The church before the Bible

[Righteousone]

Can anyone here tell me they don't believe that the church came BEFORE the bible? And what Scripture line and verse backs this up?

 

[Arj]

The church would have come before our new testament,but it is a spiritual church,not necessarily one of bricks and mortar.

 

[cyberjosh]

Can anyone here tell me they don't believe that the church came BEFORE the bible? And what Scripture line and verse backs this up?

The Church was ordained to be and to exist by God Himself before the foundation of the world, and His words in the Bible are what reveal that eternal will. The Bible is what has conveyed to us that purpose for the Church rather than letting the Church try to interpret itself historically and fall into error. Even if they were penned afterward all the things in the NT were in the mind of God before the Church even came into being, for that inspiring Spirit who impressed it upon men's hearts to write it is from everlasting to everlasting, and "the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:11).

 

[Righteousone]

That Scripture line is not what I am talking about. The church came before the bible, the bible was given to all of you, compiled by the Catholic church at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. you actually all owe the monks thank you for compiling the NT in which it was passed on to Rome for approval by the roman Pontiff.
You need to research your history books people because these are historical facts. And if you want to get mad, get mad at God for choosing the Catholic church for the guidance of his bible, and the one you are holding today. Except for the KJV which is loaded with errors and has 7 less books than the Catholic bible b/c they were simply thrown out by Luther and the Reformers.

 

[Righteousone]

Read my signature...

 

[Vic C.]

Can anyone here tell me they don't believe that the church came BEFORE the bible? And what Scripture line and verse backs this up?

Genesis1:1-Malachi 4:6.

Except for the KJV which is loaded with errors and has 7 less books than the Catholic bible b/c they were simply thrown out by Luther and the Reformers.

Spare us the drama, please. Loaded with errors? That's a bit of a exaggeration.

 

[Free]

Read my signature...

And what of it? Just what was the gospel that Paul taught?

And if you want to get mad, get mad at God for choosing the Catholic church for the guidance of his bible,

We are thankful to God for using the Catholic church to keep his Word. Beyond that, you have no argument, after all, God used Pharaoh for his purposes...

7 less books than the Catholic bible

For good reason. You seem to think that more books makes the Catholic bible more correct, but that would be false.

 

[cyberjosh]

That Scripture line is not what I am talking about. The church came before the bible, the bible was given to all of you, compiled by the Catholic church at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. you actually all owe the monks thank you for compiling the NT in which it was passed on to Rome for approval by the roman Pontiff.

I give thanks to no man for the inspiration of God's word. I also believe the 66 book canon to be correct, but the NT which both Catholics and Protestants agree on (27 books) was established much earlier on except for some of the general epistles (Hebrews-Revelation) which took more gradual acceptance, nonetheless they were inspired the whole time, not when the Church actually decided they were.

The Bible determined the definition of the Church, not the Church the definition of the Bible. If you think that's wrong then you can tell God that you think His words aren't good enough.

 

[francisdesales]

The Bible determined the definition of the Church, not the Church the definition of the Bible. If you think that's wrong then you can tell God that you think His words aren't good enough.

Josh,

The Church was brought into existence way before the New Testament was ever written. How can the Bible "define" the Church if the Church was already in existence?

Secondly, perhaps you should study early Christian history. You will find that there were several alternative Christianities in existence, each having their own "scriptures". The Ebionites had their own gospels, as did the Gnostics. The NT Canon exists as it does today BECAUSE of the Church's selection of the books and their orthodoxy.

None of this means we do not think God's Word is "good enough". But what IS God's Word? The Church vouches for the contents of the Scriptures, both OT and NT.

Regards

 

[BobRyan]

Can anyone here tell me they don't believe that the church came BEFORE the bible? And what Scripture line and verse backs this up?

Moses' early life is a good example of "The church before the Bible" -- the people of God "existed" but were not authorized to "make stuff up" and call it "scripture" then or now.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[cyberjosh]

Josh,

The Church was brought into existence way before the New Testament was ever written. How can the Bible "define" the Church if the Church was already in existence?

I tried to answer this above when I said:

"The Church was ordained to be and to exist by God Himself before the foundation of the world, and His words in the Bible are what reveal that eternal will. The Bible is what has conveyed to us that purpose for the Church rather than letting the Church try to interpret itself historically and fall into error. Even if they were penned afterward all the things in the NT were in the mind of God before the Church even came into being, for that inspiring Spirit who impressed it upon men's hearts to write it is from everlasting to everlasting, and "the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:11)."

The underlined portion is my main point.

Secondly, perhaps you should study early Christian history. You will find that there were several alternative Christianities in existence, each having their own "scriptures". The Ebionites had their own gospels, as did the Gnostics. The NT Canon exists as it does today BECAUSE of the Church's selection of the books and their orthodoxy.

I know that there were many competing Christianities and competeing books and Gospels, but that doesn't mean that there were many true (there was only one) Christianities nor many true canon's, for God always knew which ones they were despite external appearances. The point is, the NT was inspired before the Church ever finally determined that it was, and I said that above. It didn't suddenly become inspired only when it was recognized as inspired, it had always been inspired from the very beginning, and that was my point.

None of this means we do not think God's Word is "good enough". But what IS God's Word? The Church vouches for the contents of the Scriptures, both OT and NT.

Once again, it vouches (and recognizes), but not defines. God defined it because God breathed it. The pseudo-Gospels were not God breathed thus they were never (reguardless of misconceptions about them) true Scripture.

I'm talking about actual state of being, not when that true state of being was actually recognized. And of course I am in no way belittling the Churches wise decisions to scrutinize the early "Christian" books to weed out the bad ones. But again that was never my point to begin with.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Josh,

The Church was brought into existence way before the New Testament was ever written. How can the Bible "define" the Church if the Church was already in existence?

I tried to answer this above when I said:

"The Church was ordained to be and to exist by God Himself before the foundation of the world, and His words in the Bible are what reveal that eternal will. The Bible is what has conveyed to us that purpose for the Church rather than letting the Church try to interpret itself historically and fall into error. Even if they were penned afterward all the things in the NT were in the mind of God before the Church even came into being, for that inspiring Spirit who impressed it upon men's hearts to write it is from everlasting to everlasting, and "the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:11)."

The underlined portion is my main point.

I agree that GOD sets the Church's role in salvation. But you earlier said that the Bible does. The Bible merely relates what was already being taught by the Apostles, for years before being written down. Thus, understanding the order of revelation, how can one say that the Bible define the Church, then?

I know that there were many competing Christianities and competeing books and Gospels, but that doesn't mean that there were many true (there was only one) Christianities nor many true canon's, for God always knew which ones they were despite external appearances. The point is, the NT was inspired before the Church ever finally determined that it was, and I said that above. It didn't suddenly become inspired only when it was recognized as inspired, it had always been inspired from the very beginning, and that was my point.

Of course there was only one true Christianity, what we now call "orthodox" or catholic. The point is how God reveals which IS the true canon. Without the Church's witness, we have a pile of supposed scriptures without knowing which was true. You can't have a "bible" without a "church".

Once again, it vouches (and recognizes), but not defines. God defined it because God breathed it. The pseudo-Gospels were not God breathed thus they were never (reguardless of misconceptions about them) true Scripture.

All a circular argument that doesn't take into account the actual process of canonization. The Ebionites CERTAINLY claimed that they were God-breathed, as well. We can view this state of affairs in Protestantism today. One claims "x" is true and Scriptural, another claims "x" is false...Even with the same book in hand, fallible humans are not going to figure it out alone. Imagine if we didn't have the same scriptures, Josh...

The Church recognizes what IS God's Word and interprets it.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

I agree that GOD sets the Church's role in salvation. But you earlier said that the Bible does. The Bible merely relates what was already being taught by the Apostles, for years before being written down. Thus, understanding the order of revelation, how can one say that the Bible define the Church, then?

The Bible is God's word, and His word represents Him. Though they were not penned until later, the doctrines of Christianity and the Gospels - which the Apostle John repeatedly reminded his hearers were those which they had "heard from the beginning" - were the core of Church beliefs from the very beginning. Did you not catch my reference to the inspired words being in the mind of God before they were penned? I take the definition of the Scripture as to be the same as the "Word of God", which is living and active, and it was that Word working in the Church which assembled it "adding to its number daily" as it says in Acts.

Therefore you could almost look at the two as coming into existance simultaneously, since one cannot be without the other. Also in that respect the title of this thread is a bit misleading (though I believe it was implied that it was meant) in that it should say "The church before the NT" because obviouly the OT was before the Church ever was created. But nonetheless the Word as expressed in the NT was the same working Word of God's will in the Church. When the Apostles and other authors of the NT penned down those doctrines and beliefs that had been with the Church from the very beginning they were revealing the foundations from whence they came and on which they stood, hence the existance of the Gospels in particular, and the NT expresses those foundational truths as an embodiment of God's word which had worked in the Church for God's glory.

If my Bible were only a story book and not a foundation for the truth as the Spirit reveals it I wouldn't read it, and thus I don't just think of it as being "forged along the way" as the Church just decided to grow on its own apart from God's guidance and revealed Gospel and doctrine to men. The Bible I believe shows that which was core and seminal for the Church, and as such defines the essence of Christianity and Church.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

The Bible is God's word, and His word represents Him.

The pages of the Bible do not "represent" God's Word. The Word of God is Jesus, who relates God's saving plan to the apostles. The apostles relayed God's saving plan to others through written AND oral means. Thus, the Word of God has revealed God's word through apostles who taught both orally and in written form. It is false to limit God's revelation to written medium alone. The bible is God's Word only because the Church says it is - they vouch that the Apostles actually WROTE those words...

Though they were not penned until later, the doctrines of Christianity and the Gospels - which the Apostle John repeatedly reminded his hearers were those which they had "heard from the beginning" - were the core of Church beliefs from the very beginning. Did you not catch my reference to the inspired words being in the mind of God before they were penned?

Yes, but you imply that God kept these "core beliefs" in His mind for the purpose of putting them down on paper... God's Word is personified as Jesus Christ. God was not worried about writing a New Testament as a precursor of relating His saving Word, since Jesus never mentions this charecteristic requisite. His teaching has authority, and not because it will BECOME Scriptures. It is authoritative because HE gave His teaching - whether the teaching is related by oral or written in the FUTURE is inconsequential.

I take the definition of the Scripture as to be the same as the "Word of God", which is living and active, and it was that Word working in the Church which assembled it "adding to its number daily" as it says in Acts.

It's not. The Word of God is not limited to written words.

Therefore you could almost look at the two as coming into existance simultaneously, since one cannot be without the other.

Apparently, you are not familiar with the first 20 years of Christianity. Very few people would agree that the first 20 years of Christianity was somehow inferior BECAUSE of the lack of the Bible. Men and women were added to their numbers WITHOUT a New Testament.

Also in that respect the title of this thread is a bit misleading (though I believe it was implied that it was meant) in that it should say "The church before the NT" because obviouly the OT was before the Church ever was created.

The Church is the people of God, those who are spiritual Jews, when using the broadest of definitions. Abraham is our father in faith and preceded the Sacred Scriptures...

When the Apostles and other authors of th NT penned down those doctrines and beliefs that had been with the Church from the very beginning they were revealing the foundations from whence they came, hence the Gospels in particular, and the NT expresses that as the embodiment of God's word which had worked in the Church for God's glory.

yes, they were writing what they already had revealed to Christians all over the world. It was not necessary for the Apostles to carry around even parts of the New Testament, since they are the human source of Scriptures.

If my Bible were only a story book and not a foundation for the truth as the Spirit reveals it I wouldn't read it, and thus I don't just think of it as being "forged along the way" as the Church just decided to grow on its own apart from God's guidance and revealed Gospel and doctrine to men. The Bible I believe shows that which was core and seminal for the Church, and as such defines the essence of Christianity and Church.

The Church believes in prima scriptura, but the idea that the Church sprang from the Bible is literally false. It does not define Christian doctrine, the Church does, since the Church interprets what the Bible says. The Bible often does not interpret itself. The Church uses the Bible to express the essence of Christianity, which remains Jesus Christ. The Body of Christ is the Church, not the Bible. It is conceivable that even if we did not have the Bible, we would STILL have the essence of Christianity preserved by the Spirit, who abides within the Church - not the Bible. The Bible is not the center of our faith, Jesus Christ and His revelation to us is.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

The Church WAS formed by those that first BELIEVED in and followed Christ's commandments. Those that FIRST received The Holy Spirit were JEWS in Israel. So, no matter HOW much EFFORT the CC attempts at STATING or TEACHING that THEY ARE the First Church is simple falacy.

The first ORGANIZED RELIGION that 'called itself Christianity', PERHAPS. But by NO MEANS the First Chruch formed by the apostles.

The Church DID exist BEFORE The Bible. But the writtings that are contained within the Bible WERE originally written BY the apostles that LIVED in Israel. Paul obviously did some writting while incarcerated in Italy. But what he wrote were words pertaining to that which was IN EXISTENCE BEFORE he EVER visited Rome or even Italy. The same applies to ALL the Gospels and the other espistles written by the other apostles. They wrote of THAT which ALREADY existed BEFORE the Romans were EVER introduced to Christ.

So, any claim by ANY denominational 'church' that IT is the ORIGINAL is bogus. The Church was NOT organized with 'gold and silver' decorations or 'statues' or 'special clothing' or 'artifacts'. The Church was simply the Body of Christ, (those that believed in and followed His commandments. Those that had been baptized into The Spirit). And this had NOTHING to do with Cathedrals or buildings housing an ELITE clergy.

Paul offered PLAINLY that we have FEW examples to be LED by: He WAS ONE and those that read his words were instructed to BE LIKE HIM. And HOW did Paul live? He worked with his OWN hands as a 'tentmaker'. Used this money to support himself AND The Church. There is LITTLE chance that he wore gold or fancy clothing. And the MOST important characteristic that he offered in example was this: He was a SERVANT. Not a 'spounger or the congregation' but a SERVANT of both Christ and his fellow man. And NOT in word only. But in DEEDS. Offering to his brothers and sisters ALL that he was ABLE to 'give them'. When there were those that would bow to him and attempt to worship him he 'set that straight' without hessitation. That he was NOT to be worshped or even 'bowed to'.

So, let us discern truth from 'stories'. The 'stories' are easily discerned for they will NEVER coincide with what we have been offered. The oppulence of many denominations, (including the CC), is evidence of 'their OWN makings'. These rituals and pagentry were NEVER offered in The Word. They were NEVER followed by the apostles. For IF they WERE, we WOULD have evidence of such in their instruction.

MEC

 

[cyberjosh]

Sorry for the length, we've entered into quite a detailed dicussion here.

The pages of the Bible do not "represent" God's Word.

Well actually with your clarifications below we would agree that it is a partial representation of it, the Word of God being it's source (and yet nonetheless is God's Word as seen in written form). You said, "It's not. The Word of God is not limited to written words". No not limited but nonetheless expressed in the divinely-breathed Scriptures. Jesus alone is the Logos, but the Bible is a vital representation of God's character and will, which is why men must not "live on bread alone". Sure, this also comes to us in oral form, but the question of the OP was begging a 'versus' proposal, and I believe it to be fallacious to say that what was written in the Bible was not recognized in substance at the foundation of the Church. In such a way then it describes somewhat in retropect (but alot of the NT looks ahead) that divine word given to man through Christ at the foundation of the Church. But the Word as conveyed in the Bible was in substance always present, so Righteousone's attempt to set up a "versus" scenario is just about picking at a straw man, for some agenda I suspect, when you want to place heavy emphasis on when something was finally penned rather than on the essence of it which had ever been conveyed to the saints up to the point in which they were written. And when they were written it was an overflowing of this same substance and presence of God's truth and will in the Church, overflowing into written doctrine which had been present and preached among the Churches since the very beginning.

The Word of God is Jesus, who relates God's saving plan to the apostles. The apostles relayed God's saving plan to others through written AND oral means.

Indeed they did, and why we would think them to be all that different I have no idea.

Thus, the Word of God has revealed God's word through apostles who taught both orally and in written form. It is false to limit God's revelation to written medium alone.

Never would I make such a perposterous claim. I was just trying to allay the incorrect premise that the question in the OP seems to be based on: that the written inspiration in some way was due solely to the Church's efforts in such a way (qualifying my statement) as to be seperate from the seminal development of the Church by the oral and spiritual testimony of the Holy Spirit which had been in and with them from the beginning. They both have the same substance and source even if different in form. And thus it seems that wanting to think this (that they were essentially seperate) was a reason to ask whether the Church came before "the Bible". And also if the Church is from God and so is the Bible, then must we think they did not both come into existance at the same point when God's will for the Church was worked among men and women who believed in Christ, especially as you say 'in oral form'? This was what John refered to when he referenced his written teachings to that which they had already known "since the beginning" - only difference now is that it's in written form. So I propose for the purpose of the question to extend (as righteousone would have it) "the Bible" (though specifically the NT) to it's oral counterpart - in substance. Trying to distinguish them other than in form is not wise IMO.

The bible is God's Word only because the Church says it is - they vouch that the Apostles actually WROTE those words...

I'm sorry but I must very much disagree with you on that. "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). I tried to explain above how no matter what any man says, they could never change the fact (even by neglect and overlooking) that certain writtings were God-breathed. I don't know how to say that any clearer than I have. Do you understand what I'm trying to convey?

Yes, but you imply that God kept these "core beliefs" in His mind for the purpose of putting them down on paper...

I didn't say it was for "the purpose of". Rather I meant that the Bible reveals the existing purpose of God that already was working in the Church since the beginning up to that point, and beyond into the future for the Church. Thus in such a manner it reveals the purpose that was birthed along with the Church. Once again this was pointed at the OP, to show that the question is quite possibly operating on a false premise.

God's Word is personified as Jesus Christ. God was not worried about writing a New Testament as a precursor of relating His saving Word, since Jesus never mentions this charecteristic requisite.

No not a precursor, but certainly for the generation to come preservation was a concern and written mediums (other than through tampering) were more of a permanant and durable propagational medium than through oral tradition which can change with each speaker if passed on long enough and far enough. Today we are lucky to have these writtings so that we can see it as it was originally said and written (and especially for purpose of having it in the mother tongues - which aids study greatly).

His teaching has authority, and not because it will BECOME Scriptures. It is authoritative because HE gave His teaching - whether the teaching is related by oral or written in the FUTURE is inconsequential.

Once again I think you misunderstood the order of things I was talking about. We have no disagreement. See what I said above about his purpose being recorded in the Bible, but not necessarily (as you pointed out) "for the purpose of" writting it. Though no doubt the written word of God has a unique and enduring quality to it that the Holy Spirit uses to this day.

Apparently, you are not familiar with the first 20 years of Christianity. Very few people would agree that the first 20 years of Christianity was somehow inferior BECAUSE of the lack of the Bible. Men and women were added to their numbers WITHOUT a New Testament.

At this point I was speaking of the Bible in terms of its inspiratory counter-part in the living and active Word of God. The Bible then later had these things clearly revealed and written down for the benefit of the Church. The written medium also greatly aided in the Apostles ministry, since they could not be everywhere at once (though Paul certainly seemed to wish he could be). In this way, Paul was able to reach the already developed Churches through out the world to keep them from degenerating into doctrinal error and to encourage them to hold on to the hope of the Gospel as originally preached to them.

The Church is the people of God, those who are spiritual Jews, when using the broadest of definitions. Abraham is our father in faith and preceded the Sacred Scriptures...

This is an enourmous topic, perhaps we better not get into it here. He used the terms "church and Bible", I'm trying to clarify and narrow the discussion down to NT Church and NT books, which seems to be the original implicated meaning of the OP.

yes, they were writing what they already had revealed to Christians all over the world. It was not necessary for the Apostles to carry around even parts of the New Testament, since they are the human source of Scriptures.

Sure they were, I'm just trying to acknowledge the common source for both the written and the oral: the Word of God as conveyed to man by the Holy Spirit.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Sorry for the length, we've entered into quite a detailed dicussion here.

Josh,

I have read your responses, and it appears we probably are in greater agreement than when we first began.

Well actually with your clarifications below we would agree that it is a partial representation of it, the Word of God being it's source

Meaning the Christ, correct?

(and yet nonetheless is God's Word as seen in written form). You said, "It's not. The Word of God is not limited to written words". No not limited but nonetheless expressed in the divinely-breathed Scriptures.

Certainly, but not completely. The Bible itself tells us to hold onto the Word of God given by Paul, both in oral and in written form. Thus, the bible is not EXPECTED to hold ALL of the Word of God given to the Apostles. Otherwise, Paul would have written "compile my writings, since when you have done that, you will have abrogated all my oral teachings".

Jesus alone is the Logos, but the Bible is a vital representation of God's character and will, which is why men must not "live on bread alone".

No doubt - but realize that this representation can be passed along orally as well.

In the Middle Ages, much of the "Gospel representation" was given to the people by stain-glass windows and plays acted out in the town square. Not surprisingly, people knew the basics of their faith on this "oral teaching".

Sure, this also comes to us in oral form, but the question of the OP was begging a 'versus' proposal, and I believe it to be fallacious to say that what was written in the Bible was not recognized in substance at the foundation of the Church. In such a way then it describes somewhat in retropect (but alot of the NT looks ahead) that divine word given to man through Christ at the foundation of the Church. But the Word as conveyed in the Bible was in substance always present,

But not completely, Josh. The Bible does not relate to us ALL Christian beliefs in such a matter that it is beyond question. Trinity is an example. The Bible just is not very clear, without considering Sacred Tradition. Nor is abortion, infant baptism, or even the canon of Scriptures. Please recall that the Bible was initially written as letters to communities with particular problems. It was not meant as a systematic catechism. Thus, the Bible is not particularly solid on some matters - and this is true because we (or you and other non-catholics) argue about the more vague passages and concepts and what they mean.

so Righteousone's attempt to set up a "versus" scenario is just about picking at a straw man, for some agenda I suspect, when you want to place heavy emphasis on when something was finally penned rather than on the essence of it which had ever been conveyed to the saints up to the point in which they were written. And when they were written it was an overflowing of this same substance and presence of God's truth and will in the Church, overflowing into written doctrine which had been present and preached among the Churches since the very beginning.

I can't answer for Righteousness' intent. I am just pointing out for clarification sake that the Bible (NT) did not precede the Church, nor did the Church rely on the Bible for its teachings of the Gospel. It relied on men who were designated by the Spirit to preach and teach His Word. The Church's first role is one of teaching. Not handing out bibles.

Thus, the Word of God has revealed God's word through apostles who taught both orally and in written form. It is false to limit God's revelation to written medium alone.


Never would I make such a perposterous claim. I was just trying to allay the incorrect premise that the question in the OP seems to be based on: that the written inspiration in some way was due solely to the Church's efforts in such a way (qualifying my statement) as to be seperate from the seminal development of the Church by the oral and spiritual testimony of the Holy Spirit which had been in and with them from the beginning. They both have the same substance and source even if different in form.

Oh.

And thus it seems that wanting to think this (that they were essentially seperate) was a reason to ask whether the Church came before "the Bible". And also if the Church is from God and so is the Bible, then must we think they did not both come into existance at the same point when God's will for the Church was worked among men and women who believed in Christ, especially as you say 'in oral form'?

Now why would we think they both came into existence at the same time, Josh? Clearly, that is historically inaccurate. Saying that the bible was in God's mind simultaneously as the Church doesn't say much, because EVERYTHING is seen by God in His mind, including the future. Are you about to say that because of this, the future end of time comes "into existence" at the same time as Christ's death on the cross? From God's point of view, yes, but from our point of view, no.

This was what John refered to when he referenced his written teachings to that which they had already known "since the beginning" - only difference now is that it's in written form. So I propose for the purpose of the question to extend (as righteousone would have it) "the Bible" (though specifically the NT) to it's oral counterpart - in substance. Trying to distinguish them other than in form is not wise IMO.

The assumption you make, of course, is that the bible contains ALL oral traditions and teachings. Frankly, it cannot. Because if it did, Paul would have wrote to us that oral teachings have expired with the writing of Scriptures.

The bible is God's Word only because the Church says it is - they vouch that the Apostles actually WROTE those words..

I'm sorry but I must very much disagree with you on that. "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). I tried to explain above how no matter what any man says, they could never change the fact (even by neglect and overlooking) that certain writtings were God-breathed. I don't know how to say that any clearer than I have. Do you understand what I'm trying to convey?

Josh, the simple fact is that someone must vouch for the correct Scriptures. Someone that is historically trustworthy. Otherwise, why deny the Gnostics? Why deny the Ebionites? Why deny the Muslims THERE Scriptures? One can CLAIM a writing is from God till the cows come home. But unless there is some evidence of that claim, frankly, it is very little different from the Mormon claim that their particular book is from God.

Without this witness, you have no clue what IS Scriptures, because God does not make it known what His canon is WITHOUT the Church.

I didn't say it was for "the purpose of". Rather I meant that the Bible reveals the existing purpose of God that already was working in the Church since the beginning up to that point,

Some of it. But you again assume that it tells us ALL of God's plan that was taught by the Apostles. One clear example that was "everyday" Christian thought but not in the Bible was HOW to baptize. What exactly was the rite? It is not described, not even once, in Sacred Scriptures. We don't know what prayers were said, the preparation before being baptized, who baptized, (we presume no one baptized themselves!), and so forth. This is all part of Apostolic Tradition. Considering the necessity of baptism, and the Scriptures very vague idea of what baptism is, it is not without surprise that Paul tells the Thessolonians to hold onto ALL the teachings given. Not only the letters written, but the every day teachings of how to be Christian. Interpretations of passages that may have been vague. Fleshing out of the meaning of teachings.

No not a precursor, but certainly for the generation to come preservation was a concern and written mediums (other than through tampering) were more of a permanant and durable propagational medium than through oral tradition which can change with each speaker if passed on long enough and far enough.

Just because we have an "oral teaching" doesn't mean it never gets written down!

Today we are lucky to have these writtings so that we can see it as it was originally said and written (and especially for purpose of having it in the mother tongues - which aids study greatly).

True.

Once again I think you misunderstood the order of things I was talking about. We have no disagreement. See what I said above about his purpose being recorded in the Bible, but not necessarily (as you pointed out) "for the purpose of" writting it. Though no doubt the written word of God has a unique and enduring quality to it that the Holy Spirit uses to this day.

True.

At this point I was speaking of the Bible in terms of its inspiratory counter-part in the living and active Word of God. The Bible then later had these things clearly revealed and written down for the benefit of the Church.

Again, Josh, you seem to be assuming that the bible swallowed up the oral teachings, thus, we no longer need to "hold onto" them - they are now in the Bible. Frankly, that is a false assumption.

The written medium also greatly aided in the Apostles ministry, since they could not be everywhere at once (though Paul certainly seemed to wish he could be). In this way, Paul was able to reach the already developed Churches through out the world to keep them from degenerating into doctrinal error and to encourage them to hold on to the hope of the Gospel as originally preached to them.

While writings were certainly beneficial, it appear that Paul didn't have a problem sending a Titus or Timothy or Silvanius to problem areas... This seems to be more useful than a letter alone.

Sure they were, I'm just trying to acknowledge the common source for both the written and the oral: the Word of God as conveyed to man by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, God is the source of Apostolic Tradition and Scriptures. They are the teachings of the Apostles, some of which they wrote, others, they gave to their successors and perhaps later were written down (such as the idea of infant baptism).

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

I haven't forgotten this thread, I've just been having a busy week so far. I'll try to answer your entire post when I get the chance, but one thing you said stood out at me which I was hoping you could clarify:

Just because we have an "oral teaching" doesn't mean it never gets written down!

Wow, ok that threw me off guard - not that I don't agree. How then are you distinguishing them or defining them though? If you are unifying them then you are doing exactly what I proposed, that they were no different other than in form. Yet you seemed earlier to emphasize that they are different. Yet if the oral is in writting is it then oral or writting (or should we call it "ortting" :D)? If you say they are the same you just proved my point.

P.S. You are right about all the points above you made about oral traditions, so don't worry I agree. And I was not assuming that the Bible swallowed up oral traditions. But I'll try to explain that in more detail when I can appropriately address your post.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Wow, ok that threw me off guard - not that I don't agree. How then are you distinguishing them or defining them though?

The difference is the same that Paul makes... He mentions his teachings, oral and written. Thus, HIS letters are written, HIS other teachings unwritten are oral. Naturally, the reader of the epistle would know the totality, since they have received the totality of apostolic teaching. Subsequent followers of Paul certainly could have written them down. For example, HOW to baptize. Clearly, the full-blown liturgical rite is described elsewhere, but not in the Bible, claiming it to be apostolic. Not only is this true in liturgy, but also doctrine. Infant baptism is not one of Paul's "written" teachings - Origen calls is apostolic, nonetheless. As such, we would consider this idea a teaching given by Paul (or other apostles) that did not explicitly get written down in the pages of an epistle. We would consider infant baptism an example of Apostolic Tradition.

Naturally, oral teachings do not remain "oral" forever! Theologians eventually document and comment on implied meanings of Scriptures, liturgical actions that express the community belief, and even moral teachings that have little commentary in scriptures have received full-blown 'tracts' by the Fathers later. Universal moral teachings are also considered infallible.

If you are unifying them then you are doing exactly what I proposed, that they were no different other than in form. Yet you seemed earlier to emphasize that they are different. Yet if the oral is in writting is it then oral or writting (or should we call it "ortting" :D)? If you say they are the same you just proved my point.

The difference is that many non-Catholics believe they are unified in the Bible. I believe Scriptures make a solid case for the impossibility of that idea. The form given to the first Christians were oral and written. BOTH were accepted as infallibly given by God through the Apostles. Thus, the distinction between oral and written (as if one is more "infallible" then the other) is non-existent in the New Testament. We continue this idea - ONCE WE DETERMINE WE HAVE AN "ORAL" TEACHING OF THE APOSTLE.

If its source is apostolic, Josh, there is no reason to believe it is "less infallible" or not worthy of belief. Nowhere do we find an "expiration date" of oral teachings (teachings that are not explicitly laid out in the epistles written by apostles that we call the "bible" today).

P.S. You are right about all the points above you made about oral traditions, so don't worry I agree. And I was not assuming that the Bible swallowed up oral traditions. But I'll try to explain that in more detail when I can appropriately address your post.

Yes, I thought our agreement was closer than first perceived...

Regards

 

[Imagican]

I have a legitimate question that I believe is pertinent to this topic.

We have the words written by Paul to the Corinthians stating that IF one is MOVED by The Spirit to offer edification through prophecy that they ARE to 'be heard'. From a Catholic standpoint; how is this to be done IF the Pope IS the ULTIMATE authority?

I mean HOW is this POSSIBLE, IF the 'clergy' of the CC IS the ONLY authorized AUTHORITY.

And WHERE is The Body in the CC's dogma and doctrine? For the Bible explains that the Body is made up of MANY parts ALL to fit jointly together so that the Body is edified by it's parts. Yet in the Catholic plan, it seems that ALL the legislative part of the Body is UP TO a 'certain GROUP' of individuals to determine.

Now, this DOES pertain to the subject, for IF the CC IS the First and continual 'Church' of Christ, then HOW does one reconcile that they do NOT believe as is offered through scripture? How can the scriptures be ignored that contradict the teachings of this 'one true Church'. Has the Word of God CHANGED? And is it the CC that has been given instruction for this 'change'?

We have a basic guideline offered in scripture as to HOW the 'churches' are to be LED, (not RUN). That The Church is to BE 'Headed' BY Christ. EVERYONE else is a 'servant' TO The Body. Yet we can plainly see through the acts of the CC's clergy that THEY are rarely the servants EXCEPT in their WORDS, (and maybe it could be argued through their DEVOTION to the 'organization'), and are OFTEN seen as 'being SERVED'. That these are offered 'reverance' that the apostles shuned and taught AGAINST. Where did THIS tradition COME FROM. If not offered in scripture and actually taught CONTRARY to the CC's teachings, how is it that this COULD possibly BE 'The Church' as claimed. WHERE is 'this revelation' to be found if NOT in scripture?

MEC