Fall 2008 Online Certificate Students:
View all sessions below. Then log all your comments, questions, discussion question answers, criticisms, or thoughts below. Time spent in the comments section will apply toward your one hour of community time per week. To download audio sessions, visit the course homepage on the TTP site. The new session will be posted every Wed.
____________________________
Whom do we trust for authority? Should we trust an institutionalized Church? Is there any validity in the tradition? Or should we rely upon the Scriptures alone as the Reformers insisted? This lesson should provide the student with a better understanding of the various views of Christian authority that have been held throughout history. The student should have a basic overview of the beliefs concerning authority of the three major traditions (Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholicism). The student should also have a better understanding of the significance of Martin Luther’s famous (infamous) “Here I stand” speech at the Diet of Worms. As well, the student should understand the extremes in which some modern Protestant denominations have gone in neglecting the authority of tradition all together, misunderstanding and misrepresenting the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura.
Part 1: Class Introduction [13:58m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Part 2: Where do we go for authority? [18:38m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Part 3: What is tradition? [16:28m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Part 4: Main view of Christian authority [26:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Powered by FireStats
August 26th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Hello all. My name is Phil and am a returning student. I’m looking forward to doing theology with the rest of you. My responses to the lessons questions below:
1. The benefits of tradition 1 in the church (i.e. The body of believers throughout historic Christianity since Christ) — I make
this distinction between believers in the New Testamanet and the Old Testament because tradition begins to take a new and distinct shape
form since the time Christ–give us developing methods on the defense of the faith and strengthening of our faith. For the most part in our era
of Christiantinity we have come to hold fast to much of the traditions developed as regula fidei (e.g. Trinitarian, soteriological,
and other doctrines) from an Evangelical perspective.
2. An over dependence upon tradition 2 can be developed by dogmatically asserting to unwritten tradition to the point of speculation.
Popular examples include Marian dogmas, and Papal infallibility. This can lead to dangerous conclusions where tradition is
placed even above the Scriptures themselves.
3. Sola Scriptura is essential to the point of division when traditions are placed above Scripture. However, tradition 1 is extremely valuable
in our understanding of doctrine. This becomes especially challenging in our postmodern era where even the sufficiency of Scripture has been
shifting on the stage of truth. While in reformation days the dividing line was Sola Scriptura (And the major cry of Sola Fide) over Sola Ecclesia,
today a new line appears to be dividing the church from the Scriptures into some form of general accpetance of people to the compromise of Scripture.
4. I believe many Evangelical Protestants follow sola Sciptura not mainly because of a disdain of tradition but because of the lack thereof. I have heard many appeal
to “their correct view of things” refereing to 20th century church forms (denominationalism). The so called “traditional” church is now looked at by
postmodern churches as out of place (Not that postmodernism has it right). However, a growing number of churches are returning to a healthy form of sola Scriptura because of a hunger for a clear
presentaiton of God’s word.
5. God never intended for the church to exist apart from the Holy Spirit, or community of the body of beleivers. The same Holy Spirit that moved the Apostles has moved
many men throughout history. To write off the canonization of Scripture, creeds, and tradition 1 all together is basically saying that God no longer works in the world today.
6.I agree with sola Scriptura view the most beacuse we need an authority by which we can measure all other declarations of faith.
7. My local church seems to adhere to Sola Scriptura. Though the level of understanding of this teaching remains to be developed (My church is a new and developing church).
Though the leadrship certainly adheres to sola Scriptura
8. This lesson has challenged my thinking because of my baptist tradition. I am able to sit comfortably at the midpoint of the scale (Regula Fidei) without feeling
I am betraying the sola Scriptura position onthe scale.
44Phil_TTP
September 1st, 2008 at 12:22 am
Marsha J
Bib. & Herm., Fall 2008, Session 1
Question 1…Tradition 1,what are the benefits?
Tradition 1 began forming while the apostles were still alive. “The Apostles expected their letters to be accepted as authorities in their own lifetimes….(T)hey became the object of study and meditation.” (D. Dockery, Bib. Interpretation Then & Now, p47). Polycarp, 70-160AD, a Bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of John the Apostle, wrote to the the Phillippians and said of Paul’s letters “from the study of which you will be able to be built up into the faith.” (Dockery, p 47). “The church’s understood the Old Testament Scripture in terms of Christ’s coming.” (Dockery, p48). And the church of the Apostles “regarded…(the Old Testament) as part of the Christian tradition because they believed that (it) testified to Jesus Christ.” Tradition 1 honored and gave authority to Scripture even while it was developing. They did not seem to think of their work as a New Testament but rather as a guide. Along with these writings the church developed a loose pattern of worship of which the public reading of Scripture and Paul’s letters were assumed. They also shared bread and wine, prayed, sang and someone would speak (in the manner of a sermon.) These elements were not required as far as I have seen so far. There were other things that may be included that I didn’t mention. As C. Michael said, I also think it is important to first understand what Tradition means. As the church grew in age and size the beginnings of a “Rule of Faith” became necessary to correct heresies. The “Apostle’s Creed” began to form, then the need for Councils in which all churches everywhere sent a representative to speak and discuss and learn for their churches “back home.” This is how and where the next two creeds were hammered out. At this point the Church was one body. Tradition 1 encompasses The Gospel message, the Deity of Christ, Atonement for sins, the Son and the Holy Spirit being of one substance with the Father and yet separate. These councils and learned men fought the battle of persecution and heresies at a crucial time for Christianity.
Tradition 1 today.
Today we stand on the benefits that these people forged for us. We don’t have to reinvent “the wheel”. Learned men and women continue to speak to culture in light of decisions argued and made by consulting previous testings of our cultural issues. Our faith is a living faith in the light of the Holy Spirit. The foundation is Scripture and the “color” is filled in by learned, dedicated people.
Question 2 Roman Catholic theology of Tradition 2
I believe (not certain) that the RC Church began innocently enough. There are and were many attacks upon the Gospel and “Rule of Faith.” These elements were a part of Tradition 1. However when The Church split with the Eastern Orthodox people, it set up an “us against them”, “I am right your are wrong” situation. As the RC Church grew larger it became necessary to have a lot of “management” people. Disagreements arose and the higher authority won out. The hierarchy grew very large and the elected “leader” became The Pope and his Bishops. The result became political. Power and pride and greed eventually effected the leaders more and more. Disagreements arose and decisions had to be made. No longer were the leaders able to agree an irenic manner. Polemic discussions lead to a “winner and looser.” More authority , agreed upon by The Church, was given to the leaders. Because of the above mentioned issues, Tradition 2 was established. The final authority became the infallible Magisterial authority. In “The Brother’s Karamazov” by F. Dostoevsky, he said “all we like sheep have gone astray.” (This is a condition of mankind, we are sinners.) Tradition 2 became the Church whose members did not read or even understand the reading of Scripture. Celebrations held more relevance than the Word of God.
The dangers of Sola Ecclesia
The danger of a Church putting their practices and beliefs first on the stage of truth is that it becomes susceptible to false “prophets”, heresies, and big or little “popes.” Their congregations may not be able to think for themselves. Their faith can become only actions and parroting of themselves. In today’s arena, non-denominational churches with no outside method of “correcting” the pastor or keeping the elders on track of the Gospel and Scriptures as they are generally interpreted over history, are in danger of believing something that is not Christianity. These groups have done much harm to people of different heritage or genetics. There is also an ever present false justification to hinder or harm women.
Question 3 Sola Scriptura reason for dividing The Church?
There were 95 Thesis presented to the Church authorities. All of which could have been accepted if it had not been for men’s pride, greed, and power desires, money and politics! Also, the lay people did not care enough to speak up, the Church had just become another ruler over their heads. The Bishops did not care enough to speak up in a large enough number to be effective. Yes, the leaders of the Church were not following Scriptures. P D Wegner said in The Journey from Texts to Translations “that many of the Bishops could not read Greek, Latin or Hebrew and many of them could not read at all”. The Pope was not interested in educating his Bishops or his people. I think politics and the Black Plague, the opposition to an English Bible (declaring “(John Wycliffe in 1411) “(t)his pestilent and wretched…of cursed memory, that son of the old serpent…endeavored by every means to attack the very faith and sacred doctrine of the Holy Church, devising-to fill up the measure of his malice-the expedient of a new translation of the Scriptures into the mother tongue”.” (I don’t count England’s Henry the VIII’ division of the RC Church as anything but politics at it’s best or heresy at it’s worst.) The Church, became the RC Church, and more splits occurred. The cry among believing Christians was Sola Scripture, and the divisions of the believers were helped along by the political atmosphere of the times, and language differences that developed over time into Spanish, French, English and so on. The “protesters of the RC Church” were united by the belief that the Bible was to be the main authority, because it is/was God breathed. The Pope and his authority was terribly corrupt. Martin Luther went nose to nose with the Pope, Wycliffe’s bones were dug up and burned and his ashes were scattered in the River Swift for translating the Bible into English, Tyndale was found guilty of heresy and condemned to death and burned at the stake. Many people died because they believed in Sola Scripture.
Question 4 Are Evangelical Protestants today following Sola Scripture?
Yes. The church I grew up in has always read a part of the OT, a part of the NT and a part of the Gospel every Sunday. However for the past 7 years, the church I attended often did not read any Scripture. It bowed to the Postmodern movement. We have a new pastor now, scripture is the source for his sermons. I miss the honor and respect given to God and His breathed Word. I don’t mind the “new music” or updated language or trying new ways like theater. I miss the overwhelming awe felt whenever 3 or 200 of us gathered in His Name.
Question 5 Solo Scriptura, arrogant and neglectful of the Holy Spirit?
Yes. The arrogance is in thinking that they can alone read Scripture & come up with the correct understanding. They are neglecting the Holy Spirit’s work from the time of Jesus to the present. This belief has no checks and balances. The preacher is the ultimate authority in the eyes of their congregation. JR White in Scripture Alone says of such people “These words (2Tim 3:13) plainly communicate evil motivations, for an ‘impostor’ isn’t who he is by chance or ignorance. These men actively seek to deceive, even in their self-deception.” This concerns me because young people are sometimes repelled by their parents “ways” and attracted to something, anything new. This also concerns me because Christians can get lazy and neglectfully accept things a forceful, appealing person preaches.
Question 6 Which view do I agree with?
Sola Scriptura (and Regula Fidei. And Reason.) Because of things mentioned above.
Question 7 My local church’s practice?
Because of this question I will speak to my pastor, (over coffee?) and ask him.
Question 8 How did lesson challenge me?
Difficult, I know what the RC Church has done in the past. I also know something of what it is doing now I know that there are authority issues the RC needs to work on. However I do look forward to there being One Church, united in Christ Jesus for a witness to the world. Possible no, a goal, yes!
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
1. It is good to have consistency. The Bible doesn’t change. Man does. Man is fallible. He will make errors. He will be wrong. God is infallible. He wrote the Bible through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the Bible should not be added to or subtracted from. I think that the benefits are the same today as they were in the apostle’s day. We can relate to and understand some of the burdens or experiences of the early church because of the Bible. Without the Bible, we wouldn’t be able to connect with them. In Tradition 2, with the emphasis on man’s interpretation and man’s word, the connection with the early “saints” seems almost like a bunch of mini-gods instead of the brothers and sisters in Christ that they were.
2. They depend on a man who is fallible. They also stop thinking and testing for themselves. The dangers of Sola Ecclesia–depending on one priest/leader–are the mistakes that are made in judgment, but are viewed as God’s law; the change in culture and time; man is not eternal. It seems sometimes that this belief in man/institutions can become idolic. Not good.
3. I think that many divisions in the Church body as a whole happen because of sin, not because of Scripture. Let me explain, many choose to allow issues and human (fallible) interpretations of the Bible to get in the way of “living in peace with all brothers.” The Bible says that we should strive to live peacably. I do believe we must stand against heresy, but our measuring stick should always be the Scripture. I do think that it is wrong to put a man equal to God’s Word. God has challenged all of us to read His Word and know It so well that we know when someone isn’t teaching the Truth. I believe that the division in the Church body has weakened us in our spiritual battles and has made us look foolish to the world.
4. I hope that most follow Sola Scriptura. It is important to include the traditions and the testimony of those who have gone before (they just must be held in check and under the authority of the Scripture!). We cannot dismiss the creeds and the traditions that are based upon the Word. Many of our traditions have been questioned adn were found justified and in line with Scripture. Solo Scriptura seems to be so much on the individuals own opinions. We all need to be held accountable to each other.
5. It seems arrogant in that they are negating everything that has gone on before. All the apostles work is not “good enough” for them. Paul told someone to look at him for he was modeling Christ to them. Yet for Solo Scriptura believers–why would they listen to that??
The Holy Spirit gives visions, inspired Scripture, and moved in people to creat the Church. It’s wrong to say none of that is valid or true. I DO believe that the Holy Spirit is still moving and still working in people. How can we change without Him?
6. SOLA SCRIPTURA—I’m sure it’s been very obvious through my previous answers. I have to hold everything up against Scripture. And I’m taking this class (and the one preceding this) to help me be accountable to the traditions of the Church and the belief system already in place. I know that I cannot interpret Scripture alone without anything or anyone else. I also noticed that reason, tradition, emotion, experience, and general revelation are not even on the stage of solo scriptura. That’s crazy.
7. Sola Scriptura. My pastor is always talking about Scripture and what Scripture says. He’s always encouraging us to hold what he says up against the Scriptures to see if it is Truth. But he also talks about what words meant to the early church and in Greek or Hebrew. He talks about what the early church believed and how we can continue living that out.
8. This lesson reminded me that there are others out there–lots–who do not believe in tradition or who put tradition in front of Scripture.
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Question 1: Tradition 1 helped the church early on when there was no written scripture to guide the body of believers and while it was not abused. Without this tradition I doubt there would be as little variance in the denominations and traditions of Christianity.
Now there is still great value in some practical applications of the traditions that were imposed by the authorities of tradition 1, ( i.e. confess helps to keep people accountable). There are also many things historically that one can learn through tradition. There are many things that are taught that help to understand scripture and application.
Question2: By not being completely based on scripture there could be a gray area when someone is looking for the answer to a question and has to stop and question which do I go on scripture or tradition? And tradition being the easier medium to get the answer from could easily take the superior role
The dangers are that Sola Ecclesia could turn into mostly tradition 1 rather than tradition 2 and then you have to change from a protestant to a catholic and get a new bumper sticker and that’s just a big hassle.
Question 3: Yes there Sola Sciprtura is essential enough to make a break. Some of the reformers were cast out and beat and abused. I don’t see how they could have practiced their belief under an abusive tradition.
Question 4: Solo Scriptura is more prominent today in protestantism I believe. I don’t think I know more than ten people who have actually looked into tradition like the catholic tradition for any other reason than to refute it
Question 5: Solo scriptura can make people islands unto themselves where their interpretation is all they believe. That can cause everyone to become their own truth. That’s bad
Question 6: Sola scriptura is what I agree with. It has more checks and balances than solo scriptura and makes scripture the main true irrefutable authority.
Question 7: My church seems to practice solo scriptura. I have not heard any tradition other than the typical Sunday school etc.
Question 8: I thought I was a solo scriptura person. Mainly because of ignorance. Now I will be disowned from everyone I know. Thank you TTP for ruining me.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
1a. Tradition 1 was particularly important to the early church primarily because its all they had to go on. Followers did not have entire bibles published for their on use until much later in the history of the church. So much of what believers knew of Jesus had to be known through tradition.
1b. Tradition 1 is still of benefit to the church today in that we can learn from history. We seem to make some of the same mistakes today and many of the same challenges to the faith have arisen in the past and have been dealt with. I think this is why many of the creeds came about and are still relevant today.
2a. Im not sure but i think that it may be easier to say something like “thats how the church has always done it” on any given issue rather than search the scripture. I think a lot of the appeal of the RCC is that people dont have to think for themselves or interpret scripture, you just go “do” all the sacraments and so forth .
2b. The dangers is that tradition and the church is made from sinful man. We are fallen, sinful people. I think the history of the church proves that? Is that a safe authority?
3. Yes. It comes down to a question of Authority. If we cant agree on the final authority how can we have fellowship?
4. Good question. Im not sure but i think many place such a high value on scripture that we may lean to solo scripture. Im not sure.
5. Solo Scripture assumes everything in life is black in white and all matters of church and faith can be simply answered by proof texting. I think this is obviously pretty silly. The Bible does not tell me who to marry or where to go to shcool or what to do with my life. There are basic principles with which to live by but we walk in the spirit.
6. I agree with sola scripture and I like how it has been pointed out by michael and others that this does not mean that there is absolutely no other authority but that scripture is simply the last and final authority. In this we can live by grace and appreciate people and things that might not necessiarly be in the faith but are “good” not sure if that makes sense.
7. My local church would hold to sola scripture but I can see how at times it would appear to practice solo scripture. We teach line by line verse by verse as if this is the only way to do church and we dont want to miss a single line of scripture.
8. Im challenged in questioning how I view and apply the scripture. Is it really my final authority or do I use it to be legalistic and apply only what I am comfortable applying. I also have a greater appreciation for tradition and church history.