Let me start here by saying that “Bible vs. Tradition” isn’t a good title. Perhaps I’ll come up with something better before I’m done typing, but if not, I’m sorry. 🙂
Virusdoc has once again dragged me into a Catholic or Prodestant debate today. Try as I may to fight it, this blog is turning into a place to entertain that discussion because of his exploring of the Catholic faith as his own. On the whole it’s not a bad thing, but I just hope that folks don’t think that I came to the web to talk about Catholicism vs. Protestantism. Actually, his post was quite good and asks some honest and pointed questions.
He points out that most evangelicals put their faith in the Bible unequivocally. Nothing holds any authority over it. I would probably put myself in that category. He also points out that most of us have not done any in-depth study, or probably any study at all, in the origins of scripture. We believe in it because men we know and trust have told us it’s reliable, it’s consistent and it’s worked for us. Until very recently, I would have put myself in that category too. I say until very recently because it was one of many ‘conversations‘ with VirusDoc that pushed me to dig deeper for answers to his probing questions. More on that later.
I find much to disagree with and question in his post today, but I’d rather not get into that today. At the end of the post he asks,

“So, my request to you (particularly if you are a devoted Protestant) is the following: help me understand how the choices of the evangelical protestant to follow the teachings of Scripture are at all different from the choices of the earnest catholic to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church on Mary?”

He bases that on the fact that, as stated above, both the average Catholic and Protestant base their beliefs on their faith in their leaders and the fact that it seems to work. They haven’t done any research into the validity of the Bible or the teachings on Mary, they just go with it.
Frankly, he’s right. For most followers of either faith, their reasons for doing so are similar. At that level, there is no real reason to choose one over the other. But the question for me becomes is that the only level to think about it? Just because most don’t dig for deeper reasons, does that mean that none exsist? If I find myself confronted with no good reason to believe a certain way (as ‘doc has done here) I must dig deeper (being aware of the dangers of Intellectual Inertia) and find out if there is a reason to hang onto it or if it should be thrown out. So with VirusDoc asking tough questions, I dug for answers. I discovered an article about the origins of scripture. I’m sure that there are more,in fact John Oakes points out a couple, but this site cane recommended by a man I have a great deal of respect for. Since we are dealing with the NT primarily, I only read that section of it. In it I found reasons to hang on to my belief that scripture is the place to go for the ultimate authority on what Christianity is.
Before I tell you what those reasons are, let me say that I do believe that God can reveal Himself to us in other ways. Each person experiences God in a different way, but I do believe that those experiences will match with the teachings of scripture and that they must be subject to them. So here are m reasons, pretty much from that article, of why the Bible is the ultimate authority:

1. The early church used the New Testament There is ample evidence that what we know of as the New Testament was codified as the official documents of the faith by the churches by around 200 AD or so. It shows that all the churches were using the same books.
2. The New Testament Canon was approved by the apostles themselves. I had assumed that some committee of scholars from various backgrounds had gotten together to put the canon together. No, it was done long before there were various backgrounds in Christianity. The evidence suggests that the basis for choosing the books of the Bible was that the apostles, those who had seen Jesus, themselves held them as the inspired standard.
3. They are highly accurate. Despite the fact that there seems to have been no effort to preserve the original writings or even to research their validity until the 1400’s, today we have thousands of texts with parts and sometimes all of the NT and it has proven to have been accurately handed down. There are very very few discrepancies of any consequence in the manuscripts. Remarkable for a book of it’s age.

To me the history and teachings of any religious group, Catholic or otherwise cannot live up to the actual evidence for the Bible: in place with in a few generations, approved by the founding fathers (apostles) and reliably handed down for centuries without significant error. The words of men, no matter how learned or in what position, are still only the words of men. They may be profound, wise and worthy of obedience, but they are not scripture. It’s a matter of evidence. There is ample evidence that the NT is what it claims to be, the blue print upon which Christianity was built. As far as the teachings or traditions of the Catholic or other churches, there is little evidence to support the idea that God wants them to be treated with the same respect as scripture.

Virusdoc had two posts on the Catholic position on Mary. One Friday from the ‘Doc and another Monday with some reader comments. Because of his exploration of Catholicism, I’ve spent a fair amount of energy here commenting on Catholic doctrine. Suffice to say I’ve found much to disagree with, and the subject of Mary is no exception. Let the record show, however that I have no agenda here against Catholics, it’s just working out this way. Ok, enough disclaimers, on to the topic.
From his Friday post, here’s a list of things that Catholics teach about Mary:

1. She was born without sin.
2. She lived her entire life without sin.
3. She never tasted death, was ‘assumed’ into heaven at the end of her life.
4. She was a virgin her entire life.

All but the last of these have been declared ‘infallible’ and all Catholics are required to believe them. He and I are on the same page her when he says “Not surprisingly, this amount of attention paid to ANY human being other than Jesus is a little hard to swallow for a protestant.” In fact, I can’t say I find anything to agree with in those teachings. (Actually, that’s not true. I agree with the first point, but I believe that’s true about all of us.) It seems to me that they are elevating Mary to the same level as Jesus, actually God, Himself! Christ is the only other human being ever born that can lay claim to all of the last three items on that list. To give those to Mary, to me, is to make her equal to God.
Monday’s reader response attempted to explain to our protestant mindset how this all makes sense. Honestly, it helped a little. I’m willing to admit that a fair amount of my incredulity at this idea is cultural. That is, I was brought up protestant and never really was exposed to any catholic teaching of any substance. It’s just as alien to me as Buddhism.
The general gist of it, assuming that I understood it, was that the Holy Spirit has been at work over the centuries, continually revealing God to the church and those revelations are just as valid as scripture itself. I can buy that the Holy Spirit is at work revealing God, but I have a hard time accepting it as equally valid as scripture. I mean, all kinds of people, including some sincere, well-meaning people, claim that God has spoken to them and given them a revelation. Now, many of them are just hoping we’ll open our wallets, but the rest are honest, God loving people. How are we, or anyone, to separate the wheat from the chaff if not by comparing their teachings and proclamations to scripture? Scripture is a constant standard against cultural and technological change, not to mention the whims of men. Even the most spiritual, intelligent and well meaning men have some bone headed ideas at times.
Frankly, I have a hard time seeing the Catholic position on Mary as anything but idolatry. I have a good friend at work that’s a devout catholic and more than that, he’s a man with a deep and sincere love for God. My intention, as stated earlier, is not to bash Catholics or to stir up trouble or debate, but I just can’t figure out how these ideas make sense. Can anyone help me do that?

Dead Man Blogging has a post wondering how we can mange to get along as Christians in the online world. He wonders how Romans 16:17-18; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Timothy 1:3-7; Titus 3:10-11 and Matthew 18:15-17 apply to those of us who know each other only by screen name and web address. It’s a great question, and one which we frequently fail at in real life, let alone in the anonymity of the web. From the content of his post and comment and the title of ‘Divisive Men’, he sound like one who has been hurt and does not know what to do next.
I’m relatively new to blogging, although I’ve been posting online at various forums for a while. It is my contention that technology does not change basic Christian principals but that the Christian principals must be applied to technology. In this case, the technology makes the possibility for hurt much more prominent. In real life, we can read each other’s body language and tone of voice. This communicates both ways, we understand the one speaking better and often the reactions to our words speak volumes about what was heard vs. what we meant. Online there is none of that, and often what we type is put out for all to see hastily and we don’t go back for several hours or days to see what was posted next.
I think there’s a more fundamental truth at work here that is deeper than how to blog like Christ. Christians tend to jump up and down over many things. Gay marriage, divorce, violence in movies, materialism, home schooling, creationism, abortion – we all have our pet peeves as disciples. I think that in our passion for these issues we often miss a big one; how we treat each other. In our jumping up and down we trample over those who disagree, sometimes non-christians, sometimes our own brothers. Didn’t Jesus say that we would be recognized by how we love, not our stand on the issues? (John 13:34-35) Look at 1 Corinthians 13:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

Prophecy, insight, knowledge, faith, generosity, and self sacrifice are all worthless without love. Love (patience, kindness, humility, politeness, selflessness, forgiveness) is perfection.
I think that Matthew 18:15-17 is the key verse here in dealing with these things in love. It is to me the foundational scripture on resolving conflict in the N.T. and ought to be the blueprint on it on our lives, including online. Notice how it is structured to protect the sinner from public disgrace. Privacy is paramount, giving the offender ample opportunity to repent before exposing him. Only the most determined to sin, after the confrontation of 3-4 men, will be challenged publicly. In the same way, if sinned against anywhere, including online, we must try to resolve those things privately first (by email) before chastising someone publicly in our own blog or the comments of another.

Speaking of the Thinklings, there was a post there that has stuck with me ever since I heard it. It was a light hearted post, but because of where I was spiritually at the time, it really hit home in a deep way. It was called Ewbu. When I first read it (back in November I guess!) my church as a whole and me personally were coming to the realization that we had put tried to put a narrow definition on discipleship and anyone out side that definition wasn’t ‘right’. It was a gut wrenching time of introspection and a real challenging to my faith. As I came to grips with the broader realm of discipleship and ways of looking at the world, I came across ewbu, or ‘Everybody’s Weird But Us.’ In a light hearted post, bird at Thinklings drove home the very real idea that we all see the world differently, but that’s almost always OK. In fact, I’ve learned that embracing someone else’s ‘weirdness’ helps me grow. As my friend VirusDoc put it once:

Perhaps this god is best viewed as a sort of mosaic–each individual can perceive only a single tile, and maybe the vaguest outline of the tiles near it. To see the whole picture, you have to get together, compare notes, and piece it into a whole. Maybe, from that perspective, He is not hidden at all. He is just larger than any of our singular fields of view.

The way to get that wider view is to seriously consider others viewpoints without judgement.