Sola Scriptura: The Bible alone is enough!
|
|
Evangelicals view Christianity as "a system of truth" that is "infallibly preserved" only in Scripture. (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 144)
It is perfectly clear that there is nothing in the New Testament that resembles the Torah in any way. That is to say, there are no specific instructions for worship. We are given hints as to when the early Christians met for worship, i.e. on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), but no specific directions. Nor are we given any details about how the Eucharist is to be celebrated. Our Lord said, This do in remembrance of Me ( Luke 22:19), but neither the Gospel writers nor St. Paul record any further instructions as to how or how often this was to be done. We are told in Acts (20:7) that the early Christians came together on the first day of the week to break Bread, but the vast majority of Evangelicals do not take this statement to be a commandment. Most celebrate what they call the Lord's Supper no more than once a month, usually only once a quarter. (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 111)
Clark Carlton, being Orthodox, teaches baptism by full immersion and rejects baptism by sprinkling or pouring as contrary to apostolic tradition. It is unfortunate that Carlton trashes the scriptures as incomplete in universally teaching baptism by full immersion: "The Scriptures do not give detailed directions as to how Baptism is to be performed" (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 114) Carlton says that only with "apostolic tradition", can we know the truth about baptism by full immersion. Our point, however in this discussion is to show that the Roman Catholic church makes the same statement about the need for "apostolic tradition", yet concludes the opposite: baptism by sprinkling. This illustrates the vacancy of using "church tradition" to settle any doctrinal controversy. Carlton should actually be spanked for making such a silly statement that the scriptures are unclear as to the mode of baptism. At least he could be honest like the Roman Catholics and admit, as they do, that immersion was the universal mode of baptism clearly revealed in scripture, but by its own power, being the "Chair of Peter", changed the command to sprinkling. As a member of the "Greek Orthodox church", Clark Carlton should have no shortage of Greek language advisers to inform him that the primary definition of the word "baptitzo" in the Greek, is immersion, not sprinkling or pouring. Carlton should know that although there are separate words in the Greek for pouring (cheo) and sprinkling (rhanizo) they are never used in reference to "baptism". So the Bible is crystal clear and unmistakable in baptism being immersion, just as the Orthodox church practices. But rather than give credit to God for being able to reveal this clearly in scripture, Carlton blindly ignores this clarity and says we must determine immersion from "Apostolic tradition". But notice that both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches claim "apostolic tradition" is behind their mode of baptism, yet they differ. Whose tradition shall we trust Carlton? Your Orthodox tradition, or the Roman Catholic tradition? As for me, I reject all tradition, and will stick with the clarity of the scriptures. Baptism is immersion... the Bible says so.
"The idea that one can simply deduce doctrines or practices from principles set forth in the Bible without reference to tradition is essentially a carte blanche for someone to take whatever biblical "principle" he wishes and draw from it whatever conclusion he desires" (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 117) Scripture is likened unto seed in many places. When a seed falls to the ground, it is detached from tradition. It is a whole new plant, growing by the word.
No Orthodox Christian would deny that Paul's affirmation of the inspiration of the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16) applies to the New Testament by extension. However, at the time Paul wrote to Timothy-and for almost three centuries thereafter-there was no official New Testament canon. Indeed, at that point, not all of the books of the New Testament had even been written. If Paul were asserting the sole sufficiency of the Scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament), it would obviate the need for the New Testament. (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 122)
We stand in utter shock that Clark Carlton would say the following: "That Paul is not asserting the sole sufficiency of the Scriptures (in 2 Timothy 3:16) is confirmed by verse 8 of the same chapter: Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith (2 Tim 3:8). Paul is referring here to the court magicians of Pharaoh. (Ex. 7:11-12). Notice, however, that the Book of Exodus does not provide the name of the magicians. Where, then, does Paul get the names Jannes and Jambres? From Jewish tradition. In the very same chapter in which Paul extols the value of the Scriptures, he himself quotes non-scriptural tradition. If he believed that the Scriptures are self-sufficient, then he was not very consistent." (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 123) Where, then, does Paul get the names Jannes and Jambres? From direct revelation of the Holy Spirit! Carlton sounds like the Bible-trashing, liberal theologians who see the Bible as the product of human effort. The Holy Spirit directly revealed the names to Paul. And notice just how insignificant an example Carlton can find: The mere names of two men. The Bible is full of stories, like the woman at the well, in Jn 4 or the eunuch in Acts 8, whose names we do not know. Many people in the first century knew the names of these two people, but makes no difference to our faith if we do not know. The Holy Spirit never told us for sure, who wrote some of the books of the Bible like Hebrews, and many of the Old Testament books. That's because it doesn't matter. We do not deny that Jewish tradition correctly named the two magicians, we maintain that the source most certainly was not Jewish Tradition, but inspiration of the Holy Spirit that merely confirmed such a tradition. It was the Holy Spirit, who chose to name the magicians, not Paul, just as scripture says: "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20-21) We also want to remind the reader that there are many examples of where Jewish tradition was wrong, and the Holy Spirit did not allow these errors into scripture. For Carlton though, this is his best example in scripture he can come up with. He even praises Fr. John Whiteford for pointing this example of oral tradition out to him! Before that, Carlton had no examples of oral tradition. We stand utterly amazed that Carlton considers the names Jannes and Jambres to be his "holy grail example" of tradition in scripture! This is his top example! Names! He gets so excited over this "mount Everest" discovery, that you would think the "oral tradition" was the details of the Passover feast because the Holy Spirit never gave us Exodus 12. Well because Carlton is so easily excited, we carefully and quietly say the word, "Hanukkah" to him. (This will no doubt end up in his next revision of his book, and he will no doubt express his "gratitude" to me for pointing it out to him.) Hanukkah is a non-biblical Jewish feast day, of a purely human origin that was instituted by Judas Machabeus in 164 B.C. mentioned in 1 Maccabees 4:56, and referenced in the New Testament: "At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem" John 10:22. Another human origin celebration was that of Jephthah's daughter: "Thus it became a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year." (Judges 11:39-40) The key is that if the Jews stopped celebrating Hanukkah or the 4 days of commemoration for the daughter of Jephthah, God would not get angry. But God did get angry when they had stopped keeping his Sabbaths and other Jewish holy days revealed by Moses.
What Paul does not say [1 Tim 3:16] , however, is that the Scriptures are sufficient all by themselves. (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 122)
Evangelicals view Christianity as "a system of truth" that is "infallibly preserved" only in Scripture. (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 144)
The reason why different denominations, with very different forms of church government, can all claim to be based on the "New Testament model" is that the New Testament is not very specific about how the Church is to be organized or how services are to be conducted. It would be a grave mistake, however, to infer from this that the early Church had no definite structure or patterns of worship. The New Testament does not give a detailed plan of Church government, because the Church already existed when the books of the New Testament were written. As we pointed out above, the epistles were not written to be an "owner's manual." (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 151)
by Steve Rudd
