Foundation

[myfavoritmartin]

awfulthings9:

playing the victim card or stereotyping Catholics with lines like, “leave it to a Catholic” or “Catholics think we Protestants are heretics”, the thread will be much healthier if you just provide an intelligent responce to Joe’s valid point that personal interpretation, without a teaching authority, leads to dangerous theology.

God bless.

Agreed! my apologies, I’ll give it some thought and respond in kind. I was a little aggitated yesterday.

 

[awfulthings9]

myfavoritmartin:

Agreed! my apologies, I’ll give it some thought and respond in kind. I was a little aggitated yesterday.

No harm, no foul. We all have those “aggitated” moments (I usually have three or four a day!).

 

[geno75]

Joe Gloor:

Nothing personal, but I don’t trust your ‘uninspired’ interpretation of Scripture, whereas I do trust the ‘inspired’ wisdom of the Catholic Church, because Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

2Peter 1:20-21 2:1 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

The Bible can and has been interpretted in myriad ways to defend any number of false doctrines, from Mormonism to Jehovah’s Witness to David Koresh. God provided us with a definitive agent to defend us against heresy - that is the Catholic Church.

I know you’re making a point, but…
I have to ask. Do catholics think 2Peter 1:20-21 is about interpreting the bible alone?

 

[awfulthings9]

geno75:

I know you’re making a point, but…
I have to ask. Do catholics think 2Peter 1:20-21 is about interpreting the bible alone?

No. The text obviously also, very strongly points to personal interpretation in the sense of prophesy - a warning against false prophets.

Yet, in a broader sense, the message is that we aren’t to make personal interpretation in any matter of God’s revelation. Just as the prophets were not to interpret for themselves the will of God as he revealed it to them internally, nor should, for us, any matter, or prophesy, of “Scripture [be] a matter of one’s own interpretation.”

We recognize the awesome complexity and the many layers of God’s revealed word but are applying this specific reading to the content of this specific thread.

God bless.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

in regards to false teachers the scriptures also tell us in 1 john 4
1
Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2
This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God,

and in acts 17:11
tells us to take what we are taught and verify its accuracy with scripture.

 

[JaneFrances]

myfavoritmartin:

and in acts 17:11
tells us to take what we are taught and verify its accuracy with scripture.

The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews.
11
These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so.
12
Many of them became believers, as did not a few of the influential Greek women and men.
13
But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God had now been proclaimed by Paul in Beroea also, they came there too to cause a commotion and stir up the crowds. Acts 17: 10-13)

This is such an important Scripture to our discussion!

First, it is necessary to note that in this particular context, the Scriptures being referenced are those Scriptures which we would consider Old Testament. Since at this time there was no canonized body of Scripture which all Jews recognized, we must also bear in mind which Jewish community is being spoken of. Each major Jewish community had their own particular “canon” (this is a loose term here) of Scripture–for instance, some only recongized the Torah, while others (especially the Greek Jews) accepted a much broader body called the Septuagint.

Having said that. . .We then look at what is being said directly in context.

Paul and Silas are preaching the Word to a community of Greek Jews. These Jews would have been familiar with the Septuagint as their “Scripture” body. This broader body of texts would have been the connection that provided Paul and Silas a credible witness to these Jews regarding the Messianic prophesies.

It is important to note here, too, that the Septuagint (which became the Old Testament canon for the Church) is not the canon that is traditionally accepted by Protestantism, as it contains the Deuterocanonical books.

So, these Jews, to whom Paul and Silas are preaching, are receiving the word and comparing to a different body of Scripture than most Protestants today accept.

This is all to say that when one sees “Scripture” referred to in the New Testament, it does not alway mean what you think it does!

Going on. . .

What also strikes at the heart of this particular discussion is the way in which these Greek Jews received the Word: they “received the word with all willingness.” This is important because we know that the Gospel they were receiving was not entirely contained in their own experience of Scripture. YET, Luke is telling us that what they recieved was, in fact, the Word. Surely, some would have been verifiable through their known Scriptural texts, but it is impossible to consider that everything they were told as “the Word” would have been directly cross-referenced.

This is very similar to the Church’s reception of the Word. We received it orally throught the witness of trustworthy men. Upon receiving it, orally, we then access our knowledge of prophecy and Scripture to examine what we have come to hear. Yet, this does not exclude or make inferior the authority of our tradition. In fact, the tradition of the Greek Jews especially made them a fertile ground for the Gospel.

This wonderful example of the importance of Sacred Scripture is a great testament to the material sufficiency of Scripure, but makes no real impact on our discussion on the formal sufficiency. And this good Scripture in no way excludes the need for an authoritative teaching Church.

 

[petra]

Fredricks, you referred me to this thread when I asked this question on another forum. I am interested in your reply to the following:

Why do you trust in a certain set of writings of a selected few who knew Him? Why do you trust in a set of writings by a man who only came to know Jesus after He was resurrected? Why do you trust in a New Testament book with uncertain authorship? You do so because, whether you know it or not, you presuppose the reliability and infallability of Sacred Tradition. Ironically, sola scriptura depends upon the reality of Sacred Tradition as a definitive guide.

If you throw out Sacred Tradition, you must throw out Sacred Scripture.

 

[Fredricks]

Why do you trust in a certain set of writings of a selected few who knew Him?

Well for one, can you name a book written by someone who knew him that is not in there. Please cite any any biblical scholar that attests to this as well. Are you suggesting that others who knew him wrote and we do not accept it?

Why do you trust in a set of writings by a man who only came to know Jesus after He was resurrected?

The Book of Acts actually says a great deal about Paul and his mission. Paul is the last person Jesus appeared to. For good reason.

Why do you trust in a New Testament book with uncertain authorship?

Hebrews? Our criteria for being in the canon has never been known authorship. That is a whole other topic.
But, when you want us to accept tradition that cannot be traced and that historically can be proven to be later developing, as opposed to the people that were there. Do you have evidence of a tradition that comes from Jesus or his apostles that we are missing?

You do so because, whether you know it or not, you presuppose the reliability and infallability of Sacred Tradition. Ironically, sola scriptura depends upon the reality of Sacred Tradition as a definitive guide.

No, not true at all. The man made doctrine of "Sacred Tradition, which turns out to be all the beliefs to directly stated in the Bible…imagine that, is not one and the same as the Apostolic authority we follow, the Holy Bible.

If you throw out Sacred Tradition, you must throw out Sacred Scripture.

I hope you are not being literal. We will not. We will continue to accept it

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Fredricks:

No, not true at all. The man made doctrine of "Sacred Tradition, which turns out to be all the beliefs to directly stated in the Bible…imagine that, is not one and the same as the Apostolic authority we follow, the Holy Bible.

I think the point is that the same authority that decided which books to include in the Bible and which not to include is the same authority which determined the Apostolic Traditions.
You seem to trust the authority in one instance, but not in the other. Why is that?
You are the one requesting authorship on Apostolic Traditions but don’t require authorship on the Bible. Why is that?

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks said:

Hebrews? Our criteria for being in the canon has never been known authorship. That is a whole other topic.

First of all, who’s “criteria” are you referring to? And I suppose this criteria is Biblical, right? Otherwise, you are relying on Sacred Tradition, whether you agree or not!

Secondly, I think “known” or “named” sources is quite on topic. . .

A Fredricks refresher:

We know, except for Jude and the author of Hebrews, quite a bit about these men. . . .

Who said what when it concerns Sacred Tradition? Do you have names for where Sacred Tradition originated?

So, obviously Mr. Fredricks believes, according to his own sacred tradition, that “known authorship” of Sacred Scripture isn’t necessary, but “names for where Sacred Tradition originated” is somehow necessary.

“We” shall, henceforth, refer to this as Fred’s Traditional Double Standard.

 

[Eden]

Fredericks still hasn’t answered why his Bible does not have the same Canon as that set at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo:

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

• Genesis
• Exodus
• Leviticus
• Numbers
• Deuteronomy
• Joshua the Son of Nun
• The Judges
• Ruth
• The Kings (4 books)
• The Chronicles (2 books)
• Job
• The Psalter
• The Five books of Solomon
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets
• Isaiah
• Jeremiah
• Ezechiel
• Daniel
• Tobit
• Judith
• Esther
• Ezra (2 books)
• Macchabees (2 books)

The New Testament:

• The Gospels (4 books)
• The Acts of the Apostles (1 book)
• The Epistles of Paul (14)
• The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2)
• The Epistles of John the Apostle (3)
• The Epistles of James the Apostle (1)
• The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1)
• The Revelation of John (1 book)

 

[Fredricks]

"So, obviously Mr. Fredricks believes, according to his own sacred tradition, that “known authorship” of Sacred Scripture isn’t necessary, but “names for where Sacred Tradition originated” is somehow necessary.

“We” shall, henceforth, refer to this as Fred’s Traditional Double Standard.

Known authorship is one standard that Protestants recognize when talking about the canon.

There are more I would imagine you are familiar with.
No one argues that Hebrews is not written in the era of the Apostles. That aside, that is when the other areas of Protestant theology kick in.
Are you familar or not familiar with Protestant theology on this matter? I will explain if you are unfamiliar. We believe in Apostolic authority(the Bible the words of the Apostles). If you could prove one Sacred Tradition to come from the Apostles of course we would consider it.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

If you could prove one Sacred Tradition to come from the Apostles of course we would consider it.

The Trinity

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

Known authorship is one standard that Protestants recognize when talking about the canon.

There are more I would imagine you are familiar with.
No one argues that Hebrews is not written in the era of the Apostles. That aside, that is when the other areas of Protestant theology kick in.
Are you familar or not familiar with Protestant theology on this matter? I will explain if you are unfamiliar. We believe in Apostolic authority(the Bible the words of the Apostles). If you could prove one Sacred Tradition to come from the Apostles of course we would consider it.

Fredricks, maybe you could explain this more clearly to me. By “the Bible the words of the Apostles”, you must also mean the disciples of the apostles, right? Considering that two of the gospels are not written by apostles, after all. Or are you using “apostles” in a looser sense? Just to clarify terms.

Secondly, I know this keeps coming up, but Hebrews doesn’t claim apostolic authority.

Thirdly, many non-inspired works of the times claim apostolic authority and were written in the apostolic period (I can provide a list). While you and I dismiss them as non-inspired and, in most cases, spurious, how do you know that the same is not true of the gospels and epistles we currently have?

Please don’t dismiss this as “liberal theology”, as you have done with such arguments in the past, because I don’t buy into the liberal theories - I just need to know, before responding to your post, how you answer these concerns. Also, please don’t move past it by pointing out, as you have done in the past, that we both agree on the authority of Scripture and must discuss the points of disagreement. Our constant point, which I haven’t seen you address yet, is that we would like to see how you handle the burden of proof without a teaching authority.

I’ll be honest, if you could answer this (as is the focus of the OP), you would go a long way in convincing me that I need to take more seriously your challenges to Tradition. As it stands now, I’ve only seen you avoid the same burden of proof (through the arguments mentioned in the last paragraph) that you put upon our theology. Please refer me to a specific post if I’m wrong in that.

 

[Fredricks]

Fredricks, maybe you could explain this more clearly to me. By “the Bible the words of the Apostles”, you must also mean the disciples of the apostles, right? Considering that two of the gospels are not written by apostles, after all. Or are you using “apostles” in a looser sense? Just to clarify terms.

Apostolic era
Are you also talking about Jude? According to us, and early history, he is the brother of Christ, to you guys Step-brother, then cousin 400 years later. Which by the way IS NOT what early Christian history teaches.

Secondly, I know this keeps coming up, but Hebrews doesn’t claim apostolic authority.

ok

Thirdly, many non-inspired works of the times claim apostolic authority and were written in the apostolic period (I can provide a list). While you and I dismiss them as non-inspired and, in most cases, spurious, how do you know that the same is not true of the gospels and epistles we currently have?

Apostolic origin is provided by early Christian history. Which we have never rejected. Moderate Protestants would throw in biblical scholarship. You cannot expect me to define the the criteria for good biblical scholarship on a discussion board!! I suppose that WOULD take too long. Perhaps we agree and it will not be necessary. The books considered spurious are few and I am sure you are familiar with them. We do not reject history. We do reject undocumented Sacred Tradition as on par with the Bible. If anyone could prove important components of Sacred Tradition that would be something to try.

Our constant point, which I haven’t seen you address yet, is that we would like to see how you handle the burden of proof without a teaching authority.

Disagree if you will. The Bible is our teaching authority. The Holy Spirit does interpret for all Christians… BEFORE YOU SAY that the Holy Spirit is respnsible for all the denominations, remember Catholicism has only one right interpretation even if Catholics do not agree. Likewise for the Bible and the Holy Spirit. I would contend that the majority of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox AGREE( I paused to think) 75% of the time, even though we look different.
that was brief, I am going to bed but should give you enough for your follow up.

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks,
I’m typing quickly and will seem short with you. My frustration, brother, is with the fact that I came down this morning expecting answers and read the post you left. Go back and read the OP. The burden of proof in this thread is on you, but you refuse to accept it. Also, you have never, ever addressed my earlier point, which you said was worthy, that Oral Tradition is not “additional revelation”, but an interpretive authority.

Fredricks:

Apostolic era
Are you also talking about Jude? According to us, and early history, he is the brother of Christ, to you guys Step-brother, then cousin 400 years later. Which by the way IS NOT what early Christian history teaches…

Okay, see, this is what I’m talking about. I didn’t even mention Jude - on purpose. I mentioned the two gospels not authored by apostles. Rather than respond to that, you mention Jude and argue against it instead of answering my question. This is the type of straw man tactic that you keep using to avoid the question. WHO CARES, for purposes of this discussion, Jude’s relationship with Christ - I didn’t mention him. Please respond to my question, not the question you wished I would have asked.

Fredricks:

ok
.

Okay … so … answer it then. I mean, it keeps coming up because you keep avoiding it. You keep talking about how well this thread is going for you (as your “pm” friends suggest), but you dance around the burden of proof for your own beliefs. By the way, the term for this is “anonymous choir” - the stating of a supposed group of anonymous people who agree with you as proof for your argument, put forth instead of real logic - another fallacy.

Fredricks:

Apostolic origin is provided by early Christian history. Which we have never rejected. Moderate Protestants would throw in biblical scholarship. You cannot expect me to define the the criteria for good biblical scholarship on a discussion board!! I suppose that WOULD take too long. Perhaps we agree and it will not be necessary.

See … I asked you not to take the “perhaps we agree and it will not be necessary” approach. I’m trying to get you to tell me why you agree. The difference in our theologies will be exposed when each of us lays out the foundation for our beliefs. We may agree, but one of us may be doing so for the wrong reasons. Many of us have laid out the Catholic foundation, but you avoid … over and over … to lay out yours. You aren’t being fair.

Incidentally, I asked you to define the criteria for good Biblical scholarship because you offered to do so! Quote from your post, to which I had responded: “No one argues that Hebrews is not written in the era of the Apostles. That aside, that is when the other areas of Protestant theology kick in. Are you familar or not familiar with Protestant theology on this matter? I will explain if you are unfamiliar.” So fine, I asked you to explain and you respond in “*disbelief”??? *It would “take too long”??? I’m sorry, but either we are here to discover the truth or we are not. If you aren’t going to assist in that, how about you quit wasting our time with this. You stated earlier in the thread that you weren’t interested in “proof”, but in “debate”. That seems very clear now. God will not judge us by the number of fallacies, or logical tricks we can throw into an argument. If you have the truth, you owe it to us to lay it out, no matter how much time it takes.

Fredricks:

Disagree if you will. The Bible is our teaching authority. The Holy Spirit does interpret for all Christians… BEFORE YOU SAY that the Holy Spirit is respnsible for all the denominations, remember Catholicism has only one right interpretation even if Catholics do not agree. Likewise for the Bible and the Holy Spirit. I would contend that the majority of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox AGREE( I paused to think) 75% of the time, even though we look different.
that was brief, I am going to bed but should give you enough for your follow up.

But we *disagree *on some essential points. Is baptism necessary or isn’t it? Must children be baptized or not? Can salvation be lost or not? It’s about quality, not quantity. God would not have left us a religion that allows confusion on such fundamental issues, even if they are just 25% (can you qualify that number?) of the doctrine. Jesus didn’t pray that we would be 75% a whole, as he and the father are 75% of a whole. Paul didn’t ask that there be no divisions among us 75% of the time or that we be 75% of the same mind.

I love your energy, man, but you have got to defend your position a little here instead of playing dodgeball.

God bless,
Spencer

 

[montanaman]

Protestants always insist on an impossible standard of proof when it comes to Tradition, but they’re perfectly comfortable having no knowlege of where the Bible came from or really, Christian history. So, it’s going to be impossible to prove to Fredricks where certain Catholic beliefs came from. He’ll insist that we “prove” beyond a shadow of a doubt that, say, the communion of saints came from the apostles, but anything short of a video recording of an apostle teaching it won’t do. We can point to dozens of Church fathers’ writings on a particular subject that, if we put on our Junior Detective Hats, will give us strong evidence of a Tradition’s apostolic origins, but it’s never going to be enough.

Anti-Catholics just keep moving the goalposts, use double-standards and non sequiters to keep the sophistry going. Volumes of evidence of a single Church as attested to by early Church Fathers? Bah–useless conjecture. Absolutely no evidence of sola scriptura in the Bible? Naturally, that’s irrelevant to them.

 

[Fredricks]

Ok
I will only respond to you if I am going to do this. I have not read the OP in a long time so lets break it down. Ask me any three questions.

 

[petra]

Fredricks:

Well for one, can you name a book written by someone who knew him that is not in there. Please cite any any biblical scholar that attests to this as well. Are you suggesting that others who knew him wrote and we do not accept it?

There are several books that were purported to have been written by people who knew Jesus (Gospel of Peter, 1 and 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas), which we now know were not written by those people. While some of these were circulated and regarded as scripture by some local churches before the canon was fixed, the Church correctly discerned that they were not inspired. The conclusions that today’s scholars draw are not in a vaccuum. They draw upon the discernment of the early Church in regard to what was authentic and what was not. Again, you are a beneficiary of Sacred Tradition.

Hebrews? Our criteria for being in the canon has never been known authorship. That is a whole other topic.

In post #230, you say, “Known authorship is one standard that Protestants recognize when talking about the canon.” Which is it? Is authorship a standard or not? How do you personally know that Hebrews is inspired?

But, when you want us to accept tradition that cannot be traced and that historically can be proven to be later developing, as opposed to the people that were there. Do you have evidence of a tradition that comes from Jesus or his apostles that we are missing?

First let me ask what form such evidence might take, assuming we are talking about things that are not spelled out in extreme detail in the scriptures. Before I proceed with answering this question, do you agree that it may be found by reading about what was common practice during the early Church?

Might you also agree that another angle to verifying Sacred Tradition is to look at doctrines that you personally accept, but which are not spelled out in detail in the Scriptures?

Are these both acceptable criteria?

No, not true at all. The man made doctrine of "Sacred Tradition, which turns out to be all the beliefs to directly stated in the Bible…imagine that, is not one and the same as the Apostolic authority we follow, the Holy Bible.

No, not all of Sacred Tradition is directly stated in the Bible. The Bible is a subset of Sacred Tradition, not the other way around. The doctrine of the Trinity is a great example.

You have stated elsewhere that tradition did carry the early church until the point that the inspired writings were collected and bound into one volume. How could this tradition been a derivative of a compiled book that did not yet exist?

Again, to state the obvious, Sacred Scripture is derivative of Sacred Tradition.

I hope you are not being literal. We will not. We will continue to accept it

No, I’m not being literal. You should not throw out the scriptures because they are God’s Word. But my point is that your acceptance of the Scriptures is without rational basis. You cannot explain why it is that you believe the selected books to be inspired. And in doing so you presuppose the infallability of Sacred Tradition.

 

[petra]

montanaman:

Protestants always insist on an impossible standard of proof when it comes to Tradition, but they’re perfectly comfortable having no knowlege of where the Bible came from or really, Christian history. So, it’s going to be impossible to prove to Fredricks where certain Catholic beliefs came from. He’ll insist that we “prove” beyond a shadow of a doubt that, say, the communion of saints came from the apostles, but anything short of a video recording of an apostle teaching it won’t do. We can point to dozens of Church fathers’ writings on a particular subject that, if we put on our Junior Detective Hats, will give us strong evidence of a Tradition’s apostolic origins, but it’s never going to be enough.

I think it is useful to ask him, if such evidence existed, what form it might take. I would like for him to set the criteria for evidence, then we can happily respond.

I doubt if he will require video or audio recordings. Certainly there must be criteria that would satisfy him. Two that I proposed are:

1. Sacred Tradition should be evidenced by common practice during the early Church.
2. Sacred Tradition can be evidenced by mainstream Christian doctrines that are not spelled out in detail in the Scriptures.

If there are other criteria that he requires, I’ve asked that he let us know. With agreement upon those criteria, we can proceed.