I differentiate between following a secular leader in law vs. his religious doctrine, or lack thereof. We are to obey the secular law…but that is totally separate from our faith.
God takes priority over the two if they disagree, but I don’t see obeying secular law as separate from our faith. That is called “secularism”. That is the battle-cry of those WE face in society, those who want to contain Christianity to a private practice – “keep it in your house…” I think if you begin to have that attitude, you are on a slippery slope to not exercising your faith and evangelizing to the world.
Authoritative succession throughout the ages is only true based on the say so of interested men, and their say so that God said so. When Jesus said He would be with the Apostles even until the end of the age, I took that to mean with all believers, not only the RCC.
You are correct – apostolic succession is based upon whether we believe the witness of the men who make the claim. But, just the same, we ALSO look to those SAME men who tell us WHAT the Scriptures are! It is interesting that you take their word on what is Scripture, but not on Apostolic Succession, which we see even in the Scriptures themselves. To me, to discredit these first bishops is to discredit the claim that the NT letters are Scriptures. As to Mat 28, it can be taken to mean that Jesus will be with the Church – all believers – but He is addressing the Apostles, the future leaders of the Church. In Matthew, Jesus gives the Apostles special authority to bind and loosen. In John’s Gospel, He does this – and promises the Spirit of Truth to THEM. Throughout the NT, the Apostles and their successors are given special authority over their communities. Yes, the call to proclaim the Gospel is for all men, but primarily, it is given to the Apostles, since THEY have witnessed to Christ’s acts. Check the requirements of the replacement of Judas Iscariot in Acts.
Actually, I don't trust anything in those who gave it to us, on their own authority, I trust in He who authored all of it. I pray that I am misinterpreting your reference to St. Augustine. Are you saying that the Church authenticates the scriptures? Not God?
Again, I ask you to continue this line of thought…How do you KNOW the Scriptures are from God Himself, that they are inspired by God, but not the Koran, or other so-called “Scriptures”? Ask yourself “how do I know the Bible is from God”. Your answer will be “because someone told me, and I believed them.” We trust the witness of the men who saw the Christ and His Apostles in action, who passed down the Gospel. Yes, the Church authenticates the Scriptures. God does not do so directly. The individual books of the NT are not self-authenticating as being God-breathed. We only know that because the men who walked with Jesus (whom THEY believed was God) tell us – and we believe them and their witness, their miracles and their way of life. Today, we continue to see God’s Word validated by the Church. I am sure that you know of many people who will vouch for the power of the Scriptures. So God operates through the Church, the people of God. We are told that, and we believe it. Such is the nature of faith! It is not absolutely “provable”.
It's when Biblical teaching appears to be threatened (or fails to substantiate) that I question it. It seems too peculiar to me that if God had included another 15 measly pages in the Bible, we would have no need for this discussion. For 15 extra pages, we might agree on everything. Definitionally I suppose, tradition is what didn't make it into the Bible. Much tradition is perfectly consistent with the Bible, but much of it appears to be with a very strained interpretation (IMO) of God's word.
I suppose we must look at the Scripture through a set of lenses, a paradigm. No one approaches the Bible without some idea about it or what it is based on. Thus, the Scriptures are read through a paradigm. Catholics call this “Apostolic Tradition”. A book CANNOT interpret itself. The earliest Church Fathers made this very complaint of Gnostics and others who utilized Scriptures to back their OWN teachings (which I will show soon)! They constantly refer to Apostolic Tradition during the earliest stages of Christianity so that doctrine would not become corrupt. I find it quite amazing that Catholic doctrine, while delving deeply into Scriptures to learn more about Revelation, does not change. This is a tribute to the idea that Christ put into action by forming an authoritative body to teach and preach.
I don’t think 15 more pages would have made a difference. First of all, consider the Scriptures themselves. They are not a systematic catechism or theology book. There is no organization, topics are scattered to the four winds, and often times, key elements of the faith appear, on the surface, to contradict other parts of the Scriptures. The fact remains that the Scriptures were collated hundreds of years after the diverse letters and narratives were written. People had an idea of the faith through Apostolic Teaching, THEN searched out ALL of the available Christian writings. They weeded out those that did not fit the PARADIGM, not the other way around! In other words, the Bible didn’t determine their beliefs, the already-held beliefs determined whether a letter would be called “Scripture! That is absolutely critical to understanding how the Scripture came into being. Thus, the Gospel of Thomas. Out. The Shephard of Hermes. Out. Dozens of letters written about the first hundred years of Christianity. Out. And why is Philemon in there? What makes you think it is from God, unless someone told you? Who wrote Hebrews? And so forth. The Church leaders took what they had and compiled what THEY thought was from God – what was taught them – and put it together into 27 letters and called it “the New Testament”. God inspired this body to collate specific titles, and there we have it, Scriptures.
Thus, it is important not to cast out Apostolic Tradition just because something is not explicitly found in Scripture (like prayers to saints in heaven to intercede for us). The same men who practiced the above, calling it orthodox and from the Apostles, are the same men who gave us the current NT. Otherwise, brother, we’d be considering the Gnostic version of the Bible, those who pass along the Da Vinci Code, as Scripture. You HAVE to have a paradigm, a standard, FIRST before you can say, “Ok, this letter is NOT what we believe”. The other option is Islam – “an Angel gave me this book directly from God”. But you still have the problem of trusting that man…Did God really give Mohemmed that book? (NO!)
"THROUGH" men - 'YES'. "BY" men - 'NO'. .. I would say that there was no cooperation from any of the authors of the scriptures. They were faithful scribes, but they were not writing of themselves. That all the authors of the Bible could be so completely consistent in message and so great in wisdom across hundreds of years appears impossible to me if their human weaknesses were subject to being included in the final text. To me, God gets the only copyright on this book.
I agree that God inspired the authors, but each author used his own style to write the Word. God inspired the Scriptures, God ensured that what He wanted presented was placed in it. The fact of its consistency is more of a testament to the TRADITION that was given to the editors and compilers of the Scriptures! Again, God inspired the editors and compilers to write what they wrote or edited. But again, what came first? The oral teachings in nearly every case proceeded the written. These teachings were part of the communities’ life and beliefs. Thus, when someone claimed to have written “God’s Word”, the community already KNEW whether the writing really WAS from God. THEY, guided by the Spirit, knew. If it disagreed with what they had been taught by God through the prophets or apostles, it couldn’t be Scriptures.
I don't think we need any tradition to know that Jesus is of the same essence of God. Would you agree that Jesus plainly said so Himself in scripture? ,/i>
You are taking for granted what has already become part of your paradigm. To us, yes, but not to Arius. He was a Catholic priest from the early 300’s who began to wonder, using his own intellect and the “promptings of the Spirit” that Jesus was NOT of the same essence of God. He used various SCRIPTURES to “prove” his point: “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice because I said, I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)
“And he said unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to those] for whom it is prepared of my Father.” (Mat 20:23)
And he withdrew from them about a stone's cast and kneeled down and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Luke 22:42) {note – Arius asked, “why should God pray to Himself”?
The temptations of Jesus in Mat 4 – “If Jesus is God, how could He be tempted”
His primary “proof” follows: “The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth;” (Proverbs 8:22-25)
Christianity had always seen the Jewish idea of the Wisdom of God and Jesus Christ as the same person, Christ being the incarnation of that Wisdom, thus, this passage was understood by all to refer to Christ.
If you ever confront a Jehovah Witness, FK, be prepared to face these arguments. Of course, you will quote them John 1:1, 18; John 10:30; Col 2:9; and so forth. But then it comes down to your interpretation vs. his. WHO IS CORRECT? Thus, there IS a need for hierarchy to say “Arius, that is not what we have been taught. That is not what has been handed down by the most ancient of Apostolic Tradition. Your interpretation of Scripture is wrong” – and St. Athanasius, among others, would then explain Arius’ errors. To do away with an authoritative interpreter of Scripture leaves man in error. He will NEVER know what God has taught, unless God comes to each and every person individually. If God’s truth is important, you will appreciate the need for an hierarchy that can make authoritative decisions, guided by God Himself.
Brother in Christ
...I don’t see obeying secular law as separate from our faith. That is called “secularism”. That is the battle-cry of those WE face in society, ... I think if you begin to have that attitude, you are on a slippery slope to not exercising your faith and evangelizing to the world.
I don't think we disagree on this too much. I just meant that I follow the leadership of others to a different degree and for different reasons. I try to follow God's law definitionally, whether it goes against what I want or not. (Of course there are plenty of times I fail miserably.) Contrast that to when Bill Clinton, who I think claims to be a Baptist, was my leader. I would never follow his leadership on God-related issues such as abortion, etc. I think you were saying this too.
...apostolic succession is based upon whether we believe the witness of the men who make the claim. But, just the same, we ALSO look to those SAME men who tell us WHAT the Scriptures are! It is interesting that you take their word on what is Scripture, but not on Apostolic Succession, which we see even in the Scriptures themselves.
I suppose the way I see it, it isn't the same at all. We both know the Apostles sinned and were subject to error. But if the Bible is inerrant, then it could not have been subject to human error. So, during those moments when pen was to page, the authors were temporarily "sinless". God was doing it all. At all other times, every writing and teaching of anyone is subject to error and must be tested. I don't mean to say that whenever they weren't writing the Bible they were sinning! :) They did so many wonderful and Godly things we might never know the extent. I'm just talking about for sure.
How do you KNOW the Scriptures are from God Himself, that they are inspired by God, but not the Koran, or other so-called “Scriptures”? Ask yourself “how do I know the Bible is from God”. Your answer will be “because someone told me, and I believed them.”
Through God's given grace and faith, I am able to see that the Bible is true and accept it. I do not accept it because of my trust in the man Paul, the others, or any of my teachers now. I do trust those people, but it is not because I decided to, it's all from God. The Spirit knows which buttons to press for something to "make sense" to me. If I misinterpret and am in error on a thing for a time, then it can be corrected through the sanctification process, (another excellent reason to engage in it). This has happened several times on some issues. I don't see this as changing my faith all the time, the core hasn't changed, I just see it as learning more correctly the nature of the true faith that God already gave me.
So, even when I teach new Christians something, my attitude is never "trust me", I have been a Christian for a long time, etc. I always say take a look at what I've said, see if it matches scripture and pray about it. The Spirit will then lead as He will.
The individual books of the NT are not self-authenticating as being God-breathed. We only know that because the men who walked with Jesus (whom THEY believed was God) tell us – and we believe them and their witness, their miracles and their way of life. ... It is not absolutely “provable”.
Of course, this depends on what you would accept as "proof". 2 Tim. 3:16 tells us clearly that Paul thought at least the OT was God breathed. I'd agree it is debatable whether he was also referring to (what would become) the NT. In any event, if the Bible really is directly from God, and not just a book by men about God, then we would expect it to look like nothing else ever produced by man "alone".
Wouldn't you agree that the Bible stands alone in the history of religious literature as the only book, written through many different people, across hundreds of years, with a firmly consistent message without contradiction, etc.? Every single prophecy which subject has come to pass has turned out to be absolutely true. How could men put such a book together? There is also no historical error in the events in the Bible. At least, no one has proven any to be wrong. The historical evidence is fully substantiated in contemporary writings.
There's a lot more, but I'll end for now with how likely do you think it is that the NT is filled to the brim with criticism of, and the follies of our greatest heroes? Almost all of them got thrashed to one degree or another. If you are trying to start a movement, would you highlight stuff like that? Can any other book say 'yes' to all of those things?
The fact remains that the Scriptures were collated hundreds of years after the diverse letters and narratives were written. People had an idea of the faith through Apostolic Teaching, THEN searched out ALL of the available Christian writings. They weeded out those that did not fit the PARADIGM, not the other way around! In other words, the Bible didn’t determine their beliefs, the already-held beliefs determined whether a letter would be called “Scripture!
I suppose I'll use my standard line that in the same way the scribes had "nothing" to do with the individual documents, men had nothing to do with their organization into what became the Bible. Men had no choice in the matter, otherwise, why were not the "big issues" around tradition included? I know the Reformation did not happen until a long time after they finished the original Bible, but it just seems to me that they might have covered their bases a little better, if they had a meaningful say in the matter.
You HAVE to have a paradigm, a standard, FIRST before you can say, “Ok, this letter is NOT what we believe”. The other option is Islam – “an Angel gave me this book directly from God”. But you still have the problem of trusting that man…Did God really give Mohemmed that book? (NO!)
Kolo said something like this too, and my answer was basically to agree to part of your quote of the Islam approach. I know that all the scribes of the Bible physically sat down, prayed, meditated and otherwise thought very deeply about what they were going to put to page. (That part doesn't sound like the Islam approach.) I'm just saying that God was the final editor and controlled the entire process. He allowed the personalities of the scribes to come through, but the message was all God's. My logic doesn't lead me to know whether the Bible or the Koran is true, the Spirit does.
The fact of its consistency is more of a testament to the TRADITION that was given to the editors and compilers of the Scriptures!
I suppose that I would just give all this credit to God only. My earlier comment about the 15 pages was just made up as a page count, whether it would have been 15 or 50 doesn't matter. Why were these fundamentals left out, or not clearer? Even with a traditional paradigm, aren't there too many things left wide open for the future Protestants to assail later?
You are taking for granted [that Jesus is the same essence of God] what has already become part of your paradigm. To us, yes, but not to Arius. He was a Catholic priest from the early 300’s who began to wonder, using his own intellect and the “promptings of the Spirit” that Jesus was NOT of the same essence of God.
... If you ever confront a Jehovah Witness, FK, be prepared to face these arguments. Of course, you will quote them John 1:1, 18; John 10:30; Col 2:9; and so forth. But then it comes down to your interpretation vs. his. WHO IS CORRECT? Thus, there IS a need for hierarchy to say “Arius, that is not what we have been taught.
Thanks for the history on Arius. I agree with you that we would have used very similar scriptural arguments in explaining Arius' error to him. But isn't that amazing that you and I would arrive in the exact same position using very different means, although with the same ultimate source? (That's one reason I don't dismiss any tradition "just because".) To me that is "a" proof that we are right and Arius is wrong, plus, if that's what the JWs say then enough said. :) And, doesn't the Spirit lead both of us to the same place (as we perceive it) on so many issues? I think that's great.
My argument to Arius would not have been so much "that is not what we have been taught" as much as it would have been "that's not what the totality of scripture teaches". On the question of who's to say whether my interpretation or that of the JW is correct, I can simply rest in how the Spirit leads me. If the Spirit doesn't (ultimately or directly) lead me, and I'm just making it up, then I'm not a Christian in the first place.
God bless.