Christian: Interpretation (priests, Moses, tradition, Epistles, grace)

[No*s]

From Apostolic Succession. I have removed arguments pertaining to that subject and limited it to ND's discourse with me on hermeneutics.

NetDoc challenged:

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Here are the criteria for becoming a bishop:

I Timothy 3:1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

Now correct me here if I have misread it, but aren't your Bishops celibate? How can they be Bishops/Elders/Overseers if they aren't a husband, or don't have a family?

I responded:

Originally Posted by No*s

You forget, we don't practice Sola Scriptura .

Things gradually change, and it's not in conflict with this verse. After all, why do we assume that "a bishop must be the husband of one wife" means that he must be married as opposed to he must not be a polygamist. If we apply your hermaneutic, a man who has no children, and is happily married could not be bishop, and a man with one child couldn't be bishop: "children" is plural.

Further, if we take the approach seriously, then the same bishop, who when his children died in an accident, must immediately give up the office, because he is no longer the father of two or more children. If his wife dies, the same thing is true.

There is no reason to assume it isn't a command against polygamy, remarriage, and how he addresses his household. At one time, there were married bishops, but that changed as the Churh grew and the needs on them changed. As the Church matured, so too her approach to her offices grow organically. Originally, there was one office. Then we got the deaconate. This addition wasn't given by Scripture, but as the need arose. Then there came a division between the priest (elder) and bishop (overseer), again as the need arose. All of this took place over time and can be seen in the NT, so there is solid precedent for this.

Now, when the Church moved from persecuted to triumphant, there were many more people, and the bishops didn't have to undergo the same trials as before. Monasticism, by the will of God, had arisen to give the same trials, and so, bishops increasingly came from monastic ranks, and it eventually became the norm.

The laying on of hands, though, didn't change. It is still practiced, and there can't be the same kinds of needs to change it. If you can supply a reason, then I would like to hear it.

Be careful, though, how much you insist to take legalistically, it might contradict your political views.

NetDoc responded by snipping everything away down to a convenient section, ignoring all the points:

Originally Posted by NetDoc

More importantly, the scriptures agree with this.

I wrote in response:

Originally Posted by No*s

It's saying quite a bit to declare what a Scripture says when there is more than one interpretation in the passage without giving more than a "the Scriptures agree with this." I could, in fact, give the exact same answer to you with my interpretation. It fits just as well, unless you can explain why it doesn't.

Further, are you willing to subject yourself to the same standard of interpretation on other, less comfortable, passages in the New Testament? If not, why do you demand of us something you will not practice yourself?

Netdoc responds (note the omission of the smiley in his quoting me which changes a joke into an argument):

Originally Posted by NetDoc

No, I don't forget that. However, it appears you practice "No Scriptura" whenever it disagrees with your practices.

So HOW DO YOU twist, er hermaneuticize I Timothy 3??? I would love to hear your take on it.

Now we're up to snuff on the hermeneutics stuff.

Here is my response to I Timothy 3.16 (part of this thread):

It is not twisting it to insist that 3.16 doesn't teach Sola Scriptura, when Paul names other authorities in the passage just before it to build up to Scripture. I'm, thus, not twisting it by trying to keep it in context and not ignore Paul's other statements on authority.

Paul names several authorities in the preceding verses. He names Tradition, telling Timothy to "continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of." He also tells him he knows from whom he learned them, meaning that "the things" he learned were given authority by who he learned them from. Next we get to Scripture, and we find that its authority is connected to the preceding with "and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures."

In context, Paul names other authorities, and thus, could not have meant Scripture alone. And if he had, there was no New Testament. If he did mean Scripture alone, it means the NT is just as superfluous as Tradition would be, but I've never seen this verse applied that consistently for Sola Scriptura.

Finally, in 3.8 Paul makes a reference to the magicians Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not in the Bible, but they are in The Assumption of Moses. The use can easily qualify for his definition of Scripture in 3.16, so why do you not accept that book?

I think you can see, there is no "twisting" going on. The Orthodox approach is very consistent, and it takes the verse in its context. There is only a problem when someone wants to pluck it out to proof-text Sola Scriptura that there's a problem. In fact, from our perspective, it is not us who twist this verse...we take it in context, with a view of the history of the day, and with other internal references...all of which must be ignored to support Sola Scriptura with it. That, in effect, is "twisting" it.

My question again:

Now that I have answered that, you avoided the question I asked. Do you hold yourself to the same type of Scripture interpretation you are tried to force us into earlier in the thread: absolutely literal, timeless commands in Paul's epistles? When it makes a positive statement, it mandates that situation, doesn't put up a barrier, or anything of the sort. Do you believe you should submit to your own standard?

[Joannicius]

Sola Scriptura, wow, what a heresy that I believed for over 30 years and repent of now. In my studies I found that the proud attitude of it is rooted in Luther's errors in his limited understanding of the scriptures as he was distanced from the Church fathers culturally and didn't know the heart of Eastern monasticism that held the faith true through the most trying history.

If he had, he would have come back into The Church that the RC Papacy had turned their back on and what would have history been like then?

In all reallity, there probably would have been another such as Zwingly or Calvin that would have started their own branch of Protestantism without Luther's influence.

Interpretation has to have the proper foundations to come to Truth, who is our Lord Himself.

[No*s]

I agree wholeheartedly on Sola Scriptura. It was constructed as a means to fight against ecclesiastical corruption in their day, and well, they created the principle as a means of trying to bypass corruption. It hasn't worked out well .

I do think, though, that the interpretational problem that I started this thread over may well be solved, though (granted, the other guy will still view II TIm. as proof of Sola Scriptura).

[chris9178]

So why aren't women allowed to be priests then?

Of course, I'm rather ignorant of Greek Orthodox, so they may allow women priests.... if so, excuse my ignorance.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by chris9178

So why aren't women allowed to be priests then?

Of course, I'm rather ignorant of Greek Orthodox, so they may allow women priests.... if so, excuse my ignorance.

Frankly, because there has never been a need to change it, and unlike bishop's being married or not, or about slavery, there is reason:

The priest icons Christ, who was a human male. Secondly, women birth people physically, and only they can do that. This balances the scales of honor some for women. Third, tradition, and that means it will not change when coupled with the first one.

Tradition has a lot to do with any interpretation, so that we don't try and interpret the verses on our own authority. In that case, we must pick a standard and apply it universally. However, if our standard is the interpretation of the Church, then we have a different principle.

[chris9178]

Frankly, because there has never been a need to change it, and unlike bishop's being married or not, or about slavery, there is reason

What exactly is the reason to change a bishop's being married, or not?

The priest icons Christ, who was a human male......

Well I agree that women shouldn't be priests, so I won't argue about that.

Tradition has a lot to do with any interpretation, so that we don't try and interpret the verses on our own authority. In that case, we must pick a standard and apply it universally. However, if our standard is the interpretation of the Church, then we have a different principle.

So, when tradition is contrary to scripture, which wins?

[Baerly]

Well I agree with what NetDoc was saying. I just wish Doc would take more of a stand on other issues as well. I believe (1Tim.3:2) says exactly what it means. To change it would open the door to change any other scripture we wish too. To interpret that verse any other way would be opposing what (1Peter 4:11) teaches and many other scriptures. When the bible is talking about traditions in (2Thess.2:15 ; 3:6) it is refering to the word of God found within the letters the apostles wrote while being led,moved,born along by the Holy Spirit. It was also refering to the preaching done by the Holy Spirit through the apostles (Heb.2:3,4) (1Peter 1:20,21) (1Cor.2:13). Those letters would finally become our New testament. in love Baerly

[athanasius]

Dear in Christ Mr Baerly

Hello and God bless you my brother. I have been reading your dialogue and I appreciate your questions on Sacred tradition. I know they come from a great love of our Lord. I would respectfully disagree with what you said though and I believe the early christians would too. Let me explain.

You had said;

"When the bible is talking about traditions in (2Thess.2:15 ; 3:6) it is referring to the word of God found within the letters the apostles wrote while being led,moved,born along by the Holy Spirit. It was also referring to the preaching done by the Holy Spirit through the apostles (Heb.2:3,4) (1Peter 1:20,21) (1Cor.2:13). Those letters would finally become our New testament. in love Baerly"

My response would be;

Where do those passages like 2 thess 2:15 say that all the traditions
of the apostles were eventually written down and included in our new testament? I My understanding of this passage Paul refers to both those traditions which were written down in Letters(epistles) and those traditions orally spoken that were not written down(oral sacred tradition).

Paul seems to tell Christians that we are to hold fast to both of them in 2 Thess 2:15 and not just the ones written in his epistles. Seems that all traditions not just written ones are up for grabs here.

I mean no disrespect to you or your opinion. I would say that not everything the apostles taught are written down(2 John:12; 3 John:13) and according to Paul we are to hold fast to both the oral and written traditions(2 Thess 2:15).

My big problem with your interpretation of Pauls epistle to the Thessolonians is that the Fathers of the Church(antiquity) seems to interpret it differently then you would. We Catholics believe with the Fathers of the church that Christianity has always had two different way in which divine revelation comes down to us. 1) Scripture, the written tradition and 2) Sacred tradition, the oral spoken tradition not written down in scripture.

Consider the following quotes from the early Christians and how they interpetated Pauls writing in thessalonians.

John Chrysostom


"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

*
Augustine


"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

Irenaeus


(Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Against Heresies 3:4:1[A.D. 189]).


...

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).


Also my other major objection would be that the only reason we we know and have our new testament canon that we Christians do today is because the canon relied upon oral apostolic tradition not found in scripture. In other words there is no inspired table of contents in the bible and the canon we have in our new testament had to rely on a outside source such as oral tradition and the Church.

The Church did not come from the bible but rather the bible came from the church. For a detailed treatment on this see my debate with Writer on Sola scriptura Post # 246 Its here at Christian: Sola Scriptura

Again i really mean no disrespect to you or your faith. I believe we are brothers in Christ and its always good to talk to brothers in Christ. Also This is NOT meant to be read or debated by Mr writer. We have already had our debate on this subject and evidence is there for anyone to read and study.

I also promised I would not ever debate Writer again because he seems to be a bit uncharitable towards me. But Mr Baerly I hope I have at least explained some of the differences we have in our understanding of the modes of revelation. I know you may not agree with me but at least you may see where Im coming from.

God bless you always my brother

Speaking the Truth of Jesus Catholic Church
In Jesus through Mary,
Athansaius
*

[athanasius]

Dear in Christ Mr Baerly

Hello and God bless you my brother. I have been reading your dialogue and I appreciate your questions on Sacred tradition. I know they come from a great love of our Lord. I would respectfully disagree with what you said though and I believe the early christians would too. Let me explain.

You had said;

"When the bible is talking about traditions in (2Thess.2:15 ; 3:6) it is referring to the word of God found within the letters the apostles wrote while being led,moved,born along by the Holy Spirit. It was also referring to the preaching done by the Holy Spirit through the apostles (Heb.2:3,4) (1Peter 1:20,21) (1Cor.2:13). Those letters would finally become our New testament. in love Baerly"

My response would be;

Where do those passages like 2 thess 2:15 say that all the traditions
of the apostles were eventually written down and included in our new testament? I My understanding of this passage Paul refers to both those traditions which were written down in Letters(epistles) and those traditions orally spoken that were not written down(oral sacred tradition).

Paul seems to tell Christians that we are to hold fast to both of them in 2 Thess 2:15 and not just the ones written in his epistles. Seems that all traditions not just written ones are up for grabs here.

I mean no disrespect to you or your opinion. I would say that not everything the apostles taught are written down(2 John:12; 3 John:13) and according to Paul we are to hold fast to both the oral and written traditions(2 Thess 2:15).

My big problem with your interpretation of Pauls epistle to the Thessolonians is that the Fathers of the Church(antiquity) seems to interpret it differently then you would. We Catholics believe with the Fathers of the church that Christianity has always had two different way in which divine revelation comes down to us. 1) Scripture, the written tradition and 2) Sacred tradition, the oral spoken tradition not written down in scripture.

Consider the following quotes from the early Christians and how they interpetated Pauls writing in thessalonians.

John Chrysostom


"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

*
Augustine


"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

Irenaeus


(Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Against Heresies 3:4:1[A.D. 189]).


...

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).


Also my other major objection would be that the only reason we we know and have our new testament canon that we Christians do today is because the canon relied upon oral apostolic tradition not found in scripture. In other words there is no inspired table of contents in the bible and the canon we have in our new testament had to rely on a outside source such as oral tradition and the Church.

The Church did not come from the bible but rather the bible came from the church. For a detailed treatment on this see my debate with Writer on Sola scriptura Post # 246 Its here at Christian: Sola Scriptura

Again i really mean no disrespect to you or your faith. I believe we are brothers in Christ and its always good to talk to brothers in Christ. Also This is NOT meant to be read or debated by Mr writer. We have already had our debate on this subject and evidence is there for anyone to read and study.

I also promised I would not ever debate Writer again because he seems to be a bit uncharitable towards me. But Mr Baerly I hope I have at least explained some of the differences we have in our understanding of the modes of revelation. I know you may not agree with me but at least you may see where Im coming from.

God bless you always my brother

Speaking the Truth of Jesus Catholic Church
In Jesus through Mary,
Athansaius
*

[writer]

1 You forget, we don't practice Sola Scriptura
I appreciate the honesty of such a comment: if it means that "Orthodoxy"'s unscriptural, or contrary to the apostles' teaching, in some regards