"Solo Scriptura" (scripture alone) vs. "Holy Tradition"

[filioLumen]

However, in the context of our current discussion of sola Scripture vs. tradition, I owuld love also to hear your thoughts on the points I raise in the previous post.

i will, as soon as i get back, late tonite. i've got some errands to run between now and then.

God bless! Maranatha!
Steve

 

[Ainesis]

But, as I see it, you have these two options (please tell me if you have another):

1.) tradition = Bible canon
With this option, even if you believe Scripture is inspired, whether the selected books are infallible or not is still suspect, as the source of decerning what is inspired vs what is not inspired is fallible.

2.) tradition + Holy Spirit = Bible canon
But if, tradition + Holy Spirit = Tradition, then Tradition = Bible Canon, therefore, you are appealing to Tradition when you supposively reject it.

Try Holy Spirit = Truth.

That is the one to which I suscribe.

 

[Lotar]

Try Holy Spirit = Truth.

That is the one to which I suscribe.

So, you get direct revelation from God? Why then do others disagree with your revelation?

 

[Ainesis]

So, you get direct revelation from God? Why then do others disagree with your revelation?

Of course I do. Don't you?

He doesn't give me new revelations (as in things that are extra-scriptural), nor do I have complete knowledge, but He certainly reveals His truths to me.

When I am reading or studying, I will often stop and ask Him if I have questions. Sometimes He answers right then, sometimes He answers later. Sometimes it is a direct response He speaks to me, other times He may send others to me with the answers that He later confirms. Sometimes He will guide me in Scripture to find the answers. Many different ways really.

By the way, I think it needs to be said that I have never claimed to have all truth or to be infallible. There are things I believe about the Lord that may be wrong. These may or may not be accurate. There are things God has told me Himself, those things are Truth.

As for why others disagree with my understanding? I really cannot say. The fact that they may disagree however, is no evidence that my understanding is wrong.

Lastly, Scripture is deep. It is actually a living Word in that God can reveal something to you that you have not previously understood although you may have read the text in question numerous times. Similarly, take the following for an example. If you and I are looking at different sides of the same coin, and that is all which has been revealed to us, we might come up with contrasting understandings of what the coin depicts. It is not necessarily that either of us is wrong, but not having the full picture, we may not be able to appreciate the truth of the other person's revelation.

Anyway, I am not trying to get esoteric here. But I merely wanted to say that viewpoints which may seem diametrically opposed may in actually be closer aligned than we perceive but we cannot see that until we can get a fuller understanding of the complet picture.

So, my approach is to cling to that whicvh the Lord has shown me and remain open to learning more about Him and deepening my understanding of Him; both by communing with Him directly and by fellowshipping with the rest of the saints.

 

[Lotar]

Let me guess, you're a Charismatic?

 

[Rick of Wessex]

Ainesis,

Of course I do. Don't you?

He doesn't give me new revelations (as in things that are extra-scriptural), nor do I have complete knowledge, but He certainly reveals His truths to me.

How can you be sure that this revelation is not a "prelest" (spiritual deception, see below)?

There are two basic forms of prelest or spiritual deception. The first and more spectacular form occurs when a person strives for a high spiritual state or spiritual visions without having been purified of passions and relying on his own judgment. To such a one the devil grants great "visions."

There are many such examples in the Lives of Saints, one of the primary textbooks of Orthodox ascetical teaching. Thus St. Nicetas, Bishop of Novgorod (Jan. 31), entered on the solitary life unprepared and against the counsel of his abbot, and soon he heard a voice praying with him. Then "the Lord" spoke to him and sent an "angel" to pray in his place and to instruct him to read books instead of praying, and to teach those who came to him. This he did, always seeing the "angel" near him praying, and the people were astonished at his spiritual wisdom and the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" which he seemed to possess, including "prophecies" which were always fulfilled. The deceit was uncovered only when the fathers of the monastery found out about his aversion for the New Testament (although the Old Testament, which he had never read, he could quote by heart), and by their prayers he was brought to repentance, his "miracles" ceased, and later he attained to genuine sanctity.

Again, St. Isaac of the Kiev Caves (Feb. 14) saw a great light and "Christ" appeared to him with "angels"; when Isaac, without making the sign of the Cross, bowed down before "Christ," the demons gained power over him and, after dancing wildly with him, left him all but dead. He also later attained genuine sanctity. There are many similar cases when "Christ" and "angels" appeared to ascetics and granted astonishing powers and "gifts of the Holy Spirit," which often led the deluded ascetic finally to insanity or suicide.

 

[lionroar0]

ummm ainesis how do you define revelation??.

 

[filioLumen]

And so it continues...

To answer your post:

Not necessarily, because not all who claim to be Christian are in fact Christian. There were heretics even in the days of the early church who considered themselves Christian.

Ah, but you see, dear sister, that our disagreement on this matter is prrof that two Christians in perfect submission to the leading of the Spirit can disagree. i know that you are from your words and honesty, and i of my own experience know that i am as well.

The Spirit was the One Who directly led me back into the Church. After 2 years of fruitless catechizing me, my friend Lou finally gave me over to God and admitted his inability to do anything worthy without Him. That very week i admitted i was feeling drawn toward the Church, although i hadn't answered a single intellectual objection yet.

And i knew from my protestant experience what the leading feels like. i knew what signs to look for. i was an on fire prot for at least 5 years, during which time i also harbored a strong anti-Catholic spirit. He finally broke me of that, but not before i had done much damage.

i think the old me and you now have much in common, as i'll explain later...

Also, the revelation of the Spirit is not an all or nothing event. We are given revelations according to the level of our understanding. That is why we are to grow in th eknowledge of the Lord.

No contention. But those revelations should beuild on each other, not contradict. So there is only one truth, although the depth of our understanding of that truth can be enriched. i think we're agreed, right?

Further, if the Spirit's presence in believers is evidenced by complete agreement, then why were there differing opinions about what was canon in the early church? Since all of these inidividuals were members of the same church body following the same traditions, did the same spirit lead them to different truths?

Again, proof of what i said above. EVen the fathers, open to the movement of the Holy Spirit, can disagree. Individual leadings are not always trustworthy.

Let me clarify that. The Catholic Church affirms that each person must follow their conscience, however misguided it might be. Even if it leads one out of the Church, conscience should be the supreme guide in an individual's search for truth.

Yet this doesn't diminish the Catholic principle that Lotar mentioned. Although the Spirit guides each one of us, He only has so much control over our decisions and influence in our individual thoughts. Instead of putting our faith in everyone paying heed to the Spirit and seeing what comes out (which is what has produced the many denominations...i guarantee you that most denominations began as genuine attempts to restore the Truth by the leading of the Spirit), we put our faith in the voice of the entire church together in council. When the Church speaks as a whole, with one voice, as she did at Jersualem and Nicea and Constantinople and Trent and elsehwere, she is directly guided by the Holy Spirit in all her teachings.

This is precisely because of the Body consciousness you mentioned. The bishops represent every region of the world. In a council they all convene and bring forth the unified and common declaration that it is the council decision. We feel it's safer to trust the Church as a whole rather than in each individual, which sadly but truly has led the Church into this division. The division can't just be a matter of rebellious wills and fake Christians...most of the people on this site are a testimony to the honest quest for truth in the matters of God. And yet we still disagree...

So, according to Scripture, does God create a "body" that He endows with the Spirit and only those who join that body receive the Spirit? Or does He endow individuals with the Spirit and as a result they are engrafted into the body?

My understanding of Catholic Body theology is thus, and it relates to the communion of the saints: Each believer in joined to Christ in baptism, dying and rising with Him in His Resurrection. Because all believers are joined to Christ, all believers are joined together. We are His Body precisely because we are all linked together to Him and in Him. And this is the communion of the saints.

You join Christ, you join the Body. You join the Body, you join Christ. The two are really inseparable, and can't be distinguished.

You are joined to Him by the Holy Spirit, which is given to every believer. However, if from nothing else then from experience (i can't keep stressing that enough) that doesn't guarantee freedom from doctrinal error.

Well, I think assuming infallibility based on that scripture is quite a leap. In fact, I would say that is something being read into the text as it is not what the text states itself. That does not mean that your assertion is false, it only means that it is not provable by this text.

Well ok, i think to prove it to you is more simply a matter of linking the apostolic succession to the apostles specifically as opposed to all believers. Which is where i'll go in my next post. But thanks for your openness.

Further, every version I have seen places the Holy Spirit first. For example, the KJV says "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," Not only is the Holy Ghost put in preeminence as the to one whom it seems good, but the expression "and to us" is positioned as a confirmation of their submission to the desires of God's Spirit.

OOPS, my bad! i didn't mean anything intentional by that, i posted from memory which i guess decided to be a little dyslexic. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Is it really beside the point? You asserted that it was tradition that guided the council on what Scriptures to include. As evidence to this, you site that the authorship of Barnabus could not be deciphered via tradition, therefore it was rejected.

My point is that Hebrews was included although the same tradition could not verify its authorship. Therefore, there is clearly much more to the decisions about what was canon than simply an appeal to tradition.

If you concede, as I think you did earlier, that the council was guided by the revelation of the Spirit, then this essentially shows that the leading of the Spirit supercedes what is known by tradition. I think that is very relevant to this discussion.

Ah, sorry, i didn't see where you were going with that. Pardon my slowness.

What i meant to say was that although the members of the council knew enough to reject Barnabas as totally non-apostolic, they also knew enough, despite the ambigous authorship, to accept Hebrews. Apostolicity extended also to those with concurrent Apostolic approval (like Mark and Luke, e.g.).

Barnabas was a book probably written after the its namesake's death, by an unknown, and it actually reflects a few doctrinal errors that the fathers rightly rejected (one of which being legalism--i know, i as a Cath am saying that, hehe, i'll have to explain elsewhere). Hence it was rejected.

Hebrews fits right into the apostolic Tradition of the rest of the NT as well as that which was passed on by the Fathers through succession. Hence it was accepted.

Me personally? I accept it because the Lord directed me to purchase the KJV when He first started illuminating me about the faith, and the KJV contains Hebrews.

Out of curiosity, does it include the Deutero's? The first KJV's did.

You know that I think you are wonderful Steve. thank you for your patience with me and I pray you have a blessed evening!

i'm not the only wonderful person around here.

More to come...

God bless you! Maranatha!
Steve

 

[filioLumen]

I agree that this authority is passed on, but I believe this is passed on to all believers. It was communicated to the apostles first, because they constituted the beginnings of the church. As I pointed out in the other thread, many of the "authority" you speak of representing Apostolic succession we can see demonstrated by those who were not apostles.

And this seems our primary dividing point. Give me a little time to mull things over and i'll get back to ya, ok?

And post #104 reflects exactly what i used to believe. We have some common ground,

Let me guess, you're a Charismatic?

Keep it nice Lotar, please, truth spoken in love. You understand what she's saying. i know the Spirit does lead in this way, though to what extent i'm less sure. All i know is i've experiences it too and it led me to the doorstep of Rome.

How can you be sure that this revelation is not a "prelest" (spiritual deception, see below)?

She's not talking about visions or anything, she's talkign about the internal leading of the Spirit one way or another. This is true to an extent. Though the extent to me is unclear

Don't turn this into either a mockery or a witchhunt, which it necessarily shall if you guys continue.

ummm ainesis how do you define revelation??.

Defining it isn't the problem for her. It's the means she disagrees with. She sees it (correct me if i'm wrong, sister) as the Holy Spirit leading her through both direct spiritual "pull" and through the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures. She sees the Holy Spirit and her conscience as the primary guides in how to go. She doesn't deny Tradition, but questions which Tradition is accurate. She knows which are accurate only by the leading of the Spirit.

And she believes this based on her assertion that the Holy Spirit's guidance into all truth is given to each believer if they are open enough to take advantage of it.

Am i right?

My next post will focus on why the teaching charism is limited to the apostles. It might be a while though...

God bless you all and always! Maranatha!
Steve

 

[Qoheleth]

She sees the Holy Spirit and her conscience as the primary guides in how to go. She doesn't deny Tradition, but questions which Tradition is accurate. She knows which are accurate only by the leading of the Spirit.

And she believes this based on her assertion that the Holy Spirit's guidance into all truth is given to each believer if they are open enough to take advantage of it.

...And I also believe this way (leading of the HS) in regards to scripture.

The work of the Holy Spirit is pronounced in scripture as such: to "guide, comfort, teach, glorify, witness, sustain, reprove, renew, and reclaim".

I think some will argue if these workings of the Holy Spirit are directed to or for individuals or for the "Church" in the institutional, organizational meaning.

I believe that the Holy Spirit avails himself personally and intimately according to scripture and obviously to the message of Christ and the Gospel.

 

[RonBa]

The Scriptures that we have today are God given.


Outside of them it is very dangerous to align oneself too close to anything that does not agree with Scripture.

 

[Ainesis]

Let me guess, you're a Charismatic?

Actually, just a Christian. Are you saying that the Lord does not speak to you?

 

[Ainesis]

Ainesis,

How can you be sure that this revelation is not a "prelest" (spiritual deception, see below)?

Hi Rick,

I would simply say because I know the one through whom the revelation comes. That certainly doesn't mean that everything spiritual is of God.

How do you know that it is not spiritual deception when God speaks to you?

 

[Ainesis]

ummm ainesis how do you define revelation??.

Primarily understanding, insight, knowledge, illumination... How do you define it?

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

Whoa, there's a whole new page since I last checked here. Looks like I've been away too long. Oh, well, filoLumen seems to be handling the case quite fine on his own, so I'll nod off and be an observer.

 

[Ainesis]

Ah, but you see, dear sister, that our disagreement on this matter is prrof that two Christians in perfect submission to the leading of the Spirit can disagree. i know that you are from your words and honesty, and i of my own experience know that i am as well.

I don't know about that Steve. I mean, you will very well know whether you are submitting to the Lord, but how do you know if another is? While you may believe that I am submitted to Him from our interactions, that really isn't proof that I am.

Further, what do you mean by "perfect submission"? I see submission more as a daily walk in obedience, not necessarily a place where we have arrived. Each day we must choose to submit our will to His, and that means each day we have the option of not doing so. The fact that someone is submitting today is no guarantee that they will continue to do so tomorrow.

So, as to the crux of your question, why do we disagree? I really couldn't say. There could be any number of reasons. Yet I know that I am responsible for what He has revealed to me. I am not called to make you believe what He has revealed to me, although I am called to share it. If there be any truth in what is shared, then He will confirm that on His own. It is nothing for me to strive about.

The Spirit was the One Who directly led me back into the Church. After 2 years of fruitless catechizing me, my friend Lou finally gave me over to God and admitted his inability to do anything worthy without Him. That very week i admitted i was feeling drawn toward the Church, although i hadn't answered a single intellectual objection yet.

And i knew from my protestant experience what the leading feels like. i knew what signs to look for. i was an on fire prot for at least 5 years, during which time i also harbored a strong anti-Catholic spirit. He finally broke me of that, but not before i had done much damage.

i think the old me and you now have much in common, as i'll explain later...

That's great Steve. I am glad that you are following the leading of the spirit in your life. Yet and still, I am not accountable for what the Lord has told you to do (or what you think the Lord may have told you) and that works both ways; so I certainly put myself in that category too.

We are each given understandings according to our level of maturity in Him. Are you more mature in the faith and have therefore received a deeper understanding than I? I won't say that is not possible. However, I am not accountable to act upon the revelation you believe you have received from God. I must work with what He tells me and where He has me, right where I am. I trust that as in all things, He will continue to lead me where I need to be and I know that where I am right now is where He would have me.

So, beyond that, I don't give much thought to "why" some people believe one thing or another. I just try to be obedient to what He tells me to do.

No contention. But those revelations should beuild on each other, not contradict. So there is only one truth, although the depth of our understanding of that truth can be enriched. i think we're agreed, right?



Again, proof of what i said above.

Again, I don't think that is proof of what is said above.

EVen the fathers, open to the movement of the Holy Spirit, can disagree. Individual leadings are not always trustworthy.

Individual leadings are not, but the leadings of the Spirit are. Each of the apostles before being lead as a group were led individually by the Spirit. In fact, it is the presence of the Spirit leading them individually that qualified them for corporal leadership.

So, since you say that you have been led by the Spirit, how do you personally tell the difference?

When the Church speaks as a whole, with one voice, as she did at Jersualem and Nicea and Constantinople and Trent and elsehwere, she is directly guided by the Holy Spirit in all her teachings.

That is your belief. Although you have every right to believe that, that doesn't make it truth.

In Jerusalem, the council was guided by God's Spirit, not because they were speaking together as a whole, but because they were each yielding to the will of the Holy Spirit. As such, a church can only speak for God as its members also yield to that same Spirit.

As you pointed out above, God does not force us to obey His will. And there is no biblical evidence that says this truth is overrided when the church gets together as a whole. Further, it is clear that we are guided individually in all the Holy Spirit's teachings as well.

We feel it's safer to trust the Church as a whole rather than in each individual, which sadly but truly has led the Church into this division. The division can't just be a matter of rebellious wills and fake Christians...most of the people on this site are a testimony to the honest quest for truth in the matters of God. And yet we still disagree...

That is fine. I would offer however, that the Scriptures instruct us to place our trust in God, not a corporate body of believers.

As for why there are divisions in doctrine among members of this site, again, I cannot speak for anyone's position in Christ but myself. Further, as I stated previously, different understandings are not due to rebellious wills, but simply be truths the Lord has not revealed to us yet. We are to grow in the knowledge of the Lord. That means that we do not yet have perfect understanding or knowledge.

You join Christ, you join the Body. You join the Body, you join Christ. The two are really inseparable, and can't be distinguished.

You are joined to Him by the Holy Spirit, which is given to every believer. However, if from nothing else then from experience (i can't keep stressing that enough) that doesn't guarantee freedom from doctrinal error.

I guess it would depend on what we consider that "Body" to be.

Also, I never said that being led by the Spirit is a guarantee from doctrinal error. To the extent that we follow Him is the extent of our guarantee.

You, on th eother hand, seem to be putting forth that while there is no freedom from doctrinal error on an individual level, there is on a corporal level - apart from the individuals yieldings of the members - and to that I disagree.

What i meant to say was that although the members of the council knew enough to reject Barnabas as totally non-apostolic, they also knew enough, despite the ambigous authorship, to accept Hebrews. Apostolicity extended also to those with concurrent Apostolic approval (like Mark and Luke, e.g.).

Barnabas was a book probably written after the its namesake's death, by an unknown, and it actually reflects a few doctrinal errors that the fathers rightly rejected (one of which being legalism--i know, i as a Cath am saying that, hehe, i'll have to explain elsewhere). Hence it was rejected.

Hebrews fits right into the apostolic Tradition of the rest of the NT as well as that which was passed on by the Fathers through succession. Hence it was accepted.

My point is this. Barnabus was part of what tradition had passed along, as was Hebrews. If tradition called for Barnabus to be rejected because authorship could not be confirmed, yet Hebrews was accepted despite authorship not being confirmed, then there is something more than tradition that is guiding these decisions.

So, whatever you take that guiding principle to be (I surmised it was the Spirit), it is given precedence over the rule of tradition. Therefore, there is a guiding principle higher than tradition that led the council in its selection of canon.

Out of curiosity, does it include the Deutero's? The first KJV's did.

No, it did not. Relating to the Apocrypha, I really haven't sought the Lord on that. My pastor believes that some of it may very well be inspired, and that could very well be. As for me, I will need to study and pray and ask God.

So, I know that the book He led me to (the KJV) is inspired, but He did not say at the time that this is all that is inspired. Nor did He say it was the only version which is inspired. Beyond that, I could not say without speaking more to Him about it. Again, God reached me right where I was at that time. While I know that what He told me is infallible Truth, I would be remiss in saying that it was a complete picture of Truth. As such, I grow.

i'm not the only wonderful person around here.

More to come...

God bless you! Maranatha!
Steve

Thanks Steve!

 

[Ainesis]

And this seems our primary dividing point. Give me a little time to mull things over and i'll get back to ya, ok?

Sure, as long as you don't come back with a 4 page response!

And post #104 reflects exactly what i used to believe. We have some common ground,

Now I need to go back and see what was said in post #104. LOL!

Keep it nice Lotar, please, truth spoken in love. You understand what she's saying. i know the Spirit does lead in this way, though to what extent i'm less sure. All i know is i've experiences it too and it led me to the doorstep of Rome.

[/font]

She's not talking about visions or anything, she's talkign about the internal leading of the Spirit one way or another. This is true to an extent. Though the extent to me is unclear

Don't turn this into either a mockery or a witchhunt, which it necessarily shall if you guys continue.



Defining it isn't the problem for her. It's the means she disagrees with. She sees it (correct me if i'm wrong, sister) as the Holy Spirit leading her through both direct spiritual "pull" and through the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures. She sees the Holy Spirit and her conscience as the primary guides in how to go. She doesn't deny Tradition, but questions which Tradition is accurate. She knows which are accurate only by the leading of the Spirit.

And she believes this based on her assertion that the Holy Spirit's guidance into all truth is given to each believer if they are open enough to take advantage of it.

Am i right?

My next post will focus on why the teaching charism is limited to the apostles. It might be a while though...

God bless you all and always! Maranatha!
Steve

Thank you so much Steve! I knew when I posted my response that it may raise some questions, but I have to be honest none the less.

Yes, I am speaking of the internal leadings of the Spirit, but I am also speaking of the voice of God. Do I hear His voice? Yes. We hold conversations just like you and I are now, although He doesn't always answer when I would like Him too. Nor does He always give me the answer that I like, but that is a different story. LOL!

So, I guess it is curious to me that it would be curious to others that God speaks to His people. However, that is neither here nor there.

God Bless!

 

[good4u]

Indeed scripture is seen as a primary part of "Holy Tradition" (see the "Holy Tradition" section at www.greerlwfirm.com/orthodox.htm ), but it is not the whole of "Holy Tradition".

Forgive me...

This is the very problem I have with Catholics and Orthodox folks. They will put God's Eternal Word equal in authority to man's tradition and therefore, in essence, add to Scripture. This is objectionable and does a disservice to the authority of Scripture.


This is the very reason I would not covert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

 

[Dalibor]

Our Holy Traditions are as much a part of our Christian walk as are the Holy Scriptures, for they do not contradict but rather complement each other.
The teachings of the Church are derived from two sources: Holy Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, within which the Scriptures came to be, and within which they are interpreted. As written in the Gospel of St. John, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:20). Much teaching transmitted orally by the Apostles has come down to us in Sacred Tradition.

If you do not accept the authority and infallibility of the Church, how can you accept the authority and infallibility of the Scriptures? It was the Orthodox Church that decided what books constitute Holy Scripture.. promised to guide the Church unto all truth.. would not prevail against her (cf John 16:13, Matt 16:18).

Apostles did not write all their teachings in Scriptures, they taught people verbally in words and passed this knowledge to their successors till this day. Since you Protestants are rejecting all these oral teachings of Apostles, which are Traditions of Church, you will never have full knowledge and understanding of Gospel and Christianity.

 

[Lotar]

Keep it nice Lotar, please, truth spoken in love. You understand what she's saying. i know the Spirit does lead in this way, though to what extent i'm less sure. All i know is i've experiences it too and it led me to the doorstep of Rome.

If you thought my post was meant to be mean spirited, there is a misunderstanding.

When one believes their point is a direct revelation from God, debate is pretty much futile. Not that God can't or doesn't reveal truth in this way, but personally I give the arguement no credence.