Bible being the Sole Authority??

[SteveVH]

The old testament came about long before the CC. You know this, Coptic. The Jews used it. Jesus used it. My understanding the Jews don’t use the DCs. (I could be wrong, wouldn’t be the first time) As for the new testament, yes, the CC did compile it, but, the letters have been around for a looong time.

The Jews of Jesus’ time, however, did use the Deuterocanonicals because the Septuagint was the only version around. It wasn’t until the 6th century that the Masoretic Text was even started. In any event Jesus and the Apostles and the rest of the Jews used the Septuagint and it was the only version of Old Testament at the time the Church canonized the sacred texts in 398 A.D. The same Church that canonized the books of the Bible never authorized the removal of any of them. That was a completely man-made decision by those outside of the Church.

 

[SteveVH]

Generally, Anglicans take the Bible to be the first and last authority in any and all controversies because that is the unanimous witness of the Fathers. The Bible is the Tradition, according to the venerable & ancient Christians.

Just when I start believing that Anglicans and Catholics are close in belief I read that "The Bible is the Tradition, according to the venerable & ancient Christians."

Are you not aware of the difference between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture? And please tell me how “The Bible is the Tradition” was believed by any ancient Christian? Do you have any documentation of this at all?

You are new here so welcome. I don’t mean to be harsh but unless I am very wrong I do believe the Anglicans have some sense of Tradition since they must trace their roots to the Catholic Church. Am I wrong here? Anyone?

 

[CJeplin]

It is important the Christians not confuse “canonization” with what the Jews have done with their Scriptures, which are generally called the Old Testament by Christians.

Canonization was an act by the Roman Catholic Church, much like the Church canonizes saints. Because there is no general leadership or mouthpiece or singular head of all the Protestant movements, there has never been an official canonization by Protestant religions as a whole, though individually this may differ from sect to sect.

The term “canon” means “rule” or “standard,” more specifically an officially “enrolling of a rule or standard” into Catholic creed, liturgy, or other official writings.

As for the Jews, we not only used the “extra” books of the Old Testament, we wrote them. But the books of the “Old Testament” or the Tanakh were “codified” by different standards than set out by Catholic canonization. Jewish codification doesn’t mean the same thing Christian canonization does either. Just because a book isn’t a part of the Tanakh library doesn’t mean God does not instruct us by means of it or that God has not inspired the writer.

 

[PRmerger]

Just when I start believing that Anglicans and Catholics are close in belief I read that "The Bible is the Tradition, according to the venerable & ancient Christians."

Are you not aware of the difference between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture? And please tell me how “The Bible is the Tradition” was believed by any ancient Christian? Do you have any documentation of this at all?

You are new here so welcome. I don’t mean to be harsh but unless I am very wrong I do believe the Anglicans have some sense of Tradition since they must trace their roots to the Catholic Church. Am I wrong here? Anyone?

No, you are not wrong.

The fact is that ALL Christians who believe the Bible is the Word of God do so because of Sacred Tradition.

Tradition came first. Then some of it was put to writ. The rest remained in the Church, through its common teaching, common life and common worship.

 

[SteveVH]

No, you are not wrong.

The fact is that ALL Christians who believe the Bible is the Word of God do so because of Sacred Tradition.

Tradition came first. Then some of it was put to writ. The rest remained in the Church, through its common teaching, common life and common worship.

Yes, exactly. My question really concerns the Anglican view of Sacred Tradition. Is Hascard out of line with the Anglican view of Tradition or is this the common view?

 

[CJeplin]

Things Protestants do that are not from the Bible but from Apostolic Tradition:

1. Getting married in a church by clergy, though there is no Scriptural reason for giving clergy such authority to officiate at a wedding.
2. Holding a funeral. Nothing in Scriptures mentions anything about holding funerals.
3. Celebrating Christmas and Easter. Again such feasts come from Tradition, not Scripture.
4. Accepting four and only four gospels and the other books of the New Testament. Nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures authorize the addition of any books, and there even in the New Testament there is no command from Jesus that reading and studying Scripture is a requisite to salvation.
5. Calling church leaders “reverend,” “pastor,” and the like. In fact, some sola scriptura adherents claim any title is forbidden.

If the Bible is the “sole authority,” then why do any of these things?

 

[SteveVH]

Things Protestants do that are not from the Bible but from Apostolic Tradition:

1. Getting married in a church by clergy, though there is no Scriptural reason for giving clergy such authority to officiate at a wedding.
2. Holding a funeral. Nothing in Scriptures mentions anything about holding funerals.
3. Celebrating Christmas and Easter. Again such feasts come from Tradition, not Scripture.
4. Accepting four and only four gospels and the other books of the New Testament. Nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures authorize the addition of any books, and there even in the New Testament there is no command from Jesus that reading and studying Scripture is a requisite to salvation.
5. Calling church leaders “reverend,” “pastor,” and the like. In fact, some sola scriptura adherents claim any title is forbidden.

If the Bible is the “sole authority,” then why do any of these things?

Great points. I would add the liturgy of the Mass and going to Church on Sundays as well. While there is some reference to the “day of the sun” there are a great many more that tell us to worship on Saturday.

 

[PRmerger]

Things Protestants do that are not from the Bible but from Apostolic Tradition:

1. Getting married in a church by clergy, though there is no Scriptural reason for giving clergy such authority to officiate at a wedding.
2. Holding a funeral. Nothing in Scriptures mentions anything about holding funerals.
3. Celebrating Christmas and Easter. Again such feasts come from Tradition, not Scripture.
4. Accepting four and only four gospels and the other books of the New Testament. Nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures authorize the addition of any books, and there even in the New Testament there is no command from Jesus that reading and studying Scripture is a requisite to salvation.
5. Calling church leaders “reverend,” “pastor,” and the like. In fact, some sola scriptura adherents claim any title is forbidden.

If the Bible is the “sole authority,” then why do any of these things?

Great points. I would add the liturgy of the Mass and going to Church on Sundays as well. While there is some reference to the “day of the sun” there are a great many more that tell us to worship on Saturday.

But I would add the caveat:some of the things mentioned by CJ as coming from Apostolic Tradition actually come from small “t” tradition. That is, they are not Apostolic, but rather just customary.

 

[SteveVH]

But I would add the caveat:some of the things mentioned by CJ as coming from Apostolic Tradition actually come from small “t” tradition. That is, they are not Apostolic, but rather just customary.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. We are speaking of divine revelation being imbedded in the life of the Church through Apostolic Tradition. Even better point.

 

[Attejohannes]

Things Protestants do that are not from the Bible but from Apostolic Tradition:

1. Getting married in a church by clergy, though there is no Scriptural reason for giving clergy such authority to officiate at a wedding.
2. Holding a funeral. Nothing in Scriptures mentions anything about holding funerals.
3. Celebrating Christmas and Easter. Again such feasts come from Tradition, not Scripture.
4. Accepting four and only four gospels and the other books of the New Testament. Nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures authorize the addition of any books, and there even in the New Testament there is no command from Jesus that reading and studying Scripture is a requisite to salvation.
5. Calling church leaders “reverend,” “pastor,” and the like. In fact, some sola scriptura adherents claim any title is forbidden.

If the Bible is the “sole authority,” then why do any of these things?

People universally celebrate marriages and respect their dead. We do not need a specific Biblical command, because it is natural for the Christians to include the Church to be present and bless these occasions.

Celebrating Christmas and Easter commemorate the decisive events of Christianity, Incarnation and Resurrection. Why would we not celebrate them, on the other hand it would not be a sin not to celebrate them (Colossians 2, 16-17).

When Jesus said that He has not come to abolish but to fulfill the Scriptures (Matthew 5, 17 - 19) and forbids anyone to leave out anything of the Law while teaching, this certainly implies that the Scriptures should be both read and taught. Regarding the apostolic exhortations to read the Scriptures both privately and in the Church, see my previous posting. Regarding the NT, of course the new situation, new Law and new priesthood requoired new books.

The church leaders like elders or presbyters, overseers or bishops, deacons (although they in biblical times had a different function than in later times) are mentioned in the Bible. We consider these (or equivalent) titles just to indicate a person’s position and task in the Church (after all, we have to call them someting), a pastor is a pastor and has a job to do in the church, and a professor is a professor and has a job to do in the university. As simple as that.

 

[pablope]

And, that’s why the prospect of true Christian unity is not gonna happen.

Protestants stole nothing.

 

[pablope]

Generally, Anglicans take the Bible to be the first and last authority in any and all controversies because that is the unanimous witness of the Fathers. The Bible is the Tradition, according to the venerable & ancient Christians.

Hascard…how can the Bible by itself settle a controversy? How does the Bible act to settle differences? Can you demonstrate?

Let us take a real situation:

There are those in the Anglicans who believe in women being ordained priests and those who don’t…so how will the Bible settle this dispute?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Even for the sola scripturist the bible cannot be the sole authority. Let me explain. The sola scripturist recognises or presumes that when catholics, orthodox or others he dissagrees with open the bible, they do not understand alot of it. Sure they understand some of it, but not all of it. The protestant says that God has revealed via the holy spirit either partially or fully (as in the case of themselves) the message and meaning of scripture, so you don;t have a sufficiency of scripture, at least in this absolutist way some protestants make out. I have had Protestants balk at this notion that the spirit of God is needed, though I suspect they were not thinking rationally and only thinking emotionally as me as this bad and mean Orthodox Christian. Scripture for the protestant cannot be absolutely self sufficient, and thus cannot absolutely be the sole authority. You need another source, ie the spirit of God.

This is where Protestants break with classical Christianity. The fathers have always maintained the scripture contained the truth and knowledge of salvation and that it was sufficient, but they always understood this claim within the context of the church. Rarely was it (and I certainty dont deny this can happen) that God gave any one direct knowledge of the bible spiritually in order to understand it fully. Even the protestant knows from experience, at least the rational and tradition protestants know that one cannot pick up the bible and read it, you need study, you need context, you need prayer and etc. This knowledge is accumalitive, not instant as some evangelicals misleadingly want to portray.Traditional christians have always affirmed it was within the context of the chruch and its tradition which is how God allows one too interpret the bible.

Protestants took the church out of the equation, the church was no longer neccessary to the bible and thats why theres this dichotomy between church (That is an institutionalised church) and scripture. It suddenly became me and my bible and the church was just a group of likeminded people who came every sunday. Sort of like a social club.

These arguments (in some cases) might not apply to those who argue that scripture is the final authority, but overall it is the same conclusion. Scripture is not the final authority the spirit God that interprets the scripture for you via some spiritual revelation is, not the bible in of itself and the same difference is felt. You have replaced the church with you own direct spiritual experience or intepretation which is wrong.

 

[Porknpie]

Let us take a real situation:

There are those in the Anglicans who believe in women being ordained priests and those who don’t…so how will the Bible settle this dispute?

If the bible is the Tradition…(and why does this sound like solo scriptura) and the bible can not solve the women’s ordination question, there must be another Tradition to settle this matter. Or …there are “traditions”, plural, to settle this matter, in conflict with each other.

The Bible is the Tradition, according to the venerable & ancient Christians.

 

[jrtrent]

No, you are not wrong.

Where is the original SteveVH post you quoted in this response? The little blue link box doesn’t seem to take me to it. I ask because I assume there is more information or perhaps a link to what Hascard wrote. I have found “A discourse about the charge of novelty upon the reformed Church of England” that may be what he was referring to, but it would be nice to know for sure.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Really great discussion going on. Please remember to be respectful so we do not get closed. Thanks and keep it going.

 

[PRmerger]

Where is the original SteveVH post you quoted in this response? The little blue link box doesn’t seem to take me to it. I ask because I assume there is more information or perhaps a link to what Hascard wrote. I have found “A discourse about the charge of novelty upon the reformed Church of England” that may be what he was referring to, but it would be nice to know for sure.

Not sure where it went!
Looks like it was deleted.

 

[jrtrent]

Not sure where it went!
Looks like it was deleted.

Thanks for checking. Maybe SteveVH will respond later.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for checking. Maybe SteveVH will respond later.

Yeah. There was nothing at all uncharitable in it, and while sometimes the mods will delete posts at their discretion, not sure what happened to that one!

 

[PRmerger]

If the bible is the Tradition…(and why does this sound like solo scriptura) and the bible can not solve the women’s ordination question, there must be another Tradition to settle this matter. Or …there are “traditions”, plural, to settle this matter, in conflict with each other.

'zactly!