Scriptural idolatory?

[susanlo]

For our brother in Christ, Purvis, what comes immediately to mind is the Didache ton Dodeka Apostolon (“Didache”), which was written about 70-90 AD*, while the Apostle John was yet alive. It is an abstract of the Apostolic teaching, rather than a summary. It mentions nothing - zero, zip, nada, regarding baptism as an “ordinance”, a “personal relationship” with Christ, the “sinner’s prayer”, “Altar calls”, “bible believing”, “worship services”, “bible as sole rule.”

What it describes is about as opposite from Baptist practice and doctrine as can be imagined. This is not to judge the love of Christ which our Baptist brothers and sisters possess. Rather, it serves as irrefutable evidence that the Baptist denomination cannot trace to Christ via any rational argument. Trace the Baptist denomination back and it stops dead at 1609, credited to John Smyth. What some modern Baptist leaders have done is to reverse engineer the faith, hoping to match up somewhere along the line with Christ. This is akin to driving your car in reverse until the odometer reads “0” and then declaring that you have arrived at the factory.

As to the scriptures, the Didache does not mention scripture of any kind! The reason for that is simply because there was no “bible” as we know it. The New Testament was not even finished. This lack of scripture did not stop the faith from growing explosively to the ends of the world. Rather, the Apostolic teaching carried out Christ’s commands precisely. Hundreds of years later, when the NT canon was set, the irreplaceable bible made a huge addition to the Church, but was not its foundation.

What the Didache does is describe the early liturgy - the mass. It clearly identifies a sacrifice that must be pure. The Eucharist is prominent. It spells out the proper methods of baptism and of testing prophets. It looks strikingly Catholic. With good reason. It is a quick read and I highly recommend it to all Christians, so that they might possess the truth of the Apostolic age.

*The Treasury Of Catholic Wisdom, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.

Many different types of Christianity can read the Didache (and other very early Christian writings) and find things that validate their type of Christian worship. I think that perspective has a lot to do with it. I agree that the Didache does not specifically mention altar calls, worship, relationship with Jesus and such. However it also does not mention veneration of Mary and the Saints, statues used in worship, rosary beads used for prayer, feast days and so on and so forth.

About baptism: it does state that baptism is to be by immersion if possible. It also states that those being baptized should fast for 1-2 days before baptism which makes it clear that infant baptism had not yet started when this was written.

I do not necessarily agree with tracing Christian groups through the Albigenses and Waldesians and other early groups. However groups such as Anabaptists, Baptists, and certain restoration churches attempt to emulate the Christianity that was practiced in the 1st century.

Also, Scripture was written in the 1st century and used even while the Apostles were living:
1 Timothy 5:18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**
Footnotes:
a. 1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
b. 1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7**

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

We know that the Scriptures are God-breathed.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Where is the reference to show that Tradition is God-breathed?

 

[po18guy]

Many different types of Christianity can read the Didache (and other very early Christian writings) and find things that validate their type of Christian worship.

Excellent point! More excellent than you suspect, I think.

You come from a tradition which has no Church authority. A tradition which has specifically rejected Church authority. The bible points us to authority. We suffer when we fail to take the bible’s advice. Your community cannot bind or loose. No such authority was granted it by God due to possession of a book. This is the protestant’s dilemma.

Binding and loosing. Christ gave that power to His Church, and it baffles those who reject that Church, preferring the fluidity and malleability of the printed word. Thus, infant baptism cannot be known - but was practiced. The rest of your doubts are all explicit or implicit in the incomplete scriptural record. Difficulty arrives when believers have been trained by the well-meaning to believe otherwise. That one European man’s doctrine of bible alone has proven to be a fearsome and merciless captor.

When the Didache was written, there was only Christ’s Church. Period. Read it and you will see that it was a very exclusive club. Only those inside belonged to Christ. No relativism. No denominations. Life or death. With us or against us. In or out. Heaven or hell.

Since that time, Christianity has been rendered increasingly meaningless by human egos chopping it into ever smaller pieces - the pulverization of the Body of Christ.

Thus, pagan religions advance while Christianity fades.

This is progress?

This is reform?

 

[goout]

You would get a good argument from Baptists on this one.

How can you argue that point?
Do you know when the Gospels were written?
When scripture was canonized?
By who?

 

[Church_Militant]

Where is the reference to show that Tradition is God-breathed?

I would point out that that is easily answered in fact that most all n-Cs accept the inspiration of the traditional table of contents as well as the verse numbering in their Bible, yet these are obviously man made and are not in the original texts.

The full canon of scripture was set by inspired (“God breathed”) Sacred Tradition in the late 4th century or else you have no reason to accept the canon as exists in modern Bibles because either those men in the late 300s were inspired by God or else all Christian scripture is a sham…there really is no middle ground.

You can also see this exemplified in the book of Jude in the New Testament where you see in verse 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” which refers to something that is nowhere else found in scripture and yet obviously has apostolic acceptance as inspired since he quotes it as fact.

You also see this in verse 14 where he also quotes the traditional book of Enoch saying, "14 It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15 to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

So then we see that the apostles taught and accepted the inspiration of tradition even in their day.

 

[goout]

Where is the reference to show that Tradition is God-breathed?

I can understand many non-Catholics rejection of Tradition as expressed in the Church.
Ok…
Leaving the word Catholic out, do you accept that Tradition -in any form- is inseparable from Scripture?

If you reject Tradition, how do you account for the bible itself?

Once again, the personal nature of Christianity asserts itself.
Before there was scripture, there is a people.
First and foremost the incarnate Son of God, who breathed the Church into existence in his apostles.

Before you have Scripture, a community exists.

 

[po18guy]

We know that the Scriptures are God-breathed.

Sure, but how? Paul says so, but does not name a single papyrus. Now what?

Where is the reference to show that Tradition is God-breathed?

To paraphrase our Lord, “How long have you been with us and you still do not know?” Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, Luke 10:16, Acts 15 (the council), 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6. It all flows divinely and naturally, theologically as well as chronologically. Jesus never wrote, commanded the writing of, or even spoke of the "New Testament’ in any form of writing. The New Testament is His Body and Blood at the last supper - the only place in all of scripture where the term “New Testament” is used.

You may argue that the prophets claimed divine inspiration, and some of them wrote as much. Problem: there were many such writings, all claiming prophecy. You do not have those in your bible. Why?

Not a single NT author ever claimed inspiration. How do you know that any of the bible should be in the bible? The Church declared it, by the Holy Spirit. Unless you trust the early Catholic Church, all you have is Judaism and a huge collection of doubtful, contradicting and disputed writings.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

 

[susanlo]

I would point out that that is easily answered in fact that most all n-Cs accept the inspiration of the traditional table of contents as well as the verse numbering in their Bible, yet these are obviously man made and are not in the original texts.

The full canon of scripture was set by inspired (“God breathed”) Sacred Tradition in the late 4th century or else you have no reason to accept the canon as exists in modern Bibles because either those men in the late 300s were inspired by God or else all Christian scripture is a sham…there really is no middle ground.

Scripture was known to be inspired as soon as it was written. In my post #21 I gave 2 NT references that show recognition of Luke and Paul’s letters as Scripture. There are clues in Paul’s writing that show that he knew that his words were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

Later in the 1st century in the letter to the Corinthians from Rome it is noted that Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is inspired: “Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.” Chapter 47 newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Marcion in the 2nd century was the first one to challenge Scripture when he started rejecting certain books. There may have been a few disputes about certain books, but Scripture as a whole was recognized and used frequently. Most, if not all, NT books were quoted from abundantly in the early centuries.

In 302 AD, the Roman Emperor Diocletian issued an edict that all Christian Scripture should be destroyed. People were killed for holding on to Scripture. There must have been some sort of knowledge as to what Scripture was. I mean how can they destroy something that wouldn’t exist for almost a century? We see in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History written shortly after this a list of all of the 27 NT books, although he notes that some were disputed by certain churches. Cyril of Jerusalem later writes in a catechetical lecture a list of the Scriptures including all except for Revelation. Later Athanasius writes a letter including a complete list.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html
newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm
This was all before any councils listed Scriptures. Later there were local councils (Hippo and Carthage) in 393AD and 397AD that stated that only canonical books could be read and listed the already accepted list of books to be read as Scripture. This was not a council that invited all of the churches and did not decide the issue of canon list for the whole church. That is why the canon was listed in the Council of Trent. It had not yet been declared as dogmatic for the whole church.

You can also see this exemplified in the book of Jude in the New Testament where you see in verse 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” which refers to something that is nowhere else found in scripture and yet obviously has apostolic acceptance as inspired since he quotes it as fact.

You also see this in verse 14 where he also quotes the traditional book of Enoch saying, "14 It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15 to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

So then we see that the apostles taught and accepted the inspiration of tradition even in their day.

I believe I am confused as to what you are getting at here. There are NT references to places that aren’t Scripture - including Pagan sources. Citing a source does not meant that the source is inspired by God. The NIV footnotes says that verse 9 is a reference to the Jewish Testament of Moses (1st century AD), and verse 15 is referring to the Jewish First Book of Enoch (1st century BC). The Roman Catholic Church does not accept these 2 writings as inspired. Are you saying that these writings are God-breathed?

There are plenty of examples of writings that are factual, but not God-breathed and inerrant. Sola scriptura doesn’t mean that only the Bible can be factual and all other sources are wrong. It just means that the Scriptures are the only writings that are God-breathed and therefore must be “put on a different shelf” and held to a higher level than other good and factual sources.

 

[po18guy]

Scripture was known to be inspired as soon as it was written. In my post #21 I gave 2 NT references that show recognition of Luke and Paul’s letters as

How can this possibly be known? It conflicts 100% with history. Why did the Church hold councils then? It seem s that you have formulated a doctrine of scriptural inevitability(?) Never heard of it, but that seems to be the principle here. The letters were authoritative, but known immediately as “inspired” as if they fell from heaven?

Really…

You really, truly need to read Where We Got The Bible. Seriously. Heck, I’ll send you my copy, but it is crucial for you to know Church history.

 

[tiny_augustine]

I wouldn’t call the Protestant approach idolatry. It’s more like a mistaken way of going about things since it ignores the Tradition in its fullness. The Tradition is what guides the Authorities in the Church (who I would argue are merely the custodians of that Tradition), in how they teach us. The Tradition comprises various sources, some of which are more foundational than others: the Sacraments, the Bible, Christological and Trinitarian Dogmas, the various Liturgies down through the ages, the Ecumenical Councils, the Creeds, the Fathers, etc. One can argue that the Tradition in its fullness is nothing other than the knowledge of, and faith in, Jesus Christ, as revealed, inspired, or proclaimed infallibly in the Holy Spirit. I, therefore, would argue that Scripture, as one of its sources, is an additional sacrament, a way of encountering the Lord and receiving Grace. You’re right: Jesus, truly, is the Word of God, but he reveals himself in many ways, some better than others. Also, the Scriptures cannot possibly be separated from the Eucharist because they actually reveal to us, through various typological methodologies what we are actually entering into within the Mass. Ironically, the Bible, if one really studies it hard and in-depth is actually a Covenantal Book celebrating liturgical worship!!! Sacrifice and liturgical/covenantal terms, are found on nearly every page of it, and it was, according to even Protestant scholars edited under Divine Inspiration in its final form for liturgical use. Ancient Judaism was never merely a “religion of the Book,” as Muslims claim. Rabbinic Judaism had no choice but to resort to this, in many ways, following the destruction of the Temple.

Concerning idolatry: ancient idolatry involves a belief that there is one God, but he’s too important, ignorant, or perpetually angry with people to be involved with them. In order to deal with this, ancient pagans, knowing that they did not have a Divinely revealed and established covenant with him, and, probably on account of the fact that they did not therein know him, or, because they rejected his true covenant high priestly representatives (such as the Hamites rejecting Shem and building the Tower of Babel), deified their kings (ancestor worship), made the sons of the deified kings into “living images” of the new “gods,” believed that they could conjure the spirits of these “gods” (the demons, according to the Book of Enoch; fallen angels pretending to be the souls of dead kings, according to Catholic Tradition) into stone or wood items of worship, idols, which were “images,” offered sacrifices (signifying total dependence) to these, and inquired of them for secret knowledge or power. Idolatry is always associated, even in the Bible, with magic (the use of ritualized actions, names, incantations, in association with an idol, to manipulate reality to a desired end, rather than depending upon the True God to work for what one prays or asks Him for), animism (the propitiation and magical use of the souls that were believed to be in all things, or of disembodied spirits), fetishism, etc. Technically, then, idolatry is the worship of death itself, dead persons, deliberately against the Living God who eventually incarnated and rose from the dead! Our faith is the fulfilment of the distorted longings of the pagans, making straight their crooked lines, as well as the ultimate antidote to idolatry! The reason I wrote this long explanation is because, knowing this, it is liberating to never again doubt the valid use of icons and statues in our parishes! The Saints are more alive than us, and we certainly DO NOT conjure the wicked dead and evil spirits into icons or statues! And, besides, we don’t offer icons or statues actual sacrifices! lol

 

[tiny_augustine]

For more on the connection between the Bible and the Liturgy, check out “Worship in the Word: Toward a Liturgical Hermeneutic” by Scott Hahn, which can be read for free at: stpaulcenter.com/library/dr-hahns-articles/

 

[Church_Militant]

Scripture was known to be inspired as soon as it was written. In my post #21 I gave 2 NT references that show recognition of Luke and Paul’s letters as Scripture. There are clues in Paul’s writing that show that he knew that his words were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

Later in the 1st century in the letter to the Corinthians from Rome it is noted that Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is inspired: “Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.” Chapter 47 newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htmThis is circular reasoning Susan, since it seeks to appeal to scripture as authoritatively designating what is inspired canon and yet we accept as inspired a great many writings that do not say that. In fact, nowhere within the Bible does it ever lay claim to being the final authority for all that Christians believe and practice. It’s simply not in there…

Marcion in the 2nd century was the first one to challenge Scripture when he started rejecting certain books. There may have been a few disputes

about certain books, but Scripture as a whole was recognized and used frequently. Most, if not all, NT books were quoted from abundantly in the early centuries.I would suggest that you look more deeply into history. There are a great many writings that were rejected by the church. There are a lot of Gnostic texts and others that even though devoutly Christian and even orthodox were not accepted as inspired canon. Most notably the Didache and Shepherd of Hermes…

In 302 AD, the Roman Emperor Diocletian issued an edict that all Christian Scripture should be destroyed. People were killed for holding on to Scripture. There must have been some sort of knowledge as to what Scripture was. I mean how can they destroy something that wouldn’t exist for almost a century? We see in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History

written shortly after this a list of all of the 27 NT books, although he notes that some were disputed by certain churches. Cyril of Jerusalem later writes in a catechetical lecture a list of the Scriptures including all except for Revelation. Later Athanasius writes a letter including a complete list.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html
newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htmAs if there was an abundance of complete compilations at that time. Yet these were only portions and in some cases only single epistles or segments of the Gospels. I mean it’s not like people went to the local Kinko’s and photocopied what they had and then faxed it all over the empire. These were hand copied segments. Have you ever sat down and attempted to neatly copy a book of the Bible? It’s a painstakingly slow process even today and can you imagine what it was like to have to do it with homemade ink and either brush or quill?

This was all before any councils listed Scriptures. Later there were local councils (Hippo and Carthage) in 393AD and 397AD that stated that only canonical books could be read and listed the already accepted list of books to be read as Scripture. This was not a council that invited all of the churches and did not decide the issue of canon list for the whole church. That is why the canon was listed in the Council of Trent. It had not yet been declared as dogmatic for the whole church.

This is grossly inaccurate Susan. The fact is that the councils you mention did indeed submit their work to Rome for final authority. (You also left out the Council of Constantinople in 382)

The canon was set in the 4th century and all the Council of Trent did was reaffirm it because of Protestant attacks on the Canon. Did the Church add the Deuterocanonical books to the Bible at the Council of Trent?
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

I believe I am confused as to what you are getting at here. There are NT references to places that aren’t Scripture - including Pagan sources. Citing a source does not meant that the source is inspired by God. The NIV footnotes says that verse 9 is a reference to the Jewish Testament of Moses

(1st century AD), and verse 15 is referring to the Jewish First Book of Enoch (1st century BC). The Roman Catholic Church does not accept these 2 writings as inspired. Are you saying that these writings are God-breathed?Not at all. I am saying that it is obvious from the citations that I made that the apostles also accepted Sacred Tradition since they refer to events and persons from Traditional sources that are not found in scripture. This should help give you insight into fact that even the apostles used Sacred Tradition alongside scripture to hand on what we Catholics call the Deposit of Faith.
See also;
Why I’m Catholic: Sola Scriptura Isn’t Scriptural, Part I
Why I’m Catholic: Sola Scriptura Isn’t Scriptural, Part II

There are plenty of examples of writings that are factual, but not God-breathed and inerrant. Sola scriptura doesn’t mean that only the Bible can be factual and all other sources are wrong. It just means that the Scriptures are the only writings that are God-breathed and therefore must be “put on a different shelf” and held to a higher level than other good and factual sources.

Not the point Susan and we Catholics do not deny the Bible a place of preference in our faith. However, as I’ve said before there is no place in the Bible (even including our own 73 book canon) where scripture ever lays claim to being the final authority for all Christian belief and practice. N-Cs have assigned it that unscriptural place in their acceptance of Sola Scriptura as a doctrine, but if It’s NOT in the Bible then does it not violate its own doctrinal premise and even by that standard fail as a valid Christian doctrine?

I have encountered a very few n-Cs who have stated to me that the Bible is divine, but thankfully most have not and would not because they recognize the difference between the Holy Trinity and a book, so I would have to conclude that the majority of n-Cs do not practice anything that could rightly be called “Scriptural idolatry”.