Denying the virgin birth? What's next, denying the resurrection?

[Nicea325]

Fair enough. It’s not really something that can be examined, though. If someone challenges you on, say, the immaculate conception…you could say that you accept it on faith. Someone will probably demand apostolic evidence, though.

Demand- Apostolic evidence? And I would response:

Give me the Apostolic evidence for a ratified NT canon?

 

[Nicea325]

What in the world does this have to do with the subject. The last time I looked the virgin birth was in scripture???

Everything! Because that is one the many errors stemming from Sola Scriptura.

The SS advocate:

Where is that in the Bible?

I first would like to know where the bible teaches everyhing must be said in the Bible?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Per Crucem
I am not sure what your first question refers to.

I am not denying that the oral came first. Actually, a certain life, death and resurrection came first. Regardless, yes, we know the preaching and teaching of the apostles came first. I’m not sure how that relates to what I asked, though? **My question was, if the apostles never recorded a particular tradition in writing, then how do you know they taught it?/**QUOTE]

Then you lacking trust that the Apostolic Traditions did and can continue minus the writing.

 

[benjohnson]

And before you jump to the obvious objection yes
if I had been born into Islam or Judaism the answer
would be the same. To love being Muslim or to love
being a Jew. He knows where each one of is and
where we need to be.

ACK!

Don’t say that too loudly - you’re going to make us Lutherans foam at the mouth!

 

[Per_Crucem]

Well they can do that but not of me. Questions about
Mary’s Immaculate Conception are most appropriately
addressed to her or her Son or to God the Father.
That’s the point of a “living” faith, is it not?

Yes, but unlike other religions, ours is based in historical fact. So history is important to what our faith teaches and confesses.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Originally Posted by Per Crucem
I am not sure what your first question refers to.

 

[Per_Crucem]

And before you jump to the obvious objection yes
if I had been born into Islam or Judaism the answer
would be the same. To love being Muslim or to love
being a Jew. He knows where each one of is and
where we need to be.

I would say where they need to be is united in faith to His Son. Otherwise, as the Son Himself said, condemnation remains on them.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Demand- Apostolic evidence? And I would response:

Give me the Apostolic evidence for a ratified NT canon?

What would a ratified NT canon have to do with it, though? Even if there was no NT canon that ever was ratified, the question of apostolic evidence of any given belief would still stand.

 

[Nicea325]

What would a ratified NT canon have to do with it, though? Even if there was no NT canon that ever was ratified, the question of apostolic evidence of any given belief would still stand.

Exactly! So why can’t the IC stand? Simply because the Bible does not say it explicitly?

 

[Nicea325]

The problem with that is that it becomes blind faith in what person X 1500 years ago happened to say the apostles taught. I don’t see how that’s an improvement.

So I guess everything God said to Abraham,since he had no Bible, became blind faith by the time it reached Moses? So I guess by the time it reached Moses it was questionable?

 

[SyroMalankara]

So I guess everything God said to Abraham,since he had no Bible, became blind faith by the time it reached Moses? So I guess by the time it reached Moses it was questionable?

Funny you wrote that, as I was just reading this:

The question is asked: “In what manner is divine revelation propagated among men and preserved in the true church?” The answer is: “In a twofold manner, first by Tradition and then by Scripture.” Now, Tradition is described in the following sentence, “The true believers transmit to each other — and one generation to the other — by word and example, the teaching of faith, the law of God, sacraments and holy rites.” The keeper of tradition is the church. “All true believers, united by the sacred tradition of faith, jointly and in succession, constitute the church,” which is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Tradition as a method of preserving divine revelation has the priority in time.

There was no Scripture before Moses. Christ himself instructed his disciples orally by word and example, and so did the apostles in the beginning. The Scripture was given in order to fix revelation in precise terms for future times. Then follows the description of the biblical canon. The Old Testament books are numbered according to the Hebrew canon, with a reference to Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius. The Holy Tradition is complementary to Holy Writ in the sense that it directs the right understanding of Scripture, the right administration of the sacraments, and the preservation of sacred rites in the purity of their original institution. Tradition must be kept in so far as it is in conformity with the divine revelation and the Holy Scripture.

In the later sections of the Catechism where it speaks of the church, the infallibility of the church is professed and acknowledged, as she is given and promised the guidance and assistance of the Holy Spirit.

The term tradition is used in the Catechism only in order to clarify the manner of propagating and preserving divine revelation. It is the paradosis, the handing down of what God chose to disclose and communicate to men. It is not a particular “source” of truth or doctrine. Revelation is adequately recorded in Scripture. But Scripture is, as it were, “stored” or “deposited” in the church. On the other hand, tradition is equated with the mind and continuous memory of the church. And in this sense it is the guiding principle and criterion of scriptural interpretation. Accordingly, tradition does not and cannot add anything to Scripture, but only elicits what is contained in Holy Writ and puts it in the right perspective. The Scriptures “belong” to the church, are committed to her and not to individual believers. A faithful guide is required for true exegesis. The church catholic is that guide. Or in other words, Scripture is given and preserved in tradition. Tradition and Scripture are inseparable.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
So I guess everything God said to Abraham,since he had no Bible, became blind faith by the time it reached Moses? So I guess by the time it reached Moses it was questionable?

Funny you wrote that, as I was just reading this:

Quote:
The question is asked: “In what manner is divine revelation propagated among men and preserved in the true church?” The answer is: “In a twofold manner, first by Tradition and then by Scripture.” Now, Tradition is described in the following sentence, “The true believers transmit to each other — and one generation to the other — by word and example, the teaching of faith, the law of God, sacraments and holy rites.” The keeper of tradition is the church. “All true believers, united by the sacred tradition of faith, jointly and in succession, constitute the church,” which is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Tradition as a method of preserving divine revelation has the priority in time.

There was no Scripture before Moses. Christ himself instructed his disciples orally by word and example, and so did the apostles in the beginning. The Scripture was given in order to fix revelation in precise terms for future times. Then follows the description of the biblical canon. The Old Testament books are numbered according to the Hebrew canon, with a reference to Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius. The Holy Tradition is complementary to Holy Writ in the sense that it directs the right understanding of Scripture, the right administration of the sacraments, and the preservation of sacred rites in the purity of their original institution. Tradition must be kept in so far as it is in conformity with the divine revelation and the Holy Scripture.

In the later sections of the Catechism where it speaks of the church, the infallibility of the church is professed and acknowledged, as she is given and promised the guidance and assistance of the Holy Spirit.

The term tradition is used in the Catechism only in order to clarify the manner of propagating and preserving divine revelation. It is the paradosis, the handing down of what God chose to disclose and communicate to men. It is not a particular “source” of truth or doctrine. Revelation is adequately recorded in Scripture. But Scripture is, as it were, “stored” or “deposited” in the church. On the other hand, tradition is equated with the mind and continuous memory of the church. And in this sense it is the guiding principle and criterion of scriptural interpretation. Accordingly, tradition does not and cannot add anything to Scripture, but only elicits what is contained in Holy Writ and puts it in the right perspective. The Scriptures “belong” to the church, are committed to her and not to individual believers. A faithful guide is required for true exegesis. The church catholic is that guide. Or in other words, Scripture is given and preserved in tradition. Tradition and Scripture are inseparable.

Exactly! I really do not understand why Tradition is such an obstacle for Protestants? It is not complicated to comprehend.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Exactly! So why can’t the IC stand? Simply because the Bible does not say it explicitly?

Forget what the Bible does or doesn’t say. The question still remains as to whether we know how teaching X was also taught by the apostles or whether it was innovated by a later teacher.

 

[Per_Crucem]

So I guess everything God said to Abraham,since he had no Bible, became blind faith by the time it reached Moses? So I guess by the time it reached Moses it was questionable?

Are you saying that public revelation continued after the apostolic period? That’s what you’re comparing it to, after all.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Continues:

This approach to the problem of Scripture and tradition is itself traditional. In fact, it was the approach of the ancient church… The problem of correct exegesis was a burning issue in the ancient church during the struggle and contest with heresies. All parties in the dispute used to appeal to Scripture. Moreover, at that time exegesis was the main, and even the only, theological method, and the authority of Scripture was sovereign and supreme. The orthodox leaders were bound to raise the hermeneutical question: What was the principle of interpretation? Now, in the second century the term “Scripture” still denoted primarily the Old Testament. It was in this same century that the authority of the Old Testament was sharply and radically challenged, and actually rejected, by Marcion. The unity of the Bible had to be proved and vindicated. What was the basis and the warrant of a Christian and christological understanding of “prophecy,” that is, of the Old Testament? It was in this historic situation that the authority of tradition was first invoked.

Scripture belonged to the church, and it was only in the church, within the community of right faith, that Scripture could be adequately understood and correctly interpreted. Heretics, namely, those outside of the church, had no key to the mind of the Scripture. It was not enough simply to quote scriptural words and texts (the “letter”). Rather, the true meaning of Scripture, taken as an integrated whole, had to be grasped and elicited. In the admirable phrase of St. Hilary of Poitiers, “scripturae enim non in legendo sunt, sed in intelligendo.” The phrase was also repeated by St. Jerome. One had to grasp in advance, as it were, the true pattern of scriptural revelation, the great and comprehensive design of God’s redemptive providence (the oeconomia), and this could be done only by an insight of faith. It was by faith that the witness to Christ could be discerned in the Old Testament. It was by faith that the unity of the tetramorphic gospel could be properly ascertained.

Now, this faith was not an arbitrary and subjective insight of individuals; it was the faith of the church, rooted in the apostolic message or kerygma and authenticated by it. Those outside of the church, that is, outside of her living and apostolic tradition, failed to have precisely this basic and overarching message, the very heart of the gospel. With them Scripture was an array of disconnected passages and stories or of proof-texts which they endeavored to arrange and re-arrange according to their own pattern, derived from alien sources. They had “another faith.”

This was the main method and the main argument of Tertullian in his passionate treatise De praescriptione. He could not discuss Scriptures with heretics, with those outside the communion of apostolic faith. For they had no right to use the Scriptures: the Scriptures did not belong to them. They were the possession of the church. Tertullian emphatically insisted on the priority of the “rule of faith.” It was the only key to the Scriptures, the indispensable prerequisite of authentic biblical interpretation. And this rule was apostolic; it was rooted in and derived from the original apostolic preaching. The New Testament itself had to be taken in the comprehensive context of the total apostolic preaching, which was still vividly remembered in the church.

The basic intention of this appeal to the apostolic “rule of faith” in the early church is obvious. When Christians spoke of the “rule of faith” as apostolic, they did not mean that the apostles had formulated it. What they meant was that the profession of belief which every catechumen recited before his baptism did embody in summary form the faith which the apostles had taught and had committed to their disciples after them. This profession of faith was the same everywhere, although the actual phrasing could vary from place to place. It was always intimately related to the baptismal formula itself (Cf. C. H. Turner). Apart from this “rule” the Scriptures could only be misinterpreted, contended Tertullian and St. Irenaeus a bit earlier.

The apostolic tradition of faith was the indispensable guide in the understanding of Scripture and the ultimate warrant of right interpretation. The church was not an external authority which could be the judge over Scripture, but was rather the keeper and guardian of that divine truth which has been stored and deposited in Holy Writ. The “rule of faith,” of which the early church fathers spoke, was intimately related to the sacrament of Christian initiation. It was the “rule” to which believers are committed (and into which they were previously initiated) by their baptismal profession. On the other hand, this “rule” was nothing other than the “truth” which the apostles had deposited in the church and entrusted to her, to be continuously handed down by the succession of accredited pastors, under the abiding guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Nicea325]

Are you saying that public revelation continued after the apostolic period? That’s what you’re comparing it to, after all.

Ah no! That is what you are adding to the issue at hand. Go back and read what you said. Should I repost what you said?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Ah no! That is what you are adding to the issue at hand. Go back and read what you said. Should I repost what you said?

What I said was that we cannot accept on blind faith matters of doctrine. We have received instruction, evidences and teaching from Christ and His apostles. The Muslims have to accept their beliefs on faith, as do Hindus and others. We have eyewitnesses.

 

[marywarfield]

What I said was that we cannot accept on blind faith matters of doctrine. We have received instruction, evidences and teaching from Christ and His apostles. The Muslims have to accept their beliefs on faith, as do Hindus and others. We have eyewitnesses.

Hmm. Eyewitnesses to what, Per Crucem?
Perhaps Jesus saying “Blessed are those who
believed without seeing”?

 

[Nicea325]

What I said was that we cannot accept on blind faith matters of doctrine. We have received instruction, evidences and teaching from Christ and His apostles. The Muslims have to accept their beliefs on faith, as do Hindus and others. We have eyewitnesses.

Let us go back:

QUOTE]Originally Posted by Per Crucem
I am not sure what your first question refers to.

I am not denying that the oral came first. Actually, a certain life, death and resurrection came first. Regardless, yes, we know the preaching and teaching of the apostles came first. I’m not sure how that relates to what I asked, though? ***My question was, if the apostles never recorded a particular tradition in writing, then how do you know they taught it?/***QUOTE]

My response:

Then you lacking trust that the Apostolic Traditions did and can continue minus the writing.

Your rebuttal:

**The problem **with that is that it becomes blind faith in what person X 1500 years ago happened to say the apostles taught. I don’t see how that’s an improvement.

So in your view,it is a problem due to a lack of written evidence by the Apostles. Thus it was NOT possible to transmit the IC via Apostolic Tradition, unless it was written by them. Hence, if it is written,then it makes a legit doctrine. That is called SS.

Precisely why I said:

So I guess everything God said to Abraham,since he had no Bible, became blind faith by the time it reached Moses? So I guess by the time it reached Moses it was questionable?

So in other words, you doubt the IC could have been transmitted orally throughout the centuries without been distorted or invented.

 

[Per_Crucem]

So in your view,it is a problem due to a lack of written evidence by the Apostles. Thus it was NOT possible to transmit the IC via Apostolic Tradition, unless it was written by them. Hence, if it is written,then it makes a legit doctrine. That is called SS.

No, it’s not a problem due to lack of written evidence in Scripture. What I asked Mary was what evidence she was going to point to in order to claim that it was taught by the apostles.

So in other words, you doubt the IC could have been transmitted orally throughout the centuries without been distorted or invented.

I was using the IC as an example. It could apply to any dogma which has no written evidence.