The Bible: Sufficient or in Need of Tradition [Archive]

View Full Version : The Bible: Sufficient or in Need of Tradition

MichaelB

October 22nd 2010, 10:45 AM

The divide between the Roman Catholic and Protestant understandings of what constitutes the Christian faith can be reduced to two views of sacred Scripture. Protestantism historically has held that the text of Scripture is the exclusive infallible authority for all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice. The Protestant understanding, known as the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or Scripture alone), also contends that God has spoken both sufficiently and with clarity in His word (1). The Roman Catholic position rejects the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and teaches that while the text of Scripture is the word of God and does tell of His redemption, it must be understood through the lens of the magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. Roman Catholicism rejects the sufficiency of the 66 books of Scripture and teaches that the totality of the word of God is provided both in Scripture and through the Church's tradition (2). This view also teaches that the tradition of the church has equity with Scripture as the word of God (3).

Because both of these views acknowledge the divine authorship and inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, both are bound to the testimony therein. Should the testimony of the Scriptures reveal that either historic Protestantism's exclusive reliance on the text is unfounded, or the equivocation of Roman Catholic tradition unwarranted, the incorrect view must be abandoned. One may object to the seeming circularity in such a proposition. After all, the Protestant must go to the Scripture to demonstrate the Scripture's exclusivity, sufficiency, and clarity. This issue finds it's resolution in the mutual agreement that Scripture is in fact the word of the Living God. The Protestant position lives or dies on the nothing less than the attestation of Sola Scriptura by God Himself. The Roman Catholic view however, cannot assume that which constitutes the word of God contains within it "sacred tradition."To make such an assumption would result in a grandiose illustration of circular reasoning unless the text of Scripture substantiates the existence and infallibility of Roman Catholic tradition.

It is the unquestionable testimony of the Triune God that His word, as written in the 66 books of the bible, is the clear, sufficient, and exclusive infallible authority in Christian faith and practice. The evidence of this truth is manifold and penetrating to even the most devout critic:

Psalm 19:7-9 The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether.

The above text provides a profound description of the nature of Scripture. Firstly, the psalmist speaks of the reviving power of the law of the Lord. The word "law" as Dr. John Macarthur notes, "emphasizes the didactic nature of Scripture. Here David uses it to refer to Scripture as the sum of what God has revealed for our instruction, whether it be creed (what we believe), character (what we are), or conduct (what we do)(4)." It is this law that is perfect; that is, it is without need, blemishless, whole, and faultless. In a word, David tells us that the law of the Lord is sufficient. It is this sufficient word of God that the Apostle tells us brings faith to the human heart, thus reviving the soul: "so faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom 10:17), and "in him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13)" The psalmist remarks that the testimony of the Lord is sure. The word rendered "sure" is the word aman which means certain or trustworthy(5). It is this certain, trustworthy word that makes the simple person wise, and this without the aid of an external apparatus such as a prophet, tradition, or a magesterium. Far from recognizing an equity with or dependence on tradition, David tells us that the means by which God brings wisdom to the simple is His perfect word. The precepts of the Lord are such that their righteousness makes the heart rejoice, and this without need of third party interference. The commandments of the Lord are pure; that is, untainted, clear, or unfouled. This clause speaks of the clarity of the word of God and it's result on the reader: the pure word of the Lord enlightens the eyes, illuminating the mind.

Ps 1:1-6 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous; for the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

God exhorts the man who invests himself in the word of God. The description provided within the text identifies the man's stability and prosperity to be a product of his devotion to the word of the Lord. This blessed man is held in direct contrast with the one who instead gives his ear unto unholy counsel. That is, the text provides a contrast between the man who reveres the word of God over and against the man who reveres the word of fallible men. The text presupposes both the clarity and sufficiency of the word of God and presents the benefits of careful study in the highest possible terms.

Matt 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'''

Our Lord provides an impressive declaration in His response to the adversary. Not only does the incarnate Son proclaim both the sufficiency and exclusivity of the word of God, but He does so by quoting Scripture. In quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, Jesus testifies to the continuity of the exclusivity and sufficiency of Scripture throughout the cannon. Never in the Scripture does the Jesus appeal to a verbal tradition to teach or refute false teachings. Instead, His appeal is to the text as made evident by His copious use of the phrase "It is written."

Matt 4:7-11 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’” Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.

Again, our Lord appeals to the written text exclusively, thus modeling what His disciples ought to do when confronted with the adversary. Note that it is His utilization of the Scripture that causes Satan himself to flee! What greater testimony as to the sufficiency of Scripture can there be?

Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?"

Our Lord's criticism of the Sadducees is born out of their failure to "know the Scriptures." While the Sadducees were steeped in tradition, their lack of biblical knowledge led them to a rejection of a key doctrine; the resurrection of the dead. Furthermore, Jesus' refutation of their position lies in the Scripture's use of a single word; "And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (Mark 12:26, italics/bold mine)?" Jesus relied upon the tense of a single verb to uphold the glorious truth of the resurrection. His criticism of the Sadducees proves that His expectation is that people read, study, and understand the Scriptures. This presupposes the ability of man to comprehend and make theological deductions from the text absent of a co-equal tradition. Note that the Lord does not criticize their ignorance of rabbinic tradition or otherwise, only their abject ignorance of the power of God by means of their failure to recognize the importance of Scripture.

1Cor 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

To understand what Paul meant by, "learn by us not to go beyond what is written," consideration to both the immediate context and the contents of the preceding three chapters must be given. Paul has written the Corinthian church with the highest credentials possible; "Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus (1:1)." It is with this divinely given authority that the Apostle appeals to the Corinthian Christians by the sacred name of the Lord Jesus (1:10) to put an end to disunity in the church. In fact, a large portion of chapter one and the totality of chapter three are dedicated to ending divisiveness in the Corinthian church. Chapter two provides a brief synopsis of the Apostle's ministry in Corinth (2:1-5) and Paul's discourse on the spiritual nature of divine revelation (2:6-16). In 4:1 Paul acknowledges that his office includes the responsibility of the stewardship of the "mysteries of God." This is undoubtedly an affirmation of the revelation entrusted to Paul by the Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12). He then pronounces himself immune from human judgement (4:2-5) and cites the Lord as the one who reveals the motivations of the heart for judgement. It is upon this contextual foundation that the Apostle states,"learn by us not to go beyond what is written." Paul had noted his stewardship of the mysteries of God and that it was he who bore the responsibility his office demanded. Even though he was free from human judgement and an Apostle, he submitted himself as one who has received that which he has by virtue of Christ. He states "learn by us," indicating that he was providing a living example of adhering to the written text of Scripture. The Apostle had quoted Scripture at least five times up to 1Cor 4:6. In calling for such a limitation, the Apostle safeguarded the Corinthian church from individual pride and from honoring Christian leadership in too high esteem. The Corinthians had previously fell victim to exalting Paul and Apollos to an unhealthy level (3:4), and therefore by pointing the church back to God by virtue of his own submission to the written text, Paul provided a supreme basis for church unity. In brief, the Apostolic methodology for preserving church unity and reducing the propensity of pride in the life of the believer is limiting the church to the written revelation of God; that is, Sola Scriptura.

"Catholic Answers," a Roman Catholic apologetic ministry has put forth the following objections to the Protestant interpretation of 1Corinthians 4:6: "What is certain is that Paul, in saying, "do not go beyond what is written," was not teaching sola scriptura. If he had, he would have been advocating one of four principles, which are inconsistent with the rest of his theology: 1. Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings; 2. accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56); 3. accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written; or 4. the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing.(6)"

These objections miss the obvious. Paul himself stated that he had been entrusted with God's revelation (1Cor 2:10, 1Cor 15:3, Gal 1:12, Acts 22:14). Therefore, given his knowledge and acknowledgement of New Testament Scripture (1Tim 5:18/Luke 10:7), it is entirely consistent with the Apostle's theology for him to have limited the Corinthian church to the written Scripture to avoid disunity in the body. Paul was not ordering that the Old Testament be adhered to to the exclusion of all else, this would ignore his own apostolic office and the responsibilities therein. Instead, Paul was limiting the church to adhere to the Scriptures that had been received. The reception of this precept by the Corinthians carries with it the acknowledgement of Paul's apostolic authority and the possibility for further revelation. This is what is meant by the Apostles statement in 1Cor 4:1, "this is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God."Therefore, the Roman Catholic objections fail in that they import an exclusivism where there is no textual warrant to do so.

1Corinthians 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

The above text is one that is often used to provide validation for Roman Catholic tradition. The text echoes Paul's statement to the Thessalonian church; "so then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter (2Thes 2:15)." Could it be that even after his previous statement, " learn by us not to go beyond what is written," that the Apostle is now advocating a set of holy oral traditions that is of equal authority to the Scriptures? Consider the content of Roman Catholic tradition: the papacy, the immaculate conception and bodily assumption of Mary, prayers to and for the deceased, transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, the treasury of merit, etc. Is there really any evidence within the New Testament for anything remotely close to these doctrines? It must be recognized that there is no evidence to suggest that the traditions that Paul spoke of consisted of anything different than that documented in the New Testament. Furthermore, one would expect Paul or any other New Testament author to include even a minuscule reference of the multiplicity of doctrines covered under the banner of Roman Catholic tradition. Instead, not only is there no evidence of the existence of Rome's sacred tradition, but there are a vast number of texts that out rightly preclude any harmony between Roman Catholic tradition and the Scriptures. Take for example the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass. According to the Roman Catholic church, the mass is a propitiatory (that is, it removes the wrath of God) sacrifice that is repeatedly offered by a priest who holds the title of "Alter Christus" (which means "Another Christ")(7). This doctrine is in complete contradiction to the Scripture. The author of Hebrews when addressing the sacrifice of Christ wrote, "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself (Heb 7:27),""so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him (Heb 9:28)," and "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified (Heb 10:10-12)." Clearly the Scriptures know nothing of a repetitious re-sacrifice (that is, representing ad infinitum the one sacrifice of Christ) of the Son of God. To suppose otherwise is to view the once for all sacrifice of Christ as deficient, and in need of human augmentation to become efficous.

The burden of proving the existence of an authoritative oral tradition passed down by the Apostles is squarely on the shoulders of the Roman Catholic religion. While it may be convenient for some Roman Catholics to hijack verses that use the phrase "tradition," there has been no progress made in providing any Scriptural ground for the multitude of aberrations contained within the dogmas of Rome.

John 10:34-36 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

In this text, our Lord equates that which is the "word of God" exclusively with the Scripture. His appeal to the text serves to again buttress Sola Scriptura in that Jesus' exclusively rebuked the Jewish leaders with the written text of Scripture.

2Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Paul leaves no ambiguity in his description of Scripture. He begins with an acknowledgement of divine authorship; a virtue never attributed to any tradition within the text of Scripture. It is this divinely inspired Scripture that is not only suitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and for training in righteousness, but it is that which equips the man of God for every good work. The language utilized is comprehensive, and irrefutable. One need only ask what more could Roman Catholic tradition add if the Scriptures are sufficient to equip the believer for every single good work?

It is doubtless that Roman Catholicism would categorize offering prayers to Mary a good work. Therefore, if the Scripture is all that is required to equip believers for every good work, where then is the Scriptural basis for such a prayer, or for that matter where is the basis for prayers offered to anyone other than God? If we are to believe the Apostle in his description of Scripture, where is the Scriptural basis for so many of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic church? The answer is obvious, there isn't any Scriptural basis for these dogmas. Thus the desperate attempt to proclaim Roman Catholicism's 2000 year old continuity with the biblical faith has been met with a refutation that comes from the Living God.

Tim Staples, a Roman Catholic apologist, argues "the two verses preceding 2 Timothy 3:16 say:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

This passage does not refer to the New Testament. In fact, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims (8)."

Mr. Staple's objection suffers profoundly in that it ignores what the actual text of 1Tim 3:16-17 states. The Apostle is speaking of "all Scripture;" that is, all that constitutes Scripture. Paul places no qualifications on his statement, nor does he need to do as much. Paul states that all Scripture is "theopneustos," or "inspired of God (9)." It is because of this characteristic of all Scripture that it is sufficient, whether it be that which existed at the time of Paul's writing, or the Scripture as we know it. In other words, the total sufficiency of Scripture finds it's veracity bound up in the nature of it's author; God. By virtue of his argumentation, Mr. Staples has attempted to impose a limitation upon the text that the author did not acknowledge.

Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

In the beginning of his gospel, Luke provides insight into his motivations for his writing. He states "that you have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." Should an oral tradition have been sufficient, Luke's motivation would have been unnecessary. He writes to provide "asphaleia ," rendered in the above text as certainty. Asphaleia means the exact truth (10), and this according to Luke is to be found in the written text. John makes a similar statement in his gospel when he states, "now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20:30-31)." Like Luke, John felt that it is the written text that is sufficient basis of belief and certainty in the person and work of Christ. To both John and Luke, it is the written word of God that is the means of belief and certainty; a sentiment echoed by the Apostle Paul when he stated, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom 10:17)."

One popular Roman Catholic objection is that John notes that the entirety of Jesus' signs are not to be found in the Scriptures. That being the case, says the Roman Catholic, the Scriptures are not the totality of God's revelation. To this objection, I would note that the Roman Catholic church has yet to provide even a single word spoken by Jesus that is not documented in Scripture. Furthermore, the emphasis of the inspired writer was on the text and the sufficiency therein. That said, the Roman Catholic objection is one that is placed against the Apostle's own divinely inspired motivations for writing the gospel.

Luke 10:25-28 And behold, 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 it?” 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 correctly; do this, and you will live.”

Our Lord responds to his questioner with a set of questions of his own; "what is written in the Law? How do you read it?” In doing so, Jesus assumes that the man could not only understand the Scriptures, but interpret them. The questioning lawyer was affirmed in his interpretation, thus verifying both the clarity and sufficiency of the Scriptures apart from tradition.

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

When the Apostle Paul came to Berea and preached in the synagogue, his Jewish hearers did not blindly accept his testimony. Instead they tested Paul's message with the Scriptures to see if the Apostle's testimony was valid. Because of this, Paul tells us these Jews were "noble." Notice how there was not an appeal to any rabbinic tradition or otherwise by the Jews. Paul's own apostolic message was subject to verification by the Scriptures!

Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
The Apostle reveals God's intention in providing the Old Testament Scriptures for the church, and in doing so provides today's church with an invaluable precept. The Scriptures of old were written for the instruction of the church, much like that of the New Testament. This presupposes both the sufficiency of the text of Scripture to communicate clearly without an authoritative magesterium. Note that it is through the enduring study of the Scriptures that we ought to have hope. Never does any biblical author gives such credence to oral traditions or otherwise.

Matthew 15:1-6 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day for adhering to tradition over the Scripture. Like these Pharisees, the Roman Catholic magisterium issues doctrines from tradition that make void the testimony of God. For example, in Paul tells us that sinners are justified in the sight of God upon faith in Christ (Rom 5:1). He also tells us that it is "faith apart from works (Rom 4:6)" that saves sinners from the wrath of God, and that "by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:8-9)." This is in direct contradiction to the gospel of the Roman Catholic church which teaches "moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification (11)."

While the testimony of the Scriptures concurs with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, what was the sentiment among the early church? What does church tradition have to say about the role and nature of the Scriptures? Below are a number of direct quotes from various leaders of the early Christian church:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles (12)."
Irenaeus, 180AD

But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves (13a)."
Clement of Alexandria, 180AD

"For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, "in divers manners and at sundry times," [Heb 1:1] leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful." ... "For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings , in order to establish the heresy (13b)."
Clement of Alexadria, 180AD

"And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent (14)."
Tertullian, 200AD

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source (15)."
Hippolytus, 180-230

"The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth (16)."
Athanasius, 296-373AD

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures (17)."
Cyril of Jerusalem, 310-386AD

"Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not be wise more than it behooves to be wise; but be wise, as himself says, unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith. Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me (18)."
Augustine, 354-430AD

"All such matters, therefore, being put out of sight, let them show their Church, if they can; not in the discourses and reports of Africans, not in the councils of their own bishops, not in the writings of any controversialists, not in fallacious signs and miracles, for even against these we are rendered by the word of the Lord prepared and cautious, but in the ordinances of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the words of the very Shepherd himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is, in all the canonical authorities of sacred books (19)."
Augustine, 354-430AD

The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject what is foreign(20)."
Basil the great, 330-379

“The Scriptures are enough for instruction (21).”
Antony of Egypt, 251-356AD

"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ (22)."
Jerome

While the patristic writings are not authoritative so far as they deviate from the Scripture, they are valuable in that they evidence the early church's understanding of the role of Scripture. While the few excerpts I have provided do not give a comprehensive outlook on the view of Scripture held by the early church, they do demonstrate that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is no 16th century novelty.

Because neither the Scriptures nor the early church attest to the Roman Catholic position, those who confess Jesus as Lord must ask themselves, "to whom does my allegiance belong?" While the Roman Catholic church constantly tells it's adherents that it is the body of Christ, it's doctrines and practices tell another tale that is completely incompatible with such a profession. The text of Scripture is not to be relegated to equal status with man's traditions. For it is the Scripture; the very word of the Living God, and it contains His redemptive purpose and salvation. While no fellowship is perfect, those who find themselves in need of a Christian church should seek one that teaches the biblical gospel of faith alone and recognizes the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith and practice.

Endnotes
1. For example: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 1, Sect. 6, http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
and
"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience." The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, Chap. 1, Sect 1. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part1

2. "And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part One "The Profession of Faith," Section One "I Believe - We Believe," Chap. Two "God comes to meet man," Article 2 "The Transmission of Divine Revelation," "The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture"#81
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#II

3. "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches." and "Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part One "The Profession of Faith," Section One "I Believe - We Believe," Chap. Two "God comes to meet man," Article 2 "The Transmission of Divine Revelation" "The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture"#82 and "In Brief" #97 respectively
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#II

4. "The Master's Seminary Journal," page 166, "The Sufficiency of Scripture," by Dr. John Macarthur

5. Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. "Hebrew Lexicon entry for 'aman," The NASB Old Testament Lexicon

6. "Going Beyond," by Patrick Madrid, an article from "This Rock" vol 3, Number 8, August 1992 http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208chap.asp

7. "If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema." The Roman Catholic Counsel at Trent, "On the sacrifice of the Mass," Canon III

8. "According to Scripture," by Tim Staples, an article from "This Rock" vol 18, Number , January 2007
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0701btb.asp

9. Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Theopneustos," "The NASB New Testament Greek Lexicon" 1999

10. Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Asphaleia," "The NASB New Testament Greek Lexicon" 1999

11. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Three "Life in Christ," Section one "Man's vocation in life and in the Spirit," Chap 3 "God's Salavation: Law and Grace," Article 2 "Grace and Justification." #2010 http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm#I

12. "Against Heresies," by Irenaeus, 3:1,1 excerpt from "The Ante-Nicene Fathers," Vol. I, p. 414.

13a. "Scripture the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy are Distinguished," by Clement of Alexandria, excerpt form "The writings of Clement of Alexandria," by Titus Flavius Clemens, chap 16, page 476,
b. chap 16, page 477

14. "De Corona," by Tertullian, an excerpt from "Ante-Nicene Fathers," Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, volume 3

15. "Against the heresy of Noetus," by Hippolytus, excerpt from "Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus: Dogmatical and Historical," chapter 9 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus-dogmatical.html

16. "Against the heathen," by Athanasius, 3:1, excerpt from "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," "Athanasius: Select Works and Letters," by Philip Schaff

17. "Catechetical Lectures," by Cyril of Jerusalem, 4:17, an excerpt from "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers" by Philip Schaff,volume 7, page 23.

18. "On the good of widowhood," by Augustine, paragraph 2, an excerpt from "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Volume 3, by Philip Schaff

19. "On the Unity of the Church," by Augstine, paragraph 16, excerpt from William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., Volume. 3, page 165.

20. "Moralia," by Basil the great, 72,1 as quoted in "Examination of the Council of Trent," by Martin Chemnitz, volume 1, page 152

21. As quoted in "Life of Antony," by Athanasius of Alexandria, paragraph 16. http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/vita.htm

22. "Commentary on Isaiah," by Jerome, as quoted in "Scripture Matters: Essays on Reading the Bible from the Heart of the Church," by Scott Hahn, page 1

23. Please visit my site for more articles

justsumguy

October 22nd 2010, 03:17 PM

Wolfgang

October 22nd 2010, 10:33 PM

There are some important items that were left out of the Protestant versus Catholic discussion. The Bible, or its books came into existence before Catholicism and prophesied many years in advance evil identified by the number 666. When you add up the numeric equivalent of the Roman letters inscribed on the Pope's turban you get the 666 number. Also, the historical track record of the Catholic Church's Inquisition which killed at least 35,000 people according to one expert and probably maimed tens of thousands more is impressive proof of the evil Catholicism's man made or demon influenced doctrines are capable of. The initial Protestant versus Catholic discussion on Theologyweb seems to regard both religions as basically equal in some ways. They are not really equal in any decent way since even modern day life has been occasionally cursed by Catholic teachings such as priest and nun celibacy which has led to unnatural priest-boy interaction, etc. Catholicism, after an honest analysis, is Satanic in many ways. 35,000 dead people, if they could speak, could testify to the truthfulness of what I just said.

Dee Dee Warren

October 22nd 2010, 11:13 PM

You are kidding right Wolfgang? (and some of the oldest manuscripts say 616, though I personally do think the original was 666, but the change shows us that the early scribes knew was being spoken of)

Thersites

October 22nd 2010, 11:31 PM

Michael, I read your article, but I remain unconvinced that you understand the arguments advanced by the Roman Catholic side.

Perhaps I could help to clarify: the argument regarding Paul's references to "Scripture"-- the argument lies in understanding exactly what Paul meant by "Scriptures"-- Paul was not and could not have been referring to the Gospels or to any other part of the New Testament which had not yet been written. Moreover, the claims that Scripture is sufficient can only be taken to refer to the existing Scriptures-- that is, anything written after the claim that Scripture is sufficient... is superfluous.

This applies also to the Psalms. The Psalmist, you have pointed out, wrote that the law of the Lord is perfect: the obvious problem here is that David could have been referring to the Penteteuch at best-- according to David, all we need is the Mosaic Law. This would seem to suggest that 61 of the 66 books in your Bible are unnecessary.

You reference the argument based on Thessalonians, but dismiss it without considering the applications of that passage-- Paul instructs the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions that have been handed down to them either by word of mouth or by letter. You bring up a passage which conflicts with it and seem to say that, because Paul has said not to go beyond what is written, he cannot possibly mean that we are to hold fast to traditions that are received by word of mouth. This makes no sense. You ridicule specific Catholic doctrines as unscriptural, but offer no explanation that I can see as to what Paul was referring to when he urged the Thessalonians to hold to oral traditions.

Finally, there is one more point you make which particularly demands a response: you claim that the Roman Catholic argument is circular; if it is, it is nevertheless a wider circle than your own: why do you believe Scripture is sufficient? If it is because Scripture says so, then your argument is circular already!

daniel1212

October 23rd 2010, 12:33 PM

The only way the Protestant claim would work is for two people to have their own sect and agree with everything the Bible is saying (and there is no evidence of such a thing having ever been accomplished). Even if the Protestant claim is true, it would boil down to the claim being assigned to one person. In my opinion, that would denote progress.

No, the Protestant claim does not require or infer that two must agree with everything the Bible is saying (which would presume omniscience on their part) in order to hold to it as the supreme judge of truth, nor does Rome's magisterium alternative even come close to that comprehensiveness, as exceedingly little of the Bible has been infallibly defined, and as a result, "the Catholic Bible interpreter has...a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty.” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic apologist)

And just as Rome has foundational truths which must be adhered to with assent of faith, while allowing varying degrees of dissent on non-infallible teachings of the ordinary and general magisteriums, likewise those who demonstrably hold to the supremacy of Scripture (from S. Baptists to Calvary chapels to reformed churches) typically allow a limited amount of liberty in a limited amount of Scripture, while being most universally unified in the core essentials we both agree on (such as are articulated in the Nicene creed, in addition to salvation by grace and the supremacy of Scripture), while rejecting as heretics those who deviate from them, as well as Rome's extraBiblical teaching (prayer to the departed, etc.) And it is actually due to effectively holding another authority as supreme over Scripture that cults deviate from these core essentials, and Rome holds to its unScriptural aberrations.

And while Rome can claim a universal paper unity strictly as regards herself (excluding the many divergent "Catholic" rites, and her sister Orthodox churches, this is no more a proof of her claim to be genuineness than the official unity of another denomination, while her laity manifest a greater degree of disunity (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4) on certain core doctrinal and moral issues than SS evangelicals (whom she judges as hardly worthy of the term "churches).

The Roman Catholic claim can't be beat with a stick. The "church" proclaimed itself THE CHURCH, uses the verse that says the church is blameless.... so it can't lose.This is the core issue, as it presumes that Rome is indeed the N.T. church, and that whoever is given stewardship of the Scriptures is the assuredly infallible interpreter of them, which logic would requires us to submit to Judaism. The question then is, upon which basis are we to know of a surety that Rome is the OTC which she claims to be.

Your answer cannot be one that appeals to the Bible, as that would be an appeal to private interpretation which Rome erroneously interprets 2Pt. 1:20,21 as excluding, and would rely upon Scripture as supreme doctrinal authority.

In addition, the R.C. mind is to have such so allegiance to Rome that it must not objectively examine Rome's claims by the Scriptures, as the noble Bereans did regarding the apostles claims.

“The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question." “Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XXIII. The consistent believer. p. 35, 1904; Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

The conclusion therefore is that Rome has infallibly defined that she is assuredly infallible, that being whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined formula, and thus according to her interpretation that she is infallible, only her interpretation can be assuredly infallible. The same is true for her problematic historical argument. And an assent to her claim is necessary to know of a surety that she is the OTC.

Those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture cannot presume to a formulaic assuredly infallibility for themselves, but hold that the Scriptures are assuredly infallible, being the only objective authority that is declared by God to be 100% inspired of Him, and which (contra Rome) has the testimony to prove it. (2Tim. 3:16; Mk. 16:20) (It is Scriptural faith and power that essentially demonstrates authenticity, not a claim to lineage.) And which uniquely is able to make one "throughly furnished unto all good works," but which does not exclude others sources of information or the church magisterium, as it materially provide for the latter, provided that they are subject to Scriptural substantiation. (Acts 17:11)

daniel1212

October 23rd 2010, 03:20 PM

the claims that Scripture is sufficient can only be taken to refer to the existing Scriptures-- that is, anything written after the claim that Scripture is sufficient... is superfluous.

I disagree, as while that may have been Paul's visible reference, his use of "all Scripture" sanctions whatever would belong to that a class of revelation which is assuredly inspired of God.

Peter likewise refers to prophecy of the Scripture as the "more sure word of prophecy" and which had reference to the past, but he also called Paul's writings "Scripture" which would have included prophecy. And it was due to their authority they (not traditions apart from it) were abused by "the unlearned and unstable." (2Pt. 3:16)

This applies also to the Psalms. The Psalmist, you have pointed out, wrote that the law of the Lord is perfect: the obvious problem here is that David could have been referring to the Penteteuch at best-- according to David, all we need is the Mosaic Law. This would seem to suggest that 61 of the 66 books in your Bible are unnecessary.[quote]

One must ask how the Law even became held to be Scripture, which was due to its accompanying supernatural Divine attestation, and power, like as testified to the claims of Jesus and the apostles, along with conformity with that which has previously been established as Scripture. Thus while the law was held to be wholly inspired of God, so were the prophets, and the psalms, and whatever else came to be manifest as belonging to that class called Scripture. To hold another stream of revelation as wholly inspired of God is to effectively leave the canon open, while the nature of doctrines derived from tradition shows they are based upon the premise of "sola ecclesia."

[quote] You ridicule specific Catholic doctrines as unscriptural, but offer no explanation that I can see as to what Paul was referring to when he urged the Thessalonians to hold to oral traditions.Churches which hold to SS often have traditions which are formally or effectively enjoined upon members, but which are held to be derived from Scripture, from dress standards to Christmas (really). And even Rome's claim for tradition are presented as reliant upon Scripture. But while they really rest upon Rome's claim to authority, what is needed to Scripturally establish Rome's claim that teachings from its uncodified nebulous stream of oral tradition are equal to that of the Bible is to show traditions being referred to which are not penned in Scripture, such as praying to departed souls in Heaven. Etc.

Finally, there is one more point you make which particularly demands a response: you claim that the Roman Catholic argument is circular; if it is, it is nevertheless a wider circle than your own: why do you believe Scripture is sufficient? If it is because Scripture says so, then your argument is circular already!Rome censures private interpretation as a means of doctrinal certainty, according to her claim to formulaic assured infallibility, by which she infallibly interprets Scripture and history as establishing her as having, while those who hold to SS believe that on earth only the Bible has assured infallibly, which Rome herself affirms, thus she should have no objection to this aspect, as what she objects to is that which Acts 17:11 infers.

But those who hold to SS also see the Scriptures being established by its supernatural testimony, both in life-giving holy effects of regeneration and other miracles, and progressive internal conformity with what came before, and predictive accuracy, etc. In contrast, what they do not see is any claim that all that the church or a church may declare on faith and morals will be infallible, based upon its own say so, and that Israel's magisterium was not, hence prophets preserved the faith (and Luther despite his faults, served as), and that what the N.T.. church taught had sound Scriptural proof, even in disciplinary rulings, (Acts 15) while the legacy of Rome in word and deed is critically contrary to what is needed to establish her claim to supremacy.

37818

October 23rd 2010, 03:23 PM

The Protestant claim doesn't work because the Protestants prove it doesn't work (the scripture is obviously not clear enough for them to agree on everything - and that holds true within every sect). <snip>

The Protestant reformation did not take place until the 1500's. And the Roman State Church did not come to be until around 300 (A.D.) C.E. The holy writings were given by God through the Apostles and the early church prophets within the 1st century. So any claims made by the Roman State Church to be the Catholic Church is a false claim it gave itself and is not truly Christ's church. The genuine church is the one Christ is building (Matthew 16:18) and not upon the person of Peter, but the revelation God gave Peter (v.17, John 6:44, 45. 1 Thessalonians 2:13. John 17:17. Romans 10:17. etc.).

The problem is not Sola Scriptura but men following the teachings of men. The Apostle Paul cited this issue to the Corinthians, " Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:12, 13.).

As it is, that you made an argument and complaint alleging Sola Scriptura is the cause of the many Protestant sects, which, BTW, is not true, but rather the sects come about for the same reasons the so-called Catholic Church is in error. Interpretations of man rather than the explicit teachings of God's written word.

And then you didn't even address one argument in MichaelB's article nor even show that what he cited against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on this matter was even false.

37818

October 23rd 2010, 10:56 PM

<snip> . . . the argument regarding Paul's references to "Scripture"-- the argument lies in understanding exactly what Paul meant by "Scriptures"-- Paul was not and could not have been referring to the Gospels or to any other part of the New Testament which had not yet been written. Moreover, the claims that Scripture is sufficient can only be taken to refer to the existing Scriptures-- that is, anything written after the claim that Scripture is sufficient... is superfluous. While the holy writings which Timothy grew up with was the OT writings. Nevertheless as MichaelB explictly pointed out the holy writings were those which were God breathed. Which would apply to NT writings just the same. So your argument misses this fact.

This applies also to the Psalms. The Psalmist, you have pointed out, wrote that the law of the Lord is perfect: the obvious problem here is that David could have been referring to the Penteteuch at best-- according to David, all we need is the Mosaic Law. This would seem to suggest that 61 of the 66 books in your Bible are unnecessary.Well you again are wrong here, and your thinking makes Jesus out as being wrong. You fail to know that the Rabbi Jesus referred to a Psalm as Law (John 10:34, "Is it not written in your law, . . .", Psalm 82.). And the justification for this is a book of the Law, Deuteronomy (8:3) which Jesus cited against the Devil in the temptation, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4.).

<snip>. . . reference the argument based on Thessalonians, but dismiss it without considering the applications of that passage-- Paul instructs the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions that have been handed down to them either by word of mouth or by letter. . . . <snip>The Apostle Paul was telling the Thessalonians to follow the Apostles spoken instructions as well as the written. But to assume that the spoken instructions were to be passed down orally by others beyond those to whom the Apostles spoken to, is not so instructed there by Paul. And there is no valid evidence for such an understanding.

Oral Apostolic instructions and church prophets and the word of Knowledge, were the needed gifts of the Spirit in the early church because the NT was yet in the process of being written and being copied and transmitted to other churches.

Thersites

October 23rd 2010, 11:25 PM

While the holy writings which Timothy grew up with was the OT writings. Nevertheless as MichaelB explictly pointed out the holy writings were those which were God breathed. Which would apply to NT writings just the same. So your argument misses this fact.

How do we know that?

Well you again are wrong here, and your thinking makes Jesus out as being wrong. You fail to know that the Rabbi Jesus referred to a Psalm as Law (John 10:34, "Is it not written in your law, . . .", Psalm 82.). And the justification for this is a book of the Law, Deuteronomy (8:3) which Jesus cited against the Devil in the temptation, "Man shall not live by read alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4.).

You miss my point: was the Psalmist wrong? If the Scriptures up to the point where Scripture is called sufficient are in fact sufficient, what is the point of adding anything else?

The Apostle Paul was telling the Thessalonians to follow the Apostles spoken instructions as well as the written. But to assume that the spoken instructions were to be passed down orally by others beyond those to whom the Apostles spoken to, is not so instructed there by Paul. And there is no valid evidence for such an understanding.

Oral Apostolic instructions and church prophets and the word of Knowledge, were the needed gifts of the Spirit in the early church because the NT was yet in the process of being written and being copied and transmitted to other churches.

Why should we believe that the early church wrote down everything important?

37818

October 24th 2010, 12:52 AM

How do we know that?That the NT are God breathed writings from early church prophets and some of the Apostles as handed down by churches. The only reason you would not know that is if you reject those NT writings as being God breathed writings.

You miss my point: was the Psalmist wrong?Not at all.

If the Scriptures up to the point where Scripture is called sufficient are in fact sufficient, what is the point of adding anything else?The word used was "perfect" referring to God's word as being perfect. The hearing of new revelation did not end until giving of writing called the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:1) and its command not to add or take away any revelations to the hearing of it (Revelation 22:18, 19.).

Why should we believe that the early church wrote down everything important?The early churches didn't, except to make copies of the gospel accounts and letters some of them had received, those writings being God breathed writings, now being our NT. The oral traditions are no good beyond the first generation which heard them. The writings though, live on. (Hebrews 4:12.). Without those writings there would be no genuine Christianity.

Thersites

October 24th 2010, 12:13 PM

That the NT are God breathed writings from early church prophets and some of the Apostles as handed down by churches. The only reason you would not know that is if you reject those NT writings as being God breathed writings.

Your answer to as to how you know the NT writings are inspired... is that the NT writings are inspired. That's not circular at all...

Not at all.

But the Psalmist was not referring to the New Testament, just as Paul, in his letter to Timothy, was not referring to things which were not yet written. Yet in both these circumstances, the previous writings are seen as "sufficient". David did not have Paul's letter to the Colossians in mind, and Paul did not have 3 John in mind.

The word used was "perfect" referring to God's word as being perfect. The hearing of new revelation did not end until giving of writing called the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:1) and its command not to add or take away any revelations to the hearing of it (Revelation 22:18, 19.).

How do you know that God's revelation ended with the Apocalypse of John? How do you know what fits in between Genesis and Revelation?

The early churches didn't, except to make copies of the gospel accounts and letters some of them had received, those writings being God breathed writings, now being our NT. The oral traditions are no good beyond the first generation which heard them. The writings though, live on. (Hebrews 4:12.). Without those writings there would be no genuine Christianity.

Prove it.

37818

October 24th 2010, 03:21 PM

Your answer to as to how you know the NT writings are inspired... is that the NT writings are inspired. That's not circular at all...That is not what I was answering, that is a different issue. How do we know any of the writings are inspired? Now if one accepts something as inspired is one thing. That what is accepted as being inspired is really inspired is another. Of course merely accepting the writings as inspired does not make it so. Faith does not create the reality. Rather, faith should be in what is the reality.

Oral traditions suffer worst than any written ones.

The 39 books of the OT are widely accepted as the OT. And the 27 books of the NT are the principle basis of the Christian faith founded in the OT.

But popular acceptance does not make them true.

The writings appear to make truth claims for one. And seem to claim to be actual events in history, for another.

Now can we show, apart from deviant interpretations, that any of the claims made are indeed false? Not being able to do so, that is a plus, but that does not prove the supernatural claims are true.

There seems to be cases of prophecies being shown to be true which defy mere statistical chance.

Most of the writings claim to have God's words in them. Again mere claims do not make them true.

Anyway, there is this issue of divine inspiration of the writings and of any oral traditions. Which of these are to take precedences, if at all?

Jesus is said to have made this claim, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself." (John 7:16, 17.) Jesus claims that one can have personal revelation from God if one is willing to do the instructed will of God.

What is that instructed (doctrine, teaching being the) will of God?

Jesus spoke in His recorded prayer, that knowing God was how to have eternal life (John 17:3.). And that God can only be known through Him (John 14:6.).

Jesus had told Peter, ". . . flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. . . . and upon this rock I will build my church." (Matthew 16:17, 18.).

Do you have eternal life? and know it, by what you know and believe? (1 John 5:9-13. ". . . He that believes on the Son of God has the witness in himself . . . ."v,10.). (see Romans 8:9 with 1 John 5:12. and 2 Corinthians 13:5.)

The believers personal knowledge cannot be any proof to anyone other than to that believer, One's subjective knowledge cannot be used as any objective evidence.

All oral traditions are subjective knowledge. Only written traditions have any objective substance, being that written documents can have a objective history. A traceability, and that there was always an original document, whether such a document was authentic or not. (". . . or not" as fabrications, such as known apocryphal writings.) The writings regarded as authentic were read in public in the churches.

Oral traditions cannot be authenticated except by written documents (holy scripture teaching that very tradition) or persistent personal revelation, such as what Christ is building His church upon (John 7:17, 1 John 5:9, 10.)

But the Psalmist was not referring to the New Testament, just as Paul, in his letter to Timothy, was not referring to things which were not yet written. Yet in both these circumstances, the previous writings are seen as "sufficient". David did not have Paul's letter to the Colossians in mind, and Paul did not have 3 John in mind.Are we taking about God breathed writings or the writings being the writings merely of men? In God giving the Psalm to the Psalmist to write that God would not know of Colossians that He had Paul to write or John the 3rd letter? We are talking about God breathed authorship, not merely the human authors God used in writing them.

How do you know that God's revelation ended with the Apocalypse of John?What does it say? "The revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:1). "For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book. And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the tree of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book."
{Revelation 22:18, 19.).

How do you know what fits in between Genesis and Revelation?There are 39 books used in common by both Jews & Christians. And there are 27 books used in common by professing Christians. All sects, divisions and cults. If those 66 books are not those books then everyone is wrong.

Prove it.The 66 book Bible is its own proof of this. There has been churches since the time of the Apostles which are not of the Roman Church. The apostolic authority is in the holy scripture, Sola Scriptura. Those writings have in fact been passed down to us today. From God to his prophets and Apostles to the reader of holy scripture.

justsumguy

October 24th 2010, 07:27 PM

It's still all word games.
"Protestantism historically has held that the text of Scripture is the exclusive infallible authority for all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice."
"The Protestant understanding, known as the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or Scripture alone), also contends that God has spoken both sufficiently and with clarity in His word"

Ok...Instead of getting into the mix...let's stick to those two statements.

Saying the text of scripture is the exclusive infallible authority for all matters of faith, doctrine and practice is wonderful except for the fact that the matters mentioned are human matters. If one was to imagine God or Jesus having to look up something in order to make sure they were doing the right thing....great! I have to admit that some of which is defined as Orthodox Christianity seems to be suggesting that the Bible is the authority when it comes to what God can or cannot do.

Anyway...let's say the text of scripture is as noted. Now a person has to read it. Either as they read it or after they read it, they have to interpret the meaning. Then they read more. The little question comes up of how does what they are reading now effect how they understood that which they read previously and vice-versa. Obviously, they are going to have to read the entire thing before being able to apply to all the matters as mentioned.

If they don't, they could be stoning and killing people after reading for a couple hours.

So now the person has read the entire thing and starts writing down all the answers to all the matters. Of course, some matters are considered more important than others.

But what's really great is that God has spoken suffiently and with clarity so there's nothing to worry about...this is going to be easy.

Well...it's easy for all those who say they have it down. It's easy for the followers of those people to say the same thing. And best of all, it's easy to say all the other interpretations are wrong.

What I just described is exactly how it goes down amongst Protestants and again, Protestants did not agree with each other when Luther was alive and certainly do not agree with one another now.

Some of the disagreements within the sects themselves involve some of the most fundamental differences there can be.

The simple little issue of predestination/free-will has resulted in the division of sects.

The claims by Protestants and the RCC on this matter are simply ludicrous because they simply have not, do not and cannot work.

There is truth in the statements but it's not the statements that matter here...

It's how they are applied.

daniel1212

October 24th 2010, 08:32 PM

justsumguy

October 24th 2010, 09:15 PM

As i stated before, the way the Scriptures have been established over time as the word of God is based upon the means Moses and other men of God were regarded as such, which is due to their unique qualities relative to their claims. Moses, Jesus and the apostles did not use Baker's book of apologetics (as useful as it is) to convince people of their authenticity, but God's Divine attestation and their own holiness and conformity with established truth did.

Likewise, acceptance of Christian faith does not rest upon human force , though men have wrongly used it for that purpose, but because it results in realities which correspond to the claims of the Object of faith, and are contingent upon fidelity to Him, which claims and reality surpass in depth and scope that of other religions, beyond their commonalities.

The 66 books of Bible owe their enduring acceptance not to required reading, or mere religious affections, or church decrees, but because they have the power that it claims as whole to have, but which is only experienced by those who obey it (outside ad hoc events), with the heart it fosters and requires, and as they do so, so they have more warrant for more faith. To God be the glory. It has not been tried and found wanting, but wanting to be tried, and i come short in the faith i should have.

I can live with that. You're going to have to face the reality of having to decide who is rightfully (let's call it ordained by God) determining who is obeying it.

I've spent my entire life reading it and I say obeying it is loving God and everyone else as you love God. I say if you want to obey it or if you want to know who is obeying it...it's you loving or they loving.

In fact, I say if you want to have faith...that is love also. If God's love is not the substance of our hope and the evidence of things not seen...then I think we have a problem.

The fact is, one of the main uses of the scriptures by the RCC and the Protestants is to use the scriptures to lay down the law. Come on....that's what has really always been going on. And I'll say it over and over...that is exactly what the keepers of the scriptures did to Christ. They used the scriptures to accuse Him at every turn and demand His death. Christ used the scriptures also but was obviously saying that they weren't getting the point of the scriptures.

Then we have the letters that comprise much of the NT saying the exact same thing that Christ was saying...there is a point to the scriptures and it is being lost by SOMETHING that has to do with the way they are being USED.

And there is absolutely no doubt about it....the point is always that love is being trumped by the usage.

Everyone can talk until they are blue in the face about how this person or that group was using the scripture in error...but the point is they weren't using it out of love. And no, I'm not talking about the love of God that is defined by God's hate which is exactly what the problem was and is.

The inerrancy of scripture? The authority? It tells us to go spread the good news and it has always been used and remains being used to spread the bad news. Well...here's the bad news...but it's not bad news as long as you do this. You see...it's good news...for you if you do this and it's good news for those you love if they do this...but if you all don't do it....it's the worst possible news across trillions of universes and all eternity. But it's great news if you do this. Oh guess what...the good news is this...you were going to be eternally punished before you had your first diaper changed. God hated your sin when you were 6 years old. God hates your sin now. You are an abomination to God.

But here's some good news! If you repent and ask Jesus to come into your heart and meet any other number of criteria depending on which sect happened to draw you in, you will be forgiven ...at least for awhile....and it will probably get you out of eternal punishment as long as you keep trying....

Well...you see....the Bible is clear about it. All you have to do is...
Well....here...here's the apostolic creed. If you hold to this...I think that might get you in. Huh?
You have questions about it? Just read the Bible...it's real clear on what to do. The apostolic creed came from the Bible.

If you start noticing that some of the guys who wrote some of the letters in the NT had some disagreeances....just pretend like it didn't happen.

Whatever you do...don't do any study on Constantine. Just know that whatever is published at this time and whatever will be published 1000 years from now will have been protected by God.

And the word "hell" probably shouldn't be in the English translation so learn Hebrew and Greek and go from there. No....don't use a Spanish translation...

MichaelB

October 24th 2010, 10:12 PM

Michael, I read your article, but I remain unconvinced that you understand the arguments advanced by the Roman Catholic side.

We shall see.

Perhaps I could help to clarify: the argument regarding Paul's references to "Scripture"-- the argument lies in understanding exactly what Paul meant by "Scriptures"--

Agreed.

Paul was not and could not have been referring to the Gospels or to any other part of the New Testament which had not yet been written.

You have made a grave error.

1Tim 5:18 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Why don't you tell me where you find the Scriptural phrase "the laborer deserves his wages." I'll give you a hint, it is in one of the synoptic gospels. I will be awaiting your acknowledgement of such an error.

Moreover, the claims that Scripture is sufficient can only be taken to refer to the existing Scriptures-- that is, anything written after the claim that Scripture is sufficient... is superfluous.

You forget progressive revelation... The redemptive purpose of God soveriegnly required greater revelation, sufficient in it's current timing. Seems to me that your complaint should be aimed at God.

This applies also to the Psalms. The Psalmist, you have pointed out, wrote that the law of the Lord is perfect: the obvious problem here is that David could have been referring to the Penteteuch at best-- according to David, all we need is the Mosaic Law. This would seem to suggest that 61 of the 66 books in your Bible are unnecessary.

No, it applies to the nature of Scripture. You'll need to provide something in the way of positive evidence. So you suggest the supremacy of certian parts of the Scripture over others? Little bit desparate.

You reference the argument based on Thessalonians, but dismiss it without considering the applications of that passage-- Paul instructs the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions that have been handed down to them either by word of mouth or by letter. You bring up a passage which conflicts with it and seem to say that, because Paul has said not to go beyond what is written, he cannot possibly mean that we are to hold fast to traditions that are received by word of mouth. This makes no sense. You ridicule specific Catholic doctrines as unscriptural, but offer no explanation that I can see as to what Paul was referring to when he urged the Thessalonians to hold to oral traditions.

What makes you think that these traditions were anything different than that which was revealed in writ? Positive evidence please. Why don't you interact with what I actually said in the article?

Finally, there is one more point you make which particularly demands a response: you claim that the Roman Catholic argument is circular; if it is, it is nevertheless a wider circle than your own: why do you believe Scripture is sufficient? If it is because Scripture says so, then your argument is circular already!

I addressed this assertion in the beginning of the article. Perhaps you should read it again!

MichaelB

October 24th 2010, 10:19 PM

The Protestant claim doesn't work because the Protestants prove it doesn't work (the scripture is obviously not clear enough for them to agree on everything - and that holds true within every sect).

The only way the Protestant claim would work is for two people to have their own sect and agree with everything the Bible is saying (and there is no evidence of such a thing having ever been accomplished). Even if the Protestant claim is true, it would boil down to the claim being assigned to one person. In my opinion, that would denote progress.

The Roman Catholic claim can't be beat with a stick. The "church" proclaimed itself THE CHURCH, uses the verse that says the church is blameless....
so it can't lose. The Church is defined through whatever the head spokesperson says...which is God's word...so wallah!!!
It doesn't matter if it changes it's view of something the Bible says...that's the way God wanted it to go down. Since the church is defined by the spokesperson, it doesn't matter if anyone disagrees. Their disagreement is simply wrong and they are not expected to understand the scriptures. Well...at least the Bible isn't telling the spokesperson to torture anyone nowadays for not seeing the light.

You have provided a straw man argument. The issue is not the harmony within Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. That should have been made clear by the actual article, did you read it? Such an assertion fails to recognize the existence of false brothers (Gal 2:4), and the fact that there co-exists sheep and goats within the visable church (Matt:13:24-30). Furthermore, please don't act like Roman Catholicism is some sort of monolith; that is a fairy tale.

The issue is what does the text teach? The answer to that question is quite clear.

justsumguy

October 24th 2010, 11:08 PM

You have provided a straw man argument. The issue is not the harmony within Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. That should have been made clear by the actual article, did you read it? Such an assertion fails to recognize the existence of false brothers (Gal 2:4), and the fact that there co-exists sheep and goats within the visable church (Matt:13:24-30). Furthermore, please don't act like Roman Catholicism is some sort of monolith; that is a fairy tale.

The issue is what does the text teach? The answer to that question is quite clear.

Watch it. I'll be as nice as I can be but if you can't handle the arguments...just say so.
I didn't say the issue was harmony. If you want to address what I said....QUOTE IT...then address it.

Ok...now you want to bring in the false prophet argument. Same thing. Who are the false prophets? I'll tell you who they are...the one's you say. That's pretty simple isn't it. I already answer that in my last post...guess you didn't read it. You can tell because the false ones are the ones not doing what they are doing out of love. Surely, you don't need me to copy and paste passage after passage that proves my point.

The issue being what the text teaches IS THE ISSUE. The answer to that question is quite clear as long as it is YOU who is giving the answer.

There are verses to support both sides. Imagine that. Then there's the obligatory page after page, book after book arguments made on the subject.

Excuse me if I offer up something quaint and different instead of the same old tired references to my verse verses your verse that has been going on for centuries.

They are both wrong.
It's obvious and I have presented a good case. The Bible is not to be worshipped or idolized. It should be read by anyone and when they are reading it...they should read it with their hearts and minds loving God (that's the way we should do everything - I got that out of the Bible and I have $5 says I could have come up with that without the Bible but we can't settle until later). Everyone who reads the Bible in an effort to strengthen what they have been taught to be true is making a tragic mistake. It should be just the opposite, the Bible should be read to raise questions about what we are taught to believe. God wants us to reason with God (I got that out of the Bible and I also have $5 says I could come up with that without the Bible).

Sure, we need an interpreter. I recommend the Holy Spirit.

And as far as acting like the RCC has not been the RCC...no dice. They can kick me out of here but having been raised in a third world country...I got to see the RCC like it was back in the good old days. When you watch 70 year old women crawling on their bloody knees across cobblestone for the length of a football field in front of a cathedral, you get back with me on Biblical authority.

MichaelB

October 25th 2010, 08:54 AM

Watch it. I'll be as nice as I can be but if you can't handle the arguments...just say so.

Ad hominem attacks do little to add credibility to your cause.

I didn't say the issue was harmony. If you want to address what I said....quote IT...then address it.

You stated "the only way the Protestant claim would work is for two people to have their own sect and agree with everything the Bible is saying (and there is no evidence of such a thing having ever been accomplished)." This is what is called a fallacious equivocation. My argument was based on the "testimony of the Scripture," and not your opinion of doctrinal harmony among Protestants. These are two distinct issues that do not need to be confused. Furthermore, you neglected to actually address anything in the article and went on to provide baseless assertions aplenty.

Ok...now you want to bring in the false prophet argument.

I am afraid you misunderstood what I stated in my first response to you. I was not calling the RC church a false prophet. Although, I do believe as much. I suggest you go back and actually read what I stated, and maybe use some care this time.

The issue being what the text teaches IS THE ISSUE. The answer to that question is quite clear as long as it is YOU who is giving the answer.

Getting a little desparate and hot under the collar are we? What I did was provide an exegesis and commentary on some texts. That is all. Should your position be correct you should provide a concise refutation of my assertions. Now why don't you try that and put away the juvenile nonsense?

There are verses to support both sides.

Really? I don't believe there are. Why don't you name some of these "verses" that support even one of Rome's doctrines? Name a verse that supports the sinlessness of Mary, or the assumption, or purgatory... Name a verse that equates that which is Roman Catholic tradition with the word of God.

Imagine that. Then there's the obligatory page after page, book after book arguments made on the subject.

The existence of a contrary argument does not provide credibility to a position. Rather, the substance and consistency of an argument provide credibility to a position. Just because there exists a great many books on the subject, doesn't mean that your position is right. There are a great many books written on why Mormonism is a true religion over and against historic Christianity too. Using your logic you might want to convert.

Excuse me if I offer up something quaint and different instead of the same old tired references to my verse verses your verse that has been going on for centuries.

Excuse me if I refute your anti-Christ appeal to the Romanist's notoriously low view of Scripture.

It's obvious and I have presented a good case.

Where? When I read this statement, I had to chuckle. Are you serious? .

Howsabout this, why don't you cease with your conjecture and use the word of God to back up your statements? Until then, talk is cheap.

justsumguy

October 25th 2010, 10:07 AM

I'll stick with my first post.
I see no evidence in the Bible or in the actions of any religion that suggests to me that the Bible is clear in the sense of humans laying down the law pertaining to the matters as put forth.

Again, I think it does pass the test when it comes to God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit interpreting it. But again, the proof is in the pudding when it comes to human interpretation.

As for using the word of God...the way I use it is not valid to you. I use it cover to cover. You didn't address what I said about that...

You don't think I'm addressing the subject and I don't think you are addressing my addressing of the subject.

By the way, you are misinterpreting my posts as being hot under the collar. When referring to "YOU" I am making the point regarding "ANYONE" including "ME" declaring to be holding to the authoritive view. I think it is the authority....but I question the human side of declaring one as the authority on the authority.
Not quite sure about the anti-Christ appeal to the Romanist's notoriously low view of scripture thing. The scriptures have been used for great purposes by both Protestants and the RCC. They have both also used scriptures in ways that are highly questionable to say the least.

To ignore the real, viable history of both when speaking of their views on the use of Biblical authority seems to me to be rather silly. And to ignore the obvious story of Jesus being constantly accused of not holding to the authority of scripture by those who were the authorities on scripture when dealing with this subjecy is in my mind ignoring the scripture.

Since I don't support either of your suppositions (in the sense of human authority), I'll bow out and let this thing go in the direction you want it to. It's certainly not unreasonable for you to want to stick to the argument being restricted to the two views.

MichaelB

October 25th 2010, 10:37 AM

I'll stick with my first post.
I see no evidence in the Bible or in the actions of any religion that suggests to me that the Bible is clear in the sense of humans laying down the law pertaining to the matters as put forth.

Then your view of the bible is quite unlike that of Jesus Christ. Good luck with that.

Again, I think it does pass the test when it comes to God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit interpreting it. But again, the proof is in the pudding when it comes to human interpretation.

Well, I am afraid I have provided proof in the form of consistent exegesis of the text. You on the other hand, have yet to provide anything by way of the text.

As for using the word of God...the way I use it is not valid to you. I use it cover to cover. You didn't address what I said about that...

You'll have to elaborate on this comment. I don't understand what your talking about.

You don't think I'm addressing the subject and I don't think you are addressing my addressing of the subject.

I think your beating around the bush, because that is all you can do.

By the way, you are misinterpreting my posts as being hot under the collar. When referring to "YOU" I am making the point regarding "ANYONE" including "ME" declaring to be holding to the authoritive view. I think it is the authority....but I question the human side of declaring one as the authority on the authority.

No, you don't think the Scripture is the authority. If you did, you would concur with my position.

Not quite sure about the anti-Christ appeal to the Romanist's notoriously low view of scripture thing.

That is OK, I'll be sure for the both of us.

The scriptures have been used for great purposes by both Protestants and the RCC. They have both also used scriptures in ways that are highly questionable to say the least.

That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the bible is the exclusive infallible authority in the Christian life; ie, Sola Scriptura.

To ignore the real, viable history of both when speaking of their views on the use of Biblical authority seems to me to be rather silly. And to ignore the obvious story of Jesus being constantly accused of not holding to the authority of scripture by those who were the authorities on scripture when dealing with this subjecy is in my mind ignoring the scripture.

This is rich. How did Jesus respond to those dissenters? What was His means of refutation? To He appeal to oral tradition? Or, did He appeal to the Scripture? Why don't you ever interact with the actual article?

Since I don't support either of your suppositions (in the sense of human authority), I'll bow out and let this thing go in the direction you want it to. It's certainly not unreasonable for you to want to stick to the argument being restricted to the two views.

How convenient.

Thersites

October 25th 2010, 11:07 AM

You have made a grave error.

1Tim 5:18 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Why don't you tell me where you find the Scriptural phrase "the laborer deserves his wages." I'll give you a hint, it is in one of the synoptic gospels. I will be awaiting your acknowledgement of such an error.

It's in two of the synoptic Gospels-- both Matthew and Luke. That's very interesting-- I wasn't aware that Paul referenced the synoptic gospels. Do you have any other examples of references between NT books?

But even that doesn't quite explain how we judge what is and is not Scripture...

You forget progressive revelation... The redemptive purpose of God soveriegnly required greater revelation, sufficient in it's current timing. Seems to me that your complaint should be aimed at God.

No, it applies to the nature of Scripture. You'll need to provide something in the way of positive evidence. So you suggest the supremacy of certian parts of the Scripture over others? Little bit desparate.

Not at all. Every part of Scripture must be taken in context.

What makes you think that these traditions were anything different than that which was revealed in writ? Positive evidence please. Why don't you interact with what I actually said in the article?

The practices of the early church as evidenced in the writings of the early Christians-- Justin Martyr, for example--seem to suggest a particular understanding of the Christian life and liturgy.

Because it was a long article and at any given point I'm either too busy or too lazy to re-read a given article. I'll review your quote from the ECFs, however. I'll probably focus on them from here on in this discussion.

MichaelB

October 25th 2010, 11:16 AM

It's in two of the synoptic Gospels-- both Matthew and Luke. That's very interesting-- I wasn't aware that Paul referenced the synoptic gospels. Do you have any other examples of references between NT books?

But even that doesn't quite explain how we judge what is and is not Scripture...

I wasn't trying to explain "how we judge what is and is not Scripture," although I could. The issue is whether or not the Scripture teaches Sola Scriptura or the Romanist position.

So now that you recognize that Paul quoted Luke's gospel as Scripture, you should agree that Paul knew full well that the cannon was not closed. This is an important part of my argument. So far as your other question, this text recognizes 2/3rds of the epistles as Scripture:

2Peter 3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Not at all. Every part of Scripture must be taken in context.

Agreed. Your point?

justsumguy

October 25th 2010, 11:46 PM

Ok....since well enough couldn't be left alone...
This is from the article…
“Because both of these views acknowledge the divine authorship and inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, both are bound to the testimony therein. Should the testimony of the Scriptures reveal that either historic Protestantism's exclusive reliance on the text is unfounded, or the equivocation of Roman Catholic tradition unwarranted, the incorrect view must be abandoned.”

I say the testimony of the Scriptures reveals the Protestant view as unfounded and the Roman Catholic view (as prescribed in the article) as unwarranted and that both views must be abandoned.

The article states that the Protestant view contends that God has spoken sufficiently (I agree) and with clarity (says who?).

Let’s let the publisher of the article prove the clarity.
Of all the matters of faith, doctrine and practice….where does the issue of not perishing but having everlasting life lie? How important is that little issue in the grand scheme of things?

Tell us the Protestant view on not perishing but having everlasting life.
I, for one believe that God has spoken sufficiently on this matter. I also believe it is quite clear.
Now….
I’m ok with John Macarthur’s notes on Psalms 19:7-9.
Tell me what I have to do in order to not perish and have everlasting life.
I want the official Protestant answer. I sure hope it’s clear.

I’ll try not to call you a false prophet if your answer is not clear.

Scripture supports the Protestant view but the Protestant view is used incorrectly. In the same manner the RCC declared itself blameless, many Protestants have and are using Sola Scriptura to insist they are the officially spokespersons of God because they are using Sola Scriptura.

The Scripture has plenty of instances (I find it difficult to believe that I would need to post them while in the company of such esteemed colleagues) saying where the proof lies when it comes to those who are on the right path (and yes, that would include interpreting the scripture and knowing what is perfect and knowing the testimony of the Lord and making wise the simple and so on). The ones who are on the right path and should be listened to are the ones who are living in love. If that statement makes ones skin crawl, then one might start questioning their interpretation of the entire thing.

So let’s see the evidence on what many would have to consider the most important issue facing humanity…
Catholics are also welcome to tell me what I need to do to not perish but have everlasting life.

If I am given a convoluted, twisting, up in the air answer I will have to maintain that both views of authority (and that’s what I really think this comes down to) are wrong.

justsumguy

October 25th 2010, 11:49 PM

And I can't wait for Michael to tell me that's not what this is about.

MichaelB

October 26th 2010, 08:21 AM

Ok....since well enough couldn't be left alone...
This is from the article…
“Because both of these views acknowledge the divine authorship and inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, both are bound to the testimony therein. Should the testimony of the Scriptures reveal that either historic Protestantism's exclusive reliance on the text is unfounded, or the equivocation of Roman Catholic tradition unwarranted, the incorrect view must be abandoned.”

I say the testimony of the Scriptures reveals the Protestant view as unfounded and the Roman Catholic view (as prescribed in the article) as unwarranted and that both views must be abandoned.

Glad to see your now engaging in actual discussion.

The article states that the Protestant view contends that God has spoken sufficiently (I agree)

I am very pleased to hear you agree with the sufficiency of Scripture.

and with clarity (says who?).

Says God.

Let’s let the publisher of the article prove the clarity.

I already did. Did you read the article? I addressed the clarity of Scripture at least 10 times in the article. AGAIN, I SUGGEST YOU ACTUALLY READ THE ENTIRETY OF THE ARTICLE. Either you didn't read it, or you failed to apprehend what you read.

Of all the matters of faith, doctrine and practice….where does the issue of not perishing but having everlasting life lie? How important is that little issue in the grand scheme of things?

I am not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, and therefore at this juncture I will not answer it.

Tell us the Protestant view on not perishing but having everlasting life.
I, for one believe that God has spoken sufficiently on this matter. I also believe it is quite clear.
Now….
I’m ok with John Macarthur’s notes on Psalms 19:7-9.

I used a single quote from MacArthur. The article does not contain MacArthur's "notes."

Tell me what I have to do in order to not perish and have everlasting life.

You need to repent of your sin and have faith in Him who justifies the ungodly.

I want the official Protestant answer. I sure hope it’s clear.

Although I am hardly the official spokesperson for Protestantism, I have provided you my answer, and yes, the Apostle makes it quite clear (Rom 4:5-8).

I’ll try not to call you a false prophet if your answer is not clear.

Silly.

Scripture supports the Protestant view but the Protestant view is used incorrectly. In the same manner the RCC declared itself blameless, many Protestants have and are using Sola Scriptura to insist they are the officially spokespersons of God because they are using Sola Scriptura.

The Scripture has plenty of instances (I find it difficult to believe that I would need to post them while in the company of such esteemed colleagues) saying where the proof lies when it comes to those who are on the right path (and yes, that would include interpreting the scripture and knowing what is perfect and knowing the testimony of the Lord and making wise the simple and so on). The ones who are on the right path and should be listened to are the ones who are living in love. If that statement makes ones skin crawl, then one might start questioning their interpretation of the entire thing.

So let’s see the evidence on what many would have to consider the most important issue facing humanity…
Catholics are also welcome to tell me what I need to do to not perish but have everlasting life.

If I am given a convoluted, twisting, up in the air answer I will have to maintain that both views of authority (and that’s what I really think this comes down to) are wrong.

You have yet to provide any support for your ambiguous position. I am not interested in your pontification of the clarity of Scripture as is. Who do you think you are to judge the word of God?

MichaelB

October 26th 2010, 08:23 AM

And I can't wait for Michael to tell me that's not what this is about.

I think you are entirely confused and in need of some serious time spent in the Scriptures. Why don't you take a few days and carefully read through the New Testament before your next response?

justsumguy

October 26th 2010, 09:42 AM

Says who? Says God.
Nice to see you finally agree with what I’ve been saying all along.

I suspected that you wouldn’t see what the issue of not perishing but having everlasting life would have to do with the topic at hand. I guess the matters you speak of don’t include such a trivial issue.

I stand corrected. MacArthur’s note. I stand corrected again…quote. I apologize for such a blatant trespass of etiquette.

“You need to repent of your sin and have faith in Him who justifies the ungodly.”
“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

James 2:19-26
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

The odds of you having spent more time in the scripture than I have are slim and none. Now that I have beat on my chest to repel your ignorant suggestion regarding my time spent in scripture…I’ll continue…

Your answer is not clear but I won’t be calling you a false prophet just yet. You can call that silly also. I’ve noticed how you like to dismiss arguments with a wave of the hand instead of reasonable argument.

Who am I to judge the word of God? What sort of ambiguous question is that? Are you talking about once I know something is God’s word…judging whether or not God should have said it? Or are you simply asking the question, “Who am I to discern Gods word?”.

In case you haven’t noticed, that’s my big issue with both claims…who decides what the scriptures are saying?
You and I probably agree that the scriptures say what they say. Sure! Copy and paste all the scriptures in whatever order you like and don’t say one word about them. Let them speak for themselves. Then we would be on the same page when speaking of the infallibility and sufficiency and authority. Start saying what the scriptures are “really” saying and I question your authority along with that of the RCC and whatever constitutes the human authority of Protestantism. And yes, that includes whatever claim of historic human authority one wants to trot onto the playing field.

Notice how I didn’t have to say anything in my scriptural response. All I had to do was post the scripture..

Rdr. Arsenios

October 27th 2010, 12:40 AM

The Bible: Sufficient
or in Need of Tradition

Well,what does the Bible say on this matter?

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren,
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly,
and not after the tradition which he received of us.

So it would seem that,
IF you deem the Bible to be sufficient,
That you would believe the Bible when it says,
regarding tradition,
That every brother back then
should walk
according to the tradition
which he received
from the Apostles...

Not from the Pope, for there is no Pope in the Bible,
but as Paul says: "Received of US..."

Arsenios

MichaelB

October 27th 2010, 07:56 AM

Says who? Says God.
Nice to see you finally agree with what I’ve been saying all along.

I don't think you understand what I said. The clarity of Scripture is identified by God via Scripture...Again, I identified this in detail in the article.

I suspected that you wouldn’t see what the issue of not perishing but having everlasting life would have to do with the topic at hand. I guess the matters you speak of don’t include such a trivial issue.

There is a distinction between the doctrine of salvation and the doctrine of Scripture. I never said there was not a connection, but clearly we are discussing the nature of Scripture because that is what the article is about.

I stand corrected. MacArthur’s note. I stand corrected again…quote. I apologize for such a blatant trespass of etiquette.

What you should apologize for is your engagement in apologetic endeavor without having a sufficient basis to do so.

“You need to repent of your sin and have faith in Him who justifies the ungodly.”
“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

James 2:19-26
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

The odds of you having spent more time in the scripture than I have are slim and none. Now that I have beat on my chest to repel your ignorant suggestion regarding my time spent in scripture…I’ll continue…

I see. So your response to my utilization of Romans 4 is James 2? Do you realize what you just did? You just attempted to place James against Paul. Is that what you have learned in your vast time studying the Scriptures? And do you really think that attempting to create disunity between two texts is good apologetics?

Regarding justification: James speaks of two kinds of faith; faith that produces works, and faith that does not. That faith that results in works is genuine and saving, while the faith that does not is incapable of saving anyone. Hence the phrase "Can that faith save him?" What James speaks of is exactly what Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2:8-10 wherein he identifies the correct relationship between works and faith.

Eph 2:8-10 or by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, ot a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Notice how the good works are the result of real faith. Now I suggest you repent of the sin of twisting the gospel of grace into a gospel of works and of the sin of attempting to create disunity in the word of God.

Your answer is not clear but I won’t be calling you a false prophet just yet. You can call that silly also. I’ve noticed how you like to dismiss arguments with a wave of the hand instead of reasonable argument.

My answer was crystal clear. Men are justifed by faith in Christ apart from works, and it is that same faith that produces good works unto God as a result of justification. I have dismissed nothing, and instead dismantled everything you have put forth. This is not my first go round.

Who am I to judge the word of God? What sort of ambiguous question is that? Are you talking about once I know something is God’s word…judging whether or not God should have said it? Or are you simply asking the question, “Who am I to discern Gods word?”.

You suggested that the text of Scripture is not clear. This assertion places you in the judgement seat over the word of God Almighty.

In case you haven’t noticed, that’s my big issue with both claims…who decides what the scriptures are saying?

The Scriptures decide what the Scriptures are saying. This is called the analogy of Scripture, and you can read more about that here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/packer1.html), here (http://evangelicalreformedfellowship.org/articles004.aspx), and here (http://www.equip.org/articles/the-analogy-of-faith).

You and I probably agree that the scriptures say what they say. Sure! Copy and paste all the scriptures in whatever order you like and don’t say one word about them. Let them speak for themselves. Then we would be on the same page when speaking of the infallibility and sufficiency and authority. Start saying what the scriptures are “really” saying and I question your authority along with that of the RCC and whatever constitutes the human authority of Protestantism. And yes, that includes whatever claim of historic human authority one wants to trot onto the playing field.

Again, why don't you then produce any response to what I stated in the article? My evidence for Sola Scriptura is laid out for you to see. Why not respond to it, instead of running around poking at periphery?

Notice how I didn’t have to say anything in my scriptural response. All I had to do was post the scripture..

Silly.

MichaelB

October 27th 2010, 07:58 AM

Rdr. Arsenios

October 27th 2010, 11:08 AM

Well said.

Michael...

And that gives rise, then, since Scripture commands us to be walking according to the "giving over" of that which the Apostles themselves "gave over" to us, to the Biblical injunction to "be walking according to Tradition"... And to the error of pitting Tradition [which IS what is "given-over" - eg para-dosis] against Scripture...

The sole question to be asked is whether or not the Tradition being touted was received from the Apostles...

And this endeavor is not a matter of Scripture, but one of the WITNESS of the Body of Christ from the beginnings, for we are talking about the Holy Tradition of the Body of Christ Who is its Head... Such that this witness is what has been received at all times by all within that Body...

When the first Ecumenical Council met in Nicea after the persecutions finally stopped, and the Church was finally safe from predations and protected by the the Roman Emperor [who imposed it upon the empire], the 318 holy fathers met together from all over the Roman empire to address the great heresy that Arius had introduced into the Church...

They came on crutches and in carts, with eyes gouged out and hands and feet burned off or cut off, with skin stripped from their bodies, some without tongues and fingers and ears, and scars and other visible signs of torments inflicted in their contest for the Faith given once, for all, to the Apostles...

And when they arrived in Nicea, they did NOT ask: "What does Holy Scripture PROVE to us about the falseness of the teaching of Arius?" [For indeed, EVERY heretic bases his heresy on Scripture]

But instead, they gathered together and prayed for God's blessing, and went from one to the next, from all areas of Christendom, asking each of these men sorely tried in the Faith: "What did YOU receive from those who received the Faith?" And when they got to the end, they proclaimed with one accord, that the Father is of one Essence with the Son... That the Son of God is God, with the Father...

They did NOT look to one Patriarch [or Pope] to command them what they were to believe, but instead, in the power of the Holy Spirit, they came in prayer to one accord, and cast out the heresiarch Arius...

You see, the problem you have with elevating Scripture as you are doing is that words on paper are capable of endless arguments over their interpretation, and thereby devolve the Faith into Proofs... And this is what Latin Rome gave us as the legacy of Scholasticism, for by this, She sought to rule the Church by Her self-perceived "authority"... And Her children have been endlessly "proving" Her wrong since the Reformation of the 15th century...

Another problem is that you subject the Faith to proofs, and then you force its devolvement into a series of proofs, and this is not the Faith, but instead is an idea-system, and you end up with Christian ideology, arguing with itself, where its proponents use Scripture to argue against Scripture as they argue with one another... And my friend, NONE of this is Biblical... For the Bible does not give Scripture some kind of "Final Authority" in matters of disputational "proofs", but instead gives Christ as Head of the Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, and of this Body of Christ, Scripture tells us that it is the Ground and the Pillar of Truth... The foundation and grounding of the Truth, and the elevation and proclamation of the Truth... Nowhere does the Bible tell us that the Bible is in charge of the Church...

By placing the Body of Christ UNDER the authority of Scripture, you cut off the Head of the Body of Christ, Who is Christ, and replace the authoritarian Pope with the self-authority of personal opinions and proofs of the meaning of words on paper...

God bless you...

Arsenios

Thersites

October 27th 2010, 11:17 AM

Not from the Pope, for there is no Pope in the Bible,
but as Paul says: "Received of US..."

That's part strawman, part wrong, and part undeniably correct.

Rdr. Arsenios

October 27th 2010, 11:25 AM

That's part strawman, part wrong, and part undeniably correct.

Sometimes it's just plain hard to tell,
And especially as Oct 31st gets closer and closer,
Which witch is which!

:ahem:

A.

37818

October 27th 2010, 03:02 PM

The sole question to be asked is whether or not the Tradition being touted was received from the Apostles...

Well, it proves out like this: The ones who heard the oral instruction would know. A handed down oral instruction, there is no good way of knowing. On the side of sola scriptura the written instructions from the Apostles and gospel writers, are pretty much agreed that it was from them.

Thersites

October 27th 2010, 03:05 PM

Well, it proves out like this: The ones who heard the oral instruction would know. A handed down oral instruction, there is no good way of knowing. On the side of sola scriptura the written instructions from the Apostles and gospel writers, are pretty much agreed that is was from them.

But in that case, sola scriptura is more a prudential judgment than a provable doctrine

37818

October 27th 2010, 03:13 PM

But in that case, sola scriptura is more a prudential judgment than a provable doctrineIt is, nevertheless, a certainty that all dependable provable doctrine comes from the Sola Scriptura position.

Rdr. Arsenios

October 27th 2010, 03:54 PM

Well, it proves out like this: The ones who heard the oral instruction would know.

Indeed so - Except for the fact that Paul never heard it from the incarnate Christ, and yet he was an Apostle... Christ Himself was not a writer

A handed down oral instruction, there is no good way of knowing.

Well, Christ, in obedience to His Father, handed over to His disciples all that His Father gave to Him to hand over, and nothing was written down, but instead was practiced and remembered... The writing came much later, and emerged from the [oral and demonstrational] Holy Tradition of the Church. Two of the Gospels themselves were written by those who were NOT Apostles... So that IF you are right, then Scriptura itself has "no good way of knowing"... For it is based on "A handed down oral instruction."

On the side of sola scriptura the written instructions from the Apostles and gospel writers, are pretty much agreed that it was from them.

I agree that Holy Scripture, written from within the Church, some by the Apostles and some not, and affirmed by Holy Tradition some 300 to 400 years after being written, is VERY reliably attested... The very Body of Christ that wrote it affirmed it as Canon... But the ONLY WITNESS that you have of the reliability of Scripture is that of the Church that wrote and kept the Scriptures...

Do you not believe the Bible when it tells you that it is the Church that is the Ground and the Pillar of Truth against which the Gates of Hell shall NOT prevail?

Do you NOT believe the Bible when is does NOT tell you that the Bible is the Ground and the Pillar of Truth, against which the Gates of Hell shaqll not prevail???

I have never understood how a person can be a sola-Scriptura advocate and then NOT believe the very Scriptura he or she is thereby seemingly committed to... Yet the answer, which is one's own personal and private Papal Authority within the cathedral of one's own private mind, is really hard to deny... It boils down to "me and my Bible and the Holy Spirit alone", and thereby denies the Body of Christ.... Though some Lutherans do seem to do somewhat better, if without any meaningful check on personal interpretation of Scripture... [I mean, when is the last time you heard of a Lutheran being cast out on a doctrinal issue??]

I mean, IF you believe in sola-Scriptura, then you absolutely MUST believe in the Holy Tradition of the Church...

And the Faith is NOT a deducible belief system of ideas...

Arsenios

37818

October 27th 2010, 05:03 PM

<snip>- Except for the fact that Paul never heard it from the incarnate Christ, and yet he was an Apostle... Christ Himself was not a writer.So you deny what Paul said, and that the incarnate Christ did appear to Saul (Paul) from Heaven. (Acts 26:18 for example.)

Well, Christ, in obedience to His Father, handed over to His disciples all that His Father gave to Him to hand over, and nothing was written down, but instead was practiced and remembered... The writing came much later, and emerged from the [oral and demonstrational] Holy Tradition of the Church. Two of the Gospels themselves were written by those who were NOT Apostles... So that IF you are right, then Scriptura itself has "no good way of knowing"... For it is based on "A handed down oral instruction."No, if I'm right, you are dead wrong. All the writers were first hand witnesses accept maybe Mark and Luke who. BTW,. did write which was given "from above" (Luke 1:3.)

I agree that Holy Scripture, written from within the Church, some by the Apostles and some not, and affirmed by Holy Tradition some 300 to 400 years after being written, is VERY reliably attested... The very Body of Christ that wrote it affirmed it as Canon... But the ONLY WITNESS that you have of the reliability of Scripture is that of the Church that wrote and kept the Scriptures.No. The churches had those documents as they were given to them. The irregular state church had to give in to them as for what those documents were...

Do you not believe the Bible when it tells you that it is the Church that is the Ground and the Pillar of Truth against which the Gates of Hell shall NOT prevail? <snip>The church which Chrsit is building, His church, not the irregular state church, which is not Christ's church.

MichaelB

October 27th 2010, 08:42 PM

Michael...

And that gives rise, then, since Scripture commands us to be walking according to the "giving over" of that which the Apostles themselves "gave over" to us, to the Biblical injunction to "be walking according to Tradition"... And to the error of pitting Tradition [which IS what is "given-over" - eg para-dosis] against Scripture...

The sole question to be asked is whether or not the Tradition being touted was received from the Apostles...

As I stated in the article, I see no evidence to suggest that these "traditions" were anything other than that which is in our cannon.

And this endeavor is not a matter of Scripture, but one of the WITNESS of the Body of Christ from the beginnings, for we are talking about the Holy Tradition of the Body of Christ Who is its Head... Such that this witness is what has been received at all times by all within that Body...

Where are you going with this?

When the first Ecumenical Council met in Nicea after the persecutions finally stopped, and the Church was finally safe from predations and protected by the the Roman Emperor [who imposed it upon the empire], the 318 holy fathers met together from all over the Roman empire to address the great heresy that Arius had introduced into the Church...

They came on crutches and in carts, with eyes gouged out and hands and feet burned off or cut off, with skin stripped from their bodies, some without tongues and fingers and ears, and scars and other visible signs of torments inflicted in their contest for the Faith given once, for all, to the Apostles...

And when they arrived in Nicea, they did NOT ask: "What does Holy Scripture PROVE to us about the falseness of the teaching of Arius?" [For indeed, EVERY heretic bases his heresy on Scripture]

Ahh yes, revisionism of the first order. I am afraid you are ignorant of church history. How do you think Athanasius refuted the Arian heresy? Directly from the text. My proof? Athanaisus own works against Arius. I suppose you think the deity of Christ is somehow unclear in Scripture? You must then think that God did not communicate His nature sufficiently? Heretics are like their father the adversary. They like Satan twist the word of God. Such was the case in the garden, the temptation of Christ, and today (2Pet 3:16). By the way, Arius had completely convinced the western church, and therefore, should Rome be consistent about their "tradition," the Roman Catholic church would consist of arians. Should the EO's appeal to tradition be correct, they would be modalists. That aside, the Scripture is quite clear about the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the nature of God, etc. Should you doubt that, visit my site. (http://www.onenesspentecostal.net)

But instead, they gathered together and prayed for God's blessing, and went from one to the next, from all areas of Christendom, asking each of these men sorely tried in the Faith: "What did YOU receive from those who received the Faith?" And when they got to the end, they proclaimed with one accord, that the Father is of one Essence with the Son... That the Son of God is God, with the Father...

This is conjecture, absent of historical backing.

They did NOT look to one Patriarch [or Pope] to command them what they were to believe, but instead, in the power of the Holy Spirit, they came in prayer to one accord, and cast out the heresiarch Arius...

Your correct about the pope. There was three bishops of Rome at Nicea 325, and there were no bishops from Rome even present at the council. However, the church did utilize the sword of Scripture to correct the error.

You see, the problem you have with elevating Scripture as you are doing is that words on paper are capable of endless arguments over their interpretation, and thereby devolve the Faith into Proofs... And this is what Latin Rome gave us as the legacy of Scholasticism, for by this, She sought to rule the Church by Her self-perceived "authority"... And Her children have been endlessly "proving" Her wrong since the Reformation of the 15th century...

I am afraid you have to substantiate your assertions from the word of God. Otherwise, your opinions are baseless.

Another problem is that you subject the Faith to proofs, and then you force its devolvement into a series of proofs, and this is not the Faith, but instead is an idea-system, and you end up with Christian ideology, arguing with itself, where its proponents use Scripture to argue against Scripture as they argue with one another... And my friend, NONE of this is Biblical... For the Bible does not give Scripture some kind of "Final Authority" in matters of disputational "proofs", but instead gives Christ as Head of the Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, and of this Body of Christ, Scripture tells us that it is the Ground and the Pillar of Truth... The foundation and grounding of the Truth, and the elevation and proclamation of the Truth... Nowhere does the Bible tell us that the Bible is in charge of the Church...

Please, if what you are saying is correct, reconcile 2Tim 3:15-16. Give me your exegesis of that text. Show me from the example given to us by our Lord that what you are suggesting is valid.

By placing the Body of Christ UNDER the authority of Scripture, you cut off the Head of the Body of Christ, Who is Christ, and replace the authoritarian Pope with the self-authority of personal opinions and proofs of the meaning of words on paper...

Your trying to pull a fast one. The church is bound by the text of Scripture because that is the word of Christ. Did Paul not tell us not to go beyond what is written? Furthermore, you must substantiate your case with positive evidence from the Scriptures!

Rdr. Arsenios

October 27th 2010, 11:19 PM

By placing the Body of Christ UNDER the authority of Scripture,
you cut off the Head of the Body of Christ, Who is Christ,
and replace the authoritarian Pope
with the self-authority of personal opinions and proofs
of the meaning of words on paper...

You're trying to pull a fast one.

Hardly... The error of Rome was that She elevated Herself over all the Church as the only [and authoritarian] interpreter of Scripture...

The Reformation made of every man a pope...

Today, every Protestant is the sovereign authority in his own faith...

The Church, on the other hand, has always held the Mystery of the Faith in a pure conscience,
and would rather die than change in any way the doctrines of the Faith given once for all to the Apostles...
First Nicea was the Voice of God speaking through the Church...

The church is bound by the text of Scripture because that is the word of Christ.

Some, certainly not all, the words of Christ are recorded in the Gospels... Much of it in parables...
Some of these explained in the text to the Disciples...
But it is the Church that wrote these holy texts - The Holy Ones of God who were members of the Church...
They were inspired, but they were not merely taking Divine dictation...
The Epistles are themselves pastoral...
When, in the New Testament writings, you see "The Written", or "Scripture", the writer is usually referring to the Old Testament, the Greek Septuagint...
The Bible of the Apostles was the Greek Old Testament...
This was the text in common use in Jerusalem and in all the Greek speaking Roman empire...

Did Paul not tell us not to go beyond what is written? Furthermore, you must substantiate your case with positive evidence from the Scriptures!

Do you mean 1 Cor 4:6
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes;
that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written,
that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Is this the text you mean?
And you think it refers to the whole Bible?
It refers to SOME of the Bible, but it is not an exegetical standard,
because it TELLS YOU what part of the Bible it is referring to,
for it says: "That no one of you be puffed up for one against another."

Here is Chrysostom's exegesis of this passage:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xiii.html

But what is the meaning of, “not to be wise above what is written?”

It is written,

(St. Matt. vii. 3.) “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brothers’s eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” and

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.” For if we are one and are mutually bound together, it behooveth us not to rise up against one another.

For “he that humbleth himself shall be exalted,” saith he. And

(St. Matt. xx. 26, 27; St. Mark x. 43; not verbatim.) “He that will be first of all, let him be the servant of all.”

These are the things which “are written.”

“That no one of you be puffed up for one against another.” Again, having dismissed the teachers, he rebukes the disciples. For it was they who caused the former to be elated.

I mean, Paul is here rebuking an error and curing a disease that had arisen in the Church at Corinth,
and that means the puffing up of one against another in it,
based on who had baptized them...
And it is the Written regarding THAT [puffing up] that he means when he says this...
You simply cannot forget that this is a pastoral letter,
and not an exegetical treatise...

You are trying to take out of Scripture what was not put into it,
by dissecting it into small pieces that you think you understand...
Outside the Life of the Body of Christ, the meaning of Scripture
is literally up for grabs by anyone who wishes to interpret it...

It is just words on paper in the hands, for instance, of an Imam, or a Sufi, or a Buddhist...

I mean, I have met many New Age practitioners who claimed to BELIEVE the Bible...
And we both know they were clueless...

Arsenios

justsumguy

October 28th 2010, 09:41 AM

I don't think you understand what I said. The clarity of Scripture is identified by God via Scripture...Again, I identified this in detail in the article.

There is a distinction between the doctrine of salvation and the doctrine of Scripture. I never said there was not a connection, but clearly we are discussing the nature of Scripture because that is what the article is about.

What you should apologize for is your engagement in apologetic endeavor without having a sufficient basis to do so.

I see. So your response to my utilization of Romans 4 is James 2? Do you realize what you just did? You just attempted to place James against Paul. Is that what you have learned in your vast time studying the Scriptures? And do you really think that attempting to create disunity between two texts is good apologetics?

Regarding justification: James speaks of two kinds of faith; faith that produces works, and faith that does not. That faith that results in works is genuine and saving, while the faith that does not is incapable of saving anyone. Hence the phrase "Can that faith save him?" What James speaks of is exactly what Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2:8-10 wherein he identifies the correct relationship between works and faith.

Eph 2:8-10 or by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, ot a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Notice how the good works are the result of real faith. Now I suggest you repent of the sin of twisting the gospel of grace into a gospel of works and of the sin of attempting to create disunity in the word of God.

My answer was crystal clear. Men are justifed by faith in Christ apart from works, and it is that same faith that produces good works unto God as a result of justification. I have dismissed nothing, and instead dismantled everything you have put forth. This is not my first go round.

You suggested that the text of Scripture is not clear. This assertion places you in the judgement seat over the word of God Almighty.

The Scriptures decide what the Scriptures are saying. This is called the analogy of Scripture, and you can read more about that here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/packer1.html), here (http://evangelicalreformedfellowship.org/articles004.aspx), and here (http://www.equip.org/articles/the-analogy-of-faith).

Again, why don't you then produce any response to what I stated in the article? My evidence for Sola Scriptura is laid out for you to see. Why not respond to it, instead of running around poking at periphery?

Silly.

Your article was well written.
You say that one would have to admit it was wrong if...
I say they both need to admit they are wrong.
I say the Protestant stance you give is wrong because on your use of "clear".
You have proven that it is wrong.
Most of your responses to me make no sense regarding the issue which I have presented over and over.
My posting James was to point to the FACT that there are things that have to be discerned, taken as a whole.
Your little jump to comclusion about why I posted it and how I discern salvation or faith or works when I have said nothing about my thoughts on those matters shows you aren't as quick as you like to make out.
I am making a simple point that the "clarity" claim is absurd because it is humans deciding what is supposedly clear. You and anyone else on this site can "claim" till your blue in the face that the apostles set the tradition to follow and use the statement to "claim" that your interpretation of that tradition is authoritative...
But this human sees how rediculous that claim is.
Anyone reading the scriptures who thinks the scriptures lay out a "clear" structure for organized religion is being rediculous and looking to put themselves into a place of authority.
It is clear to me that you think you are the authority on this matter.
I don't pretend to be the authority...nor do I recognize the RCC or any Protestant as the authority to discern scripture for me.
In short...keeping to the topic...
The Bible is sufficient but I nor anyone else is sufficient to say I am speaking God's word when I EXPLAIN what the scriptures are saying. One is welcome to say they are READING God's word.

Are you getting the point yet?

These canned statements you are making are true in one sense and not true in another.
When you post scripture, it is sufficient and is God's word. When you explain it...your explanation is not automatically sufficient. I fully understand that you think it is. If there is one thing that is clear...it's your claim to be speaking the word of God in regards to the scripture.

Which...is the case with the RCC and Protestant views. Their claims make them the authority on what the scruptures are saying when the deem the scriptures needing EXPLANATION.

Now give some more respones that do not address the simple little issue I am putting forth.
Again, I am more than happy to take my leave from this thread. I fully realize that since I am saying neither stance is correct that I am not fitting into your one of two choices.

It's a well-written article and if one choice had to be made I would select the Protestant view and agree in principle with your arguments. You are speaking to someone whose family ministered as Baptist missionaries for decades in a third-world country that for all practical purposes was ruled by Catholicism. I have been shot at because I was considered a Protestant amongst Catholics. I was well-versed on both views and teaching the Protestant view 30 years ago where it was quite dangerous to teach such a thing.

justsumguy

October 28th 2010, 09:55 AM

Rdr. Arsenios

October 28th 2010, 10:29 AM

The Bible is sufficient
but I nor anyone else is sufficient to say

"I am speaking God's word when I EXPLAIN what the scriptures are saying."

One is welcome to say they are READING God's word.

RCC and Protestant claims make them the authority
on what the Scriptures are saying
when they deem the Scriptures to be needing EXPLANATION.

This is why the Orthodox approach is so essential, because of the profound need fallen man has for humility, such that the very first command to anyone willing to follow Him by our Lord was self-denial...

Rome sought to give the MEANS of this self-denial by elevating Herself and Her Patriarch above all others, even to the exalted STATUS of the Vicar of Christ... And we can then all humble ourselves before Rome and Her Bishop... There is some salvation in this, but it cuts off the Head of the Body of Christ and replaces with the Pope, and turns the Church into an authoritarian power structure...

The Protestant reply, which gives every person in the Church the same error that had previously been reserved for the Pope and his minions, simply multiplies the error of Rome, and makes the authoritarian nature of Rome become democratized and buffered by personal arguing for one's own position in the vast ranges of of possible theological positions... So that now, under the Protestants, it is reason, and not authority, that determines the truth of one's opinions, and the best arguer is the greatest possessor of the Truth...

But the Orthodox Christians have no such illusions... We do not place upon the Holy Word of God the burden of ruling our lives and the Life of Christ in His Own Body, the Church... Holy Writ is a central part of our worship - Indeed the Psalms are THE prayer-book of Orthodoxy, extensively prayed each and every day - But for us, we neither proclaim our hierarchs nor our selves as interpreters of Scripture, but instead look to the writings of the Holy Ones who have lived and died before us to find the meaning we would seek... We go to those who are older in their walk in Christ than we are and ask... We seek the consensus of the Church across the centuries and the millennia, and do not proclaim our SELVES, nor our BISHOPS, as authoritative...

This consensus, of course, of the Church is the Holy Tradition of the Faith of the Body of Christ...

The Church is authoritative, you see, not us, and not its current hierarchs... And it is this consensus of understanding of the Holy Ones who have gone before us that guides us in OUR understanding, for just as Christ in the flesh obeyed God the Father, so also His disciples obeyed Him, and their followers followed and imitated and obeyed them, from generation to geneeration...

And so you can see that our approach keeps the teachings of the Apostles intact and preserves us in the blessedness of Christ's very first commandment of discipleship, the commandment of humility, wherein it is recorded in Scripture that He said: "IF anyone is willing, after Me to be following, let him FIRST DENY HIMSELF, then take up His cross daily, and be following Me..."

The word FIRST in that passage is no accident...

You are speaking to someone whose family ministered as Baptist missionaries for decades in a third-world country that for all practical purposes was ruled by Catholicism. I have been shot at because I was considered a Protestant amongst Catholics. I was well-versed on both views and teaching the Protestant view 30 years ago where it was quite dangerous to teach such a thing.

Sounds like you have paid some "dues"...
And know God...
Central or South America?

Arsenios

Rdr. Arsenios

October 28th 2010, 10:35 AM

Some really good stuff from George.

This idiot insists the church is the body of believers and Christ is it's head.
This idiot insists that the RCC or Protestantism or any other portion of the church is not THE church.

Too funny!

I bet you already know that the term idiot is taken from the Greek that means SELF?

A.

Rdr. Arsenios

October 28th 2010, 11:08 AM

Nowhere in the Bible
does the Bible tell us
that the Bible is in charge
of the Church...

Please, if what you are saying is correct, reconcile 2Tim 3:15-16. Give me your exegesis of that text. Show me from the example given to us by our Lord that what you are suggesting is valid.

3:15
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.

3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable
for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

The VALUE of Holy Writ is not in question...
It has, even the Old Testament, which is herein referenced, salvation in its words...
To the one reading it in prayer and reverence, it is a sacramental gift,
Able to impart the Grace of God to its reader...

But there is nothing here, my Brother, to in any way make the holy words written upon the pages of a holy book to be the Book in Charge of the Body of Christ Who Himself is its Head...

Arsenios

justsumguy

October 28th 2010, 06:20 PM

Too funny!

I bet you already know that the term idiot is taken from the Greek that means SELF?

A.

lol...yes
I guess we call it self-effacing humility. (yuck)
I'm also pretty insistent that humility is not the result of effort. I think the giving up of self that comes first is the real realization (I know that's redundant) that one cannot be in the presence of God/Heaven/Perfect. When a person comes to realize how they really compare to perfect, humility is the result. When we compare ourselves to God, all other comparison simply ends. Humility is a result of knowing God and knowing ourselves.

justsumguy

October 28th 2010, 06:26 PM

3:15
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.

3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable
for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

The VALUE of Holy Writ is not in question...
It has, even the Old Testament, which is herein referenced, salvation in its words...
To the one reading it in prayer and reverence, it is a sacramental gift,
Able to impart the Grace of God to its reader...

But there is nothing here, my Brother, to in any way make the holy words written upon the pages of a holy book to be the Book in Charge of the Body of Christ Who Himself is its Head...

Arsenios

They are ABLE to make us wise unto something through something and they are profitable for some important things.

Looks like the scriptures can be quite useful and looks to me that a real good attempt should be made to put them to good use.

I should add that it looks like the scriptures can make us wise to something very, very important. Salvation through faith, which is the substance of things hoped for (not the scriptures), the evidence of things not seen, (not the scriptures) which is in Christ.

I can't tell you all how much I love that passage.
Our greatest hopes and evidence are in Christ and the scriptures can make us wise to that fact.

Rdr. Arsenios

October 29th 2010, 11:07 AM

Please, reconcile 2Tim 3:15-16. Give me your exegesis of that text.

I think you actually meant 2 Tim 3:15-17, because vs 17 plainly tells us the purpose of vs 16, by way of the ina clause... This kind of clause, introduced by the Greek word [hina], translates "in order that", and is commonly understood as a purpose clause... So that the Scripture itself here, in Paul's Epistle to Saint Timothy, explains the purpose of Holy Writ in this letter of instruction to a young Bishop of the Body of Christ, the Church...

Please allow me to give you a very literal translation of 17:

In order that perfect should be the man of God for every good work having been perfected.

In passable English:

2 Tim 3:17
"In order that the man of God,
having been [himself] perfected,
should be perfectly fitted
for every good work."

These are instructions and encouragement to a Bishop who will be in charge of souls seeking their salvation, and one of the tools that Paul is giving him is this backbone of Scripture, all of which is God-inspired, and thereby profitable for many things, but especially for a Bishop, it is profitable for Doctrine, for the convicting of sin [reproof], for correction [from sin], and for instruction in righteousness... These are the medicines with which the Bishop is to treat his flock, and in order to HAVE these treatments, he must himself be perfected in them, and for THIS, Holy Writ is profitable... And more than profitable, it is able to make Timothy, who has studied the Written from his youth, wise unto salvation through the Faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So that you can see that the text speaks of the "making wise" and of the "profitability" of the Bible unto salvation by having known it from youth... He is writing, after all, to Timothy, and he does not say "make all wise", but "make YOU wise..." For Paul is solidly establishing the Church of the Gentiles, which had been assigned to him by Christ, into the hands of its clergy, for Paul's time is rapidly coming to an end...

And I would suggest to you, my Brother Michael, that Christ did not fail in Paul...
And that Paul did not fail in Timothy...
And that Timothy did not fail in his governance of the Church...
This was no government Church...
Indeed, this was the persecuted Church...

Arsenios

justsumguy

October 29th 2010, 01:03 PM

Looks to me like Paul is telling Timothy to be a preacher and evangelist and Paul was a preacher, an apostle and a teacher.

It's been said about being a Bishop.

Then Paul ends it with mentioning people and brethren. There's alot of talk about brethren in the NT. And I would say deacons are servants of the assembly...

I knew the holy scriptures as a child...is the passage also talking to me or do I need an official "Paul" stamp and a bishop nomination to take this passage personally?

Rdr. Arsenios

October 29th 2010, 01:54 PM

Looks to me like Paul is telling Timothy to be a preacher and evangelist and Paul was a preacher, an apostle and a teacher.
Here is a 3rd century commentary by a Bishop who spoke and thought in koine Greek...

What is the reason of his writing this second Epistle to Timothy? He had said, “I hope to
come unto thee shortly” (1 Tim. iii. 14.), and as this had not taken place, instead of coming to him,
he consoles him by a letter, when he was grieving perhaps for his absence, and oppressed by the
cares of the government, which he had now taken in hand. For even great men, when they are
placed at the helm, and are charged with the direction of the Church, feel the strangeness of their
position, and are overwhelmed, as it were, by the waves of business. This was particularly the case
when the Gospel was first preached, when the ground was everywhere unturned, and all was
opposition and hostility.

So that the historical record, for this is the consensus of the Church, affirms that Paul is giving his spiritual son Timothy the support and encouragement he needed for taking the reins of the Church where he lived, as indicated by 2Ti 2:14
"Of these things put them in remembrance,
charging them before the Lord
that they strive not about words to no profit,
but to the subverting of the hearers.

This is an episcopal calling...

It's been said about being a Bishop.
Indeed...

Then Paul ends it with mentioning people and brethren. There's alot of talk about brethren in the NT. And I would say deacons are servants of the assembly...

The Church at this stage of its formation had a diaconate, which simply meant servants of God, and included Presbyters, who were servants called to a higher service, normally older, and the servants called the episcopoi, or bishops, who oversaw an entire Church with all its episcopoi and diakonoi... Yet the Bishop is called both a Presbyter and a Deacon, for then a Deacon simply meant servant, and they were ALL servants...

I knew the holy scriptures as a child...is the passage also talking to me or do I need an official "Paul" stamp and a bishop nomination to take this passage personally?

Insofar as the passage speaks of what is good and what is not, such knowledge is for us all, as is being encouraged to follow the Faith... Insofar as it speaks of convicting and correcting, it is better left in the hands of those who are clergy... As Paul writes:

2Ti 1:6
Wherefore I put thee in remembrance
that thou stir up the gift of God,
which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

You see, this is the transmission, BY a holy man, TO a holy man, of a very special GIFT of God, which is given BY the laying on of hands... And this is passed from person to person... I know that I have not had this gift given to me... So I would avoid reproof and correction, and the teaching of doctrine... And the instructing of others in righteousness... I still have my own sinful and unrepentant soul in dire need of healing...

There is a larger sense in which both epistles to Timothy are made visible for the Body of Christ to see and know what it is that those appointed over them have to BE in order to DO such a service for the Body of Christ, of which they are members and themselves obedient... That theirs is the responsibility of the souls under them, for they must render an accounting for each...

There is no idiomatic salvation here, but the love and care of each for all, and of all for each... It is never just a "me and my God" approach to salvation... There is always intercession by prayer and instruction and helps and medicines of repentance in the cure of the fallen and Adamic soul, the "Old Man" of our sinfulness, that bring us together in Christ unto the salvation of our souls...

Atomized man is the property of the master of division, who tempted Eve...

Arsenios

justsumguy

October 29th 2010, 05:27 PM

Here is a 3rd century commentary by a Bishop who spoke and thought in koine Greek...

What is the reason of his writing this second Epistle to Timothy? He had said, “I hope to
come unto thee shortly” (1 Tim. iii. 14.), and as this had not taken place, instead of coming to him,
he consoles him by a letter, when he was grieving perhaps for his absence, and oppressed by the
cares of the government, which he had now taken in hand. For even great men, when they are
placed at the helm, and are charged with the direction of the Church, feel the strangeness of their
position, and are overwhelmed, as it were, by the waves of business. This was particularly the case
when the Gospel was first preached, when the ground was everywhere unturned, and all was
opposition and hostility.

So that the historical record, for this is the consensus of the Church, affirms that Paul is giving his spiritual son Timothy the support and encouragement he needed for taking the reins of the Church where he lived, as indicated by 2Ti 2:14
"Of these things put them in remembrance,
charging them before the Lord
that they strive not about words to no profit,
but to the subverting of the hearers.

This is an episcopal calling...

Indeed...

The Church at this stage of its formation had a diaconate, which simply meant servants of God, and included Presbyters, who were servants called to a higher service, normally older, and the servants called the episcopoi, or bishops, who oversaw an entire Church with all its episcopoi and diakonoi... Yet the Bishop is called both a Presbyter and a Deacon, for then a Deacon simply meant servant, and they were ALL servants...

Insofar as the passage speaks of what is good and what is not, such knowledge is for us all, as is being encouraged to follow the Faith... Insofar as it speaks of convicting and correcting, it is better left in the hands of those who are clergy... As Paul writes:

2Ti 1:6
Wherefore I put thee in remembrance
that thou stir up the gift of God,
which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

You see, this is the transmission, BY a holy man, TO a holy man, of a very special GIFT of God, which is given BY the laying on of hands... And this is passed from person to person... I know that I have not had this gift given to me... So I would avoid reproof and correction, and the teaching of doctrine... And the instructing of others in righteousness... I still have my own sinful and unrepentant soul in dire need of healing...

There is a larger sense in which both epistles to Timothy are made visible for the Body of Christ to see and know what it is that those appointed over them have to BE in order to DO such a service for the Body of Christ, of which they are members and themselves obedient... That theirs is the responsibility of the souls under them, for they must render an accounting for each...

There is no idiomatic salvation here, but the love and care of each for all, and of all for each... It is never just a "me and my God" approach to salvation... There is always intercession by prayer and instruction and helps and medicines of repentance in the cure of the fallen and Adamic soul, the "Old Man" of our sinfulness, that bring us together in Christ unto the salvation of our souls...

Atomized man is the property of the master of division, who tempted Eve...

Arsenios

What you mean to say is there is no salvation there.
And there is no knowing unless you are in the lineage of hands layed upon or whatever some rules state as agreed to by some people who are self-ordained by a lineage they cannot prove.

No man cometh unto the father but by me.
Let's work on that.
There was this guy who was the uncle of an aunt who was the grandmother of the sister of the brother-in-law of one of the original church founders according to the guy's mother....
Who wrote that the meaning of Jesus saying "no man cometh unto the father but by me" is to be taken in an abstract way. The people who Jesus put in charge were told that the only way a "sinner" could go to the Father was through Jesus as long as there was no idiomatic salvation believed in and they went through whatever was defined as the church by whoever said they were the church as long as they held claim to some sort of lineage back to the guys mom.

All the stories in the scriptures where people simply either loved, or believed or had faith and Jesus told them their sins were forgiven or that they were saved are way too complicated for "sinners" to understand and they need to listen to the appointed chieftans to explain how they can live the rest of their lives trying to achieve some convoluted, no way of knowing, church given, God ordained, on the rock of Saint Peter non-plan of salvation.

Well...at least they all get to give it the good old College try! But hey...how can they lose when they have all those hands-layed upon, seeds of the original fathers of the church praying for them?

Rdr. Arsenios

October 29th 2010, 08:22 PM

What you mean to say is there is no salvation there.

There is no salvation in division, self-determination, and dis-obedience to Christ...

Yet that truth must also be able to mesh with the fact that God has mercy on whom He WILL have mercy, so that salvation can be found even by those who do not believe there is a God... [I am an example of this latter.]

And there is no knowing unless you are in the lineage of hands laid upon or whatever some rules state as agreed to by some people who are self-ordained by a lineage they cannot prove.

Paul received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands by Ananias, and he then laid HIS hands on Timothy, giving him the gift that Paul had... One of the elementary doctrines of the early Church mentioned by Paul in Hebrews [6] is that of the LAYING ON OF HANDS...

So that if you wish to take Christ seriously, you must account in some way for this doctrine, which was foundational in the early Church, and which is STILL foundational in all the historic Apostolic Churches...

No man cometh unto the father but by me.
Let's work on that.

OK...

There was this guy who was the uncle of an aunt who was the grandmother of the sister of the brother-in-law of one of the original church founders according to the guy's mother....
Who wrote that the meaning of Jesus saying "no man cometh unto the father but by me" is to be taken in an abstract way. The people who Jesus put in charge were told that the only way a "sinner" could go to the Father was through Jesus as long as there was no idiomatic salvation believed in and they went through whatever was defined as the church by whoever said they were the church as long as they held claim to some sort of lineage back to the guys mom.

Christ did not incarnate in the hills of Appalacia in the '40s...

Christ brought His disciples unto salvation, and they brought their disciples, and the Apostles were charged by Christ with the discipling of the nations... Discipleship is all about self-denial and following Christ... Discipling others can ONLY be done by those who have themselves been discipled...

NFL coaches are not recruited from the little old ladies' Audubon society...

All the stories in the scriptures where people simply either loved, or believed or had faith and Jesus told them their sins were forgiven or that they were saved are way too complicated for "sinners" to understand and they need to listen to the appointed chieftans to explain how they can live the rest of their lives trying to achieve some convoluted, no way of knowing, church given, God ordained, on the rock of Saint Peter non-plan of salvation.

I understand your bitterness toward Rome and her rules... Salvation is a fairly simple, if rigorous, matter... Deny your self, repent from your sins, and turn toward Christ and be baptized into His holy Body, the Church, and run the race set before you, keeping faithful to the end, for the Mystery of the Faith is held in a purified conscience... The Wise Thief, the first into Paradise, was baptized in his own blood on his own cross, confessed Christ, rebuked a sinner, and asked that Christ remember himin His Kingdom, and was saved... There IS such a thing as idiomatic salvation, but it is the exception, like the thief... The EKONOMIA of salvation is the Church that Christ incarnated to establish upon the earth, for this is the Body of Christ on Earth, and in Him we find our way of escape from sin, and life eternal...

That is the good news...

Well...at least they all get to give it the good old College try! But hey...how can they lose when they have all those hands-layed upon, seeds of the original fathers of the church praying for them?

Bitterness and sarcasm in mockery of the historical Church will not open a way to truth...

It will only end as it begins...

In bitterness and mockery...

Beginnings are important...

Arsenios

justsumguy

October 29th 2010, 11:47 PM

There is no salvation in division, self-determination, and dis-obedience to Christ...
Yet that truth must also be able to mesh with the fact that God has mercy on whom He WILL have mercy, so that salvation can be found even by those who do not believe there is a God... [I am an example of this latter.]
Paul received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands by Ananias, and he then laid HIS hands on Timothy, giving him the gift that Paul had... One of the elementary doctrines of the early Church mentioned by Paul in Hebrews [6] is that of the LAYING ON OF HANDS...
So that if you wish to take Christ seriously, you must account in some way for this doctrine, which was foundational in the early Church, and which is STILL foundational in all the historic Apostolic Churches...
OK...
Christ did not incarnate in the hills of Appalacia in the '40s...
Christ brought His disciples unto salvation, and they brought their disciples, and the Apostles were charged by Christ with the discipling of the nations... Discipleship is all about self-denial and following Christ... Discipling others can ONLY be done by those who have themselves been discipled...
NFL coaches are not recruited from the little old ladies' Audubon society...
I understand your bitterness toward Rome and her rules... Salvation is a fairly simple, if rigorous, matter... Deny your self, repent from your sins, and turn toward Christ and be baptized into His holy Body, the Church, and run the race set before you, keeping faithful to the end, for the Mystery of the Faith is held in a purified conscience... The Wise Thief, the first into Paradise, was baptized in his own blood on his own cross, confessed Christ, rebuked a sinner, and asked that Christ remember himin His Kingdom, and was saved... There IS such a thing as idiomatic salvation, but it is the exception, like the thief... The EKONOMIA of salvation is the Church that Christ incarnated to establish upon the earth, for this is the Body of Christ on Earth, and in Him we find our way of escape from sin, and life eternal...

That is the good news...
Bitterness and sarcasm in mockery of the historical Church will not open a way to truth...
It will only end as it begins...
In bitterness and mockery...
Beginnings are important...
Arsenios

You can waltz around all you like. Beginnings? I am pointing to the beginnings. You are pointing to after the beginnings. Your beginnings are the beginnings of your church which is in direct opposition to the REAL beginnings. Jesus brought a lot of people to salvation other than his apostles. Stick with what you know (your church) but you can stop pretending your church has any authority over me.

Your church squelched all opposition by force. Your church wrote the book on self-determination and your church is the kingpin of pointing out disobedience and has made many a sinner pay the price.

Your second paragraph on truth is a convoluted mix of words that means nothing.
If a person was to read the Bible for the first time, not having to have experienced the centuries of religious claims as to what is important and not important, then asked to write the most important things they had learned down....laying on have hands would be lucky to make the list. I'm not saying it doesn't serve a purpose but to be introducing it here as some sort of criteria for discerning scripture is....I don't want sound bitter or like I'm mocking so I'll just say...goofy.

And you can certainly stow your saying what I can do to take Christ seriously. I take
Christ seriously by loving God with all that I am and everyone else in the same manner. Granted, I get a little hot under the collar when people who claim to be speaking in the name of Christ flat out trump what Christ had to say with the efforts of Paul and others who were trying to explain to Jews how they could continue to worship when all they knew was the religion that demanded the death of Christ and trying to explain to Gentiles how to worship when they had many different religious practices which were all they knew.

Self-denial? I have news for you...there are some us who REALLY KNOW that we can't go to Heaven and we don't have to use convoluted sentences to describe the fact. I can't be in the presence of God because I am me. Let me explain something to you....God let's me into Heaven for five minutes and Heaven is messed up. That might not mean much to you because it's all a religious game of flowery words like mercy and grace and will. With everything that Christ did, and everything your church and Paul and Peter and Timothy did, five minutes and I mess up Heaven. That is reality. You may equate self-denial to women in their 70's crawling on their bloody knees in front of your cathedrals which I have witnessed or to my family living with no electricity, no modern conveniences, schools or doctors while taking our heretical gospel to a people who knew nothing of your church, or you may equate it to you giving up smoking...I don't know. I equate it to giving it up self...period. From where I sit...your church is about self not ranking high enough to go directly to God and not low enough to deny self.

You don't understand my "bitterness" with Rome at all. If I had my way, that church and all memory of it would be erased from the planet. A church that crawled into be with world rulers and that ruled for centuries with an iron fist while it forced itself on people all around the world. People all over this world either accepted the authority of that church or were shunned from society.

Your description of salvation is in direct conflict with what Christ said over and over and over and it's bottom line is quite simple...

You don't know Christ as your savior. You do not know that you are in because your church teaches a salvation that comes down to running the race to the end.

Now...don't get me wrong...I don't mind it for you. But try to grasp this....I might as well be talking to an atheist. An atheist doesn't know and neither do you. It's ok with me...I think you're both saved...I think you were saved when you were an atheist. But what is not ok is when an athiest or someone like you starts speaking as if they know when the crux of their thinking revolves around insisting we can't know.

You don't know so speak as if you are stating an opinion or you believe something might be true...that is what your church is all about. You know your church...you don't know salvation or Christ as savior. You believe in salvation as long as you run the race and make it to the end and you believe Christ will save you as long as you take care of your end of the bargain...which equates to you can never know.

Good news? I'll tell you the good news...you can go directly to God through Christ and know your salvation and live the rest of your life knowing that it is done. You want to run a good race and all the rest of the scripture to make sense without making it into mysterious gobbelygoop? Try that on for size. Give up what you have been taught is your part of the bargain.

And....I think you and I are doing a good job of supporting the part of this argument that we agree on. I just think the whole thing is wee bit more sufficient than you do.

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 12:36 AM

You can waltz around all you like. Beginnings? I am pointing to the beginnings. You are pointing to after the beginnings. Your beginnings are the beginnings of your church which is in direct opposition to the REAL beginnings. Jesus brought a lot of people to salvation other than his apostles. Stick with what you know (your church) but you can stop pretending your church has any authority over me.

Your church squelched all opposition by force. Your church wrote the book on self-determination and your church is the kingpin of pointing out disobedience and has made many a sinner pay the price.

Your second paragraph on truth is a convoluted mix of words that means nothing.
If a person was to read the Bible for the first time, not having to have experienced the centuries of religious claims as to what is important and not important, then asked to write the most important things they had learned down....laying on have hands would be lucky to make the list. I'm not saying it doesn't serve a purpose but to be introducing it here as some sort of criteria for discerning scripture is....I don't want sound bitter or like I'm mocking so I'll just say...goofy.

And you can certainly stow your saying what I can do to take Christ seriously. I take
Christ seriously by loving God with all that I am and everyone else in the same manner. Granted, I get a little hot under the collar when people who claim to be speaking in the name of Christ flat out trump what Christ had to say with the efforts of Paul and others who were trying to explain to Jews how they could continue to worship when all they knew was the religion that demanded the death of Christ and trying to explain to Gentiles how to worship when they had many different religious practices which were all they knew.

Self-denial? I have news for you...there are some us who REALLY KNOW that we can't go to Heaven and we don't have to use convoluted sentences to describe the fact. I can't be in the presence of God because I am me. Let me explain something to you....God let's me into Heaven for five minutes and Heaven is messed up. That might not mean much to you because it's all a religious game of flowery words like mercy and grace and will. With everything that Christ did, and everything your church and Paul and Peter and Timothy did, five minutes and I mess up Heaven. That is reality. You may equate self-denial to women in their 70's crawling on their bloody knees in front of your cathedrals which I have witnessed or to my family living with no electricity, no modern conveniences, schools or doctors while taking our heretical gospel to a people who knew nothing of your church, or you may equate it to you giving up smoking...I don't know. I equate it to giving it up self...period. From where I sit...your church is about self not ranking high enough to go directly to God and not low enough to deny self.

You don't understand my "bitterness" with Rome at all. If I had my way, that church and all memory of it would be erased from the planet. A church that crawled into be with world rulers and that ruled for centuries with an iron fist while it forced itself on people all around the world. People all over this world either accepted the authority of that church or were shunned from society.

Your description of salvation is in direct conflict with what Christ said over and over and over and it's bottom line is quite simple...

You don't know Christ as your savior. You do not know that you are in because your church teaches a salvation that comes down to running the race to the end.

Now...don't get me wrong...I don't mind it for you. But try to grasp this....I might as well be talking to an atheist. An atheist doesn't know and neither do you. It's ok with me...I think you're both saved...I think you were saved when you were an atheist. But what is not ok is when an athiest or someone like you starts speaking as if they know when the crux of their thinking revolves around insisting we can't know.

You don't know so speak as if you are stating an opinion or you believe something might be true...that is what your church is all about. You know your church...you don't know salvation or Christ as savior. You believe in salvation as long as you run the race and make it to the end and you believe Christ will save you as long as you take care of your end of the bargain...which equates to you can never know.

Good news? I'll tell you the good news...you can go directly to God through Christ and know your salvation and live the rest of your life knowing that it is done. You want to run a good race and all the rest of the scripture to make sense without making it into mysterious gobbelygoop? Try that on for size. Give up what you have been taught is your part of the bargain.

And....I think you and I are doing a good job of supporting the part of this argument that we agree on. I just think the whole thing is wee bit more sufficient than you do.

You might like to consider a career in the mma...
You seem to have the makings for a champion!:smile:
God Bless you, my brother...
Your rage will pass...

Arsenios

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 12:46 AM

You don't know Christ as your savior.

I know Him ..

He is your Savior too...

A.

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 12:47 AM

You don't understand my "bitterness" with Rome at all. If I had my way, that church and all memory of it would be erased from the planet. A church that crawled into be with world rulers and that ruled for centuries with an iron fist while it forced itself on people all around the world. People all over this world either accepted the authority of that church or were shunned from society.

That is what I understand...

A.

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 01:03 AM

You can go directly to God through Christ and know your salvation and live the rest of your life knowing that it is done.

Do you really understand your raging as salvation?

I mean, if what I am seeing in your behavior here is salvation, then I don't want it...

I mean, you cannot know that you can live the rest of your life knowing that your salvation is done, for the very logical reason that you have not lived the rest of your life... Yet...

And I KNEW eternal salvation BEFORE I knew anything about ANY Christian Church... No man introduced the atheist who was me to God...

But you do write a great rant...

A

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 01:07 AM

If a person was to read the Bible for the first time, not having to have experienced the centuries of religious claims as to what is important and not important

That is exactly how I read the Bible the first time...

I knew God, and knew for a fact [wrongly] that He was NOT the Christian God...

You're gonna like me!

A.

justsumguy

October 30th 2010, 11:48 AM

I know Him ..

He is your Savior too...

A.

I didn't say you didn't know Him. Feel free to describe the fact that you know Christ as your savior. Feel free to describe how you know you are saved.

justsumguy

October 30th 2010, 11:56 AM

Do you really understand your raging as salvation?

I mean, if what I am seeing in your behavior here is salvation, then I don't want it...

I mean, you cannot know that you can live the rest of your life knowing that your salvation is done, for the very logical reason that you have not lived the rest of your life... Yet...

And I KNEW eternal salvation BEFORE I knew anything about ANY Christian Church... No man introduced the atheist who was me to God...

But you do write a great rant...

A

What you consider as my "raging" has nothing to do with my salvation. And if you want to compare my behaviour with that of what you claim is the THE CHURCH...have at it. Some see my style as passionate laced with humor but however it comes across, it's clearly about God loving each person at least as much as God loves me and wanting each person to know Him as much as any other person ever has. Yes, I challenge anyone who says differently and something tells me you wouldn't have been a big fan of Jesus calling people vipers or throwing over tables. Again, there's a little bit of difference between that and forcing people to accept your religion which again...both Catholics and Protestants have engaged in.

I am glad to hear that you know eternal salvation. Do you know your eternal salvation?

justsumguy

October 30th 2010, 11:59 AM

That is exactly how I read the Bible the first time...

I knew God, and knew for a fact [wrongly] that He was NOT the Christian God...

You're gonna like me!

A.

I already like you and the word "Christian" is not of much use. "Christian" as you just used it doesn't carry enough definition.

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 12:04 PM

I didn't say you didn't know Him.

Here are your words to me:

You don't know Christ as your savior.

You see, my brother, you do not understand yet that to know God is Salvation and Life Eternal...

Feel free to describe the fact that you know Christ as your savior.
Feel free to describe how you know you are saved.

Don't you think that telling shot-at old guys HOW TO FEEL is just a tad presumptuous???

Not entirely over the top, mind you...
But filling the cup somewhat past half-way?

Arsenios

justsumguy

October 30th 2010, 12:08 PM

I mean, you cannot know that you can live the rest of your life knowing that your salvation is done, for the very logical reason that you have not lived the rest of your life... Yet...

And I KNEW eternal salvation BEFORE I knew anything about ANY Christian Church... No man introduced the atheist who was me to God...

But you do write a great rant...

A

I read the first paragraph. Then I read the second paragraph. Then I try not to rant.
I am living a saved life now. It doesn't matter what I do tomorrow, Satan, you, bishops nor I can change the fact that I have everlasting life with God and Christ in Heaven.

Now you don't have to believe that. But again...simply speak the truth. You don't know. You are welcome to say I am lying or deceived...I'm used to that...I've been living a saved life for over 30 years. But again feel free to address the fact that you are speaking about knowing while making arguments against the ability to know.

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 12:09 PM

I already like you

Now I REALLY gotta pray for you!

and the word "Christian" is not of much use. "Christian" as you just used it doesn't carry enough definition.

Let me crisp it up a tad:

Western non-Orthodox Christianity, which was the only Christianity I knew...

Arsenios

justsumguy

October 30th 2010, 12:11 PM

Now I REALLY gotta pray for you!

Let me crisp it up a tad:

Western non-Orthodox Christianity, which was the only Christianity I knew...

Arsenios

Define western non-orthodox Christianity.

justsumguy

October 30th 2010, 12:16 PM

Here are your words to me:

You don't know Christ as your savior.

You see, my brother, you do not understand yet that to know God is Salvation and Life Eternal...
Don't you think that telling shot-at old guys HOW TO FEEL is just a tad presumptuous???

Not entirely over the top, mind you...
But filling the cup somewhat past half-way?

Arsenios

Satan "knows" God. Satan does not know Christ as savior.
No. I do not think I am being presumptuous when I tell you to feel free to address that which you are avoiding.
Feel free to address the fact that your statements about your salvation are going in circles.

justsumguy

October 30th 2010, 12:19 PM

Also feel free to address the fact that you are saying all sorts of bad things about me and I'm not saying anything bad about you.

How's this...you know and don't know you have everlasting life.
Does that cover it?

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 12:26 PM

What you consider as my "raging" has nothing to do with my salvation.

It has everything to do with discernment, and you are so accustomed to dealing with Latins and Protestants that you are lumping genuine Christianity into your judgment of THEM...

And if you want to compare my behavior with that of what you claim is the THE CHURCH...have at it.

No need... Behavior like that is very self-explanatory... It proffers self-justification...

There is no sin that has not been committed by members of the Body of Christ... But comparing you to them is not helpful...

Some see my style as passionate laced with humor

It's a STITCH!

but however it comes across, it's clearly about God loving each person at least as much as God loves me and wanting each person to know Him as much as any other person ever has.

God loves Hitler far, far more that you or I love our own children and grand-children...
That has never been a question here...

Yes, I challenge anyone who says differently and something tells me you wouldn't have been a big fan of Jesus calling people vipers or throwing over tables.

I would tend, were I you, to be a little WARIER ot that SOME THING...

Jesus, you see, had discernment that you do not...

Again, there's a little bit of difference between that and forcing people to accept your religion which again...both Catholics and Protestants have engaged in.

They sure have! Which is why I am neither...

I don't believe in no stinkin' ORGANIZED RELIGION...
A POX upon it's malodorous and fetid putressence!
I am an Easterrn Orthodox Christian...
[Demonstrably NOT organized!]

And we regard religion as a disease to be cured,
And the Faith as a treasury to be followed...

I am glad to hear that you know eternal salvation.
Do you know your eternal salvation?

I know God...

Any OTHER QUESTIONS?

Arsenios

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 12:32 PM

Also feel free to address the fact that you are saying all sorts of bad things about me and I'm not saying anything bad about you.

Ya know, fer just some guy who likes to unload his rant on the unsuspecting, you sure seem to suddenly have acquired a certain thin-ness of skin here... I mean, I have been ADMIRING your rant! But that does not make it a good thing for you to be doing...

How's this...you know and don't know you have everlasting life.
Does that cover it?

Well, that DOES make it a more CONCISE rant...

My only reply is that you are not clairvoyant,
So you cannot KNOW what I know or do not know...

You are not claiming clairvoyance, are you???

Arsenios

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 12:47 PM

Satan "knows" God. Satan does not know Christ as savior.

Satan does not KNOW God, not even as much as Adam KNEW Eve, let alone as the salvation of man in God is the KNOWING of God...

John 17:3 And this is life eternal,
that they might know thee the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Perhaps these words of John will help you understand the relationship of knowing and salvation...

No. I do not think I am being presumptuous when I tell you to feel free to address that which you are avoiding.

:lmbo:

Forgive me! You, in that blast, are presuming to know what I am avoiding, and may I assure you that you do not...

Feel free to address the fact that your statements about your salvation are going in circles.

Another presumption... First to tell me what to feel, and second that my understanding of salvation is circular... The statement: "I know God," is not circular, and the statement that this knowledge is salvation is not circular... It is DESCRIPTIVE...

And it is description that you were telling me to feel free to write about, and this AFTER I had given you all the description needed for anyone who knows salvation to recognize...

You're just a little wild, that's all...

Arsenios

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 12:50 PM

Define western non-orthodox Christianity.

Rome [Latin] and Her step-children, the Protestant Reformation in all her multitudinous denominations...

A.

justsumguy

October 30th 2010, 12:54 PM

It has everything to do with discernment, and you are so accustomed to dealing with Latins and Protestants that you are lumping genuine Christianity into your judgment of THEM...

lol...That was funny. I'm also accustomed to dealing with Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Atheists and the list goes on and on...and I define genuine Christianity as being made up those who have accepted the fact that Christ is their savior...

No need... Behavior like that is very self-explanatory... It proffers self-justification...
Look down the page at your POX statement.

There is no sin that has not been committed by members of the Body of Christ... But comparing you to them is not helpful...
Look down the page at your POX statement.

It's a STITCH!
Thanks.

God loves Hitler far, far more that you or I love our own children and grand-children...
That has never been a question here...
I like that one.

I would tend, were I you, to be a little WARIER ot that SOME THING...
Look down the page at your POX statement.

Jesus, you see, had discernment that you do not...
Depends on how much of self I've given over to Jesus.

They sure have! Which is why I am neither...
You are demonstrably Eastern Orthodox Christian.

I don't believe in no stinkin' ORGANIZED RELIGION...
A POX upon it's malodorous and fetid putressence!
I am an Easterrn Orthodox Christian...
[Demonstrably NOT organized!]
lol...nice to see you also get hot under the collar.

And we regard religion as a disease to be cured,
And the Faith as a treasury to be followed...
lol...uh-huh.

I know God...
Any OTHER QUESTIONS?
I didn't ask if you knew God. You might try to answer the questions I ask.

justsumguy

October 30th 2010, 12:59 PM

Ya know, fer just some guy who likes to unload his rant on the unsuspecting, you sure seem to suddenly have acquired a certain thin-ness of skin here... I mean, I have been ADMIRING your rant! But that does not make it a good thing for you to be doing...
lol...it's not being thin-skinned..I'm just making a point that you are part of the same club I am.

Well, that DOES make it a more CONCISE rant...
My only reply is that you are not clairvoyant,
So you cannot KNOW what I know or do not know...
You are not claiming clairvoyance, are you???
Arsenios

I think we've reached a conclusion here. Like I said, you don't believe in knowing so we'll have to leave it at that.

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Arsenios

I don't believe in no stinkin' ORGANIZED RELIGION...
A POX upon it's malodorous and fetid putressence!
I am an Easterrn Orthodox Christian...
[Demonstrably NOT organized!]

lol...nice to see you also get hot under the collar.

My brother! That was an artistic endeavor that had no heat whatsoever, but was instead a crafted blast that was designed to entertain you with truth...

Heavens to Mergatroid!

A.

justsumguy

October 30th 2010, 01:05 PM

They say what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.
Heavens to Mergatroid.

Anyway...I think I've proven that the "clarity" portion as presented in the Protestant statement is at least questionable. :eek:

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 01:07 PM

lol...it's not being thin-skinned..I'm just making a point that you are part of the same club I am.

Well DAAAAGGHHH!

We are all on the same page on THAT issue...

A.

Rdr. Arsenios

October 30th 2010, 01:09 PM

justsumguy

October 30th 2010, 01:38 PM

My pleasure and thanks to you also.

I'm sure there will be more romps. All in the interest of understanding.

37818

October 30th 2010, 09:31 PM

Satan does not KNOW God, not even as much as Adam KNEW Eve, let alone as the salvation of man in God is the KNOWING of God...

John 17:3 And this is life eternal,
that they might know thee the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Perhaps these words of John will help you<one> understand the relationship of knowing and salvation...

<snip>

Arsenios

Here is something we agree on.

daniel1212

October 31st 2010, 09:33 AM

The very Body of Christ that wrote it affirmed it as Canon... But the ONLY WITNESS that you have of the reliability of Scripture is that of the Church that wrote and kept the Scriptures.....

The first issue is what constitutes the church, or upon what basis is its authority determined. The Scriptures came to be realized as God-breathed due to their unique qualities, first by their accompanying supernatural attestation, and by effects of regeneration which result from faith and obedience in them, as well as superior morality, surpassing wisdom, enduring ethos, predictive prophecy, archeological proofs. The judgment of spiritual men, (1Cor. 2:15) is also part of such, but their own spirituality is judged by pre-existing revelation. Councicular decisions can recognize inspiration, as we recognize a true man of God, but it to their unique qualities that it owes its enduring acceptance. The NY Times best seller list is not responsible for the quality of the books listed, and only little responsible for their perpetuation, and much less to their achieving a classical status due to their inherent quality.

In addition, the authenticity of men like the Lord and His apostles was not due to their lineage, though for Christ this was necessary aspect, but power and purity and faithfulness to that which was written, (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 10:38; 17:2; 2Cor. 6:1-10) which attested to their historical claims. And we cannot claim to be disciples of Christ with Biblical lineage without spiritual fruit which accompanies salvation. (Heb. 6:9,10; 1Jn. 5:13) (And which i come short in)

And as the kingdom of God is not in word (our say so) but power (1Cor. 4:20), the church is only a witness to the Scriptures as it manifests corresponding qualities. The authenticity of the, or a, true church does not rest in historical lineage any more than that of true Jews does, (Rm. 2:28,29) but in effectual faith in "the gospel of the grace of God," (Acts 20:24) for it is by such faith in the Rock of our salvation, Christ the corner stone, that the church exists and has its members. (1Cor. 12:13)

By such faith the church overcomes the gates of Hell, and it thus also has historical visible continuity and , but the latter is a quality also possessed by non-Christian religion, and God can raised up stones from anywhere to continue to build His church, which does have . (cf. Mt. 3:16) And it was by God raising up men who were rejected by the establishment that God preserved the faith.

It is true that it was was thru said church that the N.T. Scriptures were written, and to the church they are entrusted, but this does not mean that all that the church holds to be truth is truth, any more than all that those who once sat in Moses seat (Mt. 23:2) were assuredly infallible. Rather, just as the Lord reproved the Jews for "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" as being contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture, (Mk. 7:7-13) and the noble Bereans examined the teaching of the very apostles by them, (Acts 17:11) so also all teaching must be subject to demonstrable Scriptural warrant.

I have never understood how a person can be a sola-Scriptura advocate and then NOT believe the very Scriptura he or she is thereby seemingly committed to... Yet the answer, which is one's own personal and private Papal Authority within the cathedral of one's own private mind, is really hard to deny... It boils down to "me and my Bible and the Holy Spirit alone", and thereby denies the Body of Christ....Continued: This does not make each one a pope, who lays claim to an assured formulaic infallible, but instead it can only hold to the Scriptures as being the only objective infallible authority on earth, with it, not the church, being affirmed to be so (2Tim. 3:16)

The Scriptures materially provide for the church and teaching office, aAnd SS does not reject history, creeds, or the magisterium, but makes all subject to the Scriptures. But as said before, the canon being closed, to hold another stream of purported revelation as equal to Scripture is to essentially add to the canon, which separated wheat from chaff.

Do you not believe the Bible when it tells you that it is the Church that is the Ground and the Pillar of Truth against which the Gates of Hell shall NOT prevail?It is grounded on and supportive of the Truth, but it is dependent on the Truth and subject to it. But you do not build doctrine on ambiguous texts, but this does not mean that all that the church holds to be truth is truth. Nowhere will you find a 2Tim. 3:16 type text that states that all the church teaches is inspired by God, even if they say it is. And it is by faith in the Scriptures, even if not yet completed then, that the church exists, and by which further revelation was proven.

I mean, IF you believe in sola-Scriptura, then you absolutely MUST believe in the Holy Tradition of the Church... Again, what judges what. What constitutes the "us" which heretics separate from. (1Jn. 2:19) It is revealing that those who do not hold the Scriptures as supreme are the ones who deviate from the most foundational truths which SS churches contend for, while the former also includes those who hold to such Scripturally unwarranted doctrines as while they promote doctrines such as praying to the departed.

To reiterate, the Word of God, albeit unwritten, existed before Israel, and though it was thru Moses that the foundational Scriptures were written, they manifested that they were to be subject to them. And it was by power, purity and faithfulness to existing revelation that Moses and the apostles were established as being able to add new doctrines, and if the church had not closed the canon, and had the manifestation of apostolic power, then extra-Biblical traditions could be added, though again the principal of Acts 17:11 would apply. As it is SS churches do have extra-Biblical traditions traditions also, from precise liturgy to a type of wedding ceremony to Christmas, but they cannot hold these as binding upon souls without sound Scriptural warrant, though in observing the latter they basically do.

The obvious problem here is that it makes obedience subject to the qualified assent of each believer, thus promoting disunity, versus "assent of faith" by implicit confidence an assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM). However, unity itself is not a goal of Godliness, and division because of truth is better than unity in error. (1Cor. 11:19) And the quality of the unity resulting from Berean type hearts and its method is great in quality, even if not in quantity, than that which is based upon confidence in men, even if it is in God to lead them. While the supernatural testimony for men like Moses, the Messiah was great enough to compel such faith, this was not alone, and is not the case today.

In short what i am saying is that while men seek to find security in and establish legitimacy by formal historical lineage and ecclesiastical structures, and has even resorted to using the sword of men to gain territory and to punish theological dissidents, the church is so constituted that it can only authenticate itself Scripturally by God's attestation of power, and of purity and Scriptural probity, not handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of truth commending themselves to every mans conscience the sight of God." (2Cor. 4:2) And those who are contentious and obey not the truth, and who wrest the Scriptures to their destruction, (2Pt. 3:16) are made manifest by their contrast with such, and not by absence from a certain ecclesiastical entity which claims legitimate historical validity, but is largely absent of such power and life. And i must seek to have more myself.

Rdr. Arsenios

November 1st 2010, 11:56 PM

The first issue is what constitutes the church,

The Biblical answer is that it is constituted by the Body of Christ Who is Her Head...

or upon what basis is its authority determined.

Preoccupation with its own authority, unlike Rome, is NOT a feature of the Body of Christ, nor even of Christ, but the giving of a good witness is...

The Scriptures came to be realized as God-breathed due to their unique qualities, first by their accompanying supernatural attestation, and by effects of regeneration which result from faith and obedience in them, as well as superior morality, surpassing wisdom, enduring ethos, predictive prophecy, archeological proofs.

The one who tells you that the Scriptures are God-breathed walked in union with God in the Power of the Holy Spirit, and established Christ's Church according to revelation from Christ, and he then went on to himself write about half of the NEW Testament... His words, as he wrote them, btw referred to the OLD Testament Scriptures...

The writing of the New Testament therefore was done by holy men of God who bore God in their very persons... And the Hallmark of the Church is the presence of such men and women IN Her from generation to generation... These are the God-bearing Holy Fathers of the Church, who like Paul, birthed spiritually the new generation of holy and God-bearing Fathers... [For you have many teachers/instructors in Christ, but few Fathers...(Paul)]

The judgment of spiritual men, (1Cor. 2:15) is also part of such, but their own spirituality is judged by pre-existing revelation.

Have you ever seen anyone's "spirituality" judged by anything OTHER than a PERSON...???

You can stare at or read the Bible until the cows come home, and the Bible judges nothing, remaining as silent as the tomb... But the PERSON staring at it or reading it sure does do some judging, and the Bible Judgers I know tend to judge mostly to their own judgmental condemnation... The members of the Church, otoh, tend to avoid judging others, for they believe that Christ disciples humility, and that the only judgment that Christ instructs is self-judgment, which is self-denial...

Can you show me even one passage where Christ says that the Bible judges the holy ones of God?

Paul himself tells us that he does not even judge himself, much less in any way give heed to the judgments of men, but attends only to God, to please Him... And he does not turn himself over to an inanimate object, but to the living God... And we are all discipled to do just this, and the reading of Scripture is a part of our daily life in this effort to write the Word of God in the FLESHY TABLETS of our hearts...

The NY Times best seller list is not responsible for the quality of the books listed, and only little responsible for their perpetuation, and much less to their achieving a classical status due to their inherent quality.

They did not write the books they publish, and they publish for material gain... The Body of Christ wrote for its own, and not for the world... The members of the body evangelized the world, but by their words and deeds, and not by passing out Bibles... No printing presses till the 15th century...

The Church, otoh, wrote its books, and preserved them in the Churches for Spiritual gain... Which gain was in turn poured out upon the world... This is a part of what it means to be a spiritual priesthood, as Christians...

In addition, the authenticity of men like the Lord and His apostles was not due to their lineage, though for Christ this was necessary aspect, but power and purity and faithfulness to that which was written, (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 10:38; 17:2; 2Cor. 6:1-10) which attested to their historical claims.

The Authenticity of Christ IS Christ, the Son of the Father, for He is God... The Written is the record of the Church of the Circumcision under which He was birthed by the Blessed Virgin... And the Prophets foretold His Coming... And wrote it down... And thereby they witnessed for Him...

'nuff!

Arsenios

justsumguy

November 2nd 2010, 09:29 AM

So can I apply for a position of recognition as a holy man who bears God in my very person? Is there a head office where I can leave my resume or do I just have to be proclaimed as such by one who is recognized as a part of the body of Christ? Or can I simply give good witness...wait a minute...is there a board of good witness?

Rdr. Arsenios

November 2nd 2010, 10:41 AM

So can I apply for a position of RECOGNITION as a holy man who bears God in my very person? Is there a head office where I can leave my resume or do I just have to be proclaimed as such by one who is recognized as a part of the body of Christ? Or can I simply give good witness...wait a minute...is there a board of good witness?

IF you are a follower of Christ, you will seek to avoid ALL forms of recognition, for "behold, I am lowly and meek..." Christ Himself fled from recognition, muzzled the demons who recognized Him, and instructed His disciples and those whom He cured or who witnessed what He did to tell no one... Not that it worked, mind you... But in that instruction, He set before us a path to follow, and in the following of it, the essence of which is humility, the Orthodox Faith does not recognize a Saint's existence until AFTER his or her repose...

In this life, saints are known as such by some while alive, but are known by many after death, for it is then that they no longer have the danger of worldly temptations, and they can do more for more people... Just as Christ did more for His disciples AFTER his departure from them, for it is then that He gave them the Holy Spirit of Pentecost, which previously they had not been strengthened in, and had not been able to impart to others by the laying on of hands, and on and on...

One hallmark of sainthood is the seeking of nothing in this fallen creation for one's self, and thus the seeking of recognition is foreign to the discipleship of the Church...

Arsenios

justsumguy

November 2nd 2010, 11:57 AM

IF you are a follower of Christ, you will seek to avoid ALL forms of recognition, for "behold, I am lowly and meek..." Christ Himself fled from recognition, muzzled the demons who recognized Him, and instructed His disciples and those whom He cured or who witnessed what He did to tell no one... Not that it worked, mind you... But in that instruction, He set before us a path to follow, and in the following of it, the essence of which is humility, the Orthodox Faith does not recognize a Saint's existence until AFTER his or her repose...

In this life, saints are known as such by some while alive, but are known by many after death, for it is then that they no longer have the danger of worldly temptations, and they can do more for more people... Just as Christ did more for His disciples AFTER his departure from them, for it is then that He gave them the Holy Spirit of Pentecost, which previously they had not been strengthened in, and had not been able to impart to others by the laying on of hands, and on and on...

One hallmark of sainthood is the seeking of nothing in this fallen creation for one's self, and thus the seeking of recognition is foreign to the discipleship of the Church...

Arsenios

Too complicated for me. I'm just going to stick to trusting God to speak me to through the Bible and hopefully I'll get something out of other people that is useful.

Rdr. Arsenios

November 2nd 2010, 01:35 PM

Too complicated for me.

Me too... [ :-0>>>

I'm just going to stick to trusting God to speak me to through the Bible and hopefully I'll get something out of other people that is useful.

The Truth is simple...
It is the explanations that get complicated...
We speak but of humility...

Arsenios

37818

November 2nd 2010, 03:16 PM

The Biblical answer is that it is constituted by the Body of Christ Who is Her Head...

No, the Body of Christ are the saints who are the believers in Christ (Romans 8:9, 1 John 5:12, Galatians 3:29) and Christ who is also God is the Head of the body.

Rdr. Arsenios

November 4th 2010, 06:02 AM

Daniel asked: The first issue is: "What constitutes the church?"

I replied: The Biblical answer is that it is constituted by the Body of Christ Who is Her Head...

No, the Body of Christ ARE
the saints
[who are the believers in Christ (Romans 8:9, 1 John 5:12, Galatians 3:29)]
and [eg whereas...] Christ
[who is also God]
is the Head of the body.

It took me a while to figure out that you were contrasting the Head of the Body of Christ with the Body of Christ Who is Her Head... And that you were affirming that the Body of Christ is merely a human corpus comprised of believers...

Now if this were true, then the Israelites were the Body of Christ... For Christ led them, was their head, and they, in varying degrees of successes and failures, followed Him...

You see, the question I would ask, rather than what constitutes the Church, is "What IS the Church?"

And the answer to that is: "The Body of Christ..."

And this answer, which is the Biblical answer, makes of the Body of Christ a "DIVINE ORGANISM", and this Divine Organism has its own Head, WHO is Christ Jesus... The faithful are then MEMBERS of this Body, joined to it in a spiritual and ontological way by Baptism INTO that Body, wherein in a Mystery [Baptism] one is entered into the Death of Christ, and participates in His Resurrection by eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, living in obedience to the Commandments of Christ...

Without this understanding, the suffering of Paul for the Church is but a humanitarian effort... When Christ blinded him on the Road to Damascus, Christ did NOT ask him "Why are you persecuting My faithful ones?" Instead He asked of Saul: "Saul, Saul... Why persecuteth thou ME?" And this question identifies the Church AS the Body of Christ, for it IS Christ Who is ontologically living in His members, and His members are ontologically living in Him... In short, the Church is a Mystery, in which we have believed, from the very beginnings, and which the Risen Lord Himself attested to Saul on the Road to Damascus...

The Church, the Body of Christ, IS Christ, my Brother...

In a certain and Mystical way, it is the ongoing incarnation of our Lord...

Arsenios

37818

November 7th 2010, 05:32 PM

Daniel asked: The first issue is: "What constitutes the church?"

I replied: The Biblical answer is that it is constituted by the Body of Christ Who is Her Head...

It took me a while to figure out that you were contrasting the Head of the Body of Christ with the Body of Christ Who is Her Head... And that you were affirming that the Body of Christ is merely a human corpus comprised of believers...

Now if this were true, then the Israelites were the Body of Christ... For Christ led them, was their head, and they, in varying degrees of successes and failures, followed Him...

You see, the question I would ask, rather than what constitutes the Church, is "What IS the Church?"

And the answer to that is: "The Body of Christ..." Yes, with that explanation I agree.

And this answer, which is the Biblical answer, makes of the Body of Christ a "DIVINE ORGANISM", and this Divine Organism has its own Head, WHO is Christ Jesus... The faithful are then MEMBERS of this Body, joined to it in a spiritual and ontological way by Baptism INTO that Body, wherein in a Mystery [Baptism] one is entered into the Death of Christ,Here, you have things confused, I think, because of false teaching on the teaching of baptisms [plural]. (The error of [water]baptismal regeneration.)

Water baptism [immersion] which is into[for] the death of Christ. (Romans 6:3, 4.) The believer's burial with Christ.
But it is the baptism in the Holy Spirit which places believers into[for] the body of Christ as one. (1 Corinthians 12:13.)(Romans 8:9; 1 John 5:12.).
. . . and participates in His Resurrection by eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, living in obedience to the Commandments of Christ.No. The one time observance of water immersion by the believer is in the resurrection coming out of the water, signifying one is not going to live for the world, but for God. Where as the observance of the supper, is a remembrance of the Lord's death. And nothing more. But is an existing communion of the one body of Christ being they are already that one body (1 Corinthians 10:17. Galatians 3:26,).

If we have a wrong understanging regarding the body of Christ and how one becomes a part of the body of Christ, being a wrong understanding, it becomes that very thing. [quote] When Christ blinded him on the Road to Damascus, Christ did NOT ask him "Why are you persecuting My faithful ones?" Instead He asked of Saul: "Saul, Saul... Why persecuteth thou ME?" And this question identifies the Church AS the Body of Christ, for it IS Christ Who is ontologically living in His members, and His members are ontologically living in Him... In short, the Church is a Mystery, in which we have believed, from the very beginnings, and which the Risen Lord Himself attested to Saul on the Road to Damascus...Excellent point.

The Church, the Body of Christ, IS Christ, my Brother...Yes, being made up of those whom He has saved.

In a certain and Mystical way, it is the ongoing incarnation of our Lord...No. Nothing mystical about it. Either one belongs to Christ or one does not. (Romans 8:9; 1 John 5:12; 2 Corinthians 13:5.)

Theologian78

November 8th 2010, 04:16 AM

Hi all,

I've searched through this thread as best I can (so if I've missed what I'm about to bring up, I'm sorry), but I'm a little surprised that no one has brought up Richard Hooker or John Wesley.

In the Anglican tradition (which touts itself as both Protestant and Catholic) we have the theology of Richard Hooker soon after the Elizabethan Settlement which demands that 3 things are needful for faith: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

Following Hooker, we have John Wesley and the whole Methodist movement. Wesley adds one more leg to "Hooker's 3 Legged Stool" which is Experience, and thus we get the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

My point here is not to take sides, but to make very clear that the "Protestant/Catholic" divide is not as clear as one might think.

MichaelB

November 8th 2010, 02:22 PM

Theologian78

November 9th 2010, 07:52 AM

Michael B,

I'm afraid you've missed my point. My point was neither to make an argument for either of these points, nor to claim either to be true, but to point out that the divide "Protestant/Catholic" is far too simple to represent the reality of positions.

However, I would simply disagree with your perspective. The all sufficient one is Jesus Christ, not the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture is Scripture placed so high as you would put it. Instead, God is placed that high. Scripture, like all things, will pass away. What will remain is Christ Jesus, His Father, and their Spirit.

If you ask how we know them, I admit, it is through Scripture, but not ONLY through scripture. Jesus does not say "Look to the scriptures to know me." He does use them for proofs, but He calls us to know Him, not the scriptures about Him. His words are not "Come to Scripture all ye heavy laden, and it will give you rest," but "Come to ME."

A Bibliocentric Christianity is not, I'm afraid, what Christ or His apostles were teaching. It is a Christ centered faith, empowered by the Holy Spirit, informed by the Scripture and the teaching of those inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was such a spirit filled church that we both have the composition and the collection of Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it claim that such an authoritative Spirit filled body suddenly ceases to exist once Scripture is compiled.

Rdr. Arsenios

November 9th 2010, 08:34 AM

Michael B,
The all sufficient one is Jesus Christ, not the Bible.
Nowhere in Scripture is Scripture placed so high as you would put it.
Instead, God is placed that high.
Scripture, like all things, will pass away.
What will remain is Christ Jesus, His Father, and their Spirit.

Jesus does not say "Look to the scriptures to know me."
He does use them for proofs, but He calls us to know Him,
not the scriptures about Him.
His words are not
"Come to Scripture all ye heavy laden,
and it will give you rest,"
but "Come to ME."

A Bibliocentric Christianity is not, I'm afraid, what Christ or His apostles were teaching.
It is a Christ centered faith,
empowered by the Holy Spirit,
informed by the Scripture and the teaching of those inspired by the Holy Spirit.
It was such a spirit filled church
that we both have the composition and the collection
of Scripture.

Nowhere in Scripture does it claim
that such an authoritative Spirit filled body
suddenly ceases to exist once Scripture is compiled.

AMEN, AMEN, AND AMEN!

We simply cannot elevate Holy Writ over God...
Nor subject Christ to our personal interpretation
Of what others have written about Him...

The Body of Christ Who is its Head
historically preceded the writing of words
ABOUT Christ's incarnation
and the Acts and Epistles of His Apostles...

Thank-you for a most excellent post...

Arsenios

MichaelB

November 15th 2010, 08:34 AM

AMEN, AMEN, AND AMEN!

We simply cannot elevate Holy Writ over God...
Nor subject Christ to our personal interpretation
Of what others have written about Him...

The Body of Christ Who is its Head
historically preceded the writing of words
ABOUT Christ's incarnation
and the Acts and Epistles of His Apostles...

Thank-you for a most excellent post...

Arsenios

You have presented a false dichotomy. The Scriptures are given unto the church by the Almighty. It is because of that fact and their contents that they are to be held in high esteem as the sole rule of faith for the church.

MichaelB

November 15th 2010, 08:38 AM

What is interesting is that not one of those who disagree with me provided any tenable argument from the text of Scripture; an observation that is typical and condeming of that position.

Rdr. Arsenios

November 15th 2010, 02:04 PM

Not one of those who disagree with me provided any tenable argument from the text of Scripture;

Here is the tradition of men condemned:

Mark 7:8
For laying aside the commandment of God,
ye hold the tradition of men,
as the washing of pots and cups:
and many other such like things ye do.

Mar 7:9
Full well ye reject the commandment of God,
that ye may keep your own tradition.

So that you can plainly see that the Jews had set aside the commandment of God and in its place had erected a tradition of their own... But observe that they were not simply to throw out ALL Tradition, but only the traditions of men that have to do with a lot of small and daily little rituals involving washing cups ritually, etc etc in the normal course of the day...

Paul picks up this theme for Christians in Greece [Thessaloniki] when some in that Church had taken to the idea that ALL constraints were lifted in terms of what Christians can do together. He commands them - And this is not a request. Neither is it an entreaty. Nor is it an exhortation. It is a COMMAND that you would do well to take to heart...

2Th 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that is walking disorderly,
and not after the tradition which he received from us.

Now my Brother, I would like you to please explain to me, in English words, how you do NOT understand this command to mean that the Brethren are to WALK according to the TRADITION which they RECEIVE from the Apostles and those appointed by the Apostle.

And IF you can see this as your personal commandment from Christ through Paul to YOU, then perhaps you can SHOW ME IN SCRIPTURE exactly WHERE this TRADITION is laid out for the "WALKING THAT IS NOT DISORDERLY" of the faithful brethren in Christ...

Would you DO THAT for me please?

Would you show me in Scripture the Commandments of God? And especially the ones that teach us exactly HOW we are to walk in this Faith such that we not be disorderly...

I mean, can we waive our arms about during prayers and shout out and dance on tables? And if NOT, then WHERE in Holy Writ does it tell us so? In Greek it means "Given alongside..." And THAT means FACE to FACE...

Thank-you and God's blessings be upon you...

Arsenios

Theologian78

November 16th 2010, 12:51 PM

Rdr. Arsenios

November 16th 2010, 04:25 PM

Oh...and Sola Scriptura...it's a tradition.

And a fairly recent one at that...

Arsenios

justsumguy

November 20th 2010, 12:26 AM

Oh...and Sola Scriptura...it's a tradition.

Nice ending.

daniel1212

November 20th 2010, 10:33 PM

MichaelB,

I think you misunderstand the point I would make. Unless I agree with you that Scripture is the highest of all authority, I need not appeal at all times to scripture. Because I admit reason, tradition, and experience as valid authorities by which to interpret each other and scripture, and scripture as a valid way of interpreting each of these others, I need not plant every flag in scripture. If I did, then I would be agreeing with you that scripture is the highest authority. However, I do not.

That being said, you are using logic to make your arguments. Clearly then you have allowed reason to work on and interpret scripture. As well, since you are not merely letting your own reason run wild, you are conforming to the tradition of those who have gone before in their interpretation of scripture. So Tradition has entered in.

I do not believe you can make your argument "from scripture" and abandon reason and tradition. If you did, you must use scripture alone, no other words, no other interpretation. In fact, you must use the original languages as well, since the translation of a language into another is an interpretation...a tradition.

Oh...and Sola Scriptura...it's a tradition.

Who ever said that SS meant abandoning reason, or that the "tradition" disallowed by it meant examination based upon what one has learned by Scriptural teachers, or even by the light of nature and Christian prudence? Again, your argument is against "solo Scriptura," which is an extreme position, not sola Scriptura.

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.xvii.ii.html) A.D. 1647.
VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Tim. iii. 15–17; Gal. i. 8, 9; 2 Thess. ii. 2.
Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word. John vi. 45; 1 Cor. ii. 9, 10, 12.

and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. 1 Cor. xi. 13, 14; xiv. 26, 40.

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

daniel1212

November 20th 2010, 10:48 PM

Arsenios (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?142218-The-Bible-Sufficient-or-in-Need-of-Tradition&p=3122657#post3122657)
Mar 7:9
Full well ye reject the commandment of God,
that ye may keep your own tradition.

So that you can plainly see that the Jews had set aside the commandment of God and in its place had erected a tradition of their own...As is typical of this argumentation against supremacy of Scripture, its error and like statements are based upon a misrepresentation of what that position means, which is not “solo Scriptura,” in which history, reason, etc. have no place in understanding doctrine, but that all such are to be subject to the sola objective source which is affirmed to be wholly God-breathed, that being Scripture, that bein the sola supreme authority. The error of those who oppose SS is that the church is the supreme infallible authority on faith and morals (sola ecclesia), the basis for which claim ends up resting on itself.

And rather than Mk. 7:6-13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Mk.%207.6-13) validating that latter's use of tradition and making it equal to Scripture, it reproves such by the Scripture, showing that both the instruments of Holy Writ and the stewards of it are not its assuredly infallible interpreters, but its doctrines much have demonstrably Scriptural warrant.

But observe that they were not simply to throw out ALL Tradition, but only the traditions of men that have to do with a lot of small and daily little rituals involving washing cups ritually, etc etc in the normal course of the day... And how would we know this was the case, even if that is all it was, rather than the problem being the lack of Scriptural warrant and the contrary nature of the Corban rule?

The reality is that while much of Scripture was oral tradition, it typically was written down, and as text was established as Scripture (which was due to its qualities and attestation, not by an assuredly infallible magisterium) then it progressively became the authority by which additional revelation was tested and substantiated by. (Is. 8:20 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Is.%208.20); Lk. 24:44 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Lk.%2024.44); Jn. 5:39 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jn.%205.39),42 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Jn%205.42); Acts 17:2 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%2017.2),11 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%2017.11); 18:28 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%2018.28); 28:23 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Acts%2028.23); etc.) In addition, those who added new doctrines to a yet open canon, as Moses, the LORD and His apostles, had abundant manifest supernatural Divine attestation. The canon being closed, to make any other stream of revelation equal to it is to essentially add to the canon.

2Th 3:6 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Th%203.6)
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that is walking disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us.

And IF you can see this as your personal commandment from Christ through Paul to YOU, then perhaps you can SHOW ME IN SCRIPTURE exactly WHERE this TRADITION is laid out for the "WALKING THAT IS NOT DISORDERLY" of the faithful brethren in Christ....And IF you can see this as your personal commandment from Christ through Paul to YOU, then perhaps you can SHOW ME ANYWHERE exactly WHERE this TRADITION is laid out for the "WALKING THAT IS NOT DISORDERLY" of the faithful brethren in Christ..

And if you can, how do we know that it is sound? Moreover, the apostle is not speaking of traditions passed down to the Corinthians by someone else through word of mouth. This "tradition" is nothing other than doctrine the Corinthians had heard directly from Paul's own lips, and as was the norm, would have been subsequently written down, either expressly or by reiteration. Can you prove it was not, but it conveyed via a nebulous, uncodified oral tradition?

If you use this to argue for extra-Biblical church traditions being binding upon men then you are establishing sola ecclesia, and thus implicit faith in it. However, what we see commended in Scripture is that of examining the teaching of the very apostles by the Scriptures, and which the LORD and His apostles invoked in support of their teaching, and which was also typically attested to by manifest supernatural attestation.

Partial list of references to Divine written revelation (Scripture): Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lev. 8:36; 10:10; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; Josh. 1:8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:14,15,18,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14; 8:17; 11:10; 12:3,5,17; 13:35; 19:4; 21:4,13,16,42; 22:29,31; 24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,34; Mark 1:2; 7:3; 9:12,13; 10:5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; Lk. 2:3,23; 3:4; 4:4,8,10,16,17,20; 7:27; 10:26; 18:31; 19:46; 20:17,42; 22:37,38; 24:22.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 2:17; 5:39,46,47; 6:31,45; 7:42,52; 8:17; 12:14; 10; 34; 12:14,16; 15:25; 20:31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 7:42; 8:28,30,32; 7:42; 3:33; 13:29,33; 15:15,21; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 23:5; 24:14; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:3,13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7,11; 14:21; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 1:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor.%201.13); 2:3 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor%202.3),4 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor%202.4); 3:7 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor%203.7),15 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor%203.15); 4:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor%204.13); 7:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor%207.12); 8:15 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor%208.15); 9:9 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor%209.9); Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; Eph. 3:3,4; Col. 4:16 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Col.%204.16); 1Thes. 5:27; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 7:28; 10:7; 13:22; 1Pet. 1:16; 5:12; 2Pet. 3:15,16; 1Jn. 2:21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2Cor.%2012.4); Rv. 10:4 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Rv.%2010.4)) yet interestingly, i know of no place where “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” refers to unwritten revelation that was not subsequently written down.)

Theologian78

November 21st 2010, 11:30 AM

Daniel1212,

Let's see if I can say what i mean to. It may be that my ability to communicate through a forum isn't very good, so I would ask your forgiveness.

If I grant that Scripture is the highest of all authorities, and that it contains all that is sufficient for faith, I must ask how one comes to know Scripture, and what is Scripture? Is Scripture merely the relationship of words on the page, the exact ordering of those words? But if so, what language are those words written in? And which version of that language (we have so many MS traditions, who can say what is the precise authoritative word of God?) And then, what can I do about translations into other languages?

If it is not in fact the exact relation of words on a page (or letters for that matter) then perhaps it is the message of God which comes through Scripture that is sufficient for salvation. But then, I ask, how does that come into my brain, and give me the information I need for salvation? And surely that message is tied to the words that I hear, and those words have particular meaning for me that they might not have for you (for example "Salvation" in the first century context meant simply "being saved from danger" any danger whatever, not what it has come to mean today).

To make this point clear, let's take the example of faith. One says "you must have faith to be saved" but then I ask "what is faith?" Is it like the faith I have in a chair when I sit? The faith I have in my wife while she is away? The faith I have in science to tell me the truth about the airplane I'm getting on? And what am I being save from? Is it God's wrath? Is it sin and death? A person may read scripture and have a very clear picture of the Gospel that is very clearly different than someone else's. Which is the truth? How do you know? This may be a fine situation for adiaphora, but not for a question of salvation.

If then I am willing to say "Yes, the Bible has all that is necessary for salvation within it" I still must return to the question of how I come to know that saving message. Imagine a fruit on a tree that had all that a starving man needed to stay alive. How will he get it down from its high branch? How will he consume it when it is fallen? Shall we say that the fruit has no need of climbing or chewing or digesting? Or are they all one? Does "fruit" in this situation really mean all of those things together?

Reason (and by this I mean rational thought, not common sense) and Tradition work like climbing the tree or chewing, or digesting. Without them the fruit is just as useless to the starving man as sand is.

Thus, I am willing to say that Scripture is sufficient to salvation if in fact by "Scripture" we mean the whole human experience of reason, tradition, and scripture working together to understand the message of God's love and conquest of sin and death. Otherwise, the fruit hangs on the tree, and no statements about its nutritious qualities can feed the hungry.

Peace be with you!

daniel1212

November 24th 2010, 01:05 AM

[QUOTE=Theologian78;3122813]Daniel1212,

Let's see if I can say what i mean to. It may be that my ability to communicate through a forum isn't very good, so I would ask your forgiveness.

People tell me i need to be more concise. The issue is really what SS means, and you continue to make it opposed to the use of reason, which Scripture materially provides for, but which does not negate the formal sufficiency of Scripture, which you confusing with material sufficiency. See last paragraph, and your intervening rhetorical reasoning can be skipped.

f I grant that Scripture is the highest of all authorities, and that it contains all that is sufficient for faith, I must ask how one comes to know Scripture, ...

The same way you come to realize what a man of God is, by seeking and using what means God gave you. God gave you the ability to judge, and constantly appeals to man's reason, and provides both men of God and words of God that declare truth.

The necessary and related question is how did writing become established as being wholly inspired of God?

In conveying His word to man, God made use of human instrumentation, which glorifies Him as the treasure is in earthen vessels, and He manifested evidence for both man of God being just that, and for the Word of God being just that. Before Moses, God communicated with Abraham in a way that apparently made it unmistakable it was Divine (though this started with Adam), and made promises that came true, and by such manifestations and other means God established him as a man of God.

Upon this foundation came Moses, whose authority, like that of Jesus and the apostles who added to revelation, was established by powerful supernatural attestation by God, by purity and doctrinal conflation with and complementation to previously established truth, and through whom the Torah was penned. And due to the often accompanying attestation to the Law, as well as other and enduring qualities of Divine revelation, and by the affirmation of manifest men of God, the writings that were God-breathed became established as such. [The kingdom of God is not in word, that of men simply saying it is, but in power, (1Cor. 4:20) and if believing of the Bible with the heart it requires (Ps. 34:18; Is. 66:2; Heb. 11:6) does not result in the realization of things and qualities which correspond to its claims, then it would be a dead book in a dead religion, which would often resort to the arm of men for its defense.]

and what is Scripture?

Scripture is writing that is wholly inspired of God, established as such after the above manner.

Is Scripture merely the relationship of words on the page, the exact ordering of those words?

As Scripture is language, which God uses to speak to man by, it understandable as language is, with structure, linguistics, etc.

But if so, what language are those words written in? And which version of that language (we have so many MS traditions, who can say what is the precise authoritative word of God?) And then, what can I do about translations into other languages?

It was written in the common language of the day it was given, and translated into the like as time went on. God having made man the steward of the Scripture, which were written under Divine inspiration, he is responsible for its faithful transmission, and is responsible for any corruptions of it, though God's word will not pass away, and truth has not and will not despite failures of men, just as Scripture had not lost its authority and force by Jesus time, despite copying.

If it is not in fact the exact relation of words on a page (or letters for that matter) then perhaps it is the message of God which comes through Scripture that is sufficient for salvation. But then, I ask, how does that come into my brain, and give me the information I need for salvation?...

God's command for you to live by every word of God presumes that you can understand it. And just as language today is understood by context, grammar, etc., so the Bible, illuminated by God as regards its sublime truth. And salvation today basically means simply "being saved from danger" as in the first century, but in context its meaning becomes more precise, as we see in the Bible.

To make this point clear, let's take the example of faith. One says "you must have faith to be saved" but then I ask "what is faith?" Is it like the faith I have in a chair when I sit?

Again, as in conversation today, context and comparing texts.

If then I am willing to say "Yes, the Bible has all that is necessary for salvation within it" I still must return to the question of how I come to know that saving message.

Any premise that SS disallows reason has already been reproved. You premise is yet that SS disallows reason, which has already been reproved. Did you read, “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:”

“The phrase good and necessary consequence was used more commonly several centuries ago to express the idea which we would place today under the general heading of logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic); that is, to reason validly by logical deduction or better, deductive reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning). Even more particularly, it would be understood in terms of term logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logic), also known as traditional logic, or as many today would also consider it to be part of formal logic, which deals with the form (or logical form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_form)) of arguments as to which are valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity) or invalid. In this context, we may better understand the word "good" in the phrase "good and necessary consequence" more technically as intending a "valid argument form".”

Reason (and by this I mean rational thought, not common sense) and Tradition work like climbing the tree or chewing, or digesting. Without them the fruit is just as useless to the starving man as sand is. Thus, I am willing to say that Scripture is sufficient to salvation if in fact by "Scripture" we mean the whole human experience of reason, tradition, and scripture working together to understand the message of God's love and conquest of sin and death. Otherwise, the fruit hangs on the tree, and no statements about its nutritious qualities can feed the hungry.

You are confusing material sufficiency with formal sufficiency. As regards your analogy, the blood of Christ is useless to man unless the latter can perceive and understand his need for it and respond, yet it is formally sufficient for salvation, and the need for the mind of man to comprehend it cannot disallow that sufficiency.

The Bible is formally sufficient, just as the fruit is sufficient to feed, yet the Bible materially provides for the means by which it is understood, and this does not negate the Scripture as being supreme infallible authority. Man's interpretations are not as Scripture, but have varying degrees of surety relative to how well substantiated they are as being in conformity with by Scripture, which is the only objective authority which we are assured is 100% inspired by God. As for apostolic type authority, under which new but complementary teachings to that which was written were added, that had a greater level of attestation.

Theologian78

November 29th 2010, 05:27 PM

Daniel1212,

The point I am trying to make is that Sola Scriptura is a teaching which was created in an epistemologically more naive time, and given the advances in what we know about human beings and how we know things, it is no longer sufficient to describe how one comes to know Jesus Christ. Hence my insistence on the use of an epistemologically more complex system.

As well the idea that "solo scriptura" is an extreme version of sola scriptura is simply nonsense. "Solo Scriptura" is just plain bad Latin, and not somehow distince from "sola" the feminine version of "solo." It is "sola" scriptura because in fact "scriptura" is feminine. To say "Solo Scriptura" is like saying "la perro" in Spanish.

Linguistic "reproving" aside ("reproving" being such an arrogant word that it nearly prevented me from bothering to respond), my points still stand. Your insistence that scripture was written in "the common language of the day" stands only true for some of the books of Scripture. In fact, that very point becomes moot when one considers the fact that most people at most times have been illiterate. Given this fact, a scripture written in popular language is no more accessible than a scripture written in high minded philosophical terms. What is then required is someone who can preach the message and deliver that message meaningfully. This requires interpretation and translation, both of which have proved to be anything but "simple" and the result of "good and necessary consequence" from scripture.

In fact the whole idea falls apart if we simply apply this "good and necessary consequence" to scripture. If Scripture is the raw data and we can simply apply logical argument to its raw data, we should be able to show pretty simply this or that doctrine with general agreement. However, this has proven to be very much not the case. Theories of the atonement are a wonderful example of this disagreement based solely on scriptural evidence. The question that arises here is that scripture makes different arguments for different things. If Scripture is the highest measure of truth, who can decide between which scripture is more authoritative? When Paul says "faith without works" and James says "works = faith" who is to determine which is the proper interpretation? This consequence is clear from the general Protestant distrust of "reason" but what it really is the evidence of is the epistemological state of fallen people, not the state of logical deduction.

Furthermore, to emphasize the epistemological difficulties, take a word like hilasterion. For a very long time we have thought this word means "propitiation." Recent scholarship shows it to mean something more like "the place where the atoning blood is sprinkled" (i.e. the Mercy Seat of the Ark). This one word's meaning either supports or argues against an entire interpretation of the new Testament. How is this "the common language of the people?" Or take the Hatan Damim of Exodus 4:25-26. What does this phrase mean?

My point here is to show that Scripture no more "interprets itself" than any other text, as a plain and simple text book in the common language. Nor does it work merely as raw data by which we may use "good and necessary consequence" to draw firm conclusions by use of mere reason. The complexities of linguistic interpretation, historical context, world-view categories, and multiple scriptural points of view, make the whole concept of Sola Scriptura a thing of the past. The epitemological questions about the information contained in scripture is so much more complex that your argument makes it out to be that it seems clear that this, like many other Reformation based arguments needs a serious update.

This is why I make the point that it is Jesus Christ, not Scripture, who is sufficient for salvation. If you ask me then how one comes to know Jesus, the answer is through the combination of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition in the form of the Body of Christ, each making up for the limitations and pitfalls of the others.

As well the fact that you attribute the first five books to Moses is so far from the actual facts of the history of how scripture was composed that it almost seems useless to continue this conversation. You are making a sixteenth century argument in a twenty-first century situation, ignoring the whole of human learning in the past five hundred years. You are also ignoring the previous sixteen hundred years of Christian agreement that the body of Christians, the use of logic (and not just logical deduction from scripture itself), and the Scriptures all work together as a whole for the revelation of Jesus Christ who is our salvation.

daniel1212

November 30th 2010, 01:26 PM

Sola Scriptura is a teaching which was created in an epistemologically more naive time, and given the advances in what we know about human beings and how we know things

Come now, let us reason together saith the Lord.” (Is. 1:18) To assert that SS requires ignorance about how man know things is incorrect, though many who hold to SS may be. Certainly if “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard, Ps. 19:1-3) and if the servant or disciple is not greater than his master (Mt. 10:24; Jn. 15:20) then we see that man was not so dumb as to not recognize that knowledge requires processing and interdependence. And to say the Reformers were so ignorant and we are so much more enlightened is arrogant, and again construes SS to be something in which interpretation does not require reason, and overall tradition and community.

I may see formally sufficiency in a more restricted sense than i think Westminster states it, yet while “it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. Quote (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/deliberate-fiction.html) from Alister McGrath's The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism

As well the idea that "solo scriptura" is an extreme version of sola scriptura is simply nonsense.

It is by no means nonsense, as while you can critique its linguistic correctness, your argument requires an extreme position on SS, which i certainly have not argued for.

my points still stand. Your insistence that scripture was written in "the common language of the day" stands only true for some of the books of Scripture. In fact, that very point becomes moot when one considers the fact that most people at most times have been illiterate.

Your points do not stand as regards the supremacy of Scripture, but again depend upon a logic that makes God insufficient because reason is required to believe in Him, and His authority must be sufficiently comprehensible to be obeyed. When i say Scripture alone is the supreme authority on doctrine, i am not saying it is alone, but that it alone is the supreme judge of spiritual truth, it alone being affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, while its sufficiency to make “one wise unto salvation” and perfect unto every good work” does not exclude reason and overall the church. While historically most people in countries which had the Bible were illiterate, which the printing press and Reformation worked to change, that does not negate the supremacy of Scripture, nor does it make the things needed to understand it to be equal with it. And understanding comes by seeking.

When Paul says "faith without works" and James says "works = faith" who is to determine which is the proper interpretation?

The one that holds that God-given faith justifies, but it is a faith that is confessional in nature, and thus is manifest by obedience by the Spirit to the Scriptures.

This consequence is clear from the general Protestant distrust of "reason"

You seem to have a rather biased view of Protestantism, as if anything, it manifests a great allowance for reason, and one of its chief texts requires it, (Acts 17:2,11) while it is Rome which precludes that one can realize doctrinal confidence by a human reason, and thus requires implicit trust in her assuredly infallible magisterium, which are protected by this infirmity.

Jesus Christ, not Scripture, who is sufficient for salvation. If you ask me then how one comes to know Jesus, the answer is through the combination of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition in the form of the Body of Christ, each making up for the limitations and pitfalls of the others.

It is a given that Christ is sufficient for salvation, but the only assuredly infallible source of the truth on earth about this heavenly Lord is Scripture. And “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” (Rm. 10:17) Although reasoning and ecclesiastical community are necessary to understand it, these are not assuredly infallible. Anyone can claim to be teaching Christ, but what material source are we to test it by?

The real issue then is what is the only assuredly infallible objective source of truth? The answer can only be the Scriptures. Community was instrumental in its writing and their compilation, though both men of God and the writings which became Scripture became established as such essentially due to their unique enduring qualities and supernatural attestation. Yet being the instrument of revelation and the steward of it does not render you assuredly infallible, as the Pharisees and the Jews evidenced. Opposing this supremacy is what Rome has done, in making their office assuredly infallible when they speak in accordance with an infallibly defined criteria, and groups like the Mormons do much the same. They thus can the more easily justify teaching which is contrary to Scripture.

My point here is to show that Scripture no more "interprets itself" than any other text,

My real issue has been that of the supremely authoritative source, but as regards formal versus material sufficiency again, a lime is formally sufficient to provide vitamin C, but is only effectual if one can metabolize it. While the Scriptures are formally sufficient to make one wise unto salvation, and Cornelius souls type could today read Acts 10:36-43 and be saved, not all of Scripture is that clear, (Acts 8:28-33) but Scripture materially sanctions reason and the body which is needed to digest and proclaim and guard this Bread of Life. AND requires an honest and reverential seeking heart, to which God reveals His truth. (Ps. 25:14; Is. 66:2) Scripture also manifests certain principles of exegesis, in which the use of allegory to denote literal things is sanctioned, (Jn. 1:29) while also treating historical accounts as true, (Acts 7) including the miraculous as literal, (Mt. 12:40; 2Pt. 2:16) while allowing the Holy Spirit to recast His prophecies, (Jn. 12:40) and taking into account covenant distinctions in establishing obedience. (Col. 2:14-17; 9:10)

take a word like hilasterion. For a very long time we have thought this word means "propitiation." Recent scholarship shows it to mean something more like "the place where the atoning blood is sprinkled" (i.e. the Mercy Seat of the Ark). This one word's meaning either supports or argues against an entire interpretation of the new Testament. This one word's meaning either supports or argues against

Probably over my head, but i see nothing new here (Strong's, (specifically) the lid of the Ark) but a word used twice in the NT (Rm. 3:25 as propitiation, and Heb. 9:5 as mercyseat) which denotes the place where the propitiation was made disallows that from denoting the expiation which took place there, and is going to change an entire interpretation of the new Testament? It seems that would be a hard sell, especially since i am sure there are other words which technically refer to place where something is done but is used to refer to what was done, while Rm. 3:25 states that Christ was set forth a hilasterion “through faith in His blood” for the remission of sins, and shed life-blood made atonement for the soul. (Lv. 16.15-17,30; 17:11)
God does not go into detail as to how precisely death Jesus enabled forgiveness, but as He makes the essentials clear, it is thus that it is made evident that Jesus death was necessary to th putting away of sins, for them which are of a broken (or self righteousness, etc.) heart and contrite spirit, (Ps. 34:18) and who cast all their faith upon the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ.

you attribute the first five books to Moses is so far from the actual facts of the history of how scripture was composed that it almost seems useless to continue this conversation.

You began by relegating those who hold to SS as ignoramus souls, and end by doing likewise to those who believe in Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (perhaps save for posthumous remarks), but yes, i am one of those non-elite souls who believe when that Scriptures states that “Moses wrote,” or “the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses” and such like, that it really means that Moses wrote, or was directly responsible for what they attribute to them, (Ex. 24:4,27; Lv. 1:1; 7:37-38; 8:36; 10:11; 14:1-2; 26:46; 27:34; Num. 4:37,45,49; 9:23; 33:2; Dt. 31:9,22; Josh. 8:32; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2,8; 22:9; 23:6; Jdg. 3:4; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 2Ki. 14:6; 2Chr. 23:18; 33:8; Neh. 9:14; Mk.7:10; 10:3–5; 12:19,26; Lk. 5:14; 16:29–31; 20:28; 24:27, 44; Jn. 5:45–47; 7:19, 23; Acts 3:22; Rm. 10:5) that the liberal revisionism's. Documentary Hypothesis (http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm) of authorship is a broad and slippery slope to denying the authority of the Scriptures, and “hath God said” has a rattle associated with it. If this is where you reason, and tradition takes you then i must seek to choose the narrow path.