“It's not what all early christians believed that I follow …It is that which the Holy Spirit delivered to the Apostles that I follow, the inspired word of God.”
Of course. But ALL heretics had access to the same Scriptures that the orthodox Christians had. The Church Fathers had to deal with the heretics who used Scriptures against the intent of the inspired authors. Here is one of MANY examples of these Fathers mentioning such abuse of Scripture:
CHAPTER. XV.--HERETICS NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO ARGUE OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES. THE SCRIPTURES, IN FACT, DO NOT BELONG TO THEM.
We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed),--so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above ,all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures. If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege. (From The Prescriptions Against Heretics, Tertullian ca. 200 AD.)
I think we can agree that INTERPRETATION of Scripture is MORE IMPORTANT than the actual writings themselves! To take an example, when if someone began to say that Jesus was not really God, but an archangel. This is exactly what Arius, a heretical priest (and founder of Arianism) stated (and the Jehovah Witnesses today...). One of the key verses the Fathers applied to the Logos was Proverbs 8:22-31. The verse questioned by Arius was "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago” {Proverbs 8:22}. You can see that one CAN say “before he was begotten (the Logos) or created or ordained or established, he did not exist”. This is a valid Scriptural interpretation of that series of verses, and is exactly what Arius of Alexandria wrote in a letter to Eusebius, a Catholic bishop. According to Arius, the Logos was “alien and unlike in all respects to the essence and selfhood of the Father”.
Can you see what is happening? Someone is challenging the established, unwritten belief (Tradition) of the Church!!! Someone is saying that Jesus is not God! That he is at best an angel. According to Gal 3:19, the law of Moses had been “ordained by angels through an intermediary”. “Let us make man” of Genesis 1:26 can be seen as God the Father speaking to angels. This mediator role of the angels could be broadened to include the Logos as the chief among them. Our worship of Jesus would then be idolatry – only God deserves worship! And so the battle began between Arianism and Catholicism. Can you see the need for a guardian of the faith passed down by the Apostles?
The point of this is that Scripture interpretation MUST be done correctly to obtain the meaning of WHAT IS God’s Word to us! Here is where Apostolic Tradition, which you dismiss right now, is very important. It is part and parcel of the Word of God! God’s revelation to us includes His Words written, and their meaning as well!
“I don't consider the above mention people as inspired (as I also believe from previous comments you would also agree).”
Yes. Individual Church Fathers are not inspired. However, I would again take you back to Acts 15. Before there was a New Testament. First, there was a question whether Gentile converts had to become circumcised or whether they had to refrain from non-kosher meats. Read Acts 10, the dream of Peter, especially “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean” {10:14}. Despite receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, despite hearing Jesus teach about how meat does not make a man unclean, there were a number of Christians, including Peter, who still followed the customs and ways of the Jews! Note the disagreements between the disciples “…there had been much debate” {Acts 15:6}. Note what they did next. Peter stood up and declared that the Mosaic Law was a burden that was not necessary to lay upon the Gentiles. He went AGAINST Scripture and the Tradition of the Pharisees given to them by Abraham and Moses! Circumcision was no longer necessary to be saved! What a momentous decision! Can you imagine being there? There in Scripture, the Spirit is guarding binding decisions made by the Fathers. A promise given to them in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 – the power to bind and loosen. They used the power given to them by Jesus.
These men were either very arrogant, or understood that God Himself was guiding them to declare such a thing. We agree it was the latter “and it seemed good to us AND the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:28). So, “…since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you…"(Acts 15:24-25). Here, we see that the Church leaders are binding ALL Christians to uphold this determination.
Thus, Scripture is not meant for private interpretation; interpretation of Scripture is to be done within the paradigm of the Tradition given to the Apostles and applied to the entire Church. And it is all in Scripture.
Does this power end? Once the Apostles die out, does the Spirit or Jesus leave? No. Jesus promised “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mt 28:20). At John 15:16, Jesus says “I will ask my Father for another Advocate (Spirit) to be with you forever”. So God Himself is promising to protect His Apostles and their successors forever. We see this was the understanding of the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem in Acts 15 (good to us and the Spirit), and at the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, etc. They, too, knew that the Spirit and Jesus was guarding them. While an individual could be wrong, once they came together and acted to make a binding decision on all the Church with the intent to define what the Scriptures meant (due to challenges to Tradition, such as Arius above), God was there protecting the teachings of His Church. This is what the Church has ALWAYS believed. So looking at one Father’s misplaced theology is inconsequential to the power of the Councils with the Bishop of Rome. There is no confusion once binding decisions are being made with the understanding that the Holy Spirit is guarding the teachings.
“As I stated, I believe the Word of God to be sufficent for salvation, and to go beyond what is written is to be done at great peril.
I agree with that. To go beyond what is written, IMPLIED or EXPLICIT, is wrong. We believe that all doctrines have been gradually revealed for definition, although all revelation was initially given to the Apostles. The example was eating the cereal and actually writing the detailed process. It takes longer and more thought to do the latter. The former comes naturally. Hence the ancient saying “lex orendi, lex credendi”, how we pray is how we believe. What was passed down is what we believe.
“I don't know how many thousands-word 'biblical' articles I see posted on this forum without a single Bible verse associated. It is because many are following men rather than God”
Brother, if you can show me in the Bible a verse where it says anything to the effect that one must believe ONLY what is in the Bible, then you will have advanced beyond them. If you can tell me where the canon of books – what IS Scripture – is located within the Bible, you have proven your point. However, you cannot. I am sorry to say that you are also following a man-made tradition in the first case. In the second case (the canon), you are relying on FALLIBLE MEN (guided by the Holy Spirit) to tell you what books ARE Scripture. Why isn’t the Gospel of Thomas in our canon? Why is Jude or the Acts of the Apostles in there? Or Philemon? What isn’t the First Letter of Clement? We both disbelieve the Gnostic Gospel mentioned in the Da Vinci Code (I presume). Who is to say they are wrong? Because we believe the truths handed down from the Catholic church, the Apostolic succession, not men who cannot trace their lineage to the Apostles (or claim to trace it to an obscure Apostle from 200 years after the fact). What I am getting at is you wouldn’t know what the Bible even IS if it weren’t for these men who have guarded the teachings of Jesus Christ and have passed it down to us today!
I have given you much to consider. However, history has shown me that the parable of the mustard seed is an apt one for the Church. The seed planted by Christ is the SAME entity, but looks different then 2000 years ago. It is visible, containing weeds and wheat, the good and bad of the community, not an invisible body of holy people only. There IS no other Church one could point to and say – that is the Church that Christ established. If we believe Jesus promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against this visible organization, then we can see it only in the Catholic Church. The Glorified Body of Christ will not descend until the end of time. Until then, we have the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church on earth, seen fully (but not entirely!) within the Catholic Church. You have been baptized in the name of the Trinity (I presume). Whether you know it or not, you hold to Catholic teachings, such as the Incarnation and the Trinity. Your heart burns within you as He opens the Scripture to you (cf. Luke 24:32), but you don't know Christ through the breaking of the bread (cf. Luke 24:35). Of course, this is why Catholics refer to non-Catholic Christians as “separated brothers”. So truthfully, you are a...
Brother in Christ
I noticed that in this thread you have again mentioned the events described in Acts 15 as an example of “the Church” revealing something not already revealed in Scripture. I tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out to you that Peter’s statements regarding circumcision were by no means a new revelation. The Apostles had been spreading the Gospel years before the events recorded in Acts 15. It is a matter of fact that Paul was in Jerusalem to correct the false teachings of “a sect of the Pharisees” from Jerusalem who refused to believe that Jesus Christ represented the new covenant (or law). He describes the nature of his visit in his letter to the Galatians. There is absolutely NO doubt that he understood the old law (including circumcision) no longer bound Christians. Read Galatians 2:4-10 and you will see that there is nothing Peter said in Jerusalem that in any way changed what Paul was already teaching to the growing Christian Church in the decade previous.
You go on to reference Acts 15:6 to show there was “much debate” (also translated as “questioning” or “discussion”). But among the Apostles, there was none, and first Peter and then James confirmed Paul’s message and explained the “correct” answer to the assembled elders. Peter references the Divine revelation described in Acts 10 (the conversion of Cornelius), and James then quotes Amos 9:11-12, to prove that what Peter experienced agreed with the words of the prophets (Scripture). To claim that Peter was somehow revealing a truth that was previously unknown is to deny the previous work of Paul (and Peter) among the Gentiles, the revelation from God to Peter concerning the cleansing of the Gentiles in Acts 10, and the words of the prophets recorded in Amos. It also ignores the entire Gospel of Christ being the “New Covenant” which was already being taught to the growing church in both the East and West. Finally, the fact that ALL these events are actually recorded in what we all agree is God breathed Scripture makes them an invalid proof that tradition is required to understand the Word or Will of God. It was understood even at that time, that the writings of the Apostles were considered inspired and Scriptural. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter describes ALL of Paul’s epistles as Scripture. These men are the authors of Scripture. Not later day interpreters. I think it would be more useful to your argument to reference an Apostolic tradition that cannot be found in the written Word.