As an outsider and learner I am curious to what relationship your Church gives to Scripture and Tradtion. Are they equal? Does one have superiority over the other? Is tradition interpreted in the light of Scripture or vice-versa?

As I posted in another I am not hear to fight or cause trouble. I don't think I will be convering , but know nothing about your church and am simply here to learn.

Berean,

Welcome.

Perhaps it would be good if you stated what your Church background is - this would allow us to know where you are coming from, and phrase our answer accordingly.

I'm not Byzantine Catholic, but a member of the Roman Church, but I believe our understanding of Scripture and Tradition is very similar, if not almost identical.

The Catholic Church believes that God revealed Himself to mankind in order to work out our salvation. This began with the patriarchs (Abraham, etc.), and continued through the prophets. The ultimate revelation of God is His Word, Jesus Christ. Jesus handed on this revelation to his apostles, who then preached it to all the ends of the earth, per his command. This is the Gospel message. After the death of the last apostle, public revelation ceased, as it had been fufilled by Christ and his apostle's preaching.

This Gospel message has been handed on through the centuries, and takes on two forms: Scripture and Tradition. Scripture is the written word, inspired by God, and reveals the Gospel message in a unique form. Tradition is the Gospel message handed on in different methods: orally & liturgically primarily. These two forms of handing on the Gospel message are not in conflict, and cannot be pitted one against the other, because they have the same source: the Holy Spirit. The Faith has been handed on for 2,000 years in both forms, both protected by the Holy Spirit.

Now, how do we know what is a correct interpretation of Scripture, and what is legitimate Tradition (as opposed to the traditions of men)? This is the job of the Church, the "the pillar and foundation of the truth" according to 1 Timothy 3:15. The Church is the authority we look to in order to determine what is a legitimate interpretation of Scripture and what is legitimate Tradition.

All three - Scripture, Tradition, and the Church - are the "legs", so to speak, on which our Faith is preached to the nations. Taking away one or more of them will cause it to fall, and be distorted. With all three however, the Faith can remain pure and in its fullness.

I hope this quick explanation is helpful to you. God bless!

I believe that the Eastern approach is that Scripture is the "heart" of Tradition, something central, something that cannot be understood properly outside the lived-out experience of the Church which is Tradition. Another definition of Tradition is "the ongoing life of the Church as she is lead into all Truth by the Holy Spirit." The Lord promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to the Church and that He would be with Her to the end of the age. Tradition is how He does it.

In Christ,

BOB

Berean,

The Eastern Churches do not perceive the relationship of Sacred Scripture and Tradition as the way you have posed the question. Rather, we speak of Holy Tradition as being the activity of the Holy Spirit, present in the Church of Christ since Pentecost, who makes real the eternal Truths of the Gospel and the Love of God the Father to every generation of the faithful. Pride of place is given to Sacred Scripture, originally oral Tradition, whose authors were moved by the inspiration of God to compose the various books. In his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, Saint Paul writes:

So Scripture is viewed as the authentic presentation of Holy Tradition. Other aspects of Holy Tradition are found in the pronouncements of Ecumenical Councils and Creeds (statements of faith), the various liturgical celebrations of our Churches (especially the Divine [Eucharistic] Liturgy), hymnography, iconography, the writings of the Fathers, and preaching. As you can see we perceive Holy Tradition in a "wholistic" manner. Holy Tradition is not dead letter, but the living and loving activity of the Holy Trinity.

Thank you for your clear, concise, non-argumentative,and informative answers. They are very helpful.

Roger,

How did you come across the Eastern Catholics?

Pani Rose

A member of this forum joined a Baptist board that I moderate and piqued my interest. Again, I do not want to be deceptive in any way. I am not here with any interest in coverting as I am fully convinced in my spirit that I am in the right place. I am however, very interested in learning more and am very grateful for the kind reception here.

Roger, our guest and Brother in Christ,

It is also part of the discussion to ask YOU questions just like anyone would when a guest comes to their home. Pani Rose was just being friendly and so are the rest of us which should not be misunderstood as trying to convert you.(I repeat this as you mention that you are not here to be converted in almost all of your replies so far.) Perhaps you are gathering material for a book or a sermon about Byzantine or Orthodox Christians??

This is a discussion forum and posters here, unlike what you may be accustomed to elsewhere, don't try to convert people when they walk in the door.

In the Name of Jesus,


Porter

Porter,

Thank you for your kind words and gentle reminder. I am afraid that I have been so up front about why I am here that I may have caused offense. I do not think anyone here is trying to covert me - I just wanted to make it known that my spirit of inquiry is not motivated by a desire to change, but just to learn more.

My desire to learn is not for a book or sermon at all - I am just curious about a Church which I previuosly knew nothing about.

Please accept my apologies if I came across wrongly.

I have nothing but praise for the way I have been treated.

Roger

Thanks, Brother in Christ. for your apology,

All of us come here for various reasons. But, I must say, change can happen if only that we learn more about other Christians and our own horizons then are broadened.

I do think you are sincerely interested in learning more about Eastern Christianity and this is the place to do that. It might make you a better Christian. I know it has me.

In Christ,


Porter

I find forums the best place to learn. As I mentioned I have learned more in the last couple of days than I would have in months of study.

We often paint those outside of our circle with a broad brush. As an Independent Baptist I know we are often guilty of that. I have already enjoye dmeeting many of you and are convinced of yoru deep love for the things of God.

What is an independent Baptist?

Not that it matters. I try not to inadvertantly step on peoples toes (and sometimes I aim right for the toes!). It would be good for me to know what an independent Baptist is.

You have courage, coming to expereince this melting pot (Orthodox, Byzantines, Roman Catholic, etc.. of sacremental curches). I would have expected some hesitation. But to my memory - I have never known any Baptist to be anything other than sincere people. A credit - to Protestants.

-ray

Independent Baptist basically are not a part of any denomination. Each local church is fully autonomous.

Our website is under contruction (I am a website dummy ), but useable, and has our basic beliefs if you would like to see more.

Dear Berean:


I see. Thank you.

-ray

Roger,

I think that, potentially, you're right. Forums offer a great opportunity to educate and be educated. Unfortunately, many of them are either so internally focused or so aimed at prosletyzing (?sp) (too lazy this a.m. to check - John, can we get a spell checker built into this, please? :p ) that the atmosphere becomes and remains very charged, parochial, and polemic. It's true of both Catholic and Protestant apologetic boards and the fundamentalist Orthodox boards - little there passes for real discussion.

I'm sure everyone appreciates your kind words about your reception here; it's the kind of atmosphere we hope to present - and at which we generally succeed, hopefully. Not to say that we don't have our moments :rolleyes: - it wouldn't take much searching for you to find a fiesty (or worse) exchange or two - the worse include a few of what are not our finest moments. But, for the most part, we succeed in the exercise of respect and charity, toward each other and each other's Churches, the basic precepts behind this board's existence.

As I think someone (Mary Jo and/or Rose) mentioned to you in another thread, we're an extremely diverse group here, bonded by an interest in Eastern Christianity, but certainly not by common Church ties. There are Eastern Catholics here representing more than half of the 22 EC Churches; both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, from probably at least a dozen different Churches; Latins whose thinking spans the continuum from traditional to liberal; and Protestants of a half dozen or more Churches.

And we do see shifts happen; there are among us Orthodox who were recently Catholic, and vice-versa, Catholics who were recently Protestant, etc., all of whose shifts in communion we witnessed, with prayerful hope that each found peace in their choice. And "former" - do we have "former" ; I suspect half of this board's members are former somethings.

Getting off my soapbox, I guess I'm just encouraging you to continue feeling at home here. We always welcome questions, another viewpoint, and someone else to offer a prayer (or ask for one) when life gets a bit disrupted (and we all know that prayers offered in Ireland start out with the advantage that one's already geographically a bit closer to Heaven !) .

Many years,

Neil

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Concerning the relationship between scripture and tradition (to get back to topic):

One interesting comparison I remember hearing was a person (this is not my story) who studied scripture for years with intense interest and was going over Leviticus, Deuteronomy and the rest when he suddenly realised that there wasn't enough there to tell a priest how to be a priest!The temple priests could not fulfill their obligations to Yahweh simply by studying the Torah.

Scripture couldn't provide all the details, and when the temple was restored after Babylon there would have been no way to restart the priestly functions without the living memory or oral traditions of the priestly families who were taken away.

WE acknowledge this ourselves without realizing it when we buy books like this, by Alfred Edersheim . Our curiosity is peaked, and we wish to learn more. But even this book would not teach me to be a temple priest. I would need instruction, and perhaps a handbook or two.

And we need someone knowledgeable about the vestments and other appointments to make sure they are all in order and ready for service! And we all would have learned our functions by study with older more experienced predecessors.

That is tradition working in hand with the scripture.

In Christ,
Michael

Roger,

I think the root meaning of the word, tradition(Latin--traditio, is "something which is handed over." In that sense scripture is also tradition -- written tradition, which has been handed down. Unfortunately the idea of "tradition" whether that of Catholics or Orthodox is often misunderstood and assumed by many Protestants to be human tradition (or the tradition of men) as see in Col. 2:8.

I do agree with others on the forum, and, I think, Neil, who suggested you visit a Byzantine Church near where you are just to see what the Liturgical tradition, icons, etc. is all about. Eastern Christians rely heavily on 'experience' in their spirituality and worship. To 'see' and 'hear' is to understand better what it is all about. And again I say that not to convert you, but just to suggest a visit as it will be very educational. I know I had no really good idea of what it was until I visited and experienced an Eastern Church myself and I am still learning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Neil,

Yes, thanks for reiterating about this forum's diversity. It sounds like Pastor Berean thought it was a one church only forum as he refers to "your church." My thought was - which church? On the other hand represented here are members of the one Body of Christ - so....

And, I am seconding your suggestion for a spell check.

In Christ,

Mary Jo \O/

Since we are discussing Scripture and Tradition, I have been pondering & wrestling with the word "begotten" referencing (John 1:18,John 3:16,Heb 11:17,1 John 4:9), it is in the Creed(Profession Of Faith) and is some how forgotten in various NT bible translations RSV,NAB,Jerusalem etc, but is part of KJV,NKJV,Rheims,Confraternity NT, NASB.

begotten: form of beget, to father/sire,to cause to exist or occur, produce.(I forgot to include dictonary quote).

How important is the word "begotten" to you regarding Scripture and the Creed ?

james

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Dear James, Brother in Christ,

Wow, what a good and challenging question! Am not sure, maybe you meant the question for another in this thread, but, if me, I am taking a stab at it. So, here goes getting a bit off topic but...I can understand the pondering and wrestling with "begotten." It has slightly different meanings, as far as I can determine, depending on the context in which it is used and the Hebrew(OT) or Greek (NT) word from which it has been translated.


Let's just take one of your references; John 3:16

I believe 'begotten' in this verse is used mainly in the KJV and other versions you mention. The NIV is translated to read "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (thus 'begotten' is not included)

John 3:16 (KJV)>>In that context of this verse the word "begotten" comes from monogenes Greek for only-born, i.e. sole--(only begotten ,child) So the NIV is more accurate in translation using "one and only Son" which is really the meaning of the original Greek word.

You asked about how important to scriptures and the Creed. "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages...etc." It is clear from this that we do not believe anyone else is the Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father...To me it is very important because this means that Mohammed is not the only Son of God, nor is Budda, nor others --the only, begotten son of God is Jesus Christ and this is one of the pillars of our faith. Also begotten of the Father before all ages,(eternally begotten)is important as it establishes that Jesus Christ always was, is, and always will be. Very important, to be sure as inherent to the mystery of the Trinity. And, in a sense, to me, important to my understanding of scriptures as well because it does establish the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.

Hope this helps a little.


Mary Jo

Berean,

i'm new to these forums as well, and i am an orthodox Anglican. i have recently begun reading about the Eastern church, and i have found two books very helpful for my Western mindset: The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware and The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware.

Note: despite the name changes, this author is the same person. Timothy Ware was an orthodox Anglican who became a bishop in the Eastern Orthodox church - hence his name is now Bishop Kallistos Ware.

Begotten can indicate that Christ was not created because He IS...as in "I am".

I saw an Orthodox icon somewhere...of the Creation...do you know what I see? I see Christ the visible G-d, creating the world (because Christ is G-d, the 2nd Person of the Trinity).

Because we cannot see G-d, so He made Himself visible through Christ.

So it was cool to see that Icon. Because it is true, according to the Creed, the Father created the world through the Son. (Thru Him all things were created).

G-d bless,

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

spdundas,

AMEN. I have that icon and I love it!


In Christ,


Mary Jo

SPDundas & Mary Jo,

Thanks for your thoughts, I find the phrase "Only begotten Son" echoing in my mind often, and find sadness when I see it shorten to "Only Son" in many places.

james

Dear Berean,

As a former Southern Baptist from the Bible Belt, I can testify to the sincerity and faith of Baptists! We appreciate the Spirit working in you and in us to bring us all to unity in eternity! Please, stay with us, and continue to ask any questions you like in your kind spirit.

In Peace,

Tammy

I think you will find that whether Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox Catholic that Tradition (big T)is a little more weighted than Scripture. Scripture in fact, is a part of Tradition. The early Church Fathers had to rely on Tradition even after all the books were made available via the Ecumenical Councils.

So, Tradition has been and continues to be the glue that keeps the Faith intact supported by Holy Scripture.

JoeS

//As an outsider and learner I am curious to what relationship your Church gives to Scripture and Tradtion. Are they equal? Does one have superiority over the other? Is tradition interpreted in the light of Scripture or vice-versa?

As I posted in another I am not hear to fight or cause trouble. I don't think I will be convering , but know nothing about your church and am simply here to learn.//

Thanks for another kind welcome. Been gone a few days and just looking in again.

I saw this (it may have been in this thread) and wonder if it accurately depicts the general few of your Churches? It went something like:

The Church does not come from the Scriptures, the Scriptures come from the Church.

Yes, that sounds about right; certainly the Church existed before the New Testament,which was written by her members, and the canon was decided by the Church. The Scriptures came out of the experience of the Church, after all.

I have an 1881 orginal copy! I found it somewhere and took it home and began reading and .. and .. and ... well you know the rest

I have only 5 books which I shall never ever ever lend to anyone (well - almost) and that is one of them.

-ray

That seems pretty simple to me.

Books come from people - people do not come from books.

Books are actually dead things. Yes... I know.. how we make a stand-alone-idol of scriptures… but paper and ink are dead things with no life. Scriptures only become 'alive' when it is explained by its author (the church). If one wants the explanation of scriptures one only need learn the theology of either the Eastern or Latin church (or both) - and take part in the life of the church - and bingo!! You are living it!

I know, I know, we often call the New Testament the "Word" of God - but Jesus is the Word of God and scriptures actually calls itself a ‘witness’ (testimony - Testament) to the real Word. Actually I can not remember even once anyone in the NT refering to the OT as the “Word” of God.

Recorded testimony from several witnesses. No one can 'build the Word' … from it - it’s not a manual of operations which will 'produce' either the Word nor 'produce' the church.

If I received a long letter from someone and I read that letter - there would be some parts that I would be bound misinterpret - yet I would not be aware that I misreading the meaning of any of it. If the author were still alive - the author of the letter can straighten me out as to what he meant to say. So I would naturally ask him "Hey - what did you mean here when you wrote this part?" or he would hear me and say “That is not what I ment - here is what I meant … etc.. “ And what would be the sense if he then told me what he meant and I said "No, no, no... that is NOT what you meant because what you really meant was what I understood at the time I read it." Now that would be a bone head thing - insisting to the author that he mant something other than what he meant!! (dizzy)

People who place scriptures above the church (where Christ is really present) are automatically assuming that God/Jesus was the author is and he is - dead - and all that is left are his 'letters'. What they are trying to do is re-build the author - from his letters. And the bricks they are using are often their own personal interpretation.

-ray

I appreciate your views, thank you.

Most Protestants believe that everything the apostles taught was later doctrinally recorded in Scripture. This is a hidden premise (or it follows from their reasoning, whether they are aware of it or not). But this is a completely arbitrary assumption. Protestants have to believe something akin to this notion, because of their aversion to authoritative, binding tradition, but the notion itself is unbiblical. They agree that what apostles taught was binding, but they fail to see that some of that teaching would be "extrabiblical" (i.e., not recorded in Scripture). The Bible itself, however, teaches us that there are such teachings and deeds not recorded in it (Jn 20:30, 21:25, Acts 1:2-3, Lk 24:15-16,25-27). The logic is simple (at least when laid out for all to see):


1. Apostles' teaching was authoritative and binding.

2. Some of that teaching was recorded in Scripture, but some was not.

3. The folks who heard their teaching were bound to it whether it was later "inscripturated" or not.

4. Therefore, early Christians were bound to "unbiblical" teachings or those not known to be "biblical" (as the Bible would not yet be canonized until more than three centuries later).

5. If they were so bound, it stands to reason that we could and should be, also.

6. Scripture itself does not rule out the presence of an authoritative oral tradition, not recorded in words. Paul refers more than once to a non-written tradition (e.g., 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2:2).

7. Scripture informs us that much more was taught by Jesus and apostles than what is recorded in it.

8. Scripture nowhere teaches that it is the sole rule of faith or that what is recorded in it about early Church history has no relevance to later Christians because this was the apostolic or "inscripturation" period. Those are all arbitrary, unbiblical traditions of men.

Respectfully,
+Fr. Gregory

I respectfully would disagree with that view of my own beliefs at least.

I don't believe that everything taught by the apostles was later recorded in the Scriptures. I believe what was recorded in the Scriptures was that portion of teaching which was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

In other words, I (I can't speak for all Protestants or evangelicals) don't accept that everything the apostles taught has the same authority as Scriptures.

Thank you again for an articulate and reasonable discussion.

+GLORY BE TO THE LORD JESUS FOR ALL THINGS!

Because the Holy Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost Day and were the personal witnesses to the teaching of the Lord Jesus and to His Resurrection and given authority to "Go and teach all nations baptizing them..." we believe that all their teaching was inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Their teaching abides in the Churches they established and their teaching abides there in its fullness. Outside of these ancient Churches it is difficult to know the same fullness because most are 500 years old or even much less. It follows that the farther away from the source one gets---the less one can be assured that the fullness can be found there. This being said...many Baptists and other later Protestant movements are certainly people who love the Lord greatly and live holy and Godly lives...perhaps at times, even more so than those of us who have been gifted with a greater amount of that fullness.

I remember reading the words of Anthony Bloom, Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church in England some years ago...where he said that it is important to us Orthodox to be in the place where not only the Scriptures are loved and respected---but that we be in the Church that produced them and that could recreate them from our inner life should all the copies of the Bible be destroyed.

Respectfully,
+Fr. Gregory

While the area of sola scriptura is one where I respectfully disagree with my gracious hosts here on the board I see much merit in this line above.

We have a "saying" in our circles as well - "We are the only Bible some people will ever see."

Dear Berean, That is simply BEAUTIFUL and completely the truth in its fullness! *big smile* and *big embrace*

Now if we can ALL make THAT Gospel shine in its fullness...the whole world will be transformed and He will probably come quickly in glory and bring us home to be with Him! May it be so!

In His Holy Name,
+Fr. Gregory

"Maranatha - even so, come Lord Jesus"

Theophan,
I dont really see any difference from your post in the understanding of Sacred Scripture and Tradition from the Latin understanding.
Stephanos I

Something caught my eye reading this interesting thread. RayK said If I received a long letter from someone and I read that letter- there would be some parts that I would be bound to misinterpret- yet I would not be aware that I was misreading the meaning of any of it... People who place scriptures above the church( where Christ is really present) are automatically assuming that God/Jesus was the author and he is- dead-and all that is left are his 'letters'. What they are trying to do is rebuild the author What i think we've overlooked is that these are not like any other letters. These are not just words. There is a spiritual doctrine being conveyed in these writings that is alive and potent and ready to fill the hearts of any who can perceive it- and is independant of the writer(in the sense that it's his teaching). The author is the means or material station that this Life is using. "To him who has more will be given- to him who has not- even the portion he has will be taken away." If all we hear in scripture is a teaching about Christ then we will seek out it's fulfillment on that level-(tradition). If we can perceive something timeless and truly liberating in the words of scripture than it has done it's job and conveyed that life. What we don't realize we're saying is that tradition or people and their efforts came first and the unstoppable,eternal,ever-pouring Spirit is a result of our tradition. This is not only impossible it's ironically heretical. Spiritual is living in the present moment and is attune to the part of us that is living and in the present moment. When we get to talking 'about' things we have already left spiritual reality. The Scriptures are not only a historical picture of our salvation they are a collection of writings that carry- to ears that hear- a Living message, and impart that message to 'those that received him'. It's not a rebuilding of God but a passing of a kind of torch from Giver to receiver. If I am interpreting scripture in error that is because essentially i am in darkness and to a great degree immature in my approach to God. If i truly live as Christ taught to the best of my ability (There is no fooling the Spirit) than I will be in line with the Spirit or will be corrected by the same Spirit of Truth. (This seems to be the rightful place of traditon- as a special environment to mature in the Spirit that is received by the Word.) I can be a part of the tradition and kid myself for eons but if i realize a Spirit to spirit relationship it becomes very clear that any kidding or cutting corners with Truth is suicide. Having said all that I do believe tradition is important only not primary. May God be praised. Rick

Am I in trouble?? I have been goofing up alot latley. (stomp foot on ground) I do not want to be in trouble today.

(just kidding around)

I was trying to think of my original context for that quote. But, like many things, I have forgotten.

>Spiritual is living in the present moment and is attune
>to the part of us that is living and in the present moment.

Jean-Pierre de Caussade would be proud of you - as would so many other saints and Doctor‘s of the Church. Many of your posts impress me (not that I am anybody - sorry) and I enjoy reading them. They are very thoughtful. Very thoughtful indeed.

I mostly agree with this sentiment. It is a pious sentiment that is very practical. That is to say … that for the ordinary Christian (no matter what branch) there is a good obtained through reading scriptures. There is an - intended message - which we can make progress in receiving. The Spirit … taps us on the shoulder and says “look here - let me explain something of this thing to you.“

Like men emerging from a cave into daylight… ... halting and hesitant. That is us.

In the following I am not debating with you … really .. I am just musing. Making note of some observations without really giving a total conclusion.

//begin

As you indicate… one must have ears to hear … having the Spirit… is primary. It may come while we are reading or it may come later by a remembrance of something we had read in scriptures. But the Spirit is primary to a proper understanding of scripture in the same way that the walls of a house can not stand up unless they are placed upon a foundation that pre-exists the walls. This reminds me of an OT line of which I must paraphrase for lack of a good memory - in which God said to one of the prophets or to Israel through a prophet… “You - did not call me. It was I who called you. Before you ever knew me - I called you by name.”

We must admit, that for some Christians, scriptures can be a living message and vital conduit toward Christ.

We must admit also, that for some Christians scriptures can be a nail in the coffin of fanatic fundamentalism.

Indeed there are moments for an average Christian - in which scripture is now one (insight) and now the other (fake insight).

It can be the food of angels or the words of suicide like… Waco and Jonestown.

Like a tool which a man takes into his hands - it can be used to shape a good result or used to harm. We wish this were not true but we experience that it is.

Proof positive - we witness that scriptures can be used to unite churches - or divided them. A weapon or a bandage.

Hense we know what the image of a two sided sword might be. It cuts both ways.

Right we are, to revere Holy Scripture. If we understand the limits and restrictions inherent to ’revere’ and ’reverence’. To say that those of Waco or Jonestown revered the scriptures is an overall misnomer of the word and so in these cases reverence for scriptures has stepped over into - something else. May God preserve us all from that ‘something else’.

Aside from pious thought (which I am prone to like poetry) there is an existential reality here. Scripture becomes whatever the man who eats it has a taste for. Like the manna of Exodus - it becomes the food that each man desires. And since nothing about scriptures itself changes (paper, ink, words, etc..) scriptures is the media used - but it is not itself the message received. That - is other than scripture. Spiritual understanding may come with scripture or not. It may come without scripture too.

Meaning - is an experience of the mind… which is not directly caused by scriptures itself. That is really simple and self evident that scriptures as paper / ink / words / signs… has no inherent meaning in itself and it must be read by a human in order for some type of human meaning in the mind come about.

Certainly throughout history, individuals and groups have (to degrees) misinterpreted scriptures. Now when we say ‘misinterpreted’ what we mean is they have believed or received (by whatever way) something which they attribute to scriptures, which, was not intended by its authors. Sometimes this is a bit inconsequential and under other circumstances it is a damage to themselves and Christianity as a whole.

Also as certain - this ‘fluctuation’ - has also taken place within individual churches and no particular church is immune. So this also points to the evidence that there is nothing inherent to scriptures of any guarantee that anyone anywhere - can or will - infallibly understand it fully as its author’s intended - as to never be in degrees of error regarding it.

This - in itself - begs another question. That is - if we are speaking of error - we must speak of it according to a goal and inten3d purpose. The question arises - what is the intended purpose of scriptures that we might say our interpretation is in error from?? I shall not myself pose an answer to that other than to say its purpose is in the name the Church gives it - testimony of witnesses. To some of the actions God has caused within history.

In the Catholic Church - this is the same as with any declaration that is infallible. That is - there is no like guarantee that anyone reading or hearing an explanation of an infallible declaration - will - infallibly understand it. God does not violate our freedom and so our human limitations (of all types) remain intact. In a true sense - we are all free - to misunderstand it and misinterpret - anything - having to do with the church.

Any infallibility (and let us supposes some for scriptures right now) exists between the author and his work. Period. Only. No exceptions. The work done (be it an infallible declaration or the writing of scripture since we are for a moment supposing an infallibility to it) the work produced - represents perfectly - what that author intended to say - within the limits of human nature. It is a human - work - the language and words are particular

Obviously - there - IS A PLACE - for sola scriptura. That place is within certain Protestant churches. As a ‘thing’ … sola scriptura … is not exactly what it is interpreted as. For no matter - men - still - do the interpretation of scripture in the Protestant Church. They read it and then they discuss and agree towards its meaning - and (this is important) the door is left open for further developments in understanding. Unlike (for example) the Jehovah Witness deal. And so sola scriptua - ultimately depends upon some form of human interpretation of scriptures and not the meaning of scriptures themselves as that meaning is impossible to be contained in scriptures itself.

So certainly, the Spirit of God has ‘room to move’ within the Protestant Churches, and the ability to speak through the development of Protestant doctrines and such - to speak to Protestants - in ways that is food for them and perhaps not to our taste.

God is in no way required to tell us Catholic (Orthodox etc.. with sacraments) what he is doing or intends to do among the Protestant Churches. He is certainly free - to have his own private and privileged conversation with the Protestants.

In fact I often think that, when the apostle Peter asked “what about these others” and Jesus replied “What is that to you?” (meaning it is none of your business) - I often think that is fairly allegorical (and moral) for us as regards especially other Christian churches.

My only ‘conclusion’ is that scriptures - as paper / ink / words / literature / etc.. can and should be studied as a human work by those who are drawn to that. Culture, time. society, language, customs, etc… can bring detail and put flesh on the bones.

For the Sacramental members (Catholics, Orthodox, etc..) we as individuals can be just as fooled into believing we have received some insight into scriptures - as anyone else. Just because we feel some spiritual rush - when we think we have been given some real insight - that rush is no seal that we have not misunderstood.

Certainly, within the Protestant Churches - sola scriptura - IS - a very good thing. A unifying force and a type of anchor. And a comparison between the Protestant churches and the Sacramental churches - regarding sola scriptura - is apples and oranges.

As this is a muse…

I experience that the Sacramental Churches - have a more accurate understanding of scriptures. But it does not necessarily follow that this better accuracy of scriptures as history and language - makes members of the sacramental churches - better Christians.

As Sacramental churches - we have an obligation - to keep our own houses in order - and to steward - and live - and display - what has been handed to us. That IS our business and that is a hard-enough task.

“By his fruits” shall we know our brothers (meaning by their virtues). And so any man who displays the fruits (virtues) is a son of God. Be he Jew, Muslim, etc.. etc..

No conclusion.

Thanks for the opportunity to muse - familyman. I wandered all around didn’t I.

-ray

Hello Ray, Thanks for the beautiful response. It's good to have my messy room tidy-ed up. I get nutrition even from your 'musings'. But- of course- my existential motor is still grinding like one of the plugs isn't firing. You said something to the effect of:" just because we feel a spiritual rush from scripture that is no guarantee we have the correct interp."(paraphrase-forgive me) I'm wondering then how it is that i believe the Church. There must be something in me that gives it's assent to the Church. Why do I believe the Church? It, I think, should be the same thing that hears the Scriptures. Is what justifies my assent to the Church more valid than my understanding of scripture? I know i'm missing a piece here (and I suspect you have it ) To me, it seems as though, no matter how much i want or need to lean on something else (church interp., friends, others...) it really is in my lap and i am ultimately going to have to answer for it. (This reminds me of Kierkegaard's 'Purity of Heart is to will One Thing). I can use some more of those musings, don't let me down. Thanks, Rick

Dear familyman...

My first inner words on reading your questions was “Oh man.. He is a smart cookie.” And of course I say that in the best way possible. Keep on reflecting as you have been doing (I need not tell you that - huh). Share your food with us from time to time.

Exactly.

There are two forms of union with God. Essential union and voluntary union.

Essential union means (in none-theological words) that God - bring you - into being - at every moment. He ‘thinks’ you - are you - are. It is a union of you and God at the foundation of your very essense. It causes you to-to be and maintains your be-ing. IN that essential unbion you are just as God designs you and creates you. You are the perfect 'idea' that God creates you to be.

However (as far as union is the subject) it is not (on your part) a concious and knowing union (on your part). You will see why in a bit. Essential union is not a union of knowing cooperation on our part.

This ‘manifestation’ (for lack of a better word) of - you - begins with your person. That “I” and “real me” we sense inside. Under the terms of philosophy - it is one ‘thing’ (this essential - me) but in order to have some kind of concept of it - it is thought of as three faculties or functions.

Intellect (the knowing ability)
Will (the motive ability)
Memory (retaining an image of experiences)

If we think of - person - as an object (for the sake of having a concept to work with) we can divide this into tow parts (again - only for the sake of talking about it). That is: person - and personality (that expression which goes out from the person).

Think of personality as being the act - of the person. So we have the person itself and the act of actions of the person are his personality. Personality is something that belongs to us in the same was that the acts we do belong to us but are not us. When a man speaks the words we hear belong to that man but they are not that man. If he ceases to speak words - the man is not gone - he is still there. And so the words he speaks are not essential to his existence.

To identify - essence - remove all else that - belongs to - the object. Remove what is un-necessary to its existence. When nothing else can be removed - you have the object itself in its essential (necessary) nature.

All - faculties and sense perception - have their origin within and from - the - person. Senses of mind and body (psyche and soma) all have their origin - as an act - from - person. We do not often think of our spirit (mind) as having senses - but it does. Imagination - is one of its senses… how so? Because we can monitor its activity.

This means that there is no sense perception either of mind or body - that we may use to perceive in any way - our own - person.

Let me give you an analogy. We see with our eyes. Our eyes are the origin of bodily sight. As such the eye can not use its own ability to see itself directly. If we want to see our eyes - we must view a reflection (as in a mirror). So too it is with all the body senses. Touch can not feel itself, taste can not taste itself.. Etc..

It is really very simple and not complicated at all.

There are three “layers” to the human.

Person
Mind
Body

Since the origin of any faculty can not perceive itself - there is a lower ‘portion’ of our mind which monitors the perceptions of our body - and makes decisions regarding its perceptions - and issues guidance back to the body. It can do this without conscious guidance of the higher portions of mind. This - we share with other animals and live things. A rock - has not these lower functions of mind.

This is St. Paul’s “animal man” and our animal nature. It is a nature of instinct and habit that has some form of reasoning ability - that is appropriate for - the survival of the organism.

Man has higher mind function than any other animal - yet this - knowing ability of his mind - does not set him apart from other animals. It simply makes him the most intelligent and able to know and reason to a degree which matches that animal capability.

Unlike other animals - man has a capacity (person) to consciously monitor both his body - and his psychological - mind. He possesses faculties of - person - that do this. The word faculty simply means - powers.

And so we can know - ourselves thinking in our minds. And we often speak in an imaginary voice within our minds when reasoning - and this higher part (person) monitors that inner voice of voices that we use. Now that is only one example of the person - using power of perception - upon his own mind to know it.

Person - mind - and body - are obviously designed to work together in a close union. An - integrity - of union. That design is not our doing - it has been done for us. It has been placed or designed right into us.

On one level (created things and we must be aware that our mind is also a created thing that develops) we can say that - nature - has build this design and tension (tendency / inclination) into us. But we can not say the same for the existence and origin of that design as it exists within - person. Nature (that which is appropriate to things that are created and have sense perception within them) is not - within - nature. That is the nature which is appropriate to and has the object of the created world of experiences.

If you have followed all that (and I assume from your posts that you can and did) than I can now answer your question….

Because - what is true in the church - resonates (so to speak) with what has been pre-built into your own essential being-ness - from day one.

We recognize it - because it is already - given to us - within the essential design of - person.

What a good God we have - no? He has not left it all up to us - nor has he abandoned we who he has created. He has built right into our very foundation - the compass - which inclines our nature (first in the person… and by that next in mind and next in body but less impelling in these lower levels) that is like a ‘homing device’.

If no saint has never said it, I (not a saint) will… God does not compel - he impels - he extends the invitation. Because we have free will (and that is a story in itself how that works) we may select to ‘go home’ and cooperate with that design /// or /// do something other.

So this (the design of our essential person) is the first and foremost Providence God does to and for us. It exists at the invisible (can not be sensesed or perceived) of any and every human - no matter race of creed.

This, my friend, is the wonder of the theology of the church and the wonder of scriptures which reflects that theology. This is what rings ‘bells’ within us. This is how we - know - intuitively (and not analytically with the psychological mind) that there is “something here”.

When we talk of conscience (con=together and science=knowledge) what we are knowing is - person. We know person - not by analytics - but by an existential existing - in it. Technically, there is no such thing as a bad or ill formed conscience. To be sure - breaks the word apart. If that could be so - it would no longer be a together-knowing (me and God knowing the same thing) because God does not know evil. He does not create evil. He creates only reality and does not create un-reality. And so un-reality has no self existence but is rather has its existence within human imagination.

If we live according to the existential reality that God has created (and he has created no-thing else either in object or event) we become all that God creates us to be - and we are in total union with the nature he creates and with his will. We become - like - him. Not him - but like him. We remain human nature but human nature guided to its full extent of Him.

Now that statement - begs - a question.

Q: If Good does not create evil… than how is it that we can experience evil as happening upon the stage of the world??

A: Because when we (as persons) are lacking to the union that we are called to within our - person… because we have no way to sense or perceive that lack (we have no senses to perceive person with) … God reflect that lack of union out into the levels of sense perception so that we may know (by way of that reflection) evil (lack of union with reality and God).

According to his own decision to “let us form man to our own image” (the Hebrew word is form - to from something that already exists) he must (if we can say that) offer us the free choice. And he does that by allowing (actively willing) that the lack of self union of person - be known by way of reflection through the senses of our psychological and moral mind. Which mind is binded to our senses of body. It is our moral mind - which makes the judgments of sense perception as to evil being “out there”.

All these things I have put forth are contained in the doctrine of Providence… what it is and how it works and its purpose. I have simply said it in words and phrases more familiar to us today.

Now - setting aside everything I just said, for a moment… let me say it in another simple way (simple but not necessarily the way we are in a habit of thinking). Let us take logical steps to something.

Steps…

If we can ask the question “Is God real?” … than we must admit that we desire a God who is real rather than a God who is not real.

Next step…

By that answer we must admit that reality itself - is the very first - expression - of God - to us.

Not, of course, in an analytical concept - but in an existential self-same-ness - experience. Which leads us to say that the very first expression (speech and communication) that God brings about to our highest knowing ability (person) which is also that knowing ability which is so close to us - as to actually - be - “me”…. then it follows as entirely ture that the very vehical that God uses to communicate to my nature (myself) is - that reality.

///end of steps.

Reality - to be real - must be - other - than myself.

We can not experience - self or person. It is impossible - we have no capacity to do so. So any experience of existential reality - is an experience of what we can (and are meant to experience) of God. It is the ‘grounds’ within which that union of - essential and involuntary union - and - voluntary union by choice - happens. It is full - union - and called the spiritual marriage by Christian theology and tradition.

Of course, it is not - exclusive to the Christian - as any human is ‘equipped’ to reach that full union. However - any human ‘entering’ full union with God - will come to the knowledge - experientially - that Jesus Christ is his son and is of God’s own nature. They will know - his - person. But we, as Christians, do not need to pound that into anyone’s head because God himself will take care of that. It is not our job to do anything more than say it is true (and by so doing maintain ourselves in that truth if we know it).

The word “existential” means reality - as it is in itself. As a word it does not necessarily reference God to reality. It does to me <smile> but that is an added dimension for myself to the word. If we speak of reality in a reference to God - the word is Providence.

Existential reality - and Providence - are exactly the same thing - said in two ways. Keep in mind - the description of the ‘thing’ is NOT the thing itself. It is a description. Right? That is simple. One is the thing and the other is a description of the thing and necessarily less than the thing itself.

God… uses … reality (our experience of it) in order to form us - into - likeness with himself.

In other words (let us say the same thing in another way)… “let us form man in our image and likeness” is done by God through his own intimate knowing of how and what we know - of our experiences.

In that sense of thought - our intellect as far as reasoning bases upon experiences of the senses - takes a back seat. Our powers of analysis of experiential reality by way of the senses and human faculties (powers that belong to our animal nature of created psychological mind) are NOT an appropriate means by which we can know Providence directly.

God uses the experience he brings to us, as the tool to form our - will. Any formation of our intellect is extraneous - to that. Making moments of intellectual enlightenment - have the purpose of a further formation of our will… and not a permanent change to our intellect.

In the final - it is our will (the inclination to move in a direction and goal) that is the method of our sanctification. And not by our powers of intellect.

It is through the will - that our personality - is re-formed. Our will (of person and reflected within psychological mind).

Nothing (no-thing) of this world down here comes with us after death - except - our personality which was formed during out time ‘here’.

And so now, if I may wax poetic…

If a man have as his highest goal to seek and cling to - reality… he will necessarily - find God because God will introduce himself to you. And if a man find the real God - he will automatically and by necessity also find that only existential and experiential reality that God creates.

If one does not jive with the other - than look into the church and see if there is something you misunderstood or something you should understanding better. If you do not find it just throw up you hands and say “I dunno.” and let that be as it is. Dig a little because God has inclined you to do so - to seek a little bit of food by your own efforts - but know that the ‘real food’ comes to you daily through events which seem so mundane and normal - but by which God is forming you to be like himself.

In the final (going on up to the mystical marriage of union) there comes a time when the person must know and recognize Providence. Providence can go a long way in forming us without our own knowledge of how and why and what is being done. God can go a long way in re-forming our habitual nature by himself - but that formation (to a certain degree) must be followed by the person - knowing - the presence of Providence and the immediate intentions and purpose of Providence. That is to say that for full mystical union before death - a man must knowingly - cooperate with God (Providence). His free will - must be fully informed and freely select to continue his cooperation.

Most of us - will not reach that espousal state - before death. Of course we all imagine we have time - and time - again J

If one is to pass through espousal into mystical marriage one has to cling to his conscience so tightly and with such dedication of will - that nothing on earth nor within mind, experienced by any of the senses, makes him let go of that union to conscience.

But let us cheer up. Not one of us here including me and you - are anywhere near that. Instead, we rightly enjoy the alternating spiritual candy and hard stick - that God uses on us who remain so early and vacillating in our dedication.

Now this was a good post of mine... and after a good post.. I usually get outta here so I do not follow it up so soon with a bonehead post.

See you next week.

-ray

Thanks Ray for the careful illustration. You have left me with many things to chew on,like: We can not experience self or person. We do not have the capacity to do so. Maybe trying to find self, or promote it, is just eating more of the fruit of the knowledge of good an evil (reflected reality) instead of the Fruit of the tree of Life- Christ- reality. If a man have as his highest goal to seek and cling to - reality ...he will- find God because God will introduce himself to you. I guess the trick is to remember that in all the 'mundane and normal'. Thanks again for the kind response. May God be praised, Rick

I would love to comment further on this line because it is packed with meaning and you understand it well.

And that is killing me

Others may have a bit diffrent understanding that is valuable to them also and I would not wish to disturb what understanding that God may have given others for thier good.

Please, feel free to post moroe of your own mind on these things. It is music to my ears.

-ray

Dear familyman...

when I write I tend to use the word 'you' in a generic way. So don't take anything I say in a personal way. It is a habit from reading psychology and philosophy where 'you' is often an example or theorem of generic human nature we all share. The word has mostly been restricted to a singular and personal use today and its plural and generic use put on the shelf.

It is a hard habit to break. If I remember... I sometimes go back and re-edit all my ‘you’ to ‘someone’ or ‘one’ or ‘we’.

This line was just such a generic use...
So in no way did I mean to imply that you and God do not know each other already. I should have re-edited it to "introduce himself to that person." so that it would not be taken it personally.

-ray

Offended??? I'm edified. Thank you.

Oh... I have to publicly thank you for that information on Clement! I found Stromata online and it looks terrific. I was skipping through being very impressed and landed on a line where he talks of people mistaking dialectics for rhetoric - and that sealed the deal for me! true true true! My closest freinds are use to me - but for others - I might as well be from a diffrent planet.

Stomata - I did not know you existed - now - you are at the top of the reading list.

Thank you Rick.
-ray