# Which is the historical Sola Scriptura?



## kceaster

It has been put forth on this board many times that we believe one of the most important doctrines of the Reformation is Sola Scriptura.

There are differing views of this doctrine on the board. For the sake of clarification, I would like to discuss these certain views, but through the rubric of Keith Mathison's, &quot;The Shape of Sola Scriptura.&quot;

For those of you who have not read it, he puts forward four differing views of Sola Scriptura and gives a background as to when those views historically came into being. I will do my best to outline them briefly below.

Tradition 0 - Only the Scriptures and no traditions. This view basically claims that the Scriptures are the sole authority, but that each person must determine for themselves the interpretation of them. This view allows for no extrabiblical revelation.

Tradition 1 - Only the Scriptures plus the Apostolic rule of faith. This view claims that the Scriptures are the sole authority, and that the establishment of the rule of faith of the early church, and subsequent generations that followed them, helps to determine the interpretation of the Scriptures. This view allows for no extrabiblical revelation.

Tradition 2 - Only Scriptures, plus written and oral traditions that have been adopted in subsequent years. This view sees the Scriptures as authoritative, but also allows for written and oral tradition passed down from generation to generation to be a part of the rule of faith. This view allows for extrabiblical revelation.

Tradition 3 - Only the Scriptures, plus on-going revelation by God. This view believes that the Bible is authoritative. However, it must be interpreted with the times. Therefore, each person in each generation must interpret the Bible in their own way. This view allows for extrabiblical revelation.

Discussions?

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by kceaster]


----------



## Scott

Mathison's book is great and should be read by all.

I think there is a separate but related issue too. The issue is, even if scripture is the ultimate authority (as all here would agree), what body or entity is properly charged with being the final earthly authority to resolve differences of interpretation?

Most evangelicals would say each individual is the final earthly authority. In other words, when people disagree about what the Bible means, there is no authoritative recourse. The sole recourse is persuasion.

I think this is error. I think the reformers recognized that the mind of the church, as expressed in councils and synods, is properly charged with resolving conflicts among individuals. Acts 15 is the main example of this. The interpretations of a council are more authoritative than those of an individual.

Scott


----------



## Scott

BTW, here is an online chapter from Mathison's book. This chapter is a critique of Tradition 0:

http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html


----------



## JonathonHunt

In my opinion, Acts 15 does not show a council, it shows the meeting of two churches with the one having a complaint about certain judaisers who originated from the other. Paul recieved revelation directly from God - it is strange to think that he would subject his God-given instruction to some form of 'council' to determine its veracity. The meeting was a matter of church discipline.

If anyone wants more on this view (but I'm sure its already been discussed) then I could put it on later when I find my notes!

I know I'm a Baptist, but there are presbyterians who think the same - ie Robert Reymond. Then again, I know some of you think Reymond is a screaming heretic...




[Edited on 3-25-2004 by JonathanHunt]

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by JonathanHunt]


----------



## kceaster

*Jonathan...*

[quote:acf5f6c0f1][i:acf5f6c0f1]Originally posted by JonathanHunt[/i:acf5f6c0f1]
In my opinion, Acts 15 does not show a council, it shows the meeting of two churches with the one having a complaint about certain judaisers who originated from the other. Paul recieved revelation directly from God - it is strange to think that he would subject his God-given instruction to some form of 'council' to determine its veracity. The meeting was a matter of church discipline.

If anyone wants more on this view (but I'm sure its already been discussed) then I could put it on later when I find my notes!

I know I'm a Baptist, but there are presbyterians who think the same - ie Robert Reymond. Then again, I know some of you think Reymond is a screaming heretic...




[Edited on 3-25-2004 by JonathanHunt]

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by JonathanHunt] [/quote:acf5f6c0f1]

Does that mean you voted Tradition 0?

If we want to discuss Acts 15, we could move it to another forum. Go ahead and start a thread on it in the Biblical/Text Forum.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Don A

[quote:4828decbcf]
Tradition 1 - Only the Scriptures plus the Apostolic rule of faith. This view claims that the Scriptures are the sole authority, and that the establishment of the rule of faith of the early church, and subsequent generations that followed them, helps to determine the interpretation of the Scriptures. This view allows for no extra biblical revelation.
[/quote:4828decbcf]

The true "Apostolic rule of faith" could only be that which is in the scriptures. Otherwise, it would be post-apostolic, therefore, post-Biblical.

The "rule of faith of the early church", or at least our record of it, [i:4828decbcf]could[/i:4828decbcf] have been corrupted soon after the Apostles ceased their ministries. We know for a fact that the Apostles themselves continually battled false teaching and apostasy in the churches of their day. 

Here's a bit from the Catholic Information Network:

[quote:4828decbcf]THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF SOLA SCRIPTURA 
by James Akin 
Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (&quot;Scripture alone&quot teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to &quot;faith and practice&quot must be able to be derived from Scripture alone. This is expressed by the Reformation slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum (&quot;What is not biblical is not theological,&quot; cf. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Richard A. Muller, Baker, 1985). 

An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) any binding authority. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority.[/quote:4828decbcf]

Full article at:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/practicl.htm

In other words (Mr. Akin's words), without tradition, it won't work.
I strongly agree with his definition, but not his conclusion. 

SOLA = ALONE. Plus nothing.

The question posed is "Which is the historical Sola Scriptura?".

Well, historically it has most often been defined as Tradition 1.

But by true definition, it would be, and should be, Tradition 0.


----------



## Scott

Don:

I disagree that the &quot;true defintion&quot; would be &quot;Tradition 0.&quot; Also, I would not look to the Catholic network to define Protestant views.

In any event, we have a parallel in our modern legal system. We can say that the Constitution is the ultimate standard of law. Yet, the courts construe and apply the constitution. They are the body properly charged with that function. Their decisions have actual authority. The caselaw that surrounds the Constituion provides a interpretive tradition that is not greater than the Constitution but rather derivative to it. 

From a practical perspective, this caselaw affects the way we live. When individuals disagree about the meaning, they have caselaw to appeal to. 

Scott


----------



## Scott

BTW, it would seem that the selection of which books should be included in the canon is a sort of derivative tradition. The mind of the church accepted that which was the Word and rejected uninspired documents, like the Gospel of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the 100 or so other documents that circulated in the early church. 

The highest witness as to which books are inspired is the Holy Spirit working in the mind of the collective church. The church's work in this area is done and it is wrong to challenge it (as Luther foolishly did, suggesting that James was uninspired). The church does not authorize the scriptures, but is the proper body to recognize the voice of the Spirit in them.

Tradition 0, if held consistently, necessitates each individual believer rejecting the tradition of the canon and making an individual assessment of each particular book to determine if it is inspired. This would be absurd and beyond the skill of everyone, or nearly everyone.

Scott


----------



## pastorway

*Sola Scriptura = Scripture Alone*

Don A is correct. By the very definition of terms, sola means alone.

The WCF 

[quote:816f29f7fc]Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament.....All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life. 

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, [u:816f29f7fc]depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church[/u:816f29f7fc]; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: [u:816f29f7fc]unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men[/u:816f29f7fc].[/quote:816f29f7fc]

The LBCF

[quote:816f29f7fc][u:816f29f7fc]The Holy Scripture is the only [/u:816f29f7fc]sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed,[u:816f29f7fc] depends not on the testimony of any man or church[/u:816f29f7fc], but wholly upon God its Author (Who is Truth itself). Therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. 

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, [u:816f29f7fc]to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men[/u:816f29f7fc]. [/quote:816f29f7fc]

The Scirptures are the teachings and tradition of the Prophets and Apostles. So we see then that Sola Scirptura means the Scripture alone. As soon as we require extra-Biblical tradition to understand the Bible we are no longer holding to true Sola Scriptura.

Scripture plus tradition does not equal Sola Scriptura. In fact, Scripture plus [i:816f29f7fc]anything[/i:816f29f7fc] else does not equal Sola Scriptura. 

Further, to require tradition and church teaching to understand the BIble rightly denies the perspicuity of Scripture as well as the ability of the Holy Spirit to illumine those reading and hearing the Word.

Yes the church is to teach and preach, but the Word is not given authority by the church! The church is given authority by the Word. Let's not confuse the two and place tradition on an equal footing with the God breathed Word!

James White has defined Sola Scriptura this way:

[quote:816f29f7fc]Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. 

http://aomin.org/SS.html[/quote:816f29f7fc]

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals has stated: 

[quote:816f29f7fc]We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian's conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.[/quote:816f29f7fc]

See also a multitude of articles defining Sola Scriptura at the monergism.com:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/fivesolas.html

Finally, you can read AA Hodge as he argues against the requirement of Tradition to understand Scripture here (emphasis added):

[quote:816f29f7fc]THE RULE OF FAITH &amp; PRACTICE.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Having Been Given By Inspiration of God, Are the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies.


[b:816f29f7fc]1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?[/b:816f29f7fc]

Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.

[b:816f29f7fc]2. What does the Romish Church declare to be the infallible rule of faith and practice?[/b:816f29f7fc]

The Romish theory is that the complete rule of faith and practice consists of Scripture and tradition, or the oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, handed down through the Church. Tradition they hold to be necessary, 1st, to teach additional truth not contained in the Scriptures; and, 2nd, to interpret Scripture. The Church being the divinely constituted depository and judge of both Scripture and tradition.--&quot; Decrees of Council of Trent,&quot; Session IV, and &quot;Dens Theo.,&quot; Tom. 2., N. 80 and 81.

[b:816f29f7fc]3. By what arguments do they seek to establish the authority of tradition? By what criterion do they distinguish true traditions from false, and on what grounds do they base the authority of the traditions they receive?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. Their arguments in behalf of tradition are--(1.) Scripture authorizes it, 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6. (2.) The early fathers asserted its authority and founded their faith largely upon it. (3.) The oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, when clearly ascertained, is intrinsically of equal authority with their writings. The scriptures themselves are handed down to us by the evidence of tradition, and the stream cannot rise higher than its source. (4.) The necessity of the case. (a.) Scripture is obscure, needs tradition as its interpreter. (b.)Scripture is incomplete as a rule of faith and practice; since there are many doctrines and institutions, universally recognized, which are founded only upon tradition as a supplement to Scripture. (5.) Analogy. every state recognizes both written and unwritten, common and statute law.

2nd. The criterion by which they distinguish between true and false traditions is Catholic consent. The Anglican ritualists confine the application of the rule to the first three or four centuries. the Romanists recognize that as an authoritative consent which is constitutionally expressed by the bishops in general council, or by the Pope ex-cathedra, in any age of the church whatever.

3rd. They defend the traditions which they hold to be true. (1.) On the ground of historical testimony, tracing them up to the apostles as their source. (2.) The authority of the Church expressed by Catholic consent.

[b:816f29f7fc]4. By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical tradition, as a part of our rule of faith and practice, be shown?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6), signifies all his instructions, oral and written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt. 15:3,6; Mark 7:7.

2nd. [u:816f29f7fc]It is improbable a priori that God would supplement Scripture with tradition as part of our rule of faith. (1.) Because Scripture, as will be shown below (questions 7-14), is certain, definite, complete, and perspicuous. (2.) Because tradition, from its very nature, is indeterminate, and liable to become adulterated with every form of error. Besides, as will be shown below (question 20), the authority of Scripture does not rest ultimately upon tradition[/u:816f29f7fc].

3rd The whole ground upon which Romanists base the authority of their traditions (viz., history and church authority) is invalid. (1.) History utterly fails them. For more than three hundred years after the apostles they have very little, and that contradictory, evidence for any one of their traditions.

They are thus forced to the absurd assumption that what was taught in the fourth century was therefore taught in the third, and therefore in the first. (2.) [u:816f29f7fc]The church is not infallible, as will be shown below (question 18)[/u:816f29f7fc].

4th. Their practice is inconsistent with their own principles. Many of the earliest and best attested traditions they do not receive. Many of their pretended traditions are recent inventions unknown to the ancients.

5th. Many of their traditions, such as relate to the priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, etc., are plainly in direct opposition to Scripture. Yet the infallible church affirms the infallibility of Scripture. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

[b:816f29f7fc]5. What is necessary to constitute a sole and infallible rule of faith?[/b:816f29f7fc]

[u:816f29f7fc]Plenary inspiration, completeness, perspicuity or clarity, and accessibility[/u:816f29f7fc].

[b:816f29f7fc]6. What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.

2nd. [u:816f29f7fc]Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever[/u:816f29f7fc].--Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.--Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.--Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

[b:816f29f7fc]7. In what sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of faith asserted?[/b:816f29f7fc]

It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever made to man, but that their contents are the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions.

[b:816f29f7fc]8. How may this completeness be proved, from the design of scripture?[/b:816f29f7fc]

The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is necessary to that end they must teach us. If any supplementary rule, as tradition, is necessary to that end, they must refer us to it.

&quot;Incompleteness here would be falsehood.&quot; But while one sacred writer constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of them ever intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of any other rule.--John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:15-17.

[b:816f29f7fc]9. By what other arguments may this principle be proved?[/b:816f29f7fc]

As the Scriptures profess to be a rule complete for its end, so they have always been practically found to be such by the true spiritual people of God in all ages. They teach a complete and harmonious system of doctrine. They furnish all necessary principles for the government of the private lives of Christians, in every relation, for the public worship of God, and for the administration of the affairs of his kingdom; and they repel all pretended -traditions and priestly innovations.

[b:816f29f7fc]10. In what sense do Protestants affirm and Romanists deny the perspicuity of Scripture?[/b:816f29f7fc]

Protestants do not affirm that the doctrines revealed in the Scriptures are level to man's powers of understanding. Many of them are confessedly beyond all understanding. Nor do they affirm that every part of Scripture can be certainly and perspicuously expounded, many of the prophesies being perfectly obscure until explained by the event. But they do affirm that every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced therefrom. This much the least instructed Christian may learn at once; while, on the other hand, it is true, that with the advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by means of controversies, the Christian church is constantly making progress in the accurate interpretation of Scripture, and in the comprehension in its integrity of the system therein taught.

[u:816f29f7fc]Protestants affirm and Romanists deny that private and unlearned Christians may safely be allowed to interpret Scripture for themselves[/u:816f29f7fc].

[b:816f29f7fc]11. How can the perspicuity of scripture be proved from the fact that it is a law and a message?[/b:816f29f7fc]

We saw (question 8) that Scripture is either complete or false, from its own professed design. We now prove its perspicuity upon the same principle. It professes to be (1) a law to be obeyed; (2) a revelation of truth to be believed, to be received by us in both aspects upon the penalty of eternal death. To suppose it not to be perspicuous, relatively to its design of commanding and teaching is to charge God with clearing with us in a spirit at once disingenuous and cruel.

[b:816f29f7fc]12. In what passages is their perspicuity asserted?[/b:816f29f7fc]

Ps. 19:7,8; 119:105,130; 2 Cor. 3:14; 2 Pet. 1:18,19; Hab. 2:2; 2 Tim. 3:15,17.

[b:816f29f7fc]13. By what other arguments may this point be established?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men indiscriminately, or else to the whole body of believers as such.--Deut. 6:4-9; Luke 1:3; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 4:2; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 2:12,14; Jude 1:1; Rev. 1:3,4; 2:7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus.

2nd. All Christians indiscriminately are commanded to search the Scriptures.--2 Tim. 3:15,17; Acts 17:11; John 5:39.

3rd. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same property in the sun. The argument to the contrary, is an insult to the understanding of the whole world of Bible readers.

4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every age and nation, who draw their religion directly from the open Scriptures.

[b:816f29f7fc]14. What was the third quality required to constitute the scriptures the sufficient rule of faith and practice?[/b:816f29f7fc]

Accessibility. It is self-evident that this is the pre-eminent characteristic of the Scriptures, in contrast to tradition, which is in the custody of a corporation of priests, and to every other pretended rule whatsoever. The agency of the church in this matter is simply to give all currency to the word of God.

[b:816f29f7fc]15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the judge as well as the rule in questions of faith?[/b:816f29f7fc]

[u:816f29f7fc]&quot;A rule is a standard of judgment; a judge is the expounder and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases.&quot; The Protestant doctrine is--

1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

2nd. (1.) negatively. That there is no body of men who are either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or apply their principles to the decision of particular questions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their fellow Christians.

(2.) Positively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in the church, and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with the gracious help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian (1 John 2:20-27), by each individual for himself; with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind only those who voluntarily profess them, and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach[/u:816f29f7fc].

[b:816f29f7fc]16. What is the Romish doctrine regarding the authority of the church as the infallible interpreter of the rule of faith and the authoritative judge of all controversies?[/b:816f29f7fc]

The Romish doctrine is that the church is absolutely infallible in all matters of Christian faith and practice, and the divinely authorized depository and interpreter of the rule of faith. Her office is not to convey new revelations from God to man, yet her inspiration renders her infallible in disseminating and interpreting the original revelation communicated through the apostles.

The church, therefore, authoritatively determines--1st. What is Scripture. 2nd. What is genuine tradition 3rd. What is the true sense of Scripture and 'tradition', and what is the true application of that perfect rule to every particular question of belief or practice.

This authority vests in the pope, when acting in his official capacity, and in the bishops as a body, as when assembled in general council, or when giving universal consent to a decree of pope or council.--&quot;Decrees of Council of Trent,&quot; Session 4.; &quot;Deus Theo.,&quot; N. 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96. &quot;Bellarmine,&quot; Lib. 3., de eccles., cap. 14., and Lib. 2., de council., cap. 2.

[b:816f29f7fc]17. By what arguments do they seek to establish this authority?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. The promises of Christ, given, as they claim, to the apostles, and to their official successor, securing their infallibility, and consequent authority.--Matt. 16:18; 18:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; John 16:13; 20:23.

2nd. The commission given to the church as the teacher of the world.--Matt. 28:19, 20; Luke 10:16, etc.

3rd. The church is declared to be &quot;the pillar and ground of the truth,&quot; and it is affirmed that &quot;the gates of hell shall never prevail against her.&quot;

4th. To the church is granted power to bind and loose, and he that will not hear the church is to be treated as a heathen. Matt. 16:19; 18:15-18.

5th. The church is commanded to discriminate between truth and error, and must consequently be qualified and authorized to do so--2 Thessalonians 3:6; Romans 16:17; 2 John 10.

6th. From the necessity of the case, men need and crave an ever-living, visible, and cotemporaneous infallible Interpreter and Judge.

7th. From universal analogy every community among men has the living judge as well as the written law, and the one would be of no value without the other.

8th. This power is necessary to secure unity and universality, which all acknowledge to be essential attributes of the true church.

[b:816f29f7fc]18. By what arguments may this claim of the Romish church be shown to be utterly baseless?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. A claim vesting in mortal men a power so momentous can be established only by the most clear and certain evidence, and the failure to produce such converts the claim into a treason at once against God and the human race.

2nd. Her evidence fails, because the promises of Christ to preserve his church from extinction and from error do none of them go the length of pledging infallibility. The utmost promised is, that the true people of God shall never perish entirely from the earth, or be left to apostatize from the essentials of the faith.

3rd. Her evidence fails, because these promises of Christ were addressed not to the officers of the church as such, but to the body of true believers. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:33,47,48,49, and 1 John 2:20,27.

4th. Her evidence fails, because the church to which the precious promises of the Scriptures are pledged is not an external, visible society, the authority of which is vested in the hands of a perpetual line of apostles. For--(1.) the word church ekklhsia is a collective term, embracing the effectually called klhtoi or regenerated.--Rom. 1:7; 8:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; Jude 1:; Rev. 17:14; also Rom. 9:24; 1 Cor. 7:18-24; Gal. 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 2:9; 5:10; Eph. 1:18; 2 Pet. 1:10. (2.) The attributes ascribed to the church prove it to consist alone of the true, spiritual people of God as such.--Eph. 5:27; 1 Pet. 2:5; John 10:27; Col. 1:18,24. (3.) The epistles are addressed to the church, and in their salutations explain that phrase as equivalent to &quot;the called,&quot;&quot;the saints,&quot;&quot;all true worshippers of God;&quot; witness the salutations of 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Peter and Jude. The same attributes are ascribed to the members of the true church as such throughout the body of the Epistles.-- 1 Cor. 1:30; 3:16; 6:11,19; Eph. 2:3-8, and 19-22; 1 Thess. 5:4,5; 2 Thess. 2:13; Col. 1:21; 2:10; 1 Pet. 2:9.

5th. The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There is no evidence that they had such in the New Testament. (2.) While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the offices of presbyter and deacon (1 Tim. 3:1-13), there are no directions given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. (3.) There is perfect silence concerning the continued existence of any apostles in the church in the writings of the early centuries. Both the name and the thing ceased. (4.) No one ever claiming to be one of their successors have possessed the &quot;signs of an apostle.&quot;--2 Cor. 12:12; 1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:1,12; Acts 1:21,22.

6th. This claim, as it rests upon the authority of the Pope, is utterly unscriptural, because the Pope is not known to Scripture. As it rests upon the authority of the whole body of the bishops, expressed in their general consent, it is unscriptural for the reasons above shown, and it is, moreover, impracticable, since their universal judgment never has been and never can be impartially collected and pronounced.

7th. There can be no infallibility where there is not self- consistency. But as a matter of fact the Papal church has not been self-consistent in her teaching. (1.) She has taught different doctrines in different sections and ages. (2.) She affirms the infallibility of the holy Scriptures, and at the same time teaches a system plainly and radically inconsistent with their manifest sense; witness the doctrines of the priesthood, the mass, penance, of works, and of Mary worship. Therefore the Church of Rome hides the Scriptures from the people.

8th. If this Romish system be true then genuine spiritual religion ought to flourish in her communion, and all the rest of the world ought to be a moral desert. The facts are notoriously the reverse. If; therefore, we admit that the Romish system is true, we subvert one of the principal evidences of Christianity itself; viz., the self-evidencing light and practical power of true religion, and the witness of the Holy Ghost.

[b:816f29f7fc]19. By what direct arguments may the doctrine that the Scriptures are the final judge of controversies be established?[/b:816f29f7fc]

That all Christians are to study the Scriptures for themselves, and that in all questions as to God's revealed will the appeal is to the Scriptures alone, is proved by the following facts:

1st. Scripture is perspicuous, see above, questions 11-13.

2nd. Scripture is addressed to all Christians as such, see above, question 13.

3rd. All Christians are commanded to search the scriptures, and by them to judge all doctrines and all professed teachers.--John 5:39; Acts 17:11; Gal. 1:8; 2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1,2.

4th. The promise of the Holy Spirit, the author and interpreter of Scripture, is to all Christians as such. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:47-49; 1 John 2:20,27; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17.

5th. Religion is essentially a personal matter. Each Christian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself; on the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not on the mere ground of blind authority. Otherwise faith could not be a moral act, nor could it &quot;purify the heart.&quot; Faith derives its sanctifying power from the truth which it immediately apprehends on its own experimental evidence.--John 17:17, 19; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:22.

[b:816f29f7fc]20. What is the objection which the Romanists make to this doctrine, on the ground that the church is our only authority for believing that the scriptures are the word of God?[/b:816f29f7fc]

Their objection is, that as we receive the scriptures as the word of God only on the authoritative testimony of the church, our faith in the Scriptures is only another form of our faith in the church, and the authority of the church, being the foundation of that of Scripture, must of course be held paramount.

This is absurd, for two reasons--

1st. The assumed fact is false. The evidence upon which we receive Scripture as the word of God is not the authority of the church, but--(1.) God did speak by the apostles and prophets, as is evident (a) from the nature of their doctrine, (b) from their miracles, (c) their prophecies, (d) our personal experience and observation of the power of the truth. (2.) These very writings which we possess were written by the apostles, etc., as is evident, (a) from internal evidence, (b) from historical testimony rendered by all competent cotemporaneous witnesses in the church or out of it.

2nd. Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know the Scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the church's testimony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it would be absurd. The witness who proves the identity or primogenitor of a prince does not thereby acquire a right to govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince.

[b:816f29f7fc]21. How is the argument for the necessity of a visible judge, derived from the diversities of sects and doctrines among Protestants, to be answered?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. We do not pretend that the private judgment of Protestants is infallible, but only that when exercised in a humble, believing spirit, it always leads to a competent knowledge of essential truth.

2nd. The term Protestant is simply negative, and is assumed by many infidels who protest as much against the Scriptures as they do against Rome. But Bible Protestants, among all their circumstantial differences, are, to a wonderful degree, agreed upon the essentials of faith and practice. Witness their hymns and devotional literature.

3rd. The diversity that does actually exist arises from failure in applying faithfully the Protestant principles for which we contend. Men do not simply and without prejudice take their creed from the Bible.

4th. The Catholic church, in her last and most authoritative utterance through the Council of Trent, has proved herself a most indefinite Judge. Her doctrinal decisions need an infallible interpreter infinitely more than the Scriptures.

[b:816f29f7fc]22. How may it be shown that the Romanist theory, as well as the Protestant, necessarily throws upon the people the obligation of private judgment?[/b:816f29f7fc]

Is there a God? Has he revealed himself? Has he established a church? Is that church an infallible teacher? Is private judgment a blind leader? Which of all pretended churches is the true one? Every one of these questions evidently must be settled in the Private judgment of the inquirer, before he can, rationally or irrationally, give up his private judgment to the direction of the self-asserting church. Thus of necessity Romanists appeal to the Scriptures to prove that the Scriptures cannot be understood, and address arguments to the private judgment of men to prove that private judgment is incompetent; thus basing an argument upon that which it is the object of the argument to prove is baseless.

[b:816f29f7fc]23. How may it be proved that the people are far more competent to discover what the Bible teaches than to decide, by the marks insisted upon by the Romanists, which is the true church?[/b:816f29f7fc]

The Romanists, of necessity, set forth certain marks by which the true church is to be discriminated from all counterfeits. These are (1.) Unity (through subjection to one visible head, the Pope); (2.) Holiness; (3.) Catholicity; (4.) Apostolicity, (involving an uninterrupted succession from the apostles of canonically ordained bishops.)--&quot;Cat. of Council of Trent,&quot; Part 1., Cap. 10. Now, the comprehension and intelligent application of these marks involve a great amount of learning and intelligent capacity upon the part of the inquirer. He might as easily prove himself to be descended from Noah by an unbroken series of legitimate marriages, as establish the right of Rome to the last mark. Yet he cannot rationally give up the right of studying the Bible for himself until that point is made clear.

Surely the Scriptures, with their self-evidencing spiritual power, make less exhaustive demands upon the resources of private judgment. 

ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AS TO THE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, AND AS TO TRADITION, AND AS TO THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE.

1st. AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.--&quot;Decrees of council of Trent,&quot; Sess. 4.--&quot;Moreover the same sacred and holy Synod ordains and declares, that the said old and Vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions held as authentic; and that no one is to dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.&quot;

&quot;Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees that no one, relying on his own skill shall in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother church--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy scriptures--hath held and doth hold, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.&quot;

&quot;Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican council,&quot; ch. 2.--&quot;And as the things which the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been wrongly explained by some, we, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our holy mother Church hath held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the sacred scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. &quot;

2nd. AS TO TRADITION.--&quot;Prof. Fidei Tridentinoe&quot;--(A. D. 1564) 2. and 3. &quot;I most steadfastly admit and embrace apostolic and ecclesiastic traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. I also admit the Holy scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother Church has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures, neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according, to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.&quot;

&quot;Council of Trent,&quot; Sess. 4.--&quot;And seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the apostles themselves the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us transmitted as it were from hand to hand.&quot;

3rd. AS TO THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE.--&quot;Dogmatic Decisions of the Vatican Council,&quot; chap. 3.--&quot;Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord . . . the power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is immediate, to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. . . . We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may reopen the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review his judgment. Wherefore they err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiff to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.&quot;

4th. CONCERNING THE ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE AS THE TEACHER OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.--&quot;Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council,&quot; Chap. 4.--&quot;Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed:That the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to he held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine according to faith and morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church. But if any one--which may God avert--presume to contradict this our definition:let him be anathema.&quot;

Cardinal Manning in his &quot;Vatican Council&quot; says, &quot;In this definition there are six points to be noted:&quot;

&quot;1st. It defines the meaning of the well-known phrase loquens ex cathedra ; that is, speaking from the Seat, or place, or with the authority of the supreme teacher of all Christians, and binding the assent of the universal Church.&quot;

&quot;2nd. The subject matter of the infallible teaching, namely, the doctrine of faith and morals.&quot;

&quot;3rd. The efficient cause of infallibility, that is, the divine assistance promised to Peter, and in Peter to his successors.&quot;

&quot;4th. The act to which this divine assistance is attached, the defining of doctrines of faith and morals.&quot;

&quot;5th. The extension of this infallible authority to the limits of the doctrinal office of the Church.&quot;

&quot;6th. The dogmatic value of the definitions ex cathedra, namely that they are in themselves irreformable, because in themselves infallible, and not because the Church, or any part or member of the Church, should assent to them.&quot;

&quot;Dogmatic Decrees of Vatican Council&quot; Ch. 4.--&quot;For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by his revelation they might make known new doctrine; but that by his assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.&quot;

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aahsolascrp.htm[/quote:816f29f7fc]

Hodge would vote with me for Tradition 0. In fact, Hodge would identify Tradition 1 as Roman Heresy!!

If we must add tradition and history then we must decide which tradition and history. Who decides? Whoch church, which denomination, which creed, which confession?

It is Scripture ALONE that binds the conscience of men.

Phillip

[Edited on 3-26-04 by pastorway]


----------



## pastorway

*John MacArthur on the Sufficiency of the Written Word*

This is chapter 5 of the book [i:ca365d9043]Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible[/i:ca365d9043], an excellent book defending the doctrine of Sola Scriptura! Contact Soli Deo Gloria Publications to order this book. Different prominent Protestant authors have written each chapter. 

[quote:ca365d9043]The tendency to venerate tradition is very strong in religion. The world is filled with religions that have been following set traditions for hundreds -- even thousands -- of years. Cultures come and go, but religious tradition shows an amazing continuity. 

In fact, many ancient religions -- including Druidism, Native American religions, and several of the oriental cults -- eschewed written records of their faith, preferring to pass down their legends and rituals and dogmas via word of mouth. Such religions usually treat their body of traditions as a de facto authority equal to other religions' sacred writings. 

Even among the world's religions that revere sacred writings, however, tradition and Scripture are often blended. This is true in Hinduism, for example, where the ancient Vedas are the Scriptures, and traditions handed down by gurus round out the faith of most followers. 

Tradition in effect becomes a lens through which the written word is interpreted. Tradition therefore stands as the highest of all authorities, because it renders the only authoritative interpretation of the sacred writings. 

This tendency to view tradition as supreme authority is not unique to pagan religions. Traditional Judaism, for example, follows the Scripture-plus-tradition paradigm. The familiar books of the Old Testament alone are viewed as Scripture, but true orthodoxy is actually defined by a collection of ancient rabbinical traditions known as the Talmud. In effect, the traditions of the Talmud carry an authority equal to or greater than that of the inspired Scriptures. 

Teaching as Doctrines the Precepts of Men
This is no recent development within Judaism. The Jews of Jesus' day also placed tradition on an equal footing with Scripture. Rather, in effect, they made tradition superior to Scripture, because Scripture was interpreted by tradition and therefore made subject to it. 

Whenever tradition is elevated to such a high level of authority, it inevitably becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture. Jesus made this very point when he confronted the Jewish leaders. He showed that in many cases their traditions actually nullified Scripture. He therefore rebuked them in the harshest terms: 

&quot;Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.&quot; 

&quot;Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.&quot; He was also saying to them, &quot;You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother, thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that (Mark 7:6 -- 13). 

It was inexcusable that tradition would be elevated to the level of Scripture in Judaism, because when God gave the law to Moses, it was in written form for a reason: to make it permanent and inviolable. The Lord made very plain that the truth He was revealing was not to be tampered with, augmented, or diminished in any way. His Word was the final authority in all matters: &quot;You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you&quot; (Deuteronomy 4:2). They were to observe His commandments assiduously, and neither supplement nor abrogate them by any other kind of &quot;authority&quot;: &quot;Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it&quot; (Deuteronomy 12:32). 

So the revealed Word of God, and nothing else, was the supreme and sole authority in Judaism. This alone was the standard of truth delivered to them by God Himself. Moses was instructed to write down the very words God gave him (Exodus 34:27), and that written record of God's Word became the basis for God's covenant with the nation (Exodus 24:4, 7). The written Word was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9), symbolizing its supreme authority in the lives and the worship of the Jews forever. God even told Moses' successor, Joshua: &quot;Be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night., so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it&quot; Joshua 1:7 -- 8). 

Of course, other books of inspired Scripture beside those written by Moses were later added to the Jewish canon -- but this was a prerogative reserved by God alone. Sola Scriptura was therefore established in principle with the giving of the law. No tradition passed down by word of mouth, no rabbinical opinion, and no priestly innovation was to be accorded authority equal to the revealed Word of God as recorded in Scripture. 

Agur understood this principle: &quot;Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar&quot; (Proverbs 30:5 -- 6). 

The Scriptures therefore were to be the one standard by which everyone who claimed to speak for God was tested: &quot;To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them&quot; (Isaiah 8:20, KJV). 

In short, tradition had no legitimate place of authority in the worship of Jehovah. Everything was to be tested by the Word of God as recorded in the Scriptures. That's why Jesus' rebuke to the scribes and Pharisees was so harsh. Their very faith in Rabbinical tradition was in and of itself a serious transgression of the covenant and commandments of God (cf. Matthew 15:3). 

The Rise and Ruin of Catholic Tradition

Unfortunately, Christianity has often followed the same tragic road as paganism and Judaism in its tendency to elevate tradition to a position of authority equal to or greater than Scripture. The Catholic Church in particular has its own body of tradition that functions exactly like the Jewish Talmud: it is the standard by which Scripture is to be interpreted. In effect, tradition supplants the voice of Scripture itself. 

How did this happen? As James White has demonstrated in his chapter on &quot;Sola Scriptura and the Early Church,&quot; the earliest church Fathers placed a strong emphasis on the authority of Scripture over verbal tradition. Fierce debates raged in the early church over such crucial matters as the deity of Christ, His two natures, the Trinity, and the doctrine of original sin. Early church councils settled those questions by appealing to Scripture as the highest of all authorities. The councils themselves did not merely issue ex cathedra decrees, but they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly. The authority was in the appeal to Scripture, not in the councils per se. 

Unfortunately, the question of Scriptural authority itself was not always clearly delineated in the early church, and as the church grew in power and influence, church leaders began to assert an authority that had no basis in Scripture. The church as an institution became in many people's eyes the fountain of authority and the arbiter on all matters of truth. Appeals began to be made more often to tradition than to Scripture. As a result, extrabiblical doctrines were canonized and a body of opinion that found no support in Scripture began to be asserted as infallibly true. 

Roman Catholic doctrine is shot through with legends and dogmas and superstitions that have no biblical basis whatsoever. The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ -- none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture. They are the product of Roman Catholic tradition. 

Officially, the Catholic Church is very straightforward about her blending of Scripture and tradition. The recently published Catechism of the Catholic Church (henceforth CCC, citations referring to paragraph numbers rather than page numbers) acknowledges that the Roman Catholic Church &quot;does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition. must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence&quot; (CCC 82, emphasis added). 

Tradition, according to Roman Catholicism, is therefore as much &quot;the Word of God&quot; as Scripture. According to the Catechism, Tradition and Scripture &quot;are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well- spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal&quot; (CCC 80). The &quot;sacred deposit of faith&quot; -- this admixture of Scripture and tradition -- was supposedly entrusted by the apostles to their successors (CCC 84), and &quot;The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.... This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome&quot; (CCC 85). 

The Catechism is quick to deny that this makes the Church's teaching authority (called the magisterium) in any way superior to the Word of God itself (CCC 86). But it then goes on to warn the faithful that they must &quot;read the Scripture within 'the living tradition of the whole Church' &quot; (CCC 113). The Catechism at this point quotes &quot;a saying of the Fathers[:] Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word&quot; (CCC 113). 

So in effect, tradition is not only made equal to Scripture, but it becomes the true Scripture, written not in documents, but mystically within the Church herself. And when the Church speaks, her voice is heard as if it were the voice of God, giving the only true meaning to the words of the &quot;documents and records.&quot; Thus tradition utterly supplants and supersedes Scripture. 



Modern Catholic Apologetics and Sola Scriptura
In other words, the official Catholic position on Scripture is that Scripture does not and cannot speak for itself. It must be interpreted by the Church's teaching authority and in light of &quot;living tradition.&quot; De facto this says that Scripture has no inherent authority, but like all spiritual truth, it derives its authority from the Church. Only what the Church says is deemed the true Word of God, the &quot;Sacred Scripture... written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records.&quot; 

This position obviously emasculates Scripture. That is why the Catholic stance against Sola Scriptura has always posed a major problem for Roman Catholic apologists. On one hand faced with the task of defending Catholic doctrine, and on the other hand desiring to affirm what Scripture says about itself, they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible's true meaning. Quite plainly, that makes tradition a superior authority. Moreover, in effect it renders Scripture superfluous, for if Catholic tradition inerrantly encompasses and explains all the truth of Scripture, then the Bible is simply redundant. Understandably, sola Scriptura has therefore always been a highly effective argument for defenders of the Reformation. 

So it is not hard to understand why in recent years Catholic apologists have attacked sola Scriptura with a vengeance. If they can topple this one doctrine, all the Reformers' other points fall with it. For under the Catholic system, whatever the Church says must be the standard by which to interpret all Scripture. Tradition is the &quot;true&quot; Scripture, written in the heart of the Church. The Church -- not Scripture written in &quot;documents and records&quot; -- defines the truth about justification by faith, veneration of saints, transubstantiation, and a host of other issues that divided the Reformers from Rome. 

To put it another way, if we accept the voice of the Church as infallibly correct, then what Scripture says about these questions is ultimately irrelevant. And in practice this is precisely what happens. To cite but one example, Scripture very plainly says, &quot;There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus&quot; (1 Timothy 2:5). Nonetheless, the Catholic Church insists that Mary is her Son's &quot;co-mediatrix.&quot;(1) 

And in the eyes of millions of Catholics, what the Church says is seen as the final and authoritative Word of God. First Timothy 2:5 is thus nullified by Church tradition. 

Obviously, if Rome can prove her case against sola Scriptura, she overturns all the arguments for the Reformation in one fell swoop. If she can establish her tradition as an infallible authority, no mere biblical argument would have any effect against the dictates of the Church. 

Modern Roman Catholic apologists have therefore mounted a carefully focused attack against sola Scriptura. Hoping to turn the Reformation's greatest strength into an argument against the Reformation, they have begun to argue that it is possible to debunk sola Scriptura by using Scripture alone! This line of argument is now being employed by Catholics against evangelicalism in practically every conceivable forum. 

For example, these excerpts are from some articles posted on the Internet: 

The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority -- sola Scriptura -- is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is &quot;useful&quot; (which is an understatement), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola Scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation.(2) 

The Bible nowhere teaches that it is the sole authority in matters of belief. In fact, the Bible teaches that Tradition -- the oral teachings given by Jesus to the apostles and their successors, the bishops -- is a parallel source of authentic belief. [Quotations from 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2 follow].(3) 

From some books written by Catholic apologists: 

Nowhere does [the Bible] reduce God's Word down to Scripture alone. Instead, the Bible tells us in many places that God's authoritative Word is to be found in the church: her tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6) as well as her preaching and teaching (1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:20 -- 21; Matthew 18:17). 

That's why I think the Bible supports the Catholic principle of sola verbum Dei, &quot;the Word of God alone&quot; [with &quot;Word of God&quot; encompassing both tradition and Scripture], rather than the Protestant slogan, sola scriptura, &quot;Scripture alone.&quot;(4) 

The Bible actually denies that it is the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ's work is in Scripture John 21:25), and Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition that is handed down by word of mouth (2 Timothy 2:2). He instructs us to &quot;stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle&quot; (2 Thessalonians 2:15). We are told that the first Christians &quot;were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles&quot; (Acts 2:42), which was the oral teaching given long before the New Testament was written -- and centuries before the canon of the New Testament was settled.(5) 

And from a public debate on the question of sola Scriptura: 

Sola Scriptura itself must be proved from Scripture alone. And if it can't be done, sola scriptura is a self-refuting proposition, and therefore it is false.(6) 

[In] 2 Thessalonians 2: 15, Paul commands the Church to stand firm and hold fast in the traditions that they had been given, whether orally, spoken, or through an epistle of theirs. So in other words, tradition is one major category, and there are two subsets in the one category: oral tradition, written tradition. That's what the Word of God says.(7) 

Many of these claims will be refuted elsewhere in this book. My main focus will be on explaining the biblical passages cited in support of the Catholic veneration of tradition. But allow me a brief summary response to the thrust of all these arguments. 

The Sufficiency of Scripture

First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. 

It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that &quot;scientific truth&quot; for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture -- but Scripture is a &quot;more sure Word,&quot; standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is &quot;more sure,&quot; according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. 

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture. 

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Revelation 22:18 -- 19). To do so is to lay on people's shoulders a burden that God Him-self does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matthew 23:4). 

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That -- no more, no less -- is what sola Scriptura means. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture in this way: &quot;The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men&quot; (1:6). 

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura: &quot;Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation&quot; (article 6). 

So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture John 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles' actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture -- and we are forbidden &quot;to exceed what is written&quot; (1 Corinthians 4:6). 

As other chapters in this volume have demonstrated and will demonstrate, Scripture clearly claims for itself this sufficiency -- and nowhere more clearly than 2 Timothy 3:15 -- 17. A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15 affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: &quot;The sacred writings... are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.&quot; Verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is &quot;God-breathed&quot; (Gk. theopneustos) and profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man of God &quot;for every good work.&quot; So the assertion that the Bible itself does not teach Sola Scriptura is simply wrong. 

How Do We Know the Doctrine of the Apostles?
Now let's examine the key Scriptures Rome cites to try to justify the existence of extrabiblical tradition. Since many of these passages are similar, it will suffice to reply to the main ones. First we'll examine the key verses that speak of how apostolic doctrine was transmitted, and then we'll explore what the apostle Paul meant when he spoke of &quot;tradition.&quot; 

2 Timothy 2:2: &quot;The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.&quot; Here the apostle Paul instructs Timothy, a young pastor, to train other faithful men for the task of leadership in the church. There is no hint of apostolic succession in this verse, nor is there any suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them an infallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God. 

On the contrary, what this verse describes is simply the process of discipleship. Far from imparting to these men some apostolic authority that would guarantee their infallibility, Timothy was to choose men who had proved themselves faithful, teach them the gospel, and equip them in the principles of church leadership he had learned from Paul. What Timothy was to entrust to them was the essential truth Paul himself had preached &quot;in the presence of many witnesses.&quot; 

What was this truth? It was not some undisclosed tradition, such as the Assumption of Mary, which would be either unheard of or disputed for centuries until a pope declared ex cathedra that it was truth. What Timothy was to hand on to other men was the same doctrine Paul had preached before &quot;many witnesses.&quot; Paul was speaking of the gospel itself. It was the same message Paul commanded Timothy to preach, and it is the same message that is preserved in Scripture and sufficient to equip every man of God (2 Timothy 3:16 -- 4:2). 

In short, this verse is wholly irrelevant to the Catholic claim that tradition received from the apostles is preserved infallibly by her bishops. Nothing in this verse suggests that the truth Timothy would teach other faithful men would be preserved without error from generation to generation. That is indeed what Scripture says of itself: &quot;All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching&quot; (2 Timothy 3:16), but no such assertion is ever made for tradition handed down orally. 

Like Timothy, we are to guard the truth that has been entrusted to us. But the only reliable canon, the only infallible doctrine, the only binding principles, and the only saving message, is the God-breathed truth of Scripture. 

Acts 2:42: &quot;They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.&quot; This verse simply states that the early church followed the apostles' teaching as their rule of faith. Once again this passage says nothing about apostolic succession and contains no hint of a guarantee that &quot;the apostles' teaching&quot; would be infallibly preserved through any means other than Scripture. 

Note also that this verse describes the attitude of the earliest converts to Christianity. The &quot;they&quot; at the beginning of the verse refers back to verse 41 and the three thousand souls who were converted at Pentecost. These were for the most part rank-and-file lay people. And their one source of Christian doctrine (this was before any of the New Testament had been penned) was the oral teaching of the apostles. 

This verse is even more irrelevant to the question of infallible tradition than 2 Timothy 2:2. The only point it asserts that is remotely germane to the issue is that the source of authority for the early church was apostolic teaching. No one who holds to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura would dispute that point. Let it be stated as clearly as possible: Protestants do not deny that the oral teaching of the apostles was authoritative, inerrant truth, binding as a rule of faith on those who heard it. Moreover, if there were any promise in Scripture that the exact words or full sense of the apostolic message would be infallibly preserved through word of mouth by an unbroken succession of bishops, we would be bound to obey that tradition as a rule of faith. 

Scripture, however, which is God-breathed, never speaks of any other God-breathed authority; it never authorizes us to view tradition on an equal or superior plane of authority; and while it makes the claim of inerrancy for itself, it never acknowledges any other infallible source of authority. Word-of-mouth tradition is never said to be theopneustos, God-breathed, or infallible. 

What Tradition Did Paul Command Adherence To? 
We've already noted, however, that Catholic apologists claim they do see verses in Scripture that accord authority to tradition. Even non-Catholic versions of Scripture, speak of a certain &quot;tradition&quot; that is to be received and obeyed with unquestioning reverence. 

What of these verses? Protestants often find them difficult to explain, but in reality they make better arguments against the Catholic position than they do against sola Scriptura. Let's examine the main ones: 

1 Corinthians 11:2: &quot;Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.&quot; Those words of Paul to the Corinthians speak of tradition, do they not? 

Yet as is often true, the meaning is plain when we look at the context. And examining the context, we discover this verse offers no support whatsoever for the Roman Catholic notion of infallible tradition. 

First of all, the apostle is speaking not of traditions passed down to the Corinthians by someone else through word of mouth. This &quot;tradition&quot; is nothing other than doctrine the Corinthians had heard directly from Paul's own lips during his ministry in their church. The Greek word translated &quot;traditions&quot; is paradosis, translated &quot;ordinances&quot; in the King James Version. The Greek root contains the idea of transmission, and the idea is no doubt doctrine that was transmitted by oral means. In this case, however, it refers only to Paul's own preaching -- not to someone else's report of what Paul taught. 

The Corinthians had had the privilege of sitting under the apostle Paul's ministry for a year and a half (Acts 18:11), so it is ironic that of all the churches described in the New Testament, Corinth was one of the most problematic. Paul's first epistle to this church deals with a series of profound problems related to church discipline and practice, including serious sin in their midst, disunity among the brethren, disorder in church meetings, Christians who were taking one another to court, abuse of spiritual gifts, and so on. Second Corinthians is an extended defense of Paul's ministry in the face of opposition and hostility. Someone in the church -- possibly even someone whom Paul had entrusted with a position of leadership -- had evidently fomented a rebellion against Paul during his long absence. 

The Corinthians knew Paul. He had been their pastor. Yet they were obviously slipping away from the moorings he had so carefully established during his pastorate there. Far from being instruments through which Paul's tradition was infallibly preserved and handed down, the Corinthians were rebelling against his apostleship! That is why Paul encouraged them to remember what he had heard from them and follow it to the letter. What did he teach during that year and a half in their midst? We have no way of knowing precisely, but we have every reason to believe that the substance of his teaching was the same truth that is recorded throughout his epistles and elsewhere in the New Testament. Once again, we do know for certain that everything essential for thoroughly equipping Christians for life and godliness was preserved in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15 -- 17). The rest is not recorded for us, and nothing anywhere in Scripture indicates that it was handed down through oral tradition -- especially not through any means that guaranteed it would be inspired and infallible. 

I Corinthians 11:2 in particular teaches no such thing. It is nothing but Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians that they remember and obey his apostolic teaching. It reflects Paul's own personal struggle to protect and preserve the doctrinal tradition he had carefully established in Corinth. But again, there is no implication whatsoever that Paul expected this tradition to be infallibly preserved through any inspired means other than Scripture. On the contrary, Paul was concerned lest his ministry among the Corinthians prove to have been in vain (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:1). 

2 Thessalonians 2:15: &quot;So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.&quot; This is perhaps the favorite verse of Catholic apologists when they want to support the Catholic appeal to tradition, because the verse plainly delineates between the written word and oral &quot;traditions.&quot; 

Again the Greek word is paradosis. Clearly, the apostle is speaking of doctrine, and it is not to be disputed that the doctrine he has in mind is authoritative, inspired truth. 

So what is this inspired tradition that they received &quot;by word of mouth&quot;? Doesn't this verse rather clearly support the Catholic position? 

No, it does not. Again, the context is essential to a clear understanding of what Paul was saying. The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly from the apostle Paul, telling them that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thessalonians 2:2). 

The entire church had apparently been upset by this, and the apostle Paul was eager to encourage them. For one thing, he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by phony &quot;inspired truth.&quot; And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him -- it would be signed in his own handwriting: &quot;I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write&quot; (3:17). He wanted to ensure that they would not be fooled again by forged epistles. 

But even more important, he wanted them to stand fast in the teaching they had already received from him. He had already told them, for example, that the day of the Lord would be preceded by a falling away, and the unveiling of the man of lawlessness. &quot;Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?&quot; 2:5). There was no excuse for them to be troubled by a phony letter, for they had heard the actual truth from his own mouth already. 

Now, no one -- even the most impassioned champion of sola Scriptura -- would deny that Paul had taught the Thessalonians many things by word of mouth. No one would deny that the teaching of an apostle carried absolute authority. The point of debate between Catholics and Protestants is whether that teaching was infallibly preserved by word of mouth. So the mere reference to truth received firsthand from Paul himself is, again, irrelevant as support for the Catholic position. 

Certainly nothing here suggests that the tradition Paul delivered to the Thessalonians is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself. In fact, the real thrust of what Paul is writing here is antithetical to the spirit of Roman Catholic tradition. Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been delivered to them via second or third hand reports. On the contrary, he was ordering them to receive as infallible truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips. 

Paul was very concerned to correct the Thessalonians' tendency to be led astray by false epistles and spurious tradition. From the very beginning the Thessalonians had not responded to the gospel message as nobly as the Bereans, who &quot;received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so&quot; (Acts 17:11). 

It is highly significant that the Bereans are explicitly commended for examining the apostolic message in light of Scripture. They had the priority right: Scripture is the supreme rule of faith, by which everything else is to be tested. Unsure of whether they could trust the apostolic message -- which, by the way, was as inspired and infallible and true as Scripture itself -- the Bereans erased all their doubt by double-checking the message against Scripture. Yet Roman Catholics are forbidden by their Church to take such an approach! They are told that the Church through her bishops dispenses the only true and infallible understanding of Scripture. 

Therefore it is pointless to test the Catholic Church's message by Scripture; for if there appears to be a conflict -- and make no mistake, there are many -- Rome says her traditions carry more weight than her critics' interpretation of Scripture. 

What the Apostle was telling the Thessalonians was nothing like what Rome tells faithful Catholics. Paul was urging the Thessalonians to test all truth-claims by Scripture, and by the words they had heard personally from his own lips. And since the only words of the apostles that are infallibly preserved for us are found in Scripture, that means that we, like the Bereans, must compare everything with Scripture to see whether it is so. 

Roman Catholic apologists protest that only a fraction of Paul's messages to the Thessalonians are preserved in the two brief epistles Paul wrote to that church. True, but may not we assume that what he taught the Thessalonians was the very truths that are found in generous measure throughout all his epistles -- justification by faith alone, the true gospel of grace, the sovereignty of God, the Lordship of Christ, and a host of other truths? The New Testament gives us a full-orbed Christian theology. Who can prove that anything essential is omitted? On the contrary, we are assured that Scripture is sufficient for salvation and spiritual life (2 Timothy 3:15 -- 17). Where does Scripture ever suggest that there are unwritten truths that are necessary for our spiritual well-being? One thing is certain -- the words in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 imply no such thing. 

2 Thessalonians 3:6: &quot;Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.&quot; This is the only other verse in all the New Testament where Paul uses the words tradition or traditions to speak of apostolic truth that is to be obeyed. 

By now, Paul's use of this term should be well established. This cannot be a reference to truth passed down from generation to generation. Again, Paul is speaking of a &quot;tradition&quot; received firsthand from him. 

This is the closing section of the epistle. Paul is summing up. And he once again underscores the importance of the teaching the Thessalonians had received directly from his mouth. The &quot;tradition&quot; he speaks of here is doctrine so crucial that anyone who refuses to heed it and live by it should be rejected from the fellowship. 

What is this &quot;tradition&quot;? Is it Marian theology, or dogma about the efficacy of relics, or other teachings unique to Roman Catholicism? Not at all -- it is simple, practical apostolic doctrine, taught and lived out by example while Paul was among the Thessalonians. Paul goes on to define specifically what &quot;tradition&quot; he has in mind: 

We did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good (3:7 -- 13). 

In other words, Paul was speaking of simple, practical doctrine about stewardship of one's time, a man's responsibility to work and provide for his family, and personal discipline in daily life. These truths are now part of holy Scripture, by virtue of Paul's including them in this epistle. Put that together with everything else the New Testament records, and you have every part of the apostolic message that was infallibly preserved for us. 

Is the sum of Scriptural truth a sufficient rule of faith for the Christian? We have the Bible's own assurance that it is. Scripture alone is sufficient to lead us to salvation and fully equip us for life and eternity (2 Timothy 3:15 -- 17). Therefore we may know with certainty that every essential aspect of the apostolic message is included in Scripture. 

Note that Paul clearly regarded his epistles as inspired, authoritative Scripture. He charged the Thessalonians with these instructions: &quot;And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame&quot; (2 Thessalonians 3:14). 

So the written words of Scripture are binding. Apostolic preaching was equally binding for those who heard it from the apostles' own mouths. Beyond that, Scripture lays no burden on anyone's shoulders. But, thank God, His own Word assures us that Scripture is fully sufficient to bring us to salvation and to equip us spiritually for all that God demands of us. 

No man, no church, no religious authority has any warrant from God to augment the inspired Word of Scripture with additional traditions, or to alter the plain sense of it by subjecting it to the rigors of a &quot;traditional&quot; meaning not found in the Word itself. To do so is clearly to invalidate the Word of God -- and we know what our Lord thinks of that (Matthew 15:6 -- 9). 



1 From the Vatican II documents, Lumen Gentium, 62. 

2 From an article by George Sim Johnston posted on the Catholic Information Network. 

3 From a tract issued by Catholic Answers. 

4 Scott Hahn, Rome Sweet Home (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993) p. 74. 

5 Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988) p. 136. 

6 Patrick Madrid, in a debate with James White. Information on ordering this tape can be had by writing Alpha and Omega Ministries, P.O. Box 37106, Phoenix, AZ 85069. 

7 Ibid. 

This article is from Chapter 5 of Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, an excellent book defending the doctrine of Sola Scriptura! and is highly recommended by this site. Contact Soli Deo Gloria Publications to order this book. 

Special thanks to Don Kistler, Phil Johnson, and especially Dr. John F. MacArthur Jr., for making this article available. 

http://www.mbrem.com/bible/sufficn.htm[/quote:ca365d9043]

Sounds like another vote for Tradition 0.

Phillip

(interesting that we have to turn to apologetics against the RCC to argue against the position of Tradition 1, isn't it?!)

[Edited on 3-26-04 by pastorway]


----------



## pastorway

*Charles Hodge Votes Tradition 0*

From [i:5bffb1cbed]The Protestant Rule Of Faith[/i:5bffb1cbed] by Charles Hodge:

[quote:5bffb1cbed]Perspicuity of the Scriptures. The Right of Private Judgment. 

The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject. 

It is not denied that the Scriptures contain many things hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to right knowledge and true faith. But it is maintained that in all things necessary to salvation they are sufficiently plain to be understood even by the unlearned. 

It is not denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church. If the Scriptures be a plain book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential matters in their interpretation of the Bible. And from that fact it follows that for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal Church (i. e., the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting from the Scriptures themselves. 

What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do. 

The arguments in support of the former of these positions have already been presented in the discussion concerning the infallibility of the Church. The most obvious reasons in support of the right of private judgment are,-- 

1. That the obligations to faith and obedience are personal. Every man is responsible for his religious faith and his moral conduct. He cannot transfer that responsibility to others; nor can others assume it in his stead. He must answer for himself; and if he must answer for himself, he must judge for himself. It will not avail him in the day of judgment to say that his parents or his Church taught him wrong. He should have listened to God, and obeyed Him rather than men. 

2. The Scriptures are everywhere addressed to the people, and not to the officers of the Church either exclusively, or specially. The prophets were sent to the people, and constantly said, &quot;Hear, 0 Israel,&quot; &quot;Hearken, 0 ye people.&quot; Thus, also, the discourses of Christ were addressed to the people, and the people heard him gladly. All the Epistles of the New Testament are addressed to the congregation, to the &quot;called of Jesus Christ;&quot; &quot;to the beloved of God;&quot; to those &quot;called to be saints;&quot; &quot;to the sanctified in Christ Jesus;&quot; &quot;to all who call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord; &quot; &quot;to the saints which are in (Ephesus), and to the faithful in Jesus Christ;&quot; or &quot;to the saints and faithful brethren which are in (Colosse);&quot; and so in every instance. It is the people who are addressed. To them are directed these profound discussions of Christian doctrine, and these comprehensive expositions of Christian duty. They are everywhere assumed to be competent to understand what is written, and are everywhere required to believe and obey what thus came from the inspired messengers of Christ. They were not referred to any other authority from which they were to learn the true import of these inspired instructions. It is, therefore, not only to deprive the people of a divine right, to forbid the people to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves; but it is also to interpose between them and God, and to prevent their hearing his voice, that they may listen to the words of men. 


The People commanded to search the Scriptures. 
3. The Scriptures are not only addressed to the people, but the people were called upon to study them, and to teach them unto their children. It was one of the most frequently recurring injunctions to parents under the old dispensation, to teach the Law unto their children, that they again might teach it unto theirs. The &quot;holy oracles&quot; were committed to the people, to be taught by the people; and taught immediately out of the Scriptures, that the truth might be retained in its purity. Thus our Lord commanded the people to search the Scriptures, saying, &quot;They are they which testify of me.&quot; (John v. 39.) He assumed that they were able to understand what the Old Testament said of the Messiah, although its teachings had been misunderstood by the scribes and elders, and by the whole Sanhedrim. Paul rejoiced that Timothy had from his youth known the Holy Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation. He said to the Galatians (i. 8, 9), &quot;Though we, or an angel from heaven, -- if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.&quot; This implies two things, -- first, that the Galatian Christians, the people, had a right to sit in judgment on the teaching of an Apostle, or of an angel from heaven; and secondly, that they had an infallible rule by which that judgment was to be determined, namely, a previous authenticated revelation of God. If, then, the Bible recognizes the right of the people to judge of the teaching of Apostles and angels, they are not to be denied the right of judging of the doctrines of bishops and priests. The principle laid down by the Apostle is precisely that long before given by Moses (Deut. xiii. 1 -- 3), who tells the people that if a prophet should arise, although he worked wonders, they were not to believe or obey him, if he taught them anything contrary to the Word of God. This again assumes that the people had the ability and the right to judge, and that they had an infallible rule of judgment. It implies, moreover, that their salvation depended upon their judging rightly. For if they allowed these false teachers, robed in sacred vestments, and surrounded by the insignia of authority, to lead them from the truth, they would inevitably perish. 

4. It need hardly be remarked that this right of private judgment is the great safeguard of civil and religious liberty. If the Bible be admitted to be the infallible rule of faith and practice in accordance with which men are bound on the peril of their souls, to frame their creed and conduct; and if there be a set of men who have the exclusive right of interpreting the Scripture, and who are authorized to impose their interpretations on the people as of divine authority, then they may impose on them what conditions of salvation they see fit. And the men who have the salvation of the people in their hands are their absolute masters. Both reason and experience fully sustain the dictum of Chillingworth,' when he says, &quot; He that would usurp an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people, need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disannulling the laws, made to maintain the common liberty; for he may frustrate their intent, and compass his own design as well, if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases, and add to them what he pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions stand for laws; if he can rule his people by his laws, and his laws by his lawyers.&quot; This is precisely what the Church of Rome has done, and thereby established a tyranny for which there is no parallel in the history of the world. What renders this tyranny the more intolerable, is, that, so far as the mass of the people is concerned, it resolves itself into the authority of the parish priest. He is the arbiter of the faith and morals of his people. No man can believe unless the ground of faith is present to his mind. If the people are to believe that the Scriptures teach certain doctrines, then they must have the evidence that such doctrines are really taught in the Bible. If that evidence be that the Church so interprets the sacred writings, then the people must know what is the Church, i. e., which of the bodies claiming to be the Church, is entitled to be so regarded. How are the people, the uneducated masses, to determine that question? The priest tells them. If they receive his testimony on that point, then how can they tell how the Church interprets the Scriptures? Here again they must take the word of the priest. Thus the authority of the Church as an interpreter, which appears so imposing, resolves itself into the testimony of the priest, who is often wicked, and still oftener ignorant. This cannot be the foundation of the faith of God's elect. That foundation is the testimony of God himself speaking his word, and authenticated as divine by the testimony of the Spirit with and by the truth in the heart of the believer. 



6. Rules of Interpretation. 

If every man has the right, and is bound to read the Scriptures, and to judge for himself what they teach, he must have certain rules to guide him in the exercise of this privilege and duty. These rules are not arbitrary. They are not imposed by human authority. They have no binding force which does not flow from their own intrinsic truth and propriety. They are few and simple. 

1. The words of Scripture are to be taken in their plain historical sense. That is, they must be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed. This only assumes that the sacred writers were honest, and meant to be understood. 

2. If the Scriptures be what they claim to be, the word of God, they are the work of one mind, and that mind divine. From this it follows that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what He teaches in another. Hence Scripture must explain Scripture. If a passage admits of different interpretations, that only can be the true one which agrees with what the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject. If the Scriptures teach that the Son is the same in substance and equal in power and glory with the Father, then when the Son says, &quot;The Father is greater than I,&quot; the superiority must be understood in a manner consistent with this equality. It must refer either to subordination as to the mode of subsistence and operation, or it must be official. A king's son may say, &quot;My father is greater than I,&quot; although personally his father's equal. This rule of interpretation is sometimes called the analogy of Scripture, and sometimes the analogy of faith. There is no material difference in the meaning of the two expressions. 

3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly sought. The ground of this rule is twofold: First, the Spirit is promised as a guide and teacher. He was to come to lead the people of God into the knowledge of the truth. And secondly, the Scriptures teach, that &quot;the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.&quot; (1 Cor. ii. 14.) The unrenewed mind is naturally blind to spiritual truth. His heart is in opposition to the things of God. Congeniality of mind is necessary to the proper apprehension of divine things. As only those who have a moral nature can discern moral truth, so those only who are spiritually minded can truly receive the things of the Spirit. 

The fact that all the true people of God in every age and in every part of the Church, in the exercise of their private judgment, in accordance with the simple rules above stated, agree as to the meaning of Scripture in all things necessary either in faith or practice, is a decisive proof of the perspicuity of the Bible, and of the safety of allowing the people the enjoyment of the divine right of private judgment. 

http://www.mbrem.com/bible/chv1c1.htm[/quote:5bffb1cbed]


----------



## pastorway

Listen to James White online as he defines and defends Sola Scriptura:

http://www.straitgate.com/rcc/radio.htm


----------



## Saiph

Van Til seems to imply we have not only Scriptur(which is the ultimate propositional authority), but also reason, and our senses, and the data of nature, which Scripture also affirms.

The Bible tells me how to interpret reality, and discover truth. It is not the only source of truth though. . . .

(again, I am not saying it is not the most authoritative sources of truth, please do not assume otherwise)

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## kceaster

*Phillip...*

You sailed right past it. Not only do you not understand what tradition means, but you have misinterpreted both Hodges.

You are arguing against Tradition II, not tradition I, when you are quoting the Hodges.

AA says,
[quote:decf0953ee]13. By what other arguments may this point be established? 

1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men indiscriminately, or else to the whole body of believers as such.--Deut. 6:4-9; Luke 1:3; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 4:2; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 2:12,14; Jude 1:1; Rev. 1:3,4; 2:7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus. 

2nd. All Christians indiscriminately are commanded to search the Scriptures.--2 Tim. 3:15,17; Acts 17:11; John 5:39. 

[b:decf0953ee]3rd. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same property in the sun. The argument to the contrary, is an insult to the understanding of the whole world of Bible readers.[/b:decf0953ee] 

4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every age and nation, who draw their religion directly from the open Scriptures.[/quote:decf0953ee]

This whole question addresses the correctly held belief of Hodge in Tradition I. You are arguing against what he was arguing against, the Roman Church, not Tradition I.

In your second post, you cite MacArthur who is also arguing against Tradition II. Why do you use him for Tradition I? MacArthur is not arguing against a rule of faith, he is arguing against oral and written tradition outside of Scripture. Tradition I is the rule of faith as it comes from the Scripture Alone.

I think you see tradition and you automatically think traditionalism.

And your third quote from Charles Hodge is the second time we have seen this one, and you have still missed his point. He still disagrees with you.

[quote:decf0953ee]It is not denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, [b:decf0953ee]but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church.[/b:decf0953ee][/quote:decf0953ee]

This is the regula fidei he is talking about. And the unseen group he is arguing against in this passage is the RCC. Again, not Tradition 1.

Have you even read Mathison? Did you read what was posted on the web?

Are you trying to skew these things, or do you really not understand?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Don A

Scott wrote:


[quote:caff288f3d]
I disagree that the &quot;true definition&quot; would be &quot;Tradition 0.&quot; Also, I would not look to the Catholic network to define Protestant views.
[/quote:caff288f3d]

My point exactly. The reason for my reply is that I can't seem to walk away from a loaded question. 

We were asked to define &quot;[b:caff288f3d]Historic[/b:caff288f3d] Sola Scriptura&quot;. It all depends on [i:caff288f3d]who's[/i:caff288f3d] history you are referring to.

A Roman Catholic is going to automatically answer &quot;3&quot;, maybe &quot;4&quot; based on their history.

A charismatic will most likely answer &quot;4&quot; based on his history [i:caff288f3d](I know, I know, this is a board for Reformed Theology, just bear with me).[/i:caff288f3d]

One who bases their theology on the teaching of the &quot;divines&quot; will always answer &quot;1&quot;. Their system demands it.

Others who are reforming (notice I didn't say &quot;Reformed&quot; in the classic sense) choose to accept the cannon of Scripture as final and foremost and the Holy Spirit as their primary guide can, and will, answer &quot;0&quot;.

Now, before the flames start flying about how I can be on the PB and then sit and trash all of those who have gone before, please pay attention to what I have said. Nowhere have I slandered the name or reputation of any of the theologians of old (or new). I have, and continue to, read a great deal of material written by men who have been recommended and referred to by the members of this board. I continue to be humbled and fascinated. But in all of these great writers and teachers, I have found not a one that I couldn't live without. Not so with the Bible.

Still, Sola means alone.


----------



## pastorway

Yes, KC, I read what was on the web. And I don't think I am missing what anyone has said.

Here is the clincher for Tradition 1:

What is the[i:3e9ab87330] rule of faith[/i:3e9ab87330]?

Is it the confession? A creed? A man made document? It is [i:3e9ab87330]your tradition[/i:3e9ab87330]?

If so, then one is adding to the Scripture by saying that the church, instead of individual Christians, is responsible for interpreting the Word and binding men's consciences by that interpretation.

That is not Sola Scriptura.

It matters not whether tradition is from the RCC, the PCA, the OPC, the Westminster Divines, the SBC, ARBCA, FIRE, or any other group of men. If it is tradition, it is secondary to Scripture.

I think perhaps it is you who are missing the point. You are saying that we must have the church to have the Word. I am saying that the Word stands alone. Alone. Sola.

I am not arguing against confessions or creeds. I am not advocating blantant Scripture twisting in the name of private interpretation. I am saying that we are all responsible to interpret for ourselves the Word to see if those leading us in the church are rightly teaching it! That is the whole point behind the reference in Acts to the Bereans. The questioned an APOSTLE by going to the Word. Are we then out of line to question the confession by going to the Word? Surely you are not saying that the WCF (history and tradition) trumps the teaching of an Apostle, are you?

Your view of Sola Scripture requires something outside of the Scripture to validate the message. That is not the position of either of the Hodges or anyone else I quoted. Read what they wrote about perspicuity. They stress PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION as the protestant understading of how to use the Bible alone as our rule for faith!

You add [i:3e9ab87330]reformed church tradition[/i:3e9ab87330] to the formula and in so doing replace Sola Scripture with Scripture PLUS church dogma. 

Which church? Which history? Which confession and creed? Who decides? You? Me? The Elders of each individual church? Do we vote on it? Or is it by decree?

As has been stated, and as it will continue to be stressed, sola means ALONE. As soon as you add ANYTHING, you violate the principle.

Sola Scriptura, historically and forever, means Scripture Alone.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco

I'm not sure that &quot;0&quot; and &quot;1&quot; are properly set forth. There is no one on this board that would choose &quot;0&quot; as it is set forth. Why?

Well, what would happen if you were in a discussion with a JW? Let's say you are discussing the Trinity, and you go back and forth, and [b:614484cb68]surprise![/b:614484cb68]  the heretic is not convinced of the Scriptural nature of the Trinity. Do you simply say, &quot;well since the Scriptures are the sole authority and we can't agree, then I guess it must not be clear in the Scriptures.&quot; NO! You would appeal to the fact that the Scriptures have always been interpreted by non-heretics as Trinitarian. You would in effect say, &quot;I don't care what you think, you heretic. The bible teaches the Trinity, it always has, and the Church has always interpreted it that way.&quot;

Extra-biblical formulations have always been necessary to safeguard what the Bible actually means - just look at Athanasius and Arius. Where o where is &quot;homoousios&quot; ? Yet it IS Biblical, and to deny it is to deny a cardinal doctrine - because to deny it really means that you are denying the Biblilca doctrine of the Deity of Christ.

Now, &quot;1&quot; here is not necessarily properly set forth either. That is because there is no complete &quot;apostolic&quot; rule of faith. That is why we have (on secondary issues) various denominations. It is why we have confessions. Men confess what the Bible says and they gather together based on that. Confessions are about unity.

As, I've said many a time on this board, the Church has the default position on the interpretation of a Scripture. Anyone may challenge the Church, and the Church may be wrong, but the challenger has the burden of proof. That is a critical thing. Otherwise we are at the mercy of nutcases and heretics.


----------



## pastorway

But Fred, if proper exegesis of relevant Scriptural passages does not convince the JW then why should we think that referring to history and tradition will? He will just respond, &quot;My tradition and history deny your tradition and history.&quot; And we are still nowhere.

We must understand that we are not responsible for convincing anyone, the Holy Spirit does the convincing through the Word of God rightly preached and explained.

It does not matter that 2000 years of church history have see a doctrine as heretical if the average every day Christian cannot read the Bible and understand what it says.

It is like what Jesus said about the man suffering torments in hell. Your brothers will not listen to one raised from the dead if they will not hear the Law and the Prophets (The Written Word of God).

Again, where does the authority come from? Does it come from the common confessions of the church? No. The confession itself states that the authority comes from the Word itself.

[quote:c01f14d4df]The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. 
[/quote:c01f14d4df]

So it is not me and my historical/traditional interpretation against the JW and his. It is me and the Holy Spirit rightly dividing the Word of Truth. History does not tip the scale when men are convinced of error. Illumination of the Spirit tips the scale. And He works through the Word rightly divided.

The whole premise presented in this thread is that Sola Scriptura must include elements outside the Scripture, and no matter which &quot;Tradition&quot; readers of the poll choose, no one can argue that Sola Scripture includes anything extra or outside of the Bible.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco

Phillip,

You miss hear me. I do not say that tradition (I prefer to speak of proper interpretation) should be used to convince the JW. What I propose though is that the Church at all times treats the authority of Church as real. It is not absolute (per Rome) but is not non-existent either (per modern evangelicaldom) . See again my posts to Gregory on the Scripture thread. If we deny that the Church has any authority, we deny the historical work of the Holy Spirit. How can we say that the Spirit works in the believer now, and denigrate the way that He worked in the Church in the past?

So for purposes of the Church, we need not doubt our Bibles because there are different interpretations. We give weight to some and none to others, until they have proven themselves worthy. We all do this everyday. &quot;0&quot; as set forth here would paralyze the Church and prove Rome's point - sola Scriptura is a cacophany of meaningless voices. But again &quot;1&quot; appears to set forth a single interpretation, which is belied by the facts. That is why Confessions are ultimately indispensible. They are the only real way to defend the Bible - again, see Athanasius. Would you be with the Arians chastising Athanasius for not &quot;sticking to Scripture&quot; ? Or do you acknowledge that it was necessary to use extra-Biblical formulations (homoousios) to cull out the heretics? If you agree, then you cannot espouse &quot;0&quot; as set forth here.


----------



## pastorway

I understand the role and authority of the Church. It is the Word that gives it both.

I am not saying there is no place for the church. I am saying that if we require what the church teaches in addition to the Bible for our &quot;rule of faith&quot; then we cannot claim Sola Scriptura.

[quote:edcf88e781]Tradition 0 - Only the Scriptures and no traditions. This view basically claims that the Scriptures are the sole authority, but that each person must determine for themselves the interpretation of them. This view allows for no extrabiblical revelation. [/quote:edcf88e781]

Sola Scriptura is the Bible alone. So this view is Sola Scriptura. The reformers taught that the Word binds the church, not the other way around. A person, not in any church, reading the Bible, can be brought to faith and understand the Word through the work of the Spirit.

[quote:edcf88e781]Tradition 1 - Only the Scriptures plus the Apostolic rule of faith. This view claims that the Scriptures are the sole authority, and that the establishment of the rule of faith of the early church, and subsequent generations that followed them, helps to determine the interpretation of the Scriptures. This view allows for no extrabiblical revelation. [/quote:edcf88e781]

So what is the &quot;rule of faith?&quot; If it is necessary to help us rightly understand the Word then we better know what the rule of faith is. But can we say the rule of faith is any man made document? Even the framers of the WCF had serious disagreements and even excluded some points becuase a consesus could not be reached. So are we to think that what they left out we must decide for ourselves?

You see, as soon as you make the &quot;rule of faith&quot; anything other than the Scripture itself (alone) you add to the Word of God the thoughts of men and make a specific interpretation the only infallible rule for faith and practice. Who decides which interpretation? What about the areas where we disagree (even strict subscriptionists disagree on things or this board would be dull!)? Who is the authority? Who casts the deciding vote?

Each Christian must read and seek to understand the Word so that they can be sure they are being taught the truth. They should not assume because of tradition, history, or authority that what they hear from the pulpit is true. They should verify it for themselves.

To automatically accept everything a pastor says is dangerous! To automoatically think that a denomonation is always correct in its interpretation of Scipture is also dangerous. If any of us or our forefathers actually believed that we would all still be Catholics!!!!

The Scripture alone stands against history, any and all churches, and all the traditions of men as our sole infallible rule of faith.

Phillip


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:a85fe35ef6][i:a85fe35ef6]Originally posted by Don A.[/i:a85fe35ef6]
The question posed is "Which is the historical Sola Scriptura?". 

Well, historically it has most often been defined as Tradition 1. 
[/quote:a85fe35ef6]

Exactly, which means that this IS the true definition of [i:a85fe35ef6][Sola Scriptura[/i:a85fe35ef6], since it is the Reformers, not 21st century evangelicals, who coined the term. Evangelicals today have an idea about what [i:a85fe35ef6]Sola Scriptura[/i:a85fe35ef6] should be, they redefine it, criticize those who originally defined it, then call their view (Tradition 0) THE Reformation principle of [i:a85fe35ef6]Sola Scriptura[/i:a85fe35ef6]. And any affirmation of [i:a85fe35ef6]Sola Scriptura's[/i:a85fe35ef6] original meaning (Tradition 1) is denying Scripture as our final authority.

Now THAT'S what it means to be Reformed!!!

[quote:a85fe35ef6]
But by true definition, it would be, and should be, Tradition 0.
[/quote:a85fe35ef6]

I'll stick with the Reformers on this one, rather than embrace hopeless subjectivism.

By the way, [i:a85fe35ef6]Sola Scriptura[/i:a85fe35ef6] is a creed.


----------



## kceaster

*Phillip...*

[quote:38d5c9e6ea][i:38d5c9e6ea]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:38d5c9e6ea]
Yes, KC, I read what was on the web. And I don't think I am missing what anyone has said.

Here is the clincher for Tradition 1:

What is the[i:38d5c9e6ea] rule of faith[/i:38d5c9e6ea]?

Is it the confession? A creed? A man made document? It is [i:38d5c9e6ea]your tradition[/i:38d5c9e6ea]?[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

Simply put, Phillip, the rule of faith is the doctrine of the Trinity. The rule of faith is the hypostatic union of Christ. These are but two examples of how the church has battled heresy. They settled it once and for all, using what? The Scriptures, rightly interpreted. This is the light shining in our window. If we see anything other than the trinity or the fact that Christ was one person with two distinct natures, then we see a different light. If we start to teach and preach this, and even write about it, now we have put forth &quot;new&quot; light.

But this ground has already been crossed. This is Tradition 1. We don't need to discover again the doctrine of the Trinity. It is already shining forth.

However, the Trinity, although derived from the Scriptures, is not found chapter and verse but must be inferred. This is where the rule of faith comes in.

BTW, tradition 1 does not place tradition above Scripture. You are muddying 1 and 2. The tradition in 1 is built on top, with the foundation under it. If it is contrary to the Scriptures, it falls.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]It matters not whether tradition is from the RCC, the PCA, the OPC, the Westminster Divines, the SBC, ARBCA, FIRE, or any other group of men. If it is tradition, it is secondary to Scripture.[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

You get no qualms from me. I never said tradition is above Scripture in tradition 1.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]I think perhaps it is you who are missing the point. You are saying that we must have the church to have the Word. I am saying that the Word stands alone. Alone. Sola.[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

Nope. I've been crystal clear with that one. The Scripture stands by itself, yet we do not know how to apply it without proper interpretation. This is the rule of faith. This is what A. A. Hodge was speaking about universal experience.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]I am not arguing against confessions or creeds. I am not advocating blantant Scripture twisting in the name of private interpretation. I am saying that we are all responsible to interpret for ourselves the Word to see if those leading us in the church are rightly teaching it![/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

No one is taking this away in Tradition 1.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]That is the whole point behind the reference in Acts to the Bereans. The questioned an APOSTLE by going to the Word. Are we then out of line to question the confession by going to the Word? Surely you are not saying that the WCF (history and tradition) trumps the teaching of an Apostle, are you?[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

Nope. And you know I never would.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]Your view of Sola Scripture requires something outside of the Scripture to validate the message.[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

Who said anything about validation. We do not validate the Word. It is validated by God. But if it is not universally applied, do we understand what it means? That is where the rule of faith comes in.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]That is not the position of either of the Hodges or anyone else I quoted. Read what they wrote about perspicuity. They stress PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION as the protestant understading of how to use the Bible alone as our rule for faith![/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

The interpretation is never alone, but is in concert with true believers of all times. How do you define UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE?

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]You add [i:38d5c9e6ea]reformed church tradition[/i:38d5c9e6ea] to the formula and in so doing replace Sola Scripture with Scripture PLUS church dogma.[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

Nope. Again, you are thrusting the RCC on top of my argument. I am not arguing what they are. 

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]Which church? Which history? Which confession and creed? Who decides? You? Me? The Elders of each individual church? Do we vote on it? Or is it by decree?[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]As has been stated, and as it will continue to be stressed, sola means ALONE. As soon as you add ANYTHING, you violate the principle.[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

This is simply untrue. You're not applying the language correctly. Your definition is SOLO Scriptura because you believe that the individual is the ultimate authority by which all Scripture is to be interpreted.

I have shown you that neither of the Hodges believe that. Charles says deference must be given to the church and A. A. says that there must be universal experience.

But, by all means, don't read Mathison and don't look at this rationally. Believe what you want to about Sola Scriptura. But in so doing, you show yourself as your own ultimate authority on Scriptural matters. I don't know why you can't see that this is the logical end of your argument.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Don A

[quote:dd16e415c4]
I'll stick with the Reformers on this one, rather than embrace hopeless subjectivism. 
[/quote:dd16e415c4]

Fair enough. I'll stick with the apostles...

And Websters:

[u:dd16e415c4]Alone:[/u:dd16e415c4]

1 : separated from others : ISOLATED
2 : exclusive of anyone or anything else : ONLY
3 a : considered without reference to any other
3 b : INCOMPARABLE, UNIQUE


----------



## kceaster

*Don...*

Just like Sola Fide... it is only, but it is never alone.

If we take Sola Scriptura like the no-Lordship guys take Sola Fide, we will render every person authoritative in their own interpretation and application.

Now how many truths do we have?

Sola Scriptura is only the Scriptures, they are the sole authority, but those Scriptures have many witnesses. It is never alone.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott

Phillip: Isn't there some rule against posting long articles? I think Reg Barrow or someone was criticized and prohibited from doing this. Anyway, I did not make it through most of those posts. 

From skimming, a couple of points:

[1] All agree (I think) that scripture is the sole ultimate and infallible standard. That does not mean that there are no secondary and fallible standards. 

[2] The church is the Bride of Christ. Christ's bride hears and understands His voice. It is a mistake to dismiss the testimony of the mother of all believers (see, Gal. 4 and Rev. 12 on the motherhood of the church). God is our Father and the Church is our Mother. We should listen to and obey both parents. Calvin wrote well on the motherhood of the Church in Insitutes.

[3] You mention James White a couple of times. I am a Protestant and have listened to his debates. On the issue of sola scriptura he is unpersuasive (to me at least). He criticizes Rome for what he terms sola ecclesia - the church alone. However, his form of sola scriptura (while he would not admit this) is sola persona, or individual alone. Every man becomes a private one-horse pope in terms of earthly interpretive authority. 

He advocates a radical individualism that is unknown to the scriptures. The scriputures are a book of the community, the Church.

Scott


----------



## Scott

Here is a question for advocates of Tradition 0.

How should a contemporary believer determine whether or not the Shepherd of Hermas is an inspired part of the canon of scripture?

This is relevant to the question at hand, because the scriptures do not contain a written list of what books of the Bible are inspired. In other words, believers tend to act and function on the basis of an unwritten practice. Virtually no believer disputes this unwritten practice and virtually no believer tries to reconstruct the canon from scratch.

Here is a copy the Shepherd of Hermas for those interested:
http://www.antioch.com.sg/th/twp/bookbyte/hermas/hermas.html

Scott

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Scott]

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Don A

[quote:8ece199335]
Here is a question for advocates of Tradition 0. 

How should a contemporary believer determine whether or not the Shepherd of Hermas is an inspired part of the canon of scripture?
[/quote:8ece199335]

Can we not trust that God the Father and God the Spirit have maintained His Word through time and history [i:8ece199335]exactly[/i:8ece199335] as He intended? Did He indeed [i:8ece199335]need[/i:8ece199335] the Sons of Adam to preserve the integrity of His Word?

It is by your reason (scipture [i:8ece199335]plus[/i:8ece199335] tradition) that the Roman Catholics carry the Apocrypha between the Testaments in their Bible.


----------



## Scott

Here is a second question for advocates of Tradition 0.

Does sola scriptura imply that children should not rely on parental instruction about religion and morality? 

If not, then you do not have scripture &quot;alone.&quot; A child would have scripture and parental instruction (which would include the parents' spin on scripture). If sola scriptura does not imply ignoring parental instruction, then why can the same not be true for the church?

A relevant passage from Proverbs 6:

20My son, keep your father's commands 
and do not forsake your mother's teaching. 
21 Bind them upon your heart forever; 
fasten them around your neck. 
22 When you walk, they will guide you; 
when you sleep, they will watch over you; 
when you awake, they will speak to you. 
23 For these commands are a lamp, 
this teaching is a light, 
and the corrections of discipline 
are the way to life . . .

Scott


----------



## Scott

&quot;Can we not trust that God the Father and God the Spirit have maintained His Word through time and history exactly as He intended? Did He indeed need the Sons of Adam to preserve the integrity of His Word? 

It is by your reason (scipture plus tradition) that the Roman Catholics carry the Apocrypha between the Testaments in their Bible.&quot;

Don:

That does not answer the question. How is a believer today to determine whether the Shepherd of Hermas is inspired? 

Remember, God has preserved the Shepherd of Hermas and it is easily available. In fact, I gave you a link to it. So someone could argue that God preseved his word just as he wanted it.

I will answer your other questions later, after you answer mine. I don't want to confuse the direct issue.

Thanks
Scott


----------



## Don A

[quote:e76576f090]
That does not answer the question. How is a believer today to determine whether the Shepherd of Hermas is inspired?
[/quote:e76576f090]

From http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/hermas.htm

[quote:e76576f090]19 After saying these things the Shepherd, the individual who speaks with Hermas from the fifth vision onwards, tells him that if he is of the opinion that the commandments are difficult then they will indeed be arduous to keep and informs him of the following: &quot;But now I say to you: if you do not keep them, but neglect them, you will not have salvation, nor will your children nor your family, since you have already decided for yourself that these commandments cannot be kept by man&quot;.20 Salvation in The Shepherd therefore appears to be one of works and the ability of an individual to keep various commandments rather than justification in Christ alone.

Another area of theological interest in the contents of The Shepherd concerns the Person of Jesus Christ. Parable 9 appears to identify &quot;the Son of God&quot; with the Holy Spirit before the incarnation, and seems to be stating that the Trinity came into being only after Christ's ascension into heaven.

In Hermas' dialogue with the Shepherd, among the many instructions that are given to him, the issue of post-baptismal sin is discussed. It is revealed to Hermas that anyone who sins after baptism is given the opportunity to repent only once.32 Any sin that is committed afterwards is viewed extremely dismally and the implication is given that such an individual will no longer be able to obtain forgiveness.33 Various interpretations have been applied to this doctrine of penance for post- baptismal sins. For example, it is possible to view Hermas as one who is compromising the area of Christian repentance, one who acts as a reformer and exhorts the Church to holy living, or even one who is of such intense eschatological anticipation that he believes there will be no possibility of further repentance.[/quote:e76576f090]

Seems to me that if it is contrary to the rest of the Word, it can not be inspired. Perhaps I am a bit simple minded, but I see no problem in determining that this is not inspired. Would God contradict himself?

Also consider the final chapter of the Bible:


[quote:e76576f090]
[b:e76576f090]Revelation 22:[/b:e76576f090]

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.[/quote:e76576f090]

When the Apostle ceased to write, the writing of the Word ceased.


----------



## raderag

[quote:3a695fc89f][i:3a695fc89f]Originally posted by Scott[/i:3a695fc89f]
Tradition 0, if held consistently, necessitates each individual believer rejecting the tradition of the canon and making an individual assessment of each particular book to determine if it is inspired. This would be absurd and beyond the skill of everyone, or nearly everyone. 
[/quote:3a695fc89f]

I have met evangelicals who believe that each Christian should decide on the canon of Scripture for himself.

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by raderag]


----------



## JohnV

As far as the meaning of Sola Scriptura is concerned, is it Keith Mathison alone? I think we could probably do a little better in defining what Sola Scriptura means. I agree with Fred that these definitions lack something. If the Church's authority comes from the Word, but is not absolute like the Word, then it cannot be right to include the church's authority as if it were something extra-biblical. It cannot be right to divide the church from it's head, nor to make it equal with it's head. It is not as though the church's authority comes from some other source when it rules the same throughout the church's history. So church decisions based on the Word that have stood the test of time is an attestation to the unchangeableness of the Word, and is not separate from it. 

I don't think that we should be too quick to throw out traditions just because they are traditions. Too often I have seen traditions thrown out only to find out later that those traditions stood on solid biblical ground, only that wasn't realized until afterward. In those cases there was kind of greedy liking for new apporaches and new ideas, and there was also a mirroring disrespect for the old ways for no other reason than that it was old. Some traditions are very valuable, and only upon careful reflection are some of them seen as being very Biblical. The Apostle Paul also appeals to tradition in 1 Cor. 11:2.

So when we appeal to Sola Scriptura, it is not automatic that the testimony of all traditions is worthless to us, for they do help us to understand Scripture. And they do have a normative effect, for that is their purpose. But they do have to be guarded in the light of Scripture. That is, Biblical traditions ought to be taught and explained from generation to generation, so that they will not become traditions separated from the Word. In the same way, we do not regard ecclesiastical authority as binding if it is separated from the Word. 

If we aren't careful we may throw out the firm social footing that our next generation will be standing on so that they will receive the Word with a proper understanding, and not have to start over with each new succeeding generation, only to impart the same traditions anew.

I believe in Sola Scriptura, but that doesn't mean that I eschew all traditions, or that I despise the church's authority altogether. But only if they have weight because of the Word, not in spite of it.


----------



## kceaster

*John....*

[quote:8c8b4ac8a5]As far as the meaning of Sola Scriptura is concerned, is it Keith Mathison alone? I think we could probably do a little better in defining what Sola Scriptura means. I agree with Fred that these definitions lack something.[/quote:8c8b4ac8a5]

I don't know if I have done the best job explaining what Mathison puts forth. One really needs to read his book to get a fuller explanation and argument. He has done his homework, I think.

I am sorry I have bungled the definitions. But his book struck a chord with me and confirmed what I have believed about the Scriptures and the authority of the church.

He also does a good job showing the various arguments. Often, evangelicals are arguing with reformed types because they think the definition of Sola Scriptura does not include tradition. Because they think this, they argue against the RCC or tradition 2 and talk past those who hold to tradition 1.

I thought the book was helpful. By no means is it the only authority on Sola Scriptura, but it has to be one of the best places to start.

If someone believes him to be wrong, they should refute his book and tradition 1. They should not argue against his position as though it were the RCC position, because that is just plain wrong and misunderstands the whole thing.

Here are a few quotes from John MacLeod from, &quot;Scottish Theology&quot;

[quote:8c8b4ac8a5]"...the further light that is to break out will not cancel nor challenge nor detract from the brightness with which the light of the Word already shines. What is new will only intensify what is old. It will not darken it nor throw it in the shade. It will not open up the light or message of another Gospel than that which our Lord and His Apostles have left us. It will be a thing of detail and not of wide-sweeping principle. We need not, then, look for results of a revolutionary kind as the outcome of the shining of New Light if it is light indeed."

&quot;The truth already known may be known more fully and perfectly. It may be seen better in its own setting and in the connection and relations of its various parts. Its power and its beauty and its sweetness and its glory may be more richly known. Yet those who have learned the Gospel of the Glory of the Blessed God may rest assured of this, that any further truth which as light will break forth from the Word will have no quarrel with the truth and the proportion of what they have already come to know. They may well keep their windows open to the east to welcome the light that a new day brings with it; but no shining of the rising sun will do more than confirm them in the knowledge and faith of what their confessing fathers learned from the Apostles - what, indeed, in Holy Writ is set forth with great plainness of speech.&quot;[/quote:8c8b4ac8a5]

This has a great deal to do with the light we have. Some would say that the light has to be new in each generation or that it has to be different in some way.

My question is why? If the self-same Spirit has made the light shine in previous generations, why would the light be different in ours?

This has to do with the Scripture's self-attesting nature. Not only does Scripture interpret Scripture, but also, by the Spirit, the testimony of its truth is shared by all. How then could the Spirit testify in one, a truth opposed by the testimony of another? The Spirit cannot be behind two opposed &quot;truths&quot;, and neither can the Scriptures.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JohnV

Kevin:
I did not mean to slight either you or Mr. Mathison. In fact my careless wording slighted myself instead. In my zeal to juxtapose one sola with another to make my point I only discredited my own self. Please forgive me. 

And I don't mean to derail your intention here at all. I think that your an my interests are the same, though we may have different particular cases in mind. While I am thinking of an aplogetic consistency and the role of music in the Church as two particular cases, you may have something else in mind; and so with each one's contribution. But I think we are both aware that the longstanding, generation to generation, historical, or whatever adjective with the same meaning one wishes to use, it stands squarely on the Word alone, and not on traditions that are devoid of Biblical grounding, such as men's edicts or practices from culture or self-interest, rather than from carefully walking in the Way. 

Again, please accept my apologies.


----------



## Scott

Don:

So, your methodology is that each Christian alone should individually determine what is inspired and is not inspired? 

The reasoning from the article you give is dangerous It precludes some forms of Christian growth. There are many times in a Christian's life when he will read the Bible as teaching two different and contradictory beliefs. James and Paul on justification are examples tghat often arise. If each individual is allowed to simply say that anything (he perceives to be) contradictory is not inspired, then he can jettison one or more books he does not understand. Indeed, Luther did just this with James. This was wrong.

Let me use an example that won't suffer the criticisms you level against Hermas (and I don't think those are necessarily valid criticisms - Hermas can be read in ways consistent with Protestant doctrine). How can you determine that the Epistle to the Laodecians is uninspired? It claims Pauline authorship and is so tepid that it should contain nothing contradictory to any Protestant doctrine.

Here is the epistle:
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/Laodiceans.html

Scott

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Scott

Radarag wrote: &quot;I have met evangelicals who believe that each Christian should decide on the canon of Scripture for himself.&quot;

I have too. This is absurd. I would challenge the credentials of virtually anyone who tried to do this. Most don't even know Greek and have no training or other expertise in ancient near eastern documents. Most cannot even explain the peciniples of canonization or the history of canonization. Yet will start making precisely those kinds of arguments (parroting some apologetic work they read).

Perhaps a professor of ancient near eastern texts could make reaonable arguments along these lines. As it stands, the man on the street who tries to do this is like a non-doctor trying to render a medical opinion on a very complicated issue.

Luther's standard was odd. He claimed something like the book must speak with the voice of Christ or something. Anyway, the practical import was that nothing could contradict his understanding of Paul.

Scott


----------



## Scott

It may be helpful to state what Tradition 1 does not teach:

[1] Tradition 1 does not teach that the church authoritatively authorizes the Bible, as if the Bible's authority is dervied from the Church. The Bible is the Word of God its authority dervies from Him. 

[2] T1 does not teach that the Church is infallible or irreformable.

[3] T1 does not teach that the efficacious persuasion of someone to the truth of the scriptures is something other than the Holy Spirit.

Scott

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Scott]


----------



## kceaster

*John...*

There is nothing whatsoever to apologize for. You made an astute observation. I agree my points could have been clearer.

Keep on, brother.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## raderag

[quote:55d1cc840d][i:55d1cc840d]Originally posted by Scott[/i:55d1cc840d]
Radarag wrote: &quot;I have met evangelicals who believe that each Christian should decide on the canon of Scripture for himself.&quot;

I have too. This is absurd. Scott [/quote:55d1cc840d]

Twas me a couple of years ago.


----------



## pastorway

It seems to me that Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 only vary in identifying the &quot;tradition&quot; you use to verify proper interpretation. Tradition 1 says it is the councils and other formulations that meet the standards of reformed theology. Tradition 2 says it is the councils and traditions of the RCC. What is the difference? Both require something outside of Scripture in the pursuit of orthodoxy.

Here is a for instance that will help you see my position.

A missionary is sent to a foreign land that has never had the gospel or the Word of God before. He is used of God to win converts to Christ. He begins to disciple them in the Word. He leaves. Those he has trained from the Word alone and appointed as leaders in the new church there are now acting as elders in the local church. They lead and preach and teach. They have never heard of any council, creed, and have not read church history. But they have the Bible in their language and have been taught proper principles of hermeneutics. They are a duly constituted New Testament Church.

As they rightly divide the Word they do not ever need to know about any council, creed, or history. The Spirit illumines their minds to the truth of the doctrines of the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, the active obedience of Christ, justification by faith alone, etc, etc.

In Tradition 1, this is impossible, and so relegates the effectiveness of the Word of God to the [i:461dfd2f6d]authoratative[/i:461dfd2f6d] interpretation of men written down in historical traditional documents. (the same thing the RCC claims....with the catch being that it must be the RCC that determines proper interpretation).

In Tradition 0 we see that the ability of God to uphold His Word alone without the input of any history or tradition is a reality, a real posibility, because the work depends on God and not men!

I mean really, when the first councils met, what did they rely upon to formulate their confessions and decrees? The Word of God alone. So why do we think it is necessary to refer to their decrees plus the Word in order to discover, understand, and apply truth?

Tradition 1 means in every day application that the Word of God cannot be understood rightly by an individual without the input of tradition and history of some sort. That is not Sola Scriptura.

Please note, I am not arguing against councils or the church. I am not preaching rabid individualism. But I insist upon the fact that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura means that any individual on this planet can read the Word of God and understand it alone! I am really even going further. I am saying that every individual believer is responsible to challenge and question what the &quot;church&quot; teaches to make sure it lines up with the Bible. 

And NOTE: That does [i:461dfd2f6d]not[/i:461dfd2f6d] make the individual the final authority. It makes the Word of God illumined by the Holy Spirit and upheld by God Himself the final authority.

And that is Sola Scriptura!

Phillip


----------



## kceaster

*Phillip...*

[quote:89a86fb8fa][i:89a86fb8fa]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:89a86fb8fa]
It seems to me that Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 only vary in identifying the &quot;tradition&quot; you use to verify proper interpretation. Tradition 1 says it is the councils and other formulations that meet the standards of reformed theology. Tradition 2 says it is the councils and traditions of the RCC. What is the difference? Both require something outside of Scripture in the pursuit of orthodoxy.[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

Huge difference. One has a light passed down in Scripture. The other looks to a &quot;light&quot; that is made up of oral and written tradition outside of Scripture. See the difference?

[quote:89a86fb8fa]Here is a for instance that will help you see my position.

A missionary is sent to a foreign land that has never had the gospel or the Word of God before. He is used of God to win converts to Christ. He begins to disciple them in the Word. He leaves. Those he has trained from the Word alone and appointed as leaders in the new church there are now acting as elders in the local church. They lead and preach and teach. They have never heard of any council, creed, and have not read church history. But they have the Bible in their language and have been taught proper principles of hermeneutics. They are a duly constituted New Testament Church.[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

We've heard this one before. Since Christ's command is to disciple and not merely make converts, this missionary or whoever sent him is sinning because they did not follow through with the proper discipleship. So, no, these people did not simply use Scripture to understand the rule of faith. They were taught, ever so slightly, a few things, then they had to continue on in whatever light they had. The Spirit still works in them and they still gain understanding by Him. And they will have whatever light God wills. HOWEVER, this light will be no different than the light of the ages. If the Spirit is with them, they will come to the exact same theology that all true disciples have been given.

So your example does not negate Scripture, but it does skew the view of what the Spirit would accomplish among these people. You make it sound like they will come to truth OPPOSED to biblical doctrines. They will not. They will have the same rule of faith we do, if the Spirit is with them.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]In Tradition 1, this is impossible, and so relegates the effectiveness of the Word of God to the [i:89a86fb8fa]authoratative[/i:89a86fb8fa] interpretation of men written down in historical traditional documents. (the same thing the RCC claims....with the catch being that it must be the RCC that determines proper interpretation).[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

You don't understand it at all. Tradition 1 is not man made rules or oral or extrabiblical tradition. It is the truth as is written in the Word and as is confirmed in the church of God. The church did not confirm the Word. The Word confirmed the church. It is self-attesting. But part of its self-attestation is that it makes witnesses of all true disciples who believe the exact same truth and are one in all essential doctrines. This is why we know heresy is heresy. The Scriptures tell us and then witness between us that they are truth.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]In Tradition 0 we see that the ability of God to uphold His Word alone without the input of any history or tradition is a reality, a real posibility, because the work depends on God and not men![/quote:89a86fb8fa]

Wherever there is truth it is because of God. Wherever you differ from other men, who determines the truth? YOU DO. Sorry, Phillip, this makes you supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice. You determine what is right. This is tradition 0. It is autonomous and individual.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]I mean really, when the first councils met, what did they rely upon to formulate their confessions and decrees? The Word of God alone.[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

They did not interpret it in a vacuum. They had apostolic tradition. They had elders who had been discipled by disciples. Paul didn't just give Timothy a Bible and let him learn for himself. He taught him. In turn, Timothy taught. In turn, those who were taught by him, taught others.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]So why do we think it is necessary to refer to their decrees plus the Word in order to discover, understand, and apply truth?[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

Because they are witnesses. They confirm the Word in us. They help us know what the truth is.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]Tradition 1 means in every day application that the Word of God cannot be understood rightly by an individual without the input of tradition and history of some sort. That is not Sola Scriptura.[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

Obviously, Phillip, you were the first person ever to read the whole Bible all the way through. You had no teachers except for the Bible and the Spirit. If this is true of you, that is not Sola Scriptura, it is SOLO Scriptura. It makes me angry that you deny the command of Christ in discipleship. You negate what it means to everyone who reads the Bible. And, you preach to hear yourself talk, for that is the only good it will do if you truly believe that we know how to apply the Scriptures only on our own interpretation.

We have been saying the same thing for almost 2 years now. It is still true of you that you are the supreme judge of the truth of Scripture. What is sad is that you do not admit it, nor can you see it. That is the logical step of what you believe. And there are many witnesses against you, including those you wrongly cite, like the Hodges.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]Please note, I am not arguing against councils or the church. I am not preaching rabid individualism. But I insist upon the fact that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura means that any individual on this planet can read the Word of God and understand it alone! I am really even going further. I am saying that every individual believer is responsible to challenge and question what the &quot;church&quot; teaches to make sure it lines up with the Bible.[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

You may insist all you want to, but you are ignoring the doctrine and making up one for yourself. You have no idea what Sola Scriptura is. You have a great idea of what you think it is, but unfortunately the doctrine did not originate with you.

And why are they to challenge the church? Has God spoken only to them, to you? You think this position takes away the responsibility for everyone to know the Word, and that is simply not what we're saying. What we're saying is that if the individual reads the Word and comes to a completely different conclusion than the light we've been given, then they are wrong. There is no need to challenge the church. The church has the light. It can only get brighter, but it is the same light. A person cannot come to a &quot;new&quot; truth. It doesn't exist. 

[quote:89a86fb8fa]And NOTE: That does [i:89a86fb8fa]not[/i:89a86fb8fa] make the individual the final authority. It makes the Word of God illumined by the Holy Spirit and upheld by God Himself the final authority.[/quote:89a86fb8fa]

Phillip, consider what you just said. In every individual that reads the Scripture the Spirit speaks? That is simply untrue. Many twist the Scripture and call it truth. They claim that God has spoken, too. Yes, God is the final authority, but He did not allow you, solely, or anyone else for that matter, to speak for Him. You cannot interpret Scripture and then say it is authoritative unless there are witnesses to that effect. This is exactly where cults come from. They say the Bible says this or that, but it doesn't. They claim that God Himself has showed them the truth, but He hasn't. How do we know? Because there is no UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE to back it up.

[quote:89a86fb8fa]And that is Sola Scriptura!

Phillip [/quote:89a86fb8fa]

Well, you must be right. If you are the sole authority of what you believe the Scriptures to teach, then you certainly are an authority on what Sola Scriptura is.

You really can't see it, can you?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Don A

Just checking in one last time, then I'm gone for the weekend. 

Scott said:
[quote:f4c9b73912]So, your methodology is that each Christian alone should individually determine what is inspired and is not inspired? [/quote:f4c9b73912]

Nope. Never said that. I contend that Almighty God can preserve His Word throughout time and history and illuminate His elect according to His good pleasure. 

[quote:f4c9b73912]The reasoning from the article you give is dangerous It precludes some forms of Christian growth. There are many times in a Christian's life when he will read the Bible as teaching two different and contradictory beliefs. James and Paul on justification are examples tghat often arise. If each individual is allowed to simply say that anything (he perceives to be) contradictory is not inspired, then he can jettison one or more books he does not understand. Indeed, Luther did just this with James. This was wrong. [/quote:f4c9b73912]

Luther was wrong? Isn't he considered part of the Reformed Tradition? 

[quote:f4c9b73912]Let me use an example that won't suffer the criticisms you level against Hermas (and I don't think those are necessarily valid criticisms - Hermas can be read in ways consistent with Protestant doctrine). How can you determine that the Epistle to the Laodecians is uninspired? It claims Pauline authorship and is so tepid that it should contain nothing contradictory to any Protestant doctrine. [/quote:f4c9b73912]

I can't determine anything. My whole point is this: man did not canonize the Scriptures. God did. 

[quote:f4c9b73912][b:f4c9b73912]Isaiah 40[/b:f4c9b73912]
8 The grass withers, the flower fades, 
But the word of our God stands forever.&quot;

[b:f4c9b73912]1 Peter 1[/b:f4c9b73912]
25 But the word of the LORD endures forever.&quot;
Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.
[/quote:f4c9b73912]

Over and out. See y'all Monday.


----------



## pastorway

KC, 

It seems you are bound by tradition and I am a lone, blind fool. So be it.

I have not argued against discipleship, the church, etc etc. I have simply stated that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is our rule. Not the interpretation of our church. The Bible.

In my illustartion you say that the missionary who went preaching and making disciples, planting a church and then had to leave (or died) is sinful???? Whatever. We cannot say that a properly planted church with qualified elders is incapable of functioning and preaching/understanding the Word and sound doctrine without first studying history and tradition. To say so denies the truth about the work of the Holy Spirit. In fact, it almost seems in your argument that you replace the Spirit with the &quot;rule of faith&quot; (ie reformed tradition).

If it were as simple a case as you make it out to be then we would all be one happy unified catholic church. But there are varying traditions and interpretations. The believer then must rely upon the ability of the Spirit to fulfill the promise to lead us into all truth - with or without the help of history.

Neither the LBCF nor the WCF is the faith once for all delivered ot the saints. Neither are the councils or any other confession. The Word of God has been preserved and given to us so that God might reveal Himself to us. As the church speaks for God, we all must test what is said and hold fast to what os good while abstaining from every form of evil (this in context is doctrinal error!).

The Word is infallible. The church is not. History is not. Tradition is not. The councils are not. The confessions are not.

Perhaps we should all re-read the Theological Traditionalsim thread as it seems to be the starting point for every disagreement you and I have about the Word of God. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1710

That is all I will say in this discussion. I'm done for now.

Phillip


----------



## kceaster

*Phillip...*

What is amazing in all of this is that I have not mentioned the confessions or the creeds once. I have mentioned Scripture and the apostolic rule of faith, but I have not given shape to what that is. You are assuming what I would say, and it is simply not what I am saying.

And btw, you said the missionary went to make converts, and taught them a bit and then left. We are not told to make converts, but disciples. That still happens in the same way, teaching. Teaching is not just handing them the Bible and telling them to read it and then tell you what they think it says.

Also, I said that the Holy Spirit would lead them into truth and that He would bring them to the self-same truth that the whole church has. On the essentials, they would be in line with the apostolic church, or, they would not be led by the Spirit.

But the Spirit would not give them light different from the rule of faith.

The logical conclusion of your train of thought is autonomy. I am not the only one to say this. I am sorry if that does not sit well with you. I am just being honest. If you don't like being outside, then by all means, come in.

But don't restate a doctrine using todays terms. It doesn't equal what you say it equals. The people who first used it would not agree with your position.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## luvroftheWord

I know Phillip said he was done with this thread, but maybe sometime he'll come back and answer a question. Or perhaps somebody else can answer it.

[quote:517b17a8b5]As they rightly divide the Word they do not ever need to know about any council, creed, or history. The Spirit illumines their minds to the truth of the doctrines of the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, the active obedience of Christ, justification by faith alone, etc, etc. 

In Tradition 1, this is impossible, and so relegates the effectiveness of the Word of God to the authoratative interpretation of men written down in historical traditional documents. (the same thing the RCC claims....with the catch being that it must be the RCC that determines proper interpretation).[/quote:517b17a8b5]

Don A was honest enough to admit that Tradition 1, not Tradition 0, represents the HISTORIC view of [i:517b17a8b5]Sola Scriptura[/i:517b17a8b5]. Keith Mathison has documented this as well in his book on this subject, which was also his doctoral dissertation at Whitefield Seminary in book form. He knows his stuff.

Now, the question is if historic [i:517b17a8b5]Sola Scriptura[/i:517b17a8b5] is Tradition 1, why do you affirm Tradition 0 and claim to believe [i:517b17a8b5]Sola Scriptura[/i:517b17a8b5]? I mean, it is okay for you to claim to believe Tradition 0. But I don't understand why you would pretend that Tradition 0 is the same as [i:517b17a8b5]Sola Scriptura[/i:517b17a8b5] when it is clearly not, given the testimony of history. You may believe that it SHOULD be Tradition 0. But that doesn't change what it is. It would be better for you to deny [i:517b17a8b5]Sola Scriptura[/i:517b17a8b5] and claim what Doug Jones has called SOLO [i:517b17a8b5]Scriptura[/i:517b17a8b5]. Just my thoughts on that.

[quote:517b17a8b5]I am saying that every individual believer is responsible to challenge and question what the &quot;church&quot; teaches to make sure it lines up with the Bible.[/quote:517b17a8b5]

So why exactly should I trust my own ability to interpret the Scriptures over the ability of the church?

Also, Don A said:

[quote:517b17a8b5][quote:517b17a8b5]I'll stick with the Reformers on this one, rather than embrace hopeless subjectivism.[/quote:517b17a8b5]

Fair enough. I'll stick with the apostles...[/quote:517b17a8b5]

Would that be your INTERPRETATION of the apostles? What about MY interpretation? And how do you know you're right and I'm wrong?


----------



## Scott

Don:

I will cleary and adamantly say that Luther was completely wrong in rejecting the Book of James. Just because he was a key figure in the Reformation does not mean he was right in this.

Also, I think you are missing the point on canonization. All agree that God determines the canon. The question is which entity or entities are authorized to auhoritatively recognize what God has done? Is it the lone individual, the collective mind of the church, or is it something else?

One places the individual mind of man (allegedly inspired by the Spirit) as the final earthly authority. One places God's Bride, the Church, as the final earthly authority. 

BTW, please answer my questions on the specific books (there are two, including one concerning the Epistle to the Laodecieans) when you get a chance. I think your answers, whatever they are, will reveal a lot about your view of the canon.

Scott


----------



## Scott

A couple of other general notes.

[1] It is through the church that God manifests His glory. &quot;His intent was that now, [i:54979d3e8c]through the church[/i:54979d3e8c], the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms . . .&quot; Eph. 3.

[2] &quot;Tradition&quot; should not be a bad word. It is used commonly in the Pauline epistles and almost always in a positive context (exception to the traditions of the Jews). For example, 2 Thes. 2:15 reads: &quot;Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.&quot;

Note that the the Thessaolnians are commanded to observe traditions of &quot;word&quot; (oral) and &quot;epistle&quot; (written). The scripture are a tradition, albeit a written one.

The great danger is the &quot;tradition of men.&quot; See Matt. 15, for example.

[3] In Phillip's example of the missionary, simply bring a Bible to the natives carries with it an unwritten tradition, the canon. Great men in the early church debated and fought long and hard over the canon. Eventually a consensus emerged among all orthodox churches. This consensus is brought to natives when we choose to include Hebrews in our Bible (which many Eastern churches did not for hundreds of years), yet we exclude the Shepherd of Hermas. There is no written tradition (scripture) of which books are inspired and which are not.

God created canon and His Wife, the Church, recognized His voice. The church does not authorize the canon, but receives it. Yet, She - and not billions of maverick individuals each operating autonomously from the church - is the one who may authoritatively properly receive this. 

Scott


----------



## raderag

*Could someone more acuratly restate T0 and T1?*

I may have to change my position to T0. It seems as if Protestant tradition may contradict T1. If so, I have to go with T0. Anyway, I am not sure I fully understand yet, so please restate.


----------



## raderag

*What Westminster says...*

[quote:2926a056ab]
IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, [b:2926a056ab]dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[/b:2926a056ab]
[/quote:2926a056ab]


So the canon must be recieved not because of the Church, but because it is truth. That sounds like the individual must judge it to be so?

[quote:2926a056ab]
V. We may be [b:2926a056ab]moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;[/b:2926a056ab] and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, [b:2926a056ab]our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[/b:2926a056ab]
[/quote:2926a056ab]

Westminster gives the church a very secondary role to the role of the Holy Spirit working in the individual (our hearts).


[quote:2926a056ab]
IX. The [b:2926a056ab]infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself;[/b:2926a056ab] and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and [b:2926a056ab]all decress of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. [/b:2926a056ab]
[/quote:2926a056ab]

So the Judge of councils, opinions, tradition, etc is scripture. We are talking about scritpure judging the Church, so how can the Church judge itself with Scripture?

...
[quote:2926a056ab]
III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word.
IV. All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore [b:2926a056ab]they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.[/b:2926a056ab]
[/quote:2926a056ab]

Ok, so as I understand it, Westminster takes the T0 position. Since T1 would rely on Protestant tradition, it nullifies itself. Perhaps, I am wrong, but I am leaning away from T1.


----------



## raderag

[quote:96dae50e60][i:96dae50e60]Originally posted by Scott[/i:96dae50e60]
Also, I think you are missing the point on canonization. All agree that God determines the canon. The question is which entity or entities are authorized to auhoritatively recognize what God has done? Is it the lone individual, the collective mind of the church, or is it something else?
Scott [/quote:96dae50e60]

The Church has a responsibility as the Pillar of truth to affirm the Canon, but its affirmation does not bind the canon. It is the Providence of God that makes the Canon true, not the Churches discovery of it. Furthermore, we know the Canon is the true because of the Holy Spirit working in our hearts (WCF Ch 1, Part V), and can be further assured by the Church (WCF Ch 1, Part V).

Therefore, the Churchs job in determining the Canon is secondary to the individual through the Holy Spirit, at least according to Protestant tradition. I tried to find Protestant writings before the 20th century to support the T1 position without any luck. I have to admit to being very confused right now about proper ecclesiology.

I think Greg Bahansen does a good job of summerizing it here:

http://www.reformed.org/bible/bahnsen_canon.html
[quote:96dae50e60]
To recapitulate: we know from God's Word (1) that the church of the New Covenant recognized the standing canon of the Old Testament, and (2) that the Lord intended for the New Covenant church to be built upon the word of the apostles, coming thereby to recognize the canonical literature of the New Testament. To these premises we can add the conviction (3) that all of history is governed by God's providence (&quot;...according to the plan of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His own will,&quot; Eph. 1:11). So then, trusting Christ's promise that He would indeed build His church, and being confident in the controlling sovereignty of God, we can be assured the God-ordained recognition of the canon would be providentially accomplished -- which, in retrospect, is now a matter of historical record.

To think otherwise would be, in actual effect, to deprive the Christian church of the sure word of God. And that would in turn (a) undermine confidence in the gospel, contrary to God's promise and our spiritual necessity, as well as (b) deprive us of the philosophical precondition of any knowledge whatsoever, thus consigning us (in principle) to utter scepticism.
[/quote:96dae50e60]


----------



## Don A

Scott,

Sorry to burn band-width, but I wanted to be sure that you knew that I did read this:

[quote:b58b641317]THE EPISTLE OF Paul THE APOSTLE TO THE LAODICEANS

1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, to the brethren which are at Laodicea.
2. Grace be to you, and peace, from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. I thank Christ in every prayer of mine, that you may continue and persevere in good works, looking for that which is promised in the day of judgment.
4. Do not be troubled by the vain speeches of anyone who perverts the truth, that they may draw you aside from the truth of the Gospel which I have preached.
5. And now may God grant that my converts may attain to a perfect knowledge of the truth of the Gospel, be beneficent, and doing good works which accompany salvation.
6. And now my bonds, which I suffer in Christ, are manifest, in which I rejoice and am glad. 
7. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation forever, which shall be through your prayer and the supply of the Holy Spirit.
8. Whether I live or die, to me to live shall be a life to Christ, to die will be joy. 
9. And our Lord will grant us his mercy, that you may have the same love, and be like-minded.
10. Wherefore, my beloved, as you have heard of the coming of the Lord, so think and act reverently, and it shall be to you life eternal;
11. For it is God who is working in you; 
12. And do all things without sin.
13. And what is best, my beloved; rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ, and avoid all filthy lucre.
14. Let all your requests by made known to God, and be steady in the doctrine of Christ.
15. And whatever things are sound and true, and of good report, and chaste, and just, and lovely, these things do. 
16. Those things which you have heard and received, think on these things, and peace shall be with you.
17. All the saints salute you.
18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
19. Cause this Epistle to be read to the Colossians, and the Epistle of the Colossians to be read among you.[/quote:b58b641317]

Scott said:
[quote:b58b641317] BTW, please answer my questions on the specific books (there are two, including one concerning the Epistle to the Laodecieans) when you get a chance. I think your answers, whatever they are, will reveal a lot about your view of the canon.[/quote:b58b641317]

I'm really not sure what it is I am supposed to be revealing here. I believe that Paul probably wrote many letters (epistles) that were not chosen for the canon of scripture. And by that , I mean chosen by God. I doubt that the Lord prohibited the Apostle from writing to the churches whenever he felt the need, just as we would write, call, or visit those close to us, for whatever reason. No reason to believe that everything that Paul ever put on paper was "God breathed". In my understanding of scripture, God inspired Paul at specific times to write specific letters to specific churches so that His Word might be know to the Church through the ages. 

[quote:b58b641317]Also, I think you are missing the point on canonization. All agree that God determines the canon. The question is which entity or entities are authorized to auhoritatively recognize what God has done? Is it the lone individual, the collective mind of the church, or is it something else?[/quote:b58b641317] 

God is at liberty to authorize any entity He pleases. He has at times spoken through a bush, a cloud, and from thin air. He has written His Word with the pens of poets, the pronouncements of prophets, in epistles, and in stone with His own hand. He has now chosen to preserve His Word through His church, which is an assembly of individuals.

Have their not been apostate assemblies (false churches) that have tried to corrupt and contaminate His Word from the earliest times? How then do we know which "church" to believe? Because His Spirit testifies to His Truth. His elect will not ultimately be deceived nor forsaken.

[quote:b58b641317]One places the individual mind of man (allegedly inspired by the Spirit) as the final earthly authority. One places God's Bride, the Church, as the final earthly authority.[/quote:b58b641317]

Wrong on both counts. I have never suggested that man, individual or otherwise, has final authority. The final authority is the Head, earthly and heavenly.

[quote:b58b641317][b:b58b641317]Ephesians 1[/b:b58b641317]
21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. 
22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church,
23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

[b:b58b641317]Colossians 1[/b:b58b641317]
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. [/quote:b58b641317]

.


----------



## kceaster

*Tradition 1*

From Mathison, page 275.

The Rule of Faith as Tradition

In the conception of the early Church, we have seen that the idea of tradition was not incompatible with an understanding of Scripture as the sole source of divine revelation. Tradition was simply the body of doctrine committed to the Church by Christ and His Apostles whether through written or oral revelation. The content of the revelation was identical regardless of the mode of revelation. Paul did not preach one gospel orally and another gospel when he wrote his epistles. The apostolic tradition was gradually written down over time in the canonical Scriptures. There were no secret, gnostic revelations given by Christ to a select few. Revelation was given to the Chruch as a whole in Scripture. The revelation of the gospel was public. The early Church was therefore able to view Scripture and tradition as coinherent concepts. There was no conflict because the content was essentially the same.

We have seen that this concept of tradition, which has been termed Tradition I, is not only the doctrine of the early Church, but also the doctrine of the classical Reformers. We have seen that the concepts of tradition currently advocated by Rome (Tradition II and Tradition III) and modern Evangelicalism (Tradition 0) are not only concepts unknown in the early Church, they are concepts that are inherently self-destructive. Each of these newer concepts of tradition confuses the locus of final authority, ultimately placing it in either the mind of the Church or the mind of the individual. This always results in autonomy and rebellion against the authority of God and His Word.

The Church today must regain the understanding of tradition held by the early Church and by the best of the Reformers. The fact that the Reformers did not use the exact terminology the early Church used to express this doctrine must not deter us from incorporating this necessary concept into our thinking. The Reformers used the language of sola scriptura because they were battling the concept of tradition (Tradition II) within Roman Catholicism that was not the doctrine of tradition found in the early Church. The newer Roman Catholic doctrine of tradition destroyed the final authority and normativity of inspired Scripture which was part of Tradition I.

Unfortunately many of the heirs of the Reformation rejected Tradition I as well, and in doing so they unwittingly rejected sola scriptura. In an extreme reaction against the abuses of ecclesiastical authority found in Rome, these men rejected all ecclesiastical authority. Their doctrine (Tradition 0) rejected the authority of the Church, of creeds and of tradition of any kind. This doctrine of solo scriptura has become the predominant doctrine within Evangelical Protestantism, but it has caused as many if not more problems than it sought to correct. By denying the authority of the corporate judgment of the Church, solo scriptura has exalted the individual judgment of the individual to the place of final authority. It is the individual who decides what Scripture means. It is the individual who judges between doctrines on the basis of his individual interpretation of Scripture. It is the individual who is sovereign.

If the Church is to regain a credible witness in the world, she must reject Tradition 0 as strenuously as she rejects Tradition II and III. She must regain the doctrine of the Apostles and of the early Church. She must regain this doctrine which the classical Reformers attempted to re-introduce into the Church. The traditional apostolic rule of faith is the foundational hermeneutical context of Scripture. To reject this rule of faith on the basis of an appeal to Scripture is to immediately read Scripture outside of its Christian context. For too long, the concept of tradition has been misused and abused in the Christian Church. it has been both unduly exalted and unnecessarily reviled. Neither of these attitudes is Christian.

Tradition, properly understood, plays an important part in the Christian concept of scriptural authority. It helps the Church to guard against passing theological fads and trends. It guards against a myopic parochialism which cannot see outside the boundaries of one's own denomination. And it also guards against the error of theological over-emphasis on particular doctrines. In other words it guards the Church from those individuals and groups who wrench the Scripture out of its context, twist its meaning to fit their own notions about what Christianity is or should be, and falsely propagate those notions under the banner of Christianity.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## pastorway

In reading your post KC I had a thought.

Either you have the Scripture alone (T0), or you have the Scripture with someone's traditional interpretation (T1). 

It matters not whose interpretation. For as soon as you add any tradition, even if it were the Apostles tradition (if we had extra-biblical apostolic tradition), you deny the sufficiency of the canon of Scripture as the written Word of God, the only rule for faith and practice.

It is either 2 Tim 3:16-17, or it is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 PLUS the teachings of the church.

The second choice cannot be defended as true Sola Scriptura.

So if you insist that T1 is the [i:dbe3bcfb77]historical, reformed[/i:dbe3bcfb77] understanding of Sola Scriptura, then the historical, reformed idea elevates their tradition to the level of Scripture. And I do not think any reformer did that.

Many are doing that today trying to hold to SS. But they are unwittingly adding their tradition as a necessary component to the working of the Spirit in the life of one reading the Bible.

We do not need a confession to understand the Bible. And we do not need any human tradition to grasp what He has revealed.

Phillip


----------



## luvroftheWord

Again, I think a good question is this: Why should I trust my own judgment as to what the Scripture says over against the judgment of the church?


----------



## kceaster

*Phillip...*

[quote:1abcd28456]In reading your post KC I had a thought.

Either you have the Scripture alone (T0), or you have the Scripture with someone's traditional interpretation (T1).[/quote:1abcd28456]

What I am trying to get you to see is that no matter if you believe T0 or T1, you still do not have Scripture Alone. It is not the Scripture only that you put forth. It is Scripture plus your interpretation. Scripture only would just allow reading it, preferably in the original languages.

The tradition part is going to come in immediately when the Scriptures have been commented on, which is what you do every Lord's Day in your own pulpit. That is tradition. You are telling your people what you believe the Bible says. 

[quote:1abcd28456]It matters not whose interpretation. For as soon as you add any tradition, even if it were the Apostles tradition (if we had extra-biblical apostolic tradition), you deny the sufficiency of the canon of Scripture as the written Word of God, the only rule for faith and practice.[/quote:1abcd28456]

Tradition is simply believing something to be true and practicing it. In this way, Mathison states rightly, that the Canon is tradition. But why is this safe? Because the Canon is the only inerrant and received by the church, tradition.

The RCC believes that there are other traditions outside of Scripture. There were other words spoken, some were written down and some were oral. They also believe that there are inerrant traditions outside the context of the Canon. This is where they have gone to T2 and T3.

[quote:1abcd28456]It is either 2 Tim 3:16-17, or it is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 PLUS the teachings of the church.[/quote:1abcd28456]

Phillip, look at the larger context of those verses. Paul is exhorting Timothy not only in the Scriptures, but in the pattern of his living. Look at verse 10 of the same section:

&quot;But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance,&quot;

Then he goes on to tell him about the Scriptures.

But we cannot skip over the part about the application of them. How do we apply them if we don't understand them correctly? How do we understand them unless the Spirit, by His illumination, has given us proper interpretation? How can the Spirit give us interpretation that is not witnessed to in both Heaven and Earth?

Paul's words to Timothy are not merely the Scriptures, but the Scriptures plus the regula fidei.

[quote:1abcd28456]The second choice cannot be defended as true Sola Scriptura.[/quote:1abcd28456]

Only because it has been redefined.

[quote:1abcd28456]So if you insist that T1 is the [i:1abcd28456]historical, reformed[/i:1abcd28456] understanding of Sola Scriptura, then the historical, reformed idea elevates their tradition to the level of Scripture. And I do not think any reformer did that.[/quote:1abcd28456]

You're right. No Reformer elevated tradition to the level of Scripture. That is not what we have been saying at all. I think you believe we are saying Scripture + Tradition places tradition equal to Scripture. We haven't said that at all. We are not adding two and two. We're adding more like a million to a thousand. The T is not equal to Scripture. The T is included in Scripture. See above. We are to put into practice what we have seen from the Apostles pattern.

Mathison cites numerous examples of where they did not elevate their tradition to the level of Scripture, but saw how to apply the Scriptures based upon their earliest interpretation. This is the rule of faith. It is not merely putting into practice what we have seen from the Reformation. It is putting into practice what we saw from the early church. Should we not practice our faith according to their pattern? And by the way, I am not advocating tradition that is divergent from the Scriptures. Everything we put into practice is properly aligned with Scripture, since that is the authority.

[quote:1abcd28456]Many are doing that today trying to hold to SS. But they are unwittingly adding their tradition as a necessary component to the working of the Spirit in the life of one reading the Bible.[/quote:1abcd28456]

Has it ever occured to you that the Spirit may want us to all have the same faith and practice? That is why the Bible is given. But every person who can read can get something different from it. That is not the Bible's fault, nor is it the Spirit's. If He has not illumined them, they will not see it, nor can they agree with what He has illumined in the past.

The Spirit does not tell us two different things.

Those who put into practice their life and faith like that of the early church, where do you suppose they get this? Just by reading the Scripture? No. They get it through the illumination of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. Therefore, if the Spirit is essential for understanding, which He is, then there has to be common understanding. This is the rule of faith.

[quote:1abcd28456]We do not need a confession to understand the Bible. And we do not need any human tradition to grasp what He has revealed.[/quote:1abcd28456]

Phillip, we need the Spirit. Do you agree? How does the Spirit illumine us? He uses the Scripture and the testimony. Otherwise, you are preaching just to hear yourself talk. We are to be His witnesses, are we not? How can we be a witness to something no one has ever heard? How can we be a witness to something that the Spirit has not given to anyone else in the church of God? How can we be a witness to something that is divergent from those who actually did witness it?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## raderag

[quote:322842c2ab][i:322842c2ab]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:322842c2ab]
Again, I think a good question is this: Why should I trust my own judgment as to what the Scripture says over against the judgment of the church? [/quote:322842c2ab]

The problem is that you have to make a judgment of what church. Roman Catholic, Westminster, Lutheran, etc. That is still ultimatly personal judgment unless you believe in some kind of succession.


----------



## Scott

Don:

I don't think your response to the question to the Espitle to the Laodecians answers the question. Let's try another approach. Someone comes to you with the Epistle to the Laodecians and says, &quot;What process should I go through to tell if this document is inspired or not?&quot; What would you say?

Don wrote: &quot;Wrong on both counts. I have never suggested that man, individual or otherwise, has final authority. The final authority is the Head, earthly and heavenly.&quot;

Think of it this way. Everyone agrees that Jesus is the final authority, even Catholics. So I am not sure if your point is helpful here. 

This is the difficulty. Jesus is in heaven. We are not. He does not appear to you bodily and speak audibly to you, telling you which books are inspired and which are not. 

What Jesus does do is this. He rules on earth through the officials He appoints to His kingdom. He has delegated His authority. They have been given the power of the keys, the power to bind and loose sins, etc. (Matt. 16, 18, etc.). Where these churchmen speak, He speaks (see Luke 10:16, for example). Those who reject His officials reject Him (again, Luke 10:16). 

His Church is key to Him. 

Scott


----------



## raderag

[quote:7e1e22a62e][i:7e1e22a62e]Originally posted by Scott[/i:7e1e22a62e]
What Jesus does do is this. He rules on earth through the officials He appoints to His kingdom. He has delegated His authority. They have been given the power of the keys, the power to bind and loose sins, etc. (Matt. 16, 18, etc.). Where these churchmen speak, He speaks (see Luke 10:16, for example). Those who reject His officials reject Him (again, Luke 10:16). 
Scott [/quote:7e1e22a62e]

Scott, I have a question. Do you agree then that it is ultimately the individuals responsibility for deciding what the Church is? The individual must decide, based on their understanding of scripture, which confession or creed to accept and reject. The only other standard could be apostolic succession. Furthermore, if this is true, then individual understanding of scripture trumps the Church's, because it was used to decide which Church. 

Am I missing something?


[Edited on 3-30-2004 by raderag]


----------



## Scott

&quot;The problem is that you have to make a judgment of what church. Roman Catholic, Westminster, Lutheran, etc. That is still ultimatly personal judgment unless you believe in some kind of succession.&quot;

I think this is a great point. All issues of authority become hazy at some point. They also all involve personal responsibility at some point. When somone asks a child to do something, the child must make a couple of personal descisions. One is &quot;is this my parent?&quot; That is a personal decision. As strange as it may sound, some people have been mistaken about this (say children who were kidnapped as infants). Even after that decision is made, they must ask &quot;will I obey or not?&quot; These are personal decisions. 

That does not change the fact that they have an obligation to obey their parents and to rely on their parents' ideas and instructions over their own. 

Scott


----------



## raderag

[quote:d9106553cc][i:d9106553cc]Originally posted by Scott[/i:d9106553cc]

I think this is a great point. All issues of authority become hazy at some point. They also all involve personal responsibility at some point. When somone asks a child to do something, the child must make a couple of personal descisions. One is &quot;is this my parent?&quot; That is a personal decision. As strange as it may sound, some people have been mistaken about this (say children who were kidnapped as infants). Even after that decision is made, they must ask &quot;will I obey or not?&quot; These are personal decisions. 

That does not change the fact that they have an obligation to obey their parents and to rely on their parents' ideas and instructions over their own. 

Scott [/quote:d9106553cc]

Well, that is fine, but it still doesn't solve the problem of a subjective standard especially since one can find a Church or Statement of Faith to fit almost any sort of view of Scripture. 

If it is ultimately the individuals responsibility to judge the Church based on Scripture, then logically T0 and T1 are the same. The only difference is that T0 requires that the individual determines the correct interpretation, and T1 requires that they choose the right Church based on the interpretation.

How is this any less subjective?


----------



## Scott

Brett:

Those are great questions. I don't think it is a matter of one trumping the other. I am a lawyer and so I deal with this kind of stuff regularly and I am familiar with it in other contexts.

Our legal system has a heirarchy of laws. The US Constitution is on top. Federal statutes are below. Then we have state statutes. That is in a nutshell the legal relation between the constitution and statutes.

Now, not everyone agrees with what words of the Constitution and statutes mean. We could respond in a couple of ways. We could say, well each individual needs to decide for himself what the statutes mean. That would lead to chaos. We might have a statute that says &quot;If you injure someone because of you negligent driving, you must recompense the injured person.&quot; Say, a driver is not watching the road (chaging his radio) and hits someone. Is this negligent? The driver would probably say no, everyone changes their radios sometimes. The injured person would likely say yes, the driver should keep a proper lookout.

Anyway, if each individual decides the meaning of the word &quot;negligent,&quot; then there is an impasse. 

Another option is to have a court system resolve the issue. That is what we do. That is what God has left the church, too, in the way of councils and the like (see Acts 15). 

That does not mean that church councils are infallible anymore than courts are infallible. Yet, they are better equipped typically than individuals. They also are necessary to resolve disagreements. 

The existence of a court does not &quot;trump&quot; the statute (although it might seem that way to the losing litigant) anymore than an individual making a decision about the meaning of a statute &quot;trumps&quot; the statute. It is simply a question of radical individualism over community. Which entity resolves disgareements about the meaning of the statute, which all agree is the highest standard.

Scott


----------



## raderag

[quote:88a3a0c581]
Now, not everyone agrees with what words of the Constitution and statutes mean. We could respond in a couple of ways. We could say, well each individual needs to decide for himself what the statutes mean. That would lead to chaos. 
[/quote:88a3a0c581]

Well, we don't even agree what country to live in. Your analogy assumes an agreed upon authority. A better analogy would include the idea that we can move to whatever country that suites our interpretation.

[quote:88a3a0c581]
That does not mean that church councils are infallible anymore than courts are infallible. Yet, they are better equipped typically than individuals. They also are necessary to resolve disagreements. 
[/quote:88a3a0c581]

But, if we disagree with the decesion, we start our own country (Trent).

[quote:88a3a0c581]
The existence of a court does not &quot;trump&quot; the statute (although it might seem that way to the losing litigant) anymore than an individual making a decision about the meaning of a statute &quot;trumps&quot; the statute. It is simply a question of radical individualism over community. 
[/quote:88a3a0c581]

I am with you on this, I abhor individualism, but I also think that the Protestant view of sola scriptura ultimately leaves the individual, with the Holy Spirit, to decide based on scripture. Of course, everything should be done in a collective manner, but there is no monolithic authority.

[/quote]
Which entity resolves disgareements about the meaning of the statute, which all agree is the highest standard.
Scott [/quote]

If it is the individuals responsibility to decide which authority to obey, then the individual resolves the agreement, not the Church. Otherwise, we should obey Trent.

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by raderag]


----------



## kceaster

*Brett...*

[quote:f6cfa63e87]Scott, I have a question. Do you agree then that it is ultimately the individuals responsibility for deciding what the Church is? The individual must decide, based on their understanding of scripture, which confession or creed to accept and reject. The only other standard could be apostolic succession. Furthermore, if this is true, then individual understanding of scripture trumps the Church's, because it was used to decide which Church. 

Am I missing something?[/quote:f6cfa63e87]

If I may chime in... We have a testimony that should be a witness to us in our hearts, without any one person trumping another. But where we fall short is in the area of pride. We do not submit to one another. We would rather argue than agree. And because of this, things become subjective.

But when have you ever known that something just rings true? Why is it that you believe it? Well, if it is really the truth, then it can only come by the Holy Spirit. It was not born out of our own desire to see it, necessarily. We do have to hunger and thirst for it, but even that comes from the Holy Spirit.

Do you have to make yourself hungry, physically? No. Just go without food and it happens automatically. It is the same with the Spirit. He makes us hunger for the Truth of the Word of God.

There is only one caveat. We all eat the same meat. There is nothing different in our food. So why is it we can come to opposite experience in the Scriptures? The answer is quite obvious. Because of sin, we are not illumined. It is either pride, or disobedience that makes us unfit for the truth. The Holy Spirit will lead us in all truth, we know that. But can He lead us where we, in our flesh, do not want to go?

Therefore, all heresy and all wrongful interpretation is a result of our disobedience and sin. We do not thwart the plan and providence of God in this, though. He has made us as we are. But we are still responsible for our sins. So much so, that the Spirit will even allow us to become dark in our thoughts. Whatever illumination we had will be taken away and we will believe a lie.

But we have this hope, then. If we hunger and thirst for the Word, and we are humble, and we submit to one another in love and not quarrel, then we do not hinder the Spirit's illumination. He will freely give to those who ask Him. This is not automatic or a formula, though, because we still have sin that so easily entangles us.

One thing we may know for certain. Whatever is true, has been seen before. There is no new truth born. Whatever the Spirit has put within the saints of all time, should be a witness to us, and should testify within us to the truth.

Does this fall upon denominational lines? No. Does it fall within particular churches? No. It is upon the church universal. Therefore we need to know what was believed and why it was believed, so that we may ascertain whether or not, by the Spirit, the Word is testified to us as the truth.

In the end, though, we are going to have to set aside all pride of knowledge, or sin of autonomy, if we are going to see the witness of the church entire. This means that we may have to change what we have believed.

But I would much rather believe something that others have believed, than to think something on my own. For I know that if I am on my own, I am outside of God's design. He did not create us to be at odds with one another, but to love each and every who is of the like precious faith.

If it is a faith once for all delivered to the Saints, then that faith is for all and should be embraced by all.

We should submit ourselves to the Apostolic rule of faith and practice as found in the Scriptures. For this is the testimony of the early church and that of the Reformation.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## raderag

Thanks very much, and I think we are in agreement. I agree that wrong doctrine is a result of sin, and that pride is the greatest enemy in the Church. As a Presbyeterian, I can only see that rampant in my denominations history.


[quote:4d67c8d359][i:4d67c8d359]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:4d67c8d359]
But I would much rather believe something that others have believed, than to think something on my own. For I know that if I am on my own, I am outside of God's design. He did not create us to be at odds with one another, but to love each and every who is of the like precious faith. 

KC [/quote:4d67c8d359]

I agree 100% on this. Perhaps, we should speak of this as the 'mind of the Church' rather than the authority of the Church?


----------



## Scott

Brett:

Regarding Westminster's position I think you overlooked some language in 31:2, which you quoted:

III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, [i:c9b7db2d84]but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word[/i:c9b7db2d84]. 

Not that the decisions are counsels are to be received with reverence and submission not only because they agree with the word but also for the power whereby they are created.

Note also that paragraph 2 expressly addresses the issue of who should resolve controversies of faith (the sole individual or the church wokring through a synod). Westminster affirms the synod and notes it special power. The proof texts are Acts 15, which should give you a flavor of what is being addressed.

Scott


----------



## raderag

[quote:8b48b3ca4e][i:8b48b3ca4e]Originally posted by Scott[/i:8b48b3ca4e]
Brett:

Regarding Westminster's position I think you overlooked some language in 31:2, which you quoted:

III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, [i:8b48b3ca4e]but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word[/i:8b48b3ca4e]. 

Not that the decisions are counsels are to be received with reverence and submission not only because they agree with the word but also for the power whereby they are created.

Note also that paragraph 2 expressly addresses the issue of who should resolve controversies of faith (the sole individual or the church wokring through a synod). Westminster affirms the synod and notes it special power. The proof texts are Acts 15, which should give you a flavor of what is being addressed.

Scott [/quote:8b48b3ca4e]

Scott, I don't think I was overlooking that, but rather I was noting that we should obey them, but they were not a rule of faith. I do see your point though, but I was under the impression that WCF meant it in matter of practice rather than faith. Anyway, perhaps I need to study this issue more with reguard to WCF.


IV. All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; [b:8b48b3ca4e]therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.[/b:8b48b3ca4e]


----------



## raderag

*Good books?*

Scott, can you recommend a good book on reformed ecclesiology? I would rather not read something that is trying to prove a particular point, but rather maybe a good survey of reformed thought.


----------



## Scott

Brett:

I understand your comments about living in different countries. I use that analogy all the time to illustrate problems with the schisms in Christ's single body. This has been a scandal in Christ's church since 1054 AD and got much worse with the Reformation (a tragic necessity) which resulted in the splintering of Christ's single church into thousands of divisions. Where there was one country, there are now tens of thousands and unbelievers rightly mock us for this. 

My earlier comments are directed to the biblical ideal of what we should strive for, which will include organizational unity, as the Church had for a millennium and largely had for another 500 years (with the one large east/west division). When the Bible was written there was organizational unity. It was written in that context and assumes unity much as the Law was written in the context of an assumed unity of Israel and became in many ways impossible to apply after the kingdom divided into North and South.

For more on where we are, its problems, and some solutions, see (this is an outstanding book, and I am not really a fan of Frame):
John Frame, Evangelical Reunion
http://www.thirdmill.org/magpt_main.asp#frame

John Nevin, Catholic Unity
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/john_nevin/catholic_unity.htm

Our present disunity is atrocious. This is a great prayer from the 1928 Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

A prayer for the unity of God's People (BCP 1928)

O GOD, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatso-ever else may hinder us from godly union and concord: that as there is but one Body and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.


Scott


----------



## raderag

[quote:89ffff7b8d][i:89ffff7b8d]Originally posted by Scott[/i:89ffff7b8d]
Brett:

I understand your comments about living in different countries. I use that analogy all the time to illustrate problems with the schisms in Christ's single body. This has been a scandal in Christ's church since 1054 AD and got much worse with the Reformation (a tragic necessity) which resulted in the splintering of Christ's single church into thousands of divisions. Where there was one country, there are now tens of thousands and unbelievers rightly mock us for this. 

My earlier comments are directed to the biblical ideal of what we should strive for, which will include organizational unity, as the Church had for a millennium and largely had for another 500 years (with the one large east/west division). When the Bible was written there was organizational unity. It was written in that context and assumes unity much as the Law was written in the context of an assumed unity of Israel and became in many ways impossible to apply after the kingdom divided into North and South.

For more on where we are, its problems, and some solutions, see (this is an outstanding book, and I am not really a fan of Frame):
John Frame, Evangelical Reunion
http://www.thirdmill.org/magpt_main.asp#frame

John Nevin, Catholic Unity
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/john_nevin/catholic_unity.htm

Our present disunity is atrocious. This is a great prayer from the 1928 Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

A prayer for the unity of God's People (BCP 1928)

O GOD, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatso-ever else may hinder us from godly union and concord: that as there is but one Body and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.


Scott [/quote:89ffff7b8d]

Scott, I agree with you fully about the state of the Church. I think this problem is the reason many reformed go over to the Orthodox or Roman position. There is a more objective standard for the Church over there. Too bad there is so much heresy to go along with it.

I have been thinking about ecumenicism for a while now, but I still don't know the right answers. I will check out some of those articles.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Brett,

[quote:65047f0d49]The problem is that you have to make a judgment of what church. Roman Catholic, Westminster, Lutheran, etc. That is still ultimatly personal judgment unless you believe in some kind of succession.[/quote:65047f0d49]

The point of the question is not to suggest that we just blindly accept what the church says. Of course there is personal judgment. I made the decision to leave the Baptist church and join the PCA. But why would it be wrong for me to submit my own understanding of Scripture to that of the church, particularly on the issue of paedocommunion, given the fact that historically, the Reformed church has rejected paedocommunion? 

And concerning the catholic (universal) church on fundamental issues like the Trinity, for example, why would it be wrong for me to say, &quot;The church has always interpeted the Scriptures this way, so therefore, I believe it&quot;? Is my personal interpretation of Scripture more reliable than the church's?

And that's the one thing everybody in this thread needs to understand. EVERYBODY has an INTERPRETATION of Scripture. NOBODY's theological beliefs are &quot;just the Bible&quot;. If our views were just the Bible, all we'd be doing is quoting Scriptures at one another, and our theology would be just as confusing as the Bible. If our views were just the Bible, there would be no commentaries because we would just be copying word for word the text of Scripture. But the fact that we write commentaries and Systematic Theologies and engage in long discourse about our views proves that our views are interpretations.

So you have (1) the church's interpretation of Scripture (either catholic doctrines or denominational distinctives) and (2) your own personal interpretation of Scripture. Now why should #1 bend the knee to #2?

Now let me just say, I am just laying these two options side by side asking a question. I am not setting one over against the other here. But the Tradition 0 people are setting #2 over against #1, and I just want to know why.


----------



## Don A

[quote:ab10d2424e][i:ab10d2424e]Originally posted by Scott[/i:ab10d2424e]
I don't think your response to the question to the Epistle to the Laodecians answers the question. Let's try another approach. Someone comes to you with the Epistle to the Laodecians and says, &quot;What process should I go through to tell if this document is inspired or not?&quot; What would you say?[/quote:ab10d2424e]

Is it in the Bible? No? Then it's not inspired.



[quote:ab10d2424e][i:ab10d2424e]Originally posted by Scott [/i:ab10d2424e] 
This is the difficulty. Jesus is in heaven. We are not. He does not appear to you bodily and speak audibly to you, telling you which books are inspired and which are not.[/quote:ab10d2424e]

I feel as though we are running in circles here. [i:ab10d2424e]He has already told us[/i:ab10d2424e] which books He has inspired. It is [i:ab10d2424e]the Bible[/i:ab10d2424e].
The Bible is scripture. It is the complete Word of God. I am fully confident in God's ability to preserve it through the ages without losing any of it or having anything erroneous added to it. If I lack the faith to believe in the integrity of His Word, what good is tradition? 

[quote:ab10d2424e][i:ab10d2424e]Originally posted by kceaster [/i:ab10d2424e] 
But I would much rather believe something that others have believed, than to think something on my own.[/quote:ab10d2424e]

Brothers, please; no one here is suggesting that we just "think something on my own". 

[quote:ab10d2424e] [b:ab10d2424e]1 Corinthians 2[/b:ab10d2424e]
9 But as it is written: 

&quot;Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, 
Nor have entered into the heart of man 
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.&quot;

10 But [b:ab10d2424e]God has revealed them to us through His Spirit[/b:ab10d2424e]. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. [/quote:ab10d2424e]

See, we're not talking about extra-biblical revelation. We're talking about Biblical revelation.
Illumination, some would call it.

[quote:ab10d2424e][i:ab10d2424e]Originally posted by Scott[/i:ab10d2424e]

His Church is key to Him.[/quote:ab10d2424e]

No, His Word is key to Him. The Church is the building. You must first have the key to enter the building.


.


----------



## SolaScriptura

[quote:b08d0817aa][i:b08d0817aa]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:b08d0817aa]
NOBODY's theological beliefs are &quot;just the Bible&quot;. 
[/quote:b08d0817aa]

Well, that may be true... but some people's beliefs are more dependent upon the Bible than other people's beliefs!
oke:


----------



## luvroftheWord

Right. But everybody seems to think that their views are the ones that are most Biblical and its everybody else that is relying too much on other things.


----------



## raderag

[quote:eebf196d08][i:eebf196d08]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:eebf196d08]
Brett,

[quote:eebf196d08]The problem is that you have to make a judgment of what church. Roman Catholic, Westminster, Lutheran, etc. That is still ultimatly personal judgment unless you believe in some kind of succession.[/quote:eebf196d08]

The point of the question is not to suggest that we just blindly accept what the church says. Of course there is personal judgment. I made the decision to leave the Baptist church and join the PCA. But why would it be wrong for me to submit my own understanding of Scripture to that of the church, particularly on the issue of paedocommunion, given the fact that historically, the Reformed church has rejected paedocommunion? 

And concerning the catholic (universal) church on fundamental issues like the Trinity, for example, why would it be wrong for me to say, &quot;The church has always interpeted the Scriptures this way, so therefore, I believe it&quot;? Is my personal interpretation of Scripture more reliable than the church's?
[/quote:eebf196d08]

Ok, I agree with you here for the most part. However, why would it be wrong to invoke the 7th ecumenical council (iconoclastic contraversy) over the Westminster?

[quote:eebf196d08]
And that's the one thing everybody in this thread needs to understand. EVERYBODY has an INTERPRETATION of Scripture. NOBODY's theological beliefs are &quot;just the Bible&quot;.
[/quote:eebf196d08]

I couldn't agree with you more, but if we use our interpretation of Scripture to determine which denomination to join, we are ultimatly using our view of Scripture over the Church's.

[quote:eebf196d08]
So you have (1) the church's interpretation of Scripture (either catholic doctrines or denominational distinctives) and (2) your own personal interpretation of Scripture. Now why should #1 bend the knee to #2?
[/quote:eebf196d08]

I don't know, why does it? The fact is that in the reformed view, unless there is only one true reformed Church, personal view of scripture supercedes any one Churchs view as it is the only standard to judge which Church has true doctrine. My point is that those arguing that the church is the Standard don't really believe that.

[quote:eebf196d08]
Now let me just say, I am just laying these two options side by side asking a question. I am not setting one over against the other here. But the Tradition 0 people are setting #2 over against #1, and I just want to know why. [/quote:eebf196d08]

I am not, I just think that Tradition 1 is no more objective than Tradition 0. Rather, it pretends to follow the Church, when in fact it follows individual human reason.

Why are you reformed and not Lutheran?


----------



## raderag

*Here is what I am trying to say.*

The Church's interpretation of scripture is very important.
The mind of the Church should be considered even more heavily than a personal opinion.

However, ultimately, one will have to use their personal judgment on scripture to decide which creeds, synods, and confessions are true. Trent and Westminster cannot both be true, so we must decide based on scripture which one is.

Furthermore, this must be dynamic as even a church you have decided to alighn with may err on a synod or confession.

Therefore, the standard of the Church cannot be used to understand doctrine as the Church itself must be determined by ones individual view of scripture. To say that I believe in doctrine A because confession C says it is fine. The question is why do you believe in confession C? The Protestant answer is because it contains doctrine A, thus we have circular logic. Do we believe Doctrine A becuase the Church says it, or do we believe the CHurch becuase Doctrine A is biblical in our personal view?


----------



## raderag

*Something to Ponder.*

Did Luther leave the Roman Church because Rome didn't properly apply its creeds, synods, and confessions to its doctrine?

To what extent did Luther apeal to tradition in reforming the Church?


----------



## Scott

Brett:

I too have been struggling with the concept of visible unity in the church. I think the Frame book is outstanding on that issue. One other book to check out is:

Thomas M'Crie, On the Unity of the Church and Its Divisions
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Unity_00.htm

This is a good Reformed perspective. Fortunately it is available online too.

Scott


----------



## Scott

&quot;I feel as though we are running in circles here. He has already told us which books He has inspired. It is the Bible.&quot;

Don: I still think we are not connecting. Let me try this:

[1] Were is there an inspired list of the books of the Bible? 

[2] Where did God say that the Book of Hebrews is part of the Bible?

Scott


----------



## Scott

Brett:

I would define orthodoxy as interpretations of the church in her creeds that have had universal acceptance (even for a time) and reception. That would include the first 4 councils and the Apostle's Creed. Thomas Oden has written on this in his book on orthodoxy.

It is not only the rendering of the decision but the reception by the universal Church that counts. Christ's Bride know His voice.

With its divisions, the Church is not in a position to do this presently.

Scott


----------



## kceaster

*Brett...*

[quote:f5701b023d][i:f5701b023d]Originally posted by raderag[/i:f5701b023d]
Did Luther leave the Roman Church because Rome didn't properly apply its creeds, synods, and confessions to its doctrine?

To what extent did Luther apeal to tradition in reforming the Church? [/quote:f5701b023d]

He was an Augustinian Monk. Do you think that may have had something to do with his views? Of course Scripture was the basis for his stance. But it was viewed through the light already given, through light the Spirit had already illumined.

What makes Westminister over Trent? Because Westminster lines up with Scripture and does not contradict it. What makes Westminster over others? It is a clearer definition than most confessions.

Why am I Presbyterian? Why am I OPC? Because I can affirm the Standards and place myself in submission to them. I, like Charles Hodge can say, &quot;Having become satisfied that the system of doctrines taught in the symbols of the Reformed Church is taught in the Bible, I have endeavored to sustain it, and am willing to believe even where I cannot understand.&quot;

Now, am I affirming it because of my judgment, so that it is subjective? No, I am bowing to the judgment of others. I am submitting to them, not conforming them to my sensibilities, but I am conforming to theirs.

I am still responsible for what I believe. And where I am in error, even if I am just upholding what someone else has put forth, it is my error. That is why I am most comfortable believing what the Reformation believed. Because they believed what the early church believed. I don't believe that, in myself, I can come to better conclusions. If I did, I believe I would be ignoring what the Spirit has illumined in others. How can He show me the truth, when I choose not to believe it?

Along with this, we also have to understand the nature of the Reformation. If it was a true Reformation like some of us believe, then it did return to the faith of the Apostles. It was a Reformation not a revolution. Therefore, to believe the theology of the Reformation is to believe the theology of the Bible. They are not inerrant and they may well have gotten some things wrong. But the witness of my spirit with theirs and theirs with the early church, is sufficient for me to see that what they have taught is what the Bible teaches.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## raderag

[quote:38e70244a4][i:38e70244a4]Originally posted by Scott[/i:38e70244a4]
Brett:

I would define orthodoxy as interpretations of the church in her creeds that have had universal acceptance (even for a time) and reception. That would include the first 4 councils and the Apostle's Creed. Thomas Oden has written on this in his book on orthodoxy.

It is not only the rendering of the decision but the reception by the universal Church that counts. Christ's Bride know His voice.

With its divisions, the Church is not in a position to do this presently.

Scott [/quote:38e70244a4]

So westminster has no bearing on orthodoxy?


----------



## Scott

It may be helpful to consider that these issues involve a balance of personal judgment as well as submission to authority. This is an issue present in all areas of authority.

We are told to obey our parents and to obey God. When parents tell us to do something God forbids, we should follow God. The problem is when there is a difference of opinion between parent and child about what God forbids. Should the child go with his intepretation or should he submit to his parent's? In God's design, the parent is better equipped than the child to make judgments. Yet, parents are often wrong too (even the best, much less the worst).

There are time when it is right to contradict parental authority, yet when they regard matters of interpretation, the child's making the call about when to disobey is hard.

Remember, nobody has said that the church is infalible or irreformable. We are just saying that Her collective judgments are typically more reliable than our own. This is most true in areas in which there has been almost universal agreement among the church (such as the Trinity after the councils defined its meaning).

Luther described himself as a loyal son of the church, which he called his spiritual mother.

Scott


----------



## raderag

[quote:21ea0396c6][i:21ea0396c6]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:21ea0396c6]

What makes Westminister over Trent? Because Westminster lines up with Scripture and does not contradict it. What makes Westminster over others? It is a clearer definition than most confessions.
[/quote:21ea0396c6]

You mean that in your own view of Scripture, Westminster is more correct than Trent, right?


[quote:21ea0396c6]
Why am I Presbyterian? Why am I OPC? Because I can affirm the Standards and place myself in submission to them. I, like Charles Hodge can say, &quot;Having become satisfied that the system of doctrines taught in the symbols of the Reformed Church is taught in the Bible, I have endeavored to sustain it, and am willing to believe even where I cannot understand.&quot;
[/quote:21ea0396c6]

I understand that you are willing to submitt to things you don't understand, but only as long as the overall thrust of the Church aligns with your personal view of Scripture. Otherwise, you would accept the mass.

[quote:21ea0396c6]
Now, am I affirming it because of my judgment, so that it is subjective? No, I am bowing to the judgment of others. I am submitting to them, not conforming them to my sensibilities, but I am conforming to theirs.
[/quote:21ea0396c6]

Only if they more or less agree with your personal view of scripture.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but you are using your personal view of scripture as the final authroity, not the Church's. That is my point.


----------



## Scott

Westmister incorporates all key elements of orthodoxy. 

Yet, it is much more and takes definite positions on controvserial issues. So, I would say that Westminster is not a test of orthodoxy. It is the highest expression of Christian doctrine yet developed. I would hold those in other denominations as orthodox so long as they meet the test I mentioned. I work willingly with them. So, I work with baptists, methodists, etc., even though I believe they err on issues.

Scott


----------



## Scott

Brett:

IN terms of being Lutheran, PCA, or whatever, I would say that you are right, personal judgment on the interpretations of scripture is our main guide. There is no collective judgment of the &quot;mind of the church&quot; on issues that divide orthodox denominations (consubstantiation vs. spiritual presence). The Bible is our guide on those issues, like all others, yet there is no body in the universal church to mediate our differences (like Acts 15). 

However, on the issue of the difference between orthodox churches and unorthodox churches, we do have the mind of the catholic Church. A local church that is unitarian, as opposed to Trinitarian, is outside the pale of pronouncements of the universal church. If we are unclear about the Trinity, we should submit to our Mother (the universal church), who has decided these issues long ago. Submission to our spiritual mother is a personal decision, but so is submission to our genetic mother. Yet, we have an obligation to do both.

Scott


----------



## raderag

[quote:33f5554419][i:33f5554419]Originally posted by Scott[/i:33f5554419]

Remember, nobody has said that the church is infalible or irreformable. We are just saying that Her collective judgments are typically more reliable than our own. This is most true in areas in which there has been almost universal agreement among the church (such as the Trinity after the councils defined its meaning).

Luther described himself as a loyal son of the church, which he called his spiritual mother.

Scott [/quote:33f5554419]

I agree with you on all accounts, it just seems that saying that we put the Church's interpretation over and above our own isn't true if we use our interpretation to evaluate the Church.

If tradition were of this much of a concern, I would at least have to be Lutheran as their view on the sacraments was much closer to the ECFs than is the reformed.


----------



## raderag

*Good answer.*

[quote:34df0bf137][i:34df0bf137]Originally posted by Scott[/i:34df0bf137]
Westmister incorporates all key elements of orthodoxy. 

Yet, it is much more and takes definite positions on controvserial issues. So, I would say that Westminster is not a test of orthodoxy. It is the highest expression of Christian doctrine yet developed. I would hold those in other denominations as orthodox so long as they meet the test I mentioned. I work willingly with them. So, I work with baptists, methodists, etc., even though I believe they err on issues.

Scott [/quote:34df0bf137]

Dordt declared the denial of five point Calvinism a heresy, is that in error?


----------



## raderag

*Agreed.*

[quote:8b759a318c][i:8b759a318c]Originally posted by Scott[/i:8b759a318c]
Brett:

IN terms of being Lutheran, PCA, or whatever, I would say that you are right, personal judgment on the interpretations of scripture is our main guide. There is no collective judgment of the &quot;mind of the church&quot; on issues that divide orthodox denominations (consubstantiation vs. spiritual presence). The Bible is our guide on those issues, like all others, yet there is no body in the universal church to mediate our differences (like Acts 15). 

However, on the issue of the difference between orthodox churches and unorthodox churches, we do have the mind of the catholic Church. A local church that is unitarian, as opposed to Trinitarian, is outside the pale of pronouncements of the universal church. If we are unclear about the Trinity, we should submit to our Mother (the universal church), who has decided these issues long ago. Submission to our spiritual mother is a personal decision, but so is submission to our genetic mother. Yet, we have an obligation to do both.

Scott [/quote:8b759a318c]

I agree on all accounts.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

In embracing the Gospel of the Bible, the Reformation emphasized a return to the original text of the Holy Scripture and the ability to exercise skill in sacred philology. The question of "authority" was central and the humanists pressed for a return ad fontes to the sources of antiquity that could place them in contact with the original intent of the writers. This placed an importance on Greek and Hebrew rather than relying on the inaccurate Latin Vulgate. Unless one is able to understand the heart of the Scripture without the use of commentaries of "filters" to confuse the actual text, the vera theologia could never be obtained. In this way, then, the idea of Sola Scriptura takes an interesting turn. Since the ploughboy would not be able to exegete the text based on Hebrew or Greek, the interpretation of Scripture was really limited to a certain group who had the skills to do this. Here, the Reformation followed Erasmus and medieval scholasticism given the inability of the lay congregation to interpret the Bible for themselves. The question of "tradition" (or "Theologian Traditionalism") opposes "private interpretation" to a certain extent, though it is often misunderstood practically. Though Scripture alone is sufficient for the [i:39ba31c76f]vera theologia,[/i:39ba31c76f] how would one know that they have a correct interpretation except by an ecclesiastical and historical orthodox consensus affirming their finds? The Roman Catholic Church had the decreetals of the papacy. The Reformers held to the exposition of the Scriptures based on the reality that Scripture interprets Scripture, but is affirmed intellectually within the "sphere of the church." This is a delicate balance.

The Reformation was built upon a proper understanding of hermeneutics, though in different methodologies, which gave way to a solid doctrinal stance on Sola Scriptura. In the beginning, young Luther embraced the scholastic fourfold sense of hermeneutical interpretation of a given passage (literal, allegorical, anagogical and tropological). This Quadriga was later replaced by sound exegesis, though at the time, men like Calvin were ridiculed for handling the text in a literal fashion. Zwingli first utilized this literal interpretation in following after Erasmus' insistence on obtaining knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. As a result, the Quadriga influence on Luther (and later his "eight senses") would not be influential upon the Reformed church. Instead, Luther more positively influenced interpretation by applying the [i:39ba31c76f]lex[/i:39ba31c76f] and [i:39ba31c76f]evangelium[/i:39ba31c76f] in balance. Later, in his theology surrounding justification, Luther more readily abandons the Quadriga (or rather his heightened eight sense theory) and adheres to a literal sense as the Reformed church exemplified. The hermeneutics, though, of both the Lutheran Church and the Reformed church seem to have little in common at the outset. Rather, the commonality of their views of Scripture emerge from the their mutual attachment to the patristic fathers. 

I say all that to say this: Sola Scriptura is not &quot;me and my bible&quot;. It never was meant in that way. Even Christ said, &quot;You search the Scriptures, for in them you think 
you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of 
Me.&quot; The exegesis of the Christ to them, throught eh Holy Spirit is what they lacked. In parallel so it is with the manner in which the church is used to interpret the Bible, not as Catholicism taught, but as the Reformers and Confessionalism have stated. Not to rule by way of binding the conscicne on faith and practice as to their &quot;say&quot; but in terms of their rightly, by concensus, interpreting the word.


----------



## Scott

Brett:

Perhaps it may also help to clarify what is meant when we say collective judgment over private judgment. Accepting and submitting to a collective judgment is a personal decision and involves personal judgment.

Still, it is proper for a person under authority (any authority) to say, I am not going to follow my own will or ideas and will submit to those of the authority. The decision to submit is a personal decision, but in a different way. If I have idea X and an authority over me has idea Y, when I make a decision to accept idea Y (and not follow idea X), there is a sense in which I am rejecting my own will in favor of the authority. Yet, in a second sense, I am using my own will to submit to the authority.

BTW, I don't think failure to affirm of Calvinism is heresy. I do think that affirmation of full pelagianism is.

Scott


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

At any time, we ALWAYS first use private judgment (the operation of the intellect) to make any decision. Even Catholic s first have to become Protestant before they cna become Catholic on nay doctrine because it is ALWAYS by private interpretation that any doctrine first comes to the floor to be discussed.


----------



## raderag

[quote:dfd31d6afb][i:dfd31d6afb]Originally posted by Scott[/i:dfd31d6afb]
Brett:

Perhaps it may also help to clarify what is meant when we say collective judgment over private judgment. Accepting and submitting to a collective judgment is a personal decision and involves personal judgment.

Still, it is proper for a person under authority (any authority) to say, I am not going to follow my own will or ideas and will submit to those of the authority. The decision to submit is a personal decision, but in a different way. If I have idea X and an authority over me has idea Y, when I make a decision to accept idea Y (and not follow idea X), there is a sense in which I am rejecting my own will in favor of the authority. Yet, in a second sense, I am using my own will to submit to the authority.

BTW, I don't think failure to affirm of Calvinism is heresy. I do think that affirmation of full pelagianism is.

Scott [/quote:dfd31d6afb]

Ok, I think we are in agreement here on the theory, but now I would like to get more into the application.

You seem to be implying that semi-Pelagianism is not a heresy. By what standard is it not a heresy? Orange and Dordt both condemned it as heresy.

Another question would be what doctrines should we be willing to compromise on for the sake of unity? Would a good ecumenicism start out with a &quot;main and plain&quot; set of doctrines, or would it attempt to bring all Christianity into Westminster?


----------



## kceaster

*Brett...*

[quote:a1edae5324]You mean that in your own view of Scripture, Westminster is more correct than Trent, right?[/quote:a1edae5324]

No, in the testimony of the Church through the ages to what the Scripture teaches. My testimony is not over and above that of the Church. I have adopted her testimony, not the other way around.

I can honestly say this, because there are certain things that I would never have agreed to unless I had submitted myself to them.

[quote:a1edae5324]I understand that you are willing to submitt to things you don't understand, but only as long as the overall thrust of the Church aligns with your personal view of Scripture. Otherwise, you would accept the mass.[/quote:a1edae5324]

I would not accept the mass, not because I have weighed in against it with my own view of Scripture, but because the Church of the Apostles and the Reformation weighs in against it. The Reformers did not consider the RCC to be a true Church and neither do I. So theirs, along with the Greeks, are not a Church to whom we should submit ourselves. They do not agree with the early Church, as their light has eclipsed the old, instead of been in concert with it.

[quote:a1edae5324]Only if they more or less agree with your personal view of scripture.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but you are using your personal view of scripture as the final authroity, not the Church's. That is my point. [/quote:a1edae5324]

I have differing views than that of the Church. And where I am different, I submit. In my local body, there are things that I disagree with, but I am in submission to them and not the other way around. I do not fully understand the RPW, nor do I fully understand eschatology. I submit on both of those points. But where our beliefs are the same, it is more appropriate to say that I have conformed to their view, they have not conformed to mine. I was not the first to believe it. I believe it because they believe it. I am orthodox only where I agree with them. They are not orthodox because they agree with me.

Don't get me wrong. It is not as if I do not have to crucify my flesh and my pride in these matters. But I strive daily to be at one with the holy catholic and apostolic church. They do not come to my side. I have gone to theirs. In my natural theology, the Spirit turned my ship in a 180. If it were left to my thinking and my opinion, I would be headed in a different direction.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## raderag

[quote:e6c5803498][i:e6c5803498]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:e6c5803498]
I would not accept the mass, not because I have weighed in against it with my own view of Scripture, but because the Church of the Apostles and the Reformation weighs in against it. The Reformers did not consider the RCC to be a true Church and neither do I. So theirs, along with the Greeks, are not a Church to whom we should submit ourselves. They do not agree with the early Church, as their light has eclipsed the old, instead of been in concert with it. KC [/quote:e6c5803498]

How do you know the Reformed CHurch is true and Rome is not?


----------



## kceaster

*Brett...*

[quote:72b06526c9][i:72b06526c9]Originally posted by raderag[/i:72b06526c9]
[quote:72b06526c9][i:72b06526c9]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:72b06526c9]
I would not accept the mass, not because I have weighed in against it with my own view of Scripture, but because the Church of the Apostles and the Reformation weighs in against it. The Reformers did not consider the RCC to be a true Church and neither do I. So theirs, along with the Greeks, are not a Church to whom we should submit ourselves. They do not agree with the early Church, as their light has eclipsed the old, instead of been in concert with it. KC [/quote:72b06526c9]

How do you know the Reformed CHurch is true and Rome is not? [/quote:72b06526c9]

Since the early Church is inscripturated, and Rome is not, the testimony of the early Church stands in judgment against Rome. This is completely objective.

Rome stands in stark contrast with the historical narrative of the Church in the NT. Therefore, they are not a true Church.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## luvroftheWord

Brett,

I don't want you to misunderstand my position. I agree with much of what you are saying, and I am not trying to imply that personal interpretation and the church's interpretation are at odds. I believe both are necessary. As I said, it was my personal decision to join the PCA. But I also submit to the PCA on issues like communion. I only brought it up to counter the idea that any affirmation of the church's authority in interpreting the Scriptures is a denial of [i:d47b8fbe29]Sola Scriptura[/i:d47b8fbe29]. It is clearly not.


----------



## raderag

[quote:e06b1d4615][i:e06b1d4615]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:e06b1d4615]

Since the early Church is inscripturated, and Rome is not, the testimony of the early Church stands in judgment against Rome. This is completely objective.

Rome stands in stark contrast with the historical narrative of the Church in the NT. Therefore, they are not a true Church.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:e06b1d4615]

inscripturated? I am not familiar with the term, and couldn't find it in the dictionary. I assume it deals with scripture.

Are any of Rome's doctrines objectivly declared as heresy in the Early Church? If not, then it is no more objective than me saying it is not true because it is wrong according to my view of scripture. In fact, it is less objective since it is your view of history, not the Church's. The Roman CHurch puts forth a very good case of their historicity. Why is theirs wrong and yours correct? In fact, even Protestants disagree on which creeds are right, and which are wrong. Anglican accepts the 7th, while reformers typically don't.

Also, the tradition of inventing new doctine started very early in the Church. Just ask Tertullion. Therefore, the early Church is not a capable judge on Roman doctrine where it is silent (Eucharist). They certainly didn't deny the ROman view, they just didn't teach it.

So, Rome is not true because they are not Biblical. I agree. At least that is my own view on it. 

I don't mean to sound crass, but I believe you are engaging in circular argumentation here.

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by raderag]


----------



## raderag

[quote:83b12c7d5f][i:83b12c7d5f]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:83b12c7d5f]
Brett,

I don't want you to misunderstand my position. I agree with much of what you are saying, and I am not trying to imply that personal interpretation and the church's interpretation are at odds. I believe both are necessary. As I said, it was my personal decision to join the PCA. But I also submit to the PCA on issues like communion. I only brought it up to counter the idea that any affirmation of the church's authority in interpreting the Scriptures is a denial of [i:83b12c7d5f]Sola Scriptura[/i:83b12c7d5f]. It is clearly not. [/quote:83b12c7d5f]

Agreed. The church is the Pillar of truth, and has that responsibility.


----------



## kceaster

*Brett...*

[quote:f13b90a328]inscripturated? I am not familiar with the term, and couldn't find it in the dictionary. I assume it deals with scripture.[/quote:f13b90a328]

To be inscripturated means that a particular historical narrative or circumstance is placed into Scripture. Thus, the practice of the early Church is inscripturated because it is recorded for us in Acts.

Now, theology aside, we can from a plain reading of the words, see that the Church met on the first day of the week. We also know what they did during their meetings. We also know how they practiced the ordinance of communion. We can find out all of this from historical narrative. Thus the early Church may serve as a testimony against any Church who practices differently or does anything contrary to that pattern.

[quote:f13b90a328]Are any of Rome's doctrines objectivly declared as heresy in the Early Church?[/quote:f13b90a328]

The early Church did not know about Rome's doctrines, so how could they declare them as heresy? Paul does give us a glimpse of what is coming though, in his words to both Titus and Timothy. This is not theology. From a plain reading of his words, we can see what he says is coming. 

It also does not take theology to see that the Romish mass is quite different from the ordinance of communion. Just by using the narrative, we can see that the RCC does not agree with the early church practice. This is not my opinion. It is just bare bones comparing one tradition to the other. Where Rome does not like this is where the Reformation has said that there are traditions upheld in Scripture, just not the ones they hold to.

So it takes no interpretive prowess to see that the mass and the ordinance are two separate things. Where everyone got confused in the middle ages is when they started accepting extra-biblical historical tradition instead of the inscripturated tradition. But just a cursory look can defeat the comparison. If it doesn't line up, it is not valid.

[quote:f13b90a328]If not, then it is no more objective than me saying it is not true because it is wrong according to my view of scripture.[/quote:f13b90a328]

Again, it does not take a &quot;view&quot;. It is simply fact. Compare one to another and the difference is plain. That is as objective as it gets.

[quote:f13b90a328]In fact, it is less objective since it is your view of history, not the Church's. The Roman CHurch puts forth a very good case of their historicity. Why is theirs wrong and yours correct?[/quote:f13b90a328]

Because it doesn't line up with the early church and what the Reformation returned to.

[quote:f13b90a328]In fact, even Protestants disagree on which creeds are right, and which are wrong. Anglican accepts the 7th, while reformers typically don't.[/quote:f13b90a328]

Now we get into theological debates. It gets tougher. That is where I will argue as my forbears. Remember, I follow them. They don't follow me.

[quote:f13b90a328]Also, the tradition of inventing new doctine started very early in the Church. Just ask Tertullion. Therefore, the early Church is not a capable judge on Roman doctrine where it is silent (Eucharist). They certainly didn't deny the ROman view, they just didn't teach it.[/quote:f13b90a328]

Paul said this as well, so did James. But the early Church is judge where innovations have been made. It doesn't really matter if they didn't see it coming. The fact is that it came, and therefore, since it is both new and divergent, it must be false. After the Apostles, there is no new revelation. Whatever light shines, must be in accord, or it is no light at all.

[quote:f13b90a328]So, Rome is not true because they are not Biblical. I agree. At least that is my own view on it. [/quote:f13b90a328]

If you are not the first to view it this way, then I say you are submitting to the Reformed Church on the matter. It all depends on your perspective. Do I come first, or do they? Since we did not fight the original fight, how can we say it is our opinion. Do we own it if it is true? What do we have we have not received?

[quote:f13b90a328]I don't mean to sound crass, but I believe you are engaging in circular argumentation here.[/quote:f13b90a328]

Again, Brett, perspective is everything. I hear what you're saying. And it sure must look as if I am judging for myself what is right. I am in a way, I guess. But, since it was not my idea, nor my original thought, I count it as submission. I am in agreement with them, not them with me.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## raderag

[quote:e73f706c78][i:e73f706c78]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:e73f706c78]
[quote:e73f706c78]inscripturated? I am not familiar with the term, and couldn't find it in the dictionary. I assume it deals with scripture.[/quote:e73f706c78]

To be inscripturated means that a particular historical narrative or circumstance is placed into Scripture. Thus, the practice of the early Church is inscripturated because it is recorded for us in Acts.
[/quote:e73f706c78]

Ok, I didn't know that you meant the apostolic church.

[quote:e73f706c78]
Now, theology aside, we can from a plain reading of the words, see that the Church met on the first day of the week. We also know what they did during their meetings. We also know how they practiced the ordinance of communion. We can find out all of this from historical narrative. Thus the early Church may serve as a testimony against any Church who practices differently or does anything contrary to that pattern.
[/quote:e73f706c78]

Ok, well I see more where you are coming from, but would you agree that you must apply the regulative principle to conclude that Rome violates the practices in Acts?


[quote:e73f706c78]Are any of Rome's doctrines objectivly declared as heresy in the Early Church?[/quote:e73f706c78]

[quote:e73f706c78]The early Church did not know about Rome's doctrines, so how could they declare them as heresy? 
[/quote:e73f706c78]
JW doctrine is declared as heresy (Arianism) way before they were around.

[quote:e73f706c78]
Paul does give us a glimpse of what is coming though, in his words to both Titus and Timothy. This is not theology. From a plain reading of his words, we can see what he says is coming. 

It also does not take theology to see that the Romish mass is quite different from the ordinance of communion. Just by using the narrative, we can see that the RCC does not agree with the early church practice. This is not my opinion. It is just bare bones comparing one tradition to the other. Where Rome does not like this is where the Reformation has said that there are traditions upheld in Scripture, just not the ones they hold to.
[/quote:e73f706c78]

It is a mere semantical exercise to say that scripture is so clear it is not your view of scripture that declares Rome as false. Many educated men would disagree. I agree it is objective, but it is still you personal view.

[quote:e73f706c78]
So it takes no interpretive prowess to see that the mass and the ordinance are two separate things. Where everyone got confused in the middle ages is when they started accepting extra-biblical historical tradition instead of the inscripturated tradition. But just a cursory look can defeat the comparison. If it doesn't line up, it is not valid.
[/quote:e73f706c78]

A sidebar: Do you believe communion to be an ordinance rather than a sacarament?




[quote:e73f706c78]In fact, it is less objective since it is your view of history, not the Church's. The Roman CHurch puts forth a very good case of their historicity. Why is theirs wrong and yours correct?[/quote:e73f706c78]

[quote:e73f706c78]
Because it doesn't line up with the early church and what the Reformation returned to..[/quote:e73f706c78]

But there is not objective standard before the reformation directly saying that the Eucharist as Rome believes it is wrong. In fact many reformed today view John 6 in the same light as do Roman Catholics. It still boils down to our interpretation. I can find plenty of ECFs to support Rome on this issue, and the Bible speaks against only in a deductive form.

I agree that their view is heresy, but only by the standard of the Gospel, not by any direct statement in scripture.


[quote:e73f706c78]In fact, even Protestants disagree on which creeds are right, and which are wrong. Anglican accepts the 7th, while reformers typically don't.[/quote:e73f706c78]

Now we get into theological debates. It gets tougher. That is where I will argue as my forbears. Remember, I follow them. They don't follow me.

[quote:e73f706c78]Also, the tradition of inventing new doctine started very early in the Church. Just ask Tertullion. Therefore, the early Church is not a capable judge on Roman doctrine where it is silent (Eucharist). They certainly didn't deny the ROman view, they just didn't teach it.[/quote:e73f706c78]

[quote:e73f706c78]
Paul said this as well, so did James. But the early Church is judge where innovations have been made. It doesn't really matter if they didn't see it coming. The fact is that it came, and therefore, since it is both new and divergent, it must be false. After the Apostles, there is no new revelation. Whatever light shines, must be in accord, or it is no light at all.
[/quote:e73f706c78]

But, there is development of doctrine, right?


[quote:e73f706c78]So, Rome is not true because they are not Biblical. I agree. At least that is my own view on it. [/quote:e73f706c78]

[quote:e73f706c78]
If you are not the first to view it this way, then I say you are submitting to the Reformed Church on the matter. It all depends on your perspective. Do I come first, or do they? Since we did not fight the original fight, how can we say it is our opinion. Do we own it if it is true? What do we have we have not received?
[/quote:e73f706c78]

First of all, it was introduced to me by tradition, and I had to verify it by scripture. We have no doctrine we haven't recived, but we have more fully developed doctrine due to necessity.


----------



## kceaster

*Brett...*

[quote:04a8809f29]Ok, I didn't know that you meant the apostolic church.[/quote:04a8809f29]

Perfectly fine.

[quote:04a8809f29]Ok, well I see more where you are coming from, but would you agree that you must apply the regulative principle to conclude that Rome violates the practices in Acts?[/quote:04a8809f29]

All I'm going for is a difference. That is enough to show that the testimonies do not match.

[quote:04a8809f29]JW doctrine is declared as heresy (Arianism) way before they were around.[/quote:04a8809f29]

For that matter, everything is heresy that is not the gospel Paul preached. He says so in the first chapter of Galatians.

[quote:04a8809f29]It is a mere semantical exercise to say that scripture is so clear it is not your view of scripture that declares Rome as false. Many educated men would disagree. I agree it is objective, but it is still you personal view.[/quote:04a8809f29]

But again, not mine. I do not need me to prove the veracity. It didn't come to me first. I am agreeing with it, not the other way around. 

[quote:04a8809f29]A sidebar: Do you believe communion to be an ordinance rather than a sacarament?[/quote:04a8809f29]

WCF uses both, so I use them both. It is perfectly fine to call it an ordinance, just so long as we're not using the Zwinglian connotation.

[quote:04a8809f29]But there is not objective standard before the reformation directly saying that the Eucharist as Rome believes it is wrong. In fact many reformed today view John 6 in the same light as do Roman Catholics. It still boils down to our interpretation. I can find plenty of ECFs to support Rome on this issue, and the Bible speaks against only in a deductive form.[/quote:04a8809f29]

Again, I am not talking about the theology of the mass. I am only pointing out that they did not pattern the practice after the apostolic Church. The first flag should be that it does not resemble the Apostles in practice. We can go from there to show the theological problems with it.

[quote:04a8809f29]But, there is development of doctrine, right?[/quote:04a8809f29]

Absolutely as long as it makes the light brighter and not more dim.

[quote:04a8809f29]First of all, it was introduced to me by tradition, and I had to verify it by scripture. We have no doctrine we haven't received, but we have more fully developed doctrine due to necessity. [/quote:04a8809f29]

Same with me. But where my interpretation differed, like paedobaptism for instance, I submitted even though I did not fully understand it. I was satisfied to know that the Reformation believed it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## pastorway

It is very interesting to me how &quot;church tradition and history&quot; seems in this discussion to eclipse the [i:ef827e100b]priesthood of all believers[/i:ef827e100b].

Just noticed how absent that whole idea was in the thread......


Phillip


----------



## luvroftheWord

Probably because that's not the doctrine being discussed.


----------



## Don A

[quote:6ef04d67a8][i:6ef04d67a8]Scott said:[/i:6ef04d67a8]

[1] Were is there an inspired list of the books of the Bible? 

[2] Where did God say that the Book of Hebrews is part of the Bible?[/quote:6ef04d67a8]

1) I don't think you'll find a &quot;God breathed&quot; list, but there will be a table of contents in front of most Bibles. If not, you can make your own; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,........stop at the Revelation. There should be 66, all together. This will be a list of the inspired books.

2) When He put it in there.

Scott, I think I remember you having said that you are a lawyer. I perceive from your line of questioning that you are somehow trying to trigger a certain response from me so that you can follow with the &quot;AH HA, so you admit........&quot; 
Well, my answers may seem a bit simplistic to a man of your profession and position, but I believe I have clearly answered all that has been asked of me. Now, if you would, simply answer a couple for me:

1) Do you believe that the Bible is God's Word; complete and infallible?

2) If &quot;yes&quot;, who revealed that to you?

3) If &quot;no&quot;, why are we even discussing Sola Scriptura?


----------



## pastorway

Consider:

[b:4c549e8307]LBCF[/b:4c549e8307]
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and by which must be examined all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men and private spirits can be no other than the Holy Scripture, delivered by the Spirit. And in the sentence of Scripture we are to rest, for it is in Scripture, delivered by the Spirit, that our faith is finally resolved. 

[b:4c549e8307]WCF[/b:4c549e8307]
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Who decides? Who is the final judge? Can a council that is being judge be itself the final judge? No. Each individual, as a priest before God through Christ, must study the Scripture and judge whether the council, history, tradition, and church is rightly handling the Word of God. 

When we, as individuals, do this, that does not make us, the inidividual, the final judge and authority. That keeps popping up and it is simply a wrong notion and a fallacious argument. 

If the individual is rightly handling the Word and appealing to it alone to judge councils, history, tradition, etc, then that individual has made sure that the Spirit speaking through the Word itself is the final authority and &quot;supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined.&quot;

When the individual appeals to Scripture that does not make him the final authority. It makes the Scriptures the final authority. Indeed, the one who appeals always to tradition and orthodoxy is the one who elevates the Church above the Scripture as the final authority and supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are are to be determined!

Which is the supreme judge? The Word, or the Church? If it is the Church then the individual has no ability to challenge what is being taught and must submit even to error. But if it is the Word that is the supreme authority and judge, then the individual has recource to challenge the Church when it errs. And it will! For only the Word is infallible.

Phillip


----------



## JonathonHunt

Amen Phillip.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

*Help! I'd like to vote...*

... but I can't just now, not without some clarity. 

What is the real issue? Are we affirming the place of Scripture or the place of tradition? Or are we just &quot;discussing&quot; the relationship between them, using [i:d70baab492]Sola Scriptura [/i:d70baab492]as a lightning-rod? 

If its a matter of [u:d70baab492]final authority [/u:d70baab492]then its the Scripture plus nothing. In other words, we can place the Bible over against anything and everything, even orthodox statements, and judge them. In fact, I daresay every generation needs to renew their faith in the old, solid orthodoxy. New, uhuhuhrrr, I mean [i:d70baab492]ancient[/i:d70baab492] heresy keeps demanding this of us, right? We hold to Nicea and Chalcedon (and WCF) because we're convinced they are biblical, not because they are one tradition or another. We don't reinvent the wheel, but in contest we don't appeal to the councils to prove the same points they proved. We use their Scripture proofs! It is within the pale of (our) orthodoxy that we appeal, on occasion, to a common subordinate standard we all claim to believe.

As to the question of [i:d70baab492]why[/i:d70baab492] we accept the 66 books and no others, I once made the mistake of affirming to a seminary professor I thought we accepted them because the church had already accepted them (not in the RC sense of majesterium, but with the weight of tradition). &quot;No Way,&quot; said he. We accept them because as God's sheep we recognize the voice of our Shepherd speaking in them. 

You and I may accept the standard Protestant Bible on church Authority, but that is not [i:d70baab492]the reason[/i:d70baab492] those books are authoritative. We recognize God's Word the same as God-fearers in every age from Moses to the earliest apostolic converts did. And if we felt we [i:d70baab492]had[/i:d70baab492] to go back and confirm that we could. 

It is also true that we grow in our understanding and appreciation of that Voice as well. We are subjected to it in pulpit exposition and in private reading. We grow to know it better. And we get better, humanly speaking, in detecting false teaching, i.e. heresy. [b:d70baab492]BUT[/b:d70baab492] only if we are getting the good stuff. Even if we never read a page of church history (and neither does the pastor  ) we will [i:d70baab492]inescapably[/i:d70baab492] have a &quot;tradition&quot; of interpretation starting on day one of our Christian indoctrination. So, the pastor who prides himself on his lack of a library is only &quot;traditionalizing&quot; his congregation in his own personal tradition, which (because of his pride) is likely to be wrong as often as it is right.

So, church tradition is useful for bounding our pride. We must not despise the faithful teachers, living and dead, God has given to his church. They are of incalculable worth. But ultimately we are dependent on God alone, and his Voice alone for sustenance. Only by his grace can we stand faithfully with the majority (sometimes) and minority (sometimes) who have the Truth. We are ever so dependent. 


[b:d70baab492]Athanasius, the whole world is against you! 
Then I am against the world![/b:d70baab492]


----------



## kceaster

[quote:2ee7d49cbf]Consider:

[b:2ee7d49cbf]LBCF[/b:2ee7d49cbf]
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and by which must be examined all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men and private spirits can be no other than the Holy Scripture, delivered by the Spirit. And in the sentence of Scripture we are to rest, for it is in Scripture, delivered by the Spirit, that our faith is finally resolved.[/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

The operative terms of your own confession explicitly state that the Scriptures must be delivered by the Spirit.

Would you agree?

If you do, then explain for us how the Spirit can tell you one thing, and the self-same Spirit tell me another.

Can both be true? 

[quote:2ee7d49cbf][b:2ee7d49cbf]WCF[/b:2ee7d49cbf]
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

Just in case you think the LBCF and the WCF are not saying the same thing, you're wrong. The equivalence is in, &quot;can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.&quot;

Incidently, do you believe that the Spirit illumines all the same when they read Scripture? Does everyone have the same ability to know what Scripture means?

[quote:2ee7d49cbf]Who decides? Who is the final judge? Can a council that is being judge be itself the final judge? No. Each individual, as a priest before God through Christ, must study the Scripture and judge whether the council, history, tradition, and church is rightly handling the Word of God.[/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

You might be right, Phillip, IF the priests were actually the ones handling the Word. But they weren't. It was the Prophet. The priests were to bring the gifts and sacrifices of the people, not determine or interpret for themselves the Word of the Lord. Did the king turn to the priest to understand Scripture? Or, was it the Prophet?

This is why Christ is our Prophet, Priest, and King. He is our Prophet so that by His Spirit, we may know what the will of God is. He is our Priest to offer up Himself as a sacrifice and make intercession. He is our King to subdue us, rule and defend us, and conquer the enemies of the kingdom.

Our priesthood as believers allows us to come before the throne of grace there to minister and offer up sacrifices of praise. Our priesthood does not give us the right to interpret the Scriptures any way we want, devoid of the communion of the saints.

You seem to think that Sola Scriptura as we have defined it takes away the right of every individual to read and understand the Scriptures. WE ARE NOT SAYING WHAT ROME IS SAYING. Further, you are not hearing the standard by which we judge whether something is right or wrong. We aren't holding up a council or a confession to prove the Bible. We hold up a council or confession as a secondary witness to what the Bible says. The WCF is not the Bible. Everything in it points back to the Bible. It is a summary statement. It is a starting point for agreement on what the Scriptures say.

But the rule of faith is not the WCF. The rule of faith is the tradition of Scripture. That tradition has witnesses. And the Spirit, Who is the only way to know what Scripture says, has left witnesses.

The only reason you do not agree with Reformed Sola Scriptura is because it speaks against you. It never intended, &quot;me and my Bible.&quot;

But on this same score, the Church of God is also a secondary witness and should uphold a standard of what is to be believed. The Church also has authority to enforce that standard. The individual does not have a derived power over the Church or the Word. If they did, they would never have to submit to one another and to the leaders God appointed.

Again, Phillip, we are not taking away the safeguard of the individual to correct and rebuke misuse of the Word. Where power is being abused, and wrongly derived from the Word, and misinterpreted the Word, the individual has every right to say something. In presbyterianism, they should bring charges if the person refuses to see their rebuke. In congregationalism, I forget how that works exactly. In the prelacy, I really don't know.

But if they say something contrary to the way the Scriptures have been interpreted by the witness of the whole Church (read universal body of believers), then they need to keep silent.

[quote:2ee7d49cbf]When we, as individuals, do this, that does not make us, the inidividual, the final judge and authority. That keeps popping up and it is simply a wrong notion and a fallacious argument.[/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

In what way is it fallacious? Could you be more specific? 

[quote:2ee7d49cbf]If the individual is rightly handling the Word and appealing to it alone to judge councils, history, tradition, etc, then that individual has made sure that the Spirit speaking through the Word itself is the final authority and &quot;supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined.&quot;[/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

So how is it determined whether or not the Spirit has spoken to the individual? If you say it's because the individual is in agreement with what the Word says, then your argument is circular. The Word does not speak without the Spirit.

If I interpret the Word to say something contrary to the Synod of Dordt, then I say it is because the Spirit is speaking through the Word to me, then I am perfectly fine being an Arminian. That is what the Bible teaches, because the Spirit imparted it to me.

Now surely this is ludicrous. We would all disagree with this. And you, Phillip, would say that the Spirit couldn't possibly be speaking through me, because that is not what the Bible says. The only way you know that for certain is if the Spirit has indeed spoken to you and shown you the truth. Because we know that if I were an Arminian and you a Calvinist, both of us cannot be right. But if it is just between me and you, both of us priests, how do we know who is right and who is wrong? Do you automatically trump me? Do we part company with an equal truth?

Not at all. The witness of the Church would be standing against me. It should be my submission you're seeking. Not to you, but to the Word of God, first, and the Church second.

This is proper Sola Scriptura. You proved to me, from the Scriptures alone, that my view was incorrect and you gave me the witness of the Church, the judgment of my brothers who are to decide disputes, as a secondary authority who has every right to discipline and admonish me.

The bottom line, Phillip, is that, yes, the Spirit does speak to individuals and the Bible is the authority. But I have no right to speak where no one has spoken and say it is the Spirit. If I do, then I have no earthly arbiter or authority who can uphold it. The individual does not have power over another individual. Because that is the case, SOLO Scriptura can never work. Because it would be a free-for-all with no authoritative secondary witness. This is why God does not make us individuals, but we make up the body. This is why we need each other and this is why we need orthodoxy. 

[quote:2ee7d49cbf]When the individual appeals to Scripture that does not make him the final authority. It makes the Scriptures the final authority. Indeed, the one who appeals always to tradition and orthodoxy is the one who elevates the Church above the Scripture as the final authority and supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are are to be determined![/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

No, as I have outlined above, it gives him the secondary authority he needs. One on one, you have no authority over me. It is my interpretation vs. yours. This is why we Reformed types always bring witnesses to bear.

[quote:2ee7d49cbf]Which is the supreme judge? The Word, or the Church? If it is the Church then the individual has no ability to challenge what is being taught and must submit even to error. But if it is the Word that is the supreme authority and judge, then the individual has recource to challenge the Church when it errs. And it will! For only the Word is infallible.

Phillip [/quote:2ee7d49cbf]

The Supreme judge is Scripture. No one is taking away the right of an individual to challenge what is being taught. If the witness of the Church is against him, AND IT IS LAWFUL, he should submit. If the witness of the Church is against him, AND THEY HAVE ABUSED THEIR AUTHORITY AND WITNESSES STAND AGAINST THEM, then he should take it before the Church if they refuse to be corrected.

With Luther, why was this not possible? Because they were an unlawful Church, and he had no secondary witness (alive) that could be brought against them. There was no court in which he could be heard. The only thing he could do was withdraw, just like the Reformers who came after him.

Such was not the case with the Anabaptists. There were lawful Churches who condemned them for their heresy, and rightly so. Such is not the case today. There are lawful Churches all over the world who can stand as secondary witnesses against all heresies. And all of these, use the Word of God alone.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster

*Bruce...*

[quote:b392ff717d][i:b392ff717d]Originally posted by Contra_Mundum[/i:b392ff717d]
... but I can't just now, not without some clarity. 

What is the real issue? Are we affirming the place of Scripture or the place of tradition? Or are we just &quot;discussing&quot; the relationship between them, using [i:b392ff717d]Sola Scriptura [/i:b392ff717d]as a lightning-rod? 

If its a matter of [u:b392ff717d]final authority [/u:b392ff717d]then its the Scripture plus nothing. In other words, we can place the Bible over against anything and everything, even orthodox statements, and judge them. In fact, I daresay every generation needs to renew their faith in the old, solid orthodoxy. New, uhuhuhrrr, I mean [i:b392ff717d]ancient[/i:b392ff717d] heresy keeps demanding this of us, right? We hold to Nicea and Chalcedon (and WCF) because we're convinced they are biblical, not because they are one tradition or another. We don't reinvent the wheel, but in contest we don't appeal to the councils to prove the same points they proved. We use their Scripture proofs! It is within the pale of (our) orthodoxy that we appeal, on occasion, to a common subordinate standard we all claim to believe.

As to the question of [i:b392ff717d]why[/i:b392ff717d] we accept the 66 books and no others, I once made the mistake of affirming to a seminary professor I thought we accepted them because the church had already accepted them (not in the RC sense of majesterium, but with the weight of tradition). &quot;No Way,&quot; said he. We accept them because as God's sheep we recognize the voice of our Shepherd speaking in them. 

You and I may accept the standard Protestant Bible on church Authority, but that is not [i:b392ff717d]the reason[/i:b392ff717d] those books are authoritative. We recognize God's Word the same as God-fearers in every age from Moses to the earliest apostolic converts did. And if we felt we [i:b392ff717d]had[/i:b392ff717d] to go back and confirm that we could. 

It is also true that we grow in our understanding and appreciation of that Voice as well. We are subjected to it in pulpit exposition and in private reading. We grow to know it better. And we get better, humanly speaking, in detecting false teaching, i.e. heresy. [b:b392ff717d]BUT[/b:b392ff717d] only if we are getting the good stuff. Even if we never read a page of church history (and neither does the pastor  ) we will [i:b392ff717d]inescapably[/i:b392ff717d] have a &quot;tradition&quot; of interpretation starting on day one of our Christian indoctrination. So, the pastor who prides himself on his lack of a library is only &quot;traditionalizing&quot; his congregation in his own personal tradition, which (because of his pride) is likely to be wrong as often as it is right.

So, church tradition is useful for bounding our pride. We must not despise the faithful teachers, living and dead, God has given to his church. They are of incalculable worth. But ultimately we are dependent on God alone, and his Voice alone for sustenance. Only by his grace can we stand faithfully with the majority (sometimes) and minority (sometimes) who have the Truth. We are ever so dependent. 


[b:b392ff717d]Athanasius, the whole world is against you! 
Then I am against the world![/b:b392ff717d] [/quote:b392ff717d]

Well said. In fact you said it way better than I have. Since I created the poll, I can tell you that what you described is what I meant by Tradition I. It is also what Mathison means by Tradition I.

Nice to have you here, by the way. How are things in your Church. I enjoyed being with y'all in January. You may send a u2u, if you are so inclined.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:3aeb0ff7fa][i:3aeb0ff7fa]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:3aeb0ff7fa]
Consider:

[b:3aeb0ff7fa]LBCF[/b:3aeb0ff7fa]
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and by which must be examined all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men and private spirits can be no other than the Holy Scripture, delivered by the Spirit. And in the sentence of Scripture we are to rest, for it is in Scripture, delivered by the Spirit, that our faith is finally resolved. 

[b:3aeb0ff7fa]WCF[/b:3aeb0ff7fa]
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Who decides? Who is the final judge? Can a council that is being judge be itself the final judge? No. Each individual, as a priest before God through Christ, must study the Scripture and judge whether the council, history, tradition, and church is rightly handling the Word of God. [/quote:3aeb0ff7fa]

Phillip, can you please explain to me where you get the following out of the above Confessional quotations: 

[quote:3aeb0ff7fa]Each individual, as a priest before God through Christ, must study the Scripture and judge whether the council, history, tradition, and church is rightly handling the Word of God.[/quote:3aeb0ff7fa]

Your words plainly contradict what the confessions say. The confessions say that the supreme judge of all doctrines is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. With your words, you are making the individual the supreme judge. You say that councils cannot be the final judge. But how is the individual any different than a council? Indeed, the individual is his own council.

[quote:3aeb0ff7fa]When we, as individuals, do this, that does not make us, the inidividual, the final judge and authority. That keeps popping up and it is simply a wrong notion and a fallacious argument. 

If the individual is rightly handling the Word and appealing to it alone to judge councils, history, tradition, etc, then that individual has made sure that the Spirit speaking through the Word itself is the final authority and &quot;supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined.&quot;[/quote:3aeb0ff7fa]

See? Here it is again. The INDIVIDUAL makes sure! But this is EXACTLY what the church is supposed to be doing!

[quote:3aeb0ff7fa]When the individual appeals to Scripture that does not make him the final authority. It makes the Scriptures the final authority. Indeed, the one who appeals always to tradition and orthodoxy is the one who elevates the Church above the Scripture as the final authority and supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are are to be determined![/quote:3aeb0ff7fa]

What about when the church appeals to Scripture? Does that make the church the final authority?

You see, what you don't seem to understand is that the individual has an interpretation of what Scripture says. YOU have an interpretation of Scripture. And it is a FALLIBLE interpretation. The church also has an interpretation of Scripture that is also FALLIBLE. Now, please tell me why I should trust my own fallible interpretation of Scripture over against the fallible interpretation of Scripture given by the church?

And also, if I am debating somebody on the Trinity, is it wrong for me to justify my belief by saying, &quot;The church has always taught that Scripture teaches the Trinity&quot;? And if that is wrong, then why? What makes my own individual discernment more Spirit-led than the discernment of the church for 2,000 years? And why should a JW be more convinced by my personal interpretation of Scripture than the interpretation of the church?

You have (1) church interpretation, and (2) personal interpretation. You believe #1 should bow to #2. I say that neither should be placed over against the other.


----------



## Scott

Phile wrote: &quot;When the individual appeals to Scripture that does not make him the final authority. It makes the Scriptures the final authority. Indeed, the one who appeals always to tradition and orthodoxy is the one who elevates the Church above the Scripture as the final authority and supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are are to be determined!&quot;

I don't think so. If this kind of reasoning were applied to other authorities like government and family (parents over children), then governmental and parental authority would be destroyed. For example, I can say that the Constitution is the final legal standard in society. Yet, I can also say that the courts are the bodies properly charged with interpreting it. That does not make the courts the &quot;real&quot; final authority. It is a lawfully enacted secondary authority.

And I think you are wrong on your comments about the individual. Everything you say about the church or councils usurping the place of scripture is just as true for individuals who make themselves the final interpreter. Each man becomes a pope with a jurisdiction of one.

Scott


----------



## Scott

Just a sociological comment on the practical effects of interpretive individualism. I think the extremely low view of the organized church that we see today can at least in part be traced to the exaltation of the individual over the community. Schisms become very easy when people do not submit to a body like the church abd become their own final human authority in matter of interpretation.

Much of this is documented in Nathan O. Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press 1989).

He links much of the devolution in the church to the prevalence of indivudalistic and rebellious ideas (rebellion against England at the time of the American Revolution). There has since been a corresponding decline in the status of pastors and other church officials b/c individuals don't value them as they used to. 

For those interested, the above book is essential reading, BTW.

Scott


----------



## luvroftheWord

Is this thread dying off? :soul:


----------



## kceaster

*Craig...*

I'm extremely glad that we have a good number of people who responded. I hope that we have stated the case well. I am also glad that no one voted for Tradition II or III.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## luvroftheWord

I agree, Kevin. I think this thread has been helpful.


----------

