SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

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

[Iscool]

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.

Exactly...The false prophet, ministers of Satan, all show up as good Christians...

And what do we have to discern who is who???

Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Judge them by the word of God...

[GCC Catholic]

I don’t agree with all the premises or all of the conclusions, but this provides a good “refresher course” on a well-reasoned position of Sola Scriptura.

Thank you and God Bless

[Salvation]

Well said.

[Salvation]

That’s news to me. Christ wasn’t around for three years.............only until the Ascension.

Do you have chapter and verse to prove your claims? Where does it say that Christ was alive for three years and talked to Paul and not to the apostles?????????

Hmmmm

[pjr12345]

Good point. But by that time, it’s typically too late.

[pjr12345]

If you think that the scripture saying "this is my body" does not mean it, you have no reason to demand further scriptural evidence.

Agreed. I take that statement in the same manner as "I am the true vine" or "I am the door". If you take it literal, then we'll remain in disagreement until you change your thinking ;)

[Iscool]

That’s news to me. Christ wasn’t around for three years.............only until the Ascension.

Jesus' ministry was approximately 3 years on earth...

And maybe you missed what I said...I said 'after the ascension'...Paul spent time with the Ressurrected Savior...

Jesus instruct Paul on the Gentile church...

[Iscool]

That’s news to me. Christ wasn’t around for three years.............only until the Ascension.

Jesus' ministry was approximately 3 years on earth...

And maybe you missed what I said...I said 'after the ascension'...Paul spent time with the Ressurrected Savior...

Jesus instruct Paul on the Gentile church...

[annalex]

But of course the context is very different, and in the case of "this is my body" there is an elaboration in John 6. The context of "I am the door" and "I am the vine" is consistent with the metaphorical speech. The context of the Last Supper and John 6 is not consistent:

• Actual meal is taking place at the Last Supper.
• References to actual food of the Miracle of the loaves and fishes and of the manna are made in John 6.
• The underlying theme of the Paschal Lamb is reference to real sacrifice.
• The Passion of the Cross was not symbolic or metaphorical.
• There is a commandment to "do it"; there is no commandment to do anything about doors or vines.
• If "Real food indeed" were somehow meant symbolically, the discourse would not be a "hard teaching" prompting disciples to leave.
• To eat one's flesh and drink one's blood does have a scriptural metaphorical meaning of gaining dominance (see the Encyclopedia article), clearly not intended here.

Finally, there is a direct scripture that condemns a refusal to believe in the Real Presence: "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:29). It is therefore not a matter of agreeing to disagree as in some other aspects of the scripture open to interpretation.

[markomalley]

SOLO Scriptura states that the only place truth can be found is in the Scriptures, and my truth is the real truth, darn it! SOLO Scriptura takes the view that tradition means nothing.

Well, that's my understanding of sola scriptura.

What it does mean however, is that the Scriptures are our only ultimate authority for faith and practice. The Scriptures are our final authority and they are infallible.

Agreed that Scripture is infallible.

All other authorities (including Tradition), even though they may also be valid, are subordinate to the Scriptures and are fallible. If Tradition violates the teaching of Scripture, then I must follow Scripture.

And that's where we diverge...but just a bit.

They (scriptures) may not contain ALL truth...

I wish that I'd hear that just a bit more from others.

but they contain the TRUTH which is necessary and sufficient for our salvation.

I can understand how and why you'd say that. I'd be hard pressed to disagree.

I believe God has given us the Church as a blessing. I've learned much from tradition, which very often, has illuminated and enriched my faith and prayer life.

I am glad to read this about your feelings for the Church. I'm equally glad to hear you say this about tradition (and I note, with great appreciation, that you distinguished between big "T" Tradition and little "t" tradition. That is a distinction that most Protestants don't tend to make.

But all too often, I've found traditions that seem to run counter to and have distracted me from, or even made me doubt, the clear meaning of Scripture.

When you talk little "t" traditions, I actually agree with you. There are a lot of little "t" traditions that I've run into that I do not, in any way, agree with.

In these situations, I must consider Scripture as my final authority.

And I can fully understand your statement there.

---

Flo, your position sounds (no offense) basically like the Catholic position. Really and truly there is very little between the two of them.

Tradition (big "T"), properly understood, cannot contradict Scripture. (God is not a man that He should lie). The Scriptures, properly understood, cannot contradict Tradition. The two go hand in hand.

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

2 Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Jn 12 Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. (Note that the author wishes to communicate face to face by word of mouth, rather than merely by written word)

3 Jn 13-14a I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face...

etc...

Tradition "big T" captures that oral history from the apostles and passed down from generation to generation.

As opposed to tradition "little T" that may or may not be fallible.

The Catechism states:

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."

"and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

For my purposes, Sacred Scripture is the wellspring from which the Holy Spirit primarily speaks to me. However, Our Lord did much and taught much. The majority of which (Jn 21:25) that was not captured in the Gospels. Likewise the Holy Apostles were uniquely inspired, first by their witness to the Word of God Incarnate, but also by the Holy Spirit. Our Lord commanded the apostles to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:19). What did they say? Were the only words uttered all recorded in Scripture? Look at those quotes from St. John's epistles. Twice we read that he would rather communicate face-to-face rather than by writing it down. What did he communicate?

That's where Sacred Tradition comes in (again, big "T" vice little "T"). Those teachings are essential in the understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures. It helps me understand some of the 'how' and 'why' that are, at times, not addressed in the written Word.

Can a person receive salvific grace from the Scriptures alone? Absolutely. Millions have. I pray millions more will.

Can a person receive the fullness of the revelation of God from Scriptures alone? IMO, no. Much of the revelation, yes. All. no.

Flo, your post truly moved me. Thanks for stating it as well as you did.

[pjr12345]

But of course the context is very different...

Your supporting statement is filled with speculation and/or extrapolation.

Jesus was standing right in front of them when He instituted this Remembrance, and He had not yet been to the cross. The bread and wine couldn't possibly be His body at that time (or ever). It makes more sense, and is more in line with His parable method of teaching, to view this as metaphorical symbolism.

Symbolism detracts nothing from the importance of this Commemoration. It is certainly required that we pay proper honor and respect to the Sacrifice which we remember. Thus, Paul's warning remains valid and pointed.

I'm not sure what you mean by, It is therefore not a matter of agreeing to disagree as in some other aspects of the scripture open to interpretation. Clearly we disagree. If we cannot agree, we have no choice but to continue in disagreement, and thereby agree to do so.

[annalex]

Jesus was standing right in front of them when He instituted this Remembrance, and He had not yet been to the cross.

This only means that every Mass is a connection across time to the same sacrifice of the Golgotha. Likewise, you would note that the Precious Body is present in many churches and many ears following the Cross.

The Scripture does not leave a clear teaching whether the Last Supper had Real Presence in the elements as well as in Christ in the natural sense, but that surely does not point to the symbolic or mere memorial future act, since the commandment is to "do it" at times future, relative to the Last Supper.

If we cannot agree, we have no choice but to continue in disagreement

True. What I mean is that there are things that the Church teaches, yet other reasonable explanations of the same scripture exist. For example, one can make a reasonable argument from scripture alone that Baptism cannot be given to children, or that divorced people may remarry if the divorce was on grounds of adultery (the Church teaches that children before the age of reason may be baptised, and the marriage after any divorce may not happen). This is not one of such cases: the totality of the scripture alone, and especially 1 Cor 11:29 exclude the Protestant view of symbolic presence.

[pjr12345]

This only means that every Mass is a connection across time to the same sacrifice of the Golgotha. Likewise, you would note that the Precious Body is present in many churches and many ears following the Cross.

Now you're just asking me for the "Gene Roddenberry was a Catholic" theory!

Disagree, we shall.

Very good dialog. Thank you!

[annalex]

Welcome. I did google Roddenberry...

[pjr12345]

A link... so as not to offend some...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1847830/posts?q=1&;page=1#68

[annalex]

Congratulations. You have now joined the ranks of St. Thomas Aquinas in explaining the mystery of the Gospel rationally. This is my Pjr12345 Is a Catholic theory.

[pjr12345]

My RCC upbringing confounds me once again; I’m not sure whether I’ve been complimented or offended.

I’ll assume a compliment only because you seem such a nice person!

[annalex]

Of course it is a compliment. Anyone who combines faith and reason with such thomistic overtones has no place to go, especially if already baptised and confirmed.

[Greg F]

ping

[pjr12345]

Uh oh... now I’m in trouble!