M
MariaG
Guest
Just wish to chime in here.
As to which tradition, Orthodox or Catholic, shoud you accept is the exact question you should be asking, because it can’t be Protestant.
- Status
As to which tradition, Orthodox or Catholic, shoud you accept is the exact question you should be asking, because it can’t be Protestant.
I
in_servitude
Guest
I’m unable to wrap my mind around the concept that the scriptures just popped into existence. That we all know what is “God Breathed” and what is false.
What was the mechanism or method Christ used to authenticate Scripture? We know that people disagree on the authenticity of the Septuagint. How might Christ help to resolve this disagreement?
Do you find it odd that Christ did not write anything down for us? Or, that he didn’t have scribes follow him around taking notes? If Sacred Scripture was going to be authenticated by Christ, it seems like an obvious choice to make.
The fact that Christ did not do that, but rather pulled his apostles together as the start of his Church tells me that what Christ left behind was not some writings. Rather, it was his Church.
Another couple questions that comes to my mind are, “What about all those people that are not able to read? How do they decide what is right?” Seems sloppy for Jesus to just leave us all in a lurch like that. Or, perhaps we are all called to become learned enough discern what is God breathed and what is false.
As for me, I do not have to even read the document (Gospel of Thomas). Rather, I choose to submit to the decisions of the Magisterium. So, it works differently for the two of us.
K
kwortham
Guest
So, it just dropped out of the sky? How do you know which books belong without the authority of the Church? How do you know that Hebrews belongs? What about Revelations?
The Church was created without the Bible and kept the truth four hundred years before the Bible was created. It was not until the time of Luther that the concept of sola scriptura was created by protestants.
L
Lincoln7
Guest
In_Servitude,
No I don’t find it odd that Christ had nothing wrote down during his earthly ministry, he promised the Apostles that all he said would be reminded to them by the Holy Spirit.
You appear to have missed my point however; I said scripture requires no external authority save for God Himself to make it authoritative, I claim that it is self authenticating as it is the word of God. I have also stated the church did play a role in helping to compile the canon. But as I’ve said, you also follow an authority (the magisterium), which you claim to be self authenticating… (3)If you say Christ authenticates it, I fail to see why said argument can not be usedw to support my position.
Kind regards,
Lincs
(1) - Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2012, pg 36
(2) - ibid, pg 36
(3) - ibid, pg 38
Yes, Christ left behind his Church. And the Apostolic teaching was its foundation, teaching which is contained in scripture, as such, scripture functions as the foundation for the church. (1). How do you think the early Christians managed to discern what was scripture? This has been my point; I don’t deny the role of the church in the discernment of the canon, I simply disagree with the Catholic apologetic position that suggests these books have no intrinsic value of their own which enabled the early church to know they were God breathed… (2)
No I don’t find it odd that Christ had nothing wrote down during his earthly ministry, he promised the Apostles that all he said would be reminded to them by the Holy Spirit.
You appear to have missed my point however; I said scripture requires no external authority save for God Himself to make it authoritative, I claim that it is self authenticating as it is the word of God. I have also stated the church did play a role in helping to compile the canon. But as I’ve said, you also follow an authority (the magisterium), which you claim to be self authenticating… (3)If you say Christ authenticates it, I fail to see why said argument can not be usedw to support my position.
Again, a tad off on my position… The church received scripture, it did not make it. In the earliest days Paul’s letters were viewed as scripture (2 Pet 3:16), the church has always recognised the canonical books in one location or another, it took time to gather them as one book.
I Submit to the decision made by the early church who rejected it as us apostolic and perceived its blatantly gnostic position. In choosing to submit to the magisterium; how do you know tht you chose the correct infallible guide to follow? Does it not need an infallible guide to tell you which one to choose, if we apply the same arguments used above?
Kind regards,
Lincs
(1) - Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2012, pg 36
(2) - ibid, pg 36
(3) - ibid, pg 38
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Hi Kwortham,
No, it did not, I do not postulate that it did. I know because God brings his church to a knowledge of the canon. The early church knew of scriptures outside the OT, see 2 Pet 3:16… The witness of the early fathers, the internal testimony of the books themselves as being God breathed, all led to the early church placing them in a canon. The apostles intended for their works to be seen as scripture (Gal 1:1-24), (1) as such the church receives the works, but does not therefore give them authority. Apostolic teaching does not become authoritative only when the church says it is, it is authoritative because of Jesus Christ.
Again there is a lot of misunderstanding of my position here… Yes; the church did play a role in canon recognition and development, I don’t however agree with your position that it played the onl role.(2)
Also, what do we both mean by church here? I think of the universal early church, I wonder if you think solely of magisterium? For I would debate the historicity of the roman episcopal see prior to the mid second century…
As has been pointed out; Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church. And to pull this back to tradition, as opposed to canon recognition; is it the same tradition which says the Pope is infallible ex cathedra as that which names The Gospel according to Matthew, “Matthew”? As I’ve stated, Paul’s traditions were received in full, hence the “stand firm” and “hold fast” language… If modern traditions such as papal infallibility or the immaculate conception are indeed apostolic, they should prove abundant in early literature.
As for your second paragraph; how did the Christians prior to the fourth century know what was scripture then? And on SS; we could hurl patristic quotes all day… But I simply state that scripture should be above church and tradition, as it is God breathed. Why would it not be placed in said position for you?
Kind regards
Lincs.
1 - Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2012, pg 37
2 - ibid, pg 36
P
Porknpie
Guest
P
Porknpie
Guest
Lincoln7 -
Below is a list of things we must do to be saved that are from scripture. They are plainly taught by the Church and none are difficult to understand. What does your church teach you?
*I must be baptized with water and the Spirit. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21. (Exceptions: [1] If I desire Baptism but die before I can be baptized with water and the Spirit, God accepts my desire to be baptized, and [2] If I am killed (martyred) because of my faith, but I have not had the opportunity to be baptized, God accepts my death as my baptism, called the Baptism of Blood).
- I must do the will of God the Father. Matthew 7:21
- I must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 19:17, 1 Timothy 6:14, and others.
- I must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27. Phil 1:29, and others.
- I must be a member of God’s true church. Acts 2:46-47.
- I must confess my sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9, John 20:19-23
- I must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7.
- I must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-30.
- I must do unto others as I would have them do unto me and love my neighbor as myself. I must feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison or give other aid to those in need. Luke 10:33 ff, Mt 25:31-46. “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are very pleasing to God” Hebrews 13:16. Good works don’t save us, but we will be judged
I
in_servitude
Guest
It seems to me that you say that the Magisterium has no authority from Christ. This runs counter to giving the keys to Peter. Keys in the OT were used to signify an office. While people come and go, an office stays.
Acts Ch 1:15, the successor to Judas is selected. This demonstrates the Magisterium, as selected by Christ, replacing those that leave their office. Otherwise, why even pick only one person? Why not just install them both (why even install at all if there’s not office?) Since they drew lots, it says that they were both equally qualified in the eyes of those present. But, there was an office to fill.
Additionally, history of the early church shows that it was the Magisterium that making decisions that Christ had not told them. They were not remembering what Christ told them specifically in Acts 15 when they were deciding if Mosaic law had to be lived in order to be Christian. And, it was Peter that stood, spoke, and settled the matter ("and they all fell silent.)
Go down the road a bit, and still there were arguments. I recently read the following article about the history of the acceptance of a Trinitarian baptism. But, it was the holder of the keys that settled the matter. The following link shows that even those in the Church in the early days didn’t exactly appreciate the decisions being handed down. But, they did submit to those decisions.
catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-early-christians-subscribe-to-sola-scriptura
I recall some quotes I’ve seen floating around this site regarding Luther’s position on the book of James and Revelations. It might seem obvious to us now, but Luther made some strong statements regarding James and Revelations. The comments in James saying that faith alone was dead did not sit well with Luther. I’m just saying that the self authenticating nature of scripture doesn’t fly. Two honest truth seeking individuals will come to different conclusions about the same text.
It is the history of the early church fathers that demonstrate the validity of the Magisterium. The way that we, today as Christians, understand baptism comes from the same thing.
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Porknpie,
But if you wish for a verse; there are numerous examples of the Lord subordinating traditions to the scriptures. You will say he condemns only human traditions, not apostolic ones. To which I answer “amen”, however I think the point still stands; if tradition is not in accord with scripture, it is to be avoided. Hence why I do not adhere to many catholic traditions, as I perceive them as at odds in places with the bible.
Kind regards
Lincs
I place scripture where it is as it is the inspired word of God. I don’t think many traditions of the CC have a historical basis traceable to the early church or anything taught in sacred scripture.
But if you wish for a verse; there are numerous examples of the Lord subordinating traditions to the scriptures. You will say he condemns only human traditions, not apostolic ones. To which I answer “amen”, however I think the point still stands; if tradition is not in accord with scripture, it is to be avoided. Hence why I do not adhere to many catholic traditions, as I perceive them as at odds in places with the bible.
Kind regards
Lincs
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Much of this i agree with, some I do not, I feel we would be far removed from the topic if we got into them however. Apologies.
Lincs
L
Lincoln7
Guest
In servitude,
Yes a successor is appointed to the apostolic office, I don’t debate an apostolic office, I do debate a papacy…
If the self authenticating nature of scripture doesn’t fly, how did the early church receive them as scripture? Unless you’re arguing for an arbitrary descsion made by a late council, prior to which no one had a knowledge of any canonical books… A claim most foreign to history… And certainly not one I would use in evangelism.
Kind regards
Lincs
Peter is given the keys indeed, as are all the apostles and the whole church in Matt 18:18. If you are referring to the oft quoted Isaiah 22 claimed parralell, I debate Peter as anything more than first amongst equals in the church, certainy a church pillar, certainly a leader, but I don’t see him as functioning as a modern pope…
Yes a successor is appointed to the apostolic office, I don’t debate an apostolic office, I do debate a papacy…
I would say histry shows anything but a magisterium, I don’t see this as an apostolic tradition… Indeed at the Jerusalem council the appstles made a decision, Peter played a central role, as did Paul and Barnabas, who lectured to the silent members of the council, as did James, who closed it with his judgment. “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,” (Acts 15:19) As such I see it as a plurality decision, there is no papacy here.
I’d say Cyprian serves to argue against any notion of a papacy as an apostolic tradition, he is noted for his refusal to obey Romes bishop, which I find awkward if indeed, paraphrasing Vatican 1; the bishop in Rome has “always” been viewed as the sole successor to Peter and head of all… One need look no further than the church of Rome on the eve of the second century to see that Rome does not even possess a single episcopal see, rather is still governed by a plurality of elders… beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html
Indeed, Luther made comments, they are analysed here; tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm
If the self authenticating nature of scripture doesn’t fly, how did the early church receive them as scripture? Unless you’re arguing for an arbitrary descsion made by a late council, prior to which no one had a knowledge of any canonical books… A claim most foreign to history… And certainly not one I would use in evangelism.
The link above demonstrates the lack of a monarchial bishop in Rome prior to the mid second century, much more could be brought to bare upon this subject… Yes Stepehen was correct, I’m unsure how this therefore means he was a pope, as opposed to one bishop amongst others who taught a correct view.
Kind regards
Lincs
P
Porknpie
Guest
Thank you Lincoln. Its obvious as Catholics we hold that Christ created a church on earth and told the disciples to preach the good news. The teaching from Christ to the disciples started the church tradition. The canon established the readings to be used at Mass, inspired yes, profitable for teaching yes, but the Church never viewed the bible as a compendium of all truth in Christ. Hence, the bible comes from the church itself and in Protestant churches, the church comes from the bible, interpreted in error (say the unbelief in the Eucharist). When tradition and authority are separated from the bible, error abounds (Eucharist, fewer sacraments, salvation by faith alone, no confession of sins etc.) as evident by 30,00 denominations and growing and the emergence of non-Christians such as the Jehovah’s and Mormon’s. Self interpretation also seems to be the seed of Isaiah’s words of warning to those who call evil good and good evil (abortion, contraception, calling Christ’s church the Whore of Babylon etc). What are a couple of traditions that you disagree with?
L
Lincoln7
Guest
I also of course hold Christ established a church, but naturally i don’t view the church in the way the CC does. Indeed the Apostles were A foundation of the church, their teaching forming its basis, as this teaching is now recorded in scripture, it functions as the foundation of the church (1). So i disagree that the bible comes from the church in the sense you present it, for as it is apostolic teaching, which formed a basis for the church per Eph 2:20, it itself is what serves as foundational for the church.Thank you Lincoln. Its obvious as Catholics we hold that Christ created a church on earth and told the disciples to preach the good news. The teaching from Christ to the disciples started the church tradition. The canon established the readings to be used at Mass, inspired yes, profitable for teaching yes, but the Church never viewed the bible as a compendium of all truth in Christ. Hence, the bible comes from the church itself and in Protestant churches, the church comes from the bible, interpreted in error (say the unbelief in the Eucharist). When tradition and authority are separated from the bible, error abounds (Eucharist, fewer sacraments, salvation by faith alone, no confession of sins etc.) as evident by 30,00 denominations and growing and the emergence of non-Christians such as the Jehovah’s and Mormon’s. Self interpretation also seems to be the seed of Isaiah’s words of warning to those who call evil good and good evil (abortion, contraception, calling Christ’s church the Whore of Babylon etc). What are a couple of traditions that you disagree with?
many of my disagreements are included int he things you list; Transubstantiation (which is not synonymous with real presence), Salvation not by faith alone, private confession of all sins to a priest (and indeed a priesthood distinct from the priesthood of all believers for that matter). in essence, as these things are perceived to be based upon little or no warranty of sacred scripture in the protestant mind, and contradict it in places, they are not held to.
On your mention of groups such as Jehovas Witnesses or LDS; do you think these groups actually adhere to Sola Scriptura, or are being consistent with the text of scripture? We know many twist its meaning (2 Pet 3:16), which serves to show the problem is with those who do the twisting, not the infallible and inspired scriptures themselves.
Kind regards
Lincs
(1) - Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J Kruger, Crossway, 2012, pg 36-37
P
Porknpie
Guest
Hi Links, I don’t give a lot of thought to LDS or Jehovas but I look at them as non-Christians who perversely twist, change and create scripture, literally, to a theology that is not from Christ. I see them as cults, not adhering to sola but, if the reformation had never occurred, and If we had unity in one Catholic church, I doubt that their seed would have ever sprouted.
Isaiah warns us of those who call good, evil and evil, good. I look at abortion, homosexuality and many other moral issues of our day as fulfilling his warning. Apart from proof texts and tradition arguments, it just makes sense to me that Christ would setup one church on earth, singular, with a magisterium to Shepard and guide his flock to his truth. Otherwise how do we ever know what is good and what is evil?
That said, even with our at times serious differences, we have many common beliefs that unite us and we should hold those in high regard.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I don’t see any keys in the scripture at Matthew 18:18.
Binding and loosing, yes.
Keys, no. They’re in 16:18 and for Peter.
Maybe your version of the Bible has it? Which version are you using?
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Hi Bob,
My bad, I was supposed to comment on the equal authority given to each apostle in terms of binding and loosing; the power of the keys, as it’s known.
Lincs
I
in_servitude
Guest
Now, in regards to your previous post about the Gospel of Thomas, you said:
Now, if this really is your perspective - that the early church made the proper decisions, then you’d have to include the deuterocanonical books. There were six different councils starting in the 3rd century that included those books.
I
in_servitude
Guest
Relative to my question about how odd it is that Christ didn’t have anything written, you said:
This strikes me as odd because such a large portion of the NT is written by someone that was not an eye witness to Christ. So, the Holy Spirit had nothing to “remind” Paul. If Paul’s words are inspired by God, it would be through revelation of the Holy Spirit. Not by remembering the events he witnessed.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I’m still confused by what you say.
Only Peter was given those keys. The binding and loosing authority is something else.
I
in_servitude
Guest
Who hold that apostolic office today?
And, as for a papacy debate, I’d like to know of an example where a past Pope has made a ruling on faith and morals and the Church decided to reject that ruling. Or, when a following Pope had overturned a previous ruling on faith and morals. I think that would be required to demonstrate the lack of authority.
Your interpretation of this scripture is at odds with what is written.
Acts 15:4-12
The scene is such that there are people who lived their whole lives under Mosaic Law, and they came with convictions about that Mosaic law was required to be Christian. There was much debate. The point of “and they all fell silent” means that Peter speaks, and the debate ends. For a person wishing to argue Peter has just as much authority as the rest of them (meaning no authority), this scripture will be a burden.
Odd then how the Church fell in line with the Pope’s decision rather than follow Cyprian. Again, a person who has strongly held beliefs is upended by authority.
Your asking “how”? The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The decisions on faith and morals comes through the Magesterium by the Holy Spirit. It is not an arbitrary decision of the Holy Spirit to select what is Sacred Scripture. You say that the claim is foreign to history. You’d have to show that the Church used scripture outside the 73 books of the bible as Sacred Scripture.
The early Popes had to assert their authority, and did so. To argue that the Church was running as Protestant Churches run today would be at odds with history. We’d have at least 30,000 denominations of Christianity by the end of the 5th century if that was the case.
Think about it. In order for your point to be correct, there were people running their own private church leading their flock, giving sermons- and then some guy in some foreign place comes in and says, “Sorry, your church is my church. You’ll have to follow what I say.” And then, poof, sudden unity! What history shows that this happened not just once, but hundreds if not thousands of times? Clearly, this would be documented repeatedly as surely some would have rebelled.
- Status