Not the same God?

[PRmerger]

That’s somewhat irrelevant – unless you’re proposing that the NT isn’t inspired Scripture?

I am only proposing that if you are affirming that we do what the Bereans did, then we must search only the Old Testament.

So it’s curious that you would offer us the Bereans as an example of how to discern the gospel.

 

[PRmerger]

If you review the posts, you would see that I did not use the Berean example to support sola Scriptura.

Fair enough.

Is what “Sacred Tradition”? What Paul preached he later wrote down as inspired Scripture otherwise we wouldn’t even know about it. That has nothing to do with tradition.

Do you have a verse that supports that everything Paul preached he later wrote down? Book, chapter and verse, please.

If not, then how do you know this? How is it that you’re so assured that everything he preached was put to writ?

If by “paradosis” you mean a combo of Scripture and tradition, we know that much “tradition” is neither confirmed or affirmed in Scripture nor can it be reasonably derived from it.

Can you give an example of (Sacred) Tradition that is not confirmed or affirmed in Scripture?

 

[kelman]

@ Kelman: If scripture alone is the authority, then how do I know if using contraception is or is not ok in the eyes of God?

We can trust God to give the children He desires….lot’s of people do just that you know. Trust and obedience comes from the reading of inspired Scripture – it is this which gives faith (Rom 10:17).

An excellent place to start would be Psalm 127 it’s a testament to God’s faithfulness to His children.

Verse 3-5: ”Sons are a heritage from the LORD , children a reward from him. 4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. 5 Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.”

 

[kelman]

That’s somewhat irrelevant – unless you’re proposing that the NT isn’t inspired Scripture?

The Bereans were brought a spiritual message. They determined from the available Scripture that this message was true. Today, we have the full revelation of God written down for us in inspired Scripture to determine if a spiritual message is true. So, we’re actually in better shape than were the Bereans, unfortunately, so many won’t follow the example God gives for determining truth.

Is what “Sacred Tradition”? What Paul preached he later wrote down as inspired Scripture otherwise we wouldn’t even know about it. That has nothing to do with tradition

Do you have a verse that supports that everything Paul preached he later wrote down? Book, chapter and verse, please.

I didn’t say Paul wrote down every word he ever preached. However, the context tells us exactly what Paul was preaching.

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

If by “paradosis” you mean a combo of Scripture and tradition, we know that much “tradition” is neither confirmed or affirmed in Scripture nor can it be reasonably derived from it.

Can you give an example of (Sacred) Tradition that is not confirmed or affirmed in Scripture?

The assumption of Mary, for one.

 

[Josh316]

We can trust God to give the children He desires….lot’s of people do just that you know. Trust and obedience comes from the reading of inspired Scripture – it is this which gives faith (Rom 10:17).

An excellent place to start would be Psalm 127 it’s a testament to God’s faithfulness to His children.

Verse 3-5: ”Sons are a heritage from the LORD , children a reward from him. 4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. 5 Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.”

Which does absolutely NOTHING to answer my question. Please look at my question again. While we’re at it, where in scripture does it deal with abortion? Is abortion a sin? How do you know? If you say yes, and that the Holy Spirit is guiding you, then what of those christians who claim the same, yet are pro-choice?

 

[kelman]

I see that I’ve missed a number of your posts. This one is from Jan 12…better late than never I guess. Hope by now you’re well on your way toward recovery.

Christ established His Church upon a rock solid foundation and
declared that the gates of hades, or forces of evil, would not prevail
against it (S. Matt. 16: 18). This implies the perpetual retention of
the truth taught by Christ, thus precluding its corruption as touching
the faith.

Mat 16:18 is a promise to the church: the body of Christ universal not to any particular church. You force speculation, personal preferences and leaps of logic into this verse. God’s church was established upon the foundation that the Apostles and prophets laid – the Lord Jesus Christ – not on any other. To assert otherwise is to ignore the Word of God. The only way “the perpetual retention of the truth taught by Christ” is accomplished is by the writing down of God-breathed Scripture. Anything else is simply what man thinks is a good idea of what God should have done instead of humbly bowing to what He has in fact said He actually did. The solid “Rock” upon whom the church was established is Christ alone – no other. Scripture is clear on this matter and it’s really a shame to ignore it.

1Cor 3:11 ** For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.**

He commanded her to teach all nations, “teching them to
observe all that I have commanded you”; and behold, I am with you
always, to the close of the age" (St. Matt. 28: 20). His abiding
presence in the Church guarantees that she will ever teach a doctrine
identical with His own principles.

This is a leap in logic for it is no guarantee of Rome’s infallibility. It is a command to teach what Christ taught them and it is also a command to not teach anything else. Has the RCC obeyed this command? I believe the evidence demonstrates it has not.

He promised that the Holy Spirit
would abide with the Church forever, undoubtedly a pledge of perpetual
infallibility, for Christ would first be with the Apostles and then
their successors (that is the only way that He could be with them “for
ever” cf. S. Jhn. 14: 16).

”Undoubtedly”?..no, this is pure conjection with no evidence that infallibility is in view or succession in the RCC sense.

St. Paul clearly manifests this doctrine by
his words, “…the household of God, which is the Church of the living
God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (I Tim. 3: 15). You will
observe that St. Paul does not say that Sacred Scripture is “the
pillar and bulwark of the truth”, but rather “the Church of the living
God”.

Does this verse say that the church is the “truth”?..absolutely not. Rather it is the Word of God which is the “truth” and if the church does its job properly as a pillar, Scripture will be upheld.

John 17:17 ** Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.**

Alas, those Christian bodies which, since the time of the
Reformation, have put themselves outside of the Church and the
Apostolic Succession because of alleged “supersitions” and “accretions
to what is pure and primitive”, have extensively declined from the
true Catholic faith and this decline continues unremittingly and
nothing seems capable of arresting it.

Of course nothing will “arrest” the spread of God’s Word and “it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” I praise and thank God everyday that by His grace He has made provision that His truth is preached throughout the world without extraneous extrabiblical doctrines attempting to bind men’s consciences. Doctrines that lead away from and not to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Much the same could
be said for all of the mainline Protestant denominations - but not for
the Catholic Church which has been, and is, a beacon of light and hope
amidst the doctrinal indifference of Protestantism.

There’s no “doctrinal indifference” in my church that’s for sure. I don’t see a beacon of light and hope in the RCC. Where is the hope or light to be found when a church teaches what God has not provided?

Indeed, if the Catholic Church be not infallible,
then there is no Church on earth which is such as our Lord predicted
it.

Except, of course, Christ did not predict that any individual or any church would be “infallible”. Who says the RCC is “infallible”?..the RCC does, that’s all. Neither Scripture or the early church knew anything of Rome’s “infallibility”. This is simply a doctrine “developed” and not through particularly honest methods.

Individuals in all ages have fallen into error in so far as they have
departed from the teachings of the Catholic Church established by
Christ and, in falling into error, they have fallen out of the Church,
even as the Protestant Reformers themselves.

To have rejected the RCC is not to reject the church begun by God. It is to wholeheartedly embrace that which God calls Theopneustos. The problem here is a total misunderstanding of what “church” is. Even a cursory examination demonstrates that the RCC of today holds little resemblance to what we find “church” is in Scripture.

The conclusion that God should give us an infallible church needs to be demonstrated, not just assumed on the basis of personal preference or allegedly unacceptable consequences of not having an infallible church, for example….and this neither you or your church has ever been able to do.

 

[kelman]

God gave authority to the churches to teach, of that there is no
doubt. However, He did not give an “infallible” ability to teach – we
do not find that anywhere. I have accepted the teaching authority of
the Apostles – the inspired Scriptures they penned. Why would I accept
all sorts of doctrines, dogmas and practices that the Apostles did not
pen?

And yet we see no evidence of God giving the church of Rome jurisdictional authority and you if insist that He did then I would ask for the evidence. Essentially isn’t God telling us that no one has this “charism of infallibility” when Peter demonstrated at Antioch that he would draw men and women away from the true Gospel? So, we see that Peter did not have the “charism of infallibility”, aside from the Scripture he penned. Therefore, the weight of evidence falls on the side that no on has this “charism” and that no one would include popes.

The Catholic Church has never added a single teaching of dogmatic
value which was not contained in the original teachings of the
Apostles.

The Apostles wrote about the Assumption of Mary where? Just because some people think their private preferences concerning Mary is something God should do can hardly qualify as sufficient reason to dogmatize their personal opinions which we see has no basis in Scripture. So here we see that the RCC has “added” to Scripture and even to tradition since this doctrine was foreign to the churches for at least the first five centuries and probably longer. Don’t know the first person who began speculating about this.

 

[kelman]

Which does absolutely NOTHING to answer my question. Please look at my question again.

Actually, I would say that Scripture just addressed your concerns quite specifically. It is up to God how many children He gives, therefore, we don’t attempt to thwart His will.

While we’re at it, where in scripture does it deal with abortion? Is abortion a sin? How do you know? If you say yes, and that the Holy Spirit is guiding you, then what of those christians who claim the same, yet are pro-choice?

Again, God addresses your question specifically in the sixth commandment found in Ex 20:13 - “Thou shalt not murder”.

 

[Contarini]

Existing evidence supports that the earlier translations did not contain the Apocrypha. Did the “Christian” copies of the 4th century include the Apocrypha…yes. However, there’s little reason to suppose that the copies from some six hundred years earlier contained the Apocrypha. Athanasius (296-373), bishop of Alexandria where the Septuagint was produced, did not include the Apocryha in his list of OT books. Additionally, Cyril of Jerusalem, writing in the fourth century, catalogued the OT books which were canonical and which, he said, were translated by the Septuagint translators, and he also did not include the writings of the Apocrypha. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures IV.33–36

This doesn’t make any sense. Your supposed evidence for the earlier translations itself comes from the fourth century, when, as you point out, we have manuscripts that do include the Apocrypha. You jump to the conclusion that this points to “earlier copies” that didn’t include the additional books. But that’s simply a convenient guess on your part.

There’s no evidence that the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha. Melito of Sardis said he went to Palestine to determine the extent of the Hebrew OT

That, of course, is not the point under discussion. It’s a non sequitur. We are talking about the LXX, not the Hebrew.

I agree that it’s somewhat of a mystery how these books got into the LXX manuscripts. It’s certainly possible that you are right and that earlier manuscripts didn’t include them (of course, this assumes that it was common to have manuscripts of the complete OT Scriptures in the first place). But as far as I know we have no direct evidence for such manuscripts. The evidence we have indicates that early Christians found these additional books in their Greek copies of the OT, alongside the books found in the Hebrew canon.

The Lord never quoted from it and He Himself officially gave us the extent of the Hebrew canon when He cited ”the law, the prophets and the psalms”.

So you reject all the Writings except for the Psalms? You reject the wisdom literature, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Song of Songs, Lamentations, even Daniel?

OK, I’ll give you Daniel because the NT considers Daniel a prophet. . . . .

I see false assumptions and rather blatant RCC “manifestly obvious” motives at work.

Actually the Reformers were kicked out – were they not?

I fail to see what’s at stake in one phrase or the other. The aversion between the Reformers and the Papacy was mutual.

These men, and many others, did more than “cast doubt” they dogmatically stated that the Apocrypha was not inspired Scripture

No, that’s too strong. Jerome, for instance, was certainly not dogmatic on the subject–in fact, I believe he later claimed that he had simply been describing the Jewish canon and not prescribing that the Christian canon should be the same. (Granted, consistency was not Jerome’s strong suit:shrug:.)

There is sufficient evidence that the Jews never included the Apocrypha amongst inspired Scripture.

No, I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to make such a confident statement. Furthermore, the Ethiopian Jews allegedly use a larger canon than mainstream Judaism. If so, that would constitute evidence against your claim.

We’re told in the Bible that God committed His very oracles to the Jews – how do we dare to say otherwise?

It does not follow that the Jewish leaders who rejected Jesus have the right to determine which Jewish books contain God’s oracles. That all the OT books are Jewish is not under dispute.

Athanasius does include Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah as part of Jeremiah, and he excludes Esther. This is something you have consistently failed to note, because it complicates the clear-cut picture you want to point. Furthermore, Athanasius clearly is talking about the Hebrew canon (even as he is obviously citing the books in their LXX order), since he gives 22 books to match the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

So obviously, Jesus and the Apostles didn’t consider those books OT Scripture.

Both you and your RC opponents are too fond of words such as “obviously.” There’s little obvious about this.

We both know why the RCC embraced the Apocrypha – because it’s possible to interpret certain apocryphal texts as support for some of its doctrines…purgatory for one.

Given the RC affirmation of oral tradition (and given that prayer for the dead that they may be loosed from sin is a particularly plausible example of oral tradition, since it occurs in 2 Maccabees–canonical or not–and in the martyrdom of Perpetua, and maybe even in 2 Timothy), that’s a rather unconvincing charge. It’s certainly not something we “know”–it’s something you surmise because it suits your polemical purpose.

In fact, the general practice of the Western Church since the fourth century had been to include these books. Whether or not this was a correct practice, it constitutes sufficient reason for Trent’s decision. Trent consistently affirmed traditional Western Catholic practices (even when the tradition was much less ancient than this, as with communion in one kind) over against reformist criticisms.

Edwin

 

[Josh316]

Actually, I would say that Scripture just addressed your concerns quite specifically. It is up to God how many children He gives, therefore, we don’t attempt to thwart His will.

Again, God addresses your question specifically in the sixth commandment found in Ex 20:13 - “Thou shalt not murder”.

Of course you are right that we should never go against God’s will, but you have still not given scripture to prove one way or another as to whether or not contraception is sinful. And how do we determine at what stage a fetus is considered a human being, so that we can determine whether or not, say a two week old embryo, would be capable of being murdered? Also, I ask you again, what of those christians who know scripture as well as you, yet come to different conclusions about what constitutes murder, and therfore are pro-choice? One last thing, my brother is extremly well versed in scripture (He’s baptist by the way) and doesn’t feel that that particular verse condems contraception. He is also a believer in sola scriptura. What makes your interpretation any more valid than his?

 

[Portrait]

Which does absolutely NOTHING to answer my question. Please look at my question again. While we’re at it, where in scripture does it deal with abortion? Is abortion a sin? How do you know? If you say yes, and that the Holy Spirit is guiding you, then what of those christians who claim the same, yet are pro-choice?

Dear Josh316,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said, for your comment evinces most powerfully the whole problem that heirs of the Reformation principle sola scripture encounter with issues not directly addressed by the bible.

What does one do when the Sacred Scripture simply does not present a clear teaching on some matter of crucial importance? Surely this is a pressing matter in our own day since so many moral questions, most them highly contentious, are products of the modern age. God’s word simply does not discuss things like* in vitro* fertilization, human cloning, atomic warfare or global warming. When there are disagreements and when the bible does not speak clearly, who decides the issues? In other words, who interprets the bible for our present needs? It is either up to you and me or some other unerring authority greater than both of us.

The usual Protestant response is to argue that these moral questions of the modern age can be dealt with by application of ‘tradition’, reason and experience to the broad sweep of the biblical story and the doctrinal building blocks that underlie it (what the scholars term the biblical ‘meta-narrative’). This is said to give us the guidance that we need in arriving at the right answers. This is perfectly true up to a point and the Catholic Church does turn to these principles as well as competent medical and scientific authorities to assist her in coming to the correct decisions. However, the problem still remains unresolved, for even with all the professional consultation and discussion in world, somebody still must needs make a final decision. Who is best placed to make a decision on global and moral issues?; who is best placed to decide what the Christian position is on any contentious matter? Surely the best authority to decide is the one which is oldest, largest and most universal, and who therefore sees the biggest picture: in other words, the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” founded upon St. Peter.

A warm welcome to our discussion. Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Josh316]

@portrait: My goodness, you’re very polite and welcoming. Thank you very much and may Christ be with you brother (Or sister). The thing is, as you obviously are well aware, to point to science or any other source to determine the morality of todays issues is ok for a catholic, but to supporters of sola scriptura this concept undermines the very term in and of itself because to go to science is to use a source outside of scripture. How this gets past some people makes no sense to me. Oh well, I guess that’s why I’m catholic, that and if not for the Eucharist I’d be completely lost in every possible way.

 

[Contarini]

The councils of Hippo and Carthage listed 1 and 2 Esdras found in the Septuagint as canonical. “In this version 1 Esdras is the Apocryphal additions to Ezra while 2 Esdras is the Jewish verion of Ezra-Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. The Council of Trent however states that 1 Esdras is actually Ezra from the Jewish canon and 2 Esdras is Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. Trent omits the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras. Secondly, Hippo and Carthage state that Solomon wrote 5 books of the Old Testament when in actuality he wrote only 3.”

I’m not sure what you think that last sentence is proving, especially since most modern scholars would doubt that Solomon wrote any books of the OT at all–possibly parts of Proverbs come from him.

For the rest, I’ll gladly rant that the fourth-century Councils differed from Trent about as much as Athanasius’s canon differs from the Protestant/Jewish canon! The point is that they do accept most of the “Apocrypha.” Trent did not make this up in order to defend Catholic doctrines questioned by Protestants, as you absurdly claim.

Bottom line here: the canon is messy.

Of course, the Holy Spirit led the early church to recognize inspired books. However, there is no authoritative apostolic teaching other than inspired Scripture.

Petitio principii. This is what Protestants claim and Catholics/Orthodox deny.

To claim that the apostles did not write down all God’s revelation to them is to claim that they were not obedient to their prophetic commission not to subtract a word from what God revealed to them.

That’s another huge leap. Writing down what God inspired them to write down, while transmitting other things orally, does not constitute “subtracting a word.” And you’re assuming that apostolic inspiration works the same way as prophetic.

While there are differences, just as the RCC and EO have their differences, nevertheless, all agree with the essential tenets of Christianity and are in true spiritual unity with other believers in contrast to mere external organizational uniformity.

Of course you can posit a “spiritual” church of “true believers” and claim that it believes anything you find it convenient to claim it believes, since such a church is beyond empirical confirmation.

But speaking of things that we can actually assess, I repeat: it’s pretty hard to find a unity among sola scriptura churches that they don’t have with Catholics and Orthodox as well. Furthermore, the essentials of the Christian Faith as found in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds have been questioned by quite a few folks over the past five centuries in the name of sola scriptura–the Trinity is the most obvious example of this. So in fact, there are sola scriptura believers who do not believe in the essentials of the faith as you and I would define them, and as they are shared by Trinitarian Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. Of course you can always explain this away by saying that such people aren’t really following sola scriptura. All I can do is show how often your position requires you to engage in this kind of spiritualism ex machina.

Liberalism has invaded all churches including the RCC.

Another non sequitur. Liberal/conservative fights are just one large subset of the conflicts I’m talking about.

You are certainly right that there are a lot more differences among Catholics than the “orthodox” Catholics of this forum like to admit.

When we compare the differences with orthodox Roman Catholics and orthodox Protestants or with all Roman Catholics and all Protestants on the more essential doctrines, there is no significant edge for Roman Catholicism.

First of all, the kind of doctrinal conflict that exists in Catholicism today is a relatively recent phenomenon. While there has certainly always been a wide range of diversity and disagreement, until Vatican II I think it’s fair to say that Catholicism has far more doctrinal unity/uniformity than Protestantism. Some Catholics would say that Catholicism has come to look too much like Protestantism since Vatican II! I regard the uniformity that reigned (to a great extent) between Trent and Vatican II as rather unhealthy, so I wouldn’t hold it up as a point of Catholic superiority. But I think we need to consider the following two points:

1. It’s much easier for Catholics to say what “orthodox” Catholicism is than for Protestants to say what “orthodox” Protestantism is, and it’s easier for Catholics to explain why one should be an “orthodox” Catholic. Conservative Catholics say that orthodoxy is defined by the Magisterium (in agreement with Scripture and Tradition, of course), and they say that the Magisterium is guided by the Spirit. You and other “orthodox Protestants” say that orthodoxy is defined by Scripture–yet you differ with many others who also appeal to Scripture. In effect, your orthodoxy is defined by an adherence to the traditions of the Reformation, yet you have no theological ground for claiming these traditions to be authoritative. Your position is thus rather shaky. I don’t care deeply about this issue, because I find “orthodox Catholicism” a rather dubious proposition in many ways as well, at least the narrow form of orthodoxy often touted on this forum.

 

[Contarini]

1. The more significant consideration for me is that Protestantism seems to have an irreconcilable conflict between unity and truth (unless you adopt the cop-out of claiming that you have unity with all “true believers”). You can’t be unequivocally committed to unity, because you have to keep checking that the folks you are in communion with have true doctrine. Or else you have to stop worrying about true doctrine. If infallibility is true–and I go back and forth on this–its purpose is not to give absolute certainty (as silly conservative Catholics often claim) but to allow Christians to commit themselves unequivocally to union with a worldwide Christian community in union with the bishop of Rome, confident that this community will not dogmatically teach error, however much uncertainty and error may be present in it.

Besides, ** all** men are fallible sinful creatures, some with faulty hermeneutics, and filled with their traditions, therefore, we cannot lay the blame for these divisions at the feet of the doctrine of sola Scriptura or the need for an “infallible” authority.

That division results from human sin and error is clear. But your vision of authority leaves us no effective way of caring about both unity and truth.

Especially, since one does not exist.

How are you so sure? I never cease to be amazed by the number of things that people on this forum are sure of!

The proof that sola scriptura is true is straightforward - since the Bible is God speaking to us, and since God is the highest authority, no authority can be higher than the Bible, and only God can be equal in authority to the Bible.

You assume that the Bible is the only way God speaks to us.

I don’t claim to know all true sola Scriptura practicing churches but of the ones I know they are very definitely sole fide churches. What churches are you referring to?

The “Restoration” or “Campbellite” movement (Christian Churches/Churches of Christ) would be the best example, with the Anabaptists a close second. Campbellites are second to none in their affirmation of sola scriptura–they rejected sola fide because they rejected the [mutated] Augustinianism of the Reformed tradition as unscriptural.The Methodists (and Holiness/Pentecostal groups) are a more dubious example.

Not at all, if all sola Scriptura churches agree on what is “essential”. You can’t lump together all non-Catholic denominations that are not Reformational churches.

Depends on what you mean by “Reformational.” If you mean “stemming from the Reformation historically” then that would be all Western Christians not in communion with Rome except the Old Catholics on one hand and the Waldenses and Hussites on the other (and the latter groups have essentially been assimilated to Reformational Protestantism).

Nothing to do with perception – it is simply fact. These two churches don’t agree on the canon of the Bibles, Purgatory & Indulgences and the Treasury of Merit, the Immaculate Conception, created grace, original sin, Marian Dogma of the Bodily Assumption, teachings on Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Midiatrix, priestly celibacy, teaching on mortal and venial sins, teaching on Holy days of obligation, the teaching on Transubstantiation from Thomas Aquainas use of substance and accidents, the practice of eucharistic adoration, the Roman Catholic teaching/practice on Confession as opposed to the Orthodox teaching/practice of Confession, just to mention a few. They are not permitted to commune in the Eucharist in Roman Catholic Churches. They do not have a first Holy Communion or practice Confirmation. The EO has no altar “girls” or eucharistic ministers. They do not sing happy, clappy praise and worship songs, they don’t support a Charismatic “movement”

It is certainly a matter of perception whether these differences are more major than the differences among Protestants. I see most of them as pretty minor–most Catholics agree with me. Most Orthodox today do not.

Edwin

 

[Portrait]

This doesn’t make any sense. Your supposed evidence for the earlier translations itself comes from the fourth century, when, as you point out, we have manuscripts that do include the Apocrypha. You jump to the conclusion that this points to “earlier copies” that didn’t include the additional books. But that’s simply a convenient guess on your part.

That, of course, is not the point under discussion. It’s a non sequitur. We are talking about the LXX, not the Hebrew.

I agree that it’s somewhat of a mystery how these books got into the LXX manuscripts. It’s certainly possible that you are right and that earlier manuscripts didn’t include them (of course, this assumes that it was common to have manuscripts of the complete OT Scriptures in the first place). But as far as I know we have no direct evidence for such manuscripts. The evidence we have indicates that early Christians found these additional books in their Greek copies of the OT, alongside the books found in the Hebrew canon.

So you reject all the Writings except for the Psalms? You reject the wisdom literature, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Song of Songs, Lamentations, even Daniel?

OK, I’ll give you Daniel because the NT considers Daniel a prophet. . . . .

I see false assumptions and rather blatant RCC “manifestly obvious” motives at work.

I fail to see what’s at stake in one phrase or the other. The aversion between the Reformers and the Papacy was mutual.

No, that’s too strong. Jerome, for instance, was certainly not dogmatic on the subject–in fact, I believe he later claimed that he had simply been describing the Jewish canon and not prescribing that the Christian canon should be the same. (Granted, consistency was not Jerome’s strong suit:shrug:.)

No, I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to make such a confident statement. Furthermore, the Ethiopian Jews allegedly use a larger canon than mainstream Judaism. If so, that would constitute evidence against your claim.

It does not follow that the Jewish leaders who rejected Jesus have the right to determine which Jewish books contain God’s oracles. That all the OT books are Jewish is not under dispute.

Athanasius does include Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah as part of Jeremiah, and he excludes Esther. This is something you have consistently failed to note, because it complicates the clear-cut picture you want to point. Furthermore, Athanasius clearly is talking about the Hebrew canon (even as he is obviously citing the books in their LXX order), since he gives 22 books to match the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

Both you and your RC opponents are too fond of words such as “obviously.” There’s little obvious about this.

Given the RC affirmation of oral tradition (and given that prayer for the dead that they may be loosed from sin is a particularly plausible example of oral tradition, since it occurs in 2 Maccabees–canonical or not–and in the martyrdom of Perpetua, and maybe even in 2 Timothy), that’s a rather unconvincing charge. It’s certainly not something we “know”–it’s something you surmise because it suits your polemical purpose.

In fact, the general practice of the Western Church since the fourth century had been to include these books. Whether or not this was a correct practice, it constitutes sufficient reason for Trent’s decision. Trent consistently affirmed traditional Western Catholic practices (even when the tradition was much less ancient than this, as with communion in one kind) over against reformist criticisms.

Edwin

Dear Edwin,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well and welcome back to the discussion.

Jolly good points above and I will also be addressing kelman’s post regarding the wider canon in due course.

BTW, thankyou for your response to my post on your thread starter, “The Spiral Argument”, and my sincere apologies for not replying but I have been devoting the whole of my time to the current discussion with kelman. It is my intention to respond to you on that thread at some point, so please bear with me, dear brother. Thankyou for your patience.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. kelman

Dear kelman,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your well wishes, my dear brother, but unfortunately my condition has worsened and I have had to take to my bed. However, it does afford me a good opportunity to reply to more of your posts.

Kelman I would like to deal with some of your posts under the general heading of the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church, which as you say is the real bone of contention between us. In point of fact this is the chief contention between Rome and the churches of the Reformation and if the Catholic Church demonstrates that she alone today is under the government of the lawful successors of St. Peter and the Apostles, that is to say that she is Apostolic, then she has proved that she is the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” founded by Christ and the debate is over.

The following proves that the Pope and the Bishops are the legitimate successors of St. Peter and Apostles:

1. Christ placed His Church under the government of the Apostles with St. Peter as the chief Pastor and Ruler (will prove that this is so in subsequent post). He promised to be with them “all days, even to the consummation of the world” (S. Matt. 28: 20), thus implying that St. Peter and his brother Apostles would continue to rule the Church until the end of time. However, since the Apostles are dead, how do they still rule the Church, certainly not by the bible since Christ promised to be with them not a book - “behold, I am with you always”. Our Lord knew that men would argue over the interpretation of a book without a greater authority (as Protestantism does) to decide for them. No, in some way He promised to be with His Apostles in a very real sense. The only satisfying answer is that the Apostles continue to rule authoritatively through their legitimate successors. The Catholic Church alone claims that she is ruled by the successor of St. Peter and that Christ accepts the Pope as the successor of St. Peter, and the Bishops as successors of the other Apostles.
2. The Catholic Church’s unique claim to possess the precise form of apostolicity given by Christ to His Church must be true, because, if it were spurious, then the Church which he built on the rock of Peter would no longer exist in the world, and, a gross absurdity, Christ would have failed to His promise that she would endure forever.

Christ with His omnipotence will see to it that St. Peter and the Apostles will always be represented in lawful succession by the Pope and the Bishops. This is so beautifully summed up in the celebrated phrase of St. Ambrose (d. 397), *Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia *(“Where Peter is, there is the Church”, Commentary on the Psalms, Ps. 40, n. 30 (PL 14: 1082).

The Church’s apostolicity has never suffered and will never suffer any interruption (unlike the church of England). We know that the apostolicity of the Catholic Church was not broken for any period in the past, and will not be broken during any period in the future. How can we make such a dogmatic assertion? It is evident from the words of Christ: He did not promise His help merely for this century or that, or for this year or that, but for “all days” until the end of time (S. Matt. 28: 20).

1. There is a very strong hint that Christ intended St. Peter to hand on the keys to his successors. First of all, the idea of aline of succession was central to our Lord’s own religious understanding because He recognised that the Pharisees, for all of their failings as men, were the successors of Moses and sat in Moses’ seat (S. Matt. 23: 2). More importantly, the Petrine passage in St. Matthew 16 refers back to Isaiah 22: 22 (this is acknowledged even by Protestant exegetes) where Eliakim receives the keys of authority to be prime minister. Shebna is handing over the keys to his successor Eliakim. Now in the Jewish court as well as in other kingdoms of the ancient Near East, the role of the prime minister or vizier was the continuing office with a vital line of succession. The keys themselves are a symbol of the ongoing nature of the office. Thus when Christ handed St. Peter the keys it was understood that He was instituting a traditional, ongoing office and the keys were the sign that there would be a successor.
2. If our Lord did not intend there to be any succession, then His command to St Peter to feed His sheep surely becomes a nonsense. Does Christ mean Peter is to feed His sheep until the end of Peter’s life and from henceforward God will leave His people without a shepherd? St. Peter recognises that his immediate successors share his personal ministry (I Pet. 5: 1) and the early Church believed it universally. It is sad to hear well-meaning Protestants say that they believe “the faith once delivered unto the saints”, but then reject as a part of that very faith the primacy of St. Peter and his successors, even when it is shown to have a biblical basis, universal acceptance in the early Church and acceptance for the first fifteen hundred years of Christendom.

To be continued.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[PRmerger]

The assumption of Mary, for one.

Just curious, kelman: do you believe in the Rapture (as defined here)?

 

[PRmerger]

The assumption of Mary, for one.

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.
source: scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VI

 

[PRmerger]

The Bereans were brought a spiritual message. They determined from the available Scripture that this message was true.

Exactly. As the kerygma had not yet been fully revealed, they used that which was available to them.

We do, too. That is the example of the Bereans that we must follow. Use what’s available to us, right?

So, now that we have the fullness of revelation, we, too, must avail ourselves of that–Scripture AND Tradition. And thus we will be following the example of the Bereans.

Today, we have the full revelation of God written down for us in inspired Scripture to determine if a spiritual message is true.

You’ll have to provide a verse that says the “full revelation of God” was written down.

Otherwise, what you have succumbed to is a man-made tradition. You have heard from a man, who heard it from another man, who heard it from another man, that the “full revelation of God” was written down.

But you never read that in a single page of the Bible.

And that makes it a tradition. Something you’ve believed because you were told it orally.

So, we’re actually in better shape than were the Bereans, unfortunately, so many won’t follow the example God gives for determining truth.

:sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t say Paul wrote down every word he ever preached.

Excellent. That puts you in a very good position to be receptive to the idea that not everything proclaimed by the apostles was written down.

And if one is a Christian, one would think that every single word uttered by one so close and so inspired would be important, yes? I mean, if Paul came to your church today would you not hang on every word he proclaimed? Or would you only listen to what he wrote?