Infant Baptism - Page 6

[Shami]

Bluegoat, thanks for explaining so much. Sorry to say that I disagree with you on so many levels, I don't know where to start! lol
Matthew 5:17

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
The footnote says it so well, and my brain is tired.
"Here for Christ to fulfill the law means (1) that, on the positive side, He kept the law, (2) that, on the negative side, through His substitutionary death on the cross He fulfilled the requirement of the law, and (3) that in this section He complemented the old law with His new law, as repeatedly expressed by the word "But I say to (or, tell) you" (vv. 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). Christ's keeping of the law qualified Him to fulfill the requirement of the law through His substitutionary death on the cross. Christ's fulfilling of the requirement of the law through His substitutionary death on the cross brought in the resurrection life to complement the law, to fill the law to the full. The old law, the lower law, with the demand that it be kept and the requirement that man be punished, is over. The kingdom people, as the children of the Father, now need to fulfill only the new law, the higher law, by the resurrection life, which is the eternal life of the Father. The old law was given through Moses, whereas the new law was decreed by Christ personally.

Concerning the law there are two aspects: the commandments of the law and the principle of the law. The commandments of the law were fulfilled and complemented by the Lord's coming, whereas the principle of the law was replaced by the principle of faith according to God's New Testament economy."

So while Jesus was alive He did keep the law and ordinances, but when He died on the cross, He nailed it to the cross so that we no longer have to keep it. Rather, we have to live by the law of the Spirit of life (Romans 8).

Colossians 2:14

14 Wiping out the handwriting in ordinances, which was against us, which was contrary to us; and He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.

Colossians 2:20

20 If you died with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as living in the world, do you subject yourselves to ordinances:

Ephesians 2:15

15 Abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances, that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace,
Hebrews 9:1

1 Now then the first covenant also had ordinances of service, and its sanctuary was of this world.

Hebrews 9:10

10 Consisting only of foods and drinks and various washings, being ordinances of the flesh, imposed until the time of setting things right.

Love the OT pictures and types that point to Christ. Here is an example, if I show you a picture of the chocolate cake I just baked, and I describe it to you, then you may appreciate it to a certain degree. But if i give you the real choc. cake then you will appreciate it more because you can smell it and see it up close. Then if I tell you to eat it, that is the top most appreciation ever!
This is how I see all of the rituals whether Catholic or Protestant. They are all just pictures which may help you to some degree, but they are not the real Christ that can live inside of you. Paul said Christ lives in you so you have the uplifted law of the Spirit of life which can govern your daily life much better than a set of outward laws of do's and don'ts. Anyway, the history in the OT was that the Children of Israel (C of I) could never keep the laws. Even today the Jewish people cannot keep all of the laws.
I am not saying that I don't try to follow the law, but I endeavor to do it by turning to my spirit and keeping constant communion with the Lord inside of me, who is the best law keeper around!

And speaking of laws...I don't feel comfortable with any icons or images of Jesus. That is not my Jesus. That is a statue/picture. Jesus lives inside of me. The resurrected Jesus lives inside of me. I really don't receive any spiritual value by looking at what some artist portrays as Jesus hanging on a cross. It's a statue or a picture that came into being through the eyes of an artist. No one really knows what Christ looked like, although Isaiah says he was not comely. According to Isaiah, Christ prob. wasn't as attractive as those blue eyed, blond haired pictures. And for the Catholic church, or maybe that was your opinion, to teach that if you don't accept an image of Jesus then you are denying the incarnation of Christ is ludicrous, to say the least. In addition, to say that since God became flesh and we are allowed to depict persons in the flesh then we can depict Jesus. This sounds like a loophole. Don't forget that Jesus was a God Man. You cannot leave out the God part just so you can enjoy some nice artwork. This is just culture. Culture no matter how refined it may be is a source of divisiveness in the Body of Christ. Not saying that you, Bluegoat, are being divisive, but culture will divide the body of Christ in no time flat! If people want their culture over the one body it causes a division.
Look at all of the denominations that divide based on where they are from and even their race.

Christ doesn't need anything to enhance Him. I like what one author? said, Christ plus Nothing! Christ doesn't need dramas and rock bands to gain a people for Himself. Christ didn't send the disciples out and say, ok, you two go start a music ministry and you two go create a play and we'll get folks saved. All the disciples had was the Apostles teaching, the Holy Spirit, prayer, and the one accord among them.

Bluegoat said,
"Also, remember that the cross was first a pagan symbol."
Yep, this is my point. So why do you use them? Even if you use them to remind you of the cross of Christ, the pagan roots are very real. Mixing something evil with Christ can't be a good thing no matter how it looks.

Bluegoat said,
"In an Orthodox Church, it is filled with icons of saints, who are supposed to remind us that we are not just one isolated congregation, but are part of the Church which is outside time and space, what is called the "Church triumphant", and that all these people who have gone before, and the angels, are also worshiping God with us; in fact that we are at this moment part of the endless worship around the throne of the lamb that we see described in the Book of Revelation."

Again, I don't need a reminder from an icon that I am part of the body of Christ. Christ lives inside of me and I meet with the church in my locality which daily gives me experiences of being in the body of Christ. I can appreciate that I am part of the universal body of Christ. I have a feeling that if I had to look at icons while trying to praise and worship Jesus, I would be a little distracted. I know who ever came up with icons didn't want it to be a distraction, but that is what would happen to me.

Re: temple ( we, the church are the temple of the living God) the building has nothing to do with it.)

Bluegoat said,
"Well, in places where there aren't churches, people go without. But there is good reason to have a sacred space devoted to God. Although it is nice to think we can be just as called to holiness in the toilet as in a great cathedral, what tends to happen if we say that every space is sacred is that no space is."

Have you read John 4 in context? It clearly says that we won't have to go to Jerusalem, but those who worship must worship in spirit and truthfulness. And the Lord said, destroy this temple(the physical one) and I will raise it up in 3 days (the spiritual one).
I agree that believers need a building to gather, but the building does not need to be ornate. Like you said, some places don't have a cathedral. They can meet in their house, as long as they are worshipping in spirit and truthfulness. And just for fun, I have enjoyed the Lord's presence while in the toilet--that's the beauty of Him living inside of me!


On the topic of Christmas:
Read Jeremiah 10 where the Lord says, don't be like the pagans who go out into the forest and chop down a tree, bring it home, fasten it upright and decorate it with gold and silver...something like that. But it also says don't be afraid of it either...or something like that. It's been awhile since I read it.

Bluegoat said,
"The purpose of fasting itself it to train the body and the mind, to control and limit their sinful tendencies. fasting from meat or other things are probably not important in and of themselves - but learning to control our desires is very helpful when we are confronted with a real temptation."

This is not how fasting was used in the NT unless I am missing some verses. Mostly they were fasting in order to pray. They fasted, layed hands, and prayed to go out on the gospel. Forcing your self to do penitence is called ascetism. From what I understand, when a person is so burdened to pray for a particular matter they may fast in order to completely focus on the prayer. Or, in some cases, people forget to eat because they are praying so much and end up fasting inadvertently. Honestly, when I hear people talking about giving up chocolate or something so arbitrary as giving up TV in order to fast for lent, I fail to see the real value in it.

And what about Romans 6 and 7. Paul, who was a top Pharisee, experienced the failures over and over. What he willed to do, he could not do. He came to the conclusion, Wretched man that I am who will deliver me from this body of flesh? Then Romans 8:2 For the Law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus

Bluegoat said,
"You are also assuming that what we see in the Bible is everything. Most of the ritual practices of the first Christians were never recorded, people did them, so there was no need."

How do you know that the first Christians practiced rituals? Do you believe that what you see now in the Catholic church is what you would have seen in 40 AD? If it is not recorded, doesn't that point to the possibility that the apostles' didn't teach it? Actually in Galatians, Paul is telling them not to revert back to their old relgion and Hebrews addresses it. Colossians addresses it. I think that if the Lord really valued and wanted all of the OT rituals to be kept, He certainly would have said so, probably in detailed order.

Well, Bluegoat, thanks for reading this far and going back and forth with me. I am around a lot of Catholics and people of all denominations, and I truly appreciate your laying it all out for me. I realize you are Anglican now, but it has really helped me to see how much these things mean to Catholics, even though I am still baffled by most of it.

[Smokering]

I've always been confused by this. How can you take it to mean the entire Bible when the Book of Revelations was not written specifically to be intended to be a part of the canon of Scripture? It wasn't deemed divinely inspired until a few centuries after it was written and so it had no attachment to the other books, poems, and epistles compiled in the Bible at its inception. Surely, it just means adding additional text to that particular book?

That's a possible interpretation, as I mentioned when I initially brought it up. But do you really think God didn't intend it to be part of the canon of Scripture? At any rate, Catholics do add doctrines and teachings to the type of content taught in Revelation (about the judgment and end times) - where the Book says that people will be judged by their faith in Christ, for example, the Church adds "and their allegiance to the Pope and the teachings of the RCC". Even if they're not directly adding it to the text, they're adding it to the teachings of the text (or really, interpreting the text according to those teachings): which is, I believe, a significant problem.

The Rosary is simply prayers to Mary about the life of Jesus. It is prayerful meditation of His entire life, death, resurrection. So it would be like someone speaking to me about my child and how much they love and adore him and focusing on the important parts of their life that have significance.

That, er, doesn't make it more OK to a Protestant. The Bible consistently equates prayer with worship - not with veneration, with worship - and any prayer not directed to God Himself in the Bible is condemned as idolatry. It doesn't matter that Catholics don't believe Mary is God - the ancients prayed to many beings they didn't believe had God-of-the-Bible attributes either, and it was still condemned. Even extreme expressions of respect for holy characters were consistently rebuked, often by the characters themselves. And on top of that, the Bible is very clear that Jesus is THE mediator between God and man; that no other is required; and that we are to have a close personal relationship with God, trusting in His understanding and compassion and kindness, and communicating with Him openly and directly - not viewing Him as so remote or harsh that we need to ask for favours through His mother (which always struck me as kind of weaselly anyway - it's not like He wouldn't know what we're up to!). So yeah - HUGE issues with the rosary for Protestants, and not just because of the beads (although the repetitive aspect does call to mind the passage where repetitive prayer is condemned, and on a practical level I think it would take tremendous discipline for it not to become automatic, as an ex-Catholic friend of mine mentioned recently).

Plus, there's no Biblical evidence that Mary has any kind of authoritative power in Heaven, or the ability to hear or grant prayers. And attempting to communicate with the dead is soundly condemned in the Bible - even communicating with righteous people.

[Bluegoat]

Just as a note I'm nak here, so I am not going to bother to capitalize "tradition" every time, or I'll go nuts.

Originally Posted by Smokering

Of course sola Scriptura wasn't present in the early Church - the Scriptures hadn't been completed yet. Is there evidence that the very early Church members believed there were non-Scriptural teachings that were different to the Scriptural ones? I recall a few "handed down from the apostles" statements, but IIRC at least one of those was used for a practice that seems contrary to the plain teachings of Scripture - infant baptism, in fact! - so I tend to view the claim with skepticism.

So because you think that the plain meaning of scripture is the correct one, extra-scriptural teachings that don't seem to support it are wrong? How is this not begging the question?

There are lots of writings from the Fathers about Tradition, though most talk about Scripture and Tradition as one thing early on - it isn't until you get to the period where heresies start appearing, and the canon is set, that they specifically discuss the two as separate, which is what one would expect. If you want to understand how they understood scripture, the only way is to actually read them doing it, which I really can't summarize for you - I might as well set out to write a doctoral thesis on MDC.

But we are getting away from what was asked of you - please give me something that can support a sola scriptura understanding of Scripture from the Fathers or the Early Church, either in a specific comment or through their methods. Give me some evidence that this was how they thought they were to understand Scripture.

I don't think the passage referred just to literally pencilling extra bits in the margin of the book.

So we aren't looking for the plain meaning of actually adding to to Scripture, or the book of Revelation (which is more likely I'd say, for the reasons BMG suggested)? If it means both scripture and tradition, then that is ok too, since no one thinks that should be added to either. But if you say it means that tradition can't play a role, you are again assuming the idea that scripture alone is the guide and making a fallacious argument.

On what grounds do you believe information is missing?

Again, you are getting away from the point. I was showing that the argument you gave for sola scriptura was a fallacious one, (to recap, you said that if tradition and scripture were really harmonious, any argument from tradition should agree with the plain meaning of scripture - since that isn't true, tradition is defective as a guide.) This is clearly an illogical argument, and it was one of the few you suggested as showing why we should believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura. If information is contained in Tradition that isn't in scripture, which is the substance of our argument, then the conclusion we draw based on both together may not be what we would conclude based on just scripture (or presumably just tradition.)

I never claimed that the Bible yielded up all its truth on a cursory reading. That's why sola Scriptura advocates tend to be fans of commentaries, sermons and the like - to help us study Scripture. Insofar as Tradition is in accordance with Scripture, it can be valuable and helpful - I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with demonstrably illogical and/or unscriptural Tradition demanding acceptance not because it makes sense, but because it claims authority which I don't believe it possesses.

This is not an argument about this topic, unless you again wish to be begging the question, which is by definition illogical.

Which we can dispute using Scripture. That's sort of the point. The fact that humans are sinners does not negate the point. (Conversely, the existence of an authoritative Tradition has not in practice led to unity and homogenity of belief among Catholics, but I'm sure you wouldn't say that destroys the principle.)

You are missing the point again. You gave as one of your arguments for why we should accept sola scriptura the fact that it gives us a sure guide, and a way to avoid people claiming power on the basis of authority or personal revelation. But this is not much of an argument - God doesn't decide how to give us Revelation based on how we think it would be easiest to work with. And the facts do not support it anyway - sola sciptura has not led to these things stopping. It doesn't matter that they happen in the Churches I am talking about, since I am not trying to make that argument.

There is no evidence that many of the later doctrines of the Church were implicitly or dimly understood in earlier days - many of them, I believe, would have been viewed as rank heresy in the early years of the Church. If these doctrines all had early roots, there ought to be early evidence of them. As popes did not meet to pass down secret oral teachings face-to-face, they must either have been passed down in writing - in which case there will be evidence of them - or by private revelation, in which case said revelations ought to be tested against Scripture, to make sure they are not of demonic origin but genuinely from God.


I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. The RCC has explicated many doctrines against the plain teachings of Scripture, which calls into question their claims of authority and genuineness. God in the Bible does not give the Church the power to burden Christians with manmade rules, or to propagate doctrines that encourage what by biblical definitions is the worship of others, or to demand allegiance to the Pope, or - well, a lot of other things.

Who is talking about Catholics anyway? I personally agree - Catholics have veered demonstrably both from Scripture and Tradition, and this probably relates to the changes they made in how this things are understood - once you have a powerful head that can declare changes in doctrine, it becomes easy to make serious errors that would be avoided by a correct model of governance in the Church. But that is a bit out of the scope of this discussion I think.

However, you seem to have a misunderstanding of how even Catholics understand Tradition to be passed down - Catholics are not gnostics who think Popes have secret knowledge, and they never accept any private revelations as being able to influence doctrine, even if they think they are real. The authority of the Pope is related to process, as spokesman for the mind of the Church - not related to some secret Pope knowledge. Catholics understand their doctrines all to be further explications of what was present before, and generally have some evidence for doing so - they don't ever pull them out of thin air, even those I think are wrong.

I wouldn't put it like that (the bolded). God protects His Word, whether it be in oral or written form. Now the written form exists God still works through oral teachings (preaching and so on), but the fixed nature of the canon makes it a matter of common sense that oral teachings be checked against the written ones. Because, after all, God promises us false teachers in the Bible.

Sure, but again this only works if we assume the plain meaning of scripture must be the correct one.

But it seems rather... academic to be discussing this when I see doctrines in the RCC that are so blatantly opposed to Scripture, and in some cases even defying basic logic. Obviously all interpretations are based on presuppositions, so in a way it's putting the cart before the horse to use specific examples to disprove the Catholic epistemology; but on the other hand, if even one tiny doctrine is shown to be in error, doesn't that collapse the whole system? At any rate, this discussion is getting way off-topic, so I guess it's up to the OP if we continue...[/QUOTE]

Yes, I understand why one would take this approach with a doctrine that seems so clearly wrong. But it is really only an issue if you are Catholic, and we are actually talking about a teaching that is understood to be necessary and infallibly known. Your average Anglo-Catholic or Orthodox Christian might not find their systems much impacted by the errors of this one schismatic group. You haven't mentioned any particular errors of those groups so I do not know if you think there are any.

[Bluegoat]

Shami, I am going to come back to the idea of the Law and substitutionary theology, I think it deserves its own post, and some more thought before I say anything. However, I wanted to address this in part:

Originally Posted by Shami

Love the OT pictures and types that point to Christ. Here is an example, if I show you a picture of the chocolate cake I just baked, and I describe it to you, then you may appreciate it to a certain degree. But if i give you the real choc. cake then you will appreciate it more because you can smell it and see it up close. Then if I tell you to eat it, that is the top most appreciation ever!
This is how I see all of the rituals whether Catholic or Protestant. They are all just pictures which may help you to some degree, but they are not the real Christ that can live inside of you. Paul said Christ lives in you so you have the uplifted law of the Spirit of life which can govern your daily life much better than a set of outward laws of do's and don'ts. Anyway, the history in the OT was that the Children of Israel (C of I) could never keep the laws. Even today the Jewish people cannot keep all of the laws.
I am not saying that I don't try to follow the law, but I endeavor to do it by turning to my spirit and keeping constant communion with the Lord inside of me, who is the best law keeper around!

You understand that the Church teaching is that in the Eucharist we do meet God, not only in spirit, but in the flesh? That in the Eacharist Christ is given to us not just as a spirit, but physically? That this is a gift God gives us because we are not only spiritual beings, but physical ones, and God has saved both of these things?


A

nd speaking of laws...I don't feel comfortable with any icons or images of Jesus. That is not my Jesus. That is a statue/picture. Jesus lives inside of me. The resurrected Jesus lives inside of me. I really don't receive any spiritual value by looking at what some artist portrays as Jesus hanging on a cross. It's a statue or a picture that came into being through the eyes of an artist. No one really knows what Christ looked like, although Isaiah says he was not comely. According to Isaiah, Christ prob. wasn't as attractive as those blue eyed, blond haired pictures. And for the Catholic church, or maybe that was your opinion, to teach that if you don't accept an image of Jesus then you are denying the incarnation of Christ is ludicrous, to say the least. In addition, to say that since God became flesh and we are allowed to depict persons in the flesh then we can depict Jesus. This sounds like a loophole. Don't forget that Jesus was a God Man. You cannot leave out the God part just so you can enjoy some nice artwork. This is just culture. Culture no matter how refined it may be is a source of divisiveness in the Body of Christ. Not saying that you, Bluegoat, are being divisive, but culture will divide the body of Christ in no time flat! If people want their culture over the one body it causes a division.
Look at all of the denominations that divide based on where they are from and even their race.

I understand that you are uncomfortable with images, but that doesn't really tell us much about whether they are allowed, or useful. And you are mixing up traditions again with what is understood as really necessary. No one says you have to think that a blue-eyed depiction of Christ really looks like him - that is not really its purpose. (And some depictions may in fact be simply unacceptable, so just because some are allowed doesn't mean all are allowed or appropriate.) It is very nice if you feel that images of any kind are not helpful or useful to your faith - that is not so for many people. (and have you really tried to use them for any amount of time, to know they would not add anything?) And of course over much of the history of the Church most people could not read, so images were an especially important way for them to access the teachings of the Church.

Your argument about not depicting Christ because he is God-man goes to the heart of why this is a heresy. It is not a loophole. In saying we cannot depict him as other men we are saying that he was not truly and fully man as well as God. It is no different than saying because he was God-man he didn't really have emotions, didn't really suffer, didn't really die. This is one of the oldest and most recurring heresies, It points to the heart of what Christianity proclaims God has done, and why it was a scandal to Jews and foolishness to Greeks.

Every church or worship group is divided by nationality, unless you are flying in people from every place to come to your meeting each week. We are localized in space, and so we meet locally in normal circumstances, with the people who live near us. That is why one sees national churches (and you'll notice that sometimes the groupings may not relate to national borders so much as geographic proximity, or language group.) This has at times led to Church Nationalism, which is a very bad thing and a misunderstanding.

Unfortunately race has been, in the past, a real divider, with no good reason at all. I'm not sure any churches actively promote this any more, though one sees it sometimes as a result of historical circumstance. Where I live the Baptist churches, for example, are divided into black and white congregations. This is not a policy, and in fact one sees them visiting each other and co-operating in projects and at meetings. But because the descendants of the original groups continued to attend the same parishes, we still see this separation to some extent.

Christ doesn't need anything to enhance Him. I like what one author? said, Christ plus Nothing! Christ doesn't need dramas and rock bands to gain a people for Himself. Christ didn't send the disciples out and say, ok, you two go start a music ministry and you two go create a play and we'll get folks saved. All the disciples had was the Apostles teaching, the Holy Spirit, prayer, and the one accord among them.

Why then does he need Scripture? You are making some pretty broad statements about what the early worship of the Church looked like. What makes you think there was no music, no liturgy, and no art? Why don't you mention the Eucharist? This is such a modern, reaction-against-the-Enlightenment idea! Christ doesn't need anything from us - but we need things in order to understand and follow him. Do you think preaching, teaching, and talking about God are unnecessary too? Do you meet in silence?

Bluegoat said,
"Also, remember that the cross was first a pagan symbol."
Yep, this is my point. So why do you use them? Even if you use them to remind you of the cross of Christ, the pagan roots are very real. Mixing something evil with Christ can't be a good thing no matter how it looks.

So you want to deny the cross because it was used by pagans? Isn't the word "cross" a symbol of the real cross, just like a depiction of a cross? If Scripture is translated into ASL (as it is in my parish) do they have to avoid making the sign for "cross" because it is a picture? Again, this idea that God is sooo spiritual that he cannot be "contaminated" by real things is strongly present here - I actually find it a bit shocking. This is exactly what the Platonists who would not accept Christ argued. Hard to believe that Jesus couldn't think of a better way to be murdered, so he didn't have to be associated with a pagan symbol.

Bluegoat said,
"In an Orthodox Church, it is filled with icons of saints, who are supposed to remind us that we are not just one isolated congregation, but are part of the Church which is outside time and space, what is called the "Church triumphant", and that all these people who have gone before, and the angels, are also worshiping God with us; in fact that we are at this moment part of the endless worship around the throne of the lamb that we see described in the Book of Revelation."

Again, I don't need a reminder from an icon that I am part of the body of Christ. Christ lives inside of me and I meet with the church in my locality which daily gives me experiences of being in the body of Christ. I can appreciate that I am part of the universal body of Christ. I have a feeling that if I had to look at icons while trying to praise and worship Jesus, I would be a little distracted. I know who ever came up with icons didn't want it to be a distraction, but that is what would happen to me.

New things are always a distraction. But a distraction from what exactaly - the communion of saints is a perfectly worthwhile thing to be thinking about. In general, I must take this with a grain of salt though, since most groups who strongly oppose images tend to neglect the communion of saints. And again, over time it has not been the experience of the majority that the visual is not influential on one's mind. There is plenty of scientific work that shows this to be true. Additionally, remember that icons, unlike some other types of religious art, is meant, just like scripture, to record and convey very specific, true information. It isn't "imaginative".

Re: temple ( we, the church are the temple of the living God) the building has nothing to do with it.)

Bluegoat said,
"Well, in places where there aren't churches, people go without. But there is good reason to have a sacred space devoted to God. Although it is nice to think we can be just as called to holiness in the toilet as in a great cathedral, what tends to happen if we say that every space is sacred is that no space is."

Have you read John 4 in context? It clearly says that we won't have to go to Jerusalem, but those who worship must worship in spirit and truthfulness. And the Lord said, destroy this temple(the physical one) and I will raise it up in 3 days (the spiritual one).
I agree that believers need a building to gather, but the building does not need to be ornate. Like you said, some places don't have a cathedral. They can meet in their house, as long as they are worshipping in spirit and truthfulness. And just for fun, I have enjoyed the Lord's presence while in the toilet--that's the beauty of Him living inside of me!

No, it doesn't have to be ornate. It does have to be a place where we are conscious of meeting God, especially since we believe that he comes there, in material form. So it needs to have a sacred quality to that, and there are certain things that can contribute to that. There also needs to be practical things - light, a place to read from, an altar or table for the Eucharist, linens to keep it clean. It is sensible to have pictures of the Christian story for those who cannot read, or are visual learners. Most churches are not terribly ornate, though they have some visual cues for worshipers. Really ornate ones tend to be major churches or cathedrals - and there are good reasons to allow this. It is not necessary that all be the same.

And private devotions in any place are always acceptable.

Bluegoat said,
"The purpose of fasting itself it to train the body and the mind, to control and limit their sinful tendencies. fasting from meat or other things are probably not important in and of themselves - but learning to control our desires is very helpful when we are confronted with a real temptation."

This is not how fasting was used in the NT unless I am missing some verses. Mostly they were fasting in order to pray. They fasted, layed hands, and prayed to go out on the gospel. Forcing your self to do penitence is called ascetism. From what I understand, when a person is so burdened to pray for a particular matter they may fast in order to completely focus on the prayer. Or, in some cases, people forget to eat because they are praying so much and end up fasting inadvertently. Honestly, when I hear people talking about giving up chocolate or something so arbitrary as giving up TV in order to fast for lent, I fail to see the real value in it.

No, I think that kind of fasting is pretty limited, and that is not the kind of fasting the Church has taught. Fasting is always meant to be accompanied by a period of intensified prayer, and often alms-giving or service of some kind. The purpose of fasting in relation to these things is all about training the body and mind to right action.

And what about Romans 6 and 7. Paul, who was a top Pharisee, experienced the failures over and over. What he willed to do, he could not do. He came to the conclusion, Wretched man that I am who will deliver me from this body of flesh? Then Romans 8:2 For the Law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus

I'm not sure, are you suggesting fasting and prayer are not necessary because Christ has freed us from death? That is rather like saying continued repentance is unnecessary, or that a person who becomes a Christian will never sin again. In fact, even a committed Christian will struggle with sin daily, will need to repent, to remain open to God and closed to sin and distraction. That is what fasting is about, one aid in that struggle. (And I've never known anyone perfect at fasting - that doesn't negate the benefits, and even makes one more aware of the need for Grace.)

Bluegoat said,
"You are also assuming that what we see in the Bible is everything. Most of the ritual practices of the first Christians were never recorded, people did them, so there was no need."

How do you know that the first Christians practiced rituals? Do you believe that what you see now in the Catholic church is what you would have seen in 40 AD? If it is not recorded, doesn't that point to the possibility that the apostles' didn't teach it? Actually in Galatians, Paul is telling them not to revert back to their old relgion and Hebrews addresses it. Colossians addresses it. I think that if the Lord really valued and wanted all of the OT rituals to be kept, He certainly would have said so, probably in detailed order.

Yes, the early Christians had rituals. No, they are not exactly like the modern ones. In some areas this is a problem - the modern Catholic liturgy is undoubtedly a break from earlier ones. But many liturgies have a clear connection with very early practices. And not everything needs to be identical. When you meet to worship in your home, do you get rid of electric lights, or dress like first century Christians? Do you speak Greek? Not everything we do has to be a big T tradition - taught by the apostles, or derived directly from their teachings. The Church is spread out over time and space, and there is no way that we can avoid that reality affecting us.

No one has reverted back to Judaism, so I think that is rather a straw man argument. I don't think anyone but the messianic Jews keeps to the OT rituals (and there is some scriptural suggestion that this might be ok for those born Jews, if we want to look at it from that perspective.)

Well, Bluegoat, thanks for reading this far and going back and forth with me. I am around a lot of Catholics and people of all denominations, and I truly appreciate your laying it all out for me. I realize you are Anglican now, but it has really helped me to see how much these things mean to Catholics, even though I am still baffled by most of it.

You might try visiting, a few times, either a traditional Anglican Church (if you can find one) or an Orthodox Church, especially one with an English service. Since most of these things are meant to impact our physical experience, it can be hard to really due justice to them in writing.

[Shami]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

snip

You understand that the Church teaching is that in the Eucharist we do meet God, not only in spirit, but in the flesh? That in the Eacharist Christ is given to us not just as a spirit, but physically? That this is a gift God gives us because we are not only spiritual beings, but physical ones, and God has saved both of these things?

Yes, I understand this belief that it becomes literally the body and blood of Jesus once you partake of it. This is not my understanding of John 6. Where is the scriptural basis for this? This must be what you call Tradition.
In John 6 when Jesus says to eat His flesh and drink His blood...to have eternal life, some followers said this word is too hard to take and left. Then Jesus explained what He meant in verse 63.
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

footnote quote:
"Flesh here, according to the context, refers to the meat of the physical body. When the Lord said, "The bread which I will give is My flesh" (v. 51), the Jews thought that He would give them the meat of His physical body to eat (v. 52). They did not understand the Lord's word rightly. To them it was a hard word (v. 60). Hence, in this verse the Lord explained that what He would give them to eat was not the meat of His physical body; the meat, which is the flesh, profits nothing. What He would give, eventually, was the Spirit who gives life, who is the Lord Himself in resurrection."
1 Cor 10
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?

The cup of blessing/bread we break symbolize many things: redemption, the Lord is our spiritual food and drink, His body broken for us. It testifies that He is our eternal portion. I do this in remebrance of Him because this is what the Lord told the disciples to do. This is for the fellowship between us and Him and between all of the members of His body.

I understand that you are uncomfortable with images, but that doesn't really tell us much about whether they are allowed, or useful. And you are mixing up traditions again with what is understood as really necessary.
Graven images, pictures, representations, and icons fall into the same category for me. God said don't have any graven images for worship. I'm not just uncomfortable. I should have said this is a big no no for me. This is what really baffles me about the Tradition. Some how the scripture is laid aside for Tradition sake.
No one says you have to think that a blue-eyed depiction of Christ really looks like him - that is not really its purpose. (And some depictions may in fact be simply unacceptable, so just because some are allowed doesn't mean all are allowed or appropriate.) It is very nice if you feel that images of any kind are not helpful or useful to your faith - that is not so for many people. (and have you really tried to use them for any amount of time, to know they would not add anything?)
Yes, for months I had the Prodigal Son picture. It depicted the Old Man as the Father with His arms out and the young man kneeling down. When I looked at it, it just seemed empty to me. That picture is not my Father and I don't want some artists' imagination influencing me in how I see and worship the Father.
And of course over much of the history of the Church most people could not read, so images were an especially important way for them to access the teachings of the Church.
Really? I thought this is what oral teachings were for. Are you referring to the period in church history when everything was in Latin and the lay people could not understand?

Your argument about not depicting Christ because he is God-man goes to the heart of why this is a heresy. It is not a loophole. In saying we cannot depict him as other men we are saying that he was not truly and fully man as well as God.
He was God in the flesh, tabernacling among us. Divinity and humanity mingled but without sin. He was full of emotion and feeling in an uplifted way, not in a fallen way. Are you really saying that because i see depictions of Jesus as idol worship that I am committing heresy?
It is no different than saying because he was God-man he didn't really have emotions, didn't really suffer, didn't really die. This is one of the oldest and most recurring heresies, It points to the heart of what Christianity proclaims God has done, and why it was a scandal to Jews and foolishness to Greeks.

Every church or worship group is divided by nationality, unless you are flying in people from every place to come to your meeting each week.
In my country people church shop based on beliefs, practices, and culture or race. Whatever flavor you want, you can get. Paul talks about the one body. In Christ there is no room for your culture, or my culture. Our old man has been crucified and now we need to apply that to our daily life, denying our self, our way in order to take Christs' way. The Jews and Gentiles dealt with this a lot, but the cross terminated it, creating one new man, Christ. The last Adam became a life giving Spirit (Cor)
God created man as a collective entity (Gen. 1:26). The corporate man created by God was damaged through man's fall; hence, there was the need for God to produce a new man. This was accomplished through Christ's abolishing in His flesh the ordinances and through His creating of the new man in Himself(Eph 2:15).

We are localized in space, and so we meet locally in normal circumstances, with the people who live near us.
Yes, one city, one church as defined by locality. All the believers should be meeting this way, as the church in that city. Just like in the NT, the church in Ephesus, church in Rome, church in Laodicea, etc. How about the church in Houston?, the church in New York? All the believers giving up their preferences, not the core beliefs, but the preferences on practices and culture to meet together on the ground of oneness?? I believe if enough believers would take this way the Lord Jesus would come back because there would finally be a testimony of the one body of Christ on this earth.
That is why one sees national churches (and you'll notice that sometimes the groupings may not relate to national borders so much as geographic proximity, or language group.) This has at times led to Church Nationalism, which is a very bad thing and a misunderstanding.
Yep

Unfortunately race has been, in the past, a real divider, with no good reason at all. I'm not sure any churches actively promote this any more, though one sees it sometimes as a result of historical circumstance. Where I live the Baptist churches, for example, are divided into black and white congregations. This is not a policy, and in fact one sees them visiting each other and co-operating in projects and at meetings. But because the descendants of the original groups continued to attend the same parishes, we still see this separation to some extent.
Yes, now it is a matter of individuals denying their racial preference, not necessarily something instilled by the church leaders.



Why then does he need Scripture? You are making some pretty broad statements about what the early worship of the Church looked like. What makes you think there was no music, no liturgy, and no art? Why don't you mention the Eucharist? This is such a modern, reaction-against-the-Enlightenment idea! Christ doesn't need anything from us - but we need things in order to understand and follow him. Do you think preaching, teaching, and talking about God are unnecessary too? Do you meet in silence?



So you want to deny the cross because it was used by pagans? Isn't the word "cross" a symbol of the real cross, just like a depiction of a cross? If Scripture is translated into ASL (as it is in my parish) do they have to avoid making the sign for "cross" because it is a picture? Again, this idea that God is sooo spiritual that he cannot be "contaminated" by real things is strongly present here - I actually find it a bit shocking. This is exactly what the Platonists who would not accept Christ argued. Hard to believe that Jesus couldn't think of a better way to be murdered, so he didn't have to be associated with a pagan symbol.



New things are always a distraction. But a distraction from what exactaly - the communion of saints is a perfectly worthwhile thing to be thinking about. In general, I must take this with a grain of salt though, since most groups who strongly oppose images tend to neglect the communion of saints. And again, over time it has not been the experience of the majority that the visual is not influential on one's mind. There is plenty of scientific work that shows this to be true. Additionally, remember that icons, unlike some other types of religious art, is meant, just like scripture, to record and convey very specific, true information. It isn't "imaginative".



No, it doesn't have to be ornate. It does have to be a place where we are conscious of meeting God, especially since we believe that he comes there, in material form. So it needs to have a sacred quality to that, and there are certain things that can contribute to that. There also needs to be practical things - light, a place to read from, an altar or table for the Eucharist, linens to keep it clean. It is sensible to have pictures of the Christian story for those who cannot read, or are visual learners. Most churches are not terribly ornate, though they have some visual cues for worshipers. Really ornate ones tend to be major churches or cathedrals - and there are good reasons to allow this. It is not necessary that all be the same.

And private devotions in any place are always acceptable.



No, I think that kind of fasting is pretty limited, and that is not the kind of fasting the Church has taught. Fasting is always meant to be accompanied by a period of intensified prayer, and often alms-giving or service of some kind. The purpose of fasting in relation to these things is all about training the body and mind to right action.



I'm not sure, are you suggesting fasting and prayer are not necessary because Christ has freed us from death? That is rather like saying continued repentance is unnecessary, or that a person who becomes a Christian will never sin again. In fact, even a committed Christian will struggle with sin daily, will need to repent, to remain open to God and closed to sin and distraction. That is what fasting is about, one aid in that struggle. (And I've never known anyone perfect at fasting - that doesn't negate the benefits, and even makes one more aware of the need for Grace.)



Yes, the early Christians had rituals. No, they are not exactly like the modern ones. In some areas this is a problem - the modern Catholic liturgy is undoubtedly a break from earlier ones. But many liturgies have a clear connection with very early practices. And not everything needs to be identical. When you meet to worship in your home, do you get rid of electric lights, or dress like first century Christians? Do you speak Greek? Not everything we do has to be a big T tradition - taught by the apostles, or derived directly from their teachings. The Church is spread out over time and space, and there is no way that we can avoid that reality affecting us.

No one has reverted back to Judaism, so I think that is rather a straw man argument. I don't think anyone but the messianic Jews keeps to the OT rituals (and there is some scriptural suggestion that this might be ok for those born Jews, if we want to look at it from that perspective.)



You might try visiting, a few times, either a traditional Anglican Church (if you can find one) or an Orthodox Church, especially one with an English service. Since most of these things are meant to impact our physical experience, it can be hard to really due justice to them in writing.

I'll be back to continue with the rest of the post...

[Bluegoat]

Shami,

You know the Jews didn't consider that ANY image was actually idolatry - they used images themselves. The idolatry relates to the attitude toward the image. One can make an idol out of Scripture just as much as out of an image, by mistaking the thing for God.

Also, your commentary on the words Jesus spoke at the last supper are simply not an accurate representation of what the Church understands - the understanding of the Eucharist as the real flesh and blood is not an innovation. Perhaps the man who left didn't misunderstand, at all - he simply couldn't accept what Christ was saying.

[Shami]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

Shami,

You know the Jews didn't consider that ANY image was actually idolatry - they used images themselves.
No, I don't know this.
The idolatry relates to the attitude toward the image. One can make an idol out of Scripture just as much as out of an image, by mistaking the thing for God.
Yes anything can be an idol, even relationships with husbands or children can become an idol. Whatever we love more than Christ is an idol whether it be positive or negative. I know the whole argument about Catholics not worshipping statues, but the statue helps them with worship or remembrance. And, really, your point is right about the inward feeling. Only God knows if someone is using images/statues as an idol. You can keep your images because they don't do anything to hurt me spiritually, but you cannot convince me to begin using them unless you show it to me in the Bible.
Can you point me to a passage in the OT where images or statues were used in a positive way. You say that the Jews used them and I honestly don't know. If you can show me in the Bible where image/statue use is shown in a positive light then you will win the prize for the day. LoL Just trying to lighten myself up a bit...feeling a bit heated here
I am coming to a point where I feel like we just have to agree to disagree. What we have in common is our love for Christ and the church. You and I love the church and we want what is best for her, we just don't agree on what's best. At this point, unless you have something more that you really want me to address, I am backing out of this thread. I had a feeling that I'd regret picking on your practices. This is what I mean by the practices dividing the body. I am sorry for that. I'm not a good debater because I feel like I am not ministering Christ, rather just tearing down what is so meaningful to you.
I am always going to want scripture to back up whatever you say and I will never accept Tradition in the way that is right to you.
Also, your commentary on the words Jesus spoke at the last supper are simply not an accurate representation of what the Church understands -
I'm quoting straight from John 6. I did not interpret it. It is plain. At the end of the passage Jesus gives His explanation for why He said if you eat me you will have eternal life. Jesus is the Word (can't find that verse). His words are spirit and life (zoe life of God, not bios as in physical life)
the understanding of the Eucharist as the real flesh and blood is not an innovation. Perhaps the man who left didn't misunderstand, at all - he simply couldn't accept what Christ was saying.

Here it is:
John 6
60 Many therefore of His disciples, when they heard this, said, This word is hard; who can hear it?

61 But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples were murmuring about this, said to them, Does this stumble you?

62 Then what if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

[Smokering]

Bluegoat: Any epistemology must pass the basic test of internal consistency, yes? "The Bible, understood by Sacred Tradition, is the Word of God" - is not, in itself, illogical (any more than "The Bible, as understood by the second law of thermodynamics, is the Word of God"). But once the RCC claims that Sacred Tradition interprets the Bible according to rational principles - and to an extent it does, although there's a distressing tendency to appeal to a (non-biblical) "mystery" in cases of obvious illogic. Nevertheless, the Church doesn't merely say, for instance, "Mary was sinless because we say so"; it says "We authoritatively state that Mary was sinless because the angel declared her "full of grace" (etc)". And once they bring textual analysis, hermeneutics, exegesis etc into play, acknowledging those things as valid methods of determining the truth of a text - well, the issue becomes a lot more complicated. Because anyone can wield those tools. And if it can be proven, say, that the Bible contradicts a single Catholic doctrine - that the Catholic understanding of a Greek word is grammatically incorrect, or that two doctrines cannot be held together without violating a logical law, or that a Biblical argument was taken out of context - the whole edifice is called into question; the more so if that doctrine is about the necessity of Sacred Tradition, the authority of the Catholic Church or other such foundational doctrines.

Also, if it's begging the question to say that the Bible alone does not support the existence of Tradition, it's equally begging the question to say that the Bible as interpreted by Tradition does not support sola Scriptura. And appealing to the early church for evidence of a sola Scriptura mentality is a little strange - firstly because the concept itself was meaningless until the canon was formed, as I have said, and secondly because according to the principle of sola Scriptura itself, what Tradition says on the matter is really irrelevant. It is certainly true that the early church fathers constantly appealed to Scriptures to support their arguments (thus admitting the necessity of argumentation at least in addition to, if not in place of, authority claims); also that claims of apostolic authority were made to support traditions which I believe to be antithetical, rather than supplementary, to the Bible. Which is what I'd expect in a fallen world, where an easy way to gain legitimacy for an idea is to pin it on a dead authority figure. And indeed, the Bible predicted false teachings: and even the Catholics believed they occurred within Holy Mother Church, though they disagree with me somewhat on what were the heresies. From there the argument largely becomes historical.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Bluegoat: Any epistemology must pass the basic test of internal consistency, yes? "The Bible, understood by Sacred Tradition, is the Word of God" - is not, in itself, illogical (any more than "The Bible, as understood by the second law of thermodynamics, is the Word of God"). But once the RCC claims that Sacred Tradition interprets the Bible according to rational principles - and to an extent it does, although there's a distressing tendency to appeal to a (non-biblical) "mystery" in cases of obvious illogic. Nevertheless, the Church doesn't merely say, for instance, "Mary was sinless because we say so"; it says "We authoritatively state that Mary was sinless because the angel declared her "full of grace" (etc)". And once they bring textual analysis, hermeneutics, exegesis etc into play, acknowledging those things as valid methods of determining the truth of a text - well, the issue becomes a lot more complicated. Because anyone can wield those tools. And if it can be proven, say, that the Bible contradicts a single Catholic doctrine - that the Catholic understanding of a Greek word is grammatically incorrect, or that two doctrines cannot be held together without violating a logical law, or that a Biblical argument was taken out of context - the whole edifice is called into question; the more so if that doctrine is about the necessity of Sacred Tradition, the authority of the Catholic Church or other such foundational doctrines.

Also, if it's begging the question to say that the Bible alone does not support the existence of Tradition, it's equally begging the question to say that the Bible as interpreted by Tradition does not support sola Scriptura. And appealing to the early church for evidence of a sola Scriptura mentality is a little strange - firstly because the concept itself was meaningless until the canon was formed, as I have said, and secondly because according to the principle of sola Scriptura itself, what Tradition says on the matter is really irrelevant. It is certainly true that the early church fathers constantly appealed to Scriptures to support their arguments (thus admitting the necessity of argumentation at least in addition to, if not in place of, authority claims); also that claims of apostolic authority were made to support traditions which I believe to be antithetical, rather than supplementary, to the Bible. Which is what I'd expect in a fallen world, where an easy way to gain legitimacy for an idea is to pin it on a dead authority figure. And indeed, the Bible predicted false teachings: and even the Catholics believed they occurred within Holy Mother Church, though they disagree with me somewhat on what were the heresies. From there the argument largely becomes historical.

It's a bit difficult for me to argue some Catholic positions that I see as innovations, but I'll try to stick to the principle here. I'm not sure whether I disagree or agree with what you are saying, in this context, in your first paragraph. When coming to conclusions about doctrine, the Church does use Biblical evidence. So, it is valid to say that the contention that Mary was "full of Grace" is meaningful in some way. It is also valid to look closely at texts to determine their meaning (although it can get complicated with a text like the Bible - what is the "authoritative" original text?)

However, the Church also considers that it has another source of teachings, which need in some way to be reconciled, and which also tell us something about the proper method for interpreting the Biblical texts. So in the first case, there can be seemingly disparate messages from the Biblical and extra-Biblical sources, just as one sometimes finds within the Bible itself. These kinds of problems are tricky in all cases, and involve understanding how to weigh what is being said, what kind of interpretation is required, and so on. Probably a good example is the contention held pretty much universally up until the Reformation that Mary was "ever-virgin" which some modern Protestants feel is against the Biblical text. The second thing that is indicated by Tradition, how to read the texts, is also very important, and without such information, one could theoretically come to erroneous conclusions - a good example of this would be the contention by some that the creation account must be read as history.

In both cases, if there is really a second source of information, then what seems obvious in the first source may actually not be.

Re: mystery. We have spoken about apophatic theology before. All I can really say is that a) we know we do not, and never will, have all the information. b) we are fallen and even our understanding of logic may be affected by that c) there are things that even with perfect logic will be inconclusive without perfect information and most importantly d) we are creatures bound by our mode of existence, by space and time. Logic and what we call reason are bound by space and time and even our own nature. We exist, and God is above existence, the source and end of existence. I'm not sure how to say anything more than what I have said about this on other occasions, so I'll just appeal to authority: this is well understood in every major philosophical and theological system, and it is attested to by the experience of mystics. It is even laid out pretty well in Scripture. So, we can expect that some things - the things that are closest to the center of the Divine Nature in particular, to be a mystery.

But, it seems to me that part of the problem here is that you are imagining that in all cases, there is some kind of list of "Traditional" teachings, what is correct and what is not? That isn't the case, and in fact Tradition is considered to be a living thing. I'm not sure how you are understanding what the deposit of Tradition is, or how we discern it when required?

Yes, it would be begging the question if I said that the Bible, supported by Tradition, didn't support sola scriptura. That isn't quite my method. In fact, I think we could say, for the purposes of discussion at least, that the Bible doesn't really support either case; it is suggestive, seemingly in both directions. That being the case, I DO to turn to other "facts" to figure it out, not as authorities, but as evidence in a more scientific sense.

What are the facts as I perceive them? One is that the Church existed before Scripture, which indicates to me that, at least in the beginning, authority did not belong to Scripture, and obviously it was possible to have the Church without it. And I ask myself, once Scripture appeared, how do we see it being treated by the Church? What I see for the first while is a Church that doesn't much seem to differentiate between Scripture and Tradition; one that holds to ideas like the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and even advocates infant baptism as a sensible interpretation of earlier practice in changed circumstances. I also see, a relatively short time later, a Church which condemns leaving behind non-Biblical traditions on the grounds that they are not in Scripture. And I see that in practice, the final authority continues to rest with the Church and it's discernment processes. What I don't see is any announcement that now that there is a canon, it is the sole source of information, that it contains everything necessary, or that it has final authority.

So these things I count as evidence against sola scriptura. I haven't got anything for it. The fact that some groups seem to have gone astray with Tradition isn't that compelling, since the same is true of those who don't use it.

I do think that it is to be expected that in a fallen world, even believers will go astray, and that there will be false prophets. And I think we would agree that there are clear examples of this. Neither the advocates of sola scriptura, nor its opponents, seem to have been immune to this - however, many people argue that there is better success on the side of Tradition. I'm not sure if I would make that argument, but I'm not sure it is untrue.

An interesting question this raises for me, is if Tradition is a living thing, how do we know when things fall outside of it if we take the position that ALL groups have understood imperfectly? Something I am still pondering.

[Smokering]

In both cases, if there is really a second source of information, then what seems obvious in the first source may actually not be.

But how far do you take that? I've seen arguments that seem to mangle both the Biblical text and the laws of reason. It's one thing to argue for a less likely but possible interpretation of a text, but another to argue for something that simply doesn't make sense and contradicts very clear and unambiguous doctrines. If one is forced to a skewed, illogical view of the text in order to reconcile it to Tradition, that results in a very dim view of the usefulness of the Bible and ultimately God's intelligence.

As far as "mystery" goes, well, yes, we've disagreed on this before. The Biblical use of the word "mystery" is used to refer to things once hidden by now made plain by God's revelation; not as a means to reconcile mutually exclusive facts or to avoid the need for critical thought. I have no objections to the concept that we don't know everything about God; I just object to people holding mutually irreconcilable doctrines when a logical alternative exists, because they don't like the implications of the latter.

But, it seems to me that part of the problem here is that you are imagining that in all cases, there is some kind of list of "Traditional" teachings, what is correct and what is not? That isn't the case, and in fact Tradition is considered to be a living thing. I'm not sure how you are understanding what the deposit of Tradition is, or how we discern it when required?

I confess I'm fuzzy on this. It seems that Tradition is "written by the winners", as it were. Tertullian, who lived very early on, believed in neither infant baptism nor the perpetual virginity of Mary; yet somehow he doesn't count, and principally because he was outnumbered, not because his arguments are proven less valid than those of the opposing side. I see other instances of cherry-picking from historical sources all over the place. Is Tradition simply defined as those doctrines which eventually gained popularity and majority? If the arguments are the deciding factor, then they can be toppled by argumentation; if the fact that they were officially accepted is the deciding factor, well, I find that very scary indeed.

In terms of your arguments against sola Scriptura, I don't think you're examining all the facts. You seem to have a very trusting view of the early Church. What makes you believe the early Church fathers were understanding things correctly, when a) even the disciples were constantly getting things wrong, b) much of the New Testament was directed to correcting moral and doctrinal errors in the early church, and c) false teachers were not only expected but promised? Why do you not allow for factors such as greed, the desire to attract converts from other religions with specific foci, the natural human tendency to embellish and idolise historical figures, the natural desire of parents to include their children in their religion, the desire for power, "Chinese whispers" misunderstandings of Biblical teachings, factions, allegiances to charismatic leaders... human nature, in fact? As it's very hard to know the actual holiness of the men involved or their motivations, it seems imperative to judge their arguments against Scripture and reason, not to assume they were on the right track (and in some cases, I believe, to twist Scripture out of all recognition in order to "harmonise" the two).

I confess I'm still not exactly sure where you're coming from. Can you define Anglican Catholic for me? I don't get how you can defend Tradition to such an extent without allying yourself with a group that claims historical continuity and authority (Catholics or Orthodox) - the Anglican church is relatively young, after all, and arose in secular circumstances. But I'm almost certainly missing something, so - could you explain? Do you feel the doctrines of the Papacy are not true Tradition?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

But how far do you take that? I've seen arguments that seem to mangle both the Biblical text and the laws of reason. It's one thing to argue for a less likely but possible interpretation of a text, but another to argue for something that simply doesn't make sense and contradicts very clear and unambiguous doctrines. If one is forced to a skewed, illogical view of the text in order to reconcile it to Tradition, that results in a very dim view of the usefulness of the Bible and ultimately God's intelligence.

As far as "mystery" goes, well, yes, we've disagreed on this before. The Biblical use of the word "mystery" is used to refer to things once hidden by now made plain by God's revelation; not as a means to reconcile mutually exclusive facts or to avoid the need for critical thought. I have no objections to the concept that we don't know everything about God; I just object to people holding mutually irreconcilable doctrines when a logical alternative exists, because they don't like the implications of the latter.


I confess I'm fuzzy on this. It seems that Tradition is "written by the winners", as it were. Tertullian, who lived very early on, believed in neither infant baptism nor the perpetual virginity of Mary; yet somehow he doesn't count, and principally because he was outnumbered, not because his arguments are proven less valid than those of the opposing side. I see other instances of cherry-picking from historical sources all over the place. Is Tradition simply defined as those doctrines which eventually gained popularity and majority? If the arguments are the deciding factor, then they can be toppled by argumentation; if the fact that they were officially accepted is the deciding factor, well, I find that very scary indeed.

In terms of your arguments against sola Scriptura, I don't think you're examining all the facts. You seem to have a very trusting view of the early Church. What makes you believe the early Church fathers were understanding things correctly, when a) even the disciples were constantly getting things wrong, b) much of the New Testament was directed to correcting moral and doctrinal errors in the early church, and c) false teachers were not only expected but promised? Why do you not allow for factors such as greed, the desire to attract converts from other religions with specific foci, the natural human tendency to embellish and idolise historical figures, the natural desire of parents to include their children in their religion, the desire for power, "Chinese whispers" misunderstandings of Biblical teachings, factions, allegiances to charismatic leaders... human nature, in fact? As it's very hard to know the actual holiness of the men involved or their motivations, it seems imperative to judge their arguments against Scripture and reason, not to assume they were on the right track (and in some cases, I believe, to twist Scripture out of all recognition in order to "harmonise" the two).

I confess I'm still not exactly sure where you're coming from. Can you define Anglican Catholic for me? I don't get how you can defend Tradition to such an extent without allying yourself with a group that claims historical continuity and authority (Catholics or Orthodox) - the Anglican church is relatively young, after all, and arose in secular circumstances. But I'm almost certainly missing something, so - could you explain? Do you feel the doctrines of the Papacy are not true Tradition?

I should say, I don't know that I am arguing an anglo-catholic position here. My theological leanings seem to shifting somewhat lately, so don't put too much weight on what I'm saying being from an Anglo-Catholic perspective.

So, Anglican-Catholic - which may or may not be an Anglo-Catholic, an Anglo-Papist, or even a crypto-Papist:

Sometimes this is identified with being High Church, but it isn't really the same. An Anglo-Catholic typically is someone who sees the Anglican church as being a catholic institution, "part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church". TYpically such a person doesn't see the Reformation as the origin of the Anglican church, but rather it sees itself as part of the same catholic institution as existed before, with some unfortunate mistakes ironed out.

So really, it sees the big C Catholic Church has having moved away from an orthodox understanding, and them having moved back.

Very often - not always - Anglo-Catholics will point out that the Church in Britain existed as a British Church before it ever came under Roman direction. There were Christians in Britain probably from the second century - before the See of Rome was really established, and they developed their own hierarchy and ran their own churches according to the apostolic model. In the 6th century (or 7th?) Rome sent "missionaries" to Britain, under Augustine of Canterbury, and they were met by the Christians that were already there. There was some friction, but the British Christians ultimately did recognize the POpe in Rome as the legitimate patriarch of the West and put themselves more explicitly under Roman rule.

According to this understanding of history, the British Church broke away when Rome began claiming authority that it didn't really have, including over the monarchy (which is why the rulers were motivated to get involved.)

Henry did not, at all, see himself as a Reformer, and was not a fan of the Reformation (though some of those that encouraged the break were hoping to create a Reformation Church in England.) For the most part he strenuously maintained the catholic nature of the English Church. After Henry, Reformers tended to get the upper hand somewhat and there was quite a lot of nastiness, which was resolved in the Elizabethan settlement.

Anglo-Catholicism came to prominence again with the Tractarians and the Oxford Movement, and most modern day Anglo-Catholics owe much to them, far more so than to the Celtic Church.

I'm not sure if this will be helpful or not.

I can't really speak to skewed and illogical ideas, since I don't really see any that strike me that way, or that clearly contradict unambiguous doctrine.

Yes, I think I understand your difficulty with Tradition. I think it is fair to say that many people one of the most difficult, in an annoying fiddly way, problems to understand. And the Catholics have come, I would say, to a slightly different view, which makes it even more tricky. (Most Anglicans, OTOH, simply don't really understand it at all, and this is the cause of many problems within Anglicanism today.)

FWIW, I think that this is probably the kind of thing where, for the sake of understanding the argument, you need to "try it on" rather than try to look at it from outside - it amounts in many ways to a worldview, and it is hard to really dig into it from an external perspective.

It might be simplest to say how this POV understands itself as an historical process. It understands the Church as being both invisible, like most Protestants, and visible, in the sense of actually being an institution. That institution was ultimatly put in place by Christ, by putting the Apostles in charge of the Church, and leaving with them and their followers the deposit of faith. The Apostles organized the early church, set up various practices, sent out missions, and so on. They set up the early Churches (Antioch, Rome, etc). THey ordained new Bishops by the laying on of hands.

This Church was understood to be both local - fully contained in each congregation - and universal - each local church was part of the larger church. At various times there were disputes, when someone was seen to be making claims that were not part of the deposit of faith - say, circulating fake gospels. Recognizing heterodox teaching, a council would be called, locally or universally depending on the issue, and the Bishops would meet, condemn the heresy, and hash out the correct doctrine in detail. They would then take this back to the local churches to be accepted (or not).

This process involved, then, every member in issues understood to be of church-wide significance. It was also slow, and tortuous in some cases. It is not easy to get everyone to agree on something. Sometimes there isn't a council involved. With infant baptism, even if it wasn't initially the norm, it was considered a correct and allowed action by all the churches and congregations (though there were some who thought it advantageous to wait).

This process is understood to be directed and protected by the Holy Spirit. Of course there are people who choose to move outside the Church, but the Church itself is protected.

How do we deal with discerning the answer to problems today, barring the need for an ecumenical council? How to deal with Fathers who seem to say different things? One is looking for overlap. Any individual can err. But on many issues, it may be that kind of precision we see in the Creeds is not required on all issues. Historically, the tendency has always been to define only what is required, when a challenge comes up. So you can argue the merits of, say, Augustine's thoughts on free will, based on the other writings of the Fathers, the teachings in the liturgy, based on reason, even based on science. And over time, some kind of general consensus may come out, or it may remain up for dispute, or someone may get told they need to begin to toe the line.

It does look like a case of the winner's deciding, I agree. But of course, that would also be true of looking at Scripture itself, how it was produced, and how it is interpreted. The idea of the Christian Church really depends on the idea that it will somehow be protected by the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit can protect the Church and its processes long enough to produce Scripture, then going on protecting Scripture through translations, lost texts, and so on, even to interpretation and commentaries by individuals, why is it hard to believe that it protects the institutional Church after Scripture was compiled? The forces that tend to corrupt us, which I agree are many and active, are not different for these two things.

Re mystery: You said:

I just object to people holding mutually irreconcilable doctrines when a logical alternative exists, because they don't like the implications of the latter.

What I would suggest - I am not sure what doctrines specifically you are thinking of - is that it is not a matter of just not liking the implications. Something makes what you suggest is the logical conclusion unacceptable. Or the doctrines aren't understood to be irreconcilable at all. The instances described as mysteries are usually the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Eucharist and perhaps other sacraments. I don't think the term mystery is really out of place for any of those things, though I think they also have a certain logic to them.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Shami

Here it is:
John 6
60 Many therefore of His disciples, when they heard this, said, This word is hard; who can hear it?

61 But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples were murmuring about this, said to them, Does this stumble you?

62 Then what if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Shami,

I have no problem if you aren't interested in carrying on, we probably can't say a lot more on the subject at this point. If your interested on Jewish instances of using images, here is a picture from the Duraeuropa synogogue. I think there are several other archeological examples. Biblical the only the only examples as far as I am aware are the curtain in the Temple, and the arc of the covenant.

[Smokering]

Bluegoat: That's fascinating! I'm still a bit confused though (chalk it up to the first trimester, I've been having dizziness issues all day and I'm not sure it's helping my critical faculties any!). So, what do the terms Anglo-Papist or crypto-Papist mean exactly? Do you accept the papacy in some form - with limited authority, say? Would you accept his teachings as long as you didn't consider him to be overstepping his bounds (as in the case of interfering with Henry's divorce); or do you feel that the last however-many Popes are not legitimate at all because of the expanded nature of the role?

It does look like a case of the winner's deciding, I agree. But of course, that would also be true of looking at Scripture itself, how it was produced, and how it is interpreted. The idea of the Christian Church really depends on the idea that it will somehow be protected by the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit can protect the Church and its processes long enough to produce Scripture, then going on protecting Scripture through translations, lost texts, and so on, even to interpretation and commentaries by individuals, why is it hard to believe that it protects the institutional Church after Scripture was compiled? The forces that tend to corrupt us, which I agree are many and active, are not different for these two things.

I wouldn't say the Holy Spirit protected the visible (institutional) Church as a whole, even at the beginning - heresies and misunderstandings were rampant all over the place, even at the level of Peter, and a lot of the Scriptures are about refuting them. And the "processes", Scripturally speaking, were about argumentation - look at Romans, for instance, which is very systematic and logical and point-by-point. It doesn't seem like the apostles expected anyone to believe their interpretations just because they were apostles - they used rational argumentation including an examination of OT prophecies, drawing out the logical implications of a doctrine, quoting various other scriptures and so on. And in that sense I believe the process is still the same - God's word can be determined through sifting the arguments and studying the Scriptures. As for the historical protection of the Scriptures, again, those issues can be examined by anyone regardless of authority - the Dead Sea Scrolls, translation errors and so on. They are, as it were, compelling in a secular way.

Also, I don't think the issue is whether or not the Spirit could have protected the institutional church as a whole; but whether He did. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where the visible, institutional church is guaranteed infallibility - rather the reverse, as false teachers are predicted to arise within it. Nor is it guaranteed that correct doctrines will gain widespread popularity in the Church - certainly not by a certain date (ie, it doesn't say that the Spirit will guide the Church into all truth by 300AD or 1600AD or 3000AD) So - and yes, I know this is a Protestant view - I'd say that the proof is in the pudding. If doctrines are in line with Scripture, they are authoritative and of God; if not, they are not. And if there are "secular" reasons to distrust the doctrines - say, if it can reasonably be concluded that certain practices arose from a desire for power, or to make Christianity more appealing to pagans, or whatever - that should be taken into account too (and not just with Catholic doctrines!).

What I would suggest - I am not sure what doctrines specifically you are thinking of - is that it is not a matter of just not liking the implications. Something makes what you suggest is the logical conclusion unacceptable. Or the doctrines aren't understood to be irreconcilable at all. The instances described as mysteries are usually the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Eucharist and perhaps other sacraments. I don't think the term mystery is really out of place for any of those things, though I think they also have a certain logic to them.

I was thinking more of things like believing simultaneously in free will and predestination, as the RCC does. It came to mind because I've argued against it before, with Catholics, and been given the "mystery" line to get around the acknowledged logical impossibility of the issue.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Bluegoat: That's fascinating! I'm still a bit confused though (chalk it up to the first trimester, I've been having dizziness issues all day and I'm not sure it's helping my critical faculties any!). So, what do the terms Anglo-Papist or crypto-Papist mean exactly? Do you accept the papacy in some form - with limited authority, say? Would you accept his teachings as long as you didn't consider him to be overstepping his bounds (as in the case of interfering with Henry's divorce); or do you feel that the last however-many Popes are not legitimate at all because of the expanded nature of the role?

Crypto-papist is, as far as I have been able to discern, just a fancy-cool way of saying Anglo-Papist. Not all Anglo-Catholics would care to use that term; it tends to be those who follow a lot of Roman practices and beliefs, and some consider it to be pejorative.

Some Anglo-Catholics take a view that the Pope should have a fairly strong role, and others are more limited. I would say most agree would agree that the Pope has some sort of special role, even if it is just a kind of honoruary one.

So, I guess I would say the Pope would have the same kind of role in his own area of power, the Western Church, as other heads of churches do, and perhaps a special role among the other Churches, such as deciding disputes when asked, making recommendations, calling ecumenical councils, and so on.

I haven't met any Anglican who would say that Catholic orders are actually invalid, in the sense that the sacrament of ordination didn't "take", so I don't think you would find any who thought that the popes were not legitimate. But I never say never with Anglicans.

I wouldn't say the Holy Spirit protected the visible (institutional) Church as a whole, even at the beginning - heresies and misunderstandings were rampant all over the place, even at the level of Peter, and a lot of the Scriptures are about refuting them. And the "processes", Scripturally speaking, were about argumentation - look at Romans, for instance, which is very systematic and logical and point-by-point. It doesn't seem like the apostles expected anyone to believe their interpretations just because they were apostles - they used rational argumentation including an examination of OT prophecies, drawing out the logical implications of a doctrine, quoting various other scriptures and so on. And in that sense I believe the process is still the same - God's word can be determined through sifting the arguments and studying the Scriptures. As for the historical protection of the Scriptures, again, those issues can be examined by anyone regardless of authority - the Dead Sea Scrolls, translation errors and so on. They are, as it were, compelling in a secular way.

Also, I don't think the issue is whether or not the Spirit could have protected the institutional church as a whole; but whether He did. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where the visible, institutional church is guaranteed infallibility - rather the reverse, as false teachers are predicted to arise within it. Nor is it guaranteed that correct doctrines will gain widespread popularity in the Church - certainly not by a certain date (ie, it doesn't say that the Spirit will guide the Church into all truth by 300AD or 1600AD or 3000AD) So - and yes, I know this is a Protestant view - I'd say that the proof is in the pudding. If doctrines are in line with Scripture, they are authoritative and of God; if not, they are not. And if there are "secular" reasons to distrust the doctrines - say, if it can reasonably be concluded that certain practices arose from a desire for power, or to make Christianity more appealing to pagans, or whatever - that should be taken into account too (and not just with Catholic doctrines!).

Two things come to mind. Any group that willfully splits off from the Church by pursuing heresy isn't part of the institutional Church any more, so as long as the other guys are still there, the Church is protected. The understanding is that God will preserve the Church, but not that he will make everyone join it, or make it big. Who knows, there could, theoretically, be only one congregation with a bishop, and that would be the whole of the institutional Church - everyone else could become heretics, or atheists, or members of another religion. (Of course the difficulty would be figuring out which guys were correct in their teachings.)

And it isn't understood that there will never be periods of time where the Church struggles with the right teaching. We can look at how long it took to come up with the definitions with regard to Christology, and the wrangling involved. In the mean time, there were people trying to say things that were incorrect, and people trying to say the same correct thing in different ways. So there isn't any idea that there is no need to struggle together, use reason, plumb the depth of Scripture and extant tradition to find the answers.

I was thinking more of things like believing simultaneously in free will and predestination, as the RCC does. It came to mind because I've argued against it before, with Catholics, and been given the "mystery" line to get around the acknowledged logical impossibility of the issue.

Ah, this never occurred to me, really, since I don't see them as opposed. I don't really think of it as a mystery as such though.

[Bluegoat]

Smokering, I just wanted to add, I've been thinking of what I wrote hear through dinner, and I realized that by trying to draw a kind of median position between a Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox POV, I have kind of given a less than accurate version of all three.

[Smokering]

Two things come to mind. Any group that willfully splits off from the Church by pursuing heresy isn't part of the institutional Church any more, so as long as the other guys are still there, the Church is protected. The understanding is that God will preserve the Church, but not that he will make everyone join it, or make it big. Who knows, there could, theoretically, be only one congregation with a bishop, and that would be the whole of the institutional Church - everyone else could become heretics, or atheists, or members of another religion. (Of course the difficulty would be figuring out which guys were correct in their teachings.)

And it isn't understood that there will never be periods of time where the Church struggles with the right teaching. We can look at how long it took to come up with the definitions with regard to Christology, and the wrangling involved. In the mean time, there were people trying to say things that were incorrect, and people trying to say the same correct thing in different ways. So there isn't any idea that there is no need to struggle together, use reason, plumb the depth of Scripture and extant tradition to find the answers.

Well, I pretty much agree with you there. Although I wouldn't even argue for the necessity of a bishop (as I don't believe God promised institutional unbrokenness in that way) - I'd say even a single lowly believer could in theory comprise the whole of God's church. Not that I'm saying it ever got to that point, as I believe God can save people even despite very flawed theology and within very corrupt systems; but theoretically.