Quote from signature line

There are plenty of examples of disagreements on 'essentials' which result from a sola Scriptura approach eg: on soteriology - disagreements on atonement models (substitutionary atonement, penal substitutionary atonement, Christus Victor, etc), the nature of saving faith, monergist or synergist grace, Christ died for all or just 'the elect' etc. These differences are quite fundamental and yet sola Scriptura provides no adjudication of them.

But Arius was using Scripture to deny the deity of Christ - that's the whole point! That's a prime example of the utter inadequacy of ss as a doctrinal methodology,and the need for Apostolic Tradition to assert the correct teaching via Niacea I

Yep - and the false teachers, as above, were largely arguing from Scripture. The Councils had to meet to defend the Apostolic deposit of faith against that misuse of Scripture.

Not only from but, as I said before, I have thus far argued from Scripture since that fits your own epistemological paradigm better.

If you mean "where can you find it in written form", then there are plenty of sources: liturgies, some from as early as the Apostolic period; the Patristic writings, the Conciliar Canons (including those determining the canon of Scripture, such as Carthage and Hippo, as well as those asserting Christology such as Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus and Chalcedon); and, more generally, the 'collective memory of the Body of Christ'.

The Body of Christ - see above

Try an internet search engine for the above sources.

Scripture and Tradition.

And your evidence for that is...?

For starters, because Christians have, from the earliest times of the Church, even the Apostolic period (as evidenced by my previous quotes from the Pastoral Letters) accepted it. The burden of proof is on those who would seek to break from that consensus and introduce novel doctrines - whether those individuals be the likes of Arius, or latter-day evangelicals advocating sola Scriptura - to demonstrate why that consensus of acceptance do be broken and why and how they know better than those early Christians.

 

And neither am I a 'mindless drone' who is 'indoctrinated'. I do however recognise that I am a sinful and hence fallible human being whose individualistic interpretation of Scripture is more often than not liable to be wrong. Your case seems to depend on the elevation of human reason and egoism ("we are thinking people") over and above Scripture and Tradition; by claiming that "thinking people" are qualified to accurately interpret Scripture, you are subordinating Scripture to and making it dependent on human reason, thus placing Reason, not Scripture in the supreme place. This is precisely what liberal Protestantism seeks to do, and I find it extremely unhealthy and disturbing that you are advocating the self-same thing, and I wish to have nothing to do with it!

See my reply to Marcia on this point above. How on earth can you claim that the kind of soteriological and general epistemological anarchy that is the inevitable result of sola Scriptura can in any way whatsoever be "a very very healthy thing" and "exceedingly profitable"?! Fortunately, God doesn;t want it that way and Jesus gave us His Body, the Church, to help us out, as per Agnus' signature. Thanks be to God!

Oh, the tired old list, unthinkingly lumping together Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants with heretical groups. You might as well concoct a list upon which Baptists appear alongside Hindus and Muslims on the basis that none are Catholic, liberal Protestants or Orthodox and therefore must all be a Good Thing. Amazing what you can come up with when you apply skewed selection criteria, isn't it?

Not at all! But it showed that sola Scriptura wasn't sufficient.

You're putting the discernment process and Nicaea I forward as if they are contradictory. I would say that it's not an 'either/or' situation, but rather that God used the Council to affirm the Trinitarian doctrine over and against the Arians who were "twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction" (II Peter 3:16).

 

Matt Black:
"For starters, because Christians have, from the earliest times of the Church, even the Apostolic period (as evidenced by my previous quotes from the Pastoral Letters) accepted it. The burden of proof is on those who would seek to break from that consensus and introduce novel doctrines - whether those individuals be the likes of Arius, or latter-day evangelicals advocating sola Scriptura - to demonstrate why that consensus of acceptance do be broken and why and how they know better than those early Christians."

GE:
No, it's what eventually remained that remained for the Church that remained. You will find what remained - or what emerged in the end as the true Scriptures - remained in the true Church OF THOSE SCRIPTURES ONLY - which excludes as Authoritative Church, every church not of those only remaining Authoritative Scriptures. Therefore: What remained was the Protestant Churches because the Authority of the Protestant Churches rests completely and exclusively on the remaining canon of Scriptures as we have it today in any 'Protestant' editions without the so called Apocrypha.

 

Antichrist was in the Church in the days of John and Paul's writing already; wolves entered the Congregation in sheep skin; false teachers - quite probably prolific authors of learned treatises - "beguiled" the Christians of their reward. Those poor 'starters' of Christianity had a difficult time! Only time would show: God's Providence overruling all.

 

GE, I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your last two posts(?) If you're trying to say that false teaching such as gnosticism was infiltrating the Church in Apostolic times, then you are correct, but the Church recognised these teachings and refuted them, largely through the efforts of ECFs such as Irenaeus. I've no idea what relevance your reference to 'the Protestant churches' has here, since those churches did not exist until the Reformation, which is way way after the patristic period under discussion here.

 

I think the rule is still helpful in cases of disruptions in external unity--even disruptions as large and long lasting as that between East and West. This is because Vincent goes on to address what should happen in case of an error overtaking a large part of the church in which case one must consult 'antiquity', and then 'consent' if needed (etc) to determine which side is correct (ie Orthodox and Anglicans vs Rome on the nature of the papacy). Of course because of the external disruption, until there is repentance and the disputing sides come together, an authoritative ecumenical decision ruling on the point of dispute will be indefinitely delayed. :tear:

We must continue to pray for the restoration of the external unity of the Church.

 

Indeed. Very unlikely to happen under +++Benedict as far as the Catholics are concerned; until they become less Apostolicae Curiae and more Saepius Officio, that dog ain't gonna hunt.

 

True enough.

 

Ok. I understand this quote that you made to be an attempt at a insult.

There, consider it backed up. Also your responces jump around in topics etc... I was fallowing one track. The teachings of the Apostles are both Oral and writen Scripture and both were considered authoritative by the early church. The verses you quoted don't "prove" the writen word was the only source of Authority from the begining. One point to one point. You make certain leaps of logic. In any debate there should be a logical flow. Just saying brother.

 

(I'm still here until tomorrow) Evidence for what? I've already given you the names of 2 books on the formation of the canon. Have you ever read a good book on the Biblical canon?

I do want to address these points:

These are not fundamental differences; they are disagreements. I consider those who disagree with me on these issues to still be Christians. We are united on the essentials. The other views can be argued both ways from scripture, or I just disagree with a particular view. It's not a big deal to me at all. Maybe it is to you. Why do you feel there is such a need for absolute agreement on every point?

Arius was misusing scripture to deny the deity of Christ. Of course, false teachers use the scripture but the evidence in the Bible is against them. I have dialogued with JWs and Mormons and New Agers for years, and I am always able to point out how they are misinterpreting scripture. They clearly don't know it and don't understand context.

So why don't you and those in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and other such groups that tout oral tradition agree?? I think the above can be used as a secondary source of information but it is not infallible and it is not authoritative. What is the "collective memory of Christ" and how does one access that (sounds Jungian)?

You asked me for evidence that the NT was not completed at the time Paul wrote to Timothy. How can you ask that? It's obvious. The entire NT was not written at that time; one way we know is that Paul was writing the letter, so it clearly had not been passed around yet. First Timothy was probably written around 63 AD and 2 Tim. around 67 AD.

Sorry, you did not prove that from scripture at all. And which apostolic tradition is right? Anglican, RC, Eastern Orhtodox, etc?

 

"Essentials" according to whom? Because I can pretty much guarantee you that different groups have different lists of what's "essential".

 

The essentials of the faith have been confessed by 2,000 years by believers everywhere:
Jesus is God
The Trinity
God is spirit
Jesus is fully human and fully God
The atonement (Jesus died for sins)
The bodily resurrection
The 2nd coming of Christ
The resurrection of the dead, those who are saved unto eternal life and those who are damned unto eternal torment

Any departure from these is considered heresy.

The essentials are usually what you find in a statement of faith, which many churches, ministries, etc. have. The statements are very similar.

There are some who like to get into more detail but they don't divide over it. For example, even though there are different views on baptism, endtimes, etc., most christians do not divide over this. That is, they do not reject other believers who disagree and tell them they are not believers. If they do, they are divisive.

I have not had to wrestle with this - and I have spoken in all types of churches - charismatic, Episcopal, Bible churches, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Grace Fellowship, Grace Brethren, non-denominational, 3 types of Presbyterian churches, and many more.

The essentials are pretty well defined in the early creeds, which came about to defend the faith against false teachings.

If people want to argue over what is essential, it makes me wonder. Either they believe the above or they don't. All Christians do.

1 Cor 15
1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,

2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

 

Matt,

I posted this....

And you said...

It isnt a "tired old list", its a very appropriate list of groups who prove your view to be wrong.

All of those groups, Matt...although they have different beliefs...have 2 things in common.

One is that their members are forbidden to turn to the scriptures on their own, with the Holy Spirits teaching ministry for wisdom and truth, as God has clearly admonished all of us to do. Even to the point of holding our pastors and bible teachers accountable to the word of God. It is very common in evangelical fellowships for pastors and teachers to tell their people..."Dont take anything I teach "carte blanche" because of my position. Check me out by the word of God, and come and talk with me about it if you disagree. If you feel I am wrong. let me know. You might be right."



All of the groups I listed have a teaching authority that "Lords it over" their people. I heard someone just last night on EWTN say to millions of catholics...

"You, me, none of us have any right to attempt to interpret the scriptures. Holy Mother Church, through her Teaching Magestirium, does that for us, and tells us what the scriptures teach."



Matt, that concept comes from the evil one, and it is devilish and cultic to the core. All the groups I listed have that view, and whether the "Holy Interpreters" are a single person, a group of bishops, a group of "desert fathers" or councils from the past, we are to NEVER NEVER NEVER mindlessly buy into what others teach simply because of who they are.



The 2nd thing that all of those groups have in common is this.....

Every...last...one...of...them...are...DRIPPING with "church" sponsored blasphemy, idolotry, heresy, and somethimes goddess worship. In some cases it is getting worse exponentially as the centuries creep by.

We are admonished in the scripture, both old and new testaments, to turn to the scriptures...every one of us...for our truth. The apostle Paul commended the christians in Berea for turning to the scriptures themslves, and checking him out acording to the scriptures.

If I am a calvinist, and I start to get too extreme, what happens? I guarantee you the arminians will keep me in check. If the arminians get too extreme...the calvinists will keep THEM in check. Sola Scriptura. THANK GOD for it!!!

But in all the groups I listed...and others...the overflow of blaphemies and idolatries and wickedness just gets worse and worse as time goes on.

Its so clear, Matt. How can you be so blind to it?


:godisgood:

 

GE:
Matt, I meant those two posts as illustration of this, "No, it's what eventually remained that remained for the Church that remained. You will find what remained - or what emerged in the end as the true Scriptures - remained in the true Church OF THOSE SCRIPTURES ONLY - which excludes as Authoritative Church, every church not of those only remaining Authoritative Scriptures. Therefore: What remained was the Protestant Churches because the Authority of the Protestant Churches rests completely and exclusively on the remaining canon of Scriptures as we have it today in any 'Protestant' editions without the so called Apocrypha." The process by whic the Apochrypha were excluded from Holy Scriptures, also excluded the inclusion into Holy Scriptures of the 'patristic fathers' et al, evn the writings of men like Irenaues and Justin and Ignatius and Barnabas; even the exclusion of the Didacheh and 'Apostolic Confession'. The end result -- under the guidance of God Almighty, I say, is what in the end determined what was and waht would be Authoratative in Christian Holy Writ: Not the beginnings of any writing; not even the letters of Paul or the Gospels. Every document eventually remaining remained through test: The test from the Church, from time, from Providence; But mostly, the TEST of Intrinsic Witness -- self-witness; content::Was it 'Christ'-centered and orientated; does it recognise and extoll the Divinity of our Lord Jesus --- while doing right the opposite with any rival god-figure.


What withstood these tests and by them were vindicated: There, lies the true origin of the Holy Scriptures. I repeat, Not in which writings were earliest or even most authentic.

 

Yes, several.

I don't think it is necessary for agreement on every jot and tittle, but it is necessary to have agreement on fundamentals, if nothing else because it is what Jesus promised in John 16:13. The differences which have been cited are not peripheral, they are not adiaphora; rather they are fundamental. For example, the Arminian believes in a 'God' who has died for all men; the Calvinist believes in a 'God' who loves some men but hates others. These are two different 'Gods' in effect - pretty fundamental if you ask me! You might as well argue that Jehovah and Allah are one and the same 'God', albeit worshipped by different people in different ways....

Exactly my point: the Bible alone is insufficient doctrinally, as demonstrated by false teachers being able to use it. Even the Devil quoted Scripture at Jesus!

We don't agree because the unity of the Church has been fractured since 1054, but prior to that (to address your second question) there exists a sufficient degree of consensual Tradition to draw from.

No; I asked you for evidence that the Nt was not completed by the time Paul envisaged those to whom Timothy had handed over the teaching would likewise hand over teaching to the next generation

I have demonstrated it. You have chosen to ignore the evidence since it does not fit within the epistemological paradigm of your evangelical tradition.

I answered that above

 

If you want to divide over this issue, that's too bad. Some Calvinists do (not saying you are one, just that some of them do divide over it). I do not see a biblical basis for it because both views can be argued from scripture. Dividing over this means you would say one camp is Christian and the other is not. They still agree on the essentials I listed above.

.

I don't think it's tradition we draw from, but the Bible. Any tradition must be based on the bible, such as the creeds.

??? I don't see how you don't see that any teaching Paul was referring to was not put into scripture. This is not a good argument you are making here. Why would God not put it in scripture? I think the difference between your view and mine comes down to the sufficiency of scripture.

And I would say the same to you, that it does not fit into what you believe. Matt, I've debated this issue before, both here and elsewhere. I was very open to several views as a new believer and investigated quite a few. In fact, I went to an Anglican (not Episcopal, though I was in an Episcopal church when I was saved, but I was saved despite it - long story) church for awhile as a believer.

 

You get this conclusion from this quote of mine:

Go back to what you said. I don't use "maybe's" I don't read into the passage. I don't use conjectures. You are the one that was using those great leaps of faith that you are now speaking of. I said "You stand on your "maybe's," an accurate statement, at that time--perhaps offensive to you--but accurate. I did not say you were a Mormon. You can't get that out of that quote. Therefore you have falsely accused me. The meaning is that for you to say what you said you might as well as have been using another source other than the Bible (Oral Tradition, the Book of Mormon, the ECF, The Great Controversy, etc.). It doesn't matter. The only source that counts is the Bible. It is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. I did not say you were a Mormon and for to you to accuse me of such is a false accusation.

I explained very carefully to you that just the way a preacher preaches today (if he is Biblical), he expounds the Word of God; so did Paul. He took the Bible (Acts 17:11, and preached from it. He explained it. It doesn't mean that he simply read from it. He explained it in his own words, just as a preacher today would. It is called exposition or expository preaching. But it is still the Word of God. This is not what I consider oral and written Scripture. Paul taught, discipled, Timothy. He speaks of the things that "Timothy learned" from him. These take, and "teach other faithful men also". It is the Word of God that they were to teach, or explain, not tradition. There is no tradition to be taught. The whole concept of NT tradition is ludicrous, if you think it through. From Pentecost (29 A.D.) to the time of let's say 1Cor. (55 A.D.) how much tradition would have been formed. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. According to the RCC encyclopedia itself Tradition, both Oral and Written is formed throughout generations and is passed down from generation to generation throughout the years and is usually centuries old. Does that fit this 16 year span of time between Pentecost and the Book of Corinthians, or any of the other NT books. No way! Impossible. The RCC defeats itself in its own defintion of Tradition. The "oral teaching" was nothing esle but the teaching of the Word of God.

 

I'm really not going to engage with this particular cartload of apples and oranges; like I said, you can put any list together to attempt to prove a point. I can put together a list of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus and say that these too have two things in common:

1. They don't acknowledge the Deity of Christ

2,. They use Scriptures other than the Bible

So what?

It very obviously doesn't 'work' like that. What you get instead is Arminians and Calvinists flinging anathemata at each other and claiming that they and only they are Proper Christians(TM) and the others are spiritual untermenschen. Seen it happen. Again and again. On these very boards. Thus demonstrating the utter theological bankruptcy of sola Scriptura, time and again.

Because I've 'seen' (so much for your allegation of 'blindness!) again and again that it is 'clear', manifestly obvious, that it does not and it cannot work. The very people who seek to defend it here have demonstrated that to me! How's that for irony?

 

I don't; but see my reply to Alive in Christ above - Christians don't just divide over it, they anathematise those who disagree with them.

That's exactly my point, though - both can't be right. Which one is? Sola Scripturists have no ultimate answer to that: at best they can say (if they're really honest) "this is my personal interpretation or the interpretation of my denomination" and at worst they say "Scripture is quite clear" (which it isn't otherwise why would Christians disagree over the interpretation?).

Which is what they frequently say - I've seen it.

But what's the point, if they can't agree on the essential nature of God - whether He loves all me equally or just the Elect and hates the rest?



.

So are you, as a Baptist, happy with the line from the Nicene Creed which says, "We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" (since Baptists don't believe that baptism does that)?

Yes it does. Let's look at the 'generations' point again:

Generation 1-2: Paul teaches Timothy. NT incomplete at this point.
Generation 2-3: Timothy teaches his successors. NT probably complete by then.
Generation 3-4: Timothy's successors teach their successors. NT definitely complete by then

It's #3-4 that's interesting for our purposes - since Paul was instructing that sound teaching was to be passed on even to this point - after the NT was finished - the Holy Spirit through Paul envisaged that there would be such teaching 'outwith' the NT that would still need to be passed on - whence Tradition.

 

Ok your explination (though I did take your statements personally) about my statement being conjecture I will accept and will say no more about it.

Tradition as I see it is closer to the Jewish Consept rather than the implied consept with RC which brings issues of devotion not supported in scripture (or necissarily denied, just silent). The Jewish Consept of Oral Tradition is this: How do you interpret scripture in a consistent method over a period of time so as not to corrupt its teaching? The Massorites were dealing with this issue with their updated copies of the Tanakh and wrote commentaries in the margins. You can see this with the Early Church. there is a way to view the OT and interpret it. When I'm speaking of Oral Tradition this is what I mean. Ie... When Philip spoke to the Ethiopian Eunich he interpreted Isaiah with Jesus as having fulfilled it. Keep in Mind Jesus is a Rabbi. An Itinnerant Rabbi which was needed in Judah at that time because the common people wanted and needed consistent authoritative teaching on the Torah or law. That made the itinerant Rabbi's valuable. You can see it in Jewish writing. Remember the Falacy of the Pharasees was their attempt to create a hedge around the Law and thereby using the "hedge" to actually not follow the Law. However, the early christians had a method and form for interpreting scripture and this is Oral tradition. However, the NT was not entirely writen by 55 AD and so the oral teaching of the apostles were the primary source of gospel preaching. Jesus' life and mission were new and are related to in the OT so new information was given to fill out the OT in the present for them but new information non the less. Therefore all teaching was by necessity Oral though supplemented by the Torah and other books from the OT. Paul didn't quote Luke's or John's, Mark or Matthew's gospel when preaching. Certainly he used the OT but he also used the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and things he learned that was orally taught to him while in Damascus taught by Ananias for the few days before he started preaching. So Oral tradition both for Moses and the early christians played an essential role.

By the way what is the Great controversy?