Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Let's run into the embrace of Holy Mother Church

Forum Quick Jump

49 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 1/19/2003 4:10 PM (GMT -6)

The term "catholic" simply means universal. Yes there was a catholic church (both small c) from the beginning. However, as history shows, the Catholic church as it is today is nothing like the catholic church of the first centuries. Neither the Orthodox nor Catholic church can truly claim to be the true church because they simply cannot prove that the church they are today is the same. There has always been a universal church and exists in all the factions of Christianity. The issue of which is the "true" church is not one of truth but of control.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/19/2003 5:37 PM (GMT -6)

honorman: The church did not create the New Testament. God did. The church merely discovered the New Testament. Instead of running into the embrace of any "church," I suggest we run into the embrace of God.

eyes: First, notice that you are using a small "C" to represent Christ's Body: The Church. Next, notice that you are pitting against each other those who labored to bring the message (like Paul and Peter and Mark) with Him who inspired them. Why? Further, above you are contrasting God with the Body that Christ promised to send his Spirit to. Again, why?

honorman: The term "catholic" simply means universal. Yes there was a catholic church (both small c) from the beginning. However, as history shows, the Catholic church as it is today is nothing like the catholic church of the first centuries. Neither the Orthodox nor Catholic church can truly claim to be the true church because they simply cannot prove that the church they are today is the same. There has always been a universal church and exists in all the factions of Christianity. The issue of which is the "true" church is not one of truth but of control.

eyes: What was "Catholic" from the beginning deserves to be in CAPS: that is that what was "catholic" (small c) is the Gospel (which deserves CAPS). Your own personal criteria, that "they simply cannot prove that the church they are today is the same" is mute. WHO CARES? IT WAS NOT ALL THE SAME THEN, WHEN IT WAS EQUALLY AS CATHOLIC, DISPITE ALL THE LOCAL DIFFERENCES. What makes the church Orthodox is its core -- the gospel. And the Gospel is ALIVE. It naturally changes just to remain the same. It is not calcified.

I will agree with you, honourman, in your statement when you say, The issue of which is the "true" church is not one of truth but of control. Rather, where the truth is, there is the Church.

Al

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 1/19/2003 6:40 PM (GMT -6)

The only "pitting" I am doing is pitting God's true church (which is found in all believers, regardless of what organization they belong to) against people who uplift organizations such as Catholicism and Orthodoxy as the true church. I use little "c"s to oppose that. I am not pitting the Apostles against the "church" but rather the Apostles against those who would contain the church in something it is not, a man made established organization which is what Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox are. God is much bigger than any of our organizations and to suggest that his church could be contained in any of these (or any other) organizations is going against history, and is foolish and arrogant. There are believers in all "churches" just as there are non-believers.
Finally, where there is an argument for someone's church being the true church, there is always behind it the issue of control AND power.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/20/2003 2:58 AM (GMT -6)

I think I get what you mean, honorman.

Still...The Church is a human manifestation of the presence of God. (Where two or three gather...I am there.) So, putting aside the geopolitical for a moment, in one single local, a dot on the map, a pause in the road, the Church is different from a meeting of the same people gathered for a different purpose--to harvest corn for example. The Epiclesis both in the Service of the Word and the Service of Communion betray this. The Church is a human institution-transformed. (I'm inventing a term--go easy on me!) Looking at that last sentence I think I prefer it to if I had written "transformed human institution." Perhaps you are posting in corrective of supposedly "transformed human institutions." But the Church as "a human institution-transformed" (I ADDED the hyphen after looking at it a bit.) is something that represents a change both in this life fo the present (fellowship) and an eschatological aspect of pleroma. The Church is Christological in its historicity. But when ever the historical aspect has run amuck it has deviated from itself. It also has a Pneumatological aspect that transcends history. The Church is guided in all truth by the Spirit. John Zizioulas describes Christian ecclesiology this way, as: Pneumatologically conditioned Christology. The main thing is that the Church (big-C) is an incarnation ("Christ in you, the hope of Glory.") as His Body. But that ONLY happens by the Spirit. Not by human institution, or plan, or power. Being besides the point whether it always words or not (It doesn't!) The Orthodox liturgy for ordaining ("Ord" means place--underscoring the historicity and locality of the Church.) bishops absolutely requires the "Axios" ("Amen!") OR NOT of the enitre congregation. The Church is in ALL the people. Dispite rampant "clericalization" that had lain the "laity" aside (Laity began under the recognition that it IS a priestly class. It is proper to speak of the "preisthood of the laity."), the Church is the WHOLE assembly gathered around the pastor/bishop and visited by the Holy Spirit.

It is NOT solely a human institution. Any such assemblies are not the Church.

Al

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 01/20/2003 08:01:49 AM

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/20/2003 4:55 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Starkman, you said:

"Clearly the pre-Catholic Church believers were growing, learning, and thriving, even under horrible persecution, without having to be efficient readers, and doing so without the Catholic church and its doctrines. And surely folk could learn to read or write. It's not THAT hard, if one wants to learn. BUT if one is being supressed, that makes things hard. This has nothing to do with anachronisms. It's just plain simple facts. Folk heard the gospel being preached in their own cities. The Scriptures were read, and folk could learn accordingly. All without the Catholic Church."

First what is the definition of ''pre-Catholic Church"? At what point in history are you saying that the Catholic Church came into existence? OF course it is the Catholic Church's position that there is no such thing as "pre-CAtholic Church" since the church was founded by Peter. Just to clarify for me, please tell me.

YOu're operating under a post-enlightenment view of education. "Surely folks could learn to read and write." Until the 15th century, as you know, there was no printing press. Producing books was expensive and difficult. Monks were the main keepers of books, and they copied them by hand. This simple fact kept the majority of people ill educated and illiterate. Some think that the Reformation could not have occurred had there not been the invention of the printing press.
Even in the U.S., in the late 18th century approx 20% of the entire adult population was illiterate.
We just have to be realistic that probably the vast majority of people are not as intelligent or as motivated as Abraham Lincoln was to educate himself in his log cabin. Furthermore without printed books, it's virtually impossible.

"The Scriptures were read, and folk could learn accordingly. All without the Catholic church." Again, what time frame are we talking about here? In the time of Jesus, scriptures were read in the synagogues. But not all people were allowed to hear the readings, namely, women.
The fact of illiteracy was not so much a function of oppression (I am not sure what type of oppression you are talking about). It was more of a function of reality. Lack of opportunity, actual lack of books without the printing press. The fact that for most people , life itself was a process of survival. When that's the focus, it's hard to have any time, energy or will to try to somehow educate oneself.

And if you're talking about the Canonical scriptures, you're begging the question since the canon was put together by the CAtholic Church. Thus, the reading of any of the canon, if one was literate, was still under the influence of the Church. As it still is today. As the author of this string wrote, there are many books that never made it to the Canon, and many that did. Who decided that? the Church did.

"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation." -Edward R. Murrow

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/20/2003 5:07 AM (GMT -6)

RD, you wrote: there is no such thing as "pre-CAtholic Church" since the church was founded by Peter.

Surely you and all will agree that Christ founded his church by his Spirit.

Incidently, even after two hundred years Rome was a town of many bishops, and no single administrative head.

Now, the PLACE of Rome, and those places with close ties with the Apostle's message of the Gospel were viewed with honor. The Holy Tradition (read: Gospel) was stronger in those places. When problems rose, THEY (churches in place, not people) were what was to turn to.

Also, the Church was 'conciliar' in that ALL the churches got together to confir and decide on important matters.

Al

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/20/2003 5:24 AM (GMT -6)

All I was referring to was apostolic succession. I thought that was pretty clear.

"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation." -Edward R. Murrow

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/20/2003 6:23 AM (GMT -6)

I appreciate the concensus, RD. But for the sake of the larger discussion I thought to post this anyways. (To see what other people do with it.

)

RD: All I was referring to was apostolic succession...

Al: There is absolutley NOTHING wrong with Apostolic Succession. Nothing. Its just NOT a stand alone. Not intended to be either. (Can you tell I don't buy the "Pope" thing.) The Nicene Creed mentions FOUR THINGS. They all have to be taken TOGETHER. It says:

... In one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ...

The Church is ONE. The Church is HOLY. The Church is CATHOLIC. The Church is APOSTOLIC.

What is written below comes from T. Hopko.

One Church

The Church is one because God is one, and because Christ and the Holy Spirit are one. There can only be one Church and not many. And this one Church, because its unity depends on God, Christ, and the Spirit, may never be broken.

Holy Church

The Church is holy because God is holy, and because Christ and the Holy Spirit are holy. The holiness of the Church comes from God. The members of the Church are holy to the extent that they live in communion with God.

Within the earthly Church, people participate in God's holiness. Sin and error separate them from this divine holiness as it does from the divine unity. Thus, the earthly members and institutions of the Church cannot be identified as such with the Church as holy.

The faith and life of the Church on earth is expressed in its doctrines, sacraments, scriptures, services, and saints which maintain the Church's essential unity, and which can certainly be affirmed as "holy" because of God's presence and action in them.

Catholic Church

The Church is also catholic because of its relation to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The word catholic means full, complete, whole, with nothing lacking. God alone is full and total reality; in God alone is there nothing lacking.

Sometimes the catholicity of the Church is understood in terms of the Church's universality throughout time and space. While it is true that the Church is universal -- for all men at all times and in all places -- this universality is not the real meaning of the term "catholic" when it is used to define the Church. The term "catholic" as originally used to define the Church (as early as the first decades of the second century) was a definition of quality rather than quantity. Calling the Church catholic means to define how it is, namely, full and complete, all-embracing, and with nothing lacking.

Even before the Church was spread over the world, it was defined as catholic. The original Jerusalem Church of the apostles, or the early city-churches of Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, or Rome, were catholic. These churches were catholic -- as is each and every Orthodox church today -- because nothing essential was lacking for them to be the genuine Church of Christ. God Himself is fully revealed and present in each church through Christ and the Holy Spirit, acting in the local community of believers with its apostolic doctrine, ministry (hierarchy), and sacraments, thus requiring nothing to be added to it in order for it to participate fully in the Kingdom of God.

To believe in the Church as catholic, therefore, is to express the conviction that the fullness of God is present in the Church and that nothing of the "abundant life" that Christ gives to the world in the Spirit is lacking to it (Jn 10:10). It is to confess exactly that the Church is indeed "the fullness of him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23; also Col 2:10).

Apostolic Church

The word apostolic describes that which has a mission, that which has "been sent" to accomplish a task.

Christ and the Holy Spirit are both "apostolic" because both have been sent by the Father to the World. It is not only repeated in the Scripture on numerous occasions how Christ has been sent by the Father, and the Spirit sent through Christ from the Father, but it also has been recorded explicitly that Christ is "the apostle ... of our confession" (Heb 3:1).

As Christ was sent from God, so Christ Himself chose and sent His apostles. "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you ... receive ye the Holy Spirit," the risen Christ says to His disciples. Thus, the apostles go out to the world, becoming the first foundation of the Christian Church.

In this sense, then, the Church is called apostolic: first, as it is built upon Christ and the Holy Spirit sent from God and upon those apostles who were sent by Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit; and secondly, as the Church in its earthly members is itself sent by God to bear witness to His Kingdom, to keep His word and to do His will and His works in this world.

(continuing)

The Church, and faith in the Church, is an essential element of Christian doctrine and life. Without the Church as a divine, mystical, sacramental, and spiritual reality, in the midst of the fallen and sinful world there can be no full and perfect communion with God. The Church is God's gift to the world. It is the gift of salvation, of knowledge and enlightenment, of the forgiveness of sins, of the victory over darkness and death. It is the gift of communion with God through Christ and the Holy Spirit. This gift is given totally, once and for all, with no reservations on God's part. It remains forever, until the close of the ages: invincible and indestructible. Men may sin and fight against the Church, believers may fall away and be separated from the Church, but the Church itself, the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) remains forever.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/20/2003 6:33 AM (GMT -6)

AL,

First, it isn't that I don't know what the term "catholic" means, and it isn't that I disagree with it's application to the church--the real body of Christ. That isn't the discussion here. What is the discussion is that the Roman Catholic Church was not necessary to come into existance if Christianity were to both survive and thrive. IT is not the true, "Mother Church". That's all.

Reasonable,

First, consider Pentecost (Acts 2). Here the church is "born", as it were. A few years or decades go by, and you have the missionary journeys of Paul and others either in motion or coming to completion. Consequently, most of the writings we have--that which we today call the New Testament--are from these journeys, from prisons, from exile, or just from life experience and concern for those sharing the same (spiritual) life experience. Marcion was one of the first, if not the first, to have accumulated some of these writings (I don't believe he was a Roman Catholic, was he?); though he was apparently anti-semetic, he recognized something of the authority of the apostle's writings and those writings from those close to the apostles. In this sense apostolic authority is noted and approved.

Some more time goes on and there's the need for counsels to convene; counsels of those in leadership--Bishops and such in charge of larger arenas of disciples of Christ. In this sense there is structure and development of doctrine and organization. Nothing wrong with that. We are in the first few centuries after Christ's time.

Now, my questions are these: first, is the Roman Catholic Church today one and the same (regardless of whether they claim it is) in doctrine and organization with the organization in which these Church Fathers of old participated? Second, when it has been shown that the apostolic authority (recognized both by early Marcion and in the very letters of the writers themselves) was in force, did this require that one could only learn about the content of these writings--mind you, one can learn by hearing if one cannot read--ONLY through being a member of the (what was soon to become today's) Roman Catholic Church? And third, does one HAVE to be a member--adhering to both doctrine and structure--of the Roman Catholic Church to be in the true church?

Literate or not literate, people were becoming disciples of Jesus and thriving as Christians all around the world without the organized structure, doctrine and control of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today or in its earlier years. And one does not need it--despite its claims that it is the Mother Church--to be both disciple of Jesus and to be doctrinally sound; one didn't need at Pentecost (but one did need and respect the apostles' doctrines. We have always needed that.)

Oh, I agree, too, that the real facts of life were that most people probably didn't have the motivation to learn, or wouldn't have known where to start if they wanted to learn. I agree. But the point I was trying to make was that this did not PROHIBIT one from learning the content of truth found only in the NT writings and not in the doctrine and beliefs of the RCC. Martin Luther himself realized this, a man who was steeped, obviously, in the RCC's doctrine. Something as simple as "The just shall live by faith" was enough to spark the whole reformation...sort of. Yes, Luther could read, but that's not why God could enlighten him; it is because, as Jesus said in John 17, the Father gave the Word to Jesus, who gave it to the apostles, who gave it to the world. This is a far cry from saying that the Roman Catholic Church is the giver of truth, or at least the Mother and Soul-Giver of it. Luther heard about the OT passage out of Habbakuk: the just shall live by faith. It didn't take the ability to read it to hear the words ring in his ears (ironically by another monk, wasn't it? Hey, I'm on thin ice, admittedly, when it comes to history. But I'm not on thin ice as to how the gospel is to be both shared and lived.)

In regard to the canon of Scripture, it was decided early on that apostolic authority was king when it came down to the decision as to what was and what was not to be adhered; ultimately become Scripture. It was a far cry from the RCC of today that was involved with this process. The concept of the Catholic church--the fact that the universal church was succeeded apostolically is only to support the fact that early on folk understood that it was the APOSTLES' writings which were of attention, not RCC doctrine, particularly that doctrine which has been taught for some time now. Yes, there were arguments and debates about what should and shouldn't be included as canon, but I say again, even Marcion was able to discern where the true authority lay (I think it's lay, because I don't want to lie!)

So what am I saying? Just that Christians were quite able back then as well as today to be completed disciples of Jesus with the organized RCC. That's all.

For the conversation (and the darned verbs lay and lie!),

Starkman

"Clearly the pre-Catholic Church believers were growing, learning, and thriving, even under horrible persecution, without having to be efficient readers, and doing so without the Catholic church and its doctrines. And surely folk could learn to read or write. It's not THAT hard, if one wants to learn. BUT if one is being supressed, that makes things hard. This has nothing to do with anachronisms. It's just plain simple facts. Folk heard the gospel being preached in their own cities. The Scriptures were read, and folk could learn accordingly. All without the Catholic Church."

First what is the definition of ''pre-Catholic Church"? At what point in history are you saying that the Catholic Church came into existence? OF course it is the Catholic Church's position that there is no such thing as "pre-CAtholic Church" since the church was founded by Peter. Just to clarify for me, please tell me.

YOu're operating under a post-enlightenment view of education. "Surely folks could learn to read and write." Until the 15th century, as you know, there was no printing press. Producing books was expensive and difficult. Monks were the main keepers of books, and they copied them by hand. This simple fact kept the majority of people ill educated and illiterate. Some think that the Reformation could not have occurred had there not been the invention of the printing press.
Even in the U.S., in the late 18th century approx 20% of the entire adult population was illiterate.
We just have to be realistic that probably the vast majority of people are not as intelligent or as motivated as Abraham Lincoln was to educate himself in his log cabin. Furthermore without printed books, it's virtually impossible.

"The Scriptures were read, and folk could learn accordingly. All without the Catholic church." Again, what time frame are we talking about here? In the time of Jesus, scriptures were read in the synagogues. But not all people were allowed to hear the readings, namely, women.
The fact of illiteracy was not so much a function of oppression (I am not sure what type of oppression you are talking about). It was more of a function of reality. Lack of opportunity, actual lack of books without the printing press. The fact that for most people , life itself was a process of survival. When that's the focus, it's hard to have any time, energy or will to try to somehow educate oneself.

And if you're talking about the Canonical scriptures, you're begging the question since the canon was put together by the CAtholic Church. Thus, the reading of any of the canon, if one was literate, was still under the influence of the Church. As it still is today. As the author of this string wrote, there are many books that never made it to the Canon, and many that did. Who decided that? the Church did.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 1/20/2003 8:01 AM (GMT -6)

I think the conversation would do well to distinguish bewteen the catholic (or universal) church and the Roman Catholic Church as a body different from, say, the Protestant church. AL, I do not believe the church, in that sense, is a human institution. It is an institution made of humans but founded by God. A great difference. The Roman Catholic church IS a human institution which has believers and unbelievers in it. It is not the true church per se, but has memembers of the true church in it.

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/20/2003 8:17 AM (GMT -6)

I think this whole string has strayed far from the original issue, which was, what is the validity of sola scriptura, and the assertion that when reading the Bible we are utterly dependent on the Church.
I don't think anyone is arguing that people cannot be disciples of Christ without access to the initial canonical scriptures. Even the Catholic Church's position after the Vatican II has recognized that other groups, specifically, Protestants, are "Christians" and that God also saves "anonymous Christians."
No one on this post has really satisfactorily written why sola scriptura is the correct doctrine. The Catholic position is that tradition is just as important as Scripture, b/c for one thing, tradition created the canon. They also believe that scripture alone is not sufficient for understanding of doctrine, because the average layperson does not have the training necessary to understand it. For example, how would the average layperson arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity solely through a reading of the English Bible (without knowledge of the original languages,etc.)? Yet the Trinity is an essential doctrine in Christianity. Yes, Scripture supports the doctrine, however I myself, who is pretty well educated, would never be able to arrive at that doctrine unless I had the teachings of the church and theologians who explain it to me.
I am NOT a Catholic and I do not believe many of their doctrines. However I do believe that there is validity to the proposition that we need tradition. Perhaps this is all a matter of semantics, but I am interested to see if anyone can refute the actual assertion of the original post.

"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation." -Edward R. Murrow

AlyoshaKaramazov
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 49

Posted 1/20/2003 10:25 PM (GMT -6)

I'm with RD. This thread has strayed and gotten off on many tangents. So the challenge has been issued: Why should we accept the doctrine of sola scriptura? What, specifically, is wrong with accepting tradition as equally authoritative? And most importantly, we must try to understand a position BEFORE we critique it! I've read many ASSERTIONS w/o any justification on this thread. I think sometimes people throw out a bunch of unsubstantiated statements when they just don't LIKE a view.

Another thing: Just because I'm arguing for the Catholic perspective doesn't mean I'm Catholic! I just want to rationally discuss the issues. Somebody's got to take the Catholic side--that's what the dialectic is all about!

So now the burden is placed squarely upon those who wish to explicate and defend sola scriptura. Bring your best arguments--let's hash it out!

Pax tecum

"Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."--Paul Simon

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/21/2003 3:22 AM (GMT -6)

Yes, back on track here...(I can't even stay on my own track much less stay on these ones! Glad I'm not a train!)

What, specifically, is wrong with accepting tradition as equally authoritative?

Who's traditions?

We already an incident of the difficulties that arise when traditions are interjected into equivelancy of God's authoritative Word: "You make void the Word of God by your traditions." (And I can't for the life of me remember where this passage is!)

There is also Paul's statement: "Beware lest anyone cheat [plunder you or take you captive] you . . . according to the tradition of men" (Found it! Col 2:8

I recall, however, Paul addressing some folk to maintain the tradtions they received (from him and/or other apostles and men under the apostles, I believe). (Here we go again--I HATE my memory, or lack of one!)

Starkman

Edited by - Starkman on 01/21/2003 08:47:03 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/21/2003 4:28 AM (GMT -6)

AK: So the challenge has been issued: Why should we accept the doctrine of sola scriptura? What, specifically, is wrong with accepting tradition as equally authoritative?

Al: So: "Why should we accept the doctrine of sola scriptura?" We shouldn't. Its a red herring. And: "What, specifically, is wrong with accepting tradition as equally authoritative?" The answer to that is that it makes tradition and scritpure mutually exclussive. That's wrong.

Starkman: Who's traditions?

Al: Good question. The "Roman Catholic Church" is not so monolithic a thing -- as honorman would point out.

Al: The contrasting of scripture to tradition is wrongheaded. It parallels, I think, the contrasting of symbol and reality. (Like the RCC council that said that the Eucharist was only real and not symbolic after one of their own--Bellengarius of Tours--said that is was only symbolic and not real.) The perceived need to decide between two options is the red herring.

Scripture was shaped within Tradition, while serving as the ground and measure of Tradition. (Breck)

Andrew Louth writes: "The formation of Christian theology is not the development of Christian doctrine. ... We can never pass beyond the apostolic confession of Christ.Rather, the formation of Christian theology is the reult of sustained, and prayerful, thinking and meditation by those who soulght to grasp what is entailed by the Paschal myster." The guiding Tradition is "the apostolic response to the question, 'Who do you say that I am?' Christ crucified and risen, the person of the Paschal mystery, and also ... the Word of God ... He is the meaning of God's utterance in Scripture -- what Chrsitians came later to call the Old Testement."

AK writes "importantly, we must try to understand a position BEFORE we critique it!" Yes. And besides defining "soli scriptura" and Roman Catholic doctrine, we must also understand what Holy Tradition is. This is it: the MEANING of God's utterance/Word in Scripture.

WITHIN the Church that "meaning" was promulgated as the Gospels were written within that Tradition/Meaning. The Gospels take the Scriptures (Law, Psalms, Prophets) and both show Christ in them and present Christ to the world. Oral tradition did the same. Liturgical tradition also did the same. And visual tradition. The meaning of that Tradition is Christ crucified and risen, the person of the Paschal mystery, the Word of God as the meaning of God's utterance in Scripture.

Building on Breck, NEW Scripture[s were] shaped within [that] Tradition as the 'older' [(and "new" when it existed)] serv[ed] as the ground and measure of [the living, changing and ever new, yet unaltered] Tradition.

Save the fish for the broiler!

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 01/21/2003 11:40:29 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/21/2003 7:33 AM (GMT -6)

Lets hear it for Scripture!

I wan this post to make a strong impression as to the centrality of Scripture. But not buying "soli scriptura" -- because Paul didn't -- I'll also be glad to relay what Paul did hold to.

The following is from John Behr's book "The Way to Nicea: The Formation Of Christian Theology, Vol 1, pp. 15-16"

quote:
It is often said that Christianity (along with Judaism and Islam, though these are not dealt with here) is a "religion of the book," and this is usually taken in a very weak sense, that somehow, somewhere, for whatever reason, Christianity involves a book. But what is established as normative Christianity in the second century takes this in a much stronger sense: If God acts through His Word, then that Word needs to be heard, to be read, to be understood—the relationship with God is, in a broad sense, literary. As such, it requires the full engagement of all the intellective faculties to understand and accomplish, or incarnate, God's Word. It was no accident, as Frances Young observes, that what came to be orthodox or normative Christianity was "committed to a text-based version of revealed truth." This Christianity, one might say, is an interpretative text-based religion. She further points out, concerning the question of historicity touched on earlier, that it would be anachronistic to suppose that in antiquity God's revelation was thought of as located in historical events behind the text, events to which, it is claimed, we can have access by reconstructing them from the text, treating the texts as mere historical documents which provide raw historical data, subject to our own analysis, rather than in the interpreted events as presented in Scripture, where the interpretation is already given through the medium of Scripture.7 What is recognized, by the end of the second century, as normative Christianity is committed to understanding Christ by engaging with Scripture on the basis of the canon of truth and in the context of tradition.

But if this is the basis for what is established as normative Christianity by the end of thesecond century, it is no less the very dynamic of the Gospel itself. One of the earliest formulae for proclaiming the Gospel is that Christ was crucified and raised "according to the Scriptures":

I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15:3-4)

The Gospel which Paul delivered ("traditioned") is from the first "according to the Scriptures." Clearly the Scriptures to which Paul is referring here are not the four Gospels, but the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets. The importance of this written reference, repeated twice, is such that the phrase is preserved in later Creeds; Christians who use the Nicene-Constantinopolkan creed still confess that Christ died and rose according to the (same) Scriptures. The point of concern in this basic Christian confession is not the historicity of the events behind their reports, but that the reports are continuous with, in accordance with, Scripture; it is a textual, or more accurately an "intertextual" or interpretative confession. And this scriptural texture of the Gospel is, as we will see, the basis of both canon and tradition as articulated by what emerges as normative Christianity. If "orthodoxy" is indeed later than "heresy," as Bauer claimed and as is commonly assumed, it is nevertheless based on nothing other than Gospel as it was delivered at the beginning.

That both scripture and the "canon" (which does not mean list) of its meaning are both at play, sufficiently lays aside 'soli scriptura." ("SS" merely legitimizes anything that anyone can make the text say.)

Great book. Behr loves St. Irenaeus of Lyon. The book discussed: "The Tradition and Canon of the Gospel According to the Scriptures"; "The Scriptural Christ"; and then discusses the view of the Word of God of St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Justin Maryr, and Ignatius of Antioch. It has more too--but that is enough to draw me in.

Al

AlyoshaKaramazov
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 49

Posted 1/22/2003 12:32 PM (GMT -6)

Okay, so Al rejects sola scriptura. And Starkman is the last man standing in opposition to Sacred Tradition. Is anyone willing (or able) to explicate the doctrine of sola scriptura and actually defend it??? It seems to me that this doctrine is fundamental. If sola scriptura is mistaken, then we need to be open to tradition as well in our reflections on theological issues. This certainly has an effect on all things openness--does it not???

quote:
Who's traditions?

We already an incident of the difficulties that arise when traditions are interjected into equivelancy of God's authoritative Word: "You make void the Word of God by your traditions." (And I can't for the life of me remember where this passage is!)

There is also Paul's statement: "Beware lest anyone cheat [plunder you or take you captive] you . . . according to the tradition of men" (Found it! Col 2:8

Starkman, let me clear up this misconception of tradition by once again quoting from Peter Kreeft's "Catholic Christianity."
"'Tradition' means 'what is handed over' or 'handed down'. Sacred Tradition, with a capital 'T', is a technical theological term. It does not mean human tradition, but, with Scripture, it comprises the deposit of faith that the Church has received from Christ. We learned of Christ through the apostles he authorized and their successors (the bishops of the one, visible, universal Church) whom they authorized to teach in his name and with his authority. The Church reveres Sacred Tradition only because she reveres Christ."

Additionally, Kreeft argues that the Church's authority then forms the basis for three things:
1. doctrine of the Trinity
"Scripture contains the data for the doctrine of the Trinity; but that is not enough, for every heretic, too, throughout history has appealed to Scripture. As a matter of historical fact, it has proved impossible for men to know the nature of the true God without the true Church. The dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation (and the two natures of Christ) were in fact derived from the Catholic Church."
2. Our knowledge of Christ
"No Christian has ever learned of Christ except through some ministry of the Church. This is not a controversial opinion but a simple historical fact. We know Christ only because the Church has witnessed to us about him: by passing down through the centuries the gospel of the historical events of Christ's life, death, and Resurrection witnessed by the apostles; by teaching true doctrine about him; by living his supernatural life, his love, and his Spirit; and by celebrating his sacred rites, making him really present in the sacraments. Christ lived on Earth two thousand years ago. Who brings him across the millenia to us? Who makes us contemporaries with Christ? The Church."
3. Biblical authority
This was argued for in the first post of this thread.

So, again, I just haven't read a compelling reason yet to reject the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, nor have a seen a shred of a reason to accept the doctrine of sola scriptura. Any takers???

"Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."--Paul Simon

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/22/2003 1:19 PM (GMT -6)

Hey there, AlyoshaKaramazov,

Starkman, let me clear up this misconception of tradition . . .

Well, I can't agree that you can clear up any misconception of tradition, because I believe my concept of what you mean by traditions is quite accurate. Additionally, it seems you've turned again to the RCC, it and its traditions--otherwise, why else would we be talking about the RCC if it's not, in this context, its traditions? The Pharisees had their traditions, to whom Jesus was clear that the Word of God was made void by their traditions. "Sanctify--set apart--them by Your truth. Your Word is truth" (Jn 17:17). This is really what brings people to Christ, not a tradition and not a Church. Members of the church--the univerisal catholic church of God--spread the Gospel, but this has nothing to do with nor should it with the RCC or its traditions.

Also, it isn't true that "As a matter of historical fact, it has proved impossible for men to know the nature of the true God without the true Church. The dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation (and the two natures of Christ) were in fact derived from the Catholic Church.". I can't see how this isn't viewed as absolute bias toward and for the RCC and in complete opposition to your having cleared up my misconception of what you mean by tradition. For the very thing that I have been arguing along as incorrect in regard traditions (in this case) is exactly what you have re-appealed to to confirm my misconceptions!

The Catholic church did not derive the doctrines of either the deity of Christ or the doctrine of the Trinity; the councils REFINED them; not invented them, and they helped to secure their place in doctrine historically. Sure there were traditions which the apostles handed down to believers. But this isn't anything remotely close to what the RCC has handed down to its confines.

"Scripture contains the data for the doctrine of the Trinity; but that is not enough, for every heretic, too, throughout history has appealed to Scripture." As I noted in John 17, the Word of God does just fine in and of itself. There will always be heretics both with or without a Catholic church; both before, during and after, the councils. (By the way, I believe that many of the traditions and teachings of the RCC are very heretical. I don't mean that in a mean and nasty way, but only in view of the evidence: the doctrines they have espoused. And I see it impossible to back-peddle the issue by refering to an Catholic Church of old. Not that you're doing that.)

I have to ask again: who's traditions? The RCC's Absolutely not. I'll stick with the Word of God and any traditions handed down within it, as are practically applicable.

Sola Scriptura, if it means there is no "truth" in anything but God's Word, would be incorrect. If it means, however, that the Word of God is the the soul, single, and only necessity to come to an understanding of salvation and truth--"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free--as preached by universal catholic church members, then that concept of Sola Scriptura is quite correct. Growth which follows can be stimulated in many different prespectives. AL would appeal to the Greek Orthodox Church and its traditions. Others to other churches and their traditions. If one wishes to adhere to the RCC for Christian growth, I will not say that it would be impossible, but it certainly would not be easy.

Well, it's gettin' late!

Starkman

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/23/2003 2:47 AM (GMT -6)

Hi all-

Interesting thread.

I don’t know that I adhere to sola scriptura. If it means that the Bible is our only authoritative “source” of information about God, then I’m disinclined to agree. I think Wesley’s quadrilateral is good: Scripture, reason, experience, and tradition. All four are sources we use in determining what truth is and in forming systematic statements of belief that are authoritative for the Community. All four exercise—to different degrees—a certain authority. If sola scriptura recognizes legitimate sources of truth other than the Bible (the other three in the quadrilateral) but simply says that the Bible is the supreme authority, then I’d say yes.

I see it as a set of checks and balances. I recognize that Scripture speaks with an authority that other sources don’t possess. But what determines the truth of Scripture? Here I’m disinclined to set reason aside and affirm what is self-contradictory, given the criteria of meaning. So though Scripture speaks with greater authority to me, reason guides me in interpreting what Scripture says. I will not bow my knee to what is self-contradictory.

Likewise, experience and tradition have their part to play in determining what’s true and in assigning value to different truth claims. I think experience plays a much more important role than we think. I even think there are some experiential presuppositions required for understanding Scripture. And of course tradition is important. I think tradition is probably more important than a lot of Protestants think and probably less important than most Catholics and Orthodox think.

Of the four, I recognize an authority in Scripture I don’t recognize in the other three sources. Scripture is infallible. Our reason, experiences, and traditions are not. If this is all sola scriptura means, then I believe in it.

Theology is an ongoing task that we’re never finished with. We ought constantly to listen to each other, to each other’s experience, and to the experience of those who have gone before us.

I think Starkman has a point about tradition. There is no one tradition. There are traditions. Which to choose? Well, since no tradition is infallible and no tradition exercises the kind of authority the Scripture does, let’s listen to ALL of them. All traditions have a right to speak. Since tradition never stands alone and is never itself the basis upon which we decide what’s true and what’ not, I don’t see much danger. I certainly see no reason whatsoever for believing the Catholic church to be the only alternative to sola scriptura. The Pope is fallible in and out of office. The only time he (or any of us!) speak infallibly is when we’re quoting the Bible!

However, AKaramazov makes an interesting point regarding the relative unity of the Catholic Church in comparison to fragmented and divided Protestants. I mix with Catholics and have to admit to envying them in this regard. If a Catholic from South America shows up here in Beirut, the mere fact that she’s Catholic settles a good deal in the minds of local Catholics. She’s “in.” She’s Catholic, so that means I can safely assume a good bit about her. This may be less the case as time goes on, but it’s at least far more than Protestants can boast of. If a “Protestant” shows up from across town (forget from another country or culture) there is increasingly little that I feel like I can safely assume about his belief system.

Unfortunately this says nothing about the truth value of what Catholics believe or of what Protestants believe. You can’t argue backwards from the unity of Catholics to the truthfulness of their beliefs. Muslims around the world, in my opinion, are even more uniform in their belief system but this says nothing about the truthfulness of their beliefs. You have your Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims (and other traditions also), but I don’t think these differences constitute the kind of real divisions that exist between Protestants. Anyhow, point is, Protestants may be incredibly divided, but this may be nothing more than an incredible tragedy, testimony to the fearful, selfish, and less than loving character of Protestantism. Perhaps our fundamenetal beliefs as Protestants ARE true. But perhaps we have wrong divided ourselves over beliefs that are not as fundamental as we think. Our “lists” keep growing needlessly. We have too many hills to die on and so spend too much time defending them (and dying on them). We ought to be at least as one as Catholics and Muslims, but we’ve CHOSEN not to be. Perhaps this is especially tragic given the truth of our fundamental beliefs.

AKaramazov said: What, specifically, is wrong with accepting tradition as equally authoritative?

I don’t think it’s possible to actually recognize with equally weight the authority to two independent persons or sources. What do you do if they disagree? How does one choose between two authorities where one disagrees with the other and where each is assigned “equal” authority? It’s not possible. Tradition and Scripture aren’t the same thing; there are different traditions that disagree—which do you choose?—and all traditions are fallible attempts to express truth (everybody has screwed up historically speaking at some point). So, in my view the better alternative to sola scriptura, understood as Scripture is the ONLY authority, is not assigning Scripture and tradition equal authority, but rather recognizing that there are equally other sources of varying degrees of authority to draw on.

I’m probably wandering off the topic here. That’s my contribution.

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 01/23/2003 08:11:52 AM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/23/2003 3:54 AM (GMT -6)

As usual, Tom can come along and make sense out of mush; mine in this case!!!

Thanks Tom,

Starkman

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/23/2003 4:21 AM (GMT -6)

AKaramazov (quoting Kreeft): 'Tradition' means 'what is handed over' or 'handed down'. Sacred Tradition, with a capital 'T', is a technical theological term. It does not mean human tradition, but, with Scripture, it comprises the deposit of faith that the Church has received from Christ. We learned of Christ through the apostles he authorized and their successors (the bishops of the one, visible, universal Church) whom they authorized to teach in his name and with his authority. The Church reveres Sacred Tradition only because she reveres Christ."

Tom: This seems confused to me. If Sacred Tradition comprises the deposit of faith that the Church received from Christ, then the only such tradition I recognize IS the Scripture.

What’s more, Scripture already is the one source of truth that Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox agree on. So there you have a Sacred Tradition that all believers recognize. I really don’t understand the need for going beyond that. This certainly squares with Paul’s testimony (2Tim 3.16) about Scripture being the one “God-breathed” source for teaching, reproof, training in righteousness, etc.. If Kreeft wants evidence for sola scriptura from an Apostle, there it is. Now, if generations of believers who could not read were dependent upon leaders who could read to relay the Scriptures to them, this doesn’t make the leaders infallible or place their pronouncements on par with Scripture. It doesn’t take much to stand up and read the Scriptures.

Tom

Love never ends

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/23/2003 4:31 AM (GMT -6)

"I have to ask again: who's traditions? The RCC's Absolutely not. I'll stick with the Word of God and any traditions handed down within it, as are practically applicable."

You contradict yourself here. You say you'll not take the RCC's traditions, but WILL stick with the Word and its traditions. Can you please tell me, what are those traditions that you accept?

"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of
doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not
even mine."
Bertrand Russell

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/23/2003 11:28 AM (GMT -6)

ReasonableDoubt: please tell me, what are those traditions that you accept

I'd like to suggest a possible answer to the question RD poses.

Behr uses the phrase "Christ according to the Scriptures" to the effect that we could here call it "the Tradition." It is what Behr would also say is the criterion that the Church used in selecting which books to acknowledge as having the 'canon' in them (note my choice of words), and by which writers like Paul and John selected their Scripture (O.T.) and their causes to battle. "Christ according to the Scriptures" is more than just the historical Jesus. It is the very revelation of the Word who is the very revelation of "God in the flesh."

I don't want to say too much here. But what I want to put into everyone's imagination is that there is something BEHIND the text that is "Scripture." Something more encompasing.

Perhaps THAT should be denoted as Tradition. Or, perhaps the denotation of Tradition should reflect that the Scripture bares is reflection in many times, places, cultures, settings. To the challenge of docetism it was formulated one way. To the challenge or legalism another. BUT, those reflections are of the same "Christ according to the Scriptures."

Do you want to speak of tradition as the over-encompasing thing. Or do you want to speak of tradition as the diversity that proves the unity?

Al

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 01/23/2003 4:30:06 PM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/23/2003 3:53 PM (GMT -6)

Hey there, Reasonable,

You quoted me, "I have to ask again: who's traditions? The RCC's Absolutely not. I'll stick with the Word of God and any traditions handed down within it, as are practically applicable."

then said, You contradict yourself here. You say you'll not take the RCC's traditions, but WILL stick with the Word and its traditions. Can you please tell me, what are those traditions that you accept?

I can't remember the passage in the NT at the moment, but Paul (I believe it was) was addressing some believers and said something to the effect that they did well to believe the gospel they heard and to continue in the traditions received by the Apostles.

Starkman

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/26/2003 9:56 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
I can't remember the passage in the NT at the moment, but Paul (I believe it was) was addressing some believers and said something to the effect that they did well to believe the gospel they heard and to continue in the traditions received by the Apostles.

Starkman

traditions

49 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual