While Hugo is briefly away, I thought it was a good time to offer my once-every-six-months contribution to this blog.
The question that is very seldom asked by Adventists—and I think needs to be asked—is: “why aren’t more Catholics ‘keeping’ Sunday?” After all, one of the most poetic and beautiful defenses of the Sabbath in recent years was given to us by Pope John Paul II in Dies Domini. In it, he made statements such as these:
The last quote links Adventists and Catholics in a unique way. In order to completely understand the significance of Sunday, Catholics are called to dive deeper into the meaning of the Sabbath. While this doesn’t require any specific connection with Adventists, Catholics might be helped in their quest to sanctify Sunday by exploring Adventism’s theology of the Sabbath.
Even though the late Pontiff saw Sunday as a day which superseded Saturday under the New Covenant, and thus not to be observed in the same way, there is some overlap in how Catholics are meant to keep it holy.
While things like sports, parties, outings, and other typical activities are not explicitly forbidden to Catholics, there is an implied counsel of caution against going to Mass and then treating Sunday like any other day. In other words, Catholics are encouraged to sanctify the whole day and to avoid the “weekend” mentality.
It occurs to me that many other Christians used to keep Sunday as Adventists do today, as evidenced by the fact that many stores are still closed for business on Sundays. “Blue Laws” may not have their origin specifically in Catholic churches, but certainly these laws reflect a general concern for the day of Sunday which is lacking today.
So my question is: how do Catholics “keep” Sunday (other than going to Mass)? What sort of things do you do (or not do) differently on this day than others? What does Sunday mean to you?
The question that is very seldom asked by Adventists—and I think needs to be asked—is: “why aren’t more Catholics ‘keeping’ Sunday?” After all, one of the most poetic and beautiful defenses of the Sabbath in recent years was given to us by Pope John Paul II in Dies Domini. In it, he made statements such as these:
The Sabbath is “a defining and indelible expression of our relationship with God.”
The Sabbath is a part of the Ten Commandments, “the ‘ten words’ which represent the very pillars of the moral life inscribed on the human heart”
“Therefore, if God ‘sanctifies’ the seventh day with a special blessing and makes it ‘his day’ par excellence, this must be understood within the deep dynamic of the dialogue of the Covenant, indeed the dialogue of ‘marriage’.”
“In order to grasp fully the meaning of Sunday, therefore, we must re-read the great story of creation and deepen our understanding of the theology of the ‘Sabbath.’"
Even though the late Pontiff saw Sunday as a day which superseded Saturday under the New Covenant, and thus not to be observed in the same way, there is some overlap in how Catholics are meant to keep it holy.
“The custom of the ‘weekend’ has become more widespread, a weekly period of respite, spent perhaps far from home and often involving participation in cultural, political or sporting activities which are usually held on free days.”
While things like sports, parties, outings, and other typical activities are not explicitly forbidden to Catholics, there is an implied counsel of caution against going to Mass and then treating Sunday like any other day. In other words, Catholics are encouraged to sanctify the whole day and to avoid the “weekend” mentality.
It occurs to me that many other Christians used to keep Sunday as Adventists do today, as evidenced by the fact that many stores are still closed for business on Sundays. “Blue Laws” may not have their origin specifically in Catholic churches, but certainly these laws reflect a general concern for the day of Sunday which is lacking today.
So my question is: how do Catholics “keep” Sunday (other than going to Mass)? What sort of things do you do (or not do) differently on this day than others? What does Sunday mean to you?
419 comments:
1 – 200 of 419 Newer› Newest»Hi Matthew,your last question on the subject(sabbath) is still unanswered. the response from your question can relay into Sunday:
What are the moral aspects of the Sabbath observance, as opposed to the ceremonial aspects?
One Moral aspect is that God said to the Irealites to keep it Holy.
Jesus said the Law is: Math 7:12 do unto others..
I don't see sabbath implied there.
Jesus said the Law:Math 22:37..love the Lord..your neighbor..
I see sabbath in love the Lord.
Jesus said the law: Math 19:18.. Do not Kill,cmt Adultry, Steal,false witness. Honor your father and Mother, love neighbor as self.
Therefore I find the new covenant Moral law writen on our hearts, tells me If I love God I should set aside the Lords day for rest.
Nature.B
Hi Matthew,
I have a few questions for you.
1. I will repeat Clement's question here: What is the "moral" aspect of the Sabbath, and what is the "ceremonial" aspect of the Sabbath in your estimation.
2. In your estimation, what would you deem as the "proper" way for Christians to observe the Sabbath? Basically, how does one keep a "Christian" Sabbath? Is it when Christians come together on Saturday as a community in the worship and celebration of the Eucharist that the Sabbath is "kept" in a "Christian" sense? If it is not, then what, in your estimation, is lacking?
Thank you, and blessings!
Nature.B,
I confess I failed to understand exactly what you were asking me in your comment. But the one question I did see I will answer below.
David,
I see the "ceremonial" side of the Sabbath as the aspects of it that were part of the Hebrew cultus that was fulfilled by Jesus and no longer remains in the New Covenant. An example might be the Sabbath year of Lev. 25 or the command not to light a fire on the Sabbath in Ex. 35. These are both clearly applications of the Sabbath commandment and not additional definitions of it. The moral aspect is essentially the basic meaning of the Sabbath commandment that found its way into both iterations of the Ten Commandments. It is general (like "don't murder" and "don't steal") and, to me, universally applicable. (If you want me to clarify or explain further, I'll do my best.)
As for the second question regarding Sabbath observance...
I can't really say how other Christians ought to keep the Sabbath if they don't come at it from the same direction as I do. But in light of what John Paul II hinted at, I would like to see more Catholics who worship on Sunday make Sunday more of a family day and minimize common distractions. It is a day to rest in God and celebrate him and each other. I guess I feel that that is what the Pope was getting at. But Sabbath observance has to be more than church attendance. It has to be a mindset, an reorientation, that fills the whole day.
Of course I personally feel that the Sabbath is Saturday and its observance really can't be transferred to another day in the same way. But I bring up the above post because I think that the Catholic Church has a more "Sabbathy" idea of Sunday that Protestant churches do and I'd like to see what that looks like.
Hope this helps some...Peace!
Matthew
Dear Matthew,
Please could you expand on what you see as the "moral" aspect of the Sabbath?
Also, I was very interested by Tonya's comment on the previous thread as I have tried (much less eloquently) to ask similar questions before. This is directly related to the distinction between the moral and ceremonial aspects of the Sabbath command. The question is, as David has asked you, how does one keep a Christian sabbath (which ever day of the week it is) and where do we get teaching that shows us how to keep it?
The catholic church teaches that the Sabbath has not been changed, but fulfilled in many ways. In the same way that outward circumcision was a sign of the covenant with Abraham, and is no longer required (although the circumcision of the heart is crucial and linked to baptism, according to St Paul) the same is true of the Jewish sabbath, which was a sign of the covenant between God and the Israelites through Moses.
Thus Sunday observance is not a replacement of the Jewish sabbath. I think that the passage youquote from John Paul II in Dies Domini is very telling, as he does not say we must look to the commandments to understand the sabbath, but rather to the "great story of creation". Thus we are to develop our Sabbath theology in the context of the pre-fall Sabbath, which has been restored through Christ, and is an eternal rest from sin, in God (See Hebrews 4). It is not a rest from work as such, as Adam and Eve worked in the garden (but did not toil until after the fall), in other words their work was a worshipful obedience.
In short (and I will expand on this later perhaps) whilst there may be some good in thinking about a 24 hour sabbath in Christian theology, it seems to me that this is to miss the greater point of the eternal sabbath which is our rest in Christ.
Clement
Just a quick addition!
Matthew, you ask why aren't more Catholic's "keeping" Sunday?
What do you mean by keeping?
(I know it is the same question as above, but I think it is crucial to this discussion!)
Thank you for bearing with me,
Clement
To answer some of your questions (rather than just annoyingly asking my own!):
What does Sunday mean to me as a Catholic Christian:
Sunday, is the weekly Easter, a day of great celebration, a reminder of all that Christ has won for us in His glorious resurrection. It is The Lord's Day, on which the whole church gathers together to worship, adore and give thanks (Eucharist!).
It is a reminder of the new creation, being the eighth day, the first of the new creation, in which we are all renewed and refreshed.
In "keeping" Sunday, we fulfill the moral obligation of the third (fourth) commandment, to give time to God, even though all time is His.
In these ways it is a special and Holy day.
Clement
Hi Matthew,
You mentioned that "The moral aspect is essentially the basic meaning of the Sabbath commandment that found its way into both iterations of the Ten Commandments." In your understanding, what do you suppose this "moral" aspect of the Sabbath is?
You further said that the "Sabbath observance has to be more than church attendance. It has to be a mindset, an reorientation, that fills the whole day." Would you please elaborate upon this "mindset" so that we will know exactly what it is your have in mind? I believe it would be very helpful. Thank you!
You also said "that the Sabbath is Saturday and its observance really can't be transferred to another day in the same way." What "observance" are you specifically talking about, just so that I do not misunderstand you?
In following Clement's advice, I will not simply ask questions (which can be very annoying if you asked questions wanting answers). So I will give you an answer in the form of links that you can visit and read to know how the Orthodox view Sabbath and Sunday.
1. Wikipedia: The Sabbath in Christianity (look under "Eastern Christianity").
2. Orthodox answers on Sabbath.
3. The meaning of Sunday in Orthodoxy.
4. St. John of Damascus' An exact exposition of the orthodox faith (refer to chapter 23 for Sabbath).
5. Was the Sabbath transferred to Sunday in Orthodoxy? (listen to the lecture, it is interesting and informative!).
Hope these links help to give a different perspective on this whole Sabbath/Sunday issue for you.
Blessings to you! :)
Matthew said:
'I can't really say how other Christians ought to keep the Sabbath if they don't come at it from the same direction as I do'.
Matthew, try the direction Jesus took:
John 5:16, The Jews persecuted Jesus because he performed healings like that on sabbath.
V17, Jesus replied "My father goes on working and so do I"
V18...Jesus not only broke the sabbath observance...
Matthew, Help me understand the Adventist spin on this text, Jesus admits He and Father work on the Jewish assigned sabbath.
I think Jesus was demonstrating the law was not Moral, but was a discipline assigned as a sign specifically for Jews.
Mark 3:4 Jesus asked them, 'what does the law allow us to do on the sabbath? To save or to Kill?
Answer:
Ex 31:17 no work as a sign.
Examine:
Ezk 20:25 I gave them statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by, so that they might be defiled by their gifts.
THE TEACHERS OF THE LAW NEW THIS!
Jesus in Luke 11:52, accused the teachers of the Law, for having the key of knowledge (Ezk 20:25). You yourselves have not entered, and you prevented others from entering.
In other words the Pharisies knew the scriptures, and kept the people under unbearable burdens.
Now these x Methodist sunday keepers went back 1800 years and adopted a Jewish curse;Gal 4:9 do you want to be enslaved again?.
Matthew please take an unveiled look at this revelation.
God Bless
Nature.B
OK, lots to answer here. I'm just going to deal with Nature B's last post now, because it'll take the least amount of time and it'll at least give you guys something to think/write about while you're waiting for me to write what might be a massive epistle. :)
So if I agree to helping you understand the Adventist “spin” on John 5, I guess I’m already admitting we’re wrong, right? So why even try? :P I’m just teasing you. Here we go:
1)If the Sabbath were a “Jewish discipline” then Jesus would have kept it as they expected (as he observed every other Mosaic requirement) because he was a Jew. So either Jesus wasn’t a Jew, or he wasn’t a devout Jew, or the Sabbath isn’t a “Jewish discipline” and it was the Jewish leaders who were wrong.
2)You say that his Father also works on the “Jewish assigned Sabbath.” But God the Father (presumably the whole Trinity) rested on the seventh-day of creation week, long before there were any Jews alive to be “assigning” it.
3)From these two points I would suggest that the reality is that the Jewish leaders were wrong about the true nature of Sabbath and Jesus (and His Father) were right. We have plenty of evidence that they were wrong about the true nature of many of the things God gave them. Jesus is everywhere correcting their understanding about things, including the Sabbath.
4)To suggest that the Sabbath is a Jewish curse is a tragedy. All Ez. 20 shows is that God was “cursing” them because they had rejected his Sabbaths and his laws. The Sabbath was meant to be a weekly marvel. Imagine an entire nation that didn’t work one day a week. This was unheard of in agrarian societies. Instead the day was to be spent with family in commemoration of God’s creation and salvation. How could that be a curse, even under the old covenant?
Well I hope this answers your questions. I very much liked your evangelical appeal at the end. It’s encouraging :)
Blessings,
M
Hi Matthew,
This is a comment on something you implied in your response to Nature B. Please do not take this as replacing my previous questions to you. By all means, please answer them as I believe that your answers will do much to move the discussion forward.
In point number two of your response to NB, you seemed to imply that God did not specifically "assign" the Sabbath to the Jews (or more precisely, the Hebrews). You based this implication on the fact that it was God who rested on the seventh day of creation long before there was a Jew. I'll enumerate my thoughts as follows:
1. There is good reason to hold the view that the seventh "day" in the creation story was not a literal 24hr period of time. This is based on the fact that the seventh "day" is mentioned without the familiar "and there was evening and morning, the seventh day".
2. According to the creation narrative, all of God's work of creating was completed on the sixth day rather than the seventh. Therefore, God's "rest" on the seventh "day" was simply a cessation of His creative activity. In the LXX (the version of the Scriptures vastly preferred by the Apostolic writers), it actually says in Genesis 2:2 that God finished His creating on the sixth day. The word translated "rest" literally means "cease" or "stop". This lends credence to point number 1 above in that the seventh "day" is simply designated as when God actually "ceased" from His creating activity. Since Scripture seems to indicate that all of God's creative work has been completed from the beginning, then it is reasonable to suggest that the "rest" of the seventh "day" of creation is an ongoing reality in that God forever "rests" from His work of creation.
3. Based upon the reasoning in points 1 & 2, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment can be viewed as a "type" or "shadow" of God's "rest" mentioned in Genesis 2. In fact, this is exactly how the early Christians understood the connection between the seventh "day" of creation and the Sabbath of the commandment.
4. That the Sabbath of the commandment was instituted only with Israel is evidenced by the fact that it is not mentioned in Genesis at all, does not show up as a specific requirement until Exodus 16 with the manna, Moses' declaration in Deuteronomy that God did not make the Sinaitic covenant with their fathers, that the Sabbath is said to be a sign between Israel and God only in Exodus 31:12-15, and finally that Nehemiah chapter 9 states that the Sabbath was not made known until the time of Moses.
I hope that these points help to give different, and positive, perspective on the seventh "day", the Sabbath, and the Christian's supposed obligation to observe the 24 hr Sabbath rest enjoined by the commandment.
Blessings to you!
Hi Matthew said:4)To suggest that the Sabbath is a Jewish curse is a tragedy. All Ezk. 20 shows is that God was “cursing” them because they had rejected his Sabbaths and his laws.
I now agree he cursed them in that text.
But how about Gal 3:13..now Christ rescued us from the CURSE of the Law.
Deut 28:15-69 is a curse on the Jews till today.
Matthew, you also said:
Instead the day was to be spent with family in (1)commemoration of God’s creation and (2)salvation.
1)Commemoration (sabbath) for the Hebrew was not 500 yrs to creation ,it was Remember Ex 17: manna
2)assigned sabbath was never for salvation,it was for the promised land. Remember Christ the savior on the cross?, thats salvation.
Therefore Jews should keep their assigned sabbath, which is justified because they don't accept Christ.
I believe Ellen White did not think through her new theology in depth. And chose more controversy.
Adventist should keep creation day, on the 6th day, seventh had no beginning (Atkins point).
Thanks for the exercise I enjoyed it.
God Bless
Nature.B
Matthew said:
'Jesus is everywhere correcting their understanding about things, including the Sabbath'.
Wilfully breaking sabbaths.
You and I are on the same page Jer 31:31..I will forge a new covenant with the people of Israel...it will not be like the one...out of Egypt.
Plus Math 5,6,7.(correcting their understanding of things.)
Matthew why do you and I have to meddle in this Hebrew Israelie disapointment as Christians?
Jer 33:20 Yahweh ..If you are able to break my covenant with the day or covenant with the night,so that night and day would not follow at their appointed times, then might my covenant with David my servant be broken....V25..If I have not established my covenant with day and night, "if I have not fixed the Laws of the heavens and earth,then I can reject the descendants of Jacob and David..
Maybe the reason for John 5:17?
Does this text mean that the Old Covenant Laws were not fixed(just signs and shadows ) between Heaven and earth; and the New Covenant through Christ is now
Fixed?
Math 27:51 the curtain of the Temple was torn in two top to bottom.
Matthew I would like you or David to unravel this text please.
Nature.B
Hi Nature B,
You said that the seventh day had no beginning. However, this is a mistake. I was not implying that the seventh "day" had no beginning, but rather no ending seeing that God forever rests from His work of creating. The Christian way of entering into God's sabbath (i.e. rest) is to cease from our works just as He ceased from His. However, whereas the works God ceased from were "good", and even "very good", the works that we are to cease from are those that are "evil" in order that we may be like Him in our life.
Blessings!
Hi David,thanks for that insight:
You said:the works that we are to cease from are those that are "evil" in order that we may be like Him in our life.
Therefore is this in sync with what Jesus said in John 5:17, "My Father goes on working and so do I" meaning good works?
if yes, then Got it!
Blessings
Nature.B
Yep, you got it :)
Dear Bloggers,
I have read Matthew's original statement regarding his question on how Catholics observe Sunday. It is clear that Matthew wrote with the mindset of a Seventh-day Adventist. In other words, he inadvertently assumed that his Catholic audience would read his article through his religious filters. Evidence of this is seen in his reply: "I can't really say how other Christians ought to keep the Sabbath if they don't come at it from the same direction as I do."
In addition, the title of his blog in itself uses the word "observe," a word that may imply various connotations to different faith groups. It is no surprise that David Atkins has some reasonably valid questions regarding observance.
This and a few other items make the conversation quite circular. Questions are asked with the presuppositions of Sunday supporters while Matthew writes and replies convinced of his point of view.
Unless, a consensus is made to agree on some basic principles of Biblical interpretation, this discussion can go on indefinitely without much spiritual profit.
It is clear from my assessment after reading the comments in reply to Matthew that in some cases Scripture has been taken grossly out of context as in the case of Ez. 20. Could this have been an oversight by Shepherd, the result of poor hermeneutics, a blatant deception in an attempt to put across point that does not make much sense? The OT is full of statements about the sanctity of the Sabbath and God's desire to make his people holy through its observance. To imply that the Sabbath was a curse from God, indeed, demonstrates poor reading skills, let alone cheap hermeneutics. Either way, the statement was quite uninformed.
This example (as well as other replies) demonstrate that the strong views held by all parties involved present a problem for a healthy discussion. Sure it is fun to see oneself in print but for the sake of reverence to the Word of God, I will point you to the following text: "To God belong wisdom and power; counsel and understanding are his... Do you listen in on God's council? Do you limit wisdom to yourself?" (Job 12:13; 15:8, NIV)
Look into the Scriptures and experience Jesus in action: On one occasion, “a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, 'Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?'
He said to him, 'What is written in the law? How do you read?'
And he answered, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.'
And he said to him, 'You have answered right; do this, and you will live.'" (Luke 10: 25-28, RSV)
That will be the bottom line once all is said and done. How Do You Read? The most perplexing paradox in the history of the world is that in this age of information and technological advancement our society lacks greatly in reading skills. Indeed, there is much information to read; however, the challenge lies in our ability to discriminate our reading materials and decode information without any preconceived ideas or prior unfounded assumptions in order to approach new data objectively and determine its worth and intent.
Would that there be consensus on simple biblical principles.
Blessings,
V;-)
Hello Victor,
Welcome to the blog and thank you for your thoughts!
The issue of biblical interpretation has been discussed quite a bit on this blog. However, unfortunately, there has never been a "consensus" reached regarding this most basic and fundamental issue.
For Orthodox Catholics, as well as the early Church, the resolution to the interpretation issue was to see how the Church (in her Divine Liturgy, her Councils, and the writings of the Fathers), had always understood something to be. The appeal was to "universality" (has it been believed throughout the whole Church?), "antiquity" (what were those interpretations of the Scriptures held by those teachers of the Church that came before us?), and "consent" (are we holding to the original definitions and determinations of all the priests and teachers who gave their collective agreement in council?). Basically, these three "checks" can be understood in this way:
1. Universality = We do not stray from the majority view of the Church.
2. Antiquity = We do not come up with a "new" interpretation of Scripture that violates what was held before by the Church.
3. Consent = We understand things in exactly the same way as they were originally explained by those who formulated them.
By utilizing all three of these "checks", the Church (though dispersed throughout the world as "Roman" Catholicism, "Eastern" Orthodoxy, "Oriental" Orthodoxy, in short any communion that holds to the original understanding of the Creed, and has its roots from the Apostles or one of the other communions already mentioned) has kept and preserved the exact same faith as it had in the first centuries. This is the only way that Orthodox Catholics know of to preserve the Faith unchanged from new and destructive interpretations that may, and do, pop up throughout the centuries. This is why Orthodox Catholics refer to the earliest Christian witnesses outside of the New Testament in order to see how they understood it. After all, every Christian reads the New Testament today, and everyone understands it differently. But how did the earliest Christians right after the New Testament understand those writings? For Orthodox Catholics, this is a pivotal question, because it helps us to see what the original Christian Church "looked" like.
As I said before though, there has not been a "consensus" reached between Orthodox Catholics and Adventists in regards to this issue. And so we discuss. We debate. We quote Scripture. We continue "on", in your words, "indefinitely".
Sorry that my comment was so long. I have been trying to do better in this regard.
Blessings to you friend!
Dear David, (Part I)
To some extent, you are correct in your historical overview of the debate of hermeneutical consensus over the centuries. As explained in my previous comment, it is quite obvious you speak through your Catholic filters. Like Matthew, who expects others to understand Sabbath observance from his Adventist point of view, you also expect others to view your comments on Scripture from the biased perspective of the Bishop of Rome.
Again, this is the problem that makes your conversation in this blog circular, lack of hermeneutical consensus. No wonder, then, there are so many opinions and interpretations of the Scriptures --opinionated ministers who forgot that the Bible is the ultimate standard in matters of faith, not the majority (universality), tradition (antiquity), or preconceived ideas (consent). These very same ministers are leading the congregation of God into strange pastures.
The three principles that you listed above(Universality, Antiquity and Consent) are geared to support Catholic dogma and ecclesiastical tradition. The tradition of the Church can never supercede the authority of the Scriptures. Many Catholic monks, and heretics according to the Bishop of Rome, condemned the authority of ecclesiastical tradition and as a result got burned at the stake and one even got his skin scraped in order to "strip" him of his ordination. How cruel and ignorant is that! In this way, Rome thought they would preserve their monopoly of the interpretation of Scripture. How wrong they were. As the ashes of those martyred men who died for their faith were scattered on the oceans, their testimony went to the farthest corners of the world.
Jesus also condemned the Jewish traditions of His day. Matt. 15:2,3,7-9 (NASB)
2"Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders?..."
3And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
"...by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7"You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
9'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"
(Con't Part II) V;-)
Dear David, (Part II)
May I submit to you that perhaps allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves would be the safest way to begin a biblical discussion. "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8: 20 NKJV)
This Biblical principle of interpretation applies to all. Rome's authority must bow to the authority of the Scriptures if she desires to be part of any honest and sincere discussion on the Word of God.
In the following text, we have two very important principles: 2 Peter 1:19-21 (New King James Version)
1. Truth is progessive and as such we must wait for God to reveal to us His truth in His time.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
2. Biblical interpretation is not a private matter, neither are a few in ecclesiatical power the only ones who participate in telling others what to believe. The Holy Spirit is the one that reveals truth to the individual. That fact that not even the prophet will prophecy unless prompted by the Spirit ought to teach us that much less the reader or student of the Bible has any right to impose on the Scriptures their own personal views.
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
There are a number of biblical texts that can shed light on this subject. For now, this is sufficient. The point has been made. I will join my words to the words of a humble monk from Germany:
"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen."
Unless you and anyone in this blog can confidently say, "It Is Written," your words are nothing but a nice personal opinion and no serious conversation can take play; you may continue to play with words.
In the days of the humble Catholic monk, Martin Luther, the Word of God was literally chained and anyone who was caught reading it was sentenced to death. These crimes against humanity and countless others have yet to be paid. The world seems to have forgotten about it, but God has not! Today, it seems as if many have gone out to confuse people as a strategy to divert them from understanding the woderful messages of hope contained in the Scriptures. Jesus warned His True Church, her oponents and other counterfeits: "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done." (Revelation 22:12 NIV)
Blessings,
Victor ;-)
Hi Victor,
1. I am not Roman Catholic. Therefore, I do not "expect others to view...(my) comments on Scripture from the biased perspective of the Bishop of Rome."
2. I was merely explaining how it is that Orthodox Catholics maintain the same Faith over 2000+ years. Sorry that you took it as anything else than this. It was not written with the intention for a debate. Just presented as fact. For a fuller discussion of this concept, please refer to St. Vincent of Lerin's A Commonitory.
3. Jesus condemned "bad" Jewish tradition, yes. However, there is "tradition" that is spoken highly of: I Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6. These passages are typically not considered by Protestants.
4. You may suggest allowing the Bible to "speak for itself", but this is not reality. The Bible is a book which is a collection of writings from many different authors. As such, it is read and interpreted by the reader. Since everyone sees things from different perspectives, not everyone will understand the Bible in one and the same way. This is why there are so many groups with differing understandings of Scripture. Allowing the Bible to "speak" for itself is exactly what the Protestant reformation tried to do, and the result is obvious.
5. Truth is not "progressive". Truth is a Person.
6. We say "It is written" all the time on this blog. Just read around to see this fact for yourself.
7. And Martin Luther was not humble.
Blessings to you!
Victor,
"In the days of the humble Catholic monk, Martin Luther..."
Hahahahaha...good one.
David,
I must confess I didn't realize you were Orthodox when I wrote this post. The idea was to show that the pope wants Roman Catholics to keep Sunday holy and to ask them in what ways they keep Sunday holy. As an Adventist we do this and don't do that on Sabbath. But I wanted to be open to people having different ideas of what it meant for Sunday. So, even though the post didn't apply to you in the way I first imagined, thank you for sharing your materials with me and dialoging regardless.
I agree with you also very fervently that truth is a person viz. a fact or a proposition. Still, I willingly admit that truth being a person is a mystery to me. What does it mean? What are the implications?
You said these things were vital to you:
"1. Universality = We do not stray from the majority view of the Church.
2. Antiquity = We do not come up with a "new" interpretation of Scripture that violates what was held before by the Church.
3. Consent = We understand things in exactly the same way as they were originally explained by those who formulated them."
The irony is, when it comes to the Sabbath, the Adventist argument is that it is a case for the universality of the belief (circa first century), is derived from antiquity, and fulfills the requirements of consent. What we see is a deviation from this practice in the centuries that follow. So I suggest that what many do is use the newer tradition (Sunday) to replace the older tradition (Saturday). In other words, one must break those three principles (universality, antiquity, and consent) in order to justify the keeping of Sunday.
Now, if is is true that the Sabbath was fulfilled at the cross and/or believe that the early believers were naturally led by the Spirit to Sunday then that would obviously break my conclusion. But I wanted to make the observation nonetheless.
I promise I'll get to your questions too! :)
Hi Matthew,
I believe your use of the three "checks" for Sabbath keeping in the first century is misapplied.
1. Gentiles were not required to observe the Sabbath as evidenced by the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, and reiterated by St. James in Acts 21:25.
2. The Sabbath was not presented as something necessary for the Christian faith to be considered complete in the New Testament.
3. Sunday is not a dogma of the Church, but a practice. The three "checks" deal with interpretation and dogma. The Church meets on days other than Sunday to serve the Divine Liturgy. Saturday and Sunday are considered the principle days to do this on. Again, what is lacking if the Church comes together on Saturday to remember the Sabbath in salvation history?
Blessings to you!
Hey David,
Thanks so much for being patient and active in this dialog. I’ve been learning a lot in the process!
1. You are right that the Sabbath isn’t mentioned at all in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and 21. But that begs the question: does it need to be mentioned? Why do we expect it? (A) I feel the burden of proof is on those who don’t keep the Sabbath to show where it ended. The Jews who received the commandment certainly had no expectation that it would end and we have no solid evidence that the earliest Christians thought it should stop either. (B) The issue of the Council was over circumcision in particular and the law of Moses in general. The fact that the Sabbath was mentioned might be seen as support for the belief that the Sabbath wasn’t a part of the law of Moses (though from silence). (C) The Gentiles were only told to watch out for 4 things. Nothing was mentioned about murder or turning the other cheek. So clearly the list isn’t exhaustive. (D) Another minor thing: the Sabbath is mentioned in verse 21 as being a place where Moses is read “on every Sabbath” all across the empire. While this isn’t an explicit endorsement of Sabbath keeping, it is an acceptance of its reality without anything negative to say (again, from silence).
2. See above
3. Sunday may only be a practice in the present church, but it was certainly dogma in Israel and, I would argue, in the lives of the earliest Christians. And that’s kind of my point in this whole thing: The early church doesn’t “understand things in exactly the same way as they were originally explained by those who formulated them,” namely God :).
What is lacking if the Church comes together on Saturday to remember the Sabbath in salvation history?
That would be a good start. Sabbath-keeping is an all-day thing where people are to avoid work and needless distractions that keep them from God. Going to church is a usual thing to do on Sabbath (though not required), but it’s the day itself that is important.
Sorry I couldn’t keep it briefer. I am working on it as well!
M
Dear David,
1. Indeed, I assumed that since the blog is about Catholics and Adventists that I would only encounter Roman Catholics and Adventists here. I was wrong in my assumption. I should have read your post more carefully. Please, accept my apologies.
2. The fact that you presented the three "checks" of Orthodox Catholicism to explain their process of biblical interpretation as a reply to my comment warranted a response from me. I never took them personally; neither was my reply to be taken personally. I limited myself to answering the specific orthodox principles you brought to light.
3. True, Jesus condemned "bad" Jewish tradition. Whereas, the texts you mentioned do refer to "tradition" (paradoseis), the Scriptures clearly imply that the traditions the Apostle Paul was referring to were those he had sanctioned as being true. These traditions could not be contrary to the will of God (Mk. 7:8). For this reason, it is imperative that all Christian belief and practice be captive "to the law and to the testimony." The Church of God is clearly identified in Rev. 12: 17 as "those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." There is constant conflict between old and new theology. All truth must rest upon the testimony of the Scriptures, that is the true test of the Christian faith. Anything contrary to the Word of God must me reject as heresy!
4. I do not suggest allowing the Bible to speak for itself. I simply demonstrate that the Bible demands by its own intrinsic authority as the "incarnate" Word of God that all interpretation cannot be private. It is the Spirit of God that leads to all and one truth "...when the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears." If the Spirit of God does not speak of Its own, then, all other human views must be surrendered to the Bible's witness.
5. Again, "He will guide you into all truth." When one is guided it is only done progressively, step by step. Therefore, in that sense truth is progressive. This truth is only found in the person of Jesus, He is truth.
6. Saying "It Is Written" obviously and implicitly denies the three "checks" of Orthodox interpretation. You can't have it both ways: (a)It is either "To the Law and to the Testimony" or the "checks." Throughout Scriptures we see that God's faithful people were always numbered in the minority or a remnant. This blows Universality. (b) Again, any interpretation of God's Word must be subjected to the intrinsic authority of the Scriptures, not to some previously held view from a Church counsel after the death of the last canonical witness. This blows Antiquity. (c) If consent means Scriptural consensus, then this might be applicable. If it means, non-canonical consensus, then it denies the authority of Scripture.
The Bible is not like any other book written by humans. It is of divine origin with the intent of reaching humans with the express will of God and His plan of salvation. For this reason, it is out duty to seek His Spirit so that He will lead us to a clear understanding of His truth. The demise and splintering of Protestantism was not due to "allowing the Bible to speak for itself;" on the contrary, Protestantism settled on its ecclesiastical tradition and did not allow for new understanding of the Scriptures. Because God reveals truth progressively, Protestants failed to become available for new Scriptural light. This led many to break off and establish a new faith groups. This process of restoring truth is still undergoing today until prior to the Second Coming of Jesus.
7. Martin Luther may have been quite cocky with the Church of his days. But so was Moses, Paul, John the Baptist and others who are stood up for truth. Yet, they were meek and humble before God.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Hi Matthew,
1. No, it does not "beg the question", considering the fact that the Jews never understood the Gentiles as being under any obligation to observe the Sabbath in the first place. If you can show otherwise, then please share your evidence.
A. If you mean by "keep the Sabbath" as referring to an obligation to rest from secular labor for 24 hrs., then I believe it is encumbent upon the Adventist to show where this is instructed of the Christian as a necessary ordinance to follow. As it stands, the historical evidence outside of the New Testament clearly shows that the Christian community did not consider it as a binding ordinance upon Christians.
B. Historically, the Sabbath has been considered as part of the Law of Moses (otherwise known as the "Torah"), since the Law of Moses was seen as the first five books of the Bible (i.e. Genesis-Deuteronomy). Adventists have an incorrect view of the commandments and laws of God in the books of Moses. They make an artificial distinction between commandments that the Bible writers never make. For instance, circumcision was just as much a commandment from God as the Sabbath was. Circumcision was not seen as merely a commandment of Moses, but was emphatically the commandment of God. Both were looked upon as originating from the same author, that being God Himself. The Sabbath command is implied in "the Law of Moses".
C. The reason why murder was not mentioned for the Gentile Christians was because it was already covered by the teaching of Christ, which they had already accepted. The four "commands" that they were to follow (with the exception of perhaps sexual immorality being re-emphasized) were to prevent them from being "stumbling blocks" to others as well as themselves.
D. The synagogues were Jewish run and operated. Of course their meetings would be on the Sabbath. In the first century, the synagogue was still the best place for Gentiles in far off localities to hear the Scriptures often. Remember, there were no "Bibles" at this time, nor were there any "Church" buildings.
3. Sunday was dogma in Israel? It was dogma for the earliest Christians? Where is this written? Sunday has always been regarded as a practice, never a dogma. That's why you won't find Sunday mentioned in an Ecumenical Council.
4. It's a good start? I would recommend that you look up the links I provided for you near the top of this thread. They help to explain the Orthodox view of the Sabbath and Sunday. Perhaps some of your current perceptions will be put to the test.
5. Finally, you stated that it is the day itself that is "important". I think that this mindset is perhaps the biggest difference between those of the ancient Church, and those of the Adventist denomination. Just as you eloquently pointed out, for Adventism, the day is what is important. For those of the ancient Church, it is the active participation in the life of the Trinity that is important. One view focuses on the outward observance of a day of the week in order to contemplate upon God (an admirable thing in and of itself). The other view focuses on becoming one with the Holy Trinity in theosis through life, love, and the Holy Eucharist. Very different perspectives with very different results from either side.
Blessings!
Hi Victor,
1. No apology necessary.
2. Not in my mind. I was just presenting facts.
3. The Scriptures plainly state that Scripture does not contain all of the "tradition" that the Apostles delivered to the Churches. You are quite correct that this "tradition" does not violate the written Scripture, but it must be kept in mind that there could very well be some things of "tradition" that are not specifically mentioned in Scripture. This is what Protestants seem to have the most trouble with. Thus their "arguments from silence".
4. I'm sorry, I thought that is indeed what you meant when you said, "May I submit to you that perhaps allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves would be the safest way to begin a biblical discussion."
5. If one examines Church history, then one can see this "progression" that you speak of. Though it is not "progression" in terms of "new" truth, but rather a sharpening of the truth already revealed. This is evidenced by the Ecumenical Councils of the Church not proclaiming any "new" doctrine.
6. When I said that "It is written" is used by all on this blog, I simply meant that the Scriptures are indeed referenced. Also, you cannot compare the history of ancient Israel with the history of the Church. Israel did not have the Messiah in the flesh, nor were they promised the Holy Spirit as guiding them into all truth. Israel was never called the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim. 3:15). The Church is the faithful remnant of Israel. Your invalidation of the "checks" is misapplied.
7. The Spirit within the Scriptures is of divine origin. The Bible is a product of human beings influenced by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus Christ is God's Word to us. We worship Christ, we do not worship the Bible.
8. If Martin Luther was "cocky" with the Church, then he was "cocky" with Christ, because the Church is the "body of Christ". Where and with whom was Moses "cocky", and it was considered okay? Where was St. Paul "cocky" with the Church?? To whom was St. John "cocky"? Was it not the Pharisees? Your comparison between Martin Luther and the Biblical personages you cite is unfounded in my humble opinion. Martin Luther stubbornly refused to abide by the rule of the Church by putting his own personal interpretation of Scripture above that of all of his peers, and all the Christian teachers of the Church before his time. Cocky indeed!
Blessings to you!
Dear David,
Indeed, I notice that your responses are crafted quite intelligently. I am pleased to read your replies.
However, I must go back again to a rhetorical question I previously asked and make it a direct question: "How do you read?" Moreover, I ask that you pray that the Lord would help you understand the message of His Holy Word. "To God belong wisdom and power; counsel and understanding are his... Do you listen in on God's council? Do you limit wisdom to yourself?" (Job 12:13; 15:8, NIV)
Here it is again: "...no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
Unless, an understanding of the divine authority of the Scriptures is acknowledged the discussion continues to be circular and without much profit. This is the point the Protestant Reformers made by the use of the term, Sola Scriptura, referring to the primacy of the Scriptures; the authority of the Scriptures over ecclesiastical tradition.
God does not allow for private interpretation because no prophesy of Scripture ever came by the will of man but by the will of God through His Spirit. This points to God as the author of the Scriptures, not man.
Various passages agree with 2 Peter; here is one as an example: "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue. 2 Samuel 23:2 (NIV) Samuel recorded the words of God because it was God Himself that spoke through Him. This clearly points to God as the divine author of the Scriptures.
This is the very point Jesus makes to people of His days: "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that. Mark 7:13 We got hung up on the technicality of what constitutes "good" or "bad" tradition. The point I was making then was that even Jesus would not allow tradition or the commandments of men to trump His established and canonized Word. Ih this case, the Hebrew Tanahk or as Christians know it, the Old Testament.
"...the Scripture cannot be broken." Jn 10: 35 Men's teachings cannot break the teaching of the Word of God. This means all Church councils bear no authority over the word of God. On the contrary, they must be subjected to the divine authority of Scripture. This was the point of the Reformers. All Church teaching must adhere to the Word of God, otherwise it must be discarded as heresy.
Jesus came to make the ultimate sacrifice for you and me. He also came to set straight doctors of the Law who had taken the liberty to reinterpret His Word by their own will. "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Luke 24:43-44. And so it is today.
The Church's arrogance to place its ecclesiastical authority over the Scripture is heresy. Jesus clearly stated that not even He would change anything about the Scriptures. Why? because His Word is eternal. He never changes His mind like we do.
17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
The early Reformers wanted nothing more than Sola Scriptura because it exposes truth and the heresies infiltrated in the Church. That's why they wanted a reformation of the Church to go back to being accountable to the truth of the divine Word of God.
The council of God cannot be trumped by the council of the Church. On the contrary, Church council must be subjected to the council of God. This principle in itself invalidates the "checks" spoken of earlier.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Hi Matthew in your thread I read;
to remember the Sabbath in 'salvation' history?
What was the reward for keeping the old Covenant and sabbath? answer the promised land( Ex 32:13.. all the land I spoke about everlasting inheritance).Deut 28 they still disobeyed and lost the land anyway.
The promise of 'salvation' only came through Christ.
Math 7:12,
Math 19:18,
Math 22:37
Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and resurrection on the " day" of salvation, trumps any other day in scripture for which the promise was land only.
Blessed be the day of salvation forever,
Nature.B
Victor, you said: Throughout Scriptures we see that God's faithful people were always numbered in the minority or a remnant. This blows Universality.
By Scripture you must mean the pentateuch.
new testament scripture. Matthew 28:19 ...go therefore, and make disciples from all nations...V20..I am with you always...
Today I see a Church still a minority (to world population)none the less, established in Most Nations on earth.
The catholic is no longer a minority among denominations. Therefore math 28:20 I am with you always seems fulfilled after 2000 yrs and counting.
I personally follow an Acts 2:42 remnant Church for scripture interpretation.
St. Jerome and others wrote the Bible 325-385, yet John 21:25 warns us that 'if all were written down the world itself could not hold the books recording them.
Antiquity of the early Church Fathers, and the Bishops of the magisterium I rely on for CONSENT continuity in interpreting the same Bible they wrote.
Nature.B
Hi Victor,
You raise some really interesting points, and I am keen to see how they work consistently. For example, you repeatedly make the point that scripture is not something that can be privately interpreted, which I completely agree with. You said:
2. Biblical interpretation is not a private matter, neither are a few in ecclesiatical power the only ones who participate in telling others what to believe. The Holy Spirit is the one that reveals truth to the individual. That fact that not even the prophet will prophecy unless prompted by the Spirit ought to teach us that much less the reader or student of the Bible has any right to impose on the Scriptures their own personal views.
It seems to me in the fist and last part of this statement you say that biblical interpretation is not a private matter, and that no individual should impose his own personal views (ie interpretations). Yet you also say that the Holy Spirit reveals truth to the individual. How is this truth to be tested (Test everything, cling to what is good), how are we to distinguish between what is just someone's personal view, and a spirit given truth?
As an additional, but hopefully related point, the Catholic Church does not teach that it's tradition is more Authoritative than the scriptures,
rather that Tradition and the Scriptures come from one source, which is God alone. In this way the church is the guardian of the scriptures, having canonized them, she (the church) continues to interpret them as she is the Pillar and Foundation of the truth.
Nothing that the Catholic church teaches is contrary to scripture. It may be contrary to your interpretation of scripture, but not to the Catholic understanding. The church does not declare new truth, rather, as David put so well, it sharpens that which has already been received, growing into the fullness of truth, as lead by the Holy Spirit. As it says in John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."
The spirit brings to the church's remembrance everything that Jesus passed on (Tradition) to the Apostles some of which was written down (The Bible or written tradition).
Blessings to you, and may I add my welcome to you.
Much love,
Clement
Hi Matthew!
You said to David: I agree with you also very fervently that truth is a person viz. a fact or a proposition. Still, I willingly admit that truth being a person is a mystery to me.
It is not only a mystery to you, but also to me, and everyone else who has drawn breath in this world. Yet it is the most Glorious Mystery that can be completely understood and experienced by everyone, but which we can never explain or prove to anyone. I cannot explain it, but I can share how I came to completely understand it and experience it, and offer my feeble advice to you. But this is a mystery that can only be revealed to you by God, and once it is, all these issues we discuss on the blogs will take care of themselves.
So….
Take time or make time, to contemplate the Passover. Read the scriptures regarding the Passover. And then take time and think about the Passover lamb. Picture it in your mind and take time to think about it. And pray for God to teach you what you need to know about the Passover lamb.
Take time or make time, to contemplate the Last Supper. Read the scriptures regarding the Last Supper. And then take time and think about what Jesus said to his disciples at the Last Supper. Picture it in your mind and take time to think about it. And pray for God to teach you what you need to know about the Last Supper.
Take time or make time, to contemplate Jesus on the cross. Read the scriptures regarding the crucifixion. And then take time and think about Jesus on the cross. Picture it in your mind and take time to think about it. And pray for God to teach you what you need to know about Jesus and the cross.
Take time or make time, to contemplate the Resurrection of Jesus. Read the scriptures regarding the Resurrection. And then take time and think about what Jesus said to his disciples, and others, after His Resurrection. Picture it in your mind and take time to think about it. And pray for God to teach you what you need to know about the Resurrection.
It may take time, in my case decades, but God will make that Glorious Mystery completely known to you, and you will understand how a person is Truth….the only Truth…The Only Truth and Way and Life….The Lord Jesus Christ, The Lamb of God.
He is a mystery that can be seen by the blind, yet invisible to those with perfect vision.
He is a mystery that can be heard by the deaf, yet inaudible to those with perfect hearing.
He is a mystery that can be smelled in the aromas of memory, yet odorless to those who sniff the present and future scent of conspiracy.
He is a mystery that can be felt by those who have lost their feeling, yet untouchable to those who revel in the tactile.
He is a mystery that can be tasted by those with hungry faith, yet tasteless to those filled with righteous knowledge.
Behold the Lamb of God.
Behold the Lamb of God.
Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His Supper!
And this is what Sunday means to me. But Sunday is not the Glorious Mystery. The Glorious Mystery is a person, Jesus Christ. His life, His death, His resurrection, and the gift He gives to us by living in us so that we may be alive in Him.
God bless all!!!
Mike,
I believe that was my homily for the day. Thank you!
Blessings!
Dear Shepherd, (Part I)
You stated that the concept of God's remnant blows universality. Honestly, it blows my mind that you even attempt make this an issue. If you have read my previous comments you would understand that your point is quite confusing. There is a huge difference between numbers (majority or minority) and universality. Moreover, I respectfully ask where is your Scriptural support for your understanding of universality? This would be quite helpful to in in giving you an appropriate answer.
It appears to me that your concept of universality seems to be quite different from David Atkins' idea of universality.
This is what David wrote:
"Universality = We do not stray from the majority view of the Church."
This statement is made within the context of Biblical interpretation. You seem to allude to great numbers spread throughout all the corners of the world! Until you make your point clear, my reply would be nothing more that a shot in the dark.
However, I will expand on the concept of the remnant and hope this might answer your question.
We know from Scripture that those who entered the Ark were only 8 people. The entire world had rejected God. Only eight remained faithful. God brought judgment to the antediluvian world. Only a remnant of God's people survived God's wrath.
Jesus characterized the conditions of those living at the end of the age in this way: "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." (Mat. 24:37, NIV) Here Jesus clearly described that in the end days prior to His second coming; the conditions of the people living in the world would be identical to that of Noah.
"38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."
Not only were they not interested in accepting the warning message of Noah, but those who heeded the message were few. So it will be at the end of the system of this world.
In Mat. 22: 14, Jesus states: "For many are called, but few are chosen." God's faithful people number in the minority. Many may look like Christians, but only a few are chosen by God. Appearances of piety are deceiving. Only the Word of God is certain.
And again in Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
During Medieval times there was no religious freedom in Europe. People were coerced to accept a set of religious under the penalty of death. In this time of religious freedom in many parts of the world we are free to choose the will of God without the fear of ecclesiastical retaliation.
One of the marks of God's Church rests on this text: those who do the will of God. You may have so many denominations who may claim to be the Church of God through whom all will be saved. Nevertheless, the Bible teaches that all Christians need to obey God rather than man.
Acts 5:29: "We must obey God rather than men!"
This makes God's Church to number in the minority. Not all who call Him Lord will enter the Kingdom of God.
V;-) Con't Part II
Dear Shepherd, (cont' PartII)
In Revelation 12: 7 we read: "So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus." (NASB)
Loipos, here translated "rest," is an adjective that can also be translated "remaining" or "left" as in what is left or remaining of something much larger. See Rev 8:13; 9:20; 11:13 for comparison.
This is the biblical concept of God's remnant. Throughout the OT we can see clear examples of God's people going astray and only a few would remain in Israel that were true to God's will.
The best example is in the fact that the Northern Kingdom disappeared, that's ten tribes! Only Judah and Benjamin remained until the third siege of Jerusalem in which Nebuchadnezzar took them into exile.
When the Medo-Persians took over, only a remnant of those who went into exile returned to Jerusalem.
When Jesus showed up, John records: "He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
In order to establish the Church, Jesus chose a remnant in Israel, twelve of them on which to establish His true representatives on earth. Christians do not need to be in the majority to be universal. Their mission is universal. The stakes of the Church are universal because only the meek will inherit the earth (universal concept), only those who do the will of God, those who keep His commandments and hold true to the testimony of Jesus.
True Christians are universal in mission yet they number in the minority.
Ask God to give you understanding in regards to this matter. The majority is impressive, the minority looks like a bunch of mavericks. Jesus and His disciples were rejected because they did not conform to the majority. They chose to do the will of God.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Dear Shepherd (Addemdum),
1. I am baffled by your statement:
"St. Jerome and others wrote the Bible 325-385."
You mean, he gave us a Latin translation of the Scriptures. The last author of Scripture is John the Revelator.
2. "Antiquity of the early Church Fathers, and the Bishops of the magisterium I rely on for CONSENT continuity in interpreting the same Bible they wrote."
Again, the Bible only acknowledges those who wrote until John the Revelator. Anyone else has no canonical authority. All others after John must be subjected to the authority of the Scriptures.
"Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." Luke 11:28
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Victor, you are right,the last book of the new testament is revelation writen by the Apostle John who was imprisoned on the island of Potmos (Rome).
John the Revelator" is a traditional Gospel/blues call and response song.[1] In the chorus, John of Patmos, the traditional author of the Book of Revelation, is writing "the book of the seven seals." At the time of the song's composition (and in modern times), John of Patmos was generally considered the same person as John the Apostle and John the Evangelist.
Victor..Revelation is only one of the books St.John wrote in the New testament. 1John and 2 John, were two others.
Now Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, .acts..etc why am I doing this??...
Do you own a Bible?.. that book was produced by the early Church..
Google St.Jerome Bible..help yourself.
David please help!
Nature.B
Victor, you said ::In order to establish the Church, Jesus chose a remnant in Israel, twelve of them on which to establish His true representatives on earth. Christians do not need to be in the majority to be universal. Their mission is universal.
Thats correct..now read the book of Acts 1:12..assembly of the 11-12, plus Mary the Blessed Mother.
Acts 2:1 Pentecost the Birthday of the Church Peter as Head Shepherd.
That was 33AD...fast forward to.....325AD..the early Church fathers headed by St. Jerome wrote the New testament books( which includes revelation by St.John) added to the Old testament books voila the Bible, completed 385 AD.
Sharing the word..
Nature.B
Victor,research will show, my thread was a simple short version of the production of translating the Bible into Latin, the Language of academia at that time.
The New Testament, of course, was written in Greek. Christians used the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, as its version of the Old Testament. (The word septuagint is derived from the Latin word for 70 and is based on a legend that the Greek translation was the work of 70 translators.) Because fewer and fewer Christians in the West could read or understand Greek, the Church faced a serious pastoral problem. How could the Bible remain accessible to believers?
Sharing the rich History of the Church.
Nature.B
Dear Clement,
Is this Clement of Alexandria of Clement of Rome? Just kidding! Earlier I got into trouble with David Atkins by assuming he was a Roman Catholic when, indeed, he was an Orthodox Catholic. There is a difference and it matters.
You stated the following: "scripture is not something that can be privately interpreted, which I completely agree with."
I think I know where you are coming from. Let us look at 2 Peter 1:19-21. The term "private interpretation" originates from the translation of the KJV. The NIV renders it like this: "[prophet's] own interpretation." I tend to agree with the NIV's rendition of the passage due to the fact that even though the word prophet does not appear in the that particular passage it is valid in that it seeks to link verse 20 to verse 21.
v.20 touto prwton ginwskontes hoti pasa propheteia graphes hidias epilusews ou ginetai
Literally this translates: "knowing this first, that all prophesy of Scripture not becomes one's own (peculiar to one's own) interpretation."
The context here is the prophet prophesying not his own words but the words of God. This is evident from verse 21.
The key here is epiluō, which is commonly translated interpretation. Evidence from the papyri suggests that this word can also be translated "disclose" or "decide." The implication of this is that it is referring to the prophet's ability to originate prophesy. The fact that it is a negative statement (ou), it denies that the prophet could have come up with the words of the prophecy. This is prophecy in general.
In other words, the passage can be translated: "No prophecy of Scripture comes out of private disclosure,” not “of private interpretation.” Robertson's Word Pictures states: "It is the prophet’s grasp of the prophecy, not that of the readers that is here presented..." (Compare with Mar 4:34, Act 19:39)
For this reason, the translators of the NIV are correct in their translation: "...no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation."
V;-) Con't Part II
Dear Clement, (Part II)
The bottomline: "The prophet was the Holy Spirit’s mouthpiece, and thus under divine guidance. He was not to intrude his own ideas into the messages that were given him for the benefit of God’s people. The same principle holds true in a study of the prophecies—the reader should strive to understand the Spirit-inspired meaning of the passage under consideration."
There is no contradiction here. The text clearly teaches that the writers of Scriptures did not invent the stories. The Spirit of God moved them to write God's Words.
As such, we the readers are to allow Scripture to explain itself. That's why it would profit the sincere student of the Bible to follow the following counsel: "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little.”" Isaiah 28:10
By comparing Scripture with Scripture, the individual will avoid introducing his or her own personal interpretation or opinion on the Word of God. The text never implies that the reader needs the consensus of the majority in order to arrive to truth. It simply teaches that since the prophet did not invent the words and the words come from God, then the reader has the responsibility to avoid at all cost to place his own personal and private opinion on the meaning of the text. One must allow the Holy Spirit the the lead the reader to all truth:
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." John 16:13
The Spirit was poured out at Pentecost to reveal to the Church the truth of God contained in Scripture. "He will not speak on his own" Neither does the prophet speak of his own. The student of Scripture is not at liberty to introduce his own ideas or opinions in the interpretation of Scripture. He or she is subjected to the supreme authority of Scripture to understand the expressed Word of God by following the principle outlined in Isaiah 28:10. This is a true test of Scripture and all interpretation. Let the Bible explain itself.
OK...
You assume that the Catholic Church is correct in all its teachings. I'll give you that. All are entitled to their own personal opinion.
I have given you an example as to how one can do simple exegesis, compare Scripture with Scripture to arrive at the conclusion of the passage.
I would ask of you and all others now to give me a clear biblical exegesis in support of the Catholic stance on Biblical authority and ecclesiastical tradition.
So far the comments I have received have been opinions held, personal views and assumptions. No one that has responded has given me any clear biblical support for their beliefs. I have gone out of the way to spend time to give you a clear view as to why I believe in Sola Scriptura, not a theory, but a biblical fact. Nowhere in the Bible do I find support for ecclesiastical tradition to be on par with biblical authority.
The ball is on your court.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Dear Shepherd,
Regarding the Canon of Scripture
Evidence suggests that that the Torah was canonized around 400 BCE, the Prophets around 200 BCE, and the Writings around 100 CE perhaps at the Council of Jamnia. (See McDonald & Sanders, editors of The Canon Debate, 2002, The Notion and Definition of Canon by Eugene Ulrich, page 4.)
St. Jerome nor any of the Church Fathers had anything to do with this. Jesus upheld this canon throughout his ministry. He even rebuked the Devil with an "It Is Written."
In addition, he stated: "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Luke 24:43-44.
He also said in Matthew 5:17-19: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
The Scriptures are clear. I have used these texts in my previous statements here in this thread. I am now repeating them in the context of the canon to help you understand the implications of Jesus' words when He stated that His Word cannot be trumped by anything.
I do not know where you get the idea the St. Jerome wrote the Bible.
This is what you wrote: "St. Jerome and others wrote the Bible 325-385." Please, check your sources.
The Early Church used the canon of the Septuagint (LXX), which contained some apocrypha. The New Testament developed over time during the First Century of the Christian.
It was not until 367 when Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon.[Lindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 15. ISBN 1405110783.] He used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) for the first time to refer to the collection of books we now know as the New Testament.[David Brakke, "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty Ninth Festal Letter," in Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) pp. 395–419]
St. Jerome is believed to have been born ca. 347. He was a Christian apologist best known for translating the Vulgate. I believe the confusion comes from the fact that the Catholic Church considers him a canonized saint. Yet, he is not recognized in the biblical canon because he lived about 247 years after the last Apostle, John the Beloved or the Revelator.
St. Jerome never wrote the Bible, my friend. He merely translated it into Latin. William Tyndale was he first one to translate the Scriptures completely from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts since Jerome's Vulgate translation. Tyndale's translation exposed errors in Jerome's work, whose translation which favors Catholic theology which in your opinion is correct.
Please, check your facts if you are going to make statements here that others may take as Gospel. Poor scholarship has led to poor theology. David Atkins suggested that Protestantism's insistence on Sola Scriptura created a problem in biblical interpretation. I beg to differ. On the contrary, Roman Catholic arrogance and its unrepentant attitude toward the supreme authority of Scripture that has created confusion.
Give me a biblical exegetical exposition of the authority of ecclesiastical tradition to be on par with biblical authority. If you can do this, you would be the first to respond to the claims of the early Reformers' insistence on Sola Scripture. Instead of meeting the challenge of the Reformers, the Roman Church opted to canonized the Apocrypha, writings that support their teachings. It is in this sense that they attempted to match the claims of Sola Scriptura. Ironic, to say the least!
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Victor:
Could it be that your position could be challenged by the Acts of the Apostles?
In particular, the question of whether Gentiles should be circumcised upon converting to Christianity. This council was held at approx. 50 A.D., just 16 years after the ascention of Christ.
The Aposltes made a ruling that "trumped" Scripture. In spite of the Command to circumcise, they decided that it was not necessary for Christians to be circumcised. James, at this same council, revealed other Jewish laws that were not binding on Christians.
There are other places in Scripture where Christ Himself at least "challenged" Scripture, including the strict laws of Sabbath-keeping.
Could it be that Christ trumps Scripture? I think that Christ (God) has the authority to change any part of Scripture He wishes.
The Sabbath was one of those changes. If that were not so, then Christ being here at all would be an affront to the Sabbath. (Much the opinion of Jews then and today.) Afterall, the Sabbath was given to Isreal by God Himself so that they would have a relationship with God. They prayed directly to God and made sacrifices directly to God. Now comes Jesus the Christ and says, "no, you need Me to intervene for you so that you can have an Eternal relationship with God". Not only that, but Christ claims to be the Son of God AND God at the same time.
Now, THAT is change my friend. In order to effect this change, Christ and His Aposltes had to 'seemingly' change Scripture. These things were not explicitly prophesied in the Old Testament. In fact, many Jews thought that the Messiah would be more like a solier and deliver them by war.
Much like you posit that the Sabbath has been changed, so too they thought. The Sabbath is the same. It has been fulfilled, not changed. God can and does change how He effects His Will for us AND how we worship Him. (we now worship God as the Trinity) Much in the same way God has fulfilled other covenants, God does and will continue to fulfill His covenants. Christ's second coming will not 'change' God's last covenant with us, but will fulfill it once and for all.
Do you not believe things will change then? We will definitely still be worshipping God, but it would be foolish to believe things will stay exactly the same.
If the authority of the Apostles were not 'on par' with Scripture, then they could not have revealed the prophesy to the Jews. We absolutely need the same authority of the Church to reveal Christ's second coming to us now and how we are to do God's will until that time.
There is no way I'm believing that God left His Church to a simple 'book'. That is not the way it was done in the time of Christ and it is absurd to think Scripture has authority over God's living Church.
God even gave Moses the authority to bring His people the Commandments. God could have just as easily taken it upon Himself to reveal them directly to Isreal.
There is much evidence throughout Scripture that God has always placed His Word in the hands of His Church on earth.
Blessings,
HC
Victor,
I can tell we are going to have some wonderful conversations on here, and I look forward to them greatly! You are obviously well read, so this will be a pleasure. Please bear with me as I don't have so much time (sadly) to devote to blogging but I will try and keep up and answer each of your posts on the day you post them.
We must start by considering the basis for your biblical hermeneutic. You said:
The student of Scripture is not at liberty to introduce his own ideas or opinions in the interpretation of Scripture. He or she is subjected to the supreme authority of Scripture to understand the expressed Word of God by following the principle outlined in Isaiah 28:10. This is a true test of Scripture and all interpretation. Let the Bible explain itself.
I looked up Isaiah 28 in various different translations and then read various commentaries particular for verse 10. There seem to be a number of different interpretations even just of this verse! You quoted the KJV "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little.”
The footnote to this verse in the NIV says, "Hebrew / sav lasav sav lasav / kav lakav kav lakav (possibly meaningless sounds; perhaps a mimicking of the prophet's words also in verse 13).
Another version gives the following note:
The text has literally “indeed [or “for”] a little there, a little there” ( ×›ִּ×™ צַו לָצָו צַו לָצָו קַו לָקָו קַו, ki tsav latsav, tsav latsav, qav laqav, qav laqav). The present translation assumes that the repetitive syllables are gibberish that resembles baby talk (cf v. 9b) and mimics what the people will hear when foreign invaders conquer the land (v. 11). In this case ×–ְ×¢ֵיר (zÿ’er, “a little”) refers to the short syllabic structure of the babbling (cf. CEV). Some take צַו (tsav) as a derivative of צָוָ×” (tsavah, “command”) and translate the first part of the statement as “command after command, command after command.” Proponents of this position (followed by many English versions) also take קַו (qav) as a noun meaning “measuring line” (see v. 17), understood here in the abstract sense of “standard” or “rule.”
Most of the commentaries I have read lean towards an understanding of this verse that indicates it is talking about how one teaches a child, repetitively, little by little. There is nothing to indicate that it is a reference to how the diligent student should study scripture. So if we need to find a biblical approach to the study of scripture we need to be very careful.
Which translation should we use? (As even in the process of translation, interpretative judgment has been used extensively). In addition to this, we are all preconditioned when we read anything, we can not read without the preconditioning of understanding words, and these words evoke slightly different things in different people according to their previous experience. We all bring our own story and understanding to the text, as does the author!
Victor, I will provide you with Biblical references for the Catholic church's authority, for tradition and scripture working together, but many have done this before. This will NOT be the first time since the reformation as you grandly claim (otherwise I could be famous!).
But what is more crucial, given that you truly subscribe to Sola Scriptura, can YOU prove that IT is a biblical concept from the bible alone? You said:
I have gone out of the way to spend time to give you a clear view as to why I believe in Sola Scriptura, not a theory, but a biblical fact. I am not at all sure you have done this, you certainly haven't convinced me!
Also you said: This is a true test of Scripture and all interpretation. Let the Bible explain itself.
Please show me where in scripture you get this idea.
I look forward to your response,
Clement
PS I will post another comment on scriptural references to tradition (though we have covered this a number of times on this Blog, but why not, here a little, there little!)
Please allow me to correct myself. I raced all the way back to my computer when I realized I had used the term "change Scripture". Of course, this would be an errant position. What I meant was that God has the authority to effect His Will in many differing ways. God, as we know doesn't change or change His Will for us which is ultimately to have us with Him in Eternity. I do beleive however, that God does change the way He requires us to worship Him and how He disciplines us for disobedience.
I believe I adequately explained this position in the paragraph about the Sabbath.
I would like to add though, that in reading these and similar views, I think the confusion is in the way we view the Bible itself.
While it does convey authority (which is from God and God alone) in itself, the Bible holds no authority. It is an inanimate object made entirely by the hands of man.
It is what is contained in Scripture that is binding on us, not the Bible. Therefore what isn't tangible has to be 'revealed' whether today or 2000 years ago. It isn't done by osmosis or magic.
It is done by Apostolic Tradition, the same way it has always been done.
I have a similar challenge:
Please show me in Scripture where the teaching of Christ was taken out of the hands of the Apostles and placed soley on Scripture.
I believe this would be hard since there was no canonized form of Scripture from which to teach the Gospel of Christ. The New Testament was developed over time. What of this period between the canonization of the Old Testament and the New?
Blessings,
HC
Hi Victor,you are correct with your historic account of the canon.
As I explained in my earlier thread, I gave a simple explanation suitable for a novice, explaining the 'production' meaning bringing together,the Books of the massoretic text, and new testament,and the Apocrypha, and translating them into Latin the language of prominence at the time; into one book. That I thought was the effort of Jerome.
I still have not found out who was the first to compile all of the above (books)into 1 book(Bible).
You surely have your historic facts together and I have learned from them.Respect.
However you asked: Give me a biblical exegetical exposition of the authority of ecclesiastical tradition to be on par with biblical authority.
I do not have the seminary training as you, But I am trained as a Engineer, and I will use my logic.
The New testament screams out loudly with ORAL instructions, and appeals for the adherence to tradition.
My interpretation of tradition..is the application of Apostolic understanding of the Oral teaching of Jesus and Later the Helper The Holy Spirit.
Jesus did not leave a handbook.
Whenever Jesus mentioned Scripture, I know he refered to the written Hebrew Torah.
Nothing that Jesus taught and did was left in writing for the Apostles. Jesus left the Helper to remind them.
Logic: The very books the Apostles and New testament writers wrote states...NOT EVERYTHING IS WRITTEN.
JN 14:25 remind all I told you..Oral
Jn 16:12..I still have many things to tell you..Oral
Jn 20:30 there were many more signs not written...whats left ..Oral.
Titus 1:9..hold to the message just as it was taught...Oral
2 Tim 3:14-17 Continue with what you have learned and entrusted to you...Scripture, and Oral
If I depend on sola scriptura.. I will miss out on the FULLNESS of TRUTH.
I need 1 Tim 3:14 The CHURCH is the PILLAR and foundation of truth.
Just as I need my Engineering society, that adhere to strict principles of design.
Logic: Then Why In heavens Name would Jesus spend 3 1/2 years, teaching his Apostles. And in Acts 1:15 the Apostles installed the 12th Apostle in time to recieve Pentecost. Jesus spent 3 1/2 years building a Church.He asked them to remain as one.
Perspective: Ezk 34:23 over them I 'will' put one Shepherd..my Servant (Kingdom) David. Jesus the King of David passed the Kingdom on the Cross to His Mother and John representing the Apostolic Church John 19:26.
John 21:15..Jesus tells the Head shepherd PETER to feed his Sheep.
My logic guides me to a clear installation of a Church; and not a rudderless mess of multi denominations guided by 'sola sciptura'. Every denomination exercising their own interpretation.
Sola Scriptura has produced 32,000 Churches.
If structural Engineering was conducted as 'Sola Scriptura interpretations' principles, we would have buildings and bridges falling daily. WE meet traditionaly Annually, discussing field failures,new materials, aging, new calculation adjustments etc. Should we not attend 2 yrs in a row, we lose our association credentials. The system says we are a loose cannon( protestant).
So we remain friends,
I a Christian, by creature of habit, I need and respect and Honor Authority.
You a Christian, an articulate reformer like Martin Luther, who shuns authority,
therefore will stand at the Narrow gates alone, like we all, in the end.
In the Spirit of Brotherly Love
Thats My Logic
Nature.B
My logic is much simpler still than that of Nature B.
My logic is this:
Martin Luther had to invent Sola Scriptura. Otherwise, he would've been back to square one.
If you are going to get someone's undivided attention, you must first capture that attention from whatever holds it at the moment.
Sola Scriptura said that we should only believe that which is written word.
Then he proceeded to interpret that word.
Two wrongs don't make a right. You can argue Scriptural passages and the semantics of those passages all day.
The fact remains, Sola Scriptura was not taught by Christ nor the Apostles. And if it were they would've had a sore time with it after the death of Christ, at the advent of Christianity. They had no "scripture" to teach from save the Old Testament. They had a hard time convincing Jews Christ was the Messiah from the Old Testament. The fact that Christ and His Apostles revealed it to them is by it's nature the implementation and foundation of Apostolic authority and thereby that which Apostolic Tradition is founded.
It is a fact that can't be ignored. There was no written Gospel of Christ in the form of the New Testament for years after Christ's death and resurrection.
Blessings,
HC
Dear Bloggers,
I think I got myself in some serious trouble. I did not anticipate so many responses from those who were following the thread. Now Tonya is onboard. Indeed, this task of blogging is time-consuming.
I am currently doing Field School in Idaho so my time is quite limited. I have taken the time to reply to you while all others around me are sleeping. I believe that your responses are somewhat encouraging. I will read them carefully and attempt to reply as soon as possible.
Forgive me if I delay my response. Hang in there, I promise to do my best to address your responses with the utmost respect. However, I will not repeat myself. In some cases, if applicable I will direct you to dissect previous postings on this same thread.
Also, forgive my typos. I have noticed some along the way; once posted I cannot fix them.
By now, you all understand that I am a supporter and proponent of Sola Scriptura. In addition, I am a student of the issues that the earlier reformers brought to light. Some historical Protestant denominations and some "Evangelicals" (a misnomer... R,C, Sproul will tell you that) today believe that the issues of the Reformers are no longer issues.
I beg to differ since the issues that the Reformers brought to light were dealt with violence by the Medieval Church --crimes against humanity that have gone unpunished to this day. The Roman Church never accepted responsibility for its behavior and what's worst, she never apologized. And what seem to have been an apology from Pope John Paul II, was nothing more than passing the buck to "fanatics" in the Church.
By the way, please, don't tell me that Martin Luther invented Sola Scriptura. That's like saying human beings invented flight. The Scriptures are sufficient evidence of Sola Scriptura; just like birds was sufficient evidence that flight could be accomplished. God's Word did not need help from anyone to make it better or improve it. You gotta do better than that. Hint: use the Scriptures to support your comments or else, refrain from making them. Your statement is uninformed and heretical!
Anyway, give me some time to read and we'll continue the conversation.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Victor said:I beg to differ since the issues that the Reformers brought to light were dealt with violence by the Medieval Church --crimes against humanity that have gone unpunished to this day.
Victor please !
It should be noted that church law was superior to civil law in Luther's day and that the 'law' said the penalty of blasphemy was death. When Luther called for the deaths of European Jews, he was asking that the laws that were applied to all other Germans also be applied to the Jews. The Jews were exempt from the church laws that Christians were bound by, most notably the law against charging interest.
Luther was responsible for the peasant war killings in Europe, which he eventually tried to stop.
Remember the Nazi movement was fueled by Luther's death to the Jews Campaign.
My Friend that was the sign of the times, no apologies.
Remember also 1900 yrs before, God allowed the Hebrews to destroy all the canaanites,Hittites,etc off the promised land.Ex 34:11.Obey the commandments I give you Land.
If the Church had not defended itself against the Turks Muslems, We Catholics and Protestants would be muslems today.
No one apologises for survival of the fittest.
Those Holy wars of the Church were miraculous, a few hundred Knights against 5000 turks, the Holy Spirit protected the Church. Math 16:18
We look forward to an exchange of thoughts with you.
Nature.B
Hello Victor,
I am sorry that it has taken me a while to reply to you. You have asked for a biblical Catholic defense for the adherence to Tradition for interpretation of the Scriptures. I apologize in advance for the length of my comment. Please forgive me.
In order to clear up any possible confusion regarding Tradition, the Orthodox understand Scripture to be a part of Holy Tradition. Scripture, like the Liturgy, the Councils, and the Father's writings, all have flowed out of the life of the Church. The Bible did not produce the Church, rather the Church produced the Bible, and authoritatively ruled upon which books are to be considered Scripture. Since Scripture is part of the Holy Tradition, the two can never contradict because they are the same.
Tradition has been the guiding light of the Holy Spirit for the Church since the first century. It is abundantly evident in the early Christian writings, both of the New Testament, and those after. When Scriptural disputes over varying interpretations arose within the Church, recourse was always made to the original, authentic, Apostolic Tradition handed down to the various Churches. This is how things were understood back then, and still today by the ancient Christian communions.
The Protestant concept of Sola Scriptura is not a new concept. It was known in the first centuries of the Church, and rejected as a viable method of interpretation. You believe that you have made a compelling case for Sola Scriptura. But I, and others on here, do not think so. Since Apostolic Tradition was the standard utilized by the early Church, it is incumbent then upon the Protestant to "prove" Sola Scriptura as the legitimate method of interpreting Scripture. The ball is, then, in "your court" again. With that in mind, I will now proceed to dissect the two primary passages of Scripture that Protestants utilize to attempt to prove Sola Scriptura. I look forward to your response. Good luck!
cont...
Assertion: Scripture does not support Sola Scriptura. Nowhere does it ever say that Scripture is the "end all, be all" of God's revelation.
1. 2Tim. 3:15-17, "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (KJV)
Some things to mention here:
A) It says Scripture is "able" to make one wise unto salvation. It does not say that it is the "only" way.
B) It says that Scripture is "profitable" for doctrine, not all sufficient.
C) It says that Scripture makes the man of God perfect for "all good works". Indeed, Scripture is sufficient for our understanding of what is good and evil regarding how to treat our fellow man. Notice this is not about doctrine though.
Therefore, 2Tim. 3:15-17 does not support Sola Scriptura. And even if it did, it would refer to the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. Even so, since this is St. Paul's writing here, it would have no authority since he would not be "canonical", that is to say, not a part of Scripture.
2. Isa. 28:9-10, "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:" (KJV)
This passage is often utilized by Adventists to "prove" their "proof-texting" method of biblical interpretation by stringing together various passages of Scripture from a variety of places to substantiate a doctrine ("here a little, there a little"). However, when verse 13 is read, their use of verse 10 is destroyed as a viable method of interpretation,
"But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." ibid.
To "fall backward", "be broken", "snared", and "taken" are not positive things at all. Therefore, obviously, the "here a little, and there a little" method is a curse for those utilizing it. This effectively discounts the Adventist "proof-text" method.
Blessings to you!
Hello Victor!
I totally understand your situation with scheduling vs. blogging.
Let's do this, please give me what you understand to be the correct definition of Sola Scriptura and how that is applied to Christian faith.
That would be the best place to start. Then we can begin to see if Christ and His Apostles were practicing SS in their endeavor to spread the Gospel of Christ.
Blessings,
HC
Awe Victor, why'd you have to go and say I'm a heretic? I would never have said that to you :(
I thought we could do this with kindness. Afterall, neither position has doomed us to hell (or heresy).
I'm sorry I inflamed you with the comment about Luther. You cannot deny the fact that SS was not in practice until Luther interpreted it as such. By the way, from all I've read in history, the Reformation began with those who had their complaints with the Church. Regardless of what those were, the break shouldn't have happened.
The fact is, the Church corrected itself without Martin Luther. Which tells me the break was not blessed by the Holy Spirit. The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit through trial and error and has always held fast to its commission.
It is God's will to keep His Church together through good and bad. It is just like marriage. You don't divorce when there are even serious problems.
As for your comment about Scripture to "prove" my position. I really resent someone telling me to "put up or shut up".
I'm not going to list verse after verse. I don't have to. It is Scripture as a whole that tells us the Apostles "taught" by letter and deed, and Scripture. There is absolutely no precedence for Christ and His Apostles teaching Sola Scriptura.
Proponents such as yourself who try and prove this position use passages that are inclusive of Scripture, but not EXCLUSIVE of Tradition.
I could challenge you to the same. You show me a verse that states at some point, the Jews should abide ONLY by what is written and NOT what is heard or told to them (and I'll show you one to the contrary). We could literlly do that all day long. That is easy. What is difficult is to take a question like mine and answer it from what you "know" and are taught through your church in your own words.
The whole of Scripture was formed of Tradition (word of mouth) The letters of the Apostles were evidence of that. When did the Church of Jesus Christ stop teaching through Tradition Victor? When did Christ tell His Apostles, "okay, do not add anymore". He couldn't have done that because they were "adding" to Scripture until the last verse was Canonized.
Scripture does not record a point in time when Apostolic Tradition and authority ended. If it does, then simply show me. Scripture does not record that by itself, it has authority over Christ's Church. If it does, show me.
You cannot prove SS because it simply didn't exist. The Apostles told them to hold fast to Tradition. The problem is you look at Scripture as your "Bible". We look at Scripture as a Deposit of Faith, a collection of Apostlic Tradition and Christ's message to His people in written form inspired by the Holy Spirit. We do not believe all that ended when the Church canonized a "Bible" for us.
I'll let you trade passages with the others. For now, I'm out of this. If we can't just have a conversation and use our words to talk about Scripture, then what is the point? We both already know the verses, so let's go from there and skip all the cut and paste.
Blessings,
HC
Hi Folks do you think adventist are getting ready to go back to their Methodist roots to worship on sunday? dig this post:
The church needs more historians who are faithful Adventists and good historians - scholars who highlight 'errors and mistakes' not in order to push a present-day theological agenda, but 'because that's what the record shows';
who also highlight good practice and consistency of beliefs; and who don't feel the need to imply, or assert, that mistakes in the past invalidate or delegitimate the church as it is now.
Posted by: David Trim | 02 October 2009 at 12:33
Spectrum
Yeah do it!
while you at it, what land do adventist expect to inherit for obeying the Commandment sabbath?
Nature.B
Dear Friends, (Tonya in particular)
I have read your responses. Again, nice opinions. Your statements are contradictory and Scripturally unsupported. It would take quite a bit to respond to so many inconsistencies. My best shot is to answer selectively.
To begin, I will address Tonya in this reply.
My dear lady, please read this statement from my last email:
"Your statement is uninformed and heretical!"
How do you read, Tonya? Is this statement saying that you are a heretic or is it saying that your statement is uninformed and heretical?
Because Tonya had a hard time understanding such a simple statement, she resolved to pass judgment and make a foolish personal retaliatory statement.
"Awe Victor, why'd you have to go and say I'm a heretic? I would never have said that to you :(
I thought we could do this with kindness. Afterall, neither position has doomed us to hell (or heresy).
I'm sorry I inflamed you with the comment about Luther."
This is perhaps the clearest example that represents most of what goes on in this blog. Issues are made where there are none.
As I read your reply, Tonya, I could not help notice the humor embedded in your uniformed statements. No Scriptural support and no reference to historical documents that prove any of your interesting points. Nice opinions, though.
As a result, I have decided that I will not take the time to reply to you unless you can put your personal emotions aside and deal with the conversation more objectively.
No one can see in what state of mind I read your replies. If I tell you that I laugh at most of what you write, you might also get offended.
The reality is this: I am responsible for what I say and must understand that I risk being misunderstood. For this reason, I can only focus on the discussion and not worry about those nuances I cannot see nor control. I plead with you to read carefully and write carefully. The discussion is on a stand still because from the beginning I stated that unless we agree on some fundamental principle, we will go on circles. We still have no consensus.
Be thankful that today there are no death penalties for having different religious views. We are free to speak our minds and to worship as we are convicted by the Spirit of God. No longer do I have to fear Catholics knocking on our door and making a display of me in front of my neighborhood as I burn at the stake for my sincere convictions. Even, if I had chosen to call you a heretic, thank God you are still alive. Better yet, thank God I did not call you heretic. Now, who is kinder?
Keep your personal comments to yourself. Don't be offended if I do not see value in responding to you. And... stick to the issue being discussed.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Source of Ecclesiastical Authority Yet to be Answered. (Part I)
I have already written enough on Sola Scriptura. Please, go back to read my previous post. Don't ask me to prove it. I have already given you plenty of biblical evidence in support of it. If there is something there that you disagree with, then choose one or to points and write a rebuttal statement. Otherwise, that is all you are getting for now.
Your statements on that "simple book," as Tonya so eloquently put it, trump any support on ecclesiastical tradition. Yet, you insist that the Scriptures support ecclesiastical tradition to be on par with the authority of the Bible without pointing out where in the Scriptures you find this support.
You cannot claim ecclesiastical authority from an non-authoritative source. If the Bible has no authority then your views on ecclesiastical authority have no reference to check if it is indeed aligned with the will of God.
In addition, do not tell me that the Spirit of God has been leading the Roman Catholic Church. Again, nice opinion. Such spirit must be tested.
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 Jn. 4:1, NASB)
The Scriptures teach the following: "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." (Matt. 7:19-21, NASB)
Historically, what are the fruits of the Roman Catholic Church? Nothing more than a geo-political/religious organization that is drunk with the blood of many whom they accused of being heretics. I hardly call that the work of the Holy Spirit.
In case any of you think that I may contradict the Scriptures in regards to God leading Israel to pass judgment on nations around them, remember that the OT presents a nation under a theocracy. Whereas the NT presents a Church lead by the Spirit of God within the context of prejudiced civil authorities.
Christ did not establish a Church State, he established a people whose citizenship was in heaven, not on earth. This is why Jesus answered to Pilot: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." John 18:36 (NASB)
We are to pray for God's kingdom to be established on earth. (Lord's Prayer) Yet, Jesus did not leave his followers to coerce people to accept Him, neither did He give them consent to kill those who opposed them or did not accept their message.
The "Holy" Roman record remains tainted and unless you blatantly change history, the sins of the Church remain extant. The Church remains unrepentant. Evidence to this is reflected in the so-called: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, nothing more than modern term for the Office of the Inquisition, a criminal and terrorist arm of the Medieval Church, of whom the current Pope was its head until he accepted his new position as the Head of State of the Vatican.
Con't
Source of Ecclesiastical Authority Yet to be Answered. (Part II)
The concept of Church and State is against the constitution of the United States. Yet, Catholics lobbying around the world have been able to blur or corrupt the eyes of nations. Indeed, it is appalling to see even our former Presidents bowing down to another Head of State, such as the event of the death of Pope John Paul II.
Jesus was very clear: My Kingdom is not of this world. If the Church seeks authority through civil power, then its ecclesiastical authority is of this world. If the Church draws it authority from Scripture then, it must be totally subjected to the authority of the Scriptures; you can't have it both ways: Ecclesiastical and Scriptural authority while minimizing or trampling over the divine authority of the Scriptures.
So, here is the bottomline: Tell me, by what authority does the Roman Catholic Church officiate as the sole representative of God on Earth? Unless you either fully accept the authority of the Scriptures or fully reject it, this conversation will continue to be circular.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Dear Victor,
Firstly, I have to say in all honesty I was somewhat disappointed by your previous posts, they did not engage with anything at all that I had written to you previously. One of the reasons that things go round and round on blogs is because people don't directly answer the questions they are asked, so the conversation is less of a two way question-answer, and more of each person just repeatedly stating their own view.
I fear this is what you have done in your last posts. For example you say that you don't want us to ask you for biblical proof of sola scriptura, because you have done so in previous posts, but I haven't seen any biblical support provided by you. We started talking about a passage from Isaiah 28, I made some comments, and David Atkins made some comments, but you have not responded to our thoughts, please do!
What you did say was:
"By the way, please, don't tell me that Martin Luther invented Sola Scriptura. That's like saying human beings invented flight. The Scriptures are sufficient evidence of Sola Scriptura; just like birds was sufficient evidence that flight could be accomplished. God's Word did not need help from anyone to make it better or improve it. You gotta do better than that. Hint: use the Scriptures to support your comments or else, refrain from making them. Your statement is uninformed and heretical!"
Please show us where the scriptures show sufficient evidence of sola scriptura. And use your own hint, for this very statement, and for others you have made, (like "This is a true test of Scripture and all interpretation. Let the Bible explain itself.")
please show us the verses.
Also, it would be very helpful if you could define exactly what you mean by Sola Scriptura (as Tonya asked) as there are many different understandings even of this and I don't want to assume anything incorrectly!
One final point of correction, the Catholic church does fully accept the authority of the scriptures. We just may not accept your interpretation of the scriptures as authoritative.
I hope that we can continue our conversation and that it will be fruitful for all concerned. My prayer is that we not try and win points in any given argument, but that we sincerely, prayerfully and lovingly try to come to a unified understanding of the truth.
Much love,
Clement
Dear Friends,
You have clearly identified why this argument is going circular. Questions go unanswered. I've yet to see a biblical exegesis on ecclesiastical authority. I went out of my way to give you my views based on Scripture, yet, one of you answered that it is not necessary to do so.
I respectfully ask: "How do you read, Clement?" I clearly stated in my last post it will take me some time to answer and that I will answer selectively since there are at least three of you who choose to write your opinions instead of taking the time to do work of what I have asked at least three times: A Biblical Exegesis on the authority of ecclesiastical tradition.
Most of what I have read so far is contradictory within itself. Also, there is poor consensus among yourselves to agree as to why you take your position.
So, I ask, please, be patient. I have presented a challenge. No one has stepped up to the plate as yet. Now that is disappointing!
So, in Christian love, let us not disappoint one another. Let us come to consensus at least on one issue, otherwise the argument will continue to be circular.
You all do not agree that the Bible is authoritative. In fact, Tonya's statement was the most disturbing of them all.
"I'm not going to list verse after verse. I don't have to. It is Scripture as a whole that tells us..."
If she does not wish to engage, then stay out of the conversation and stop confusing the issue and don't take offense at the fact that I choose to ignore her comments.
She adds: "As for your comment about Scripture to "prove" my position. I really resent someone telling me to "put up or shut up".
There is no way I'm believing that God left His Church to a simple 'book'. That is not the way it was done in the time of Christ and it is absurd to think Scripture has authority over God's living Church."
My reply: fine, don't believe. Allow me to believe. At least, I have a biblical explanation why I believe what I believe. In addition, I never stated: "put up or shut up." Stop alarming yourselves and others.
Stop the personal attacks. Indeed, it is quite immature of her to do so. So, yes, I'll be more direct. Stick to the subject; write a targeted rebuttal, and take it easy. Can't do that, then, stay out of it.
I strongly believe that the Bible is authoritative, that it is the Word of God, not a "simple book." I have already given passages of Scripture to support my views. If you think that I did not do a good job, then go back to what I have written and show from the Scriptures where I am in error. Show me why and how those passages are not supportive of my views.
Again, be patient. Even David Atkins has admitted that it took him so long to answer. I am practically alone in this thread with three Christians that have yet to support their views with Scripture, and one whose feelings have been hurt. Put your guns down and sit down at the round table. Read carefully and write when you have something interesting to contribute. Please, stop the personal attacks.
I will answer selectively in time. Do not be offended for doing so. Frankly, I find it unnecessary to even continue this discussion since all I get are circular questions. Again, give me a biblical rebuttal on the passages I have used and show me where I am in error. Asking more questions outside of the limited scope of our discussion will not solve this issue. Ask targeted questions on the issues I have raised by using Scripture. No Scripture, no discussion.
Those of you who have already responded by adding other texts will have to wait. Answer my challenge.
Once more: Give me an exegetical and biblical understanding of ecclesiastical authority. By the way, I believe in ecclesiastical authority, don't get me wrong. The question is: on what Biblical basis and the nature of such authority?
Someone, please, get to work on this. If you cannot respond supporting your view with Scripture, then I have nothing else to say.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
I just wanted to chip in and say I appreciated Mike's comments above. It really calls us to remember that amidst all our criticisms and defensiveness that we are all of one Christian family. That's why we can fight as a family :) We just can't forget that's what we are.
Victor:
Since we are not (by your standards) to posit opinions, please show me the proof you have of this comment:
"So, here is the bottomline: Tell me, by what authority does the Roman Catholic Church officiate as the sole representative of God on Earth? "
Where does the Church claim to be the "sole representative of God on earth".
It seems to me you are acceptable of opinion when it is your own.
Blessings,
HC
Hi Victor,
There seems to be quite a bit of emotion being injected into this discussion, and if I am responsible for any of it I do apologize.
However, I must disagree with your assessment of the situation. Considering the fact that Apostolic Tradition has been the "guiding light" for the Church in its particular understanding of the New Testament since the beginning (this fact is easily verified by simply referencing the early Christian writings contemporary with, and immediately following, the New Testament), then it is incumbent for the one who disagrees with this method of biblical interpretation to show why and wherefore it is incorrect.
You can do this by two primary ways:
1. Show, through the use of historical documentation, that the early Church in fact did not go by Apostolic Tradition in their interpretation and understanding of Scripture,
or,
2. Show by Scripture that this method is indeed incorrect.
You did not employ option number one, therefore we do not need to dwell upon it.
Option two was your choice. However, when it comes to Scripture, there are a variety of ways that it can be understood or interpreted. As you so often say, "How do you read?", is the crucial issue when it comes to reading Scripture. You attempted to establish your doctrine of Sola Scriptura by quoting certain passages of Scripture. You believe that these passages are clear and sufficient to support Sola Scriptura. Therefore, you feel confident that you have done your part. Now it is our turn, you say, the "ball" is in "our court".
However, we do not believe that you have persuasively proven Sola Scriptura. In my previous response I dissected two of the most commonly used passages for Sola Scriptura, and offered an opposing interpretation. Therefore, since I have cast doubt upon Sola Scriptura, it is imperative for you to either retort by stating that I am incorrect in my assessment, and to show how I am, or to admit that you are wrong about Sola Scriptura. Until you do either of these, the "ball" will continue to be in "your court".
Blessings to you my friend!
Dear Victor and everyone,
Victor, the reason that it is essential that you provide proof from the bible for sola scriptura and indeed define your understanding of this doctrine, is that this is the basis on which you then want to continue the discussion! So this is an underlying issue.
That said let us focus on Scripture and the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. There are many important things to note about this passage but let's focus on a one thing at a time starting at the beginning of the chapter: (verses 1-3)
Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
So first off we see that Paul, an apostle himself, was appointed by the church in Antioch to go to a higher authority (the apostles and elders in Jerusalem) to resolve this question. He did not turn to the New Testament (it was not written yet!) or the old testament, he went to ask Peter and the other apostles and elders to resolve teh issue.
This is the first council of church that we have record of, many others followed, when other disputes arose.
Now what about what happens in the council itself? (verses 5-11)
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." 6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
So one party says one thing, (that all should be circumcised) and there ensues a big discussion. Note that like other church councils, not everyone thought the same thing to begin with, there was a discussion, and then what? Peter gets up and pronounces his verdict, which brings an end to the discussion. He pronounces on behalf of all those present We believe....
Then Paul and Silas talk a bit about what they have been up to, and James concludes it all, saying: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written.....
Now this is truly amazing, James says, the words of the prophet are in agreement with Peter. Note, this is not a proof text that proves what Peter had said, but a supporting scripture which is in agreement with Peter's teaching. This is the way around it was then, and this is how the Catholic church has continued to teach!
We will come to the best verse in my next post (Acts 15:28 for those who want t get ahead!), but let us keep it bite size for now. Victor, what are you thoughts the way I have described this passage so far?
Much love,
Clement
To all: I apologize for the emotion in interjected in my previous posts. I’ve deleted them so as to stay on topic.
Victor:
I referred you to Scripture (Acts 15) in the very first post I addressed to you. I also gave you my exegesis of the part of Scripture I posited to challenge your position on Apostolic Authority. You have yet to respond. But nevertheless I will try again with a different post:
On September 21st you posted the following:
"He said to him, 'What is written in the law? How do you read?'
And he answered, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.'
And he said to him, 'You have answered right; do this, and you will live.'" (Luke 10: 25-28, RSV)
That will be the bottom line once all is said and done. How Do You Read? The most perplexing paradox in the history of the world is that in this age of information and technological advancement our society lacks greatly in reading skills. Indeed, there is much information to read; however, the challenge lies in our ability to discriminate our reading materials and decode information without any preconceived ideas or prior unfounded assumptions in order to approach new data objectively and determine its worth and intent."
You failed to include what the moral of the story of the Good Samaritan is.
When interpreted within the context these verses are written, which is that of Jesus teaching us ‘to love our neighbors’, it is clear that Jesus is not speaking of the written word at all. Rather, he is speaking of the ‘word that is written on our hearts’ so with that in mind, these passages are insufficient in supporting the written word as our sole authority on faith matters.
Further, it cannot address your notion of society’s lack of ability to “discriminate our reading materials and decode information without any preconceived ideas or prior unfounded assumptions” because these passages address what is on our hearts, not what is written in Scripture.
You have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting the portion of your choosing to make a point of your choosing. That is not how we are to use Scripture.
Lastly, Jesus is clearly differentiating between the literal ‘written word’ and the word written on our hearts. Jesus does this when he asks the lawyer what is ‘written’ and the lawyer clearly states what is written but Jesus still gives him the parable. Why? Because the lawyer still does not understand what is written.
The moral of the Good Samaritan is not to know your Bible, but to know your heart. It is to know not verse by verse, but to know the Greatest Commandment and in knowing such, the second one also which is to love thy neighbor.
It is the duty of us all, in our places, and according to our ability, to succour, help, and relieve all that are in distress and necessity. (Lu 10:38-42)
Victor, you have posted the very best example of your own errant interpretations of Scripture. Not only have you interpreted the passages out of context, but in doing so, you have proven that knowing passages does not make us Christians and you have used Jesus' own words to do it.
I await your response. I feel I deserve that much since I have posted Scripture and given my exegesis.
Blessings,
HC
To Clement and Tonya,
Both of you have made excellent points in my estimation.
Clement, you clearly brought out, by reference to the Council in Acts, that Sola Scriptura was not the method utilized by the Apostles and elders to arrive at the true teaching.
Tonya, you have spoken well in that truth is found not in a set of doctrines formulated by individuals through a "proof texting" method, but rather in love. Loving our fellow human beings as ourselves is how we love the God who created them. This is where the Truth lies, and not in some arbitrary list of "fundamental" doctrines.
Blessings!
Hi Victor, permit me to correct your Historical account of Tyndale:
William Tyndale (sometimes spelled Tindall or Tyndall; pronounced /ˈtɪndÉ™l/) (c. 1494 – 1536) was a 16th-century Protestant reformer and scholar who, influenced by the work of Desiderius Erasmus translated the Bible into the Early Modern English of his day. While a number of partial and complete Old English translations had been made from the seventh century onward, and Middle English translations particularly during the 14th century, Tyndale's was the first English translation to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, and the first to take advantage of the new medium of print, which allowed for its wide distribution. In 1535, Tyndale was arrested on the orders of King Henry VIII, jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde outside Brussels for over a year, tried for heresy and burned at the stake. He was strangled before his body was burnt.
St. Jerome put all the books together from the Torah, and the New testament Authors..between about 385 AD. St.Jerome spoke Greek, Hebrew Latin and Amaric(jesus's language).
St.Jerome translated with the concept of sense to sense.
Victor my friend no Comparison between the men. It was a disgrace for you to claim Tyndale wrote the bible when he was born in 1494,and St.Jerome completed his Bible in 385.Remember acadamia was Latin in the 400's, the root of English Spanish French, Italian,etc.
happy to Share with you.
Nature.B
Hi Victor,Tyndales work was used in the King James bible which has 6000 defects, go figure:
This is from Texus Receptus:
To be fair, the translators were aware of most of these problems. The preface, in fact, urges "the Reader... not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily." The Old Testament, according to Alister McGrath, contained 6,637 marginal notes or defects, most of them variant readings (more notes than many modern translations, we should observe). But I have yet to find a recent printing of the KJV which includes its marginal notes, let alone its preface. (I'm told there is one -- or at least a reprint of an allegedly-exact nineteenth century repring -- but it's an expensive edition you won't find in ordinary bookstores.)
And, of course, since the time of publication, the language of the KJV -- already somewhat antiquated in its time, based as it was largely upon Tyndale's translation -- has become entirely archaic.
In an aside, we might note that, at the time of its publication, the KJV was greeted with something less than enthusiasm, and for the first few decades of its life, the Geneva Bible remained the more popular work; the Geneva edition (unlike the other pre-KJV translations) remained in print for more than thirty years after the KJV was published. During the Commonwealth period (1649-1660), there was talk of commissioning another new translation. It wasn't until the KJV became quite venerable that it somehow assumed an aura of special value -- even of independent canonicity.
Quite simply, while the King James Bible was a brilliant work, and a beautiful monument of sixteenth century English, it is not fit to be used as a Bible in today's world.
In the Spirit of Sharing
Nature.B
Nature.B,
You really need to cite where you got that paragraph about Tyndale.
Thanks David. My endeavor was not to disprove proof texting. It was to say that Victor has used the wrong passage to prove his point.
Without Jesus there to 'explain' the text, the lawyer would have foundered in his application of written word.
Though the lawyer 'knew' the Commandment, he did not know how to practice it. "how do I know my neighbor?"
This parable is hardly evidence of written word being our salvation. If anything, it is evidence that we need Christ's Church to show us the error of our ways and to shepard us to salvation with Scripture as a compass. We need the Church to teach us how to use that 'compass'. That would be Tradition. :)
Victor has used the "how do you read?" phrase all too often. It's not about what you literally read, it's about how you apply what you read.
I've noticed that for all the accusatory remarks about me not presenting my position with Scripture, Victor has neither answered the two very simple questions I asked nor has he answered the rebuttal on Acts 15 that both I and David Atkins presented to him.
Curious.
Dear Bloggers,
The Bible from the Catholic Perspective Part I
I must admit that of all the responses here, David, Clement and Matthew have the most interesting comments.
As I look at the discussion, I see that the arguments presented from the Catholic side come from the assumption that the Bible is not God's Word. Apparently I failed to make this point clear. Could it be that our own personal opinions are so entrenched in our views that we cannot see clearly what the Bible teaches?
Here are some comments that were made:
David Atkins Wrote: "7. The Spirit within the Scriptures is of divine origin. The Bible is a product of human beings influenced by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus Christ is God's Word to us. We worship Christ, we do not worship the Bible." (Sunday, September 27, 2009)
Tonya wrote: "There is no way I'm believing that God left His Church to a simple 'book'. That is not the way it was done in the time of Christ and it is absurd to think Scripture has authority over God's living Church." (Wednesday, September 30, 2009)
Perhaps, the most interesting statement regarding the Scriptures comes from Clement: "the Catholic Church does not teach that it's tradition is more Authoritative than the scriptures,
rather that Tradition and the Scriptures come from one source, which is God alone." (Tuesday, September 29, 2009)
Since my own understanding of Scripture has clearly been criticized, I have decided to demonstrate from Catholic sources that the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God. The topic of Sola Scriptura is laid aside for the moment. Unless, we agree on the divine origin of Scripture and its authority, the rest of the discussion is futile. My reason for pressing on this point is so we can continue to expound from the Scriptures, particularly on Acts 15, which many of you have made some interesting comments and also bring the discussion back to Matthew's initial entry on this thread.
If the Bible is not God's Word, then it is a document that is not reliable. If it is God's divine Word, then we can agree on the weight of its reliability and authority.
V;-) Con't Part II
The Bible from the Catholic Perspective Part II
Because of the limitation of blogging, I will quote briefly. So here we go:
Exhibit #1
The Catholic Encyclopedia
Under Section: Scripture
"Scripture is the written word of God, its contents are Divinely guaranteed truths, revealed either in the strict or the wider sense of the word... The apostolic deposit of Revelation contained no merely Sacred Scripture in the abstract, but also the knowledge as to its constituent books.
"This position of Sacred Scripture in the Church implies the following consequences:
(1) The Apostles promulgated both the Old and New Testament as a document received from God.
(3) By virtue of its official and permanent promulgation [as understood by Catholics and explained in #2], Scripture is a public document, the Divine authority of which is evident to all the members of the Church."
Note: It is clear from the passage above that Rome does not have issue with the Bible being God's divine authoritative Word. In fact, the Holy See did not hold this understanding against the early reformers. If we are going
to understand the issues of the reformation clearly, we must be clear on this point. The comments made here to minimize the authority of the Word of God are clearly uninformed. I hope we can agree on this point. If you object to this, be careful in your response because more is coming.
Web source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm
Exhibit #2
The Catholic Recorder
(Published in the Saturday, September 1st, 1923 edition of The Catholic Record of London,Ontario, Canada, Volume XLV, #2342 and appeared on page 4. As the author of the article was not indicated, it is assumed to have been written by one of the editors.)
"Protestants reject Divine Tradition, the Unwritten Word, which Catholics accept as of equal authority with the Written Word, the Bible."
Note: I must admit that Clement was correct in pointing out the position of the Catholic Church in this regard. Namely, that Scripture and Ecclesiastical authority are seen to be at the same level.
But then, again, Luther stated the following on his behalf:
"...for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis..."
Exhibit #3
The Catholic Recorder contradicts the following statement:
14. ... Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.
PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII dated November 18th, 1893.
Note: Clement's statement is well taken. However, a good Catholic would not disagree with the infallible word of a Roman Pope. In this last statement, Pope Leo XIII assumes that Catholic teaching does not contradict Scripture. And it is in this sense that he considers ecclesiastical teaching to be of supreme authority over Scripture.
Keep in mind that it is not my intention to make any further points on Sola Scriptura at the moment. My intent is to present evidence from Catholic sources and to point out that The Roman Church sees the Scriptures as the divine Word of God. This, indeed, contradicts the statements made here by Catholics quoted in Part I of this entry.
Con't Part III
The Bible from the Catholic Perspective Part III
Summary:
The Roman Catholic Church views Scripture as divinely inspired and, therefore, it is considered to the the authoritative Word of
God. However, for Catholics by decree of the Pope, the Unwritten Word (ecclesiastical tradition) reigns supreme over the Written Word, the Bible. The words of the Pope are very clear!
My dear friends, it is nice to speak one's mind on a variety of issues; it is another to present informed statements. There is no reason why one should be bent out of shape when presented with biblical evidence. So to help our conversation go at least in one direction together, I have presented evidence that the Bible is the Word of God from the Catholic perspective. I hope this is clear to all.
This calls for a reconciliation and reflection. Our discussion needs a solid source of reference. I appeal to the Bible as the divine Word of God that cannot be broken. You have the freedom to appeal to Catholic ecclesiastical teaching as a source of authority. That's OK.
However, understand that because we come from two different points of view, the discussion is not based on a common platform. If, indeed, you honor and subject yourselves to Catholic doctrine, then, logic follows that you must make sure that your statements are crafted carefully within the parameters that your Church has already established for centuries. The Bible is the divine and authoritative Word of God. It is not a simple book, on the contrary, it is a Sacred Book. And in the Catholic tradition, Church doctrine reigns supreme over the Scriptures. The Catholic sources above support my original statements of the authority of the Scriptures and how Catholics view such authority.
Now, we still have much to work for. This is just the beginning. We must admit that two sources of authority may at some point contradict themselves. If the Holy See assumes that Catholic teaching and Scripture are not contradictory, then we must be honest and open-minded to see the evidence on both sides.
I am willing to consider Catholic doctrine and ecclesiastical tradition if it is not in opposition to God's revealed Word, the Bible.
"...my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen." Martin Luther
Keep in mind that more is coming on this subject from Catholic sources. Based on the evidence presented above, Catholic doctrine supports my view on the authority of Scripture. The Bible is divinely inspired by God and therefore, it is the Word of God.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Dear Victor, I once witnessed Bishop Burke,In an Intervue with Marcus Grodine on EWTN. In the discussion Marcus began reading from a Bible. The Bishop pulled back his Chair, Marcus asked 'whats wrong? the Bishop asked 'What Bible are you reading from".
VOILA!
You have been screaming BibLe, Bible, Bible, There are 1200 interpretations out there, all claiming to be inspired by God.
There are Bibles and there is 'THE BIBLE'
I quoted the experts Texus Receptus and others, .
King James had Tyndale strangled then burnt at the stake for Heresy.
Yet years later he had his Oxford Students writers copy the very same errors of Tyndale plus some of his own as 'Faith alone" 1611 edition,totaling 6000 errors.
Can you believe the 'Holy Spirit inspiration' and King James (the fornicator) in communion. Kjv is just a copy of bad work.
Victor when you use the word Bible hence forth, stipulate which one out of 1200, you hold to Sola scriptura.
I have done exercises with my Xadventist students, side by side text revue, and they were amazed at the text manipulations to favor the protestant spin.
Victor said:
The Bible is not like any other book written by humans. It is of divine origin with the "intent of reaching humans with the express will of God and His plan of salvation".
Which Bible Victor? and where in Scripture did Jesus say,
Book, Chapter, and verse'I will leave you a Book " thus sayeth the Lord Amen.
The Bible was created by the Church as its teaching guide throughout the generations of Churches to remain on Course with tradition.(Point made by the Bloggers)
That 'inspired book' in the hands of the protestants has been tampered with, therefore maybe good for comparison reading.
Sola Scriptura with books of error? Coralway? I don't think so'.
Scripture Manipulations examples:
Lk 2:49..in my Fathers House
Heb4:8 So it was Joshua who let them enter the land of rest: otherwise God would not have assigned another day later On.
V9..Then some other rest, or sabbath, is reserved for the people of God,
2 Tim 2:15 Be for God an active and proved Minister,a blameless worker correctly handling the word of truth.
Compare these text with your Bible, should you find a difference, then I have proven my point.
Jn 14:26 THE HELPER I will...
Jesus left a Church of 12 Apostles 3 1/2 years of Blood and sweat, Not a Bible.
Again the Engineering logic brings me to the closer to the original writings of 385 Ad St. Jerome. Compared to the Heretic Tyndale in 1451,and Luthers 1521 (German), too many years between to allow for language evolutions especially Greek.
This is why I leave the next argument of 'why the Church and tradition' instead of Sola Scriptura to the more learned ones on this blog as Hugo, David Atkins ,Clement,Fr.Jim, Lady, Tonya, to name a few.
The guidance of the Church with its original scriptures gets the benifit of the DOUBT over bibles the Jury is in.
Nature.B
Hi Victor,
I found your most recent comments to be rather misrepresentative of some things I had said, as well as being a "red herring" in an attempt to derail the discussion onto another topic.
First, I believe your comments to be misrepresentative of my views based upon some things that you had "cut and pasted" out of their immediate context. You quoted me as saying,
"The Spirit within the Scriptures is of divine origin. The Bible is a product of human beings influenced by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus Christ is God's Word to us. We worship Christ, we do not worship the Bible."
This comment of mine was written on Sunday 9-27-09. What you failed to do was provide the context for my statement which clears up any possible confusion as to what I meant. Your comment from the same day earlier, that my statement was speaking to, is as follows,
"I do not suggest allowing the Bible to speak for itself. I simply demonstrate that the Bible demands by it own intrinsic authority as the 'incarnate' Word of God that all interpretation cannot be private." Sunday 9-27-09.
Your comment seemed to come across to me as though you were exalting the Bible to the level of Christ Himself (refer to the part of your comment that I boldened; the Bible is the "incarnate" Word of God?! Only Jesus Christ is this, and not the Bible). Therefore, my comment was meant to be a correction of this.
The fact that you "cut and pasted" a part of my comment to you without giving the appropriate context for said comment, and then presented it bare for everyone to see as an "example" of denigrating the Bible's authority is misrepresentative at best, and dishonest at worst.
Secondly, I believe that your comments are a "red herring" to throw us off the track of our current discussion. You know full well that Orthodox Catholics believe that none of the Church's teachings contradict Scripture. Therefore, the real issue between Protestants and Catholics is how one reads and understands the Bible. For Catholics, Tradition (the ancient authoritative understanding of Scripture) is what guides the Church in her understanding of Scripture. For Protestants, Sola Scriptura is what guides them in their understanding of Scripture. Which philosophy is the correct one? That is the question.
For our discussion to progress, and be a benefit to anyone, let Sola Scriptura be clearly defined. Since it is you who are proposing that we adhere to Sola Scriptura, then it is incumbent upon you to clearly and adequately define what you mean by the term. Also, seeing how that we have taken you to task regarding various passages of Scripture in order to show Sola Scriptura as an unbiblical concept, it is further incumbent upon you to provide an adequate defense for your cherished belief. Otherwise, admit that you are either ill-equipped to deal with the discussion at hand, or that Sola Scriptura is indeed an unbiblical doctrine. Seeing how I do not expect you to admit either of these possiblities anytime soon, I will await your defense.
The "ball" is still in "your court".
Blessings to you!
Dear Shepherd,
I am confused as to what point you are trying to make. I clearly wrote in my statement above that the point of my three-part reply was only to address the issue of the nature of the authority of Scripture and its divine origin. Three examples were given that minimized the importance of the Bible. I used Catholic sources to make my point.
Because there was so much commotion about my earlier comments, many points were brought up that led the conversation in so many different directions. The issue of Sola Scriptura is not an issue at this point because it makes no sense to discuss the topic unless we agree on an elementary principle: The authority of the Scriptures and the nature of its authority.
I am looking to find consensus on the Scriptures to at least begin a sensible conversation. Please, read it again and reflect on your answer. If we cannot focus on at least one point, then, there is no point in me replying at all.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Hi Victor, please allow me to share with you an important scripture text,that you may appreciate my comments on 'Which Bible':
1 John 5:16
Christian Community Bible (Catholic)
If you see your brother committing a sin, a sin which does not lead to death, PRAY for him, and GOD will give life to your brother. I Speak, of course, of THE sin which does not lead to death.
There is also a sin that leads to death; I do not speak of PRAYING about this.
V17.. Every kind of wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin leads to death.
Wycliff Bible:1Jn 5:16
He that knoweth that his brother sinneth a sin not to death [He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin not to death], ask he, and life shall be given to him that sinneth not to death. There is a sin to death; not for it I say, that any man pray.
King James version:1Jn 5:16
16) If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
New King James:1Jn 5:16
If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death
With 1200 bibles, Victor needs to specify which one,and understand the risk of Sola scriptura 'according to whom'
Nature.B
Hi Victor , I am sorry I misunderstood your point. Here I am still striking on the point of the Bibles in circulation not being accurate..Ok then I will move on to your next point...
Nature.B
Dear David,
I profusely apologize for giving you the impression that I am trying to derail the conversation. God only knows that it is my clear intent to place the conversation at least on an elementary common platform since there is no consensus on anything.
To make this sincere point even clearer, allow me to be human by understanding that we may at times not be able to express ourselves as clearly as possible. This can happen to all of us.
Case in point: The very same concern that you have brought up in regards to your statement.
I must admit that I did not include my comment because my point was clear as to my view regarding Scripture. I was not questioning my statement but yours. However, it is important to you to bring this up.
So, I will give you this much: You really meant "The Bible is not the ["incarnate"] Word of God." However, you did not mean to say that the Bible was not the Word of God --that indeed, it is the Word of God. This is now clear to me. Please, let me know if my assessment is correct?
One last comment: please, let us stay clear of assumptions and speculations and focus on the topic at hand. A question regarding my intentions on my comments is sufficient. I would be more than happy to clarify if necessary.
In the meantime, let us focus on the authority and nature of the Scripture so we can move to Sola Scriptura. Otherwise, the discussion will continue to be circular.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Hi Victor,
Since you wish to discuss various viewpoints on the authority of Scripture rather than Sola Scriptura, perhaps it would be well to ask which indeed came first, the Church or the New Testament?
Now one might wonder why is this important to ask. It is quite simple, because if the Church came before the New Testament, then it would have been the authority of the Church that produced the New Testament rather than the other way around. And if that is the case, then the Church has intrinsically been given God-ordained authority to the point of even writing "God-breathed" Scripture (which you willing adhere to as the "Truth"). Now if the Church has this God-ordained authority to produce even Scripture itself, then who are you or anyone else to question said authority?
I will give the Orthodox Catholic answer: the Church came first.
Blessings to you!
Dear David,
You lost me on this one.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
"So, I will give you this much: You really meant "The Bible is not the ["incarnate"] Word of God." However, you did not mean to say that the Bible was not the Word of God --that indeed, it is the Word of God. This is now clear to me. Please, let me know if my assessment is correct?"
I'm curious Victor. Since you did not state either way, do you believe the Bible to be the "incarnate" Word of God? If so, what do you do with John 1:1,14?
I lost you? I'm sorry. Perhaps I can put it differently.
Either the Church came first, and thus produced the New Testament with its God-ordained authority, or the New Testament came first and the Church was produced out of its God-ordained authority. The point is that if the Church indeed came first, then it was the Church's own God-given authority that produced the "God-breathed" Scripture. Therefore, if the Church is able to produce God-inspired Scripture, then it certainly has the authority to interpret said Scripture.
For example, the Protestants generally formulate and build their various churches and communions by going by the "blueprint" found of the Church in the New Testament. For them, the New Testament comes first.
In this view, the New Testament possesses all authority, and the church very little, if any at all. This is clearly contrary to Christ's teaching when it concerns the Church's authority (John 18:15-19).
Orthodox Catholics understand that the Church came before the New Testament, and indeed produced the New Testament itself with Her own authority, and as such has authority given to Her by God that is much more all-encompassing than what Protestants allow. Part of this God-given authority that the Church has is that of interpretation of the Scriptures that She Herself has produced through Her union with the Holy Spirit. The New Testament only has authority, because the Church has been given authority by God to produce "God-breathed" Scripture. Similarly, the only interpretation of the New Testament that has any authority is that which is in line with the interpretive authority of the Church.
This is the best I can do. Perhaps someone else on here can explain it better?
Hi David, I can, who comes first the chicken(Church or the egg( new testament).
you said: 'concerns the Church's authority (John 18:15-19)'.Check that scripture again maybe wrong Chapter.
Blessings
Nature.B
Hello, and Blessings!
Victor you said: "Catholic doctrine supports my view on the authority of Scripture. The Bible is divinely inspired by God and therefore, it is the Word of God"
Indeed the Bible is divinely inspired by God (He is the author of Sacred Scripture), therefore it is the Word of God, but not the ONLY word of God as the Gospel was also passed on orally to the apostles, and this oral transmission is what we may refer to as Sacred Tradition.
Catholics hold on to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as the whole Word of God, thus making them equal. However, that deposit of faith was entrusted by Christ to the apostles and continues on through their successors. Scripture and Tradition are equally authoritative because they are God's words, but not self interpreting. The teaching office of the Church (the Magisterium) has the task to give the authentic interpretation of the Word of God (written or oral).
I will just quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
85 - "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 - "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."
88 - The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.
Victor, I hope this allows you to understand better what is meant by authority in the (Roman) Catholic Church.
David, not sure if this is in line with Eastern Orthodox (minus the part of communion with the Bishop of Rome).
Hi people,
Interesting conversation. I believe that the issue of sola scriptura and the one of the authority of the Church are linked.
First of all David, it is not enough to say "that Orthodox Catholics believe that none of the Church's teachings contradict Scripture". You have to prove it as well. If not, it is just of opinion, as Victor correctly said.
Second, the very fact that there is a debate between Sola Scriptura and Tradition shows that they oppose each other. The fact that Catholics reject Sola Scriptura (that is, appealing to the Scipture as the final judge) as a base of some of their doctrines shows that these doctrines are not scriptural. If they were scriptural, Catholics would use the Bible to prove their points. But because some of their doctrines are not biblical, they appeal to Tradition. Now, a tradition is not automatically bad. The problem comes up when a doctrine is clearly contrary to the Bible but is justified by using Tradition, putting in effect Tradition above the Bible (since Tradition has the final say).
Again, if these church's doctrines didn't contradict the Bible, they would use the Bible to justify them. But often, in Catholic teachings, you will read something like "Tradition teaches us that...".
Now concerning Sola Scriptura, we have some examples in the Bible. When we read the Gospel, from the beginning we see Jesus appealing to Scripture only, not tradition. When He was tempted in the desert, do we see Jesus saying: "Tradition says..."? No, we see Jesus saying: "It is written". On the path to Emmaus, we see Jesus using Scripture to explain His mission to the two disciples. And between the beginning and the end of His ministry on Earth, we see Jesus quoting Scripture all the time while condemning the Pharisees for using their traditions (and even on the cross, Jesus quoted Scripture).
Hi Still,happy to see you back, you said; The problem comes up when a doctrine is clearly contrary to the Bible but is justified by using Tradition, putting in effect Tradition above the Bible (since Tradition has the final say).
Still I participate in this blog to learn apologetics, please give one example where doctrine is backed up by tradition only and not scripture.
Everyone speaks in generalities with no tangible detailed evidence, its frustrating to read these threads.
Share the details.
Nature.B
Sorry, meant Matthew 18:15-18.
Thanks for the heads up NB!
Blessings!
Hi Still,
Welcome back!
1. I have said much more than just "that Orthodox Catholics believe that none of the Church's teachings contradict Scripture". You really should catch up by reading the whole thread if you wish to participate.
2. When Adventists such as yourself state doctrines, such as Christians being required to observe a 24hr. sabbath rest weekly, you quote verses of Scripture to back up your teaching. We former Adventists on here routinely disagree with your understanding of those particular Scripture passages. We see it as nothing but the "Adventist opinion" regarding those passages which we have rejected as viable. Therefore, we are not at all persuaded that you Adventists have proven that your teaching is in harmony with Scripture. The same happens when it is the reverse.
The problem between us is as Victor has so eloquently pointed out several times, "How do you read?" Until you, and the other Adventists, acknowledge this most basic issue, you will continue to view the Orthodox Catholic "proofs" and responses as mere opinion, and nothing more.
3. Regarding Jesus' use of Scripture, sure He used it when it suited the situation. However, He also taught without the use of Scripture. In fact, it would seem that He taught more without Scripture, than He did with Scripture.
Blessings!
By the way, I said that Orthodox Catholics believe that none of the Church's teachings contradict Scripture. This is a "belief", not an empirical fact. As such, it cannot be "proven" in the way that you want. If it could be "proven", then it would cease to be a "belief".
It has to be believed in order for it to be true for the individual. And that can only happen with a change of perspective. This is why you do not believe it to be true, while we former Adventists do believe it to be true.
Blessings!
Hi All,
Well once again we are back to the only real issue that divides protestants from the Orthodoxy, and that is Authority.
Victor - You are absolutely right that the Catholic church venerates scripture as the inspired word of God. As Armando has pointed out from the Catechism, the teaching Authority of the church is not above the scriptures. Here are two (extended, sorry) quotes from Dei Verbum, which I hope makes clear the Catholic position on the inspiration and Authority of Scripture and its relation to Sacred Tradition:
1)"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence."
2) "Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text)."
So Victor (and everyone!), there is no argument from the Catholic perspective on the Authority of Scripture, as you rightly say Victor.
One further point to note that comes out of this, is that just because a Catholic says something, does not mean that this is the official Catholic teaching on an issue. This is as true for me and each Catholic on this blog, as it is for the catholic Encyclopaedia, Catholic news papers etc. The teaching of Ecumenical Councils like Nicaea 325 and Vatican I and II) and ex cathedra papal statements ARE official teaching and so can be quoted as such, but other sources, how ever Catholic they may be, are not. Even if it is an interview with a Cardinal in a newspaper!
That said, I hope we can now move on to discuss Acts 15, all of us sure in the knowledge that we agree that Scripture is the inspired word of God, and as such has Authority.
Blessings as ever,
Clement
Hi David,
You said that "Orthodox Catholics believe that none of the Church's teachings contradict Scripture. This is a "belief", not an empirical fact. As such, it cannot be "proven" in the way that you want. If it could be "proven", then it would cease to be a "belief". "
This is where the problem lies. Belief should be about Jesus and the biblical doctrines not church doctrines. In the same way the Pharisees in the time of Jesus believed in their traditions and theories and they were putting them before the Bible. And we all know where it lead them.
As I have already said before, biblical truths are not just a matter of opinions. Most of the biblical texts are easy to understand and don't require a PhD to grasp their meanings. When God told Adam and Eve not to touch the forbidden tree, it is clear and simple. Problems arose when the serpent made it more complicated than it was with its sweet talk and when our first parents decided to listen to its "complex" message rather than the simple command of the Lord.
Often Catholics on this blog (and elsewhere) appeal to the Magisterium to tell them what the meaning of the biblical text is or to know what to do. I believe that Christians should appeal to Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit is for everybody and that He will teach us all truth. Also if we walk like Jesus and on the path He walked, we will be in safety.
If I speak like my Lord, I will be in safety.
If I act and behave like my Lord, I will be in safety.
If I love like my Lord, I will be in safety.
If I serve like my Lord, I will be in safety.
In my Lord Jesus, there is no confusion. This cannot be said from the teachings of the Popes who contradict each other.
In my Lord Jesus, there is no violence and use of force against people, which cannot be said of the Church.
Through the life of my Lord Jesus, we can see his reliance on the sure Word of God, which cannot be said of the Church.
Jesus observed all of the Ten Commandments. So do I.
He relied on Scripture, not traditions. So do I.
One of His favorite expressions was: "It is written". So it is for me. He fought the devil (who has the power of death) with "it is written" and was victorious. He compared the Pharisees (who were relying on traditions) to white sepulchres full of dead bones. No victory was able through them. In fact, Jesus said that the Pharisees were turning people into children of perdition because of their traditions.
Jesus said to Satan: "It is written...". Apparently, to Him and the devil, quoting Scripture was not just about giving His opinion because the devil was defeated. By His example and by His teachings, He showed, between Scripture and traditions, which one has authority.
"It is written". If we live by this, we will be victorious as Jesus our Lord was victorious.
Hi Victor!
You're doing a fantastic job ignoring me and avoiding my questions.
I would think they were simple enough...
Does this mean you cannot or will not answer them? If your answer is that you will not, can you let me know why?
HC
Still, carefull, you said: the Bible says that the Holy Spirit is for 'everybody' and that He will teach us all truth.
Your statement makes the Word a lie because you have 32000 protestant, denominations.
John 14:1-31 was a direct conversation with the Apostles, where Philip and Thomas spoke.
Jn 14:16 Jesus tells his Apostes..I will ask the Father and he will give you another Helper to be with you Forever, that spirit of truth 'WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE".
Still,... that Spirit is till today clearly Apostolic Specific.
You know better,1 Cor 12:27-31 there are different Spirit applications.
AS A matter of fact when I read the New testament Matthew - John, I am witnessing the Apostles in Seminary. From acts onwards the Apostles are teaching us what Jesus taught them.
All protestant Pastors teach Math -John in the the mindset of Jesus speaking to them. We learn and follow the teachings to the Apostles because we all should strive to be disciples and saints;
BUT when Jesus makes specific statements for building of his Church, it is sinful to tell a person that they have Apostolic anointing of the Special Helper.
Just a Reminder Jn 14;25 .. will teach you all things and remind you of all that I have told you.. Still, were you ..THERE?!
JN 16:12 I still have many things to tell you... were you there?!
Jn 17:9..I pray for them(Apostles)..I DO NOT PRAY FOR THE WORLD....Were you there?!
JN 20;30..there were many other signs that Jesus gave his ...they are not recorded in this book...were you there?!
Therefore we need the Tradition of the Church to Guide us through the maze of undocumented information.
The early Church Fathers revealed some of those undocumented traditions.
Sharing
Nature.B
Dear Clement,
Brilliant! A simple request to clarify the issue has finally come to light. Clement has nailed the issue clearly.
The Scriptures are authoritative and they are the Word of God. This is the most simple concept in all of Christian history. Yet, there are some on this blog that have confused the issue and have clearly derailed the conversation to where we are now.
"Still," I have no idea who you are, but you seem to have read clearly what I am writing.
Still Wrote: "it is not enough to say "that Orthodox Catholics believe that none of the Church's teachings contradict Scripture". You have to prove it as well. If not, it is just of opinion..."
I began the conversation appealing to all to speak on some kind of common ground otherwise the conversation would go on in circles. It is precisely what has happened.
Clement has graciously and honestly brought us back on track. I am encouraged to continue our discussion. Now we are clear, as to the biblical basis of our comments.
Honestly, I did not think we could get here but the Lord in His mercy has intervened to aid us in our discussion.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Still,
Yes absolutely let us live like our Lord, like the early saints did, to Martyrdom, let us love until it kills us, until we are consumed by the fire of the love of God.
Again, there are simple truths in the bible, "This is my body", for example. But you will put a spin on it and say this is not a simple truth. Christ gave the power of binding and loosing to Peter, and the keys to the kingdom. This is a simple truth of the bible text.
This conversation is not about simple truth, but about interpretation. We all interpret everything, as has been said before. This is why God came as a person, so we could get to know him, and did not reveal himself in a book like the Quran for Muslims. He did not leave a book as His inheritance of His earthly ministry, He left a church, a body of people, in fact HIS body, that in union with Him, the church, with the help of the Holy Spirit might bring all people into God 's family.
The church is the Body of Christ and Holy Spirit is its soul. The church is the Pillar and Foundation of the truth, and its ordained bishops are the guardians of that truth.
Victor and everyone! Now that we are clear that Catholics hold to the Authority of Scripture, perhaps we can get on and look together at Acts 15, which I hope will shed some wonderful light on the workings of the early church, and how they decided between different interpretations of things.
In brotherly love as always,
Clement
And just for the record....
(Though we should cover it in greater detail at some point)
Christ used the GOOD traditions of the Jewish people, even those not within scripture. The most famous example is when he talks about the Seat of Moses in Matthew 23:1-4.
This is not terminology found anywhere in the Old Testament, but related to the Seat of Authority held by Moses and his successors. He says, that the Jews must obey what those who occupy that seat say, but not copy what they do. In other words, the office of the seat of Moses has an authority which must be obeys even if filled by sinful men. (Sound familiar?)
Clement
Great Victor,
Glad you are happy! No one to mine and Tonya's thoughts on Acts 15!
I look forward to it,
Clement
NatureB,
Before trying to sort the undocumented traditions, don't you think it would be good to take care of what is documented first, namely, what is in the Bible?
Maybe there is some light in the undocumented traditions (after all, why not?). But if we don't accept the light that is already revealed in Scripture, why do we think that God would give us more light? If we are faithful with what God already gave us, then we can expect God to give us more (see the parable of the talents). But if we neglect the truths already given through Scripture, we can be sure that God is not about to reveal more to us. In fact, the Bible says that we will be given a spirit of confusion.
Still said: In my Lord Jesus, there is no confusion. This cannot be said from the teachings of the Popes who contradict each other.
Still, the First Pope PETER was very confused..he cut off the ear of the soldier..
He denied Jesus three times..
He went Fishing after the resurrection.....
He was rebuked by Paul for his conduct...
Jesus left us with all these examples to immunize us for what was to come.
My greatest lession from Jesus as a disciple ..Jn 6.66,. Could you believe those Jews witnessed all the works of Jesus and still walked away?
Read your History every heritic Pope was replaced 'toute suite'
All priest know if they lapse in their devotional prayers satan is right there.
The Church recently lost 4000 lapsed priest satan got those, out of 383,000.The Following year God gave them 16,000 in return.
Still you(SDA) too! lost thousands of Pastors, keep your revolving doors well oiled there is more soon to come.
Jesus said ..let anyone of you without sin cast the first stone..
SDA do you have stones to cast?
As brethen lets cool down the critical threads, more to go around on your side.
In the Spirit of Brotherly Love.
Nature.B
Still I agree with you..therefore lets go on a tradition hunt ,you list them, we respond.
OR..Did you list traditions already on another thread?
Advise
Nature.B
Dear Shepherd,
When you speak of thousands of Protestant denominations to disprove the validity and authority of Scripture, you forget that it was the issue of ecclesiastical tradition and a history of abuse that gave birth to the Reformation and splintered the Church. The reformers clearly identified contradictions that needed to be addressed. Instead of a peaceful dialog, many of them were burned at the stake for having a different opinion from the Medieval Church.
If you read back my statement on God's people numbering in the minority, you can see that the principle of a remnant is applicable to Catholics and Protestant. It was left open for that reason.
The bottomline is this: To the Law and to the Testimony. If they speak not according to Scripture, there is no light in them. Not everyone who calls Jesus Lord will be saved, Catholics or Protestants.
My dear friend, your argument is, perhaps, the strongest argument against your reliance on tradition and great evidence that we need to come to a consensus as to what constitutes authority in matters of faith. You have mentioned this several times and I have ignored it not to make an issue of it.
I appeal to you, my friend, that you follow the conversation that Clement and I are having. This is where the conversation is at right now.
My kind appeal to Still, whom I do not who personally, is to carefully craft your statements and clearly support them with Scripture or at least make reference to your Scriptural or historical source. This is wise and it will help us to be transparent so we will not be accused of scheming dissension.
Clement and I have agreed that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God of divine origin. Let us work together for the common good. Otherwise, this conversation will be futile.
This appeal goes to all of us who are eager to see this move. Let us be patient and kind to one another. Let us pray that the Lord will bless our discussion and that we could learn eternal lessons on grace and faith to the honor and glory of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
My Personal Testimony
This Section Is Not Necessarily Theological But A Brief Background As To The Basis for My Beliefs
My dear friends, I did not make any comments in here with any malicious intent. Again, God knows my heart. My pure intentions were to have a peaceful conversation with other brothers and sisters from the Catholic faith.
I am not a Protestant because their ideas were handed down to me. Having been baptized a Roman Catholic as a child and raised in a country where the theory of evolution was formulated, I learned that I needed clear evidence to support my personal beliefs.
I cannot accept someone telling me to believe something unless they can prove to me or clearly show me from an authoritative source reasonable basis for such belief.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Clement said:
"its ordained bishops are the guardians of that truth"
Clement, the guardian of the truth is Scripture. This is why God has preserved His Word along the centuries against all those who wanted to destroy it.
Now speaking of the Seat of Moses, yes, the Pharisees were supposed to lead the people the way Moses did. But they didn't. And when Jesus came, they persecuted Him and condemned Him to death. They also expelled the faithful believers from the synagogues. So, where was the true church of God, with the Pharisees (who occupied the Seat of Moses) who persecuted Jesus and expelled His disciples or with the Christians to whom Jesus said He would be with until the end of the world (we know the answer because the Bible said of the Jews that their house would be left desolate)?
When we consider the attitude of the Pharisees, we see something indeed familiar with what the Church did.
They [the Pharisees] were claiming authority in the same way the Church is claiming authority (the Pharisees claimed that their authority derived from the fact that they were the successor of Moses, while the head of the Church, namely the Pope, says that he derives his authority from the fact he is the successor of Peter).
They were relying on traditions in the same manner the Church is relying on traditions (their traditions had the final say, not Scripture. In the same manner, in the Church, Tradition has the final say).
They persecuted and expelled the disciples of Christ in the same manner the Church persecuted and expelled (excommunicated) the Christians who were not following her and tried to reform her as Jesus and the apostles tried to do so with the Jews.
Sound familiar?
Now the same question remains: where is the church of God, with those who have displayed an attitude similar to the Pharisees', or with those who upheld Jesus and Scripture and were expelled and killed by the Church?
On Ecclesiastical Tradition Part I
Tradition (handing over, passing on) is not enough for me. To my skeptical and former agnostic mind, it rings no bells for me. God may have worked through oral tradition to preserve His Word, however, once he got into the publishing business early on these tradition were written for us as examples.
1 Corinthians 10:11
These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.
1 Peter 2:21
"To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
As "Still," pointed out, Christ set an example for us to use Scripture in all circumstances, including stopping the devil in his tracks with three quotes from Scripture, not ecclesiastical or Jews tradition.
By the time of Christ, Jews used the Scriptures to rule in matters of faith. If fact, Paul was a doctor of the law. Nicodemus was also a doctor of the law. But as explained in an earlier blog above, their man-made traditions were invalidating the Word of God (Matt. 15:2,3,7-9) and Paul in particular recognized this and defected to "the Way." (Acts 9:2) A term used by the early Church to refer to themselves. The term "Christian" was applied to them for the first time in Antioch.
1 Corinthians 4:6
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." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
Paul counsel not to go beyond what is written. Plain and simple.
Paul encouraged Timothy to regard Scripture as a guide in matters of faith and Christian deportment.
2 Tim 3: 14-17 (NIV)
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
No where in Scripture do I find that tradition (good or bad) is God-breathed and placed. It is Scripture that makes us wise unto salvation, not the tradition of indulgences, nor the confession of our sins to any mortal but God. I do not find in Scripture that Mary, the mother of Jesus is alive in heaven interceding on our behalf. No where in Scripture do I find that penance is part of my sincere confession and repentance of my sins.
Con't Part II
On Ecclesiastical Tradition Part II
Hebrews 4:15-16 (NASB)
15For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
16Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
It is Jesus and Him alone that justifies me, sanctifies me and will eventually glorify me.
Rom 5: 1-2 (NASB)
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.
So, for this reason, my dear friends, my conscience is bound to the Word of God. Because there is no safer source of authority for me than the Scriptures.
I hope you can understand that I am not against sacred tradition as long as it is in harmony with the Word of God.
Catholic doctrine teaches that ecclesiastical tradition is in perfect harmony with the teaching of Scripture. I subscribe to this beautiful statement as long as it can be verified with Scripture that such is true.
The above is a brief recount of the basis for my beliefs, nothing more nothing less.
So far, Clement and I have agreed that the Bible is the Word of God. He believes that tradition is on par with Scripture and does not contradict its testimony. I believe that tradition cannot go against the testimony of the Scriptures. This is good so far.
Would that all of us come to this simple consensus. Most respectfully, I will add, that we need to agree on something as simple as this, otherwise, my comments will only be directed to those who are on board with our discussion. It is impossible for me at the moment to spend time answering questions that will divert the conversation on all directions. We need consensus and to stick to one subject at a time.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Hi Victor,I appreciate your gesture for tranquility and meaningful dialog.
You mentioned, quite a number of times 'the reformers'.
I sense your philosophy is driven by a 'Reaction Formation syndrome'.
Have you ever done an extensive Historical research on the subject(reformers)?
Permit me to share a website to help you delve into the mindset of those individuals.:
http://onecanhappen.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/the-protestant-reformers-were-frauds-an-anabaptist-speaks-out/.
Nature.B
Hi Victor,
I often give biblical references when I write, except when I know they know what I am speaking about (after all, they are former SDA and most of them are really familiar with the Bible). You don't know me but most people here do as we have often exchanged ideas here.
It is very good to have you here with us.
God bless.
Victor,
You have just posted a lot of scripture dealing with lots of aspects of belief. Can we deal with one thing at a time?
Before your diversion into Scriptural Authority we were talking about Acts 15. Would you like to start there again, or would you prefer me to interact with each of your quotes here?
I am in your hands....
All I ask is that we deal with issues one at a time.
With much brotherly love,
Clement
"Tradition (handing over, passing on) is not enough for me. To my skeptical and former agnostic mind, it rings no bells for me. God may have worked through oral tradition to preserve His Word, however, once he got into the publishing business early on these tradition were written for us as examples."
Wow. God did NOT Divinely inspire a "Bible". We as Christians put the Scriptures into the form they are now and dubbed them a "Bible". And this is what single-handely disproves Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura relys on Scripture in the form of a "Bible" when no where in Scripture is a "Bible" even mentioned. No where in Scripture does it mention a New Testament or how this "Bible" should be put together. It doesn't instruct as to how the "Bible" should be mass-produced and distributed throughout the world. Scripture itself doesn't indicate that anything at all should be done except that the Apostles should write down what God inspired them to write down and that it should be preserved as the Divine Word of the Holy Spirit.
The Word could have just as well stayed in Synagogs in Scroll form, not mass-produced.
So God is in the "publishing business" huh. :-)
This from a guy who objected to me calling the Bible a "book".
Awesome.
Please do your homework:
From Scroll to Codex: The earliest Hebrew scriptures
Until the fourth century, the standard form of a book for people was not a book at all. Rather, it was a roll—also called a scroll or bookroll—made of papyrus or animal skin on which a text was inscribed by hand. The earliest books of the Hebrew Bible survive today in scroll form. Known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, they were discovered in the Judaean Desert in the 1940s and include the Second Isaiah Scroll.
In the first century, a new kind of publication appeared: the codex or leaf-book, a series of pages bound together at one edge and protected by covers. Its increasing popularity was directly connected to the formation of the Christian Bible. Codices made cross-referencing between biblical books much easier and were more readily portable than scrolls. These benefits appealed to Christian audiences, particularly during times of persecution.
Because Christianity emerged as a sectarian type of Judaism rather than an independent religion, the Bible of the earliest Christians was the Bible of Judaism.
As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, the codex gradually displaced the scroll as the medium for non-Christian texts as well. By the time Christianity was established as the empire's official religion in the fourth century, the codex had become standard. This was a monumental change in the history of the book, comparable to the invention of movable type in the fifteenth century or the electronic text of the modern era.
The Earliest Christian Scriptures
Composed in Greek, early Christian texts were not intended as "biblical" books as such but were written in response to the needs of local Christian communities. Ultimately many of these writings came to form the New Testament, including the canonical gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that was the result of a long process not imagined by their authors.
Go figure :\
Hi Still,
1. You have misused my comment out of context. I expect you to be more considerate and careful in the future.
2. Yes, it is true that Jesus condemned "bad" traditions. However, He never did condemn tradition wholesale. St. Paul speaks highly of traditions that are apparently "good" (1Cor.11:2; 2Thess.2:15; 3:6). These traditions are rarely considered by Protestants.
3. Often Catholics on this blog, and elsewhere, appeal to Scripture to show the basis of the Church's teachings. The "magisterium" is rarely, if ever, cited in support of any doctrine. In fact, it has been mostly non-Catholics running to "Catholic" sources to quote them!
4. Christians should appeal to Christ (His body the Church) and the Holy Spirit (He that guides the Church), rather than relying on themselves (Sola Scriptura) to arrive at the Truth (a Person).
5. Yes, we should speak and behave like Jesus. Where did He make an issue out of which day one worships Him on?? As I recall, it was His opponents that made a day an issue for Him.
6. There is no confusion in the teaching of the Church.
7. The Orthodox Church has never believed in the concepts of "crusades", "inquisitions", or "holy wars".
8. Through the life of my Lord Jesus, we can see His reliance on His Father, which can also be said of the Church. From the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. Amen.
9. Jesus observed the two "great" commandments to love God with all the heart, and His neighbor as Himself. Neither of these commandments are actually a part of the Ten Commandments given on Sinai. In fact, the two "great" commandments extend far beyond the scope of the Ten Commandments (e.g. the good Samaritan). If Jesus had simply lived according to the Ten Commandments only, then He would have never went out of His way to help others.
10. Jesus' favorite expression apparently was, "Amen, amen, I say unto you...". At least, that's what I recall the most from the Gospels.
Still, Jesus was not a Sola Scriptura guy. If He was, then He would have went around giving "Bible studies" out of the scrolls they had available. He never did this. He would not have instituted Baptism for all people, a practice not found in Scripture, if He adhered to Sola Scriptura. Neither would He have instituted the Lord's Supper, again a practice not found in Scripture, if He had practiced Sola Scriptura. He would not have taught that no meat would make a person unclean (Mark 7), which is directly contrary to the "letter" of Lev. 11, if He was a Sola Scriptura guy. It is also clear that Jesus did not utilize Scripture when He founded His Church with His Apostles apart from the nation of Israel.
Jesus is the Word of God. He is our Law, our Truth, our Teacher, and our Lord. We need not look anywhere else than His words and acts in the Gospels to know our full and complete duty toward God and our fellow human being.
Blessings to you.
Dear Clement,
It is, indeed, a privilege to have come to a consensus on the authority of the Scriptures and their divine origin. As stated before, I will hold to my word and continue the dialog.
Like you, I am anxious to get to Acts 15. However, because of the nature of the discussion, we need deal with a few more "bugs" to helps us establish a healthy common ground.
The next topic we need to deal with is the nature and authority ecclesiastical tradition.
As stated earlier, Catholicism holds ecclesiastical tradition in high regards and, therefore, it is considered to have the same authority of the Scriptures, if not superior (as in the statement from Pope Leo XIII). I have already agreed to ecclesiastical tradition being acceptable as long as it does not contradict Scripture.
My question to you is this: Are we all on board with this issue? Of so, then, let us put ecclesiastical tradition to the biblical test.
All others, are welcomed to join Clement and I in this discussion. One word of advice: stick to the topic at hand. Otherwise, it would be practically impossible for me to reply at all.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Dear Still (and Victor),
Still, you said:"They [the Pharisees] were claiming authority in the same way the Church is claiming authority (the Pharisees claimed that their authority derived from the fact that they were the successor of Moses, while the head of the Church, namely the Pope, says that he derives his authority from the fact he is the successor of Peter)."
Still, it was not the Pharisees appealing to the Authority of the Seat of Moses in this passage from scripture, it was Christ himself! Here is the scripture, Matt 23:1-3:
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
It is Christ that says you must obey those who sit in Moses seat. He goes on to say that you must not do what they do, as they have become corrupt (like you say), but the authority of their office is still to be respected and their instructions followed (do everything they tell you). In fact, Christ goes on to say, verse 13: Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
Yet he still tells the crowd and his disciples to do everything they tell them.
Does this not show how important submission to authority is?
There are many other passages in scripture, especially in the writings of St Paul, where we are commanded to obey the leaders of the church, giving them authority over us. We will cover them shortly I am sure!
Victor, what are your thoughts on this particular passage on the Seat of Moses?
In brotherly love,
Clement
Victor, if we are to proceed on the matter of ecclesiatic authority, then can we despense with the comments about what various popes have said and stick with the catechism?
Afterall, if we are to look at the comments of all those who represent your own fundementals we will get into some really sticky messes.
The catechism plainly states that Sacred Sripture and Sacred Tradition flow from the same source, that being the Holy Spirit. This is the 'official' position of the Church.
Can we just stick with that? Your comments will be a lot less convoluted when not laced with snide remarks.
Blessings,
HC
Matt. 10:40
Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.
Luke 9:1
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
That authority is continued after the death and resurrection of Christ:
(for the purpose of brevity I’m not posting the entire excerpt. It is taken from the KJV.)
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Matthias was known to the Apostles and not a lay person whom they appointed from a community as a priest (or pastor) would be and the appointment was not done by education through the community. This is clearly an apostolic appointment with the authority that the rest had and not an example of simply "growing the Church" through ordainment of ministers or pastors. This is unmistakenly the forming of a system of eclessiastic authority.
Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."
Conclusion:
Jesus clearly gave the Apostles authority by appointment only. These appointments were of men known to them rather than random strangers suited for the responsibility. The Apostles clearly understood this to be an appointment that must be retained in order to continue to “shepard the flock” in the manner and structure Christ had initiated with His appointment of the original twelve.
Let us not forget Acts 1:6-11
Christ appealed to the eleven not to leave until the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon them. Why? What was the significance of this event? What would they, the eleven, gain from this?
Shortly after the appointment of Matthias and the appointment of Judas' successor, the first ecclesiastic Council was held.
Blessings,
HC
Tonya, I was waiting for you to begin the exercise of Scripture proving authority.
Here are my Apostle Specific text:
1)Mat 16:17..FOR IT IS NOT FLESH OR BLOOD THAT REVEALED THIS TO YOU, BUT My FATHER IN HEAVEN. Peter..I will build my Church, never powers of death overcome it.
2)Mat 16:19 ..Keys to the Kingdom of heaven, what you bind is bound etc.
3)Mat 17:1 Peter James and John to meet Moses and Elijah with Jesus.
God declaring to the 3, of Jesus' authority over the prophets.
4)Mat 18:18 If he does not listen to the Church, what you unbind is unbound e.g .'Martin Luther'
5)Mat 28:18 Make disciples all nations, I will be with you till the end of the world
6)Gal 1:18 Paul ordained by Cephas(Peter)..Gal 2:2 meet the Church elders...
7)Mark 9:38 man not from 'our group'(Church).. whoever not against us is for us..protestant (mat 7:21 I never knew you
8)Luke 22:19-20 This is my Body, My Blood do this in memory of Me. 1 Cor 11:28-30 examine yourself, get sick or die.
9)Luke 22:30 Kingship of My Father to you, you will eat at my table in My kingdom. ( Rev 5: 7-L8,24 elders bowed before the lamb full of incense prayers for the Holy Ones
10)Luke 24:47 repentance and forgiveness you shall be witness to this. Reconciliation
11)John 4:21-24 salvation comes from the Jews , who worship with knowledge that is the worship the Father wants. Rom 9:4 They are the descendants and Patriarchs from their race Christ was born. E.g Ex 19:6 Kingdom of priest; Ex 25:7-8 sanctuary; Ex flame perpetual forever. Math 5:17 -20 ,(luke 16:17) not come to remove but fulfill, whoever breaks, the least in Kingdom
12)John 20:21 whos sins you forgive...
13)John 6:53 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me and I in them, will have eternal life. 1 Cor 11:28 eats drink to his own condemnation
14)John 6:70 I chose you 12 apostles (John 15:16 again I chose you)
15)John 14:12 I am going to the Father, you will do greater things, ask in my name I will do
16)John 14 16 My Father will send another helper to be with you forever that Spirit the world cannot receive
17)John 14:26 The Helper will teach you all things, and remind you all I have told you.
18)John 15:3 remain part of the vine, or you cannot bear fruit
19)John 16:12 I still have many things to tell you, the Spirit will guide you into the whole truth
20)John 17:18-20 I sent them I sacrifice and consecrated* they too may be consecrated* in truth (ordained)
John 19;20 This is your son, apostle this is your mother, Blessed Mother of the Apostles (1 John 5:18 those born of God do not sin, evil does not touch them 'Blessed Mary'*, Isiah 7:11 from deepest and hidhest of Heaven
*Scripture says she is to be Called Blessed for all generations.
Lots more where that came from.
Nature.B
Victor wrote:
"As stated earlier, Catholicism holds ecclesiastical tradition in high regards and, therefore, it is considered to have the same authority of the Scriptures, if not superior (as in the statement from Pope Leo XIII). I have already agreed to ecclesiastical tradition being acceptable as long as it does not contradict Scripture."
Victor, the problem is that if we dispense with ecclesial tradition we must dispense with Scripture. The Bible IS Tradition.
Yeah Shepard, do we have room for it all?! :-D
Blessings,
HC
Clement,
You bring up an interesting point re: the seat of Moses. Really, no one has brought that up before. So thanks for continuing to challenge me.
I don’t think Jesus told them to do what the Pharisees told them to do simply because they occupied the seat of Moses. The seat of Moses was (in all likelihood) a literal chair in the synagogue where a person sat who was tasked with interpreting the law, much like preachers today I’d imagine (i.e., read a text and expound). So even if the teachers were hypocrites they ought to be obeyed, not because of their chair but because they taught Moses (part of the OT Scriptures). Granted these teachers often added useless burdens to their interpretations, but Jesus dealt with them in many other places.
The religious authorities did have, well, authority to teach in Israel by virtue of their offices. But even from an early age Jesus challenged them (and even later in Matthew 23 he pronounces ‘woe’ upon them) and what they taught. Jesus shows, above all else, a supreme devotion to the Scriptures, using them as a standard by which everyone was judged. “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures,” Jesus told the Sadducees in Mt. 22:29. They certainly knew the oral tradition (and much of it was compatible with the parts written down in the OT) but they were condemned for not knowing the parts Jesus called Scripture (spec. Moses in this case).
Blessings to you,
Matthew
Lady Dragon,
I never thought I'd say this but I have to admit I agree with you. The Bible is part of the over-arching tradition.
But I guess I have two questions regarding how Catholics handle this:
1)Do you think God inspired people to write down portions of it or do you think they did it on their own and God accepts it (because it's just oral tradition written down)?
2)I wonder if we agree that the Jews added to the body of their traditions-many additions Jesus considered to be invalid. If so, how do we prevent the pool from being muddied again?
Thanks!
M
Matthew,
Pardon me for interjecting, what are some examples of traditions that the Jews interjected?
Blessings,
HC
Matthew:
I thought everybody knew how this worked!! God came down Mondays through Fridays and gave dictation to the prophet of the moment from 9 to 5 with two 15 minute coffee breaks and a half hour lunch break. This worked well until the prophets unionized and went on strike during what is now known as the intertestimental period.
But seriously, folks . . .
(Adventists and Catholics, please feel free to stone me at any time.)
The Bible just isn't all that important in terms of the really big picture.
From creation to Moses there was no Scripture.
In the time of Jesus, the priestly class only accepted the Pentateuch as being divinely inspired and authoritative. That was why the Saducees (the priestly class) and the Pharisees (the lay scholars) were at odds over the resurrection.
Contrary to popular Protestant belief, Jesus did not hand out leather bound red-letter copies of the KJV as He ascended into Heaven.
From the Resurrection to the Council at Hippo (?) there was no codified New Testament and lots of writings running around loose.
So face it, for hundreds and even thousands of years, there was no Scripture (written tradition) it was ALL, ALL, ALL oral tradition.
During the time that the prophets did immediately write down what God told them, it wasn't a matter of word for word dictation.
Jesus is the Word of God and He is neither written nor oral.
Matthew asked: I wonder if we agree that the Jews added to the body of their traditions-many additions Jesus considered to be invalid. If so, how do we prevent the pool from being muddied again?
Answer: Teaching Authority of the Church.
"The Bible just isn't all that important in terms of the really big picture."
And cue the stoning...
Tonya:
I repeat, "the Bible just isn't all that important in terms of the really big picture."
But I should have pointed out, Tradition is EVERYTHING, and the Bible is simply part of Tradition.
To Matthew,
I believe you are incorrect in your assessment of the passage. Jesus said that "they sit in the seat of Moses, so do all that they tell you." It would appear to me that Jesus is telling the people to listen to them precisely because of the position or "office" that they occupy. Therefore, He certainly appears to be referencing their inherent and successive "authority" (since they were carrying on the tradition of Moses) in this passage. It reminds me of when St. Paul was before the High Priest (sorry, cannot recall the reference at this time) and he said something to the High Priest without knowing that he was the High Priest, and then Paul said, "I am sorry brothers, I did not know that he was the High Priest. For it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of the leader of My people.' " Again, the concept of ecclesiastic authority.
And yes, this passage of Jesus referencing ecclesiastic authority has been brought up before on this blog under a different post (do not ask me to say which one though, I cannot remember) to demonstrate the exact same point. However, it apparently was forgotten about quite quickly as it did not seem to make much of an impact on the Adventists at the time. This is unfotunate too, because the Adventists on here continually accuse the Catholics of merely giving "opinions" rather than Scripture to support what they believe. And yet, here is proof positive that Jesus indeed had a well established concept of "ecclesiastical" authority.
Blessings.
I know. :( I got stoned for saying the Bible is a "simple book".
There are some folks who are really sensitive about "The Bible". Even though, "The Bible" did not exist until the 4th century and even then, it was not "The Bible" that was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but the writings of the Apostles, Scripture.
So, I think we're safe. :)
I haven't had lightening strike me yet.
Blessings to you Lady Dragon.
HC
David,
Let me answer your points.
1. You have misused my comment out of context. Sure, as usual. :-)
2. Concerning "bad" traditions, sure, Jesus was against them. But more than that, what He condemned was people relying heavily on traditions rather than relying on the Word of God to the point of negating Scripture to keep their traditions. What makes a tradition bad is not that it is a tradition. Rather, it is that men may choose a tradition over Scripture. If you can have a tradition and Scripture together, there is no problem. But if you have a tradition that is contrary to a biblical teaching and we prefer to keep the tradition rather than upholding the biblical truth then there is a problem with that tradition.
3. Concerning the magisterium, just in the comments for this post, it was mentioned by two people before me (also, I mentioned the magisterium but it was just an example. I could have mentioned the Church Fathers).
4. Christians should appeal to Christ (His body the Church) and the Holy Spirit (He that guides the Church), rather than relying on themselves (Sola Scriptura) to arrive at the Truth (a Person). This is your opinion (by the way, if you think that sola scriptura means relying on oneself, then I am not sure you understand what sola scriptura is).
5. David, you believe Jesus is God, right? So read the Old Testament and you will see God make an issue about which day to worship on. And read the New Testament and you will see Jesus correcting the Jews as for the meaning of the Sabbath.
6. There is no confusion in the teaching of the Church. Keep repeating this to yourself. Maybe it will become true... (though it seems that the Orthodox Church has less problems than the Roman Catholic Church)
7. The Orthodox Church has never believed in the concepts of "crusades", "inquisitions", or "holy wars". I am ready to believe that.
8. Through the life of my Lord Jesus, we can see His reliance on His Father. True
which can also be said of the Church. Debatable.
9. Jesus observed the two "great" commandments to love God with all the heart, and His neighbor as Himself. True. and these two commandments are linked to the Ten Commandments. If you love God you will observe the first four commandments and if you love your neighbor, you will observe the last six commandments. And if you observe the Ten Commandments with sincerity and hide them in your heart (like David said), you will observe the two great commandments automatically.
10. yes, you're right, He said that too. But read the Gospels and you will see how many times He said "It is written".
You are mistaken when you said that Jesus was not a Sola Scriptura type of person. He constantly used Scripture because Scripture testified of Him. You don't see him using traditions.
Also, concerning the Lord's supper, Jesus didn't create something that was contrary to Scripture. Remember that the Lord's supper occurred during Passover. And during the feast, an unblemish lamb had to be killed. Jesus was the "Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Passover was all about Him. The Lord's supper is just a reminder of that fact. It is not a new doctrine.
Now concerning Mark 7, here is what the text says:
14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”
17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. (Mark 7:14-17)
It is interesting to notice that what Jesus said was a parable (see text in bold).
Cont.
So because it was a parable, we have to understand what Jesus was really speaking about. The following verses give us the answer:
18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”[g] 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” (Mark 7:18-23)
So we see that when Jesus was speaking of defilement, he was speaking of the defilement of the heart, that is, spiritual defilement. The Pharisees were caring about the purity of the body but neglected the purity of the heart from which "proceed evil thoughts". So, you see, Jesus was not speaking contrary to the letter of Leviticus 11 as you think. If we read the entire text carefully we arrive to the clear meaning of it.
Still,
It is also very interesting to note what the next verses say:
"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
Surely this is then the meaning of the parable? Is this not a simple truth?
Clement
PS What are you thoughts now on the seat of Moses as expounded in my response to you above?
Still, continue the text Mark 7:20 Jesus explains the parable,V19.20.
I would like to note what I think: Jesus begot Church, Church begot tradition, Church begot Bible, Church tradition and interpretation of Bible produces fullness of truth.Amen!
Sorry guys Because of the hiphop culture I had to put it in ryhme for my students.
Nature.B
Hi all,
I think we need to clarify something for a moment. If I understand the flow of this discussion, the term "tradition" is being placed on that which was "law", not tradition. The laws of clean and unclean meats were very clear. If one is to believe that the whole of Scripture is divinely inspired then we must believe that the Torah containing the 613 Mitzvot were also God's word. That would exclude them as tradition.
That being said, Jesus could NOT oppose the Law. He was simply letting preparing them for His purification of all foods. Christ was telling them that soon, nothing could make a person "unclean" but sin and in turn nothing could make them clean again but His Blood.
The laws of unclean meats were not traditions that Jesus set asunder. They were laws under the Old Covenant fulfilled and made void by Christ in the New Covenant.
Christ was the most obedient Jew and would not have eaten unclean meat Himself, but He also knew that they would need to be able to give up these laws after His death and resurrection and not rely on these things for salvation.
This is why is was difficult for them to understand. They did not/could not see Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy.
Blessings,
HC
We're going around and around the wrong issue. The issue is:
Did Christ prepremand the Pharisees and Sadducees for upholding the Laws?
No. That would not make sense. Jesus encouraging transgression of the Laws that were inspired by the Holy Spirit?
I think Jesus was unhappy with the way they were administering the law.
Am I even close?
HC
Blessings,
HC
Clement,
First of all the text "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")" is not in all the manuscrits. It is considered a variation.
Second, you forget that Jesus was a Jew under the Jewish economy. As Tonya observed, Jesus the most obedient Jew. As such, He could not go against the laws in Leviticus. Even if we consider that the New Covenant changed this aspect of things, it was not the case before the cross (since the New Covenant took effect after the death of Jesus). So it was impossible for Jesus to go contrary to the law or change it before His death. Just that shows that Jesus was not saying that all food was clean.
Tonya said:
"Did Christ prepremand the Pharisees and Sadducees for upholding the Laws?"
Tonya, you are asking a very good question. And you gave the good answer. No, Jesus was not rebuking the Pharisees and Sadducees because they were upholding the law (as you said, that would make no sense). He rebuked them because of the way they were keeping (and administrating) the law.
There is nothing wrong with the law. Everything has to do with our spirit and our behavior. The law is often seen as a burden not because it is bad but because we want to do our own business (if the speed limit is 25 mph and you want to go 50 mph, then you will find the law to be a problem). But God wants us to obey Him out of love and if we love Him, we will keep His commandments.
Still said :First of all the text "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")" is not in all the manuscripts. It is considered a variation'.
Exactly the point I was making a few threads back: Tyndale , KJV , Lutheran, Wycliff,Coralway and 1200 other interpretatons; is Sola Scriptura possible?
Nature.B
Still,
I do not have my NA27 with me, but as I understand, the manuscript issue in that text has to do with whether the words should be credited to Jesus or the Narrator (the latter option usually taken). I cannot think of a single translation committee that has ever removed the verse. It is, in the scholarly consensus, original.
And, if it is the insight of a later narrator (as is generally accepted), its presence is justified. The comment dates from a time when the teaching of Jesus on the source of impurity had been crystallized in the New Covenant.
You might read my papers on the subject.
Okay, so with that said, we are in agreement that Jesus is not rebuking them for 'tradition', but their actions as individuals. They were not upholding Tradition at all, rather they were taking it upon themselves to administer the law by a system of their choosing, not in keeping with God's will according to Scripture.
This was an excellent example of how individuality can corrupt the will of God.
Blessings,
HC
I'm going to head-off what comes next.
We are going to have a circular argument unless the opposition :) can show where the Sacred Tradition of the Church goes against Sacred Scripture since this was not a sufficient proof of that position.
Blessings,
HC
Is it time to talk about Acts 15 yet?
:)
Victor, where are we with everything now?
Any thoughts on the Seat of Moses?
Clement
Tonya wrote: We are going to have a circular argument unless the opposition :) can show where the Sacred Tradition of the Church goes against Sacred Scripture . . . .
Tonya:
You mustn't tease them like that.
Sacred Scripture CANNOT go against Sacred Tradition BECAUSE Sacred Scripture IS Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition CANNOT contradict itself.
Lady Dragon:
Well, the way I see it their first attempt is dead in the water so they must press on.
Clement: Victor is absent in the midst of his own challenge.
What a blip.
HC
We must have patience! There are a lot more of us then there are of Victor! I am looking forward to our continuing conversation.
Marsha, are you in Illinois? I may be applying for a job over there very soon!
Clementt
Clement:
Please e-mail me at dragonladyphyle@netscape.net
Be sure to use Clement in your subjece line if it isn't part of your e-mail address.
Sola Scriptura is not possible because it is based upon Scripture in the form of a "Bible".
That didn't exist in the days of the Old Testament which is what Luther used (and Protestants still use today) to prove this false doctrine.
Most Jews couldn't even read. What good would reading Scripture have done for them? They were in deserts and fields and the wilderness where would they get a copy of Scripture to refer to? Who was going to painstakingly hand print this huge document (containing 613 laws)?
They believed what they were 'taught' from the "Word of God". The Torah for them, was a sacred document not to be touched by just anyone. It was something they heard about but probably most of them never saw. It's not like they could just go get their "Bibles" out of the drawer or off granma's coffee table.
Protestants tend to use the word Scripture enterchagably with the word "Bible". They seem to think this book they call a "Bible" has always existed and everyone has always had their own copy of it.
Has anyone ever seen Jesus depicted reading the Torah? Are there any depictions of the Torah outside the Temples? You know, people sitting around and someone with a Torah preaching to them?
I'm just curious.
HC
I know. I was just picking at him a little. He kinda makes me feel like a little sister...okay more like a red-headed stepchild but...
I'm kidding!
:0D
To Lady Dragon,
I really appreciate the way you stated that. Every time I hear a Catholic say "Sacred Scripture >and< Sacred Tradition", it makes me want to speak up and say, "Sacred Scripture is Holy Tradition. They are not two different things. They are indeed one and the same! Sacred Tradition >is< Scripture, the Divine Liturgy, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Church Fathers writings. It is a living deposit of faith continually added to even to this day. It is like the mustard seed that when it is a seed is the smallest of all, but when it is grown, is the largest plant."
Blessings
Tonya Said:Has anyone ever seen Jesus depicted reading the Torah?
Yes, luke 4:17.he stood up to read and they handed him the book of the prophet Isaiah.
Just Sharing
Nature.B
To Nature B,
Isaiah was, and is not, considered part of "torah". Only Genesis-Deuteronomy is considered "torah" proper. The break down of the Old Testament for the Jews is "Law (torah)", "prophets (this is where Isaiah would fit)", and the "writings (Psalms, Proverbs, etc.)". Hope that helped!
Blessings
David, thanks for sharing that important bit of knowledge.
I am going to get ahead of Stlll and say: yes but they could have easily handed him the Torah.
Yes, but 'Tonya' was correct nowhere does it say Jesus read the Torah,
Touche!
Nature.B
According to Christian Living (Excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia)
This concept of Scripture is fully upheld by the Christian teaching. Jesus Christ Himself appeals to the authority of Scripture, "Search the scriptures" (John 5:39); He maintains that "one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18); He regards it as a principle that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35); He presents the word of Scripture as the word of the eternal Father (John 5:33-41), as the word of a writer inspired by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 22:43), as the word of God (Matthew 19:4-5; 22:31); He declares that "all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me (Luke 24:44). The Apostles knew that "prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21); they regarded "all scripture, inspired of God" as "profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice" (2 Timothy 3:16). They considered the words of Scripture as the words of God speaking in the inspired writer or by the mouth of the inspired writer (Hebrews 4:7; Acts 1:15-16; 4:25). Finally, they appealed to Scripture as to an irresistible authority (Rom., passim), they supposed that parts of Scripture have a typical sense such as only God can employ (John 19:36; Hebrews 1:5; 7:3 sqq.), and they derived most important conclusions even from a few words or certain grammatical forms of Scripture (Galatians 3:16; Hebrews 12:26-27).
This conversation has been derailed again. Some were coming to consensus but now we are dealing with topics are that so controversial that cannot be solved unless we agree on the following:
1. The Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. The passage above from the Catholic Encyclopedia makes this clear. In fact, it covers some of the very same verses I quoted above and were rejected by earlier comments.
2. Catholicism claims that tradition does not contradict Scripture. If this is true, then, let's put it to the biblical test.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
P/S: It is nice to see oneself in print. It is another to print something worth considering.
According to Christian Living (Excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia) Part II
It is not surprising, then, that the earliest Christian writers speak in the same strain of the Scriptures. St. Clement of Rome (I Corinthians 45) tells his readers to search the Scriptures for the truthful expressions of the Holy Ghost. St. Irenæus (Against Heresies II.38.2) considers the Scriptures as uttered by the Word of God and His Spirit. Origen testifies that it is granted by both Jews and Christians that the Bible was written under (the influence of) the Holy Ghost (Against Celsus V.10); again, he considers it as proven by Christ's dwelling in the flesh that the Law and the Prophets were written by a heavenly charisma, and that the writings believed to be the words of God are not men's work (De princ., iv, vi). St. Clement of Alexandria receives the voice of God who has given the Scriptures, as a reliable proof (Stromata I.2).
Here are some references to early Church Fathers. It pretty much says what I have been saying all along.
1. The Bible is the Word of God and can be used by Christians as reliable proof.
2. Tradition must not contradict Scripture. Otherwise, tradition would be contradicting the very words that the Holy Spirit has already sealed as the Word of God. The words in Scriptures are not men's words but God's.
3. For this reason, the Word of God has the authority of the Holy Spirit of God.
If we can agree to this, we can move on to putting Catholic doctrine and tradition to the test.
I pray to the Mighty God that all our personal opinions be put to rest and help us to use the authority of God's inspired Word to validate our long-standing ecclesiastical traditions.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Whoa, I didn't say Jesus didn't read the Torah. I asked if Jesus was ever depicted in art, drawings or whatever, reading the Torah to other people.
I asked as a curiosity. I'm not making a statement, but asking a genuine question.
Victor:
Can you stop restating everything that's been said and get on with the 'test'.
k, thx.
HC
To Victor,
1. "The Bible is the Word of God and can be used by Christians as reliable proof."
I agree with one stipulation: that we do not allow every interpretation of it to be authoritative. The original Christian interpretation of the New Testament ought to be the authoritative one that we should follow.
2. "Tradition must not contradict Scripture. Otherwise, tradition would be contradicting the very words that the Holy Spirit has already sealed as the Word of God. The words in Scriptures are not men's words but God's."
Again, I agree with the added stipulation that we do not consider a "Tradition" unbiblical simply because it contradicts our understanding of Scripture. Recourse should be made to the original Christian understanding of the New Testament doctrine.
3. "For this reason, the Word of God has the authority of the Holy Spirit of God."
And finally I agree just as long we do not consider "our own" interpretations as having the same authority of the Holy Spirit of God. Only the original Christian interpretation should be given any weight in our discussions. They were, after all, the first ones to receive the New Testament manuscripts. We are not trying to "re-invent the wheel", right?
Do you find these to be reasonable stipulations for us to follow? If not, then why?
Blessings
Okay Victor,
We are all in agreement that the scriptures are authoritative. Here again is a quote from Dei Verbum (an official document of the church, unlike the Catholic encyclopaedia):
Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
Glad that is sorted.
Let's move on.
Clement
I don't want to derail the conversation again, so please treat this as a side point, but.....
As Lady Dragon, and David have pointed out, Scripture IS Tradition. What is more, if we are going to use scripture to test everything, we better be sure we know which books are Scripture. For what use is a fallible collection of infallible books? For how do we know we have the right ones, and exclusively the right ones and no others, and haven't missed any out? I have not found in any of the inspired books a list of those books that make up the bible. In addition some books which the Catholic and Orthodox Catholic church hold as part of the bible, are not considered such by others. What do we do in this conversation if we want to draw on passages from scripture that were thrown out by the reformers as they did not conform to their understanding of the faith?
Just some (perhaps off topic, but nonetheless important) thoughts.
Clement
Victor suggests that to facilitate the proposed discussion we accept the following premises;
1. The Bible is the Word of God and can be used by Christians as reliable proof.
2. Tradition must not contradict Scripture. Otherwise, tradition would be contradicting the very words that the Holy Spirit has already sealed as the Word of God. The words in Scriptures are not men's words but God's.
3. For this reason, the Word of God has the authority of the Holy Spirit of God.
Victor says, "If we can agree to this, we can move on to putting Catholic doctrine and tradition to the test."
I cannot agree to these premises, particularly items 2 and 3.
Tradition is comprised of written (Scripture) and oral. Both facets of Tradition are inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Words in Tradition whether written or oral are not men's words but God's. Tradition whether written or oral carries all the authority of the Holy Spirit.
I would hazard a guess that the REAL discussion that Victor wants to have is the difference between TRADITION and tradition.
Hi all,
I don't think it will do any 'good' to point out that Scripture is Tradition because those who adhere to SS don't look at it that way. That is the very issue we're trying to resolve. We as catholics know the Christian Church did not start with a "Bible" so with that said, it is not possible for a Bible to be the sole source of God's revelation to us and if it's not, Tradition must be a part of that Revelation.
Adherants to SS obviously believe that the Bible is a fiction and if the actual "book" didn't exist, then the 'story' wouldn't either.
They seem to think that Christianity would be doomed without it.
We can say this until we're blue and it won't make a difference.
What I am STILL curious to know are the answers to my simple questions:
1.) What is Victor's definition of Sola Scriptura and how does he apply that to his faith?
2.) When did Christ tell His Apostles they were fired? When did Christ tell them their leadership would be no longer needed.
Victor chastised me again and again for not posting Scripture and giving my exegesis. Well I did that and Victor refuses to respond to me and does so quite specifically.
I don't mind someone thinking I'm not intelligent enough to participate in a conversation and saying so, but what I do mind is throwing a challenge my way and then not responding when I meet that challenge.
I think Victor is adequate at eloquently insulting someone, but not so good at defending his faith.
He knows all the 'right' Bible verses to parrot when the time is right, but he doesn't know how to respond to a rebuttal.
He has yet to directly respond to mine and David's challenge regarding Acts 15. He has yet to directly respond to my Scriptural offerings for the validity of Ecclesiastic Authority/Tradition (or anyone elses for that matter).
He has yet to directly respond to anything really. Victor shows up with a few insults and some cut and paste from a website and then heads off again.
Furthermore, Victor STILL has not presented this "test" he keeps touting.
Victor,
Here's my challenge:
Show us a single example of Apostolic Authority/Tradition that transgresses Scripture. Then you need to give us your understanding of said Scriptural example and why you believe it supports your position against ecclesiastic authority/tradition.
Otherwise, this has been the biggest waste of time ever.
Blessings,
HC
Lady Dragon:
Good luck with that. I can't even get Victor to define Sola Scriptura.
I doubt he will be able to tell you his opinion of the difference between (T)radition and (t)radition.
:-\
Blessings,
HC
Ok Guys,
Let's have the test.
Victor, if you would so kind as to pass the papers around the room (metaphorically speaking of course).
I think we can and have all agreed that scripture is authoritative even if it is not the ONLY authority.
SO Victor, over to you.
Lets keep this going, it looked like it could be very promising.
Clement
Tonya,
Just as a side point, I think some Sola Scriptura believers would say that the story did exist without the bible, but then the story was written down, and now that is all we need.
Clement
Tonya wrote: I doubt he will be able to tell you his opinion of the difference between (T)radition and (t)radition
Exactly, that's the problem. I don't think that Victor knows there is a diferrence between Tradition and tradition.
Ok Ladies,
Stop chattering in the back row - just joking ;).
I am very keen to get to Victor's test, what ever it might entail. We can argue about the validity of his test when we see it!
PS Marsha, thanks so much for you kind email, I will be in touch soon.
To Tonya,
You are quite right about Victor not addressing your Scriptural arguments. I do believe, however, that you have confused me with Clement. He was the one who argued from Acts 15 I believe, and not me.
Also, the only way I will proceed with "his" test is if he will actually answer my previous comment to him. I laid out some clear stipulations that I believe should be addressed before we begin any examination of Tradition.
To Lady Dragon,
Good one! I wonder which one he is wanting to discuss? (T)radition or (t)radition? Indeed, does he even know the difference? It can be quite perplexing for one not familiar with Catholicism, and easily mistaken.
Perhaps after he addresses my concerns in my previous comment, we can then proceed to examining (T)radition starting with the first Ecumenical Council, Acts 15. Then, after we study that, we can move onto the Ecumenical Council of 325/381. Sound good?
Blessings to all!
A Brief Statement on Ecclesiastical Tradition
It was John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), Archbishop of Constantinople, who said: "Let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further!"
Apparently, in his days, ecclesiastical tradition may not have been worthy of belief or there may have been some opposition to the authority of ecclesiastical tradition. Otherwise, why would he even care to make such statement if Christians held in common that ecclesiastical tradition had equal weight as the Scriptures?
Moreover, Church Fathers from earlier generations only spoke of the Scriptures as being the Word of God and, therefore, having authority in matters of faith. (See the quotes above, "According to Christian Living" Part II
Tuesday, October 06, 2009)
In addition, the testimony of the Scriptures clearly state that only they are of God and, therefore, are authoritative. (According to Christian Living, Tuesday, October 06, 2009) If tradition is mentioned in the Scriptures, it is mentioned in a negative context working against the testimony of Scripture (see Dear David, (Part I) Sunday, September 27, 2009) or some other context such as the tradition of godly parents. However, there is never a clear statement in Scripture that places ecclesiastical tradition on the same level of authority as the Scriptures. From the Old Testament to the New Testament, there are numerous statements that clearly define the authority of God's Word.
This is not so for ecclesiastical tradition. The statements that are used to prove that ecclesiastical tradition has the same level of authority as the Scriptures refer to the commission of the Church to be God's representatives on earth until His second coming --To make disciples, to baptize and to teach all that has already been commanded by Jesus and recorded in His Sacred Oracles.
The point that some are trying to make regarding tradition are quite confusing. Ecclesiastical Tradition and the Canon of Scriptures are two distinct aspects of Church life. One refers to the codified and canonized works of God throughout the early history of salvation (The Holy Scriptures), while the other refers to historical workings of the Church outside of the biblical canon. Of these two, biblically speaking, the Word of God has authority, while ecclesiastical tradition must adhere to the testimony of the Word of God which cannot be broken (Jn. 10: 35), as stated by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Bottomline: Tradition and Scripture are two distinct aspects of Church life throughout history. One appears authoritatively in the biblical canon, there other does not. Anything outside of the biblical Canon must adhere to the Word of God.
If one wants to believe that tradition is an extension of the biblical canon, I will accept that with some reservations. It still needs to be in harmony with Scripture in order to claim its authority. The two are distinct and as such are two different platforms, one dependent on the authority of the other.
Otherwise, let us subscribe that the statue of Abraham Lincoln is the man himself. That would be comical, and foolish!
Please, let us move on and place ecclesiastical tradition to the test.
Where in Scripture do we find that the Catholic doctrine of the communion of the saints?
1. It is permissible and profitable to venerate the Saints in Heaven, and to invoke their intercession.
2. It is permissible and profitable to venerate the relics of the Saints.
3. It is permissible and profitable to venerate images of the Saints.
4. The living faithful can come to the assistance of the souls in Purgatory by their intercessions.
Please, provide support for this Catholic teaching from the Scriptures.
We will deal with this topic just to make clear that ecclesiastical tradition and Catholic teaching is, indeed, in harmony with the Holy Scriptures.
After this is discussed, not necessarily solved, we will move on to Acts 15.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
Victor,
In answer to your test:
1) yes
2) yes
3) yes
4) yes
I finished first!
Clement
PS In all seriousness, I will reply to your post in full later when I have sufficient time to do it justice.
To Victor,
The first part of your comment where you denigrate (T)radition as being something seperate from written Scripture is completely invalidated by St. Paul's instruction to the Thessalonians.
It is written:
"Hold fast to the traditions that we delivered to you, whether by word of mouth (i.e. unwritten), or by epistle (written)." 2Thess. 2:15.
According to St. Paul, written and unwritten Apostolic teachings form one thing, "traditions". These "traditions" we label as (T)radition.
The word of the Lord has spoken!
As for the second part of your comment, I will allow the others to answer you. I don't want to hog all the fun ;~)
Blessings
Hi Victor,allow me to reply to at least One:; You asked:
Where in Scripture do we find that the Catholic doctrine of the communion of the saints?
Heb 12:22-24..the assembly of the First born of God, whose names are written in heaven...
I leave space for the others to contribute.
Sharing
Nature.B
Veneration of Saints:
It is permissible and profitable to venerate the Saints in Heaven, and to invoke their intercession?
I think we first need to define veneration and since the word “veneration” is not found in Scripture we must then use the current definition which is “to honor”. Then we need to address the following matters:
1.) Whether the Holy Spirit is joined in Heaven with those that have gone before us or if the Holy Spirit resides alone in Heaven.
2.) If indeed those that have gone before us are alive and residing with the Holy Spirit in Heaven, can they observe us and be advocates for us when we request their intervention.
3.) If the first two answers are affirmative, should we then honor (venerate) those people who are in Heaven (are they worthy of honor)
Well, the angels certainly are with the Holy Spirit, are aware of earthly events, and are advocates for children:
Matt. 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
And so is Elijah:
Matthew 27:47-49
47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, “This Man is calling for Elijah!” 48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.
49 The rest said, “Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him.”
And so are various lesser saints:
Revelation 6:9-11
Fifth Seal: The Cry of the Martyrs
9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.
And here’s one more that is evidence that only after the resurrection of Christ was life after death possible:
Matthew 27:52-53
52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
So this is proof positive that the Holy Spirit does NOT reside alone in Heaven. That those who are in Heaven can and do “see” us and can intervene on our behalf. Should we honor them? Yes, why shouldn’t we? The Holy Spirit honors them by rewarding them with Eternal life.
The Holy Spirit created man for the purpose of perpetual worship. We may experience death on earth where we are trapped in time and space. However, at the moment of our deaths, we become aware of Eternity. The Holy Spirit is not bound by time and space. The Holy Spirit is very much alive and well with His people worshipping Him in Heaven, perpetually for all Eternity. There is no beginning or end to the soul who worships God (the elect). The elect reside in Eternity either with the Holy Spirit or in Hell. Eternity is not an individual concept it is all-encompassing. You don’t ‘begin to experience' it at death we simply become aware that it is there. Scripture tells us there is no separation from God unless/until we are cast into Hell:
Matthew 25:46
46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
And if Christ and His Apostles prayed for and ask for prayers of others (I will post evidence of this if need be), then certainly we can do the same with regard to saints in Heaven whether they be a guardian angel, Saint Christopher, or your grandma. And if it weren't profitable why would Christ call out to Elijah?
Sorry about the length of the post but when we are required to post Scripture and exegesis... :-\
Next: Veneration of relics: :-)
Hi Victor, you asked;
4. The living faithful can come to the assistance of the souls in Purgatory by their intercessions.
Response:
2 Mac 12:46..This was the reason why Judas had his sacrific offered for the dead- so that the dead might be pardoned for their sin.
Victor you would need St.Jeromes Bible with ALL the BOOKS.
Sharing
Nature.B
To Tonya,
I believe you raise a good and valid point in your comment that I do not believe Victor has taken into account: namely, the doctrines he wishes to discuss are not, in and of themselves, independent of other teachings. He is wanting to jump ahead of the "game", so to speak, putting the "cart" before the "horse".
I submit that our discussion should first address (T)radition as an authoritative source for Christian teaching. Would everyone agree to this?
What do you think Victor? Would that work for you? And then after we discuss (T)radition's legitimacy, we can move on to specific teachings that form (T)radition. Acts 15 is where I believe we should begin. What say you?
Blessings
Victor asked:. It is permissible and profitable to venerate the relics of the Saints.
Response:2 Kings13:20-21..as soon as the dead mans body touched the bones of Elisha, the man revived and stood on his feet.
Sharing
Nature.B
David:
I concur. But respectfully to Victor, what I see as a pattern with him is that he when a rubuttal is presented, Victor takes a u-turn.
:-\
Maybe not this time.
In my opinion Victor will never address Acts 15 because it is a blatant example of a central authority in the Church making decisions that are binding on all Christians.
Just a few people, acting on behalf of Christ's Church, decided (among other things) that Gentiles were not part of the convenant of circumcision.
That's pretty hard to argue with. The only argument left is whether those few people were the same as what is known today as the catholic Church. And since the Church is the only Church that has made decisions binding on all Christians since the canonization of Scripture, I'd say that part is locked-in as well.
HC
To Nature B,
I would prefer he refer to the Septuagint since that was the Old Testament utilized by the Ante-Nicene Church, and is still utilized in its Greek form by the Orthodox Church.
St. Jerome utilized the Hebrew Masoretic unfortunately :(
Blessings
Victor asked:1. It is permissible and profitable to venerate the Saints in Heaven, and to invoke their intercession.
Response:Yes, If you ask God to approve the inercession.2Kings 2:9..grant that I may have the best of your Spirit..Your request is difficult..if you see me...
V14..Where is Yahweh, the God of Elijah?..as he struck the water again it parted..
Sharing
Nature.B
Yes Tonya, I agree. Acts 15 is certainly a strong indicator of a consensual, centralized, and authoritative assembly passing judgment on things in the Church threatening disunity and discord. In fact, it was this fact that helped me see the other Ecumenical Councils as completely in line with Apostolic practice.
The Church needs these types of collaborative, collegial councils in order to resolve serious disputes within the Body of the Church. If this had not been an option for the Church, then it most likely would not have survived through the centuries.
Blessings
Just so we are on a level playing field Victor, if you continue to cut and paste quotes from various Church leaders found on internet websites I'll be forced to do the same with regard to the fundementals practiced by those who claim to be leaders in your faith denomination.
k, thx.
HC
Hi everyone,
Before speaking of the veneration of the Saints and their intercession, it would be interesting:
1. to define what a saint is
2. to know if there are saints in Heaven
3. if there are some in heaven, how they got there (did they go over there after death or did they go over there without seeing death...)
Once we have defined what a saint is, it would be easier to determine whether we have to venerate them or not.
(also, it would be good to define what we mean by veneration)
Victor writes: If one wants to believe that tradition is an extension of the biblical canon, I will accept that with some reservations. It still needs to be in harmony with Scripture in order to claim its authority. The two are distinct and as such are two different platforms, one dependent on the authority of the other.
This is false. The biblical canon is an extension of Tradition, not the other way around. The two are not distinct. Is the left leg dependent on the right? Is the right ear dependent on the left? No, they are equal and work together.
As long as Victor cannot see this, there is no basis for discussion.
Lady Dragon,
Maybe we need to define what we mean by Tradition/tradition to be sure that everybody is on the same page.
Still:
this link should take you to an article that address your question about Tradition /vs tradition. I post it for your convenience, with the understanding that it a simple explanation and not the infallible dogmatic teaching of the Magisterium.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112chap.asp
Thank you very much, Lady Dragon.
Does everybody agree with what the text says?
I have read your responses. Some raise up some good points. For example: David Atkins' reply to Tonya on Wednesday, October 07, 2009.
"I submit that our discussion should first address (T)radition as an authoritative source for Christian teaching. Would everyone agree to this?"
I have already clearly stated that I have no problems with the authority of ecclesiastical tradition as long as it is in harmony with Scripture.
Clement wrote: "We are all in agreement that the Scriptures are authoritative."
As of this current post, there are 183 comments. Not everyone that replies is convinced in themselves that Scriptures are the Authoritative Word of God. One has to be a fool not to notice that. However, I must respect your effort to help move the conversation along.
Perhaps, the most eloquent of responses on this blog comes from Hugo Mendez. He comes across as a reasonable gentleman of much learning. My respects to you, my brother in Christ.
I do not have access to my library or any suitable library for that matter at this moment. However, I have the Scriptures that hold more weight than any book in the world.
Please, remember that I am purposely not replying to some because of their personal remarks toward me. Earlier in another blog there was so much criticism toward our Adventists brothers and sisters, however, right or wrong they may be. No one needs to be ridiculed. It is not the Spirit of Christ.
I kindly ask you all to keep your Christian posture and remember that this is a discussion not a platform for character assassination. The point of this exercise is to profit spiritually. If this type of disrespectful attitude continues, I will retire my comments or will only address those responses that address the issues being discussed.
Blessings,
Victor :-(
Seeking to Understand Veneration
Here is a simple reply to the question on the veneration of the Saints, what do we do with the following command in Exodus 20: 3-5a?
"You shall have no other gods before me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; ..."
Merriam-Webster defines Veneration as such: "respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person"
There is no problem respecting the memory of Christians that were quite influential in the development of the Christian faith. In fact, I would even go as far as including Old Testament spiritual giants such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Enoch, Moses, and a countless others.
What I do not understand is how it is profitable to invoke their intercession when Hebrews 7:24-25 is clear:
"...because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens."
Jesus lives to intercede for us, not the saints.
In addition, Philippians 2:9-11 clearly teaches that we bow down to Jesus, not the saints.
"Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "
Revelation has two instances in which John bows down to the angel and is told not to do it.
Revelation 19:10
And I fell down before his feet to worship him. And he saith unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren that hold the testimony of Jesus: worship God; for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Revelation 22:8-9
" ...And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that showed me these things. And he saith unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren the prophets, and with them that keep the words of this book: worship God."
The act of bowing down is an act of worship not veneration.
If venerating the saints in the context of Catholic practice is not profitable from the point of view of Scripture, then how is it profitable to venerate their relics?
If the command clearly states not to bow down to images, how is it that Catholics see nothing wrong with bowing down to statutes as their act of veneration?
Finally, how can sinful human beings intercede for souls in Purgatory? That is, assuming that there is such as thing as purgatory and souls living in such state.
Your comments are welcomed.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
My previous post contained a typo that changed the meaning of the message.
Victor:
I will address one last post to you.
I realize that it is I that you are speaking of. I realize this is not the place for personal attacks.
After my very first post to you, you proceeded to let me and everyone on here know how 'unintelligent' you believe me to be (an adjective you did not use but so eloquently elluded to). No to mention a few other adjectives that you did use to ridicule me, as you put it, and you actually told me you laughed at my thoughts.
I am amazed by your accusatory remarks when it is you that continues to be rude and condescending and not only on this thread, but others as well. I'm not the only one whose noticed this. Now you want to be productive and curious in discussion.
I have no other option but to think you don't have the ability to respond to me or you would have done so.
Again, I apologize to everyone for this brief derail, but I am not going to stand by and be accused by a person who has done the very thing he accuses me of.
Victor, I wish you well. You are obviously a passionate Christian.
God Bless and Keep you Always.
~Tonya
I would like to comment on the "bowing down to saints" issue.
This is a personal view of my own veneration of saints and not necessarily the official views of the Church.
When I am praying in the presence of Mary for instance, I am not "bowing down". I am either kneeling or I am sitting before her in veneration. And yes, I do look at these positions as forms of submission, although definitely not worship. I believe prostration could be viewed the same way.
I do this because as I've stated in my comments about veneration of saints, Mary is in the presence of God and when I pray I too am in the presence of God. Although, I have no problem positioning myself in submission of the saints and angels as well. They are in an exaulted state.
You may argue that we are always in the presence of God, but then why would anyone kneel, fold your hands or bow your head in prayer at all if we truly believe it is the same? We believe these things bring us into a special state of concentration and full awareness of the Holy Spirit.
So it is not because of Mary's presence at all, it is because I am in the presence of the Holy Spirit that I kneel in submission.
'Bowing' is an act of worship. Kneeling and sitting are a 'position' of submission.
We bow before we receive the Eucharist, we do not bow to the saints.
Blessings,
HC
Hi Victor,
My two cents regarding your two points about intercession and bowing down.
Yes Jesus is our High Priest who intercedes to the Father for us. 9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. 1 Peter 2
3We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 4because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints. Colossians 1
2Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. 3And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. 4Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should.Colossians 4
We as Christians are a Royal Priesthood with Jesus as our High Priest. Part of our priestly duties, which arise out of love, is to pray for each other...to intercede.
I have an Adventist friend of mine who told me that he and his family pray for me twice a day. He is interceding to God on my behalf. I pray for him and his family, and that makes me an intercessor to God on their behalf. They, you, and I have our roles as priests in the Royal Priesthood, but we are not the High Priest...only Jesus Christ fills that role.
The real challenge (at least for me when I was an Adventist considering Catholicism) was not that we all intercede for each other and with each other, but whether or not dead people were in heaven doing what they had done on earth...namely continuing to pray for us through intercessory prayer.
I would say with 99% accuracy that among the protestants who disagreed with Catholic teaching on this, it was only the Adventists who had the consistent argument. Most other protestants who are opposed to the thought of "dead saints" praying for us, believe that those folks actually went to heaven when they died...but somehow find it abhorrent that Catholics believe those departed folks still pray.
This gets into another topic on the state of the dead, but it is a topic that is very much married to this topic and we can discuss later.
I believe the Bible is clear regarding intercession for each other as Christians...we just need to establish what the limits and boundaries, if any, there are on those prayers.
As for bowing down. It is a sign of respect and the Bible is full of accounts where people bowed down to people and angels out of respect, which in no way implied worship.
Genesis 18:1-3
Genesis 19:1-3
Genesis 23:6-8
Genesis 23:11-13
Genesis 27:28-30
Genesis 33:5-7
Genesis 33:6-8
Genesis 49:7-9
Exodus 18:6-8
Ruth 2:9-11
1 Samuel 20:40-42
1 Samuel 24:7-9
1 Samuel 25:22-24
1 Samuel 25:40-42
1 Samuel 28:13-15
2 Samuel 9:5-7
2 Samuel 9:7-9
2 Samuel 14:32-33
2 Samuel 15:4-6
2 Samuel 16:3-5
2 Samuel 18:20-22
2 Samuel 18:27-29
2 Samuel 24:19-21
1 Kings 1:15-17
1 Kings 1:30-32
1 Kings 1:52-53
1 Kings 2:18-20
1 Kings 18:6-8
2 Kings 2:14-16
2 Kings 4:36-38
1 Chronicles 21:20-22
Proverbs 14:18-20
Daniel 10:14-16
Luke 24:4-6
God bless all!!!
Dear Victor,
I want to deal with some comments you posted in "A Brief Statement on Ecclesiastical Tradition" and also in your most recent post "Seeking to Understand Veneration". I will start with veneration - dealing with graven images, and then with bowing as a neutral act, not necessarily synonymous with worship.
Graven images: God told Moses to make 2 images of Gold of cherubim, to be placed on the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25). Also, God told Moses to make an image of a snake and place it on a pole, that all who looked on it would be healed of their disease. One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations. So obviously there are images which are made for good religious purposes, which are not idols, nor are worshiped as such.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children.
Also, many people have a picture of their partner in their wallets, which they may even kiss occasionally! This is not idolatry. In the same way, many Catholics have a picture of a dear saint, which they may even kiss occasionally!
On Bowing: There are many instances where people bow in the bible, where they are not worshiping the person that they bow to. Your quote from Revelation is quite revealing (awful pun, sorry) as it says: "And I fell down before his feet to worship him." and again, "I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that showed me these things."
Clearly John is reprimanded for worshiping the angel, and all Orthodox Catholics agree that worshiping anything other than God is Idolatry, a grave sin. But the act of bowing itself is not necessarily worship, as we see for example when Abraham bows to the Hittites (Gen 23:7).
Thus I will echo Tonya's comments and say kneeling before a statue firstly is NOT worshiping the statue, it is NOT ascribing any power, or glory due to God, to the statue. Secondly, we see in scripture cases where righteous people bow to others, which is not the same as worshiping them.
Right, now that is cleared up! (thoughts Victor?)
On to relics!
Clement
Victor,
One thought, would you like to reply to these thoughts on Verneration before we leap into relics, or shall we just keep going and let you catch up when you have time? What woudl be best for you?
Much love,
Clement
To Victor,
I do not have access to a computer at the moment (I'm on my phone :), but I'll offer some food for thought. Please read Mike's comment, as I will simply be expanding upon the things he brought up.
1. Your comments about intercession seem to rule out the reality of Christians praying for each other. I have only met one person in my entire life who did not believe we should pray for one another based upon the passage you quoted, as well as others. I hope this is not your belief, as it seems quite clear that praying for one another is a Christian concept firmly established in the New Testament. So if you do not oppose praying for one another, then the real question becomes: do the Christians who have passed beyond the veil continue to pray for those who have not? And this implies another question still: are the dead saints really "dead", or are they alive in Christ with God and the angels in the spiritual world? I believe the first question begins to take care of itself when the second is answered.
2. There are two primary words in Scripture translated as worship: "proskenuo" and "latreia" (sorry if I misspelled either). The former is utilized in Scripture with reference to humans (kings, lords, elders, husbands, etc.), angels, Christ, and God. The latter is utilized only in reference to Christ and God, and never to any human or angel. The latter is referred to as "divine worship" by the Church, while the former is referred to as "veneration". We only offer "veneration" (proskenuo) to the saints and angels and one another, and not "divine worship" (latreia). The Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) made this crystal clear. The "second" commandment in the decalogue forbids offering "latreia" to any creature.
Hope that helped!
Blessings
Thanks guys for clearing up the issue on 'bowing'. I have always been on the fence with that one. I had someone ask me if I would bow to the Queen (of Great Britain) if she were before me and I replied, 'no' because of my particular thoughts on bowing.
Mike, the passages you posted are very helpful.
I have to admit though, I am a little skeptical about relics. I am anxious to have the Truth revealed!
:-D
Thanks again!
HC
A Brief Reply
Clement, thank for your comments. David Atkins and Mike Senseney, you both make some interesting points.
I will remind you that my entry was not discussing intercessory prayer among one another, but rather the Catholic teaching and practice to petition a "dead" saint to bring one's request to God when it is clear that we can come boldly directly to God through Jesus Christ. Intercessory prayer among one another is a Christian practice that fosters unity among the body of Christ and shows that we care for one another.
Since the name of the Blessed VIrgin Mary has been brought up, then it would be of interest to find out where in Scripture is there a clear passage that teaches that she is in heaven as a co-redemptrix with Christ.
In a way of asking, where in Scripture is there evidence that Peter, Paul and Mary are in heaven at this very moment?
By all means you may continue addressing all the points I brought up.
Blessings,
Victor :-)
To Victor,
1. Petitioning a "dead" saint to bring our request before God is asking them to pray for us. For Orthodox Catholics it is the same thing. "Dead" saints are petitioned to pray for us just as "living" saints are. Both are acts of intercession on our behalf towards God. Attempting to distinguish between the two is only to "muddy the waters", so to speak. The real question is: Are Christians alive in Christ in the presence of God and the angels when they pass? Our answer to this question will effectively answer the other.
2. The Church's (T)radition does not teach this about Mary. She is the Holy Theotokos, but she is not a co-redeemer with Christ. Besides, the Orthodox have an almost completely different view of salvation from the Protestant west. For instance, the concept of a vicarious substitutionary atonement does not exist in Orthodox thought.
3. Where in the Scriptures does it say that Mary, Peter, and Paul are dead? Also, 1Cor. 5:1-9 and Phil. 1:21-23 do seem to indicate that St. Paul would go to be with Christ at his death. This was the understanding of early Christians (please refer to Clement to the Corinthians chapter 2). Hebrews 12:22-24 states that the "spirits of righteous men made perfect" are in heaven with Christ, God, and the angels. That seems pretty clear.
Hope that helped answer your questions.
Blessings
Hi Tonya and Victor!
Tonya: Clement's and Daivd's comments above on the distinction between bowing out of respect and bowing in worship are very important and good! As Clement pointed out it was not bowing to the Angel that was wrong, but bowing to worship.
As for relics, go back up this thread to Shepherd/Narture B.'s reference to the dead man being brought back to life when he touched the bones of Elisha...in 2 Kings.
Victor: Yes, the issue of intercessory prayer by "dead" saints is truly what is at the heart of the matter for Adventists..both those who are currently Adventist and those who are formerly Adventists. This was indeed a struggle for me, so I am in full sympatico with you and your feelings about this!
I will say briefly (and let the real scholars here provide better answers) that The Body of Christ is indeed unified, The Body of Christ is indeed life giving, and The Body of Christ is indeed alive. All who are in Christ Jesus are His Body, and they are all alive. That is the glorious mystery of the resurrection which defeatd death and gives life to all who believe.
Hugo Mendez has some very good essays on, what I will call for the sake of understanding between us, "the state of the dead". There is scripture to support and answer the questions that you raise.
I look forward to this discussion and deeply appreciate your spirit and willingness to dialogue with so many of us. If all these responses overwhelm you, please ask us to slow down!
God bless all!!!
Excellent suggestion Mike, and I second it!
Victor, many, if not all, of your questions raised thus far have been addressed by Hugo in his various papers on his website dies domini, complete with the Scripture references and arguments. I highly recommend that you peruse them to acquaint yourself better with the "catholic" side of the issue. I believe that you will find them to be well written and intellectually stimulating!
Blessings
PS: It may be of interest for you to read St. John of Damascus' An exact exposition of the orthodox faith, as he deals with the iconoclastic issue. The Seventh Ecumenical Council approved of his understanding.
Clement
The explanation you gave concerning the graven images is not correct.
First of all, the statues of the two cherubim were hidden in the middle of the sanctuary (in the Most Holy Place) and were not in display before the people (and even the High Priest was allowed to go to the Most Holy Place only once a year. And when he went there, the presence of God of there also. So we can be sure that the High Priest was not paying attention to the statues but to the presence of God. Don't forget that his life was at stake because if something was inappropriate, the High Priest could lose his life). So they were not part of religious rituals.
Concerning the serpent, it was not a religious ritual, it was a healing process. The people had been bitten by poisonous snakes and were dying (see Numbers 21:4-9). Their looking at the serpent on the pole was not a religious act. It was either looking at the serpent or dying from the bites. It was not an act of worship.
Don't forget that the God who said not to have graven images to bow down before (act of worship) was the same God who told Moses to have the cherubim and the serpent of bronze. Obviously, God is not contradicting Himself. And this shows that the statues of the cherubim and the serpent were not to be considered elements in acts of worship. And it is so true that when the people started to use snake of bronze in religious acts, it has to be destroyed (2 Kings 18:4).
So these two examples cannot be used to justify statues in rituals.
Concerning bowing, we have to be clear: what were are speaking about in the bowing in a religious context. Asian people bow down to great each other and there is nothing wrong with that as it is not an act of worship. But when they do this in a temple, in front of Buddha for example, then this is a problem.
The people in the Bible were living in a time when they were Kings, lords and rulers of all kinds and bowing down was practically mandatory as a sign of respect and civil submission. Also people would bow down when greating someone considered to have a greater social status than theirs. But all of these were not acts of worship.
This issue here is when we bow down in a religious context. And the Bible is clear: we must not worship (and so bow down in a religious context) before what is mere creation, that is, either things (trees, mountains, sun, moon, stars...) or creatures of nature, or other human beings, or angels, or even less images and statues.
To summarize, the issue is not about the bowing down, per se, but the context in which we do the bowing down.
Dear All,
Going back to Vitor's original 4 propositions:
1) It seems clear now, (if it wasn't before!) that the real issue here is not praying to saints, but "the state of the dead" as Adventists like to put it. For if the "dead: are in fact alive in Christ, then asking them for intersession is just like asking people for intersession on Earth.
2) Relics - I will deal with in my next post.
3) I beleive we have addressed the issues concerning bowing / worshiping of statutes, suffice to say that the statue / image is just a reminder of the person, who is in heaven (again see 1) an aid memoire!
4) There are many examples of the prayers of people having good effects on other people - and directly - in 1 John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
Thus our prayers can be useful in gaining the help of God for our brothers who although not in mortal sin (sin that leads to death) are nonetheless in sin. There is no reason to believe that this will not be possible after death. In fact the parallel with praying for those currently being purified (ie in Purgatory) but not for those in Hell (where there is no way back to God) is striking in this passage.
The difficulty with unraveling all these doctrines is that they are based on many interlocking doctrines, so in order to understand one, we must understand all the others too. I found this particularly hard when I first started looking into Catholicism, but gradually you break through!
May God guide us all by his Spirit and His Church together.
Clement
Still,incomprehensible, you made points for and against..creatures of nature, or other human beings, or angels, or even less images and statues.
1 King 1:31,,Bathsheba bowed with her face to the ground
1King 1:19 Solomon met her(Bathsheba) and Bowed to her.
Sharing
Nature.B
Post a Comment