B
beng
Guest
Bishops in communion with Pope has ordinary infallibility.
And they also could teach non-infallible but authoritative doctrines which all must assent.
- Status
And they also could teach non-infallible but authoritative doctrines which all must assent.
B
beng
Guest
A
Apolonio
Guest
Jason:You do know how it works, Phil, because you agree with James White on this subject. Like James White and sola scriptura, you don’t believe that the Roman Catholic rule of faith was always in effect. Adam and Eve didn’t have a Pope or magisterium. Neither did Noah. And the Roman Catholic rule of faith wasn’t in effect when Jesus was walking the earth or when the apostles were alive. Paul’s oral teachings, for example, were authoritative without meeting the modern standards of infallibility within the RCC. If you and other Catholics can understand how the Roman Catholic rule of faith can be in effect at some times of history, but not at other times, then why can’t you understand the identical principle with regard to sola scriptura?
Response:
So when exactly did the Church practice sola scriptura? The Epistle to Timothy says that “ALL Scripture…makes the man of God fully-equipped.” Notice how it says “all” scripture, not just “some” or “most”. “Most” Scripture does not make the man of God fully-equipped. So Christians must have the whole books in their Bible in order to practice Sola Scriptura. However, who had the canon of Scripture right before the 4th century? As both Catholics and Protestants agree, the first time the canon was right was in the 4th century (Athanasius). Since Athanasius had “All Scripture”, then it would seem that only he could have practiced Sola Scriptura. But what about the Church Fathers before him? They could not have practiced Sola Scriptura if they did not have all Scripture. Again, it is only when they take All Scripture together that they can practice Sola scriptura. So how would they receive the fullness of God’s Word?
Response:
So when exactly did the Church practice sola scriptura? The Epistle to Timothy says that “ALL Scripture…makes the man of God fully-equipped.” Notice how it says “all” scripture, not just “some” or “most”. “Most” Scripture does not make the man of God fully-equipped. So Christians must have the whole books in their Bible in order to practice Sola Scriptura. However, who had the canon of Scripture right before the 4th century? As both Catholics and Protestants agree, the first time the canon was right was in the 4th century (Athanasius). Since Athanasius had “All Scripture”, then it would seem that only he could have practiced Sola Scriptura. But what about the Church Fathers before him? They could not have practiced Sola Scriptura if they did not have all Scripture. Again, it is only when they take All Scripture together that they can practice Sola scriptura. So how would they receive the fullness of God’s Word?
B
briand
Guest
Hello Tman I do hope you are having a nice day. It is possible that he is just passionate about his views. Take care.
B
briand
Guest
PhilVaz said:<< Is it possible to order the debate btw John Ankerberg & Fr. Mitch Pacwa? >>
Yep, I believe it is still available
www.ankerberg.org
Although I think now its an “abridged” version. I have the unabridged version since I got it shortly after it came out (in the late 1980s).
I have 4 videos, they discuss Peter/Papacy (short), justification (longer, several sections), purgatory, penance/confession, and of course Mary/saints. They don’t bother with Eucharist or Baptism since many Protestants basically agree with Catholics on those. They just dealt with the main differences.
Excellent, the unabridged version I have totals about 5 hours. Ankerberg and Martin (and the announcer) “gang up” on Pacwa, but if you wanna see an aggressive Fr. Mitch Pacwa fight back, get these videos.Pacwa is tame and mild today compared to this Ankerberg debate…but it was still polite and therefore an enjoyable debate.
Phil P
I have never seen some of these debates, I have seen Father Pacwa on some of his shows, he speaks or understands a bazzillion different languages. He is a gentalman, I have a great deal of respect for that. Fr. Benedict Groeschel is one person I wish I could just sit down and talk to, he did a special on suffering and one on the Trinity. He truly understands suffering and is quite unique in many ways, though he would not think so. It is his type of overcomming that I truly admire.
Take care.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
JasonTE << Adam and Eve didn’t have a Pope or magisterium. Neither did Noah. >>
Total non-sequitur, as are many of your arguments. They work at NTRMin, they won’t work here.
JasonTE << And the Roman Catholic rule of faith wasn’t in effect when Jesus was walking the earth or when the apostles were alive. >>
I’m afraid it was, as soon as Jesus selected the apostles choosing Peter to be the rock-foundation of His Church (Matt 16:18-19), the “Roman Catholic rule of faith” was in effect. The apostles are the first line of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, and the apostles successors the bishops continued that magisterium, authentically interpreting the Scripture and Tradition passed on from the apostles. We trace the Church all the way back to them.
But I’ll admit that Catholics/Orthodox aren’t that far away from some definitions of sola scriptura. When you define it as Keith Mathison does in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura, giving the Church an essential role in interpretation (not necessarily infallible, but at least extremely important), then there isn’t much difference between that “sola scriptura” and the Catholic rule of faith spelled out in Vatican II, which gives Scripture a special place.
For example, Mathison says about the Church: “it is to the Church as a visible body that we must turn to find the true interpretation and preaching of the good news of Christ. It is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Scripture that the gospel is found” (p. 268-270). There are leaders in the Church “to whom we owe obedience and submission (Heb 13:17)” (p. 272)
Mathison says: The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), established by Christ, given by Him the authority to “bind and loose” that is not given to every member of the Church as individuals (Matt 16:19; 18:18). The Church is Christ’s body and bride, “the instrument through which God makes the truth of His Word known” (Eph 3:10). And outside the Church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) refers to the visible Church (p. 268).
Mathison also says: The Scripture is to be interpreted in and by that Church within the regula fidei (rule of faith). Taken out of this context, it would inevitably be mishandled (repeated on pages 48, 81, 85, 120, 140, 147, 150, 151, 167, 267).
From my Amazon.com review. Given this definition, I don’t think there’s much disagreement, other than the answer to the question: “what and where is this visible Church, the ‘one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church’ of the Creeds?”
Apolonio can now take this thread over. I heard he’s good.
Phil P
Total non-sequitur, as are many of your arguments. They work at NTRMin, they won’t work here.
JasonTE << And the Roman Catholic rule of faith wasn’t in effect when Jesus was walking the earth or when the apostles were alive. >>
I’m afraid it was, as soon as Jesus selected the apostles choosing Peter to be the rock-foundation of His Church (Matt 16:18-19), the “Roman Catholic rule of faith” was in effect. The apostles are the first line of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, and the apostles successors the bishops continued that magisterium, authentically interpreting the Scripture and Tradition passed on from the apostles. We trace the Church all the way back to them.
But I’ll admit that Catholics/Orthodox aren’t that far away from some definitions of sola scriptura. When you define it as Keith Mathison does in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura, giving the Church an essential role in interpretation (not necessarily infallible, but at least extremely important), then there isn’t much difference between that “sola scriptura” and the Catholic rule of faith spelled out in Vatican II, which gives Scripture a special place.
For example, Mathison says about the Church: “it is to the Church as a visible body that we must turn to find the true interpretation and preaching of the good news of Christ. It is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Scripture that the gospel is found” (p. 268-270). There are leaders in the Church “to whom we owe obedience and submission (Heb 13:17)” (p. 272)
Mathison says: The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), established by Christ, given by Him the authority to “bind and loose” that is not given to every member of the Church as individuals (Matt 16:19; 18:18). The Church is Christ’s body and bride, “the instrument through which God makes the truth of His Word known” (Eph 3:10). And outside the Church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) refers to the visible Church (p. 268).
Mathison also says: The Scripture is to be interpreted in and by that Church within the regula fidei (rule of faith). Taken out of this context, it would inevitably be mishandled (repeated on pages 48, 81, 85, 120, 140, 147, 150, 151, 167, 267).
From my Amazon.com review. Given this definition, I don’t think there’s much disagreement, other than the answer to the question: “what and where is this visible Church, the ‘one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church’ of the Creeds?”
Apolonio can now take this thread over. I heard he’s good.
Phil P
H
Hananiah
Guest
Hey, if anyone wants to hear a debate where James White gets whomped, listen to his Papacy debate versus Tim Staples. Staples runs circles around the guy. 
Ok, I just posted that because I know White is lurking. Actually, I’m informed, it was not Mr. Staples’ finest showing. I hear Robert Sungenis did a lot better in his debate vs. White on that subject.
The justification debate vs. Matatics is pretty good, and available for free online at straitgate. It’s quite ironic that Matatics opens up with an ecumenical prayer. Now that he’s a traditionalist he would never pull such a stunt.
The only other White debate I’ve heard was his Purgatory radio debate vs. Sungenis. There was no clear winner in that debate, I thought. It was pretty short and neither side really got off the ground. And the questions the Protestant callers asked Sungenis were just insipid. I think they hurt James White’s case more than any flaws in his own presentation.
Ok, I just posted that because I know White is lurking. Actually, I’m informed, it was not Mr. Staples’ finest showing. I hear Robert Sungenis did a lot better in his debate vs. White on that subject.
The justification debate vs. Matatics is pretty good, and available for free online at straitgate. It’s quite ironic that Matatics opens up with an ecumenical prayer. Now that he’s a traditionalist he would never pull such a stunt.
The only other White debate I’ve heard was his Purgatory radio debate vs. Sungenis. There was no clear winner in that debate, I thought. It was pretty short and neither side really got off the ground. And the questions the Protestant callers asked Sungenis were just insipid. I think they hurt James White’s case more than any flaws in his own presentation.
H
Hananiah
Guest
Long time, no see. Now that my school year is over I’ve finally gotten around to responding to your 2 big posts on the Gebirah thread on NTRMIN (printed out they take 18 pages). I’m about 2/3 done, and will contact you when I finish should you wish to respond.
Regarding the issue at hand, I’m sure you will agree that sola Scriptura must be taught by the Bible or else it would be self-defeating. Well, if sola Scriptura was not the rule of faith while the Bible was being written, no passage of the Bible could teach sola Scriptura to its immediate audience. The only way the Bible could possibly teach sola Scriptura would be if it stated that sola Scriptura would become the regala fidei at some point in the future. But none of the passages in the Bible which treat of the nature and authority of Scripture are about something that will happen in the future. They all teach doctrines which were in effect contemporaneous to their writing (e.g. all Scripture is God-breathed). And since sola Scriptura was not in effect contemporaneous to the writing of the Bible, the Bible cannot teach it.
The Bible does, however, allow for the change in the rule of faith which Catholicism requires (upon this rock I will build my Church).
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Yeah, I rank White’s top Catholic-Protestant debates in this order
vs. Akin BAM 1995
vs. Pacwa on justification 1991
vs. Matatics on sola scriptura 1997
vs. Sungenis on papal infallibility 2000
If you get any, get these. They cover virtually all the issues. Definitely the best in terms of quality of presentation from both sides. The first one is available from Catholic Answers, the next two you can get from White AOMin.org, the last one you can get from Sungenis www.catholicintl.com
There are many where the Catholic side just did poorly, or the debate got a little mean…and therefore not worth listening to more than once.
Phil P
vs. Akin BAM 1995
vs. Pacwa on justification 1991
vs. Matatics on sola scriptura 1997
vs. Sungenis on papal infallibility 2000
If you get any, get these. They cover virtually all the issues. Definitely the best in terms of quality of presentation from both sides. The first one is available from Catholic Answers, the next two you can get from White AOMin.org, the last one you can get from Sungenis www.catholicintl.com
There are many where the Catholic side just did poorly, or the debate got a little mean…and therefore not worth listening to more than once.
Phil P
J
JasonTE
Guest
I don’t derive sola scriptura from 2 Timothy 3 in the manner you’re describing. See what I wrote on this subject in my debate with Phil Porvaznik in 2002, in my response to Question Three at:
members.aol.com/jasonte3/je5.htm
Sola scriptura doesn’t require the 66-book canon of Protestantism or the 27-book New Testament canon. Those who argue for sola scriptura from 2 Timothy 3 would argue that “all scripture” is a reference to all that’s in existence at the time, not all that ever will be in existence.
When Athanasius discusses the 27-book New Testament canon, he doesn’t refer to it as something he just accepted. It was something he refers to as a church tradition. Most likely there were others who held it before him. Eusebius refers to each of the 27 books being widely accepted before the time when Athanasius wrote, and some of the churches may have accepted all 27. The fact that Athanasius is the first person to list the 27 books in a document still extant doesn’t prove that nobody could have followed such a canon previously.
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
J
JasonTE
Guest
If you’re going to define the Roman Catholic rule of faith as the papacy, then Evangelicals could similarly define their rule of faith as the word of God. Since there’s always been a word of God, then the Evangelical rule of faith has always existed. Nobody denies that the Roman Catholic rule of faith can be said to have existed during Jesus’ earthly ministry if you define it in some vague sense such as the alleged establishment of a papacy in Matthew 16. Any rule of faith can be defined in such a vague sense that would only later take the form it does today. But if you’re going to accept such a vague definition for Roman Catholicism, you should be willing to accept it for Evangelicalism as well.
And we trace scripture back to them. So, will you conclude that sola scriptura was always in effect?
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
C
_Christopher
Guest
JasonTE-
When do* you* think that the Papacy was established?
When do* you* think that the Papacy was established?
J
JasonTE
Guest
You’re assuming, incorrectly, that sola scriptura can only be derived from passages discussing scripture. It can be derived from such passages, but it’s not limited to them. Passages that address the unique authority of the apostles would lead to the conclusion of sola scriptura if the scriptures were to become the only apostolic material extant.
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
J
JasonTE
Guest
_Christopher_:
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
I don’t have to be able to date it, just as I don’t need to date the origin of atheism or prostitution in order to know that they didn’t exist all along and that they’re wrong. But I think the concept of the papacy or something similar to it most likely arose in Rome around the middle of the third century, with the Roman bishop Stephen. His claims were denounced and resisted by dozens of bishops in the West and East, as reflected in the writings of Cyprian and Firmilian. One of the reasons why I doubt that Roman bishops prior to Stephen held such a view is because of how well Cyprian got along with Stephen’s predecessor, as well as some comments made by the Roman church in a letter to Cyprian prior to Stephen becoming bishop of Rome. From the documents we have from the Roman church prior to the bishopric of Stephen, it seems that even Rome itself didn’t believe in a papacy.
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
C
_Christopher
Guest
Atheism and prostitution didn’t exist all along? Not sure what that has to do with my question or its validity, but they don’t call prostitution the oldest profession in the world for nothing.
What say you about these historical facts?
The Church of Rome is the earliest of Christian organization; after three centuries of persecution, it was given freedom by the edict of Constantine and Licinius and acquired increased influence. Bishoprics were established in various parts of the empire, but the one at Rome remained supreme, and in time the title of Pope, or father originally borne by all the bishops indiscriminately, began to be restricted to the bishop of Rome. (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 6166, Volume 14)
The history of the Roman Church, therefore, in relation to the ancient oriental churches, is in fact, the history of this claim to supremacy. The claim of supremacy on the part of the bishop of Rome rests on the belief that Christ conferred on the apostle Peter a ‘primacy of jurisdiction;’ that Peter fixed his see and died at Rome and thus, that the bishops of Rome, as successors of the apostle Peter, have succeeded to his preorgatives of supremacy. In this light, historians read the facts of the early history of the church—and they trace to this acknoledgment of the superiority of that see, the numerous references to Rome on matters of doctrine or discipline; the appeals from other churhces, even those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople; the depositions or nominations of bishops, examination and condemnation of heresies—of which the first five centuries, especially the 4th and 5th, present examples. . . In all the controversies on the Incarnation—the Arian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Monothelite—not only was the orthodoxy of Rome never impeached, but she even supplied at every crisis a rallying point for the orthodox of every church. (Imperial Encyclopedia and Dictionary, Volume 32 © 1903)
The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” ( Matthew xvi, 18). The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued t flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built “upon a rock,” (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume 13)
Can you provide such documents proving your assertion?
C
_Christopher
Guest
You mean like the ones where the apostles said to obey their written as well as their oral word?
And before you complain that the oral teaching is not in existence anymore, you ought to consult the meaning of Sacred Tradition, with a big ‘T’.
E
Emily_Watson
Guest
Are you implying that there is a correlation between the papacy, atheism and prostitution?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
JasonTE << And we trace scripture back to them. So, will you conclude that sola scriptura was always in effect? >>
Here’s the problem: you don’t trace “scripture” back to them. There was no NT Scripture until the apostles started writing it down, and there was no 27-book canon until the 4th century. So you don’t trace the “scripture” (the canon we accept today) back to the apostles, we trace it to the decisions of the Catholic Church and her bishops of the 4th century. You know all this, yet you try hard to escape it.
I stated the apostles are the first line of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, and they were the “rule of faith” before a word of NT Scripture existed. The apostles appointed successors the bishops, and they became the guardians of the Scripture and Tradition as it was handed down. Apostolic succession is not some “vague” concept, but clearly defined in St. Irenaeus, etc.
If you can agree with Mathison, that the visible Church is an essential and true interpreter of Scripture, then we aren’t that far apart. Is the visible Church where “we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture” ? That’s what Mathison the Reformed Protestant says and I agree with that.
The next step then becomes the identification of that visible Church that Mathison talks about, specifically the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the Creeds.
Phil P
Here’s the problem: you don’t trace “scripture” back to them. There was no NT Scripture until the apostles started writing it down, and there was no 27-book canon until the 4th century. So you don’t trace the “scripture” (the canon we accept today) back to the apostles, we trace it to the decisions of the Catholic Church and her bishops of the 4th century. You know all this, yet you try hard to escape it.
I stated the apostles are the first line of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, and they were the “rule of faith” before a word of NT Scripture existed. The apostles appointed successors the bishops, and they became the guardians of the Scripture and Tradition as it was handed down. Apostolic succession is not some “vague” concept, but clearly defined in St. Irenaeus, etc.
If you can agree with Mathison, that the visible Church is an essential and true interpreter of Scripture, then we aren’t that far apart. Is the visible Church where “we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture” ? That’s what Mathison the Reformed Protestant says and I agree with that.
The next step then becomes the identification of that visible Church that Mathison talks about, specifically the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the Creeds.
Phil P
A
Apolonio
Guest
Jason: I don’t derive sola scriptura from 2 Timothy 3 in the manner you’re describing. See what I wrote on this subject in my debate with Phil Porvaznik in 2002, in my response to Question Three at:
Response:
I did go to the html you gave. You said:
“The best argument for sola scriptura is process of elimination. The scriptures are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Try proving that the same is true of the tradition of the Assumption of Mary. Or the papacy. Or numbering the sacraments at seven. Or the concept that all people must go through Mary in order to be saved. What Roman Catholicism asks us to add to scripture isn’t as credible as scripture.”
That begs the question though. Have you eliminated all the possibilities of the other rules of faith? Have you proven that there are no other infallible rule of faith?
I can even say that only Scripture is “God-breathed” or “inspired”. But that does not mean it is the only infallible rule of faith. Unwritten Tradition can still be a revelation from God (The Church, I don’t think, uses the word “inspired” when it comes to unwritten Tradition). Unwritten Tradition can be how we are supposed to interpret the Scriptures in a proper manner. For example, how are we to interpret John 3? How are we to interpret John 1? This is where Tradition comes in. Now, how are we to distinguish between what is true Tradition and the false one? By Scripture? In some sense, yes. But to say “just Scripture”, I don’t think, answers the question properly simply because Scripture must be interpreted. Interpreted by who? Catholics say, “The Church”. Now, you may even agree with those following points on how the Church has authority. But does the Church have final authority? Do we have to obey the Church’s teachings? I think those are the questions that must be answered from both sides and I believe that the Catholic position answers it more properly.
Jason: Sola scriptura doesn’t require the 66-book canon of Protestantism or the 27-book New Testament canon. Those who argue for sola scriptura from 2 Timothy 3 would argue that “all scripture” is a reference to all that’s in existence at the time, not all that ever will be in existence.
Response:
Let me get this right. Are you saying that if I only have 40 books in my Bible, I am still supposed to practice Sola Scriptura? I don’t understand that. If all scripture makes a man fully-equipped (understanding that revelation has been closed), then I do not think that anything less of “all” would make man fully-equipped simply because he is “missing” some of God’s Word; he does not have the fullness of God’s Word. And that brings me back to my question: How does a person who does not have all scripture get the fullness of God’s Word?
Jason: When Athanasius discusses the 27-book New Testament canon, he doesn’t refer to it as something he just accepted. It was something he refers to as a church tradition. Most likely there were others who held it before him. Eusebius refers to each of the 27 books being widely accepted before the time when Athanasius wrote, and some of the churches may have accepted all 27. The fact that Athanasius is the first person to list the 27 books in a document still extant doesn’t prove that nobody could have followed such a canon previously.
Response:
But what I’m asking is what about those churches which did not have all 27 books? Did they practice Sola Scripura? If not, how did the Holy Spirit bring them to all truth?
And when did the practice of Sola Scriptra begin?
Response:
I did go to the html you gave. You said:
“The best argument for sola scriptura is process of elimination. The scriptures are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Try proving that the same is true of the tradition of the Assumption of Mary. Or the papacy. Or numbering the sacraments at seven. Or the concept that all people must go through Mary in order to be saved. What Roman Catholicism asks us to add to scripture isn’t as credible as scripture.”
That begs the question though. Have you eliminated all the possibilities of the other rules of faith? Have you proven that there are no other infallible rule of faith?
I can even say that only Scripture is “God-breathed” or “inspired”. But that does not mean it is the only infallible rule of faith. Unwritten Tradition can still be a revelation from God (The Church, I don’t think, uses the word “inspired” when it comes to unwritten Tradition). Unwritten Tradition can be how we are supposed to interpret the Scriptures in a proper manner. For example, how are we to interpret John 3? How are we to interpret John 1? This is where Tradition comes in. Now, how are we to distinguish between what is true Tradition and the false one? By Scripture? In some sense, yes. But to say “just Scripture”, I don’t think, answers the question properly simply because Scripture must be interpreted. Interpreted by who? Catholics say, “The Church”. Now, you may even agree with those following points on how the Church has authority. But does the Church have final authority? Do we have to obey the Church’s teachings? I think those are the questions that must be answered from both sides and I believe that the Catholic position answers it more properly.
Jason: Sola scriptura doesn’t require the 66-book canon of Protestantism or the 27-book New Testament canon. Those who argue for sola scriptura from 2 Timothy 3 would argue that “all scripture” is a reference to all that’s in existence at the time, not all that ever will be in existence.
Response:
Let me get this right. Are you saying that if I only have 40 books in my Bible, I am still supposed to practice Sola Scriptura? I don’t understand that. If all scripture makes a man fully-equipped (understanding that revelation has been closed), then I do not think that anything less of “all” would make man fully-equipped simply because he is “missing” some of God’s Word; he does not have the fullness of God’s Word. And that brings me back to my question: How does a person who does not have all scripture get the fullness of God’s Word?
Jason: When Athanasius discusses the 27-book New Testament canon, he doesn’t refer to it as something he just accepted. It was something he refers to as a church tradition. Most likely there were others who held it before him. Eusebius refers to each of the 27 books being widely accepted before the time when Athanasius wrote, and some of the churches may have accepted all 27. The fact that Athanasius is the first person to list the 27 books in a document still extant doesn’t prove that nobody could have followed such a canon previously.
Response:
But what I’m asking is what about those churches which did not have all 27 books? Did they practice Sola Scripura? If not, how did the Holy Spirit bring them to all truth?
And when did the practice of Sola Scriptra begin?
J
JasonTE
Guest
_Christopher_:
catholicapologetics.info/origin.htm
Some of what you quoted is unclear, in the sense that it could be interpreted in a variety of ways, and some of it is misleading or false. For example, the claim that “In all the controversies on the Incarnation—the Arian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Monothelite—not only was the orthodoxy of Rome never impeached, but she even supplied at every crisis a rallying point for the orthodox of every church” is at least misleading. The Roman bishops Felix II and Liberius supported Arianism, for example, and other Roman bishops supported other anti-Trinitarian heresies. Even if you dismiss Felix II as an antipope and dismiss Liberius’ support of Arianism as unofficial in some sense, it’s still misleading to refer to how “the orthodoxy of Rome was never impeached” and to refer to Rome leading every other church. If having bishops who support heresy doesn’t keep a church from having “unimpeached orthodoxy”, then any church could claim to have “unimpeached orthodoxy”.
Rome did sometimes lead the opposition to heresy, but there were times when other churches led rather than Rome. Nobody would suggest that the bishops of those other churches were therefore Popes. For example, Jerome refers to a time when the Alexandrian bishop Theophilus led the churches of the world, including the Roman church, against heresy:
“The voice of your holiness [Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria] has rung throughout the world, and to the joy of all Christ’s churches the poisonous suggestions of the devil have been silenced…The presbyter Vincent has arrived from Rome two days ago and humbly salutes you. He tells me again and again that Rome and almost the whole of Italy owe their deliverance after Christ to your letters. Shew diligence therefore, most loving and most blessed pope, and whenever opportunity offers write to the bishops of the West not to hesitate - in your own words - to cut down with a sharp sickle the sprouts of evil.” (Letter 88)
Should we therefore conclude that the bishop of Alexandria was a Pope? No, and neither should we assume that the Roman church’s leadership in some disputes was a result of the Roman bishop being recognized as a Pope.
The consensus of modern scholars is that there was no papacy, defined as an office of universal jurisdiction, during the earliest generations of church history. Craig Keener, citing Jaroslav Pelikan, comments that “most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60)” (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], p. 425). The Roman Catholic historian Klaus Schatz comments:
“There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably ‘no.’…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer…Rome did not succeed in maintaining its position against the contrary opinion and praxis of a significant portion of the Church. The two most important controversies of this type were the disputes over the feast of Easter and heretical baptism. Each marks a stage in Rome’s sense of authority and at the same time reveals the initial resistance of other churches to the Roman claim.” (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2, 11)
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
I don’t have the encyclopedias you cited. One of them is from 1903, and the other is from 1940. I don’t know why you’re citing such dated encyclopedias, and without full documentation. Are you just copying and pasting something you found on the web? It seems that you got your quotes from the following site:
catholicapologetics.info/origin.htm
Some of what you quoted is unclear, in the sense that it could be interpreted in a variety of ways, and some of it is misleading or false. For example, the claim that “In all the controversies on the Incarnation—the Arian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Monothelite—not only was the orthodoxy of Rome never impeached, but she even supplied at every crisis a rallying point for the orthodox of every church” is at least misleading. The Roman bishops Felix II and Liberius supported Arianism, for example, and other Roman bishops supported other anti-Trinitarian heresies. Even if you dismiss Felix II as an antipope and dismiss Liberius’ support of Arianism as unofficial in some sense, it’s still misleading to refer to how “the orthodoxy of Rome was never impeached” and to refer to Rome leading every other church. If having bishops who support heresy doesn’t keep a church from having “unimpeached orthodoxy”, then any church could claim to have “unimpeached orthodoxy”.
Rome did sometimes lead the opposition to heresy, but there were times when other churches led rather than Rome. Nobody would suggest that the bishops of those other churches were therefore Popes. For example, Jerome refers to a time when the Alexandrian bishop Theophilus led the churches of the world, including the Roman church, against heresy:
“The voice of your holiness [Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria] has rung throughout the world, and to the joy of all Christ’s churches the poisonous suggestions of the devil have been silenced…The presbyter Vincent has arrived from Rome two days ago and humbly salutes you. He tells me again and again that Rome and almost the whole of Italy owe their deliverance after Christ to your letters. Shew diligence therefore, most loving and most blessed pope, and whenever opportunity offers write to the bishops of the West not to hesitate - in your own words - to cut down with a sharp sickle the sprouts of evil.” (Letter 88)
Should we therefore conclude that the bishop of Alexandria was a Pope? No, and neither should we assume that the Roman church’s leadership in some disputes was a result of the Roman bishop being recognized as a Pope.
The consensus of modern scholars is that there was no papacy, defined as an office of universal jurisdiction, during the earliest generations of church history. Craig Keener, citing Jaroslav Pelikan, comments that “most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60)” (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], p. 425). The Roman Catholic historian Klaus Schatz comments:
“There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably ‘no.’…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer…Rome did not succeed in maintaining its position against the contrary opinion and praxis of a significant portion of the Church. The two most important controversies of this type were the disputes over the feast of Easter and heretical baptism. Each marks a stage in Rome’s sense of authority and at the same time reveals the initial resistance of other churches to the Roman claim.” (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2, 11)
Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
- Status