From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Subject: Re: TANGENT:  Interpretation
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:24:46 GMT


In article <1992Sep11.154353.9744@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:

> From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
> Subject: Re: TANGENT:  Interpretation
> Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
> Organization: Brandeis University
> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 11:43:53 GMT+5:00

> In article <1992Sep10.161421.5032@engage.pko.dec.com>, eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco) writes:

> >Wow, considering how many genuine manuscripts we have of Church
> >Fathers quoting the Johannine Comma in the 3rd century, that's
> >pretty remarkable.  Call it a gift of prophesy, I guess.  I offer
> >as an example Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 25,1 A.D. 213 and St.
> >Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 6 (251 - 256
> >A.D.).  Other quotes of the Johnannine Comma appear in the 5th and
> >6th century.

> That should come as a great surprise to many scholars because none
> of them can find a NT manuscript with the verse.

Indeed it should.  It proves that somewhere along the way, whoever is claiming
that the Comma appeared in the 14th or 15th century is DEAD WRONG.  Perhaps it
was not in the original manuscripts, but it certainly was known by the 3rd
century.  And I think that such evidence should give those who dismiss the
Comma pause.  I am not saying that the proof is conclusive, the Comma is
inspired.  Rather I question scholarship which says that it did not arise until
the 14th century when it's obvious that it was known in the 3rd century.

> >Why do you believe the Bible is the written Word of God?  I am asking for
> >the reasoning you have used to conclude this; you obviously reject this
> >argument you've mentioned, which seems to be the common one.

> Because I have tested its claims and found it to be true.  Anyone can write
> what Paul wrote in 2 Tim 3:16 about Scripture being God-breathed but that
> doesn't mean it's true.  It's only when you test the claims that one can draw
> conclusions.

How can you test the claims of Scripture when you have nothing to test it
against?  You can believe that it's highly accurate, or inspirational, or
filled with wisdom, but you cannot thereby declare it is the complete, inspired
and inerrant written Word of God.  Lots of books have true claims, are
inspiration, and are filled with wisdom, but aren't the written Word of God.

I accept Scripture as the inspired and inerrant written Word of God, but only
for one reason: the Catholic Church by its authority declared it to be the
inspired and inerrant written Word of God.  It had that authority, because it
received it from our Lord Himself.

> >No more than the Bible gets stale; after all, it's just as old as tradition.

> If your Bible is stale then you must have a poor version.  My Bible is
> vibrant and alive.  

No, Scott, I am not saying my Bible gets stale.  I am saying that just as you
(and I) believe that the Bible is vibrant and alive, though those who do not
believe think it is dead and useless, you may believe that tradition gets
stale, but I believe that tradition is vibrant and alive.  I am pointing out
that your sword cuts both ways.  If you can claim that the Bible is vibrant
and alive though it is 2,000 years old, I can claim that Tradition is vibrant
and alive though it is 2,000 years old.

> The problem is when Christians become like the Pharisees and let tradition
> rule them instead of God.  I had a verse where Jesus condemns such action in
> my old .sig; I'll find it.

Jesus was condemning the Pharisees for finding an improper excuse to violate
the Law -- they violated the commandment "Honor your father and mother" by
their tradition.  Jesus is not condemning all of tradition.  I point out:

2 Thes 2:15: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we
passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

1 Cor 11:2: "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for hold to the
traditions, just as I passed them on to you."

2 Thes 3:6: "In the name of the Lord Jesus CHrist, we command you, brothers, to
keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the
tradition you received from us."

Romans 16:17: "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions
and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have
learned."

> >No, thank you, I'll keep my traditions, no matter how stale they may seem.
> >It's the only way I can keep from falling into error.  Truth never becomes
> >stale.  If it was true back then, it's still true now.

> I thought the Bible was the truth, not tradition. 

Not according to Scripture.  1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church is the pillar and
foundation of the truth.  All the Bible says is true.  But there is more to
truth than what Scripture says, or appears to say.

>  Which do you follow: the word of God (like Jesus) or human tradition (like
> the Pharisees).

I follow God's Tradition (not man's), and his written Word.  The Word of God is
JESUS CHRIST -- living and alive, guiding the truth by his Spirit through the
church.  1 Peter 1:25 says, "the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the
word of the Lord stands forever.  And this is the word that was preached to
you."  (Not the word that was written down!)

Do you follow the word that was preached to the readers of 1 Peter, or only to
that word found in Scripture?  Do you follow the traditions Paul handed down,
both by word of mouth and by letter?  Do you keep away from those who do not
live according to the teachings handed down?

We do not following "vain philosophizing and traditions of men", but rather the
Word Himself, Jesus Christ, who, by his Spirit, has guided us to all truth
(John 16:13).  He has not condemned us to vain arguments about Scriptural
interpretation.  Rather, he has sovereignly kept us from corporately falling
into error, for "the gates of Hell shall not overcome it."  For these are the
times spoke of by the prophet Isaiah:  "My Spirit, who is on you, and my words
that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the
mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time
on and forever." (59:21)  God is faithful! He has been true to his word -- his
word has not passed away, not for one minute, not for 1,300 years!

> There is nothing wrong with tradition in itself.  But when tradition becomes
> our guide, we get MAJOR problems.  Unfortunately, the Pharisees are alive and
> well in the Christian church (at least in the US, hopefully not elsewhere).

We also get problems when we look to Scripture alone as our guide, and trust
only in our personal intepretations and not in the authentic intepretations
handed down from the Apostles.  I have seen many "Bible-based" churches fall
into serious heresy.  Look at the Christian church today.  Sola Scriptura has
led so many churches into serious error.  People use Scripture to justify the
strangest ideas (I would point out that Weaver guy who held Federal marshals at
bay for several days in the mountains).  People use the same Scripture to
"prove" contradictory doctrines.  With all the disagreement and division
among "Bible Christians" today, I say that Sola Scriptura has done a lot of
harm. 

You may think that our reliance on both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition
(equally, BTW) causes major problems, but that's only based I think on bias.
You believe that accepting Apostolic Tradition as a guide causes "MAJOR
problems" because you have been taught that the Catholic Church is
fundamentally wrong and the very definition of "MAJOR problems".  But we
Catholics (and Orthodox) have an authoritative way of interpreting Scripture
and of refuting those who teach error (even error based on "sound Biblical
exegesis" which seems to be quite common today).  Our beliefs _are_ in harmony
with Scripture (although they are not all revealed by Scripture).

Evangelical Protestants have entirely lost their zeal for truth -- because,
since they have no authentic means of interpreting Scripture, they put up with
disagreements and divisions and unsound exegesis.  As long as someone bases his
arguments on Scripture, he cannot be called heretical; it's just another
relativistic theological opinion on which people agree to disagree.  Those who
do have a zeal for truth have a name among Christians -- cults.

>   -- Scott @Brandeis

Shalom -

Eric
--
/=============================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer     For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard MA  pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com          they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -==================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.

Newsgroups: rec.music.christian