Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition

[RightReason]

I stumbled across a thread at the very bottom of the forum home page that prompted this post. I am essentially replying to a post in the Sacred Scripture section in the thread titled Scripture Vs. Tradition. I guess the thread is closed now, but I was interested in continuing the conversation

viewtopic.php?t=31174

The Bible is not an exhaustive catechism.

This is perhaps where the Roman Catholic approach is a net plus. In Catholicism, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are considered two faces of the same deposit of faith “delivered once to the saints� and they are each illuminated by the teaching authority of the Church, which Catholics believe was granted by Christ to the Apostles and comes down to believers today.

Good observation.

Tradition overcomes the logical conundrum of having scripture interpret itself, which is a circular proposition.

Yes. It also is what Scripture itself reveals to us. No where in Scripture will you find the Bible say the Bible alone is our sole authority. In fact, in the Bible we are told Jesus established His Church and then said to her, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him . . .��I will remain with my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it�

Also, Sacred Tradition came prior to Sacred Scripture. The Church gave us the Bible. So, very odd for any religion to accept the authority of the Bible, but rejects the authority of the Church. This is illogical and contrary to Scripture!

However, if tradition is completely unshacked from scripture, as it is with the various Catholic dogmas associated with the mother of Jesus

Ha, ha, ha . . . merely stating something doesn’t make it so. Absolutely everything the Church teaches about Jesus’ mother is right in line with Sacred Scripture. In fact, due to your own acknowledgment above regarding what you explained about the Bible not being an exhaustive catechism and the logic of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition being two faces of the same deposit of faith, it would be reasonable to accept what Sacred Tradition (the Church) says about Jesus’ mother. Why should it have any less authority then what we read in Sacred Scripture? As you admit, the logical approach is to acknowledge God’s plan for the authority of both – a clever checks and balance if you will. Also, quite clever (should we be surprised from an all wise, all knowing God?) to anticipate the need for a united authoritative Church.

Prisoner #1: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s brother at the Savoy Theater tonight. Pass it on.

Prisoner #2: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s mother at the Savoy Theater tonight. Pass it on.

Prisoner #3: Vermin’s mother is going to kill Johnny tonight at the Savoy Theater. Pass it on.

Prisoner #4: Johnny and the Mothers are playin’ “Stompin’ At The Savoy� in Vermont tonight. Pass it on.

This perfectly demonstrates what happens when a person picks up the Bible and gives his own personal interpretation on what he has read.

As we can see, we can understand God’s design for a single, united, authoritative Church to provide a single, united interpretation (as guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by God). Nothing else makes sense. Even sincere devout Christians can read the exact same passage differently.

This IS the elephant in the room that it seems countless Christian denominations simply choose to ignore. How/why did Calvin know he was getting it right? How/why would Luther? How/why would Zwingli? Joseph Smith? John Wesley? George Fox? Charles Taze Russell? From where did their authority come? In fact, each and every one of them denies the authority of Christ’s Church. They all insist on the authority of the Bible (without noting the irony that they received the Bible from the Church. The Bible did not fall from the sky. The Church decided what was to be in it and what wasn’t).

It is something that simply makes no sense. And I can never understand why this doesn't bother more people. I have read of numerous converts to the Catholic faith who said they had been active in other Christian denominations, but realized how problematic it was when those within their congregation disagreed. They themselves admitted they just wanted to know what was right, but their churches admitted they held no authority. So, what would happen if disagreements arose would be splitting off, parting of ways, and new churches formed. So which one got it right?

Of course many other converts to the Catholic faith ended up becoming Catholic once they started delving into history to discover Truth. Once someone starts tracing the Church back to her origins, he ends up in the Catholic Church.

And of course a turning point for many is also John 6:51. One would have to completely ignore the blatant meaning of the passage it order to deny all understood Christ to be speaking literally that day regarding the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Adopting a figurative interpretation renders the passage meaningless and contradicts what His actual audience heard that day He spoke those words.

Anyway, this forum is full of Christians who want to discus Calvin’s predestination and salvation to the elect, Charles Russell’s paradise earth theory and no blood transfusions, John Wesley’s full immersion Baptism, George Fox’s rejected Baptism by water and rejection of rituals, Joseph Smith’s emphasis on no drinking or caffeine, etc. – all of which probably stemmed from good intentions. Nonetheless, no amount of sincerity makes 2+2=5. Having left Christ’s Church they were convinced they could find truth on their own – convinced they could do it better. Unfortunately, what we are left with is thousands of non authoritative denominations all teaching different things. What’s a sincere Christian in search of truth to do?

My suggestion is to start at the beginning. Learn history. I also suggest being on the lookout for inconsistencies in teachings regarding faith and morals. If your church once said the world would end in 1916, but then it didn’t, you might want to call into question your church’s ability to get it right. If your church forbids things that Jesus Himself never forbade (ie: wine), you might have a hard time justifying why. If your church use to be opposed to gay marriage, but has recently changed its teaching, you might want to ask how can truth change? And if they were wrong about that, what else did they get wrong? If your church added to or took out words from the Bible, I’d consider that sketch. If your church wasn’t even founded until a thousand years after Christ, then it couldn’t possibly be Christ’s Church.

Anyway, those are just some things to think about. I wish everyone peace.

[PinSeeker]

So, you both agree that Christ established a church, correct?

Absolutely. A people.

Do you believe, like it tells us in Scripture, that this church has power and authority?

Absolutely. But that power and authority is derived from the power and authority of Christ Jesus, Who is one with the Father and sits at His right hand.

It seems Tam keeps repeating that only Jesus has power and authority...

I can't speak for Tam, but I think she would agree with me in this. Maybe not.

...how do you reconcile His words, “He who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me?� How do you reconcile, Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven�? If the Church is not an actual visible entity how exactly do you think they are binding and losing? Those aren’t invisible actions.

Two things (that go hand in hand):

1. We haven't been talking about "actions," RR. We've been talking about who the church actually is.

2. Yes, we will know other believers by their fruit (the fruit of the Spirit, Galatians 5:22-23), but as for people themselves, their actions do not necessarily tell us who they really are. They may do good things, but only out of selfish motives rather than praise of God. My own extended family is full of folks like that. So we don't know for sure if the heart of any individual is actually converted to Christ or not... or if they will be at any point in the future. Only God knows that, and in this way, the Christ's Church is invisible to us.

The nature of the Church must be a nature that speaks/has a voice, other wise Jesus’ words, “He who hears you, hears me� wouldn’t make any sense. So, I’d call that an authoritative nature, wouldn’t you?

Absolutely.

I think Tam denies the authoritative nature of the Church.

Again, can't speak for Tam. But if so, she's wrong.

But again, Christ's Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Neither is it any Protestant denomination (even the "non-denominational" denomination )

I could be wrong, but Tam is anti-organized religion, even though that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

From what I think I'm understanding (between the lines), Tam is against denominations. If that's what you mean by "anti-organized religion," then maybe so. But I think she's very much for unity in Christ, as all believers should be.

We should all be "anti-organized religion" in the sense that we are not to be idolatrous about religion/tradition/organization itself.

Nor idolatrous to our own notion of what the Church is, right? Christ organized a Church – clearly nothing wrong with something being organized.

Very much agreed. God is very organized... perfectly organized, around Himself, for His own glory. So should we be organized... around Him, for His glory. That's sort of the problem with your whole argument for the Roman Catholic Church (which was my point here). Despite your argument to the contrary, the Roman Catholic Church is an organization of man, and really based on a mere man -- Peter -- rather than Christ Himself. Peter is not the Rock. Christ Jesus is, as clearly stated not just in Matthew 16 (although that is very explicit), but throughout Scripture, as I have said several times now.

Jesus alone is the True Vine (John 15). He -- not Peter -- is the Rock on which His Church is built.

False.

No, true.

Didn’t we already cover this?

We did. Several times now.

Proper exegesis of Scripture in fact shows Peter is the rock.

Absolutely false.

And for the umpteenth time, if Jesus Himself says, “He who hears you, hears me� “Whatever you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven� shows Jesus giving authority and power to His Church AND this does not negate that Jesus is our Savior.

Absolutely! Wholeheartedly agreed.

Certainly it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared, addressing its first earthly leader, “I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven� (Matt. 16:19).

I agree -- except for the "first earthly leader" part. Jesus leads His church, now by His Spirit, and in the future in Person. The very term "entrust" means the keys are still His (Jesus's), but that we -- Peter is representative of all of Jesus's Church here -- are stewards of them until He (Jesus) returns.

What good would it have done to bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: “Refer it to the Church� (Matt. 18:17).

See above.

He tells his followers, who make us the Church on earth, that they are “the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house� (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).

No, He Himself makes us the Church on earth and thus the light of the world, not His followers.

Christ’s Church does have an invisible quality in that it is his Mystical Body on earth.

That's part of the story. But only part.

But to understand the Church as having no visibility at all – and, as a consequence, no authority at all – conjures up a Church as tenuous as feathers in the wind. It’s almost as if Jesus, in setting up his Church, didn’t quite know what he was doing.

See above. Again, the actions of the Church (the fruit of the Spirit) are visible, but who actually makes up the Church is not. Every Bible passage you cite here backs me up on this. Every single one.

[PinSeeker]

Christ established no church. The word is Assembly. His disciplines led in Jerusalem and they were attending Friday Sabbath services at the Temple and synagogues. James headed the Jerusalem council and was followed by two of his brothers, Simeon and Jude. Rome was not in authority at this time, until Jerusalem fell and they were persecuted nearly out of existence. Western poly theism and thought invaded the missionary outposts in Greece and Rome until the religion became Romen by force after the persecutions stopped. Eboinites and Berians carried on the Apostles and Christ's doctrine(which was Torah). This was documented by early Roman church fathers.

Anti Jewish thought became prevalent through out Rome. And the Sabbath was moved to Sunday by Rome to separate them from the Jews. One of the early fathers actually encouraged believers to work harder on the Sabbath than any other day to spite the indolent Jews.

Here's an article from the Wiccans at Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity


With all that said, God never changed his commandment, because God never changes. SO, the RCC and others do it upon their own authority, not God's.

God appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed to the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

Scriptural support:

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Gen. 2:2–3)

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (1 Cor. 16:1–2)

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

It really has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It's based on the resurrection of Jesus, who was a Jew Himself, as I'm sure you well know.

[tam]

Peace to you both,


I'll respond to the following few questions for the sake of clarity,

So, you both agree that Christ established a church, correct?

Absolutely. A people.

Yes, the Church that is the Body of Christ (yes, made of people).

Do you believe, like it tells us in Scripture, that this church has power and authority?

Absolutely. But that power and authority is derived from the power and authority of Christ Jesus, Who is one with the Father and sits at His right hand.

Yes.

It seems Tam keeps repeating that only Jesus has power and authority...

I can't speak for Tam, but I think she would agree with me in this. Maybe not.

I have never denied that Christ gave His Church (His Body - made of people) power and authority: to forgive sins (binding and loosing); and power from on high (holy spirit, and whichever gift of the spirit that comes with).


Peace again to you both,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy