B
Binary_Paul
Guest
- Status
B
bob
Guest
I highlighted part of the above text for emphasis.
I agree that early Christians accepted the OT as scriptural. The question is which OT?
Septuagint complied about 100BC.
Paul (probably the earliest of NT writers) wrote his letters about 59 AD.
It was only in 70 AD that Johann ben Zakkai and the Jewish scholars decided on the canonicity of the Hebrew Tanakh in response to the Christian threat.
If, as you said, the early Christians “compared” Paul’s letters to the OT, the only one in use was in Greek - the Septuagint.
Jesus himself could not have used the Hebrew Tanakh as it was only established long after his death.
Based on your arguments, then, the early Christians accepted the Septuagint which has 46 books and could not have possibly accepted the Hebrew canon which came later and has only 39 books.
The Catholic Bible incorporates the Septuagint, the Protestants do not.
So why do Protestants like you reject books which **you acknowledged ** were accepted as scriptures by early Christians?
O
Ontario
Guest
I concur with the part of your quote above.
I was fully committed to Christ as a Catholic youth culminating in my confirmation. But I can honestly say I accepted Catholic teachings based on Faith and trust in His Church; which is all good but I wouldn’t have been able to answer say a Baptist questionning my baptism since it wasn’t a full immersion (not to mention an infant baptism). I had in a sense a child’s faith.
It was only after drifting away from the Catholic Church for many many years and slowly coming back through the United Church of Canada and then Bible Studies and attendence (with my Baptist wife) in a Baptist Church that I began to see the divergence of Christian beliefs amongst the denominations.
Who was right?
I was confused and desperately wanted the truth so I begged the Holy Spirit (at a Baptist altar call) to lead me.
What happen next was a whirl wind of personal study where I knew I had a personal responsibilbity to seek the truth and not stop until my conscience was satisfied. It was a slow and painful process. And not without consequences to my marriage (my wife is still Baptist; and her friends often talk about the unsaved,often referring to Catholics. It breaks my heart)
I am now back in the Catholic Church and trust the Church was founded by Christ as I did when I was a youth.
I don’t think anyone could have argued me one way or another; Catholic or Baptist. That was for God to lead me. I now know the arguments from both sides, and can relate to protestants even though I don’t share some of their beliefs. I was once there. I also realize some of the hostility is based on misconceptions.
One of my favorite Christian documents is the DIDACHE as it spells out forms of valid baptisms.
I also love Steve Ray’s book Upon This Rock which helped clarify the historical role of the Bishop of Rome for me.
God bless!
B
bob
Guest
Luther did not think that Revelations was inspired and thought it non-scriptural - Why do you accept Revelations?
Luther believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist - Why do you reject it?
W
Wil_Peregrin
Guest
I know of no reason whatsoever to believe that Luther removed anything from the Bible when he made his translation in the Wartburg. What are your sources?
The books entered into the canon of the NT were done so because they were known to have been written by an apostle or the scribe of an apostle. Because Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth.
Books written after the apostles were not included, no matter how orthodox, for the apostolic office, or sheliachim in the Hebrew, is a non-transferrable office where the one appointed speaks for the one appointing. It is a legal term.
There was some uncertainty about some books because they were either unknown in the East or in the West. But having a council allowed these separate communities to get up to speed with each other.
The Holy Spirit, not the diocese of Rome, Italy, gave us the Bible.
Now you will say that any conveyance of information from the past is tradition, and therefore by some alchemical process all such legends, speculations, etc., are assumed to have come from God instead of from mere men. The rabbis had this exact same thing, a holy tradition that they believed came from Moses, but wasn’t written down. Jesus taught -against- this tradition, for it was -not- from Moses, nor from God. Therefore we are skeptical of the claims of holy tradition. We -know- the Bible is from God, we don’t -know- that the various traditions are true, or perhaps not. That would be in the provence of historiography. When was it first recorded, what are the earliest dates for the extant texts containing these traditions, and so forth.
Jimmy, a number of the letters attributed to Ignatius are considered spurious. I don’t know which ones, and I don’t know the reasoning, but that does have to be addressed.
Chris, the Muratorian Canon, the specific texts quoted in sermons by various of the Fathers, are indeed in general agreement. It is certainly not as if the bishops met and decided to make a New Testament. It was because Markion was publishing an edited version that they had to make an authoritative statement. I know what you will say, see my questions about that argument above.
Ahimamsan, actually Paul praises the congregation in Berea for testing everything he said against the TaNaKh. They didn’t accept authority of men, they sought God’s view on the matter, and Paul praised them for it.
Chris W, if you want elaboration on Protestant canonics, start with reading Ridderbos, Bruce and Metzger.
Scholars don’t agree because they are fallen, if justified mere men. They have personal perspectives and agendae that get in their way. That is why we talk of the hermeneutical spiral, each time we study the Bible, our minds become more transformed (Romans 12:1-2) and our understanding is improved, plus we submit our findings to our colleagues, whether in academic journals, or a group of Christians getting out their Bibles with each other and challenging the odd one out to “prove it”
How do we understand the Magisterium? Surely if the Bible cannot be understood, neither can the Catechism or papal encyclicals. Both are written in human language, all of the same exegetical issues come to play. If you try to use the pomo/fascist “hermeneutic of despair” to attack Protestants, you have to use the same principles on those documents that you -do- consider authoritative and perspecacious. Or, you might realize the fallacy and many dangers of using a hermeneutic alien to the Faith that believes “ean archae aen ha Logos”, and rethink, and improve your apologetic. If you wish to be the best servants of God that you know how to be.
The books entered into the canon of the NT were done so because they were known to have been written by an apostle or the scribe of an apostle. Because Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth.
Books written after the apostles were not included, no matter how orthodox, for the apostolic office, or sheliachim in the Hebrew, is a non-transferrable office where the one appointed speaks for the one appointing. It is a legal term.
There was some uncertainty about some books because they were either unknown in the East or in the West. But having a council allowed these separate communities to get up to speed with each other.
The Holy Spirit, not the diocese of Rome, Italy, gave us the Bible.
Now you will say that any conveyance of information from the past is tradition, and therefore by some alchemical process all such legends, speculations, etc., are assumed to have come from God instead of from mere men. The rabbis had this exact same thing, a holy tradition that they believed came from Moses, but wasn’t written down. Jesus taught -against- this tradition, for it was -not- from Moses, nor from God. Therefore we are skeptical of the claims of holy tradition. We -know- the Bible is from God, we don’t -know- that the various traditions are true, or perhaps not. That would be in the provence of historiography. When was it first recorded, what are the earliest dates for the extant texts containing these traditions, and so forth.
Jimmy, a number of the letters attributed to Ignatius are considered spurious. I don’t know which ones, and I don’t know the reasoning, but that does have to be addressed.
Chris, the Muratorian Canon, the specific texts quoted in sermons by various of the Fathers, are indeed in general agreement. It is certainly not as if the bishops met and decided to make a New Testament. It was because Markion was publishing an edited version that they had to make an authoritative statement. I know what you will say, see my questions about that argument above.
Ahimamsan, actually Paul praises the congregation in Berea for testing everything he said against the TaNaKh. They didn’t accept authority of men, they sought God’s view on the matter, and Paul praised them for it.
Chris W, if you want elaboration on Protestant canonics, start with reading Ridderbos, Bruce and Metzger.
Scholars don’t agree because they are fallen, if justified mere men. They have personal perspectives and agendae that get in their way. That is why we talk of the hermeneutical spiral, each time we study the Bible, our minds become more transformed (Romans 12:1-2) and our understanding is improved, plus we submit our findings to our colleagues, whether in academic journals, or a group of Christians getting out their Bibles with each other and challenging the odd one out to “prove it”
How do we understand the Magisterium? Surely if the Bible cannot be understood, neither can the Catechism or papal encyclicals. Both are written in human language, all of the same exegetical issues come to play. If you try to use the pomo/fascist “hermeneutic of despair” to attack Protestants, you have to use the same principles on those documents that you -do- consider authoritative and perspecacious. Or, you might realize the fallacy and many dangers of using a hermeneutic alien to the Faith that believes “ean archae aen ha Logos”, and rethink, and improve your apologetic. If you wish to be the best servants of God that you know how to be.
W
Wil_Peregrin
Guest
Ahimamsan, and we can see how all of this happened with regards to the canon of Scripture. Were are the papyrii and ostraca proving the validity of what is claimed to be the Word of God not enscripturated? Where is the evidence trail? If Israel could get off track, if those who sat in Moses Seat could become heretics over time, why should we not heed the Prophets and go “to the Law and the Testimony”. How am I to know that what is claimed to be tradition, is in fact true?
GMK, I fail to see how your argument establishes that “the Law and the Testimony”? are not more to be relied upon that the teachings of men? They might be true, they might not, and they weren’t important enough to include in the Word of God. Have you a better argument?
PuzzleAnnie, you say good things about the sacraments, etc., but you are tilting at a straw man when you attack sola Scriptura supra omne. To generate more light and less heat, learn what the teaching is, and then discuss the real thing.
Oriel, that is interesting. But this is the case of a text that is not perspecacious. What did Augstine mean by that almost Hebraic poetry?
Chris W, I recommend the books I listed above. They will give you insight into what those terrible northerner actually think. Then you can joust with ideas instead of strawmen (that you mistake for the “enemy”, I don’t impugn your sincerity, nor brotherhood in the Faith)
We must neither trivialize, nor exagerate our differences -and- our unity. Now as perhaps never before, we need each other. Christ has only one bride, and that includes all of the Patriarchies, and all of the idiosyncratic fragments. Ut Unam Sint and Dominus Iesu provide the guidelines for Roman Catholics. The rest of us had better heed Christ’s High Priestly Prayer (and read those two works, St. Karol of Praha is not only saintly, but wise.)
JR, not only the Catholics, but the Orthodox, the Syriacs, the Armenians, the Copts, and even the Waldensians and Lollards.
Oriel, I would have to issue a caution of basing anything on Pseudo-Dionysius, the disciple of the pagan philospher Plotinus, and channel of the periodic re-introductions of the gnostic heresy into Christendom.
GMK, I fail to see how your argument establishes that “the Law and the Testimony”? are not more to be relied upon that the teachings of men? They might be true, they might not, and they weren’t important enough to include in the Word of God. Have you a better argument?
PuzzleAnnie, you say good things about the sacraments, etc., but you are tilting at a straw man when you attack sola Scriptura supra omne. To generate more light and less heat, learn what the teaching is, and then discuss the real thing.
Oriel, that is interesting. But this is the case of a text that is not perspecacious. What did Augstine mean by that almost Hebraic poetry?
Chris W, I recommend the books I listed above. They will give you insight into what those terrible northerner actually think. Then you can joust with ideas instead of strawmen (that you mistake for the “enemy”, I don’t impugn your sincerity, nor brotherhood in the Faith)
We must neither trivialize, nor exagerate our differences -and- our unity. Now as perhaps never before, we need each other. Christ has only one bride, and that includes all of the Patriarchies, and all of the idiosyncratic fragments. Ut Unam Sint and Dominus Iesu provide the guidelines for Roman Catholics. The rest of us had better heed Christ’s High Priestly Prayer (and read those two works, St. Karol of Praha is not only saintly, but wise.)
JR, not only the Catholics, but the Orthodox, the Syriacs, the Armenians, the Copts, and even the Waldensians and Lollards.
Oriel, I would have to issue a caution of basing anything on Pseudo-Dionysius, the disciple of the pagan philospher Plotinus, and channel of the periodic re-introductions of the gnostic heresy into Christendom.
W
Wil_Peregrin
Guest
Chris W, I would prefer to use Chrysostom’s Dictum (also that of Lucas of Praha, the ignored Reformer) of distinguishing between the things which must be believed to be saved, the things which are beneficial to believe but are not necessary unto salvation, and the adiaphora.
Ahimamsan, the apostolic era Christians accepted them because they were from the -apostles- the only ones who had the right to speak for Christ, and to whom Jesus had promised that the Holy Spirit would reveal the NT Scriptures.
WBB, how can you be Catholic as opposed to Roman Catholic, when the other Patriarchies disagree with your Patriarch so much? Katholicos means universal, not merely Western.
David, your claims can be made equally well by the Pope of the Copts, the Patriarchs of Moscow and Byzantium and Jerusalem. And the Syriac and Armenian Churches would make the same claims. I think that until better arguments are presented, I will stick to the teaching of the Prophets and the example of Jesus and stick to the Word of God as authoritative over the traditions of men.
Actually, it was either Ignatius or Irenaeus who changed the structure of the Church, separating the mutually-referent terms episcopos and presbyteros into separate offices in order to create a hierarchy to fill the void left by the passing of the Twelve. Various Protestant denominations have gone back to what is described in Acts and the various letters.
Rjm, but Peter writes that Paul’s letters are Scripture. . .
Mr. Santa, Luther did not take any books out of the Bible. He translated from the Hebrew text, which does not include the apocrypha. Now, we can get into a discussion of whether the LXX, being a translation, or the Masoretic text, not being a translation but either being precisely the Temple Scroll, as most Protestants have believed, or -possibly- tinkered with by the rabbis at Javneh. But that is a scholarly discussion and not a doctrinal issue. It was only Trent that declared the apocrypha to be canon, and that was not an ecumenical council of the Church, and the scholars at Trent didn’t even understand what the Protestants were teaching, and so anathematized teachings that Luther and Calvin would happily have joined in anathamatizing.
Ahimamsan, the apostolic era Christians accepted them because they were from the -apostles- the only ones who had the right to speak for Christ, and to whom Jesus had promised that the Holy Spirit would reveal the NT Scriptures.
WBB, how can you be Catholic as opposed to Roman Catholic, when the other Patriarchies disagree with your Patriarch so much? Katholicos means universal, not merely Western.
David, your claims can be made equally well by the Pope of the Copts, the Patriarchs of Moscow and Byzantium and Jerusalem. And the Syriac and Armenian Churches would make the same claims. I think that until better arguments are presented, I will stick to the teaching of the Prophets and the example of Jesus and stick to the Word of God as authoritative over the traditions of men.
Actually, it was either Ignatius or Irenaeus who changed the structure of the Church, separating the mutually-referent terms episcopos and presbyteros into separate offices in order to create a hierarchy to fill the void left by the passing of the Twelve. Various Protestant denominations have gone back to what is described in Acts and the various letters.
Rjm, but Peter writes that Paul’s letters are Scripture. . .
Mr. Santa, Luther did not take any books out of the Bible. He translated from the Hebrew text, which does not include the apocrypha. Now, we can get into a discussion of whether the LXX, being a translation, or the Masoretic text, not being a translation but either being precisely the Temple Scroll, as most Protestants have believed, or -possibly- tinkered with by the rabbis at Javneh. But that is a scholarly discussion and not a doctrinal issue. It was only Trent that declared the apocrypha to be canon, and that was not an ecumenical council of the Church, and the scholars at Trent didn’t even understand what the Protestants were teaching, and so anathematized teachings that Luther and Calvin would happily have joined in anathamatizing.
W
Wil_Peregrin
Guest
David, I’m curious what support you have to claim that some texts in the LXX were not canon, and others were, and that the LXX, rather than the Massoretic Text determines what is Old Testament Canon? That the Church spoke Greek, and used the Greek translation? That seems no more than an “accident” of history. Jesus quoted from the texts included in the Massoretic text, albeit sometimes from the LXX translation, but never from the apocrypha.
Ahimamsan, just because you think you are right doesn’t mean you don’t have to support your arguments.
AS to priests, there may have been some in some places in some corrupt times, like Rome in the 16th century, but most priests today are deeply devoted servants of Christ and of God’s people, they neither lift themselves up, nor do they try to get in between the laios and Christ. Far from it.
Mercygate, You are citing where Jesus sets apart and ordains the -apostles-. Not bishops. Sheliachim are a particular legal office, the Sheliach can speak for the one who sent him. But he cannot pass on that office to someone else. In the NT, episcopos and presbyteros are used interchangeably. Not that I think that the Church stands or falls on parish structure.
Peter visited Rome a couple of times, Paul spent quite some time there. As to who the first presbyters were, I suspect they were the rabbis who converted, as we see in Acts in at least one instance.
Ahimamsan, you seem to be entering more into what was called “enthusiasm”. Not Protestantism, nor even that part which is historic Baptist.
Ok, I’ve only covered parts of Oct 22 to parts of Oct 26. I am a mere man. My eyes are bleary. I must cease.
And I never got to ask my question: “what is the earliest referent to infant baptism?” and “What is the earliest referent to baptismal regeneration being the correct interpretation of certain passages, rather than baptism being used as a metaphor for the work of the Holy Spirit, not done by the hands of men.?”
I really want to know, for my own reasons, not the discussions hereabouts.
Ahimamsan, just because you think you are right doesn’t mean you don’t have to support your arguments.
AS to priests, there may have been some in some places in some corrupt times, like Rome in the 16th century, but most priests today are deeply devoted servants of Christ and of God’s people, they neither lift themselves up, nor do they try to get in between the laios and Christ. Far from it.
Mercygate, You are citing where Jesus sets apart and ordains the -apostles-. Not bishops. Sheliachim are a particular legal office, the Sheliach can speak for the one who sent him. But he cannot pass on that office to someone else. In the NT, episcopos and presbyteros are used interchangeably. Not that I think that the Church stands or falls on parish structure.
Peter visited Rome a couple of times, Paul spent quite some time there. As to who the first presbyters were, I suspect they were the rabbis who converted, as we see in Acts in at least one instance.
Ahimamsan, you seem to be entering more into what was called “enthusiasm”. Not Protestantism, nor even that part which is historic Baptist.
Ok, I’ve only covered parts of Oct 22 to parts of Oct 26. I am a mere man. My eyes are bleary. I must cease.
And I never got to ask my question: “what is the earliest referent to infant baptism?” and “What is the earliest referent to baptismal regeneration being the correct interpretation of certain passages, rather than baptism being used as a metaphor for the work of the Holy Spirit, not done by the hands of men.?”
I really want to know, for my own reasons, not the discussions hereabouts.
B
bob
Guest
If you hold Luther in such high regard…
Luther rejected Hebrews, Jude and Revelations. He said he couldn’t find Christ in those books - Why do you accept these books?
Luther accepted the Real Presence - Why do you the Real Presence?
W
WBB
Guest
Hmm. A few things.
First, what the apostles preached certainly is in scripture. Catholics won’t refute that. However, what we will refute is that each individual has the right to interpret those same scriptures in a Tradition that is not in keeping with the Apostolic Tradition (i.e. the tradition of Luther or Calvin or Knox or Cranmer or any “individual”), and the Catholic Church traces her Tradition to the teaching of the apostles in an unbroken succession (which is a teaching which you will, of course, reject).
Second…you said:
Yes, it is quite obvious that he wanted a church organization. He did spend His time on earth laying the foundations for the church. Do we have to keep saying it: Matthew 16: 18-19 “So now I say to you, You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church. And the gates of the netherworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Now, if Jesus never intended to found a “church organization” run by men, then why did he A) say he would “build my church” and B) entrust the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter? The keys to the kingdom imply that Jesus is establishing a dynastic kingdom of which Peter and his successors will be the “prime ministers.” (The Keys must be handed on to the next in line. What good would they do Peter once he inherited his heavenly reward?)
You also quoted Matthew 28: 19-20. Then you said this:
Jesus told the apostles to “teach them (all nations) to observe all the commands I gave you.” During his earthly ministry and in the 40 days after the resurrection leading up to the Ascension, Jesus taught the apostles the message he wanted them to teach (all the commands I gave you) to the nations. This is the Apostolic Tradition that we have inherited from the hands of the apostles. He didn’t “make up” complex Catholic theology. You don’t “make up” the truth.
Peace!
M
mayra_hart
Guest
**Whose Bible Is It, Anyway? ** **KARL KEATING **Douglas Wilson knows this. Writing in Credenda Agenda, a periodical espousing the Reformed faith, he notes that “the problem with contemporary Protestants is that they have no doctrine of the table of contents. With the approach that is popular in conservative Evangelical circles, one simply comes to the Bible by means of an epistemological lurch. The Bible ‘just is,’ and any questions about how it got here are dismissed as a nuisance. But time passes, the questions remain unanswered, the silence becomes awkward, and conversions of thoughtful Evangelicals to Rome proceed apaceMost Protestants are at a loss when asked how they know that the 66 books in their Bibles belong in it. (They are at an even greater loss to explain why the seven additional books appearing in Catholic Bibles are missing from theirs.) For them the Bible “just is.” They take it as a given. It never occurs to most of them that they ought to justify its existence. All Christians agree that the books that make up the Bible are inspired, meaning that God somehow guided the sacred authors to write all of, and only, what he wished. They wrote, most of them, without any awareness that they were being moved by God. As they wrote, God used their natural talents and their existing ways of speech. Each book of the Bible is an image not only of the divine Inspirer but of the all-too-human author. So how do we know whether Book A is inspired while Book B is not? A few unsophisticated Protestants are satisfied with pointing to the table of contents, as though that modern addition somehow validates the inspiration of the 66 books, but many Protestants simply shrug and admit that they don’t know why they know the Bible consists of inspired books and only inspired books. Some Protestants claim that they do have a way of knowing, a kind of internal affirmation that is obtained as they read the text.
M
mayra_hart
Guest
Wilson cites the Westminster Confession — the 1647 Calvinist statement of faith — which says that the Holy Spirit provides “full persuasion and assurance” regarding Scripture to those who are converted. The converted,” says Wilson, “are in turn enabled to see the other abundant evidences, which include the testimony of the Church.” But the “testimony of the Church” cannot be definitive or binding since the Church may err, according to Protestant lights. (Protestants do not believe the Church is infallible when it teaches.) What really counts is the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Without it, the Protestant is at a loss — but, even with it, he is at a loss. When young Mormon missionaries come to your door, they ask you to accept a copy of the Book of Mormon. You hesitate, but they say that all they want is for you to read the text and ask God to give you a sign that the text is inspired. They call this sign the “burning in the bosom.” If you feel uplifted, moved, prodded toward the good or true — if you feel “inspired,” in the colloquial rather than theological sense of that word — as you read the Book of Mormon, then that is supposed to be proof that Joseph Smith’s text is from God
Back to the Protestant. The “full persuasion and assurance” of the Westminster Confession is not readily distinguishable from Mormonism’s “burning in the bosom.” You read a book of the Bible and are “inspired” by it — and that proves its inspiration. The sequence is easy enough to experience in reading the Gospels, but I suspect no one ever has felt the same thing when reading the two books of Chronicles. They read like dry military statistics because that is what they largely are. Neither the simplistic table-of-contents approach nor the more sophisticated Westminster Confession approach will do. The Christian needs more than either if he is to know for certain that the books of the Bible come ultimately from God. He needs an authoritative collector to affirm their inspiration. That collector must be something other than an internal feeling. It must be an authoritative — and, yes, infallible Church thank you mr keating:thumbsup:
Back to the Protestant. The “full persuasion and assurance” of the Westminster Confession is not readily distinguishable from Mormonism’s “burning in the bosom.” You read a book of the Bible and are “inspired” by it — and that proves its inspiration. The sequence is easy enough to experience in reading the Gospels, but I suspect no one ever has felt the same thing when reading the two books of Chronicles. They read like dry military statistics because that is what they largely are. Neither the simplistic table-of-contents approach nor the more sophisticated Westminster Confession approach will do. The Christian needs more than either if he is to know for certain that the books of the Bible come ultimately from God. He needs an authoritative collector to affirm their inspiration. That collector must be something other than an internal feeling. It must be an authoritative — and, yes, infallible Church thank you mr keating:thumbsup:
M
mayra_hart
Guest
**Who Really Wrote the Gospels? ** FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS The notion that the Gospels are the product of the early Church community in the third century is “strange” indeed. However, we must be aware that a lot of “strange” things have emerged in some circles of modern Scripture scholarship, where scholars have isolated the texts of Sacred Scripture and examined them without any appreciation for divine intervention or the living Tradition of the Church. Sad to say, some Scripture scholars would have us believe that the only thing we can know for certain is that Jesus existed. Even the pagan Roman historians could tell us that. Such a bent in Scripture is misguidedThe foundational premise is that “Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He live among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up.” After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, handing on to others what our Lord had done and taught. Having been instructed by the Lord and then enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they preached with a fuller understanding. Eventually, the “sacred authors” wrote the four Gospels. Each author, guided by the Holy Spirit, selected from the events and teachings of our Lord which perhaps they had witnessed or which had been handed on either orally or in written form. Sometimes the authors may have synthesized some of these events or teachings, or may have underscored parts or explained parts with a view to a certain audience. This is why the Gospels oftentimes tell the same story, but each will have certain details not included by the others. In a similar way, if each member of our family had to write a family history, each member would tell basically the same story, but each member would also highlight certain details he considered important and would keep in mind who would be reading the family history. Nevertheless, the sacred authors wrote “in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.” Therefore to suggest that the third century Church “wrote” the Gospels in some kind of vacuum, almost to “create” Jesus, is without foundation.
M
mayra_hart
Guest
Is the Autonomy of the Local Church Biblical?
The Council of Jerusalem:
We may prove this quite readily by turning to Acts 15:6-31, where we read of the first General Church Council. A serious question of doctrine arose, and “the apostles and the presbyters came together to consider this matter” (Acts 15:6).
After hearing the arguments and testimony of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, the leader of the Council, James, then passed a decree with the words, “Therefore I judge” (Acts 15:19, ‘dio ego krino’). This passage describes no truly democratic process, but rather it describes submission to the judgment of a central ecclesiastical authority.
After receiving the judgment of James, *“it pleased the apostles and presbyters together with the whole Church” *(Acts 15:22: ‘apostolois kai tois presbyterois syn hole ekklesia’) to dispatch delegates with a letter promulgating the decree of the Council. The council then drafted a letter in the name of “the apostles and the brother-presbyters” (Acts 15:23: ‘hoi apostoloi kai hoi presbyteroi adelphoi’). This phrasing, and especially the apposition of ‘presbyteroi’ and ‘adelphoi’, is quite precise in establishing the authority of the decision of the Council in the office of the ministers who serve and lead the Church, as opposed to a democratic process.
Does the phrase “whole Church” here refer to the universal Church, or merely to the entirety of the congregation at Jerusalem. Recalling that the leadership of the Council was comprised of the apostles who were planting local churches in the Hellenistic world, delegates of the Hellenistic churches, and the presbyters of the church at Jerusalem, we can only rightly conclude that they spoke in the name of the universal Church. Indeed, the letter explicitly states that the authors speak in the authority of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28); since Paul tells us that it is by one Spirit that we were baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13) which is Christ (1 Cor. 12:27) and over which Christ is the head (1 Eph. 1:22-23), when Luke writes in Acts 15:22 of the leadership of the whole Church assenting to the decree of James which is binding on all Gentile Christians, he is necessarily speaking of the Church in its universal or catholic sense.
The Council then sent the letter to the local churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. This letter remarks that the false doctrine which the council repudiated was in fact discernibly false because “we gave no such commandments” (Acts 15:24). Hence, the Bible tells us that right doctrine is subject to the discernment of the leadership of the whole Church.
The decree of the Council of Jerusalem went on, then, to establish a binding obligation upon all Christians in the local churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: “that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality” (Acts 15:29). Did the local churches bristle at this imposition of doctrine and practice from the ecclesiastical leadership of the whole Church? Not at all, but rather they *“rejoiced over its encouragement” *(Acts 15:31).
The Council of Jerusalem:
We may prove this quite readily by turning to Acts 15:6-31, where we read of the first General Church Council. A serious question of doctrine arose, and “the apostles and the presbyters came together to consider this matter” (Acts 15:6).
After hearing the arguments and testimony of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, the leader of the Council, James, then passed a decree with the words, “Therefore I judge” (Acts 15:19, ‘dio ego krino’). This passage describes no truly democratic process, but rather it describes submission to the judgment of a central ecclesiastical authority.
After receiving the judgment of James, *“it pleased the apostles and presbyters together with the whole Church” *(Acts 15:22: ‘apostolois kai tois presbyterois syn hole ekklesia’) to dispatch delegates with a letter promulgating the decree of the Council. The council then drafted a letter in the name of “the apostles and the brother-presbyters” (Acts 15:23: ‘hoi apostoloi kai hoi presbyteroi adelphoi’). This phrasing, and especially the apposition of ‘presbyteroi’ and ‘adelphoi’, is quite precise in establishing the authority of the decision of the Council in the office of the ministers who serve and lead the Church, as opposed to a democratic process.
Does the phrase “whole Church” here refer to the universal Church, or merely to the entirety of the congregation at Jerusalem. Recalling that the leadership of the Council was comprised of the apostles who were planting local churches in the Hellenistic world, delegates of the Hellenistic churches, and the presbyters of the church at Jerusalem, we can only rightly conclude that they spoke in the name of the universal Church. Indeed, the letter explicitly states that the authors speak in the authority of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28); since Paul tells us that it is by one Spirit that we were baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13) which is Christ (1 Cor. 12:27) and over which Christ is the head (1 Eph. 1:22-23), when Luke writes in Acts 15:22 of the leadership of the whole Church assenting to the decree of James which is binding on all Gentile Christians, he is necessarily speaking of the Church in its universal or catholic sense.
The Council then sent the letter to the local churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. This letter remarks that the false doctrine which the council repudiated was in fact discernibly false because “we gave no such commandments” (Acts 15:24). Hence, the Bible tells us that right doctrine is subject to the discernment of the leadership of the whole Church.
The decree of the Council of Jerusalem went on, then, to establish a binding obligation upon all Christians in the local churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: “that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality” (Acts 15:29). Did the local churches bristle at this imposition of doctrine and practice from the ecclesiastical leadership of the whole Church? Not at all, but rather they *“rejoiced over its encouragement” *(Acts 15:31).
M
mayra_hart
Guest
Clearly, the Bible itself sets a precedent for the government of the universal Church by means of General Councils.
Objection: the Apostles Led the Council, and the Apostolic Age Has Passed!
Rather, even in the age of the Apostles, the first Church Council was already necessary!
James was clearly the leading authority at the Council of Jerusalem. James was not an Apostle, but rather the overseer (bishop) of the church at Jerusalem.
So too, while the great Apostles of the New Testament have already gone to their reward, the Bible tells us most clearly that the Apostles were empowered to select and ordain successors, who were to be bishops. Peter spoke of selecting a replacement for Judas, saying “let another take his episcopacy” (or “bishopric”, of you prefer; Acts 1:20: ‘ten episcopen autou labeto heteros’). Since the Bible tells us that the apostles assembled at the Council of Jerusalem, without making any exceptions, we may safely presume that the Bishop Matthias was there as well.
Objection: Peter Required that Judas’ Successor Have Seen the Lord! No Bishops Today Have Seen the Lord!
Peter required that the successor to Judas be selected from among several who had walked with the Lord from the beginning (Acts 1:21). But this requirement was particular and temporal; it was not, according to the Bible, a general and permanent prerequisite for leadership over the whole Church. Indeed, James, who led the Council of Jerusalem and issued its final decree, had not walked with the Lord and had not even believed on Jesus as the Christ until after the Resurrection (Jo. 7:5)!
Elsewhere we find Paul establishing yet other requirements for bishops (1 Tim 3:1-2, Tit. 1:7). In no case does he require that the bishops appointed over the churches have walked with, or even seen, the Lord.
Objection: Acts 15 Mentions Presbyters, not Bishops!
James was, by definition, the leading bishop (overseer) of the church at Jerusalem. Moreover, one must recall that at this early date the office of the presbyter overlapped that of the bishop (Ti. 1:5-7). In Acts 20:17 and 28, for example, Paul refers to the same set of ecclesiastical leaders as both “presbyters” (‘presbyterous’) and “bishops” (‘episkopous’). So too, the presbytery was an ordained office, conferred by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim.1:6). Thus we may be sure that Acts 15 refers to ecclesiastical officials when enumerating the presbyters at the Council of Jerusalem.
http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/barJohn10_14.gif
Objection: the Apostles Led the Council, and the Apostolic Age Has Passed!
Rather, even in the age of the Apostles, the first Church Council was already necessary!
James was clearly the leading authority at the Council of Jerusalem. James was not an Apostle, but rather the overseer (bishop) of the church at Jerusalem.
So too, while the great Apostles of the New Testament have already gone to their reward, the Bible tells us most clearly that the Apostles were empowered to select and ordain successors, who were to be bishops. Peter spoke of selecting a replacement for Judas, saying “let another take his episcopacy” (or “bishopric”, of you prefer; Acts 1:20: ‘ten episcopen autou labeto heteros’). Since the Bible tells us that the apostles assembled at the Council of Jerusalem, without making any exceptions, we may safely presume that the Bishop Matthias was there as well.
Objection: Peter Required that Judas’ Successor Have Seen the Lord! No Bishops Today Have Seen the Lord!
Peter required that the successor to Judas be selected from among several who had walked with the Lord from the beginning (Acts 1:21). But this requirement was particular and temporal; it was not, according to the Bible, a general and permanent prerequisite for leadership over the whole Church. Indeed, James, who led the Council of Jerusalem and issued its final decree, had not walked with the Lord and had not even believed on Jesus as the Christ until after the Resurrection (Jo. 7:5)!
Elsewhere we find Paul establishing yet other requirements for bishops (1 Tim 3:1-2, Tit. 1:7). In no case does he require that the bishops appointed over the churches have walked with, or even seen, the Lord.
Objection: Acts 15 Mentions Presbyters, not Bishops!
James was, by definition, the leading bishop (overseer) of the church at Jerusalem. Moreover, one must recall that at this early date the office of the presbyter overlapped that of the bishop (Ti. 1:5-7). In Acts 20:17 and 28, for example, Paul refers to the same set of ecclesiastical leaders as both “presbyters” (‘presbyterous’) and “bishops” (‘episkopous’). So too, the presbytery was an ordained office, conferred by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim.1:6). Thus we may be sure that Acts 15 refers to ecclesiastical officials when enumerating the presbyters at the Council of Jerusalem.
http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/barJohn10_14.gif
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
This isn’t what we see in Acts 15 though. We don’t see local independent churches with local authority within themselves. In fact we see just the opposite.
When the debate about whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcized to be saved began causing “no little dessension and debate (vs 2)” what happens? The church at Antioch votes on what they should believe on the matter? No. The circumcision crowd breaks away from the no-circumsion crowd and starts their own church? No. “It was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question (vs 2)”. If the church at Antioch was a local independent church with local authority within themselves they’d have settled the matter among themselves. But they didn’t. They took the matter to Jerusalem where the church leadership was (apostles and presbyters), the people who had the authority to render a binding decision. They did not keep it local nor claim their independence.
When a decision was rendered it was binding, not only on those in Antioch but Syria and Cilicia as well (vs 23). The decision was binding not only on those where the problem arose but on all Christians of the day. The letter was addressed to churches that weren’t even involved in the issue. This is because the “local” churches weren’t independent with a local authority. They were all part of the one church established by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18) all under the authority of the apostles and presbyters who were, at that time, in Jerusalem.
Did the apostles and presbyters send the letter knowing the local independent church of Antioch could simply pray to the holy Spirit and interpret it for themselves? No. The wise council knew that the written word could be misinterpreted so they sent along Judas and Silas who would “convey this same message by word of mouth (vs 27)”. They knew that an authoritative interpreter was necessary so the message would not be misunderstood.
When the letter arrived along with Judas and Silas did the local independent church of Antioch raise a stink about the interference of Jerusalem in their local affair? No. Did they complain that they were a local independent church with a local independent authority and Jerusalem couldn’t tell them what to do? No. Did they tell Judas and Silas that they didn’t need anyone to tell them what the letter meant because they had the holy Spirit to tell them? No. They were delighted (vs 31) with the message from Jerusalem and they sent greetings of peace to those who had rendered this binding decision upon them (vs 33). This local church did not act independently but rather sought the authoritative decision of the church leadership and it brought delight and peace where there was once “dissention and debate”.
Help me to understand where you find that scripture describes the early churches as local independent churches with local authority within themselves?
In Christ,
Nancy
W
WBB
Guest
Wil Peregrin:
I explained that. “Roman” Catholic is a term coined during the English Reformation that distinguised adherents of the Church of England from those who were in union with the Pope. I am a member of the Catholic Church…the universal Church of Christ. I happen to worship in a Latin Rite church, but I am Catholic. Besides, what is a Liturgical Eucharistic Evangelical?
M
mkellogg
Guest
Great, the Protestants have finally infiltrated the forums. I thought I had escaped them when I quit posting on Usenet…
This is the exact same nonsense that James White spews in his books and in the “Bible Answer Man Debate” with Jimmy Akin. Somehow we would all KNOW and agree on the canon of inspired scripture, just by virtue of the fact that it was written. Ridiculous. Why don’t we consider the Didache to be inspired? It surely meets all the obvious requirements, doesn’t it?
The answer that most Prot’s and all Evangelicals refuse to admit - a matter of recorded history - is that the Catholic Church decided what was to be considered inspired, and what was not, for the Christian world. Period. If you’re a Protestant, and you don’t believe the Church is what She says She is, how on earth do you reconcile that with your belief that the NT you hold in your hands is inspired, and that nothing else was?
-mk
J
J.R
Guest
Wil Peregrin:
Welcome my Protestant brother, but get your facts straight. There was no Orthodox untill 1054 a.d… Who preserved the word until then? There was no Waldensians until 1174. Who preservered the word until then? There was no Lollards until about the late 1300’s. Who preserved the word until then? I’ll tell you the **Catholic monesteries ** that’s who. So please except truth for what it is. God Bless
T
theMutant
Guest
Wil Peregrin:
In regard to Luther removing book from the canon. I have read from many accounts that Bibles written or Printed between the time of the Early Church and Luther included all of the Old Testament writings that are accepted in the Catholic Canon. All of the copies that are extant have these writings but Luther did not include them. Ergo, he removed them.
Wil Peregrin:
Wil Peregrin:
Wil Peregrin:
Wil Peregrin:
Sorry, but there are two problems with that. First there were other writings which many local churches believed WERE written by Apostles but which did not ultimately make it into the canon. The Gospel of Peter and the Didache are examples of this. In the case of these two, the Didache WAS written when at least one Apostle was alive and it was very widely accepted - more so than Revelation! - and yet it did not make it into the canon.
In regard to Luther removing book from the canon. I have read from many accounts that Bibles written or Printed between the time of the Early Church and Luther included all of the Old Testament writings that are accepted in the Catholic Canon. All of the copies that are extant have these writings but Luther did not include them. Ergo, he removed them.
Wil Peregrin:
This does not address the fact that there were writings that were accepted in those Churches but did not make it into the canon and are not accepted as Scripture by Catholics or Protestants to this day.
Wil Peregrin:
AMEN to that!!! However, when the issue of determining which writings were and were not Scripture arose, the Holy Spirit worked through the authoritative Church acting in council to give us that determination.
Wil Peregrin:
Please cite where I EVER claimed that the Church used some alchemical process. Never happend, never will.
Wil Peregrin:
But Jesus only taught against those traditions which directly contradicted the true Law of Moses. You also seem to be assuming that the average Jew had a copy of the Scriptures they could review at their leisure but history shows this not to be the case.
- Status