Scripture: the Communication of God’s Word

Hi Frank,

You may enjoy this dialogue on baptism:

http://www.catholicoutlook.com/baptdialog1.html

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "If what you call "authentic Tradition" continues as inspired works of the Holy Spirit"

Not "inspired", but "animated" or "kept alive". Inspiration is a technical term that is applicable only to the Scriptures.

then who is there that can authenticate it

An authority appointed by God. How did Paul authenticate his Gospel?

Gal 2:1-2, "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain."

Ignatius, who learned the Catholic faith from Saint John the Apostle writes in A.D. 110,

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." (Epistle to the Smyraens 8)

Irenaeus reverberates the Catholic faith in his own day, which is circa A.D. 180,

"True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor suffering curtailment in the truths which she believes; and it consists in reading the word of God without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and above all, it consists in the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts of God." (Against Heresies 4,33:8)

To have belief in an open and continuing revelation is not only not plausible but it is ridiculously infeasible.

Sacred Tradition does not continue to be revealed. It has been given once-for-all in the person and work of Jesus Christ and it develops through theological articulation (e.g. The Holy Trinity).

To try to record every person's claim to a word of knowledge or a prophecy, or an interpretation of tongues, is an impossibility.

When I speak of "the deposit of faith", "the deposit of divine revelation", or "public revelation", I am speaking of one deposit that was given once-for-all in the Apostolic Age. This deposit is transmitted through the ages through (1) Sacred Scripture and (2) Sacred Tradition.

Revelation given through charismatic gifts is a separate matter and is not binding upon the Church as public revelation is. These gifts exist to build the body up, not to relay its foundation or transmit new doctrine.

if revelation is an on-going process

It isn't. It ended with the death of the last apostle; this is a truth that both Protestants and Catholic agree upon, but it is a truth that can't be found in the Bible.

May God bless you,

Carson

[ November 12, 2002, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi DHK,

You asked, "Can you give a time and date in history when Sacred Tradition ceased to be revealed?"

Yes and no. Yes: When the last Apostle died. No: I do not know the time and date when this occurred.

You also asked, "Is it not true that many of your doctrines (considered heretical to us) can only be proved through "Tradition," and that this tradition has been an on-going process throughout the centuries?"

"Proved" is a strong word. I can "prove" that one is born again in baptism by using Scripture alone apart from Tradition, and it will not be "proof" to you because you will (and have already) disagree with my interpretation of the Scripture.

Tradition (1) allows us to interpret Scripture within the lived context of the Christian Faith, and (2) transmits the Word of God.

When Tradition is applied to the Scriptures, it is undeniable that the believer is "born again" in baptism because this is how the lived faith of the Church (in which the Scriptures were authored and perpetuated) has understood how we are "born anothen". Even though I can "prove", apart from Tradition, that one is born again in baptism, it is through the lens of Tradition that this interpretation is verified as the true interpretation among other aberrations by viewing the life of the Church.

Thousands of divine liturgies were being performed in the early Church wherein believers were baptized, clothed with white baptismal garments, and these passages were read in the liturgy. The Church knew precisely what John 3:5 referred to, and still uses this passage in her baptismal liturgy. It is this lived faith of the Church that is integral to transmitting Sacred Tradition as the Holy Spirit animates the life and love of Christ's Bride.

When you leave the Church, when you depart from the household of faith, when you reject the lived life and faith of Christ's Bride, you are susceptible to being thrown about by the wind of sectarianism. You no longer stand upon the Rock, who is Jesus Christ, who founded the Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

You wrote, "Orthodox doctrines, like the trinity can be proved through the Bible. We can do without your councils."

The developed doctrine of the Trinity that we have today can be "supported" by the Bible, but it cannot be "proven" in the strict sense. Else, we wouldn't have Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Sabellians, Modalists, Christadelphians, etc. who all rely upon the Bible alone.

I encourage you to read up on the Christadelphians, who rely on the Bible alone for their doctrine:

http://www.christadelphian.org/c17g/beliefs/jesus.html

Churches would not have to include the Trinity in their Statement of Faith after the article, "We believe the Bible to be the sole authority in matters of faith and morality." If the Bible "proved" the Trinity so clearly, then these articulations of belief in the Trinity in professions of faith would not be necessary.

You have a poor historical understanding of the dogma of the Trinity, and therefore I cannot engage in an articulate discussion on this matter with you.

You wrote, "Man-made inventions like Marian doctrines are based solely on tradition, for they are not in the Word of God at all."

I disagree strongly with you. Marian doctrines are based on both Scripture and Tradition. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption are prophecied by Genesis 3:15 (the Assumption is the effect of the Immaculate Conception); the Perpetual Virginity is taught implicitly in Luke 1:34; the Theotokos is a logical result of Mary's motherhood of the God-man, which pervades Scripture; and the Coredemption is found in Simeon's prophecy and John 19.

You interpret Scripture apart from the Faith of the Church and, unfortunately, with an anti-Catholic bias. I interpet Scripture like the first Christians, in the bosom of the Church, in the Apostolic Tradition, in union with the Apostles and the Saints.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 12, 2002, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi DHK,

Thank you for bolstering my position, which suggests that authentic Christian Tradition transmitted as the rule of faith is integral to the proper interpretation of Scripture.

You wrote, "I can aptly refute all of the above from the Bible"

Of course you can. But, a Christadelphian, who goes by the Bible alone, will disagree with you and will refute you using the Bible.

Now isn't that interesting?

The Christadelphian employs a Christadelphian tradition; you employ whatever particular sectarian Protestant tradition you bring to the Bible. Both of these traditions, inasmuch as they match up to the Tradition as transmitted by God's Holy Church, will serve an authentic, proper, and correct interpretation (as well as recognition of the correct canon of Scripture to begin with).

God bless,

Carson

[ November 12, 2002, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "I do not use tradition. I use the Word of God."

How you interpret Scripture entails the lens of tradition that you view the Scripture through. This is an unavoidable subjective presupposition that every exegete employs when he/she approaches Scripture.

You wrote, "I am not a Protestant by the way, I am a historic Baptist"

You're kidding with me, right? Would you mind quoting some of your "spiritual ancestors" down through the history of Christianity?

You wrote, "Like so many others in the 19th century, [Thomas] began a religious movement that really is a development of his personal beliefs."

Sounds a lot like Martin Luther to me.

You wrote, "The Catholic Church, like the Christadelphians, rely on just one source for the interpretation of the Bible."

No, it does not. This is where you err in your judgement of the Catholic Church. You are misinformed as to the nature of Biblical interpretation in the Church. I encourage you to read the Pontifical Biblical Commission's document, "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church":

http://www.petersnet.net/browse/1182.htm

You wrote, "Before [Thomas] came along there was no true gospel."

Like it was before Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli? Wait a moment.. I shouldn't employ historic figures because you are a "historic Baptist" whose "spiritual ancestry" predates the Reformation.

God bless you,

Carson

 

Hi Brother Curtis,

You wrote, "Since the Bible predates the reformation, you can accurately say that fundamentalism predates the reformation."

This is like saying, "Since the Constitution predates the Civil War, you can accurately say that slaves were free before the Emancipation Proclamation".

God bless you,

Carson