Then the Catholic priest who refused to accept the Presbyterian baptism was in error or there was some question mark over the validity of the original baptism (eg: it wasn't done with the requisite Trinitarian formula).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Pope’s Plans on Organizing Political, Economic, and Religious Activities Worldwid
- Thread starter ReformedBaptist
- Start date
But don't you know that hearing that someone heard someone else say something always trumps actual knowledge on any subject?
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
Targus, check the Catechism of the Catholic Church; it clearly states that the RCC accepts all Trinitarian baptisms as valid sacraments.
I think he was being sarcastic...
saturneptune
New Member
Maybe the priest was in error, maybe he was not. You are still majoring on the minor. The core issue is regenerational baptism. If the catholic church believes in regenerational baptism, it really does not matter if they accept another church's baptism or not. Regenerational baptism is a serious flaw in understanding the Gospel.
So how do you reconcile Holy Scripture that plainly states that Baptism is for the remission of sins?
Now, please keep in mind that the Orthodox view and the Roman Catholic view of Baptism is a little different, since our view of sin different, in regard to Original and Ancestral sin...
In XC
-
If you joined in Jan '08, catholics were not allowed to join at that time, and you were way past the "granfather clause". How have you been able to remain?
From what I have read in this thread debating with saturneptune is like trying to catch a greased pig.
He changes the topic with every post.
When I joined I was Anglican. I was told I could continue as long as I didn't proselytize.
You got that right!!
saturneptune
New Member
There are many verses like you mention. Also, views of original sin vs continuing sin differ. For me, it all Scripture must be in harmony, so when things appear do differ, someone is looking at something amiss, and not the Scripture.
Since you do know Baptist doctrine, you know what I am going to say in advance. Eph 2:8-9, is a clear statement that salvation comes only by faith. It is a gift, not anything we earned. Now, since the Lord commanded us all to be baptised, it is hard to imagine a situation where one would come to salvation then not be baptised. That would indicate to me the person never did come to salvation. If it is looked at in that light, then maybe the point in time of becoming a child of God, or the differences between us, is a matter of timing. The verses that reference salvation in relation to baptism could be interpreted to say "with a view towards" salvation.
I am the first to admit, of knowing very little of Greek or Hebrew. I do have a couple of questions for you now. If you take all those verses that appear to demand baptism for salvation, how do you interpret Eph 2:8-9? Also, you have to admit the thief on the cross was saved without baptism, and it is my belief that Paul was saved instantly on the road to Damascus.
You might expand the idea of orignial sin into your remarks.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
If this thread will continue as a discussion about salvation, I think the Orthodox and Roman Catholics and others need to define their terms.
Please define according to whatever group you hold to:
1. Justification
2. Sanctification
Concerning the Roman Catholics here I want to say that just because someone disagrees with your religion does not automatically mean they are "catholic bashers" and "bigots." One of the things I have noticed about Roman Catholics is that when someone critiques Roman Catholic Dogma and the RCC itself, they are accused of such things.
Certainly no Roman Catholic on these boards are saying that the papacy is beyond scrutiny or questioning?
Also, it was remarked that JWs don't question their teaching authority. Do you as Roman Catholics question yours? When the Bible seems to say one thing to you, and the papacy says it means something else, do you ever question the Magesterium? There is no difference between an infallible Watchtower telling JWs how they should interpret the Scriptures as an infallible magesterium telling Roman Catholics how to interpret the Scriptures.
And tell me this, whoever you are who believe in an infallible interpretor, why does the interpretation need another interpretor? Who explained the Apostolic teaching, whether by word or letter, to the first Christians?
And if you say, but the Apostles themselves were the interpretors like our popes as successor to Peter, et are today. But you have missed the question. If the Apostles themselves, whether by word or letter, were understood by their hearers, and you say that the record of the NT we have today is accurate and God-breathed, then why is not it sufficient for us today?
This is a question I have had no Roman Catholic able to answer.
So I ask again, why do we need another interpretor of the interpretation.
Please define according to whatever group you hold to:
1. Justification
2. Sanctification
Concerning the Roman Catholics here I want to say that just because someone disagrees with your religion does not automatically mean they are "catholic bashers" and "bigots." One of the things I have noticed about Roman Catholics is that when someone critiques Roman Catholic Dogma and the RCC itself, they are accused of such things.
Certainly no Roman Catholic on these boards are saying that the papacy is beyond scrutiny or questioning?
Also, it was remarked that JWs don't question their teaching authority. Do you as Roman Catholics question yours? When the Bible seems to say one thing to you, and the papacy says it means something else, do you ever question the Magesterium? There is no difference between an infallible Watchtower telling JWs how they should interpret the Scriptures as an infallible magesterium telling Roman Catholics how to interpret the Scriptures.
And tell me this, whoever you are who believe in an infallible interpretor, why does the interpretation need another interpretor? Who explained the Apostolic teaching, whether by word or letter, to the first Christians?
And if you say, but the Apostles themselves were the interpretors like our popes as successor to Peter, et are today. But you have missed the question. If the Apostles themselves, whether by word or letter, were understood by their hearers, and you say that the record of the NT we have today is accurate and God-breathed, then why is not it sufficient for us today?
This is a question I have had no Roman Catholic able to answer.
So I ask again, why do we need another interpretor of the interpretation.
The Orthodox Church:
Justification: is that mean in Christ we are forgiven and actually made righteous in our living. Justification is not a once-for-all, instantaneous pronouncement guaranteeing eternal salvation, no matter how wickedly a person may live from that point on. Neither is it merely a legal declaration that an unrighteous person is righteous. Rather, justification is a living, dynamic, day-to-day reality for the one who follows Christ. The Christian actively pursues a righteous life in the grace and power of God granted to all who are believing Him.
Sanctification: is being set apart for God. It involves us in the process of being cleansed and made holy by Christ in the Holy Spirit. We are called to be saints and to grow into the likeness of God. Having been given the gift of the Holy Spirit, we actively participate in sanctification. We cooperate with God, we work together with Him, that we may know Him, becoming by grace what He is by nature.
Hope that helps...
In XC
-
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Yes. This is very similiar, if not identical, from how I understand the papal doctrine. But before we discuss, here is my statement of faith on the matter:
Those chapters are from the 1689 London Baptist Confession.
Concerning Eph 2:8-9, we need to look at verses 1-7, which talks about being dead in our transgressions and walking according to the course of this world to even though we are dead in our transgressions God who is rich in mercy, loves us raises us up together to sit together with Christ…so the question is: How can one go from one kingdom to the other?
The answer is in verses 8-10…By the unity of grace, faith, and works. Not that these are equal, for grace is uncreated and infinite, whereas our faith is limited and can grow; good works flow out of authentic faith. Works cannot earn us this great treasure, it is a pure gift, but those who receive this gift do good. We are not saved by good works, but for good works (verse 10).
It's taught also in the Orthodox Church that a simple desire for baptism can save too. We had a monk from England at our Church a year or so back and a question came up, that what if a friend was dieing in a hospital and you shared the Gospel to him and he wanted to be saved...do I call a priest? The monk said no, go get some water and baptism him in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (meaning anyone can baptize). The monk took it one step farther...the guy died as you were getting water...his desire for baptism and his faith saved him.
The Orthodox doesn't believe in Original sin as put forth by the RCC. Meaning we are not guilty of Adams sin...we are guilty of our own sin...all we inherit from Adam is death...With that very general explanation, we don't baptize infants in the same way as the RCC does to wash away this Original sin...this guilt that was inherited from Adam.
In XC
-
Then I guess Jesus was in error when he told Nicodemus that he had to be born from above by water (baptism) and the Spirit (faith)...?
Anglican:
1. See Arts 9 through 14 and Cranmer's Homilies on Salvation, faith and good works
2. Paul is frequently at pains to stress the utterly transformed nature of the Christian’s new life in Christ, and the consequences of this. The classic starting point here is 2 Cor 5:17 – the Christian as a new creation, as it were ab initio. This ties in well with the discourse on baptism in Romans 6, particularly v4; the picture is generated of the old having died and been completely replaced so that, the Christian being “in Christ”, there is “now no condemnation” (Rom 8:1) and nothing can separate us from God’s love (Rom 8:31-39), there being complete reconciliation (Col 1:21-23). The consequences of this for us as Christians, particularly vis a vis God, are clearly laid out in such Scriptures as Gal 3:26-47, Eph 1:5-14 and Eph 2:1-10. The general thrust of Paul’s message to many of his churches is that we are made righteous (or justified) as a result of putting our faith in the crucifixion (eg Rom 5:1-2) and thus God regards us as if we were Christ (perfect) with all the attendant rewards; furthermore, this is referred to in the past tense, indicating that it has already been done for us.
I think therefore it is fair to conclude that there is much agreement between Paul and the Reformation over what salvation means, with some important provisos:-
·As with any Biblical interpretation, the usual exegesis needs to be carried out – for example, we have to ask ourselves whether Paul wrote what he did because there was a particular issue in the addressee church which required comment. It is important to bear this in mind; for the moment, I would say that the fact that the above soteriological theme was communicated to a number of Pauline churches strengthens the case for it being treated as a principle of general theological application.
·There are also apparently contradictory Pauline passages that cannot be ignored – on suffering, on the lack of completion of God’s work in us, producing a dialectic tension with my comment above
I will look first at the Pauline scriptures that appear to go against the picture of salvation painted above, with a view to explaining these to a degree; this includes examining the meanings of both salvation and sanctification.
Salvation vs. sanctification – a false dichotomy?
It is clear that, despite the verses referred to in the last section, Paul also talks about the concept of ‘unfinished business’ between us and God quite a bit. Important verses here include Rom 6:18-22, 1 Cor 9:24-27, Phil 3:12-16 and, perhaps most perplexing of all, Phil 2:12. The Romans passage is of particular interest since it contains the ideas of both salvation (Rom 6:18) and sanctification (Rom 6:19-22). Both these terms need looking at.
The distinction between salvation and sanctification has been the subject of a great deal of writing and preaching, especially by evangelicals, and I don’t really want to add a great deal to what has already been said here. Broadly speaking, most evangelicals would draw a clear-cut line between salvation, which they would see as being a once-and-for-all event occurring when an individual repents and gives his/her life to Christ, and sanctification, which is an ongoing work of the Holy Spirit within that individual beginning at the point of salvation and working out the consequences of salvation within this/her life. Putting it simply, whilst salvation is a crisis, sanctification is a process.
I think it is fair to say that, in contrast, the interpretation of the more traditional churches, such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches, appealing more perhaps to Phil 2:12, is to blur the difference between the two terms, and also to down-play to a degree the role of the individual in both whilst emphasising the agency of the Church (the Holy Spirit is seen more as acting in the Church collectively, through for example the hierarchy of the Church). Salvation and sanctification are more interwoven, and sanctification is seen more as a means of effecting salvation rather than as a consequence of it (see for example the notion of purgatory and, perhaps also, suffering as an agency of sanctification).
To a degree, I find both approaches to salvation and sanctification inadequate. Whilst agreeing with the general principle that salvation is a once-and-for-all occurrence (and thus disagreeing with the Catholic view), I take issue with it necessarily being a crisis event; I know many people for whom conversion was far more of a process, and perhaps evangelical soteriology needs to recognise this and be couched more in terms of individuals making a series of steps towards Christ rather than just one great leap. As an example, I understand that apparently Billy Graham can put his finger on the exact moment when he came to faith (crisis) but his wife could not and her experience is better described as a journey to faith (process). Phil 2:12 is however a verse that cannot simply be ignored. It could be, adopting an exegetical approach, that Paul is admonishing the Philippians for taking their salvation lightly. It can also be interpreted as the results of salvation working themselves out through sanctification, but this does not explain the use of the words “fear and trembling”. Personally, I do not believe that Paul is here warning the church against forfeiting their salvation; he is perhaps reminding them just what they have been saved from and also heightening their awareness of the sheer wrongfulness of sin, something that maybe we Western Christians need to remember as well.
Sanctification also is a term that can cover a multitude of sins (if you’ll pardon the double entendre). The very word itself has connotations of holiness, which is one of God’s defining attributes, so one way of looking at it is to regard sanctification as being the process by which we are made more like God (cp Rom 12:1-2). Clearly, therefore, on one level this is a life-long process; as obvious evidence of this I know of no Christian who does not sin (even those who have been baptised into Jesus’ death and resurrection) and who is therefore already perfect ‘on the ground’, as it were, and accordingly we all have some ongoing business with God that we need to attend to in this area (some, like me, more than others!). On the other hand, Paul also talks in terms of sanctification having already occurred in 1 Cor 1:2. Applying exegetical principles to this passage, we need to ask ourselves whether Paul was correcting an imbalance within the Corinthian church here, as he sometimes did with his churches elsewhere. For example, he is keen to stress grace to the Colossians and Galatians, who were still bound up by the Law to a large extent, but is by contrast harsh with the Corinthians’ licentiousness. It seems unlikely, given the Corinthians’ general arrogance in their spiritual gifts etc, that Paul is trying to reassure them that all is well between them and God; in fact, if there is any corrective soteriological concept which is addressed to this church’s over-confidence it is the idea of beholding God “as through a glass darkly” (1 Cor 13:12 and 2 Cor 3:15-18). I think therefore we need to take what Paul is saying here at face value; that there is a level on which sanctification is already accomplished – having been declared righteous, God regards us as being holy already and treats us accordingly. (Elsewhere, Paul does seek to correct the possible attitudinal problems arising from this way of thinking (Rom 6:1-2)).
I would prefer accordingly to see a fine tuning of the definitions of the terms salvation and sanctification. I see salvation (and sanctification too, in the way set out in the above paragraph) as being accomplished by a combination of grace and faith, grace being a past act (the crucifixion and resultant forgiveness) with continuing consequences, and faith being a response-decision to that (whether taken instantly or over a number a graduated steps). The life-long ongoing process resulting from that I see more in terms of developing and deepening our relationship with God which flows from our salvation and in that way, God being Love, we are fitted for heaven; we try not to sin, not so much because it is wrong, but because it wounds God – love, not Law, should be the motivating factor.[to be continued]
[Continued]
The use of teleios and associated words
Paul talks quite a bit about suffering, certainly temporal suffering. The most famous – and controversial – passage here is 2 Cor 12: 1-10; Paul’s thorn in the flesh. So many theories have been advanced here as to what or whom Paul was referring: a nagging person (this explanation is naturally preferred by those in the ‘Word of Faith’ movement), sexual temptation (particularly homosexuality), physical illness (malaria), poor eyesight, migraines, etc. I see little point, however, in trying to explain it away in a non-physical fashion given all the other Pauline references to suffering: Rom 12 :12; 1 Cor 4:9-13; 2 Cor 1:3-11;4:7-12; 11:23-33; Phil 3:10; Col 2:24; 2 Tim 3:11-12, for example.
It seems from the above that there is a contradiction inherent in being made perfect in God’s eyes by Christ whilst at the same time suffering the consequences of imperfection – suffering and death – and perhaps also not receiving all the apparent rewards of righteousness. I believe that a big clue in solving this riddle lies in the use by Paul (and indeed other New Testament writers) of the concept of teleios.
Teleios, (together with its associated similar words, teleioo, teleiotes, and teleiosis) is used frequently by Paul. You will have noticed by now that I have failed to give translations of these Greek words yet, and therein lies part of the problem: teleios and co have multiple meanings. Just as a Greek would have trouble translating our word ‘love’ (is it agape, eros, storge or phile?), so too do we have difficulties with teleios. Basically, it can be translated, inter alia, in all or some of the following ways: complete, finished, perfect, having-achieved-the-end-result, accomplished, fulfilled, full-grown, fully-developed, adult and mature. It derives from the Greek noun telos, meaning end/ goal, and, as a further aid to our understanding of the word, the teleological school of philosophical thought essentially asserts that ‘the end justifies the means’ (e.g.: that the bombing of Hiroshima was morally right because it saved lives in the long-run). To a degree, the meaning can vary according to the context but I would suggest that, by and large, teleios (and the associated words above) encompasses all of these meanings and that Paul’s use of it in his soteriology demonstrates conceptually the same kind of dialectic tension as between now and not yet which we have with the Kingdom of God being at hand. Judge for yourselves by these examples of the use of teleios-rooted words, both in Pauline texts and other New Testament writings: 1 Cor 14:20; 2 Cor 12:9; Eph 4:13; Phil 1:6; 3:12-16; Matt 5:48: Heb 2:10; 10:1; 12:23; James 1:4; and 1 Jn 2:5.
To further illustrate this “Kingdom of God” tension between “now” and “not yet”, we have Paul’s own example: his use of the word arrabon. The arrabon was used in the Hellenistic world as a deposit, a pledge or down-payment, on the striking of an agreement, to guarantee performance of the contract and to provide compensation in the event of default. In this way, it is remarkably similar to the deposit paid by buyer to seller on exchange of contracts when buying a house. In English and Welsh law, it is the point of exchange of contracts at which legal rights and obligations arise; from exchange, the buyer has the right to own and live in the house and has the obligation to pay over the balance of the purchase monies on the completion date, minus the deposit which s/he pays to the seller at the point of exchange. However, it is only at completion, which typically takes place a week or two after exchange (so that mortgage finance can be called upon and the parties make removal arrangements), that these rights are realised: the keys are delivered, the balance of the price paid, the title deeds handed over, the seller vacates and the buyer moves into occupation. Paul, in Eph 1:13-14 says that the Holy Spirit is our arrabon (usually translated ‘deposit’). His use of the word is very significant: there is a contrast between the arrabon (exchange), which is where we are at now, and the telios (completion) which is where we will be after the eschaton; only at completion do we enter into the fullness of that which is promised at exchange, yet we can act with faith that completion will occur, just as the buyer who has exchanged contracts can book a removal firm and order furniture for the new home with confidence. So, then, exchange constitutes the ‘now’ and completion the ‘not yet’.
The use of teleios and associated words
Paul talks quite a bit about suffering, certainly temporal suffering. The most famous – and controversial – passage here is 2 Cor 12: 1-10; Paul’s thorn in the flesh. So many theories have been advanced here as to what or whom Paul was referring: a nagging person (this explanation is naturally preferred by those in the ‘Word of Faith’ movement), sexual temptation (particularly homosexuality), physical illness (malaria), poor eyesight, migraines, etc. I see little point, however, in trying to explain it away in a non-physical fashion given all the other Pauline references to suffering: Rom 12 :12; 1 Cor 4:9-13; 2 Cor 1:3-11;4:7-12; 11:23-33; Phil 3:10; Col 2:24; 2 Tim 3:11-12, for example.
It seems from the above that there is a contradiction inherent in being made perfect in God’s eyes by Christ whilst at the same time suffering the consequences of imperfection – suffering and death – and perhaps also not receiving all the apparent rewards of righteousness. I believe that a big clue in solving this riddle lies in the use by Paul (and indeed other New Testament writers) of the concept of teleios.
Teleios, (together with its associated similar words, teleioo, teleiotes, and teleiosis) is used frequently by Paul. You will have noticed by now that I have failed to give translations of these Greek words yet, and therein lies part of the problem: teleios and co have multiple meanings. Just as a Greek would have trouble translating our word ‘love’ (is it agape, eros, storge or phile?), so too do we have difficulties with teleios. Basically, it can be translated, inter alia, in all or some of the following ways: complete, finished, perfect, having-achieved-the-end-result, accomplished, fulfilled, full-grown, fully-developed, adult and mature. It derives from the Greek noun telos, meaning end/ goal, and, as a further aid to our understanding of the word, the teleological school of philosophical thought essentially asserts that ‘the end justifies the means’ (e.g.: that the bombing of Hiroshima was morally right because it saved lives in the long-run). To a degree, the meaning can vary according to the context but I would suggest that, by and large, teleios (and the associated words above) encompasses all of these meanings and that Paul’s use of it in his soteriology demonstrates conceptually the same kind of dialectic tension as between now and not yet which we have with the Kingdom of God being at hand. Judge for yourselves by these examples of the use of teleios-rooted words, both in Pauline texts and other New Testament writings: 1 Cor 14:20; 2 Cor 12:9; Eph 4:13; Phil 1:6; 3:12-16; Matt 5:48: Heb 2:10; 10:1; 12:23; James 1:4; and 1 Jn 2:5.
To further illustrate this “Kingdom of God” tension between “now” and “not yet”, we have Paul’s own example: his use of the word arrabon. The arrabon was used in the Hellenistic world as a deposit, a pledge or down-payment, on the striking of an agreement, to guarantee performance of the contract and to provide compensation in the event of default. In this way, it is remarkably similar to the deposit paid by buyer to seller on exchange of contracts when buying a house. In English and Welsh law, it is the point of exchange of contracts at which legal rights and obligations arise; from exchange, the buyer has the right to own and live in the house and has the obligation to pay over the balance of the purchase monies on the completion date, minus the deposit which s/he pays to the seller at the point of exchange. However, it is only at completion, which typically takes place a week or two after exchange (so that mortgage finance can be called upon and the parties make removal arrangements), that these rights are realised: the keys are delivered, the balance of the price paid, the title deeds handed over, the seller vacates and the buyer moves into occupation. Paul, in Eph 1:13-14 says that the Holy Spirit is our arrabon (usually translated ‘deposit’). His use of the word is very significant: there is a contrast between the arrabon (exchange), which is where we are at now, and the telios (completion) which is where we will be after the eschaton; only at completion do we enter into the fullness of that which is promised at exchange, yet we can act with faith that completion will occur, just as the buyer who has exchanged contracts can book a removal firm and order furniture for the new home with confidence. So, then, exchange constitutes the ‘now’ and completion the ‘not yet’.
I have no problem with disagreements, but I do have a problem with calling sincere Christians participants in some kind of 'evil empire'.Reformed Baptist said:
I would agree with you there.
My Catholic priest uncles certainly do.
The Catholics I know certainly do but with the proviso that as a general rule the Magisterium are better qualified by God (in their view) to interpret the Bible than they are on a private basis.
Not quite. The Watchtower claim to be infallible in all such matters, the Magisterium (as distinct from Tradition) only in limited cases; also the JWs' teaching authority has more readily-excercised sanctions for deviation from the 'party line'.
Ooh, an easy one: the Apostles' successors.
Because it was never intended to be! I'll expand on this in my next post
By way of introduction, I think it is worth pointing out that there are, broadly speaking, two approaches to the question as to how to, as it were, ‘do’ Church; by ‘do’ I mean how to determine sound doctrine, which practices to include and which to exclude etc.
The first theory is commonly known by its Latin title, sola Scriptura (meaning ‘Scripture alone’) and states that Scripture and only Scripture should be used in matters of faith, doctrine and practice, and in particular the New Testament. This view is adhered to by many, but not all, evangelicals. The drawback with this position is that it has produced a mass of contradictory interpretations (and thus splits and splinters within the Body of Christ) over what Scripture means on topics as diverse as the Last Days, church government and structure, the extent to which man has free will as opposed to being predestined by God to salvation or damnation, views on baptism and the Breaking of Bread, amongst many others. The NT is many things – divinely inspired, infallible, containing rich theology etc, but it is not a comprehensive, “all-singing, all-dancing” guide to how to be a Christian, nor does it claim to be thus sufficient. It does not, for example, prescribe what time Christians should meet on Sundays, how many times they should meet or what exactly should occur at such a meeting, nor does it say who should preside at Communion or perform baptisms, still less what precise words should be used at either event. In matters of church structure, the Presbyterian, the Episcopalian and the Congregationalist can all in theory argue, with some justification, that their own particular forms of church governance may be found in the pages of the NT, yet they cannot all three of them (or even two of them) be correct. Each ‘side’ in these debates tends to claim (of course!) that they have the full measure of the Holy Spirit and that therefore their interpretation is correct and the others have simply Got It Wrong, but they plainly can’t all be right and this approach does beg the very obvious question: who decides what interpretation is correct (and on what basis)?
The second school of thought recognises the above problem and admits that Scripture on its own is insufficient to deal with it; this approach therefore looks to another source for matters of doctrine and practice, not in contradiction to Scripture, but in addition to and complementary to Scripture. This other source is known as Tradition (this term comes from the Latin translation, traditio, of the Greek used in 2 Thess 2:15, paradoseiV (paradoseis), meaning ‘hand over’ or ‘hand down’). It is this method of Scripture+Tradition which I wish to explain further. In so doing, I have no desire and do not seek to justify or commend the Roman Catholic view of Tradition (and it should be pointed out that the Roman Catholics are only one out of several denominations who adopt this method of interpretation).
By way of background, I think what has to be remembered (and here I am indebted to Richard Hooker for his analysis written in the 16th century on this front) is that Scripture - and in particular the NT - is not a 'how to do church' manual, whether it be church government or liturgy etc; there are some hints, of course, but it is not comprehensive on these subjects, as we have seen above.Therefore it was left to the Church - both in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic periods - to, of necessity, work out these matters itself and it was possible for the Church to do this whilst still maintaining fidelity to Scripture. We are fortunate in that we do have a written recordto a large extent of how that happened; this record is contained within the writings variously known as ‘The Apostolic Fathers’, ‘the Patristic Writings’ or, more commonly, ‘The Early Church Fathers (ECFs)’ – men like Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyon, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage etc. Their writings are not on the same level as Scripture – they are not infallible and in some instances disagree with each other – but where there is unanimity and agreement between them (known as the consensus patri) – and there is that a-plenty – then their thoughts carry an overwhelming amount of weight.
The first theory is commonly known by its Latin title, sola Scriptura (meaning ‘Scripture alone’) and states that Scripture and only Scripture should be used in matters of faith, doctrine and practice, and in particular the New Testament. This view is adhered to by many, but not all, evangelicals. The drawback with this position is that it has produced a mass of contradictory interpretations (and thus splits and splinters within the Body of Christ) over what Scripture means on topics as diverse as the Last Days, church government and structure, the extent to which man has free will as opposed to being predestined by God to salvation or damnation, views on baptism and the Breaking of Bread, amongst many others. The NT is many things – divinely inspired, infallible, containing rich theology etc, but it is not a comprehensive, “all-singing, all-dancing” guide to how to be a Christian, nor does it claim to be thus sufficient. It does not, for example, prescribe what time Christians should meet on Sundays, how many times they should meet or what exactly should occur at such a meeting, nor does it say who should preside at Communion or perform baptisms, still less what precise words should be used at either event. In matters of church structure, the Presbyterian, the Episcopalian and the Congregationalist can all in theory argue, with some justification, that their own particular forms of church governance may be found in the pages of the NT, yet they cannot all three of them (or even two of them) be correct. Each ‘side’ in these debates tends to claim (of course!) that they have the full measure of the Holy Spirit and that therefore their interpretation is correct and the others have simply Got It Wrong, but they plainly can’t all be right and this approach does beg the very obvious question: who decides what interpretation is correct (and on what basis)?
The second school of thought recognises the above problem and admits that Scripture on its own is insufficient to deal with it; this approach therefore looks to another source for matters of doctrine and practice, not in contradiction to Scripture, but in addition to and complementary to Scripture. This other source is known as Tradition (this term comes from the Latin translation, traditio, of the Greek used in 2 Thess 2:15, paradoseiV (paradoseis), meaning ‘hand over’ or ‘hand down’). It is this method of Scripture+Tradition which I wish to explain further. In so doing, I have no desire and do not seek to justify or commend the Roman Catholic view of Tradition (and it should be pointed out that the Roman Catholics are only one out of several denominations who adopt this method of interpretation).
By way of background, I think what has to be remembered (and here I am indebted to Richard Hooker for his analysis written in the 16th century on this front) is that Scripture - and in particular the NT - is not a 'how to do church' manual, whether it be church government or liturgy etc; there are some hints, of course, but it is not comprehensive on these subjects, as we have seen above.Therefore it was left to the Church - both in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic periods - to, of necessity, work out these matters itself and it was possible for the Church to do this whilst still maintaining fidelity to Scripture. We are fortunate in that we do have a written recordto a large extent of how that happened; this record is contained within the writings variously known as ‘The Apostolic Fathers’, ‘the Patristic Writings’ or, more commonly, ‘The Early Church Fathers (ECFs)’ – men like Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyon, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage etc. Their writings are not on the same level as Scripture – they are not infallible and in some instances disagree with each other – but where there is unanimity and agreement between them (known as the consensus patri) – and there is that a-plenty – then their thoughts carry an overwhelming amount of weight.