K
kelman
Guest
It is simply what we see in the patristic writings. For instance, in Against Marcion 3.19, Tertullian wrote that *“God called his body bread” and that “He has given to His body the figure of bread, Whose body the Prophet of old [Jer. 11:19] figuratively turned into bread.” He continues “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. Yet there could not have been a figure, unless there were first a veritable body.” *The ECFs also had a “multitude” of interpretations, for example, some believed in a spiritual presence only, some believed in a physical presence and some symbolic.
There’s additional information about the three views of the early church at: ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm
De Trinitate, I.18.14–16:In the following, I believe Hilary could be speaking directly to the method of interpretation used by the RCC concerning a number of its doctrines: “For he is the best reader who allows the words to reveal their own meaning rather than imposing one on them, who takes meaning from the text rather than bringing meaning to it, and who does not force a semblance of meaning on the words that he had determined to be right before reading them.”
I disagree with this though. This assumes the original meaning that Jesus and the Apostles intended is either lost or must be found in Spture by method of personal interpretation. While that may sound good, how are we supposed to know that what we read from Scriptures is true?
We can always trust that what we read in Scripture is true. However, there is no absolute guarantee that we will perfectly understand all things. Scripture itself says that we “see through a glass darkly”. As Hilary writes, we do not come to Scripture looking to support an already declared doctrine.
What Paul says he taught was the Gospel - that is the tradition of which he speaks. He did not “hand-down” the modern Marian doctrines or papal infallibility for example.And we have not “determined” what is true. We have merely taken what Jesus and the Apostles taught because Paul commanded to keep what was taught, either orally or written. (2 Thessalonians 2:15) we use what was handed down orally to shed light on the Truth of Scripture. .
We have a Bible because it is the reflection of the mind of God which He condescendingly authored for us through the pens of prophets and Apostles. Some inspired books were already circulating throughout the churches even as the Apostles still lived. The churches read these books and accepted them for what they are - “Theopneustos”.Hence, we have a Bible, because it reflected what was already believed in Oral Tradition
De Trinitate, VIII.43.1–4.Hilary’s words indicate he believes Scripture is perspicuous: “we must first of all know that God has not spoken to himself [in scripture] but to us and has adapted the language of his declaration to our understanding such that the weakness of our nature is able to grasp his meaning”.
But, are you taking that as authoritive? Why would Paul command us to keep oral tradition if it were totally unnecessary?
Before you say that that was tradition and not the Catholic Tradition, read 2 Thes 2:14. He was talking about the gospel.
Exactly, we see in the context that what Paul means by tradition is the doctrines he had just been preaching - the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ.
Point taken. But historically speaking, which one is older? I am not saying that age proves anything here. But I am asking which one has actually been seen throughout the life of Christianity. The Catholic Church has been mentioned since St. Ignatius at the very latest.We could just as easily be talking about the RCC and the EO here. Did the Holy Spirit lead both churches in different directions? Both claim apostolic succession yet have some very serious differences.
That answer depends upon to whom you speak. EO would say it alone is the “one true church”; RCC would say it is. Both claim apostolic succession and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Both cannot be right, however, both could be wrong.
When Ignatious uses the word “catholic” he intends the word to mean “universal” - not the RCC.
You make an excellent point about your beliefs. But to say that there are “essential doctrines” is to say there are other scriptural doctrines that are not essential.We do not say the Bible is “perfectly clear” only that it is perspicuous on the essential doctrines of the faith because the purpose of Scripture is soteriological. "Scripture is designed by God to be read and understood - heard and obeyed - proclaimed and believed.” Hilary is not alone in his belief that Scripture is perspicuous.
Not everything in Scripture is soteriologic. Nevertheless, Scripture says of itself that it is sufficient for salvation and to make men “perfect”. An example of “non-essential”, at least in Reformed theology, would be water baptism and whether it should be administered to infants or believers.
That is circular thinking. Who said Jesus gave “the infallible authority” to the church?..why the “church” says He did. And where do we find Jesus doing this?..why in the Bible and who determnes what the Bible says?..we do, of course.There is a circle indeed there. But that is not the argument we give. We give the argument that Jesus gave the infallible authority and that the Oral Tradition handed down by Him and His Apostles confirms that Scripture is indeed true.
