How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?

[PRmerger]

I do disagree, naturally and perniciously

One of the more fundamental changes thankfully is that the Catholic church stopped the teaching that burning heretics is a good idea to protect the flock.

Are you talking about an 11-word sentence in Ex Surge Domine?

 

[Nicea325]

I do disagree, naturally and perniciously

One of the more fundamental changes thankfully is that the Catholic church stopped the teaching that burning heretics is a good idea to protect the flock. Add to the dogma of Papal Infallibility, Assumption, and Immaculate Conception and I think not only would us Lutherans say things have changes, our Orthodox friends would say things have changed.

You’ve grown up with Papal Infallibility, but even Catholic teaching documents before the bull declared that there was no such thing:

From Keenan’s Catechism - in the 1800’s:
(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.

Now it is possible for you to say that these changes don’t amount to much, but it’s also fair for me to say that theses indeed are changes on at least some level.

And Protestants never burned anyone? Enslaved countless of people? Should I go on? Papal Infallibility, Assumption, and Immaculate Conception are changes? Hhmm?

Let us see here,do you have issues with the doctrines,which were ratified CENTURIES after Christ:

Trinity,Incarnation, Hypostatic Union,etc,etc?

Doctrines need to be fully understood and ratified at certain point in time in order to make them legit? Jesus words: The Adovcate will guide into all TRUTH. Never said: Up to a period of time only.

 

[benjohnson]

And Protestants never burned anyone? Enslaved countless of people? Should I go on?

If you’d like - our sins are many, and the ones you enumerated are the smaller ones.

Papal Infallibility, Assumption, and Immaculate Conception are changes? Hhmm?

The Assumption and Immaculate Conception don’t bother us - what I personally find odd is not that they be declared dogma, but that deceleration was done without both lungs of the church.

re Papal Infallibility, I’ll point you to the Easter Orthodox - they’re much more learned that I could ever approach and their arguments and concerns are compelling.

Let us see here,do you have issues with the doctrines,which were ratified CENTURIES after Christ:

Trinity,Incarnation, Hypostatic Union,etc,etc?

I hope I didn’t say that! We hold with just about everything Catholics do, or at least we should. If we don’t agree, let us hope it is rare.

Doctrines need to be fully understood and ratified at certain point in time in order to make them legit? Jesus words: The Adovcate will guide into all TRUTH. Never said: Up to a period of time only.

I agree personally - I would prefer that you involve not only your own bishops, but the eastern bishops in this process. I don’t know if my church agrees that understanding truth is an ongoing process so let me leave this as a personal observation.

 

[benjohnson]

Are you talking about an 11-word sentence in Ex Surge Domine?

My argument is only to show that there is change. Why I bring the subject up is not to take pot shots at the Catholic Church in a gruesome fashion, but to show that indeed something seemed to have changed in the Catholic Church.

Now, granted, you can honestly and with good intention say that the change was a change in praxis, but if your goal is to gather lost sheep, I would be very careful about using the “The Catholic Church Never Changes” argument as to an outside observer, it sure seems to change from time to time.

So even if I’m wrong (a good assumption), I still wouldn’t recommend using the argument as unless the person you are trying to convince has either no experience with the Catholic church, OR fully understands what you’re saying completely and in the context you’re saying it, as they probably won’t agree.

 

[PRmerger]

My argument is only to show that there is change. Why I bring the subject up is not to take pot shots at the Catholic Church in a gruesome fashion, but to show that indeed something seemed to have changed in the Catholic Church.

Now, granted, you can honestly and with good intention say that the change was a change in praxis, but if your goal is to gather lost sheep, I would be very careful about using the “The Catholic Church Never Changes” argument as to an outside observer, it sure seems to change from time to time.

So even if I’m wrong (a good assumption), I still wouldn’t recommend using the argument as unless the person you are trying to convince has either no experience with the Catholic church, OR fully understands what you’re saying completely and in the context you’re saying it, as they probably won’t agree.

All teachings of the Church do not stand on their own, ben. So when a Catholic makes a claim such as, “The Catholic Church has never changed her teachings”, it is the beginning of the conversation. Not the end.

If we use your paradigm above, we Christians ought not be proclaiming, “God is a Trinity!” to an outside observer, right? For does it not lend to confusion in our Muslim/Jewish/Hindu brethren?

Or, rather, do we Christians say, “God is a Trinity!” and let me show you why this is true!

 

[benjohnson]

“The Catholic Church has never changed her teachings”, it is the beginning of the conversation.

Let me ruminate on this… let me ask around to see the reaction I get when I mention this premise. I suspect that it will be be discounted, but let me gather evidence.

Have you found success with this argument?

 

[PRmerger]

Let me ruminate on this… let me ask around to see the reaction I get when I mention this premise. I suspect that it will be be discounted, but let me gather evidence.

Have you found success with this argument?

If I just went around and said, “The CC has never changed her teachings!” and left it at that…no.

But I think I have had great success using it as the beginning of a conversation.

In fact, see this: threeminuteapologetics.blogspot.com/2011/01/catholic-church-proclaims-that-it-has.html

 

[CopticChristian]

Let’s first ask the question: what defines canon? Canon itself is simply the list of works an author has created. Let me ask you: when Machiavelli wrote The Prince, when did that book become part of the Machiavelli canon? Did it become part of his canon soon afterward, when some group of Italian readers said it was? Did it become part of his canon hundreds of years later, when a group of scholars gathered together and made a list of what consisted of “the Machiavelli canon”? Or, was it part of the canon as soon as it was finished, in the same manner that even unpublished works of authors such as JRR Tolkien are still considered part of his canon.

The question “who was there from the first century to the sixteenth century to hold the Roman Catholic Church accountable” presupposes the idea that for there to be canon, an institutional body is needed. You don’t need such a body for canon any more than Machiavelli needed a body of scholars or publishers to tell him that The Prince was part of his canon. One might argue, “What if one was uncertain Machiavelli wrote The Prince?” certainly a body of scholars would be important, but they would not be the sole source of authority on the matter. As I wrote before, internal evidence (does this comply with the tone of his other work, is the language similar, etc.) is helpful, as is other external evidence (are there any early eyewitnesses to the existence of The Prince around Machiavelli’s time, etc.). It would also not deny that The Prince was still part of the Machiavelli canon.

As I said in my previous post, there is such a thing as external evidence, and the church councils and such that were held hundreds of years after the first manuscripts of the New Testament books - and almost thousands of years after the Old Testament books - are fine external evidence of what might be considered canon, or what was considered by some to be canon in the early church. However, this is not the only evidence, and the fault with many is that they take a single source of external authority and ignore all the rest. When Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the other prophets spoke from God, there was no debate, and no council was immediately held to decide whether or not what they said was canon - what came from God was from God, and what didn’t come from God was not from God.

Byzantine,

No one disputes that Machiavelli wrote anything inspired by the Holy Spirit or that the Prince is the word of God…nice try…true, true but unrelated.

 

[joe370]

Yes, I think even Radical cannot now say that the answer lies in Scripture.

The answer to that theological question is answered ONLY by the Church.

Where else can the answer possibly lie, other than the church? I really am attempting to view things from a protestant perspective, but I got nothin’.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

There are writings that are dated to the Apostolic period and attributed to individuals that have solid credentials…Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, for example.

Clement was mentioned by Paul in one of the his epistles, and no one denies that Clement actually wrote the letter.

Since the authorship and dating are certain and there is nothing unorthodox about the theology of the book, how do you discern that Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians is not inspired?

A fair question. I believe by his mention in Paul’s letters, you mean Philippians 4:3, where the apostle Paul writes “help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” The name Clement is there, and while I’m well aware many of the early Christian writers from the time of Origen onward attribute this to Clement of Rome, there is no direct evidence within the verses itself that this is the same one. Clement was a popular name at the time, and as within the full context of these verses Paul is speaking about matters dealing with Philippi, it was most likely someone of renown in that area. His epistle is also generally considered to have been written on the tail end of the apostolic period, either around the time John supposedly wrote Revelation, or in the early to middle second century, after most of the original apostles had died.

Disregarding all that, however, how does one deem Clement’s epistle as not inspired? Again, herein lies the internal/external evidence that is necessary. Firstly, does it claim, either directly or indirectly, to come from God, as we find the Book of Revelation doing, for example (Re 1:1)? Secondly, do any other inspired works refer to it as scripture or inspired, as Peter does the writings of Paul (2 Pe 3:15-16)? Thirdly, do any other inspired works quote it as scripture, as Paul does Luke’s gospel (1 Ti 5:18)? Fourthly, did early Christians treat it as divinely inspired (as there is plenty of evidence early Christians took the gospel writers as having been inspired)? Fifthly, is there external evidence of anyone attributing to it any form of divine inspiration? Sixthly, does it represent the theology and attitudes of its time period accurately (think the Second Temple Judaism seen in Paul’s writing, which dates it to the first century, over and against the Valentinian Gnostic gospels, which couldn’t have come until much, much later, when that theology existed).

These are not the only examples of internal and external evidence that can be used, obviously, and there’s plenty more where these came from. An individual work may not necessarily need all of them to be considered “legit,” nor could it necessarily survive on one (save for perhaps the first few options). However, it is a good start as to determining whether or not a book is divinely inspired.

Since you quoted part of my response to joe370, let me add that I’ve found him a very pleasant person to bounce ideas against.

I was not singling joe370 out, and if I was, I apologize for coming across in that manner.

Are you referring to the starting of this thread to be underhanded?

Not at all.

No one disputes that Machiavelli wrote anything inspired by the Holy Spirit or that the Prince is the word of God…nice try…true, true but unrelated.

And once again, the point of the analogy is completely overlooked.

 

[Randy_Carson]

One of the more fundamental changes thankfully is that the Catholic church stopped the teaching that burning heretics is a good idea to protect the flock.

Oh? Who says we stopped? We’re just more sneaky about it now.

Seriously? You think this was formal Catholic doctrine? C’mon…I was hoping for better from you.

Add to the dogma of Papal Infallibility, Assumption, and Immaculate Conception and I think not only would us Lutherans say things have changes, our Orthodox friends would say things have changed.

Ah…development of doctrine. Well, I suppose we need a clear definition of “change” before we start talking past one another.

I have “changed” since my infancy, but I’m still the same person. The Church has “changed” since the days of Peter and the boys, but it is still the same Church. The doctrine of the Catholic Church has “changed”, but it has never reversed course to the degree that something formally taught is now rejected or vice-versa.

Here’s an article you might find interesting:
**
Can Dogma Develop?**
catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

Beyond this, we have strayed from the topic of the thread.

 

[PRmerger]

Disregarding all that, however, how does one deem Clement’s epistle as not inspired? Again, herein lies the internal/external evidence that is necessary. Firstly, does it claim, either directly or indirectly, to come from God, as we find the Book of Revelation doing, for example (Re 1:1)? Secondly, do any other inspired works refer to it as scripture or inspired, as Peter does the writings of Paul (2 Pe 3:15-16)? Thirdly, do any other inspired works quote it as scripture, as Paul does Luke’s gospel (1 Ti 5:18)? Fourthly, did early Christians treat it as divinely inspired (as there is plenty of evidence early Christians took the gospel writers as having been inspired)? Fifthly, is there external evidence of anyone attributing to it any form of divine inspiration? Sixthly, does it represent the theology and attitudes of its time period accurately (think the Second Temple Judaism seen in Paul’s writing, which dates it to the first century, over and against the Valentinian Gnostic gospels, which couldn’t have come until much, much later, when that theology existed).

Excellent! A list of criteria!

So how does 3 John, Philemon, Titus and Hebrews fit these criteria?

From what I can gather, the ONLY criteria they all meet is your 4th one…

which merely another way of saying, “Because of Sacred Tradition.”

Incidentally, I find that your 1st criteria to be quite peculiar. Claiming to be from God, eh? Like the Koran does?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Excellent! A list of criteria!

So how does 3 John, Philemon, Titus and Hebrews fit these criteria?

From what I can gather, the ONLY criteria they all meet is your 4th one…

which merely another way of saying, “Because of Sacred Tradition.”

Incidentally, I find that your 1st criteria to be quite peculiar. Claiming to be from God, eh? Like the Koran does?

As I hope you noticed, I said this in my original post, after the part you cut off:

These are not the only examples of internal and external evidence that can be used, obviously, and there’s plenty more where these came from. An individual work may not necessarily need all of them to be considered “legit,” nor could it necessarily survive on one (save for perhaps the first few options). However, it is a good start as to determining whether or not a book is divinely inspired.

I wrote this post specifically to clarify my “list of criteria” so that one would understand where I was coming from, and no one would have to make a post such as the one you just made. So for example, I said “these are not the only examples of internal and external evidence that can be used…there’s plenty more where these came from.” With 3 John, Titus and Philemon, for example, we can study the language and see that it matches the authors to whom they are attributed. I hinted this earlier when I said we could study The Prince and see if the language matches Machiavelli’s other work. As I said earlier, internal and external evidence is a large umbrella that I could write several posts on, but I cited several just as an example for the readers’ benefit, to permit people to think on this matter a bit more.

As for the Quran, obviously a lot of false documents claim to be from God, that’s why there are other factors to consider, and why I specifically said a document could not “necessarily survive on one” criteria being met. For example, a Gnostic gospel might say “This comes from God!”, but when you review it and find that it’s teachings stem from a theology that is not compatible with Second Temple Judaism, and can be sourced to hundreds of years after the time of Christ and the apostles, obviously we can’t honestly say it comes from God.

The fourth option is also not equatable with “sacred tradition” because it simply refers to general evidence of the attitude of early Christians, and whether or not they treated the books as inspired, either liturgically or in their handling of it. For example, Pliny the Younger is a piece of external evidence of what books Christians considered to be divinely inspired, and yet he is most certainly not part of “sacred tradition.” We should not confuse “external evidence” as being the same category as “Christian witnesses.”

 

[PRmerger]

As I hope you noticed, I said this in my original post, after the part you cut off:

Yes, it is necessary typically to “cut off” posts when responding.

Just like you have done in the past.

 

[PRmerger]

So for example, I said “these are not the only examples of internal and external evidence that can be used…there’s plenty more where these came from.” With 3 John, Titus and Philemon, for example, we can study the language and see that it matches the authors to whom they are attributed.

And, again, use what criteria after one considers the language match-up?

What does convergence of language have to do with proof of inspiration anyway? That is a peculiar quality to assign to inspiration! :whacky:

And does not the Shepherd of Hermas’ language match the author to which it is attributed?

(Incidentally, I’m pretty sure that the Koran also matches the author’s language of origin, yes?)

 

[PRmerger]

As for the Quran, obviously a lot of false documents claim to be from God, that’s why there are other factors to consider, and why I specifically said a document could **not “necessarily **survive on one” criteria being met.

Indeed.

Especially the “not necessarily” part.

So what’s the “necessary” criterion that you assign to a book to determine its inspiration? And how do you know that this is the necessary criterion? What is the canon you will use?

It can’t be the Scriptures that you use as your arbiter of truth.

So what’s the “necessary” quality that tells you it’s* theopneustos*?

For example, a Gnostic gospel might say “This comes from God!”, but when you review it and find that** it’s teachings stem from a theology **that is not compatible with Second Temple Judaism, and can be sourced to hundreds of years after the time of Christ and the apostles, obviously we can’t honestly say it comes from God.

Ah. So the theology came first, then?

That’s the Catholic position. That’s exactly what we mean by Sacred Tradition.

We have the theology. Then the books that conformed to this theology were discerned to be inspired.

The fourth option is also not equatable with “sacred tradition” because it simply refers to general evidence of the attitude of early Christians, and whether or not they treated the books as inspired, either liturgically or in their handling of it

Right.

That’s Sacred Tradition in a nutshell. :yup:

I’ve heard other non-Catholic Christians use a similar explication of your 4th option as, “They knew these books were inspired by the testimony of the early Christians”, which, of course, is simply another way of saying, “They knew these books were inspired because of Sacred Tradition.”

 

[Nicea325]

If you’d like - our sins are many, and the ones you enumerated are the smaller ones.

The Assumption and Immaculate Conception don’t bother us - what I personally find odd is not that they be declared dogma, but that deceleration was done without both lungs of the church.

re Papal Infallibility, I’ll point you to the Easter Orthodox - they’re much more learned that I could ever approach and their arguments and concerns are compelling.

I hope I didn’t say that! We hold with just about everything Catholics do, or at least we should. If we don’t agree, let us hope it is rare.

I agree personally - I would prefer that you involve not only your own bishops, but the eastern bishops in this process. I don’t know if my church agrees that understanding truth is an ongoing process so let me leave this as a personal observation.

My brother in my Christ,

Yes it unfortunate of the Great Divorce of 1054. The Eastern bishops were involved in the first 7 councils.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Yes, it is necessary typically to “cut off” posts when responding.

Just like you have done in the past.

For certain it’s often necessary to minimize quoted sections, especially given the 6000 limit on the forum. However, there’s a difference between that and quoting a section of what someone said, ignoring what followed after that, and asking questions or making statements that demonstrate you either did not fully read or fully understand what the person said, or just ignored it. If you think I did the latter to Bryan in that post, please demonstrate it. If you read the thread, you’ll see I fully considered what Bryan had said in the original post, and in fact our conversation was very civil and he didn’t accuse me of misquoting him or mining his post for little “gotcha!” moments. If you think I did that, present how, rather than just responding with what amounts to a tu quoque fallacy.

Regarding your additional responses to me - you talk about language and speak as if I’m arguing “These writings are both in Koine Greek. Clearly they’re the same person.” With all due respect, my friend, that shows you have a poor understanding of the study of Biblical languages, and your sarcasm simply betrays your ignorance. When I speak of identifying authors by language, that refers to their linguistic style, not merely whether or not the language itself was the same. Some examples: Luke’s writings demonstrate a high form of Greek, like a doctor giving a presentation to medical students; Paul’s writings demonstrate an educated but casual form of Greek, like a college professor chatting with his students at a coffee shop; John’s writings bare a Semitic style, like (for lack of a better comparison) a Mel Brooks character. It also deals with how they use certain words, phrases, etc. This is what is meant by studying an author’s “language.”

Your response where you speak of theology mishandles my original post by cutting it up, talking as if I’m trying to give the single-most necessary trait for a document to be declared inspired, and then claim I’m saying it’s theology. Besides the fact that’s a blatantly dishonest straw man, it ignores the context of which I said it (note I began that section with “for example”), and that I was speaking of theology in a general sense. You call it “sacred tradition” - are you saying Second Temple Judaism belongs to the Roman Catholic Church’s sacred tradition? So the non-believing Pharisees and other Jews, who likewise belong to the Second Temple Judaic era, were part of sacred tradition?

You respond to my clarification on the fourth option by saying, “Yeah! That’s sacred tradition in a nutshell!” Again, let’s see what I said after the section you quoted:

The fourth option is also not equatable with “sacred tradition” because it simply refers to general evidence of the attitude of early Christians, and whether or not they treated the books as inspired, either liturgically or in their handling of it. For example, Pliny the Younger is a piece of external evidence of what books Christians considered to be divinely inspired, and yet he is most certainly not part of “sacred tradition.” We should not confuse “external evidence” as being the same category as "Christian witnesses."

Are Pliny the Younger and Celcus (who I referred to in an earlier post) part of sacred tradition? This is what I meant by “general evidence.” I even end the post specifically saying we should not equate external evidence and Christian witnesses as being the same thing. How could one come to the conclusion I was speaking about something which could be “sacred tradition in a nutshell”?

My friend, I have to ask: are you really interested in discussion? I really don’t feel that you are treating the topic with seriousness. Are you simply waiting for me to respond, scanning my post for things to latch onto, and trying to get back to your single argument again?

 

[ConstantineTG]

As a former protestant I often wondered why protestants (sola scriptura advocates) accepted the authority of the CC (via sacred tradition + sacred scripture) regarding said catholic councils? And then reject other authoritative declarations promulgated by the CC. As an eastern orthodox Christian, do you find that behavior a bit odd for the sola scriptura proponent?

It is really odd that some Protestants say they accept the authority of some of the Ecumenical councils (at least the first 3 or 4, or up to the 7th) and then deny honor to Mary whom the Third Ecumenical Council have affirmed the title “Theotokos”, and the 7th Ecumenical Council that upholds the use of icons. So I think they say they accept the councils for the sake of saying they accept them. I don’t know how much study they have done on the councils or if most of them even know what the councils are all about.

 

[joe370]

It is really odd that some Protestants say they accept the authority of some of the Ecumenical councils (at least the first 3 or 4, or up to the 7th) and then deny honor to Mary whom the Third Ecumenical Council have affirmed the title “Theotokos”, and the 7th Ecumenical Council that upholds the use of icons. So I think they say they accept the councils for the sake of saying they accept them. I don’t know how much study they have done on the councils or if most of them even know what the councils are all about.

I think you are right.