The Doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, Volume 2...

[Matt Black]

The Bible burning didn't come along until people were able to read - having bibles that they could actually read.

Mass literacy didn't really arrive until the late 19th century although it was common amongst the middle-classes from thelate Middle Ages onwards

Fine -- in the "referenced time" even the anglican who rejected the sinless Mary and supremecy of the Pope would have been burned at the stake -- not to mention that your views on Purgatory would be considered heretical.

Not quite - those views are not the product of the Tradition of the pre-1054 Church but rather of its western, Catholic half

I find it hard to belive that you do not see this as "competing tradition" even as you post on the Baptist Board. Hello! This is "the Baptist Board".

Why would you argue that those competing traditions and disputes over them are being settled here "Sola traditio"??

Instead of being agreed upon sola traditio - they are flatly debunked sola-scriptura on this board.

Why do you hold them up here as an example of "success"??

in Christ,

Bob

Because I do not regard the Baptist views on these issues as correct -if nothing else, they fail the Vincentian test

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,

I said...



And you said...




Because you earlier had said this...



The reason I said what I said is because if you and others where truly following Christs teaching under the New Covenant you would be heeding Christ and His instructions regarding turning to the scriptures alone as our source of authority regarding doctrine.

You say you are heeding Christ, and yet you do opposite of what He instructs...




Mike

But your post is based on the premise that the 'traditions of men' of the Jews are to be conflated with Apostolic Tradition. I say they are not.

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,



You know, in one sense I am stunned that you could make a statement like that. I mean, think of what you are saying there...

"What relevance is it to quote Jesus Christ?"

Amazing.

Yet in another way it doesnt surprise me at all. When one accepts tradition to be equal to, or even greater than, Gods scriptures...a statement like you made there is entirely possible.

The reason that it relavent to quote the Lord Jesus Christ to you is because He is teaching different than what your attempting to proclaim, and He is God.

Mike

You misunderstand - perhaps I should have spelled it out: what relevance does that quote from Jesus have to the topic in hand, given that He was referring to the traditions of the Pharisees under the Old Covenant, and we are talking about the God-given Apostolic Tradition under the New Covenant?

 

[DHK]

Vincent de Lerins

So you hold the beliefs of this semi-pelagian heretic above and beyond the Bible, and whose writings will interpret the Bible for you? That is quite amazing!
Furthermore I looked carefully at his method of study. It started out sola scriptura and then took a quick turn down hill for the worse. He uses a method that is very common in this world. Marx used it. In fact the method he used is not unlike Marx's dialectical materialism. What a method to approach the Bible!! Completely secular in nature--but then he, for the most part was a secular man--from the biography that I read.

So who is Vincent, and why is he upheld as your authority?
He is a semi-pelagian.
He follows a dialectical method of study which leads to various forms of heresy and cannot be trusted when studying the Bible. It works like this:
thesis plus antithesis equlas synthesis.
Then the synthesis becomes the thesis and the process keeps on repeating itself.

But the Bible is full of absolutes not synthesized semi-pelagian, half-truths, and mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Matt Black]

You too misunderstand. The reference to Vincent is not to uphold him as a good man, a spiritual giant, or great theologian - I am quite prepared to accept that he was none of these. But he has had the felicity, the serendipity even, to be recorded by church history as having cited a great dictum which has been the touchstone of catholicity (with a small 'c') of theology and praxis ever since.

 

[DHK]

You too misunderstand. The reference to Vincent is not to uphold him as a good man, a spiritual giant, or great theologian - I am quite prepared to accept that he was none of these. But he has had the felicity, the serendipity even, to be recorded by church history as having cited a great dictum which has been the touchstone of catholicity (with a small 'c') of theology and praxis ever since.

Please enlighten me. What is this "great dictum" that he has upheld; that has been the touchstone of catholicity; that would cause you to base your beliefs in sola-tradition rather than sola scriptura? Can you simply state it in concise terms.

 

[Matt Black]

"Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus" - "that [which has in relation to Christian doctrine been believed] everywhere, always, by everyone."

And, btw, as I've said above, I don't believe in solo Traditio, either.

 

[DHK]

"Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus" - "that [which has in relation to Christian doctrine been believed] everywhere, always, by everyone."

And, btw, as I've said above, I don't believe in solo Traditio, either.

By the sounds of it this all encompassing statement could simply mean:
1. universalism.
2. ecumenism--all religions combined together no matter what their heresies might be. Unity is more important than doctrine.
3. humanism stated in a different way.
4. the religion of the end time anti-Christ

It was Solomon that said there is nothing new under the sun. So I am sure that it falls into some such category.

 

[Matt Black]

With respect, you are misreading its meaning as being wide. It is narrow.

 

[DHK]

With respect, you are misreading its meaning as being wide. It is narrow.

"In relation to Christian doctrine...everywhere, always, by everyone."

That sounds fairly all-encompassing to me, Matt. I don't know how to take it otherwise. Look at the superlatives: everywhere, always, everyone.
Everyone's doctrine?
Everyone's doctrine everywhere? and always everywhere believed by everyone?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Since it seems that DHK has arrived at a distorted opinion of both Vincent himself and his "canon" from what he has read in the Wikipedia article, I thought I'd chime in with words "straight from the horses mouth" along with some comments...

From Vincent's Commonitory:

"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."

So here Vincent states the ways distinguish truth from error is to appeal to both Scripture ("the Divine Law") and Tradition. This two-fold appeal is not new with him and is amply demonstrated in the writings of earlier church fathers both ante-Nicene and post-Nicene.

"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 relevent 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."

Now regarding the idea of "universality, antiquity, and consent" that Matt and I have been discussing, it's clear that DHK has misundertood this. Here is Vincent in his own words:

"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."

So as you see, his methodology has nothing to do with some syncretism or vague ecumenism or secularism, but rather has to do with the common belief within the Church across space and time back to the Apostles.

Next Vincent offers principles for applying these criteria:

"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."

(This should be pretty self-explanatory)

As for the man himself, even the Wikipedia article acknowledges that although he was suspected of what has been called "semi-Pelagianism", he was never condemned as a heretic. One must recall (from the article) that he is commemorated as a "saint" in the RCC (I don't think they commemorate formal heretics). One must also keep in mind that "semi-Pelagianism" is a vague category applied to men who basically had in common an opposition to the more extreme expressions of Augustinianism. (Although what has been later called "semi-Pelagianism" was condemned at the Council of Orange, it is unclear whether some of these men, who lived before then, actually held to what was condemned.

 

[Matt Black]

...including, possibly, Augustine himself:laugh:

 

[Doubting Thomas]

...including, possibly, Augustine himself:laugh:

This is true

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

"

But your post is based on the premise that the 'traditions of men' of the Jews are to be conflated with Apostolic Tradition. I say they are not."

Jesus referred to the "traditions of men" as opposed to turning to the scriptures.

Well, what pray tell do you suppose the apostles were, Matt......HORSES?

They were "men" Matt, just like the Jewish pharisees were "men". And the same error fits Christs admonition whether its Jewish "men" teaching things contrary to scripture, or whether its new covenant "men" teaching things contrary to scripture.

"You misunderstand - perhaps I should have spelled it out: what relevance does that quote from Jesus have to the topic in hand, given that He was referring to the traditions of the Pharisees under the Old Covenant, and we are talking about the God-given Apostolic Tradition under the New Covenant?"

No need to spell it out. I didnt misunderstand. Regarding Christs admonition to not heed the "traditions of men" over the scriptures, it applies to anyone...new covenant or old covenant...who is commiting that error.

Christ told Nicodemous he needed to be born again. Does that only apply to Pharisees? Does it only apply to Jews? Christ told the criminal on the cross that because of his faith in Christ he would be in heaven. Does that only apply to criminals on crosses?

Of course not. All of that applies to the "whosoever wills".

Just like Christs teaching regarding heeding "the traditions of men" over the truth of the scriptures. It applies to the "whosoevers".

In His grace,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Then I'm afraid you utterly fail to understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants in that regard. This same Jesus, whom you quote, also said to the Apostles "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven"; these mere 'men' therefore were given power and authority to set Apostolic Tradition and they are not to be confused with the Jews whose "traditions of men" Jesus rightly criticised.

 

[DHK]

Then I'm afraid you utterly fail to understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants in that regard. This same Jesus, whom you quote, also said to the Apostles "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven"; these mere 'men' therefore were given power and authority to set Apostolic Tradition and they are not to be confused with the Jews whose "traditions of men" Jesus rightly criticised.

Read the context from which the verse is taken from. It is speaking of church (local church) discipline. I have had the opportunity be part of that decision making body that on more than one occasion had to make a serious decision. That decision was bound on earth. And it was bound in heaven. It was a decision of the local church that was made in prayer before the decision was ever finalized. That is a promise given to every Biblical local church.

 

[DHK]

...including, possibly, Augustine himself:laugh:

Aaah yes Augustine, possibly the first true Calvinist.
An RCC so-called saint.
To a Baptist he is a heretic, and most of what he believed was heretical. Do you think you will score brownie points by holding him up as some kind of a hero. Not here! He is in the heretical Origen camp as far as I am concerned. Augustine perpetuated all the man-made errors of the RCC. He wasn't even close to being Scriptural on most things.

 

[DHK]

"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."

So here Vincent states the ways distinguish truth from error is to appeal to both Scripture ("the Divine Law") and Tradition. This two-fold appeal is not new with him and is amply demonstrated in the writings of earlier church fathers both ante-Nicene and post-Nicene.

I also enquire earnestly and attentively of many men eminent for sanctity and learning. The concept of progressive revelation gives me an advantage over Vincent. The men I consult are scholars, who have written great and voluminous works often consulting the original languages in their works.
Therefore I know and am sure that I can speak by this universal rule (sola scriptura) to distinguish the truth from the Catholic (esp RCC), and from the falsehood of heretical pravity. 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 Biblical faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of the Bible alone as our sole source of authority in all matters of faith and doctrine, and then, by the consultation of great men of God, but only as needed. Thus sola scriptura in effect is always the primary guideline.

Note that Vincent cannot distinguish truth from error because his appeal is not only to Scripture but to Tradition, which is, in and of itself, riddled with error. It is not inspired. On the other hand I am not bound to notes or comments of any scholar, though they be at my disposal for my use. That two-fold use or appeal you speak of, demonstrates a path prone to error, not to truth. Only the very revelation of God, as contained in the Scriptures themselves can give one the truth of God. We need nothing else.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Well, DHK, at least you responded to part of one of my posts. :applause:

I also enquire earnestly and attentively of many men eminent for sanctity and learning. The concept of progressive revelation gives me an advantage over Vincent. The men I consult are scholars, who have written great and voluminous works often consulting the original languages in their works.

So what happens when different 'scholars', each having "written great and voluminous works" with each "often consulting the original languages in their works" disagree with each other? Do you just pick the ones who agree with you? (Or do you only consult the 'scholars' who you know ahead of time are going to agree with your basic opinions?)

And what do you mean by the "concept of progressive revelation" giving you an "advantage over Vincent"? Are you suggesting that there has been some ongoing "revelation" since the closing of the canon that you are privy to, but the rest of us aren't?

Therefore I know and am sure that I can speak by this universal rule (sola scriptura) to distinguish the truth from the Catholic (esp RCC), and from the falsehood of heretical pravity. 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 Biblical faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of the Bible alone as our sole source of authority in all matters of faith and doctrine, and then, by the consultation of great men of God, but only as needed. Thus sola scriptura in effect is always the primary guideline.

That's cute, but it doesn't solve the problem outlined by Vincent--how does one decide among the varieties on conflicting interpretations:

"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 indiviudal Christians relying on "sola Scriptura", consulting (their favorite) scholars "only when needed", still arrive at diametrically opposite conclusions regarding several important doctrines. So your alleged "universal rule" fails to "distinguish the truth...from the falsehood of heretical pravity".

Note that Vincent cannot distinguish truth from error because his appeal is not only to Scripture but to Tradition, which is, in and of itself, riddled with error.

Then apparently you didn't read the excerpts too closely and misunderstand what Vincent means by the Church's 'Tradition'. (Or perhaps you did read the entire excerpts, but would prefer to persist in your straw man mischaracterizations of the same, as you seem to enjoy continually beating up on the RCC bogeyman)

On the other hand I am not bound to notes or comments of any scholar, though they be at my disposal for my use.

Of course you aren't. You just use the notes and comments of scholars which ostensibly support your current beliefs.

That two-fold use or appeal you speak of, demonstrates a path prone to error, not to truth.

Yes, it demonstrates the path prone to error--it demonstrates how folks who disregard the common standard teaching of the Church handed down by the Apostles are prone to misintepret the Scriptures, and Vincent lists several examples of folks who in doing so have erred concerning the truth.

Only the very revelation of God, as contained in the Scriptures themselves can give one the truth of God.

(So now you don't believe in "progressive revelation"--which is it?)

We need nothing else.

Except that Peter in his Second Epistle admitted that there were hard things in Paul's writings which untaught and unstable men twisted to their own destruction, as they did the other Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). So here the Apostle Peter indicates that one must be taught and "stable" or else one could be prone to misinterpreting the Scriptures. For instance, the Ethiopian eunuch needed Philip to teach him in order to properly understand the Scriptures (Acts 8).

 

[Doubting Thomas]

By the way, when I had mentioned in a response to D28guy about how I had previously posted evidence regarding Apostolic succession to which you had not yet responded , you said this...

I don't get on the BB very often these days--maybe a couple hours every second day, or so it seems. You may have to give me your answer again. But Mike is right. It is a fairy tale.

Well here it is again:

The Apostle Paul comissioned Timothy and Titus and instructed them to ordain elders in Ephesus and Crete respectively. Clement in his letter to the Corinthians explains that the apostles knew there would be "strife" for the office of bishop, so they set in motion the episcopal succession. Ignatius instructed to churches to whom he wrote that they should honor their ordained leaders, including the bishops. Irenaeus lists the succession of bishops in Rome from the Apostles up to his day (with Clement being third on that list), and this list is consistent with similar lists also written in the ante-Nicene period. Eusebius in his CHURCH HISTORY in several places lists succeeding bishops in many different locations. Again, these bishops would meet in local and regional synods--long before Constantine--and discuss matters of discipline and doctrine. These are all well established facts in history, and examples can be multiplied.

(That can be found in this post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1121828&postcount=56)

This post was a continutation of another post in which I responded to comments you made about the nature of the Church and how supposedly there were no interactions between the "local congregations". Here's what I said about that assertion:

Yet they shared the same apostolic foundation and they often did interact with each other.

For example, Clement, who was Bishop of Rome (third from the Apostles) at the end of the first century, wrote an epistle to another local congregation--the Corinthians--in 95 AD instructing them to honor their duly appointed leaders. He assumes a common faith and a common apostolic foundation in making his appeals. This letter was held in high honor by the Church in Corinth well into the late second century.

Likewise, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (second from the Apostles) wrote seven letters on the way to his martyrdom at the beginning of the second century. Six of those letters were addressed to other local congregations--three of which were also three of the same churches written to by the Apostle John in REVELATION: Ephesians, Smyrneans, and the Philadelphians. In these letters Ignatius warned these believers of the docetic and Judaizing heresies, and he instructed them to honor their ordained authorites and to look out for his flock at Antioch after his departure. Another of those local churches was the Romans (to which of course Paul had previously written).

The seventh letter of Ignatius was written to his brother bishop, Polycarp, who was the Bishop of Smyrna--and later Polycarp himself refers to these epistles of Ignatius in his own letter to the Philippians (another local congregation of the Church to which Apostle Paul had previously sent a letter).

Examples can be multiplied of the local "churches" and their bishops continuing to interact with each other after the last of the apostles died. They even assembled themselves in local and regional synods to discuss matters of common discipline and doctrine....well before Constantine came on the scene.

And let's not forget that the decisions of the council of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15) were binding on the other local churches--well before the NT gospels or epistles were actually written.

(the rest of that post is here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1121821&postcount=55 )