Two Canons: Scripture & Tradition

by Jimmy Akin

Many Protestants would say, “Apostolic traditions would be binding on us if we could identify which traditions are apostolic and which are not. Obiously we want to obey and accept anything the apostles commanded and taught in the name of God.”

That is good. Protestants who say this recognize the authority of the apostles’ teaching; they simply need to see the mechanism by which we can recognize the apostles’ teachings.

1. THE CANON PRINCIPLE

How do we do that? The answer is that we recognize apostolic tradition the same way we recognized apostolic scripture. Today we are confronted with a variety of traditions, some apostolic and some merely human. In the same way the early Church was confronted with a body of scriptures, some apostolic and some merely human.

The early Church had to sort through these documents and figure out which were authentically apostolic writings — those by an apostle or an associate of an apostle — and which were merely human writings — those merely claiming to be by an apostle. The way they did this was by applying certain tests.

2. IS THE WORD OF GOD SELF-ATTESTING?

Some anti-Catholics, such as James White, are fond of claiming that the writer of Psalm 119 knew what God’s word was even though the Catholic Church wasn’t around to tell him what it was. But unless he was a prophet or had access to a prophet, the Psalmist did not have an infallibly known canon in his day. The canon was not yet finished, much less settled.

Anti-Catholics such as White claim that God’s word is self-authenticating, that it needs no witness. This claim is simply unbiblical. In scripture people regularly had to test revelation to see if it conveyed the word of God. This was not always obvious, even to the people to whom the revelation was given.

For example, in 1 Samuel 3, when God first spoke to Samuel, the boy prophet did not recognize the word of God. He thought it was the old priest Eli calling him, so he got up, went to where Eli was resting, and said, “Here I am, for you called me!” But Eli said, “I did not call; go and lie down again.” This happens three times: God calls Samuel and the young prophet, thinking it is Eli, hops up and rushes to see what he wants. Finally it dawns on the wicked old priest that God calling to the boy, so he tells him what to do the next time the voice addresses him. It turns out the young prophet was not able to recognize God’s voice, and the wicked priest Eli had to help him recognize the word of God. Obviously, God’s word was not self-attesting to Samuel!

Similarly, in 1 Kings 13 a man of God is sent from Judah to Bethel to prophecy. God tells him not to eat or drink until he gets back. But as he returns, an old prophet of God tells him the Lord has rescinded the command about eating and drinking. The man of God then goes home with the old prophet to have dinner. But while they are eating, a revelation comes that the order not to eat or drink is still in effect; the old prophet had been lying. This shows another instance where a prophet is not instantly able to discern between the voice of God and the voice of error. The man God sent to Bethel did not detect the fact that what the old prophet told him wasn’t God’s word. This purported revelation was not self-attesting as a fake word of God.

In Deuteronomy 13 and 18, God gives two tests to know whether a prophet is speaking the word of God. If the prophet makes a false prediction or says to worship other gods, he is not speaking for the Lord. The fact God gives these tests shows revelations must be tested because it is not always obvious what is and is not God’s word.

This is why Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, “Stop despising prophesyings! Test all things and hold fast to that which is good!” The Bible thus explicitly tells us that we must test what is the word of God and what is not, just as 1 John 4:1 says, “test the spirits to see whether they are from God.”

So the word of God is not self-authenticating in the way some Protestant apologists allege. God invites and commands us to test any revelation purported to come from him. This includes scripture. If someone offers a book that purports to be scripture, it has to be tested to see if it is apostolic writing or merely human writing.

3. THE KEY TO CANONICITY

How do we know which books belong in the Bible? The early Church’s answer was: Those books which are apostolic belong in the canon of scripture. If a book had been handed down by the apostles as scripture (like the books of the Old Testament) of if it was written by one of the apostles or their associates (like the books of the New Testament), it belonged in the Bible. Apostolicity was thus the test for canonicity.

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes:

“Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be” (Early Christian Doctrines, 60).

But how could one know which books were apostolic? Certainly not by a book’s claim to be apostolic, since there were many false gospels and epistles circulating under the names of apostles. Neither did the Holy Spirit promise a revelation to each individual Christian of what books belonged in the Bible.

But how was the test for apostolicity carried out in the early Church? Basically, there were two tests, both of them involving tradition.

First, those books were reckoned as apostolic which agreed with the teachings the apostles handed on to the Church. Gnostic scriptures and other writings which did not agree with the apostolic tradition were rejected out of hand. This is something Evangelical scholars admit.

Protestant scripture scholar F. F. Bruce writes that,

“[The early Fathers] had recourse to the criterion of orthodoxy…. This appeal to the testimony of the churches of apostolic foundation was developed especially by Irenaeus…. When previously unknown Gospels or Acts began to circulate… the most important question to ask about any one of them was: What does it teach about the person and work of Christ? Does it maintain the apostolic witness to him…?” (The Canon of Scripture, 260).

Second, those books were regarded as apostolic which were preached in the various churches as being from the pen of an apostle or the associate of an apostle — not just its doctrines, but the book itself. If a given work was not regarded as apostolic and was not preached as such in the churches, then it was rejected. This was also an appeal to tradition because it looked to the tradition of the churches as a guide for apostolicity. If the tradition of the Churches did not recognize a book as apostolic, it was not canonized.

The fact that this was also used by the early Church to establish apostolicity is also something admitted by Protestant scholars. F. F. Bruce writes:

“It is remarkable, when one comes to think of it, that the four canonical Gospsels are anonymous, whereas the ‘Gospels’ which proliferated in the late second century and afterwards claim to have been written by apostles and other eyewitnesses. Catholic churchmen found it necessary, therefore, to defend the apostolic authenticity of the Gospels…. The apostolic authorship of Matthew and John as well established in tradition. But what of Mark and Luke? Their authorship was also well established in tradition” (ibid., 257).

But of course not all of the Churches agreed. Some Protestant apologists are fond of pointing out that the Muratorian fragment, an early canon list dating from the A.D. 170s, includes most of the New Testament. But they fail to point out that the Muratorian fragment also omitted certain works from its canon. It did not include Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. Furthermore, it included works that the Protestant apologists would not regard as canonical: the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. So there was obvious disagreement on the extent of the canon.

Eventually, the New Testament canon was settled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. Up to this point, its specific books were not firmly settled.

Now a Protestant apologist will either have to agree that the men at the Council of Rome included all of the right books and only the right books in the canon or he has to disagree. If he disagrees, then he is going to have to disagree with the New Testament canon in the very Bible he uses, because it was the Council of Rome that established that canon.

But if he agrees that the Council of Rome included all the right books and only the right books in the New Testament canon then he is going to have to say that the early Church made an infallible decision (infallible because they included all the right and only the right books, thus making an inerrant decision under God’s providential guidance — which is infallible guidance). They made this infallible decision three hundred years after the death of the last apostle. But if Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the Protestant apologist has no reason to claim they are incapable of this later on in Church history.

4. THE CANON OF TRADITION

The fact that when the Church made its decision it did so hundreds of years after the death of the last apostle is significant, but no less significant is the fact that when it made the decision it did so on the basis of tradition.

As we noted, the Church was confronted by conflicting traditions concerning which books should be included in scripture. Some traditions, for example, said that the book of Hebrews belonged in the canon; others said it did not. One of these traditions (the one indicating inclusion in the canon) was apostolic, the other (the one indicating exclusion) was merely human. In order to decide whether the book of Hebrews belongs in scripture, the Church had to decide in favor of one tradition over the other. Thus in order to settle the apostolicity of a scripture, it had to settle the apostolicity of a tradition.

As a result, the Church can not only make rulings of what is apostolic and what is not hundred of years after the death of the last apostle, it can also rule on which traditions are apostolic and which are not — and do so centuries into the Church age.

Therefore, the Church can rule on the canon of tradition the same way it ruled on the canon of scripture. The Church is the living Bride of Christ, and she recognizes the voice of her husband. She is able to point at proposed scriptures and say, “That one is apostolic; that one is not.” And she is able to point at proposed traditions and say, “That one is apostolic; that one is not. In this one I recognize the voice of my husband; in that one I do not.”

The mechanism by which we establish the canon of tradition is thus the same as the way we established the canon of scripture. The same principle works in both contexts. The Church is the witnesses to both canons.

5. TESTS FOR THE CANON OF TRADITION

Of course the Church has tests she uses to figure out what traditions are apostolic, just as she had tests to establish what scriptures were apostolic.

One test is whether a given tradition contradicts what has previously been revealed. As anti-Catholics often point out, proposed traditions must be tested against scripture. If a proposed tradition contradicts something God has said in scripture (or something said in already known apostolic tradition) then that shows it is merely a tradition of men and may be disregarded. The Church is thus more than happy to test proposed traditions against scripture.

Of course the Church also applied the flip-side of this test: In the early centuries any proposed scripture that did not match up with apostolic tradition was rejected from the canon of scripture. Thus when, in the second and third centuries, the writings of the Gnostics taught that Jesus was not God or that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of Jesus Christ, these books were summarily rejected on the basis of not matching up to the apostolic tradition.

Naturally, once a scripture has been tested and found to be canonical it is no longer subject to testing. Once a scripture has been shown to belong to the canon of scripture, it is no longer up for debate. Similarly, once a tradition has been tested and found to be canonical it is no longer subject up for debate either. Once a tradition has been shown to belong to the canon of tradition, it is no longer up subject to testing.

A Protestant apologist would not question whether a given book of the New Testament belongs in the canon based on whether it makes a statement that is difficult to reconcile with something said in another book. Once it has been found to be canonical, we can have confidence that it is God’s infallible word and any apparent difficulties arising between it any what God has said elsewhere can be solved. In the same way, once a tradition has been tested and found canonical, we can have confidence that it is God’s inerrant word and that any apparent difficulty arising between it and anything God has said elsewhere has a solution. If we can have confidence at superficial disharmonies in the canon of scripture, we can with the canon of tradition as well.

We know that when God speaks in scripture there are apparent difficulties which arise. Liberals use these to attack the inerrancy of scripture, and so conservatives produce books showing why these supposed discrepancies are nothing of the kind. But if God speaks in scripture in such a way that apparent discrepancies arise then we should expect the same thing to happen when God speaks elsewhere as well. That gives us no cause for alarm.

6. THE CANON PROBLEM

But the Protestant apologist has an even more fundamental problem because in order to justify his principle of sola scriptura or the “Bible only theory,” he would have to claim that we know what books belong in the Bible without acknowledging the authoritative role of apostolic tradition and the Church in finding this out. If, as on the Protestant theory, we must prove everything from scripture alone then we must be able to show what belongs in the canon of scripture from scripture alone.

In fact, we cannot even begin to use sola scriptura before we have identified what the scriptures are. If one claims to know what the scriptures are then one is making a claim of propositional knowledge, and which could only be revealed by God since we are talking about a supernatural subject, meaning he is making a claim to propositional revelation. But if all propositional revelation must be found in the Bible, then the list of the canon must itself be contained in the scriptures. The Protestant apologist must therefore show, from scripture alone, what books belong in the Bible.

But this is something he cannot do. There is no canon list contained in scripture. Many books of the Bible (in fact, virtually all of the books of the New Testament) are not quoted by other books of the Bible, much less explicitly quoted “as scripture” (something on which Protestant apologists, as a matter of necessity, are very big). And the Bible gives us no set of tests by which we can infallibly prove which exact books belong in it. The fact is that there is no “inspired contents page” in the Bible to tell us what belongs within its covers.

The Protestant apologist is in a fix. In order to use sola scriptura he is going to have to identify what the scriptures are, and since he is unable to do this from scripture alone, he is going to have to appeal to things outside of scripture to make his case, meaning that in the very act of doing this he undermines this case. There is no way for him to escape the canon of tradition.

Apostolic Tradition was the key to the canon in two ways — by telling us what doctrines apostolic books must teach (or not teach) and by telling us which books themselves were written by the apostles and their associates.

Ironically Protestants, who normally scoff at tradition in favor of the Bible, themselves are using a Bible based on tradition. In fact, most honest Protestants would admit that they hold to the books they do because when they first became Christians someone handed them (“traditioned” or “handed on”) copies of the Bible that contained those books!

” But if Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, the Protestant apologist has no reason to claim they are incapable of this later on in Church history.”

Logically, this statement is simply incorrect, and it is an example of something that Catholic Church supporters often do, which is to claim that because something is possible, it has to be so. An infallible decision on what to include in the Bible does not, logically, guarantee infallible decisions hundreds of years after that. It is a possibility which is something in the Catholic Church’s favor, worthy of consideration, but logically speaking, it does not prove future decisions are also infallible. What also has to considered then, is other evidence, and it’s in that evidence that evangelicals see reason to conclude that the Catholic Church’s decisions in later times shouldn’t be taken as infallible.

There’s no need here to talk about all the evidence that’s considered, but one thing that should be looked at is the question of whether or not it’s the same church. For one, it’s not made up of the same people, and not at the same place in Christianity’s development. And for another thing, the true Church is made up of all those who are truly the Lord’s. The Bible says He knows those who are is. The true Church is eternal, and even if you refer to it as universal, or “catholic,” that’s still not necessarily the same Church as the earthly Roman Catholic Church. Having a name , like “Christian” or “catholic,” might or might not be the truth. Jesus in Revelation said to a church that it had a name that said it was alive, but it was actually dead.

And the Catholic Church of later centuries is different from the Church that canonized the Bible in other ways, too. The fourth-century church was that much closer to Jesus’ Incarnation and the witness and discipleship of His apostles. The Lord in His infinite wisdom gave those earliest followers such convincing experiences that they suffered death rather than deny who Jesus is. The church was built on that foundation, using persecution and martyrdom, but with the Roman Empire’s acceptance of Christianity, that condition changed. However, the Bible was canonized only decades after Christianity’s acceptance, essentially by the foundational era of the Church. What concerns evangelicals, though, is that as the centuries went on, what developed into the Roman Catholic Church became more like an earthly kingdom and a corporation, with positions in the clergy offering power, security and a comfortable living, and especially to those in the higher ranks.

And too, the Church leadership changed radically when celibacy became required. It’s not the only radical change, as over time it seems that the relationship between official Church leaders and laymen became more formal and distant, but it’s particularly notable. From what I’ve learned, as Christianity took on authority in government, it began to take greater steps to stamp out homosexual acts through criminalizing it. And given just what’s come out about the Catholic Church, present and past, you have see signs of a homosexual underground existing throughout the clergy, including at the highest levels.

Evangelicals, then, see that there is doctrine in the Catholic Church that has come into being over the centuries which conflicts with God’s Word and character as already revealed. And while Catholics will often say none of Catholic doctrine does, the priesthood is more cagey on that point. When Pope Francis recently said that room had to be allowed for God to do “something new,” he was really only expressing a perspective that the priesthood has accepted for a long time. The priesthood essentially sees itself as God’s Word living on earth, and the Bible as inspired and essentially true, but at a point where Christianity was “less developed” and the Church is above it because it has more of the “Christlike spirit” - in, for example, rejecting slavery - than the Bible has. I’ll stop here on this, but there is plenty more evidence that shows the Catholic Church considers the Bible to be more of a guide than God’s inspired, infallible Word for Christians to conform to.

Then, on another claim this author makes, on the question of whether or not God’s Word is “obvious” and “self-authenticating,” he’s inaccurate on what the evangelical view is.

To begin with, the two examples from Scripture that he points to - the child Samuel not recognizing God’s voice, and a man of God being misled - don’t support his argument. First, Samuel was only a child, in the process of being taught, and second, we can believe that God had control of the situation, and had reasons that had to do with Eli as well for why He had Samuel go to him. You get the sense from this episode that through it the Lord was showing Eli how far he was in his heart from truly being the priest he should have been, since little Samuel was hearing the Lord’s voice, but he wasn’t.

Then in regard to the author’s second example, he fails to mention what happened next. The man of God was told this:

” 21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee,

22 But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the Lord did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers.” 1 Kings 13

The point is that the man heard God’s Word, but disobeyed it, and was punished by God for that reason. The problem was with the man, which God exposed, not with God’s Word not being clear.

And as we look at the Old Testament, we should not forget all the examples of people hearing God’s Word and following it. God made clear there, too, that the problem with those who didn’t wasn’t with them not hearing it, but with them not be willing to obey it. And the point of the New Covenant God made with man, through His Son, is that God Himself would put His Spirit in man, giving him the mind of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, as well as a new heart that loved the Lord and His ways. This would make the spiritually dead come alive.

In the New Covenant, then, we can know we’re following God and His Word. The point of both Covenants is that we come to recognize and accept that we are to depend on the Lord as our highest and, ultimately, only true authority. We’re to put aside all of the other “gods,” including ourselves and other people, that we turn to, and come to Him humbly, asking Him to direct us. Evangelicals believe that those who had charge of the early Church did that, but see evidence that as the centuries went on, the official Church leadership drifted away from that, and became worldly. But again, the true Church isn’t of this world, but is spiritual and eternal, and its authority can only come from the Holy Spirit, which guides us to go to God and ask Him about anything and everything, as we go about our daily lives. That is God’s ultimate purpose for us, so that we’re restored to fellowship with Him, and unlike Adam and Eve, will forever depend on Him alone.

verga,

What is the use of the chain-letter repetitious badgering which you have been putting metmom through?

Though the "question" posed to her was a bit different then the ones which she had posed to another, they are nearly identical in most all ways --- I for one can see the intent (and the speciousness) which is most likely behind them, for it the same reasoning we saw in the article (blech) and then came to fruition in yourself, verga, having then went to the inevitable non sequiter;

So then according to you, you refuse to accept the Bible since those books were handed down by tradition.

DO you think of metmom as a "prot" as you use that term?

If so, then you yourself displayed a degree of ill-logic (among other flaws of reasoning and question begging) in then going on to this line of questioning at #113;

The books of the OT were handed down by tradition until the Canon was set. Now Catholics believe in the Alexandrian Canon, ordered several hundred years BC. Prots believe in the Palestinian canon ordered in 90 AD. Following the Palestinian canon gives several problems. This is the canon that denied Jesus. Second by what authority was it ordered?

one aspect of ill-logic being your having previously also identified her as "a prot" and then right afterwards also said;

Prots believe in the Palestinian canon ordered in 90 AD

If metmom is "a prot" and according to you "prots" believe in the Palestinian canon as you termed it, then "prots" obviously must accept "the bible" (though minus the disputed OT books, those same which Jerome termed Apocrypha when he wrote of those in his prologues) for otherwise I do not believe there are any honest grounds for anyone to try and say of other-than-Roman Catholic Christians ---who are usually on these pages criticized for being adherents to Solo Scriptura, that they "refuse to accept the bible".

This type of discourse (which you are engaging in) is reminiscent to me of when those tormenting Christ would strike Him and then demand "prophecy! who hit you?" by it's spirit and tone.

These so-called "prots" must obviously be accepting of NT canon as it is -- or else there would have been nothing there to have badgered her (and Christians whom are not Roman Catholics) with.

All of which results in not adding up to metmom not accepting the bible.

But geez louise, such ill-logical, ill-mannered discourse -- again -- is entirely unbecoming for one who has publicly fancied himself on these pages as "a theologian".

You had also said;

The books of the OT were handed down by tradition until the Canon was set. Now Catholics believe in the Alexandrian Canon, ordered several hundred years BC.

WHere do you get the information that the OT canon was set "several hundred years BC"?

Do you not know what Jerome (that would be St, Jerome, the one who translated much of the Scripture into Latin) said about the LXX?

Not only himself, but others also have written that the original LXX, which I believe is what you were referring to when you said the OT canon was "set" "...several hundred years BC" was Greek language translation of the books of Moses, known as Torah (although some use that term to refer to entire Hebrew Tanakh and did not then encompass the remainder of OT as that is known.

If that be when the canon of the OT was "set", then that would result in the OT canon being limited to the Torah -- which again would render your statement made against her in your if this, then that display of ill-logic based upon faulty premises, be even more FUBAR, thus undoing your very own words, by the inherent inner conflict of them, when one statement or pair of sentences are then examined in light of other statements made in the same comment.

But I've got to hand it to you, you really can pack in and compound errors -- one on top of another.

During the literal centuries when almost nobody would have possessed the entire canon of Sacred Scripture in writing?

Now THAT is not entirely true. And to the extent it hold element of truth, molehills are being made into a veritable mountain range...

Centuries? Almost nobody have the entire?

Not unless we consider how it was frequent enough for a few to be missing one or more of the minor "catholic" epistles, or say, the Epistle to the Hebrews, as that was a bit late, later yet to gain widest acceptance...possibly due in part to gain actual acceptance by all whom knew of it, for reason the actual original may well have been written in Hebrew language(?) and then delayed yet additionally in being spread earlier and further by events in AD 70? No one now living perhaps truly knows, now, unless the Lord has revealed the details to them.

Where is the "oral tradition" to explain that-- other than the writing itself as that has come down to us...although there are some writings concerning it, which those who know the languages and enough of the literature have themselves read, and then written in English about it --so I myself could know a little bit about it.

Some of the foot dragging in regards to acceptance for that one -- was due to it not being known of as early and as widely for almost all the rest? Something like that...but most of the rest not known by ANY for literally centuries? Even Revelation became fairly widely known of in the early 2nd century, so you could be correct only marginally so - IF THAT, and that not enough to make the case which you appear to me to be attempting to make.

When it came to defining what was and what was not actually apostolic -- the measure was whether or not many either had a copy (from earliest times) or else some real and primary accounting of such amongst the oldest apostolically founded churches whom had the autographs themselves, or knew of the ones which they may not for a time had possessed having been told of them or written to including mention etc,.. .with the writings themselves being also ratified as authentic by Apostles themselves and other 1st generation witness to them, if those witnesses not witness to Christ also (being that many in Israel did see Him with their own eyes, even possibly be among the five hundred or so who Paul later wrote of whom personally witnessed the Risen Christ.

So yes, by oral tradition of that manner, and likely yet more little ways, oral tradition did indeed serve to help establish ---- what had been properly as from the Apostles and Luke, who was not an Apostle per se, but was obviously present with, or had gained significant in-depth knowledge (likely--as personal & direct) witness to the Apostles and earliest church years, in Jerusalem, himself mentioning also "how many had attempted to write accounts of the events" with himself writing to set the record straight, so to speak.

Then for the other latest arriving book --Revelation, being dated by most in-the-know concerning such things date that the year 90 AD.

Coming late, and also being quite different than the greater bulk of the remainder of the NT, and also possibly far too much resembling early Gnostic religious *fantasy* led many to long doubt that book -- which even if not everyone (every or *most all* churches) possessing full copies of the greater bulk, the main trunk of the NT Scriptures (the Gospels, most all Pauliine Epistles, 'twas enough when coupled with early oral traditions).

As far as I have so far been informed by the time of the writing of Revelation, most all of the churches near regional to the near Middle East, North Africa, Rome itself, were well enough aware of at least the existence of the rest (save for some not knowing this one or that among those small catholic epistles as I mentioned) with churches of any size and influence (and remember, there were not many at ALL which were not in fairly regular association with their parent churches, most acutely when less than many days travel away from one another) which those whom purposefully traveled from place to place among them (as spoken of in the Didache) would not have failed to bring -- at least spoken mention, at least, of whichever letters and writings flowed out over span a few decades (which a few here or there may have continued to lack for some decades-- but NOT centuries) from sources authenticated as apostolic from those whom had walked with Christ.

The writings were most certainly cherished, and then purposefully shared as they came about. That spurred the efforts to copy, and purposefully share what each a had received.

So no, dear it did not take "centuries" in order for most everyone to know what had been circulated.

The simple pointing toward OT AND NT canons as you did, and then waving the word "Tradition" over them, in no real way equates with those whom then later possessed the texts would adhere to them properly, and then, by their own "traditions" also, always then produce the perfect will, or desires of God spoken of by and through tradition; which must then be taken 'as Gospel truth' (as it is written, even infallibly inspired, coming down from on High through prophets, etc.) on the same level as that which the Jews had recognized as Scripture, and then later, in ways I have touched upon explaining, for the Christians, the NT texts -- as "Bible" or canon, the Jews possibly having been the ones who had invented the precept of canon-- certainly -- in regards to the One true God.

If not, and I if am wrong enough about this (as for no one being able to trust "tradition" unreservedly -- not in this day and age) and yourself instead entirely correct --- then we should all be Jews or convert-- and still follow the Sanhedrin in whichever form we can find them, even tossing aside Christ for reason He opposed them.

Yet even though the Jewish religious authorities of that era were not entirely correct (not beyond correction) and in fact were quite painfully wrong about some ideas or ways of thinking, even in how they taught the inerrant Law of God, He still used them to illuminate for all whom have eyes to see, man's inherent wickedness, even also as that can work itself into and quite near the very things of the One, true God.

But we do not reject Christ.

Christ rebuked these 'teachers' (I know the Scriptures and what they say) for *some* (but not all) of their traditions, yet previously you had remarked, somewhat massaging NT texts, that Christ had directed everyone to follow them, the teachers (He does appear to say such a thing -- but not quite as you had represented it) even as you had also linked to Oral Tradition wiki-link which there spoke of alleged 'rabbinical' writings which paralleled the books of the Law, etc.

Well let me tell you something extremely significant about that tradition, particularly now that you have linked and compared the traditions of those 'teachers' with the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church;

By their very Traditions they had (in some ways) made the teachings of God to no effect!

So there goes the instructions to follow *them* --- for to do so could lead one to be opposing His will in yet other ways.

Sorry, but I will NEVER trade Sola Ecclesia (do what we say) for having mind towards having always in ready reserve the very Word of God itself --- It is Written! Have these laws written upon your heart!

Do not ever again probe me or prod me towards allegedly being required to trade Scripture for some collection of jack-wagon's declarations that their church is "God on earth" and that depite what Scripture can informto the contrary, they and they alone have 'authority' of Sola Ecclesia.

Nope.

Do you not know -- that is how the most wicked cults operate?

Why can't Roman Catholic trust God Himself when He said "None can come unto Me unless the Father which have sent me draw them." and also recognize at the same moment that the written word, the word of God is more powerful than a two edged sword, dividing even the bone and marrow? And for this...only for those whom have the Holy Spirit present within themselves, that Spirit being sent from on High, and though possibly present within at least some of Roman Catholic faithful, is also simultaneously present within at least *some* so-called "protestants"?

Or is that too difficult to wrap one's mind around?

Did you or did you not here on these pages testify that you yourself experienced the inflowing or baptism of the spirit, in setting of a Pentecostal church? ding, ding ding, hello? is there anybody home in there?

This following which you wrote to me, I find to be extremely freighted with mistaken projections upon myself as to what I accept -- and what I do not.

If you don't accept that--- the most important, foundational stuff --- why would you accept the rest of the catalog?

although I understand how that apologetic came to be a part of Romanist thought.

Yet I say to you -- that simply that a thing or precept have or hold elements of that which can be well enough determined to be true (at least true in part, or better yet -- intent?) does not equate with those precepts as they are then further spoken of, applied and even enforced (as much as a church can enforce anything) make them into being entirely true, or on the same plane as that which we hold to be Scripture.

It did not for the Jews of old -- and THAT was part of their own traditions, for none of them would dare to broadcast to others that 'rabbinical writing' was anywhere nearly on par with that which they regarded as Scripture, even as they did at time err in allowing their own body of [ahem] traditional thinking and talking about Scriptures to perhaps too fully within their own minds substitute for the written Word of God, which written word Christ Himself came to fulfill, and did, to the utmost extent.

I could go on, including how as Origen is attributed to having noted --- that the idea of perpetual virginity for Mary, was not at all written of until some time after the pseudographical writing now referred to as the Protoevangelum of James came about.

I understand too, that many web pages featuring RCC apologetics, or writings concerning "Mary" try to place the date for that aforementioned pseudograph as early as 120 AD -- but the more scholarly take on that has solid reasons for determining no earlier than 160 AD to 180 AD.

Origen himself remarked that it seemed a pious idea to him, even if it was not supported in earlier writings (of which he had a significant amount -- many we likely have scarcely heard of or at all been able to read)

So that's one more thing in this capital "T" "tradition" which itself is apparently erroneous although also began to be widespread from quite early on -=- but not before that fake, phony pretender-to-be-written by James the brother of Christ book was for a time accepted by more than a few (but never by all) before after some 60-80 years? something like that was given enough of the rhetorical-mention BOOT that afterwards it not be regarded as genuine NT writing -- but only after it had introduced it's collection of erroneous information which still lives on to this day within "Catholic" tradition, for from time to time even on the pages of FR -- I see stuff from there which in regards to "Mary" otherwise has no earlier source (that I know of) beyond the simple change from hailing her as "blessed Virgin" to "Blessed Ever-virgin", etc.

Traditions in regards to Mary's alleged assumption I has studied somewhat also -- convincing me that Traditions are not always what they are cracked up to be. I am sorry, but I am a realist also -- and although I more than believe in God, and in Jesus as he is portrayed and written of in the Scriptures -- for I do not simply believe that God is real for I instead know (and that IS different then belief) for He has intervened in my life in ways so powerful I am not sure you could believe if I was able to explain -- but -- HE has made a believer out of me.

Men? Even the Church (and specially the Church) I do not entirely trust to get it right, or ever get it entirely, flawlessly, "right" regardless of all the hopeful talk represented as fact that among all ecclesia that there has ever been on earth --- the onliest one which has never erred -- is that one which has formally the bishop of Rome, as it's "pope".

You may continue to attempt to convert me if you so please -- but I have now abundant enough reason (going on for days) beyond what I have written, in this one single letter to you.

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.