Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
You are the only one to interpret as you accuse me. The verse says "Do not go beyond what is written.". It is a principle, and supports Sola Scriptura over oral teachings. Principles survive into the future.
So, the introduction of Luke shows us how Holy Tradition preceded the New Testament and inspired its writing, and neatly illuminates the logic behind apostolic succession.
Yes, oral teachings preceded the NT. Luke concludes that in order to be SURE of correct teaching, he is going to write this message down. This also supports Sola Scriptura. Luke does not say that he would tell them these things so they may be sure, he said he would write them down. Sure, others wrote false teachings, but God took care of that when He assembled the Bible. ... I have no idea how you connect this passage to support of Apostolic succession, especially in the important senses of passing along supernatural powers such as the ability to forgive sin, and the authority to speak infallibly on behalf of God corporately, or even individually.
Paul had to have written Second Timothy before his death in 67. This means that 2 Tim. far predates the gospels and the Book of Revelation, among other parts of the New Testament. So we know that Paul, when talking about "Scripture" being God-inspired he was not talking about the New Testament as we know it.
Let's say that I give you everything and Paul was referring to the OT. It was still scripture wasn't it? It still supports Sola Scriptura just as I said. Whether Paul knew it or not at the time, we both call what he wrote "scripture" today. Again, Paul states a principle. I do not understand how your distinction counters the evidence I am giving.
Finally, 2 Tim. 14 makes reference to what the recipients of the letter "have learned and believed," because they know from whom" they learned it. No reference to scripture here.
I have acknowledged that NT teachings were passed down orally at the beginning, due to necessity. I presume that they were handed down without error, at least until they became scripture. After that, I look with extreme skepticism on anything that did not become scripture, or does not match the scripture.
I certainly always learn much from exchanges on FR, to a point, and that point is where the same questions are asked, the same answers are given, and the same responses ensue, or when new opinions start appearing seemingly for no other reason than that the other guy said the opposite.
Usually exchanges on FR die a natural death when that happens, but when they don't, I check out of them, rightly or wrongly. You will note that I stay completely out of exchanges on this thread where the same things are being repeated over and over by the same people. It just isn't my cup of tea.
As to the offer of giving you the last word, when I've announced in the past that I'm formally checking out of a particular exchange for a time, I've been accused of wanting to have the last word, and so I've started to try to make a point specifically of inviting others to have the last word when I reach the point where I want to quit. No offense was meant -- I was trying to be polite.
I usually get involved in an exchange either because I think that the pre-fab Orthodox position deserves to be stated clearly at least once, or because I think something is particularly interesting and relatively unexplored on this forum (such as your interesting question about the Biblical basis of Christ's descent into hell.)
What I generally find most interesting are questions of what the Scriptures say, what the Fathers have to say about those Scriptures, and what the liturgical texts of our Church say. But at a certain point, that has been discussed, and then I run out of anything to say and begin to repeat myself. Perhaps I am depriving myself of learning opportunities by taking a break at those points, but so be it.
I suppose this is normal behavior of present Popes for past Popes? And here I thought excommunication was a bad thing.
Why is that proof positive? Because it was first? I suppose you are going to tell me in the same breath that oral Tradition is not superior to scripture. You must also have a diminished view of the Ten Commandments. They waited a while before appearing on the scene. There was oral Tradition before them, too.
IF something comes from God, it holds equal weight. Who cares if it is written or not?
It only makes all the difference in the world. If something is written from God, then it is there for all to examine, and most, if not all, misapplications can and will be discovered. If there is the spoken word of God, OTOH, then it is subject to man's corruption upon the first retelling. It cannot be examined for all to see. The "source" then really becomes the teller. I cannot trust the telephone game to relay accurately the words of God if God's written word is available.
When you use yourself to interpret the Bible and the concept that any person can interpret themselves outside of the Church, then that is what you are saying, even though you don't use those words.
So when I say that I let the Bible interpret itself, then I don't really mean that. I really mean that I interpret it myself into whatever I want. Feel free to believe this if you wish, but it's wrong.
This verse [1 Cor. 4:6] doesn't say anything about "what is written" as being Scriptures! Even if Paul is referring to Scriptures, he is undoubtedly referring to the Old Testament, as the NT wasn't even written yet when the First Letter to the Corinthians was penned.
What do you THINK "what is written" means? Even if Paul was referring to the OT, they are still scriptures. That doesn't defeat the point that the verse supports Sola Scriptura. Paul was giving a principle. He was teaching them what to do in the FUTURE. Principles go beyond the first telling. Under your reasoning, all scripture could not possibly have been inspired UNLESS the last verse of Revelation said so!
I presume you mean Luke.
OOPS. Yes. :)
[Re: Luke 1:1-4] Luke doesn't say anything about "false writings". He is merely trying to consolidate everything that was already known.
I was looking at the first verse: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account ...". I think I can make a plausible argument that if Luke thought that all these people had done a great job, then he wouldn't have felt the need to write down another one himself. I infer that he felt there was plenty of error going around, so to be SURE, he was going to write this one down himself. Besides, wasn't it actually true that there was plenty of error going around at that time?
It is unlikely that a person living in Athens would know EVERYTHING orally said about Christ, thus, a written account is better, all things equal. However, nothing here about Sola Scriptura!
Yes, this one is not a slam dunk for Sola Scriptura, but I think it is fairly in support of it. Luke favors a written account.
[From: 2 Tim. 3:16-17] "the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
That does not say that something ELSE can equip someone for every good work.
I TOTALLY agree! But, I presume you mean "can't". Really, Joe, how could you make a mistake like that? :)
[continuing] It merely says that "Scriptures" ... are USEFUL for every good work. So is prayer. So is the Church, the community of faith.
I think it says more than that. Here it is again:
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
On this point, the key words for me are "SO THAT". All scripture is God breathed SO THAT the saved man may be thoroughly equipped ... This teaches me that scripture is all that a man needs to be thoroughly equipped, etc. It definitely supports Sola Scriptura.
[On Eph 4:11-13:] This clearly tells us that apostles, prophets, evangelists and so forth are for PERFECTING THE SAINTS...UNTO THE PERFECTING OF MEN... Nothing about Scriptures, although we can ASSUME that they would use the Bible as part of their preaching and teaching.
Yes, we should assume they would use the Bible. We should also assume that they would not teach in contradiction of it. We think the same of each other's teachers, so that is an impasse. However, I don't see how this is critical of Sola Scriptura. If men teach in accordance with the Bible, then Sola Scriptura is fine. ... BTW, who are the "saints" to you in verses like this?
Clearly, the NT Bible never says anything about "itself" because it didn't exist yet! Thus, Sola Sciptura is a false teaching of men that leads people away from the Word of God as taught by the Apostles.
Again, before you would even consider the idea, you would require it to be the last verse in scripture. That is disingenuous. I believe that all scripture is true. I believe that God knew every word of the Bible from the beginning. Why, then, would it matter where that truth is placed in the Bible? Are you truly telling me that every truth in the Bible is only operative from the moment of telling BACKWARD? Please. Your view does wonders for the reputation of the Book of Revelation and prophecy in general.
But I have the teaching of 2000 years of Church teachings, backed by the promise of the Holy Spirit who CANNOT lead us into error.
Ah, but I have the teaching of 6000 years of God's teachings, backed by the promise of the Holy Spirit who CANNOT lead us into error.
For Catholics, it is a matter of proving whether it (the Catholic Church) existed first and was established by the first generations of Christians. If so, it would be hard to argue against the Spirit's guidance of it, as it still exists, as Christ promised.
Using the Catholic idea of free will, it is very easy to argue against this. Neither of us would argue about whether the Spirit guides God's Church. But, under free will, there is nothing that says than man will follow the guidance, right? Under your own theology, Christ promised guidance, but He would never promise to ensure that the Church was ever on the right path. He couldn't, because that would interfere with free will, and it would be Him forcing Himself on us. You say that can't happen. This may be a mini epiphany for me. Under Catholicism, how can anyone trust the Church to be correct if God demands that its members all have free will to disobey and propagate error?
And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the earth is older than 6000 years, which, by the way, is a tradition of men, since the Bible doesn't mention what year the earth was formed.
How is that a tradition of men? Why couldn't someone whip out a calculator, read the Bible, and do some math? There might some room for error, but I think one could get within a reasonable ballpark by what is in there. No?
FK: "I think that your accusing me of idol worship is pretty hilarious given the circumstances. ... When God decided to use allegory in the Bible He did send me a memo. It was in the form of other scripture."
Say what?
I was first referring to the statues and icons, and to praying to entities other than God. (I do remember your answer to this.) In the second case I was referring to my belief that the Bible interprets itself.
He doesn't try to "trick" us into thinking that the earth is really old, like some "young earth" fundamentals claim. I trust that science has accurately told us that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Perhaps not 10 billion, but even one billion is a heck of a lot more than 6000 years.
I don't think that God is trying to trick us either. I just don't happen to think that the book is closed on a young earth. As I said in another post (probably to you :), I don't at all look down my nose at those who believe in an old earth. I do think there is allegory in the OT, and it can be tougher to spot than in the NT. I think there is a NT verse somewhere that says that God's "days" are not like our days, or something like that. That would seem like a decent out, but then I don't know what to do with the rest of the numbers in the OT. Did Adam really live to be 900, etc.? I really have no problem believing that is literally true.
It's not normal and excommunication of popes or patriarchs is never a good thing.
Pope Honorius I was found guilty of heresy. Surviving copies of his correspondence with archbishop Sergius of Constantinople indicate that he did not subscribe to monothelism, but the Sixth Ecumenical Council that condemned him cited letters as evidence that he did subscribe to this heresy. Unfortunately, the Council also decided to destroy the evidence by burning those letters!
Nonetheless, his private correspondence shows that while he was willing to be "silent" on monthelism and allowed it to co-exist in the Church, he personally did not fail in orthodox Christology. He also never officially embraced monothelism as Archibishop Sergius did.
But there is no question as to the guilt of Honorius and his just excommunication unless the Sixth Ecumenical Council can be called "staged," which I doubt since the (Roman) Catholic Church acknowledges it as a valid Ecumenical Council.
Because the EC proclaimations speak for the entire Church and are binding resolutions, the popes (from the 7th through the 11th century) condemned Pope Honorius I in their oath of installation (as stated in Liber Diurnus), which "smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy," Sergius, together with others including Honorius, "because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics" which is just short of calling him a heretic.
That practice stopped after the Great Schism, when Rome and Constantinople broke intercommunion, and Latin Catholic apologetics "exhonorated" Pope Honorius I at least by silence and some hyperbolic theoretical suppositions in writing -- but the RCC never officially disasallowed the Sixth Ecumenical Council's decisions.
Well, I have said that the word "brother" is truly used in the Bible just as you say. I was thinking of that one particular passage, where Mary is named as His mother, and His brothers are also named, in the same sentence, along with unnamed sisters. The flow of the passage just seems wrong to me if such a jump in meaning is made. I can't imagine how that passage would have been so differently worded, if the true intent was to convey siblings.
However, in all fairness to the Protestants, the New Testament does say that +Joseph did not "know" Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus (Mat 1:24-25).
Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. Very decent of you to point out. My version says "he had no union with her until..." That seems clear to me. Does that mean that the Orthodox do not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity?
They [Mormons] say the words the Bible uses is "overshadow" speaking of the Holy Spirit. This is indeed terminology used in the Bible to denote sexual intercourse, so the LDS simply conclude that Christ was conceived as a union between God and a mortal!
Zeus would be proud! :) If you know, how do the Mormons get around the fact that there is no scriptural support whatsoever to suggest that either God the Father or the Holy Spirit have ever taken corporeal form? Plus, if God had "sex" with Mary, then He would be fully guilty of adultery, since Mary was already pledged to Joseph. My understanding is that such a relationship was as good as being married, but without the benefits. :)
We, and this includes your side of Christianity (I hope), sees Mary's conception as a supernatural event, the way we understand sacraments. And, in the same manner, we understand her Virgin Birth, having occurred without breaking her seal or being painful.
Absolutely.
But if you really want to be a stickler for straight biblical talk, then the Bible does suggest what the LDS seem to believe ...
If I want to be consistent, then I have to say that I always want to be a stickler for straight biblical talk. :) I would want to hear their answers to my questions above first. If God can't contradict Himself, then something has to give. I would have to think that the full weight of just scripture would have to crush their view. That must be why they felt a need to rewrite the Bible based on the good word of a thief from the east coast! :)
"That seems clear to me. Does that mean that the Orthodox do not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity?"
The Orthodox Church does believe in the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos. It is a very clear tradition of the Church, with evidence for its belief going way back. Most of these things about the Theotokos we consider to be part of the "inner tradition" of the Church.
By that we mean that they are not parts of the "kerygma," the things one preach or proclaim as the Good News in order to bring people to faith in Christ. They are a precious heritage, and they deepen our understanding of how we should live and spiritually grow, since the Theotokos is the prime exemplar for us of the fullness of being a Christian.
Regarding the verse in Matthew 1, the same word translated as "until" in that verse is the one translated as "unto" in the verse, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." We of course do not believe that God will be with us until the end of the world, and then will suddenly change course and abandon us.
That said, the word does not at all exclude the possibility of the Theotokos having carnal relations after the birth of Christ -- it is not evidence either way. So Protestants are correct in stating that there is no Scriptural evidence that proves her being ever-virgin.
I do find it interesting, though, that St. Matthew would take the time to point out that fact and say it in that way. It was already clear from vs 18 that Joseph could not have been the father of the child. I'd be interested in the Protestant explanation for why this verse existed or why they think that Joseph wouldn't have 'known' her...
Given that we Orthodox feel that Joseph would not have "walked on holy ground" where God was or had been, it makes sense that St. Matthew would have said something like this to indicate the reverence with which Joseph treated what was going on. We simply believe that that same reverence continued after her giving birth. Joseph being an elderly widower (in our tradition) simply makes it more clear.
You just can't make a statement without :
a. belittling the other.
b. not presenting the correct teaching of the opposition.
Again, if you want to hold a legitimate discussion, you'll have to change the way you address other's points of views. I will say again, you are woefully incorrect on what the Latin and Orthodox Church teaches regarding grace and nature. They don't oppose each other.
This reply is for those who read your incorrect comments on the Catholic Church and might believe them. Time and time again, you have shown very little knowledge of what we teach. Perhaps you should consider arguing with other Protestants, as you DO NOT know much about Catholicism.
I believe that you have hit upon the crux of the problem and it is not a matter of whether one follows Judaism, Christianity or paganism. One set will always believe that they can save themselves. The other set will realize that only God can save them. The prophet said that all good works and deeds are as filthy rags. Jesus said who is "good" except the Father? All righteousness, all soul natures come from God. All who hear of God and His ways,and still follow their own notions, no matter what sect they propose to follow, are sinning.
The book of Hebrews, written to the Hebrews. Explaining their own theology to them. Explaining the same theology as understood by other Jews, namely Paul and Barnabus, among others.
You must remember that all Jews, especially the boys and men, were deeply immersed in the study of Torah from an early age. It was, and is, their school. Jesus taught from the Torah. They would have understood many things, but some did not understand the new knowledge that he brought, except the HS lead them.
Now you are either being obtuse or you just like to argue. How could a non-existent book be the SOLE determinant, the guide that Christians would follow? Is this your idea of being funny or are you serious?
I suppose you are going to tell me in the same breath that oral Tradition is not superior to scripture
Why is this a problem? They are equally the Word of God (presuming "oral Tradition" = Apostolic Tradition, part of which got written down in the Bible, part of which got written down by the Fathers or "practiced" in the Liturgy). Because I believe in “oral” Tradition does not mean I put them above Scripture. They are equal when discovered. And actually, Scripture is more highly regarded in Catholicism. Tradition is used more in correctly interpreting Scripture, such as the utilization of Baptism or the Trinity definitions.
You must also have a diminished view of the Ten Commandments. They waited a while before appearing on the scene.
Say what? The Scriptures do not relay any such thing. Moses came down the mountain with stone tablets, not Moses "oral tradition". Unless you claim that Moses did a Mohemmed and wrote them himself.
If something is written from God, then it is there for all to examine, and most, if not all, misapplications can and will be discovered. If there is the spoken word of God, OTOH, then it is subject to man's corruption upon the first retelling
So you believe everything written? Perhaps you should subscribe to the New York Times?! Paul HIMSELF was worried about forgeries, for example:
The salutation of [me] Paul with mine own hand. 1 Cor 16:21
Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand. Gal 6:11
The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Col 4:18
The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write. 2 Thes 3:17
We take the Apostles words that their letters ARE the word of God! That is the "proof". Because they SAY so! What other evidence do we have that their writings ARE the word of God BUT their witness? Either you believe what they wrote AND said, or you don't. Once we find "oral" Apostolic Tradition, it should hold the same weight to you, since it comes from the same source.
I cannot trust the telephone game to relay accurately the words of God if God's written word is available.
We take the Apostles' word that their teaching is not only from God, but GUIDED by God by the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is not the teaching of men, as Paul clearly says:
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1:11-12
We continue to believe that Christ is present in the Church in a special way to continue the truth of teachings given by the Apostles. Thus, there is no "telephone" game because GOD HIMSELF guides His Church. Certainly, this is a matter of faith - but no more than believing that the Bible is from God.
So when I say that I let the Bible interpret itself, then I don't really mean that. I really mean that I interpret it myself into whatever I want. Feel free to believe this if you wish, but it's wrong.
Your statements on Sola Scriptura are enough warrant to charge you as guilty of eigesis... Let’s be honest. The bible doesn’t say anywhere that the Bible is the SOLE rule of faith to guide Christians. Your verses so far have not made that claim! Let’s look at the evidence against Sola Scriptura: First, there was NO NT Scriptures yet. The Bible doesn’t say “wait, in 20 years, you will receive a set of writings. These oral teachings can be ignored after that”. Secondly, the Scriptures never make a claim for itself directly. Next, the Scriptures themselves give OTHER means of perfecting the Body of Christ. The Church itself. Is the Church the pillar and foundation of the truth, or the Scriptures? And finally, the Bible never tells us that oral traditions are abrogated. Clearly, they tell us to CONTINUE to FOLLOW ORAL TEACHINGS:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thes 2:15
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Tim 2:2
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (obviously, orally given, as Paul has not written to the Corinthians yet!) 1 Cor 15:1-2
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. 1 Cor 11:2
One cannot honestly say, with these above verses in mind, that you have read Scriptures ALONE to come to the conclusion that we are to follow Sola Scriptura. That is impossible. You were taught Sola Scriptura, and then someone showed you verses that twist the meanings to try to come up with your false belief. NO unbiased person would judge Sola Scriptura as true – the above verses DENY it! Thus, you are practicing eigesis, the taking of a belief, and trying to find it in Scriptures.
The Bible is NOT a systematic catechism. It is a bunch of letters (in the NT) without any real order - dogma-wise. The issue of faith and salvation has been argued from Scripture alone for centuries without any conclusive end. THAT is NOT "Scripture interprets itself", brother! Read the Church Fathers. They all agree that people can twist the Scriptures and it was only the Church that gave the correct interpretations so as to maintain the APOSTLES' intent of the writings. It was the Church that guaranteed the proper interpretation - through the guidance of the Spirit given to it for this particular reason. I suggest you read the Pastorals, and the Catholic letters of John and Jude and you'll already see this.
What do you THINK "what is written" means? Even if Paul was referring to the OT, they are still scriptures. That doesn't defeat the point that the verse supports Sola Scriptura. Paul was giving a principle. He was teaching them what to do in the FUTURE. Principles go beyond the first telling. Under your reasoning, all scripture could not possibly have been inspired UNLESS the last verse of Revelation said so!
IF something merely needs to written, then explain the first 25 years of Christianity. Explain Acts 15 and the decision to do away with Circumcision. Where was THAT written in the OT? Explain the Church's decision to celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday. Where is that written in the OT? What about dietary laws done away with? Where is written? I find that your arguments are amazingly similar to the Judaizers. THEY ALSO argued against changing the Sabbath, doing away with the necessity of Circumcision and dietary laws, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT WRITTEN. It is ironic that you are viewing Scriptures as the Jews did during Jesus’ day.
Another point. IF something NEEDS to be written, then we have plenty of writings that talk about the infant baptism among the writings of the Church Fathers. You are pressing this "is it written" WAY TOO FAR! Do we also follow “Metamorphisis” by Ovid because it is "written"? All that talk about Roman gods???
I think I can make a plausible argument that if Luke thought that all these people had done a great job, then he wouldn't have felt the need to write down another one himself. I infer that he felt there was plenty of error going around, so to be SURE, he was going to write this one down himself. Besides, wasn't it actually true that there was plenty of error going around at that time
I am happy that Luke decided to draw up an account to consolidate what was already known widely by others and not so widely by others. Certainly, your argument has merit, (regarding the superiority of Scripture over an orally passed teaching) and I will not or have not said that Scripture is inferior to an oral tradition. HOWEVER, WHEN an "oral" tradition is FOUND to be Apostolic, verified by the community of faith - they are EQUAL! We are not talking about the rumour mills now! I don't see Luke's Gospel as meant to dispel "oral" teachings, as he never mentions that. He is only making it more clear and easier to access the Gospel.
On this point, the key words for me are "SO THAT". All scripture is God breathed SO THAT the saved man may be thoroughly equipped ...
I still don't see it. The phrase “so that” does not exclude anything else. I have teeth so that I can take in nourishment. But I can take in nourishment by other means that do not require teeth…Again, you are going beyond what is there so as to “prove” Sola Scriptura. A simple reading does not give us Bible alone. Yours is an incredible stretch, given that "alone" or ANY sort of derivative is in these verses! IF it did, it would merely support the OLD TESTAMENT - and the Septuagint at that!!! Would you now allow the Deuterocanonicals into your bible now???? No? Then you break your own rules... Again, you are guilty of eigesis.
And secondly, I have given you ANOTHER means by how a man can be "thoroughly perfected" - the teaching community. This is where Sola Scriptura fails. It says Scripture is USEFUL, not ABSOLUTELY necessary. IF it WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, then what about the first 25 years of Christianity without a written Gospel? No "red letter" bibles? Wow. You can't really believe that a person must READ to BELIEVE, do you? Paul says we must HEAR the Word, not read it!
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Rom 10:14-15
Note, one does NOT find out about the Gospel by “reading a book”. It is PROCLAIMED by another. ONE SENT! An apostle. And Protestants have not been sent by the Apostles! They send themselves. This is at odds with the Scriptures, which say that only the Apostles’ teachings are to be followed.
This post is getting unwieldly, so I'll continue in part two.
regards
I did like his phrase though in his letter to the Archbishop of Mainz: "the unhappy souls believe that if they have purchased letters of indulgence they are sure of their salvation; again, that so soon as they cast their contributions into the money-box, souls fly out of purgatory."
Actually they do. John 1:1 tells us that the Word, and that includes all of the Word was pre-existent of creation.
As for your comment re circumcision: true circumcision, as Jesus pointed out, is a change of heart and mind towards God. As usual, the Jews had a symbolic act for the real meaning.
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked .
You responded :Again, before you would even consider the idea, you would require it to be the last verse in scripture. That is disingenuous.
You are making the classic mistake of presuming that the Bible fell out of heaven already printed and bound in its current configuration as we now hold it. If that were so, if the Bible was like the Koran claims to be, I would agree with you. But it is not. The letters were written independently of each other! Keep that in mind, FK. There wasn't a "NT Scriptures" that EVERYONE agreed on until the Church officially said what was and what wasn't Scriptures some 300 years later. We can presume that many churches didn't have EVERY letter from Paul or John, or even all the Gospels. They treasured what writings AND oral teachings that they had. Thus, why would you expect the Bible to have in the "last chapter" anything? There was no "last chapter" as John was sitting down writing Revelation!
Ah, but I have the teaching of 6000 years of God's teachings, backed by the promise of the Holy Spirit who CANNOT lead us into error.
How do you know when the Spirit is leading you or you are leading yourself? When two Protestants disagree, which one is the Spirit leading, if either? This is akin to the Mormon saying that he recognizes the "Spirit" and his writings by the "burning in the bosom". What a bunch of hog-wash.
Under your own theology, Christ promised guidance, but He would never promise to ensure that the Church was ever on the right path. He couldn't, because that would interfere with free will, and it would be Him forcing Himself on us. You say that can't happen. This may be a mini epiphany for me. Under Catholicism, how can anyone trust the Church to be correct if God demands that its members all have free will to disobey and propagate error?
Christ certainly DID promise the Spirit of Truth to the Church. Have you not read John's Gospel and the Last Supper Discourse? Or what about the verse I have been repeating from the Pastorals "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth"? Christ promised that His Church would be guided by the Spirit, as Acts 15:28 tells us. "It seemed good to us AND the SPIRIT". Thus, in Counciliar decisions, using Acts 15 as precedent, the Spirit is guiding the Church when making a definitive statement that the Church has already previously believed, though not precisely defined yet. God guides the Church to infallibly speak His Word. This does not interfere with man's free will, since a pope can still choose to sin. He is NOT free to teach falsely - and this is something totally different from the will to choose to reject God in one's life or not.
How is that a tradition of men (the age of the earth)? Why couldn't someone whip out a calculator, read the Bible, and do some math?
Because it is based on several assumptions that the Bible does not explicitly state. First, the genealogical tables are not necessarily in chronological and historical order. It was normal to list only the important people on such lists, not every single chronological person. Often times, generations were skipped. Next, we don't know HOW long Adam lived before his sin. Perhaps it was millions of years? Who can say. And finally, if you look at the two creation stories, they contradict. That should be your sign, FK, that the stories are analogies that merely relate God's truths, not science's truths. Fundamentalists have desperately, and unsuccessfully tried to FORCE Genesis 1 and 2 to fit together because they feel it HAS to be historical! The age of the earth is from some Anglican Bishop of the 1600's, I think, not from the Bible.
I don't think that God is trying to trick us either. I just don't happen to think that the book is closed on a young earth.
Is this from a scientific or theological viewpoint? Scientists have refuted young earth evidence over and over. Taking an allegorical view in such a case is more prudent. But really, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other - it is still the inerrant word of God, which cannot be mistaken. If God inspired the writer of Jonah and MEANT it to be a parable, then the Scripture is still inerrant. It is OUR interpretation that is incorrect.
Regards
By the grace of God, He has given man a means to shorten punishment owed Him, since God is the offended Party by man's sin. Thus, punishment due a man that was not satisfied on earth can be satisfied in purgatory. Indulgences, whether they be alms, fasting, or prayer, are all considered worthy of pious praise and move us closer to God. Our Lord never did away with any of these pillars of Judaism.
Regards
You are the only one to interpret as you accuse me.I did not accuse you of anything.
The verse says "Do not go beyond what is written.". It is a principle, and supports Sola Scriptura over oral teachings. Principles survive into the future.Apparently you interpret Paul's statement as forseeing books that would not be written for decades.
Further, you have not addressed the probablility that "Do not go beyond what is written" is a colloquial aphorism. Here is the New International Version: "Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."
Please note that the words "to go" are not present in the original Greek. The variety of translations of this difficult passage will make you head spin!
In addition, to interpret 1 Corinthians 4:6 as you do would contradict Paul himself! In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 he said "Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
Did Paul make a mistake?
If Holy Tradition had to be written down to be "valid," it is odd that John wrote in 3 John 13 "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face."
The impossibility of reducing all of Holy Tradition to writing was also recognized by John in John 21:25: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."
Finally, the fact that you and I disagree about the meaning of this one passage in the Bible shows that the 16th century novelty of sola scriptura provides no real guidance.
Yes, oral teachings preceded the NT. Luke concludes that in order to be SURE of correct teaching, he is going to write this message down. This also supports Sola Scriptura. Luke does not say that he would tell them these things so they may be sure, he said he would write them down. Sure, others wrote false teachings, but God took care of that when He assembled the Bible.As stated above, it is clear from the Bible that John and Paul did not think that Holy Tradition had to be written down to be valid. Further, I think it is odd that you attribute the compilation of the Bible to God. It seems as though you are saying that the Holy Spirit was with the universal Church through the 5th Century, when it finalized the Canon, and then departed.
Did the Church fathers pick the books that went in the New Testament by luck? Or was God with them on the compilation of the Bible, but not when they made authoritative pronouncements about things like the sacrament of Confession, which was recognized hundreds of years before the canon was closed?
Whether Paul knew it or not at the time, we both call what he wrote "scripture" today. Again, Paul states a principle. I do not understand how your distinction counters the evidence I am giving.Paul did write books which are considered to be scripture today. But your personal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6 requires us to believe that Paul meant that the only aspects of Holy Tradition that were meant to be followed were those which would be written down. As shown above, this is contradicted by John and Paul himself! Further, if this point was so important to Paul, why didn't he write more? Should we only do what Paul told us to do? After all, if Paul really meant that we are only bound by what is written down, one would think that he would have written more than a few letters.
I have acknowledged that NT teachings were passed down orally at the beginning, due to necessity. I presume that they were handed down without error, at least until they became scripture. After that, I look with extreme skepticism on anything that did not become scripture, or does not match the scripture.
I think that this is an entirely reasonable point. What about written teachings that predate the closing of the canon, but are not in the New Testament? Like the writings of the ante- and post- Nicene fathers?
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.