I need to be a skilled apologist in one week.

[benedictine]

Yeah...I'm in a bible study, made up mostly of evangelical protesatants, one methodist, a lutheran, one Roman Catholic, one Jew(religious, not ethnic), and four Anglicans. However, the other three aren't in the core group, and I am. I need some help in becoming an apologist before next friday. One other member of the core group is staunchly anti-tradition/reason, and is purely sola-scriptura.

~~~Pax Christi

[seebs]

Apologist to other Christians, or apologist to non-Christians?

[benedictine]

to other christians. Becouse they would say that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox aren't following the bible, etc.

[seebs]

Well, I'm afraid it would be violently inappropriate for me to engage in doctrinal debate in this forum, which I would have to do to offer advice.

If you wish to drop by Whosoever Will, May Come, and ask how people defend their faith against charges that they are not sufficiently following the Bible, I would be quite pleased to offer some of my own views on this topic.

[CSMR]

I need some help in becoming an apologist before next friday. One other member of the core group is staunchly anti-tradition/reason, and is purely sola-scriptura.

Do you think tradition is necessary? There is sola scriptura as defined in the articles of religion which says that scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. Do you disagree with this, or have you already found what is necessary and so want to go beyond it?

[TomUK]

Could i just clarify what exactly is meant by sola scriptura, as it keeps getting thrown round on the forum in many different contexts. Is far as i understand it, sola scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the only infallible source of rule in the church. If that definition is correct then i am certainly not a sola scripturist (or whatever the word is). The definition that that the bible contains all things necessary for salvation is very different, and if that was the case then i think i might be a sola scripturist (not sure on that one yet)

[Wigglesworth]

First, take a look at some Scripture that gives Paul's position on tradition.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.II Thessalonians 2:15 (KJV).

Now we command you, brethren, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.II Thessalonians 3:6 (KJV).

Paul wanted Christians to recognize the authority of the tradition he orally taught, as well as what was written.

I would highly recommend you read the book, A Philadelphia Catholic in King James's Court (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967149215/qid=1100357848/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3387072-2448801?v=glance&s=books). I come from a fundamentalist background, and reading this book made me seriously restructure my approach to traditional churches. You sound a lot like the hero of the book at this point. It would really encourage you and give you some ideas.

[benedictine]

Could i just clarify what exactly is meant by sola scriptura, as it keeps getting thrown round on the forum in many different contexts. Is far as i understand it, sola scriptura is the doctrine that scripture is the only infallible source of rule in the church. If that definition is correct then i am certainly not a sola scripturist (or whatever the word is). The definition that that the bible contains all things necessary for salvation is very different, and if that was the case then i think i might be a sola scripturist (not sure on that one yet)
Yes. This is what I'm talking about. For example, confirmation, the sign of the cross, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They say, "If it ain't in the bible, it ain't true."

[ps139]

Wigglesworth those are some great verses.

Benedictine you might ask them, "where is sola scriptura in the Bible"? Its simply not there! And as Wigglesworth pointed out, the oral teaching of the apostles is just as valid as their written teaching. So how can it be "sola"?

They will probably come back at you with 2 Tim 3:16-17. Its a beautiful passage about how wonderful and useful scripture is, but it does not answer the question at all, it does not say Scripture is the only authority.
You can also add that "Scripture" mentioned in that verse refers to the OT, as the NT had not yet been canonized.
They might come back and say that Peter called Paul's epistles Scripture. Was this before or after the letter to Timothy was written? I don't know. Anyway now you are off on a side point that really doesn't matter. ^_^

[PaladinValer]

CSMR, Anglicanism holds to the Three-legged stool principle of Scripture, Tradition, Reason. All three legs must be equal for the stool to hold and be balanced. We do not believe in "sola scriptura" at all; the Apostles didn't, the Early Church didn't, and therefore, we don't either.

TomUK's post put it best. It really depends on how you view "sola scriptura" in the end. IMO, there are only two forms of it.

The orthodox sola scriptura is the Lutheran belief; that Scripture is the "ruling rod." Tradition is fine, but it must be agreeable with Scripture.

The evangelical sola scriptura is the Calvinist/Non-denominationalist which is "if it isn't in the Bible, forget it." Obviously the Lutherans would/will (as many here will tell you) take heavy exception of the misuse of their doctrine, but this is, sadly, what sola scriptura has turned into.

The Anglican, Vatican Catholic, and both Orthodox Churches agree that the Bible "contains everything necessary to salvation and is authoritative in all matters of faith and doctrine." That's it. We hold on to Holy Tradition in its fullest sense. As such, I don't believe this is really a form of "sola scriptura" since obviously we don't think everything must be found in the Bible.

Benedictine, my advise for you is to:

1. Do some historical research into the spreading of the Gospel before the canonization of the Scriptures occurred.
2. Pay attention to the oral traditions, and do a little research on the formation of the four canonical Gospels and what oral traditions they probably used (ie: Q, M, and L).
3. Get quotes from Early Church Fathers and Martyrs, especially those before the Scripture's canonization and those after which state the importance of Holy Tradition and warn of "sola scriptura."

You may be surprised how more informed you can be with just one hour's worth of historical study! ;)

[Bulldog]

The orthodox sola scriptura is the Lutheran belief; that Scripture is the "ruling rod." Tradition is fine, but it must be agreeable with Scripture.

The evangelical sola scriptura is the Calvinist/Non-denominationalist which is "if it isn't in the Bible, forget it." Obviously the Lutherans would/will (as many here will tell you) take heavy exception of the misuse of their doctrine, but this is, sadly, what sola scriptura has turned into.

Incorrect. Most Calvinists (as myself) do not believe in the Evangelical Solo Scriptura "no tradition" view.

The traditional Calvinist/ Reformed view is the same of the Lutherans, that is, there is nothing wrong with tradition (as we see many Presbyterian denomnations using Cathecism and the WCF Creeds).

[ps139]

An important point here is what is "tradition" For some it is pre-Reformation traditon, for others it is post-Reformation tradition.

[PaladinValer]

For Anglicans, Pre-Reformation Tradition.

[CSMR]

CSMR, Anglicanism holds to the Three-legged stool principle of Scripture, Tradition, Reason. All three legs must be equal for the stool to hold and be balanced.

I refuse to sit on any such stool! I am not a rebel against tradition, but tradition cannot argue for anything since there are so many traditions in existence. If reason means our mind, that is corrupted, and moreover to say that our minds are authoritative for us is nonsense. If it means rational thinking, that is contrary to faith since faith is in the paradoxes of Christ being God and man, man being sinner and righteous. And why reason and not say emotion or any other process that moves us?
The orthodox sola scriptura is the Lutheran belief; that Scripture is the "ruling rod." Tradition is fine, but it must be agreeable with Scripture.
The evangelical sola scriptura is the Calvinist/Non-denominationalist which is "if it isn't in the Bible, forget it."
I thought that on the subject of morality Luther took the line that whatever is not proscribed is permissible, whereas Calvin thought that one can go beyond scripture here?

[PaladinValer]

If our minds are corrupt, then they couldn't even try to come to God and would never accept Him. Original sin is of the soul, not our brain. We have a broken soul, but it hasn't been so broken that it 1) affects our bodies or 2) is without hope of redemption.

That is why Anglicans hold to Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

As for the sola scriptura part:

1. I did say Luther had not problem with Tradition, so long as it was based in Scripture. True, you won't find everything in Scripture, but the basis of anything in Tradition must somehow be "Biblical" to Luther.
2. Bulldog seems to say that Calvin wasn't so anti-Traditional as I am usually led to believe. For that, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but it does seem that Calvin was less keen to Tradition than Luther.

[CSMR]

If our minds are corrupt, then they couldn't even try to come to God and would never accept Him.
They are, and we cannot. The grace that comes not of our doing but of God's is what allows us to accept him.
Paul:
"But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ."
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
So reason, insofar as it is natural, cannot perceive or accept God, but regards divine truth as foolish, i.e. unreasonable.
Original sin is of the soul, not our brain.
I don't know how you use soul, but you cannot say that sin does not affect the mind.
more Paul:
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
"And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind"
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth"

And Jesus:
"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
"If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness."

[Bingley]

I refuse to sit on any such stool! I am not a rebel against tradition, but tradition cannot argue for anything since there are so many traditions in existence. If reason means our mind, that is corrupted, and moreover to say that our minds are authoritative for us is nonsense. If it means rational thinking, that is contrary to faith since faith is in the paradoxes of Christ being God and man, man being sinner and righteous. And why reason and not say emotion or any other process that moves us?

I thought that on the subject of morality Luther took the line that whatever is not proscribed is permissible, whereas Calvin thought that one can go beyond scripture here?
Why, then, should we accept what you say above, CSMR? It is an example of reason in action, isn't it? If reason cannot be trusted, then surely all discussion is futile.

[Polycarp1]

I refuse to sit on any such stool! I am not a rebel against tradition, but tradition cannot argue for anything since there are so many traditions in existence.
I understand your point here, but there's an important distinction to draw (and Ps139 may know where to find the excellent write-up on that distinction posted over in OBOB in the past, which I cannot seem to find) between the big-T Tradition of the Church, handed down and historically the same in all (orthodox) times and places, and the small-t traditions of men. We rely on Tradition, not on traditions.

[CSMR]

Why, then, should we accept what you say above, CSMR? It is an example of reason in action, isn't it? If reason cannot be trusted, then surely all discussion is futile.
It is and it isn't. As human words bearing a discernable form it could be considered reason - except that from the point of view of reason what I said is unreasonable as I shall explain. Reason is a human process of persuasion and causes opinions to be accepted for no higher reason - one does not need to appeal to some "truth" of reason. The form of what I said however is unreasonable because I referred to Christ, God and righteousness, which are not within the domain of reason and become paradoxes when considered as reason. The truth of the gospel, when it works through a man and in his speech, becomes the foolishness of preaching.

It does appear that all discussion, and in fact all human activity, is vanity, as Ecclesiastes tells us. We uphold foolishness - i.e. what is unreasonable - and it is indeed foolishness, and of even less worth than the wisdom of the world, except that God overturns our order and in grace calls our foolishness his wisdom. (1 Cor. 1)

I understand that this will appear extreme and perplexing. I used to think that we can of ourselves understand God, and Christ, and that we are evil only in our will, our intentions. However our mind is not separate from our will, as Isaiah, Jesus and Paul understood.

[CSMR]

I understand your point here, but there's an important distinction to draw (and Ps139 may know where to find the excellent write-up on that distinction posted over in OBOB in the past, which I cannot seem to find) between the big-T Tradition of the Church, handed down and historically the same in all (orthodox) times and places, and the small-t traditions of men. We rely on Tradition, not on traditions.
OK, I see what you are saying. The same could be said against scripture, that there are many writings but we only mean one Writing. I don't deny that there may be traditions which proclaim Christ - if there are let us award them a capital T! What the reformers saw was a particular scripture the bible (roughly speaking) and a particular tradition, that of the Roman church, and saw different gospels preached by the two, the true gospel in one and a false gospel in the other. If it had been the other way round they would have been obligated to fight for Tradition over the scriptures of men! Knowing that Scripture contains all that is necessary, I don't feel the need to seek this out in other places, although they may also contain what is necessary. I don't know if this is a sola scriptura attitude. "Scripture" should refer not to a book but to the contents of the book and perhaps if there is a tradition which preaches the same message Scripture and Tradition would be identical.

[Bonifatius]

CSMR, Anglicanism holds to the Three-legged stool principle of Scripture, Tradition, Reason. All three legs must be equal for the stool to hold and be balanced. We do not believe in "sola scriptura" at all; the Apostles didn't, the Early Church didn't, and therefore, we don't either.

TomUK's post put it best. It really depends on how you view "sola scriptura" in the end. IMO, there are only two forms of it.

The orthodox sola scriptura is the Lutheran belief; that Scripture is the "ruling rod." Tradition is fine, but it must be agreeable with Scripture.

The evangelical sola scriptura is the Calvinist/Non-denominationalist which is "if it isn't in the Bible, forget it." Obviously the Lutherans would/will (as many here will tell you) take heavy exception of the misuse of their doctrine, but this is, sadly, what sola scriptura has turned into.

The Anglican, Vatican Catholic, and both Orthodox Churches agree that the Bible "contains everything necessary to salvation and is authoritative in all matters of faith and doctrine." That's it. We hold on to Holy Tradition in its fullest sense. As such, I don't believe this is really a form of "sola scriptura" since obviously we don't think everything must be found in the Bible.

Benedictine, my advise for you is to:

1. Do some historical research into the spreading of the Gospel before the canonization of the Scriptures occurred.
2. Pay attention to the oral traditions, and do a little research on the formation of the four canonical Gospels and what oral traditions they probably used (ie: Q, M, and L).
3. Get quotes from Early Church Fathers and Martyrs, especially those before the Scripture's canonization and those after which state the importance of Holy Tradition and warn of "sola scriptura."

You may be surprised how more informed you can be with just one hour's worth of historical study! ;)

Hi Paladin,

this is an excellent posting! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Greetz
Tom

[Bingley]

It is and it isn't. As human words bearing a discernable form it could be considered reason - except that from the point of view of reason what I said is unreasonable as I shall explain. Reason is a human process of persuasion and causes opinions to be accepted for no higher reason - one does not need to appeal to some "truth" of reason. The form of what I said however is unreasonable because I referred to Christ, God and righteousness, which are not within the domain of reason and become paradoxes when considered as reason. The truth of the gospel, when it works through a man and in his speech, becomes the foolishness of preaching.

It does appear that all discussion, and in fact all human activity, is vanity, as Ecclesiastes tells us. We uphold foolishness - i.e. what is unreasonable - and it is indeed foolishness, and of even less worth than the wisdom of the world, except that God overturns our order and in grace calls our foolishness his wisdom. (1 Cor. 1)

I think we are using reason to mean different things. To me reason is the use of logical argument which will guide to us to a correct conclusion IF the data we are arguing from are correct. God's revelation gives us the basic data to work from and it is these data that seem foolish to the world. Reason by itself cannot tell us whether the data we start from are correct. Only experience and revelation can tell us that.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you seem to be using reason to mean the use of language to persuade, which is not quite the same thing.