Protestants and doctrinal development

[michaelp]

Why would unwritten tradition lose reliablity?

Because it is unwritten. There is no way to gaurantee that as it passes through the minds of people (sinners) that it is not lost or misrepresented. Do you think that unwritten tradition that is 2000 years old would hold up in a court of law? Why not? There is your answer.

What if God is behind the unwritten tradition?

That would be one thing. What compels you to believe that He was behind it? So great is this evidence that you would bet your life on it and submit to the bearer of this Tradition.

Matt 16? Come on . . . John 21 . . . again eisegesis.

Is He only limited to writing?

God is not limited to anything. But are we just supposed to believe anyone who says that they bear God’s word. Read Deut 13 and 18. He can speak any way He chooses, but it has to be varified.

God help us if we ever lose the ability to read…Wait, that was the state that most people lived in until fairly recently. I guess God dropped the ball in letting literacy develope so late in history.

Come on . . . this is a straw man. My children can’t read, but they fall under the authority of the word of God alone. You don’t have to be able to read to have the message of the Scripture communicated to you. Do you really think that you do? Really?

Where is you evidence for this? If I can show you a “sacramental” theology in the early Church would you concede that it is not a later develpment?

Sure. But it must look like your sacramental system today. It can’t be just references to people taking the body and blood of Christ. It has to be that if you miss one Sunday of Mass, you go to hell. Baptism removes the effects of original sin alone. Holy orders give you the ability to dispense the merits of Christ.

In other words, it can’t be just references to these things in general, because even in that I will find my tradition as well. It must be a duplicate of the current RC system.

Truth is not about likes or dislikes, it is objective. Can you honestly say that what you believe that differs from the historical church is supported by the consensus of belief prior to the 16th century?

Neither of us look like the Church at any point of history. We all have changed.

Our goal is not to look like some primitive church that had not been throught the trials of history that were meant to mature us. We should look different. We should look better. We have a better understanding of many doctrines (Trinity, Atonement, Salvation, Christology). If you want to go back before Anselm and find yourself completely there, fine . . . but you will be a heretic. Do you want to find yourself before Nicea? Fine, you will be a subordinationalist or Arian.

You see, we don’t need to look exactly like the first century Church, the Early Church, or the Medeval Church. It would be like me saying to you, you don’t look like you did when you were a kid, so therefore something is wrong. No, everything is right . . . you have grown up and continue to grow. If you looked like you did when you were 5, you would have problems.

It is all in the way you view development. Protestants find ourselves in the early Church, just like I find myself in a picture of myself when I was 5. I am different now, but still the same.

Catholics are the same. They are different now, but they claim to be the same because their methodology demands it.

Again, good to talk with you,

Michael

 

[rlg94086]

michaelp:

It is all in the way you view development. Protestants find ourselves in the early Church, just like I find myself in a picture of myself when I was 5. I am different now, but still the same.

Catholics are the same. They are different now, but they claim to be the same because their methodology demands it.

Again, good to talk with you,

Michael

Hi Michael,

That’s not accurate. We don’t claim to be the exact same, we claim to have major doctrinal roots in the Fathers teachings. Non-Catholics pick-and-choose the roots based on their own interpretations. We accept all of the Church Father’s views, even if some of the doctrines later evolved.

Example:

Acts 2:46 Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart.

This is the root of the two parts of our Mass - Liturgy of the Word (temple) and Liturgy of the Eucharist (home). When they booted us out of the temple area, we built churches and did both in a church. A reading of the Didache, while not exactly matching, lays out the same basic prayers and actions of our Church today.

We agree that things change through history. To deny it is silly. The first Masses were in the vernacular. The Latin Mass was instituted at some point (I’m not willing to look that up at this time, and the actual timing is irrelevant to my point.) as a standard. Now, we are back to the vernacular…at least most of us .

Similarly, confession in the Early Church consisted of public confession. Private confession was instituted later. Penance for mortal sin used to last months or years before someone could receive the Eucharist again.

It looks to me like what you are doing through the lens of Sola Scriptura is saying, “well, the Church Fathers don’t agree with my interpretation of the ‘breaking of the bread’ and confession from Scripture, so they must have been wrong.” Since their interpretations written down in letters aren’t Scripture, it’s easy to reject them out-of-hand.

I don’t agree. When the Church Father’s writings condemn some for not believing the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ and not confessing before receiving, it presupposes acceptance of these practices by the majority.

When did they get it wrong? Since the Reformers couldn’t pin down an exact date, they created the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This doctrine is only “necessary”, if you want to deny history.

I know your argument completely hinges on the the infallibility of the Church. Do I accept this out of Faith? Yes. Blind Faith? No. My faith rests on the weight of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium teachings through history.

Your faith in Sola Scriptura rests on? Scripture? No…it’s not in there. The early Church…nope, not there either.

I don’t have it to quote from because I gave it to a Fundamentalist friend (the same one who argued that all sin is equal btw), but I again highly recommend Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1882972546/qid=1105126234/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7587505-7275261?v=glance&s=books

Yours in Christ,

Robert.

 

[Ozzie]

michaelp:

For both Protestants and Catholics we find “seeds” of our thought throughout Church history. It is in the justification of these seeds that the differences emerge…Actually, this is all good pastoral advice. I have no problem with it. You just read it through Catholic eyes and anachronistically insert your understanding of confession into this.

Michael, I want to thank you for your very intelligent, well thought out, and articulate posts. I find them VERY interesting and refreshing, indeed. It is well documented that the “seeds” of “sola Scriptura” and “sola fide” are found throughout Church history, especially by the fact that the early Church writers quoted from the Scriptures extensively as their authority and to which they appealed.

And it certainly is true that Rome’s apologists anachronistically pour into the writings of the early “Church Fathers” doctrines that actually were introduced later and not fully developed until years later. Such as appealing to Ignatius’ instruction to submit to the bishop (he was actually referring to bishops over churches in Asia Minor) as grounds for Rome’s “tradition” that all the Church is to submit to the Bishop of Rome and his Prelates. Certainly what is not found in Scripture, or early Church history, is “Dennisknapps’” (or I should say Rome’s) theory of "Sola Ecclesia."

The problem arises when issues and doctrine surface that do not meet these two criteria: 1) to much time has passed for us to rely upon unwritten tradition, 2) Scripture does not speak sufficiently to a matter. Therefore, when issues such as Marian dogmas, savific nature of seven sacraments, and Papal infallibility arise, Protestants do not see them as legitimate “developments” in doctrine because they do not meet this criteria.

Excellent point and certainly makes a lot of sense to any clear thinker!

Thanks for the posts, they’re not all falling on deaf ears.

 

[rlg94086]

Ozzie:

Thanks for the posts, they’re not all falling on deaf ears.

What?? I can’t hear you!

Ozzie,

How is finding roots of Catholic Doctine anachronistic but finding roots of Sola Scriptura by evidence of Church Fathers quoting Scripture okay? If everything they taught was quoted from Scripture, you would have an argument. There are plenty of quotes of Church Fathers that don’t reference Scripture or are not found in Scripture at all. Would this disprove Sola Scriptura? Of course not.

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[michaelp]

That’s not accurate. We don’t claim to be the exact same, we claim to have major doctrinal roots in the Fathers teachings. Non-Catholics pick-and-choose the roots based on their own interpretations. We accept all of the Church Father’s views, even if some of the doctrines later evolved.

This is not true. The deposit of Tradition contained the full deposit from the beginning. It was never added to or taken away from. It just was exposed over time as controversies arose, but not developed (even though you use the word “develop” you don’t really mean it).

This is the root of the two parts of our Mass - Liturgy of the Word (temple) and Liturgy of the Eucharist (home). When they booted us out of the temple area, we built churches and did both in a church. A reading of the Didache, while not exactly matching, lays out the same basic prayers and actions of our Church today.

This is style of worship, not doctrine. Even Catholics admit that style has changed.

We agree that things change through history. To deny it is silly. The first Masses were in the vernacular. The Latin Mass was instituted at some point (I’m not willing to look that up at this time, and the actual timing is irrelevant to my point.) as a standard. Now, we are back to the vernacular…at least most of us .

Again, this is style, not doctrine. You cannot allow change in doctrine. When it looks like change like V2 interpretation of “Outside the Church there is no salvation” you call it development, not contradition. When Marian dogmas are introduced like the assumption, even though it is not found in Church history before 333, you ignore your own standards.

The Catholic Church picks and chooses which doctrines they adhere to and call it Tradition. When there is disagreement in history, you say that it was not part of Tradition. When the early Church was subordinationalist in their theology, you say that it does not represent the consensus, when it does. Then you claim that you represent the early Church and are unified with them. You look and believe nothing like them. There have been so many things added since the early church through the controversies that have occured, that neither Protestand no Catholic can find their traditions there but in seed form.

“We all walk throught he gardens of church history and pick the flowers that we like the best.” --John Hannah

Similarly, confession in the Early Church consisted of public confession. Private confession was instituted later. Penance for mortal sin used to last months or years before someone could receive the Eucharist again.

I can’t believe that I have a Catholic arguing that they have changed and do not look like the early Church.

It looks to me like what you are doing through the lens of Sola Scriptura is saying, “well, the Church Fathers don’t agree with my interpretation of the ‘breaking of the bread’ and confession from Scripture, so they must have been wrong.”

No, I am looking through a lense that does not have to justify any tradition out of necessity. I don’t have to believe sola scriptura and I don’t have to believe in a dual deposit. I can believe either. I have no baggage that I am necessarily tied to. You do. If you deny one thing, you deny it all. THerefore, you are having to, out of loyalty to your system, defend issues that are undefendable.

Cont . . .

 

[michaelp]

I don’t agree. When the Church Father’s writings condemn some for not believing the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ and not confessing before receiving, it presupposes acceptance of these practices by the majority.

I agree. A very simplistic understanding that had not been thought through yet. Same thing as the early church believed that Christ was ontologically subordinate to the Father. Do you believe that? How do you test whether it is true? It is the early Church. They were closer to the apostles. Your methodology would tell you that this should be true, but it is not. Why? Because of Scripture. It is the only source by which these issues can be tested. What other source do you have? Unwritten Tradition? How do you test it? You don’t even know how to access it to test it.

I will ask you the same question that I have asked Phil many times:

But how do you know for certian (moral certianty) that this unwritten tradition has been preserved since their is no valid way to test it? Really. Evidence such as this would never hold up in any court of law. Do you just take a blind leap?

When did they get it wrong? Since the Reformers couldn’t pin down an exact date, they created the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This doctrine is only “necessary”, if you want to deny history.

Get what wrong . . . that Christ atonement was paid to Satan rather than God the father? That Christ was ontologically subordinate to the Father? That the eucharist literally turns in to the body and blood of Christ?

They were very simplistic in their understanding of these things until substantial challenges came. Then they changed.

How do you explain the fact that the majority of Church history until 11th century believed that the Atonement was a ransom paid to Satan rather than God the father. When did they go wrong with this? The answer: They never had it right. They had not dealt with this issue yet. Only when it was thought through and explained from Scripture did they change. Until then, it was a very simplistic understanding.

I know your argument completely hinges on the the infallibility of the Church. Do I accept this out of Faith? Yes. Blind Faith? No. My faith rests on the weight of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium teachings through history.

Then answer this question:

But how do you know for certian (moral certianty) that this unwritten tradition has been preserved since their is no valid way to test it? Really. Evidence such as this would never hold up in any court of law.

Your faith in Sola Scriptura rests on? Scripture? No…it’s not in there. The early Church…nope, not there either.

Tell me . . . where is Scripture is tradition given the title of theonoustos (“God breathed”). No where? Then by deduction, Scripture attests to sola scriptura. It seems pretty clear to me. Where in Scripture is traditions spoken of like the Law in Ps 119? No where? Then by deduction, sola scriptura is taught in scripture.

Sola scriptura means that Scripture is the only infallible source of revelation. It does not mean that this is necessarily so, since God could send a prophet who met the critera of a prophet spoken of in Deut 13 and 18. If this were to happen, I would listen to the prophet. But since this has not happened since NT times, we are bound to the only reliable source of previous inspired revelation–the Scripture. Hence, sola scripture.

The burden is on anyone who would claim that their is another source to prove that source valid. You cannot even access your source of unwritten Tradition, much less validate it.

I don’t have it to quote from because I gave it to a Fundamentalist friend (the same one who argued that all sin is equal btw), but I again highly recommend Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1882972546/qid=1105126234/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7587505-7275261?v=glance&s=books

Yours in Christ,

Robert.

Thanks Robert,

Believe it or not, I think that we both benifit greatly from this type of dialogue. If nothing else, we understand and respect each other more.

Michael

 

[rlg94086]

michaelp:

Thanks Robert,

Believe it or not, I think that we both benifit greatly from this type of dialogue. If nothing else, we understand and respect each other more.

Michael

Absolutely!

But how do you know for certian (moral certianty) that this unwritten tradition has been preserved since their is no valid way to test it? Really. Evidence such as this would never hold up in any court of law. Do you just take a blind leap?

So you would be able to prove Sola Scriptura in a court of law? Beyond a shadow of a doubt? You would be able to prove Scripture is inspired in a court of law? What is your valid way of testing those? They both are based on faith, as well, are they not?

I don’t believe your moral certainty is any more valid than mine. We just base our foundation on different rocks. Mine is the Rock of the Church (including Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium). Yours is the Rock of the Scripture. Both (I believe…there’s that faith again) are guided by the Holy Spirit.

Because of Scripture. It is the only source by which these issues can be tested.

This is where we are at an impasse. I can’t prove my beliefs on Scripture alone, but I don’t believe that I need to. We do believe that none of the teachings of the Church contradict Scripture. You don’t, but that is because our interpretation of the Scripture is different. Who’s right? Are you bold enough to say with moral certainty that all of your interpretations are 100%? I don’t expect you would.

This is where I put my faith in the teachings of the Magisterium as guided by the Holy Spirit. The Magisterium clears up matters of disagreement (such as atonement, Eucharist, et al) by setting doctrine. I know you can’t/won’t accept that, so we are at a stalemate. If it were that easy, we would all be one Church, yes?

Lest you decide to quote Scripture which you claim contradicts the Magisterium, I yell “Uncle!” There are plenty of Catholic Theologians that would gladly refute any argument you have. So who’s right? This is the challenge every lay person has. I continue to read, listen and study, but I trust in my Church.

Yours in Christ,

Robert.

 

[michaelp]

So you would be able to prove Sola Scriptura in a court of law? Beyond a shadow of a doubt? You would be able to prove Scripture is inspired in a court of law? What is your valid way of testing those? They both are based on faith, as well, are they not?

It is not about proving a doctrine. That is not what I am asking. I am just trying to have you prove the validity of Tradition–that it has been transmitted without corruption.

I COULD do this with Scripture. We have over 6000 hand written manuscripts to reference. Even liberal scholars don’t doubt the accurate transmission of Scripture.

Therefore, you have a problem. Unless you can give evidence as to how you know that the unwritten Tradition has not been corrupted as it was passed on for 2000 years, then you don’t even have a place to start. All you have is Scripture that is reliable.

How do you prove the reliability of unwritten Tradition? You cannot say the Church, since that is question begging. You cannot even access it to test it can you?

You can believe this, but please don’t say that it is not blind faith.

I don’t believe your moral certainty is any more valid than mine. We just base our foundation on different rocks.

My moral certianty is more valid since I can validate the accurate transmission of my source. Can you? If not, then you don’t have much moral certianty.

Who’s right? Are you bold enough to say with moral certainty that all of your interpretations are 100%? I don’t expect you would.

You are right there my friend. I have different degrees of certianty depending on the clarity of the issue as expressed in Scripture, tradition, reason, experince, general revelation and emotion. All of these come together when searching for truth, whether we like to admit it or not. I just say that Scripture is the only infallible source, not the only source.

This is where I put my faith in the teachings of the Magisterium as guided by the Holy Spirit. The Magisterium clears up matters of disagreement (such as atonement, Eucharist, et al) by setting doctrine. I know you can’t/won’t accept that, so we are at a stalemate. If it were that easy, we would all be one Church, yes?

You bet. But we are already one. All those who have trusted in Christ are one by an ontological relationship that we share when the Holy Spirit baptized up into one body. We may not act like it, but we are one.

Lest you decide to quote Scripture which you claim contradicts the Magisterium, I yell “Uncle!” There are plenty of Catholic Theologians that would gladly refute any argument you have. So who’s right? This is the challenge every lay person has. I continue to read, listen and study, but I trust in my Church.

And that is your right. But I believe that you trust in and love Christ. Therefore, I believe that we will have much time to talk about this in glory.

May God bless you Robert, and your family,

Michael

 

[Greyhawk]

But how do you know for certain (moral certainty) that this unwritten tradition has been preserved since there is no valid way to test it? Really. Evidence such as this would never hold up in any court of law. Do you just take a blind leap?

I’ll give you my blind leap: Faith in Jesus. No more, and no less.

I’ll provide a couple of reasons which entail faith and reason revolving around my convictions. I believe in Jesus, and also how He sent His Holy Spirit to guide the original apostles to spread the Gospel. (The collective leadership of the early apostles would be akin to a Council or the Magisterium.) At the time of the first Christians, many believed the Second Coming would be soon, and neglected to write things down immediately. Thus the apostles preached for approximately 30 years, relying solely on the culturally sound practice of oral tradition. I know the writers of the Gospels at the time lived in a generation within the Resurrection, but back then, humans committed things to memory easily. (Jewish people were well versed in quoting the Old Testament). Two things I note here. First, the apostles are preaching and leading the earliest of a Church. That right there with no established canon for followers to refer to points to the divine grace of the Holy Spirit guiding the first bishops. Second, I assent to the Holy Spirit’s guidance for the authors of the New Testament. I think the Gospel is beautiful and well written, and nothing short of a divine miracle. Thus, I see the Holy Spirit acting both in writing and ecumenical leadership.

Next, I would like Protestants to undergo a though experiment. What if the Church only established the canon in response to heresy? As some may know, Gnosticism began to appear in the late second to third century. In order to disseminate their heretical beliefs, they started writing literature supporting their convictions and pass it around like Paul’s letters. Gnostics dressed their beliefs in adulterated versions of the Gospel, like spies entering covertly, and twisted its message and turn Christian followers Gnostic. Thus, it was necessary to separate the canon, literature bearing the true spirit of Christ’s message, from the Gnostic propaganda shattering core Christian beliefs. Therefore, the canon may not have been an end all be all for absolute Christian reference, but rather a supplement to preserve and protect the true message of Jesus. Scripturally, there are verses in the Gospel mentioning how there had been other teachings and miracles of Jesus not recorded, as well as the encouragement by Paul to maintain traditions they have been taught. Also, in this council, I believe the Holy Spirit guided them into discerning the correct set of books just as it guided bishops of earlier years.

I also assent to the Infallibility of the Pope, not only based on Scriptural evidence found between the interaction with Peter, but on historical records of early Church accounts in dealing with ecumenical issues. For if ultimate religious matters came down to a mere vote among a group of believers, it would seem no more then a subjective democratic cult. Some may say that’s a little extreme of a classification, but I think it makes sense that one person has been commissioned to have final authority in leading the Church. I believe by the divine authority of Jesus through His Holy Spirit, He keeps His promise to Peter and his successors that the Church was built on his authority (given by Christ) and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

My original attempt at a post was too big, so I’ll only post this first half for now. I welcome comments, criticisms, and corrections.

Dei gratia,
Greyhawk

 

[rlg94086]

michaelp:

It is not about proving a doctrine. That is not what I am asking. I am just trying to have you prove the validity of Tradition–that it has been transmitted without corruption.

I COULD do this with Scripture. We have over 6000 hand written manuscripts to reference. Even liberal scholars don’t doubt the accurate transmission of Scripture.

Therefore, you have a problem. Unless you can give evidence as to how you know that the unwritten Tradition has not been corrupted as it was passed on for 2000 years, then you don’t even have a place to start. All you have is Scripture that is reliable.

How do you prove the reliability of unwritten Tradition? You cannot say the Church, since that is question begging. You cannot even access it to test it can you?

You can believe this, but please don’t say that it is not blind faith.

My moral certianty is more valid since I can validate the accurate transmission of my source. Can you? If not, then you don’t have much moral certianty.

You are right there my friend. I have different degrees of certianty depending on the clarity of the issue as expressed in Scripture, tradition, reason, experince, general revelation and emotion. All of these come together when searching for truth, whether we like to admit it or not. I just say that Scripture is the only infallible source, not the only source.

You bet. But we are already one. All those who have trusted in Christ are one by an ontological relationship that we share when the Holy Spirit baptized up into one body. We may not act like it, but we are one.

And that is your right. But I believe that you trust in and love Christ. Therefore, I believe that we will have much time to talk about this in glory.

May God bless you Robert, and your family,

Michael

Michael,

I can say “the Church”, since I believe the teachings of the Magisterium are infallible. You can only argue from Scripture because you believe it to be infallible. We both believe this by faith, not by proof text.

As far as my trust in and love in Christ, your right I do. However, to me Christ and the Church are inseparable. You agree, but your idea of what constitutes the Church is different.

If we both through our faithfulness to Christ end up in glory, we’ll turn to each other and say, “what were we arguing about, again?”

Robert.

 

[michaelp]

ll give you my blind leap: Faith in Jesus. No more, and no less.

Would this answer satisfy you if I said this in regards to the Protestant faith? It would have because it cannot be tested.

I believe in Jesus, and also how He sent His Holy Spirit to guide the original apostles to spread the Gospel.

Agree.

(The collective leadership of the early apostles would be akin to a Council or the Magisterium.)

This is an assumption that is question begging unless you can prove it from Scripture.

At the time of the first Christians, many believed the Second Coming would be soon, and neglected to write things down immediately.

True and false. Paul wrote all his letters even though he thought Christ was coming soon. Same with the synoptics. The only books that we could say this with some certianty are John, the epistles of John, Rev, Paul’s letters to Timothy, and Possible Peters letters.

Why would you assume that this is the case with all the NT letters? Galatians was written in 50A.D. Rom and 1 and 2 Cor in 55-56. Matt may have been written in the 40s if Papias was right that he was the first to record. The majority of the NT was complete before 65 AD.

What is the evidence for your assumptions?

cont . . .

 

[michaelp]

Thus the apostles preached for approximately 30 years, relying solely on the culturally sound practice of oral tradition.

Somewhat, but see above.

I know the writers of the Gospels at the time lived in a generation within the Resurrection, but back then, humans committed things to memory easily.

To some degree, but they committed them to memory from writtings. They also relied heavely upon writtings. Paul tells Timothy to send Mark with the books and scrolls.

**2 Timothy 4:13 “**When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments.”

Paul wanted his books. He did not have everything in memory, but relied on these books.

(Jewish people were well versed in quoting the Old Testament). Two things I note here. First, the apostles are preaching and leading the earliest of a Church. That right there with no established canon for followers to refer to points to the divine grace of the Holy Spirit guiding the first bishops.

Canon is simply a word that describes a collection of inspired books. Canon does not make the works inspired, it just recognizes the ones that are. The Pauline corpus was already recognized as inspired by the 65AD. Therefore, it was “canonized.”

**2 Peter 3:15-16 **15 “and regard the patience of our Lord *as *salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all *his *letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

Paul already recognized the Gospel of Luke as inspired by 65AD.

**1 Timothy 5:18 **18 For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (quotation of Luke 10:7)

Second, I assent to the Holy Spirit’s guidance for the authors of the New Testament. I think the Gospel is beautiful and well written, and nothing short of a divine miracle. Thus, I see the Holy Spirit acting both in writing and ecumenical leadership.

None of this gave any evidence as to why anyone would trust that the unwritten tradition should be considered reliable. Do you think that this would hold up in a court of law?

Next, I would like Protestants to undergo a though experiment. What if the Church only established the canon in response to heresy?

This cannot go any further because the Church did not establish the canon. The church recognized the books that God already inspired and called them canon.

I also assent to the Infallibility of the Pope, not only based on Scriptural evidence found between the interaction with Peter,

but on historical records of early Church accounts in dealing with ecumenical issues.

But this is the question. How do you know what is reliable and what is not? The early church also believed that Christ was ontologically subordinate to the Father. Do you believe that?

The early Church did not have in any way an understanding of infalliblity of the Pope as you do.

But even if they did, why believe this and not believe that the atonement was made to Satan rather than God. The Church believed this for the first 1100 years of existence. Why believe the Marian dogma of Assumption? It is virtually non-existent in the early Church.

How do you determine what was truly part of Tradition? That is the question.

For if ultimate religious matters came down to a mere vote among a group of believers, it would seem no more then a subjective democratic cult.

He keeps His promise to Peter and his successors that the Church was built on his authority (given by Christ) and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

Show me how Jesus told Peter that he was giving him AND HIS SUCCESSORS infallible control over the whole church and that he was to appoint successors to rule the one Church. Show me this in Scripture. Don’t read your theology into the text, but tell me what the text says.

What it comes down to is that you cannot test unwritten tradition, right? You just trust. A blind leap? What separates this from all other religions? All religions have to take a blind leap into the dark.

Thanks for the time. I don’t mean to sound like I am being uncharitable, I am just trying to be quick since there are so many posts to answer. I cannot do this much longer . . .

Have a great day,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

rlg94086:

Michael,

I can say “the Church”, since I believe the teachings of the Magisterium are infallible.

This arguement is begging the question or circular. It is using the conclusion to prove the premise. This cannot be done.

It would be like me saying that I have infallible teaching. You ask me what evidence do I bring. I tell you that I have recieved it from Christ through an unbroken line of successors. You say how do I knwo that it has remained pure? I tell you that since I am infallible, you just have to trust me. Is that good argumentation?

You can only argue from Scripture because you believe it to be infallible. We both believe this by faith, not by proof text.

I can argue from Scripture for two reasons, both of which RCC Tradition does not have:

1. Because it was written by Apostles and Prophets who showed validating signs that what they said was true.
2. Because I have manuscript evidence to prove that what I read and follow today accurately represents the original.

There is no way for you to say that this unwritten tradition is true or uncorrupted. You have to take a leap of faith, don’t you?

If we both through our faithfulness to Christ end up in glory, we’ll turn to each other and say, “what were we arguing about, again?”

Amen, brother . . . true and well said.

Michael

 

[Greyhawk]

In response to your first reply michaelp:

Would this answer satisfy you if I said this in regards to the Protestant faith? It would have because it cannot be tested.

Any Christian would say their convictions stem from Jesus, I was trying to draw a connection between how that is applied in the Catholic faith. For application of the belief is the issue; we all have the answer but are searching for the question.

This is an assumption that is question begging unless you can prove it from Scripture.

I was trying to draw a parallel. Even if the same terms aren’t officially used interchangeably, the reality can still exist. Maybe this seems to beg the question to you, I’ll have to dive deeper to further address this issue.

Why would you assume that this is the case with all the NT letters? Galatians was written in 50A.D. Rom and 1 and 2 Cor in 55-56. Matt may have been written in the 40s if Papias was right that he was the first to record. The majority of the NT was complete before 65 AD.

What is the evidence for your assumptions?

Granted, I apologize for making a blanket statement. It does not apply to all Scripture contained in the New Testament. I was going under the dating given by most skeptics (the date which non-believers unequivocally admit the various Scripture appeared).
The only assumption I make here is the lack of fully defined Scripture present in the earliest existence of Christianity as a reference and guide. When the Holy Spirit was sent to the apostles, they did not rush to a printing press to record the message. Instead, they went out and evangelized the old fashion way, preaching. I am not trying to discount the use of Scripture for teaching and passing on truth, only the pointing to the original premise of the truth and bearing messenger. Had the apostles not been inspired by the Holy Spirit in verbally preaching, instructing, and leading the original converts, Christianity would not exist.

I’ll respond to the others in a bit, but I thoroughly appreciate your criticism.

Dei gratia,
Greyhawk

 

[cyprian]

Protestants would have doctrine evolve not develop. They seem to be confusing one for the other. Doctrine does indeed develop to a fuller understanding of what was already held, or started. Doctrine does not evolve. What they’re saying is evolutionary (in a weird way) in using the word develop. The two ideas are not coterminous, that is, a doctrine evolving leaves behind it’s former self and takes on something new . A doctrine developing continues towards it’s original end, the Love and Truth which is God.

Peace and Love

 

[Greyhawk]

To some degree, but they committed them to memory from writtings. They also relied heavely upon writtings. Paul tells Timothy to send Mark with the books and scrolls.

It is my understanding that oral tradition was crucial to the survival of their culture. I heard a talk by Craig Blomberg, author of The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, in which one of the points he emphasized was people’s ability to memorize. Paper and writing had not been the easiest thing to get, and for example students, often had to commit epics like Homer to memory at the time in Rome/Greece (I forget which).

Canon is simply a word that describes a collection of inspired books. Canon does not make the works inspired, it just recognizes the ones that are. The Pauline corpus was already recognized as inspired by the 65AD. Therefore, it was “canonized.”

If we have records pointing to the use of letters not found in the New Testament during Christian liturgies, what perspective do we take on them? At the other extreme, what about the books not heavily referenced or used in liturgies, but made it into the New Testament canon like Revelation?

which the untaught and unstable distort, *as they do ***also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Who are the untaught and unstable?

None of this gave any evidence as to why anyone would trust that the unwritten tradition should be considered reliable. Do you think that this would hold up in a court of law?

Are historical records of any use? As for trust in the unwritten tradition, I thought I made it clear that I trust in the Holy Spirit through apostolic succession. The grace of Holy Spirit can’t be written down. I cannot write down everything it does or tell you everything about it. It guides in unwritten tradition by the grace of Jesus. How do we know the Council of Hippo put together the correct accepted collection of books for the New Testament even though they are generations away from the time of the original recording? Would the gathering of bishops know with absolute certainty that the books they picked defined the seed of truth arriving centuries before them? I think the Holy Spirit had to act in them.

This cannot go any further because the Church did not establish the canon. The church recognized the books that God already inspired and called them canon.

Ok, what is your definition of the church back then? What are your feelings on the deuteralcannonical books? They were originally recognized as inspired, but eventually Protestants removed them, even after first accepting them.

Dei gratia,
Greyhawk

 

[Greyhawk]

But this is the question. How do you know what is reliable and what is not? The early church also believed that Christ was ontologically subordinate to the Father. Do you believe that?

You have the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the collective clergy under the supervision of the inspired Pope. I believe that was Arian heresy, which was defeated because the Pope was the only bishop who refused to sign the decree.

The early Church did not have in any way an understanding of infalliblity of the Pope as you do.

See above statement. It may not have been defined in writing, much like the canon officially not being acknowledged until the Council of Hippo, but that does not contradict the existence of the reality.

But even if they did, why believe this and not believe that the atonement was made to Satan rather than God. The Church believed this for the first 1100 years of existence.

I’m going to ask for some evidence here, I’m not sure where you got this idea from.

Why believe the Marian dogma of Assumption? It is virtually non-existent in the early Church.

Can we avoid this issue at the moment or start a new thread? Mary is a whole different category.

How do you determine what was truly part of Tradition? That is the question.

I dont make up my own. I think I made it clear that it is my in belief in apostolic succession divinely monitored by the Holy Spirit under the grace of the Sacrement of Holy Orders in clergy.

Show me how Jesus told Peter that he was giving him AND HIS SUCCESSORS infallible control over the whole church and that he was to appoint successors to rule the one Church. Show me this in Scripture. Don’t read your theology into the text, but tell me what the text says.

I find my assurance under the fact that not all sayings and miracles of Jesus were recorded as stated in Scripture. Second, I welcome you to provide a better interpreation. I could not possibly understand why Jesus would leave Peter in charge, and then all of the sudden let the position disappear. They replaced the apostle Judas, why can’t they replace Peter’s position? Third, I look at historical context and actions of the early Church.

Thanks for the time. I don’t mean to sound like I am being uncharitable, I am just trying to be quick since there are so many posts to answer. I cannot do this much longer . . .file:///C:%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image001.gif

Thank you for your responses. Please, take your time. I understand you maybe pressed around here a bit, but I complement your efforts. May the grace of God strengthen you in these religious dialogues to grow greater in your faith and closeness to Him.

Dei gratia,
Greyhawk

 

[Greyhawk]

To some degree, but they committed them to memory from writtings. They also relied heavely upon writtings. Paul tells Timothy to send Mark with the books and scrolls.

It is my understanding that oral tradition was crucial to the survival of their culture. I heard a talk by Craig Blomberg, author of The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, in which one of the points he emphasized was people’s ability to memorize. Paper and writing had not been the easiest thing to get, and for example students, often had to commit epics like Homer to memory at the time in Rome/Greece (I forget which).

Canon is simply a word that describes a collection of inspired books. Canon does not make the works inspired, it just recognizes the ones that are. The Pauline corpus was already recognized as inspired by the 65AD. Therefore, it was “canonized.”

If we have records pointing to the use of letters not found in the New Testament during Christian liturgies, what perspective do we take on them? At the other extreme, what about the books not heavily referenced or used in liturgies, but made it into the New Testament canon like Revelation?

which the untaught and unstable distort, *as they do ***also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Who are the untaught and unstable?

None of this gave any evidence as to why anyone would trust that the unwritten tradition should be considered reliable. Do you think that this would hold up in a court of law?

Are historical records of any use? As for trust in the unwritten tradition, I thought I made it clear that I trust in the Holy Spirit through apostolic succession. The grace of Holy Spirit can’t be written down. I cannot write down everything it does or tell you everything about it. It guides in unwritten tradition by the grace of Jesus. How do we know the Council of Hippo put together the correct accepted collection of books for the New Testament even though they are generations away from the time of the original recording? Would the gathering of bishops know with absolute certainty that the books they picked defined the seed of truth arriving centuries before them? I think the Holy Spirit had to act in them.

This cannot go any further because the Church did not establish the canon. The church recognized the books that God already inspired and called them canon.

Ok, what is your definition of the church back then? What are your feelings on the deuteralcannonical books? They were originally recognized as inspired, but eventually Protestants removed them, even after first accepting them.

Dei gratia,
Greyhawk

 

[Pax]

Michael,

As modern Christians we all share in your belief that scripture is inerrant. As Catholics we also believe the Church has a special place in God’s plan of salvation and we believe that the traditions handed down by the Church are both proper and true. As a non-Catholic you have a reasonable distrust of Catholic tradition. You have asked several times in your posting as to how we can trust that the traditions are true.

It would seem that there are several reasons. We can trust the Church’s traditions because scripture mentions tradition as important whether they be given by word or by letter. Scripture speaks of the Church and Church authority. Most importantly we have to accept the promises of Christ concerning the Church as true or we must begin to discount and doubt everything that Jesus said and did. If Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, then we can reliably trust the Church that He established because He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

The same Church that maintains and teaches the oral tradition is the same Church that gave us the written NT scriptures and meticulously copied and protected them over the ages. Moreover, this is the same Church that differentiated between the inspired and uninspired writings and established the canon. Over time there were corrupted versions of the Holy Scriptures and these were burned by the Catholic Church. Protestants also burned corrupted versions such as the KJV “murder bible” and others. Today the Jehovah Witnesses have the New World Translation which is roundly condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike. The Mormons have accepted the KJV but believe it to be corrupted. They claim that the Christian scriptures are corrected by later revelation given to Joseph Smith. For them, The book of Mormon and there other documents are true scripture.

Obviously, scripture can be “made” untrustworthy if it is corrupted. If the Catholic Church was able to prevent this from happening to the Christian bible, then it seems just as reasonable to believe that the Church managed to do the same with apostolic tradition as well. If you think that the Church couldn’t handle and protect the latter, then it is likely that she couldn’t handle and protect the written scriptures either. Even though there is a difference between the written word of scripture and tradition, the same criticisms for validity apply to both.

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Because it is unwritten. There is no way to gaurantee that as it passes through the minds of people (sinners) that it is not lost or misrepresented. Do you think that unwritten tradition that is 2000 years old would hold up in a court of law? Why not? There is your answer.

michaelp:

Why could it not if God perserved it?

michaelp:

That would be one thing. What compels you to believe that He was behind it? So great is this evidence that you would bet your life on it and submit to the bearer of this Tradition.

michaelp:

I have the historical data as evidence. You can’t even find one person to agree with you except in “seed” form.

michaelp:

Matt 16? Come on . . . John 21 . . . again eisegesis.

michaelp:

Why is it not possible that the Catholic interpretation is the correct one give to developments that happened latter? There had to be a president somewhere. How did the Church Fathers view this verses? Remember the Church does not take everything said by the Fathers, just the consensus–where they agree.

michaelp:

God is not limited to anything. But are we just supposed to believe anyone who says that they bear God’s word. Read Deut 13 and 18. He can speak any way He chooses, but it has to be varified.

michaelp:

The Church does not “bear God’s word” as in provide new revelation and therefore does not need to provide a sign. It perserves and reflects upon that which was handed down both orally and in written form.

michaelp:

Come on . . . this is a straw man. My children can’t read, but they fall under the authority of the word of God alone. You don’t have to be able to read to have the message of the Scripture communicated to you. Do you really think that you do? Really?

michaelp:

To verify its reliablity you do. And according to you it has to be verifiable in order to be reliable. And I believe we all have fall under the authority of the word of God alone=written and oral.

michaelp:

Sure. But it must look like your sacramental system today. It can’t be just references to people taking the body and blood of Christ. It has to be that if you miss one Sunday of Mass, you go to hell. Baptism removes the effects of original sin alone. Holy orders give you the ability to dispense the merits of Christ.

michaelp:

These are more complex developments, and in order to develope they need to have a starting point that is simpler. But I guarantee the development will not contradict the outcome.

michaelp:

In other words, it can’t be just references to these things in general, because even in that I will find my tradition as well. It must be a duplicate of the current RC system.

michaelp:

Where is your tradition present even in general. Who believed the Eucharist was only symbolic? Who believe that baptism was only symbolic? It does not have to be a duplicate, but it can not contradict. I agree that doctrines develope but not in a contradictory manner.

michaelp:

Neither of us look like the Church at any point of history. We all have changed.

Our goal is not to look like some primitive church that had not been throught the trials of history that were meant to mature us. We should look different. We should look better. We have a better understanding of many doctrines (Trinity, Atonement, Salvation, Christology). If you want to go back before Anselm and find yourself completely there, fine . . . but you will be a heretic. Do you want to find yourself before Nicea? Fine, you will be a subordinationalist or Arian.

You see, we don’t need to look exactly like the first century Church, the Early Church, or the Medeval Church. It would be like me saying to you, you don’t look like you did when you were a kid, so therefore something is wrong. No, everything is right . . . you have grown up and continue to grow. If you looked like you did when you were 5, you would have problems.

michaelp:

Why not say this in regards to the Catholic Church? Its doctrinal development is more clear and consistant than your current belief system that has to rely soley on your own interpretation of Scripture regardless of the historical data. Or as you would say, disgard all history and theology that disagrees with you own biblical interpretation.