Replies

"I would think that would only be true if tradition was superior to scripture and the Holy Spirit does not lead us. If that was true then I suppose anything could be possible concerning demons."

You know, I'll bet I have asked at least a couple of dozen times how those in the sola scriptura crowd can so blithely cast aside Holy Tradition when it is an historical fact that the canon of the NT was established by bishops deciding what was in and what was out using Holy Tradition as the gold standard, the measuring tool of "orthodox" Christianity. What you read in the NT (lousy English translations aside) is there because bishops of The Church, the guys who believed in, for example, the Real Presence, said those scriptures were in accord with "what The Church always and everywhere believed", Holy Tradition. The ones that didn't make the cut were not entirely in accord with "what The Church always and everywhere believed".

As for the HS protecting you from the Evil One, well, I certainly hope so! Every time I am convinced that the HS is surely guiding me, however, I remind myself of the hundreds and hundreds of writings of the Desert Fathers about monks whose lives revolved around the scriptures, real people who came to spiritual destruction because they failed to discern that a demon was guiding them rather than the HS. Why has the danger from demonic influence apparently fallen away for Protestants over the past 500 years when for all the billion and a half members of The Church, it is a constant struggle to overcome the wiles of the demons to this day?

FK, I sincerely want to understand, even if I likely won't accept, why you folks believe that you individually can unerringly interpret scripture (corrupted texts notwithstanding), free from the influence of Holy Tradition and safe from demons posing as the HS? How is it that Western Christianity is riven with hundreds of interpretations of the same passages in scripture? Do you really believe that "...for some reason it does serve God's purpose for there to be many Christians out there with profound theological differences. Is there any passage in scripture where confusion in the faith is applauded? Contrary-wise what about John 17:20-23? How does a veritable babel of theological opinion advance fulfillment of Christ's prayer?

the canon of the NT was established by bishops

As helpful and right as they can be, Divinely inspired writings were not essentially established as such by conciliar decrees, but as God first revealed Himself to man and supernaturally attested to His reality and truth, (like to Abraham) and of the faith and character of those who believed, obeyed it and testified of it (like Moses), so was the written testimony of them and by them established as from God, which progressively became the standard by which further revelation and men of God were tested and established, as a continuing principle. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1, etc.)

By the time of Jesus a distinct body of writing referred to as Scripture was already realized, without an assuredly infallible magisterium (which only Jesus was), as is evident by references to the Scriptures by which they substantiated claims, and the apostles and true men of God were themselves established as being such by a holiness and doctrine which conformed to that which was written, and by the effects of believing which corresponded to its claims, which in turn affirmed the veracity and Divine inspiration of the Scriptures.

What Trent finally, decisively did (for Rome) was to recognize and ratify what had progressively become established, though i hold that that there was sound reason for great men to reject the apocrypha as Scripture, as i do, though not as forbidden reading. And the Divine inspiration of the writings of Scripture continue to be attested to through those who believe and obey its gospel of grace, thanks be to God.

As for interpreting free from the influence of Holy Tradition and safe from subjective aspects, i do not think that this is what those who hold to SS do in practice, any more than they disallow that God can “speak” to souls today during the offering. And even wedding ceremonies typically have some paganism in them. But what they mean is that all must be tested for conformity by the only objective source which we are assured is wholly inspired of God, and thus is assuredly infallibly, and by such bring every thought to the obedience of Christ

While interpretation requires discernment, and leaves room for a limited amount of disagreement in some things more than others, the same is true in every day life, with sound reasoning versus aberration being more demonstrable in accordance with the degree of revelation. And the “main and plain” things of Scripture are basically just that, and thus those who hold to SS most universally agree with Rome on such core essentials as an articulated in the Nicene Creed, while contending against those which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition, and which in turn has the magisterium as its authority. And even teachings by church magisteriums require some interpretation, including which ones are “infallible.” Moreover, many things were not unanimously believed by church fathers.

And now this:

Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. -From Alister McGrath's The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/deliberate-fiction.html

Well, right there we disagree with the premise. While Apostolic faiths give credit to men for authoring scripture, we give all the credit to God. As Daniel1212 noted, it was God who led the body of believers to gradually accept the correct books that we have today. The organized Church mostly just codified what already was in practice. And if you think about it, Sola Scriptura matches giving God all the credit for the authorship and organization of scripture. For those who give credit to man and Tradition, naturally Sola Scriptura doesn't cut it since men want to add so many things. If God's word really WAS God's word (discussed below), then Tradition could be a stumbling block since it would have the potential to conflict. Sticking with the Bible alone eliminates this possibility.

What you read in the NT (lousy English translations aside) is there because bishops of The Church, the guys who believed in, for example, the Real Presence, said those scriptures were in accord with "what The Church always and everywhere believed", Holy Tradition. The ones that didn't make the cut were not entirely in accord with "what The Church always and everywhere believed".

If true, then I maintain that it is wrongful for these believers to call the Bible "God's word", since it really is, by the belief you just stated, man's word ABOUT God. If men make the decisions on their own authority, then it is BY men. Besides that, I thought that in Orthodoxy what was determined to be "what the Church always and everywhere believed" was not even known or understood for almost a thousand years after the time of Jesus (Revelation). That sounds like quite a while to discover what one has always known. :)

Every time I am convinced that the HS is surely guiding me, however, I remind myself of the hundreds and hundreds of writings of the Desert Fathers about monks whose lives revolved around the scriptures, real people who came to spiritual destruction because they failed to discern that a demon was guiding them rather than the HS. Why has the danger from demonic influence apparently fallen away for Protestants over the past 500 years when for all the billion and a half members of The Church, it is a constant struggle to overcome the wiles of the demons to this day?

I don't think anyone on my side has claimed any sort of immunity from being fooled by satanic forces. We are all engaged in spiritual warfare, which is very real and ongoing. And, we Protestants often succumb to being fooled. But when that does happen, the postmortem analysis will invariably show a substitution of the desires of the person for the teaching of the scripture.

I wouldn't worry so much about comparing myself to those in the distant past on some things because we have had the benefit of their mistakes. For example, there used to be Christian clergy who rationalized that it was right and proper to set up special brothels for themselves. We can laugh (or cry) at that today, but for them there was no conflict. So in some senses our understanding has strengthened since then. It is easy for us to see the scriptural error in what they did. Perhaps 500 years from now they will see error in common decisions we make today that we think are scriptural. So be it, but the only test we need concern ourselves with is the conformity with the image of Christ. That never changes, and we should be able to handle it with reasonable success. All of us here have profound theological differences, but none of us considers for a moment whether Jesus would have approved of brothels for clergy.

To my knowledge, none of us claims infallible personal scriptural interpretation, even though we do claim leadership by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does give us truths, but not all of them at once. And, as I said, we are not immune from demon attacks. So, it is entirely possible that I could be given a truth which I then foolishly add to as a result of succumbing to my own wants and desires (or demon influence).

But if that happens, then scripture will expose and convict me. I think it is far easier to discover this with the Sola Scriptura approach since we say the Bible interprets itself. Therefore, my error would have to be backed up throughout scripture instead of my just wrongly interpreting one verse. I think that's much harder to do than if there is also a ton of Tradition out there which may indeed agree with my error.

How is it that Western Christianity is riven with hundreds of interpretations of the same passages in scripture?

I don't think that's really true if Western Christianity is really whittled down to the Latins and the Bible-believing Protestants. Of course there are differences, but IMO most of them really can be traced back to a fundamental disagreement about the meaning of a very very few verses. When I think about it, only a small hand-full of words in scripture allegedly give the Apostolic Church plenary power over the Christian faith. I think the vast majority of our disagreements boil down to that fact, does God lead and have authority over the earthly Church or does man (did God delegate to an extraordinary degree)? After this difference, I think we all pretty much agree on the other basics, such as the fundamental identity of Christ, etc.

Do you really believe that "...for some reason it does serve God's purpose for there to be many Christians out there with profound theological differences." Is there any passage in scripture where confusion in the faith is applauded?

Yes, I really believe that. If we all agreed on everything and we were all right, then we would have the full knowledge of God on these matters and not be able to grow any closer to Him. That will never happen here on earth. We are commanded to grow closer to Him. We couldn't if we all already had all the answers.

I'm not sure of any passage that glorifies confusion, but I do remember Metmom quoting from Romans 14 the other day. I think it's relevant here:

Rom. 14:1-8 : 1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

This passage appears to fully allow for different interpretations of scripture on certain matters not being any real problem. It isn't a question of Holy Spirit leading correctly or incorrectly for some. The issue is what inspires growth in true faith. Holy Spirit might lead one person to fast once a month, but not another. There is nothing wrong with this.

Contrary-wise what about John 17:20-23? How does a veritable babel of theological opinion advance fulfillment of Christ's prayer?

We are all one on the defining core issues of Christianity. We all believe in the same Christ, that He died for our sins, and that under normal circumstances we need faith in Him for salvation, etc. These have been revealed to all of us in many different ways and I think it points to Christ's prayer. We are to be "brought to complete unity" meaning we start with differences. We won't actually reach complete unity until the next life.