'Tradition'

[utilyan]

Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

This is the only time in the Bible where this phrase "Moses' seat" is used. It is not even found in the OT. It is only here just this one time.

MacArthur says this:
Moses' seat is equivalent to a university's "chair of philosophy." To "sit in Moses' seat" was to have the highest authority to instruct people in the law. The expression here may be translated, "[they] have seated themselves in Moses' seat," emphasizing that this is an imaginary authority they claim for themselves. The priests and Levites had some authority to decide matters of the law (Deu_17:9), but the scribes and Pharisees had exceeded any legitimate authority and were adding human tradition to the Word of God (Mat_15:3-9). For that Jesus condemns them (Mat_23:8-36).

Like the RCC, it is an imaginary authority they were claiming for themselves.

This is only spot in the bible is the whole point! Jesus is recognizing an unscriptural authority.

Doesn't matter what you think DHK.

Jesus Christ himself RECOGNIZES the seat of Moses.

Matthew 23
1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.


Is English your first language?

Find out from a friend the meaning of THEREFORE ALL THAT THEY TELL YOU, DO and OBSERVE, MEANS.

Jesus Christ actually acknowledges the authority.

Your going to have to twist that phrase in particular.

Maybe Jesus was being Sarcastic?

 

[DHK]

This is only spot in the bible is the whole point! Jesus is recognizing an unscriptural authority.

Doesn't matter what you think DHK.

Jesus Christ himself RECOGNIZES the seat of Moses.

Matthew 23
1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.


Is English your first language?

Find out from a friend the meaning of THEREFORE ALL THAT THEY TELL YOU, DO and OBSERVE, MEANS.

Jesus Christ actually acknowledges the authority.

Your going to have to twist that phrase in particular.

Maybe Jesus was being Sarcastic?

Perhaps Jesus was using a somewhat sarcastic phrase--good thought. For whatever the case, they were not doing the will of God, and Christ said as much--if you understand English.

Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
--The bolded or last half of the verse indicates that Christ was calling them hypocrites. The rest of the chapter verifies this truth. For example:

Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
--These were really nice guys, eh?

Jesus was pointing to OT Law, which had been entrusted to the scribes themselves.
It was the Law that the people were to keep and observe. It was the law that the Pharisees and scribes could not keep. (Do not after their works). They were hypocrites.

 

[herbert]

Darrell C.,

...That is actually to our advantage, because as the Body we all sit under the instruction of our Teacher a little differently. That means we are likely to have a relevant contribution to any given issue, and it may also mean that we have a weakness our brother can point out.

There are those here who don't believe that a Catholic is a Christian at all. So I don't think it's really the way you describe it, Darrell. And that's fine. People are entitled to their own opinions. When they mistake their opinions for divine revelation, though, that can become a problem.

As far as being "characterized," lol, don't let that bother you. Doesn't matter if you were a Baptist, Catholic, or Charismatic, you are going to always have people who are going to disagree with you. Get used to it, and put it out of your mind. We have a mandate to make disciples of Christ, not friends.

People disagreeing with people is one thing. People disagreeing with each other concerning that which they believe God to have revealed is something entirely different. So I am trying to discuss here how it is that we come about recognizing the objective principles by which we may know the authentic Christian faith. And since Christians have an apostolic mandate to hold to one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, our faith must have within itself the capacity to bring such a unity about.

Me personally, I have been much impressed with your interaction here. I have always found you to be very courteous, and that goes a long way in successful discussion and debate.

Thanks, Darrell. That is very kind of you and it encourages me that my intended tone is coming through despite the form of communication we're working with... You, too, have been very kind. Thank you.

I think most of us are a little stubborn, so you are not alone. It's not a matter of when a Baptist is stubborn, it's determination, and when a Catholic is stubborn, it unreasonable, lol, it's just something we all share as a common trait, because let's face it...all of us think we're right.

At this point in my life, I am not concerned with people agreeing with me. As they say, truth is truth even if no one accepts it and a lie is a lie even if everyone accepts it. So it's not that I think "I" am right. Nor do I want people to agree with "me." As a Catholic, my position is grounded in Christ's promise to the Church. I wish to agree with Christ's Church on account of its divine founding. For His Church, founded on Pentecost, received a divine guarantee. And though that Church, bound to its Head, is 100% human and is always plagued by the sins of her members, paradoxically, that Church is always and everywhere dependable, public, visible, and reflective of Christ's work in the world.

Thanks again, Darrell. I am encouraged by your comments.

Herbert

 

[Darrell C]

There are those here who don't believe that a Catholic is a Christian at all. So I don't think it's really the way you describe it, Darrell. And that's fine. People are entitled to their own opinions. When they mistake their opinions for divine revelation, though, that can become a problem.

No, I agree, there are those that reject the possibility that a Catholic can be sincere in his love for Christ and even the Word of God. However, Herbert, there are some reasons why such an extreme might be reached.

Now, you say...

When they mistake their opinions for divine revelation, though, that can become a problem.

...which for me holds a little bit of irony, because this is kind of the point many have in addressing what they see as the error of Oral Tradition. They view the Catholic Church of "mistaking their opinions for divine revelation."

And not trying to offend, Herbert, just pointing out what I see to be ironic.

But to level the playing field a little, I will just say that I myself do not view the positions and doctrines I hold to to be "divine revelation," but that I believe them to be based on Divine Revelation. That is, the Word of God. I try to present the Scriptural basis for my views.

So not sure if you see that irony, but it underlies a debate between those who reject Oral Tradition and embrace Sola Scriptura, and those who don't.

People disagreeing with people is one thing. People disagreeing with each other concerning that which they believe God to have revealed is something entirely different. So I am trying to discuss here how it is that we come about recognizing the objective principles by which we may know the authentic Christian faith.

It's debate, Herbert. Not one person making an assertion or presenting a Doctrinal position is going to change what is authentic, and what is not. You say this yourself. Understanding that, let us present not just a positive presentation of what we see as authentic, but also an address of why we do not see our antagonist's view as authentic.

An example given before would be in regards to indulgences: I view this as in direct contradiction to Scripture's Doctrine concerning the remission of sins. Would you admit that there is no Scriptural basis for such a practice? That it arises out of the "opinions" of men, who also believed it to be, if not Divine Revelation, then Divine Authority given men?

And since Christians have an apostolic mandate to hold to one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, our faith must have within itself the capacity to bring such a unity about.

Its not really a mandate, but simply a statement of fact. Regardless of whether there is unity in the Body, these are still true of the Body of Christ. One Lord, one faith, one Baptism. But even men who are without quesion used of God to convey the Gospel, there is still that tendency towards failure. Peter played the hypocrite concerning the Gentiles, and Paul withstood him to the face.

And I don't think any of us place ourselves on a par with these two. Peter's failure to adhere to One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism...didn't mean he was not sincere in his love for Christ. It doesn't even show he was not sincere in his love for Gentiles.

He was just a man.

And we have to calculate man's weakness and tendency to failure in his temporal service to God. Even great Theologians can be found to be in error on something, lol.

That's why I view Scripture as the sole Authority when it comes to service, interpretation, practice, and Tradition. And if it conflicts, in any way, with what God has already spoken, then we need to review our own understanding and see where we went wrong.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Thanks, Darrell. That is very kind of you and it encourages me that my intended tone is coming through despite the form of communication we're working with... You, too, have been very kind. Thank you.

As I have said, I have always found you to be very courteous, having self control, and this makes discussion/debate enjoyable. I love to debate. I love to discuss the deeper mysteries of God. And I think we can learn from each other if we simply learn to listen to our antagonist. What usually happens, if you let your antagonist speak, is that they will reveal the weakness of their positions. But before we can correct something we see in error, we must first understand the understanding of our antagonist. We must first understand the basis for their views or positions, and when we do, then we can better understand the nature of the error, and whether it is theirs...or ours, lol.

It may sound strange, but I owe a great debt to the atheists I have debated. Not all of them are vulgar in their communication, and it has helped me understand better why some atheists reject the Word of God, God, and Christ.

This past weekend, at a fellowship we visited, I heard one of the best stories I've heard in a while:

Late one night passengers on a commuter train were becoming very irritated with a man and two little girls, because the little girls were crying and carrying on, and the man, the father of the two, seemed to be unaware of the commotion they were making. Unable to take it any more, a woman goes over to the man and very bluntly told him to get control of his children. The man seems to be awakened from a stupor, and replies, "I'm very sorry, I will quiet them down. You see, we just came from the hospital and their mother has just passed away, and they, and I, are terribly upset."


Long story short, Herbert, the attitude of the passengers on that train changed immediately from condemnation of a poor excuse of a father to sympathy and compassion for a man and two little girls in the throes of grief.

What brought about that change? Well, simply knowing "the rest of the story," as Paul Harvey used to say. There is an old Indian Adage, "Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes."

So too, with forum interaction, understanding the Basis of Belief for our antagonists is rule 1. Unfortunately, you are going to have to deal with the assumptions imposed on you because of the group you are associated with. So keep it Doctrinal, my friend. Do that and you will be profitable in your discussions. And it seems to me you have a pretty good handle on that already.

At this point in my life, I am not concerned with people agreeing with me.

You should be, lol. That might sound arrogant, but I assure it isn't. Where, in Scripture, do we ever see an example of a spokesman for God offering opinions? Preaching God's will on a 'I think this what God means" basis?

We don't, and we should follow that example. That means never broaching issues we are not confident we can give a Scriptural basis for which is without controversy. Doesn't mean there won't be (humans, lol), but the point is that it is settled in your own heart.

There's a simple way to always be right: simply don't talk about things you don't anything about, right? lol

All of us, Herbert, including you, feel as though God has meant for us to be involved in conveying His truth. Doesn't mean we think we are Prophets, it just means we recognize a simple mandate most of us here feel placed on our hearts. The fact is, people who do not feel this way simply don't make it a habit of frequenting forums that center on Christian Doctrinal Debate. This goes back to an original point I made concerning your being here on a Baptist Forum, rather than being on a Catholic Forum, where you can fellowship with those who you would be mostly in agreement with. Perhaps it is, as I said before, a defense of the Catholic faith that motivates you, perhaps it is a defense of your own faith itself. But have you given any thought to the possibility that God has brought you here for the purpose of helping you to learn about those who are ordinarily antagonistic towards the faith you have embraced? I feel the Lord did this with me in regards to atheists, and even Baptists. I can without question say I understand both of those groups better because I have spent time speaking to the diversity of persons associated with those groups.

One result I can testify of is, I no longer entertain the pulpit bred hatred I had for atheists and Catholics, nor do I look at the group I associate with (Baptists) as the only possible group one can be involved with and still be considered a genuine Christian, lol. In fact, I have on several occasions spoken with atheists that I think may be born again believers in the throes of anger towards God. One man, for example, was a faithfully attending Baptist...whose son died. I can understand the anger. "But God...I was faithful! Why did you take my son from me!"

Either this man was only religiously associated with Christ, or, he was pretty ignorant of basic Bible Principles. The answer I have for that man is God did not take his son, but the consequences of sin did. This world is going to bring about tribulation, and we should expect tragedy at times. There is no guarantee to Christians that they will not suffer tribulation, but in fact a guarantee...they will. And this man never learned that lesson. But, rather than view this man as a fool, or a moron, like the passengers on the train, I believe we have a mandate for compassion first. THis means, unlike some, I do not take the position that there is no value in seeking to reach this fellow, whether he is truly an atheist, or a brother desperately in need of restoration. Both scenarios have the possible result of a relationship restored with God, whether it be his first time being renewed to relationship with God, or whether he is already saved yet fallen into what amounts to a temper tantrum.

Okay, getting long-winded, lol. Sorry.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

As they say, truth is truth even if no one accepts it and a lie is a lie even if everyone accepts it.

Can't agree with that as a concrete principle to be adhered to in the case of dealing with humanity. What we also have to factor in is the one who has embraced a lie in sincerity, and I am sure you would agree that even Christians can make this mistake. Unless you too feel that no-one who is not a part of the Catholic Church could possibly be saved and in relationship with God.

And that's why we go to forums, Herbert. It is a test of those views we feel to be in error. And the only possible means of correcting error is through a Doctrinal Approach. I believe every problem in this world could be corrected if a Doctrinal Approach is taken. This is particularly true in regards to the most volatile issue in the world...Religion.

So it's not that I think "I" am right. Nor do I want people to agree with "me." As a Catholic, my position is grounded in Christ's promise to the Church.

I think on the surface we all feel that way, but the truth is, if we didn't think we were right...we wouldn't try to "correct" others. Right?

Now I ask you...where do you get the Promise of Christ to the Church? What is the basis for even believing that Christ has made Promises (and they are plural, and go back to the beginning (Genesis 3:15))?

For me, my basis is that which is recorded in Scripture, and nothing else. One of our friends here has suggested Joel Osteen as a "brother," and doesn't understand why he is rejected. For me, it is a matter of seeing his gospel as differing from that recorded in Scripture. I think it is just a fact that sometimes...Christians are going to be poor, and they are going to be sick, and sometimes...God is going to end their physical lives. And not always because their faith was weak...but because their faith is strong.

I wish to agree with Christ's Church on account of its divine founding. For His Church, founded on Pentecost, received a divine guarantee.

A agree with that entirely. (1) The Church is founded by Christ; (2) The church is founded upon promises that reach back into Prophecy; (3) The Church began at Pentecost; (4) The church has received a guarantee (the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, which is when men are immersed into God, into the Body of Christ).

But now it's your turn: do you agree with my statements above? Many here do not. And they believe themselves to take issue with my views based on a sincere belief they understand Scripture better, and can reject some of these points from a Scriptural Basis.

And that's when we test each other.

And though that Church, bound to its Head, is 100% human

Kind of denies Christ as the Head, doesn't it? Not trying to offend, just pointing out that the Church is a spiritual entity, the Temple of God, called living stones. One is not a member of the Church apart from actually being immersed into Christ.

Just as God was 100% man, and 100% God, even so the Church is 100% physical, and 100% spiritual. And the spirituality is not their own, but they are the Church because they are indwelt of God (Romans 8:9-10).

and is always plagued by the sins of her members, paradoxically, that Church is always and everywhere dependable, public, visible, and reflective of Christ's work in the world.

Not always, lol. Sometimes those who are thought to be the visible representatives of Christ give cause to the world for shame brought upoon the Name of Christ. Unfortunately, the media is going to center on her failures, rather than that which is being performed by the Body. How often do we see in the news stories about the innumerable Missionaries who have given their lives in dedicated service to Christ. Suffering tribulation, illness, and even death.

But let someone who is associated commit sin and its front page news.

Thanks again, Darrell. I am encouraged by your comments.

Herbert

And I hope to encourage you, Herbert, because you can help in the efforts I believe God is making is causing all of us here...to grow up.

We won't grow apart from careful examination of not just what others believe, but we ourselves believe. I owe a great debt of gratitude to each and every antagonist I have ever crossed keyboards with, lol. Each one has, in their own way, contributed to the man God would have me be. Whether it is by exposing weakness in my own beliefs, or in my character, we learn something, if we are paying attention, with every post we write or address.

And sometimes we learn things we didn't expect to.

Be encouraged, my friend, God is working in, and through all of us. We don't always like our teachers, or their lessons, and sometimes we don't even realize we are learning. But one day we might look back and understand the debt we owe to those who...didn't see things the way we did.




God bless.

 

[herbert]

DHK,

A few comments ago you said this:

"The churches of God, Paul says, are united in doctrine. If you want to bring your "tradition," your custom, and introduce it into our churches, you will have no such luck. We are united in our doctrine, and are not going to argue about your traditions. Keep your traditions. Our churches are united in doctrine, all of which is anchored in the Word of God, not in tradition. Paul settled the question about custom and tradition in this passage once and for all."

First, please consider what you say above which St. Paul doesn't say:

1. St. Paul never says "If you want to bring your 'tradition,' your custom, and introduce it into our churchs, you will have no such luck." DHK, these practices had already been introduced into the Church at Corinth. St. Paul is writing to weed them out. So those who wrongly introduced them did indeed "have such luck" which is exactly why this Apostle is writing. He's writing to address a number of problems there, some of which were very serious. And as he's writing, he appeals, to set them straight, to that which had already been handed on to them as an Apostle orally (through Tradition). So he's not writing to outsiders who are trying to get away with something. He's writing to the church which has among it, those who are already doing things which are out of accord with the catholic practice.
2. St. Paul never says "We are united in our doctrine, and are not going to argue about your traditions." For he is writing to a Christian Church. Nowhere in this text does he suggest an "Us vs. Them" mindset. Not until verses 18 & 19 does he speak openly of divisions and point out the fact that it is through such divisions that some people are proven to have God's approval. But the fact that his writing is an expression of his effort to unify (and not to divide) is found in the opening lines of the letter in which St. Paul states the following: "Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." He is not writing as an insider writing to outsiders. Nor is he writing to separate the wheat from the chaff there in the Corinthian Church or to encourage people to separate as they see fit. This letter represents St. Paul's effort not to argue but to dissuade those among them who have adopted untoward practices from continuing to practice them so that the Church there would enjoy a thorough unity. For some among them had stepped beyond the bounds of the Apostolic Tradition to which he refers, so he's gone so far as to write a letter to directly address the various problems which have arisen among them so that they'd come to align with that which he'd previously delivered to them.
3. St. Paul never says "Keep your traditions." Those are your words. As a matter of fact, he is writing so that those who'd done wrong would abandon such practices. This letter is offered in an effort to get the entire Corinthian Church into alignment with all the traditions which he had already taught them. In other words, he doesn't want them to "keep" these unChristian traditions and practices at all. Rather, he wants them to cease.
4. St. Paul never says "Our churches are united in doctrine, all of which is anchored in the Word of God, not in tradition." That is an inaccurate re-statement of St. Paul's message and it continues to reflect the "Us vs. Them" mindset you're reading into the text. For when St. Paul says "we" he means even the Corinthian believers who have not been practicing rightly. And he never says anything about his teaching being "anchored in the Word of God." Of course, in the Christological sense, it was, as is all Catholic teaching. But if you are presenting that idea in some Scripture-Alone sense, well, that idea is just not found in the text. Your apparent paraphrase includes ideas and notions he simply nowhere included in his remarks. As I have said already, he's writing to a Christian Church and seeking to bring it into full catholic unity. Therefore, the "our" that St. Paul uses, far from representing exclusion of the Church at Corinth (or some of her member), represents inclusion, and a call to unity, according to his effort to set them aright and bring them into practice which is consistent with other churches of God. And nowhere does he say anything like "(our) doctrine... all of which is anchored in the Word of God, not in tradition." He actually praises the Corinthians for having held to the "tradition" he'd previously passed on to them. Then he appeals to the practice of the universal church as authoritative as he contrasts the errant practices of some of the Corinthian believers with the catholic Christian practice. In other words, he's calling them to Catholicism, to conform to the universal practice of the churches of God.

So the way you phrased your statement above suggested to me that you take what St. Paul said about "his" churches to apply to "your" church(es) today. For you began with a reference to his words and then offered a number of statements that aren't actually found in the Bible. So it was my impression that you were using St. Paul's point as your own. This is why I asked you to tell me exactly to whom your "we" and "us" refer. You then interpreted my questions as some sort of Red Herring.

Is not this a red herring?
Calvinism developed via Augustine by Calvin 1500 years after Christ and his apostles.
The Apostle Paul was not a Calvinist; neither am I. That is a red herring and irrelevant to the illustration I gave to you. The "churches" Paul was referring to were united in doctrine. Paul had just taught them about one specific doctrine (head-coverings). Then he makes a very blunt statement that if anyone is going to argue or be contentious about this we don't have that "custom" (tradition) [about being contentious]. So go away. Find some other person to argue with. The churches of God (our churches, Paul's churches), are united in doctrine. Paul had taught them God's Word not tradition.

I don't believe my questions/comments represented a Red Herring because, as I said, I understood you to be applying to your own modern church(es) the very unity St. Paul claims for the "churches of God" in that passage. So, since a Red Herring is presented when one is "attempting to redirect the argument to another issue... While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument." (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring) I did not see my questions/comments as representing an effort on my part to re-direct the conversation to another issue. Far from being a topic that I was introducing to the conversation, my questions were direct responses to things you seemed to be claiming. As I said, the way you wrote your quote above, since it wasn't Scriptural, but instead presented your ideas, led me to understand the "we" and "our" as referring to your church(es) here in AD 2016. Therefore, I asked you to tell me exactly which churches qualify as "churches of God" and how you come to identify them.

Thanks,

Herbert

 

[herbert]

Darrell C.,

I made a comment about people mistaking their opinions for divine revelation. You quoted me, saying:

Now, you say...When they mistake their opinions for divine revelation, though, that can become a problem...which for me holds a little bit of irony, because this is kind of the point many have in addressing what they see as the error of Oral Tradition.

I am glad you brought this up because it is what this particular conversation is supposed to be about: The role of Tradition in Christ's Church.

They view the Catholic Church of "mistaking their opinions for divine revelation." And not trying to offend, Herbert, just pointing out what I see to be ironic... But to level the playing field a little, I will just say that I myself do not view the positions and doctrines I hold to to be "divine revelation," but that I believe them to be based on Divine Revelation. That is, the Word of God. I try to present the Scriptural basis for my views... So not sure if you see that irony, but it underlies a debate between those who reject Oral Tradition and embrace Sola Scriptura, and those who don't.

I have a couple questions:
1. You say that you do not view the positions and doctrines you hold to to be "divine revelation," but that you believe them to be "based on" Divine Revelation. I'd ask you, then, where do your positions stop and where does divine revelation begin? If you, for example, hold to the belief that Christ is the Son of God, is that not a doctrine or belief which is rightly understood as "divine revelation"? If so, how can you say that your positions and doctrines aren't themselves (in some cases, at least) divinely revealed truths but are only "based upon the Word of God"?
2. Some of the doctrines we hold to are essential to the Faith. Others aren't, correct? So there should probably be some distinction drawn between those matters which are, for all christians, to be held dogmatically and those matters about which differences in perspective may be acceptable. For example, Christ's identity as the Son of God is a non-negotiable of the Faith. But the positions we may hold to concerning, for example, the way by which God can foreordain certain events without limiting the free exercise of human wills are matters which are not necessarily divinely-revealed but about which there may remain some difference in perspective.
2. Where does the Bible teach us that we are supposed to, understanding there'd be widespread disagreement among believers, create for ourselves a set of doctrines and beliefs which are not themselves divinely-revealed, but are instead, based upon our best thinking "based upon Divine Revelation... That is, the Word of God." and proceed as Christians according to this framework of our own Biblically-based creation? In other words, since your statement here sounds as though it's affirming a sort of "Sola Scriptura" approach to the establishment of Christian doctrine, where does the Bible Alone teach the Bible Alone in such a way as to justify the approach to doctrinal affirmation which you've described?
3. When you adopt a Christianity which is itself based upon that which you "believe" to be Biblically-grounded, how are you going to come up with anything but a set of fallible doctrines? Aren't we Christians making bigger and more profound claims than such an approach could produce? Aren't we saying that God has revealed Himself definitively to the entire human race through His Son, Jesus Christ as a matter of historical and divine fact?
4. It seems that by not understanding your "positions and doctrines" themselves as having been divinely-revealed, but only "based upon" divine revelation, you're introducing a fallible link into a chain of reasoning which should be connected by infallible links, end to end. For the moment you say that your positions aren't "Dei Verbum" then they are matters of human opinion which you "believe" to be based upon Scripture. But that link represented by your "belief" that your positions are based upon Scripture is anything but infallible, is it not? In other words, can you use the Bible Alone to justify your adherence to the doctrine which states that you must come to identify the Christian Faith from the Bible Alone? If you can't then where but through fallible human reasoning do you arrive at such a conclusion?

It's debate, Herbert. Not one person making an assertion or presenting a Doctrinal position is going to change what is authentic, and what is not. You say this yourself. Understanding that, let us present not just a positive presentation of what we see as authentic, but also an address of why we do not see our antagonist's view as authentic... An example given before would be in regards to indulgences: I view this as in direct contradiction to Scripture's Doctrine concerning the remission of sins. Would you admit that there is no Scriptural basis for such a practice? That it arises out of the "opinions" of men, who also believed it to be, if not Divine Revelation, then Divine Authority given men?

Because the legitimacy of indulgences is predicated upon one's affirmation and acceptance of various other truths of the Catholic Faith, questions surrounding them are particularly complicated. For if you don't accept the authority of the Church to bind and loose, if you don't see as valid its hiearchy and its Magisterium, you're not going to accept as valid those practices which presuppose the legitimacy of such structures. Just as I wouldn't wear special Mormon underwear without first accepting the legitimacy of Mormonism, so is it hard for a non-Catholic to recognize the legitimacy of the Church's teaching concerning indulgences. So let's first consider what an indulgence is:

"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 992)

The concept presented here will itself only be recognized as valid if one has already come to understand and accept Catholic definitions of the following:

1. Petrine/Magisterial authority
2. Soteriology
3. Ecclesiology
4. Sacred Scripture
5. Sacred Tradition

This is a good example of a 3rd or 4th order question which is presented in an effort to refute a 1st order question. For the Church's teaching concerning Indulgences flows quite naturally from Catholic fundamentals. In contrast, it stands in obvious and stark disagreement with non-Catholic fundamentals. But fundamentals are the very things in question between us so we can't dismiss each other's conclusions which are themselves products of fundamentals without having first considered the grounds for our respective fundamentals. It is often through such an error as this that non-Catholics find themselves quite self-assured in their rejection of Catholicism by virtue of the fact that it is so "obvious" to them that there is no way a "Bible believer" could grant legitimacy to such a thing as an "Indulgence." They often feel the same way about the Catholic practice of referring to a priest, for example as "father." Obviously, they tell themselves, these are not Christians who are faithful to the Scriptures! Again, though, such conclusions, though they seem so sound to the "Bible only" Christian, are grounded not upon sound bases. The Church's teaching concerning Purgatory is similar. Another such case happens to be the very topic of this thread: Tradition. If a "Scripture only" Christian hears a Catholic speak of "Sacred Tradition," he may very well dismiss such a thing on account of its "obvious" contradiction of Scripture. That's why we're here discussing it now. So though I am not trying to avoid a discussion of Indulgence, I would ask that we first consider Sacred Tradition and later pick up on a discussion of how Indulgences relate to the broader infallible teaching of the Magisterium of Christ's Church.

 

[herbert]

continued

Its not really a mandate, but simply a statement of fact. Regardless of whether there is unity in the Body, these are still true of the Body of Christ. One Lord, one faith, one Baptism.

I don't believe your statement here is consonant with what is found in Scripture. Here's why. It seems to me that you're appealing to a certain "invisible" unity which always exists despite the presence of public disunity. Notice how you said "Regardless of whether there is unity in the Body, these are still true of the Body of Christ." To me, it appears as though you're equivocating on the term "Body." For in your first usage of the term, you're referring to the public, visible Body. And in the second usage, you're apparently appealing to an "invisible" unity which is maintained secretly despite the presence of the disunity to which you referred in the previous usage. In contrast to this understanding of the essential unity of the Church, consider that the unity to which Christ referred (for example, in John 17:20-23) was a "visible" unity. The unity to which St. Paul referred was also a visible, public, ecclesial unity. St. Paul didn't say something like "Regardless of how people think and act outwardly, there is still a certain invisible unity among believers known only to God." No, he said: "I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought." He says this while writing to the Church at Corinth. And he says nothing about tolerating public disunity. Jesus Christ even goes so far to reveal why it is He calls for the unity of His believers which He says should be a unity like unto that which exists between the Father and the Son (that is, a supernatural unity). He says that He wishes that His followers will be so unified as to present a witness to the unbelieving world that they may come to recognize His identity. A public disunity in the Church would serve no such purpose. This is why St. Augustine would later say that everybody wishes to call himself "Catholic" but when a visitor to town stops a person and says "Where's the nearest Catholic Church?" no one dares send the person to his own home or basilica but instead directs them to that Church which is part of the universal, apostolic communion of Faith.

But even men who are without quesion used of God to convey the Gospel, there is still that tendency towards failure.

Yes, and precisely because of this unavoidable tendency on the part of man, Christ came to us and established His Church whose success would not be conditioned upon the fitness of its members, having been founded upon His Person. This is, in part, why, again, GK Chesterton once said “When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its cornerstone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.” Further, Christ promised, despite the weakness of these men which He knew all too well, that they would be empowered by the Holy Spirit to embark upon the Great Commission. He promised the Church which would be bound to its Head (Ephesians 5) and would thereby be invincible. This Church was born on Pentecost with the Descent of the Holy Spirit and by virtue of its divine founding, remains yet today as a Great Oak which was once but an acorn. We see it now as a Great Ark complete with all the filthiness of the creatures aboard, yet bringing salvation nonetheless according to its Divine Builder who's maintained it these 2,000 years.

Peter played the hypocrite concerning the Gentiles, and Paul withstood him to the face. And I don't think any of us place ourselves on a par with these two. Peter's failure to adhere to One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism...didn't mean he was not sincere in his love for Christ. It doesn't even show he was not sincere in his love for Gentiles. He was just a man. And we have to calculate man's weakness and tendency to failure in his temporal service to God. Even great Theologians can be found to be in error on something, lol.

No, St. Peter didn't "fail to adhere" to anything. He was set straight. Had he died a "heretic" you might have a point. But we know St. Peter was martyred for Christ. So he died holding to the one, catholic, and apostolic faith. We can't look at his temporary human failure to label him as being out of accord with the faith entirely or for any extended duration of time. The thing to which you're appealing to demonstrate his failure to abide by the faith is actually a case which demonstrates his being corrected by the very apostolic church within which he found himself to be an Apostle.

That's why I view Scripture as the sole Authority when it comes to service, interpretation, practice, and Tradition. And if it conflicts, in any way, with what God has already spoken, then we need to review our own understanding and see where we went wrong.

And this is the great and unwarranted leap that so many make. It is a leap you've chosen to make not according to Scripture's instruction. And this is what's so interesting about it. For you're doing, according to Scripture Alone that which Scripture Alone nowhere instructs you to do. As far as the matter of Tradition goes, we even see Scriptural passages which affirms its legitimacy, as I have pointed out above. Further, your statement "...if it conflicts, in any way, with what God has already spoken..." presupposes the legitimacy of your unBiblical Biblicism. For if you're understanding (and thus limiting) "what God has already spoken" to mean "Scripture Alone," you're relying upon a wrongful conclusion concerning God's chosen means of revelation to build your doctrines. For if you're mistaken about the nature and delivery of "...what God has already spoken..." then your conclusions themselves must be viewed as unsound.

This all comes down to a problem I attempted to describe in another thread discussing the question of Sola Scriptura. For since Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture and is nowhere revealed by God, an angel, a prophet, etc. it cannot be accepted as a binding Christian doctrine. The way by which people go about justifying it is generally through reasoning by induction. But inductive reasoning produces probabilities, not sound conclusions which are themselves as unassailable as the individual premises by which they're reached.

 

[herbert]

continued

As I have said, I have always found you to be very courteous, having self control, and this makes discussion/debate enjoyable. I love to debate. I love to discuss the deeper mysteries of God. And I think we can learn from each other if we simply learn to listen to our antagonist. What usually happens, if you let your antagonist speak, is that they will reveal the weakness of their positions. But before we can correct something we see in error, we must first understand the understanding of our antagonist. We must first understand the basis for their views or positions, and when we do, then we can better understand the nature of the error, and whether it is theirs...or ours, lol.

It may sound strange, but I owe a great debt to the atheists I have debated. Not all of them are vulgar in their communication, and it has helped me understand better why some atheists reject the Word of God, God, and Christ.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say here. And thank you!

This past weekend, at a fellowship we visited, I heard one of the best stories I've heard in a while: Late one night passengers on a commuter train were becoming very irritated with a man and two little girls, because the little girls were crying and carrying on, and the man, the father of the two, seemed to be unaware of the commotion they were making. Unable to take it any more, a woman goes over to the man and very bluntly told him to get control of his children. The man seems to be awakened from a stupor, and replies, "I'm very sorry, I will quiet them down. You see, we just came from the hospital and their mother has just passed away, and they, and I, are terribly upset."... Long story short, Herbert, the attitude of the passengers on that train changed immediately from condemnation of a poor excuse of a father to sympathy and compassion for a man and two little girls in the throes of grief.

This, too, is a great point. We all have our journeys. We all have our trials. This is why, as Christians, I see us as having far more in common than in contrast!

What brought about that change? Well, simply knowing "the rest of the story," as Paul Harvey used to say. There is an old Indian Adage, "Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes."

So too, with forum interaction, understanding the Basis of Belief for our antagonists is rule 1. Unfortunately, you are going to have to deal with the assumptions imposed on you because of the group you are associated with. So keep it Doctrinal, my friend. Do that and you will be profitable in your discussions. And it seems to me you have a pretty good handle on that already.

Yes, thanks. Again, I agree with your point here. TAnd in hopes of keeping doctrine at the heart of our conversation, I am going to re-state below the basic points I am trying to make concerning the role of Tradition in authentic Christian faith.

Also, I said that I am not interested in people agreeing with me. To that you responded as follows:

You should be, lol. That might sound arrogant, but I assure it isn't. Where, in Scripture, do we ever see an example of a spokesman for God offering opinions? Preaching God's will on a 'I think this what God means" basis?... We don't, and we should follow that example. That means never broaching issues we are not confident we can give a Scriptural basis for which is without controversy. Doesn't mean there won't be (humans, lol), but the point is that it is settled in your own heart... There's a simple way to always be right: simply don't talk about things you don't anything about, right? lol

My point in saying that is to stress the fact that we are all the sheep and there is one Shepherd. So it is that I, a sheep, should not be concerned with other sheeps' agreement with me. Rather, I, as I strive to follow the One Shepherd, only hope that the other sheep and I can do this together. It's not "me" then that I am concerned with. It's "our" adherence to the teachings of Christ's Church with which I am concerned. Hence our discussion of the rightful role of Sacred Tradition in His Church...

All of us, Herbert, including you, feel as though God has meant for us to be involved in conveying His truth. Doesn't mean we think we are Prophets, it just means we recognize a simple mandate most of us here feel placed on our hearts. The fact is, people who do not feel this way simply don't make it a habit of frequenting forums that center on Christian Doctrinal Debate. This goes back to an original point I made concerning your being here on a Baptist Forum, rather than being on a Catholic Forum, where you can fellowship with those who you would be mostly in agreement with. Perhaps it is, as I said before, a defense of the Catholic faith that motivates you, perhaps it is a defense of your own faith itself. But have you given any thought to the possibility that God has brought you here for the purpose of helping you to learn about those who are ordinarily antagonistic towards the faith you have embraced? I feel the Lord did this with me in regards to atheists, and even Baptists. I can without question say I understand both of those groups better because I have spent time speaking to the diversity of persons associated with those groups.

From the above comments, I'd like to highlight one in particular. You said "But have you given any thought to the possibility that God has brought you here for the purpose of helping you to learn about those who are ordinarily antagonistic towards the faith you have embraced?" The problem is, Darrell, that I know exactly why "those who are ordinarily antagonistic" towards Catholicism believe what they believe. I was the Sunday School Superintendent in my former Baptist Church. My Grandpa was a widely respected Baptist Minister in the West Michigan area and I and my friends went to his house on Wednesday nights for Bible Study during our college years. Further, I have no personal antagonism towards anyone here. I just know that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine not revealed by God. And I, having embraced the Catholic Faith, am here to talk things over with people in charitable dialogue. I enjoy considering these topics and figure that it's far more worthwhile than watching ESPN. So a conversation that I stumbled upon here a while back concerning the title "Vicar of Christ" being applied to the Pope is where I got started. That conversation blossomed into another about Purgatory, another about Sola Scriptura, and this one about Tradition. My hope is that these conversations will run their courses and I will move on. For I am, despite all my rambling, not too interested in establishing a long-term identity as a participant on a forum of any kind.

One result I can testify of is, I no longer entertain the pulpit bred hatred I had for atheists and Catholics, nor do I look at the group I associate with (Baptists) as the only possible group one can be involved with and still be considered a genuine Christian, lol. In fact, I have on several occasions spoken with atheists that I think may be born again believers in the throes of anger towards God. One man, for example, was a faithfully attending Baptist...whose son died. I can understand the anger. "But God...I was faithful! Why did you take my son from me!"

Too often we find the pains and trials of life to cause people to reject the loving hand of God which only wishes to comfort them. CS Lewis spoke of those who were moreso sons and daughters of Christ than even they realized. It is great to hear of your recognition of the fact that things aren't as cut and dried as some traditions would suggest.

 

[herbert]

continued

Either this man was only religiously associated with Christ, or, he was pretty ignorant of basic Bible Principles. The answer I have for that man is God did not take his son, but the consequences of sin did. This world is going to bring about tribulation, and we should expect tragedy at times. There is no guarantee to Christians that they will not suffer tribulation, but in fact a guarantee...they will. And this man never learned that lesson. But, rather than view this man as a fool, or a moron, like the passengers on the train, I believe we have a mandate for compassion first. THis means, unlike some, I do not take the position that there is no value in seeking to reach this fellow, whether he is truly an atheist, or a brother desperately in need of restoration. Both scenarios have the possible result of a relationship restored with God, whether it be his first time being renewed to relationship with God, or whether he is already saved yet fallen into what amounts to a temper tantrum.

Interesting points here. Thanks for sharing them.

Also, I said something about truths being true even when they're rejected and lies being lies even if they're widely accepted. To that you responded, saying:

Can't agree with that as a concrete principle to be adhered to in the case of dealing with humanity. What we also have to factor in is the one who has embraced a lie in sincerity, and I am sure you would agree that even Christians can make this mistake. Unless you too feel that no-one who is not a part of the Catholic Church could possibly be saved and in relationship with God...

I am not talking about human perceptions of things. The things we hold to subjectively as "truths" may or may not align with "objective truth." That was my point. That's because we don't yet see things clearly and are therefore by necessity relying upon divine-revelation to make sense of this world and our place in it in light of the revelation of Christ. So when a person embraces a lie in sincerity, such a person can be seen as possibly desiring a good while nonetheless affirming an untruth. And of course Christians can (and often do) make such mistakes. The Church, however, on account of Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit's guidance, cannot. As far as the Church's teaching concerning the status of non-Catholics is concerned, the teaching which states that there is "no salvation outside the Church" stands to this day. However, as the Church has always taught, those who through no fault of their own come to (wrongly) identify the Catholic Church as an evil institution will be judged according to the light they were given, not the light from which they were deprived. When a person, however, knows the Church to be instituted by Christ yet refuses to enter it, such a person is in an entirely different situation. This understanding of things is, as a concept, present in John 15:22 in which Christ states the following: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." One can understand this to statement to mean that a person is judged according to the light he's given and is not held accountable to rightly appropriate that knowledge of which he, for various reasons, was deprived. Sometimes these reasons are cultural, linguistic, psychological, emotional, etc. Only God knows our hearts. But the fact that all of this is taking place in the human heart doesn't mean that we cannot come to recognize in Scripture, History, Tradition, Reason, the Motives of Credibility, and the Life of the Church today, the identity of that Communion born on Pentecost Sunday which the world recognizes as the Catholic Church, complete with all the warts and failures of humanity, yet there being publicly sanctified by the Lord in time and space.

And that's why we go to forums, Herbert. It is a test of those views we feel to be in error. And the only possible means of correcting error is through a Doctrinal Approach. I believe every problem in this world could be corrected if a Doctrinal Approach is taken. This is particularly true in regards to the most volatile issue in the world...Religion.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by the phrase "Doctrinal Approach."

I think on the surface we all feel that way, but the truth is, if we didn't think we were right...we wouldn't try to "correct" others. Right?...

Sure. But I am not attempting to "correct" others according to my private take on things. We receive the knowledge of Christ through Scripture and Tradition. We recognize the Church's identity through, as I said above, the Motives of Credibility, which include the following:

1. Miracles
2. Prophecies
3. The Church
4. The wisdom and beauty of revelation itself, and Christ Himself

These are public things which may be evaluated according to reasoned consideration. We are not "gnostics," those early heretics who taught of a secret knowledge shared among those who "got it" while others remained in the dark to the things of God.

Now I ask you...where do you get the Promise of Christ to the Church? What is the basis for even believing that Christ has made Promises (and they are plural, and go back to the beginning (Genesis 3:15))?

I get the promise of Christ to the Church through the Church. That's how Christ set it up. Things concerning the Church come to us through the Church, Christ's chosen means of definitive revelation. For the Church is that very provision instituted by Christ Himself for the furtherance of the Gospel unto the end of the age. If you mean to suggest (which I think you do) that we get all of this through Scripture, I'd say that Scripture itself comes to us through the Church by way of divine inspiration of those members of the Church who are moved by the Holy Spirit to record those words which we have come to recognize as God-breathed. So in my way of thinking, St. Paul was himself a Catholic. He was an Apostle in that "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" mentioned in the Apostles' Creed. Think of it this way. That Creed says "I believe." It appends this declaration to a number of things. Let's take a look:

"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
Amen."

The early Christians "believed" in the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" right alongside their belief in various things which came by direct revelation of Christ. In other words, their affirmation of the nature, role, and identity of the Church was itself a matter of faith. The Church isn't something which comes to be recognized, then, "after" one comes to affirm a host of doctrines which he understands as "Biblically-based." The Church is something we "believe" in. It is something we identify and align with by objective and public means and then and only then may we come to recognize those teachings which are to be affirmed. This is the kind of framework of understanding according to which St. Augustine could say "I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." Such a statement shouldn't be understood to mean that the legitimacy of the Gospel was conditioned upon the witness of the Church. Rather, the statement expresses the unified nature by which the various forms of revelation (cited in the Catechism I pasted below) converge upon Catholic, that is, universal Christian truth. In other words, the Church is the Horse and our doctrines are found in the Cart it pulls. Together we have a horse and a cart. And both of those things finnd their fulfillment in their complementarity. They serve their purpose through the unification of their respective roles. The way some conceive of things, it's the other way around. Some people have a cart full of "Biblically-based" doctrines and the horse is off grazing in a pasture somewhere as far as they're concerned. For they subject even their church to their interpretations of Scripture. This is the sort of thing which leads to an illusion of Church authority. For, as I've said a number of times now, there is a phrase which reveals the situation a Biblicist is in quite nicely and it says "When I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me."

 

[herbert]

continued

For me, my basis is that which is recorded in Scripture, and nothing else.

And that, Darrell, is a principle NOT taught in Scripture. Again, your Biblicism is not taught in the Bible. This question was, I had hoped, going to be addressed in the Sola Scriptura post I started a little while back. But for some unknown reason, an administrator showed up one day and shut that conversation down.

One of our friends here has suggested Joel Osteen as a "brother," and doesn't understand why he is rejected. For me, it is a matter of seeing his gospel as differing from that recorded in Scripture. I think it is just a fact that sometimes...Christians are going to be poor, and they are going to be sick, and sometimes...God is going to end their physical lives. And not always because their faith was weak...but because their faith is strong.

Okay. That's an interesting point. I think I understand your point here and agree with it. Life has definitely beat me up on occasion. But I don't understand those trials as suggesting that I was particularly unGodly and was coming under Christ's direct judgment. I see those trials as "crosses" with which God entrusted me. Through those crosses, I am being redeemed by the Cross of Christ by incorporation into His Body through faith.

I agree with that entirely. (1) The Church is founded by Christ; (2) The church is founded upon promises that reach back into Prophecy; (3) The Church began at Pentecost; (4) The church has received a guarantee (the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, which is when men are immersed into God, into the Body of Christ)... But now it's your turn: do you agree with my statements above? Many here do not.

Yes, I certainly believe in them. But when I say Church I don't only an invisible communion whose true members are only known to God. I mean also a public, visible institution. By the word "Church" I mean a public, visible, and authoritative institution which, as is described in Matthew 18, has the power to cast out the unrepentant sinner. This Church is a divine society comprised of human members which, accordingly suffers from all the ailments which afflict any human society but which, unlike other societies, has by virtue of its divine founding and superintendence, a promise of indefectibility. Christians have always had some basis by which they could justify their understanding of both an invisible and a visible Church. What we must be sure not to do is sacrifice either for the sake of the other. We must affirm both.

And they believe themselves to take issue with my views based on a sincere belief they understand Scripture better, and can reject some of these points from a Scriptural Basis... And that's when we test each other.

When two people disagree, one could be wrong and the other right. Or, they could both be wrong. It's good to test each other. But if you're both doing so according to an adherence to Sola Scriptura which is itself not found in Scripture, then you're likely not to get too far. For that fundamental question which considers the legitimacy of Sola Scriptura itself precedes any doctrinal consideration you may further discuss.


Also, I said "And though that Church, bound to its Head, is 100% human" to that you responded:

Kind of denies Christ as the Head, doesn't it? Not trying to offend, just pointing out that the Church is a spiritual entity, the Temple of God, called living stones. One is not a member of the Church apart from actually being immersed into Christ. Just as God was 100% man, and 100% God, even so the Church is 100% physical, and 100% spiritual. And the spirituality is not their own, but they are the Church because they are indwelt of God (Romans 8:9-10).

I don't believe that my statement "denies Christ as the Head (of the Church)" in the slightest. For just as you point out, Christ, though 100% God, is also 100% Man. Therefore, it can be rightly stated that the Church is 100% human. This, however, does not preclude its divine nature, either, any more than Christ's being 100% man precluded the possibility of the fullness of His divinity. What you go on to state, though I acknowledge and affirm where it's right, cannot in the case of the Church be presented as some sort of "strictly" spiritual form of existence. As I said, we mustn't affirm the Church's mystical nature to the exclusion of its physical nature. We must affirm both.

I went on to say "...and is always plagued by the sins of her members, paradoxically, that Church is always and everywhere dependable, public, visible, and reflective of Christ's work in the world." To that you responded:

Not always, lol. Sometimes those who are thought to be the visible representatives of Christ give cause to the world for shame brought upoon the Name of Christ. Unfortunately, the media is going to center on her failures, rather than that which is being performed by the Body. How often do we see in the news stories about the innumerable Missionaries who have given their lives in dedicated service to Christ. Suffering tribulation, illness, and even death... But let someone who is associated commit sin and its front page news.

This is where we differ, Darrell. As a Catholic, I affirm the idea that the Magisterium cannot err in her teaching of the Faith. This claim is solidly grounded in Christ's promises to the Apostles through the procession of the Holy Spirit from both Father and Son. For it was Christ who breathed on His Apostles, saying "Receive the Holy Spirit." And as the St. John's Gospel records "Jesus said to them again 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you. If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'" Further, He said"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." He said these things to the Apostles collectively. He also said them to St. Peter singularly. In other words, He promised to safeguard the teaching of the Apostles in communion with one another. This safeguard is echoed in Acts 15:28 when the Apostles recognize their decision as being in harmony with the witness of the Holy Spirit. And earlier, in Acts 1:12-26 it was according to their prayer for divine guidance according to a divine foretelling told through David (and attributed to the Holy Spirit) that Matthias was selected to take over the "apostolic ministry" which had been left vacant with the death of Judas after his betrayal of Christ and his subsequent suicide. The early Church's records attest to the recognition of the validity of Apostolic Succession through the laying on of hands which is the very thing which led, as I've referred to before, St. Ignatius's call for the Christians to follow their bishops as they'd follow Christ. The bedrock of the faith is laid upon a foundation of the apostles and the prophets, then, with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone. And it is through this Church and not Scripture Alone that God saw it fit that "through the church" His manifold wisdom "might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 3:10). Nothing in Scripture and nothing in the records we have which witness to the faith of the early Christians suggests we should know and practice the faith through "Scripture Alone." Rather, we see that the Church of the Living God is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1st Timothy 3:15).

 

[herbert]

continued

And I hope to encourage you, Herbert, because you can help in the efforts I believe God is making is causing all of us here...to grow up... We won't grow apart from careful examination of not just what others believe, but we ourselves believe. I owe a great debt of gratitude to each and every antagonist I have ever crossed keyboards with, lol. Each one has, in their own way, contributed to the man God would have me be. Whether it is by exposing weakness in my own beliefs, or in my character, we learn something, if we are paying attention, with every post we write or address... And sometimes we learn things we didn't expect to... Be encouraged, my friend, God is working in, and through all of us. We don't always like our teachers, or their lessons, and sometimes we don't even realize we are learning. But one day we might look back and understand the debt we owe to those who...didn't see things the way we did.

Thanks again, for the support. I appreciate your belief that God is working through all of us here. I agree with you. Because as a Catholic I can affirm the various truths and insights that anyone may have. There are others, though, who think Satan is working through the Catholic Church and by my association with it come to see me as having nothing but "hot air" to offer. Because of this, I do hope that we can get this conversation steered back toward the actual doctrines to which we hold and our various reasons for doing so. To that end, allow me to summarize my basic points here concerning the role of Tradition in the Church Christ founded:

• We all have traditions which are, simply put "received understandings" of matters pertaining to the Faith.
• Our traditions are essentially ways of "thinking, seeing, and being" Christian.
• St. Paul affirms the legitimacy of Tradition.
• When Christ condemned tradition, He did so in a manner which focused upon the particularly manipulative ways in which the Scribes and Pharisees had come to exempt themselves from the Law of God through appeal to their superficial adherence to pious traditions. In other words, it was their misplacement of their traditions within the larger framework of Jewish devotion to God which made their traditional appeal particularly pernicious.
• In condemning tradition, Christ certainly wasn't identifying ritual washing, the adornment of gravestones, the straining of gnats, and the giving of alms/tithes as intrinsically evil actions.
• Christ's condemnation of some tradition doesn't justify our dismissing as invalid all tradition (especially in light of St. Paul's affirmation of the legitimacy of some tradition, whether handed on by word of mouth or by letter).
• The Scriptures don't teach Sola Scriptura so it does not therefore represent some "default" approach to knowing the faith which is "safe" and through which we may be assured of our affirmation of only the "right" doctrines.

And in the Catechism we find a broader treatment of this topic. In consideration of the Catechism's comments below, one can see that according to a Catholic understanding of Scripture and its relationship to Tradition, only through some great rupture could Christ's promises to the Church be nullified. And where non-Catholics believe such a rupture occurred with the incremental corruptions brought about by man-made traditions over the centuries, Catholics don't believe such a period of rupture, despite the tumult of history, could ever threaten the integrity of Christ's Church on account of its divine Head. A Catholic convert to the faith by the name of Peter Kreeft once spoke of what "traditional accretions" which he used to understand as "barnacles" on the hull of the Church used to represent to him. Over time, as he became Catholic, he began to see that such things weren't accretions at all. They were the practices of a living and vibrant family of God, the Church, guided over the cenuries by the Father's Loving Hand (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm):

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION ONE
"I BELIEVE" - "WE BELIEVE"

CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

74 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth":29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Thanks again, Darrell!

Herbert

 

[DHK]

DHK,

A few comments ago you said this:

"The churches of God, Paul says, are united in doctrine. If you want to bring your "tradition," your custom, and introduce it into our churches, you will have no such luck. We are united in our doctrine, and are not going to argue about your traditions. Keep your traditions. Our churches are united in doctrine, all of which is anchored in the Word of God, not in tradition. Paul settled the question about custom and tradition in this passage once and for all."

First, please consider what you say above which St. Paul doesn't say:

[*]St. Paul never says "If you want to bring your 'tradition,' your custom, and introduce it into our churchs, you will have no such luck." DHK, these practices had already been introduced into the Church at Corinth. St. Paul is writing to weed them out. So those who wrongly introduced them did indeed "have such luck" which is exactly why this Apostle is writing. He's writing to address a number of problems there, some of which were very serious. And as he's writing, he appeals, to set them straight, to that which had already been handed on to them as an Apostle orally (through Tradition). So he's not writing to outsiders who are trying to get away with something. He's writing to the church which has among it, those who are already doing things which are out of accord with the catholic practice.

Thanks for taking the time for replying. I enjoy our discussions.
--The practices that had been introduced had been neglected, abused, and were not faithfully kept. Therefore Paul carefully sets out reasons why this "ordinance" or command needs to be kept. Later on, in the same chapter, he expounds and rebukes them about their abuses of the Lord's Table. They were coming to the Table both drunk and having over-eaten! Paul tells them how to conduct themselves. These things were important.
Concerning wearing a head-covering some had different ideas. Think of that today.
1. In my lifetime, 50 years ago, almost everyone, both Catholics and Protestants wore some sort of head-covering (hat or otherwise) to church. Now it is rare to see anyone with a head-covering in church. Why is that? The Bible doesn't change. The command is still there. It is people that change. It is a sign of rebellion in our culture.
2. When I go to eastern nations in Asia, they all, without exception, wear a head-covering. They would feel ashamed or embarrassed without one. It is a Biblical mandate. Why do so-called civilized western nations stand in rebellion to this command? Perhaps there were some that had the same thinking as our "civilized" and "liberated" women. They rebelled against it.
Therefore, Paul sets out a number of reasons, an apologetic, why it is necessary.
He concludes by saying:

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
--Whether of the Church of Corinth or of the Church in Spain, Rome, Philippi, or any other place, if they bring any other idea other than the doctrine that Paul has set forth here, they are wrong. What Paul has set forth is scripture, revelation from God. This command is kept by "all the churches." It is not to be broken, and the churches are unified in it. If someone comes and disagrees and pushes his disagreement (i.e. contention), we have no such custom of arguing with him. Therefore he should leave. Paul teaches this principle in other places.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
--They are to avoid such people that would cause division and contention. That was not their custom to engage in such.

St. Paul never says "We are united in our doctrine, and are not going to argue about your traditions."

But he does:
, neither the churches of God. This part of verse 16 shows their unity. These churches were not contentious, they were united in doctrine about wearing a head-covering.

For he is writing to a Christian Church. Nowhere in this text does he suggest an "Us vs. Them" mindset. Not until verses 18 & 19 does he speak openly of divisions and point out the fact that it is through such divisions that some people are proven to have God's approval. But the fact that his writing is an expression of his effort to unify (and not to divide) is found in the opening lines of the letter in which St. Paul states the following: "Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." He is not writing as an insider writing to outsiders. Nor is he writing to separate the wheat from the chaff there in the Corinthian Church or to encourage people to separate as they see fit. This letter represents St. Paul's effort not to argue but to dissuade those among them who have adopted untoward practices from continuing to practice them so that the Church there would enjoy a thorough unity. For some among them had stepped beyond the bounds of the Apostolic Tradition to which he refers, so he's gone so far as to write a letter to directly address the various problems which have arisen among them so that they'd come to align with that which he'd previously delivered to them.

At the beginning of the chapter he explains how some of them were rebelling against the principle of allowing the man to be the head of the house, and wearing the head-covering symbolizing the wife's submission to her husband indicates this. It is a shame for her not to wear the covering. He teaches this very plainly because it was evident that some of them were not. This is not a matter of salvation; but rather of obedience. The same is true of every chapter in this epistle. He is correcting them because in some way or another they had become disobedient.

 

[DHK]

St. Paul never says "Keep your traditions." Those are your words. As a matter of fact, he is writing so that those who'd done wrong would abandon such practices. This letter is offered in an effort to get the entire Corinthian Church into alignment with all the traditions which he had already taught them. In other words, he doesn't want them to "keep" these unChristian traditions and practices at all. Rather, he wants them to cease.

Keeping the Lord's Supper (in the latter part of the chapter) is not just tradition. It is a command, an ordinance. And in keeping it, it teaches us doctrine through its symbolism.
Now consider the first sixteen verses. Paul lays down about six principles of why a woman ought to wear a head-covering, and they are doctrinal principles. Expound the chapter and you will find out these doctrinal principles. This is doctrine not tradition. To come to the churches and to teach something contrary to Paul's inspired doctrine is to impose your man-made tradition, for God's doctrinal command has already been given, just as the Lord's Supper has. They are not just "traditions" of the Church.

St. Paul never says "Our churches are united in doctrine, all of which is anchored in the Word of God, not in tradition."

But he does. You are not reading the verse and exegeting it.
As I already showed you:
, neither the churches of God. What do you think this phrase. "his churches," the ones that he started; the ones that he had regular contact with; the ones that he knew about." Those churches were united in doctrine concerning this "ordinance" as he refers to it in verse 2 at the beginning of the chapter. Then he says: If any man seem to be contentious", that is disagree, would have it another way, would change this, etc. (he would be contentious about it), we don't have a custom about disagreement with doctrine, about splitting churches, divisiveness, etc. so he should leave.
--The same is true today. No one should be allowed in a local church who has the intention of being divisive with intent to divide it. He was speaking of a contentious person, which the Book of Proverbs has much to say about.

That is an inaccurate re-statement of St. Paul's message and it continues to reflect the "Us vs. Them" mindset you're reading into the text. For when St. Paul says "we" he means even the Corinthian believers who have not been practicing rightly.

The "we" have no such custom" includes all the churches of God, demonstrating that this was a command of God, inspired of God, and was kept by all the churches for they were unified in doctrine. Those few in the church at Corinth that were disobeying needed to fall in line.

And he never says anything about his teaching being "anchored in the Word of God." Of course, in the Christological sense, it was, as is all Catholic teaching. But if you are presenting that idea in some Scripture-Alone sense, well, that idea is just not found in the text. Your apparent paraphrase includes ideas and notions he simply nowhere included in his remarks. As I have said already, he's writing to a Christian Church and seeking to bring it into full catholic unity. Therefore, the "our" that St. Paul uses, far from representing exclusion of the Church at Corinth (or some of her member), represents inclusion, and a call to unity, according to his effort to set them aright and bring them into practice which is consistent with other churches of God. And nowhere does he say anything like "(our) doctrine... all of which is anchored in the Word of God, not in tradition." He actually praises the Corinthians for having held to the "tradition" he'd previously passed on to them. Then he appeals to the practice of the universal church as authoritative as he contrasts the errant practices of some of the Corinthian believers with the catholic Christian practice. In other words, he's calling them to Catholicism, to conform to the universal practice of the churches of God.

There is nothing about Catholicism here. The word is never used in Scripture.
The fact that it was a universal practice shows that it was doctrine taught by the Apostle Paul in all the churches that he had been to. It was not simply tradition. It was as much doctrine as the Lord's Supper was which is mentioned immediately after this topic.

So the way you phrased your statement above suggested to me that you take what St. Paul said about "his" churches to apply to "your" church(es) today.

In our churches (that is the churches that I associate with (IFB), we try to model our churches after the NT local churches. That includes wearing a head-covering as they did, for the command was never rescinded. A Christian, if he truly is one, should be interested in following the commands of the Bible, especially those connected with the local churches, for that is God's ordained instrument of blessing that he is using today.

For you began with a reference to his words and then offered a number of statements that aren't actually found in the Bible. So it was my impression that you were using St. Paul's point as your own. This is why I asked you to tell me exactly to whom your "we" and "us" refer. You then interpreted my questions as some sort of Red Herring.

Scripture is living and applicable. I need to apply it to myself wherever applicable. I believe this to be applicable to our churches today, just as churches in North America obeyed the command 50 years ago. Feminism and other women's movements seem to have changed that.

I don't believe my questions/comments represented a Red Herring because, as I said, I understood you to be applying to your own modern church(es) the very unity St. Paul claims for the "churches of God" in that passage. So, since a Red Herring is presented when one is "attempting to redirect the argument to another issue... While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument." (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring) I did not see my questions/comments as representing an effort on my part to re-direct the conversation to another issue. Far from being a topic that I was introducing to the conversation, my questions were direct responses to things you seemed to be claiming. As I said, the way you wrote your quote above, since it wasn't Scriptural, but instead presented your ideas, led me to understand the "we" and "our" as referring to your church(es) here in AD 2016. Therefore, I asked you to tell me exactly which churches qualify as "churches of God" and how you come to identify them.

I, as a pastor, am accountable for my church. Having said that even the women in the church are accountable to themselves or to God, not to me. This is something I can preach but not force. It has to be a decision that comes from the heart. I am not accountable for the other churches that you mentioned and thus were red herrings to me. What they do is their business. The command is there. Will others obey it or not. It is up to them.

 

[Darrell C]

Hello Herbert, only have a few minutes, so will just hit a few of these comments for now. Wish you had got them on here a little sooner, lol.

I have a couple questions:
1. You say that you do not view the positions and doctrines you hold to to be "divine revelation," but that you believe them to be "based on" Divine Revelation. I'd ask you, then, where do your positions stop and where does divine revelation begin? If you, for example, hold to the belief that Christ is the Son of God, is that not a doctrine or belief which is rightly understood as "divine revelation"? If so, how can you say that your positions and doctrines aren't themselves (in some cases, at least) divinely revealed truths but are only "based upon the Word of God"?

Because...they've already been revealed, lol.

In other words, Herbert, I am distinguishing between what is revealed in God's Word and "new revelation," from which traditions completely unrelated to, and often in contradiction to the Word of God arise.

My embrace of a tradition that arises solely from Scripture (i.e., partaking of Communion, water baptizing people in the Name of Christ, fellow-shipping with other Christians, et cetera) can be validated by taking someone to the related text. They do not, as you suggest in regards to indulgences, rely on the Doctrinal Distinctives of the fellowship I am associated with.

2. Some of the doctrines we hold to are essential to the Faith. Others aren't, correct? So there should probably be some distinction drawn between those matters which are, for all christians, to be held dogmatically and those matters about which differences in perspective may be acceptable. For example, Christ's identity as the Son of God is a non-negotiable of the Faith. But the positions we may hold to concerning, for example, the way by which God can foreordain certain events without limiting the free exercise of human wills are matters which are not necessarily divinely-revealed but about which there may remain some difference in perspective.

I think we could make a case of distinction between what me might term "essential Doctrine" and what is non-essential, but it would not change that both are to be tested in light of Scripture.

In the Baptist section there has been much debate as to what the Baptism with the Holy Ghost means. So in order for what it means to be discovered, how else would we do that except to look at what is actually taught in Scripture concerning this Doctrine.

Now we have many views which for some are traditional, because the teaching they embrace goes back generations, even centuries. But we can back all the way back to First Century Writings to have an unbiased (except for that of the Writers and God Himself) teaching on that subject.

So what is the correct understanding of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost?

1. Immersion into God;

2. Empowerment of believers already saved;

3. A "second blessing" at which time believers become "more spiritual;"

4. A public validation of a spiritual event;


You might have an option you could present to add to that list, but we still go back to...how do we verify what the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is?

But I would disagree that we can set essential doctrine apart from Doctrine as a whole. To be in error on even a slight matter is not something we can "live with," right? If leadership is teaching something that is error, even though it is not what might be considered essential doctrine, we would still seek to correct that error with the Word of God, right? An example might be the preaching that eating pork is forbidden Christians. This might seem to be non-essential on the surface, and a gray area to some, because we have a principle that applies that makes it a little more complicated, which is, if someone believes that eating pork is not forbidden to the Christian, then for him...it is. See the problem there? But is that what the Word of God teaches?

For example, Christ's identity as the Son of God is a non-negotiable of the Faith. But the positions we may hold to concerning, for example, the way by which God can foreordain certain events without limiting the free exercise of human wills are matters which are not necessarily divinely-revealed but about which there may remain some difference in perspective.

The two are both essential doctrines which are non-negotiable, my authority in making that statement the Word of God. One being in error as to the Person of Christ is not a "worse error" than one denying that God is Sovereign. God fore-ordaining events is unrelated to the debate about free will, whether salvific in context or temporal. It is through the process of progressive revelation that these two issues become understood as inter-related, and to divorce one from the other leaves one with a faulty understanding of salvation in Christ itself.

The essential Doctrine of the Gospel is that man is born spiritually dead and outside of relationship with God. That is not a condition that fell upon all born, it is a consequence of Adam's sin. There was no free will that landed man in a natural condition, and there is no free will that can remedy that solution. The error of thinking "I repented, I believed, I had faith in Christ" ignores the fact that only God can enlighten men to the spiritual truths of God. Man has no capacity for the spiritual things of God, only for those things which are relevant to his own spirit, that is, that which is natural to his natural condition. This is true in the Old Testament, and more especially true in the New, because we have in the New the beginning of relationship with God through the New Covenant. In the Old, the benefits of the New Covenant remained promise, but Christ has established the New through His death, and entrance into relationship through the New Covenant...

...has nothing to do with "Free Will."

It has everything to do with the consistent method God uses to bring men into relationship with Himself, that is, through the enlightening men gain by the revelation God provides.

The record of that revelation is in Scripture, not tradition. In the Old Testament, most would agree revelation in regards to Atonement and Reconciliation is limited. The Gospel begins in Genesis 3:15 but it is not until Acts 2 that an understanding of the Redemptive Plan of God is revealed to men. So we look at "traditional doctrines" embraced by various groups, and can, by comparing those traditional doctrines verify whether they are Biblical or not.

2. Where does the Bible teach us that we are supposed to, understanding there'd be widespread disagreement among believers, create for ourselves a set of doctrines and beliefs which are not themselves divinely-revealed, but are instead, based upon our best thinking "based upon Divine Revelation... That is, the Word of God." and proceed as Christians according to this framework of our own Biblically-based creation? In other words, since your statement here sounds as though it's affirming a sort of "Sola Scriptura" approach to the establishment of Christian doctrine, where does the Bible Alone teach the Bible Alone in such a way as to justify the approach to doctrinal affirmation which you've described?

If I gave you the impression that I think there can be tradition apart from a Scriptural basis, I apologize. That was not the intent of my statement, so hopefully I can correct that.

The "widespread disagreement" you say the Bible understood would arise is not actually a valid concept. At every point the Word of God has been for the purpose...of correcting that which brings people into conflict. Paul addresses, before anything else, sectarian division among the Corinthians. To those in Galatia he addresses the error of merging Judaism with Christianity.

He does not give rise to the concept that we can "create for ourselves a set of doctrines and beliefs which are not themselves divinely-revealed, but are instead, based upon our best thinking "based upon Divine Revelation." The opposite is true, and evidenced in the fact that he, as well as the other Writers (who wrote to instruct)...quote Scripture.

Again, we might see a "gray area" in regards to the cultural differences between Jews and Gentiles. There is no mandate for the Jew to shed his heritage, but the Covenant of Law. A Jewish Christian has, in my view (see where I point out something that I classify a an opinion? lol), all the right in the world as a Christian to celebrate Passover. But when he teaches it as a Christian tradition based on Scripture, one which all Christians must observe, would you agree that we could easily show the error of that?

And how would we do that, Herbert?

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

In other words, since your statement here sounds as though it's affirming a sort of "Sola Scriptura" approach to the establishment of Christian doctrine, where does the Bible Alone teach the Bible Alone in such a way as to justify the approach to doctrinal affirmation which you've described?

Let me ask you a simple question: if a doctrine contradicts that which is taught in Scripture, how would you impress upon someone that it does?

There are numerous indications that the Word of God is to be maintained as it is given. This is a Basic Bible Principle traced back to the Garden.

I will give you one passage that I feel indicates Scripture as the test of doctrine and practice (I really have to get going):


2 Peter 3:14-16

King James Version (KJV)


14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


What is it that Peter says is wrested? Tradition? Or the Scriptures themselves?

3. When you adopt a Christianity which is itself based upon that which you "believe" to be Biblically-grounded, how are you going to come up with anything but a set of fallible doctrines? Aren't we Christians making bigger and more profound claims than such an approach could produce? Aren't we saying that God has revealed Himself definitively to the entire human race through His Son, Jesus Christ as a matter of historical and divine fact?

This denies the promise of God in regards to understanding. It suggests that the believer is on his own to weed through Scripture and on his own create a standard of Doctrine and Practice.

That is not the case.

Consider:


2 Timothy 3:15-17

King James Version (KJV)


15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.



Do you see that Scripture can not only lead one in the way of salvation, but can modify improper understanding and behavior? Secondly, is not God our Teacher? Do we think the indwelling of God and the promise that His indwelling would cause us to walk in His statutes and keep His judgments was lightly uttered (Ezekiel 36:27)?

Aren't we Christians making bigger and more profound claims than such an approach could produce?

Not at all, because it leaves the Authority with God, rather than what men think God said. When men teach that man has free will to either take or leave Christ, we challenge their position based on what Scripture actually teaches concerning man's condition. When men teach that salvation is a process that we have to hope gets finished, we show them the authoritative statement of Scripture that states we have been saved, and that remission of sins is complete (which does not allow for a scenario that would cause further Sacrifice for the remission of sins to be needed).

When the Prophets stated "Thus saith the Lord," did they make bigger and more profound claims in that which they conveyed?

It is when the doctrines and practices of men go outside of that which has been revealed that we see "bigger and more profound (if that term can logically be used, lol) claims" that are in need of rebuke, reproof, and correction.

For example, the tradition of "Slaying in the Spirit." Of God? Or men? Both have to have a basis for being accepted as a tradition that is acceptable. If we say of God, then perhaps we should have God's statement endorsing it. If we say of men, then we must have the reason why they believe it to be acceptable.

And which is going to be credible? A statement in Scripture, or a statement from a man who thinks God endorses. The conversation would begin like this: "Well, I know the Word of God is absolutely silent on the issue, but..."


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Aren't we saying that God has revealed Himself definitively to the entire human race through His Son, Jesus Christ as a matter of historical and divine fact?

No, we don't say that at all, lol. We say that God reveals Himself to men in various means through the various Ages:


Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)


1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


This distinguishes the means by which God has revealed Himself to men in the past with how He is revealing Himself to men in this Age.

But even so, the assumption is not jumped to that God directly reveals the Person of Christ to every man and woman:


John 14:21-23

King James Version (KJV)


21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


This principle of indirect revelation (versus direct revelation) is further borne out by Paul in Romans Chs.1-2. The basic principle of internal witness of God to man, a well as the testimony of Creation itself, is summed up by Paul here:


Romans 2:11-16

King James Version (KJV)


11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


Without going into great detail, in view is a contrast between those who had the Word of God (Israel), and those who did not. One had direct revelation, the other had indirect revelation. But both will be judged by Christ based on...their obedience to that which was written on their hearts. The Gentile who performed the Law but by nature did the things contained in the Law...would be justified, as opposed to those who were hearers only. They show the works of the Law written on their hearts, which is saying they were obedient to that which God had revealed to them.

How we would apply that in a modern setting would be fairly simple: we do not assume that every man and women has heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, would we? Does this mean that they are destined to Hell by default?

Wasn't true during the Age of Law, why would it be true today?

This also helps us not to minimize the Grace of God in regards to those who will never have the opportunity to hear the Gospel: namely, aborted babies, children who die, and the mentally impaired.

The same Grace God bestowed upon man prior to the Atonement...is still bestowed to man today.

4. It seems that by not understanding your "positions and doctrines" themselves as having been divinely-revealed, but only "based upon" divine revelation, you're introducing a fallible link into a chain of reasoning which should be connected by infallible links, end to end. For the moment you say that your positions aren't "Dei Verbum" then they are matters of human opinion which you "believe" to be based upon Scripture. But that link represented by your "belief" that your positions are based upon Scripture is anything but infallible, is it not? In other words, can you use the Bible Alone to justify your adherence to the doctrine which states that you must come to identify the Christian Faith from the Bible Alone? If you can't then where but through fallible human reasoning do you arrive at such a conclusion?

Again, I think you are misunderstanding my statement, or I have made a statement too vague for you to understand.

It's like this: I do not go around saying "God told me that this is the proper way to interpret this passage," but rather "This is the proper way to interpret this passage because God tells us this right here (insert Scriptural Basis).

This is contrasted with those who do say "God told me," then proceed to deny a need to validate that doctrine or practice or tradition.

One of the most bizarre examples of this I have ever seen was a video of Benny Hinn's daughter preaching a message entitled "You need a Holy Ghost enema." Not just bizarre, but blasphemous.

It is not, for example, my opinion when I say that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is immersion into God. It can be viewed as such, but, it is not given and then I expect people to take my word for it. Along with that statement is going to be the Scriptural presentation by which I base my belief on. An opinion would consist of the belief of the person apart from any validation. If it is an opinion, and it is disagreed with, then how is it going to be shown to be an opinion?

That's right...by showing from Scripture that it is in conflict with something else that is actually valid.

Let me ask you this, Herbert, is it my opinion that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

If so, why?

If not...why?

Because the legitimacy of indulgences is predicated upon one's affirmation and acceptance of various other truths of the Catholic Faith, questions surrounding them are particularly complicated.

There is simply no legitimacy to Indulgences, Herbert. And saying one must understand it's legitimacy by understanding other Catholic Doctrinal Distinctives is not a very strong argument.

"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 992)

What temporal punishment? It is true God can judge sin in the life of the believer, even to the point of taking their lives, but my friend...if they have repented of their sin to this point...

...isn't that relative to their relationship to God?

Not their Church?

Secondly, could you give me a passage that teaches that the Church is the "Minister of Redemption?"

You quote Catholic Doctrine to affirm Catholic Doctrine. That is as credible as a Nazi quoting Hitler to validate racial superiority, lol.

And I'm not knocking Catholic Doctrine, my friend, just making a point. I understand the necessity of not judging one position apart from other positions of a group.

For the Church's teaching concerning Indulgences flows quite naturally from Catholic fundamentals.

But does not flow naturally from the Word of God and what it states concerning Redemption.

Redemption was once for all accomplished by Christ...alone.

Redemption on an individual basis is effected by God...alone.

This begins with the enlightening ministry of the Comforter, Who, by enlightening the natural mind (similar to how He enlightened Gentiles to the works of the Law, and why we find cultures who obey the basics (i.e., Don't murder, don't steal, et cetera)), brings about conviction of sin, which if a man obeys he will be saved. No member of the Body of Christ has the ability to deal with another member of the human race at the level of the heart. We can change minds, but it is God that changes hearts.

And I am afraid that is not only all the time I have for today, but more time than I actually had, lol.

Thanks for the posts, Herbert, I will try to get to them when I get back.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Okay, no fair posting interesting posts when I have to leave...

And where non-Catholics believe such a rupture occurred with the incremental corruptions brought about by man-made traditions over the centuries, Catholics don't believe such a period of rupture, despite the tumult of history, could ever threaten the integrity of Christ's Church on account of its divine Head.

Herbert, do you realize what you are saying here? This implies that such a rupture, termed as "incremental corruptions," are...acceptable.

Then you give the testimony of a Catholic Convert as though this dispells that there was any corruption at all. Right?

The integrity of the Church is built upon the Church being in obedience to God. Any disobedience has to be viewed as corrupt, rather than the Church properly being a representative of Christ. Would you agree?

So I want to ask you one simple question: do you feel that all doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church have been approved of by God? In other words...

...can the Catholic Church do no wrong in your eyes?

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

And if someone "hands on/down" something that is is in error, does this position overlook the error?

Or is it dealt with?

I think it is safe to assume that the Catholic Church can be said to deal with what they view as error. Right?

Or else you must agree with Martin Luther, a Catholic Priest, and his understanding of the Doctrine of God. Right?

So we see that "Oral Tradition" must also be judged internally by the Church, and that brings us right back to...by what is it measured? The traditions already passed down? How can be this done when the tradition is first introduced? How can it be said that it is "passed on/down?"

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

Why is this listed second?



Now, what I would want clarified is what they mean by "and other men associated with the apostles?" Do they mean Luke? James? Or anyone that wrote something down and it is accepted because they knew the Apostles?

And wouldn't we see this end when everyone that knew the Apostles themselves died?

So that tradition (writings of those associated with the Apostles) could not be passed down except they amend their statement here to include "those men who knew men who knew men who knew the Apostles."

So basically we see some problems with that which is handed down, which even the Catholic Church does not accept without discrimination. This would mean that anyone, as long as they were Catholic, could introduce traditions apart from a Biblical basis for such a tradition, doctrine, or practice.

And really taking off this time.

Thanks again.


God bless.

 

[utilyan]

The Church is ran by Jesus.

I can find a Eucharist.....and SELL IT TO YOU. That doesn't make the CHURCH and its teachings wrong.

Lets say The Catholic church started murdering people because they have blonde hair.
What do I do? Leave the church? Abandon Christ? All its clergy are for killing people with blonde hair and are unanimous.

Church teaching cannot be changed. I look at church teaching , they are the ones breaking the rules.

I don't LEAVE, If anything I'm going to kick them out because I have GOD on my side. They are not going to hijack the name.

The odds could be BILLIONS to ONE.

Being a Christian means standing up for what is right even if you are standing alone.



In doing so I am also expressing a better sense of FAITH ALONE rather then taking the ACTION of starting something NEW denomination. In essence your saying you don't trust what God gave you.




The Church gives people some liberty. You often hear Catholics say BOTH/AND vs. EITHER/OR.

Free will, Predestination. Both/AND

FAITH, WORK BOTH/AND

Jesus MAN ,GOD BOTH/AND


I find it amazing trinity has survived. Because usually the protestant stance is so cut-throat either this or this.
That's why you got folks insisting predestination, insisting works, insisting MAN.

There is more insistent one way interpretation of passages then the catholic church. The church only steps in when the extremist insists its ONLY his way.

That's another word that gets thrown around but never in sincere practice.

ONLY SCRIPTURE, FAITH ALONE, well what about only scripture? Only and ALONE these point to just ONE THING, how come one thing doesn't mean one thing!?


I can't think of one bible verse the catholic church teaches stating this verse means this and it ONLY means this.


The play ground bully. There is no committee or dialog one man insists his view on others and that's it.