Protestants, why?

[PRmerger]

The one answer is: archeology, by the Church Fathers.

LOL!

It wasn’t sacred mysterious oral tradition, but simple godly love of truth, leading them on in research. “Barnabus” WAS cited as canon at first, by Clement of Alexandria and others, and then discarded. If Sacred Tradition was responsible for this, either it erred in accepting Barnabus, or it erred it throwing Barnabus out. Infallibility doesn’t change its mind like that.

So if you could proffer where it was that Sacred Tradition proclaimed that Barnabas was theopneustos, then I will concede the argument.

The Fathers learned as they went forward, by diligence, ingenuity, and the guidance of the Spirit.

Yes! Again, Aefensang, you are proferring wonderful definitions of Sacred Tradition!

 

[Aefensang]

PRmerger

The problem is that there is never a definition of Sacred Tradition given. It is simply declared to be equal to the Bible and left at that. According to the Roman Catholic paradigm of tradition, we have to conclude that the God-breathed Scriptures was not defined fully until Trent. Even if the Damasine Canon was a genuine document, the Council of Rome of 382 was not Ecumenical.

Saying that the Fathers learned as they went means they made errors. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, and all that. Believing error at first, and having it corrected, is the only way to learn.

If you’re being cheeky by saying that I am inadvertently proving sacred tradition, I have to say I don’t much appreciate it. Please let’s not carry on in jesting and mockery on the most important subject in the world.

There is but one thing to remember: Rome teaches that the Scriptures are complete, infallible, and the written Word of God, and that we should not go back from them in anything. Honest protestants also believe this. The issue is tradition itself, then, and its validity. Since Rome declares that it follows a ‘sacred’ precedent for every essential thing, read this:

“There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis (1), then Exodus (2), next Leviticus (3), after that Numbers (4), and then Deuteronomy (5). Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun (6), then Judges (7), then Ruth (8). And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book (9), and so likewise the third and fourth as one book (10). And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book (11). Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book (12). After these there is the book of Psalms (13), then the Proverbs (14), next Ecclesiastes (15), and the Song of Songs (16). Job follows (17), then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book (18). Then Isaiah, one book (19), then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book (20); afterwards, Ezekiel (21) and Daniel (22), each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.”

Again it is not tedious to speak of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

Presumably, Athanasius was a true bishop, handing down the sacred tradition. Now, Athanasius had the full (Protestant) canon engraved on his heart. He considered it the true Scripture. This letter was written 15 years before the council of Rome - yet it is claimed that the Scripture was not officially defined until that council, in 382. Exactly how did the sacred tradition make and choose the Scripture, without any councils, for 300 years? Did bishops just pass them on, one by one? If that is all it is, it cannot be sacred tradition - for bishops have passed down things before which were error.

Athanasius may be only a private source, but private sources *are *our only historical sources for what they considered the scripture to be before 382. Even after Hippo, you have this:
Jerome's prologue to the epistle to the Galatians:

The Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures.

Every last Father confirms the Protestant canon! If there is a sacred tradition, I must conclude from history that Rome does not agree with it.

The onus and burden of proof is not on Protestants to prove that Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. Scripture claims that for itself. I do not deny that there was an infallible charism in the composition of the Bible; obviously, a work of men, to be infallible, needs God’s help. The onus, however, is on Roman Catholics to prove that sacred tradition is necessary since the completion of the Canon, and forever after it. Your burden is also to prove that your tradition is entirely true, as opposed to Orthodox traditions.

Protestants may well be wrong, and there are grave doubts, but I think Rome is on an equally thin tightrope here - perhaps even more so.

 

[Porknpie]

Mary clearly had other children, because the noun for “Brothers” (i.e. His mother and brothers came to see Him) in the Greek of Matthew & Luke, is the noun for “those of the same womb”. It’s there, for all to see.
.

Aefensang, you are mistaken on use of the word “clearly”. :nope: The Catholics, Orthodox, all Three Major Reformers all “clearly” understood Mary to be a perpetual virgin. Even Luther said that Christ’s words alone on the cross in giving Mary to John was enough to prove this point. If Jesus had brothers, it would have been against both Jewish custom and the law for Jesus to give his mother to John. There is no word for brother, sister or cousin in the hebrew or aramaic and the use of the Greek “adelphos” is not restricted to full brother or half-brother.

As an example of the use of “brother” here’s Acts 1:12-15. Do you believe that Jesus had 120 “brothers”? I hope not. This is a “clear” example of the word brother being used in the meaning of “kinsman” from the hebrew.

The First Community in Jerusalem.
13 When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
14 All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
The Choice of Judas’s Successor.
15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,
16 “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.

And Paul uses brethren and kinsman interchangably as in Romans 9:3

3*For I could [a]wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

Below is a good reference on how Adelphos can have varying meanings:

From*An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:Adelphos(the Greek word for brother in the New Testament): denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity or origin of life. It is used for:

• male children of the same parents
• male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Hebrews 7:5
• people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Romans 9:3
• any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3
• persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
• persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
• mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
• the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10, John 20:17
• believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; - Revelation 19:10 (the wordsistersis used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2)

I always say…when the Catholics (incl. Orthodox) and Reformers agree on something and you do NOT, you have to question the soil that your house is built on.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger

The problem is that there is never a definition of Sacred Tradition given. It is simply declared to be equal to the Bible and left at that.

Then how is it that you reject it if you say you can’t even know what it is?

According to the Roman Catholic paradigm of tradition, we have to conclude that the God-breathed Scriptures was not defined fully until Trent.

Yes, emphasis on “fully”.

Even if the Damasine Canon was a genuine document, the Council of Rome of 382 was not Ecumenical.

Ok…

Saying that the Fathers learned as they went means they made errors. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, and all that. Believing error at first, and having it corrected, is the only way to learn.

Certainly.

I don’t think anyone here has declared that the ECFs were incapable of making errors.

If you’re being cheeky by saying that I am inadvertently proving sacred tradition, I have to say I don’t much appreciate it. Please let’s not carry on in jesting and mockery on the most important subject in the world.

I was not being cheeky at all. :nope: But if it offended you, then I apologize.

I am only pointing out that you have implicitly agreed, in a multitude of posts, with Sacred Tradition’s role in discerning for you the canon of Scripture.

That you deny it is…well, curious.

But you have no other way of declaring to us that you know that 3 John is inspired but that the Epistle of Barnabas is not, [Be]xcept through a tacit acceptance of the role of the Church–the Catholic Church–in this through nothing more than Sacred Tradition.

Your reference to knowing that 3 John is inspired through “archeology” is, frankly, silly, so I will dismiss that.

 

[PRmerger]

Presumably, Athanasius was a true bishop, handing down the sacred tradition.

Ah, I see where you have gone down the wrong path, Aefensang.

You are operating under the misapprehension that when a bishop speaks it constitutes the “handing down” of Sacred Tradition.

This is not a correct expository on Sacred Tradition.

Each and every time a bishop speaks, writes, proclaims something–even on faith and morals–it is not to be understood as Sacred Tradition.

 

[joe370]

I am confused, joe, as to why you do not believe that the charism of infallibility cannot apply to those who wrote the Scriptures?

You posited, “Couldn’t we just assume that all the writers of scripture were fallible men who wrote infallibly via the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit?”

And that, of course, is exactly what the Church means by infallibility.

Thus, if you agree with Aefensang that men can not be infallible, how is it that you understand the charism of infallibility?

I do believe that the charism of infallibility applied to those who wrote the scriptures as well as their successor and the catholic church today. We both agree that the writers of scripture were fallible men who wrote infallibly via the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit.

 

[PRmerger]

We both agree that the writers of scripture were fallible men who wrote infallibly via the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit.

You and Aefensang are then in agreement with the Catholic Church’s definition of infallibility. (And I know that you already knew you were in agreement with this. )

I just want it to be clear that if Aefensang believes that the men who wrote the Scriptures were given the charism of infallibility, at least as it applied to the written text–even if they were fallible creatures in all other areas–then he ought not have a problem with the charism of infallibility applying to* other* fallible men.

He seems to be grudgingly admitting that fallible men can write infallibly, and thus, in theory, has no opposition to the Catholic Church’s definition of infallibility.

His objection is simply that God didn’t do this.

Am I correctly stating your objection, Aefensang? You understand that fallible men can be given the charism of infallibility, but just don’t believe that this charism continued past the death of the last apostle?

Or rather, past the death of the pen of the last inspired writer.

 

[joe370]

You and Aefensang are then in agreement with the Catholic Church’s definition of infallibility. (And I know that you already knew you were in agreement with this. )

I just want it to be clear that if Aefensang believes that the men who wrote the Scriptures were given the charism of infallibility, at least as it applied to the written text–even if they were fallible creatures in all other areas–then he ought not have a problem with the charism of infallibility applying to* other* fallible men.

He seems to be grudgingly admitting that fallible men can write infallibly, and thus, in theory, has no opposition to the Catholic Church’s definition of infallibility.

His objection is simply that God didn’t do this.

Am I correctly stating your objection, Aefensang? You understand that fallible men can be given the charism of infallibility, but just don’t believe that this charism continued past the death of the last apostle?

Or rather, past the death of the pen of the last inspired writer.

Most non-catholics believe that the charism was given to the apostles only. In other words: infallible bible with no one to infallibly teach, yet every non-catholic church claims to teach truth, doctrinally speaking. Makes no sense to me…

 

[PRmerger]

Most non-catholics believe that the charism was given to the apostles only

Based on what? Something they heard their pastor say?

In other words: infallible bible with no one to infallibly teach, yet every non-catholic church claims to teach truth, doctrinally speaking. Makes no sense to me…

Indeed.

And now, thanks to this paradigm, there is the chaos and confusion of differing doctrines, so that Christianity cannot be looked upon by other faiths as saying, “Christians believe that baptism saves!” It’s been, tragically, reduced to, “Some Christian denominations believe that. Others don’t.”

 

[pablope]

Pablope and everyone

, I

You, however, have given the primary question on which this whole thing stands or falls, so I’ve quoted this one line of yours.

[SIGN]
originally Posted by pablope View Post
what makes you think the tradition you adhere to is the one that is not corrupted?.[/SIGN]

Why I am a Protestant:

 

[pablope]

By the way, in case you mention the canon of 382 from Pope Damasus: there was no definition of the Canon at the Council of Rome in 382. The “Damasine Canon” is was faked by a 6th century anon.

 

[pablope]

Just to answer for myself, I have a problem with the concept of men being infallible once our rule of faith has been established for all time. There is simply no need for the infallible character to continue, given that our golden rule was set.

Anyway, my last post before this one is my true testament.

Then why do you believe what your pastor tells you…or why do you believe every protestant teaching if they are fallible?

How can you be sure they are not in error? Better yet…why do you believe their interpretation which you adhere too…and your interpretation are not in error?

Remember what you said in post 546: Why I am a Protestant:

I do not know whether “our traditions” are corrupted, but it does not matter to me because they are not the rule of my faith.

 

[pablope]

Mary clearly had other children, because the noun for “Brothers” (i.e. His mother and brothers came to see Him) in the Greek of Matthew & Luke, is the noun for “those of the same womb”. It’s there, for all to see.

 

[pablope]

Yup, this is the gist of the whole thing.

 

[joe370]

PRmerger;9669375]Based on what? Something they heard their pastor say?

Good question.
Indeed.

And now, thanks to this paradigm, there is the chaos and confusion of differing doctrines, so that Christianity cannot be looked upon by other faiths as saying, “Christians believe that baptism saves!” It’s been, tragically, reduced to, “Some Christian denominations believe that. Others don’t.”

Very sad indeed… Most protestants (at least the ones I know) simply follow the traditions of their church along with the teaching office (their magisterium) of their church all the while claiming to be sola scriptura advocates.

 

[joe370]

Aefensang;9668129]

Mary clearly had other children, because the noun for “Brothers” (i.e. His mother and brothers came to see Him) in the Greek of Matthew & Luke, is the noun for “those of the same womb”. It’s there, for all to see.

Scholars are unanimous when it comes to the brothers of Jesus. They simply say there is no biblical proof one way or the other, and I tend to agree with them. Of course I defer the the CC and therefore agree that Jesus was Mary’s only child.

 

[pablope]

PRmerger

The problem is that there is never a definition of Sacred Tradition given.

Well…how do you describe protestant tradition and what is its basis? Remember what you said in post 546:
Why I am a Protestant:I do not know whether “our traditions” are corrupted, but it does not matter to me because they are not the rule of my faith.

You may have missed the link describing ST: mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.

In Scripture, as today, the unwritten aspect of Sacred Tradition is not some separate, secret and parallel revelation, but the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church. In Scripture, as today, this Tradition grows like the mustard seed and, as a result, gets more mustardy, not less. In Scripture, as today, the Church in council sits on the judge’s bench and listens to the testimony of Scripture in light of its Tradition in order to discern how best to define that Tradition more precisely.

we have to conclude that the God-breathed Scriptures was not defined fully until Trent.

 

[stewstew03]

Couldn’t a fallible carpenter create a perfect cabinet?

Asked another way:

Couldn’t a fallible pope teach perfect doctrine?

:bible1:

 

[PRmerger]

“These are the other children of Mary of Nazareth” said no Bible verse. Ever.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

“These are the other children of Mary of Nazareth” said no Bible verse. Ever.

Sure - they were all standing at the foot of the Cross with their mother, Mary, as their brother was crucified. John simply walked Mary home …