Why Criticism of Traditional Churches is Wrong

[Fireinfolding]

And yet the Biblical Canon is still never outlined in the Bible, nor is it defined what all books are to be counted among the "Law and the Prophets" or "the Scriptures".

Obviously "The Law and the Prophets" doesn't include anything from the New Testament, and with the exception of 2 Peter speaking of Paul's letters as scripture nothing from the New Testament is ever included in the concept of "scripture".

Using only the Bible can you tell me if the following books are Holy Scripture or not?

Matthew,
Mark,
Luke,
John,
the Acts,
Esther
Ezra
Ruth
Song of Songs
Tobit
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Jubilees
Enoch
Apocalypse of Baruch
Epistle to the Laodiceans
Epistle of Barnabas
the Didache
the Shepherd of Hermas
Epistle of Clement (1 Clement)
Psalms 151-155
Daniel chapter 13
Daniel chapter 14

Remember, you can only use the Bible.

-CryptoLutheran

You seriously have to get past who stapled the canon together

 

[ViaCrucis]

You seriously have to get past who stapled the canon together

Not really. If one is going to fall on their sword at the place saying only that which can be found directly in Scripture can be accepted, then they're compelled by their own words to be consistent--and thus provide from Scripture Scripture itself.

Otherwise they will have to admit that Scripture is itself "traditions of men".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fireinfolding]

Not really. If one is going to fall on their sword at the place saying only that which can be found directly in Scripture can be accepted, then they're compelled by their own words to be consistent--and thus provide from Scripture Scripture itself.

Otherwise they will have to admit that Scripture is itself "traditions of men".

-CryptoLutheran

He was talking about the WORD bible, I said call it scripture since the WORD scripture/scriptures is in there if that is what you will have a bird over. And to the other (Godless forum or not) is not specified say EVERY PLACE.

Its rather simple, but as usual if you say that then it becomes the dumb canon stapling issue, its just retarded

 

[thecolorsblend]

Not really. If one is going to fall on their sword at the place saying only that which can be found directly in Scripture can be accepted, then they're compelled by their own words to be consistent--and thus provide from Scripture Scripture itself.

Otherwise they will have to admit that Scripture is itself "traditions of men".

The canon is a tradition. That much is inescapable. It's the evangelical in a million who will admit that but it's true.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Nor is the word "Bible" in the Bible; perhaps we'd better stop reading it.

Note by the way, this is literally a reductio ad absurdum, however, to a certain point I feel it is a valid, perhaps somewhat expressionist, satire, of the extreme view of nuda scriptura.

A lot of the battles seem to go right back to the reality of loving Scripture in a manner that Scripture NEVER claimed for us to love it. Someone else fell away from the Faith recently and when I saw their reasons for leaving, I was reminded on how one of my friends noted "This is what happens when you base Christianity on fundamentalistic bibliolatry...and then you get some more information." I felt saddened due to the fact that a lot of those reasons could have been easily addressed if encountering other Christians willing to be a bit controversial in actually acknowledging some of the more nuanced/difficult aspects of Christian history when seeing how much we've done a lot of the same mess as others. Some assume that it is only those within Liturgical circles who are willing to speak on the issue, although there are others in the Evangelical world who've done the same thing. In example, with LOGOS Bible Software, I am reminded of Dr. Michael S. Heiser

• Sola Scriptura? | Dr. Michael S. Heiser

A lot of the ways Sola Scriptura is blasted is done on the basis of not understanding what Sola Scriptura was actually about to begin with and it is something which many have said for years, including within Orthodoxy.

I was just discussing months ago with my older brother/teacher from my high school days (as he's Reformed) and he recommended to me an excellent book on the issue that I've really been thankful for. It's called The Shape of Sola Scriptura

​

The other one is entitled "Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution--A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First"

​

Orthodoxy has much in line with the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura when seeing how it used to be described, from the perspective of Prima Scriptura. As another noted best (on the book entitled...) for a brief excerpt:

I Am re-reading “Common Ground” by Jordan Bajis for about the tenth time. This workbook is an excellent primer on Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism. This is the best easiest to read and well documented book with this purpose that I have found yet. Luther and Calvin, he shows, were well aware that to KNOW the Scriptures alone was not sufficient. For them, Sola Scriptura was “not a call to see the Bible as the authority of the Church, but a call FOR THE CHURCH TO ONCE AGAIN INTERPRET THE SCRIPTURES IN ACCORD WITH THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH (emphasis mine).


The first generation Reformers were not against true Tradition, they sought to recover it (from within the corrupt context of Rome, and other factors of the time – RAS) by uncovering the Biblical message the fathers had faithfully defended.” As a response to Rome (not to the Orthodox – they were separated by geography and Islam and not involved in the conflict, although they fully would concur that Rome had departed from the genuine faith) the Reformers “held up the Bible and the doctrine of sola scriptura as a SHIELD. Reformers of LATER generations reshaped this shield into a SWORD against Rome by proclaiming the Bible as the sole authority of the Church.” It is clear that Zwingli, and the Anabaptists took this path to the extreme by rejecting all church history and history of theology, and we see the fruit of confusion, division (and in some cases plain nonsense) that this developed doctrine since the western reformation has in modern western Christendom today. The Orthodox would have no problem with the first generation of reformers view of the scriptures (especially in battling against Rome’s claims), although Prima Scriptura would probably be a more accurate phrase to clear up the confusion. ​

​

]

Seeing that and what others already noted when it comes to the issue of how Sola Scriptura (as advocated in the Protestant Reformation) was never what the Early Church focused on when it came to the scriptures, it seems rather plain that much of what the Protestant Reformation did was take a problem that was already solved - and then forgetting the formula that was used to fix the original problem when future generations (present to them, of course) ended up taking one part of the original formula and corrupting it....

As another said best elsewhere (early church | becoming orthodox ):

Protestants in general take the view that the Bible is “self-authenticating” which to me personally seems like a pretty meaningless and contrived explanation. For the Orthodox Christian there is another way to address this question:

​

That said, Fr. Thomas Hopko did an excellent job discussing the ways that the Protestant Reformation did indeed deserve to be called one of the most impactful periods of Church history on Orthodoxy, with the Orthodox being influenced by Roman Catholic and Protestant thinking. ..even though others still take issue with the ways he has critiqued the Evangelical World when noting that speaking on scripture/celebrating it within the Protestant culture still does not reflect scripture in the same way as the Church noted it in light of the OT Practice (or the early Reformers like Luther who was not against Tradition, counter to many Protestants who came after him since Luther did not even agree with others saying that none of the traditions in which the Scriptures were interpreted were true - more noted in Trinity, Eucharist, Tradition and the Challenge of Sola Scriptura | Eclectic Orthodoxy ).

Oral History was a key facet of Jewish culture, even before the 1st Century [/URL]...and Liturgy itself in the Eastern tradition is FULL of scriptural focus due to following the oral tradition of Jewish culture) - the idea that the Bible alone is the primary authority for faith and morals is not taught in the Bible...and likewise, the idea that the Bible is to be the sole source of authority for the Christian is not taught in the Bible. The Church recognizes one and only one source of authority for Her faith and practice: the apostolic tradition...and thee Divine Scriptures are part - albeit the most important part - of that tradition, but to set Scriptures up as something over and apart from tradition is to have the tail wagging the dog. For that will always go back to the Scriptures being based solely on people's opinions - and that does not honor the scripture, more pointed out here in Sola Scriptura | Orthodox-Reformed Bridge and here:

• Ancient Christian Witness: Speaking Of Sola Scriptura

• Ancient Christian Witness: Sola Scriptura
• Scripture and Tradition | Antiochian Orthodox Christian ...

• Go to “Trinity, Eucharist, Tradition and the Challenge of Sola ...
  

• Ancient Christian Witness: Sola Scriptura & the Canons of scripture
• The Guardian of Biblical Truth – YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT ......

• Ancient Christian Witness: Differences in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura

• Ancient Christian Witness: Can we trust the Early Christians? And did they see Scripture as the sole standard of doctrine?

​

​

Scriptures developed in a context and were to be seen in a setting - the Church - and there has always been a way to see them. Even other Anglican Ministers such as N.T Wright have pointed out this simple reality - more shared in How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright - and others have noted it as well when it comes to the concept of PRIMA scriptural...the model that the Early Church advocated


As said before, the Orthodox Church sees the Bible as inspired by God and authoritative...even though Saint Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15wrote, “Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" - something he repeated in 1 Corinthians 11:1-3 consistent with what Christ noted when it came to his comments on examples( John 13:15 ) when it came to being cautious of any tradition that goes against things the Lord desired/noted in the name of honoring God (Matthew 15:5-7).

But anyone Talking on the Word of God while ignoring the Early Church Councils and what the vast consensus of the Bishops/leaders in the Church said (when they made scripture) is inconsistent with claiming to defend Scripture - for Scripture did not exist in a vacuum or come out of nowhere since the Early Church (the Fathers - including early Jewish Fathers in the first century ) also debated/helped to cannonize what was to be scripture - as noted best by Fr. James Bernstein in Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?[/QUOTE]

Some of this has been discussed elsewhere, as has been said here:

Well, here is Irenaeus on Tradition AND Scripture side by side:

2.1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth;..

2.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
Irenaeus on Tradition - from Adversus Haereses
​

In this, we see the Tradition is placed next to existent Scripture in authority, so that it, TOO comes from the Apostles.


Let's see some of the other lines from that series:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.
​

Here we see that the Tradition, unlike the written Scripture, was manifested throughout the whole world.

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
​

And now we see that Scriptures from the Apostles did exist, but that their Tradition existed in marriage thereto.

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.


​

And finally we see that, without a written Scripture, the Gauls were capable of knowing the truth thanks to the Tradition, rebuffing the heresies of Marcion and clinging to Christ.

Scripture itself is tradition (with others in the era when it was developed noting where there other traditions present based on John 21 with the miracles of Christ and so many other things being based on the tradition itself ) and it is part of the greater category of Tradition (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15). For both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are a means of transmitting the deposit of faith, as they are bound closely together and communicate one with the other to give illumination to one another.

As others have noted wisely (for brief excerpt):

Much as Protestants are at a loss in being logically consistent with Jude's extra-biblical sources from God or with the unwritten beliefs concerning Baptism or with Eucharistic oral traditions, they are equally at a loss about the Apostles' commands for all Christians in all churches for all generations to follow and preserve the written and oral traditions of the Apostles. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." The Early Christians read this same verse and they understood that they must preserve all the oral and written traditions, even the ones not recorded in the New Testament (NT), oral traditions which they were aware of and spoke about. The Early Christians did not believe that the books of the NT had somehow miraculously sucked up all the oral traditions, so that this command from Paul had ceased to have any relevance once all the books of the NT were written. Instead, it was irrefutable to the Early Christians that there were unwritten doctrines and practices from the Apostles which had never been recorded and which all churches had professed since Apostolic times. The Protestant writer uses 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as though it is proof against Tradition, though ironically, Scripture and the Early Christians used it as proof for Tradition. This is because the context of this letter itself, which Protestants abuse, does not prove nor even suggest the concept of "inscripturation", the doctrine that every single Apostolic oral tradition became completely incorporated into Scripture. Paul simply mentions oral traditions of the Apostles and then, as 1 Corinthians 11:34 makes clear, he actually leaves behind certain doctrines to remain outside the Bible for oral transmission.

One of the most important things to remember when reading 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is the fact that Paul never teaches that the Apostolic oral Tradition, which was also called the Gospel, would one day cease to have relevance or would be completely incorporated into Scripture. Protestants insist on believing that every single oral doctrine from the Apostles had eventually become written down in Scripture, but the only way to believe this doctrine is to rely on teachings not recorded in Scripture, since the Bible does not make such statements. In fact, the only way to prove it is to force unbiblical interpretations into the Bible whenever it says something about a genuine oral Tradition from the Holy Spirit. In other words, Protestants must assert a strong man-made bias in assuming the meanings of certain Bible verses and then come up with fanciful explanations unheard of in Sacred History in order to make Apostolic Tradition in Scripture mean what they desire it to mean.​

.


And as already noted before to folks (be it in #765 or #757 or #761 and other places), people divorce themselves from the context of the Church when they avoid the Church as it said itself to be. At the end of the day, people simply do not care for the Church nor trust the Church...

And all of that stems from how one chooses to see the history of Scripture within the lens of tradition. Understanding the Scribal culture and the way that even the Jews themselves had a very complicated cultural understanding of scripture which developed over time - this helps in knowing the way that Scripture cannot be divorced from Tradition (no matter how much people claim "Sola Scriptura" ) or not seen as a Tradition. There were always debate on the nature of Scripture in the time of the Apostles - with differing canons used even then based on traditional differences. And the same dynamic applies today

Some things really are not that complicated - for the Scriptures are themselves a product of the oral tradition of the early Church, seeing that the gospels were preached orally, later being written down by the leading of the Holy Spirit - but even if wanting demonstration of where history has verified the numerous connections between the Jewish culture (including Oral) and the Eastern traditions, even without the use of scripture, it doesn't take much. For reference:

• Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism

There's no escaping where the Holy Scriptures, as interpreted by the Church, have the final say over any and all matters of faith and practice - even though they do not have the only say. (see 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 3:6-7; 1 Corinthians 11:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:1-2; 1 Timothy 3:14-15).

In context, immediately after referring to Scriptures’ authority in refuting the Gnostics, he offered no words saying "You must test tradition only by Scripture”. Others have addressed the issue before when it comes to trying to claim St. Ireneaus believed in Sola Scriptura - as noted in Shameless Popery: Did Irenaeus Believe in Sola Scriptura?. ...or Contra Sola Scriptura (Part 2 of 4) | Orthodox-Reformed Bridge and Irenaeus of Lyons: Contending for the Faith Once Delivered | Orthodox-Reformed Bridge. He saw Tradition and Scripture as equal and it'd be dishonest in using him to say otherwise past the practices he condoned of hj in the Church.

 

[civilwarbuff]

who stapled the canon together

I did not realize they had staplers back then....

 

[Fireinfolding]

I did not realize they had staplers back then....

I think it was more along the lines of lick and sticks

 

[ViaCrucis]

He was talking about the WORD bible, I said call it scripture since the WORD scripture/scriptures is in there if that is what you will have a bird over. And to the other (Godless forum or not) is not specified say EVERY PLACE.

Its rather simple, but as usual if you say that then it becomes the dumb canon stapling issue, its just retarded

The word "Bible" is a more well-defined one, while today we can use it anonymously with "Scripture" the concept of "Scripture" in the time of the New Testament was a very general category as there existed no defined canon of Scripture. The closest we get mentioned is "Law and Prophets" or "Law, Prophets, and Psalms" but these are categories of scripture, categories of writings without rigid boundaries. So, for example, "the Law" was well defined, that is the Torah, the five books of the Pentateuch; "the Prophets" can probably be ascertained as more-or-less matching the eight books present in the modern Tanakh (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets). Where things get complicated is the concept of the "Writings" of which the Psalms are often mentioned by name and included with the phrase "the Law and the Prophets". But it is precisely this third category that is the least well defined, not only in 1st century, but even well later as Jewish authorities continued to debate books such as Daniel, Esther, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes well into the 2nd century.

For Christians the issue was only slightly easier given the generally wide acceptance of the Septuagint, however that did not stop debate, discussion, and disagreement over a number of books in the first several hundred years of the Christian era. As late as the 4th century we can see, as just one example, St. Athanasius in his paschal epistle regarding Esther as being outside the Christian Canon.

The very idea of "the Bible" requires a defined Canon of Scripture, something that simply did not exist in the time when the New Testament was being written.

So trying to use words like "Scripture" as a semantic substitute for "the Bible" in the NT is simply not doable, it requires--at best--an extremely anachronistic reading of the New Testament.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fireinfolding]

Someone said A WORD wasn't in there I simply said use another one that is then. If I had a question I would ask it at someone I feel could answer it.

 

[Wgw]

Someone said A WORD wasn't in there I simply said use another one that is then. If I had a question I would ask it at someone I feel could answer it.

Well, I've seen a similiar ontological argument repeatedly from non-Trinitarian chaps.

That said, rhe idea of the Bible as a unified book with one universally agreed upon canon is a modern concept limited to evangelical Protestantism, as is the idea that everyone should have and read a personal Bible for reasons of the soteriological imperative. Historically this was impossible even when, for example, in the Christian East, the Orthodox churches took great care to ensure both the Bible and the liturgical service books were available in the vernacular tongue.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Well, I've seen a similiar ontological argument repeatedly from non-Trinitarian chaps.

That said, rhe idea of the Bible as a unified book with one universally agreed upon canon is a modern concept limited to evangelical Protestantism, as is the idea that everyone should have and read a personal Bible for reasons of the soteriological imperative. Historically this was impossible even when, for example, in the Christian East, the Orthodox churches took great care to ensure both the Bible and the liturgical service books were available in the vernacular tongue.

I havent the slightest clue what you just said to me

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well, I've seen a similiar ontological argument repeatedly from non-Trinitarian chaps.

That said, rhe idea of the Bible as a unified book with one universally agreed upon canon is a modern concept limited to evangelical Protestantism, as is the idea that everyone should have and read a personal Bible for reasons of the soteriological imperative. Historically this was impossible even when, for example, in the Christian East, the Orthodox churches took great care to ensure both the Bible and the liturgical service books were available in the vernacular tongue.

Just to add:

It was impossible because prior to the invention of the movable-type printing press all copies of Scripture had to be hand copied, making book owning in general an extremely expensive investment. One couldn't simply go out and purchase a book, you'd have to hire a scribe. And with such a monumental undertaking it would be to have a complete copy of the Scriptures, even wealthy individuals likely wouldn't be able to do this and as such a copies of Scripture were largely the possession of the Church and individual churches with copies of the Bible treated them like precious treasures because they were. This doesn't even cover the fact that the majority of Christians, not even those of noble birth, would have been able to read them even if they could own them.

So the very idea of private individuals being able to own and read a Bible is something really just couldn't have happened until massive scale book publishing became a reality, just thirty years before Martin Luther was born. So the Reformers encouraging the printing of Bibles in the vernacular so that the common Christian could have access to them was chiefly first that Christians could hear the Scriptures read, only secondarily was it so the common Christian might actually own a copy of the Scriptures--which required both the means (books still wouldn't have necessarily been cheap) and the ability (i.e. being literate). As a matter of fact Luther chided and derided the fact that "even the milkmaid" thought they could properly interpret the Scriptures; because Luther didn't believe that individual Christians should interpret the Bible for themselves, but should rely on the educated and scholarly who had the education to properly exegete Scripture.

The idea that the individual Christian should interpret the Bible for themselves was not a hallmark of the Lutheran Reformation; what was a hallmark was that the individual and average Christian should be able to hear and understand the Scriptures--and if they are able, to read them. But properly exegeting and interpreting Scripture shouldn't be the enterprise of the lone Christian who, absolutely, wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of the thing, but should be able to rely on the understanding and teaching of people so educated and trained, which also meant that the clergy themselves should be properly educated (which was one the Reformers' grievances, that, frequently, not even the clergy were educated and able to read the Scriptures--something many in the Church were saying not just the Reformers).

This may not jive particularly well with the strong individualist spirit of western modernity--and speaking as an American I'd say this is especially strong in the US--which asserts that the individual is the captain of their destiny and their faith and religion is chiefly about one's private beliefs and private convictions. But what this really means is that the modern hyper-individualist mindset is simply the un-normal when it comes to Christianity.

And this latter aspect may be, in part, what can really distinguish the historic way of "doing Christianity" from the modern way: this modernist mindset rather than recognizing that perhaps it is their responsibility to look to the past with due reverence and humbly listen to the voice of history insists on its own right and that if the past was different it was wrong, because it is the individual who stands right in the end, and indeed must. It is the rejection of the democracy of history and the embrace of the dictatorship of the individual self.

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about." - G.K. Chesterton

-CryptoLutheran

 

[civilwarbuff]

Just to add:

It was impossible because prior to the invention of the movable-type printing press all copies of Scripture had to be hand copied, making book owning in general an extremely expensive investment. One couldn't simply go out and purchase a book, you'd have to hire a scribe. And with such a monumental undertaking it would be to have a complete copy of the Scriptures, even wealthy individuals likely wouldn't be able to do this and as such a copies of Scripture were largely the possession of the Church and individual churches with copies of the Bible treated them like precious treasures because they were. This doesn't even cover the fact that the majority of Christians, not even those of noble birth, would have been able to read them even if they could own them.

So the very idea of private individuals being able to own and read a Bible is something really just couldn't have happened until massive scale book publishing became a reality, just thirty years before Martin Luther was born. So the Reformers encouraging the printing of Bibles in the vernacular so that the common Christian could have access to them was chiefly first that Christians could hear the Scriptures read, only secondarily was it so the common Christian might actually own a copy of the Scriptures--which required both the means (books still wouldn't have necessarily been cheap) and the ability (i.e. being literate). As a matter of fact Luther chided and derided the fact that "even the milkmaid" thought they could properly interpret the Scriptures; because Luther didn't believe that individual Christians should interpret the Bible for themselves, but should rely on the educated and scholarly who had the education to properly exegete Scripture.

The idea that the individual Christian should interpret the Bible for themselves was not a hallmark of the Lutheran Reformation; what was a hallmark was that the individual and average Christian should be able to hear and understand the Scriptures--and if they are able, to read them. But properly exegeting and interpreting Scripture shouldn't be the enterprise of the lone Christian who, absolutely, wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of the thing, but should be able to rely on the understanding and teaching of people so educated and trained, which also meant that the clergy themselves should be properly educated (which was one the Reformers' grievances, that, frequently, not even the clergy were educated and able to read the Scriptures--something many in the Church were saying not just the Reformers).

This may not jive particularly well with the strong individualist spirit of western modernity--and speaking as an American I'd say this is especially strong in the US--which asserts that the individual is the captain of their destiny and their faith and religion is chiefly about one's private beliefs and private convictions. But what this really means is that the modern hyper-individualist mindset is simply the un-normal when it comes to Christianity.

And this latter aspect may be, in part, what can really distinguish the historic way of "doing Christianity" from the modern way: this modernist mindset rather than recognizing that perhaps it is their responsibility to look to the past with due reverence and humbly listen to the voice of history insists on its own right and that if the past was different it was wrong, because it is the individual who stands right in the end, and indeed must. It is the rejection of the democracy of history and the embrace of the dictatorship of the individual self.

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about." - G.K. Chesterton

-CryptoLutheran

Well said....

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is precisely what got the Jews in trouble; the "Democracy of the Past" more commonly known as Oral Torah / Talmud resulting in Rabbinic Judaism.

This tells me that you probably don't understand what Jesus was actually criticizing when He criticized some of the Pharisees.

Christian history repeats this very thing under the guise of Church Tradition and Apostolic Succession.

Isn't this one of the bondages Jesus set us free from?

No. Because Jesus' beef wasn't with tradition; Jesus' criticism was with how some of the religious leaders of the day used their religious traditions as an excuse to avoid actually being faithful to God's commandments, and with the general religious arrogance and hypocrisy that sought to use religion as a tool to harm, injure, and oppress.

Imagining that "Catholics" are "Pharisees" results in a fundamental mis-comprehension of what Jesus was talking about and results in one being able to ignore the plank in their own eye while obsessing over the splinter in another's.

I've seen as much--if not more--rigorous, overly-pietistic finger waving from the most "tradition-is-bad-mmmkay" sorts who imagine themselves to be above reproach because they aren't like "those people over there". Which should sound familiar if one reads Scripture, as it's the attitude of the Pharisee who acts the role of the braggart and condemns "those sinners" "especially this tax-collector".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[katherine2001]

He was talking about the WORD bible, I said call it scripture since the WORD scripture/scriptures is in there if that is what you will have a bird over. And to the other (Godless forum or not) is not specified say EVERY PLACE.

Its rather simple, but as usual if you say that then it becomes the dumb canon stapling issue, its just retarded

It isn't ridiculous (I don't like the word "retarded"). The fact is, the Masoretic Text that many people have in their Bibles isn't the text used by the Early Church, that would be the Septuagint (the OT in use during Jesus's own time and during the time of the Early Church. The Masoretic Text is missing several books that are in the Septuagint. That presents a problem because people aren't all using the same version. There are things that the ancient faiths teach that aren't in the Masoretic text but are in the books that the Masoretic text don't have. Therefore, they are scriptural but those who don't have the entire OT that were included in the Canon of the OT decided on in the 4th Century. The Bible (OT/NT) did not fall out of the sky on Pentecost. Ecumenical Councils determined which books (out of many books floating around) belonged in the Canon of Scripture, and it was based on the oral/written traditions of the Church. The Apostle Paul made it clear that there is both oral and written Tradition. If books didn't match the oral and written Traditions, then they weren't included in the Canon. The Canon does matter, because some don't have the full Scriptures as decided by the Christian Church. The Jews are the ones that made the OT canon in the Masoretic version of the OT used by many Christians.

 

[Fireinfolding]

It isn't ridiculous (I don't like the word "retarded"). The fact is, the Masoretic Text that many people have in their Bibles isn't the text used by the Early Church, that would be the Septuagint (the OT in use during Jesus's own time and during the time of the Early Church. The Masoretic Text is missing several books that are in the Septuagint. That presents a problem because people aren't all using the same version. There are things that the ancient faiths teach that aren't in the Masoretic text but are in the books that the Masoretic text don't have. Therefore, they are scriptural but those who don't have the entire OT that were included in the Canon of the OT decided on in the 4th Century. The Bible (OT/NT) did not fall out of the sky on Pentecost. Ecumenical Councils determined which books (out of many books floating around) belonged in the Canon of Scripture, and it was based on the oral/written traditions of the Church. The Apostle Paul made it clear that there is both oral and written Tradition. If books didn't match the oral and written Traditions, then they weren't included in the Canon. The Canon does matter, because some don't have the full Scriptures as decided by the Christian Church. The Jews are the ones that made the OT canon in the Masoretic version of the OT used by many Christians.

There was a word and it was being griped about as not being in scripture I was simply stating use another word, (like pick one better suited for yourself). Thats all I was involving myself in.

I use words like foolish or stupid or retarded at ideas, but you cannot please everyone you will be an offender for one at one point or another.

Other than that I have no interest in the conversation and Im not really following it too closely.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin hat...

This thread is closed pending review, and may be reopened in the future.

Note that in the Theology Forums, the Nicene definition of the Trinity is not open for debate.

Mark
CF Admin

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread had a clean up and is being reopened. As a reminder, the site rules include this:
​

Congregational Forum Restrictions and Christians Only Forums
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum. There are forums reserved for Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox Christian theology, you may do so in the Controversial Theology forum.

Also, if someone is violating the rules, please report and do not respond or egg the person on. ​

 

[Wgw]

So let us pick up then where we were forced to leave off due to a most unpleasant derailment. I remain entirely of the opinion that the continuing criticism of traditional churches in this forum is unwarranted and unjustifiable.

It isn't ridiculous (I don't like the word "retarded"). The fact is, the Masoretic Text that many people have in their Bibles isn't the text used by the Early Church, that would be the Septuagint (the OT in use during Jesus's own time and during the time of the Early Church. The Masoretic Text is missing several books that are in the Septuagint. That presents a problem because people aren't all using the same version. There are things that the ancient faiths teach that aren't in the Masoretic text but are in the books that the Masoretic text don't have. Therefore, they are scriptural but those who don't have the entire OT that were included in the Canon of the OT decided on in the 4th Century. The Bible (OT/NT) did not fall out of the sky on Pentecost. Ecumenical Councils determined which books (out of many books floating around) belonged in the Canon of Scripture, and it was based on the oral/written traditions of the Church. The Apostle Paul made it clear that there is both oral and written Tradition. If books didn't match the oral and written Traditions, then they weren't included in the Canon. The Canon does matter, because some don't have the full Scriptures as decided by the Christian Church. The Jews are the ones that made the OT canon in the Masoretic version of the OT used by many Christians.

I agree. Now, the EO scholar Eric Jobe has provided us with compelling reasons not to reject the Masoretic Text outright, and I agree with those. That said I do personally regard the LXX (Septuagint), Vulgate and Peshitta OT as rather more useful for our purposes.

 

[HebrewVaquero]

MOD HAT

This thread had a clean up and is being reopened. As a reminder, the site rules include this:
​

Congregational Forum Restrictions and Christians Only Forums
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum. There are forums reserved for Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox Christian theology, you may do so in the Controversial Theology forum.

Also, if someone is violating the rules, please report and do not respond or egg the person on. ​

I apologize, I was inadvertently the offender. I did the responsible thing and read the statement of faith before posting here to apologize.

There is only a couple of things I doubt but are not deal breakers. In the future I will pay more attention to where I am posting.