Hmmm. This could be interesting. :) I suppose I see the writings in the Bible in the sense that God was the source subject and final editor. The writers were really ghost writers, not truly authors. Of course we see individual writing styles, distinct personalities, and appropriately targeted audiences in the writings. But, every jot and tittle of the finished product was produced by God.
For this reason, I see the Bible as inerrant, and not subject to the personal interpretation of any of the physical writers. In your example, do you believe that Mark's personal interpretation of God's truth is found in his book? I know that you'll agree that there was inspiration, but do you believe that the Bible is inerrant and independent of man's "translation" through the physical writing by the "authors"?
That is because we understand that the Scriptures must be read in human terms, as well. Otherwise, we would literally take the Scriptures at face value. NO OATHS! NO LOANS FOR MONEY! Multiple wives could be argued.
I would say that the scriptures themselves already provide for that. Jesus Himself taught that common sense could be used:
Matt. 12:9-12 : "9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" 11 He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
So, due only to scripture, and not through man's extra-biblical interpretation, we know that, say, police and medical personnel can do "works" on the Sabbath, and not violate a Commandment.
In addition to that, what about Commentaries? Preachers? We also form our beliefs based on hearing and reading these sources. No one approaches the Scriptures alone independently of any other person.
Very true. My test is always whether the teaching holds water against the Bible. I hold my own pastor very strictly to this test. If he ever said anything I didn't think matched scripture according to my own understanding, I would ask him about it. He would either be able to back up his teaching with the Bible or I would not accept his teaching. I would even test his own interpretation against all of his other interpretations for consistency.
I don't see the Church's approach as excluding the Bible.
I really didn't mean to imply that. I know the Bible is important to you. My angle was from the point of authority. I meant to posit that if there was a point on which your "gut" and the Church teaching disagreed, that you would accept the teaching of the Church. I have interpreted that for you, Church declaration trumps what might make the most sense to you. (Maybe this has never happened?)
... I see the "Bible and me" approach to be limited and not historically accurate means of Christians coming to God. First, you forget that the Church came first. The Church taught and teaches, even without the Bible.
Well, yes, but what they were teaching is what is now in the Bible, for the most part. I have nothing against oral witnessing at all. God intended that we do it. My point is that the things in the Bible, whether read off a page today, or communicated orally back then or to the illiterate today, are the authority. Jesus showed me what He thought of scripture during the temptation in the desert. He did not utter a single original word. He only quoted scripture. I see a teaching from Jesus in that.
Christian evangelists are finding that giving out Bibles is not the answer.
??? Could you please elaborate on this? I don't know of anyone who thinks that you can just throw a Bible at someone, leave, and then expect results. That's why missionaries stay in the community for long periods of time.
Sure, the preachers are well-versed in the Scriptures, but it is not necessary for the lay people to be.
I would say that it isn't necessary for salvation, for the essence of the gospel message is understandable even to a child. But, I would say that it is absolutely necessary to everyone for the process of sanctification. To love God more is to know Him better. If no scripture is available this "can" be done through men, as long as the teachings are correct by God's standards. If scripture is available then I would commend every Christian to read them, meditate on them, and ask questions of those who know the truth. The purpose is to increase our love for God.
The Scriptures themselves never make the claim that Protestants make: The Scriptures are the sole rule of faith.
Perhaps not directly, because it did not exist until it did. None of the writers could have known which other writers and teachings would be in the finished product, the Bible. However, I think there is a case that the Bible asserts its own authority. Here is a short passage from A.A. Hodge on the authority of scripture:
"What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?
1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.
2nd. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever.--Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.
3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.--Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.
4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.--Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.
------------------------
Again, Christ left a body of men to continue His presence in the world and bring the Kingdom of God to others. He didn't leave a book. It would be more accurate to say that Protestants LEAVE OUT teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
What was Jesus supposed to do? Zap a book into existence, throw it into the sand and tell them "Have at it"? At the time when Jesus ascended, much of the NT had not happened yet, so how could there be a book? You might be supporting your point on the losing end of a logistics argument here.
Protestants do leave out extra-biblical teachings as AUTHORITY in and of themselves.
The Bible doesn't explain its position on many issues. How about the Real Presence of the Eucharist? According to Catholics, it is crystal clear. To Protestants, it is some sort of symbol. What about infant baptism? Christians for centuries believed and practiced it - until the latter Reformers came along (not Luther).
I agree that the Bible doesn't explain everything.
John 21:24-25 : "24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
Catholics look to Church hierarchy to fill in the holes. We look to see what is consistent with the Bible. On infant baptism, I know many Protestant churches still practice it today. As a Southern Baptist, I had no problem having both my (then) infant children baptized in other churches for family reasons. It was no big deal. I just knew that it didn't mean much because Jesus clearly laid out the order, first belief, then baptism.
Although they [scriptures] describe liturgy, what EXACTLY is to take place in Christian worship of Christ? How EXACTLY are we to Baptize?
Perhaps by not laying out specific instructions, God is telling us that the form is not so important, but rather the faith.
Just a suggestion.
Carry on.
I would like to discuss whether the Church believed in one or two Rules of Faith during its earliest existence and show that removing Tradition is inconsistent with that pattern.
First, what is Tradition? It is NOT unwritten teachings, only! It is ANY teaching that is NOT written in the Scriptures. Thus, Revelation from God has been given to us THROUGH the Apostles. We have this in two forms: Scripture, and everything else...This "everything else" is absolutely important, as it includes Liturgy (HOW we worship God), daily devotions and practices (HOW we act as Christians), and the INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture (found in creeds, councils, and writings of the later generations of Christians). The latter is VERY important, and the Church recognized that God gave us something called Apostolic Succession to guard the Teachings given by Christ:
"And He (Christ) Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" Ephesians 4: 11-13
THIS is the second rule of faith - the so-called Magesterium, the valid interpreters of Scriptures and other given teachings. The ancient Church constantly appealed to the continued succession of Bishops, to their common interpretation of Scriptures, to their unity and consent in matters of faith, and to their abhorence of novelty in doctrine. Ecclesiastical authority is the rule. On THIS depends the interpretation of Scriptures - even their FORMATION AND EXISTENCE. Left to themselves, the Scriptures cannot quicken. The Scriptures ARE because the Church APPROVED of them and vouched for them that they indeed contained Divine Revelation.
This authority does not mean that the Church is superior to Scriptures! It simply means that the Church alone has the right to tell us what is Scripture, and what is not Scripture, and what is true and infallible interpretation (since it is guided by the Spirit of Truth). Only AFTER they are approved and interpreted by the Church do the Scriptures become a Rule and Object of Faith.
Origen (mid 200's) writes: "Whenever they - the heretics - bring before us the Scriptures, every Christian approves and believes, they seem to say 'behold the words of truth in your homes' (Mat 24:26), but we must not believe them, NOR DO AWAY WITH THE FIRST AND ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION, nor believe otherwise than what has been handed over by succession to the Church of God" (Origen, Commentaries on Matthew)
Clement the Roman (mid 200's) writes :"I see that some clever men find in what they read many likelihoods; and yet, it must be diligently observed that in reading the law of God, we must not read it according to the intelligence of our own mind. For there are many words in Divine Scriptures which can be taken in whatsoever sense which every one of us may like or presume to give them. THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE...hence, one must learn the knowledge of Scriptures from him who acquired it from the ancients, according to the truth delivered to them" (Clement the Roman, Book of Recognitions)
Scripture is interpreted according to received teachings - if we consider that Christianity is a revealed religion from God, can it be any other way?
Tertullian (200 AD) writes "no one should even use the Scriptures without belonging to the Catholic Church, because she is the only one who knows how to give proper interpretation of them. Therefore, we should not have recourse to the Scriptures, nor dispute about them....For where the true Christian discipline and docrine are shown to be, there will also be the truth of Scriptures, and of their interpretation, and of all Christian tradition" (Tertullian, Prescriptions)
Where is the Doctrine of Faith to be found? Tertullian again answers "In the succession of the Bishops".(Prescriptions). St. Irenaeus, living before Tertullian, warns us solemnly: "Where the charisms of the Lord are, there also we must learn the truth, because it is through them that the Apostolic Succession is found in the Church. They (the priests) watch our Faith and explain to us the Scriptures WITHOUT ERROR." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies).
The first Christians, thus, placed the authority of the Church over the Scriptures, not as if the Chruch was superior to God's Word written, but as giving it to explain correctly and interpret "without error".
And finally, St. Vincent of Lerins adds: "because not all accept Sacred Scripture in the same sense, on account of their loftiness; but this one and that give the sayings of Scripture so many different significations that there are almost as many minds as there are men (something very close to what Luther would say 1000 years later)... Consequently, it is absolutely necessary that on account of so many errors, the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation must be drawn according to the direction of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense" (St. Vincent, Commonit.)
To summarize, the earliest writers of Christianity respected and valued Tradition as the Word of God. They based the two great columns of truth upon Scripture and Tradition. Man owes the same obligation to believe these infallible witnesses, the Apostles, who exhibit, keep and witness Revelation - written or unwritten (2 Thes 2:14). It depended on God alone to choose the way and manner of promulgating Revelation. If the Church recognized the need for both Tradition and Scripture to know this Revelation, we believe we are obedient to Him by continuing to follow the way He established His teachings to us - through the Church's Scriptures and Traditions validly passed down to us today.
My question is "Considering the earliest Christians wrote about the necessity of Tradition to interpret Scriptures, why has Tradition of late been discarded, when it was considered part of God's Word to us through His apostles?"
Regards