Disputations on the Holy Scripture

[annem]

Right. So as George Salmon would say you are in effect proving the Church using Scripture, then proving Scripture using the Church.

No, quite the opposite. I am showing that there was a “tradition”, as yet unwritten and only passed orally. Much of what was passed orally never was put in the later books of the bible, and this is especially true of morality.

God blessm Annem

 

[annem]

Since you have not given any of the protestant replies, how can I truly know if they are feeble or not?

The problem is that the Bible is a book of Faith primarily, not simply a history book, or even just a book. When you subject a book of Faith to Science, it does not always work well becasue of the simple fact that Science and the Bible answer two very different questions. Science by nature is NOT designed to handle matters of Faith.

Protestants AND Catholics understand the Scriptures to be inspired. In light of the Scriptures inspiration, it is taken to be inerrant. In other words inerrancy is not something proven by Science, it is something which flows from Scriptures inspiration.

Heellpp so many questions!! And I haven’t even responded to half of what you asked about ten questions back!!

Do you really want me to write out the Protestant replies? Mostly, it consists of proving that the scripture agrees with what both early Christians and Christians today believe.

For example, Bauckham is an outstanding biblical scholar, and he recently wrote a book, “Eyewitnesses to Jesus” is (I believe) the title. In it, he brilliantly argues that the earliest writings were from the eyewitnesses to Jesus.

Again, however, even with Bauckham’s work, which I totally agree with, there are real problems because he can’t maintain there was an unbroken line of faith and tradition; he can only assume it. How do you prove that what Paul believed was what all the apostles believed? How do you prove that what John wrote, in the 90s, was what the apostles believed in 33 AD?

You see what I mean about the Protestant position being weak.

Pagels and DeConick, the Jesus Seminar, etc., can say that there were Gnostics who were alternative believers in Jesus, who taught something very different. Now, which was right, the gospel writers or the Gnostic gospel writers?

But Catholics can point to an unbroken line of apostles to bishops, right down to today’s pope. We, really, are the only ones (oh, except the Orthodox, of course) to show the unbroken line of oral tradition.

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

The problem is that the Bible is a book of Faith primarily, not simply a history book, or even just a book. When you subject a book of Faith to Science, it does not always work well becasue of the simple fact that Science and the Bible answer two very different questions. Science by nature is NOT designed to handle matters of Faith.

Very true! And it is a source of unending problems for the Protestants with science. Trying to parse the meaning for every word in Genesis is a nightmare. God bless those scholars who are even willing to try it. But Catholics can rely on the traditions of the faith, as well as the books of the bible.

Thank you God,

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

Was the canon of the heretic Marcion the first canon?

---

Very true!! Yet more problems for the sola scriptura side. The more I read of the church fathers and biblical scholarship, the weaker the Protestant side appears to me, with all apologies to any Protestant who might read this. I really do not mean to sound harsh.

Marcion is, of course, yet another favorite of the atheist scholars.

God bless, Annem

 

[peary1]

It is not the Church that determines Canon, but the Canon itself which determines Canon. The Church admits the protestant recognizes Canon and submits.

**Huh? Am I the only one missing the train of thought here?? **

The other more powerful argument they use, and I have not seen answered- is this: “According to Catholics Scripture cannot serve as a rule until it is established as such,and also until the Church knows the extent of Scripture. For Catholics the Church tells us the extent of Scripture and extablishes its authority based on its testimony. How do you know you can trust the Church?”

What is meant by “the extent of Scripture”? Does this mean how many books make up the Canon? Does it mean the extent of how inspired the Canon is? The Church came before its own Scriptures. If the Church was trusted back then to decide the Canon of Scriptures, then I see no reason why Christ’s Church can’t be trusted on other matters.

 

[annem]

And we know the Church preserved the Faith becasue? (In other words outside the Bible how do you know this?)

It;s hardly just the books of the New Testament which claim this. All the early church fathers do too. Don’t forget the famous “Therefore we will refute those…by pointing to the tradition of the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul. This tradition the church has from the Apostles, and this faith has been proclaimed to all men, and has come down to our own day through the succession of bishops, for this church has a position of leadership and authority; and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere, must needs agree with the church at Rome; for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”

Besides, how could anyone read 1 Clement or the letters of Ignatius and not see the Catholic church?

And most of all we know they preserved the faith and the tradition because the Holy Spirit led and guided the church and protected it from heresy. And why would a Catholic have to prove this to a Protestant? The Catholic stands with 2,000 years of unbroken truth proclaimed, and never an error made. Clearly, somebody other than Catholics has been in charge.

The Protestants stand with their thousands and thousands of denominations and the burden of proof, it seems to me, falls on them.

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

A more plausiable explanation for this Tradition is simply Paul referring to what he had delieved already- namely the Gospel. In other words keep to what Paul had taught whether by Word or by Letter- and the Word refers to the Letter. “Romanists” argue the protestant try to allege that this “Oral Tradition” is somehow different from what Paul had written. Hence the burden of proof is on the “Romanist” to prove this. The burden of proof argues the protestant is on the Catholic to prove that Paul was teaching the people about Mary, the pope, Purgatory in his oral teaching rather then simply referring back to the very same message he delivered.

So tell me: Do you allege that the oral traidition was different from what Paul had written, or the same?

I don’t think the burden of proof is ever on the Catholic. The Catholic church has been in place for 2,000 years. If any burden of proof is required it falls on the Protestant, with their churches which may have started 500 years ago, or 50 years ago, or even 5… The burden would be on them to explain why they thought they could break away and proclaim new truths.

Catholics do indeed believe that Paul, and the apostles, taught more than just the gospel. If you were seated in front of Paul, wouldn’t you have a thousand questions to ask?

No, of course not all beliefs were proclaimed in their fullness from the first. Usually it took a heretic or two to make the church define things more clearly. And it took centuries for the major beliefs about the Holy Spirit to be defined. Which, of course, Protestants for the most part, agree with. Go figure, since these beliefs cannot be clearly defined from the words of the bible.

God bless, Annem

 

[NoelFitz]

I read with interest:

The burden of proof argues the protestant is on the Catholic to prove that Paul was teaching the people about Mary, the pope, Purgatory in his oral teaching rather then simply referring back to the very same message he delivered.

Having non-Catholics contributing to biblical questions here is very beneficial for us all, provided the posts, from both Catholics and non-Catholics, are respectful, courteous, knowledgeable and sincere, in that it forces all of us to think more deeply and humbly about our faith. It is also important for all of us to be open to each other and not be shouting at each other from behind closed minds. Even we Catholics may be wrong. The Church is holy and infallible but it is made up of sinners who often get things wrong.

The best book I know on the theology of St Paul was written by an Anglican, J. D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (T & T Clark, 1998).

The only possible reference to Our Lady in the authentic letters of Paul is:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children (Gal 4:4,5).

Our faith is a gift from God, which we get through the Bible and tradition.

 

[Apologist78]

Apologist 78

I, too, have heard Protestants claim this. Without wanting to say anything that would hurt anyone’s feelings, it’s just wrong.

Before the Catholic church, most scholars believe there wasn’t even a canon of Jewish scripture. Yes, there were lists, such as those by Josephus, but the lines were fuzzy, and no books were truly excluded. THe many groups of Jewish people had scrolls, lots of loose collections of scrolls, such as those found by the Dead Sea. Some groups accepted this scroll; some did not.

Yes, I have heard this line of argumentation. It is very good except for one flaw: Jesus utilized Scripture and held the Jews accountable to it. This would indicate that the Jews were aware of what books were binding on them and what books were not- otherwise how could Jesus quote from Scripture and hold the Jews accountable?

If that is the case, then the Jews were able to recognize Scripture without an infallible magesterium telling them what it was. And if the Jews can do this, so reasons the protestant, then why do we need a guy in Rome claiming infalliblity for himself to tell us today what constitutes Scripture? Scripture would be known and recognized the same way the Jews knew and recognized their own Scriptures.

 

[NoelFitz]

It is my understanding that the Church settled on its canon before the Jews did.

Am I correct?

 

[Apologist78]

It is my understanding that the Church settled on its canon before the Jews did.

Am I correct?

Some would say the Jews settled the canon in 90AD with the Council of Jamnia- long before ever a council was called by the Church to deal with the issue.

 

[Apologist78]

It;s hardly just the books of the New Testament which claim this. All the early church fathers do too. Don’t forget the famous “Therefore we will refute those…by pointing to the tradition of the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul. This tradition the church has from the Apostles, and this faith has been proclaimed to all men, and has come down to our own day through the succession of bishops, for this church has a position of leadership and authority; and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere, must needs agree with the church at Rome; for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”

Besides, how could anyone read 1 Clement or the letters of Ignatius and not see the Catholic church?

And most of all we know they preserved the faith and the tradition because the Holy Spirit led and guided the church and protected it from heresy. And why would a Catholic have to prove this to a Protestant? The Catholic stands with 2,000 years of unbroken truth proclaimed, and never an error made. Clearly, somebody other than Catholics has been in charge.

The Protestants stand with their thousands and thousands of denominations and the burden of proof, it seems to me, falls on them.

God bless, Annem

And as the protestant would say- you MUST in your argumentation hold the RCC to the EXACT SAME standards you hold the protestant. Basically you argue that Sola Scriptura produces disunity, the Catholic Church produces unity. How is this asks the protestant? There is as much disunity in the RCC as there is in protestantism- just look at the liberal priests and nuns who pretty much ignore everything the Church teaches- except of course the teachings on Social Justice. For some reason liberals love those.

The problem argues the protestant is NOT with Sola Scriptura, but with sinful people. Catholics argue in response to the above that just becasue some liberal nun or priest does what they want doesn’t effect the infalliblity of the Church any more then Jews who rejected Jesus affected his divine authority. Ah, the protestant would say- that is just the point! That there is disagreement about what the Scripture says among protestants doesn’t effect the authority of Scripture. It does not take away from the fact that we are to submit to Scripture.

Rome has not given us an infallible list of intrepretations of Bible verses anyway. Hence why is infalliblity even necessary? Even if they did, a fallible person still has to fallibly interpret Rome’s infallible utterances! In other words it is the CATHOLIC SYSTEM which muddies the waters worse then the protestant system! A protestat need only fallibly interpret the infalible Scriptures, where as a Catholic must fallibly interpret not only the infallible Scriptures, but the infallible tradition, Church, and pontiff as well! Catholics argue the protestant cannot even agree on exactely WHAT bears the charism of infallibility anyway! Hence of what use is the charism? The Catholic is no better off then the protestant! How asks the protestant does the “Romanist” system give one any more certainty on the truth then the protestant system?

You ask failed to respond to the Jews and Scripture argument- whereby the Jews knew what Scripture was by the fact that Jesus holds them accountable to it, and they knew this without any guy in Rome self claiming infalliblity telling them what it was. Also, when you accepted “Rome’s Claims” did you not make a private judgement, not to mention a fallible judgement?

A good argument I think requiring a thoughtful response, of which I have yet to see from any Catholic apologist. I am not saying I agree with it, but I certainly think it a good argument(s)

 

[NoelFitz]

Annem wrote:

Don’t forget the famous "Therefore we will refute those…by pointing to the tradition of the greatest and oldest church….

Please give me the reference.

And

Besides, how could anyone read 1 Clement or the letters of Ignatius and not see the Catholic church?

People can read these letters and are not Catholic. Many leading experts on the Apostolic Fathers are not Catholic.

And

The Catholic stands with 2,000 years of unbroken truth proclaimed, and never an error made

Again let me remind you individual Catholics are sinners and make mistgakes.

As a Catholic I must agree with Apologist78. The majority of Catholics in the west reject the Church’s teaching on family planning and Mass attendance. There is a huge lack of unity in the Catholic Church, much to our shame.

To me the Bible is the Bible. To study it fruitfully one need not have any faith. Some of the most eminent biblical scholars lack all faith.

 

[NoelFitz]

Some would say the Jews settled the canon in 90AD with the Council of Jamnia- long before ever a council was called by the Church to deal with the issue.

A78
Thank youi for your reply. One of the things I like about this forum is one is encouraged to dig deeply into the Bible.

So, since reading your post, I have just looked at* Introduction to the Hebrew Bible* by that well-known Irish scholar, John Collins (Fortress Press, 2004). I like to get that in to let you know in University College Dublin they are proud of their alumnus who became a professor in Yale.

The Hebrew Bible took shape over sevreal hundred years, and attained its final form only in the first century C. E.

However Collins does say:

It is misleading to speak of a “Council of Jamnia,” since it suggests a meeting like the great ecumenical councils of the Chriatin church in later centuries

 

[annem]

Don’t forget the famous “Therefore we will refute those…by pointing to the tradition of the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul. This tradition the church has from the Apostles, and this faith has been proclaimed to all men, and has come down to our own day through the succession of bishops, for this church has a position of leadership and authority; and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere, must needs agree with the church at Rome; for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”

Please give me the reference.

St Irenaeus of Lyons circa 175 AD. Sorry, I just assumed every Catholic knew this one by heart.

 

[annem]

Besides, how could anyone read 1 Clement or the letters of Ignatius and not see the Catholic church?
People can read these letters and are not Catholic. Many leading experts on the Apostolic Fathers are not Catholic.

True enough, but it’s got to be hard. 1 Clement makes it clear that a Roman bishop could judge the actions of another congregation, Corinth, and that the Roman bishop’s word was final. Also, of course, 1 Clement quotes from the Deuterocanonicals.

And the letters of Ignatius! My goodness, are they ever Catholic. Ignatius pleads with everyone so he can be killed by the lions. He says he wants to suffer for God, a most Catholic way of thinking.

Besides that, Ignatius is clearly submissive to Rome. In the other letters he scolds everyone, telling them to keep unity and that they have to listen to their bishops and obey. But when it comes to Rome Ignatius pointedly issues them no commands. In the same letter he calls the Roman church the teacher who instructs others.

You have to admit, it must be hard for those who are not Orthodox or Catholic to read these writings without seeing Catholicism in full bloom, in the years 95 and 110 AD.

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

The Catholic stands with 2,000 years of unbroken truth proclaimed, and never an error made
Again let me remind you individual Catholics are sinners and make mistgakes.

As a Catholic I must agree with Apologist78. The majority of Catholics in the west reject the Church’s teaching on family planning and Mass attendance. There is a huge lack of unity in the Catholic Church, much to our shame.

To me the Bible is the Bible. To study it fruitfully one need not have any faith. Some of the most eminent biblical scholars lack all faith.

---

I so completely agree with you! Especially about the part that "individual Catholics are sinners and make mistakes’. I most certainly am a sinner–I just hang on to the church with all my might.

The west is in terrible shape, you are so right. Europe seems gone…lost…But can we really say the United States is in better shape? We have lost 40% of Catholic schools at the very moment that millions upon millions of immigrant Hispanics desperately need good, faithful Catholic schools to keep their faith.

There are time when I despair for the entire western world…And, yes, there is a terrible lack of unity here. But remember, the church is growing by leaps and bounds in the east and elsewhere.

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

Yes, I have heard this line of argumentation. It is very good except for one flaw: Jesus utilized Scripture and held the Jews accountable to it. This would indicate that the Jews were aware of what books were binding on them and what books were not- otherwise how could Jesus quote from Scripture and hold the Jews accountable?

If that is the case, then the Jews were able to recognize Scripture "without an infallible magesterium telling them what it was. And if the Jews can do this, so reasons the protestant, then why do we need a guy in Rome claiming infalliblity for himself to tell us today what constitutes Scripture? Scripture would be known and recognized the same way the Jews knew and recognized their own Scriptures.

Dear Apologist78, Here is a quote from Craig A Evans, one of the most famous of Protestant biblical scholars. It comes from a great book I have called “The Canon Debate”. The book contains much of the latest thinking by scholars about the growth of the canon.

Here is what Craig A Evans said on p 185:

“From the sources we possess, it is not possible to deduce the precise boundaries of the 'canon” of Jesus. Of course, in his day the canon was not fixed, so in a pedantic sense it would be impossible to determine the canon of scripture for anyone in the early first century of the common era. However, we may infer which biblical books were important to Jesus and which books mayt also have given significant shape to his theology."

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

hen why do we need a guy in Rome claiming infalliblity for himself to tell us today what constitutes Scripture?

Dear Apologist78, I don’t think this line of argument works very well, though, especially today with all the atheist attacks on the bible. (May God convert you, Bart Erhman!).

Take the passage of the woman caught in adultery, which Erhman went on and on about. Erhman was quite correct that this is a suspect passage. None of the earliest copies of the bible contain it. We only hear of it from a passing mention in Papias.

So should it be removed, as many Protestants have suggested? Well, who is going to decide? What is the right thing to do?

Or maybe the Protestants should add to the bible-- the Deuterocanonicals. Paul quotes extensively from Wisdom, after all. Clearly Paul thought Wisdom was part of what he guessed was the canon. James quotes heavily from Sirach, so maybe that book should be returned.

And here’s a question every biblical scholar will weep over, since there is just no easy solution: what, what should be done about Philippians? Should we use what seems to be the original, or the one currently in every bible in ththe world?

It really is not easy at all to decide what to put in the bible and what to remove.

Thank God for the Catholic church.

God bless you, Annem

 

[annem]

And as the protestant would say- you MUST in your argumentation hold the RCC to the EXACT SAME standards you hold the protestant. Basically you argue that Sola Scriptura produces disunity, the Catholic Church produces unity. How is this asks the protestant? There is as much disunity in the RCC as there is in protestantism- just look at the liberal priests and nuns who pretty much ignore everything the Church teaches- except of course the teachings on Social Justice. For some reason liberals love those.

Dear Apologist78, Good point! But there is one huge difference, and it’s the size of a planet, between the Protestants and the Catholics and unity. You or I, as Catholics, can look up what the church teaches online by scanning the published catechism of the Catholic church. Protestants (and may God bless them all, for I imagine this is so hard) have no such wall to lean on.

Any liberal nun who decides she wants to become a priest, can easily find out that this action is going to excommunicate her from the Catholic church. Sure, she can go through a ceremony. She can tell the New York Times she is a priest. Maybe she can even convince herself—but the truth is there, easy to obtain, no matter what she wants or thinks or screams out loud.

That’s a huge, huge difference. It all the difference in the world, I think.

What do you think would be the Protestant reaction to this?

May God bless you, Annem