Posted on 08/20/2014 2:14:15 AM PDT by markomalley
As you may know, the Catholic Faith was illegal in the Roman Empire prior to 313 AD, when the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan permitting the Christian Faith to flourish publicly. Prior to that time, Church buildings as we know them today were rare—Mass was usually celebrated in houses.
Now be careful here; these “houses” were usually rather sizable, with a central courtyard or large room that permitted something a little more formal than Mass “around the dining room table.” I remember being taught (incorrectly) that these early Masses were informal, emphasized a relaxed, communal quality, and were celebrated facing the people. Well, it turns out that really isn’t true. People didn’t just sit around a table or sit in circle—not at all. They sat or stood formally, and everyone faced in one direction: east.
In the drawing (to the right) you can see the layout of an ancient house church (actually more often called a Domus Dei (House of God)) drawn based on an excavated 3rd century house church in Dura-Europos (located in what is now today’s Syria). Click on the diagram for a clearer view. The assembly room is to the left and a priest or bishop is depicted conducting a liturgy (facing east) at an altar against the east wall. A baptistery is on the right and a deacon is depicted guarding the entrance door. The lonely-looking deacon in the back of the assembly hall is there to “preserve good order,” as you will read below. The photograph below shows the baptistery of the Dura-Europos house church.
What is remarkable about these early liturgies is how formal they were despite the fact that they were conducted under less-than-ideal circumstances. The following text is from the Didiscalia, a document written in about 250 AD. Among other things, it gives rather elaborate details about the celebration of the early Catholic Mass in these “house liturgies.” I have included an excerpt here and interspersed my own comments in RED. You will find that there are some rather humorous remarks in this ancient text toward the end.
Now, in your gatherings, in the holy Church, convene yourselves modestly in places of the brethren, as you will, in a manner pleasing and ordered with care. [So these "house liturgies" were NOT informal Masses. Good order and careful attention to detail were essential.] Let the place of the priests be separated in a part of the house that faces east. [So even in these early house Masses, the sanctuary (the place where the clergy ministered) was an area distinct from where the laity gathered. People were not all just gathered around a dining room table.] In the midst of them is placed the bishop’s chair, and with him let the priests be seated. Likewise, and in another section let the lay men be seated facing east. [Prayer was conducted facing east, not facing the people.] For thus it is proper: that the priests sit with the bishop in a part of the house to the east and after them the lay men and the lay women, [Notice that men and women sat in separate sections. This was traditional in many churches until rather recently, say the last 150 years.] and when you stand to pray, the ecclesial leaders rise first, and after them the lay men, and again, then the women. Now, you ought to face to east to pray for, as you know, scripture has it, Give praise to God who ascends above the highest heavens to the east. [Again, note that Mass was NOT celebrated facing the people as some suppose of the early Church. Everyone was to face to the east, both clergy and laypeople. Everyone faced in the same direction. The text cites Scripture as the reason for this. God is to the east, the origin of the light.]
Now, of the deacons, one always stands by the Eucharistic oblations and the others stand outside the door watching those who enter [Remember, this was a time of persecution and the early Christians were careful to allow only baptized and bona fide members to enter the Sacred Mysteries. No one was permitted to enter the Sacred Liturgy until after having been baptized. This was called the disciplina arcanis, or "discipline of the secret." Deacons guarded the door to maintain this discipline.] and afterwards, when you offer let them together minister in the church. [Once the door was locked and the Mass began, it would seem that the deacons took their place in the sanctuary. However it also appears that one deacon remained outside the sanctuary to maintain "good order" among the laity.] And if there is one to be found who is not sitting in his place let the deacon who is within, rebuke him, and make him to rise and sit in his fitting place … also, in the church the young ones ought to sit separately, if there is a place, if not let them stand. Those of more advanced age should sit separately; the boys should sit separately or their fathers and mothers should take them and stand; and let the young girls sit separately, if there is really not a place, let them stand behind the women; let the young who are married and have little children stand separately, the older women and widows should sit separately. [This may all seem a bit complicated, but the bottom line is that seating was according to sex and age: the men on one side, the women on the other, older folks to the front, younger ones to the back. Also, those caring for young children were to stand in a separate area. See? Even in the old days there was a "cry room!"] And a deacon should see that each one who enters gets to his place, and that none of these sits in an inappropriate place. Likewise, the deacon ought to see that there are none who whisper or sleep or laugh or nod off. [Wait a minute! Do you mean to tell me that some of the early Christians did such things? Say it isn't so! Today, ushers do this preserving of good order, but the need remains.] For in the Church it is necessary to have discipline, sober vigilance, and attentive ear to the Word of the Lord. [Well that is said pretty plainly—and the advice is still needed.]
But I'm like a person passionate about my family's genealogy-- now there's a Biblical theme. If I want to get the story of my family, I would like to know who they were in every generation. Some of them have stories --- some have jokes --- some have recipes --- some have diaries or letters, some have photographs, or drawings, a carving on a tree--- all of them have the mysterious connections of genes and chromosomes --- which can connect me in myriad ways with this family which is MY family and perhaps some venerated ancestor whose name we all have.
Family, Genealogy, Tradition. OK, another analogy trick! But even more than this: Lear's Fool! Surely you know that we are all members of the Body of Christ!? And so all the histories of these faithful Christian people tie in with the life of Christ that is in me, because we all have a living, vital connection.
We are individually the cells, tissues, organs and systems of Christ: His limbs, and senses, --- the Church is, so to speak, the extension of Christ through history. I can't get enough of this! I love this, the continuity, the lives living within each other like matreshka dolls. A transmission of doctrine, a continuity of wisdom, a consistory of kindred, the organic connection which is the Church, so that He in Whom we live, and move, and have our being, puts us in constant, living, loving connection with each other.
That's the Church. The Body of Christ. It's like what James Faulkner said about history: the past isn't dead; it isn;t even past. I love that. I'm right in there with the John-Polycarp-Irenaeus tag-team of doctrine, the St. Thomas people of Goa and Mosul, right there in communion with Stephen the Martyr and Justin the Martyr, and Felicity, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and all the saints we commemorate in the Mass because we pray wih them and live with them, -- all because we live in Christ.
You may think this is far afield from Sacred Tradition as straitly defined, but it's part of the whole splendid richness of the Christian milieu. Wouldn't you want to know how St. James' community prayed in Jerusalem? Wouldn't you want to know what the martyrs wrote on the walls of the Catacombs of Callixtus and Priscilla and Domitilla? What kind of Christian wouldn't want to read Scriptures along with Irenaeus? --- admiring him for being a disciple of a disciple of John?
Who wouldn't want to get their hands on a handbook for new Christian converts written when Timothy and Titus were still alive? It has some respects even more explicit moral instruction than what is written inthe NT--- such as, "Neither murder a child by abortion, nor will you destroy that which is born"? Who wouldn't find that valuable? It has more detailed instructions on how to baptize, than the Gospels do. Isn't that good to know?
To me, it's wonderful. Tradition.
Good night, Lear's Fool.
Heading to bed myself, but checked to see whether you had replied yet.
A nice post...Reminded me of two favorite movies:
Fiddler on the Roof (”Tradition!”)
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (Matreshka dolls)
More tomorrow. :-)
Even more problematic is when this sufficiency is taken beyond the limits of its stated purpose. We who believe in Sola Scriptura do not propose that all knowledge is bound up in Scripture. Only that knowledge which is sufficient to the purpose of knowing Christ and pleasing God. Paul covers both of these in 1Timothy 3:14-17:
(14) But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;Now it's true that Paul wants Timothy to remember what he learned, presumably from Paul. However, please note that the passage does NOT suggest that Paul taught anything not contained in the Scriptures. In fact, the opposite is inferred, because Paul is telling Timothy to continue in the faith because he has been assured of the truth, both because he heard it straight from Paul, and because he has known the Scriptures from childhood, which Scriptures would confirm to Timothy the truthfulness of the Gospel Paul preached.(15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick [old English “alive”], and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.But how do mere words on a page have such power? Paul recognizes and addresses that natural question. The answer? Scripture is God-breathed (theo-pneustos). And he doesn't stop there. He keeps augmenting this power of God-breathed Scripture. Not only can it lead to your salvation, Timothy, but it's profitability extends even further. How far? To the point of making the man of God "perfect" (artios) in the sense of complete or mature. How complete? Absolutely complete preparation for any and all good works. Hence the sufficiency of the means, Scripture, may be judged by the completeness of the result it has the power to produce, a person totally equipped to please God and enjoy Him forever.
Isa 55:10-11 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: (11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.Peace,
Wow - go away for a day and come back to more wisdom than you find in a Seminary.
I take some issue with the scriptures being sufficient in themselves. As Lear said - and Mrs Don-o - A lot of stuff never got recorded in the first place or has been destroyed. The very existence of the Bible is proof positive that miracles do happen! That many ancient writings, preserved (accurately, now we have the Dead Sea Scrolls to compare them with) for so long?
But scripture itself is not enough. After all - the world changes. There will be new prophets and new teachings. God hasn’t finished the book then shut up for good. Scripture is a test of these new things. Something to use to measure them for truth.
Then there is His direct word. Sometime it’s words of comfort or caution. Sometimes it’s a flat out command. If you have never had one of those, consider yourself lucky. Scares the crap out of you, every single time. Satan tries to sneak into your thoughts - God walks in like he owns the place (suppose He does, really) and lays down the law.
:o)
Interesting take, thank you.
I consider the scriptures more like the Chilton or Haynes manual for living. Read the Bible once, you are - frankly - bored, especially with all the begats in the OT. The second time through, you get the basics down. Further readings, you start to see the connections. It’s literally the users manual for handling yourself and your relationship with God.
For an analogy - which you dislike :P - I have a friend who plays in an orchestra. He reads the whole score of any piece, not just his bits. I asked him why, once. He said “I can’t feel the whole piece without knowing the whole thing.”
You make an appealing case. Yes, I find history an interesting study - more so when it involves good and godly people. My earthly-family ties are not as strong as yours, but I can understand that appeal as well.
But is this to be our defense on the day of judgment? “Lord, we felt such a kinship with so-and-so that we followed his example instead of Yours and that of Your apostles.” What a sad day that would be for us!
Or, “Lord, we know you warned us about those who ‘teach for doctrines the commandments of men’, but we thought so-and-so expressed it better than your Holy Spirit did.”
Those men and women you listed, if they were faithful to the Lord (I know little about them) - and the righteous found throughout the Bible - and those in the “Faith Hall of Fame” in Hebrews 11 - all those who have gone before us in the Church of Jesus Christ would wish for us to be faithful to Him. To trust in Him and not in them. To hear Him rather than them. To say “I am of Christ” rather than “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas.”
We are part of that great family when we follow Christ, being taught by His apostles who were “guided into all truth” by the Spirit He sent. We are united in family as we remain true to our Father by following His firstborn Son, our Brother (Heb. 2:11-12). Let’s hold to that family tradition, as our brothers and sisters who’ve gone before would wish us to. Let’s never swerve to follow others we deem faithful. And let that be good enough for us. :-)
Ha! No, no, I don’t dislike analogies at all! In fact, I use them often myself - sometimes too often for my friends’ tastes. :-)
God blessed me with parents who taught me from the Scriptures. Like math or English in school, it wasn’t always interesting. But like the teachers in school, they were giving me the foundation I would build upon later when I began to study of my own accord.
Not every child grows up with such a blessing, and so they have to start from scratch - like someone who never learned to read, trying to teach himself at age 40. That ain’t easy!
Sometimes what we need is a good teacher, someone who can offer an explanation which we can then consider and compare with the Scriptures to see if it fits. (As the “noble-minded” Bereans in Acts 17, when they “examined the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.”)
That’s been my purpose in discussions like this one. I don’t claim to have any authority, any inspiration from the Holy Ghost, any special knowledge or revelation of God. I ask only that you consider what is said and compare it against what you can read for yourself in the Scriptures.
After all, it won’t do you any good to say, on the day of judgment, “Well Lear’s Fool said such-and-such, so that’s what I went by!” :-)
BUT! It doesn't really cover the fact that Scripture, precious and irreplaceable though it is, is not in itself the source of salvation, nor even necessary for salvation, as is evident in the case of the book-less, the illiterate and those not mentally competent to read. Their salvation is provided, no doubt, by Christ, per the truths found in Scripture (and again, Christ says "I am the Truth") but not by a book or collection of books, or an approved canon or anything of that sort.
[Now at this point I am afraid of being misunderstood as devaluing Scripture, making it seem on a level with any-old-thing-you-want, and that's not what I'm saying. We need Christ, and "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ," as Jerome says. But rather than saying Scripture is "complete," "sufficient," "all you need," et. let us say Christ is complete, sufficient, and all you need.]
Back to those three categories of people,the book-less, or illiterate, or mentally limited: taken together, they have always been the majority until very recently, and in many nations are still the majority. Mot earlyChristians had no Scripture, and that's a fac. They heard the Scriuptures read at Liturgy on Sunday (a good definition of Scripture is "what's read at Liturgy": these are, inherently. liturgical books) and hey heard the preaching and thy received the Sacraments and they imitated the vituous lives of pople like Paul Priscilla & Aquila, etc and thus the truths of the Faith were transmitted to them. The "all nations" which the Apostles were to teach and baptize, were and long remained without texts in 99% of their waiting hands.
But look at the individual Scripture-less person: he needs to be reached by those teachings of the Apostles which can be handed down or reached-across to him. And that handing-down, hat reaching-across, is, precisely, Tradition.
It is not, precisely, Scripture. It's the truths which can be found in or derived from or reasonable inferred from Scripture no doubt, but it's not Scripture per se. To use a term you yourself relied upon, it's that which is God-breathed. And God doesnt just breathe texts.
Nothing in Tradition can contradict, much less abrogate, Scripture, but it can deliver those same truths, with clarification, with varied styles of repetition, with amplification, with unfoldings which reveal more depth, more detail, more specific application --- and all of this from the Holy Spirit, who is the font of bothScripture and Tradition.
OK, here's how I want to say it: God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth". That of course includes those who are, and will always be, Scripture-less; it also includes those who, possessing Scriptures, still by God's will and the working of the Holy Spirit need the Church's doctrine, life and worship, all of which are handed down in speech, song, ways of prayer, ways of obedience, morals and manners, and practice, all under the "breath" of the same Spirit who breathed those God-breathed books.
Scripture is THAT PART of the Apostles' preaching and teaching which was committed to writing before the death of the last Apostle. It is a closed canon: public revelation, in that sense, is closed.
So in these ways --- Scripture and Tradition --- Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth.
This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. All this is part of the Father's self-communication, since what He communicates to us is Christ, and the Church is --- we are --- the Body of Christ, and Christ teaches us through the Chuch.
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For God has utterd, really, only one Word, and that Word is Our Lord Jesus Christ.
You are a talented teacher. *salute* Always figured the real art behind teaching was getting people to think, not just know facts.
When I was about 10, my Dad dropped two books on my bed. His Torah and the Qu’ran. I’d already had Bible lessons in Sunday school and in the Cubs and had my own Bible. I’d read, make notes and he’d incredibly patiently explain things. He wanted me to understand that God has many faces and many aspects. It’s still just Him though.
Sometimes, though we thank out Father, we don’t thank our father enough ....
Enjoyed this conversation immensely - thank you! A rational discussion of religion on the net? That’s a first. :)
“nor even necessary for salvation, as is evident in the case of the book-less, the illiterate and those not mentally competent to read.”
I have a very dear friend who is a Rabbi. Probably the smartest man I know. I asked him once why the Torah was basically the first 5 books of the Bible. His response was *Most people can memorize that much, even if they can’t read.”
Or think of the Passion plays or the Nativity. Gets the story across in a memorable form to people who don’t have books or can’t read. Just another example of the Lord speaking in the most appropriate way to the listeners.
Yes, you are making an important point. One doesn't say "I am of Polycarp" or "of Irenaeus" any more than one could say "I am of Apollos" or "I'm with Paul or Cephas" (even though Paul and Cephas between them wrote, well, more than a third of the NT if you count it by verses, or more than half if you count it by books --- the principal author being the Holy Spirit.) But we are all "of Christ."
You can't even have one person saying "I am of Sacred Scripture" and another saying "I am of Sacred Tradition" or "I am of the Church." We're of all three --- because we are all "of Christ."
There should and must be no contradiction between these things. God, being Author of all, is not the Author of confusion. And Tradition is SO important in protecting the right interpretation of Scripture.
This was made strikingly apparent to me when I read through a number of so-called "Gay Christian" websites and saw how they argued supposedly "Biblically" in favor of their gay marriage position.
Mind you, I do not agree with their position at all, so you need not expend any electrons telling me to stop supporting gay marriage (I totally reject it) -- but just to point out where people can be misled about Scripture if they don't have Tradition.
They would take verses like:
They deal with both OT and NT prohibitions against gay sex by doing what they would call a more detailed and accurate interpretation of the words of Scripture:
If you accept these interpretations, monogamous same-sex relationships are never condemned in Scripture.
I don't agree with that, but what makes it really clear and definitive, is that the Church has never accepted anything like "same-sex marriage" nor even a single act of man-man or woman-woman sex, in any context, as being OK.And that's what clarifies things and makes me KNOW, no matter what scholarly Scriptural arguments are brought to the fore by gay-affirming Biblical scholars, that the "gay marriage" interpretation is wrong.
Even strongly Scripture-oriented Protestant teachers, like eminent Baptist Albert Mohler, fall back finally to the ultimate Tradition argument by noting that no Church Father nor pastor nor Council nor teacher nor exegete nor document in history has ever taken a pro-"gay marriage" position: so we know what those disputed Scripture passages mean, and what they don't mean, because of Tradition.
And the constant teaching of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium) thanks be to God.
See what I'm saying? Tradition and Scripture work together in defense of the same, one, truth.
Just for your reference: you could check out these "Gay Christian" sites HERE and HERE.
God bless you. Now I have to go make lunch. Do the dishes. Mop the floor. And think some more :o)
An odd example comes to mind.
I am not, of course, of the Yazidi faith (and I pray every day that they will not all be murdered by Jihadi terrorists, as ISIS continues its hideous sweep across the plains of Nineveh) --- but one interesting thing about the Yazidis is that their religion existed for at least 8 centuries, and some say much longer than that, without scriptures. They are not regarded by the Muslims as "People of the Book," which is what they call Jews and Christians. (What exists of Yazidi scipture, their "Book of Revelation" "Black Book," and "Book of Melek Taus weren't written down until 1911-1913, and then thy were not written down BY the Yazidis, for their benefit, or even with their permission: they were written down by foreigners, maybe anthropologists. They themselves do not possess or use these books.)
For their entire history, they have maintained their doctrines on faith and morals, by their songs. Their songs, memorized by all, were and are their reference for every part of their religious belief and practice.
This gives them a great staying power, great strength, and at the same time a great vulnerability. A paradox.
The contention of Sola Scriptura is not that Scripture is the source of salvation. The belief simply states that everything one needs to believe and practice to be acceptable to God is contained in Scripture.
That does not preclude reaching out to the illiterate with the Gospel in a wide variety of communication modes. But the Gospel so communicated must be grounded in Scripture, because that is what God has given us as the rule of faith and practice. Not that it is a substitute for Christ, but that it is the first and only essential point of reference for determining truth about Christ and the salvation He offers. Everything else is optional at best, and that which contradicts Scripture is to be rejected, on which point we theoretically agree.
But there is a problem with that theory. As a master of logical realty, you cannot have two supreme authorities. As Christ said, two masters doesn’t work. You end up skewing to the one or the other. As I understand your argument, you propose to solve this by making the bare assertion that your particular body of tradition is really the voice of the same God, therefore equally authoritative. I trust you realize that an equivalent assertion is made by Mormons, Islamicists, and every other group that didn’t manage to get their tradition into the Scriptural canon.
This creates a real dilemma for those who wish to know and believe only God’s truth. How do we evaluate these competing claims? What is the starting point? If I start with claims of historical continuity, to which you have alluded, then I have placed noncanonical history above Scripture. If I simply inquire of my own intuition, I have placed my noncanonical intuition above the written word of God. If I use tradition to validate tradition, I am wasting my effort, because circular reasoning doesn’t ever go anywhere but in that nasty old circle.
So you see the problem. There must be a resolution to the puzzle of where to start. Sola Scriptura resolves this by looking first to Scripture. Again, this does not preclude the value of teachers and evangelists. We all have a role in the body of Christ. But if some teacher comes along centuries later declaring we must believe in Aquinian transubstatiation via Aristotle, or we must believe in the annunciation of Mary, else we are anathematized, then we have a reference point we can go back to and say wait just a minute, that’s not required Christian belief, nor is it even correct, and then we can recite reasons for this from Scripture.
In other words, choosing Scripture as the primary means of determining divine truth puts us in the position to discern error. And we need not add additional authorities for that specific purpose. If I want to know chemistry or modern European history, I will look to authorities in that field, and to the extent they do not conflict with Scripture, they can be good and useful resources. If I want to preach the true Gospel to the illiterate, I had better be sure what I preach is soundly grounded in God’s written revelation of that Gospel. As the psalmist said (and I paraphrase) Lord, keep me from straying either to the right or to the left. My desire is to keep my feet on the path illumined by His word.
Lunch break is waning.
Peace,
SR
Argh! Droid autocorrect error. “master of logical reality” should be “matter of logical reality.” Yikes. It’s a pain being a fallible human. :)
Now, I'm not trying to be stupid here (although sometimes i manage to be stupid without trying!) but I've combed over previous posts and I don't see where Scripture says Scripture is "sufficient." Can you give me a chapter and verse?
And don't say 2 Tim 3:17, because that's the one that says Scripture is inspired and useful (which is indisputable),
Adj applied to Scripture: inspired and useful
Adj applied to the man: proficient, equipped, well-furnished
without implying that Scripture alone is enough to make him so.
It's like saying, "You already have the paint, the brushes, the drop cloth, the pan, the rollers, the masking tape -- so, here's a $50 gift card for Home Depot, which will be useful to you. to get whatever you need to be fully equipped and perfect."
Not a perfect analogy. Just the point that you might not even need the card, if you've got everything else. Like some good and holy Christian in Pakistan who lives and died without evhaving seeing a Pashto Bible. Paul himself says says he needs the the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15)
I appreciate your kind and courteous approach to this discussion as well. :-)
There have always been and I suppose always will be those who will twist the Scriptures. II Peter, Jude, Galatians, Colossians...All aimed at defending “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” against attacks by its enemies.
We have these writings. Is there something else we need?
Those who wish to justify their perversions of sexuality will pervert Scriptures to do it. But such perversions are easy enough to expose. I’ve seen all of those you cited, and have addressed many of them in conversations with friends and/or FRiends - and without appealing to any authority other than the Bible.
I won’t elaborate unless you’d like me to. Nor will I “expend any electrons telling you to stop supporting gay marriage.” :-) I know you don’t.
But I will digress and urge you to stop calling it “marriage” when it isn’t. When we call their pretense a “marriage”, we offer them ground from which to shout, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled” with conviction and persuasiveness. And before we know it, we’ll have to attach adjectives like “traditional” to distinguish what God created from what man pretends exists.
Albert Mohler might not know what the Scriptures say on this subject. But what’s that to me? Am I dependent on his knowledge of the truth in order to get to heaven? Am I dependent on his traditions? Your traditions? My Dad’s traditions?
Or can I just read the Bible for myself? Can you and I discuss these subjects (as we’re doing so profitably!) and learn from one another, testing ourselves and each other against the Holy Scriptures?
Paul was not dependent on anyone’s traditions - not Peter’s, nor James’s (Gal. 1). He learned from Jesus Himself, and he knew the truth. And when he saw Peter doing wrong, he “withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2). Peter’s tradition caused even Barnabas to be led astray.
Peter had strayed from the truth as it had been delivered to him in Acts 10, and confirmed in Acts 15. Paul brought him back to that original, non-evolving, Spirit-delivered “truth of the gospel” which he had been lured away from.
If Peter could be led so easily from the truth of the gospel, how much more so the rest of us! The preventative, the cure, the antidote is...what? In the words of Innigo Montoya from The Princess Bride: “Go back to the beginning!” :-)
That’s where Paul pointed Peter. That’s how John begins his first epistle. That’s the thesis statement for Luke’s history for Theophilus.
If Jesus’ kept His promise to His apostles, then the Holy Spirit did indeed guide them into all truth. If we stick with that, how can we go wrong?
Thank you, that was a most kind compliment. I must be improving, because I’ve certainly “shed more heat than light” in past discussions on FR! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
