The "Gospel" is an oral proclamation first. Certainly, it is recorded in Scripture, but I don't see the necessity to say that the Scriptures have encapsulated ALL of the Apostolic Teachings in clear format. Much of the Christian teachings through history were given by a person's knowledge of Christianity, not by necessarily reading a book, but by one's actions and the proclamation - that Jesus is Lord and is Risen!
Acceptance is only meaningful if we understand at least the basics of what Christianity is
History has proven that men can know God WITHOUT the Bible in hand, true? Now, we probably are arguing a moot, meaningless point - the Bible IS available to many people. But even in third world countries were illiteracy is high, we see Christianity IS expanding. I believe that even in the case of Protestant Evangelists, they are able to spread the Good News more by their actions, by being a light of Christ, rather than reading about some 2000 year old Jews. It is one's witness that brings people to the Bible, not vice versus.
Maybe I have been misinterpreting what "tradition" is all along. I pinged you to a post a little while before this one on this topic. I have been thinking that tradition is extra-Biblical, not automatically wrong, but not in the Bible.
We divide Tradition into two components: Apostolic, and Ecclesiastical. The latter is changeable. Things that the Church instituted to promote piety or virtue, etc. Things such as Fasting on Friday during Lent. That is not set in stone, but we obey it because the Church has given it to us as a means of advancing our sanctification. The former, Apostolic, are Traditions that are not EXPLICITLY in the Scriptures - but are NOT EXCLUDED by Scriptures, either. They ARE written and expounded on, but not within the Scriptures. Latter Christians witness to their source - the Apostles.
A good example of this is infant Baptism. It is not EXPLICITLY mentioned in Scriptures. One COULD see it - Christ said do not keep the children away from Him, the Scriptures say that whole families were baptised. By Scripture ALONE, the issue is unclear, is it not? However, by looking to the first few generations of Christian writers, we DO see that THEY considered the practice as holy, pious, and taught by the Apostles! Thus, we have an Apostolic Tradition, a teaching of the Apostles that is not clearly laid out in Scripture, but was considered EQUAL to Scripture by the first Christians.
Why can't the Church, theoretically, flourish under either of our views? What, God can't handle forgiving sin Himself? :)
We believe that Christ passed along a power ONLY to the Apostles - the power to bind and loosen, the power to forgive sins, and the power to confect the Eucharist. As in the Old Testamant, they passed this power (the Spirit) through the visible laying of hands. Thus, a visible sign was given that others could see - an authority was given, a power, to another to continue Christ's Church. We believe that such things, called sacraments, are visible signs of God's graces that continue to come to us. Christ continues His ministry of men here on earth through the successors of the Apostles, the men whom they had laid hands upon. If Christ had intended for all men to have such power, He would have given it to them. We follow what we see in Scriptures, not what our democratic society tells us that we should do (let women be priests, etc.)
What, God can't handle forgiving sin Himself? :)
Of course, but why did He give men the power to forgive sins in the first place in John's Gospel? Note, this is AFTER the Resurrection! The Sacraments (Reconciliation in this case) was given to men so that we could SEE God's work within us. We are body and soul, made that way by God, so we are more effectively worshiping God and following Him when we give our entire selves to Him and when He blesses us through the material world (as well as the spiritual world).
Do you mean chronologically, or in importance? If the latter, then the interpretations of men, even God aided, supersede the inerrant word of God?
As I said, theologically speaking, the Traditions of the Apostles came first, the Scriptures came next. God gave His Gospel orally first. The Apostles gave it to others orally first. The Scriptures didn't come until AT LEAST ten years later, if we believe that an Aramaic version of Matthew was written in the early 40's. Thus, the first ten years at least saw Christianity spread without any Gospel writings, any Epistles, etc. Later, when these same men of God wrote letters and the narratives of the Gospels, they naturally taught the SAME thing that they taught orally earlier to others. Thus, the oral teachings preceded the written ones, and the written ones did not overturn the oral ones. Nor does it say anywhere that oral teachings are encapsulated completely within the Scriptures. This is a Protestant assumption that is proven incorrect based on the writings of the first Christians.
I believe the Spirit has led me to make the advancement from the Arminian view to the Calvinist one.
Then who was leading you to the Arminian view 2 months ago? How do you know that the "Spirit" won't lead you to another view next month? See, there can only be ONE Truth, and you cannot KNOW it in this manner! I find this means of determining proper doctrine as totally dependent on one's current opinion, a subjective matter, rather than an objective one coming from outside of one's self. As a Catholic, if I take on the opinion that there is no Purgatory, and I want to remain a faithful Catholic, understanding that Christ established a Church and protects it, then I MUST submit my opinion to Christ's, and put aside that non-belief of Purgatory. I begin to read WHY the Church defends Purgatory. But I don't make things up and then try to prove them with bits of Scripture, tossing out verses that don't match.
I'm really starting to get the idea that there is something about the Eucharist's importance to Catholics that I don't understand. If it is, why is it different from the importance of other sacraments?
Well, hold on, here is your chance to learn, as I am preparing to give a class on just that subject this Thursday. The Eucharist is THE source of our Christian walk. Christ comes to us and abides within us in visible form. From this abiding, we believe that Christ sanctifies us in a most perfect manner - when we are open to receiving Him. Yes, the Eucharist is of primary importance to us.
Brother in Christ
I was agreeing with you that the Gospel can be taught orally. What I forgot about is that our "Gospels" are not really the same thing. :)
We divide Tradition into two components: Apostolic, and Ecclesiastical. The latter is changeable. ...
Thanks for the explanation.
If Christ had intended for all men to have such power, He would have given it to them.
Or, in the alternative, if Christ had intended for any men to have the power after the Apostles, He would have given it to them. :) But seriously, I am a supporter of the laying on of hands. It was one of the most deeply moving ceremonies I have ever witnessed in our church. I know the recipient was very benefited, and the prayers were very real and produced results.
FK: "What, God can't handle forgiving sin Himself? :)"
Of course, but why did He give men the power to forgive sins in the first place in John's Gospel? Note, this is AFTER the Resurrection!
I want you to be sitting down when you read this, BUT :), I think we would disagree if even the Apostles had the actual authority to forgive sin. I would say the same for binding and loosening, since that can only come from heaven. (I know, you're SHOCKED! :) I think I would agree that they had the power to heal, and they certainly had a special blessing to evangelize.
Thus, the oral teachings preceded the written ones, and the written ones did not overturn the oral ones. Nor does it say anywhere that oral teachings are encapsulated completely within the Scriptures. This is a Protestant assumption that is proven incorrect based on the writings of the first Christians.
Are you saying that all oral teachings, including the ones that were later written down and became Apostolic Tradition were ALL in place and fully functioning from the beginning? Throughout all the centuries later, NOTHING new was "discovered"? For example, the Apostles taught a sinless Mary orally, etc.?
Then who was leading you to the Arminian view 2 months ago? How do you know that the "Spirit" won't lead you to another view next month? See, there can only be ONE Truth, and you cannot KNOW it in this manner!
To be honest, before I really didn't have an opinion because I had never thought of it before. (I didn't even know there was another way to look at it, so it was not like I had been rejecting the Calvinist, but then changed my mind.) I just saw other people I respect in my church espouse the Arminian view so if you had asked me I would have said that. I agree that there is only one truth and I believe the Spirit has recently either brought me to the absolute truth or closer to it, and I am thankful. I trust the Spirit to lead me as He chooses. You all don't learn everything instantly either, do you? :)
I find this means of determining proper doctrine as totally dependent on one's current opinion, a subjective matter, rather than an objective one coming from outside of one's self.
That's because you don't believe the Spirit talks to scrubs like us. :) We believe in a personal God.
Well, hold on, here is your chance to learn, as I am preparing to give a class on just that subject this Thursday. The Eucharist is THE source of our Christian walk. Christ comes to us and abides within us in visible form. From this abiding, we believe that Christ sanctifies us in a most perfect manner - when we are open to receiving Him.
Then I came to the right place. :) I'm not sure why, but I have been thinking of the "real presence" as that Jesus is "there" at the ceremony and present. Now, I see that He actually enters the body of the partaker. Yes? I just remember reading a million posts ago from someone or someone's link that the actual molecules of the bread and wine do not change, etc. So, I thought there was some element of symbolism. At the moment of partaking, if I have this right so far, does that mean that both the Spirit and Christ are indwelling simultaneously? If Christ enters at every partaking, when does He leave? (I'm not trying to be flippant. :)