Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ciriello@lafcol.uucp (Patrick Ciriello II) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: tradition Message-ID: Date: 28 Jun 89 05:06:44 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: NET Manager, Lafayette College Lines: 104 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: > Well, once again those flaky anglicans have to muck things up. > > > The problem that immediately arises is that we see that, for a standard, the > bible seems in practice to justify almost anything. In my own experience, it > seems that the more isolated a person is in his interpretation, the more > bizarre the reading. Then you must be approaching it with a bizarre attitude instead of letting the Holy Spirit teach you. If you look at the Bible as ONE BOOK, which it is, then anything that you read in one section has to have support in another, or at least an explanation. If you read two lines from different places, and they contradict, then you must look further into the text to find out exactly what the meaning is. I have been a christian for 6 years, and all the supposed 'contradictions' and 'vague' passages are pretty clear when you look at them in the context of the whole Bible. >And there is a second problem, more subtle than the > first: scripture isn't motivating. We don't believe in scripture because of > scripture itself; we believe in its authority because the church says, > "Here, read this." In both cases, tradition provides the spark. Not for me ... I was not interested in christianity BECAUSE of all the 'traditions' and 'dogmas' and church-related beuracracy and B.S.!!! I used to go to church and look around at all the robots reciting everything the pompous dudes up front told them to say ... BIG DEAL! I didn't get interested in God until I decided ( well, actually, he decided ) to read the Bible for myself ... then I started to see ALOT of stuff that, not only was it a waste of time (the church I was in), but alot f what they were saying was WRONG ... plain and simple. Sorry, but if the Bible doesn't say it, then it ain't so. Period. > We understand tradition in the very broadest sense, of all that has been said > in the church about God, man, and their relationship. And we see it > providing two distinct functions. The first is that it is one of the signs > of the church on earth. Tradition connects the church in history; it helps > the church to remember that it is the church. THe second function is that > of teaching and advice. Tradition not only guides us to the bible, but > guides us within it, and helps to check our personal quirks and prejudices. > This is where I think anglicans are most different from other protestants. > We look at tradition as *also* being normative, and mistrust the lone > christian with his bible. In other words, the heck with the fact that God said He would send the Holy Sprit ... you have all the answers, so let's not bother listening to the Word of God ... you sound just like a Pharasee ... 'OUR traditions is this, and OUR tradition is that' ... I suppose we should all go out and buy weapons and storm Jerusalem again ... I mean, that IS part of the church's tradition, isn't it? > > Lastly we come to reason. Tradition lacks unanimity (to be euphemistic); > hence, one cannot simply say to Tradition: "Here: you tell me." One has to > invoke Reason (and here we need a digression. Anglican "Reason" isn't just > logical, linear thinking. Here it means the entirety of though processes. > Don't blame me; blame Richard Hooker. And for most purposes, we can ignore > the difference, since ordinary rationality plays such a central role as an > enabler for the other modes.) anyway, Reason comes into play here to > convert the clamor of Tradition over Scripture into a single voice, our own > voice. > REASON??????? You gotta be kidding? You really think us poor, pathetic, SINFUL, IMPERFECT, human beings could use our LIMITED, NARROW SCOPE reasoning to figure out what God is really saying ? If the Spirit does not reveal something to you, then forget it ... you are not going to figure it out on your own, and no 'council' is going to do it either. You just have to wait until God decides to enlighten you (and you should also be prepared to accept that the time of enlightenment on a particular subject may never come ... ) > Anglicans stand behind this view as both normative and descriptive. Without > scripture, we drift away from the central truths. As for reason and > tradition, they are inescapable. Sola Scriptura is wrong not just because > it is a bad idea in practice, but because it doesn't happen in practice. Sorry .. I have to disagree on a personal, first hand basis. > It is tradition which would give Sola Scriptura authority as an idea in the > first place! It is reason which assents to what Scripture says or what > tradition says (which is where the Roman position goes wrong); people may > reason badly or ignore most tradition, but without either, Scripture goes > silent. And given this, it stands to reason that we should know as much > tradition as we can, and reason as best we can. > It is God who gives authority to His own word ... not the church. God gives the church (the ones that follow His word and not their own) the authority to preach His Word .. not doubt it. We do not assent to what scripture says unless we are first prepared by God to do so, which has nothing at all to do with reason. Scripture does not go silent in the absence of tradition and reason ... it becomes an unsoiled pillar of faith free from the dirt and cracks of human reason and tradition. Pat Ciriello II (a.k.a White Dragon) ciriello!lafcol ciriello@lafayett