Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America ^ | 1992 | R. THOMAS ZELL

Posted on 06/11/2007 3:29:03 AM PDT by markomalley

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

BY R. THOMAS ZELL

© 1992 Conciliar Press Ben Lomond, California

Second edition printed in Canada, 1995 Third edition printed in Canada, 2002

Wait a minute!

How can so many contradictory statements be based on the teachings of one book? How can intelli­gent and sensible people read basically the same Old and New Testament text, yet arrive at such opposite conclusions? Is there any other book, ancient or mod­ern, which has prompted such a vast and often incom­patible array of interpretations and dogmas? Why can't anyone agree on what the Bible really teaches?

I believe the time has come for those who love the Holy Scriptures, no matter what their backgrounds may be, to address such questions earnestly and sin­cerely in the name of Christ. No one who takes seri­ously Christ's High Priestly Prayer for unity among His followers in John 17:20, 21 ("I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me") can look with indifference upon the divisions, factions, and schisms which have become synony­mous with contemporary Christianity. Nor can we ignore the crisis of biblical interpretation which is bringing so much of that division upon us.

In the Roman Catholic Church of the late twentieth century, an increasingly vocal and powerful contin­gent of theologians, clergy, and laity began to cry out for changes far more radical than those of the Refor­mation. Calling into question Church teachings con­cerning the most basic issues of morality, ethics, and traditional Church dogma, and fanned by the turbulent winds of nineteenth and early twentieth century liber­alism, and furthered by a highly militant feminism, these factions tore away at the very core of traditional Catholic beliefs. What effect these forces will have in shaping Church doctrine in the twenty-first century remains to be seen.

In the Protestant world, what began as an attempt by early reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli to purify the Church has now largely failed to lead God's people to doctrinal purity and biblical fidelity. Rather, it has resulted all too often in a narrow-minded and independent sectarianism on the one hand, or a progressive descent towards novel and often unrecog­nizably Christian liberalism on the other. Both ele­ments now simultaneously wage war upon the modern Protestant Church and have cast her onto the shores of the twenty-first century divided, confused, and disori­ented. While there are still many who cling faithfully to the essentials of their particular denomination, se­vere structural cracks are now becoming apparent everywhere. Should the Protestant Church survive the twenty-first century, many fear to think what appear­ance it will have assumed?

Never before in the history of the Christian Faith has there been such widespread confusion concerning foundational biblical doctrines such as the nature of the Church, the Holy Trinity, or the essence of the Christian life. Having lost a consistent approach to biblical interpretation, modern Christianity has been cut adrift from its moorings, and now appears to be rapidly drifting out to a tempestuous sea of subjectiv­ity, shallowness, and heretical novelty. Like the dis­ciples of Jesus' day who could not cast out the demons, modern Christianity has seemingly been outwitted and overpowered by the enemy. Divided and confused, it is rapidly losing its momentum, while the watching world either mocks openly, or begins to look elsewhere for answers.

WHAT HAPPENED?

If, for the most part, Christians are sincerely looking to the Scriptures for answers, yet are coming up with a discordant array of interpretations, there must be some explanation. I believe there is one and only one-but before discussing it, I would like to mention two commonly held views, which though understandable in light of the current chaotic scene, I believe must be rejected at the outset.

1) Unhealthy Skepticism. Some would say Christians disagree over the proper interpretation of Scripture because there is no proper interpretation. These people would claim, "The Bible is not divinely inspired and has no unified message." Frankly, who can blame people for being skeptical? With over 22,000 different Christian denominations and sects in existence today, and with an average of five new groups appearing each week, almost all claiming to base their beliefs on the teachings of the Bible, how could it not appear to those outside the Christian Faith that the Scriptures have no unity, no underlying theme, and no divinely inspired message?

To the skeptic, the spectacle of modern Christian­ity proves that the Bible is simply another book of history, a random collection of religious writings re­flecting the sociological development of a portion of Middle Eastern culture. I obviously don't agree with that position, but in deference must admit that if I were on the outside looking in at all this chaos, I might be tempted to believe it. If you are reading this booklet as a skeptic, but one who would like to believe there is more to the message of the Bible than what you might have experienced so far, I wish to encourage you not to give up. There is more to the story-much more. Please, keep reading!

2) Unhealthy Optimism. Others would tell us that although Christians disagree over the meaning of Scripture, in the final analysis, doctrine is not really important anyway. They would look upon the current disharmony among Christians as not a weakness, but a strength-God's way of teaching us that what a person believes, or how someone interprets the Bible, is only a matter of personal, private opinion, and ultimately has little importance or bearing on one's relationship with God or fellow man. This view says, "Our respon­sibility is to make the best of whatever we have, to respect everyone else's opinion, and not to prefer our views, or anyone else's views, over our neighbor's. It doesn't really matter whether someone is Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Christian Scientist, fundamental­ist, or Unitarian. We should simply live our lives, and stop trying to find out who is `right.'” This view is incompatible with a sincere search for truth.

LOOKING FOR ANSWERS

All right, perhaps we are in agreement, at least in principle, that there is a serious crisis here. There can be no denying that the spectacle we modern Christians are presenting to the outside world bears very little resemblance to the picture of unity and oneness envi­sioned by Christ in John 17. The most sincere efforts of Christian biblical interpreters, no matter how intelli­gent, how charismatic, how gifted in biblical lan­guages, how well-loved, or how eloquent, have not been sufficient to quell the confusion that now exists. In fact, most of them have only added to this confusion in their own way. Sectarianism, liberalism, and moral decay are running rampant, and at the present rate of decline, there will likely be no resemblance whatso­ever between the Christianity we now hold, and Chris­tianity one hundred years from now. (If you have been a Christian for many years, think back to the changes which have occurred in your own church since you were a child in Sunday School!)

Okay, so where do we go from here?

What I am about to say, I say with more convic­tion and firmness of belief than I have possessed in over thirty years as a student of the Scriptures. I wish to give a two-word answer to that question which repre­sents what I unequivocally believe to be the one and only prospect for Christians who wish to return to the true message of Scripture and to understand its divine meaning. Apart from this priceless key to interpreta­tion, the fragmentation we see around us will continue unabated until finally there is nothing left of the origi­nal Christian proclamation.

What I'm about to give you is not just another opinion or idea. It is our only hope! It's called Holy Tradition.

YOU MUST BE KIDDING!

"Tradition? Isn't that something the Catholics came up with to impose a system of non-biblical, authoritarian dogmas upon people so that they wouldn't read the Bible for themselves?"

If that statement sounds anywhere close to where you are coming from, please stay with me for at least the next few pages of this booklet. There are reasons why you feel that way, and some of them are valid. But not all of them. What I am about to say is not an indictment of godly pastors, teachers, parents, or friends who in sincerity taught you and me our beliefs about tradition. I was raised in the Baptist Church and in a godly Christian home, and have the greatest respect for those who taught me and sought to be examples of how to serve God and to put Him first in life. I love them, and I thank God for them.

But they only saw a part of the picture.

HOLY TRADITION: A BAD RAP

No one can deny that there is a dangerous and dark side to tradition. It does not take a Ph.D. in biblical studies to be aware of the harsh language used in Scripture

against the legalistic and man-centered traditions of the Pharisees, or the other empty traditions filtering around during the New Testament era, against which Saint Paul warns his readers to be on guard (Colossians 2:8).

Undoubtedly some of the most harsh language in all Scripture directed toward this aspect of tradition can be found coming from the mouth of Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 15:3-9. He calls the Pharisees "hypocrites" for nullifying the commandments of God through their phony traditions, and then goes on to castigate them by quoting Isaiah's prophecy,

"These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

What Christian in his or her right mind would want to be involved with something that received such harsh treatment from our Lord Himself!

But wait! Are we seeing the whole picture? Be­cause something can be misused and abused, does that necessarily mean it cannot possibly be used in a proper manner? Take, for instance, the Bible itself. As we will soon see, godless heretics from the earliest period of the Church's history, as well as virtually every hereti­cal cult of our own day, use or have used the Bible as their source of proof-texts. Does this mean that we should shun the Holy Scriptures as many people shun Holy Tradition, because the possibility of misuse ex­ists? I hardly think so!

To be quite honest, the Bible, while deprecating the dark side of tradition-that is, the tradition of men-speaks quite highly concerning tradition prop­erly applied. Saint Paul, who in Colossians 2:8 warns his readers against the one aspect of tradition, applauds the Corinthian believers for keeping the traditions he delivered to them concerning conduct in Church wor­ship (1 Corinthians 11:2). Elsewhere, he strongly ex­horts believers to

"stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Further on in that same book, he applies tradition to moral conduct in a favorable light when he says,

"We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6).

What am I trying to say? That tradition, like the Bible itself, can be perverted and twisted into some­thing unimaginably ugly and godless, if that is the intent of those who are using it. But if we as modern Christians have false preconceptions that go beyond that realization, and tell us that all tradition is evil, or that tradition is something to be avoided like the plague, we need to take a second look at Scripture itself. As we will soon see, the early Church had no such hang-ups about tradition-although Christians were most defi­nitely concerned about differentiating between Holy Tradition and the traditions of men.

The Church followed Saint Paul's instruction to Timothy,

"the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2).

The word tradition means, literally, "to hand down."

Holy Tradition speaks of a careful passing on of cor­rect belief and worship from generation to generation. I will tip my hand before moving into the next section by saying here that if the early Church had not been able to come to grips with tradition properly applied, and if the decay of our own day and age had spun out of control in the early history of Christianity, without the safeguard of Holy Tradition to keep the Church from slipping headlong into heresy, we would not have needed a Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth cen­tury. Why? Because Christianity would have died in its infancy, wracked and torn apart by conflicting doc­trines and perversions. The Church would have blown away like dust long before Martin Luther came onto the scene. Or at best, he would have needed way more than 95 Theses to get things straightened out!

BUT ISN'T THE BIBLE SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF?

Okay, how about another question, and a very valid one at that, which is often brought up in discussions about tradition. Isn't the Bible sufficient in and of itself without needing any help? What about the doctrine of sola scriptura?

To answer that question, I would like to intro­duce you to one of my favorite heroes from the Church's past. His name is Saint Vincent of Lerins, and he lived and wrote in the fifth century. Like us, he had a deep and enduring love of the Holy Scrip­tures. (Isn't it a shame we modern Christians so easily assume that we are the only ones to have an interest in God's Word?) Listen for a moment to his discussion of how to determine true doctrine:

I have often earnestly approached learned and holy men who knew Christian doctrine, asking how I can distinguish the truth of the catholic (universal) Faith from the falsehood of heresy. In almost every instance, they have told me that if I, or anyone else, want to detect heresy, avoid the traps set by heretics, and maintain the true Faith, I must, with the help of the Lord, reinforce my own belief with two things:

1) The authority of the Holy Scriptures;

2) The tradition of the Church.

At this point someone may wish to ask, "Since the canon of Scripture is complete and more than sufficient, what need is there to join the authority of the Church's interpreta­tion to it?" Good question. But there is a simple answer we all know if we think a moment: Because of the depth of the Scriptures, they are not interpreted in the same sense by everyone. One understands a text to mean one thing, and another thinks it means another. Sometimes it seems there are as many interpretations as there are interpreters.... Consequently, because of the intricacies of all these heresies and incorrect doctrines, we must formulate our understanding of the writings of the Apostles and prophets in harmony with the standards of ecclesiastical and ortho­dox interpretation. (From The Commentaries, chapter 2, paraphrased by Fr. Jack N. Sparks).

Aside from the fact that this passage is so relevant to our contemporary scene it could have been written yesterday, Saint Vincent's work is vitally important because it so perfectly summarizes the need for tradi­tion in the earlier period of the Church-earlier that is, even than Saint Vincent. It was because of the count­less heresies seeking to pervert the Scriptures that Holy Tradition became so important!

EARLY "SCRIPTURAL" HERESIES

Let's take a few steps farther back in time, starting in the first century, and listen to just a few of the heresies which started attacking the Church from her earliest times. To understand these heresies is to understand why the Church, from its inception, placed such a high degree of emphasis upon the role of Holy Tradition.

What a mess! And that is only to name portions of the teachings of just a few early heresies. Other than the fact that some of these groups differed as to what books they believed composed the Old and New Tes­tament, do you know one thing they all had in com­mon? Just like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses of our day, they all claimed adamantly that these misbegotten views were the true teaching of Scripture!

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

ThankGod, from the earliest period of the Church, going right back to the Apostles themselves, the true heroes of our Faith fought tooth and nail against such perversions. No one, not a single one of them, believed that the Bible needed additional help to somehow become God's Word. In view of the countless heresies attacking the Church from the beginning, all of them using Scripture to make their claims more palatable (in Saint Vincent's words, heretics sprinkle the perfume of heavenly language upon their doctrines, because they are "quite aware that the evil smell of their doc­trines will never be accepted if their nasty vapors are released undisguised"), it was sincere Christians who needed the help-desperately. There had to be some way to distinguish truth from error in those crucially formative years of the Church. One thing wouldn't work, for sure: letting everyone draw his own conclu­sions about what the Bible really meant!

One of the earliest and most important "yard­sticks" the early Christians used to determine precisely the core essentials of true doctrine was their baptismal formulations. What was it that catechumens coming for Christian baptism were proclaiming they believed? In the face of all that wrong doctrine, what were the essentials of the Church's saving and biblical Faith? Baptismal formulations-concise, carefully worded statements of faith (such as the Apostle's Creed, whose roots go back to the second century) -became one of the earliest forms of tradition. They were the Church's way of protecting new catechumens who came seeking salvation in Christ. Because of these baptismal creeds, the Church was able to say, "These are the essentials of apostolic teaching. This is how true Christians under­stand the Scriptures concerning vitally important points of belief. This is what you must believe to be a Christian."

I simply do not have time in the course of one short booklet to go into further depth concerning the history of tradition in the early Church. However, I will say that one of the most encouraging studies I have ever embarked upon in my entire life has been to examine the teachings of men like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, and Basil the Great concerning this subject. As one born "after the bomb," so to speak, someone whose only experience of biblical interpreta­tion has been that of the contemporary din of conflict­ing and contradictory opinions, this study has been like discovering a sweet oasis in the midst of a parched desert. Finally, I have found godly men who agree on the essentials of interpretation!

I will also say by way of summary that for these men, and in fact for all the great heroes of the early Church, the Scriptures were never looked upon as something to be stripped away and interpreted in isola­tion from the Church. That is what the heretics did. For early Christians, the Bible was most naturally under­stood in the context of the Church, that community of believers, both living and departed, who believed, taught, and, most importantly, worshiped in accor­dance with what the Apostles had received from the Lord Himself. For early Christians, that kind of faith­ful tradition, that "Rule of Faith," was the interpreta­tion of Scripture.

THE MAKE-UP OF TRADITION

The most important aspect of Holy Tradition, the New Testament, was still in its developmental stage through­out the entire period of the first century. The Holy Scriptures, God's infallible and unerring word deliv­ered through the Apostles, stand alone and without rival. Orthodox theologian Bishop Kallistos Ware speaks for all Christendom when he says,

"The Bible is the supreme expression of God's revelation to man."

People from my evangelical background have bent over backwards to "hold fast" to this vital facet of Holy Tradition. A person could not consider himself to be evangelical if he did not read the Scriptures regu­larly, attend a Bible-believing Church where the Scrip­tures were both preached and practiced, and spend time meditating upon the message of Holy Writ.

And who among the early Fathers would disagree with that sentiment? Saint Jerome wrote that "igno­rance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." Saint Athanasius called those who neglect the Scriptures "worthy of utmost condemnation." And Saint John Chrysostom said that not knowing the Scriptures is "the cause of all evils."

But tragically, somewhere in the white-heat inten­sity of the " Battle for the Bible," many Christians have entirely overlooked the rest of Holy Tradition. Indeed, to badly misquote a verse in Acts, many evangelicals today would say in all honesty, "We have not even heard whether there is such a thing as Holy Tradition."

Besides the Scriptures, I've already mentioned one other important aspect of Holy Tradition, the early baptismal formulations. What are some of the other elements of tradition?

1) Councils and Creeds. As the Church grew and matured, the need often arose for local, regional, and even ecumenical-universal-gatherings of orthodox pastors, bishops, theologians, and godly leaders, to establish true biblical and historical doctrine in answer to heretical claims of the day. They gathered to decide, again with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what the Bible really taught about those issues. And to make sure that their decisions were really biblical, they made extreme efforts to follow the consistent teaching of the godly faithful who had gone before. By far the most important of the creeds coming out of these councils is the Nicene Creed (or more technically, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed), which is recited at every celebration of the Liturgy in the Orthodox Church. It states the absolute essentials of Christian Faith and belief as understood by the unified early Church.

2) The Liturgical Life of the Church. It is fascinating to read a later Church Father, Saint Basil (fourth century), as he defends biblical Orthodoxy against the pseudo-Biblicism of the Arians, who were masters at twisting Scripture. Of course, Saint Basil reasons from Scripture. But knowing the craftiness of his enemies, and how treacherous they were at proof­-texting their absurd teachings, Saint Basil also invokes another powerful witness to, in this case, the true teaching concerning the Holy Spirit: the liturgical formulations-the patterns of worship-of the Church from her inception. "Do you want to know what Chris­tians believe about something?" to paraphrase Saint Basil's argument. "Take a look at what they do and proclaim in their worship." When you stop to think about it, isn't it not only logical, but even a matter of piety, to believe that the same Holy Spirit who guided the writers of Scripture should also guide the Church in the development of her worship? The Church's liturgical and prayer life is a powerful element of Holy Tradition.

3) The Teaching of the Fathers and Lives of the Saints. I have never witnessed a martyr being tortured and killed for his or her faith. The early Church, however, had abundant opportunity to witness such spectacles. Is it any wonder that the writings of these martyrs, along with the writings of those who "fought the good fight" to the finish, who maintained true belief while others fell away, were looked upon with reverence and respect? Evangelicals today look to and trust respected Church leaders of our own era for sound Bible teaching and worthwhile instruction and edification. Why is it so difficult to give that kind of respect and honor to early heroes of the Faith-men and women who started, and finished the race? I wish that more of our "modern heroes" would do what all early Fathers and saints did to warrant the respect and admiration of their followers: make absolutely sure that what they are teaching squares with what faithful Christians have believed throughout the years. To be a "hero" to someone, and to teach new and radically differing doctrine in the guise that this is what "the Bible says," is a cruel deception and a lie. G. K. Chesterton defined tradition as "giving your ancestors a vote."

4) Continuing Tradition. Also included under the banner of tradition could be mentioned, with vary­ing degrees of importance and universality: the deci­sions of later councils, canon law, and finally the iconographic tradition of the Church. In fact, one of the most exciting things about tradition is that it never stops or remains static. Tradition is the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. We do not simply observe tradition, we enter into it, are swept up by it, and in the process become a part of its ebb and flow.

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

For early Christians, there was no false dichotomy such as we see today between the Bible and Holy Tradition. In the intensity of unimaginably crucial battles for the Faith, when forces within and without were threatening to tear apart and silence forever the message proclaimed by Christ and passed down through His disciples, the Church looked gratefully to both Scripture and Holy Tradition to find balance and to maintain equilibrium. It was never an "either/or" op­tion. Both Scripture and Holy Tradition were received as having been given to the Church by God Himself, the source of all wisdom, through the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.

The battles of our own era are no less fierce than those of the Church's early history. In the midst of a fragmented and hopelessly divided Christian procla­mation of the early twenty-first century, with a myriad of groups and individuals claiming to know the true meaning of Scripture, yet disagreeing radically with one another and often proclaiming new and danger­ously novel doctrines, the battle for faith is, in fact, intensifying on a daily basis. What will be the outcome of this tremendous struggle?

Thank God, there is still time for a return to the balanced and Spirit-filled understanding of the Holy Scriptures, as guided by the light of Holy Tradition. If we are willing to lay aside our modern prejudices and return to the consistent and clear message of the Bible, understood through the clarifying lens of Holy Tradi­tion, our chances of surviving the current crisis in­crease tremendously. In fact, the very gates of hell will not prevail against us.

As the Bible says,

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work" (2 Thessalonians 2:15-17).

And God's people answered: AMEN!


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Orthodox Christian
KEYWORDS: solascriptura; tradition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101 next last
To: markomalley
Hello Markomalley,

I believe the author’s point is to identify many obvious abuses that have been attributed to defective reading of scripture.

I think that is his point too but take issue with the way he stated - The Bible Says, when the Bible doesn't say that.

You have a point in that the different sects believe different things (and of course all of us think we have the correct interpretation). For that reason I think the Bible must be taught chapter by chapter and verse by verse so one can't pick a verse here and there.

I know, your mileage may vary on this one. But that’s the way we see it.

My mileage does vary on the "tradition" part but I certainly admire your way of stating it.

......Ping

21 posted on 06/11/2007 10:16:25 AM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GCC Catholic; markomalley
Thank you for your explanation GCC.

I don't think this will be a problem for most readers, provided they read the entire article

You could be right but it was difficult for me to go past The Bible Says once I read what the Bible doesn't say.

I understand what you and Markomalley are saying about this but I don't know any way to overcome the problem. I see following many traditions as going against Father's Word. I also see many interpretations as a complete misunderstanding of His Word. So, where does one go then?

I study, I pray and ask for Him to lead, guide and direct my life. I ask for Him to enable me to discern truth and tell others truth only. Other than that, it is in His hands.

......Ping

22 posted on 06/11/2007 10:26:32 AM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; FormerLib; Tuscaloosa Goldfinch; pjr12345; Uncle Chip; Ping-Pong; GCC Catholic; ...
Folks,

So there we were, having a nice, polite conversation. Do we all agree? No. But are we being disagreeable in our discussion? Hardly.

Then, out of the blue, we have an individual who believes it is his God-given responsibility to start throwing ****-bombs in the middle of a perfectly nice thread:


- But I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find the average Catholic that would know there is noting in the scripture that would lead one to beieve these statements are credible...

- Not at all, coming from the Catholic religion...

- And he warns (in the scripture which is the result of the traditions he taught) about religions like yours...


Now I pinged all of you to ask you for your opinion on this...is the behavior appropriate? Does it reflect the presence of Christ in the person's life? Is it a manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit?

I'm just curious...I know many of you do not agree with Catholicism (or Eastern Orthodoxy...the source from which the original article comes). And I'm not asking you for your approval or disapproval of either of those religions. I am asking you whether or not you believe it's appropriate to invade a thread that is going along so politely...

Thanks, in advance, for your responses...

23 posted on 06/11/2007 10:33:11 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong
My mileage does vary on the "tradition" part but I certainly admire your way of stating it.

Well, you know, people can disagree without being disagreeable. I think you've done an admirable job of that.

24 posted on 06/11/2007 10:38:36 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Iscool; FormerLib; Tuscaloosa Goldfinch; pjr12345; Uncle Chip; Ping-Pong; ...
- But I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find the average Catholic that would know there is noting in the scripture that would lead one to beieve these statements are credible...

- Not at all, coming from the Catholic religion...

- And he warns (in the scripture which is the result of the traditions he taught) about religions like yours...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I pinged all of you to ask you for your opinion on this...is the behavior appropriate? Does it reflect the presence of Christ in the person's life? Is it a manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit?

I'm just curious...I know many of you do not agree with Catholicism (or Eastern Orthodoxy...the source from which the original article comes). And I'm not asking you for your approval or disapproval of either of those religions. I am asking you whether or not you believe it's appropriate to invade a thread that is going along so politely...

*************

I'm a Catholic, if anyone was wondering. I have grown to expect that certain posters will say provocative things on these threads, and I often choose not to read their posts. I confess I did not initially read those.

Are these posts in particular an attempt at rudeness? Perhaps. They might just as well be a shout for help from a deep well of sadness and confusion.

25 posted on 06/11/2007 10:45:31 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Part of the problem here is that the view you attribute to those of us with our roots in the Reformation is that what is described here might be more accurately referred to as “solo” scriptura and not “sola” scriptura. There is a difference.


26 posted on 06/11/2007 10:49:42 AM PDT by Binghamton_native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Wow.

Paul spent 3 years with the Resurrected Christ?

Jesus taught Paul everything?

Paul taught the other Apostles?

And, by the way, since most of the New Testament hadn’t been written yet, Paul’s teachings are oral, except for his own writings. Tradition. Authority to teach. Authority to interpret. Authority to pass on teachings to others.

Waiting with bated breath.


27 posted on 06/11/2007 11:15:09 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
But I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find the average Catholic that would know there is nothing in the scripture that would lead one to believe these statements are credible...

Iscool, I fear that applies to so many people, so many Christians. There, but for the grace of God, go I.

I have been looking for a certain scripture but can't find it. In it God tells those that are following Satan that he will always allow them to have a leader because they listen to their father. He seems to admire them for that and in doing so is admonishing us for not being as good a child as they.

So many Christians don't read or really KNOW His Word. Until a few years ago I didn't realize the anti-christ comes first, pretending to be Christ. I would have fallen for his deception believing I was doing the right thing.

.....Ping

28 posted on 06/11/2007 11:26:12 AM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Are you surprised by this answer?

On the contrary. The convolution of this passage from remembrance to "transubstantiation" was fully anticipated.

29 posted on 06/11/2007 11:37:18 AM PDT by pjr12345 (But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Pot. Kettle. Black.

It seems to me that if you post provocative material you ought not be surprised by similarly provocative responses.


30 posted on 06/11/2007 11:45:27 AM PDT by pjr12345 (But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
My favorite exegesis, also Orthodox, on this topic is

On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition

31 posted on 06/11/2007 11:58:33 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345; Salvation
The convolution of this passage from remembrance to "transubstantiation"

The Bible and the Fathers teach the Real Presence. The Catholic teaching of the Transsubstantiation is a way to rationally explain the Real Presence. There is no claim that the doctrine of Transsubstantiation is directly scriptural or even patristic.

32 posted on 06/11/2007 12:02:55 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Bump for later


33 posted on 06/11/2007 12:12:51 PM PDT by swmobuffalo (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345; markomalley
If the responses were only as provocative as the original article, there would be no problem. The article was a reasoned explanation that warrants reasoned, well-thought discussion.

In reference to Mark's earlier question: Threadjacking (which has not happened here, but has happened on other threads), Assertions made without citations or any kind of explanation, or just general rudeness are not appropriate, especially when the discussion is going as well as it was here.

I'll admit, I'm not perfect; at times I've been overly forceful with other posters, and I'm sure I've in a few cases even been rude. That doesn't make it right to do any of those things (or anything else generally considered inappropriate).

34 posted on 06/11/2007 12:18:16 PM PDT by GCC Catholic (Pray for your priests and seminarians...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Could you define what is meant by the “Real Presence”? Also, Scriptural support would be greatly appreciated.


35 posted on 06/11/2007 12:37:45 PM PDT by pjr12345 (But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GCC Catholic
The article was a reasoned explanation that warrants reasoned, well-thought discussion.

I think this is a matter of opinion. But granting it for the moment, when it started out with strongly provocative assertions of what the Bible says, it sets a tone, as well as an expectation in the reader; it should come as no surprise that some responses might be driven by these.

36 posted on 06/11/2007 12:41:56 PM PDT by pjr12345 (But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345
But granting it for the moment, when it started out with strongly provocative assertions of what the Bible says, it sets a tone, as well as an expectation in the reader; it should come as no surprise that some responses might be driven by these.

I find this a poor excuse, but perhaps I expect too much from my fellow posters.

37 posted on 06/11/2007 12:51:25 PM PDT by GCC Catholic (Pray for your priests and seminarians...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345
Pot. Kettle. Black.

I will accept that designation. If it can be shown where I've gone onto a thread and attempted to hijack it.

I will consider that designation. If it can be shown where I've gone onto a thread and started criticizing the wrong group (the article was from an Eastern Orthodox source, not a Catholic source).

I will accept the reproof...implied..."Let he without sin cast the first stone."

38 posted on 06/11/2007 1:02:40 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: annalex
My favorite exegesis, also Orthodox, on this topic is

Beautiful article...saved for later reflection.

39 posted on 06/11/2007 1:04:09 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345
But granting it for the moment, when it started out with strongly provocative assertions of what the Bible says,

Sorry for interrupting here, but there is a thread recently posted that may be of interest to you along these lines:

Scenes from the German Lutheran Convention

The tragedy is that these people believe they are acting scripturally.

40 posted on 06/11/2007 1:08:44 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson