Is the Bible properly described as "The Word of God"?

[Matt Black]

Still, written text is more solid than oral tradition. this next point will illustrate this:
This is what happens. A lot of practices not mentioned in scriptures can be justified by the fallacy "Our church holds the true Apostolic practice, because our practices were the unwritten Apostolic practice, because our church holds the true Apostolic practice...".

Not quite. If you miss out the last proposition, then you'll be close.

 

[Matt Black]

OK. Thanks for the clarification. We are probably about three questions removed from the topic of the thread at this point. Let me retrace how I think we got here. Matt asked if the scriptures = The Word of God. He thinks the written scriptures are not the Word of God, if I understand him correctly.

I do believe the Scriptures are the Word of God. I just don't see how that can reached solely from Scripture, nor do I believe that they are the only source of the Word of God.

At that point, the question is, if the scriptures are not the Word of God, then where is the authority for the church? Matt sees authority lying in the "Apostolic Tradition".

+ Scripture

First, does the church's authority reside in the scriptures or in the bishops who are in the direct line of the apostles (supposedly).

Both. (I know this was asked of Thinkingstuff but that's my answer!)

Second, my observation, there are many churches and many Christians who hold to orthodox faith but do so based upon their fidelity to the scriptures, not on their ability to trace themselves back through an unbroken line of bishops to an apostle. In fact, few believers and few churches in evangelicalism would even attempt such a thing or consider it important. Given that, would you consider these churches orthdox and, if so, on what basis?

Again, I know this was posed to Thinkingstuff, but I would ask in return, which evangelical churches are you talking about, specifically? I would need to know which ones before I could debate thier orthodoxy with you.

 

[Matt Black]

Marcia, I've still been unable to find the thread on Tradition, but here's excerpts from what I prepared earlier:

By way of introduction, I think it is worth pointing out that there are, broadly speaking, two approaches to the question as to how to, as it were, ‘do’ Church; by ‘do’ I mean how to determine sound doctrine, which practices to include and which to exclude etc.

The first theory is commonly known by its Latin title, sola Scriptura (meaning ‘Scripture alone’) and states that Scripture and only Scripture should be used in matters of faith, doctrine and practice, and in particular the New Testament. This view is adhered to by many, but not all, evangelicals. The drawback with this position is that it has produced a mass of contradictory interpretations (and thus splits and splinters within the Body of Christ) over what Scripture means on topics as diverse as the Last Days, church government and structure, the extent to which man has free will as opposed to being predestined by God to salvation or damnation, views on baptism and the Breaking of Bread, amongst many others. The NT is many things – divinely inspired, infallible, containing rich theology etc, but it is not a comprehensive, “all-singing, all-dancing” guide to how to be a Christian, nor does it claim to be thus sufficient. It does not, for example, prescribe what time Christians should meet on Sundays, how many times they should meet or what exactly should occur at such a meeting, nor does it say who should preside at Communion or perform baptisms, still less what precise words should be used at either event. In matters of church structure, the Presbyterian, the Episcopalian and the Congregationalist can all in theory argue, with some justification, that their own particular forms of church governance may be found in the pages of the NT, yet they cannot all three of them (or even two of them) be correct. Each ‘side’ in these debates tends to claim (of course!) that they have the full measure of the Holy Spirit and that therefore their interpretation is correct and the others have simply Got It Wrong, but they plainly can’t all be right and this approach does beg the very obvious question: who decides what interpretation is correct (and on what basis)?

The second school of thought recognises the above problem and admits that Scripture on its own is insufficient to deal with it; this approach therefore looks to another source for matters of doctrine and practice, not in contradiction to Scripture, but in addition to and complementary to Scripture. This other source is known as Tradition (this term comes from the Latin translation, traditio, of the Greek used in 2 Thess 2:15, paradoseiV (paradoseis), meaning ‘hand over’ or ‘hand down’). It is this method of Scripture+Tradition which I wish to explain further. In so doing, I have no desire and do not seek to justify or commend the Roman Catholic view of Tradition (and it should be pointed out that the Roman Catholics are only one out of several denominations who adopt this method of interpretation).

By way of background, I think what has to be remembered (and here I am indebted to Richard Hooker for his analysis written in the 16th century on this front) is that Scripture - and in particular the NT - is not a 'how to do church' manual, whether it be church government or liturgy etc; there are some hints, of course, but it is not comprehensive on these subjects, as we have seen above.Therefore it was left to the Church - both in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic periods - to, of necessity, work out these matters itself and it was possible for the Church to do this whilst still maintaining fidelity to Scripture. We are fortunate in that we do have a written record to a large extent of how that happened; this record is contained within the writings variously known as ‘The Apostolic Fathers’, ‘the Patristic Writings’ or, more commonly, ‘The Early Church Fathers (ECFs)’ – men like Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyon, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage etc. Their writings are not on the same level as Scripture – they are not infallible and in some instances disagree with each other – but where there is unanimity and agreement between them (known as the consensus patri) – and there is that a-plenty – then their thoughts carry an overwhelming amount of weight.

So, for some of us, then, the NT is not the sole arbiter of matters of faith and practice. Indeed, that was the case with the Church in the first few centuries of its existence; in fact in many ways they were worse off than us in that respect. For the first seventy years or so, the entirety of the NT had not yet been written, and the Church did not decide upon or recognise all of the 27 books we have today until the end of the 4th century. Up until then, therefore, Christians had to have some other method of determining the truth of the New Covenant. The key to that other method is the record of what the Church has done and said – its practice in other words; the other reason some of us do what we do, in addition to the NT, is because our ‘spiritual ancestors’, as it were, did it, and so did their spiritual ancestors, right back to the earliest existence of the Church, ‘handed down’ (traditio) from generation to generation and, more often than not, recorded by the ECFs. What these early Christians did and thought was shaped not just by what they were able to read in the pages of the NT to which they had access, but also in reflecting how the truths (to which the Scriptures testify) were lived out in the worshipping communities from the beginning in it's liturgical life of prayer, hymns, catechesis, rule of faith, baptismal confessions, etc. ('Lex orandi, Lex credendi'--"the rule of prayer is the rule of belief"). For instance, the Church in the 4th century knew that the doctrine known as Arianism - the belief that Jesus Christ was a created being, inferior to God the Father and thus not God Himself - was wrong because it taught a different "Christ"--ie, a creature--from the One she had been worshipping and praying to from the beginning as God; this was despite the fact that the author of this heresy, Arius, could justify his position based on an appeal to sola Scriptura. Those who disregarded this ecclesial context/understanding, read the Scriptures differently and thus came to a different conclusion from Arius.

 

[Matt Black]

[Contd] We now move on to Vincent - and here I am indebted to fellow BB-member Doubting Thomas, who penned most of what now follows:

This Tradition, as it has historically been called, in addition to ‘filling in the gaps’ where Scripture is silent, also helps to explain and interpret Scripture for us, to assist us in arriving at the correct understanding of what the Scripture means. For we see the pernicious effects of using Scripture as the sole rule of faith and doctrine all around us in the divisions which plague the Body of Christ referred to above. These problems are nothing new to Christendom and gave rise to the famous test of sound doctrine coined by Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century: "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus" - "that [which has in relation to Christian doctrine been believed] everywhere, always, by everyone." In fact, I think that Vincent came out with a number of excellent points which are worth quoting in expanded format here from his Commonitory (here, ‘catholic’ simply means ‘universal’):-

“I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the catholic church.

"But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and catholic interpretation."

So after stating his belief in the (material) sufficiency of Scripture, Vincent argues that the Church's standard interpretive Tradition is necessary because of the various ways in which different people (particularly heretics) have misinterpreted the Scriptures. To make this especially relevant to the situation today, and why the consensus of Tradition is necessary, one can substitute modern-day denominations and see how his argument still holds:

"For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Luther expounds it one way, Calvin another, Zwingli another, Methodists, Baptists, Mennonites, another, Adventists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Quakers, Campbellites, Plymouth Brethren, another, lastly, Jehovah Witnesses another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."

Vincent concludes by laying down the criteria for interpretation:

"Moreover, in the catholic church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
What then will a catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."

That there are folks who have mutually contradictory interpretations--on what the Scriptures seem to teach on such vital issues as the nature of God and the nature of Christ--should not be surprising. The Apostle Peter warned in his Second Epistle that there were already those who were "twisting Scripture" to "their own destruction". The question is how do we know: (1) who are the ones "rightly dividing the word of truth", and (2) who are the ones "twisting Scripture to their own destruction"? For each group, as I have said on the first page, is convinced that they are practising the former, while those who disagree are potentially practising the latter. Who decides between them, and/or how does one know who is right?

I submit the answer to the "how" question lies in the Apostolic Tradition. This is mentioned by Paul, particularly to the church of the Thessalonians:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions you were taught whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thess 2:15)

Notice that Paul doesn't elevate one mode of receiving the Tradition--his oral word or his written epistle--above the other; the authority is the same. Though we can't be sure that the content is exactly the same in every single detail of the oral and written forms, we can surmise that they testify to the same material Truth and therefore don't contradict one another. From another one of Paul's letters, this time to Timothy, it seems that this oral Tradition at the very least refers to (and consists of) the specific body of teaching and doctrine that was handed down by the Apostles:
"Hold fast the sound pattern of words which you have heard from me." (2 Tim 1:13)
So, there was a "sound pattern" of oral teaching recognizable to Timothy (and presumably to the others taught by the Apostles) which was to be kept and by which the early Christians could recognize truth from error. By this "sound pattern" the early Christians could therefore "rightly divide" the word of truth. On the other hand those who did not hold fast the "sound pattern of words" received orally from the Apostles could be considered "untaught and unstable" (2 Peter 3:16) and were liable to misinterpret the Apostle's writings (and the other Scriptures) and thus to "twist the Scriptures to their own destruction".

 

[Matt Black]

[Contd] Again, with attibutions to DT:

What's more is that Paul expects Timothy to be able to transmit orally that which he received from Paul: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). Notice here that the "things" Timothy received were not exclusive or private but were heard "among many witnesses", and how the faithful men to whom Timothy committed these "things" were to teach others as well (that's four generations of oral transmission). The public reception of the Tradition in the community could thus serve as a "check" or "balance" on those who would deviate from the "sound pattern" while claiming (ie like the Gnostics did) to be handing down some new teaching allegedly received "secretly" from the Apostles.

As for the answer of "who decides?", it is obviously the CHURCH corporately. As Paul wrote to Timothy, the CHURCH is "the pillar and ground of truth". (1 Timothy 3:15). Christ commissioned His Apostles, the collective foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20), by breathing His Spirit, the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13), on them (John 20:22). The Apostles by the Spirit preached the Truth and established local congregations of the Church to whom they delivered the faith once for all (Jude 3) in "sound patterns of words" (2 Tim 1:13). Some of the Apostles by the Spirit also wrote inspired authoritative epistles and narratives to some of these same congregations. The Church in time, led by the Spirit, could finally come to a consensus on the limits of the Scriptural Canon--by determining which works conformed to the Tradition received ("sound pattern"), and those which, though claiming apostolic authorship, did not (ie Gnostic and Ebionite texts)

The Church (collectively), recipient of both the "sound pattern of words" and the Apostolic writings, could thus collectively judge truth from error. In fact, we see the Church doing just that even in those early years shortly after the Apostles left the scene. By the authentic Apostolic writings and the "sound pattern of words" (often later referred to as "the rule of faith"), expressed in hymns, catechesis, and short-summaries, the Church was able to determine what was heretical. So even in the ante-Nicene era (before Constantine allegedly "corrupted" and "counterfeited" the Church in the 4th century), the Church was able, for instance, to fend off false teachings such as claiming Jesus did not really come in the flesh (docetism), diverse teachings that matter was evil and that there were two (or even multiple) ‘gods’ (Gnosticism), that Jesus only became God’s Son at His baptism (adoptionism, principally propounded by Apollinarius and hence referred to by Vincent above) and that the Trinity was really just one god expressed in three ways or ‘modes’ (modalism, put forward by Sabellius – see Vincent above) and authoritatively declare such teachings "heresy" based on the Tradition received from the Apostles. And in the Nicene era, when the orthodox party and the Arians were constantly throwing Scriptural proof texts back and forth at each other, it was on the basis of received Tradition that the Church was able to convict the Arians of "twisting the Scriptures" by teaching falsely concerning Christ. In short, the Church was able to determine which were heretical practices and beliefs because it was able to say, in effect, “Hang on a minute, this isn’t what we’re used to; we’ve never thought or done that before.”

 

[Matt Black]

[Contd] My words:

If one can be in any doubt as to the Scriptural basis of this idea of Tradition, and its corollary, Apostolic Succession, then there are ample examples to support it (and forgive me if I here go over some of the Scriptural ground covered above):
Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) having been ordained (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:-

1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.

2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.

3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock

4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.

Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT.

Now, two objections can and are often put to the above by sola Scriptura adherents. These are both good arguments and therefore deserve ventilation here:-

• “What if the consensus patri ie: the doctrinal and liturgical consensus of the ECFs to which Vincent alludes in his Commonitory above, quite simply got it wrong? After all, these were just men, they were fallible like you or me, and they could have made mistakes – in no way should their opinions and practices be elevated to the same status as Scripture.” First of all, as I have already said, I am neither claiming infallibility for the early Church, nor am I seeking to raise her doctrines and practices to the level of Scripture. The main trouble with this objection, though, is that it makes a mockery of Jesus’ promise to build His Church and the gates of Hades not prevailing in Matt 16:18-19, it makes Him out to be a liar when He promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all Truth in John 16:13 and teach them all things in John 14:26, and it negates Paul’s statement in I Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Furthermore, many of the Early Church Fathers whose writings we have were discipled by, and in some cases appointed by, the Apostles: for example, Ignatius (who wrote several letters which we have) was a disciple of John and appointed by him Bishop of Antioch; his writings date from within a decade of the Apostle’s death. Clement of Rome was the third successor to that Bishopric after the Apostle Peter and wrote c.85AD, John was still alive and before the NT was fully completed. As such, they were far, far better-qualified to interpret the portions of the NT penned by those Apostles than we are today.
• “Does not Apostolic Tradition amount to the same as ‘the traditions of men’ which Jesus was so quick to condemn in Mark 7?” That would indeed be a valid objection if the two were one and the same thing; however, one has to be very wary of conflating man-made Jewish traditions and customs with the authority given by Jesus to the Apostles in Matt 18:18.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Good stuff, Matt. :thumbs:

This is a topic I'm very interested in, but I'm going to sit this thread out this time, as you are doing a fine job and I've got a third child now (4 month old) which is keeping me more busy (along with the other two) than usual.

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks! Prayers for you and yours - those early weeks can be exhausting. We are considering a third child - we must be mad!

 

[Marcia]

Matt, despite all these grave concerns about sola scriptura, I have not experienced that in my life as a Christian. I am not blown about by every wind of doctrine and I do not fall apart because there are disagreements on certain interpretations. The Bible is clear enough where it needs to be so that it is sufficient for doctrine and practice. Discernment and sound hermeneutics work.

Ironically, it seems the people most concerned with Sola Scriptura are those who do not hold to it, like the Roman Catholics, Orthodox faiths, and apparently Anglicans. Are they perhaps defensive about Tradition?

It seems rather than get the Sola Scriptura people upset, the Sola Scriptura attackers themselves get tied up in knots over it, while we sit here and wonder at the big fuss.

 

[DHK]

If one can be in any doubt as to the Scriptural basis of this idea of Tradition, and its corollary, Apostolic Succession, then there are ample examples to support it (and forgive me if I here go over some of the Scriptural ground covered above):

Inspired Tradition? No, and therefore not authoritative.
Apostolic Succession? Totally unscriptural.

Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) having been ordained (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:

You insert tradition where there is none. Paul taught Timothy and others Scripture. Have you ever heard of "The Pastoral Epistles"? They are called "Pastoral Epistles" for a reason. They don't teach "tradition" but rather doctrine, doctrine concerning the churches--ecclesiology. Paul taught doctrine; not tradition. Timothy (2Tim.2:2) taught the same doctrine from the same Word of God that Paul taught him to other faithful men, who in turn would teach other faithful men the same Word of God that was taught to them. That is not tradition. It is the teaching of the Word of God. It is discipleship. It is what Jesus did with his disciples. Jesus did not teach tradition. He taught doctrine.
There is no sign of apostolic succession in any of those passages.

1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.

Bishops are simply overseers. That is what the word needs--the same thing a pastor is today. It is no special office over and above that of a pastor. Paul was a church planter as a missionary. He went on three different missionary journeys and planted over 100 different churches. At each one he left a pastor in charge of it; just as he left Apollos in charge of the church at Corinth. There is no Apostolic Succession here, only common sense in church planting. Every church needs a leader.

2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.

It is grounded in Scripture because it is Biblical. Tradition has nothing to do with this. The Apostolic Succession part of it is not Biblical and just imaginary.

3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock

So is every pastor.

4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.

This is the same work that other pastors today are given, but we don't claim succession. I guess some people, rather denominations just want an air of pride about who they think they are.

Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT.

Perhaps you have neither one.

 

[Matt Black]

Matt, despite all these grave concerns about sola scriptura, I have not experienced that in my life as a Christian. I am not blown about by every wind of doctrine and I do not fall apart because there are disagreements on certain interpretations. The Bible is clear enough where it needs to be so that it is sufficient for doctrine and practice. Discernment and sound hermeneutics work.

Ironically, it seems the people most concerned with Sola Scriptura are those who do not hold to it, like the Roman Catholics, Orthodox faiths, and apparently Anglicans. Are they perhaps defensive about Tradition?

I can only speak for myself - for me, it was the epistemological shortcomings of sola Scriptura which led me to discover Tradition.

 

[Matt Black]

Inspired Tradition? No, and therefore not authoritative.
Apostolic Succession? Totally unscriptural.

But your argument is circular - you are arguing from Scripture alone, which, as I have already said, is epistemologically insufficient. But I've in any event given you Scriptural references demonstrating the existence of Tradition, as follows.

You insert tradition where there is none.

The evidence for Tradition is plain in the Scriptures cited. I wuld speculate that you choose to ignore it because it falls outwith your theological paradigm .

Paul taught Timothy and others Scripture. Have you ever heard of "The Pastoral Epistles"? They are called "Pastoral Epistles" for a reason. They don't teach "tradition" but rather doctrine, doctrine concerning the churches--ecclesiology. Paul taught doctrine; not tradition. Timothy (2Tim.2:2) taught the same doctrine from the same Word of God that Paul taught him to other faithful men, who in turn would teach other faithful men the same Word of God that was taught to them. That is not tradition. It is the teaching of the Word of God. It is discipleship. It is what Jesus did with his disciples. Jesus did not teach tradition. He taught doctrine.

If by 'Word of God' you mean Scripture and Tradition, then I would agree. If you mean Scripture alone, then I would have to call you on eisegesis of the passages concerned.

There is no sign of apostolic succession in any of those passages.

Because you don't want to see it. To me it's patent.

Bishops are simply overseers. That is what the word needs--the same thing a pastor is today. It is no special office over and above that of a pastor.

On what basis are you asserting that the two terms are congruent?

Paul was a church planter as a missionary.

More than that, he was an apostle.

He went on three different missionary journeys and planted over 100 different churches. At each one he left a pastor in charge of it; just as he left Apollos in charge of the church at Corinth.

Yes - to carry on his work

There is no Apostolic Succession here, only common sense in church planting. Every church needs a leader.

But the very process you've described is Apostolic Succession! You can call it something else if it makes you feel better, but there it is.

The Apostolic Succession part of it is not Biblical and just imaginary.

But it's there! Plain as day - as you yourself have impliedly accepted above. Why won't you see it?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Matt, note that DHK also indicated that he supposes that people like Clement, and Polycarp are those who are notted in the NT for having left the true faith and that the ECF were heretical from the start. He provides no evidence that his version of main stream christianity progressed throughout history emerging in the form of Baptist today. Though he believes this must be the case. Where are their letters? Where are their writings?

Any actual study will indicate that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was initially transmitted orally by the Apostles to christians. The Bishops they appointed carried on their teachings which he doesn't insist is the original deposit. It was only latter that the NT was codified by the same people he supposes are heretical.

 

[DHK]

But it's there! Plain as day - as you yourself have impliedly accepted above. Why won't you see it?

There what is? Your opinion?
We have your opinion as opposed to the plain teaching of Scripture.
As for the term "bishop" if you want to dispute it, look it up in the Greek; any Greek concordance or lexicon will do. It means overseer and that is all.
"If any man desires the office of a bishop (overseer) he desires a good thing."
And then Paul goes on to list all the qualifications of a pastor or overseer (bishop). They are one and the same thing. Immediately after that he lists the qualification of a deacon (Gk. word for servant). There are the two offices of the church--Baptist polity according to Scripture. (Please read 1Timothy chapter three).

Notice:
Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
--Paul wanted to meet with the elders of the church at Ephesus.

This is what he said to them.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
--These men are called:
1. elders (vs. 17)
2. bishops (overseers--same Greek word, vs. 28)
3. Pastors--by implication--feeding the flock--the work of a pastor.

Here we have all three "roles" combined into the one "office" of a pastor. The elder, bishop, and the pastor are all the same person, simply describing different roles of the same office.

There is a general sense of the word "apostle". In Greek it is apostolos which simply means "sent one." It is one who is sent with a message, specifically the message of the gospel of Christ. When Jerome translated this word in his Vulgate the word he used was "mittere" which in English became "missionary." If there is any "apostolic succession" it would be that every missionary is an apostle, for that is what the word means. Paul and Barnabas, Sylvanus, Titus, Timothy, were all called apostles. They, like Paul, were sent proclaiming the message of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Thessalonians 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
1 Thessalonians 2:6 Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ.
--Paul uses the first person plural pronoun throughout the epistle constantly referring not only to himself but also to Silvanus and to Timotheus, as apostles. He then refers to them again as apostles in chapter 2, verse 6.

But the word "apostle" is used in Scripture in a very specific sense. It used over and over again as referring to "The Twelve."

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
--There is no succession. There will only be twelve names written on those 12 foundations; 12 and only 12.
There was only one time that one apostle had to be replaced. Judas was replaced by Matthias. This was a fulfillment of Scripture, and necessary for Judas was not saved, and not a true apostle.

There were requirements for being an apostle:
Acts 1:21-22 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
--How many today have been witness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? There are none. Any who claim apostolic succession, therefore are frauds. They have not seen the risen Lord. This is the most basic qualification for being an apostle, or even a successor to an apostle as Matthias was.

Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
--Matthias was the twelfth apostle. He succeeded Judas. He is the only one that ever succeeded another. There is no other. Apostolic succession is therefore, a false doctrine. There are only 12 names on those 12 foundations. There can be no more. There is no succession.

 

[DHK]

Matt, note that DHK also indicated that he supposes that people like Clement, and Polycarp are those who are notted in the NT for having left the true faith and that the ECF were heretical from the start. He provides no evidence that his version of main stream christianity progressed throughout history emerging in the form of Baptist today. Though he believes this must be the case. Where are their letters? Where are their writings?

Any actual study will indicate that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was initially transmitted orally by the Apostles to christians. The Bishops they appointed carried on their teachings which he doesn't insist is the original deposit. It was only latter that the NT was codified by the same people he supposes are heretical.

I prefer if you make false accusations against me that you quote me. Now go back into my posts and show me where I said anything about Polycarp having left the faith, or retract your statement. I will be waiting for a retraction or an apology if you cannot quote me.

 

[Pastor David]

The doctrine of sola Scriptura (SS) does not exclude the authority of tradition. In fact, the doctrine itself has formed something of a strong following, or, if you will, a tradition. The important distinction which needs to be made is in the subordination of other authorities to that of Scripture. This is what sola Scriptura proposes. Those that ascribe to SS can heartily affirm the existence of other authorities in matters of faith and pracitce.

The church is an authority. Parents hold authority as well in spiritual matters over their children. And both of these institutions (the church and the family) carry with them certain traditions - some of which are very good. But the authority of tradition should be understood as a derived authority. It derives it's authority from the Word of God - the Scriptures - which are all suffiecient (II Tim 3:16). The point of the doctrine of SS is to stress the relative subordination of all others sources of authority, including tradition, when compared to that of the final authority of Scripture.

 

[Eric B]

Not quite. If you miss out the last proposition, then you'll be close.

So then, It's "A lot of practices not mentioned in scriptures can be justified by the fallacy 'Our church holds the true Apostolic practice, because our practices were the unwritten Apostolic practice...'". Well then, by your own confession, it's still a fallacy, and still does not follow. Nowhere in the statement of Paul DT cited was there said to be two separate bodies of teaching; that the two methods of communication contained different things.
And I'm not really at liberty to leave out that last proposition, because it's not my argument, it's yours. And it is your answer for when the first twopropositions are challenged:
"...because our church holds the true Apostolic practice..." This under the premise that because a majority may bave believed something, then it was true. But Vincent can only go by what was widespread by his own day. The reasoning is just too inductive, and based on assumptions. So it's "Oral tradition must have been a separate body of teaching always withheld from writing, because everyone in the Church everywhere appears to do these things not written, and they seem to have 'always' done them, so whatever we do is apostolic, just because a majority of us have always done them".
But everything the Catholic churches do you would not argue as being orally handed down from the Apostles. Only because we can see in history where it began afterward. So it fails the "antiquity" criterion. What you all have assumed is that if you can find a germ of the teaching or practice in the second century, then it passes the "antiquity" test. That's the only difference. Technically yes, but "antiquity" is relative, and does not necessarily indicate going all the way back! There's such as thing as "close; but yet no cigar"; or that 70's song with the closing line of the chorus "so close; so close, and yet so far".

 

[Matt Black]

There what is? Your opinion?
We have your opinion as opposed to the plain teaching of Scripture.

For the interpretation of which we have your opinion, which you presume to call 'plain teaching'.

But the word "apostle" is used in Scripture in a very specific sense. It used over and over again as referring to "The Twelve."

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
--There is no succession. There will only be twelve names written on those 12 foundations; 12 and only 12.
There was only one time that one apostle had to be replaced. Judas was replaced by Matthias. This was a fulfillment of Scripture, and necessary for Judas was not saved, and not a true apostle.

There were requirements for being an apostle:
Acts 1:21-22 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
--How many today have been witness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? There are none. Any who claim apostolic succession, therefore are frauds. They have not seen the risen Lord. This is the most basic qualification for being an apostle, or even a successor to an apostle as Matthias was.

Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
--Matthias was the twelfth apostle. He succeeded Judas. He is the only one that ever succeeded another. There is no other. Apostolic succession is therefore, a false doctrine. There are only 12 names on those 12 foundations. There can be no more. There is no succession.

[/font][/size][/color]

What about Paul and James the Less, then?

 

[Matt Black]

Matt, note that DHK also indicated that he supposes that people like Clement, and Polycarp are those who are notted in the NT for having left the true faith and that the ECF were heretical from the start. He provides no evidence that his version of main stream christianity progressed throughout history emerging in the form of Baptist today. Though he believes this must be the case. Where are their letters? Where are their writings?

Any actual study will indicate that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was initially transmitted orally by the Apostles to christians. The Bishops they appointed carried on their teachings which he doesn't insist is the original deposit. It was only latter that the NT was codified by the same people he supposes are heretical.

I prefer if you make false accusations against me that you quote me. Now go back into my posts and show me where I said anything about Polycarp having left the faith, or retract your statement. I will be waiting for a retraction or an apology if you cannot quote me.

BY all means:

Added to that, many of the ECF contradicted themselves, believed in various heresies, that were just coming out of the church at that time. It is not far-fetched to believe that some of these very ECF that people put so much stock in today are the very ones that John referred to when he said:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Rome didn't bother with false teachers. It was the true believers that they persecuted and threw into the den of lions. False teachers were left to their writings.
Origen was declared a heretic, even by the RCC. By many he is called the "Father of Arianism." Some of the early ECF believed in baptismal regeneration. Their beliefs contradicted each other.

 

[Matt Black]

So then, It's "A lot of practices not mentioned in scriptures can be justified by the fallacy 'Our church holds the true Apostolic practice, because our practices were the unwritten Apostolic practice...'". Well then, by your own confession, it's still a fallacy, and still does not follow.

OK, I'll add to what I said before, "Remove the word 'fallacy' and replace with 'proposition'".

Nowhere in the statement of Paul DT cited was there said to be two separate bodies of teaching; that the two methods of communication contained different things.

An contraire, there is: II Tim 3:10, 14 (oral teaching, Tradition) and II Tim 3:15-16 (Scripture)

And I'm not really at liberty to leave out that last proposition, because it's not my argument, it's yours. And it is your answer for when the first twopropositions are challenged:
"...because our church holds the true Apostolic practice..." This under the premise that because a majority may bave believed something, then it was true. But Vincent can only go by what was widespread by his own day.

So? There are those here who claim that we should only go on what was widespread in NT times as solely recorded in the NT? Are they out of touch too?

The reasoning is just too inductive, and based on assumptions. So it's "Oral tradition must have been a separate body of teaching always withheld from writing, because everyone in the Church everywhere appears to do these things not written, and they seem to have 'always' done them, so whatever we do is apostolic, just because a majority of us have always done them".
But everything the Catholic churches do you would not argue as being orally handed down from the Apostles. Only because we can see in history where it began afterward. So it fails the "antiquity" criterion. What you all have assumed is that if you can find a germ of the teaching or practice in the second century, then it passes the "antiquity" test. That's the only difference. Technically yes, but "antiquity" is relative, and does not necessarily indicate going all the way back! There's such as thing as "close; but yet no cigar"; or that 70's song with the closing line of the chorus "so close; so close, and yet so far".

Two points by way of rejoinder:

1. 'Close' = much, much closer than us; much, much more accurate in the interpretation of Scripture than us viewing through 21st century modernist filters.

2. No, I don't agree that everything the Catholic Church (I presume that's what you mean) does is part of Apostolic Tradition but that's because since the Great Schism they fail the Vincentian test.