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

[Alive in Christ]

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

Absolutely. Without a doubt.

The Sciptures that men have called "the Bible" are nothing less than the entirety of the inerrant instructions that God Himself authored for us to use as our one and only "truth standard" to test all spiritual things against.

Praise God for His great provision!


:godisgood:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Originally posted by Marcia...

"Jesus is not the word of God the way the bible is the word of God.

If the Bible only contains words of God, then it does not have the authority as the word of God.

Not every word in the Bible is God speaking but the Bible is the Word of God because every word in it is there because God wanted it there and put it there through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on what the writers wrote."

And THEOLDMAN responded...

"I respectfully disagree. let me add : I worship Jesus Christ...not The Bible."

Neither does Marcia worship the scriptures. Neither do I. The only folks I know of who seem to be worshiping the Bible are priests and ministers in false groups like the Catholic Church and the Orthodox. They have gold encrusted Bibles that they kiss, and treat with "kit gloves" as if it were God.

People in genuine christian groups like myself and Marcia do not worship the Bible at all. But we understand fully that every word is of the scriptures are divinely inspired, and every word is placed their by God Himself...using human instruments. Those human instruments did not decide which books were inspired and which were not. Rather, it was revealed to them which ones were authentic.

What Marcia posted is 100% correct. Glory to God.

In my experience, usually people who make the absurd claim that we...evangelicals..."worship" the Bible, are usually folks who are Catholic, Orthodox, or very liberal protestants.

I sincerely hope you are not one of those.


:godisgood:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Matt,

"I'm not really wondering anything. I'm after definitions. The Bible being God's Word is not a problem for me because I'm not sola Scriptura - I believe that both Scripture and Tradition are God's Word because they self-reference as such."

Thats not a good thing, Matt. You really do need to drop that idea. Its in your best interest to drop that idea.

But I think it's more problematic if you're sola Scriptura simply because there isn't a proof-text that says "Scripture=Word of God", and thus Scripture alone is not self-referencing on the definition point."

The proof texts have been given over and over again, Matt.

Your not... *listening*, ...Matt.


:godisgood:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Agnus Dei...

"For clarity purposes, one must define what we mean by tradition. There’s big “T” Tradition and small “t” tradition.

....One is useless without the other."

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:




Bless your heart, Agnus.

:godisgood:

 

[Matt Black]

It appears quite evident that if the purpose of signs and wonders, etc. were "the signs of an apostle" that is to authenticate the apostle and his message, and that we have no apostles today, that is clear enough evidence that signs and wonders, etc. have ceased. That is clearly what 2Cor.12:12 and Heb.2:3,4 teach. It is only one of the many reasons given for these gifts, but it is an important one. The apostles all died before the end of the first century.

Your argument is circular and based on the unproven premise of apostleship being unrepeatable after the Twelve; both Scripture and Tradition demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Matt Black]

Thats not a good thing, Matt. You really do need to drop that idea. Its in your best interest to drop that idea.

Explain why.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

the Catholic Church and the Orthodox. They have gold encrusted Bibles that they kiss

So I guess the Jews were worshiping the Torah when they kissed it? Why don’t we read in the NT of Jesus condemning the Jew’s from ‘worshiping’ the Torah?

BTW, I kiss the Holy Gospels every Sunday, just as the Jews kiss the Torah still today.

In XC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Agnus Dei...
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Bless your heart, Agnus.

What a prime example of a fundy taking a quote and cutting it up to read and mean something else.

You make it out that I’m saying that big ‘T’ Tradition and small “t” tradition are useless without the other.

I said: Big “T” Tradition and Holy Scripture go hand in hand. One is useless without the other.

My 7 year-old sons’ reading comprehension is on a much higher level than yours…jeezes.

In XC
-

 

[Alive in Christ]

Matt,

"Explain why."

Because you are in great error. If you would get with the program regarding the principle that men have called "Sola Scriptura" it would greatly benefit you, and keep you from even greater error.

The scriptures are so clear regarding the danger of heeding the tradition of men.


I know, I know...you are getting ready to say "these arent the traditions of men".

Yes. They are.


:godisgood:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Agnus Dei...

"What a prime example of a fundy..."

I have never been a "fundamentalist". Although they are my brothers and sisters, I find them to be way too legalistic sometimes.

I am an evangelical.


:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

Your argument is circular and based on the unproven premise of apostleship being unrepeatable after the Twelve; both Scripture and Tradition demonstrate otherwise.

You have your opinion Matt. That is all it is--opinion.
I have Scripture: 2Cor.12:12 and Heb.2:3,4.

The meanings of these Scriptures are clear.
I go with the Bible rather than your opinion. There is no circular reasoning involved.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Eric,
I think the main problem is that you are taking one statement by Kelly about Irenaus' belief about just one aspect of the tradition (ie the 'rule of faith') and somehow using it to trump everything else Kelly wrote (and the early Father's believed) about the tradition as a whole(in all it's aspects). This is evident in the comments that you persist in making:

By "separate body of teaching", I assume, as the whole argument here seems to be, that while the scriptures mention Baptism, Communion, Mary, Church offices & organization, etc. the apostles withheld the specific details about their nature (Flesh and blood are "literal", high liturgy, Baptism is when salvation transpires, Mary as perpetual virgin, etc.) and transmitted them orally only.

It's not at all a matter of "withholding specific details" from the Scriptures. Such a suggestion is based on the (wrong) assumption that the Scriptures were meant to be either a systematic theological textbook or a detailed liturgical manual (or both). There is however, no evidence that the apostles were consciously writing either, or were conscious of the notion that their writings would be ultimately collected in final fixed canonical form. Indeed, the apostolic writings were not written in the genres of theological textbook or liturgical manuals. The first apostolic writings were of course the epistles of Paul, and though there are great theological discourses in which Paul connects the Christian gospel to previous salvation history (OT), much of what he wrote was situational in order to correct errors (ie Judaizers) or to exhort to godly living (as consequences of the truth of the Gospel) In other words, he's not writing in the FORM of a systematic theological handbook. Likewise, the four gospels were narratives of the life of Christ and, again, not detailed theological handbooks (or liturgical manuals). With that in mind, it makes little sense in knocking down some straw man assertion that the apostles were somehow purposely leaving things out of their writings, as their purpose was not to write step-by-step instructions/reflections on the hows and whys of worship. This they had personally handed over to the church by oral instruction and example years before they took pen to papyrus.

So you had these two sets of teaching with somewhat different information (one more general, the other more specific) passed down side by side: the scriptures, which we're all familiar with, and then the Catholic "details" which the "heretics" then, like us now could not find in scripture, yet they used them to "interpret" the scriptures. The Catholic churches later wrote them all down, and they are all the doctrines and practices we are disputing. This is what I have been gathering from your argument.

Close, but not quite. Indeed, "we" are "all familiar" with the Scriptures, if by "we" you mean modern day Christians regardless of denominational stripe. However, "we" may not all be familiar with the existing ecclessial context in which the Scriptures were written and received, interpreted and later canonized. Historically, of course, the Church came first before any NT writings were penned, and these early believers already shared the context of the early Church's kerygmatic, devotional, liturgical, and catechetical life even before the first NT epistles was written. Therefore they were in the position to be familiar with any details that weren't overly systematized or exhaustively spelled out in the later apostolic epistles and gospel narratives (concerning such issues as baptism and Holy Communion, along with the 'rule of faith' regarding the overall triadic, incarnational, and redemptive message of the OT-Scriptures-as-preached-by-the-apostles), because they were already baptizing, worshipping, praying and celebrating communion before the NT was written, let alone completed. Indeed, they could "find in Scriptures" things that various modern day denominationlists cannot (or will not). This is born out historically in the common early interpretations of many Scriptural passages that many latter day Christians would dispute as actually supporting (or not) certain doctrines they disagree with. However, just because some modern Christians can't (or won't) find certain doctrines in the Scriptures, it doesn't mean the early Christians could not. This would naturally lead us to Vincent's canon as a good epistemologically valid way of identifying the common beliefs and Scriptural interpretations in the early church (which has been discussed by Matt and others already, and by myself previously), and this would answer your following question...

So how do the "Catholic" churches prove those doctrines?

Answer: Vincent's 'canon'--"quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est".

You just call them "the rule of faith" and interpret the scriptures through these doctrines themselves.

But again, you are confusing one aspect of tradition--the 'rule of faith'--with the whole, which would include, as Kelly wrote, that which was "embedded in all organs of (the Church's) institutional life." (ie liturgy, prayers, catechesis, as well as the Scriptures and 'rule of faith'). The Church could (and did) use all these organs/aspects of her institutional life in safeguarding the true meaning of Scriptures.

Of course, they will be "proven" then, when we use them as their own authority. But that's what is called reading a preconceived notion into the scriptures.

I think to an extent everyone brings their own "preconceived notions" to the Scripture in interpreting them. (Some think salvation couldn't possibly be lost; others think God wouldn't or couldn't possibly use matter to convey grace, etc). The question is which (or whose) notions does one use: the common beliefs/interpretations of the early church, or those of some latter day denomination or sect (or individual)?

But the quote I made would deny that, and shows that was the later concept of "tradition" held by the gnostics, and the post-Origen church.

You are confusing the alleged private tradition of the gnostics (which by definition was handed down only to a 'spiritual elite' but withheld from the masses) with the public tradition handed down by the apostles to the Church as a whole. Paul teaches about the public nature of oral tradition in this statement to Timothy: "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)

These quotes you keep repeating show that they had a "rule of faith" they used. It does not say that this rule is all these specifics that are absent from scripture, and my quote outright goes against that.

Bingo! Again, the 'rule of faith' was just a core summary of the real purport and meaning of Scriptures expressing the basic triadic, incarnational, and atonement themes. However, the 'rule of faith' was not the only aspect of tradition passed on by the apostles "embedded in all organs of the Church's institution life" (to quote Kelly again). In otherwords, your one quote is limited in its application to the 'rule of faith' and not to tradition as a whole.

I had even looked up the rule of faith when we used to debate a couple of years ago, and I did not see all of this other stuff.

Because by it's very nature (ie a condensed summary) "all this other stuff" wasn't included. That doesn't mean however that much of the "stuff" you object to is not scriptural or traditional--it was part of the church's liturgical, devotional, and catechetical life (ie "all the organs of her instutional life"), the context in which the Scriptures were written and read and interpreted and canonized.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Continuing on....

It appears you're trying to imply an argument based on "formally different", but all "the form" means is whether it's oral or written.

No, that's not all "the form" means. In fact, something can be written in different forms. For example, the Scriptures are written in variuous literary genres, while the 'rule of faith', when written down (ie in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian, for instance) were short-summaries of the overall themes of the gospel message. The latter expressed, in highly condensed summary form, the same content as the former but in a different form (yet not necessarily in some sort of cut-paste job) and not necessarily the exact same words. Other examples would be some early hymns/prayers and oral catechetical moral and doctrinal instruction which while testifying to the same truth of Scriptures, wouldn't necessarily be found verbatim in the Scriptures nor written (or sung) in the same Scriptural style/genre. This should be intuitively obvious.

It's the content we're arguing here, which is said to be "identical".

In context, the quote in question refers to the 'rule of faith' not having anything (content) that cannot be found in or argued from the content of Scripture. And this is true. (However if you press the word "identical" to mean "exactly the same verbatim", then this of course would not be true).

Next, "the same content of revelation to which Scripture also testifies". So if this implies what I think it does, that then throws a third object into the mix, and it's like a trinity of "the Revelation", "the Scripture" and "the Tradition".

I don't see why that would surprise you, since historically "the Revelation" of Christ and His gospel came first, followed by "the Tradition"--the Apostolic oral preaching and instruction to the Churches (ie kerygma of traditionally interpreting the OT Scriptures as being fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, moral and doctrinal instruction to the early churches etc), then followed by the Apostolic writings (NT "Scriptures"). The three are distinct but closely related, with the latter two witnessing to the former and the second encompassing and interpreting the third.

So I guess it's supposed to be that full "revelation" that contained all those details, and the scripture omitted them all, but the tradition included them? (Now that I think of it, that is kind of what you've been arguing all long, saying that the writings were only to address "certain issues as they came up", as if there was all this other stuff that was never written).

On one hand, the Apostles may not have felt the need for "all those details" to be written...at least not by them. On the other hand, the early church perhaps could find more of those details in the Scriptures then some of us modern day believers with our differing denominational traditions. At any rate, there aren't any Scriptural passages which indicate the apostles ever intended for every single detail of every thing they ever taught anywhere to be written down.

Yet the quote still still deny even that. If anything was left out anywhere, it would not really be "identical in content".

Again the quote is limited in it's application to the 'rule of faith' and does not necessarily apply to the tradition as a whole "embedded in all the organs of the Church's institutional life". Regarding the tradition as a whole, Kelly's other quote is more applicable (and accurate):

"Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complimentary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content"
(Notice he uses the word "coincident" and not "identical")

You would have a total "revelation" containing vastly different things, with scripture taking one piece of it, and tradition taking another different piece of it. If it existed then, it would have come up in scripture, with all of the other issues of doctrine, practice, and Christian living addressed.
Remember, we even get a glimpse of what this "tradition" was, in one of the very proof texts (2 Thess. 3:6): "keep away from any brother who is living in idleness". "living in idleness" is what is contrasted with "the traditions". And other scriptures speak against this as well. No later "Catholic" doctrines or practices!

But you assume too much by concluding what the absolute limit and specific content of tradition must have been based on these "glimpses", or that just because you can't find the truths of certain "catholic" doctrines or practices (to which you object) supported by Scriptures that the early Christians couldn't possibly find such there either. They, however, with their starting assumptions formed as they were in the liturgical/devotional/catechetical life of the early Church, would readily argue that many of the things you yourself deny are, in fact, "Scriptural".

All "Tradition" means is that it is a principle the apostles hold, and many people who did not get an epistle had only heard about it orally. It is NOT an entire body of omitted details!

All 'tradition' (Greek, 'paradosis') means is 'that which is handed over (or handed down)'. This was handed over by the apostles orally and by epistle to the Churches and their authority delivered by either media was expected to have the same force. Again, the apostles did not indicate anywhere in their writings some sort of time limit for the authority of oral tradition, nor did they indicate that every minute detail they ever taught would be eventually written down. That the canonical Scriptures (OT and NT) do contain all (the stuff) that is necessary for salvation, was indeed the judgment of the early church fathers (after the fact), but they would argue these same Scripture testify to many of the doctrines/practices that you or certain other modern Protestants (of various denominations) would find objectionable (ex: the "Real Presence" in the Eucharist, regenerative baptism, that one could fall from salvation, etc)

To conclude, let's allow Kelly to sum up the matter once again:

"Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complimentary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior of more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue for its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained , as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, unerring grasp of the real purport and the meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness".

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have your opinion Matt. That is all it is--opinion.
I have Scripture: 2Cor.12:12 and Heb.2:3,4.

The meanings of these Scriptures are clear.
I go with the Bible rather than your opinion. There is no circular reasoning involved.

To be fair You go with your interpretation of the bible. I don't see how these verses only apply to the Apostles:

12The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance.

They are things that mark an Apostle but does not state that only the apostles do this. Then there are other marks this being just one.

or

3how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Does not clearly indicate just the Apostles but that the truth of Salvation is confirmed by these things.

So for the sake of argument. You're implying your opinion on the translations of what these verses say. For instance they do not say "the apostles only and no one else perform signs and miracles " If they did you would have a point but you infer it from your interpretation which is based on your bias.

 

[DHK]

To be fair You go with your interpretation of the bible. I don't see how these verses only apply to the Apostles:

They are things that mark an Apostle but does not state that only the apostles do this. Then there are other marks this being just one.

2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works.
--Paul said they were the marks of an apostle. He didn't say a car, a house (the ridiculous), or a deacon, a bishop, or of any other person. These were the signs specifically given to identify an apostle, and authenticate his message. It was given to them to set them apart from all the other charlatans of that era. Those who claim to be apostles today can rest assured by this verse and others that apostleship has ceased. For these signs cannot be duplicated, as is verified by Acts 5:16
However, as I previously posted this is only one of the purposes of the gifts of the Spirit. There are other purposes. But with this one purpose, and it should be sufficient; it shows that these gifts ended at the first century for all the apostles were dead by the end of the first century.

or
Hebrews 2:3-4 how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will.

or
Hebrews 2:3 how shall we escape, having neglected so great salvation? which a beginning receiving--to be spoken through the Lord--by those having heard was confirmed to us, (Young's Translation)

Does not clearly indicate just the Apostles but that the truth of Salvation is confirmed by these things.

Salvation was confirmed to us (the Hebrews and the author of the book) by them (the apostles)--those that heard Christ. For Christ also bore witness to them, the apostles, by signs and wonders, and different powers, and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These were the signs of an Apostle.

So for the sake of argument. You're implying your opinion on the translations of what these verses say. For instance they do not say "the apostles only and no one else perform signs and miracles " If they did you would have a point but you infer it from your interpretation which is based on your bias.

No, but this is one of the primary purposes of signs and wonders. The other purposes are minor, and usually only deal with one gift such as tongues. Tongues, specifically was a sign to the Jews (1Cor.14:21). Not all the gifts were a sign to the Jews, but this gift specifically was a sign to the Jews.

The great display of all the signs, all the gifts of the spirit was given only to the apostles. This is what these verses teaches. Paul teaches that until the canon was complete members of the church only could exercise some of the gifts. No one had all the gifts.

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
--The above lists most of the gifts. Now hear what Paul says:

1 Corinthians 12:29-30 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
--These are all rhetorical questions. The obvious answer is no. They each had their own gift to exercise; they each played a part in the church. No one had all the gifts.

But the apostles were different. The "signs and wonders, and gifts of the spirit" were given to them in great number, as a sign of an apostle.

 

[Eric B]

Eric,
I think the main problem is that you are taking one statement by Kelly about Irenaus' belief about just one aspect of the tradition (ie the 'rule of faith') and somehow using it to trump everything else Kelly wrote (and the early Father's believed) about the tradition as a whole(in all it's aspects). This is evident in the comments that you persist in making:
It's not at all a matter of "withholding specific details" from the Scriptures. Such a suggestion is based on the (wrong) assumption that the Scriptures were meant to be either a systematic theological textbook or a detailed liturgical manual (or both). There is however, no evidence that the apostles were consciously writing either, or were conscious of the notion that their writings would be ultimately collected in final fixed canonical form. Indeed, the apostolic writings were not written in the genres of theological textbook or liturgical manuals. The first apostolic writings were of course the epistles of Paul, and though there are great theological discourses in which Paul connects the Christian gospel to previous salvation history (OT), much of what he wrote was situational in order to correct errors (ie Judaizers) or to exhort to godly living (as consequences of the truth of the Gospel) In other words, he's not writing in the FORM of a systematic theological handbook. Likewise, the four gospels were narratives of the life of Christ and, again, not detailed theological handbooks (or liturgical manuals). With that in mind, it makes little sense in knocking down some straw man assertion that the apostles were somehow purposely leaving things out of their writings, as their purpose was not to write step-by-step instructions/reflections on the hows and whys of worship. This they had personally handed over to the church by oral instruction and example years before they took pen to papyrus.

Bingo! Again, the 'rule of faith' was just a core summary of the real purport and meaning of Scriptures expressing the basic triadic, incarnational, and atonement themes. However, the 'rule of faith' was not the only aspect of tradition passed on by the apostles "embedded in all organs of the Church's institution life" (to quote Kelly again). In otherwords, your one quote is limited in its application to the 'rule of faith' and not to tradition as a whole.
Because by it's very nature (ie a condensed summary) "all this other stuff" wasn't included. That doesn't mean however that much of the "stuff" you object to is not scriptural or traditional--it was part of the church's liturgical, devotional, and catechetical life (ie "all the organs of her instutional life"), the context in which the Scriptures were written and read and interpreted and canonized.

The "rule of faith" seemed to be the primary evidence of this "unwritten tradition" you were using, but now you're saying it was really something other than that.

Close, but not quite. Indeed, "we" are "all familiar" with the Scriptures, if by "we" you mean modern day Christians regardless of denominational stripe. However, "we" may not all be familiar with the existing ecclessial context in which the Scriptures were written and received, interpreted and later canonized. Historically, of course, the Church came first before any NT writings were penned, and these early believers already shared the context of the early Church's kerygmatic, devotional, liturgical, and catechetical life even before the first NT epistles was written. Therefore they were in the position to be familiar with any details that weren't overly systematized or exhaustively spelled out in the later apostolic epistles and gospel narratives (concerning such issues as baptism and Holy Communion, along with the 'rule of faith' regarding the overall triadic, incarnational, and redemptive message of the OT-Scriptures-as-preached-by-the-apostles), because they were already baptizing, worshipping, praying and celebrating communion before the NT was written, let alone completed. Indeed, they could "find in Scriptures" things that various modern day denominationlists cannot (or will not). This is born out historically in the common early interpretations of many Scriptural passages that many latter day Christians would dispute as actually supporting (or not) certain doctrines they disagree with. However, just because some modern Christians can't (or won't) find certain doctrines in the Scriptures, it doesn't mean the early Christians could not.

But again, you are confusing one aspect of tradition--the 'rule of faith'--with the whole, which would include, as Kelly wrote, that which was "embedded in all organs of (the Church's) institutional life." (ie liturgy, prayers, catechesis, as well as the Scriptures and 'rule of faith'). The Church could (and did) use all these organs/aspects of her institutional life in safeguarding the true meaning of Scriptures.

On one hand, the Apostles may not have felt the need for "all those details" to be written...at least not by them. On the other hand, the early church perhaps could find more of those details in the Scriptures then some of us modern day believers with our differing denominational traditions. At any rate, there aren't any Scriptural passages which indicate the apostles ever intended for every single detail of every thing they ever taught anywhere to be written down.

That the canonical Scriptures (OT and NT) do contain all (the stuff) that is necessary for salvation, was indeed the judgment of the early church fathers (after the fact), but they would argue these same Scripture testify to many of the doctrines/practices that you or certain other modern Protestants (of various denominations) would find objectionable (ex: the "Real Presence" in the Eucharist, regenerative baptism, that one could fall from salvation, etc)

So you have all of this supposition, that all of this stuff must have been practiced, all of these "organs" were "Catholic" doctrines, NT services must have been identical to 10th Century and later EOC grand high liturgy, and all the catechisms, and long before the NT was written, but there were never any questions about it, nobody doing it wrong, or neglecting any of it, as complex as it was, never any need to address it in the epistles, or even the "rule of faith" now. It was "the context" in which the scriptures were written and read and interpreted and canonized, but it never was mentioned in those scriptures more directly! That is totally incredible! That is a long stretch, and it greatly resembles the claims of the very Trail of Blood theory that opposes this (in the other thread, and in which I'm pretty much on you and Matt's side); that there was a small persecuted Baptist Church existing side by side with all of this, but named all the different sects and mischaracterized as gnostics by the Catholics.
But the evidence from history unanimously supports that all of this stuff developed over time. All I see in the second century fathers is "grains" of some of these concepts and practices. they are still not as developed or specific as in the later conciliar era. There was no full blown high liturgy in the NT. There is no way the affairs of the church could ever be addressed without that coming up.

 

[Eric B]

This would naturally lead us to Vincent's canon as a good epistemologically valid way of identifying the common beliefs and Scriptural interpretations in the early church (which has been discussed by Matt and others already, and by myself previously), and this would answer your following question...
Answer: Vincent's 'canon'--"quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est".

But even this is subject to misinterpretation. The Church was persecuted in NT times, and afterward. Afterward, when it began to grow and recieve power, then it spread more. But by that time, the doctrines were already developed, so then Vincent would see these practices from his perspective as "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est". I'll grant that that principle may have been a good principle to try to get as accurate results as possible, but it is not infallible.
So to us, who can see a broader view of history (with stuff uneartheed that may have been buried or not widespread then), we can in fact see things like developments and texts they did not see. It's like the temporal counterpart to being down in a valley as opposed to up on a distant mountain. The person in the valley may be closer to an object, but the person on the mountain can actually see a broader range. Like if a storm is coming, and the person in the valley expperiences the first rain, while the person on the mountain does not. But he can see what's coming.

But again, you are confusing one aspect of tradition--the 'rule of faith'--with the whole, which would include, as Kelly wrote, that which was "embedded in all organs of (the Church's) institutional life." (ie liturgy, prayers, catechesis, as well as the Scriptures and 'rule of faith'). The Church could (and did) use all these organs/aspects of her institutional life in safeguarding the true meaning of Scriptures.

I think to an extent everyone brings their own "preconceived notions" to the Scripture in interpreting them. (Some think salvation couldn't possibly be lost; others think God wouldn't or couldn't possibly use matter to convey grace, etc). The question is which (or whose) notions does one use: the common beliefs/interpretations of the early church, or those of some latter day denomination or sect (or individual)?

Or the medieval Church projecting its own perspective onto "the early Church".
(And there are plenty of reasons to do that: —Saying salvation could be lost is a way to control the masses, and then creating all the penance rituals also increased the church's power over people. "Using matter to convey grace" the way the Church did it is also a form of mind control. "Don't go by what you see or makes sense, just listen to what we say". "Mystery, Miracle and Authority" have been identified as the Church's (Including Protestants, in different ways, to be fair) method of control. So yes, there would be a big motive to reading this stuff into the NT, with the germs of the ideas in the "early Church" as the prime evidence of Vincent's canon.)

All 'tradition' (Greek, 'paradosis') means is 'that which is handed over (or handed down)'. This was handed over by the apostles orally and by epistle to the Churches and their authority delivered by either media was expected to have the same force. Again, the apostles did not indicate anywhere in their writings some sort of time limit for the authority of oral tradition, nor did they indicate that every minute detail they ever taught would be eventually written down.

You are confusing the alleged private tradition of the gnostics (which by definition was handed down only to a 'spiritual elite' but withheld from the masses) with the public tradition handed down by the apostles to the Church as a whole. Paul teaches about the public nature of oral tradition in this statement to Timothy: "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)

So now we're back to square one. You're using "these things which you have heard from me" to prove your point about the "traditions". This would mean then that Paul spoke about them orally, but happened to never write about them, because "he never intended to create an exhaustive manual". Yet there is no reason to speculate that what he spoke to them was anything he did not write. This was what Kelley said the more gnostic concept of the tradition was. You're making it "public" to the people then, but to us who did not get the oral teaching, it becomes essentially a "private tradition" of the "spiritual elite" of Catholic leadership. We have to take their word for it, and then you or others will go on to talk about "the Church as an object of faith". But I do not see them as trustworthy.

No, that's not all "the form" means. In fact, something can be written in different forms. For example, the Scriptures are written in variuous literary genres, while the 'rule of faith', when written down (ie in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian, for instance) were short-summaries of the overall themes of the gospel message. The latter expressed, in highly condensed summary form, the same content as the former but in a different form (yet not necessarily in some sort of cut-paste job) and not necessarily the exact same words. Other examples would be some early hymns/prayers and oral catechetical moral and doctrinal instruction which while testifying to the same truth of Scriptures, wouldn't necessarily be found verbatim in the Scriptures nor written (or sung) in the same Scriptural style/genre. This should be intuitively obvious.

Looking at the context of what he's saying there, "form" does appear to mean "written vs oral". That's the contrast being discussed there. The hymns and such you mention would be part of yet another form, or perhaps more aligned with the "oral" form.

But you assume too much by concluding what the absolute limit and specific content of tradition must have been based on these "glimpses", or that just because you can't find the truths of certain "catholic" doctrines or practices (to which you object) supported by Scriptures that the early Christians couldn't possibly find such there either. They, however, with their starting assumptions formed as they were in the liturgical/devotional/catechetical life of the early Church, would readily argue that many of the things you yourself deny are, in fact, "Scriptural".

Again, you're the one using "tradition" as proof of "the liturgical/devotional/catechetical life", but all I'm showing is that the only evidence we have of what this "tradition" was is a teaching that can be found elsewhere in scripture. I know that hypothetically, there could be all of this other stuff. But this proof-text you are using is not the proof of it! Basically, your strongest argument is from Vincent, and he's not scripture.

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,



Because you are in great error. If you would get with the program regarding the principle that men have called "Sola Scriptura" it would greatly benefit you, and keep you from even greater error.

The scriptures are so clear regarding the danger of heeding the tradition of men.


I know, I know...you are getting ready to say "these arent the traditions of men".

Yes. They are.


:godisgood:

No, they're not. You have your opinion and I have mine. WE can fling anathemata at each other and each accuse the othe of being in error, but that doesn't get us very far, does it? I prefer to do what Christians have always done throughout the centuries, whereas you follow a theological innovation that has not basis in either Scripture or Tradition.

 

[Matt Black]

You have your opinion Matt. That is all it is--opinion.

And you have your opinion- that's all it is: opinion.

I have Scripture: 2Cor.12:12 and Heb.2:3,4.

Correction: you have your interpretation of Scripture. Massive difference.

The meanings of these Scriptures are clear.

No it's not! If it was, everyone would agree with you, They don't. QED.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works.
--Paul said they were the marks of an apostle. He didn't say a car, a house (the ridiculous), or a deacon, a bishop, or of any other person. These were the signs specifically given to identify an apostle, and authenticate his message. It was given to them to set them apart from all the other charlatans of that era. Those who claim to be apostles today can rest assured by this verse and others that apostleship has ceased. For these signs cannot be duplicated, as is verified by Acts 5:16
However, as I previously posted this is only one of the purposes of the gifts of the Spirit. There are other purposes. But with this one purpose, and it should be sufficient; it shows that these gifts ended at the first century for all the apostles were dead by the end of the first century.

or
Hebrews 2:3-4 how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will.

or
Hebrews 2:3 how shall we escape, having neglected so great salvation? which a beginning receiving--to be spoken through the Lord--by those having heard was confirmed to us, (Young's Translation)

Salvation was confirmed to us (the Hebrews and the author of the book) by them (the apostles)--those that heard Christ. For Christ also bore witness to them, the apostles, by signs and wonders, and different powers, and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These were the signs of an Apostle.


No, but this is one of the primary purposes of signs and wonders. The other purposes are minor, and usually only deal with one gift such as tongues. Tongues, specifically was a sign to the Jews (1Cor.14:21). Not all the gifts were a sign to the Jews, but this gift specifically was a sign to the Jews.

The great display of all the signs, all the gifts of the spirit was given only to the apostles. This is what these verses teaches. Paul teaches that until the canon was complete members of the church only could exercise some of the gifts. No one had all the gifts.

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
--The above lists most of the gifts. Now hear what Paul says:

1 Corinthians 12:29-30 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
--These are all rhetorical questions. The obvious answer is no. They each had their own gift to exercise; they each played a part in the church. No one had all the gifts.

But the apostles were different. The "signs and wonders, and gifts of the spirit" were given to them in great number, as a sign of an apostle.

No one is debating with you whether the "signs and wonders" are evidence that the 12 were apostles. What is being question whether these same "signs and wonders" are soley the Apostles. No not all are apostles ( I personally don't believe there will be more Apostles) but it isn't stating the opposit either which is there are no more apostles. You infer it but it isn't stated. And your inference is based on how you exposit the scriptures which is based on your theological bias. And the reason not everyone has all the gifts is to force community. We need each other.