense of truth was not commanded by our Lord. You extol the "method" while you forget about the goal of unity: that the world knew that we are sent by Christ. Nothing like "if you are united externally then my truth will remain in you." :For a Church populated with weak, fallible humans, and subject to :constant attacks from within and without, it's the *best* plan. :If there had been a better plan, the Lord Jesus would have used it. The pope uses the same line of reasoning. With the only difference that he thus strives to have himself accepted as the divinely appointed Vicar of Christ. Now which one of you is right? :If the Church could have been preserved better by writings than by oral :teaching, the Lord would have spent three years writing instead of :spending three years teaching (orally) and sending His Disciples out :to teach (orally). Insufficient proof. If oral teaching could faithfully preserve the message then now we wouldn't have the Bible at all. :The Church was founded, established, and held together by oral teaching for :decades before the first epistle was even written. And even when the Holy :Apostles *did* start to write, they only wrote a handful of relatively :short documents, devoting the bulk of their efforts to the living, :breathing, ORAL teaching that, for most of the 12 Apostles, was their :*sole* contribution to the Church. The Church even then had a Bible - the OT. Traditionalists usually get a bit oblivious when it comes to listing written resources at the disposal of the apostolic Church. :This does not mean that the written records are unimportant--far from it! :But they are not the entirety of God's design for the Church, and they are :not the sole means by which the Church survived centuries of persecution :from without and heresies from within. Scoff if you must. Slander if you :like. Just remember, that's the design and workmanship of the Lord Jesus :Christ, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that you're slamming. Sounds like a papal bull to me: "who refuses to obey the pope resists Christ who seated him there." Popes also consider themselves the main guardians of faith. You therefore err pathetically when calling on the Lord's authority without having the express sanction of His Word. This tactic of intimidation doesn't work anymore. :If you think :that Christ's design was flawed, and that the Church ought to be based :exclusively on written documents, that's your prerogative. But if I were :you, I'd think long and hard before suggesting that my design--or Luther's, :or Zwingli's, or whoever's--was superior to the Son of God's design. You are getting tired, I suspect. Your assumptions tend to be more and more circular. You repeatedly fall into the innate error of traditionalism: that your denomination is "The Church." This granted, all ways are permissible to suppress opposition - imperial edicts, rescripts, and laws enacting the extinguishment of the dissenting opinion; cesaropapism; two swords theory; inquisition; excommunication of whole countries; allowing subjects to rebel against kings; anathema- tizing every hint of religious liberty, etc. =========================================================================== >: ... The Sola Scriptura approach blurs or erases the crucial >:distinction between the infallible teaching of Scripture and the fallible >:human understanding of Scripture, and such a seed cannot bear any fruit but >:chaos. >This chaos is the result of many unchristlike dogmas having been accepted >in the Church, eradicating which undoubtedly hurts the feelings of many. >(infant baptism, expiatory Mass etc.) :Eh? I don't quite follow you here. The reason there are 20,000 bickering :Protestant denominations is because Roman Catholics feel hurt when people :contradict infant baptism and stuff? *scritch* Yes, of course. Unbiblical conjectures and doctrines increase the occasions for disagreement, wherever they may occur. Roman Catholicism, for example, intoxicated the Lutherans with the "real presence" heresy, which lamentably resulted in quarrels within Protestantism. =========================================================================== >:By the way, I was interested in your claim that "Sola Scriptura" was an >:infallible teaching of Scripture. My test for something being a teaching >:of Scripture is that, first of all, it must be written in Scripture, and >:therefore you should be able to state the doctrine using only direct, >:verbatim, un-commented quotations from the Bible. I do not believe you can >:do so with Sola Scriptura. If you try to state Sola Scriptura using only >:verbatim Bible quotes, you will either fail, or you will wind up with a >:doctrine so vague that it does nothing to refute the Orthodox understanding >:of the importance of Scripture. You are welcome to try, of course, but I >:think you're going to be very disappointed when you look for verses with >:the words "only" or "alone" actually written there (as in "only the written >:Word is authoritative"). >Every word of God is pure: He is a shield to those who put their trust in >Him. Don't add to His words, lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar. >Proverbs 30:5-6. :As I suspected, the verse you gave me falls far short of declaring "sola :Scriptura." There is nothing in this verse to limit God's words to only :*written* words. You have the sola, but not the scriptura. But no doubt :you *thought* this passage was declaring sola Scriptura, because you :mistook your own fallible understanding for the infallible teaching of :Scripture. It's just your judgment. I never spoke about my understanding - it's but you who constantly puts it into my mouth. I inferred from various sources (the Bible, and your fear to call the writings of "pope" Clement I. the infallible and inspired Word of God) that the Word of God is equal to the Bible. Thus my proof based on Prov 30:5-6 holds. :What this verse does, of course, is to warn us against ascribing words to :God that didn't come from Him. As such, it works equally well as a warning :against the doctrine of sola Scriptura, since sola Scriptura encourages :people to confuse their own fallible human *understanding* of the text with :the infallible meaning God gave it. To the contrary, Sola Scriptura prevent rash and presumptuous men from declaring their own opinions the "infallible meaning" of the text of the Bible, unlike the tradition method. :Just as you unconsciously added "*written* words" where the text has only :"words," so all reading of Scripture is liable to involve unwitting :additions to, or deletions from, the actual infallible meaning God was :expressing. I actually inferred "written" from Proverbs, which extols the Law. The oracles of Agur couldn't have been included in the book, had he not been a convert to Judaism. :I myself agree wholeheartedly that every word of God is pure, and that we :should not add to them. That is why we Orthodox put such a great emphasis :on *every* word of God, and resist attempts to restrict the Church to only :the *written* words. At this point do you fall headlong into the abyss of your own sophistry. You profess to deal with "unwritten" words, which can only be oral words - and as such, exceedingly prone to alteration and dilution. :That is also why I place so much emphasis on the task of preserving the :teachings given to the Church by God through the mouths of the Apostles, :and distinguishing the genuine Apostolic Teachings from the various :commentaries, additions, variations and/or doctrinal departures of :uninspired men. Here is the weakest point of your system. The Church Fathers you venerate and eulogize, actually did nothing but write commentaries to the various biblical books, and expound several biblical topics. The books of Papias, for example, were deemed fabulous in many parts by later patristic readers on account of their departure from the Bible (thousands of grapes, each giving twenty metretes of wine, and materialistic concepts of the like style). You don't have any means to objectively discern patristic commentaries from patristic "words of God." :So you see, your attempt to prove sola Scriptura from Prov. 30:5-6 only :weakens your case and strengthens mine. *EVERY* word of God is pure. Not :just (sola) the written ones (scriptura). The Bible explicitly says so, :and does not say anywhere that only the written words are pure. Case :closed, or would you like to try and find a verse that contradicts the :statement that every word of God is pure? Send me one single Word of God which is not found in the Bible. Enclose proof that it is indeed that. By the way, why do you think the closure of the written canon was of such moment in the early Church if not because the underlying conviction that by closing it, they closed down all sources of the words of God? Dare you assert that they thus left open the possibility of oral additions? It was just in order to rule out these suspicious oral traditions that the canon was closed. =========================================================================== >:I, of course, believe that the Holy Apostles sternly charged us: "Stand >:firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of >:mouth or by letter from us." (II Thess. 2:15, NASB). That's a verbatim >:quotation from the Scriptures, and I am pretty sure my understanding of it >:is correct, since it conforms both to the words actually written in the >:Bible and to the understanding of it which the Church has held ever since >:St. Paul wrote it. >Your denomination errs, together with you. What have you, in the 20th >century, learnt from the lips of Paul? Nothing. So this verse exhorts the >Thessalonians to keep all what we now know to be contained in the Bible. :What have you, in the twentieth century, ever read that was actually put on :papyrus by an apostle? If you have the actual papyrus St. Paul wrote on in :his own handwriting, I'll give you $100 for it ;-) Again a miserably wide shot. I disposed of your pretension based on your erroneous interpretation of the above passage, but I didn't claim that I have a personal letter with Paul's own handwriting. (By the way, have you already heard of Thiede's dating of some Matthaean fragment between 50 and 70 AD? Just because it may be then considered materially original.) :All of us in the twentieth century are alike: what we have today are :reproductions of the original words spoken and written by the Holy Apostles :and preserved by the Church. Methods of "preservation" differ in the degree of reliability. That's why the Church began to turn apostolic message into writing so soon. :St. Paul commanded the Thessalonians that they keep every apostolic :tradition, whether it originated orally or in writing. The command is :"Stand firm and hold to the traditions." This command is amplified by :the phrase explicitly stating that both oral and written traditions are :included, but it is a single command: "Hold to the traditions." You omit the words "what YOU were taught", and gloss them over by saying "whether IT originated" etc. The identity of the recipients is more than important in this respect. See below. :Now, then, if you are going to argue that this command does not apply to us :because we are not the Thessalonians, then let's discard it: Just delete :"Hold to the traditions." Of course, "whether by word of mouth or by :letter from us" doesn't make much sense by itself, so rip that out too. As :a matter of fact, we aren't any of the people that St. Paul wrote to in the :first century, so rip all the Pauline epistles out. Hmmm, same goes for :the epistles of Peter, and John, and the rest--the people they wrote to are :all asleep in Christ by now. I'm not any of the churches in Asia Minor, so :I guess Revelation has to go, and I'm not Theophilus, so there go Luke and :Acts. This ostentatious posturing of yours as the worthy defender of the unity of the Bible makes me elaborate again (just for the third time) the reason why I don't accept your argument based on this passage. You bring up the example of the Thessalonians (ones of the first readers of Paul) who possessed but those two epistles of Paul. Within such circumstances the phrase "what YOU learnt", carefully omitted by you from every semi-quotation, becomes of great importance. Unscriptural traditions cannot be cloaked with Paul' commending of extra-Thessalonian tradition. :I don't know about you, but that "Scriptura" is getting a little bit too :"sola" for me! Of course, if you equate it with Sola Thessalonians. I don't. :Ok, let's get real. I know that I'm not a Thessalonian, but I am part :of the Church established in the first century in Thessalonica, Corinth, :Jerusalem, and various other parts of the world. Maybe you don't see any :problem with using "they're them and we're us" as a pretext for discarding :verses that don't fit the way you want them to, but if you're going to do :that kind of thing, you're not even sola Scriptura, you're a sola :censored-scriptura. By no means. I am a denier of Sola Thessalonians, which you ever and anon thrust on me. By what right, I don't know. :The criterion you are using for rejecting II Thess. 2:15 I don't reject it, but refuse to accept it as proof for your perverted interpretation, viz. wresting Sola Scriptura (the thing you attack) to Sola Thessalonians, just in order to club me with this passage. But it's a libidinous method to tell me what my views are just that you could have a pretext to throw obloquy on my cause. :is a criterion that is equally true for just about the whole New :Testament, In your opinion. But I'll prove that you are seriously mistaken. :so if you're using it to reject some verses I by no means reject 2Thes 2:15. I just restore it to the original context (ie. the time when no other written material was at the Thessalonians' disposal but two Pauline letters), from which you radically tear it out by putting it to use against someone who has the whole NT at his disposal. If it is not lax logic then I don't know what on earth can be so called. :while keeping others, you are controlling what the Scriptures are :allowed to say rather than vice versa. And if not? :I can't believe that's true of you. But if you really want to be sola :Scriptura, then you should at least pay attention to what is and is not :written. Paul does not write: "I want you first-century Thessalonians :to observe both the oral and written traditions, but I want Christians :elsewhere and in other times to discard the traditions that originated :orally and rely exclusively on the written traditions." You wilfully omit the identity of the recipients of the oral traditions Paul had in mind, ie. YOU Thessalonians. While striving to make me read the text in complete opposition to itself, you fail to convert the text itself to the exact opposite. You ought to have written "Paul does not write >>I want you first-century Thessalonians to observe both the oral and written traditions WHICH YOU LEARNT OF ME, but I want Christians elsewhere and in other times to discard the traditions that originated orally FROM MY LIPS and rely exclusively on the written traditions CONTAINED IN MY LETTERS TO THEM." :That's how you read it, Of course, with "alleged to have subsisted in the word of mouth for centuries before being penned down by a monk or someone of this kind" instead of "originated orally", in your text. :but that's not what is written there. Neither is the opposite written there. You, however, tried to wrest the passage to contradict me, but I unmasked your frivolous attempts. :There is nothing _written_ about discarding any of the the apostolic :traditions that originated orally, at any point or by any group. There is no controversy about the apostolic message first being delivered in speech. The debate goes on about whether those originally oral messages can be stretched to include all ecclesiastical traditions loudly vaunting of apostolic origin. :The commandment is the exact opposite of this: St. Paul says "hold to :the traditions, whether oral or written," "Which YOU received OF ME." This part you fraudulently omitted, pertinaciously trying to extend the necessity or oral tradition from the case of the Thessalonians, having only two letters, to our case, having every reliable apostolic writing from the beginning. Even your denomination must explain somehow why she "selected" some writings out of the hundreds, leaving out many extra-biblical, but sound letters, eg. Clement, Diognetus, or Ignatius. On your showing, those included merited being termed obscure and dangerous, while the omitted ones would serve as torches to enlighten the former. This answer would, of course, expose you to fierce accusations. :where you want him to say "Hold the written and discard the oral." No, I don't want him to say anything like this. I recognize him as saying what he says, together with "what you learnt of me" - a part you malignantly omitted. So the guilt of falsification remains with you. Not implicitly, as if it were only me to infer it from your letter, but in a disgracefully explicit manner, with you yourself having omitted a significant part of the message, and still boasting of knowing what Paul said. Wilful omission betrays the lack of all grounds on which your "infallible interpretation" could be based. :Realistically, why would St. Paul want any Christians to discard any :genuine Apostolic Tradition? Was there something *wrong* with what he :gave the Thessalonians? Was it harmful to them? Was it not edifying? :It makes no sense. Of course, it would be stupid enough. But I don't say that Paul here allowed others to cast his oral teachings behind themselves. What I contend for is that this passage cannot be stretched to include all allegedly apostolic traditions (a blank-cheque method, by the way), and the Scripture as we now possess it as condensed into the clearly insufficient 1+2Thess. :The traditions given to believers by the Holy Apostles were *good* :things--the danger lies precisely in falling away from what St. Paul :and the others gave to us, not in keeping the Apostolic Tradition :"too long" or "too faithfully." You rigidly persist in your fallacious presupposition, viz. that I want to dispose of Paul's teaching once orally delivered to the Thessalonians. What I want to clarify is, to your greatest disappointment, that not every tradition of your denomination can be defended by Paul not having included everything in 1+2Thess. :You claim to believe in sola Scriptura, yet when the words written :in the New Testament contradict what you want to believe, you try :to nullify them, and replace them with a much more convoluted notion :that not only adds many ideas not written in the text, but doesn't :even make sense in the historical context in which it was written. Let the above arguments be the refutation of your overbold exaggerations and strawman-battering here. In order to exclude all your evasions, I repeat them here. I don't want to nullify the undeniable truth that Paul had other teachings than good morals (1Thess 4:1-12), the lot of the deceased (1Thess 4:13-18), and Christ's return (1Thess 5:1-11, 2Thess 2:1-12). But you are caught in flagranti when trying to make Paul speak of anything you want to thrust into his mouth, ie. that Mary is the "Mother of God", that icons are to be "venerated", that mere mortals have to be called "priests", and that Christ has to be sacrificed every Sunday. :The Traditions St. Paul was :inspired to give the Church were pure, inspired, edifying, and protective :Traditions, shields against ignorance, apostasy, and heresy, the very :foundation of Church doctrine, of Christianity. Why would St. Paul want to :urge any faithful believer to discard some of those things? It would be as :though he encouraged us to put on the full armor of God, and then, when the :battle starts to heat up, to take various pieces of God's armor off again! :It's nuts! You missed the target, see above. I don't argue for discarding anything of Paul's teaching. I just don't give you blind credit in arrogating authority to your traditions on the grounds that Paul didn't write everything down in 1+2Thess. :The inescapable fact of II Thess. 2:15 is that St. Paul saw the oral :Apostolic Traditions as things to be held on to by believers, And, of course, pretendent teachings are to be verified if they are genuine. There will arise many false apostles, you know, who clamour for the devisings of their own brain as if they were apostolic traditions by definition. Even from among the leaders (Act 20:30). :and you see oral Apostolic Traditions as things to be repudiated by :believers. I see some Orthodox and Romish traditions as things to be rejected. But before slapping Paul's words in my face, please prove that your traditions are the same as those which Paul here referred to. :If a tradition originated orally, your sola Scriptura bias forces you :to reject it, even if it really did originate with the Holy Apostles. Of course not, provided it is contained elsewhere in the Bible. :That's why you look at a verse that explicitly says "keep both oral and :written" "...which you received from me." Have ears for this, too. :and understand it to mean "the only part we need to keep is what's :written." I am not speaking about parts of Pauline teaching, as even you cannot, with the whole armoury of your boasted traditions, exactly tell me what else the Thessalonians learnt of Paul besides his letters. In the absence of the detailed list of these doctrines (and proof that they are really of Pauline origin) your denominational boasting is deemed faulty. :There is no way to justify such a complete reversal of meaning, either :grammatically or contextually or historically. You only do it because :the Protestant tradition of sola Scriptura requires you to do so. I proposed no "reversal" of meaning. I just contend for keeping Paul's words in historical context (ie. Thessalonians having only two letters of Paul, and the remaining teaching they have in oral form), and not misapply them according to your unbridled caprice in favour of whatever your denomination devises off the top of her head. True, your bias for your traditions compels you to read Paul's words in this sense, but historical facts contradict you. :Sic semper sola Scriptura. The tyrant is but your ecclasiastical tradition which is admittedly hard to define and outline, ("However difficult it may be to define, Holy Tradition is a far better shield...") however, it doesn't prevent you from declaring it authoritative. Hae erunt tibi artes, Marce. =========================================================================== >As for your questions: > >:1) Having read the Scriptures with a sincere and open heart, >: do you now know the infallible teaching of Scripture? > >Partly. :Which part, and more importantly how do you KNOW which part? I am content with my dim picture, as in a silver mirror. Leave some space for me to improve in divine study. Please. :Is it possible for you to think you know which part, and to be wrong? No, as I never claim infallibility. Then stop requiring it of me. Only a person boasting of infallible interpretation can sit thinking "in this I am orthodox, and in that not." :Is it possible for *me* to know which part you know and which part :you don't know? If you are infallible, yes. However, even then I wouldn't be ashamed: it's not a bad thing to have an infallible one as my critic. >:2) If yes, should I, as someone who has also read the Scriptures, >: believe that you now know the infallible teaching of Scripture? > >Yes, to the extent I can convince you of it. :So then, infallible doctrine is simply a matter of persuasiveness? No. Infallible doctrine is a matter of inspiration. I am not inspired. Was Gregory of Nyssa inpired in teaching you authoritatively about the so-called purgatory? Are you infallible in rejecting his theology? :The question of whether or not I should believe that you possess the :infallible teaching of Scripture depends on whether or not you can :*convince* me that you possess the infallible teaching of Scripture? Perfectly right. :Does your success in convincing me mean that you must necessarily have :the infallible teaching of Scripture? Obfuscation. You ever and anon rewrite your charges so that they could fit me. I answered your question whether you ought to believe that I now know the infallible etc. etc. So it is not my "necessarily having infallible doctrine" which I admit to be "a matter of persuasiveness", but your belief in my possession thereof. Don't forget your question before criticizing my answer to it. I's an important factor in debate to preserve at least your own thoughts. That the opponent has to call your attention back to your previous sentence - it is quite degrading for the cause you have undertaken to advocate, and for your methods in defending it. :Are we right to believe whatever any reader of Scripture is able to :persuade us to believe? I wasn't voicing that you were "right" in believing this. Only that you "should" believe it, in the absence of proper counter-arguments. :Rabbi Moishe, a first century Pharisee, has read the Scriptures, and :believes that he now partly knows the infallible teaching of Scriptures. :He convinces me that his interpretation is correct. Am I right to believe :that he has infallible teaching of Scripture? You again ask me of the moral nature of your accepting someone's teaching, whereas in my answer no hint was found regarding this factor. :Rabbi Shimon, a first century Sadducee, has read the Scriptures and :believes that he now partly knows the infallible teaching of Scripture. :He convinces me that, to some extent, he is also right, yet he disagrees :with Rabbi Moishe. Quite simple: pick Rabbi Moise's arguments, and ask him to refute them. Your understanding will improve while he is making his attempts at the confutation. So you now can make another decision. If the other rabbi enters in the meantime, listen to them argue. If you are not afraid of seeming a child, tossed to and fro by any teaching, wait for them to finish the debate, or to arrive at a dead-end. Be careful: the Pharisee is likely to hint at some obscure circumstance, viz. that he is in the possession of the whole infallible teaching, not by pondering and derivation, but by a thing called "uninterrupted succession." On that point take heart and interrupt them immediately, as the Pharisee had recourse to his own authority. Then they may go on, but you should be on the guard to halt the debate if any such thing should occur again. :Which should I believe has the infallible teaching of Scriptures? Which you see true. When listening to them, you ought not to have contradictory opinions simultaneously. :Should I just pick whatever interpretation seems best to me, a la :Judges 21:25? Bad reference. They in Judges went astray because of wilful and openly professed disobedience to the Law, and not because of some subtle misinterpretation. Judges 21:25 clearly refers to the king's role. Do you assert that the king had the infallible interpretation? On the contrary, he had the power to enforce the written precepts of the Law, which were declared to "cherish the heart, enlighten the soul", and to be "in your mouth and in your heart." Your vain attempts to accuse the Law of obscurity are conspicuously hollow. :Is my own understanding of Scripture a reliable guide to what :the infallible teaching is, and if it is, aren't I infallible? Reliability is no infallibility. On the other hand, you seem to attribute to your Fathers an unconscious inspiration, totally excluding their understanding, as in trance. :And if not, why should I regard my own opinion as having any more :merit that yours, Rabbi Moishe, and Rabbi Shimon? You can keep your brain working. Believe me, the Holy Spirit is not going to switch it out. Truth manifests itself even through human understanding, not to speak about the Reformers' favourite teaching about the inner testimony of the Spirit, which you are likely to dismiss at once, judging by your constant attributing the faithful transmission of the infallible teaching to mere tonsured mortals.