Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
FK: "The little inside gag here is that I am currently using this EXACT passage [Luke 1:1-4] to try to make a case to Jo Kus (and everyone) that the idea of Sola Scriptura is supported by scripture. So, I'll join you in that specific purposes were in mind. I'll even specify and say that one of them was to clarify that the written word (from an authoritative source) was superior to oral tradition."
JK: "FK, I am flabbergasted! I didn't say that oral tradition was superior to written. Over and over, I have said, at the very best, that oral tradition is EQUAL to written, once determined its source is God."
What are you talking about? I never accused you of that view. I know you think they are equal. Without saying anything about your view to IQ, I simply said that my disagreement was that I think that the written IS superior. How did you reach this conclusion?
Where does Luke even remotely imply that everything besides written Scripture is enough by writing an account???
Well, no where, but I think I know what you meant. I am using this passage in Luke as support for Sola Scriptura, not as a definition of it. Luke gave me the clear impression that he thought that if one wanted to be SURE about a teaching, then write it down.
Do you think that Luke is saying "Now that I have written an orderly account, Theophilus, throw away anything not explicitly within this book"? "Stop doing and believing what you were taught that is not within the pages of THIS book"?
No, that would be building way too much into the passage and I am not doing that. Luke was thinking of what HE had to say. He opted to write it down in order to be sure.
Your premise is incorrect. The assurance of salvation exists following baptism, and/or following sacramental absolution of sin, till a mortal sin is committed.
My premise is that in Catholicism "assurance" does not mean "to be sure". Instead, and notwithstanding your explanation that avoidance of mortal sin is achievable (but how many succeed?), it really refers to a temporary or fleeting state. One can be absolutely sure in a particular instant, but have no assurance concerning 5 minutes from now. To me, that is no assurance at all. There is no sense of certitude that would normally be associated with a word like "assurance". In Catholicism, it seems more like an uncertain "hope".
I'm having a similar experience in my discussion with Joe about the meaning of "eternal life". He has explained to me that having "eternal life" does not mean that we will have life with Christ eternally. Instead, it means that we will have Christ with us as long as we abide in Him, but that we can lose "eternal life" at any moment, based on our actions. Again, there is no certitude about the word "eternal", it is only a "maybe". Just as above, "eternal life" seems to be more of an uncertain "hope".
Maybe you can show me what's the real difference between a "reconcilliation" obtained through the Holy Tradition or through an individual's rationalizations, and why should I (dis)trust one over the other.
Regardless of the reason for it, any and all scriptural reconcilliations through human interpretations make sola scriptura an oxymoron.
At the risk of sounding blasphamous, I would say that He would be genetically a woman if His was the flesh of Theotokos. And, technically speaking, there was no conjunction of genetic material; He would have XX make-up, a Barr body, and no Y chromosome. I am not questioning if that is possible -- I am saying that for Him to be "fully man" as we are in every sense but the pre-Fall state does not agree with our understanding of humanity biologically, as it is implied when we say "in every way human" like us.
I think that's a huge stretch. The angel says "You will be with child and give birth to a son ..." Now, think of the setting. An angel of God appears to her out of no where and says she is going to be with child. Why should Mary assume that this angel has come to tell her distant future? This was all brand new to Mary and the scripture even says she was afraid. She thought the angel meant right away, and the angel did mean that. That's why she asked her question.
Prevail means that the Church will lead all faithful souls to Christ as He comes in glory. Scripture is but a tool of the Church in that process. How do you define "prevail" with the scripture?
Well, it wasn't my idea to use the word "prevail" with or without scripture, so that's a hard question to answer. God's Church will prevail with the scripture when Christ returns. I believe that God's Church will be immeasurably larger than it would have been without the scripture. But of course, God could have done it any way He wanted to. The elect are always going to be the elect. I just know that I am much closer to God than I would have been without scripture.
But you're not arguing that the Catholic view is possible, you are arguing that it is correct, the same as I do for my view. I believe that the plain meaning strongly supports my views over Catholic interpretation, so of course I use that in my argument. Who wouldn't in my shoes?
And, when you say that today's plain meaning is quite often different from the plain meaning to a 1st century Jew, that could be true in some cases. However, remember that I am agreeing with people not only from just 500 years ago, but also with the writings of some early Church Fathers. Some of the writings of these Fathers (e.g., Augustine, Tertullian) were thrown out by the Church as heresy, but which support what I believe today on some subjects. They certainly knew what was plain to a 1st century Jew.
There is, of course, no direct answer to your question, either in Scripture or even in our voluminous Tradition!
All that I would say is that if Adam and Eve were created de novo and were fully human (and fully male and female, respectively), then it doesn't seem that unlikely to me that God could create an extra set of chromosomes (including that elusive Y chromosome!) from the flesh of the virgin. The raw material of amino acids and what-not were all there.
If God could make an entire woman from Adam's rib, he can certainly do that! The Scripture doesn't say that Mary would spontaneously form a child, it says that she would be overshadowed by the power of the Holy Ghost, causing her conception -- that's pretty powerful stuff. There *was* a Father involved, even if we completely reject the Mormon idea that carnal relations took place.
I didn't realize that Paul or Apollos "succeeded" anyone. Paul was an original Apostle - according to him. And Apollos, we don't know much about him, but the Apostles were still alive. Earlier in his career, he had the hands of the Apostles laid upon him and he was sent, no doubt.
Regards
I did not, as I pointed out in that post, believe that the fact that we Orthodox do not believe that the Theotokos is a co-Redeemer, think that this would make Orthodoxy suddenly palatable to you! :-)
At the risk of repeating things you doubtless know, the title of Theotokos (birthgiver of God) was confirmed by the 3rd Ecumenical Council. It is not a Mariological title, it is primarily a Christological doctrine. If Christ was fully God and fully man in one single person, not two (as Nestorius claimed), then Mary was and is the birthgiver of God.
She is also the "Mother of God" -- although we use this title infrequently in Orthodox prayers. To say otherwise is to deny either her genuine human motherhood of Christ, or to deny Christ's divine nature. This is all Christology -- St. Cyril and others detected in Nestorius' refusal to call Mary the Birthgiver of God (let alone Mother of God), an subtle but genuine underlying belief that somehow there were two persons in Christ -- a human person, and a divine person. The consequences for our salvation are obvious, since it would mean that God didn't *really* become man -- he just sort of cohabited a bodily space with a man.
You also have doubtless had explained to you the difference between veneration and worship. Even if you do not accept a difference, I can assure you that at least in Orthodoxy, that distinction is very acute, even in the most uneducated peasant.
Asking her to pray to God for the forgiveness of our sins is not a feature of Orthodox prayer that springs to mind, although it may be there. I'd have to check our liturgical texts. Our prayers to her are more of a supplicatory matter -- it's a rough world, and you ask as many people to pray for you as you can when you're getting through life.
Again, I don't expect any of this to make Orthodoxy palatable to you, but I write in the interest of clarification.
If you have a driver's license, you have the legal status of being able to drive. When you lose the license, your status changes - but does the driver's license? "Eternal life" conveys a status upon the believer until that status is lost. "Eternal life" remains eternal life for those who have it. As long as we are in this world, we can lose it, according to the Scriptures.
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 John 5:11-12
Don't feel bad. I have recently discovered this myself while studying John more thoroughly. It cleared up a few issues within the Johninne Corpus.
If you are referring to the passage I think you are in John 6, then I see that as another way of putting what He already said earlier in the chapter, that whoever believes on Him will have eternal life.
Believing and chewing something with your teeth is not the same thing...
No, He is talking to us. He is telling us to not succumb to the remnant, to trust in Him for perseverance, etc.
Now why would God tell us to persevere if we can do nothing?
But to carry the analogy, you also believe that the baby, when he grows up, can "unpunch" his own ticket. That means it was never punched in the first place, and in fact, never is during life. If the analogy had to do with a ringing bell, you would say it makes perfect sense that it can be "unrung"!
I don't follow this "never was punched in the first place". It happened. You can't deny it. We are regenerated upon Baptism, our sins are remitted. Spiritually, this is a real event. But post-Baptismal sins can undo some of the work of Baptism.
When you get sick - then are healed, does that mean you never were sick in the first place? Does that mean you will never get sick again? Really, now. What is so hard about this?
However, God's guarantees are much grander. He guarantees that none of His sheep will ever be lost for good
This was NEVER an issue between us. I have never said the elect are not guaranteed heaven. The question is "who is the elect?" We HOPE we are of the elect. We don't presume to be. God doesn't give us absolute knowledge, since we ALL sin.
God doesn't promise us that we will never sin again, but God does promise to fix us.
That is not entirely true. God only promises to fix those who turn to Him. I have quoted Ezekiel a number of times - and he states that the righteous who turn to evil will DIE! Don't be so sure that you will not turn to evil in the end. Who can say what will happen in 20 years? That is why Catholics say that the grace of FINAL perseverance CANNOT be merited!
God doesn't "repair" those who remain in sin. You should know better. The wrath of God consists in leaving men in their sin. LEAVING THEM!
Even in our system of jurisprudence we recognize that when a payment of justice is made, there does not necessarily have to be a direct beneficiary of the payment.
In all of your examples, another person or entity's desire for justice is satisfied. So are you saying that God allowed His Son to die to satisfy His own sense of justice? If so, I would consider this a secondary reason for the crucifixion. Love is the primary reason, pure and simple. I believe over-emphasis on atonement tends to move our paradigm of Whom God is towards a revengeful bloodthirsty God, rather than a God who is Love.
Regards
Who is going to have sex with another person's wife? Not a normal person. You need to place yourself into the first century! SEX is not the only reason people get married. Honor was very important to the Meditteranean people. It still is, correct, Kosta? An older Joseph could provide protection to Mary's virginity. If you would have read the Infant Gospel of James, as was posted earlier by our Orthodox friends, this explanation would have become more clear.
Regards
Sorry, I misread your post. My head hurts...
I am using this passage in Luke as support for Sola Scriptura, not as a definition of it. Luke gave me the clear impression that he thought that if one wanted to be SURE about a teaching, then write it down.
That doesn't support Sola Scriptura. At all. It merely means that written material is superior to oral material, as one can readily access all the material in one place. Oral tradition, by nature, is generally not in one person's "head". Even if so, it takes more effort to extract it. Written material is there and available to be read - and re-checked if incorrect. Sola Scriptura, on the other hand, says that anything NOT written is to be discarded. It places written material as the source and arbitrator of any other information. Luke does not at any point make this claim. Nor does the Church. Ever. The Scriptures are vital to the Church - but only when understood in the sense of the Apostolic Tradition, not independently as a work by themselves - which subjects them to MISINTERPRETATION. Even in the second century, the Church Fathers were writing about this very fact and were exasperated! How dare those heretics twist the meaning of our Scriptures! Thus, they saw the need to trace their ancestery back to the Apostles in some of their writings.
Regards
We have been arguing about the ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE of eternal salvation. We Catholics believe that we can have moral certitude of salvation, but never absolute assurance. In other words, say a 99% chance? I apologize if my defense of the difference has caused you to think we are not sure of our salvation. We are sure - to the degree that tommorrow we will not be attacked by terrorists with a nuclear bomb. If you read the lives of the saints and Church Fathers, they explain that we can never merit the grace of final perseverance - from our point of view - because we really don't know God's plan for us in the future. But after all of our arguments are said and done, FK, we have "assurance" that we will go to heaven. As to mortal sin, a Catholic abiding in Christ will very rarely do such a thing, so there is no "fleeting" back and forth as you propose.
It is hard to explain the mindset. WE try to remain humble and realize that God can do what He wills - even send us to the hell we so deserve. We do not want to sound presumptuous as if God owes us anything. On the other hand, we fully trust that Christ will not abandon us. All there is left to do is persevere - and we shall have Eternal life in heaven.
Regards
Then why did Jesus have to die?
if your salvation is up to you, why did Jesus have to die?
If the NT was "written" by imperfect men for specific purposes, then was it subject to error, given that men, armed with free will to reject God's guidance, make mistakes?The authors of the New Testament wrote with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and did not reject God's guidance. As such, it is inerrant. But neither did they write systematically, including all traditions and authoritative interpretations of the Word.
How can you know what everyone expected it to be for 1,500 years? The Church does not accept dissent. Some writings by some Fathers have gotten through on some issues. But, I hardly believe that dissent in general was well recorded within the Church. Taken to a comical extreme, this would be like Fidel Castro claiming that all of his people are happy because no one complains. From what I have learned of the RCC, it is not a place of the free exchange of ideas. The hierarchy believes that God reveals the truth to its majority, and that's it. I think it is too broad a brush stroke to say that no one within the Church believed in Protestant ideas until they all cropped up at once in the 1500s.I know what people expected the New Testament to be for 1500 years because of the testimony of the Church Fathers, the Councils of the Church and historical records. Dissent in some areas has historically been tolerated in the Church, but when somebody threatens the integrity of the Word and teaches another gospel, the Church has stepped in to preserve the souls of Christendom.
If you are going to base your argument on the Church stifling dissent, please post examples of sola scriptura theology being suppressed by the early Church.
So true.
Indeed! This was no small matter. Saint Nicholas (yeah, that St. Nicholas) actually went so far as to punch Nestorius for claiming that Mary was merely the Christotokos. These guys weren't kidding around.
Certainly there is great value in a written record. But I can't see separating writing and teaching, especially in subjects of any complexity or depth, that cannot be fully reduced to a fixed set of symbols/concepts.
For exmple: Mathematics is the "language" with the greatest claim to precision, yet even its written word is no guarantee of communication of knowledge, writer to reader. If you 'know' E=MC^2, do you 'know' the Theory of Relativity? Even after the publication of the Special and General Theory of Relativity, it's said only three people understood it for the first decade.
Knowing the words (formula) and 'knowing' are two different things. The written word has tremendous value; however, it alone does not magically result in knowing in the reader.
Writing down and correct teaching - person to person communication by all possible media - cannot be separated.
thanks for your post.
Your last paragraph is well-stated. It certainly reflects something comparable to the practical Orthodox approach to the written Scriptures. They are unquestionably superior to oral tradition because of their fixed nature, unquestioned inspiration, and authority.
The consensus patrum on things not addressed in Scripture or that are perhaps ambiguous in Scripture is, as you say, not an easy thing to determine always (although most of the time it isn't too difficult.) It requires a review of key patristic writings, liturgical texts, iconography, the synaxaria, etc... Where there is universal or nearly universal consensus, then for all practical purposes, this holds the same level of authority as does Holy Scripture.
If the Church appears to have a universal or nearly universal teaching that is in contradiction to Scripture, then it is clearly not the Church speaking. The Arian dominated "church" of an earlier era is an example of this phenomenon. Clearly, an assembly of bishops voting a certain way does not have an authority that is above the clear witness of Scripture.
On forums like this, we tend to focus on "trigger-points" of theology -- hot topics that more often than not are addressed obliquely or seemingly ambiguously in the Scriptures. In those instances, the Orthodox approach is obviously to lean heavily on the consensus patrum. The consensus patrum does not mean that all sources must agree -- far from it. It is a consensus, and therefore some writings of Fathers will be outside the consensus and do not need to be taken into consideration (liturgical texts as a general rule are practically never outside the consensus, because of the nature of their origins and transmission -- and because of their poetic nature, they are generally less problematic in general.)
By contrast, what Scriptural evidence that does exist must *always* be accounted for, and must *never* contradict the consensus. Protestants understandably view our readings of Scripture as being sometimes forced or stretched, and there is little that one can do to counter that opinion, given that we each start from different sets of assumptions.
But I think that it is a useful corrective to point out that for the vast majority of things, the Scripture is what is clear and what we in the post-Apostolic era have always shaped our thinking to fit.
The Scriptures are the matrix of the patristic writings, not the other way around. When one reads the Fathers themselves, their deep reverence for and deference to the Scriptures is as clear as the summer sun.
I write this because often we deal with caracatures of our views on Scripture, and because we sometimes, in the process of dealing with these more difficult issues, contribute to those misapprehensions. We have a duty to try not to make such contributions, and we all have the duty to try not to mischaracterize each others positions. A basic principle of debate is that one be able to state the other's position in a way that they would agree with it. Then, discussion and debate can proceed with a relative lack of rancor.
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.