The Church and the Bible
The Books of the Old Testament were the 'scriptures' referred to by Christ in the New Testament [Matthew 22:29]. The Early Church relied on the Greek translation (called the Septuagint and completed in 132 BC). The Church accepted the books known as the Apocrphya as part of the Bible and it was only during the Protestant era that they were 'removed'.
The New Testament as we know it was originally a part of written Church Tradition. The African (non-Ecumenical) Synod of Carthage in AD 397 was the first to list all of the New Testament books that were eventually accepted in the Western and Eastern churches. Until that time some books were questioned (i.e Revelation) and there were other writings (i.e. Didache, Protoevanglium of James, 1/2 Clement and almost 100 more) that were valued and used by segments of the Church. Two conclusions can be drawn:
1. The New Testament which is regarded as inspired and inerrant by Christians, particularly Protestants, was a product of Church Fathers guided by the Holy Spirit.
2. If the Holy Spirit guided these men in recognizing those words that were inspired and inerrant, shouldn't we trust the rest of Church Tradition as well?
A secondary issue of importance is the correct interpretation of Scripture. The Christian world always looked to the Church for correct interpretation and exposition of theology and Biblical truth. The writings of the Church Fathers are prime examples of this. The Protestant theory of Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone as a guide for salvation) first appeared with Martin Luther in the 16th century and evolved quickly into the concept that each person could interpret the Bible. Luther wrote of the result:
"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the alter; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams. " [Compilation of Luther's Letter of doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp; (Luth. Werke,tom. ii. p. 61,sqq. AD 1525)]
Each of the 'reformers' prized his own interpretation of the Bible above others (i.e. Luther wrote: Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom) and eventually condemned each other as virulently as they did the Pope.
In a world where businesses are constantly trumpeting their years of 'proven service' I believe that the the consistent and constant 2000 year interpretation of the Bible by the Orthodox Church is more trustworthy than a handful of 'new guys' who all teach different things.
Additional Reference
The Books of the Old Testament were the 'scriptures' referred to by Christ in the New Testament [Matthew 22:29]. The Early Church relied on the Greek translation (called the Septuagint and completed in 132 BC). The Church accepted the books known as the Apocrphya as part of the Bible and it was only during the Protestant era that they were 'removed'.
The New Testament as we know it was originally a part of written Church Tradition. The African (non-Ecumenical) Synod of Carthage in AD 397 was the first to list all of the New Testament books that were eventually accepted in the Western and Eastern churches. Until that time some books were questioned (i.e Revelation) and there were other writings (i.e. Didache, Protoevanglium of James, 1/2 Clement and almost 100 more) that were valued and used by segments of the Church. Two conclusions can be drawn:
1. The New Testament which is regarded as inspired and inerrant by Christians, particularly Protestants, was a product of Church Fathers guided by the Holy Spirit.
2. If the Holy Spirit guided these men in recognizing those words that were inspired and inerrant, shouldn't we trust the rest of Church Tradition as well?
A secondary issue of importance is the correct interpretation of Scripture. The Christian world always looked to the Church for correct interpretation and exposition of theology and Biblical truth. The writings of the Church Fathers are prime examples of this. The Protestant theory of Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone as a guide for salvation) first appeared with Martin Luther in the 16th century and evolved quickly into the concept that each person could interpret the Bible. Luther wrote of the result:
"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the alter; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams. " [Compilation of Luther's Letter of doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp; (Luth. Werke,tom. ii. p. 61,sqq. AD 1525)]
Each of the 'reformers' prized his own interpretation of the Bible above others (i.e. Luther wrote: Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom) and eventually condemned each other as virulently as they did the Pope.
In a world where businesses are constantly trumpeting their years of 'proven service' I believe that the the consistent and constant 2000 year interpretation of the Bible by the Orthodox Church is more trustworthy than a handful of 'new guys' who all teach different things.
Additional Reference
|
Holy Scripture |
|
New Testament References to the Old Testament |
|
|
Protestant persecutions against other Protestants |
|
|
Protestant founders comment on each other |
