Tradition, Scripture and Authority: How do we know the Church's truth?

[sculleywr]

Scripture: God's Holy Word. Having been raised in the Protestant world, I have been taught that 66 books, 39 in the Old and 27 in the New, were the only source of absolute truth. However, how exactly do we know this? Nowhere in the New Testament do the human writers make claims to be writing scriptures, and the gospels and Acts don't even provide the names of the authors.
this brings several questions:
How do we know who wrote these books?
How do we know they are scripture?
How do we know they are the only source of absolute truth?

There are several possible answers. Let me posit mine:

How do we know who wrote these books?
After the apostles passed the Church's supervision onto their disciples (Polycarp, Clement, and others), these well-taught men wrote down their teachings, referring to quotes from them, attributing the authorship of different books to the separate apostles, and treating them as authoritative. This Tradition was handed down from generation to generation of the Church, as these disciples ordained their disciples to positions of leadership. As time went on, so many mentions of the author's attributed to these authors left its stamp in both the Church and the books of history.

How do we know they are scripture?
As stated above, the disciples of the apostles referred to the writings of the apostles with awe and reverence for their authority. Over the first 4 centuries of the Church, through the Council of Nicaea and through the first three quarters of the post-Nicene Arian controversy, the books of the New Testament were circulated individually among the different congregations. The Church would rely on their Tradition as their source for knowing that these writings were indeed scripture. This Tradition would also serve as their aid in expounding on the scripture, and as the ultimate exegesis of the said scriptures.
Finally, midway through the fourth century, following the Council of Nicaea held in response to the heretic Arius, Athanasius makes the mark of being the first person to put together a list of the books of the New Testament (there may have been someone I missed from earlier, but I'm human, forgive me). No, it wasn't the Council of Nicaea (look at the whole of the 20 canons of the Council here) to decide on this canon. Later on, a smaller synod (meeting) of the Church determined that the canon of Athanasius was consistent with what the Church had always believed, unfortunately after the honorable Athanasius had died. The Church used Tradition to prove the authorship of the letters and gospels, and the Old Testament to show that they were consistent with the prophecies of the faith which Christ perfected.

How do we know they are the only source of absolute truth?
This is where I am going to rub people the wrong way, or at least those who are Protestant. It is a statement of faith which is not truly founded completely in the scriptures. The belief that scripture is the only source of Absolute Truth is the logical end of the belief that scripture is all you need for the Church. Sola scriptura, as the said belief is called, cannot, itself, be found in the scriptures. The Bible itself does not say scripture is the only source of truth. In fact, when asked what the pillar of Truth is in the Church, Paul would say as he did to the Thessalonians (Chapter 2 verse 15 of his first letter): The Church.
As you may have noticed in the above two answers I posited, there were several mentions of "Tradition" throughout my writing here. The Church had two sources of authority which went together like two hands. Both of these sources of authority were so trusted that they were referred to again and again. The first mention which I have seen of a Tradition is made by Clement of Rome in AD 95 (some dates place an earlier mention in a letter to Diognetius, but some dates given place that in AD 160, so I don't know how to classify it.). (source: Quotes about Apostolic Tradition from Christian History)
Throughout the ages, Tradition continues to make itself shown as important, even after the determination of the canon. In fact, the doctrine of sola scriptura cannot be found consistently until the protestant reformation (when the first description of this doctrine is seen in the writings of Martin Luther). Some will say that the Protestants simply "rediscovered" the teachings of the apostles. Others will even say that the true teachings of the apostles could always be found historically in the "churches" which were persecuted by "catholics". To the former, the man learned in the scripture can respond quite easily with Christ's own words: "On this rock will I build My Church, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it." If the true teachings of the apostles were lost, then one must either say that the Church failed, and that the gates of hell prevailed, implying that Christ lied, or else say that instead of building His Church at pentecost, that He would start building at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.
To those who claim that Protestant teachings were historically persecuted by catholics, the burden of proof lies heavy on even those who have doctorates of history. The distinct lack of historical evidence of such, with such detailed information about the groups called heretics by said catholics, combined together to make it logically infeasible to defend such a position.
To tie things up, one must accept that the early Church and the apostles believed in and held to a set of Tradition which guided and directed the Church. This Tradition claimed such authority in the Church that it was used to determine the canon of scripture. Maybe we, as those claiming to protest should look to the church which holds closest to the Tradition of the Apostles.
This Church is not the Roman Church, but the Eastern Orthodox. The Tradition of the Orthodox is not just similar to the Apostolic Tradition, but very much identified by it. A focus on salvation on mind, body, and soul.

Lord have mercy.

 

[childofdust]

Having been raised in the Protestant world, I have been taught that 66 books, 39 in the Old and 27 in the New, were the only source of absolute truth.

Sounds like a miserable world to live in.

Sola scriptura, as the said belief is called, cannot, itself, be found in the scriptures.

If I were the kind who like to fling the word “heresy” around, I might attach it to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

one must accept that the early Church and the apostles believed in and held to a set of Tradition which guided and directed the Church.

Not sure I can get on-board with this. Not nuanced enough for me.

This Tradition claimed such authority in the Church that it was used to determine the canon of scripture.

I definitely don't see any reality in the parts or whole of this.

I don't see anywhere in history that “a canon” was ever “determined” by “The Tradition.” I see many different canons, I see them continually being determined throughout time, I see many traditions behind them, and I see points at which no canon existed among anyone and that was perfectly acceptable.

Maybe we, as those claiming to protest should look to the church which holds closest to the Tradition of the Apostles. This Church is not the Roman Church, but the Eastern Orthodox.

Maybe I'm out-of-line in responding here if I'm not one of those “claiming to protest” (I'm not Protestant), but I wouldn't say that the Orthodox represent what it means to be closest to Christianity as it existed in the beginning. In fact, I think I would say it doesn't look anything at all like early Christianity.

Early Christianity was a Jewish sect composed at first of Jews, and then incorporating gentiles into it into a seeming harmony. But even then it always retained Judaism as its foundation, its center, and the base from which its religious system operated. My guess is if you found the best of what the Orthodox church represented and took a Jew who followed Yeshua into it (for I'm pretty certain you will not find one Jew therein), that that believing Jew would probably feel alien and alone, not knowing who these people are, what they are doing, why they are doing it, and what it has to do with them or Judaism - a completely opposite situation compared with the ancient church.

 

[Christopher Fleming]

Hello Joey. According to your profile, you are a baptist. Doesn´t sound like you will be for much longer!! God bless you on your quest for Truth.

Of course "Sola Scriptura" is a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to believe in. It´s completely self-contradictory, and is at odds with all of Christian faith and practice up to Luther.

It´s worth noticing that the canon you refer to includes the deuterocanonical books that Luther later took out of the Bible. Luther said that he had the authority to take these books out. Great! Who gave him that authority? And if he had that authority, why doesn´t every christian in the world have the same authority to add and subtract from the Bible as he or she pleases?

 

[MrPolo]

the Eastern Orthodox. The Tradition of the Orthodox is not just similar to the Apostolic Tradition, but very much identified by it. A focus on salvation on mind, body, and soul.

I'm Catholic, so of course, I think scrutiny of divine revelation and the historical record would point one to the Catholic Church ––– but I just want to say by all means, explore the Orthodox Church! They have the true Eucharist!

 

[sculleywr]

Not sure I can get on-board with this. Not nuanced enough for me.

Ok, my interest is peaked. How would you restate this to be correctly nuanced?

I definitely don't see any reality in the parts or whole of this.

I don't see anywhere in history that “a canon” was ever “determined” by “The Tradition.” I see many different canons, I see them continually being determined throughout time, I see many traditions behind them, and I see points at which no canon existed among anyone and that was perfectly acceptable.

In history, as my (lengthy) OP explained, there have been references to Tradition, almost always referring to it positively in the light of Apostolic Tradition, and either neutrally or negatively when referred to the tradition of man. some examples:

[BIBLE]Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.[/BIBLE]

Here we see Paul mentioning that there are two types of Tradition which stand equal to one another: written and oral. By the time he wrote this book, at least 1 or 2 gospels had been written, possibly 3, since John was published long after that.

Ignatius ... to the holy church which is at Tralles, beloved by God the Father, and Jesus Christ ... which also I salute in its [i.e., the church's] fulness, in the apostolic character {can also be translated Tradition}, and wish abundance of happiness.

This is only an allusion, but it is a recognizable reference to the existence to a character or Tradition.

Whoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist. Whoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil. Whoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the firstborn of Satan. Therefore, let us forsake the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, and let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning.

The phrase "handed down" is the Greek verb form of the word "Paradosis", which means Tradition. At this point, all this disciple of John the Apostle had was a couple of letters which were Traditionally kept by the Church and had not yet been called scripture. They were considered equally important to the other letters of disciples and leaders of the Church. It wasn't until 300 years after this disciple's death that the Church Fathers looked back and said "this is scripture according to our spiritual Fathers and their spiritual Fathers and their fathers etc..., so therefore it is now canonized (measured) as scripture." The canonization after the Council of Nicaea is Tradition in the Church put into action, as are all of the seven Ecumenical Councils and the Creed (without the Roman addition of the filioque)

But, again, when we refer [the gnostics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of elders in the churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the elders, but even than the apostles.

This one is my favorite, as it is a blatant statement in the second century, less than 100 years after John died, that there was Apostolic Tradition. Irenaeus is the first to give an official, Church-accepted, God-ordained explanation of the role of apostolic Tradition in his long writing "Against Heresies".

This Tradition is 2000 years old now, and while terminology has changed, language has changed, and culture has changed, the Apostolic Tradition has never changed in the East. One can hardly say that of a church denomination which has been around only 400 years, such as any church born in the Radical and Classical Reformations (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anabaptists, etc.), or of any schism which came about from adding to or subtracting from the Tradition such as the Arians of the 4th century (subtracting), the iconoclasts of the 9th century (subtracting) and the Latin Church of the 11th Century (apologies to my Roman Catholic people who will certainly bristle their hairs now, but the filioque and papal supremacy is an addition I can't find illustrated in the early Church Councils).

Maybe I'm out-of-line in responding here if I'm not one of those “claiming to protest” (I'm not Protestant), but I wouldn't say that the Orthodox represent what it means to be closest to Christianity as it existed in the beginning. In fact, I think I would say it doesn't look anything at all like early Christianity.

Early Christianity was a Jewish sect composed at first of Jews, and then incorporating gentiles into it into a seeming harmony. But even then it always retained Judaism as its foundation, its center, and the base from which its religious system operated. My guess is if you found the best of what the Orthodox church represented and took a Jew who followed Yeshua into it (for I'm pretty certain you will not find one Jew therein), that that believing Jew would probably feel alien and alone, not knowing who these people are, what they are doing, why they are doing it, and what it has to do with them or Judaism - a completely opposite situation compared with the ancient church.

Certainly, the services of the Orthodox are different than before the COuncils and canons and everything. it took 100 years for the Church to realize that if they wanted the Nicene Creed to stick, they must include it in the service. Prayers have been added to the Divine Liturgy to express the same truth the Early Church professed using the language of the time. Take, for example, this prayer of St. Macarius the Great:

[FONT=TIMES NEW ROMAN, GEORGIA, TIMES]0 Eternal God and King of all creation, Who hast vouchsafed me to arrive at this hour, forgive me the sins that I have committed this day in deed, word, and thought; and cleanse, 0 Lord, my lowly soul of all impurity of flesh and spirit, and grant me, 0 Lord, to pass the sleep of this night in peace; that, rising from my lowly bed, I may praise Thy most holy name all the days of my life, and thwart the enemies, fleshly and bodiless, that war against me. And deliver me, 0 Lord, from vain thoughts and evil desires which defile me. For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory: of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages.[/FONT]
[FONT=TIMES NEW ROMAN, GEORGIA, TIMES]Amen [/FONT]

These great and holy words present a prayer which, in the evening, represents our sinful lives, the forgiveness, protection, holiness, dominion, power, trinitarian nature, and eternal being of God, and our need to partake in the very life of God. In doing so, we realize that our life centers on Him, the Father and giver of life, the Son and defeater of death by His Crucifixion and resurrection, and the Holy Spirit, our Comforter and giver of power through the day and into the night.

Let me add my own prayer in closing

Oh heavenly King and Father God, look down upon my lowly soul and have mercy on me, for I am a sinner. Forgive my sins which I have committed in word, deed and thought, whether seen or unseen, and establish newly within me the conversion of Your grace. As I lay down my head in exhaustion and despondency, protect me that I might raise it up again to praise and hymn your glorious name. Help me in the coming day to love my enemies and give testimony to Your Church. Through the prayers of the most holy Theotokos, along with the intercessions of all the saints, have mercy on us and save us. For thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages.
amen.

 

[x141]

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[sculleywr]

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Rule one of scripture, context is king. The context here is not concerning God's Tradition, but the traditions of one group, namely, the Pharisees and scribes.

However, The Apostles taught:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Here is a command to hold to two truths, not one. The written letters of the apostles (notice the plural possessive "our"), but also the WORD (literally, spoken word) of the apostles.

II Timothy 3:16-17 are the most commonly quoted verses in defense of sola scriptura, and yet they don't say the scripture is the ONLY source which is profitable. This would be like saying the only source of good nutrition is vitamins. Vitamins are not enough. You need carbs, protein, minerals and even some fat for a healthy diet. Scripture provides vitamins and minerals. Tradition provides the protein, and other needed nutrients for your spiritual life to grow.

In fact, in context, a short time later, Paul says "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it... [2 Tim. 3:14]" not knowing which scipture you gained it from, but from whom. Timothy never met Christ, so we can be fairly certain that his source of learning was the Apostles.

The point I am driving at here is that going against the traditions of men does not mean that God can't give us a Tradition. In fact, it leaves room for God to lay down the structure of a Tradition, around which the Church built itself on the foundation of the faith of the Apostles.

 

[Precisely]

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." -Titus 3:9

If you don't believe "God-breathed" scripture is the authority, then you're probably not a Christian. You worship yourself in your own subjective wordly theology. God didn't write scripture just so we can pretend it doesn't exist and do everything in the imagination of our own evil hearts.

"Yet they obeyed not, nor inclined their ear, but walked every one in the imagination of their evil heart: therefore I will bring upon them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do; but they did them not." -Jeremiah 11:8

 

[x141]

A warning is never out of context ...

 

[hedrick]

I hope you knew what you were getting into when you raised these questions

In my view "they are the only source of absolute truth" slightly overplays a responsible Protestant viewpoint. Ultimately God is the source of absolute truth. But he has revealed himself through his activity with Israel, leading them out of Egypt and sending the prophets to guide them. And even more through Jesus' ministry, including his life and death.

What we need is the best possible understanding of these revelations. The Bible is the only credible primary source material for Israel, for Jesus' teaching, and for how the earliest Christians understood it. Later church history is helpful. We can see how the Church applied Jesus' teachings, and how they formulated doctrines as they started need to explain it to intellectuals in terms of Greek philosophy. But the Catholic Church didn't (at least in the early days) claim to have gotten any new public revelation. This was just how they came to understand Israel and Jesus.

So Scripture matters because it's our most direct access to the original revelations. But "absolute truth" is perhaps overstating it. Jesus taught in 1st Cent Jewish terms. We have to figure out how to apply those teachings in the 21st Cent. Seeing how Christians did it in the intervening centuries is really helpful. But there's still a difference between Jesus and how later Christians understood and applied his teachings. All Catholics say doesn't get rid of that difference.

How do we know who wrote these books?
How do we know they are scripture?
How do we know they are the only source of absolute truth?

We don't. For the NT documents, we have pretty good information about some of them. For the OT we don't know the authors of most of them. But that doesn't really matter. The question is whether they give us a reasonable picture of Israel's history, Jesus' teachings, etc. I think so. Particularly for the NT, the documents were written fairly close to the events. I understand the Gospels as recording what the first generation of disciples taught, at about they time they were starting to die. I would be interesting to know who wrote them, but not critical. It was really a record of what the community knew about Jesus. It didn't depend upon whether the specific author was inspired.

They're scripture because they're the only credible primary sources for the key revelations. But all we need is a good picture of Israel and Jesus. It wouldn't be a big deal if we had 3 or 5 Gospels rather than 4, or or if we had more or two letters more or less.

I think it's misleading to focus on the final list of books. The Gospels and Paul's letters were acknowledge by early in the 2nd Cent. The list wasn't settled until later, but the disagreements were only over a couple of books, and those aren't all that important.

Sola scriptura, as the said belief is called, cannot, itself, be found in the scriptures. The Bible itself does not say scripture is the only source of truth.

Indeed Scripture says God is the source of truth. But the Bible is the only access we have to the primary revelation. Tradition is all well and good, but it's the history of that revelation was later understood. It's only in the late medieval period that people thought tradition was a separate revelation in itself.

Sola Scriptura isn't quite as earth-shaking as some people think it is. It just says that when you have suspicions about the direction in which tradition developed, you should check it with the original revelations. That's just common sense, unless you think (with no evidence I can think of) that the process of development in understanding as it appears in tradition is inerrant.

The debate isn't so much "sola scriptura" as whether tradition is inerrant. If it isn't, then checking back with the earliest records we have is pretty much a no brainer when we want to cross-check the development of tradition. The only way to avoid it is to say that no cross-checking is necessary because tradition can never develop in the wrong way.

 

[Nephi]

If you don't believe "God-breathed" scripture is the authority, then you're probably not a Christian. You worship yourself in your own subjective wordly theology. God didn't write scripture just so we can pretend it doesn't exist and do everything in the imagination of our own evil hearts.

Do you understand that it took centuries for Christians to decide which books were to be considered authoritative? And even then there was no universal consensus, although there was much agreement.

For example the Eastern Orthodox have a larger Old Testament than the Roman Catholics do, who themselves have a larger Old Testament than the Protestants do. Then you take other historical Christian communities into consideration, such as the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and you have more books than any of the aforementioned groups.

When you place Scripture alone as the ultimate authority, and that ultimate authority has never been universal nor completely consistent, then what do you have to fall on? What's to be said of the people that compiled the Scripture that is in use today - that the Holy Spirit jumped in just to give them a nod toward the right books to include, but nothing else?

 

[x141]

"Timothy never met Christ, so we can be fairly certain that his source of learning was the Apostles.[/quote]"

"The point I am driving at here is that going against the traditions of men does not mean that God can't give us a Tradition. In fact, it leaves room for God to lay down the structure of a Tradition, around which the Church built itself on the foundation of the faith of the Apostles.[/quote]"

The Spirit of Truth is who reveals Truth, John said You have no need of any man to teach you, and Christ, when He is come He will lead you into all Truth.

Christ's Doctrine and Christ's commandment is Life of which the Father gave to Him even as the Father, to have Life in Himself. My words are Spirit ... this Life.

There is no other foundation that can be laid other than Christ anything else is anti-christ. God is the only one who lays the foundation of Himself in us, He does not share His glory with another, and we are not another. Traditon is an image and likeness formed by the tree of knowledge. When Light shines it's the image that creates the darkness. In this stone cut without hands that becomes a great mountain He breaks the face of the covering cast over all the people and over all the nations. "Thy calf, O Samaria, hath cast thee off; mine anger is kindled against them: how long will it be ere they attain to innocency?"

Tradition is a form of worship Christ never endorsed as something that is Life rather that it was to Him as a robber, and a thief. John the baptist spoke of those who held to such things as the offspring of serpents and vipers.

Though this sounds harsh, He spoke the same way of Jerusalem not allowing her children to be gathered into One. "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." ... " 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. " Strong words, but His words are Spirit and they are Life.

 

[sculleywr]

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." -Titus 3:9

If you don't believe "God-breathed" scripture is the authority, then you're probably not a Christian. You worship yourself in your own subjective wordly theology. God didn't write scripture just so we can pretend it doesn't exist and do everything in the imagination of our own evil hearts.

"Yet they obeyed not, nor inclined their ear, but walked every one in the imagination of their evil heart: therefore I will bring upon them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do; but they did them not." -Jeremiah 11:8

Umm, by sola scriptura, relying only on the scripture for authority, one effectively becomes his own pope.

How can I say this?
The pope is seen as the authority for interpreting doctrine for the Roman Catholic Church. They have the doctrine that he is infallible, the first of all bishops in the church, and his word can be passed into "church law" via papal jurisdiction.

If the Bible is the only source of authority, then either the Pentecostals are right about the loss of salvation, or the Baptists are right about eternal security. One of them has to be wrong, for the doctrines are contrary to eachother.

To put it simply, if the only requirement for the Christian to understand is that he read the Bible through the guidance of the Spirit, with common sense, then why is it that we have thousands of different opposing denominations. They cannot all be Christians.

By that same rule of sola scriptura:
Irenaeus: heretic
Paul the apostle: heretic (I thessalonians 2:15 speaks of following traditions as a requirement of the church)
Ignatius: heretic
Athanasius: heretic

In fact, every Christian writing from the first two centuries, as well as some of the scriptures themselves contain pure heresy.

Arius, a true heretic, took only the scripture, threw out the Tradition of the Church, and claimed Christ was a created being, and was not eternal nor divine.
Again, many people, including a man named Eusebius (the one said to have baptized Constantine), who continued this new tradition, divorced from the Apostolic Tradition, and taught that Jesus was just a man, not truly God.

The Church, by Tradition, convened with Arius in the Council of Nicaea and rebuked, deposed, and judged him as a heretic. After the council Constantine exiled him from the empire. After deciding that, they penned the Nicene Creed, claiming that Christ is "Homo-ousious" with God (of the same essence, nature, and substance as God. Over the next 600 years, 6 more tests of the Tradition of the Church would occur:

Below are all the things protected by Tradition in only the Councils of the Church:
The deity of the Holy Spirit protected at the second Council
The humanity of Christ and the position of Mary as Theotokos in the third council.
The single nature of Christ, undivided in Himself in the 4th, 5th and 6th Councils
The incarnation itself, affirmed by the official explanation of Iconography, and the rejection of Islamic traditions of iconoclasm in the 7th council.

In all 7 councils, the Church Fathers asked themselves: What has the Church always believed? Then they answered it in their Tradition. This is Tradition: That which affirms, exegetes, explains, exemplifies, and exalts the truth which God gave once to all the saints.

 

[sculleywr]

The Spirit of Truth is who reveals Truth, John said You have no need of any man to teach you, and Christ, when He is come He will lead you into all Truth.

Then there is no need for the Church, and every man is his own pope, the source of perfect interpretation, and every heresy is true.

If we have no need for teachers, then why did God appoint some to be teachers? God wouldn't give someone a task that was unneeded. To imply that He would is to say He is a great Fool. We all know that is not true. He gives gifts that are needed and blesses all men with the gifts of the spirit, including teachers. Obviously God saw a need for teachers among men.

Christ's Doctrine and Christ's commandment is Life of which the Father gave to Him even as the Father, to have Life in Himself. My words are Spirit ... this Life.

So, what are you saying here?

There is no other foundation that can be laid other than Christ anything else is anti-christ. God is the only one who lays the foundation of Himself in us, He does not share His glory with another, and we are not another. Traditon is an image and likeness formed by the tree of knowledge. When Light shines it's the image that creates the darkness. In this stone cut without hands that becomes a great mountain He breaks the face of the covering cast over all the people and over all the nations. "Thy calf, O Samaria, hath cast thee off; mine anger is kindled against them: how long will it be ere they attain to innocency?"

Wait wait wait. So Christ wrote the scriptures??? I was under the impression that the apostles, inspired by the spirit, wrote them...

Christ gave us two things, the gospel message and the Church. His foundation, the pillar and foundation of truth, is the Church (I Timothy 3:15; That thou may know how to behave in the house of God, which is the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth). Wait a second, what is the pillar and foundation of truth according to the Bible? It didn't say scripture... am I crazy, or did it say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth?

What does this mean? When you have a question, where do you find truth? in the CHURCH! Not in the scripture. I can make the scripture say that Christ was just a man, if I want to. That would be utter and pure heresy, but by your teaching of sola scriptura, I am telling the scriptural truth.

No, the truth of the gospel was understood, then and now, in the context of the greater Tradition of the Apostles, undistorted by new additions, or new doctrines.

Tradition is a form of worship Christ never endorsed as something that is Life rather that it was to Him as a robber, and a thief. John the baptist spoke of those who held to such things as the offspring of serpents and vipers.

He spoke of a "Paradosis anthropos" (tradition of man) I am speaking of a "Paradosis Theos" (Tradition of God). Paul, who is known as the greatest missionary the early church had, spoke of the Tradition positively. You have no answer for that. What Tradition are we to hold fast to in I Thessalonians 2:15?

Though this sounds harsh, He spoke the same way of Jerusalem not allowing her children to be gathered into One. "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." ... " 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. " Strong words, but His words are Spirit and they are Life.

And yet also the words of Paul: (II Thessalonians 3:6)
Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

Wait, again we see it: Keep away from those who live in idleness and not according to the tradition!!! What does it mean? Is Paul a heretic? By your rule, he is. However, this is scripture here. Is it not inerrant? Is this an error in scripture? or is God COMMANDING us to keep away from people who don't follow a tradition? I'll leave you with the pondering of that.

 

[sculleywr]

I hope you knew what you were getting into when you raised these questions

In my view "they are the only source of absolute truth" slightly overplays a responsible Protestant viewpoint. Ultimately God is the source of absolute truth. But he has revealed himself through his activity with Israel, leading them out of Egypt and sending the prophets to guide them. And even more through Jesus' ministry, including his life and death.

What we need is the best possible understanding of these revelations. The Bible is the only credible primary source material for Israel, for Jesus' teaching, and for how the earliest Christians understood it. Later church history is helpful. We can see how the Church applied Jesus' teachings, and how they formulated doctrines as they started need to explain it to intellectuals in terms of Greek philosophy. But the Catholic Church didn't (at least in the early days) claim to have gotten any new public revelation. This was just how they came to understand Israel and Jesus.

So Scripture matters because it's our most direct access to the original revelations. But "absolute truth" is perhaps overstating it. Jesus taught in 1st Cent Jewish terms. We have to figure out how to apply those teachings in the 21st Cent. Seeing how Christians did it in the intervening centuries is really helpful. But there's still a difference between Jesus and how later Christians understood and applied his teachings. All Catholics say doesn't get rid of that difference.



We don't. For the NT documents, we have pretty good information about some of them. For the OT we don't know the authors of most of them. But that doesn't really matter. The question is whether they give us a reasonable picture of Israel's history, Jesus' teachings, etc. I think so. Particularly for the NT, the documents were written fairly close to the events. I understand the Gospels as recording what the first generation of disciples taught, at about they time they were starting to die. I would be interesting to know who wrote them, but not critical. It was really a record of what the community knew about Jesus. It didn't depend upon whether the specific author was inspired.

They're scripture because they're the only credible primary sources for the key revelations. But all we need is a good picture of Israel and Jesus. It wouldn't be a big deal if we had 3 or 5 Gospels rather than 4, or or if we had more or two letters more or less.

I think it's misleading to focus on the final list of books. The Gospels and Paul's letters were acknowledge by early in the 2nd Cent. The list wasn't settled until later, but the disagreements were only over a couple of books, and those aren't all that important.



Indeed Scripture says God is the source of truth. But the Bible is the only access we have to the primary revelation. Tradition is all well and good, but it's the history of that revelation was later understood. It's only in the late medieval period that people thought tradition was a separate revelation in itself.

Sola Scriptura isn't quite as earth-shaking as some people think it is. It just says that when you have suspicions about the direction in which tradition developed, you should check it with the original revelations. That's just common sense, unless you think (with no evidence I can think of) that the process of development in understanding as it appears in tradition is inerrant.

The debate isn't so much "sola scriptura" as whether tradition is inerrant. If it isn't, then checking back with the earliest records we have is pretty much a no brainer when we want to cross-check the development of tradition. The only way to avoid it is to say that no cross-checking is necessary because tradition can never develop in the wrong way.

Since the main crux of this argument that I have seen is the idea that Tradition has developed, and I do not have the ability to expound on the idea as well as him, here is a link to Father Thomas Hopko's reflections on whether or not doctrine develops. To put it in short, no it doesn't. The terms may change, culture may change, and even technology changes. But the Tradition is only altered in presentation, and not in doctrine, dogma, or concept. His explanations are much better than mine, and he is well-versed in explaining dogma.

 

[x141]

There are only two trees, either make it good or make it evil, either Life or the tree of knowledge. For Jesus it was Life. These were His words, Life, just as the Father's words, commandments, doctrine, Life. But He became this Sin, this lie, this man of sin, He became the serpent upon the cross. This knowledge only produces a wandering around in the wilderness that is found between our ears. He came to seek and save that which was lost and wandering around. We must see Him. Moses my servant therefore is dead. A burial no man knows of, in Christ. The law can not bring you in but once you are in you keep the law, for it is God who is in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure. But you must not touch the unclean thing and He will recieve you unto Himself. If God is not speaking then there is no Life. If Paul was not an oracle or mouth piece of God then there is no Life. Out of the mouth should not come both. This is the same as saying, " I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness ... " John is the manna in the wilderness. The manna ceases when you eat of the fruit of the land. Christ revealed this Life that people dilgently seek to find, whether in scripture or else where.

There are many books of works but there is only One book of Life and it is not a Book.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

 

[sculleywr]

There are only two trees, either make it good or make it evil, either Life or the tree of knowledge. For Jesus it was Life. These were His words, Life, just as the Father's words, commandments, doctrine, Life. But He became this Sin, this lie, this man of sin, He became the serpent upon the cross. This knowledge only produces a wandering around in the wilderness that is found between our ears. He came to seek and save that which was lost and wandering around. We must see Him. Moses my servant therefore is dead. A burial no man knows of, in Christ. The law can not bring you in but once you are in you keep the law, for it is God who is in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure. But you must not touch the unclean thing and He will recieve you unto Himself. If God is not speaking then there is no Life. If Paul was not an oracle or mouth piece of God then there is no Life. Out of the mouth should not come both. This is the same as saying, " I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness ... " John is the manna in the wilderness. The manna ceases when you eat of the fruit of the land. Christ revealed this Life that people dilgently seek to find, whether in scripture or else where.

There are many books of works but there is only One book of Life and it is not a Book.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

I thought we had established those things which we agreed on. I would say this is a red herring, but it didn't even cross the tracks for me.

The Word is the head of the Church. The Word is not scripture, but God Himself. To raise the scripture to the level Protestants (and apparently you) have is to say we worship God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Bible.

The Bible is not equal to God. Nor is it equal to the Church. It stands because the Church stands. The Pillar and foundation of the truth of the Bible is the Church. The writers of the Bible? the Church. The ones who identified scripture? if you guessed Church, you are correct.

They had no Bible canon prior to the 400s. What did they use before that? Tradition. What did they judge the truth by? Tradition.

Every Tradition works hand in hand with the Scripture. They work together like right and left hands in Sign Language. One cannot truly participate in ASL without two hands, and neither can one participate in the Church without both the hand of Apostolic Tradition and the hand of Holy Scripture. Tradition are two parts of one whole, and part of eachother, for the scripture is a Tradition.

 

[x141]

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Is Paul re-instituting the law upon woman, or is he in error, or is there something deeper here that you do not see ?

 

[hedrick]

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Is Paul re-instituting the law upon woman, or is he in error, or is there something deeper here that you do not see ?

Try translating that as "talk" instead of "speak" and you may get more of the sense. Women (like men) shouldn't be making noise in the service. Since Paul had already talked about what women should wear on their head when prophesying he clearly didn't mean they could never speak.

If I said "children shouldn't talk during Church" I wouldn't mean that we are prohibited from asking youth to read Scripture and otherwise help with the service. So no, this wasn't intended as a new Law. That would be sort of ironic given Paul's theology, don't you think?

 

[hedrick]

Since the main crux of this argument that I have seen is the idea that Tradition has developed, and I do not have the ability to expound on the idea as well as him, here is a link to Father Thomas Hopko's reflections on whether or not doctrine develops. To put it in short, no it doesn't. The terms may change, culture may change, and even technology changes. But the Tradition is only altered in presentation, and not in doctrine, dogma, or concept. His explanations are much better than mine, and he is well-versed in explaining dogma.

The Reformed agreed with you. They accused the Catholics of illegitimately developing doctrine, and thought Scripture was a good way to check what it was originally.