The Bible Alone is Not Enough

[Scuba Pete]

The Fathers, particularly those who combated heresies, affirmed that the fatal flaw of heretics was interpreting Scripture according to their private understanding apart from mother Church and her Tradition.

Translation: Disagree on what the scriptures mean and be excommunicated or burned as a heretic.

I Corinthians 2: 6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"— 10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.NIV

Now what do the scriptures say about tradition?

Mark 7:5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" 6 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." NIV

Colossians 2:6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. NIV

In fact, I would love for you to find a single place in the Scriptures which talk about sharing your love for traditions. Traditions are fine... UNTIL they go counter to scriptures. You say that tradition has given us the scriptures, and I say the Glory belongs to God's Spirit working miracles.

 

[quietlight]

Translation: Disagree on what the scriptures mean and be excommunicated or burned as a heretic.

For someone who got very upset at being labeled a protestant, you seem to have no problem throwing out all sorts of outlandish accusations.

In fact, I would love for you to find a single place in the Scriptures which talk about sharing your love for traditions. Traditions are fine... UNTIL they go counter to scriptures. You say that tradition has given us the scriptures, and I say the Glory belongs to God's Spirit working miracles.

The scriptures do indeed support the idea of tradition and oral teachings. That would be suited for another conversation as it is a rather large topic.

In addition, no one is talking about supporting Traditions that are contrary to scripture.

And I did not say that tradition has given us the scriptures - I said nothing of the sort. I did say that tradition affirmed that canon of scriptures that was known by many of the church fathers.

Please take a moment before replying and apply the same sort of caution on labelling and assuming that you expect others to give to you.

 

[Quiddity]

No, I trust the Spirit. In fact, we are told to

I Thessalonians 5:16 Be joyful always; 17 pray continually; 18 give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil. NIV


It doesn't say to consult your priest, your prayer partner, your preacher... it tells US to test EVERYTHING. Then we are to hold on to the good. Sounds like God wants us to "cherry pick" by your definition.

I would suggest that I trust the Spirit far more than I trust any man. For good reason too.

Whatever the reason, Christ seems to start it on a high note,

2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. – Mat. 23:2-3

Doesn’t Christ know we have the Holy Spirit?

So I can only imagine your beef has nothing to do with sinful behavior or not acting Chris-like, correct? I can only think of two other reasons, a) Their interpretations don’t jive with yours b) You have a problem with submitting with earthly authorities.

Or you can fill me in on any other reasons, if you wish.

 

[Scuba Pete]

For someone who got very upset at being labeled a protestant, you seem to have no problem throwing out all sorts of outlandish accusations.

I would suggest you take that up with William Tyndale, Joan of Arc and many many others who throughout history have been burned and tortured because they disagreed with the Catholic Church. That ain't labeling, that's History 101.

The scriptures do indeed support the idea of tradition and oral teachings. That would be suited for another conversation as it is a rather large topic.

Wait, you introduce this as THE reason WE accept the scriptures and now you don't want to talk about it? Show me in the NT where is talks about this. We have lots of space.

In addition, no one is talking about supporting Traditions that are contrary to scripture.

but that's our main problem with your "Tradition". Let's start at the top. Pope means what??? Yes, that's right it means "Father".

Matthew 23:8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. NIV

How about a celibate preisthood?

I TImothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. NIV

And I did not say that tradition has given us the scriptures - I said nothing of the sort. I did say that tradition affirmed that canon of scriptures that was known by many of the church fathers.

Dare I say that he knew this from Tradition?

Which is it? Either they are responsible or not. You are confusing us by going back and forth. I am not trying to trap you in your words, but rather I would like to know one way or the other.

Please take a moment before replying and apply the same sort of caution on labelling and assuming that you expect others to give to you.

Where did I label? I did appeal to history, but I haven't labeled anyone. You are claiming tradition or not?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Whatever the reason, Christ seems to start it on a high note,

2saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. – Mat. 23:2-3

I would like to point out that this is directed to Jews who are still UNDER the old law. Or are you trying to get us to follow OT law as well?

Doesn’t Christ know we have the Holy Spirit?

He gave it to us, he should know.

So I can only imagine your beef has nothing to do with sinful behavior or not acting Chris-like, correct? I can only think of two other reasons, a) Their interpretations don’t jive with yours b) You have a problem with submitting with earthly authorities.

c) they simply contradict scriptures.

I John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. NIV

II Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. NIV

 

[quietlight]

Scuba Pete,

Like I said, I have no problem discussing these things in a new thread. There is no reason to hijack this thread onto a topic that its not intended for. The issue of tradition, as well as the history of the Catholic Church, is not a topic you are going to be able to address in a few posts.

Which is it? Either they are responsible or not. You are confusing us by going back and forth. I am not trying to trap you in your words, but rather I would like to know one way or the other.

Debates are no good if both parties don't listen to each other. I have clarified this point many times. The two statements that I said are not exclusive of each other (as you tend to make statements).

Knowing which books are inspired scripture by using tradition and having tradition give us scripture are not even remotely the same thing.

 

[Quiddity]

I would like to point out that this is directed to Jews who are still UNDER the old law. Or are you trying to get us to follow OT law as well?

Let me get this straight, are you saying that Christ is instructing the Jews to go back to the OT law? :areyoucra

c) they simply contradict scriptures.

Self-interpreting, gotcha! I thought you'd understand, but I can see now you are either willingly blocking it or I suck at explaining it.

 

[Quiddity]

but that's our main problem with your "Tradition". Let's start at the top. Pope means what??? Yes, that's right it means "Father".

Matthew 23:8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. NIV

How about a celibate preisthood?

I TImothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. NIV

Gee Pete, I really thought you got over these. I could have sworn these were explained to you already....

 

[Scuba Pete]

Knowing which books are inspired scripture by using tradition and having tradition give us scripture are not even remotely the same thing.

Please elucidate.

As for the other points, I see them as quite germane, but will not press them if you are uncomfortable talking about them in this thread.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Let me get this straight, are you saying that Christ is instructing the Jews to go back to the OT law? :areyoucra

Until Jesus died, the law was in effect. What's he gonna do? Tell them to slack off?

Self-interpreting, gotcha! I thought you'd understand, but I can see now you are either willingly blocking it or I suck at explaining it.

The scriptures tell us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. What do you think this means? We are not to rely on someone else. They can't get us to heaven.

Recent traditions have us using the Sciptures or the canon as mere "rule books". The purpose of the scriptures is NOT to structure our lives, but to bring us to faith. (II Timothy). Using them as a replacement rule book for the OT completely misses the point of Jesus dying: FREEDOM. FREEDOM from following the law, FREEDOM from following the traditions of the elders, FREEDOM from having to answer to anyone but GOD.

Galations 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. NIV

II Corinthians 3:3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. NIV


As for subjecting myself to teachings that I see as WRONG? I will take my cue from Peter:

Acts 5:29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! NIV

 

[Scuba Pete]

Gee Pete, I really thought you got over these. I could have sworn these were explained to you already....

Victor, you might have explained these at one time, that doesn't mean I accepted your explanations. Actually, I think it was Scott who tried, and I rejected the explanation in that thread. That's a while back!

The point is that too often men try and reduce the Scriptures into a rule book. It was never intended to be such.

 

[quietlight]

Please elucidate.

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

Tradition did not create scripture. Scripture was written by God at the hands of men.

When confusion spread about what books were inspired scripture, Tradition affirmed which books were inspired.

Maybe someone else who sees how I am not being clear here can elaborate.

As for the other points, I see them as quite germane, but will not press them if you are uncomfortable talking about them in this thread.

I don't see how discussing Joan of Arc or the name 'Pope' has anything to do with sola scriptura and understanding the need for a biblical canon.

Let me ask you a question that just came to me. I ask that you not take offense to this question as mere sarcasm - it is not. It is very much a serious question.

Do you think you are the holiest person on earth right now? If not, who do you think is holier than you?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't see how discussing Joan of Arc or the name 'Pope' has anything to do with sola scriptura and understanding the need for a biblical canon.

The two conflict. When they conflict things "happen".

Do you think you are the holiest person on earth right now? If not, who do you think is holier than you?

If I am not the worst sinner alive today, I probably still rank pretty high. No one is holy apart from the Spirit. None of us are capable of living a perfect life: none. Not you, not me, not the Pope and not even Victor can start to claim to be holy based on our life.

 

[Quiddity]

Until Jesus died, the law was in effect. What's he gonna do? Tell them to slack off?

That is a very interesting conclusion that raises more questions then answers. Topic for another day... Thanks for the idea.

The scriptures tell us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. What do you think this means? We are not to rely on someone else. They can't get us to heaven.

Recent traditions have us using the Sciptures or the canon as mere "rule books". The purpose of the scriptures is NOT to structure our lives, but to bring us to faith. (II Timothy). Using them as a replacement rule book for the OT completely misses the point of Jesus dying: FREEDOM. FREEDOM from following the law, FREEDOM from following the traditions of the elders, FREEDOM from having to answer to anyone but GOD.

Galations 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. NIV

II Corinthians 3:3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. NIV

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised of this understanding. After all I held it once and it certainly shows how catholic I have become. I now understand it as such,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." - Matt. 5:17
So this man made tradition that what God was trying to do with the Jews was but a tease of some sort, flies in the face of this verse.

As for subjecting myself to teachings that I see as WRONG? I will take my cue from Peter:
Acts 5:29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! NIV

It's certainly not talking about the leaders of the Church:
Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you. - Heb. 13:17

These authors must be confused eh?

 

[quietlight]

If I am not the worst sinner alive today, I probably still rank pretty high. No one is holy apart from the Spirit. None of us are capable of living a perfect life: none. Not you, not me, not the Pope and not even Victor can start to claim to be holy based on our life.

That doesn't answer the question so much (although it seems implied that you are saying that you are not).

Let me ask what should be a clarifying question: do you believe that you have the fullest understanding of God's revelation among men on this earth?

 

[Katzpur]

Hello, Quietlight. I'm enjoying your posts.

When confusion spread about what books were inspired scripture, Tradition affirmed which books were inspired.

Could you explain then why certain books were considered to be inspired in 200 A.D. and different books were considered to be inspired several centuries later? I realize that Tradition is ongoing, but once it had affirmed that a particular document was inspired, I don't understand how that same document could later be seen as uninspired -- as visa versa.

Maybe someone else who sees how I am not being clear here can elaborate.

Actually, I think you're doing a very good job.

 

[quietlight]

Hello, Quietlight. I'm enjoying your posts.

Could you explain then why certain books were considered to be inspired in 200 A.D. and different books were considered to be inspired several centuries later? I realize that Tradition is ongoing, but once it had affirmed that a particular document was inspired, I don't understand how that same document could later be seen as uninspired -- as visa versa.

Actually, I think you're doing a very good job.

Thanks!

Could you elaborate on your question a bit? What books that were once affirmed to be inspired were later seen as uninspired?

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, you might have explained these at one time, that doesn't mean I accepted your explanations. Actually, I think it was Scott who tried, and I rejected the explanation in that thread. That's a while back!

The point is that too often men try and reduce the Scriptures into a rule book. It was never intended to be such.

Nope, it was intended to make us one in Christ through faith working in love. That is it in a nutshell.

 

[Scuba Pete]

That is a very interesting conclusion that raises more questions then answers. Topic for another day... Thanks for the idea.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised of this understanding. After all I held it once and it certainly shows how catholic I have become. I now understand it as such,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." - Matt. 5:17

And fulfill them he did! The sacrificial lamb given ONCE FOR ALL (check out Hebrews for an explanation of this)

So this man made tradition that what God was trying to do with the Jews was but a tease of some sort, flies in the face of this verse.

Why? If God's command to LOVE is written on our hearts, then we KNOW we should be talking to others.

It's certainly not talking about the leaders of the Church:
Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you. - Heb. 13:17

These authors must be confused eh?

I think the authors speak in unison. We are FREE. God's commandment is written on our HEARTS. That's the commandment we need to follow. What's so hard about that?

 

[Quiddity]

Could you explain then why certain books were considered to be inspired in 200 A.D. and different books were considered to be inspired several centuries later? I realize that Tradition is ongoing, but once it had affirmed that a particular document was inspired, I don't understand how that same document could later be seen as uninspired -- as visa versa.

Quietlight is a nice addition to RF. I pray he sticks around, cause I can use the help...

Katz, what needs to be understood is how the Church's hierarchical structure works in the Catholic Church. Whatever was inspired in 200 AD (wrongly or correctly) isn't made official until it's gone through the right channels. It would be like a Bishop in the LDS declaring that there is an additional book that is inspired by God. He may be correct, he may be flawed, but either way the flock is not bound to believe it until it goes through the proper channels.

Hope that helps.