Scripture and Tradition

[Bro. James]

Sign me up for el stupido of the month. It finally dawned on me: this is not the sola scriptura channel. No wonder no one quotes scripture here. There are a lot of quotes from the unregenerated in high places from the past and other bits of error of halo. There is no basis for discussion if there is no infallible standard as the final authority. Whoever has the biggest halo wins. All hail the traditions of men.

What is in your wallet?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

Nothing's in my wallet ATM - I've been buying Christmas presents.

And who's not quoting Scripture? People have already mentioned Matt 16:18 and others, so you must be mistaking this for another thread. And I'm not talking about the traditions of men here either.

Brian, I wouldn't say that the gates of Hell prevailed in 1054, unfortunate though that split was, anymore than they prevailed in 1517; by 1054 the Church had already been in existence for over 1000 years and there was a sufficient body of Scripture and Tradition by which we could and can all plot an adequate theological course.

I'd be grateful if you could expand on the Ignatian controversy referenced by you - it's not one I've come across before and it is germane to the discussion since Ignatius is the firmest witness we have in the sub-apostolic age to a more monachical episcopacy.

 

[BRIANH]

Nothing's in my wallet ATM - I've been buying Christmas presents.

And who's not quoting Scripture? People have already mentioned Matt 16:18 and others, so you must be mistaking this for another thread. And I'm not talking about the traditions of men here either.

Brian, I wouldn't say that the gates of Hell prevailed in 1054, unfortunate though that split was, anymore than they prevailed in 1517; by 1054 the Church had already been in existence for over 1000 years and there was a sufficient body of Scripture and Tradition by which we could and can all plot an adequate theological course.

I'd be grateful if you could expand on the Ignatian controversy referenced by you - it's not one I've come across before and it is germane to the discussion since Ignatius is the firmest witness we have in the sub-apostolic age to a more monachical episcopacy.

There are a number of books.

Here is what Schaff says. Look at Polycarp to determine the form of church govt in effect



From: Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians.
"been found in this letter to the Romans, especially as in this letter we first find the use of the phrase "Catholic Church" in patristic writings. He defines it as to be found "where Jesus Christ is," words which certainly do not limit it to communion with a professed successor of St. Peter."
The epistles ascribed to Ignatius have given rise to more controversy than any other documents connected with the primitive Church. As is evident to every reader on the very first glance at these writings, they contain numerous statements which bear on points of ecclesiastical order that have long divided the Christian world; and a strong temptation has thus been felt to allow some amount of prepossession to enter into the discussion of their authenticity or spuriousness. At the same time, this question has furnished a noble field for the display of learning and acuteness, and has, in the various forms under which it has been debated, given rise to not a few works of the very highest ability and scholarship. We shall present such an outline of the controversy as may enable the reader to understand its position at the present day.
There are, in all, fifteen Epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle John, one to Mary of Cassobelae, one to the Tarsians, one to the Antiochians, one to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, one to the Philippians; one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnaeans, and one to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin: all the rest are extant also in Greek.
It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.
But after the question has been thus simplified, it still remains sufficiently complex. Of the seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36), we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or other of these exhibits a corrupt text, and scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius. This was the opinion generally acquiesced in, from the time when critical editions of these Epistles began to be issued, down to our own day. Criticism, indeed, fluctuated a good deal as to which Epistles should be accepted and which rejected. Archp. Usher (1644), Isaac Vossius (1646), J. B. Cotelerius (1672), Dr. T. Smith (I709), and others, edited the writings ascribed to Ignatius in forms differing very considerably as to the order in which they were arranged, and the degree of authority assigned them, until at length, from about the beginning of the eighteenth century, the seven Greek Epistles, of which a translation is here given, came to be generally accepted in their shorter form as the genuine writings of Ignatius.
Before this date, however, there had not been wanting some who refused to acknowledge the authenticity of these Epistles in either of the recensions in which they were then known to exist. By far the most learned and elaborate work maintaining this position was that of Daillé (or Dallaeus), published in 1666. This drew forth in reply the celebrated Vindiciae of Bishop Pearson, which appeared in 1672. It was generally supposed that this latter work had established on an immoveable foundation the genuineness of the shorter form of the Ignatian Epistles; and, as we have stated above, this was the conclusion almost universally accepted down to our own day. The only considerable exception to this concurrence was presented by Whiston, who laboured to maintain in his Primitive Christianity Revived (1711) the superior claims of the longer recension of the Epistles, apparently influenced in doing so by the support which he thought they furnished to the kind of Arianism which he had adopted.
But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity. Thus said Lardner, in his Credibility of the Gospel History (1743): "have carefully compared the two editions, and am very well satisfied, upon that comparison, that the larger are an interpolation of the smaller, and not the smaller an epitome or abridgment of the larger.... But whether the smaller themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult question."
This expression of uncertainty was repeated in substance by Jortin (1751), Mosheim (1755), Griesbach (1768), Rosenmüller (1795), Neander (1826), and many others; some going so far as to deny that we have any authentic remains of Ignatius at all, while others, though admitting the seven shorter letters as being probably his, yet strongly suspected that they were not free from interpolation. Upon the whole, however, the shorter recension was, until recently, accepted without much opposition, and chiefly in dependence on the work of Bishop Pearson above mentioned, as exhibiting the genuine form of the Epistles of Ignatius.

 

[BRIANH]

But a totally different aspect was given to the question by the discovery of a Syriac version of three of these Epistles among the mss. procured from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara, in the desert of Nitria, in Egypt. In the years 1838, 1839, and again in 1842, Archdeacon Tattam visited that monastery, and succeeded in obtaining for the English Government a vast number of ancient Syriac manuscripts. On these being deposited in the British Museum, the late Dr. Cureton, who then had charge of the Syriac department, discovered among them, first, the Epistle to Polycarp, and then again, the same Epistle, with those to the Ephesians and to the Romans, in two other volumes of manuscripts.
As the result of this discovery, Cureton published in 1845 a work, entitled, The Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius to Polycarp, the Ephesian, and the Romans, etc., in which he argued that these Epistles represented more accurately than any formerly published what Ignatius had actually written. This, of course, opened up the controversy afresh. While some accepted the views of Cureton. others very strenuously opposed them. Among the former was the late Chev. Bunsen; among the latter, an anonymous writer in the English Review, and Dr. Hefele, in his third edition of the Apostolic Fathers. In reply to those who had controverted his arguments, Cureton published his Vindiciae Ignatianae in 1846, and his Corpus Ignatianum in 1849. He begins his introduction to the last-named work with the following sentences: "Exactly three centuries and a half intervened between the time when three Epistles in Latin, attributed to St. Ignatius, first issued from the press, and the publication in 1845 of three letters in Syriac bearing the name of the same apostolic writer. Very few years passed before the former were almost universally regarded as false and spurious; and it seems not improbable that scarcely a longer period will elapse before the latter be almost as generally acknowledged and received as the only true and genuine letters of the venerable Bishop of Antioch that have either come down to our times, or were ever known in the earliest ages of the Christian Church."
Had the somewhat sanguine hope thus expressed been realized, it would have been unnecessary for us to present to the English reader more than a translation of these three Syriac Epistles. But the Ignatian controversy is not yet settled. There are still those who hold that the balance of argument is in favour of the shorter Greek, as against these Syriac Epistles. They regard the latter as an epitome of the former, and think the harshness which, according to them, exists in the sequence of thoughts and sentences, clearly shows that this is the case. We have therefore given all the forms of the Ignatian letters which have the least claim on our attention. The reader may judge, by comparison for himself, which of these is to be accepted as genuine, supposing him disposed to admit the claims of any one of them. We content ourselves with laying the materials for judgment before him, and with referring to the above-named works in which we find the whole subject discussed. As to the personal history of Ignatius, almost nothing is known. The principal source of information regarding him is found in the account of his martyrdom, to which the reader is referred. Polycarp alludes to him in his Epistle to the Philippians (chap. ix.), and also to his letters (chap. xiii.). Irenaeus quotes a passage from his Epistle to the Romans (Adv. Haer., v.28; Epist. ad Rom., chap. iv.), without, however, naming him. Origen twice refers to him, first in the preface to his Comm. on the Song of Solomon, where he quotes a passage from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, and again in his sixth homily on St. Luke, where he quotes from the Epistle to the Ephesians, both times naming the author. It is unnecessary to give later references.
Supposing the letters of Ignatius and the account of his martyrdom to be authentic, we learn from them that he voluntarily presented himself before Trajan at Antioch, the seat of his bishopric, when that prince was on his first expedition against the Parthians and Armenians (a.d. 107); and on professing himself a Christian, was condemned to the wild beasts. After a long and dangerous voyage he came to Smyrna, of which Polycarp was bishop, and thence wrote his four Epistles to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, and the Romans. From Smyrna he came to Troas, and tarrying there a few days, he wrote to the Philadelphians, the Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp. He then came on to Neapolis, and passed through the whole of Macedonia. Finding a ship at Dyrrachium in Epirus about to sail into Italy, he embarked, and crossing the Adriatic, was brought to Rome, where he perished on the 20th of December 107, or, as some think, who deny a twofold expedition of Trajan against the Parthians, on the same day of the year a.d. 116.
Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note to the Syriac Version of the Ignatian Epistles:
Some account of the discovery of the Syriac version of the Ignatian Epistles has been already given. We have simply to add here a brief description of the mss. from which the Syriac text has been printed. That which is named a by Cureton, contains only the Epistle to Polycarp, and exhibits the text of that Epistle which, after him, we have followed. He fixes its age somewhere in the first half of the sixth century, or before the year 550. The second ms., which Cureton refers to as b, is assigned by him to the seventh or eighth century. It contains the three Epistles of Ignatius, and furnishes the text here followed in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Romans. The third ms., which Cureton quotes as g, has no date, but, as he tells us, "belonged to the collection acquired by Moses of Nisibis in a.d. 931, and was written apparently about three or four centuries earlier." It contains the three Epistles to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans. The text of all these mss. is in several passages manifestly corrupt, and the translators appear at times to have mistaken the meaning of the Greek original.

 

[BRIANH]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia which is sympathetic to the letters


The Controversy


At intervals during the last several centuries a warm controversy has been carried on by patrologists concerning the authenticity of the Ignatian letters. Each particular recension has had its apologists and its opponents. Each has been favored to the exclusion of all the others, and all, in turn, have been collectively rejected, especially by the coreligionists of Calvin. The reformer himself, in language as violent as it is uncritical (Institutes, 1-3), repudiates in globo the letters which so completely discredit his own peculiar views on ecclesiastical government. The convincing evidence which the letters bear to the Divine origin of Catholic doctrine is not conducive to predisposing non-Catholic critics in their favor, in fact, it has added not a little to the heat of the controversy. In general, Catholic and Anglican scholars are ranged on the side of the letters written to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrniots, and to Polycarp; whilst Presbyterians, as a rule, and perhaps a priori, repudiate everything claiming Ignatian authorship.
The two letters to the Apostle St. John and the one to the Blessed Virgin, which exist only in Latin, are unanimously admitted to be spurious. The great body of critics who acknowledge the authenticity of the Ignatian letters restrict their approval to those mentioned by Eusebius and St. Jerome. The six others are not defended by any of the early Fathers. The majority of those who acknowledge the Ignatian authorship of the seven letters do so conditionally, rejecting what they consider the obvious interpolations in these letters. In 1623, whilst the controversy was at its height, Vedelius gave expression to this latter opinion by publishing at Geneva an edition of the Ignatian letters in which the seven genuine letters are set apart from the five spurious. In the genuine letters he indicated what was regarded as interpolations. The reformer Dallaeus, at Geneva, in 1666, published a work entitled "De scriptis quae sub Dionysii Areop. et Ignatii Antioch. nominibus circumferuntur", in which (lib. II) he called into question the authenticity of all seven letters. To this the Anglican Pearson replied spiritedly in a work called "Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii", published at Cambridge, 1672. So convincing were the arguments adduced in this scholarly work that for two hundred years the controversy remained closed in favor of the genuineness of the seven letters. The discussion was reopened by Cureton's discovery (1843) of the abridged Syriac version, containing the letters of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Romans, and to Polycarp. In a work entitled "Vindiciae Ignatianae" London, 1846), he defended the position that only the letters contained in his abridged Syriac recension, and in the form therein contained, were genuine, and that all others were interpolated or forged outright. This position was vigorously combated by several British and German critics, including the Catholics Denzinger and Hefele, who successfully de fended the genuineness of the entire seven epistles. It is now generally admitted that Cureton's Syriac version is only an abbreviation of the original. While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr's death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or forged. When, furthermore, we take into consideration the passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxviii, 4) found in the original Greek in Eusebius (Hist. eccI., III, xxxvi), in which he refers to the letter to the Romans. (iv, I) in the following words: "Just as one of our brethren said, condemned to the wild beasts in martyrdom for his faith", the evidence of authenticity becomes compelling. The romance of Lucian of Samosata, "De morte peregrini", written in 167, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Harnack, who was not always so minded, describes these proofs as "testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of" (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).

 

[BobRyan]

Hi all

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, including I believe your goodselves.

I would argue in favor of the actual Bible -- the whole 66 books.

So - evolutionism is out -- and God is the one who created the world in 6 literal days and rested the 7th literal day.

So - the fall of man is "real" and literal

So - the flood is literal - real and factual.

Abraham was a "Real person"

Adam was a "real person"

Etc.

The drawback with this position is that it has produced a mass of contradictory interpretations

The same hold for the "tradition-based-churches" like the RCC, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran etc.

They all hold to various "differences" in doctrinal interpretation but NO CHURCH known to mankind is "lacking" in the least when it comes to a plethora of tradition and teaching handed down from generation to generation.

The "difference" is that there is at least a solid core of denominations who although having some traditions - HOLD to the solid doctrinal fact that ALL must be tested "sola scriptura".

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’).

These groups all splinter in areas of both faith and practice as well as the former group.

So "nothing new there".

So, for some of us, then, the NT is not the sole arbiter of matters of faith and practice.

That is because we accept the ENTIRE 66 not just the 27.

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.

As we see in Acts 17:11 - they used the OT text "SEARCHING the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul WERE SO".

No such thing as "Sorry - we can't use SCRIPTURE to test this doctrine from Paul because SCRIPTURE is not really sufficient, not complete yet -- we will need to use something else for a few centuries" in the Acts 17 discussion.

Very instructive for the objective reader.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Bob, you and I have tackled the Berean 'straw man' before but I'll make the obvious point again: if the OT was 'sufficient' for the Bereans, why then do we have a NT? It should also be remembered that the OT the Bereans had was the LXX, complete with Apocrypha, which brings me to my next question: how do you know that the Bible only contains 66 books?

Whta about my contention re the depositum fideii of the first thousand years as being sufficient? Sola Scriptura plainly isn't sufficient epistemologically: heck, you can't even agree with the other SSers which day to go to church!

Brian, it comes as no great surprise to me that Presbyterians and other Protestants don't like Ignatius' letters and would seek to debunk them; whilst there are a few which are clearly not genuine (eg: the one to John and the Virgin Mary), the letters to the churches of Asia are roundly regarded as genuine, and they are the ones, written within a decade of the death of the last of the Apostles, which produce a high view of episcopacy ("where the Bishop is, there is Christ" etc). Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses clearly makes reference to AS (III:3:3)

 

[BRIANH]

Bob, you and I have tackled the Berean 'straw man' before but I'll make the obvious point again: if the OT was 'sufficient' for the Bereans, why then do we have a NT? It should also be remembered that the OT the Bereans had was the LXX, complete with Apocrypha, which brings me to my next question: how do you know that the Bible only contains 66 books?

Whta about my contention re the depositum fideii of the first thousand years as being sufficient? Sola Scriptura plainly isn't sufficient epistemologically: heck, you can't even agree with the other SSers which day to go to church!

Brian, it comes as no great surprise to me that Presbyterians and other Protestants don't like Ignatius' letters and would seek to debunk them; whilst there are a few which are clearly not genuine (eg: the one to John and the Virgin Mary), the letters to the churches of Asia are roundly regarded as genuine, and they are the ones, written within a decade of the death of the last of the Apostles, which produce a high view of episcopacy ("where the Bishop is, there is Christ" etc). Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses clearly makes reference to AS (III:3:3)

I would not agree that they are roundly regarded as genuine. In fact, I believe Matt you would be hard pressed to find a single scholar that says they are 100% sure they are, or even close, free of interpolations. IF you have one, please quote them. There is a very key difference between genuine and free of interpolations.

 

[BRIANH]

Bob, you and I have tackled the Berean 'straw man' before but I'll make the obvious point again: if the OT was 'sufficient' for the Bereans, why then do we have a NT? It should also be remembered that the OT the Bereans had was the LXX, complete with Apocrypha, which brings me to my next question: how do you know that the Bible only contains 66 books?

Interesting.
Complete with the Deutrocanonicals?
Which exact books do you contend?
We do know that Vaticanus , Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus(earliest copies of the LXX) have differing books. I suppose the point I am making is the contention that in 25 CE that the Septuagint could be considered "complete" in reference to the Deutrocanonicals is not historically verifiable.

Whta about my contention re the depositum fideii of the first thousand years as being sufficient? Sola Scriptura plainly isn't sufficient epistemologically: heck, you can't even agree with the other SSers which day to go to church!

Interesting comment, so relying on scripture and tradition was not enough to keep the EO, OO, and RC together and Christianity began to fragment even more but Sola Scriptura is to blame? Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox continue to fragment but Sola Scriptura is to blame?

http://www.ind-movement.org/links_denominations.html

 

[bound]

Interesting comment, so relying on scripture and tradition was not enough to keep the EO, OO, and RC together and Christianity began to fragment even more but Sola Scriptura is to blame? Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox continue to fragment but Sola Scriptura is to blame?

http://www.ind-movement.org/links_denominations.html

Grace and Peace,

I would contend that sin, hard-heartedness, and pride created division in Christendom.

 

[Matt Black]

Brian, the reference to the DCs was really directed at Bob Ryan re his assertion that we should follow the Bereans' example and use only the LXX; it wasn't an attempt to expand the discussion to cover the number of books allegedly in the OT Canon - perhaps we should start another thread about that.

Re unity post-1054 I agree that there are divisions amongst those who hold to Tradition, but precious few compared to the plethora of denominations adhering to sola Scriptura, and I re-assert that up to 1054 you have a sufficient degree of theological unity to suffice epistemologically. As to ecclesial unity, let me just say as an Anglican that Anglicans recognise Catholic and Orthodox orders, and to a great extent Lutheran orders.

 

[Bro. James]

By Whose Authority?

Matthew: Re: Mt. 16:18, aka Petrine Pun--if the Holy See received Divine authority here, where did Henry VIII get his authority? The Holy See has not delegated any authority to departed/excommunicated brothers. If the Holy See is the usurper, Henry still has an authority problem.

Is this a High Anglican problem or a Low Episcopal dilemma?:BangHead: :tonofbricks: :wavey: :type:

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you and I have tackled the Berean 'straw man' before

Though a defense of tradtion over scripture may require that Acts 17:11 be viewed as "a straw man" -- I do not take that approach to the text.

For me - it is "instructive" and serious because "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND IS profitable for correction, doctrine and reproof".

I'll make the obvious point again:

I always welcome the "obvious points".

if the OT was 'sufficient' for the Bereans, why then do we have a NT?

The "obvious point" here is that there is NO SCRIPTURE at all saying "Scripture is insufficient for doctrine you will need to wait for a few more letters before trusting that scripture is SUFFICIENT".

No such text to support your argument.

RATHER Paul argues in 2Tim 3 BEFORE the NT is complete that "Scripture IS SUFFICIENT".

Your argument failed here in our past discussions -- as it fails on this point "once again".

It should also be remembered that the OT the Bereans had was the LXX, complete with Apocrypha, which brings me to my next question: how do you know that the Bible only contains 66 books?

This is a red herring. The Hebrew version of the OT predates the Greek version by centuries. No argument can be made that the people of God in the NT were unaware of the Hebrew OT content and knew to distinguish between the Aprocryhal works and actual scripture. This is evidenced by the fact that even the Latin Vulgate written AFTER the LXX could easily contrast the two and show with explicit reference the fact that The Apocrypha was included as non-cannonical writing only.

At "best" your argument could only be that "Some error" might have been accepted by NT saints that were oblivious to the Hebrew text and to the information that would be available to Jerome centuries later -- an impossible argument to sustain.

But EVEN in that case you simply argue for a more untrustworthy text that IS BEING USED in Acts 17:11 to judge doctrine "Sola scriptura" -- even WITHOUT the NT.

A point that goes against your own argument. YOUR argument would have it "They could not use scripture to evaluate Paul's statemetns because GREEK versions of the text included the Aprocrypha AND they did not view scripture as SUFFICIENT or COMPLETE until some time after the NT was complete".

Basically it is clear to the objective reader that "your" argument is not being made AT ALL in Acts 17:11.

Hence your reference to this text as "straw man".

This rabbit trail does not help your argument in the least - which is that scripture COULD NOT have been used to "See IF the teaching of Paul were so" since TRADITION would have been needed "in combination" with scripture (according to your view) at the very LEAST -- "apocrypha or not".

So your argument is simply a red herring -- a rabbit trail without a successful conclusion.

What about my contention re the depositum fideii of the first thousand years as being sufficient? Sola Scriptura plainly isn't sufficient epistemologically: heck, you can't even agree with the other SSers which day to go to church!

This again is the red herring "If differences exist then the source of authority must be INSUFFICIENT" -- an argument that completely destroys the argument "from tradition" when we view "differences exist" in the tradition based faith groups like Lutherans, Anglicans, RCC, Orthodox etc.

It is impossible to "pretend" that these groups "all agree" and that "only the sola-scriptura groups" show differences in doctrinal or traditional POV.

Why you guys keep trying this failed approach is a mystery.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bound]

Matthew: Re: Mt. 16:18, aka Petrine Pun--if the Holy See received Divine authority here, where did Henry VIII get his authority? The Holy See has not delegated any authority to departed/excommunicated brothers. If the Holy See is the usurper, Henry still has an authority problem.

Is this a High Anglican problem or a Low Episcopal dilemma?:BangHead: :tonofbricks: :wavey: :type:

Selah,

Bro. James

Grace and Peace Bro. James,

The Early Church was and is conciliar. The Pope of Rome 'never' had 'universal' jurisdiction. He did have a 'first among equals' with his other Bishops throughout the Christian World until Western powers began to grasp for authority. There is a certain rationale for Henry VIII to 'ensure' independence from external influences... The early Christian Emperors did a similar thing for the Church of course we might criticize his motives for such protection of the Anglican Church from other influences but I don't throw rocks at other's glass houses...

Be Well.

 

[Matt Black]

You're assuming that I believe that the Roman Episcopal office has an authority way over and above that of other episcopal offices. I don't hold to that view; the elderly German chap in the Vatican is at best primus inter pares of his fellow Bishops - I'm happy to call him the Bishop of Rome; I'm even OK with 'Patriarch of the West', but 'Pontifex Maximus' - no way!

Where does that leave Henry VIII in all this (and indeed Queen Brenda the current incumbent)? Well, the monarch has legal authority to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury, but spiritually that individual has to be consecrated by his fellow Bishops for the appointment to 'take', and thus AS is preserved. That legal authority was given to Henry VIII by the English Parliament in 1534, and was not such a novelty as might be supposed (Investiture Struggle/Canossa, anyone?).It should also be remembered that the first AoC was appointed by Pope Gregory I, and both ++Thomas Cranmer and his successor in 1559, ++Matthew Parker, were consecrated by bishops in the AS, and thus AS was preserved. For the Anglican view of this, see Saepius Officio

[reply to Bro James; so, Bob, how much Scripture do you need to pare away before it is no longer 'sufficient'? Is Gen 1:1 'sufficient' on its own for all matters pertaining to salvation, doctrine and practice?]

 

[BobRyan]

Brian, the reference to the DCs was really directed at Bob Ryan re his assertion that we should follow the Bereans' example and use only the LXX;

Misdirection "again".

1. I did not argue that the Bereans were only exposed to the LXX -- you did.

2. I did not argue that the Bereans would be confused about whether the Aprocrypha should be considered scripture -- you did.

3. I did not argue that the point of Acts 17 was that we should NOT use scripture (all 66 books) to evaluate doctrine -- this is an invention of yours alone.

Rather I pointed to the obvious and glaring flaw in your argument by showing in Acts 17:11 that EVEN NON Christians were successfully able to EVALUATE doctrine "sola scriptura" and could do so EVEN without the NT text -- find "scripture to be SUFFICIENT" EVEN in that case!

Whereas your argument is that EVEN with the ADDITION of the NT 27 WE STILL can not trust scripture to judge and evaluate doctrine!

Your argument fails in Acts 17:11 right from the very start - your rabbit trails not withstanding on this one.

A point already highlighted in our previous discussions of this point.

it wasn't an attempt to expand the discussion to cover the number of books allegedly in the OT Canon - perhaps we should start another thread about that.

You challenged my statement on the "66 books of the Bible" by pointing to the LXX inclusion of the Apocrypha -- this was a small rabbit trail meant to misdirect and as you now point out - probably belongs to another thread.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Re unity post-1054 I agree that there are divisions amongst those who hold to Tradition, but precious few compared to the plethora of denominations adhering to sola Scriptura, and I re-assert that up to 1054 you have a sufficient degree of theological unity to suffice epistemologically. As to ecclesial unity, let me just say as an Anglican that Anglicans recognise Catholic and Orthodox orders, and to a great extent Lutheran orders.

While as you point out "one may wish" to go back to the golden years of the RCC and the Dark Ages of mankind that it brought into existence -- to defend this dark ages notion of tradition -- the fact remains that your entire argument against the protestant model of "sola Scriptura" is the EXISTENCE of differing points of view on doctrine.

Differences THAT WE ALSO FIND among the tradition burdened faith groups like Anglican, Luthera, RCC and Orthodox.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to sustain a position that the list of denominations above have "no doctrinal differences"!!

Purgatory
Prayers to the dead
Immaculate conception
Indulgences
Veneration of images and relics
Papacy as supreme doctrinal authority
Infallability of the Papal See
Transubstantiation
Access to the New Covenant LIMITED TO the Catholic Mass
The right to torture and murder saints.

The list of differences is "significant".

Trying to brush them under the rug as "don't look behind this curtain -- just trust me" is not helping your argument.

you have made NO CASE AT ALL for "this level of difference is to be EXPECTED even if using a SUFFICIENT doctrinal authority and guide -- by Y-level of difference proves that the source of doctrinal authority is INSUFFICIENT"

You simply state "wishful thinking and grasping at straws" as your defense in that case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

No misdirection. Let me spell it out to you:

1. SSers use Acts 17 as a proof-text for SS.
2. However, the 'Scriptures' referred to in Acts 17 cannot have been the complete Bible, since the NT had not yet been written, but rather the 'Scriptures' must have been just the OT (so it's not a matter of "Matt saying that it was the OT/LXX that the Bereans had", but rather a matter of fact).
3. Therefore the SSers' argument that Acts 17 demonstrates the validity of the SS approach has the logical consequence of meaning that the OT (and in this instance the LXX) alone is sufficient.
4. In which case the obvious question is "what's the point of the NT?"; maybe we should ditch the NT and return to Judaism

I'm afraid that's the inevitable logical consequence of trying to use Acts 17 as a proof-text for SS

[x-post with Bob's above post, to which the reply is that I have never denied that there are differences between Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans; if there weren't, there would have been no Magisterial Reformation, but rather that these differences are small beer compared to those between SSers and that, in addition, up to 1054 you have a reliable corpus of doctrine upon which to rely. That is in essence what Luther, Cranmer and the other Magisterial Reformers were trying to do - to turn the theological clock back to the Patristic and Conciliar period of the Church to recover what had been subsequently corrupted by Roman unilateralism]

 

[BobRyan]

[reply to Bro James; so, Bob, how much Scripture do you need to pare away before it is no longer 'sufficient'? Is Gen 1:1 'sufficient' on its own for all matters pertaining to salvation, doctrine and practice?]

I am arguing from 2Tim 3 that "scripture IS SUFFICIENT for doctrine" as Paul states to Timothy even BEFORE the NT is completed.

You are the one arguing in effect "scripture is NOW STILL insufficient and was even MORE insufficient then before the NT was completed" -- how is it you ask ME to justify a "scripture is INSUFFICIENT" POV?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bound]

Purgatory
Prayers to the dead
Immaculate conception
Indulgences
Veneration of images and relics
Papacy as supreme doctrinal authority
Infallability of the Papal See
Transubstantiation
Access to the New Covenant LIMITED TO the Catholic Mass
The right to torture and murder saints.

With all due respect only two from this list would be considered consenual teaching of the Early Church...

1.) Prayers to the dead
2.) Veneration of images and relics

Everything else is unique innovative doctrine from later Roman Catholicism...