Divine Revelation: Catholic vs. Evangelical --- thread # 2

[Aymn27]

What say you? The "Church" or the Bible?

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2793/

[Simon_Templar]

I don't believe that tradition is more authoratative than the bible. The church and the bible are built on the same foundation, the revelation of the Holy Spirit. However the scripture is sure and unchanging. The church is subject to the perils of human frailty and thus at any given time can be mistaken.

However, on the other hand, I can tell you from personal experience that MANY evangelicals simply interpret the bible based on modern ideas, modern traditions, and modern philosophies, in the place of tradition of the church. Then the imagine that these things are simply plain reason, or even worse, the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I'm in frequent conversations with my dad and brother who are both very intelligent and honestly pursue truth. Yet they both have certain ideas and assumptions that they are stuck on and can not escape from. In many cases these ideas/assumptions are no more self evident, or reliable than any other tradition, but it is human nature that we have a world view, or a paradigm that frames everything we see. It is exceptionally difficult to recognize how that influences us, etc.

For example, one of my brother's basic assumptions is that if something is not mentioned in a given scripture, it is essentially purposely being excluded.
When a verse says "believe with your heart and confess with your mouth", and another verse says repent and be baptized. Because of his assumption, he must take the first verse and assume that since baptism was not included there, it must not be a key part of salvation.

I can look at the same verses and think, if we have verses that mention different things, we must take them all cumulatively, thus if one says repent and be baptized, and another says believe and confess.. then all those things must be necessary parts.

Is his view more logical than mine? no. Does his view have more scriptural support, no. In fact there is no reason why his view should be preferred to mine, yet he is absolutely convinced by it.

Another example, my dad is a hawk for literalism. He demands absolute literalism in interpetation unless it is blatantly obvious in the passage that it is not meant to be literal (for the most part I agree). However, when it comes to several passages on baptism, he immediately assumes that when they talk of baptism they don't mean literal water baptism, but rather they refer to a figurative washing which is accomplished by a person being emmersed in the word of God.

We, not being perfect, are all likely to make such mistakes, but, holding the doctrine that many evangelicals do about scripture and its interpetation as a matter of individualism just throws fuel on the fire.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Simon_Templar,
Quite brilliant post if I may say.:)
The church and the bible are built on the same foundation, the revelation of the Holy Spirit. However the scripture is sure and unchanging. The church is subject to the perils of human frailty and thus at any given time can be mistaken.
Exactly

For example, one of my brother's basic assumptions is that if something is not mentioned in a given scripture, it is essentially purposely being excluded.
Well quite, that doesnt work

When a verse says "believe with your heart and confess with your mouth", and another verse says repent and be baptized. Because of his assumption, he must take the first verse and assume that since baptism was not included there, it must not be a key part of salvation.
Yes the Bible and particulalry the NT is holistic, one verse clarifies another rather than being at odds.

I can look at the same verses and think, if we have verses that mention different things, we must take them all cumulatively, thus if one says repent and be baptized, and another says believe and confess.. then all those things must be necessary parts.
Yes!

Great post ... very helpful

[Iosias]

I believe that in terms of worship; what is not commanded is forbidden.

But in general, our Reason must be guided by Tradition which must not contradict Scripture. I believe the Creed not because the Church taught it but because the Scriptures teach it. :)

VIII. Of the Three Creeds.
THE three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

[karen freeinchristman]

I believe that in terms of worship; what is not commanded is forbidden.


:scratch: Is this a scripturally-based belief?

[AngCath]

The Bible is our primary source for understanding revelation and the Church is our primary source for interpretation.

[Iosias]

:scratch: Is this a scripturally-based belief?

Indeed and to give its posh name is The Regulative Principle of Worship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulative_principle_of_worship). A brilliant series of articles are a must read:

Part 1 (http://www.freekirkcontinuing.co.uk/FCC/Witness%20and%20Explorer_files/weeWitness%20dec.pdf) on page 4
Part 2 (http://www.freekirkcontinuing.co.uk/FCC/Witness%20and%20Explorer_files/07%20Witness.pdf) on page 16
Part 3 (http://www.freekirkcontinuing.co.uk/FCC/Witness%20and%20Explorer_files/02%3A07%20Witness.pdf) on page 15

A key proof of this view is found in Levitucus 10 verses 1 and 2:

"And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD."
There are of course others; Deuteronomy 17:3; Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:29-32; Joshua 1:7; 23:6-8; Matthew 15:13; Colossians 2:20-23.

A short article: http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonRegulativePrinciple.htm

Whilst not generally associated with Anglicanism if it is Scriptural then our articles would bind us to it.

[Iosias]

The Bible is our primary source for understanding revelation and the Church is our primary source for interpretation.

I would be able to assent to that :thumbsup:

[gtsecc]

Like it or not:
The Bible is a Tradition of the Church.

Until someone gets their brain wrapped around that FACT, they can't even begin to do theology.

[Iosias]

The Bible is a Tradition of the Church.

I like it, but the implication is not that we should all run off to Rome or Constantinople. ;)

[Naomi4Christ]

What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience are due; the next whereunto, is what any man can necessarily conclude by force of Reason; after this, the voice of the church succeedeth