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:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:28:43 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <eje@IRENAEUS.MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Re>Tradition

Excerpts from christia: 15-Sep-92 Re>Tradition Leo W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU (1024)

> I am currently re-reading the surviving writings of the earliest church
> fathers.  During this very early period (1 and early 2 century) the Scriptures
> we have in our NT canon are the ONLY apostolic traditions the authors
> consistently appeal to when discussing doctrine, stewardship, prophecy, and
> practice.

> When they mention the beliefs and practices of the various churches as living
> testimonies to the apostolic traditions, it is only when criticizing a heresy
> in a manner similar to, "Well, NOBODY believes that nonsense!"  The very
> early church fathers always proved their traditions were apostolic by
> appealing to the NT Scriptures, never by appealing to each other.  Was
> their Sola Scriptura tradition not justified?

No, Sola Scripture was not what they believed.  If you note carefully
what they taught, it was essentially the same as what the Catholic
church believes today -- lo and behold, they even demonstrated it from
Scripture.  What they did not do is come up with novel and innovative
interpretations of Scripture and claim Apostolic Tradition is wrong.

For example, how many Protestants will tell you that "Scripture clearly
shows that baptism is an ordinance, not a sacrament.  It does not
regenerate us.  Being born again refers to realizing your sinfulness and
turning your life to the Lord."  They claim we are unscriptural and
insist their view is the only one admitted by Scripture.  Yet St. Justin
Martyr says around 150 A.D.:

    I will  explain  by  what  manner  we, who have been renewed by
    Christ, have
    dedicated ourselves to God, so that we may not seem to be acting
    wickedly in
    our  explanation  by  leaving  this  out.   All  those who are
    convinced and
    believe  that  the  things  we teach and say are true, and who
    profess to be
    able  to  live  in this manner, are taught to pray and to ask God in
    fasting
    the  forgiveness  of  their  sins while we pray and fast together
    with them.
    Then  they  are led by us to where there is water and are reborn in
    the same
    rebirth in which we ourselves were also reborn.  They undergo the
    washing in
    water  in  the name of God the Father and Master of the universe,
    and of our
    Savior,  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy Spirit.

    For indeed  Christ  said, "Unless you be reborn, you will not enter
    into the
    Kingdom  of  Heaven." Now it is clear to all that it is impossible
    for those
    who have already been born to return again into their mother's
    wombs.  As we
    wrote  previously, it has been said through Isaiah the prophet how
    those who
    have  sinned  and  repented  will avoid the consequences of their
    sins.  For
    thus  was  it said, "Wash, make yourselves clean, remove the evils
    from your
    souls,  defend  the  orphan  and  do  justice for the widow; and
    come let us
    converse  together, says the Lord.  And if your sins are like
    purple, I will
    make  them  white  like wool; and if they are like scarlet, I will
    make them
    white as snow.  But if you do not listen to me, a sword will devour
    you, for
    the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things." (Is 1:16-20)

    We learned this doctrine from the Apostles.  In our first birth we
    were born
    unconscious,  according  to  necessity,  out  of  the  humid  seed
    from the
    intercourse  of  our parents, and we grew up in evil customs and bad
    habits.
    But in order that we may not remain children of necessity and
    ignorance, but
    of  election  and  understanding and may obtain remission of sins
    previously
    committed,  the name of God the Father and Master of the universe is
    invoked
    in  the  water over the one who has chosen to be reborn and who has
    repented
    of his sins.  This name alone is the one which he invokes who is
    leading the
    candidate  to  the  washing.  Indeed no one is able to pronounce the
    name of
    the  ineffable  God.   If  someone would dare to say what it is, he
    would be
    seized with incurable madness.    (Apology I.61)

Was he basing belief on Scripture? Yes.  But his interpretation of
Scripture did not deviate from Apostolic Tradition: "We learned this
doctrine from the Apostles." Someone who relied on scripture alone --
Sola Scriptura -- freed from restraining themselves to the
interpretation taught by the Apostles, comes up with new interpretations
that the Apostles never intended.  They appear Scriptural, and indeed
they can successfully argue that they are.  But they are not teaching
what the Apostles taught.  They have misinterpreted Scripture.

Let me give another example.  How many of these same Sola Scriptura
believers would also deny that Christ is really and truly present in the
Eucharist, not mere symbol but flesh and blood?  Again, St. Justin
Martyr.

    It is  allowed  to  no  one  else  to participate in that food which
    we call
    Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us
    are true,
    who  has  been  cleansed in the washing until rebirth and the
    forgiveness of
    sins  and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us.
     For we
    do  not  take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink.
    Just as our
    Savior  Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on
    flesh and
    blood  for  our  salvation,  so also were we taught that the food,
    for which
    thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by
    him, and
    from  which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is
    the flesh
    of that Jesus who was made flesh.  Indeed, the Apostles, in the
    records left
    by them which are called Gospels, handed on that it was commanded to
    them in
    this  manner:  Jesus, having taken the bread and given thanks said,
    "Do this
    in memory of me, this is my body".  Likewise, having taken the cup
    and given
    thanks, he said, "This is my blood", and he gave it to them alone.
    (Apology I.66-67)

Scriptural? Yes.  Sola Scriptura? No.

Now allow me to quote something from around 90 A.D. that does not refer
to Scripture.  St. Clement of Rome, fourth bishop of Rome, his letter to
the Corinthians, chapter 40:

    Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into
    the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all
    things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times.
    He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it
    should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and
    hours.  He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and
    persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all
    things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be
    acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at
    the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow
    the laws of the Master and do not sin.  For to the high priest his
    proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper
    place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have
    been imposed.  The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.

This would give any Protestant the willies.  No, he does not refer to
Scripture, but these five verses totally invalidate the doctrines of
nearly everyone -- if not everyone -- who cries "Sola Scriptura".  (The
only possible exception is Anglicanism and Episcopalianism which, from
what I have heard, _do_ rely on Tradition.)  We see the Eucharist as a
sacrifice and oblation: blasphemy to some people.  We see a division
between clergy and laity: declared as unscriptural by most.

All Catholic doctrines you will find are based on Scripture.  Yet we use
Apostolic Tradition not as a replacement for Scripture, but as a means
of authentically interpreting it.  Once you dispose of Tradition, rather
than narrowing down the revealed doctrines -- i.e. getting rid of crust
made of "traditions of men" -- you have in reality opened yourself up to
heresy and all sorts of unsound doctrine, because you have released
yourself from the mooring and anchor of authentic tradition.  Our
Tradition doesn't allow us to believe more things -- it restricts what
we may believe, restricts doctrine to that which is true and taught by
the Apostles.

Excerpts from christia: 15-Sep-92 Re>Tradition Leo W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU (1024)

> "Using the Scriptures, the person who serves God will be ready and will have
> everything he needs to do every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17).

"So brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you received,
whether by word of mouth, or by letter." 2 Thess 2:15 (NIV).

Tradition does not add to the Word of God.  It keeps it pure and
dismisses unsound interpretation.

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.