X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:03:16 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Clement & Sola Scriptura

Well, Leo, first of all let me mention that nowhere in those quotes did
Clement of Alexandria state that Scripture was the sole rule of faith,
and tradition to be ignored.  In fact he mentioned several times that
faith came through the tradition and teaching of the Lord, in general,
not limited to the Gospels.  Furthermore, the idea to him of
interpreting Scripture apart from Tradition would have been preposterous
-- several times he mentions the teachings of the Apostles and
prophets.

Excerpts from christia: 5-Oct-92 Clement & Sola Scriptura Leo
W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU (4670)

> "For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the
> Gospel, and the blessed apostles, "in diverse manners and at sundry times,"
> leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end.  But if one should suppose
> that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be
> preserved."

You are assuming that he is speaking of Scripture alone, I am not so
sure.  For why would he mention "the Lord" when he also mentioned the
Gospel, except to refer to oral teachings?  And the prophets -- does
this not include the Christian prophets, who were quite active for
several hundred years in prophesying and revealing divine truths?  Does
the mention of the "blessed apostles" not mean not only epistles written
by them, but their teachings handed down?

Speaking of the Gnostics and attempts to correct them, St. Irenaeus
writes in Against Heresies (III, 2) (c. 180 A.D.), "But when we appeal
again to that tradition which has come down from the apostles and is
guarded by the successions of elders in the churches, they oppose the
tradition, saying that they are wiser not only than the elders, but even
than the apostles, and have found genuine truth . . . What it comes to
is that they will not agree with either Scripture or tradition. . . .
The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world, can be
clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth.  We
can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in
the churches, and their successors down to our time, none of whom taught
or thought of anything like their mad ideas.  Even if the apostles had
known of hidden mysteries, which they taught to the perfect secretly and
apart from others, they would have handed them down espeically to those
to whom they were entrusting the churches themselves.  For they
certainly wished those whom they were leaving as their successors,
handing over to them their own teaching position, to be perfect and
irreproachable, since their sound counduct would be a great benefit [to
the Church], and failure on their part the greatest calamity.  But since
it would be very long in such a volume as this to enumerate the
successions of all the churches, I can by pointing out the tradition
which that very great, oldest, and well-known Church, founded and
established at Rome by those two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul,
received from the Apostles, and its faith known among men, which comes
down to us through the successions of bishops, put to shame all of those
who in any way, either through wicked self-conceit, or through
vainglory, or through blind and evil opinion, gather as they should not.
 For every church must be in harmony with this Church because of its
outstanding pre-eminence, that is, the faithful from everywhere, since
the apostolic tradition is preserved in it by those from everywhere. . .
.
    [Giving a list of succession of bishops . . .] In this very order
and succession the apostolic tradition in the Church and the preaching
of the truth has come down even to us.  This is a full demonstration
that it is one and the same life-giving faith which has been preserved
in the Church from the apostles to the present, and is handed on in
truth.". . .
   "Since there are so many clear testimonies, we should not seek from
others for the truth which can easily be received from the Church.
There the apostles, lilke a rich man making a deposit, fully bestowed
upon here all that belongs to the truth, so that whoever wishes may
receive from her the water of life.  She is the entrance to life; all
the others are thieves and robbers. .  . . What if there should be a
dispute about some matter of moderate importance?  Should we not turn to
the oldest churches, where the apostles themselves were known, and find
out from them the clear and certain answer ot the problem now being
raised? Even if the apostles had not left their Writings to us, ought we
not to follow the rule of tradition which they handed down to those to
whom they committed the churches?"

No doubt the early church Fathers placed great emphasis on and
importance in Scripture.  And so the Catholic Church has throughout the
centuries, but its emphasis is not on interpreting Scripture alone, but
only in accordance with what we have received from the Apostles.  Indeed
if you sat down and examined our beliefs, you would be surprised how
many of them are based on Scripture.  Yet our interpretation of
Scripture is not that of novelty and "reformation", but is based on
Apostolic Tradition.  Certainly Leo, you have found the church Fathers
argue from Scripture for a point entirely opposed to your own
interpretation of Scripture.  Even St. Justin Martyr appeals to
Scripture to point to baptism as the point of rebirth, regeneration, and
enlightenment, contrary to modern interpretations of Scripture.  He also
points to Scripture as evidence of the Real Presence of Christ in the
Eucharist.

Yet you must not deny that the Fathers had no good words to say to those
who taught doctrines contrary to that which the Church received.  You
must not also deny that when false interpretations of Scripture arose,
they were condemned by appealing to Sacred Tradition.

> On how the heretics handle the Sacred Tradition:

> "... in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures,
> and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of
> prophecy prescribe.  But, selecting ambiguous expressions, they wrest
> them to their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there;
> not looking to the sense, but making the use of the mere words.

Sounds like an apt description of many Protestant sects, especially
Fundamentalists, who look to the mere words and not the sense.

> "He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord ... is
> rightly [regarded] faithful ... grasping by faith the indemonstrable first
> principle, and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself,
> demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the
> Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth

Hmm, why is Scripture linked with "voice of the Lord" with "and",
implying they are not equivalent?

> To date I have read 1140 pages of the earliest church fathers, and I
> have found nothing taken in context which indicates a tradition outside
> the Scriptures used to interpret the Scriptures.

See St. Irenaeus above.  Funny, I have read a rather large portion of
the early church Fathers, and see no justification for interpretation of
Scripture apart from Apostolic Tradition, i.e., Sola Scriptura.  They
are always referring to the teaching of the Apostles, to what has always
been believed, to what the Lord has taught, and so forth, not simply
from Scripture.  For they know full well that Scripture can be
misinterpreted and need someone to provide a living voice that can
discern heresy from truth.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU