T
- Status
F
Follow_Yeshua
Guest
God also used the evilness of Egypt to deliver us a great Patriarch in Moses. Moses was active in the ways of Egypt. But the Lord led him away!
I
imkingdad
Guest
Problem for you is that every single Bible only Believer claims that Divine authority of Holy Spirit Guided Interpretation That is absolute & correct. even when it is diametrically opposed to your Buddy’s revealed Knowledge. Then with NO Authority, no Church, no Tradition to guide you what can you do but argue that “I am Right and You are wrong” because the Holy Spirit told me so! trouble is He, the Holy Spirit told Us & everyone else a different version some closer to yours some closer to mine & some closer to that other fella.
Without a Final Authority ALL Holy Spirit Claims of Biblical teaching, guidance or revelation are subjective to personal / individual applications & understanding and thus that TRUTH is in Flux and Changes depending upon the person or interpretation, Hence is is not Truth in a Biblical sense.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Radical,
At this point, a lot of Protestants would probably expect me to come back with a stereotypical/caricature Catholic statement like “Well all these concerns and logical difficulties you’re having would completely go away if you just learn to accept what the Pope tells you to accept”. But I’d like to think that you’ve gotten to know us better than to expect that.
First, I think it’s from a fire into a frying pan in this case: Protestant have no claim to an “infallible list of infallible documents”, not even w.r.t the Bible. On the other hand, Catholics can at least claim that the list of book of the Bible is infallible – even though we don’t claim to have an exhaustive list of all infallible documents that have ever been written. (For example, we disagree among ourselves about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.)
Having said that, let me tell you what I consider to be one of the weaknesses of “Rome Sweet Home”: there are some places where I believe Hahn should have added a footnote to the tune of
*That was my thinking at the time, but in the process of becoming and living as a Catholic my thinking has changed to …
(If you’d like another such example, besides the one where already discussing, see page 61 where he explains his reasons for not becoming Orthodox.) To be more specific, it seems clear to me that the thought process Hahn describes in pp 75-76 is still a very Protestant one (which hopefully he has abandoned since his conversion). In Catholic and Orthodox thinking, there’s nothing intrisically wrong with a fallible list of infallible documents – even though we (Catholics and Orthodox) sometimes find it difficult to relate to Christians who believe something so central as the list of books of the Bible has not been infallibly declared.
That’s about all I have time for right now, but I’d like to ask …
At this point, a lot of Protestants would probably expect me to come back with a stereotypical/caricature Catholic statement like “Well all these concerns and logical difficulties you’re having would completely go away if you just learn to accept what the Pope tells you to accept”. But I’d like to think that you’ve gotten to know us better than to expect that.
Two things:
First, I think it’s from a fire into a frying pan in this case: Protestant have no claim to an “infallible list of infallible documents”, not even w.r.t the Bible. On the other hand, Catholics can at least claim that the list of book of the Bible is infallible – even though we don’t claim to have an exhaustive list of all infallible documents that have ever been written. (For example, we disagree among ourselves about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.)
Having said that, let me tell you what I consider to be one of the weaknesses of “Rome Sweet Home”: there are some places where I believe Hahn should have added a footnote to the tune of
*That was my thinking at the time, but in the process of becoming and living as a Catholic my thinking has changed to …
(If you’d like another such example, besides the one where already discussing, see page 61 where he explains his reasons for not becoming Orthodox.) To be more specific, it seems clear to me that the thought process Hahn describes in pp 75-76 is still a very Protestant one (which hopefully he has abandoned since his conversion). In Catholic and Orthodox thinking, there’s nothing intrisically wrong with a fallible list of infallible documents – even though we (Catholics and Orthodox) sometimes find it difficult to relate to Christians who believe something so central as the list of books of the Bible has not been infallibly declared.
That’s about all I have time for right now, but I’d like to ask …
… are you sure that’s an analogy you want to run with? :ehh:
R
Radical
Guest
I would say that we have a claim to an infallible list of infallible documents, but that it is a purely faith based claim…faith in (a)-(c)… I said frying pan to fire b/c a Catholic has two “pillars” to support with faith (a)-(c) and (d)-(e) whereas the Protestant only has the one.
again based purely on your faith in your Church…you can’t prove its infallibility
absolutely…history, like a civil trial, is about determining what most likely happened (balance of probabilities and all that) and the historical evidence is like the witness on the stand.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Your challenge is in itself a straw man argument. I’m sorry but maybe you did not study Protestant theology well. You come from an incorect definition of Sola Scriptura. It flows from the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture but it doesn’t mean that human traditions mean nothing. They have weight. The teachings and interpretations of our church leaders have bearing, however, they are NOT INFALLIBLE as the Roman Church sees it. That is the difference of Sola Scriptura. Solo Scriptura was never generally held by Protestants, although there are some misguided souls who confuse the two. Stop forcing your ill-informed question on the adherents of Sola Scriptura because you shall not get the answers you want. To get the right answers, you must first ask the right questions.As I said, the challenge is perfectly in keeping with the Statement of Faiths of several evangelical churches I have belonged to in my travels. Apparently Nottoosmart and Guyonthestreet belong to Protestant churches that define it a bit differently. This poses them with a bit of a problem. If they concede that there are different definitions of sola scriptura out there, this quickly degenerates into an epistemological quagmire and provides an object lesson on why so many factions of Protestantism have drifted toward postmodern relativism (which would be a good topic for another thread). So they pretend that there is only one definition (hoping you don’t ask who decides it and on what authority) and those who define it differently “don’t understand” the doctrine correctly.
In my obsrvation the “you don’t understand doctrine X correctly” is a common Protestant debate tactic and is usually offered without any attempt to formally define the “correct” understanding of doctrine X or provide a rational basis for it. It’s an easy way to dismiss anything you can’t refute. It’s a lot harder to lay your own theology on the line and let it stand up to scrutiny.
P
Peter_J
Guest
You’ll excuse me for being a little slow on the uptake. I see now that you and I agree on more than I previously thought, specifically that it was the Roman Catholic Church – not the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Anglican view of the Church (branch-theorectical), etc. – which gave us the Bible.
Would you also be willing to take that a step further and say that the Eastern Orthodox Church broke away from the Catholic Church (not the other way around, as they claim)?
R
Radical
Guest
Sorry, I must have been sloppy as I do not believe that it was the RCC that gave us the Bible…The “witness” I refer to is the historical record left to us by the ECFs,…It is in those records that we find the earliest lists of books to be placed in the NT canon, it is in those records that we find quotes from the letters etc. that became the NT, it is in those records that we find reference to and see the development of what has been labelled sacred tradition. As indicated here, I do not believe that a monarchical system was in place at the start and I do not believe that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and I do not believe that Petrine supremacy was established by Christ…all were post-apostolic developments. Therefore, I do not equate the current CC with the catholic church of the first centuries. The ECFs are not the property of the CC or of the EOC (for that matter) such that either can legitimately say “these are our boys”.
If anything, I’d side with the Orthodox on this issue…IMHO Rome is guilty of adding to the rule of faith all that stuff about the primacy of the Pope etc and so it would be Rome that is guilty of trying to bend the rule of faith still further away from the truth.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Radical,
This is not a matter of belief, but, rather, one of simply history. Part of that history was the establishment of Constantinople as the seat of the Imperial Roman Empire in 330AD Here is a link just so we get the time frame correct: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople Now - the Catholic Church traces its origin from Jesus Christ founding the Church on Peter. We read about Saul persecuting the followers of The Way and nothing really beyond that as far as scripture.
Here is something you should read to make sure we get the name correct:
As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as “Christians” (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called “the Church.” There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.
Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name–and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.
The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.
Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.
Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the “Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,” bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp “remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” Here is the link: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
While I am delighted that you acknowledge the contribution made by the ECF - they were united to the Bishop of Rome. So, here we start off, in 107AD by calling the group the Catholic Church, picked up by others and carried forward to this day.
And, that really is the way it was for the ECF.
God bless
This is not a matter of belief, but, rather, one of simply history. Part of that history was the establishment of Constantinople as the seat of the Imperial Roman Empire in 330AD Here is a link just so we get the time frame correct: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople Now - the Catholic Church traces its origin from Jesus Christ founding the Church on Peter. We read about Saul persecuting the followers of The Way and nothing really beyond that as far as scripture.
Here is something you should read to make sure we get the name correct:
As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as “Christians” (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called “the Church.” There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.
Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name–and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.
The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.
Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.
Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the “Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,” bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp “remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” Here is the link: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
While I am delighted that you acknowledge the contribution made by the ECF - they were united to the Bishop of Rome. So, here we start off, in 107AD by calling the group the Catholic Church, picked up by others and carried forward to this day.
The issue to “…side with the Orthodox…” is truly a red herring. The ECF were all members of the Catholic Church united under the Bishop of Rome.
And, that really is the way it was for the ECF.
God bless
R
Radical
Guest
Hi Tom,
Bishop) are categorized and placed on a level beneath that of scripture?
God Bless.
no, I am saying that they aren’t any more Catholic than they are Pentecostal or Baptist
yes, same name…but then as I have already pointed out, the “Mormon Jesus” has the same name as the “orthodox Jesus”. Also, I think your date is too late… the synods/councils of the late 4th century codified existing opinion.
Yes, so what should be made of the work’s authority (as viewed by the ECFs) when the epistles of Ignatius (with their emphasis on the importance of the
Bishop) are categorized and placed on a level beneath that of scripture?
Well the Arians got some things (most things actually) right, but were wrong on one important matter…seems that the folly might be yours
well then you best throw out your Bible b/c there will be some errors in it…at a minimum some copying errors would have occured
perhaps more study would enable you to think outside the box you are presently sitting in?
agreed.
and wrt (with respect to) this sort of claim is where that clear, unbiased and informed eye on history really comes in handy…What proportion of modern Catholics historians would endorse this claim of yours?
elsewhere than the CC…if you are really curious you could search my posts…I don’t participate in that many threads and have discussed, Augustine’s view of the Real Presence, Tertullian’s view of the RP, John 6 and a RP in considerable detail.
God Bless.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Radical,
We do have some significant issues here. So, let’s get started.
We do have some significant issues here. So, let’s get started.
And, God Bless you, too.Hi Tom, no, I am saying that they aren’t any more Catholic than they are Pentecostal or Baptist Actually, the term Catholic came from Ignatius of Antioch in about 107AD. There is a direct connection between the Apostle John who I believe taught Ignatius and many of the Early Church Fathers. At this time, there were the Jews, the Roman and Greek pagans - and the Catholics.
yes, same name…but then as I have already pointed out, the “Mormon Jesus” has the same name as the “orthodox Jesus”. Also, I think your date is too late… the synods/councils of the late 4th century codified existing opinion. Now, you know that makes no sense. Why use it? “Mormon Jesus” just does not follow. I was lazy and did not look it up … but, you are right - the Councils acted on the Canon before 400AD - which is what I tried to cover in my more expansive. date.
Yes, so what should be made of the work’s authority (as viewed by the ECFs) when the epistles of Ignatius (with their emphasis on the importance of the
Bishop) are categorized and placed on a level beneath that of scripture? This is not to say that certain works were without merit - this is what I meant by pius writings. All I am saying is that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, those works were not considered inspired. Hey! You guys already have an edited and abridged version of the Bible - if taking material out is not without fault - then surely adding material must be viewed in the same vein. Seriously, if you think so highly of Ignatius’ work - just put it in. No? Hmmmm why not?
Well the Arians got some things (most things actually) right, but were wrong on one important matter…seems that the folly might be yours As I recall, the Arians said Christ was not God and they disputed the Trinity. I guess I missed it… just what is it that they ‘got right’? You know, my old late aunt had a cow once …
well then you best throw out your Bible b/c there will be some errors in it…at a minimum some copying errors would have occured What inspiration means is that God got his message across - across centuries, across honest errors, across dishonest efforts to distort His Work. And, since your Bible has its roots in ours - think twice before throwing it out - after all - it is all you have.
perhaps more study would enable you to think outside the box you are presently sitting in? While more study is always best - this ‘box’ you refer to is like the Ark, floating ontop of storm tossed seas of ignorance, error and heresy.
agreed.
and wrt (with respect to) [THANK YOU - THANK YOU VERY MUCH!] this sort of claim is where that clear, unbiased and informed eye on history really comes in handy…What proportion of modern Catholics historians would endorse this claim of yours? I really have no idea. Do you?
elsewhere than the CC…if you are really curious you could search my posts…I don’t participate in that many threads and have discussed, Augustine’s view of the Real Presence, Tertullian’s view of the RP, John 6 and a RP in considerable detail. Not to be unkind, but I am doing good to say grace over what I have in front of me - without going after other material. So, I tell you what … send me the link as a PM and I will be happy to look at it.
God Bless.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Ah, alright I think I understand your analogy now … just because you accept some things that the ECFs say, that doesn’t mean you have to accept everything that they say. And in fact I agree with that, so far as it goes. (I don’t claim that every ECF was right about everything.)
R
Radical
Guest
yep that’s it…and to do so isn’t logically inconsistent if the reasons/evidence for and against accepting the reliability of the canon of scripture are different than the reasons/evidence for and against accepting the reliability of the rest of sacred tradition
P
Peter_J
Guest
Yes, I suppose that’s true – in the same sense that I cannot prove Christianity to be true in the first place.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I would say rather the he believed that Protestantism could not work without an infallible list of infallible books (i.e. the canon of the Bible).
If we agree with this premise, then the natural way to try and get out of this difficulty would be to say (as you did in one of your posts) that you do believe that you have an infallible list of books of the bible. But, it seems to me, this still leaves a problem, namely that Protestantism wouldn’t have worked during the first couple of centuries of Christianity, since they clearly didn’t have a canon of Scripture back then. (Plus I don’t see how the claim to an infallible list of books of the bible can avoid contradicting “Sola Scriptura”.)
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, PeterJ,
I think we need to be specific in this matter - there is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. The proper name is the Catholic Church, CC if you will, but not RCC.
The idea that there is some type of break from Christ-to-Peter-then-Apostles-then-ECF. Saul goes out to persecute members of The Way and later this group is known as the Christians and in about 107AD, Ignatius of Antioch uses the term catholic church. At this time, to the best of my knowledge, there were only three religious groups: Jews, the various Greek and Roman pagans and the catholic church. Nobody else was involved in religion.
God bless
I think we need to be specific in this matter - there is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. The proper name is the Catholic Church, CC if you will, but not RCC.
The idea that there is some type of break from Christ-to-Peter-then-Apostles-then-ECF. Saul goes out to persecute members of The Way and later this group is known as the Christians and in about 107AD, Ignatius of Antioch uses the term catholic church. At this time, to the best of my knowledge, there were only three religious groups: Jews, the various Greek and Roman pagans and the catholic church. Nobody else was involved in religion.
The reason this is important is that if the wrong name is used - you will never find the proper reference. This same reality exists even the phone book.
God bless
P
Peter_J
Guest
True, although I don’t believe that has a lot of bearing on this discussion. Consider: pretty much any issue that you or I could bring up, the other could respond to by saying, Well the majority of Catholics and Protestants never think that one through.
I’m sorry but that’s simply false – those ECFs who lived in the first, second, and third centuries simply did not have the list of 27 books of the New Testament that we list today. (I’ll be very much surprized if you can name even one ECF before the 4th century who proposed that exact list of 27 books.) The only “certain set of writings” that could be said to have been identifed by the ECFs (before the 4th century) “as scripture to the exclusion all else” would be the Old Testament – which I’m sure you do not regard as the whole Bible. (And even on the OT, the ECFs were far from unanimous on what was included.)
Certainly. I’m not claiming that the ECFs proposed/defined some list or “canon” of Sacred Tradition.
R
Radical
Guest
agreed…they are both matters of faith…though I think that we would both like to think that there is evidence that make our respective matters of faith reasonable, if still unproven
R
Radical
Guest
you are right, I did not describe the logical inconsistency that he thought existed…I’ll use the excuse that was too foreign a concept for me to grasp on the first go around…Hahn states that the Protestant position is that “we have a fallible list of infallible documents”. I, however, have never met a Protestant that holds to that position. Every P I know thinks that God went to the bother of inspiring certain authors and then also went to the bother of ensuring their preservation and selection.
I have been trying to explain this difficulty from the start of my involvment on this thread…here it is again. The concept of sola scriptura is not meant to apply for all periods of time…it is a relatively modern solution to a modern problem. Picture the year 1517. Something is terribly wrong with the Church in the west…certain people within its heirarchy are purporting to trade in grace as if it was a common commodity such as oil, or pork bellies. (This should be common ground). Luther perceives other error as well. At this point the concept of SS is introduced to address the perceived error.
The conversation would go like this: PeterJ, we both agree that error existed in the Church in 1517 (though you would say it was not part of its official teaching and was largely remedied during the Counter-reformation). We both agree that God inspired the authors of scripture and acted to ensure the preservation of the books of the NT and the OT and acted to ensure their selection to the canon. PeterJ, you say that sacred traditon is also inspired and that the Magisterium of the RCC can not err in its official teaching. Unfortunately, this is where we part company. From my assessment of your tradition and Magisterium I must conclude that there is error in both, and so I am left with SS. In the conversation between you and I (or between Luther and the RCCof 1517) the reliability of Scripture need not be proven…it is a “GIVEN”. The analysis leading to SS must be understood in that context. The analysis is then: Given that the Bible we possess is the inspired word of God:
a) is it materially sufficient?
b) is it formally sufficient? and
c) is anything else equally inspired such that it is also w/o error?
The answers, yes, yes and no result in SS.
R
Radical
Guest
agreed
Sorry, did you think that I said “that the ** very first** ECFs immediately identifed a certain set of writings as scripture to the exclusion all else”?. If so, you would be correct in identifying that as a false claim, but it ain’t what I said. The ECFs did eventually put aside their limited differences and arrive at a canon of scripture. In contrast, as you say:
Why do you suppose that was the case? Why did the ECFs think it necessary to define a canon of scripture, but not a canon of sacred tradition?
- Status